K&B Ask for custody order to be sealed

[raisincharlie]

You are quite right. Lets move on.

Anderson, where have you been ? Have you had a chance yet to go through the second search warrant on the residence ? Some interesting stuff in there.

 

[Anderson]

Anderson, where have you been ? Have you had a chance yet to go through the second search warrant on the residence ? Some interesting stuff in there.

Hi RC!!

I have been very busy with work and technical difficulties, but I have tried to read the articles etc. I was obviously stunned when Brad was actually arrested so soon. This makes me believe that the investigators have constructed a pretty strong case. I did look at the new SW, but I had trouble saving the document.

I was really struck by the seizure of Nancy's jewellry. I see that there has been a lot of discussion about the necklace. I remember that in his first affidavit BC stated that Nancy's parents had asked for her jewellry and hats. Brad boy said that he had passed these items on to the family (he included an offhand comment about the family's motives and suggested that they were trying to make Krista look like NC or something along those lines). It appears that investigators collected several pieces of jewellry, so I wonder what Brad actually did give to the family in June (I mean July:crazy.

BC clearly did not pass on the piece of jewellry that was most interesting to NC's family: the necklace. Her family obviously thought that Nancy would have been wearing it on all occasions. It now seems silly to me that BC didn't get rid of it. I suppose that he thought it was worth too much. Perhaps he had plans for it (Celene?). I remember that we learned before that the necklace was in Brad's desk at one point (at least I think so or am I mistaken?). I wonder why the necklace wasn't taken before. If the necklace was broken, then I imagine investigators would be able to make that determination, wouldn't they? It looks as though investigators believe that it may have been broken. One alternative is that he actually removed it from her neck after strangling her and broke the chain while doing this. Brad may have been worried about leaving evidence. In that case it would have been cleaned. I imagine that investigators may also have methods to demonstrate that. Very interesting.

The first time that I downloaded the document, I could read the statement by JA Young and other information, but not now. I wasn't quite sure about some of the points, especially the shoes. I do see that there has been some discussion about the shoes. It seems that Brad may have thrown out the wrong pair (two similiar shoes/same foot) and didn't leave a believable match. I am a bit confused about that issue. I gather that they are trying to prove that NC never left the house with shoes on. That would indeed be significant evidence, I would think.

 

[raisincharlie]

<snip>

The first time that I downloaded the document, I could read the statement by JA Young and other information, but not now. I wasn't quite sure about some of the points, especially the shoes. I do see that there has been some discussion about the shoes. It seems that Brad may have thrown out the wrong pair (two similiar shoes/same foot) and didn't leave a believable match. I am a bit confused about that issue. I gather that they are trying to prove that NC never left the house with shoes on. That would indeed be significant evidence, I would think.

Hope the technical difficulties calm down for you - no fun !

As to the jewelry, I do indeed recall Brad saying he gave some things to Nancy's family and that he was concerned about Krista attempting to imitate Nancy to the children. No idea really of what, if anything, he did give to them but obviously it wasn't her rings or the necklace in question. From watching Brad's deposition, just to clarify, he does not say the necklace was in "his" desk drawer, only that it was in a desk drawer. Might not matter much but the perception is different depending on where it actually was I think. As to its condition, we'll have to wait to find that out

The shoes also intrigue me. My initial thought for LE to collect Nancy's shoes the first go round was to compare sizes to some that may have been found near where she was located or at some other location. The second collection of shoes however has led me to believe there were no shoes found where Nancy was. It would be pointless to worry about two shoes of the same foot missing for a brand that Brad never mentioned (AScics or whatever) since Brad indicated she wore a different brand to run in. The question then becomes in going through all those charge receipts can LE verify that a pair of Saucony's were purchased. If not then the two left shoes become important. It will be interesting if no proof of purchase is found for the Saucony's and the two left shoes never appear. Seems to me there are definitely some shoes missing and LE tends to think some things were disposed to cover up. Might be the pair collected during the first warrant were the Saucony's for that matter. We shall see, never know what luminol might show either.

 

[Anderson]

Hope the technical difficulties calm down for you - no fun !

As to the jewelry, I do indeed recall Brad saying he gave some things to Nancy's family and that he was concerned about Krista attempting to imitate Nancy to the children. No idea really of what, if anything, he did give to them but obviously it wasn't her rings or the necklace in question. From watching Brad's deposition, just to clarify, he does not say the necklace was in "his" desk drawer, only that it was in a desk drawer. Might not matter much but the perception is different depending on where it actually was I think. As to its condition, we'll have to wait to find that out

The shoes also intrigue me. My initial thought for LE to collect Nancy's shoes the first go round was to compare sizes to some that may have been found near where she was located or at some other location. The second collection of shoes however has led me to believe there were no shoes found where Nancy was. It would be pointless to worry about two shoes of the same foot missing for a brand that Brad never mentioned (AScics or whatever) since Brad indicated she wore a different brand to run in. The question then becomes in going through all those charge receipts can LE verify that a pair of Saucony's were purchased. If not then the two left shoes become important. It will be interesting if no proof of purchase is found for the Saucony's and the two left shoes never appear. Seems to me there are definitely some shoes missing and LE tends to think some things were disposed to cover up. Might be the pair collected during the first warrant were the Saucony's for that matter. We shall see, never know what luminol might show either.

