April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[zenreaper]

The problem with this is, Nancy had no way to support herself and her children. She was trapped in the house with Brad. those of us who want to leave our husbands, if all else fails, and we can't stand it, we can move out, get a job, rent a cheap place, and the hell with him. Nancy had absolutely no means of support in the U.S. and she couldn't go back to Canada with her children, she was TRAPPED. Now I don't know aboout the rest of you, but I can't stand being/feeling TRAPPED anywhere. I can't even sleep in a zipped up sleeping bag. I wake up clawing my way out of it, sweating, screaming. this is what gets to me the most about Nancy's situation. Being trapped, and being spied on in the most vile way. I don't think anybody wants to anoint nancy for sainthood. But nobody deserves to be controlled in such a way, nor to have their private mail read, listen to on the phones, etc.

See, I am not really sure where you get that from. Her parents loaned her thousands for a lawyer, why not enough for gas money to get to Canada? She is a Canadian citizen, so crossing the border with the kids in no big deal, she has all three passports (hers and the kids) until recently. So what trapped her?

 

[sunshine05]

It looks like the testimony from the gang of neighbors has been balanced by testimony from neighbors that knew Brad as a good dad that was involved with his children. The bug evidence was iffy when it should have been solid. The medical examiner placed the time of death as late as 7 in the morning. The early morning phone calls could have been spoofed, but the lead detective agreed that there was no proof. The computer search of the drainage ditch is on the computer, but there's a big question about the invalid time stamps putting the search on the last day that Nancy was seen alive. I'm sure you know Brad well enough to know that he would be able to hide evidence like that and be careful to make it completely disappear if that was his intent. I suppose I'm still waitng for some decent evidence making it obvious that he is guilty, but right now I see a lot of "maybe, possible" but no clear connecting of the dots leading to an obvious conclusion that he is guilty.

Good post! I just wanted to clarify one point - the TOD could have been as late as 11AM.

 

[sunshine05]

Or maybe he couldn't afford one. He's a smart guy, maybe he saw himself handling it on his own.

I'm not sure, but I thought there was information about BC trying to retain a lawyer, maybe even having an initial consultation and then the check bounced? Can anyone verify that?

 

[GhostCrab]

I think he bounced a check to Rosen. He seems to have not tried to hire another attorney. Some have made that into something sinister, but what I am suggesting is he realized he simply couldn't afford one and thought that he could go it alone. You saw in his depo where he talks about all the credit cards he's using to pay his attorneys. Guy was broke.

 

[zenreaper]

I'm not sure, but I thought there was information about BC trying to retain a lawyer, maybe even having an initial consultation and then the check bounced? Can anyone verify that?

I guess I have a problem trying to figure out WHY he did it, when we do not even knwo IF he did it. It starts to become a self fufilling prophecy. Normal actions, when view under the assumtion that he had just committed murder, become nefarious.

Perfect example, when he returned after driving around looking for NC, and entered the house with the cop. He went to the dining room table, and it was said, "See, he KNEW she was dead, so he didn't go check upstairs." When in reality, there were a SLEW of friends in front of the house and at least two cop cars, so if she WAS upstairs, she PROBABLY would have come down to see what was going on. They lambasted him for not calling the cops at 8AM. Why? What is he going to tell them? "My wife, with whom I am about to go through a divorce with, went for a run at 7AM, is supposed to be back by 9 or 930 so I can play tennis, and its 8 AM and she is not back yet..." What cop is going to take that serious?

 

[momof7]

I'm not sure if you know him personally, but I would find it impossible to make assumptions about one's coping skills, or even how you could classify someone as shy based on what we know from this case. Even with all the information I have read in this case, I could not assume things like that. I do know that he had plans to play tennis and he seemed active in Cisco volleyball at one point. He went away with his MBA class. He attended many of the Lochmere parties with his family. None of those things indicate shyness, to me. Or a lack of coping skills.

And not a single one of the them knew that his marriage was a mess. I haven't seen one person say BC told them what was going on in his personal life. Unless I have missed it, he is a private, personal person. Was he athletic and competetive, sure seems like it. I listened again to testimony from HP, CD and the Cisco friends. All of them said he would entertain the children more so than interact with the adults. To me, IMHO, he could have great difficulty in social settings. That is what I heard in the testimony. I take away something differently than you did.

Kelly

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think BC didn't consult with a lawyer and NC stopped communicating with her lawyer because NC was waiting to see what the options were going to be regarding a Green Card. She didn't dismiss AS because she was keeping options open.

