I don't think that there has been enough evidence released to convict him. In fact - we've seen little evidence, really. We have only seen things related to the custody hearing and we've been able to glean opinions from that. We've painted a picture of what it was like in that relationship to the best of our ability based on witnesses, depositions, affidavits, etc. More like educated guesses - hypotheses.
We've asked questions, we've bounced ideas, we've brainstormed on scenarios - most likely similar to what the attorneys and LE have done, but they have the advantage of more privileged information.
The custody matter is the most bizarre twist in this entire situation - it's the civil before the criminal - and the evidence required to make a decision is only a preponderance and not beyond a reasonable doubt. So - it potentially is a harbinger of public opinion prior to a trial.
So - if a civil matter would find that brad did it based on 51% sure, and (for the sake of argument) a criminal matter would require something more like 95% (leaving 5% for reasonable doubt) I would be in the slightly more than 51% camp, but surely not enough to convict him in a court of law.
I've said before - and I am believing this more and more, that this was premeditated. call it a gut feeling, or whatever - but - based on his personality assessment from others, as well as his never mentioning when he planned to get Nancy her $300 (that was DUE ON FRIDAY and she was angry about), that things may have settled down enough that she stayed and was not afraid, that at first he said to go to Canada and then he changed his mind, and even after a going away party they were living in the home and the separation was not moving quickly - I think he eased up and decided that she'd not be getting a penny more from him.
The $300 weekly allowance pushed me over the edge. The day before her death, Nancy was mad it was late - shouting at him over the phone (or at least voice raised, all according to him). While also according to him she said he didn't need to come home from work, wouldn't the logical thing be to say "but you better have it when you get home" as a follow up before hanging up, or on that second phone call when he called her back during that argument? He stopped and GOT BEER for the party, but didn't swing by the bank? There's a Wachovia everywhere... He went to the Teeter to buy some things TWICE Saturday AM (wasn't this type of stuff supposed to come out of her $300???) and STILL didn't go to the bank? Wouldn't she have REALLY wanted it for the weekend? With him off to play tennis at 9 / 9:30 - she's surely have wanted it before he left, right? With this being such a bone of contention - she just didn't mention it again? How about before her run - i.e. "do you have my money?" or - "you better have it when I get back, because I need it so I can do things today"? Nancy was VERY focused on getting the money she was owed - you see this a recurring theme even in his deposition - she "deserved" an expensive necklace, or the $9000 painting or the BMX X5, etc. She simply would not have stopped talking about the money after she was so pi$$ed about it on Friday. He didn't have her money because he knew he was done giving her any. At the very least - she brought it up again on Friday night, and it was the catalyst for the murder. The core theme of this relationship seems to be money - who's got it, who's entitled to it, how much the neighbors think you have, what you can 'afford', who's it is, who's gonna have any after the separation, etc., and I believe is the main factor in Nancy's death. Sadly.
Again - the above is my gut feeling - but it is based on the depositions and the affidavits from BOTH SIDES and the picture my mind has painted with regard to their relationship.
