custody given to nancy's family

[reddress58]

I do find it strange though that there is outcry when people look at the affys and see signs of BC's guilt, but the same people who will outcry at that will then turn around and imbue KL with all kinds of intent (to 'steal'/raise NC's daughters) and they have never met her or her family.

It's ironic that one can have such great imagination when it comes to seeing nefarious actions on the part of NC's family, where no evidence of such exists, but at the same time they cannot imagine BC being involved in his wife's death, even though there is some circumstantial evidence that could at least give one some pause.

What that indicates to me is an inability (or unwillingness) to look at everything (or perhaps anything) with any level of objectivity. Why the lack of objectivity? Close friend of the non-suspect? Inability to understand different perspectives?

I would hope that the one thing everyone could agree upon is that whoever is responsible for NC's murder is properly determined and appropriately punished, even if it's a close friend who did the deed. And if that is not something that is wanted or is tolerable, then I suggest that person or persons have a whole different agenda and justice is not a part of that agenda.

Probably the best post I've read in months on this site. SG, this is exactly what I was thinking and trying to find words to express. As usual, you did and did it better than I could ever have. Thanks.

(my bolding for emphasis of my thoughts)

 

[Maja]

IMO, BC's lawyers have noted all along his inability to express real emotion and, in fact, his lack of it may do worse harm than good. Additionally, it may very well be it wouldn't "look good" for BC (via lawyers) to make it appear he was fighting for custody, when in reality he deeply knew he couldn't handle being the sole custodian alone and the suggestion his mother come help out didn't appeal to him either as he would perhaps be trapped with her. From what I gather, he may feel intimidated by her. But it looked good to suggest it to the court.

All in all, it appears BC is a deeply wounded man. His apparent lack of respect for life (Jennifer Windsor Ball's affidavit where she describes the events around her grandfather dying and BC not only didn't come to her but was gone three days, his described lack of evident emotional support during the loss of five babies during pregnancy, his non-presence at the memorial in Cary or Canada - despite "what everyone might think", his lack of visible emotion to date) really are deeply concerning to me.

When the decision to grant temporary custody to NC's family was announced, it just took my breath away and brought a tingling sense of peace to me, I didn't even know NC, but after following EVERY detail of this story since the day she was announced missing until this moment, I understand the passionate push for the right thing to be done in terms of her little ladies being in the next-best place.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Probably the best post I've read in months on this site. SG, this is exactly what I was thinking and trying to find words to express. As usual, you did and did it better than I could ever have. Thanks.

(my bolding for emphasis of my thoughts)

Awww thanks, Reddress! That made my day. :blowkiss:

 

[raeann]

It is very wrong to assume that the lack of emotional EXPRESSION equals a lack of respect for life or a lack of FEELING of emotion. Everyone responds differently to stress and tragedy, and no one has a right to say how anyone else MUST react or express themselves in any certain circumstance. I can understand that some might prefer that another person become distraught or tearful or hysterical over an event, because that is how they feel that they themselves would react. However, that does not mean that it is WRONG for someone to be stoic or quiet or withdrawn. For many people, grief is a highly personal thing, and showing it in front of others only makes the experience more painful.

 

[Maja]

It is very wrong to assume that the lack of emotional EXPRESSION equals a lack of respect for life or a lack of FEELING of emotion. Everyone responds differently to stress and tragedy, and no one has a right to say how anyone else MUST react or express themselves in any certain circumstance. I can understand that some might prefer that another person become distraught or tearful or hysterical over an event, because that is how they feel that they themselves would react. However, that does not mean that it is WRONG for someone to be stoic or quiet or withdrawn. For many people, grief is a highly personal thing, and showing it in front of others only makes the experience more painful.

You make a great point Reann. I am aware some are "blowers" and some are "stuffers" when it comes to dealing with challenges. However, the eyes are the windows to the soul and I've come to believe it's near impossible for them now to show indicators of what's going on inside. For me, it has been the overall look in BC's eyes. IMO he really has a very cold/distant look about him. Again, IMHO, BC is a deeply troubled man.

 

[shack]

You make a great point Reann. I am aware some are "blowers" and some are "stuffers" when it comes to dealing with challenges. However, the eyes are the windows to the soul and I've come to believe it's near impossible for them now to show indicators of what's going on inside. For me, it has been the overall look in BC's eyes. IMO he really has a very cold/distant look about him. Again, IMHO, BC is a deeply troubled man.

Of course he is a deeply troubled man. What man wouldn't be troubled. His wife was murdered LE thinks you did it. Now add to that his in -laws stab him in the back and take his children. Are you expecting him to have a twinkle in his eyes?

 

[justthinking2008]

Of course he is a deeply troubled man. What man wouldn't be troubled. His wife was murdered LE thinks you did it. Now add to that his in -laws stab him in the back and take his children. Are you expecting him to have a twinkle in his eyes?

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Not everyone shows emotion, that does mean that person does not care. I did not cry at mother's or father's funeral, my mother taught me not to cry or show emotion in public, she thought it was a mark of poor breeding. I do not like to be touched by people I do not know, nor do I touch people I do not know. I do not hold my husband's hand in public or put on any other public displays of affection or emotion, I just do not feel it is appropriate. I can fully understand BC's attitude and lack of emotional displays I would be no different. In the privacy of my own home I am very loving and affectionate with my husband and my children, but that is our place and time. So for all you huggy, warm and fuzzy folks, not all of us appreciate that kind of attention or even want it.

