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

[rwesafe]

Does this mean you find it "normal" or excusable behavior? I know you used the word "consistent" but when something becomes consistent I believe that makes it considered more normal.

I do not believe his behavior was normal. He sounds very controlling to me.

I meant consistent with how most people act when they are bitter or unhappy about a situation.

 

[jumpstreet]

I have a Blackberry Pearl 8130 and to my knowledge, when it is locked with a password, everything on the phone is locked. I dug through all my menus and options and can't find any way to password protect some things but not everything. I'm not a Blackberry expert by any means, but hoping this helps!

It does - thanks a lot nc_butterfly! This is consistent with what the online manuals outline also.

 

[rwesafe]

To set your BlackBerry to lock automatically when you holster the device, go to Options, Security, General Settings and set the Lock Handheld Upon Holstering to “Yes”.


Lock When Holstering

If you’ve set a password on your BlackBerry, you will have to enter it to unlock the device. Be careful, if you forget your password and guess it incorrectly too many times, your BlackBerry will be automatically wiped!

To set the security password, go to Options, Security, General Settings and change the Password field to “Enabled”. You can also enable content protection,Now select “Save” from the menu, and you will be prompted for your new password.

Setting Password
Whether you set a password or not, once your device is locked, it will display the Owner information that you have entered into the device. This might be a good place to leave an email address or phone number in case you ever lose your BlackBerry.

## This Article Was Originally Published by AllBlackBerry.com

 

[Star12]

ASSUMING there is an accomplice, and Nancy's phone has a password protected lock so calls cannot be made FROM her phone, if another person CALLED the phone, would that call then OPEN the lock, so that ANOTHER call could be then be placed?

 

[Anderson]

I meant consistent with how most people act when they are bitter or unhappy about a situation.

I would be careful about applying this behaviour to "most" people, at least without pointing to some literature that backs up your claim. Many people go through divorces and separations without acting out in this way, however difficult.

In Krista's affidavit she emphasizes that the money NC was spending was to get the house together so that they could separate. Do "most" people follow their spouses around to fill gas, buy groceries, paint and whatever else is needed on a day to day basis? These were all things for the household and to get ready for the separation. If he acted this way around Krista, then try to imagine how Brad acted when they were on their own. <shudder>

As the probable cause affidavit emphasizes Nancy was getting ready to go back to Canada and these plans were "changed by Brad". Krista's affidavit was based on first hand information. It is very difficult to conclude that Brad was not controlling Nancy. I am basing my opinion on the information that we do have. Yes, unfortunately even people that are well off can suffer like this in their deteriorating relationships.

BTW, he sure is spending a lot of money now for a guy that is so worried about money, and this is without having been named a suspect. He spent 12,000 dollars on a mental evaluation and that is just one of the many legal bills. Is this consistent with the behaviour of a man who is "up to his eyeballs in debt"?

There may be other reasons that you can find to illustrate Brad's probable innocence, and I look forward to hearing them. However, NC and BC clearly had relationship difficulties and Brad had control issues that I would hope most women do not have to be subjected to when they are separating from their spouses.

 

[jumpstreet]

To set the security password, go to Options, Security, General Settings and change the Password field to “Enabled”. You can also enable content protection,Now select “Save” from the menu, and you will be prompted for your new password.

I think "locked" just means you enter a special sequence (like *#) to unlock it - it prevents someone from accidentally making a call.

Enabling the password, I think means you have to enter the password to use the device (certainly to make a call - not sure about receiving a call)

I'm not sure what would be the meaning of a 'disabled' device password and yet 'enabled' "content protection".

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm not sure what would be the meaning of a 'disabled' device password and yet 'enabled' "content protection".

That refers to other functions of the phone that can be locked, rather than just the phone calling function. Examples of possible content areas that might be protected: text messages, calender, notes, emails, web access, ability to download applications. I don't know which of these things are 'lockable' on the Blackberry, but those are some potential areas.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I found that it *is* possible to have the phone password enabled, but still allow outgoing calls!!

you can set-up Security setting to lockout all apps but allowing outgoing calls while handheld is locked.

