April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[gracielee]

That's exactly what appeals are for. If the judge inadvertently let's the ADA do something improper......the appeals court may overturn...and no one wants that.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct, it's playing hardball. If you want to see DA misconduct, look up the Ryan Ferguson case.

It's exceedingly difficult to explain to those who don't normally watch trials, that this trial, this judge, these lawyers, are no different than any other trial. If anything, this trial has been pretty tame compared to most IMO.

 

[gracielee]

Wanting to get divorced and move on with life is not a motive for murder. Millions of couples are faced with that situation and it does not amount to a motive for murder.

Nancy Cooper wanted to get divorced and move on with her life. Brad didn't. Brad wanted Nancy GONE. Poof, and he succeeded. He simply thought he was smarter than everyone else and thought he could get away with it. Hopefully that won't happen. There is absolutely no difference between Brad Cooper and Jason Young IMO.

 

[Tink56]

It's an early morning tomorrow...I'd best be fftobed:

You East coast posters better hop in and start :countsheep:

:seeya:

 

[johnfear]

FD may be a different story, but as far as johnfear, I'd be skeptical of a man's claim of an ability to read what 1 woman is thinking, much less 10 women.

It wasn't the women I was reading.

It was one guy. And he looked pretty open book. And one is all it takes.

 

[Danielle59]

When I was listening to the Mrs. C's testimony, BC's attorney was trying to drive home the point that BC was distraught. He missed his family; his wife and children had been taken from him. Then, after his arrest, he tells his mother he wants the dishes, his workout stuff, and his H.S. momentos???? The distraught motif would work a little better if he kept something to remember his marriage (wedding album?) or pictures of his children. It would work a little better if BC told Mrs. C to check with KR, ask her what the girls need or she thinks they would like.

I hope you're right. I did not hear from Mrs. C that she or BC made any arrangement with NC's family. I hope the NC's family requested the girls favorite books. I hope they received all of NC's jewelry to give to the girls at a future date.
When Mrs. C said she kept a book she bought for the girls, a game, and some CD's as momentos for BC of the girls (there was one other game or ???), I was struck by the few items that were selected versus all the workout stuff and BC's high school memorabilia.

I realize and appreciate this was a difficult time for Mrs. C. However, I am glad the jury gets to evaluate the truthfulness of the witnesses and discard testimony they do not find viable. Probably mothers should never testify about their children. Ramble, ramble....Perhaps, I need to wait 24 hours after seeing the tape before I say anymore. :banghead:

The issue of the property was not a big portion of the testimony, but, unless he planned on never seeing his children again why would he give all of NCs jewerly to NCs family to give to the girls at a future date. The dispositon of her jewerly was not discussed.

 

[Danielle59]

I don't understand all the criticism for the ADAs in this case....the judge in this case, who's job it is to make sure each side plays by the rules, to keep the trial moving, etc has done a very poor job. He, at times, looks like he's in over his head, especially with the more technical testimony.

Second, it seems to me, as a newcomer, that most people on this board are of the opinion that BC is innocent (or guilty...but blame the CPD and DA for screwing up the case). Now, I'll agree that the ADA has wasted much time on irrelevant testimony. Sometimes, less is more or you risk losing your audience. The ducks, the necklace, gossip ad nauseum all cloud the real proof and the real issues.

A) Could the CPD rule BC out as a suspect? No
B) Did BC have Means, Motive, Opportunity? Yes
C) Were there any other viable suspects? No
D) How many "coincidences" or mismatching facts must it take before one says "ok, that's one too many"
E) The defense may talk about "spoilage"...but the only files(s) related to that google map search are relevant. The rest is diversion.
F) I'm not sure why the defense introduced the jogging route and timeline for NC...because the 6:55am to 7:11am elapsed time from house to where the Food Lion guy said he saw her contradicts the more precise testimony of Rosemary Zednick at 7:10am. Secondly, I don't see NC as the type shopping for meat at Food Lion.
G) On that point, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence.
H) This is a purely circumstantial case...but people have been convicted on less evidence.
I) Lastly, while not necessary, there is no proof he didn't do it besides that phone call. If the Cisco router info comes into testimony and shows he had the means to place a call to himself.......that's zero.

