"BC is innocent" or "I'm not convinced yet" Discussion

[Shadow722]

I take this back. I was initially impressed by the length and skimmed over it. When I went back, I was not impressed with your sarcasm. I think you could have listed points without it.

Exactly what sarcasm are you referring too in my post?? I was trying NOT to be sarcastic, merely listing what "I" believed was evidence and what "I" believed was conjecture. I was looking for rebuttal on my points, not a critique on my style of writing.

What else of a substantive nature do you not agree with?

Thanks,

Shadow

 

[jmflu]

Exactly what sarcasm are you referring too in my post?? I was trying NOT to be sarcastic, merely listing what "I" believed was evidence and what "I" believed was conjecture. I was looking for rebuttal on my points, not a critique on my style of writing.

What else of a substantive nature do you not agree with?

Thanks,

Shadow

I really thought you would have had some rebuttals posted to your points by now... but I see that a new news article has their attention... I will go through and see what I can point out to you that I consider sarcastic if you like, but since you weren't looking for a critique of your writing style I don't see that you would really want me to?... and to be honest it doesn't matter how you write, it matters how you communicate... we try to keep tempers down here and by being sarcastic tempers rise... but if you don't recognize your own sarcasm I guess I can't be of much help!

 

[rwesafe]

I really thought you would have had some rebuttals posted to your points by now... but I see that a new news article has their attention... I will go through and see what I can point out to you that I consider sarcastic if you like, but since you weren't looking for a critique of your writing style I don't see that you would really want me to?... and to be honest it doesn't matter how you write, it matters how you communicate... we try to keep tempers down here and by being sarcastic tempers rise... but if you don't recognize your own sarcasm I guess I can't be of much help!

I recognize the sarcasm is this post!

 

[Anderson]

Well, thank you. I am indeed, not a pushover and that is what allowed me to get away from my abuser. But it was a different level of control. My name was not on any of the bank accounts, the house was not in my name, I was not allowed to have credit cards or friends of my own. Fortunately, his behavior revealed itself on the honeymoon. I was very trapped and because he was violent, when he said he would kill me or my family if I spoke ill of him, I believed him. It took me six very long years of learning how to manipulate my abuser in order to secure my eventual freedom without harm to myself or family. I too work in the medical field and by what I to this day call, a divine intervention, I was introduced to a lady pyschologist who proved to be my on earth savior. I got lucky. I know that NC did not. But I'm just not convinced from what I read, it was at the hands of an abusive husband, but I will state it again....I COULD BE WRONG.

Okay, so then I THINK we can agree that just because NC was a strong willed person, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was impossible for her to be in an abusive relationship.

BTW, I am very glad you got out of the situation you were in.

 

[jmflu]

I recognize the sarcasm is this post!

I think of sarcasm as saying things you don't really mean, such as when she referred to BC in some ways... would have to go back to the post for the quote but something to the effect of "of COURSE Brad did it..." but that is not what she meant...

 

[rwesafe]

Okay, so then I THINK we can agree that just because NC was a strong willed person, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was impossible for her to be in an abusive relationship.

BTW, I am very glad you got out of the situation you were in.

I agree she could have been in an abusive relationship, but I don't believe that control was part of that abuse

 

[SleuthyGal]

but I don't believe that control was part of that abuse

or whatever the behavior was doesn't meet/exceed your definition of 'control.'

 

[jmflu]

I agree she could have been in an abusive relationship, but I don't believe that control was part of that abuse

I'm not an expert, but I believe control is synonymous with abuse. If someone is abused, they typically are going to walk on eggshells, modifying their behavior to better please their abuser.

You don't think that's control?

 

[Anderson]

I agree she could have been in an abusive relationship, but I don't believe that control was part of that abuse

Control is the central element of ANY abusive relationship. In NC's case the contol mechanisms that we know about through her family and friends were related to money (we KNOW that she couldn't work in the US) and control of passports (admitted by Brad). As I mentioned in the posts above (text in blue with source link) suicide threats are another control mechanism (her family appears to have witnessed this) used by abusers.