I think NC also felt she had found somebody who was going to help her get out of her living situation and that is why she was voicing her hatred for BC so strongly that Friday. I think whatever that plan was, something went wrong, and that is how NC ended up dead.

 

[jilly]

***snipped respectfully for space***

Otto, one of the big things for me is what I call Brad's "original lie". Check out post 160 on the April 1st weekend thread. I really think it gives Brad as big of a problem as the computer search evidence.

OK - I was curious.........that post has been deleted for some reason.

 

[GhostCrab]

OK - I was curious.........that post has been deleted for some reason.

I think there was a typo that the poster cleared up.

 

[gracielee]

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.

Exactly, why is it so hard to believe a man who has a history of stalking, one who exacted excessive control over his wife, read her private mail, listened in on her phone calls so much so that nancy & her family knew he was recording them, why is it such a leap to murder?

 

[sunshine05]

And not a single one of the them knew that his marriage was a mess. I haven't seen one person say BC told them what was going on in his personal life. Unless I have missed it, he is a private, personal person. Was he athletic and competetive, sure seems like it. I listened again to testimony from HP, CD and the Cisco friends. All of them said he would entertain the children more so than interact with the adults. To me, IMHO, he could have great difficulty in social settings. That is what I heard in the testimony. I take away something differently than you did.

Kelly

Yes, it seems we do see it very differently. He even had lunch with co-workers that Friday. The thing that stands out to me is that he never told anyone about the marital problems but also never said one negative thing about her to anyone. Some people are not very open about their personal lives but that doesn't mean they are shy or don't have coping skills. It seems there have been way too many unfounded assumptions in this case.

 

[ncsu95]

But even with complete surprise, since there were no reports of head trauma indicating she was knocked out, regardless of the location, once the actual choking began, she would have responded physically, correct? I think she was either stopped or accosted (knife, gun, something), thought she could get away, waited for the opportunity, it never came.

As to WHO did it? I have my own speculation and reasoning, but I am not sure we are allowed to do that here, so I will refrain.

ETA: On the "World Class Athlete" thing, when you are fat and old like me, anyone who trains to run 26 miles without stopping, fits that category. I complained to my kids that I had to DRIVE 26 miles the other day, LOL.

I've done 26.2. I'm far from a world class athlete. :floorlaugh: (I'm laughing at me).

 

[gracielee]

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.

So why was it fine with Brad, why did he encourage Nancy & the girls to move to Toronto, UNTIL he saw the rough draft of a separation agreement? Numerous people, including Nancy's family, have said 'Brad set a date of the end of april, that he wanted nancy and the girls out by'.

 

[SleuthSayer]

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?

Not to nit-pick, but I don't think that anyone questions whether there was a call. The question is who or what made the call.

In any event, here is my opinion on these two issues:

The Call
Could he have spoofed the call? Yes. Did he spoof the call? Maybe, probably. However, as Don Rumsfeld would say, "It is unknowable".

If he did spoof the call with some kind of VoIP hijinks, then it definitely falls in to the category of "Going around you a$$ to get to your elbow" (if you are familiar with the old saying). He picked a really hard way to do it when he didn't need to.

The Google Search
I'm as cynical as anyone, but even I don't think that the CPD is so corrupt as to plant evidence. I will accept that they are sufficiently inept as to have unintentionally screwed up evidence (a la the Blackberry), but I don't think that they purposefully made up evidence or changed existing evidence.

I also find all of the theories about some neighbor or the "real killer" hacking in to his WiFi, then hacking in to his computer, and planting evidence there as something that looks good in the movies but is pretty far fetched in this case. I am an engineer and therefore have a lot of confidence in what you can accomplish through technical means. But, this is a bridge too far even for me.

Even if you assume that someone had both the skill and the motivation to do this, how did they know what dates to put on the planted evidence? How were they sure that they weren't picking a date/time when he had a solid, undeniable alibi of being somewhere else?

So my guess would be that if there is something "wrong" with the timestamps on the files, it is the result of some anomaly that happened on the computer as part of either normal operation or some type of poor handling of it. But, even to believe that, you have to convince yourself that BC is so unlucky that said anomaly just coincidentally resulted in timestamps that make him look pretty guilty.

MOO.

 

[GhostCrab]

Exactly, why is it so hard to believe a man who has a history of stalking, one who exacted excessive control over his wife, read her private mail, listened in on her phone calls so much so that nancy & her family knew he was recording them, why is it such a leap to murder?