Thanks for the clarifications! Yes, I can see that we will need to wait to know about the state of the necklace.

I suppose that it is at least possible that investigators found two right shoes that had been thrown out and match the left pair. In any case, it will be interesting to see what tranpires with this possible evidence.

 

[garner_nc]

Thanks for the clarifications! Yes, I can see that we will need to wait to know about the state of the necklace.

I suppose that it is at least possible that investigators found two right shoes that had been thrown out and match the left pair. In any case, it will be interesting to see what tranpires with this possible evidence.

The SW says they took 4 pairs of shoes. For all we know they found the missing shoes elsewhere in the house. I do wish they would detail items taken a bit more. Tell us size, brand and what foot.

Tell us - broken necklace with diamond charm.

 

[raisincharlie]

The SW says they took 4 pairs of shoes. For all we know they found the missing shoes elsewhere in the house. I do wish they would detail items taken a bit more. Tell us size, brand and what foot.

Tell us - broken necklace with diamond charm.

Then they would also be telling the defendents lawyer what they have - unfortunately we have to put up with not knowing too

 

[Anderson]

Then they would also be telling the defendents lawyer what they have - unfortunately we have to put up with not knowing too

I was wondering when they would pass over information to BC's lawyers. Would it be a certain amount of time before the trial starts?

 

[raisincharlie]

I was wondering when they would pass over information to BC's lawyers. Would it be a certain amount of time before the trial starts?

As I understand NC law, the discovery laws requires that copies of the files have to be turned over in a timely manner beginning from the point a lawyer is assigned after an indictment and charges filed.

They were wanting those files pretty bad the week before, guess they get their wish.

 

[Anderson]

As I understand NC law, the discovery laws requires that copies of the files have to be turned over in a timely manner beginning from the point a lawyer is assigned after an indictment and charges filed.

They were wanting those files pretty bad the week before, guess they get their wish.

So the lawyers probably know quite a lot right now. I wonder if they had the files when they updated their website. I am actually surprised that K&B are still maintaining the website. They are concerned about information being discussed in the media (and on websites) and using that as a reason to have the custody order sealed. I do wonder what it is that they are worried about becoming public knowledge related to the CO. I suppose that the Judge may have indicated Brad's likely involvement in the murder? I don't necessarily think this should be public knowledge, but I do find it interesting that K&B are willing to continue to post information on their website. I also think that it's interesting that they are actually drawing the public's attention to websleuths. I don't know think that is a very smart PR strategy.:bang:

However, if K&B had the files before updating the website, then this does pinpoint their areas of concern. They seem particularly concerned about the 'mussed?' clothes and dismissing their relevance in the case.

 

[raisincharlie]

So the lawyers probably know quite a lot right now. I wonder if they had the files when they updated their website. I am actually surprised that K&B are still maintaining the website. They are concerned about information being discussed in the media (and on websites) and using that as a reason to have the custody order sealed. I do wonder what it is that they are worried about becoming public knowledge related to the CO. I suppose that the Judge may have indicated Brad's likely involvement in the murder? I don't necessarily think this should be public knowledge, but I do find it interesting that K&B are willing to continue to post information on their website. I also think that it's interesting that they are actually drawing the public's attention to websleuths. I don't know think that is a very smart PR strategy.:bang:

However, if K&B had the files before updating the website, then this does pinpoint their areas of concern. They seem particularly concerned about the 'mussed?' clothes and dismissing their relevance in the case.

I don't think they had a lot of the files when they did this Anderson - it takes a while to copy files and what not and the DA is not going to hurry. I think this was all reaction to the 29 October search warrant. Surely they would not have had time to go through everything either I would think - has to be a pretty large file.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hi Anderson! nice to see you

A couple of things I considered: just because Brad SAID that Nancy ran in Sauconys doesn't mean it's the truth--maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. Obviously she owned at least 2 pairs of ASICS too. BTW they saw the RIGHT shoes of each of those 2 pair; the left shoes are/were missing from their mates, as per the SW probable cause.

As for the diamond necklace, if Nancy ever did take it off, it would be important to know where she kept her jewelry...did she have a jewelry box in her BR? Or did she keep her other jewelry in a drawer in a piece of furniture in her room, or closet? And was the diamond necklace found with/among her other jewelry? If it was the only piece found in the desk where LE confiscated it, then WHY was it not with her jewelry?

A woman normally takes off her jewelry and puts it away or at least places it near her other jewelry. That, of course, presumes that Nancy actually did take off her necklace at some point.

 

[garner_nc]

A couple of things I considered: just because Brad SAID that Nancy ran in Sauconys doesn't mean it's the truth--maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. Obviously she owned at least 2 pairs of ASICS too. BTW they saw the RIGHT shoes of each of those 2 pair; the left shoes are/were missing from their mates, as per the SW probable cause.