None of the affidavits suggest that BC had been violent in the past. One of our websleuth members has suggested that Brad is capable of violence and this is based on her own experience. IF BC is responsible for the murder, then that would suggest that a) the behaviour had escalated, b) she didn't discuss his violent behaviour with her friends (not uncommon for abused women), or c) her friends and family have not made this public.

We also know that when she had planned to go to Canada, he changed the plans (look at the probable cause affidavit or Star's signature line). I believe that NC's lawyer may also have more information related to the nature of abuse, which may come out at some point. The Judge knew something more about this situation -- much more than we do -- when she gave custody of the children to NC's parents.

We do know that Nancy planned to leave. We do know that Nancy was murdered. We do know that men are most likely to become violent when their spouses are leaving.

"For [some men that murder their wives], a walkout or threat of separation was the provocation, one they took as an intolerable rejection."
From, "An Elusive Picture of Violent Men Who Kill Mates" NYT
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...6A25752C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

So, IMO, NC could have been abused and controlled (and it seems likely to me) even though she was a strong-willed person. This line of argument doesn't explain to me why 'BC didn't murder NC'. Of course there may be other (more likely) reasons to point to regarding BC's innocence.

JMO

 

[fran]

Everything I know I've learned from FRAN.

I resemble that remark!

Thanks reddress,.........I take that as a compliment.

To keep this post on topic, I will say I have 'no comment' to make with regard to this thread except,........everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Lots of good discussion though, making this thread a good read.


fran

 

[SleuthyGal]

And hence why it's useful to have separate threads to encourage discussion around specific topics! :wink:

 

[reddress58]

I resemble that remark!

Thanks reddress,.........I take that as a compliment.

To keep this post on topic, I will say I have 'no comment' to make with regard to this thread except,........everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Lots of good discussion though, making this thread a good read.


fran

It was a compliment and you're welcome.

 

[mahmoo]

And hence why it's useful to have separate threads to encourage discussion around specific topics! :wink:

And well..............people like dat :crazy:

 

[rwesafe]

I'm not an expert, but I believe control is synonymous with abuse. If someone is abused, they typically are going to walk on eggshells, modifying their behavior to better please their abuser.

You don't think that's control?

Well then, if that is the definition as you see it then I don't see that she was abused. I find it odd that the only stories that affi's depict are what was told to them and additionally, all post the HM indescretion. Also, one of NC's family members describe NC as quick to tell you if she did not agree with something you said or did. Does not sound like a person who walks on eggshells. As I mentioned before, I personally know one of the affi givers and they don't recall these kinds of things being said by NC about BC until after the affair. I mean she was indeed a woman scorned. How humilitating to be cheated on with a woman who is a) your best friend and b) know to have slept with another husband in the neighborhood? RKAB indicated that BC behaviors were obvious almost immediately after they started dating....I just don't think NC would have elected to have children with a man who had been emotionally abouse to her for the first 3.5 years of their marriage. Again, it JMO and as always.....I COULD BE WRONG.

 

[jmflu]

Well then, if that is the definition as you see it then I don't see that she was abused. I find it odd that the only stories that affi's depict are what was told to them and additionally, all post the HM indescretion. Also, one of NC's family members describe NC as quick to tell you if she did not agree with something you said or did. Does not sound like a person who walks on eggshells. As I mentioned before, I personally know one of the affi givers and they don't recall these kinds of things being said by NC about BC until after the affair. I mean she was indeed a woman scorned. How humilitating to be cheated on with a woman who is a) your best friend and b) know to have slept with another husband in the neighborhood? RKAB indicated that BC behaviors were obvious almost immediately after they started dating....I just don't think NC would have elected to have children with a man who had been emotionally abouse to her for the first 3.5 years of their marriage. Again, it JMO and as always.....I COULD BE WRONG.

It seems like the only acceptable definition to you is the extreme scenario you experienced firsthand, which I am so sorry for, but which doesn't leave any room for anything less being control or abuse.

 

[mahmoo]

I understand what you're saying rwesafe.......thing is, and this is just the impression I've gotten.......it wasn't like he cheated on her one time and humiliated her.......it sounds like (although not verified) he "messed around" on her more than once.