A. I don't think they tried to rule him out as a suspect
B. But since the police didn't investigate beyond him we don't know who else did, but there have been a couple of other witnesses they seem to have had also.
C. They didn't look for any other suspects, yes, I think there were other viable suspects.
D. What is a coincidence in this case? A lot of the coincidences seem to be over inflation of everyday tasks to me.
E. I think on this one you are being overly simplistic since we know the laptop, while in LE custody has other errors, then there is always that pesky erased cell phone of NCs.
F. You have no idea where she shopped for meat.
G. Eye Witnesses may not always be reliable, but there times they are reliable, I don't think we can discount them.
H. I am not sure about that happening with less evidence, but I am not going to go look it up - we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
I. The comment you made is the type that slays me. There is no proof that he did do it, but you want us to believe since there is no proof he didn't that that then means he is guilty. There is no proof that any of us are child molesters either, does that mean because that because there is no proof we aren't that we should all be arrested? We can't say, oh, proof doesn't matter, but since you can't prove you didn't do it that is on you. That is not how it works. The ones making the accusation have to offer up the proof, not the other way around.

I have doubts about how bad her marriage was. She made couple plans for her and BC to spend the evening with another couple for Saturday night. The realtor says he called her but there has been no proof of that, but she had not called her divorce attorney she had on retainer for months - don't you think if she was going to move out suddenly she would have called her attorney also? Then there is JP and his weirdness.

I have questions and they have not been answered in this trial to my satisfaction to say he is guilty.

 

[Danielle59]

I don't think Brad ever intended to keep the girls IMO. His mind was set on France, learning to play the guitar and speak french. It's always been my opinion he would *allow* the Rentz' family to have the children, in Nancy's memory, of course. He'd visit on occasion. MOO MOO

Do we even know when he last had contact with that woman in France?

 

[Danielle59]

If you have an alibi, you don't have opportunity.

Motive? That's the one thing not in dispute. They were getting a divorce and clearly disliked each other. How many times has one spouse killed another when they could have just got a divorce? Innumerable.

Why is JP a viable suspect? He fooled around with her one night years earlier and that makes him suspicious why? What's the motive? If he did it, he would have had to get up early on Saturday, assumed NC was jogging at 7am, followed her, get her into his car, strangle her (all without being seen or heard), got her clothes off to make it look like a sexual assault...and then not sexually assault her......

Rarely will a spouse have an alibi unless they are away on a business trip when they live together, that alone does not mean they murdered their spouse if the spouse comes up murdered.

The divorce seemed to be on hold, despite what her friends said, she had not contacted her attorney she had on retainer in months.

????? Did you not watch the JP testimony? All the lies about the recent contact he had with her, for an extended period of time, starting in May? The two of them meeting in person? Him knowing her running routes? Him making of possibilities of where on the trails she may be? Him pointing his finger at people at the gym.... .and on and on and on? Then there is the possibility of paternity issues with the youngest child and his desire to supposedly maintain his reputation that is already trashed with the HM alienation of affection suit his ex-wife won?

 

[Danielle59]

Spending 2-3 hours with your kids before bed is simply a warm-up for 24/7. BC had no idea what being a fulltime parent was like, IMO...(None of us did Before Children...otherwise there were be smaller and smaller families...:crazy

BTW, NC was out at night the last few months, because she did not want to spend the evening at home with BC. He entered; she exited. She was not going to be part of his plan to have a "functional," loveless relationship.

Prior to April of 2008, BC wasn't home in the evenings. Go figure...He became interested in home when he realized he would be obligated to support his ex-wife and children.

Yet SHE made couples plans with the Hillers for the night she came up missing.

