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

[SleuthyGal]

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.

It's not just the lack of clothes...the woman who allegedly went for a RUN wasn't wearing socks or shoes. I expected her to at least be found wearing running shoes. And no, I do not believe that some random attacker felt the need to remove her socks & shoes (and disappear with her shorts, shoes & socks). Nope. Not buying it.

 

[hroark2112]

I may have to surf over to Craigslist to see if there's any weird guys with foot fetishes posting there. I'm sure there's several guys in Cary into toes. *ick*

I'd be pissed about the paint from Restoration Hardware too. You can get any color you want matched at Lowe's or HD, and if you're selling the house, you want to go as neutral as possible anyway. When I was house-hunting, I saw WAY too many people who had watched too much Trading Spaces. Bold if you want to live in it, neutral if you want to sell it!!

 

[rwesafe]

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.
If you read the last affi from JF, she said that NC told her that she was getting $300 a week from BC, but it just wasn't enough....I doubt NC lied about that to her friend....
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. Cause as I see it, he is on the far 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.Talk about splitting hairs....I said his behavior was consistent with most attitude of people divorcing. I personally have not seen any couple that was divorcing do so while holding hands and skipping around in glee. At least initially, there is a tendancy to be pissy and petty with each other.

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

I don't believe he did it, but as I have always said...I could be wrong.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I may have to surf over to Craigslist to see if there's any weird guys with foot fetishes posting there. I'm sure there's several guys in Cary into toes. *ick*

A foot fetishist might be into toes or feet, but running shoes or socks? Yeah, not so much. Have fun on C.L.! :bang:

 

[jumpstreet]

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

Good to know Sleuthy - thanks! LE definitely seems to be wanting/needing to get access to the stored text messages and contacts on NC's phone (in addition to her other personal address books). Do you think is just a 'routine sweep' of information - or, are they after something specific. If something specific, you think it pertains to BC, ... or hard to say?

 

[Anderson]

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...

Yes you are in bold!

You said:

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

If you had said many men repond with this behaviour, then I would have agreed with you, sadly (hopefully most would still not progress to murder and that is possibly the case here also). Your use of the word most suggests that this behaviour is normal. I have never seen anything that would corroborate this. Have you?

You said:

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.

I'm sure he wasn't. But I'm sure that he also wanted to get the best price possible for the house. He could have just said 'no' to the paint, and then they could have all moved on. You don't respond to how he followed them to the gas station and the store, rather than giving her money. I find this behaviour particularly controlling and odd.

You said:

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....

The point is she was trying to leave and he wasn't making it easy for her. This is controlling behaviour. Because it was indicated in the probable cause affidavit that BC had changed her plans to leave, I think that this is worth considering. LE certainly thought it was. Her recent plans to go to the beach etc. were not all that odd, especially considering that he had made it difficult for her to leave. She couldn't go back to Canada without the kids and he had control of one of the passports, which he has admitted by the way. I would think that was how he controlled whether or not she was able to leave him. Would you leave without your kids?

You said:

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....

This wasn't a court ordered mental evaluation. He paid for one that was not court ordered (his lawyers likely advised him to, but it was not required). He now has to have another one that has been court ordered, and will have to be paid for by NC's parents. The point is that it sounds like he may be spending much more than he needs to for a guy that is up to his "eyeballs in debt" (your phrase). Brad is also paying for other legal fees related to the murder before he has been arrested or named a suspect for that matter.

BTW, I believe that there were several friends that had noticed some things first hand, although not to the degree that Krista had. I believe that Hannah Pritchard was the friend that had read one of Brad's lists, which was very odd. Have a look. The initial friends' affidavits are worth revisiting for that alone.

Now, there may be other reasons to point to regarding Brad's potential innocence and I would really like to hear those arguments. I hold that it is very difficult to say that his controlling behaviour is normal in any way or consistent with his situation (ie., his wife was leaving him), unless you can show me something that indicates that most rather than many women have to withstand this. BC and NC both had expensive taste, so why single her out (is it because she wasn't contributing? - she couldn't work in the US)? For example, look at how much the ironman competitions cost. Someone has researched this and it is on this board somewhere -- very expensive.

 

[runr]

...with or without physical violence, does not mean BC murdered NC.

It also does not mean that he did not murder her.

Many of these "arguments" are assuming that these views (mine above) are mutually exclusive. There's a whole wide world of grey in between. What I am seeing is a lot of people who do not understand dysfunctional interactions.

Those of you who do understand these dynamics fail to see why those who do not understand them can't see your view, and vice versa. If you have ever been in the circumstances of being in such an unhealthy relationship--or have worked professionally supporting those who have--you will quickly recognize what was wrong in NC and BC's interactions.

Those of you who have not been in this cycle probably think, "She could have left whenever she wanted. He worked his tailfeathers off, and she was ungrateful spending all of his $$$. She could have left before they had children. She stayed with him and had 2 kids, etc."