K&B's website says "Cary Police Detective J.A. Young finds significance in a pair of missing shoes from another room, of another brand, of the wrong size, a month later, in a house that was partially packed for a move."

The CPD has never indicated male or female shoes if I remember correctly. We assume they are NC because they are listed as an issue in the SW. Might they belong to BC. We will have to wait and see.

 

[SleuthyGal]

K&B's website says "Cary Police Detective J.A. Young finds significance in a pair of missing shoes from another room, of another brand, of the wrong size, a month later, in a house that was partially packed for a move."

The CPD has never indicated male or female shoes if I remember correctly. We assume they are NC because they are listed as an issue in the SW. Might they belong to BC. We will have to wait and see.

Well the shoes are either Nancy's or they are Brad's. So why would either Nancy or Brad have purchased shoes of "the wrong size?" And how does K&B know the missing shoes and/or the found shoes in the garage are the "wrong size?" Wrong according to who?

 

[garner_nc]

I was just pointing out that the ASICS could have been BC that had missing shoes and not NC. If they end up being his does that "mean" anything? Or would they have to be NC in order to be relevant?

 

[raisincharlie]

I was just pointing out that the ASICS could have been BC that had missing shoes and not NC. If they end up being his does that "mean" anything? Or would they have to be NC in order to be relevant?

If they are Brad's and are consistent with those observed in the video from the store, guess that means something if only two of the same foot were found. So yeah, they could be Brads but the implication is something quite different and not so sure that would be favorable either.

 

[Anderson]

I don't think they had a lot of the files when they did this Anderson - it takes a while to copy files and what not and the DA is not going to hurry. I think this was all reaction to the 29 October search warrant. Surely they would not have had time to go through everything either I would think - has to be a pretty large file.

I see. That makes more sense then. It will be interesting to see what K&B do in the future.

 

[Anderson]

Hi Anderson! nice to see you

A couple of things I considered: just because Brad SAID that Nancy ran in Sauconys doesn't mean it's the truth--maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. Obviously she owned at least 2 pairs of ASICS too. BTW they saw the RIGHT shoes of each of those 2 pair; the left shoes are/were missing from their mates, as per the SW probable cause.

As for the diamond necklace, if Nancy ever did take it off, it would be important to know where she kept her jewelry...did she have a jewelry box in her BR? Or did she keep her other jewelry in a drawer in a piece of furniture in her room, or closet? And was the diamond necklace found with/among her other jewelry? If it was the only piece found in the desk where LE confiscated it, then WHY was it not with her jewelry?

A woman normally takes off her jewelry and puts it away or at least places it near her other jewelry. That, of course, presumes that Nancy actually did take off her necklace at some point.

Hi Sleuthy!

I have missed all of you!

I agree with you about the jewellry. It will be important to know where the necklace was found. So much time has passed though. I wonder if that would give BC's lawyers an opportunity to argue that Brad had changed the location for one reason or another. If the necklace has been repaired, then that would perhaps be particularly significant. Surely that is something that Nancy would have mentioned in passing to one of her friends. I do wonder if they will be able to determine whether or not it was broken. Brad really should have passed the necklace on to her family when they asked for it, IMO. That looks odd in itself, given that he said that he passed on the jewellry in July. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but it may be another one of those things that could sway a jury. Yesterday's article about computer evidence is interesting. I do wonder what searches were found on Brad's computers. I must be patient, I suppose.

 

[Anderson]

Well the shoes are either Nancy's or they are Brad's. So why would either Nancy or Brad have purchased shoes of "the wrong size?" And how does K&B know the missing shoes and/or the found shoes in the garage are the "wrong size?" Wrong according to who?

This is starting to remind me of OJ's glove defence!:crazy:

 

[Maja]

Do we know if LE went through the Cooper house with a special light that detects urine? I recall moving out of places and the landlord using one to ensure there were no traces of dog urine in the carpet. I've wanted to ask this for a while. I believe the light will pick up all urine and there has been speculation over whether NC lost her bowels during the struggle which would explain BC's massive cleaning "campaign".

 

[Star12]

Hi Sleuthy!

I have missed all of you!

I agree with you about the jewellry. It will be important to know where the necklace was found. So much time has passed though. I wonder if that would give BC's lawyers an opportunity to argue that Brad had changed the location for one reason or another. If the necklace has been repaired, then that would perhaps be particularly significant. Surely that is something that Nancy would have mentioned in passing to one of her friends. I do wonder if they will be able to determine whether or not it was broken. Brad really should have passed the necklace on to her family when they asked for it, IMO. That looks odd in itself, given that he said that he passed on the jewellry in July. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but it may be another one of those things that could sway a jury. Yesterday's article about computer evidence is interesting. I do wonder what searches were found on Brad's computers. I must be patient, I suppose.

About the repair - I would think it would be of supreme importance if it was indeed broken and then repaired since Nancy's death.

And yes, BC DID make it sound as though all her jewelry had been given to the Rentzes. If not a complete liar, BC is certainly devious. :::shudder:::