I think you are totally ignoring the fact that he was going to school to better their income. Yes, we all have heard about his sports, but seems she was into that also, and it doesn't sound like that wasn't something she didn't know when she married him. She could have also gone to school. I understand her experience was in computers, she could have tried to get on with a company here who would have worked with her to get her green card.

I don't like when women assume that only women know how to care for children, I think that is really disengenuous. Most men do love their children, and many know how to care for them sans a mother, or they learn. I think it is sexist to think only women can care for children.

 

[Danielle59]

See my post below...In summary, a few hours in the evening and a weekend here and there in no way approximates 24/7 childcare without a spouse to help accomplish all that is necessary for active, growing children.

I have the greatest empathy and care for those parents who do this on a regular basis.

BC was simply too detached from "life" to know what growing children need. He would have needed a secretary to tell him about dental checkups, physicals, lessons, classes, sports teams, developmental milestones, etc., etc., etc., MOO, MOO...

I don't think he was detached from life at all. I think that he would have been the type to make himself a schedule and would have known all these things. He loved those children and they loved him if you read the affidavits of the police who had to pry their arms from around his neck when they took them from him. BTW, secretaries went out years ago, and not many even have Executive Assistants anymore.

 

[Danielle59]

I say this with all due respect, but I seriously think that some of you have become a bit jaded based on what you have seen in past cases. This isn't Jason Young's trial or circumstance, or Scott Peterson, or Michael Peterson, or that last Peterson, or all those other cases. When I read some posts I wonder what the female equivalent word is for misogynist because I seem to see a lot of that in some posts. I know women who have suffered domestic violence, but I do not see that in this marriage from BC. I also notice that the term seems to be being thrown around with such frequency in our world lately that I think it is losing some of its significance. I think we also have a tendency to forget that the man in a relationship with domestic abuse is not always the abuser.

My whole point here is a man is on trial for his life and livelihood here, I am not dismissing the victim, but I don't think justice for her means just putting her spouse in prison because of statistics, I prefer to see some evidence, and so far I really haven't seen any.

 

[unc70]

I don't understand all the criticism for the ADAs in this case....the judge in this case, who's job it is to make sure each side plays by the rules, to keep the trial moving, etc has done a very poor job. He, at times, looks like he's in over his head, especially with the more technical testimony.

Second, it seems to me, as a newcomer, that most people on this board are of the opinion that BC is innocent (or guilty...but blame the CPD and DA for screwing up the case). Now, I'll agree that the ADA has wasted much time on irrelevant testimony. Sometimes, less is more or you risk losing your audience. The ducks, the necklace, gossip ad nauseum all cloud the real proof and the real issues.

A) Could the CPD rule BC out as a suspect? No
B) Did BC have Means, Motive, Opportunity? Yes
C) Were there any other viable suspects? No
D) How many "coincidences" or mismatching facts must it take before one says "ok, that's one too many"
E) The defense may talk about "spoilage"...but the only files(s) related to that google map search are relevant. The rest is diversion.
F) I'm not sure why the defense introduced the jogging route and timeline for NC...because the 6:55am to 7:11am elapsed time from house to where the Food Lion guy said he saw her contradicts the more precise testimony of Rosemary Zednick at 7:10am. Secondly, I don't see NC as the type shopping for meat at Food Lion.
G) On that point, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence.
H) This is a purely circumstantial case...but people have been convicted on less evidence.
I) Lastly, while not necessary, there is no proof he didn't do it besides that phone call. If the Cisco router info comes into testimony and shows he had the means to place a call to himself.......that's zero.

Welcome. If you haven't been lurking for the last week or so, you should consider reading the daily threads starting with last weekend's really long one.

The Spoliation of Evidence of both her cell phone and his laptop are very serious on many levels; possible felonies. Erasing her cell phone was not an accident, and certainly not two accidents -- one for the phone shell, a separate one for the sim. Sworn statements and testimony (e.g. following instructions received by telephone and not even writing them down) plus getting the search warrant after the phone was already erased, requesting only the extended billing records from AT&T for her phone and not the forensic quality records as they did for his phone, and using various excuses and ploys to avoid disclosing the erased cell phone until it was well past the date the data would have been retained by AT&T for defense to get the most detailed logs because they were no longer retained by AT&T.

