WTH Are Brad's Lawyers Up To Now????

[Star12]

Star - watch both videos from each trip from the front end camera - the third video in each time frame - you will note there are some other differences besides the shoes - watch his shirt collar in particular. You can also see this on the first video in each time frame - there is a difference. He changed more than his shoes.

Sum'pin funky about those pantlegs too -- the way they fit around his left leg. And the washed out areas - are those even the same jeans? Hard to tell.

 

[SleuthyGal]

But everyone on this site already has him convicted on very flimsy evidence.

That is not true.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think the first trip at 6:22 am was on his way back from dumping the body
He went home and changed the clothes he used to handle the body and walk near the dump site. The second appearance was simply to provide the alibi that Nancy was alive at 6:40 am. This guy obviously thought fast on his feet.

 

[raisincharlie]

Milk purchase:

Tide purchase:

RC is asking us to notice that the collar is different in these two pics (as well as, of course, he is wearing different shoes).

The stills don't show it well - you need to watch the video - clearer.

 

[SleuthyGal]

To me it looks like the same sweatshirt only in the first pic it looks like he has nothing on under it and in the 2nd pic it looks like he has a shirt w/collar on under it.

And of course he is wearing different shoes in each of the visits.

I am unable to see if he is carrying a cell phone. I thought I could discern a wallet in one hand (in the video sequences), but I can't tell for sure. Maybe someone else will have better eyes for that (or better resolution).

 

[ncsu95]

That is not true.

Which part? The everyone or the flimsy evidence? I should have said most people.

 

[SleuthyGal]

He went home and changed the clothes he used to handle the body and walk near the dump site.

So you believe he is wearing entirely different clothes in store visit #2? (top + jeans + shoes).

 

[jumpstreet]

But everyone on this site already has him convicted on very flimsy evidence.

Beg to differ with the everyone part. I'm on record (several times) as being nowhere near convinced that he did it...

The theory that he's guilty would have us believe that the guy in these videos committed a murder and dumped a body just hours before, and is now deciding that his time is best spent going to HT to (ostensibly) help establish an alibi, get captured on video a couple of times, and while at it, purchase stuff like green machine juice. At face value, that just a real stretch for me, and makes very little sense. [ Yes, I know supposedly it establishes a reason for him to be out of the house... but to go twice... that doesn't make sense... ]

Throw in the potential for a confirmable phone call from the land line to his home just prior to him entering the store... and suddenly, we're talking Theory B (or some variant) pretty quickly.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Which part? The everyone or the flimsy evidence? I should have said most people.

That everyone has him convicted. That is false. As for 'flimsy' evidence, we are only privy to a little bit of the evidence at this point. Whether said evidence is 'flimsy' or not is ultimately up to the DA to decide (and eventually a jury if the case ever goes to trial). I doubt anyone on this board will be deciding BC's legal status in a courtroom.

 

[Just the Fax]

So you believe he is wearing entirely different clothes in store visit #2? (top + jeans + shoes).

No sorry, I just saw the shoes and was going on what some of ya'll were saying. Why would he change shirts and then put that sweater back on in June ?

 

[ncsu95]

To me it looks like the same sweatshirt only in the first pic it looks like he has nothing on under it and in the 2nd pic it looks like he has a shirt w/collar on under it.

And of course he is wearing different shoes in each of the visits.

I am unable to see if he is carrying a cell phone. I thought I could discern a wallet in one hand (in the video sequences), but I can't tell for sure. Maybe someone else will have better eyes for that (or better resolution).

It looks like one of the fleece type pullovers with a short zipper near the neck. It looks unzipped in the second picture. If he had gone home after the first trip and took off his shoes and pullover, he could have thrown the pullover back on without zipping it up and put on flip flops. There is only 17 minutes from the time he left the first time until the time he came back in the store.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think the first trip at 6:22 am was on his way back from dumping the body
He went home and changed the clothes he used to handle the body and walk near the dump site. The second appearance was simply to provide the alibi that Nancy was alive at 6:40 am. This guy obviously thought fast on his feet.

This is what I think as well - the trips to HT were to mask his activities. In the search warrant affidavit it is stated that Brad told LE Nancy was doing laundry, in his affidavits (line 167) he says he returned from HT and noticed there was no laundry detergent. If Nancy was doing laundry how would she be doing it without detergent and why would he notice there was no detergent (unless of course he was looking for it).

 

[ncsu95]

Beg to differ with the everyone part. I'm on record (several times) as being nowhere near convinced that he did it...

