April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[otto]

I guess I dont agree with that..The Pros. stating he was a BAD DAD...The only thing being illustrated was that Brad had been an abscent father most of their lives (not to mention husband even prior to that), too busy working etc..( Not so different than many fathers ) and then how be BECAME a dad who then tried to assert power over Nancy using the girls to try and "emotionally hurt" Nancy...No where have I heard anyone say Brad did not Love his children..Brad's lacking was emotional attachment. That inability he has has been shown in alot of ways..lack of close friends, lack of long term relationships, lack of joining into a "Bond" with people in general..antisocial no, but very very introverted and difficult bonding with people in general for long periods.

Brad being that loner type personality in of itself is not evidence he murdered anybody. However, the litany of circumstantial evidence of his behaviors within his nuclear family unit and behaviors of control and growing hatreds, led to this...He had few abilities to control Nancy, as she was a natural social personality, had strong bonds with family and friends and her children..however money could control, ability to spy and know what she was doing, who with and when, know her plans and advice she was getting...Due to realizing he could lose everything IF he allowed Nancy to win this fight..was too much for him to handle..and lacking social skills he emploded and did the worst thing possible...

Sorry, I seem to be doing a little pontificating, apologize..but disagree respectfully that anyone is even suggesting he was a bad dad, or didnt love his children..but his type of love for some reason gets judged by some..which I dont necessarily believe in..however post Nancy's missing/murder..his role as father was in question as "Healthy"..IMO:seeya:

I notice that you equate Brad asserting his parental rights with being "controlling" and "asserting power" over Nancy. Brad has as much right as Nancy to raise his children. If it was Brad that was considering moving the children to another country and cutting Nancy out of their lives, would you view Nancy's objections as "controlling" or "asserting power"?

With the $300/wk, some might view that as unreasonable and controlling, but they were living a financial disaster, and were headed for divorce. Since a budget/finances is one of the main factors in divorce, it was necessary to establish how much money was actually needed once the money tree was cut down. That is, if Nancy could manage with $300/wk, then she would have difficulties justifying that she was used to more, or needed more.

If Nancy had been alienated from friends and family, that would be an indication that Brad was controlling, but implementing a budget and asserting his parental rights do not add up to being a controlling person.

 

[GhostCrab]

I think to a person we can agree that Nancy did not wear a halo, but does that mean she deserved death? Anything goes?

Nobody deserves to be murdered...that goes without saying. I am talking about how B and N treated each other starting in the winter of 2008 leading up to her death (her actual murder NOT included). There are so many references to how he treated her without keeping a proper perspective of their circumstances. And I understand the desire to have reverence for a victim but having that cloud something as important as discovering who killed her is not right in my opinion.

 

[GhostCrab]

I dont believe in my comment I even mentioned Nancy as sanctimonious..I said she was a social extroverted personality...anyway, Yes, Nancy was seeking separation and divorce and sort out of child custody...saw a lawyer, which her family gave her the money for..and Brad had no attny, his check or retainer given to his Family Law Rep...bouced..so no negotiations ever did get started..His knowledge of initial draft for separation he only saw, by having Nancy's emails copied and pasted to his email account...and the HATE grew from there...the "Breaking Up" of a family is always stressful, and in this case both adults showed complete lack of "communications" ..Nancy was able to vent her angers and distrust and frustrations to her network of friends and family, BUT Brad had NONE..He didnt talk to anyone, and he was unable to vent that slow burn and growing anger...

The old saying, the pot of water on a stove boils over when the lid is on, and it takes much more TIME to even boil if Lid is Off ..

You are presuming so much here. None of us were there so we have to go on what we KNOW to be true or draw reasonable conclusions and I don't think any of us know enough to draw the above conclusion. I have to say, with all the testimony that she argued at him and he never reacted to her, it might lead me to believe that he was less volatile than what he is being painted. I don't know either way but one guess is as good as the other with what the state has shown.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I notice that you equate Brad asserting his parental rights with being "controlling" and "asserting power" over Nancy. Brad has as much right as Nancy to raise his children. If it was Brad that was considering moving the children to another country and cutting Nancy out of their lives, would you view Nancy's objections as "controlling" or "asserting power"?.

snippeted with respect...