It's just not that simple to someone caught up in these roles. Whether one thinks "he dunnit" or not, I hope that many of you learn a whole lot more about domestic violence. I just don't think you "get it."

And, for the record, I do not think we have any info available to the public at this point that lets us know who did this horrible crime. There just is not enough known (to us) to make that determination.

 

[Anderson]

...with or without physical violence, does not mean BC murdered NC.

It also does not mean that he did not murder her.Many of these "arguments" are assuming that these views (mine above) are mutually exclusive. There's a whole wide world of grey in between. What I am seeing is a lot of people who do not understand dysfunctional interactions.

Those of you who do understand these dynamics fail to see why those who do not understand them can't see your view, and vice versa. If you have ever been in the circumstances of being in such an unhealthy relationship--or have worked professionally supporting those who have--you will quickly recognize what was wrong in NC and BC's interactions.

Those of you who have not been in this cycle probably think, "She could have left whenever she wanted. He worked his tailfeathers off, and she was ungrateful spending all of his $$$. She could have left before they had children. She stayed with him and had 2 kids, etc."

It's just not that simple to someone caught up in these roles. Whether one thinks "he dunnit" or not, I hope that many of you learn a whole lot more about domestic violence. I just don't think you "get it."

And, for the record, I do not think we have any info available to the public at this point that lets us know who did this horrible crime. There just is not enough known (to us) to make that determination.

I agree that just because BC controlled NC this does not necessarily mean that he murdered her. I make this clear in my posts:

"Now, there may be other reasons to point to regarding Brad's potential innocence and I would really like to hear those arguments. "

I also agree that we need more information. However, there is still a lot of information out there that can be used for discussion (e.g., autopsy report, probable cause affidavit, HT videos and photos on his lawyers website, phone records, and so on). Of course the social context is also an important part of the discussion.

 

[jumpstreet]

I also agree that we need more information. However, there is still a lot of information out there that can be used for discussion (e.g., autopsy report, probable cause affidavit, HT videos and photos on his lawyers website, phone records, and so on)

Does anyone else find it somewhat surprising that LE didn't seek to get NC's mobile phone unlocked from day 1? Wouldn't this have been a reasonable step along the lines of being thorough, and "turning over all the stones"?

Regardless, any speculation as to what has triggered them to do so now? Was in something MH shared with them during his recent interrogation? Or - something else?

 

[rwesafe]

It's not just the lack of clothes...the woman who allegedly went for a RUN wasn't wearing socks or shoes. I expected her to at least be found wearing running shoes. And no, I do not believe that some random attacker felt the need to remove her socks & shoes (and disappear with her shorts, shoes & socks). Nope. Not buying it.

Maybe they had fresh paint all over them and had to be removed.....

 

[SleuthyGal]

Maybe they had fresh paint all over them and had to be removed.....

And how did they get fresh paint on them and when? And who removed them and why? And what evidence is there to indicate this? Where are these wet paint stains?

And how do you know that Nancy used her RUNNING shoes for anything else but running? Most serious runners do not wear their (designated) running shoes just around town or to do things like help friends paint. And even if Nancy did wear them for other things, she hadn't painted in at least a couple days, didn't help J.A. or anyone else paint that day or the day before, and any paint on her running shoes would have dried by Sat 7/12.

Nope.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm waiting for the theory to emerge that winged monkeys came down and took Nancy or that there was a martian invasion and little green men decided to try and set Brad up.

I know the conspiracy theory's coming, it's just a matter of time...

 

[rwesafe]

I'm waiting for the theory to emerge that winged monkeys came down and took Nancy or that there was a martian invasion and little green men decided to try and set Brad up.

I know the conspiracy theory's coming, it's just a matter of time...

Ummm....see this is a thread for those of us who are not convinced that Brad did it. If you are offended by the content in this thread, perhaps you would be happier reading elsewhere instead of attempting to insult those of us who simply do not believe there is sufficient evidence or plausible explanation to have him drawn and quartered in the public square just yet.....

 

[SleuthyGal]

Ummm....see this is a thread for those of us who are not convinced that Brad did it.

Ummm....yeah I know...I created the thread.

First you asserted that Brad's behaviors were not controlling, not abusive and were normal for a divorcing couple. And I think it's been proven that his behaviors were controlling and were about more than money.

No one is asking you to be convinced Brad did it; frankly, there's a lot more evidence that we do not know about yet. But neither is it fair to point the finger of suspicion on friend(s) of Nancy's as being responsible for her murder, when (so far) there appears to be zero evidence of such a thing.

There may not yet be enough evidence or facts that are convincing to you of Brad's involvement (or perhaps there never will be, I don't know), and that's fine. No problem waiting to see what facts emerge in the case; I'm waiting to see more myself.

