April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[GhostCrab]

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.

I don't really believe the it was the money argument either. This is a couple that spent years overspending living with the stress that such a lifestyle brings on. Then all of a sudden he switches gears and plans a murder to help him get out of a messy and uncertain financial future? I think that is just the state trying to fit a square into a circle.

 

[otto]

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'm inclined to think that it was Nancy's plan to leave the country, not the plan. For some reason, neither Nancy's family nor friends gave any thought to whether it was Brad's plan for Nancy to take the children out of the country. What we have seen from Brad is that it was his plan to keep the children in NC, and in order to accomplish that he and Nancy split the children's passport; each keeping one. I know that Nancy's friends and family have testified that Brad was just fine with Nancy and the children moving away, but nothing that Brad did confirms that. He bought an interview suit for Nancy, and talked about doing more to help her get a green card. Perhaps he had no objections to Nancy leaving, as we know that he raised the issue of a nanny for the children while they stayed in NC.

 

[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. That's what it comes down to me. And based on what I've seen in the trial, I believe the call was real. And I now have doubts about the google search. I'm certainly hoping the 2nd is cleared up in some way. I don't think the first will ever be.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

That was the same discussion where she said "NC could turn into a "monster", so KL told her she needed to keep running to keep herself calm.

 

[RaleighNative]

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.

I agree. As I've stated, many people damn BC for not wearing a halo, but give a pass to NC and that state of the marriage.

But my point is, anything perceived as bashing the victim can alienate people...and possibly a jury.

I do believe the defense needs to bring NC's skeletons out of the closet. I think it's necessary for a defense. But even if people (like me) believe that, it's not to say we think NC was a bad person, or deserved what she got, or that we're perfect.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

That's not true either. She showed it to him long before the intercepted emails about it occurred. He knew about it in April.

 

[Cheyenne130]

That was the same discussion where she said "NC could turn into a "monster", so KL told her she needed to keep running to keep herself calm.

Yes. KL was a very honest witness. She certainly wasn't embellishing just to make BC look bad.

 

[Shadow722]

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.

Bottle Cap,

Respectfully, is it your assertion that NC never, ever presented the first draft of the separation agreement to BC? If that's so why would NC pay a lawyer to draft something (the Sep. agreement) that's intended to go to BC, and NOT give it to him?

I do understand that BC might have seen a purloined copy "before" NC presented him with a real copy, but that's not what your alleging.

Could you please clarify. Thanks....

 

[Bottle Cap]

I don't really believe the it was the money argument either. This is a couple that spent years overspending living with the stress that such a lifestyle brings on. Then all of a sudden he switches gears and plans a murder to help him get out of a messy and uncertain financial future? I think that is just the state trying to fit a square into a circle.

All that previous spending was of benefit to Brad though. He got the house, the wife, the coupla cute kids, the status and the image. Hey Brad, that's the guy with a pretty wife and nice house and two sweet little girls. Future spending was going to be through the nose and with no personal benefit to his own self.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

It doesn't show up on wakegov.com, but it does show up in a google map search as being in Cary. I'm confused.

 

[otto]

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??..

I did miss her testimony. I haven't gone back to watch it because I suspect that it is a bit more slanted than the testimony of the friends. I've seen what people do in divorce in terms of negatively interpreting every single act and word, so I have no doubt that this is exactly how friends and family portray Brad. Any responsible parent that sees their own children in extreme distress during an argument should, by nature, stop the argument and attend to the child. Nancy's mother was at the house a couple of times, and she did not testify to yelling arguments or distressed children.

 

[RaleighNative]

I don't really believe the it was the money argument either. This is a couple that spent years overspending living with the stress that such a lifestyle brings on. Then all of a sudden he switches gears and plans a murder to help him get out of a messy and uncertain financial future? I think that is just the state trying to fit a square into a circle.

That's another reason I don't believe the pros implying money was the motive. They were clearly in a negative net worth. Therefore, divorce would mean half the debt would be the responsiblity of NC. With her deceased, all the debt ends up with BC....plus the added expense of taking care of children as a single dad.

And from all accounts in trial thus far, BC was not the most hands-on father (although not necessarily a bad father). I doubt he had any desire to be a single dad. So what did he have to gain by NC being gone?

 

[Bottle Cap]

Bottle Cap,

Respectfully, is it your assertion that NC never, ever presented the first draft of the separation agreement to BC? If that's so why would NC pay a lawyer to draft something (the Sep. agreement) that's intended to go to BC, and NOT give it to him?

I do understand that BC might have seen a purloined copy "before" NC presented him with a real copy, but that's not what your alleging.

Could you please clarify. Thanks....

What I'm alleging is that BC saw a purloined copy of a separation agreement, and the numbers rocked him.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It doesn't show up on wakegov.com, but it does show up in a google map search as being in Cary. I'm confused.

I got confused by that as well. Then I highlighted the image and noticed the "approximate address" line.

 

[LyndyLoo]

That's not true either. She showed it to him long before the intercepted emails about it occurred. He knew about it in April.

There is absolutely no testimony by any witness that this is fact, Kurtz is the only one floating that or maybe its just some posters speculating that was possible..But AS sent this attachment to Nancy on her supposedly secure email address, and also Brad's lawyer..however Brad lawyer never got paid ( retainer check got bounced)..then of course the copied email was found in Brad's mailbox in forensic search....

I would greatly appreciate if you could link to something that this was true..that Nancy gave him a copy??..

it is always possible she thought his lawyer gave him a copy, not realizing there was no lawyer??..

 

[ncsu95]

A friend that I have never discussed this case with posted this on my facebook page yesterday:

Gasp - sudden epiphany - you're ncsu95!!!

 

[otto]

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).

What was the child upset about? Isn't it true that young children decide that when a parent is on the phone, it's a good time to demand attention? I can't recall a phone call with a mother of young children that did not have an awful lot of noise and activity in the background - everything from laughing to crying, minor incidents of injury that were extremely important, spats between siblings and so on. In fact, I've spoken to moms of young children and asked why it is so quiet, and the answer is usually "I'm hiding in the bathroom".

 

[Bottle Cap]

There is absolutely no testimony by any witness that this is fact, Kurtz is the only one floating that or maybe its just some posters speculating that was possible..But AS sent this attachment to Nancy on her supposedly secure email address, and also Brad's lawyer..however Brad lawyer never got paid ( retainer check got bounced)..then of course the copied email was found in Brad's mailbox in forensic search....

I would greatly appreciate if you could link to something that this was true..that Nancy gave him a copy??..

it is always possible she thought his lawyer gave him a copy, not realizing there was no lawyer??..

My understanding is that it was a draft of an agreement for Nancy's eyes. Had she signed anything to be presented to him? She would have the ability, with AS as her attorney, to veto items in the draft or add to it. Had she had a chance to do that before her husband saw it?

 

[GhostCrab]

All that previous spending was of benefit to Brad though. He got the house, the wife, the coupla cute kids, the status and the image. Hey Brad, that's the guy with a pretty wife and nice house and two sweet little girls. Future spending was going to be through the nose and with no personal benefit to his own self.

There is just way too much speculation in this. You are making assumption after assumption. And for me it comes down to what do I need in terms of evidence to send this man to prison for the rest of his life and speculation such as this doesn't do it for me.

 

[otto]

What I'm alleging is that BC saw a purloined copy of a separation agreement, and the numbers rocked him.

That always happens in divorce, but negotiations transform that "wish list" into reality.