I did not equate Brad having his time with the kids as being controlling at all, and as a father he does have that right indeed..However, it was his manner as illustrated with the school parking lot, and drop off zones illustrated he went out of his way to expose the kids to angers....and I do believe his angers towards Nancy started to spill "outside the house" into public views. Nancy always said he was a good father, however in those last few months he actually used the girls to be hurtful to Nancy. IMO..Even the eldest child was exhibiting symptoms, being incontinent, bedwetting, hiding in corner when tension broke out...actually testified to by Krista L.

It had nothing to do with his parental rights, Brad could see his kids whenever he wanted...they lived under his roof. So when yelling matches directly affected those kids, Brad was oblivious of how it was affecting those kids...Sure sign he was losing control of himself.:banghead:

 

[RaleighNative]

You are presuming so much here. None of us were there so we have to go on what we KNOW to be true or draw reasonable conclusions and I don't think any of us know enough to draw the above conclusion. I have to say, with all the testimony that she argued at him and he never reacted to her, it might lead me to believe that he was less volatile than what he is being painted. I don't know either way but one guess is as good as the other with what the state has shown.

I agree, I think if anything, all evidence points to BC being extremely slow to anger, if anything. I don't think there was any domestic violence.

But I also understand the argument can be that things built and built and built until BC just snapped one night.

I'm personally on the "not guilty" side of the fence now. But no one is arguing that NC deserved this, or her less-than-perfect actions justify what happened to her.

I always thought I was techincally adept, but not since this testimony. Wouldn't we all love to know if a call origniated to BC from the home that morning, or if BC searched the dump site prior to the murder? I feel very ignorant. I need someone to dumb it up for me! :floorlaugh:

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'm still stuck back on the defense asking about a search of "178 Greenstone Lane" that they indicate may have been found on Brad's computer. It's certainly not in Wake Co.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Brad's late decision to be a better dad and involve himself with his children is tantamount to admitting he hadn't previously been a great dad. However, you could argue that it was a calculated move, made with the impending and very costly divorce looming. The existence of the French girl - maybe girlfriend, maybe not, but he did throw out there an email to her about relocating to France - is a good indication that he wasn't real sincere about being a better husband and father. Move to France? Really? That's part of your plan to be more involved with your children?

 

[otto]

snippeted with respect...

I did not equate Brad having his time with the kids as being controlling at all, and as a father he does have that right indeed..However, it was his manner as illustrated with the school parking lot, and drop off zones illustrated he went out of his way to expose the kids to angers....and I do believe his angers towards Nancy started to spill "outside the house" into public views. Nancy always said he was a good father, however in those last few months he actually used the girls to be hurtful to Nancy. IMO..Even the eldest child was exhibiting symptoms, being incontinent, bedwetting, hiding in corner when tension broke out...actually testified to by Krista L.

It had nothing to do with his parental rights, Brad could see his kids whenever he wanted...they lived under his roof. So when yelling matches directly affected those kids, Brad was oblivious of how it was affecting those kids...Sure sign he was losing control of himself.:banghead:

IIRC, you're referring to the testimony from one of Nancy's friends (the painting woman). IMO, she wanted to portray Brad as an absent dad who had no business taking the children to their school program. Another perspective on that would be that Brad was very interested in participating in his children's lives, and Nancy felt that he was intruding on her territory.

How would Krista know what the children did when Brad and Nancy argued? She wasn't there. She might be repeating what Nancy told her, but we know that Nancy embellished. Furthermore, if a mother observed that much distress in her own child, wouldn't she abruptly stop the arguing? If the children were in distress after their mother was murdered and they moved in with their aunt, that would be normal. That would be very traumatic for any child.

Yelling matches? Who claimed that they had a yelling type marriage?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you said that because Brad was asserting his parental rights and wanted to prevent Nancy from taking the children out of the country, he was controlling. They were living under his roof when Nancy was murdered, but if Nancy had her way they would be living in another country and Brad would have essentially been cut from their lives. It was Brad's right, and responsibility to his children, to assert his parental rights and ensure that he remained part of their lives.

