Brad's shopping excursions on the morning of 7/12

[raisincharlie]

I am still playing catch up on this case. What person? Guess I missed it.

She wasn't happy with LE so she went to K & B:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/15/3744323/20081015142722449.pdf

 

[SleuthyGal]

This post above, by RC, is the BEST summation of the HT trips I've seen anywhere on this site. kudos, RC!

 

[EnvoyDriver61]

I've done this though...I've come in, taken my shoes off, and put on something different when leaving. I've also taken 2 different routes back to back to go to the same place. Sometimes, I'll take 1 route going and another coming back.

I've done this too.

However, it is rare that I've done this when for all practical purposes, the stay at home was of short duration. I think in the earlier discussion on this, he was home at most, 5 minutes.

On Saturdays, when I'm just hanging out or doing small chores, I put in the easiest shoes I can find. One wonders why he didn't have sandals on the first trip. Since he had to get detergent the second time, it seems logical to me that he probably washed those tennis shoes from the first trip (realizing he needed more detergent) and then slipped into Saturday morning mode (i.e., the easy to put on sandals).

Edited because I forgot which trip he bought the detergent on.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I take my shoes off upon entering my house and if I had to go back out would slip into sandals or something. However, in JULY on a Sat, I would have had sandals on in the first place unless I was doing something in which I needed my running shoes/sneakers or needed more coverage for my feet. Otherwise, sandals are much easier/faster to slip on for a trip (or 2 or 3 :wink to the grocery store.

Perhaps the question is, why was Brad wearing his sneakers/running shoes in the first place at 6am? Was he known to wear sandals at other times except for running/tennis? Was his outfit out of character for HIM?

In July, if you ever saw me in long sleeves it would only happen inside a highly air conditioned restaurant or movie theater...outside, no way. Not in June, July, August or Sept.

 

[ncsu95]

I take my shoes off upon entering my house and if I had to go back out would slip into sandals or something. However, in JULY on a Sat, I would have had sandals on in the first place unless I was doing something in which I needed my running shoes/sneakers or needed more coverage for my feet. Otherwise, sandals are much easier/faster to slip on for a trip (or 2 or 3 :wink to the grocery store.

Perhaps the question is, why was Brad wearing his sneakers/running shoes in the first place at 6am? Was he known to wear sandals at other times except for running/tennis? Was his outfit out of character for HIM?

In July, if you ever saw me in long sleeves it would only happen inside a highly air conditioned restaurant or movie theater...outside, no way. Not in June, July, August or Sept.

I can see that as a valid question.

 

[SleuthyGal]

There could be a reason K & B didn't bother with it, or couldn't get it. It is a very weak argument to show what the jailed one bought between 6 and 7 am when trying to refute that he wasn't in the store at 420 am which was what K & B was attempting to prove on their website. Smoke and mirrors.

I think one thing K&B wanted to prove was that bleach wasn't purchased (as had been previously rumored). Then they wanted to show the 2 visits to HT that Brad made, that aligned with the statements in his affy (I personally think it was stupid for them to put this on their website and make a big deal about it, but whatever.).

As for an earlier visit...if none existed, how would they have gotten ahold of such a thing? Just ask for it? Subpoena for that timeframe? I don't know how one acquires video from a store, if that portion of video does not contain anything on it involving their client. If it does contain an earlier visit, then of course they'd be fools to admit to it.

Good point someone made above as to why Stubbs didn't use any discovery of an earlier visit to HT (I'm assuming T/S would have been able to get their hands on this info from HT if there was a source copy of the material. If no original source was available and LE has the only copy, then they'd be SOL I guess).

 

[ncsu95]

^I think that is the key...it wasn't brought up during the deposition. EVERYTHING else was. And the LTF stuff wasn't either (where MT3Ks source claimed he wanted someone to scan her card and said she was in the car). I have to believe if he did that, it would have been questioned in the deposition.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think one thing K&B wanted to prove was that bleach wasn't purchased (as had been previously rumored). Then they wanted to show the 2 visits to HT that Brad made, that aligned with the statements in his affy (I personally think it was stupid for them to put this on their website and make a big deal about it, but whatever.).