 

[Maja]

Of course he is a deeply troubled man. What man wouldn't be troubled. His wife was murdered LE thinks you did it. Now add to that his in -laws stab him in the back and take his children. Are you expecting him to have a twinkle in his eyes?

Shack,

You make an excellent point of drawing on the current events in BC's life. My personal assessment includes a chronology past behaviors as well as current. As articulated in my previous post where I highlighted my course of reasoning and how I came to my assertion he has been deeply troubled for a LONG time; perhaps his whole life.

 

[Maja]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Not everyone shows emotion, that does mean that person does not care. I did not cry at mother's or father's funeral, my mother taught me not to cry or show emotion in public, she thought it was a mark of poor breeding. I do not like to be touched by people I do not know, nor do I touch people I do not know. I do not hold my husband's hand in public or put on any other public displays of affection or emotion, I just do not feel it is appropriate. I can fully understand BC's attitude and lack of emotional displays I would be no different. In the privacy of my own home I am very loving and affectionate with my husband and my children, but that is our place and time. So for all you huggy, warm and fuzzy folks, not all of us appreciate that kind of attention or even want it.

Justthinking2008

I appreciate you articulating your personal experience with emotion/affection and how you express it. While you are not alone in how you show emotion, I cannot believe your eyes did not show any emotion (not necessarily in the form of tears either). I'm surmising if you were to ask someone close to you if they could see pain in your eyes at your mom and dad's funeral, they would say your countenance spoke. I can also imagine your eyes speak tenderness in public although you choose not to be physically expressive.

In BC's case there has been a haunting lack of expression in his eyes or otherwise. I would think at some point during the 7 hour video dep. he would have had pause for the "lump in the throat" moment, at least. I appreciate a forum where I can express my assessment/thoughts on this case.

Thank you again Justthinking2008, your perspective is valuable and I appreciate your views and wisdom.

 

[RaleighNC]

so - what's changed between when he AGREED to have the children with NC's family and now where he "wants" them back?

Certainly early on - he didn't necessarily feel that his inlaws were stabbing him in the back - because he let them take her. He also wasn't looked at as suspiciously as he is now.

IMO what has changed is that he's gone from "Husband of murdered woman" (sympathetic) to potential suspect (not sympathetic) So - trying to get kids back as "good father being wronged by family court system" could swing things back (to sympathetic).

I believe that he's using custody to force the hand of law enforcement and this legal issue is only a dry run for the legal battle - thus the unwillingness to take the stand and testify.

Sadly, I don't believe he sees this as about the girls, at all.

 

[SleuthyGal]

so - what's changed between when he AGREED to have the children with NC's family and now where he "wants" them back?

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information. The ultimate answer to this conspiracy may in fact lie in the world of Faye Resnick.

 

[shack]

Shack,

You make an excellent point of drawing on the current events in BC's life. My personal assessment includes a chronology past behaviors as well as current. As articulated in my previous post where I highlighted my course of reasoning and how I came to my assertion he has been deeply troubled for a LONG time; perhaps his whole life.

I wasn't aware that you knew him before and had the opportunity to look into his eyes. It was the look in his eyes that convinced you he is a very troubled person wasn't it?

 

[RaleighNC]

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information.

I can't get 4 people to agree on dinner and yet we've seen this plot masterminded internationally. These folks are missing their calling - I am thinking world domination and not just custody of a couple of minors.....

Thanks for the smile today. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[jumpstreet]

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information. The ultimate answer to this conspiracy may in fact lie in the world of Faye Resnick.

Not sure why, but for some reason, this theory seems incomplete with including the lady in the floppy hat...

 

[reddress58]

I can't get 4 people to agree on dinner and yet we've seen this plot masterminded internationally. These folks are missing their calling - I am thinking world domination and not just custody of a couple of minors.....

Thanks for the smile today. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

...more of a side-splitting laugh for me! :Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie:

 

[momto3kids]

Not sure why, but for some reason, this theory seems incomplete with including the lady in the floppy hat...

What's so sad about this theory is some actually believe it.
Kudos SG!

 

[momto3kids]

Some have also mentioned they think this was NOT NC body that was found and a coverup to get her to Canada.
So SG, toss the ME and LE into your conspiracy theory. :clap:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm just utilizing what has been provided by various WS correspondents in seeing the big picture here. The fickle finger of fate points anywhere (and everywhere). It simply must; there is no reasonable scenario that can include the husband's involvement. Nefarious, I say! A dastardly conspiracy of epic proportions.

 

[piedmont]

BC may be guilty, but what I've seen in his eyes is sadness. I'm sure there's plenty of anger and resentment in there too.

If I've got him somewhat figured out-public displays of emotion would be the last thing he'd want to do and would greatly resent being expected to do that. Not sure he would allow himself to feel much of anything except anger.

 

[momto3kids]

BC doesn't have to shed tears in order to express emotion. Emotion comes in many more forms than tears. Body language, words spoken, facial expression and responses displays emotion as well.

BC needed to get on the stand. Tell the court what his intent is when he gets his girl's back, what arrangements have been made, including both families in their lives, why he agreed to let them go to Canada in July, how he can't wait for his webcam visits to see them again....all the time he has his head tilted down and obvious to us he is hurting. They show him a picture of Bella & Katie and he smiles to say how much he misses them in his life. No tears, just moving testimony.

We have all done things we absolutely dreaded, but this is one time he had to put those feelings to the side and do what ever it took to get those girl's back.

It might, just might have changed his outcome, IMO.