 

[sunshine05]

Wanted to post a few points and welcome feedback from both sides on my thoughts. Basically it has to do with what I think is at the heart of the case, and what I believe are smokescreens.

1) Affairs/Infidelity - Unless there is the claim that one of NC's lovers, or a spouse of a lover, is the murderer, I think this is a smokescreen. It seems we have people on both sides of the fence pointing guilt/non-guilt based on affairs. However, it's shown that both NC and BC were unfaithful. And as far as the amount of affairs, it seems NC was the less faithful spouse in the relationship.

I honestly don't believe NC and BC were in love with each other - being together was mainly to preserve the family. It seems BC was really non-chalant about NC's affairs. And NC was outraged over BC's HM affair, but I don't think it was outrage over love. It seems more outrage over the humiliation of HM being her friend and BC lying about it. I think NC used it as an excuse to get out of a marriage she wanted out of regardless, and wanted to portray herself as the wronged party in the divorce.

2) Blaming the victim - this, understandably, is a hot-button issue. Many people on boards seem to attack NC on a personal basis - affairs, spending, lack of what some people perceive as good housekeeping skills.

I must say, this bothers me as well. Can you imagine one day your entire life being opened publically and under suspicion? I don't think any of us would come across as perfect. We all have faults and flaws.

3) Framing BC - I feel the CPD decided "Brad did it" and got tunnel vision. They lacked following up other possibilties (and more of that is to come with the defense presenting their case), and were simply incompetent in things such as erasing NC's blackberry.

But a conspiracy theory and planting evidence? I'm hard pressed to believe that. Was the CPD inept? Yes. Diabolical? No.

In the end, I think this entire case comes down to technology. Namely - Was there a call from the home to BC at Harris Teeter? and Did BC search the site where NC's body was dumped before the murder?

My take on it is that things were at least decent between them before the affair was confirmed by BC. I believe this because NC had her parents down for his MBA graduation and also had a party to celebrate it at their house at the end of '07. He bought her the diamond necklace she wanted. It seems (to me) that they had a pretty typical marriage prior to her learning of the affair. Were they "in love"? It's hard to say but I don't think they hated each other.

Even during the time after the separation draft, there are examples of BC doing things for NC that a hateful spouse would not do (such as picking her and friends up from the bar and driving them home because they drank too much). That is not "controlling"

I agree with you that NC had to be humiliated over the affair, especially since her friends knew about it before she did. I think that, if the affair was never confirmed, she would not have initiated a separation.

I think since HM was (is?) involved with JP, NC may have been in contact with him again in '08 to possibly get back at HM. Or, based on some of the information from the police interviews it seems something was going on. JP indicated that NC was spreading some information around about him that he was not happy with. These are the types of things that *could* make other people suspects.

As far as "blaming the victim", I haven't seen any of that here. While considering that BC may not have done this, one has to be open to other influences in NC's life. If we never discuss them, we can't really explain alternate theories. With a case like this, with no proof, I can't understand that everyone wouldn't be curious about other things that may have happened. It won't be justice for NC or her family if they got the wrong guy.

Regarding framing BC with computer evidence. This is an area that is pretty black and white. Either it occurred or it didn't. So far, it is looking like it DID. If that can be confirmed and shown in a clear, comprehensible manner that can not be refuted then it is what it is. I don't know (if it's true) who did it. Maybe it was police. Maybe it was the real killer. Regardless, it certainly changes things in this case.

 

[GhostCrab]

Brad's late decision to be a better dad and involve himself with his children is tantamount to admitting he hadn't previously been a great dad. However, you could argue that it was a calculated move, made with the impending and very costly divorce looming. The existence of the French girl - maybe girlfriend, maybe not, but he did throw out there an email to her about relocating to France - is a good indication that he wasn't real sincere about being a better husband and father. Move to France? Really? That's part of your plan to be more involved with your children?

Which counters the argument that he was upset that Nancy wanted to leave with the children. If this is the case, B is likely to have said good riddance. no?