OPTIONS->SECURITY OPTIONS->GENERAL SETTINGS
PASSWORD: ENABLED
ALLOW OUTGOING CALLS WHILE LOCKED: YES

 

[rwesafe]

I would be careful about applying this behaviour to "most" people, at least without pointing to some literature that backs up your claim. Many people go through divorces and separations without acting out in this way, however difficult.

So I need literature to back up the word most, but you don't need any to back up the word many?


In Krista's affidavit she emphasizes that the money NC was spending was to get the house together so that they could separate. Do "most" people follow their spouses around to fill gas, buy groceries, paint and whatever else is needed on a day to day basis? These were all things for the household and to get ready for the separation. If he acted this way around Krista, then try to imagine how Brad acted when they were on their own. <shudder>

Yes, but he did not want to buy samples of paint from restoration hardware....$3.95 a pop, paint is $36.00 a gallon for the designer colors....at $1200 a month, I don't see how you don't have money to buy paint....I'm not exactly frugal, but that seems a bit extreme...I'm sure he was not happy about it given that money was already tight and the only way they could pay off the debt was to sell the house.

As the probable cause affidavit emphasizes Nancy was getting ready to go back to Canada and these plans were "changed by Brad". Krista's affidavit was based on first hand information. It is very difficult to conclude that Brad was not controlling Nancy. I am basing my opinion on the information that we do have. Yes, unfortunately even people that are well off can suffer like this in their deteriorating relationships.

So what if it was changed by Brad, maybe he just could not get the money together to see the move through during that time. Maybe he did not want to do it until they had agreed to everything in the seperation papers and they were a done deal. When was she planning on leaving. We know for a fact from her friends affi's, that she had planned to go to the beach with the nieghborhood friends the first week in August and was training to run in a Marathon in mid August, does not sound like she had plans to leave anytime soon....

BTW, he sure is spending a lot of money now for a guy that is so worried about money, and this is without having been named a suspect. He spent 12,000 dollars on a mental evaluation and that is just one of the many legal bills. Is this consistent with the behaviour of a man who is "up to his eyeballs in debt"?

There is a difference between spending money on paint and birthday part supplies than spending money on a court ordered evaluation that will potentially allow you to regain custody of your children....

There may be other reasons that you can find to illustrate Brad's probable innocence, and I look forward to hearing them. However, NC and BC clearly had relationship difficulties and Brad had control issues that I would hope most women do not have to be subjected to when they are separating from their spouses.

People have relationship difficulties when infedelity has occured and divorce in eminate, I don't have documentation to back that up, I'm just using common sense...and I still maintain the only thing he tried to control was the spending and he had legitimate reasons for doing so. Clearly she otherwise came and went as she pleased and she clearly had very nice and expensive material items....it does not sound like he denied her too much. He put the brakes on spending...what spouse would not when the marital debt had reached maximum overload?

I am in bold...

 

[SleuthyGal]

He put the brakes on spending...what spouse would not when the marital debt had reached maximum overload?

I can understand putting brakes on spending, as that is common sense. Someone has a specific amount of money to spend and that's all they've got on that thing (be it a party or decorations or whatever). And they make their choice of what to purchase within the amount they have to spend. That's how normal budget controls work. In fact that's the very technique many parents use with their kids (not to mention it's used in corporations)! You then have to prioritize what's really important since all you have to spend is $*advertiser censored*.

What I don't understand is the need to follow and supervise every little purchase (eg. saying NO to a $2 balloon for the Bday party?) That to me implies a level of control that is not about the money as much as it is about exerting dominance. Because not only was Brad controlling the spending, but he was controlling exactly what items were purchased within the spending AND he was SPENDING HIS TIME (the most valuable thing of all) following Nancy & Krista to each of their stops where he would then decide exactly what Nancy could and could not purchase. And deciding how much gas he would put in Nancy's car? Talk about PETTY! The car would always need gas. If you have a car and you intend to use it then it requires gas. Each and every time, no exceptions. It's not even a maybe. Was he afraid that Nancy would load up the kids and escape if she had a full tank of gas at one time?

He could have handed Nancy $100 and given her that as a budget for the party, including cake and cups and whatnot and she would have to live within that budget since that's all she had and make choices of how to spend that money. Did Brad REALLY care about a $2 balloon? Heck no. He wanted to show who was the 'alpha' and he felt compelled to demonstrate his 'alphaness' over and over.