However, trying to shift Nancy's murder to J.A. (which is exactly where you were headed with your comment), and which is based on zero known facts and merely fantasy, is offensive, IMHO, because it has no truth behind it that you can substantiate. If these claims can be backed up with some actual facts, then great. If they can't, then don't be surprised when people react (negatively) to the suggestions that J.A. or other friends were responsible for NC's murder.

Those of us who are considering Brad to be the possible perp are doing so based on the released documents, SWs, his statements, etc.

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm waiting for the theory to emerge that winged monkeys came down and took Nancy or that there was a martian invasion and little green men decided to try and set Brad up.

I know the conspiracy theory's coming, it's just a matter of time...

Objection! Move to strike on the grounds that this is a direct attack on those who don't share the prevailing attitude of the other threads.

 

[momto3kids]

I still wonder why BC wore long sleeves (including a jacket at times) the entire week NC was missing, found and identified. Now he's in short sleeves the 4x I have seen him as well as when Amanda Lamb went to his door, short sleeves. The only other time he has been in long sleeves is the courthouse, or his attorneys.

Long sleeves, mid July, hot humid North Carolina, who has proven he wears short sleeves I have seen myself...hmmm jacket worn during search, but in shorts not long pants, claims bugs are biting...I guess they only bite arms and not legs..ya right!

Oh that's right, Det Daniels must have lied about the marks he saw on BC neck.

 

[maconrich]

Many of these "arguments" are assuming that these views (mine above) are mutually exclusive. There's a whole wide world of grey in between. What I am seeing is a lot of people who do not understand dysfunctional interactions.

It's just not that simple to someone caught up in these roles. Whether one thinks "he dunnit" or not, I hope that many of you learn a whole lot more about domestic violence. I just don't think you "get it."

(respectfully snipped)

This is an *awesome* post and helps clarify the dynamics going on in this thread (and some of the others as well)! :clap:

Even people who have experienced domestic violence often seem to believe that it's black and white; and that all abusers / all victims have to fit the criteria they experienced in their own relationship(s). --That control equates to being bound and gagged; that abuse is obvious; that abused people never talk to others about the abuse or make plans to get out of the situation/relationship; that someone who has nice (materialistic) things surely isn't being abused, etc, etc, etc... Domestic violence is what they experienced and therefore looks a certain way.

And the same applies when trying to pigeonhole someone into a personality type or psychosocial disorder by using the definitions set out in the DSM-IV, or relying on limited personal experience. In addition to the fact that people who are diagnosed with said disorder may not display 3/4 of the criteria used to qualify them, the personality of the individual is totally overlooked. All people with, say narcissistic personality disorder, do not act or react the same way -- and to be honest there are so many just plain bs 'disorders' that it's getting next to impossible to be considered 'normal' anymore!!

Knowing the definitions can be helpful, and having been in an abusive relationship can be helpful - but that type of limited information and/or experience doesn't necessarily carry over to, or help explain, other individuals or situations. Just because B didn't act like the-one-person-that-abused-whoever doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

On the other hand, having been in a relationship with BC and knowing his personality and MO absolutely does help, and having been involved with someone who displays the same behaviors as BC can also provide a lot of insight. Plain and simple, we're able to get a more accurate view of their relationship by looking at how B treated N; B's attitude and actions; and situations others witnessed as well as those detailed by N herself. And understanding things like that as well as the methods B used to control N, how his mind works, what makes him angry, how he shows his anger, ect allows us to get a better idea if he was capable of murdering his wife. -- personally I do believe he was more than capable of it and most likely did it.


Stepping off of soapbox...

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't really know, but everything this man does certainly gets spinned by you as an inference of guilt.

AND, any of BC's friends who have filed support affidavits are automatically labeled co-conspirators or accomplices. This forum first latched onto SH as an accomplice, and now in light of MH's affidavit, he has been labeled an accomplice; both with no more evidence than that they filed affidavits from the offices of BC's lawyers.

 

[SleuthyGal]

maybe, just maybe, it might be he did not have any clean short sleeve shirts? That He might have been wearing a jacket because his shirt underneath was not clean?

According to Brad's affidavit(s) there was a lot of laundry being done that morning 7/12, both by he and Nancy, with Nancy starting possibly as early as somewhere between 4am and 6am, Brad making a trip for laundry detergent at 6:30ish, and Brad continuing the laundry throughout the morning as part of his cleaning during the 4 hrs before he started to look for a missing Nancy (according to his affy). I find it hard to believe that he didn't have any clean short sleeve shirts or Tshirts with all that laundry being done.

Speaking of clothes...I wonder what Brad was wearing at the party the night before and if those items of clothes are still in his possession? Focus has been on what Nancy was wearing but what about Brad? Did he change clothes after coming home with the girls? What about the clothes he was wearing when he went to HT at 6:20am and 6:40am?

 

[RaleighNC]

I think that the MH situation is a little different in that the police questioned him several weeks after the murder and it was seemingly focused on the cell phone - i.e. not just a random interrogation....

Something focused the police upon MH and the cell phone.... so it does lend itself to suspicion.