 

[otto]

Brad's late decision to be a better dad and involve himself with his children is tantamount to admitting he hadn't previously been a great dad. However, you could argue that it was a calculated move, made with the impending and very costly divorce looming. The existence of the French girl - maybe girlfriend, maybe not, but he did throw out there an email to her about relocating to France - is a good indication that he wasn't real sincere about being a better husband and father. Move to France? Really? That's part of your plan to be more involved with your children?

They were going to split up, so that would be the time that parents adjust their routines and parenting responsibilities. I don't see anything sinister about that. It looks to me like Nancy was trying to stay away from home and keep the children away from Brad, while Brad was perhaps becoming more desperate to spend time with them. I recall the painting woman saying that Nancy and the girls were about to eat some kind of quick dinner at her house when Brad frantically called, wondered where they were, and insisted that Nancy go to another home where they were expected for dinner. Brad should have known where they were, and dinner plans should be known, but here we have a situation where Nancy, with the children, was kind of messing up a family plan to have dinner with friends.

 

[RaleighNative]

Wow, I'm impressed with this thread today! Different sides are making valid arguments and being respectful. Isn't that nice?

 

[Cheyenne130]

IIRC, you're referring to the testimony from one of Nancy's friends (the painting woman). IMO, she wanted to portray Brad as an absent dad who had no business taking the children to their school program. Another perspective on that would be that Brad was very interested in participating in his children's lives, and Nancy felt that he was intruding on her territory.

How would Krista know what the children did when Brad and Nancy argued? She wasn't there. She might be repeating what Nancy told her, but we know that Nancy embellished. Furthermore, if a mother observed that much distress in her own child, wouldn't she abruptly stop the arguing? If the children were in distress after their mother was murdered and they moved in with their aunt, that would be normal. That would be very traumatic for any child.

Yelling matches? Who claimed that they had a yelling type marriage?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you said that because Brad was asserting his parental rights and wanted to prevent Nancy from taking the children out of the country, he was controlling. They were living under his roof when Nancy was murdered, but if Nancy had her way they would be living in another country and Brad would have essentially been cut from their lives. It was Brad's right, and responsibility to his children, to assert his parental rights and ensure that he remained part of their lives.

Actually she was there for the incident she was describing. She had gone to stay at their house and help Nancy paint and pack. This was before the separation aggreement while the plan was still in place for Nancy and the girls to move back to Canada.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Which counters the argument that he was upset that Nancy wanted to leave with the children. If this is the case, B is likely to have said good riddance. no?

He was fine with Nancy leaving with the children until he saw the draft of the separation agreement. It wasn't about the kids. It was about the money. If he had to pay NC according to something like what was in the draft of the sep agreement, he'd have a dang hard time moving to France to live the life - as someone else put it here - of an American in Paris. It's expensive to move to France.

 

[sunshine05]

I should have made a point #4 - Domestic Abuse.

All evidence based on NC's friends and her own actions (saying she was not concerned with her safety) points to that BC had never been physically abusive.

I don't believe there was ever any domestic violence in their relationship.

I think more the point is - Did BC have all he could take and just snap one night in a rage?

I don't think BC did snap... but I can see that just because there was no previous abuse, it doesn't mean he's innocent.

Exactly. It's been shown in court that there was not domestic abuse. CPD wanted everyone to believe he snapped, so much so that Bazemore called this "domestic abuse of the worst kind". Was that fair to BC? That the police chief has already presumed his guilt based on nothing more than affidavits and interviews from her so called friends? Zero evidence. The media played up their press conferences and look at how much it has influenced so many people on this board. People can't even *consider* that maybe they got the wrong guy.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Need to add, too, that he saw the sep agreement because he cyber-stalked his wife, is an issue that should come into play. Especially with what the ex-girlfriend has had to say about his behavior when she broke up with him. Stalking there too. A certain kind of person stalks, you can read about it with a simple google search. If you google what has been mentioned about BC just today, by pro BC people... loner, outsider, not forming close relationships - but throw in stalking with the search - see what you come up with.

 

[LyndyLoo]

IIRC, you're referring to the testimony from one of Nancy's friends (the painting woman). IMO, she wanted to portray Brad as an absent dad who had no business taking the children to their school program. Another perspective on that would be that Brad was very interested in participating in his children's lives, and Nancy felt that he was intruding on her territory.