 

[hroark2112]

I'm not trying to defend BC here...but after a while, $2 here and $3.50 there on top of $300 a week and paying for everything in the household (including her cell phone bill) gets old fast. It can become almost a game between two "adults" who are in that "pushing buttons" phase of a relationship. After a while, it feels like all you're doing is pulling money out of your pocket and it gets old.

As far as what the sister says NC said about BC getting mad if the sister put gas in the car, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second and say that it could very well have been NC giving her family more ammunition against BC for the impending divorce/custody/alimony hearings. Imagine her sister walking in & telling that story in front of a judge. BC is then trying to defend himself against that kind of stuff, and there's just no defense to it. He's screwed. NC was smart enough to know that. NC was also known to embellish things, and just how much BC 'controlled' her could well have been one of those things!!

I'm not saying that was what happened, but remember there are 3 sides to every story: HER side, HIS side, and the TRUTH. Unless you know the truth, you're hearing a story biased by one or both parties.

Just as an experiment, I'll volunteer myself here. If one of the lovely ladies on the board is up for the challenge, I'll volunteer to put myself in NC's shoes (figuratively, of course) and allow you to provide me with only $300 a week in allowance. All you have to do is keep a roof over my head and pay all the bills. As a matter of fact, I won't even withhold "favors" just to show my good intentions here Feel free to PM with any offers!!

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm not trying to defend BC here...but after a while, $2 here and $3.50 there on top of $300 a week and paying for everything in the household (including her cell phone bill) gets old fast.

I'm sure it does get old. Which is why it would make sense to put a specific amount of money in place for these 'other' things (like a kid's Bday party), and THAT'S the amount one has to spend on the party. Makes sense to me! If it takes $300/week to run the basic household (food, gas, stuff for the kids, etc.) and there's some additional monies needed for other things (like a Bday party event) then that would be a budget amount with monies decided and set aside. And if a spouse is incapable of living within the budgeted amounts then that's either too bad, or the budget needs to be examined/evaluated.

But SUPERVISING the purchase of a cup of coffee or a kid's balloon? Sorry, but that's about CONTROL of a person and not so much about the money at all. Nancy was not a child but she was treated like one. I know 12 yr olds who had/have more latitude in spending their allowance!

As far as what the sister says NC said about BC getting mad if the sister put gas in the car, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second and say that it could very well have been NC giving her family more ammunition against BC for the impending divorce/custody/alimony hearings.

Except that it couldn't really be a 'story' if Nancy isn't given enough money for gas AND Brad follows her and her sister to the gas station and only puts in 'just enough' for them to run some errands. That is behavior that Krista witnessed personally. Now, if Nancy was given enough money for gas and she instead chose to go shopping for a new dress or a new pair of shoes, well then, yeah, that could be a problem if she's using household monies for items not part of running the household.

Unless you know the truth, you're hearing a story biased by one or both parties.

Forget about what would make Brad angry or not. The truth is that he WAS following them to each location and making decisions at each place, and yes, this included putting gas in Nancy's car. That is a fact and Krista can be cross-examined on it. We can each decide if we think that behavior is appropriate or not, or controlling or not, but it was happening, and it was personally witnessed, per Krista's affidavit.

 

[rwesafe]

I can understand putting brakes on spending, as that is common sense. Someone has a specific amount of money to spend and that's all they've got on that thing (be it a party or decorations or whatever). And they make their choice of what to purchase within the amount they have to spend. That's how normal budget controls work. In fact that's the very technique many parents use with their kids (not to mention it's used in corporations)! You then have to prioritize what's really important since all you have to spend is $*advertiser censored*.

What I don't understand is the need to follow and supervise every little purchase (eg. saying NO to a $2 balloon for the Bday party?) That to me implies a level of control that is not about the money as much as it is about exerting dominance. Because not only was Brad controlling the spending, but he was controlling exactly what items were purchased within the spending AND he was SPENDING HIS TIME (the most valuable thing of all) following Nancy & Krista to each of their stops where he would then decide exactly what Nancy could and could not purchase. And deciding how much gas he would put in Nancy's car? Talk about PETTY! The car would always need gas. If you have a car and you intend to use it then it requires gas. Each and every time, no exceptions. It's not even a maybe. Was he afraid that Nancy would load up the kids and escape if she had a full tank of gas at one time?