I wonder if those "affair type things" get around Cary pretty good......I mean.....through the "grapevine"

 

[RKAB]

RKAB indicated that BC behaviors were obvious almost immediately after they started dating....I just don't think NC would have elected to have children with a man who had been emotionally abouse to her for the first 3.5 years of their marriage.

I stayed with him. You stayed with your abusive spouse for 6.5 years(I think that's how long you said). I don't think that it's inconceivable that Nancy may have stayed with him, and chosen to have children with him, even if he was abusive. Abuse takes many forms and even the smartest, strongest people can suffer and fall victim to it. It is impossible to predict how an abuse victim is rationalizing things in their mind to try to normalize the relationship unless you are that victim.

I could never say "well, I don't think RWESAFE suffered from any abuse because she elected to stay with her spouse for so long". You had your reasons for living and leaving as you did and there is no one here who can discount it and say that it was wrong. And I just don't think we can do that to Nancy either. She had her own very personal reasons for her decisions. I just wish now, more than anything, that she had been able to leave on her terms.

 

[rwesafe]

It seems like the only acceptable definition to you is the extreme scenario you experienced firsthand, which I am so sorry for, but which doesn't leave any room for anything less being control or abuse.

I'm not seeking an acceptable definition of abuse. I'm merely stating an opinion and yes perhaps it is true that I am not familiar with the more relaxed and subtle form of controlled abuse in the form of you can do whatever you want and stay out as late as you want and I will keep the kids while you party with your friends and train for your marathon and I will give you $1200 cash each month for food and clothes and I will pay for everything else kind of abuse. I'm sorry, I will say it for the tenth time, I may very well be wrong and she may have been abused while not participating in the above mentioned activities. I just don't think if he was that horrible that as an abused woman and mother that I would have ever left my children in his care for fear his abusive nature would cause him to hurt the most precious part of my life nor would I have agreed to in the 2nd draft of the separation papers allowed that kind of visitation or called my abuser a "fit father" if it were not true.

 

[rwesafe]

I stayed with him. You stayed with your abusive spouse for 6.5 years(I think that's how long you said). I don't think that it's inconceivable that Nancy may have stayed with him, and chosen to have children with him, even if he was abusive. Abuse takes many forms and even the smartest, strongest people can suffer and fall victim to it. It is impossible to predict how an abuse victim is rationalizing things in their mind to try to normalize the relationship unless you are that victim.

I could never say "well, I don't think RWESAFE suffered from any abuse because she elected to stay with her spouse for so long". You had your reasons for living and leaving as you did and there is no one here who can discount it and say that it was wrong. And I just don't think we can do that to Nancy either. She had her own very personal reasons for her decisions. I just wish now, more than anything, that she had been able to leave on her terms.

I did not elect to stay. I also did not leave him. I had to find a way to get him to leave me.

And, I'm not saying it was wrong of her. It's just that she was among some very wealthy people with good connections. They offered to help her and she declined. That does not sound like a woman who is living in fear of her life and the life of her children. But again...I could be wrong.

 

[Anderson]

I'm not seeking an acceptable definition of abuse. I'm merely stating an opinion and yes perhaps it is true that I am not familiar with the more relaxed and subtle form of controlled abuse in the form of you can do whatever you want and stay out as late as you want and I will keep the kids while you party with your friends and train for your marathon and I will give you $1200 cash each month for food and clothes and I will pay for everything else kind of abuse. I'm sorry, I will say it for the tenth time, I may very well be wrong and she may have been abused while not participating in the above mentioned activities. I just don't think if he was that horrible that as an abused woman and mother that I would have ever left my children in his care for fear his abusive nature would cause him to hurt the most precious part of my life nor would I have agreed to in the 2nd draft of the separation papers allowed that kind of visitation or called my abuser a "fit father" if it were not true.

Have a look at the new affidavits, which have just been released. In Krista's affidavit she comments on several ways that BC controlled NC. Krista's statements are based on things that she experienced/observed first hand.