Gone too were any pictures, text msgs, browser history, contacts, gps except during calls. When they failed to find any solid forensic evidence and little to support the claims of abuse or much else, the CPD was pressed on all sides to find evidence against BC, their investigation ground along with a growing number of people being interviewed by CPD and becoming afraid things private being made public -- their secret lives, sexual, financial, almost anything including some that are illegal.

Did that happen in this case? Probably not. But is has happened in others.


The man clocked in at FL at 7:24. Google Maps estimates drive time at 7 minutes. If you allow 10 minutes between sighting and punching in, that makes it 7:14.

From what little we think we know about the event log entry, and from the tiny amount I think I might know, I suspect the mismatch is between its properties as seen on the Cisco lan at its facility versus the properties projected through the VPN. Since BC was working Alpha systems, there might be rules preventing projection of test systems through the VPN without taking some extra action, or almost anything else not being allowed remotely.

 

[MoonFlwr]

It's an early morning tomorrow...I'd best be fftobed:

You East coast posters better hop in and start :countsheep:

:seeya:

Cute pics!

This question is to anyone who is around - is it Closing Arguments tomorrow?

TIA

 

[Danielle59]

Cute pics!

This question is to anyone who is around - is it Closing Arguments tomorrow?

TIA

More testimony next week, the State is doing rebuttal.

 

[MoonFlwr]

More testimony next week, the State is doing rebuttal.

Ahh, ok!

Thanks for the reply!

 

[GhostCrab]

I say this with all due respect, but I seriously think that some of you have become a bit jaded based on what you have seen in past cases. This isn't Jason Young's trial or circumstance, or Scott Peterson, or Michael Peterson, or that last Peterson, or all those other cases. When I read some posts I wonder what the female equivalent word is for misogynist because I seem to see a lot of that in some posts. I know women who have suffered domestic violence, but I do not see that in this marriage from BC. I also notice that the term seems to be being thrown around with such frequency in our world lately that I think it is losing some of its significance. I think we also have a tendency to forget that the man in a relationship with domestic abuse is not always the abuser.

My whole point here is a man is on trial for his life and livelihood here, I am not dismissing the victim, but I don't think justice for her means just putting her spouse in prison because of statistics, I prefer to see some evidence, and so far I really haven't seen any.

Thank you!

BTW, the word is misandry, the hatred of men (had to look it up).

 

[Danielle59]

Thank you!

BTW, the word is misandry, the hatred of men (had to look it up).

Thanks, a new one for my vocabulary, I really don't recall ever hearing it.

 

[oenophile]

I still cannot fathom how people can think he is guilty of this murder.

As for other suspects, I do not think JP was involved. This seems like a random murder. And yes, random murders do happen. FWIW, I had a friend who was randomly murdered. Someone randomly broke into her apartment, raped her, and dumped her in a river, then fled the state. I'm certain that her fiancee would have been accused had it not been for the fact that the murderer stole her car and used it as a getaway, which is how he was caught.

Virtually all of the circumstantial evidence in this trial was gathered well after the murder. I believe that the reason the ducks were not found was that LE came up with the duck theory well after BC was arrested, and after his things had been disposed of. Were the ducks in any search warrant? LE was probably reviewing the case with JA when she noticed the ducks weren't in the photo, so she probably made a big deal about it, which in turn became part of the theory. The problem was that they did not know where the ducks were since they never actually looked for them.

Given that all of the so-called evidence was gathered during a period of time after the murder, on what basis did the CPD have for saying that this was
"not a random murder"? During the weeks following the murder, they had no evidence that BC (or even JP or anyone that knew her) committed the murder. Yet they made the bold statement the day after the body was found that it was not random. On what basis could they make this statement? All the evidence presented at trial was collected well after the murder, and most of it after BC was arrested. At the time of the murder, the only evidence was the accusations of the posse that was trying to blame BC. In other words, gossip.