He could have handed Nancy $100 and given her that as a budget for the party, including cake and cups and whatnot and she would have to live within that budget since that's all she had and make choices of how to spend that money. Did Brad REALLY care about a $2 balloon? Heck no. He wanted to show who was the 'alpha' and he felt compelled to demonstrate his 'alphaness' over and over.

All very valid points, but $1200 a month is not chump change. He could have possibly been miffed that all of that money was already spent. Additionally, if they had KL and the kids in the X5 and they were picking up supplies, they probably needed the extra car. I don't recall if he kids were with them or not before someone rails me for that. And yes, I can imagine that when you have screwed up so badly that you no longer have control of your life, you wife is leaving, taking the kids, the house is being sold, you have debt up to your butt crack..that you may be in bad form and make an issue with something as petty as a $2.99 balloon. All of it seemed a bit petty to me. But sometimes divorcing couples become petty about the most moronic things...

I just think it is a bit bizarre that prior to the divorce, friends blogged big congrats to Mr. B and talked about the wonderful parties that were held at Mr. B's house with food and fun and kids and then he dips his stinger in forbidden honey and suddenly he is a controlling, murdering *advertiser censored*....does not add up....I think if BC was as big a controlling *advertiser censored* as he is made out to be....those blogs prior to the affair and separation proceedings would have read very differently.....

 

[SleuthyGal]

All very valid points, but $1200 a month is not chump change.

Not to you and not to me either, but this is a guy who is earning $150K/year+! And by some accounts he made between $250K and $450K in 2007. And he is now spending $12K on psych exams and probably has already racked up $100K+ on legal bills so far. It wasn't that he didn't HAVE the money, it's that he wanted complete control of not just the amount of money being spent (which is valid) but he wanted to supervise exactly how it was spent, down to the $2 balloon. You may think that is normal behavior for separating spouses...I think it is not. I had more financial latitude and freedom of spending my allowance as an 8 year old than Nancy did her final 6+ months.

I'm looking at a pattern here. A pattern of escalating control over the mechanics of Nancy's daily life. Tell me what husband or estranged husband you know who would want to spend ANY time following his estranged spouse & her sister around and around as they purchased items for a kid's Bday party? I mean let's get real. THIS is how he wanted to spend his TIME?

He could have possibly been miffed that all of that money was already spent.

He was the working spouse and he had control of the monies. If there was overspending it's because HE enabled/participated in it. Following a spouse around and supervising $3 purchases does not fix that issue. He could have given her a debit card with a specific amount of money on it and she would have to live within that budget...and hopefully it was something they each would decide/agree on together. That did not appear to happen, but it's not like she wasn't capable of working a debit card. And if she had the card and spent all the money on items NOT for the household then S.O.L. baybee. She'd just have to wait until the next time and the consequence is the household would suffer until she stopped spending money on 'other' things not part of the budget. Or, she'd have to find other ways to earn money (which is what she was starting to do at the end).

I just think it is a bit bizarre that prior to the divorce, friends blogged big congrats to Mr. B and talked about the wonderful parties that were held at Mr. B's house with food and fun and kids and then he dips his stinger in forbidden honey and suddenly he is a controlling, murdering *advertiser censored*....does not add up

If you look at the timing of these various things...Dec 07 and prior things were, more or less, as stable as they were going to be. All hell broke loose after Jan 2008. Nancy decided to separate and the legal stuff started around March/April 2008. And from there it went downhill...all the way to her murder 3 - 4 months later. It's a progression of events, from what I can determine.

 

[hroark2112]

I'm sure it does get old. Which is why it would make sense to put a specific amount of money in place for these 'other' things (like a kid's Bday party), and THAT'S the amount one has to spend on the party. Makes sense to me! If it takes $300/week to run the basic household (food, gas, stuff for the kids, etc.) and there's some additional monies needed for other things (like a Bday party event) then that would be a budget amount with monies decided and set aside. And if a spouse is incapable of living within the budgeted amounts then that's either too bad, or the budget needs to be examined/evaluated.