How would Krista know what the children did when Brad and Nancy argued? She wasn't there. She might be repeating what Nancy told her, but we know that Nancy embellished. Furthermore, if a mother observed that much distress in her own child, wouldn't she abruptly stop the arguing? If the children were in distress after their mother was murdered and they moved in with their aunt, that would be normal. That would be very traumatic for any child.

Yelling matches? Who claimed that they had a yelling type marriage?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you said that because Brad was asserting his parental rights and wanted to prevent Nancy from taking the children out of the country, he was controlling. They were living under his roof when Nancy was murdered, but if Nancy had her way they would be living in another country and Brad would have essentially been cut from their lives. It was Brad's right, and responsibility to his children, to assert his parental rights and ensure that he remained part of their lives.

BBM~ But Krista was indeed there at Christmas and the following March 2008 and witnessed precisely how the eldest was acting..Maybe you missed her testimony??..

 

[sunshine05]

Brad's late decision to be a better dad and involve himself with his children is tantamount to admitting he hadn't previously been a great dad. However, you could argue that it was a calculated move, made with the impending and very costly divorce looming. The existence of the French girl - maybe girlfriend, maybe not, but he did throw out there an email to her about relocating to France - is a good indication that he wasn't real sincere about being a better husband and father. Move to France? Really? That's part of your plan to be more involved with your children?

I don't believe it was a late decision. Where is the proof of that? The Lochmere clique's stories are not credible anymore so we need to step back and re-evaluate and stop pretending that everything they wrote in the affidavits is fact.

There is a poster here (CaryinNJ I think) who said she personally saw BC as an attentive, involved father on several occasions.

 

[RaleighNative]

Actually she was there for the incident she was describing. She had gone to stay at their house and help Nancy paint and pack. This was before the seperation aggreement while the plan was still in place for Nancy and the girls to move back to Canada.

I think KL was one of the better witnesses for the pros. After so many neighbors testifying to gossip, I found KL refreshing.testified to the daily phone calls she had with NC and her child - and testified to the child telling KL directly she was upset with her daddy, and what she heard on the phone (the child crying and upset).

 

[ncsu95]

Wanted to post a few points and welcome feedback from both sides on my thoughts. Basically it has to do with what I think is at the heart of the case, and what I believe are smokescreens.

1) Affairs/Infidelity - Unless there is the claim that one of NC's lovers, or a spouse of a lover, is the murderer, I think this is a smokescreen. It seems we have people on both sides of the fence pointing guilt/non-guilt based on affairs. However, it's shown that both NC and BC were unfaithful. And as far as the amount of affairs, it seems NC was the less faithful spouse in the relationship.

I honestly don't believe NC and BC were in love with each other - being together was mainly to preserve the family. It seems BC was really non-chalant about NC's affairs. And NC was outraged over BC's HM affair, but I don't think it was outrage over love. It seems more outrage over the humiliation of HM being her friend and BC lying about it. I think NC used it as an excuse to get out of a marriage she wanted out of regardless, and wanted to portray herself as the wronged party in the divorce.

2) Blaming the victim - this, understandably, is a hot-button issue. Many people on boards seem to attack NC on a personal basis - affairs, spending, lack of what some people perceive as good housekeeping skills.

I must say, this bothers me as well. Can you imagine one day your entire life being opened publically and under suspicion? I don't think any of us would come across as perfect. We all have faults and flaws.

3) Framing BC - I feel the CPD decided "Brad did it" and got tunnel vision. They lacked following up other possibilties (and more of that is to come with the defense presenting their case), and were simply incompetent in things such as erasing NC's blackberry.

But a conspiracy theory and planting evidence? I'm hard pressed to believe that. Was the CPD inept? Yes. Diabolical? No.

In the end, I think this entire case comes down to technology. Namely - Was there a call from the home to BC at Harris Teeter? and Did BC search the site where NC's body was dumped before the murder?

BBM. I don't think discussion on those items equals bashing the victim. I think it is fair game to talk about those things since each of those things is being used against the defendant in a murder trial.