I may have missed this, but is there speculation that he "stalked" her prior to winter '08? You really make it sound like he was doing this to N for years and years, but from what I can tell it was something that had developed during the time that they were divorcing and if that is the case I think to generalize his behavior isn't fair. And like a previous poster said before, divorce is war. I worked with a family law firm for one brief summer in grad school and the things that I heard going on between divorcing spouses were at times unbelievable. And I also saw many instances where the children were forced to into the middle or into some unfair role. Divorce is ugly.

 

[zenreaper]

Exactly, why is it so hard to believe a man who has a history of stalking, one who exacted excessive control over his wife, read her private mail, listened in on her phone calls so much so that nancy & her family knew he was recording them, why is it such a leap to murder?

Well, there are a few things to address in that. Was he REALLY exacting "control" over his wife? Yes, he took her off the credit cards and put her on an allowance, but did he do that for NO reason, or because they were on the verge of bankruptcy? He was the sole wage earner (not her fault, green card issue, I understand that) and they had two mortgages. She drove a BMW, got $300 a month, and from the sound of it, led a pretty active life, going to parties, drinking while he cared for the kids, etc etc. Honestly, I kinda wish someone would "control" me that way.

As for the Email forwarding and phone recording, well, it has been PROVEN, beyond a DOUBT that she was lying to their mutual friends and to anyone who would listen about his actions (ie, saying she only got $80 a week, etc) and now she was looking to get sole custody of the kids and move back to Canada, sticking him with both mortgages, child support and alimony. Is him recording her phone calls or reading her mail any worse than her turning the neighbors against him? She was building a "team" for the divorce, he was gathering evidence for the divorce.

 

[zenreaper]

I've done 26.2. I'm far from a world class athlete. :floorlaugh: (I'm laughing at me).

I don't like having to get up and get a BEER...

 

[momof7]

Yes, it seems we do see it very differently. He even had lunch with co-workers that Friday. The thing that stands out to me is that he never told anyone about the marital problems but also never said one negative thing about her to anyone. Some people are not very open about their personal lives but that doesn't mean they are shy or don't have coping skills. It seems there have been way too many unfounded assumptions in this case.

Not only did he not say anything negative, he said nothing at all. Nothing. IIRC correctly NC was calling his phone all day long wanting her allowance. He didn't answer until he went to lunch.

Yes, different interpretations. My immediate perception the second time listening to CISCO co worker was that he said nothing negative, but that he did not say anything at all..period. Nothing. Not even an innocent, 'Sorry, my wife is calling, I will be right back". Nothing. The co worker said something along the lines of BC saying do they mind if went outside and took a call.

 

[otto]

The problem with this is, Nancy had no way to support herself and her children. She was trapped in the house with Brad. those of us who want to leave our husbands, if all else fails, and we can't stand it, we can move out, get a job, rent a cheap place, and the hell with him. Nancy had absolutely no means of support in the U.S. and she couldn't go back to Canada with her children, she was TRAPPED. Now I don't know aboout the rest of you, but I can't stand being/feeling TRAPPED anywhere. I can't even sleep in a zipped up sleeping bag. I wake up clawing my way out of it, sweating, screaming. this is what gets to me the most about Nancy's situation. Being trapped, and being spied on in the most vile way. I don't think anybody wants to anoint nancy for sainthood. But nobody deserves to be controlled in such a way, nor to have their private mail read, listen to on the phones, etc.

Her parents gave her money, something like $20 or $25k. Why didn't she use that to rent a small place on her own? I agree that she was trapped in the sense that she was going to have a huge change in lifestyle if she moved out of the matrimonial home, but was she really trapped and unable to rent something else?

 

[Bottle Cap]

I may have missed this, but is there speculation that he "stalked" her prior to winter '08? You really make it sound like he was doing this to N for years and years, but from what I can tell it was something that had developed during the time that they were divorcing and if that is the case I think to generalize his behavior isn't fair. And like a previous poster said before, divorce is war. I worked with a family law firm for one brief summer in grad school and the things that I heard going on between divorcing spouses were at times unbelievable. And I also saw many instances where the children were forced to into the middle or into some unfair role. Divorce is ugly.

His history of stalking actually was brought up by me, and it was in reference to the girlfriend he had before he married Nancy. She broke up with him and he had to move out of her apartment. (Her, in that her name was on the lease and he'd moved in with her.) When she broke up with him, he took all his stuff, but all her stuff too. Then he continued to come into the apartment when she was at work, as reported to her by the neighbors. Then he moved back into the same building. That's when she moved to get away from him. That's stalking.