Agreed 100%, there were probably much better ways of handling the issue. Giving her X amount of money to spend on the party would have been better. Of course, not killing her would have been better to, but someone did that too.

But SUPERVISING the purchase of a cup of coffee or a kid's balloon? Sorry, but that's about CONTROL of a person and not so much about the money at all. Nancy was not a child but she was treated like one. I know 12 yr olds who had/have more latitude in spending their allowance!

Adults do weird things when put into stressful situations. BC might have been a controlling *advertiser censored* for their entire marriage for all we know, and this might have just been one more way of controlling. Or NC had pissed him off so bad that he decided to embarrass her in front of her family. Games people play

Except that it couldn't really be a 'story' if Nancy isn't given enough money for gas AND Brad follows her and her sister to the gas station and only puts in 'just enough' for them to run some errands. That is behavior that Krista witnessed personally. Now, if Nancy was given enough money for gas and she instead chose to go shopping for a new dress or a new pair of shoes, well then, yeah, that could be a problem if she's using household monies for items not part of running the household.

Of course, since it was just her sister who witnessed this, it's still suspect (since she IS the sister, and obviously on her side). Maybe NC was already over budget, and he was pissed off about it? Who knows? He's not telling his side of that story unless he's forced to do so, and I doubt he'll do it in public. Without some independent corroboration, it's not THE TRUTH in my mind. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I still have some doubt that the sister's story is 100% THE TRUTH.

Forget about what would make Brad angry or not. The truth is that he WAS following them to each location and making decisions at each place, and yes, this included putting gas in Nancy's car. That is a fact and Krista can be cross-examined on it. We can each decide if we think that behavior is appropriate or not, or controlling or not, but it was happening, and it was personally witnessed, per Krista's affidavit.

Again, without some corroboration, I'm not sold. I've seen and heard way too many divorce stories from both sides and known that usually there's plenty of embellishment on both sides in order to make them look better.

I'm not 100% convinces that he did it, but I am 100% convinced that they both made plenty of mistakes at the end of their relationship. He's likely a total *advertiser censored*, she probably pushed his buttons plenty, and they probably pissed each other off a bunch. My ex-wife & I used to do lots of things before moving day came...just to piss each other off. The stories I could tell would keep you in stitches, and believe me, I have stories on both of us in that span of time. I was no angel back then. I can see how he could have been pushed into saying/doing some of the things he said & did (allegedly) short of laying a hand on her (which there is no excuse for, IF he did it).

 

[rwesafe]

Not to you and not to me either, but this is a guy who is earning $150K/year+! And by some accounts he made between $250K and $450K in 2007. And he is now spending $12K on psych exams and probably has already racked up $100K+ on legal bills so far.
That is not a valid argument. If I KNEW that I was not responsible for the death of my wife and despite that they took my kids away from me, if it took every dime I had and then some to get my kids back, you dang right I would spend it and forever live in debt if I had to.
He was the working spouse and he had control of the monies. If there was overspending it's because HE enabled/participated in it. Following a spouse around and supervising $3 purchases does not fix that issue. He could have given her a debit card with a specific amount of money on it and she would have to live within that budget...and hopefully it was something they each would decide/agree on together. That did not appear to happen, but it's not like she wasn't capable of working a debit card. And if she had the card and spent all the money on items NOT for the household then S.O.L. baybee. She'd just have to wait until the next time and the consequence is the household would suffer until she stopped spending money on 'other' things not part of the budget. Or, she'd have to find other ways to earn money (which is what she was starting to do at the end).

He said he offered to help her get a bank account of her own and also a debit card, but she declined to...he says he has email accounts of that discussion....so we will see....I doubt he would claim something like that if he did not have actual proof to back up the claim.

If you look at the timing of these various things...Dec 07 and prior things were, more or less, as stable as they were going to be. All hell broke loose after Jan 2008. Nancy decided to separate and the legal stuff started around March/April 2008. And from there it went downhill...all the way to her murder 3 - 4 months later. It's a progression of events, from what I can determine.

Everyday of life is a progression of events...it does not mean he is the one who killed her.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Again, without some corroboration, I'm not sold.