The CPD, on the other had, did have a motive to blame BC: the town of Cary had a reputation to protect, and a random murder of a jogger would harm that reputation. IF a random murder happened in Cary, then the CPD would be blamed for not protecting the citizens. But if it was a spousal murder, then the CPD theoretically could not have prevented the crime. So the CPD said, from day one, that it was not random, and they only really investigated BC so that they could gather evidence to support that theory. The anti-BC crowd started a campaign of character-trashing against BC, through the custody hearing and through the "Butterfly Fund". And gullible people bought into the BDI theory so strongly that even when the evidence clearly shows that he didn't do it, they still believe.

I hope that when this trial is over, BC sues the CPD and Wake County for malicious prosecution, and for all the pain and suffering he went through as a result of this miscarriage of justice. And I really really hope that the CPD resumes the search for the real killer or killers, although I think that at this point the trail is so cold that the killer(s) will never be brought to justice.

 

[Danielle59]

Death is a messy business, doesn't it bother anyone that there is no forensic evidence of a crime scene?

That the trunk was dirty, not show room clean as some have stated, but no evidence of her being moved in it? Not even fiber from a bedspread as I have heard on this site?

That they did not pull up the floor boards in the foyer to look for bodily fluids between the boards where you can't clean since that is what we are supposed to believe is the crime scene?

That she had blood beneath her nailes but BC had no open wound scratches? Unfortunately, the DNA was not testible.

Doesn't it bother anyone that the tire tracks at the location she was found were too narrow for either of their vehicles?

That she supposedly hated him so much, yet made plans as a couple with another couple, the Hiller's, to spend the evening together playing games the night she came up missing.

Then there is the issue of the foot prints at the scene, not castable, but being smaller than his foot?

That JA didn't want anyone else to speak to the police without going through her?

That JA called her Friday night knowing she was at a party to ask her to come to her house?

That no one else knew about her plans to supposedly paint at JA's on Saturday morning, yet we are supposed to beleive that she told all her friends all her plans?

That the Lopez guy remembered having a specific conversation about NC saying she had plans to jog on Satruday morning, then suspiciously changed that recollection after talking to his wife, and assuring the CPD that 100% of his recollections were correct but that one?

All the lies by JA in her affidavit and to the police, such as BC never attended his children's bday parties, that he never cared for the children, and the lies go on and on?

That HP stated as fact that NCs earrings were screwbacks when they were not?

Doesn't it make you wonder about all the testimony that has now been proven as false, such as the necklace never being taken off, the ducks not being missing, BC not calling NC while she was on vacation the week before, and so on?

That CPD erased her blackberry and before they even had a SW?

That CPD didn't request detailed records on her cell phone and then waited to late to tell anyone about the erasure until it was too late to get better detailed records?

That the CPD didn't tell anyone about the erasure for so long?

That CPD will not release the chain of evidence custody records on the laptop?

That the securing of the laptop was so out of protocol? That it even started the FBI agent when he learned of that?

That NC had not contacted her divorce attorney in months? Yet we are supposed to believe her leaving him was imminent?

That a man's children were taken from him before he was even supposedly considered a suspect? If we are to believe the CPD testimony?

That a man was arrested on gossip evidence?

That JP was not investigated? Especially considering his interview we heard with the CPD?

That there is no proof of her calling the realtor and saying she had to find something immediately, yet she also did not call her attorney?

That she, NC, supposedly said she was unable to open a bank account but Mrs. C was?

That the husband was the only one zero'ed in on while no one else was even investigated?

That despite 2.5 years to investigate that much evidence was not collected until the end of last year, for example, soil samples? Soil samples that were then compared to shoes that did not seem to be worn that day?

Others, please add to this list. I know I have missed many things.

Thanks

 

[GhostCrab]

Her one knee was caked with mud. I found that to be interesting. Still can't believe that Cummings allowed MH to testify to his theory surrounding that.