The theory that he's guilty would have us believe that the guy in these videos committed a murder and dumped a body just hours before, and is now deciding that his time is best spent going to HT to (ostensibly) help establish an alibi, get captured on video a couple of times, and while at it, purchase stuff like green machine juice. At face value, that just a real stretch for me, and makes very little sense. [ Yes, I know supposedly it establishes a reason for him to be out of the house... but to go twice... that doesn't make sense... ]

Throw in the potential for a confirmable phone call from the land line to his home just prior to him entering the store... and suddenly, we're talking Theory B (or some variant) pretty quickly.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense either.

 

[Just the Fax]

Beg to differ with the everyone part. I'm on record (several times) as being nowhere near convinced that he did it...

The theory that he's guilty would have us believe that the guy in these videos committed a murder and dumped a body just hours before, and is now deciding that his time is best spent going to HT to (ostensibly) help establish an alibi, get captured on video a couple of times, and while at it, purchase stuff like green machine juice. At face value, that just a real stretch for me, and makes very little sense. [ Yes, I know supposedly it establishes a reason for him to be out of the house... but to go twice... that doesn't make sense... ]

Throw in the potential for a confirmable phone call from the land line to his home just prior to him entering the store... and suddenly, we're talking Theory B (or some variant) pretty quickly.

Blum knows the call came from Nancy's cell.
If it were the landline he would scream that from the mountain top.

NANCY WAS ALIVE AT 6:40 AM......WE CAN PROVE IT !!!!

 

[SleuthyGal]

In the search warrant affidavit it is stated that Brad told LE Nancy was doing laundry, in his affidavits (line 167) he says he returned from HT and noticed there was no laundry detergent. If Nancy was doing laundry how would she be doing it without detergent and why would he notice there was no detergent (unless of course he was looking for it).

Yep, the laundry dance. This one is allll over the place. He talks about Nancy doing laundry, he himself doing laundry, him noticing they're out of detergent, Nancy telling him no detergent...lots and lots of focus on laundry and detergent early that morning!

 

[Star12]

Blum knows the call came from Nancy's cell.
If it were the landline he would scream that from the mountain top.

NANCY WAS ALIVE AT 6:40 AM......WE CAN PROVE IT !!!!

:doh: Of course you are right! And he would have a link with the phone records on his webpage, too.

Of course, we may be wrong and he is holding that info. Too much info on his page, and there won't be anything left for later. ...... Oh, well.

 

[RaleighNC]

I've said this before - a call from the land line means nothing.

Plug in a fax machine or your PC and set it up to "send" a fax at a certain time. Sending a fax is only placing a call. You could easily show that it connected for 15 seconds or so. There's nothing that would show as "different" about this call - only that it originated from the land line NUMBER - not that a person actually was there and dialing it.

I do believe though - that the attorneys would be shouting out if it had been placed from the home number - because most folks wouldn't think about preplanning / faking / setting up a fax or a PC to make a phone call. And - if it came from her cell - WHY use your cell phone from the house? Since she supposedly went running without it, she doesn't seem like the "use the cell for everything" type person.

 

[Star12]

Yep, the laundry dance. This one is allll over the place. He talks about Nancy doing laundry, he himself doing laundry, him noticing they're out of detergent, Nancy telling him no detergent...lots and lots of focus on laundry and detergent early that morning!

SG, BC said he is the one who noticed there was no detergent.

Yeah, I'm thinking he done the deed, stopped legitimately for the milk after the fact, and went home, stripped off his clothes, realized there was no detergent, redressed and went back to HT and thought about making the phoney call to place Nancy as being alive at that time, because he happened to see her cell phone in the car.

Boy, he surely walked fast in those videos, eh?

 

[raisincharlie]

I've said this before - a call from the land line means nothing.

Plug in a fax machine or your PC and set it up to "send" a fax at a certain time. Sending a fax is only placing a call. You could easily show that it connected for 15 seconds or so. There's nothing that would show as "different" about this call - only that it originated from the land line NUMBER - not that a person actually was there and dialing it.

I do believe though - that the attorneys would be shouting out if it had been placed from the home number - because most folks wouldn't think about preplanning / faking / setting up a fax or a PC to make a phone call. And - if it came from her cell - WHY use your cell phone from the house? Since she supposedly went running without it, she doesn't seem like the "use the cell for everything" type person.

If two of her friends were suspicious of the land line as stated in their affidavits and the trouble with the land line calls getting cut out I suspect Nancy may well have been a use the cell phone for everything if she too suspected there was an issue with the land line.

 

[ncsu95]

Yep, the laundry dance. This one is allll over the place. He talks about Nancy doing laundry, he himself doing laundry, him noticing they're out of detergent, Nancy telling him no detergent...lots and lots of focus on laundry and detergent early that morning!

Maybe they each did their own laundry. I often do my own and my wife does hers and our daughters. It's just habit from my single days and I do mine different than she does (I don't use softener and don't care as much about what colors mix with each other).