Agreed, but sometimes the conclusions drawn seem really far fetched to me.
April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness
- Thread starter CrimeAddict
- Start date
- Status
Agreed, but sometimes the conclusions drawn seem really far fetched to me.
fran
Former Member
It could just be me, but I took his participating in the custody battle differently than you did.
IMHO, he used that opportunity to get his story out, tell the world what a bad person NC was.
I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet, there will be more than one juror who takes it the way I saw it.
Frankly, I was shocked at the way he spoke of his allegedly dearly departed wife. Honestly, I've NEVER heard anyone speak of the dead as BC did about NC in those custody documents he filed. His being under suspicion is NO EXCUSE, in my book..................none.
JMHO
fran
ohiogirl
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,973
- Reaction score
- 48
I agree. They should have just come right out and said, "We couldn't clear the husband, so he continued to be a suspect." Bring it right out, don't try to shuffle out of it. That made them look deceitful.
less0305
The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m
If that was the story, then why didn't he just say that. Why didn't he say to the police and to AS on the deposition tapes, "I didn't think she deserved the allowance that week. She made extra money painting. She was upset with me because I told her to grocery shop on the paint money." Noooooooo, he said he "forgot" to give her the money and that he "offered to drive home from work and give it to her," WHICH he didn't, I might add. NEVER - not on his way home, not the next morning - why? She was on her way to being dead.
NCEast
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 7
Good heavens, I agree with the far fetched speculation. But the more common sense speculations are part of the game. They have to be as that is what drives an investigation from the very earliest moments. And it is what drives us, here, to form opinions on even the tiniest bits of information.
I do remember that now, there was testimony by her friends that he told her he wasn't going to give her the money because she had earned money from painting.
Granted, my definition of far fetched may not be the same as another person's.
less0305
The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m
I agree, Fran. But I also think it was a little more two-fold. He was going to fight the Rentz like he was going to fight NC, because, let's face it, there was still going to be that nasty little deal with child support. And if he didn't want to pay it to NC, he damn sure didn't want to pay it to the Rentz. My take on BC is that he was going to get custody of those children and then make a move on HM to be his new lady-in-waiting to take care of him and his children - and if that didn't work out he would pack them off to his parents while he jetsetted and Iron Man'd himself wherever he wanted to and with whomever he wanted to sending them a little allowance along the way.
NCEast
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 7
That's ok, our various themes on what's considered far fetched make it interesting at times.
Although last week when the subject of the neighbors hacking into Brad's computer signal and planting evidence was a bit more than far fetched in my opinion.
less0305
The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m
Oh, I have no doubt that's what he told Nancy. I'm sure he didn't come out and tell Nancy, "Oh, by the way, I'm not going to pay you the allowance this week because I'm planning on killing you Friday night."
Why didn't he tell the police and AS he didn't pay her was because of the painting income? He was trying to hide a little something called murder and he needed to look good. So it looked much better if he had just been forgetful and forgot to leave her the money.
That is why I earlier joked about Vizzini in the Princess Bride who kept saying things like something would be absolutely and totally inconceivable, then discover maybe that wasn't true.
less0305
The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m
Nancy done runned off.
bloghooligan
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Does the trial resume today?
NCEast
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 7
Yes, 9:30 am.
less0305
The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m
HE said he offered to drive home. I don't believe that for one single minute. She didn't call him umpty blue times that day for her money and then tell him, no, honey, you just stay at work and don't worry, you can just bring it to me whenever. His stories don't mesh. He and his hooligans want you to believe she was a money hungry spendaholic being a demon pest for her money, and in the same breath they want you to believe that she said, "oh, no, don't put yourself out. I'll be hanging around with the girls. You just bring it whenever you feel like it."
gritguy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 82
I imagine BC had a lot more anger than he let on. Anger at losing control. Anger at things NC said to him and about him. Anger at NC's use of the legal system to take from him a large portion of his income for a very long time. I imagine he probably thought about killing her more than once. And then one day he did.
I've heard guys call their ex-wives the worst sort of things due to support they have to pay.
But people not convinced by the state's case have put up some very good reasons to examine the holes. I'm not convinced by the tampering angle (though I admit I don't much understand the evidence either way on that). I thought it was better when the defense called witnesses who said they saw NC doing what BC said she'd be doing when he said she'd be doing it. He said she was out running; they say they saw her out running.
I remain convinced BC killed his wife. But, I think the state's evidence is stretched thin to cover their entire theory. In some cases you just have to accept there is no evidence at all - like the spoofed call. On the forum, I think for many people the circumstances of the relationship cause them to consider the CE more strongly than they would if they did not see BC in a bad light already.
It is by no means an easy case for the state. The jury will have to look at all of it and decide they will never know some things and some things (like eyewitnesses to her running) will have to be wholly disregarded as incorrect while other things (like the spoofed call) taken as true on the basis of lean or no evidence. I think the picture adds up clearly to BC, but a reasonable person, IMO, could look at the reasonable doubt standard and say otherwise. I would not for a moment be prepared to speculate how a jury might vote on this.
I've heard guys call their ex-wives the worst sort of things due to support they have to pay.
But people not convinced by the state's case have put up some very good reasons to examine the holes. I'm not convinced by the tampering angle (though I admit I don't much understand the evidence either way on that). I thought it was better when the defense called witnesses who said they saw NC doing what BC said she'd be doing when he said she'd be doing it. He said she was out running; they say they saw her out running.
I remain convinced BC killed his wife. But, I think the state's evidence is stretched thin to cover their entire theory. In some cases you just have to accept there is no evidence at all - like the spoofed call. On the forum, I think for many people the circumstances of the relationship cause them to consider the CE more strongly than they would if they did not see BC in a bad light already.
It is by no means an easy case for the state. The jury will have to look at all of it and decide they will never know some things and some things (like eyewitnesses to her running) will have to be wholly disregarded as incorrect while other things (like the spoofed call) taken as true on the basis of lean or no evidence. I think the picture adds up clearly to BC, but a reasonable person, IMO, could look at the reasonable doubt standard and say otherwise. I would not for a moment be prepared to speculate how a jury might vote on this.
I don't think there is any question that she had a spending problem.
LAWsy_ME
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 0
Photos: No Discussion - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Post # 23 for house plans
Post # 23 for house plans
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 111
- Guests online
- 3,393
- Total visitors
- 3,504