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.