As for an earlier visit...if none existed, how would they have gotten ahold of such a thing? Just ask for it? Subpoena for that timeframe? I don't know how one acquires video from a store, if that portion of video does not contain anything on it involving their client. If it does contain an earlier visit, then of course they'd be fools to admit to it.

Good point someone made above as to why Stubbs didn't use any discovery of an earlier visit to HT (I'm assuming T/S would have been able to get their hands on this info from HT if there was a source copy of the material. If no original source was available and LE has the only copy, then they'd be SOL I guess).

The alternative side is to remember Ms. Stubbs had the lead Detective in the murder case sitting in the courtroom as well. She also made the choice not to use him for testimony. There is a reason and it may well have been to preserve the potential for a fair criminal trial without exposing any existing evidence to the public. It seems to me that the custody issue is a separate entity of its own and I don't believe it is a wise assumption to conclude what evidence may or may not exist with respect to the criminal case based on what was or what was not revealed during the custody hearing.

It also appears very obvious to me that Ms. Stubbs was well prepared to refute certain things but reserved the right to do so based on whether or not BC got on the stand. She did her part to preserve the future fairness of the now defendent's right to a fair trial. TS has defended many a criminal defendent, they know the importance of that issue and it seems they honored it by not bringing in anything that really had anything to do with the criminal aspect of Nancy's murder. They simply did not need to bring it in based on how Ms. Sandlin played out her hand - she certainly didn't raise the subject.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I don't believe it is a wise assumption to conclude what evidence may or may not exist with respect to the criminal case based on what was or what was not revealed during the custody hearing.

I agree with any strategy she employed to protect the criminal investigation. Though there were certainly a lot of areas she did go into during her deposition questioning that had nothing to do with determining Brad's fitness as a father (and had everything to do with the criminal investigation), so she certainly picked a lot of criminal areas to explore that were really not related to determining best custodial situation for the girls.

 

[raisincharlie]

I agree with any strategy she employed to protect the criminal investigation. Though there were certainly a lot of areas she did go into during her deposition questioning that had nothing to do with determining Brad's fitness as a father (and had everything to do with the criminal investigation), so she certainly picked a lot of criminal areas to explore that were really not related to determining best custodial situation for the girls.

As the judge said - she wasn't going to ignore the elephant in the room. Had Ms. Stubbs not explored these areas she would have been remiss in her responsibility to the plaintiffs.

 

[SleuthyGal]

As the judge said - she wasn't going to ignore the elephant in the room. Had Ms. Stubbs not explored these areas she would have been remiss in her responsibility to the plaintiffs.

Yes she would have been remiss. Ironically the areas she explored did not definitively establish Brad's involvement in the murder since she didn't have any forensic results to work with, nor evidence contained on computer drives or the results of other tests, but she was at least able to show inconsistencies in versions of Brad's stories and get an affy in the record that quoted the lead Det. saying there were inconsistencies and that Brad had not cooperated w/LE after 7/14.

 

[Star12]

I take my shoes off upon entering my house and if I had to go back out would slip into sandals or something. However, in JULY on a Sat, I would have had sandals on in the first place unless I was doing something in which I needed my running shoes/sneakers or needed more coverage for my feet. Otherwise, sandals are much easier/faster to slip on for a trip (or 2 or 3 :wink to the grocery store.

Perhaps the question is, why was Brad wearing his sneakers/running shoes in the first place at 6am? Was he known to wear sandals at other times except for running/tennis? Was his outfit out of character for HIM?

In July, if you ever saw me in long sleeves it would only happen inside a highly air conditioned restaurant or movie theater...outside, no way. Not in June, July, August or Sept.