There is corroboration of at least one of these events in one of the friend's affidavits. I'm too lazy to go look but there is some independent corroboration (and by corroboration I mean personally witnessed by (at least) one of the affiants).

I've seen and heard way too many divorce stories from both sides and known that usually there's plenty of embellishment on both sides in order to make them look better.

I have too. However, how many of your friends/acquaintances going through a divorce have turned up murdered? In my case? NONE.

I'm not 100% convinces that he did it, but I am 100% convinced that they both made plenty of mistakes at the end of their relationship. He's likely a total *advertiser censored*, she probably pushed his buttons plenty, and they probably pissed each other off a bunch. My ex-wife & I used to do lots of things before moving day came...just to piss each other off.

I also am 100% sure Brad and Nancy pushed each other's buttons and enraged each other on a regular basis. I personally think Nancy did spend a lot of money on stuff, and I think Brad did as well. Their spending habits may have been typical, but it wasn't fiscally responsible. I wouldn't ever want to be with a spouse who saddled me with mounting (consumer) debt.

However, once again. Is your ex-spouse still alive? Not murdered? What about your friends who are divorced? Anyone murdered?

Well...Nancy was murdered. In a town known for its safety. You have at least 2 motives for murder, and likely more. However, forget ALL the motives and just follow the evidence as it emerges. Most of it hasn't emerged (yet).

 

[SleuthyGal]

He said he offered to help her get a bank account of her own and also a debit card, but she declined to...he says he has email accounts of that discussion....so we will see....I doubt he would claim something like that if he did not have actual proof to back up the claim.

Until I see evidence backing up his claim, I do not give this any weight at all. If he can produce the evidence, then fine. He was still giving her cash (at least he says he was). The only thing is, he can't prove what he actually GAVE her in the way of cash...he can only prove what he withdrew from his bank.

Everyday of life is a progression of events...it does not mean he is the one who killed her.

By itself no, it does not. But you were arguing whether his behavior was 'controlling' or not. And you made the assertion that his behavior was normal for people who are in a stressful divorce. And no, it isn't (normal). And no, it by itself does NOT prove murder...there will have to be evidence that links him to Nancy's death. But let's not pretend his behavior falls into the 'not controlling' and 'normal' range on the bell curve of divorce behavior. Beause as I see it, he is on the right of that bell curve. If he murdered Nancy then hopefully the police will find the evidence or at least enough evidence so that he can be prosecuted.

I believe he did it, but my belief is not legally provable yet...not by a long shot.

 

[hroark2112]

Neither of my ex-wives have been murdered, thank goodness!! None of my ex-girlfriends either. WHEW!! Of course, I'm not the kind to lay a hand on a woman, I've even been officially a victim of domestic violence (I refused to even raise a hand to defend myself, I just let her hit me until the cops got there. She wasn't that strong anyway, but I wasn't going to go to jail because she was nuts!) and I don't feel there is ever a valid reason, short of defense of my own life or my child's life, to strike anyone.

I think that right now, we have a bunch of her friends who have gathered together, some of his friends who have done the same, and a small bit of physical evidence. Nothing has come out so far that has convinced me.

That being said, when I read that her body had been recovered without running clothes on, it pushes me ever so slightly more towards the thought that she never left the house alive. IMO it's not a smoking gun, but it makes me go "hmmmmm" here.

 

[ncnative]

Logic and common sense explains why Brad followed Nancy, Krista, Bella and Katie around while buying gas and other supplies that day. There was no room for one more adult in the BMX5, unless they tried to squeeze between the children's car-seats in the back seat with them. Then they needed room for what they bought. What I am wondering is, did Nancy have to go through this on other occasions with BC following her to the gas station, etc.? If he did, then THAT is a bit unusual.

When I saw that Nancy used Restoration Hardware for paint, especially for painting a home to re-sell (instead of more affordable paint places, like HD or Lowe's), I balked at that choice. Then I thought, Krista is an interior designer. I suppose that Krista could have pre-ordered it with her own card, even from Canada and gotten her designer's discount. Designers get lots of discounts on furniture, wall and floor coverings, paint and the like. That's the only reason I could figure that they would choose such pricey paint for a re-sale prep.