I still maintain that after the first trip to HT for the milk, he was going to wash everything he had on, and had dumped it all, shoes and socks included, in the washer before he noticed no detergent. Pulled clothes back out of washer and 'sort of' dressed himself said the heck with socks because they take a while to put on and the sandals were right there and went to get detergent and juice.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yes she would have been remiss. Ironically the areas she explored did not definitively establish Brad's involvement in the murder since she didn't have any forensic results to work with, nor evidence contained on computer drives or the results of other tests, but she was at least able to show inconsistencies in versions of Brad's stories and get an affy in the record that quoted the lead Det. saying there were inconsistencies and that Brad had not cooperated w/LE after 7/14.

Given the standard of proof for a civil action, I don't think she needed to demonstrate anything definitve. She managed to get Brad to comment on several things that, lets say, just weren't ordinary or believable and quite honestly, we don't know what inconsistencies the Detective would have identified. I think she was probably well prepared if she needed to go there.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes, she appears to be one very sharp, capable attorney. Luckily the custody issue was decided just in time for Brad to get his personal tour of the Wake County Detention Center! :smile: I think everyone can now agree that Brad was the only suspect all along even though he was never publicly named as such, and is the only alleged perpetrator of this murder.

 

[ncsu95]

I still maintain that after the first trip to HT for the milk, he was going to wash everything he had on, and had dumped it all, shoes and socks included, in the washer before he noticed no detergent. Pulled clothes back out of washer and 'sort of' dressed himself said the heck with socks because they take a while to put on and the sandals were right there and went to get detergent and juice.

That's a reasonable explanation.

 

[SusieClue]

Maybe it has been discussed, but I am still confused as to why BC was never "named" a POI... flight risk? what was the deal? Are there not rules about officially naming someone once you have some evidence? I don't get it. help!

 

[ncsu95]

Maybe it has been discussed, but I am still confused as to why BC was never "named" a POI... flight risk? what was the deal? Are there not rules about officially naming someone once you have some evidence? I don't get it. help!

Apparently, POI is a meaningless press term.

 

[raisincharlie]

Maybe it has been discussed, but I am still confused as to why BC was never "named" a POI... flight risk? what was the deal? Are there not rules about officially naming someone once you have some evidence? I don't get it. help!

I can't tell you for certainty why and when such terms are applied in Wake County or by Cary PD. What I can tell you is in my neck of the woods, either of those terms would only be used if a person LE believes may be associated with a crime is a possible flight risk, is in flight, or may possibly be a threat to themselves, another, or society in general. The reason such terms would be used is so the public is alerted. If a person is in flight it is done to seek the publics help in reporting sightings of said person. For the most part such terms are not applied to persons suspected of a criminal act if none of the above exists.

As I said, I do not know what Wake County or Cary PD policy is. So I do not know if I have helped you or not. But to me, this makes sense.

 

[SusieClue]

Apparently, POI is a meaningless press term.

So strange. Do you think it was intentional by CPD so as not to tip BC and attorneys off? And yet that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because in the beginning when the good lady of CPD announced that it "wasn't a random crime" I think any rational person understood that they believed Brad was their man. Am I completely off track here?

 

[SusieClue]

I can't tell you for certainty why and when such terms are applied in Wake County or by Cary PD. What I can tell you is in my neck of the woods, either of those terms would only be used if a person LE believes may be associated with a crime is a possible flight risk, is in flight, or may possibly be a threat to themselves, another, or society in general. The reason such terms would be used is so the public is alerted. If a person is in flight it is done to seek the publics help in reporting sightings of said person. For the most part such terms are not applied to persons suspected of a criminal act if none of the above exists.

As I said, I do not know what Wake County or Cary PD policy is. So I do not know if I have helped you or not. But to me, this makes sense.

Sorry I responded simultaneously with RC, apparently. YOUR response makes total sense to me - I get it. I love to LEARN! Thanks!:blowkiss: