TX TX - Nicholas Barclay, 13, San Antonio, 13 June 1994

[Raine73]

Has Information about Nick's father ever came out

i dont think so. i havent found anything and i dont think Beverly really ever said anything about Nicholas's father. i think the only thing she ever said was that Nicholas never knew his dad and wasnt in his life

 

[Raine73]

i can relate to Nicholas in some ways. in 1985 i was 12 years old i was taken by CPS over lies someone told them. i was never abused by my parents in anyway shape or form this person who called CPS told lies that werent true but CPS took me anyways. they put me into foster care in my 1st foster home i was forced by my foster parents to call them mom and dad i did for a little bit but then i stopped and started calling them by their last name and they didnt like that and they still said i am suppose to call them that and i told them they arent my parents and that i will not call you mom and dad and then things went down hill from there with my 1st foster home i was abused by them i was chocked by my own hair by the foster dad he was a big dude and was a CO for a prison he worked for when i really acted out i was put in a small closet and kept there for 24 hours i was put in the closet so many times that i lost count. i had enough of being in that closet my foster mother tried to put me in the closet again i reached for a broom and i started hitting her with it to keep myself from going back into that closet i did it for self defense i was never a violent person i was trying to protect myself from her and the foster mom called CPS and got me out of her home. i tried to tell CPS that they were abusing me but they never believed me and that i was lying i lived with my 1st foster family from 12 to 13 but after living with my 1st foster family and CPS didnt believe with with the abuse i stopped trusting adults all together and built a wall up not letting anyone in. after i got kicked out of my 1st foster home i was sent to live in a group home i was bullied there by other kids and the staff would not doing anything about it so living in those 2 places i was a damaged child they did try to break me but i was too will powered to not let them break me i lived in the group home from 13 to 14. i was then placed into my 2nd foster home they were good people but they didnt know how to really deal with a damaged child like me. i got in trouble for smoking at the age of 14 i got grounded a lot for smoking but i still kept doing it. 8th grade i started hanging around bad kids i never got in trouble with the law but i did do somethings with the other kids that i shouldnt have in 9th grade i was still hanging out with the bad kids i started to drink with them and get drunk then a couple of months later i started taking pills(drugs) i guess when i started drinking and taking pills i was just numbing myself from everything i was going through cause i couldnt handle everything i have been through honestly i can tell you i didnt care if i lived or died i was raising myself since i was 14 years old i trusted no one but myself. my 2nd foster home never found out about me drinking or popping pills i hide those pretty well from them. when i was 17 i went to a friends house and we went to a concert that i never told my foster parents about i didnt tell them because we werent allowed to go to concerts and i wanted to go to this concert real bad but they found out and i got into trouble and i was running my mouth to my foster mother and i guess she couldnt handle my mouth anymore and she slapped me across the face and i didnt like that so i punched her in the face and i got myself kicked out of there that night i lived with my 2nd foster family from 14 to 17. i was then placed back into the group home from where i was before i still got into trouble there but i was in a more controlled place. i found friends that were bad kids i couldnt drink anymore but i still could get my pills i lived in the group home from 17 to 19 when i left the group home because i got tired of being told what i can and cannot do. i then moved in with my boyfriend a bad mistake on my life as a adult. i was still doing pills and started drinking again i wound up pregnant so i stopped drinking and doing the pills i wanted my child to not have drugs in their system. my son is what saved my life from going into harder drugs i havent touched pills for 32 years now. about 2 months after my son was born i started drinking again and i drank from the age of 20 to i was 34 the reason why i stopped drinking at 34 was i got tired of being sick from drinking. i will say this as an adult my life wasnt much easier i had to deal with abuse from the guys i was with. the saying goes what you learn as a child it is almost 99% it will follow you through adulthood with the abuse i recieved as a child it followed me into adulthood. i was damaged as a child and i am still damaged as an adult. i will always have trust issues because of what i went through. i was suppose to be protected with the people i was with but i was never protected so i had to pretty much fend for myself

 

[iluvmua]

I don't think Nicholas was a bad kid per say. He was 13 and going through not only puberty, but a lot of things kids his age should not have to go through ie parent/brother doing drugs etc.

His family makes him out to be someone he's not.

His behavior is a direct result of how his home life was at the time of his disappearance.

I don't think we will ever really know what happened to him except for theories

 

[Raine73]

I don't think Nicholas was a bad kid per say. He was 13 and going through not only puberty, but a lot of things kids his age should not have to go through ie parent/brother doing drugs etc.

His family makes him out to be someone he's not.

His behavior is a direct result of how his home life was at the time of his disappearance.

I don't think we will ever really know what happened to him except for theories

i totally agree with you. we will never know what happened to Nicholas because Jason is dead and his mother is dead those 2 know what happened to him. i also believe Carey knows as well but she will be just like her mother and take it to her grave. i can honestly say Nicholas family never really care about him and wanted him gone

 

[Noirdame79]

I didn't know Beverly had passed. Sad, since she may have had some knowledge of what happened. My heart breaks for Nicholas.

 

[Noirdame79]

i dont think so. i havent found anything and i dont think Beverly really ever said anything about Nicholas's father. i think the only thing she ever said was that Nicholas never knew his dad and wasnt in his life

I'm pretty sure Beverly was never married to Nicholas's father.

I don't think Nicholas was a bad kid per say. He was 13 and going through not only puberty, but a lot of things kids his age should not have to go through ie parent/brother doing drugs etc.

His family makes him out to be someone he's not.

His behavior is a direct result of how his home life was at the time of his disappearance.

I don't think we will ever really know what happened to him except for theories

This is exactly what I think. The negative way that the family speaks about Nicholas is a red flag in itself; it's the essence of victim-blaming. I hope that there will be answers, but of course, it seems much more unlikely now.

 

[Noirdame79]

The YouTube channel, True Crime Treadmill did an interesting video on Nicholas's case.

 

[Noirdame79]

i doubt we will ever know what happened to Nicholas. Nicholas's mother has passed away but i dont know when tho i got a screen shot from Careys's facebook page that their mother passed away. Carey only has 1 picture of Nicholas on her facebook page this picture is of Jason, Carey and Nicholas and in her comments to this picture some asked if the baby pic was of her son Codey and she said no it was Jason and Nicholas her half brother is what she said. she and her family are not searching for Nicholas at all there are no missing posters of Nicholas on her facebook page no nothing. this is so sad Nicholas had never had a chance this family didnt care about him and wanted him gone. i hope Jason and Beverly's souls are burning in HELL for what they did to Nicholas. both Jason and Beverly took to the grave on what happened to Nicholas. Carey is living the high life drinking and having fun

EDIT: you will have to click on the pics to make them bigger to see what Carey posted and then to see Nicholas

Wow. Carey is now a grandmother. She has a lot of older family photos, especially of her and Jason when they were young, but only that one of Nicholas. I noticed that she didn't put any description for that photo. So someone naturally thought that the toddler in the photo was Carey's son. This leads me to think that many of her Facebook friends don't know about Nicholas, or if they do, they make a point of not mentioning him. Heartbreaking. No other photos or mentions of him at all. I didn't want to think that she knew what happened, but I'm starting to think that she does. She made a point of talking about in the 2012 documentary how the family were the only ones looking for Nicholas, which doesn't ring true to me. Supposedly, most home video footage of Nicholas was lost in a fire and apparently only that one that was featured in The Imposter survives. There are only a few photos of Nicholas have been made available as well and I can't help but wonder if that is also deliberate. The family seemed quick to blame the police for not investigating immediately, but Beverly did wait three days to report Nicholas missing. This confirms what an extended family member told me a few years back - that the family isn't searching for Nicholas and hasn't for a long time. Nicholas and Karlie Guse haunt me. There is so much shady stuff about their cases, and it appears that no one is looking for them. That is just devastating to me. They deserve better.

JMO

 

[Noirdame79]

Beverly had a Facebook page as well, although she didn't post very often. Nothing about Nicholas on her page either. Her maiden name was Jackson (which is an uncomfortable coincidence for me as that was my paternal grandmother's maiden name). Carey's son Codey was supposedly close to Nicholas, but apart from one old family photo, he has no photos of Nicholas on his Facebook page and there is no mention of him at all. This is depressing. I understand that life has to go on, but they are acting as if Nicholas never existed.

RIP Nicholas. I hope you will be found.

 

[Noirdame79]

It occurred to me that as much as the family claims that they were the only ones looking for Nicholas initially (with the exception of Jason, who by accounts I have read, didn't seem to care that his younger brother was missing), and Carey complains that Frederic Bourdin gets most of the attention where the case is concerned, they haven't made any real effort to change that. With social media being what it is, it's surprising that they haven't taken advantage of it to bring more attention to Nicholas and his case, and they're not doing that. They also gave up looking for him very early on. 30 years is a long time, I get that, and I can see why they would want to forget about Bourdin, but unfortunately, Nicholas has paid the price, in more ways than one. How does acting like Nicholas didn't exist help the situation, unless it helps them to continue denial? Even if they believe the likelihood that he is deceased, you would think that they would want answers at least. The younger ones who were kids at the time of Nicholas going missing and when Bourdin doing his scam get more of a pass, but it's much harder to feel sympathy for and understand the adults. I'm of the belief that while they may not have known what happened to Nicholas at first, I think they either found out at some point or at least suspected what happened, but chose to deny and/or ignore it for whatever reason. Jason's behavior aside, the way that Beverly, Carey, and Bryan (Carey's ex-husband) acted during Bourdin's masquerade is strange and suspicious. They were uncooperative with the authorities, (who of course wanted more identity confirmation); they wanted the case closed and were resistant to any kind of scientific testing (blood and DNA). There's no reason for them to do that unless they had something to hide.

As I said before, while what Frederic Bourdin did was horrendous, without him, we likely would likely never even heard of Nicholas, although it's something of a double-edged sword. The fact that he continues to maintain to this day that Beverly told him that Jason killed Nicholas carries weight in my opinion, despite his con artist past, as he has served his time and has turned his life around as far as he is capable of doing, so I don't think that he has anything to gain by lying. Also, the fact that the private investigator, Charlie Parker, and the FBI agents Jack Stick and Nancy Fisher came to that same conclusion seems to strengthen that theory, even though they were unable to prove it.

Nicholas was failed by so many of the adults in his life, and by the time school authorities alerted Child Protective Services, it was too late. This quote from an old movie comes to mind, "Let's say a prayer for a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could."

This was one of the only instances of media attention Nicholas's case received until Frederic Bourdin came into the picture. It was featured, along with other missing children, in a 1995 youth publication entitled Our Voices. Notice that he is referred to as a runaway.

MOO

 

[Hitchcock3000]

While it's possible that Carrie knows what happened to Nicholas, it's unlikey she would know the answers to WHY, WHERE and HOW, which are equally important.
She had her own family, kids and life and wasn't living with Beverly and Nicholas (unlikely anyway).
Say like foul play was involved and Nicholas (assuming he's most likely dead) was killed on purpose, would Carrie know why? Does she know where his body is? How he was killed? If his death was accidental? If he was actually at the park with friends? What the violent arguments were about in his home? The answers to these question are all important.

Yeah, while it's possible Carrie knows or doesn't or suspects what happened, the only one I believe to have the true answers is Beverly, and she's gone.

 

[Hitchcock3000]

It occurred to me that as much as the family claims that they were the only ones looking for Nicholas initially (with the exception of Jason, who by accounts I have read, didn't seem to care that his younger brother was missing), and Carey complains that Frederic Bourdin gets most of the attention where the case is concerned, they haven't made any real effort to change that. With social media being what it is, it's surprising that they haven't taken advantage of it to bring more attention to Nicholas and his case, and they're not doing that. They also gave up looking for him very early on. 30 years is a long time, I get that, and I can see why they would want to forget about Bourdin, but unfortunately, Nicholas has paid the price, in more ways than one. How does acting like Nicholas didn't exist help the situation, unless it helps them to continue denial? Even if they believe the likelihood that he is deceased, you would think that they would want answers at least. The younger ones who were kids at the time of Nicholas going missing and when Bourdin doing his scam get more of a pass, but it's much harder to feel sympathy for and understand the adults. I'm of the belief that while they may not have known what happened to Nicholas at first, I think they either found out at some point or at least suspected what happened, but chose to deny and/or ignore it for whatever reason. Jason's behavior aside, the way that Beverly, Carey, and Bryan (Carey's ex-husband) acted during Bourdin's masquerade is strange and suspicious. They were uncooperative with the authorities, (who of course wanted more identity confirmation); they wanted the case closed and were resistant to any kind of scientific testing (blood and DNA). There's no reason for them to do that unless they had something to hide.

As I said before, while what Frederic Bourdin did was horrendous, without him, we likely would likely never even heard of Nicholas, although it's something of a double-edged sword. The fact that he continues to maintain to this day that Beverly told him that Jason killed Nicholas carries weight in my opinion, despite his con artist past, as he has served his time and has turned his life around as far as he is capable of doing, so I don't think that he has anything to gain by lying. Also, the fact that the private investigator, Charlie Parker, and the FBI agents Jack Stick and Nancy Fisher came to that same conclusion seems to strengthen that theory, even though they were unable to prove it.

Nicholas was failed by so many of the adults in his life, and by the time school authorities alerted Child Protective Services, it was too late. This quote from an old movie comes to mind, "Let's say a prayer for a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could."

This was one of the only instances of media attention Nicholas's case received until Frederic Bourdin came into the picture. It was featured, along with other missing children, in a 1995 youth publication entitled Our Voices. Notice that he is referred to as a runaway.

View attachment 545733



MOO

I know it's not a good idea to trust a literal con artist, but during the Imposter 2012 documentary, Bourdin said that something happened inside Nicholas's house, that he was killed there. He stated that some family were part of it, some knew it and chose to ignore it. This kinda rings true to me.

 

[Hitchcock3000]

Wow. Carey is now a grandmother. She has a lot of older family photos, especially of her and Jason when they were young, but only that one of Nicholas. I noticed that she didn't put any description for that photo. So someone naturally thought that the toddler in the photo was Carey's son. This leads me to think that many of her Facebook friends don't know about Nicholas, or if they do, they make a point of not mentioning him. Heartbreaking. No other photos or mentions of him at all. I didn't want to think that she knew what happened, but I'm starting to think that she does. She made a point of talking about in the 2012 documentary how the family were the only ones looking for Nicholas, which doesn't ring true to me. Supposedly, most home video footage of Nicholas was lost in a fire and apparently only that one that was featured in The Imposter survives. There are only a few photos of Nicholas have been made available as well and I can't help but wonder if that is also deliberate. The family seemed quick to blame the police for not investigating immediately, but Beverly did wait three days to report Nicholas missing. This confirms what an extended family member told me a few years back - that the family isn't searching for Nicholas and hasn't for a long time. Nicholas and Karlie Guse haunt me. There is so much shady stuff about their cases, and it appears that no one is looking for them. That is just devastating to me. They deserve better.

JMO

I suspected that the fire was possibly deliberate. I know it's not good to have suspicion, but the whole thing is so shady and dodgy that I wouldn't be surprised.

The home footages shown looked to be randomly filmed at times, such as when it showed a woman drinking, I think it was Beverly, or a child playing on the ground, or Nicholas entering the house, or someone telling Nicholas to put the lighter away. If they're shot randomly, then perhaps some things were caught on camera that would look bad or were evidence to something going on in the home. Of course though, it's just a possibility and there's no evidence to back it up, but it's worth thinking about.

As for the photos, I've got two thoughts. It's slightly possible that maybe the photos could of caught something that wouldn't look good. For example, in this photo Nicholas doesn't look happy.

I know you can't know the whole picture from just photos but still. What if he had brusies in one picture or something of that nature? Not far fetched considering his school teachers noted it.

Another possibility is that there are few pictures of Nicholas available because they want to erase him from the public's memory, so the case is cold and forgotten about and the family can carry on with their lives in peace.
It's also possible that maybe they just didn't take a lot of pictures of him but that's hardly likely.

 

[Hitchcock3000]

Another detail that's nagging at me, and it's going to sound silly but idc.

I find it strange that among the description of clothes Nicholas was last seen dressed in, a small  pink backpack was among them. I know it's not against the law for boys to have pink items, but for a rough'n tough street boy like Nicholas to carry such a girly item is weird. Maybe because I can't imagine my own brother and father carrying such an item unless it was someone else's.

If Nicholas wasn't actually at the park that day and his clothing description was made up, then maybe that explains the pink bag. But then again, it's oddly specific so it could be true.

It's still a strange nagging detail to me.

 

[Hitchcock3000]

While it's possible that Carrie knows what happened to Nicholas, it's unlikey she would know the answers to WHY, WHERE and HOW, which are equally important.
She had her own family, kids and life and wasn't living with Beverly and Nicholas (unlikely anyway).
Say like foul play was involved and Nicholas (assuming he's most likely dead) was killed on purpose, would Carrie know why? Does she know where his body is? How he was killed? If his death was accidental? If he was actually at the park with friends? What the violent arguments were about in his home? The answers to these question are all important.

Yeah, while it's possible Carrie knows or doesn't or suspects what happened, the only one I believe to have the true answers is Beverly, and she's gone.

Forgot to add.

Something that adds to this is something Carrie said. She called Nicholas a street smart boy, now compare this to Beverly who said he would have definitely got in the car with someone he didn't know. Doesn't sound street smart, does it? Why two very different contrasting statements?

Carrie's statement holds more weight, I believe her. Nicholas often ran away from home, played truancy at school and somehow got tatoos, sounds like he spent plenty of time on the streets.

So why would Beverly say that? She most likely knows the truth to his disappearance and didn't want to reveal, and that statement was to derive from the truth and make us believe that Nicholas was naive and went off with a stranger. Compared to Carrie who was comfortable with her description of Nicholas, most likely cause she she didn't know and had nothing to hide or she suspects but knows less.

Also it's unlikey, imo, that Carrie would know if Nicholas's death was accidental or on purpose, what led up to his death/disappearance, who were the actual culprit(s), if more then one person was involved. She wouldn't likely know as she wasn't living there at the time (I don't think). The true answers lie with Beverly.

I'm still not going to lose hope on this case. Plenty of cold cases have been solved recently. Yesterday I read that a woman that went missing for more then 20+yrs, Melissa Montoya, a new lead has popped up. Plenty of cold case have been solved in unexpected ways, all it takes is time.

I won't ever forget this kid or lose hope on his case.

 

[Hitchcock3000]

One last thing I've been pondering is that when Nicholas called home for a ride and Jason told him to walk home.

Usually, when you're going out somewhere, especially for a kid, you naturally plan how to get home, such as by transport or getting a ride fron someone.

Wouldn't of Nicholas confirmed with Beverly if she would be available to pick him up after he was done? Didn't seem so since he called home for a ride for her to come get him. If not Beverly, why not confirm with Jason if  he could pick him up? If neither of them could pick him up for whatever reason, why did Nicholas go so far to play in a park that requires transport to get there? Did he not plan how to get back and just ran out the door? Added to this, no one has reported seeing a kid of his description that day (given what a poor job the police did at first, it's not suprising we don't have more information or confirmation of much).

 

[Noirdame79]

I suspected that the fire was possibly deliberate. I know it's not good to have suspicion, but the whole thing is so shady and dodgy that I wouldn't be surprised.

The home footages shown looked to be randomly filmed at times, such as when it showed a woman drinking, I think it was Beverly, or a child playing on the ground, or Nicholas entering the house, or someone telling Nicholas to put the lighter away. If they're shot randomly, then perhaps some things were caught on camera that would look bad or were evidence to something going on in the home. Of course though, it's just a possibility and there's no evidence to back it up, but it's worth thinking about.

As for the photos, I've got two thoughts. It's slightly possible that maybe the photos could of caught something that wouldn't look good. For example, in this photo Nicholas doesn't look happy.
View attachment 545799
I know you can't know the whole picture from just photos but still. What if he had brusies in one picture or something of that nature? Not far fetched considering his school teachers noted it.

Another possibility is that there are few pictures of Nicholas available because they want to erase him from the public's memory, so the case is cold and forgotten about and the family can carry on with their lives in peace.
It's also possible that maybe they just didn't take a lot of pictures of him but that's hardly likely.

It's always struck me that, apart from brief home video footage, there are no photos available of Nicholas truly smiling - aka showing his teeth. I noticed something similar with Karlie Guse. Does that mean anything? I don't know, but it's an interesting thought to pursue. As I said, apart from the occasional older family photo featuring Nicholas (which was posted over 10 years ago), the family doesn't post or talk about Nicholas or his case. By contrast, there are other older family photos posted that you would expect Nicholas to be in but he isn't. With the exception of one photo featured in the documentary, there are no other photos available of Beverly with Nicholas; and the photo that Carey posted of her and Jason with Nicholas when he was baby is the only picture that has been made public of Nicholas with his siblings. The family has never commented on what kind of relationship Nicholas had with his brother and sister - especially regarding Jason. So many things about that seem deliberate, I agree.

My opinion is that the family's real reason for agreeing to be interviewed for the documentary and The New Yorker article by David Grann (which ultimately backfired on them) was not to bring attention to Nicholas's case; it was to keep the focus on them as the victims and for them to try to get the public to believe their version of events; it has never been about finding Nicholas. The fact that Frederic Bourdin is a con artist who was convicted of passing himself off as Nicholas and committing passport fraud is another thing that makes it easier for the family to play the victim and distract the public from the case. David Grann's article is very well-researched and contains a lot of information that the documentary does not; I suspect the real reason why the family doesn't like the article, why they claim it's inaccurate and misquoted them, is because it revealed family dynamics, circumstances surrounding Nicholas going missing and behavior of Beverly and Jason that the family wanted to keep hidden. Carey commented on the message board for the movie inspired by Grann's article that the only reason the family agreed to be interviewed by him was that they were hoping that he would "get Nicholas's face out there." I probably don't have to point out the hypocrisy in that statement, since the family has done virtually nothing to keep his case alive, but it's always somebody else's fault.

On the DVD featurette of The Imposter (2012), the director Bart Layton and one of the producers, Poppy Dixon, confirmed that the family initially declined to take part in the documentary. Dixon stated that when she finally tracked them down, they essentially told her, "We think about Nicholas every day, we only recently stopped thinking about Frederic, and we don't want to go down that road again." Layton said that the family felt they had been portrayed badly in a previous media piece (obviously referring to the article by David Grann), so he had to reassure them that they would be portrayed sympathetically, and then they agreed to be interviewed. I think at that point, Layton was willing to say anything to get them to participate since he likely knew there would be no documentary without them. Someone who claimed to know the family attacked the documentary on the IMDB message board, claiming the private investigator, Charlie Parker, is a "fame hound" when in actuality, he is not only the one who was the first to unmask Frederic Bourdin as an imposter, he appears to be the only person who still investigating the case. Both this family friend and Carey not surprisingly have attacked the credibility of Frederic, basically referring to him as a "lying liar who lies" and that no one should believe anything he says, and of course, they are referring to his belief that the family has some involvement in Nicholas's disappearance or at least has more knowledge than they admit. The whole "the family were the only ones looking for Nicholas" and "there's no way that Jason would have harmed Nicholas" (which is also a mantra I heard from an extended family member) comes across as they doth protest too much.

I think Carey and Bryan (her ex-husband) may have some suspicions or at least had some idea of what the dynamic was that Nicholas was living in but they chose to look the other way. Denial is very high in this family, and the children were likely influenced and manipulated into believing that Nicholas was no good, and the family was better off without him, etc. I also agree that so much about this case, in particular, the story told about the day Nicholas went missing, is sketchy, shady, makes very little sense, and is unconfirmed by any outside sources. We only have Beverly and Jason's word, and they didn't report him missing for three days. Jason in particular, had a motive to lie and concoct a false story. Given the fact that he and his mother were addicted to illegal drugs, the domestic violence issues that had been noted by police, the notification of CPS by school authorities, and the upcoming juvenile court hearing (which was to take place the day after Nicholas disappeared), something was going to be exposed and a certain someone wanted to prevent that. I think Beverly stating that she thinks Nicholas would have gotten into a car with a stranger was not only to portray Nicholas in a negative light but to put the notion in viewers' heads that Nicholas was abducted, therefore diverting suspicion from the family. All very self-serving, to make Nicholas look like the issue, when he was the victim, in more ways than one. For whatever reason, the family chose to protect Jason instead of Nicholas, and that seems to have been a pattern.

There were only two other instances where Frederic Bourdin attempted to pose as a missing child, and in those cases, he was found out early on; this was the only time that he was accepted by the victim's family members, and he has even stated that he couldn't believe he got away with it; he knew he looked nothing like Nicholas. One of the fears that he had at first was that the real Nicholas would show up, but after being around the family, Fredric began to realize that Nicholas was not coming back, and the family knew it, they were pretending that he was Nicholas. There's also quite a bit of evidence (from more than one source) that Beverly knew all along that Frederic was not Nicholas. She also admitted to David Grann that before Nicholas went missing, she was considering giving him up to the courts. Nicholas was always the one who was sacrificed, mistreated, and neglected. It's terrible. Even now, he's an afterthought, if his family thinks of him at all.

A few years ago, there was a Facebook page dedicated to Nicholas's case that has since been taken down (a new one has replaced it). On the original page, Frederic Bourdin was commenting along with the aforementioned family member (a cousin on Beverly's side), specifically about Jason's behavior and whether he could have harmed Nicholas. (Surprise surprise, this cousin has nothing about Nicholas on his Facebook page). The cousin of course, defended Jason and said he wasn't capable of hurting Nicholas, but Frederic pointed out that while Jason was, in his words, "a good dude" when he was sober, whenever he was doing cocaine and drinking he became violent and dangerous, and Beverly said the same thing in The New Yorker article. I wish I had taken screenshots because it was a revealing and interesting exchange.

In 2012, Nicholas's niece (Carey's daughter) posted a photo of herself and her brother with Nicholas; as with the photo Carey posted in 2013, there was no description on the photo. These are the only pictures and/or posts of Nicholas by family members. We all know the saying, "Actions speak louder than words", but in some instances, it's what people don't do and don't say that sometimes speaks volumes.

MOO

That's Nicholas on the right (click on the image for a large view)



i

 

[Hitchcock3000]

It's always struck me that, apart from brief home video footage, there are no photos available of Nicholas truly smiling - aka showing his teeth. I noticed something similar with Karlie Guse. Does that mean anything? I don't know, but it's an interesting thought to pursue. As I said, apart from the occasional older family photo featuring Nicholas (which was posted over 10 years ago), the family doesn't post or talk about Nicholas or his case. By contrast, there are other older family photos posted that you would expect Nicholas to be in but he isn't. With the exception of one photo featured in the documentary, there are no other photos available of Beverly with Nicholas; and the photo that Carey posted of her and Jason with Nicholas when he was baby is the only picture that has been made public of Nicholas with his siblings. The family has never commented on what kind of relationship Nicholas had with his brother and sister - especially regarding Jason. So many things about that seem deliberate, I agree.

My opinion is that the family's real reason for agreeing to be interviewed for the documentary and The New Yorker article by David Grann (which ultimately backfired on them) was not to bring attention to Nicholas's case; it was to keep the focus on them as the victims and for them to try to get the public to believe their version of events; it has never been about finding Nicholas. The fact that Frederic Bourdin is a con artist who was convicted of passing himself off as Nicholas and committing passport fraud is another thing that makes it easier for the family to play the victim and distract the public from the case. David Grann's article is very well-researched and contains a lot of information that the documentary does not; I suspect the real reason why the family doesn't like the article, why they claim it's inaccurate and misquoted them, is because it revealed family dynamics, circumstances surrounding Nicholas going missing and behavior of Beverly and Jason that the family wanted to keep hidden. Carey commented on the message board for the movie inspired by Grann's article that the only reason the family agreed to be interviewed by him was that they were hoping that he would "get Nicholas's face out there." I probably don't have to point out the hypocrisy in that statement, since the family has done virtually nothing to keep his case alive, but it's always somebody else's fault.

On the DVD featurette of The Imposter (2012), the director Bart Layton and one of the producers, Poppy Dixon, confirmed that the family initially declined to take part in the documentary. Dixon stated that when she finally tracked them down, they essentially told her, "We think about Nicholas every day, we only recently stopped thinking about Frederic, and we don't want to go down that road again." Layton said that the family felt they had been portrayed badly in a previous media piece (obviously referring to the article by David Grann), so he had to reassure them that they would be portrayed sympathetically, and then they agreed to be interviewed. I think at that point, Layton was willing to say anything to get them to participate since he likely knew there would be no documentary without them. Someone who claimed to know the family attacked the documentary on the IMDB message board, claiming the private investigator, Charlie Parker, is a "fame hound" when in actuality, he is not only the one who was the first to unmask Frederic Bourdin as an imposter, he appears to be the only person who still investigating the case. Both this family friend and Carey not surprisingly have attacked the credibility of Frederic, basically referring to him as a "lying liar who lies" and that no one should believe anything he says, and of course, they are referring to his belief that the family has some involvement in Nicholas's disappearance or at least has more knowledge than they admit. The whole "the family were the only ones looking for Nicholas" and "there's no way that Jason would have harmed Nicholas" (which is also a mantra I heard from an extended family member) comes across as they doth protest too much.

I think Carey and Bryan (her ex-husband) may have some suspicions or at least had some idea of what the dynamic was that Nicholas was living in but they chose to look the other way. Denial is very high in this family, and the children were likely influenced and manipulated into believing that Nicholas was no good, and the family was better off without him, etc. I also agree that so much about this case, in particular, the story told about the day Nicholas went missing, is sketchy, shady, makes very little sense, and is unconfirmed by any outside sources. We only have Beverly and Jason's word, and they didn't report him missing for three days. Jason in particular, had a motive to lie and concoct a false story. Given the fact that he and his mother were addicted to illegal drugs, the domestic violence issues that had been noted by police, the notification of CPS by school authorities, and the upcoming juvenile court hearing (which was to take place the day after Nicholas disappeared), something was going to be exposed and a certain someone wanted to prevent that. I think Beverly stating that she thinks Nicholas would have gotten into a car with a stranger was not only to portray Nicholas in a negative light but to put the notion in viewers' heads that Nicholas was abducted, therefore diverting suspicion from the family. All very self-serving, to make Nicholas look like the issue, when he was the victim, in more ways than one. For whatever reason, the family chose to protect Jason instead of Nicholas, and that seems to have been a pattern.

There were only two other instances where Frederic Bourdin attempted to pose as a missing child, and in those cases, he was found out early on; this was the only time that he was accepted by the victim's family members, and he has even stated that he couldn't believe he got away with it; he knew he looked nothing like Nicholas. One of the fears that he had at first was that the real Nicholas would show up, but after being around the family, Fredric began to realize that Nicholas was not coming back, and the family knew it, they were pretending that he was Nicholas. There's also quite a bit of evidence (from more than one source) that Beverly knew all along that Frederic was not Nicholas. She also admitted to David Grann that before Nicholas went missing, she was considering giving him up to the courts. Nicholas was always the one who was sacrificed, mistreated, and neglected. It's terrible. Even now, he's an afterthought, if his family thinks of him at all.

A few years ago, there was a Facebook page dedicated to Nicholas's case that has since been taken down (a new one has replaced it). On the original page, Frederic Bourdin was commenting along with the aforementioned family member (a cousin on Beverly's side), specifically about Jason's behavior and whether he could have harmed Nicholas. (Surprise surprise, this cousin has nothing about Nicholas on his Facebook page). The cousin of course, defended Jason and said he wasn't capable of hurting Nicholas, but Frederic pointed out that while Jason was, in his words, "a good dude" when he was sober, whenever he was doing cocaine and drinking he became violent and dangerous, and Beverly said the same thing in The New Yorker article. I wish I had taken screenshots because it was a revealing and interesting exchange.

In 2012, Nicholas's niece (Carey's daughter) posted a photo of herself and her brother with Nicholas; as with the photo Carey posted in 2013, there was no description on the photo. These are the only pictures and/or posts of Nicholas by family members. We all know the saying, "Actions speak louder than words", but in some instances, it's what people don't do and don't say that sometimes speaks volumes.

MOO

That's Nicholas on the right (click on the image for a large view)



i

Nicholas not smiling, I think it does mean something but there's too few photos of him available to confirm it. In photos, Nicholas is either doing a watery-half smile or not smiling at all.

And there's also that photo with him sitting next to his niece and nephew where, strangely, he wasn’t smiling when his niece and nephew are. The Christmas one with him standing next to Codey, Codey is smiling and Nicholas isn't. All three photos of him next to the Christmas tree could be considered strange because it's, well, Christmas. How can a child not be happy?

The 5th photo of him, he definitely doesn't look happy.

Again though, while I suspect it could mean something, there's not enough photos to prove it.

 

[Noirdame79]

Nicholas not smiling, I think it does mean something but there's too few photos of him available to confirm it. In photos, Nicholas is either doing a watery-half smile or not smiling at all.
View attachment 546039
View attachment 546040
View attachment 546041
View attachment 546042
View attachment 546043
View attachment 546044
View attachment 546059
And there's also that photo with him sitting next to his niece and nephew where, strangely, he wasn’t smiling when his niece and nephew are. The Christmas one with him standing next to Codey, Codey is smiling and Nicholas isn't. All three photos of him next to the Christmas tree could be considered strange because it's, well, Christmas. How can a child not be happy?

The 5th photo of him, he definitely doesn't look happy.

Again though, while I suspect it could mean something, there's not enough photos to prove it.

This definitely was/is a family of secrets and denial. I can't verify this but someone on YouTube who claimed to know Beverly and tried to defend her revealed some interesting things. One of which is that her ex-husband (presumably Carey and Jason's father) was abusive to her, and the injuries she sustained from his abuse caused her to become addicted to painkillers. This would explain where Jason learned his violent behavior from; Beverly also told journalist David Grann that Jason once broke three of his father's ribs when he was high. Domestic violence and addiction appears to be the norm in this family. Carey does seem to have a close relationship with her father; she frequently posts photos of him, both old family pictures and more recent ones, which is interesting. As previously mentioned, Jason was smoking cigarettes as young as 13 and it was because of an accident that happened to him at that age due to smoking and lawnmower fuel that caused burns on his arms that made him very insecure. That alone shows the lack of parenting.

This person also stated that Beverly was sexually abused by her grandfather (who later committed suicide, supposedly because he was afraid of being exposed). I don't think any of this is far-fetched; it makes sense. While it doesn't excuse Beverly's addiction and the neglect of her children, especially Nicholas, it explains a lot. It also explains why the family is so defensive and downplays and outright denies so much of the dysfunction.

Poor Nicholas, he never had a chance.

The hypocrisy of the family complaining that Nicholas's case doesn't get enough attention and coverage is infuriating. They have done nothing to bring attention to the case; Nicholas might as well have never existed for them since they make a point of not posting anything about him, not even on his birthday or the anniversary of his disappearance, or anything that indicates that they miss him or think about him. it seems deliberate that apart from two photos uploaded over 10 years ago, all the other older family photos do not include Nicholas. Everyone failed Nicholas. Nobody put him first when he was alive and nobody has put him first now. He deserves better.

I agree that it's not out of the realm of possibility that this case will be solved. I don't think anyone in this family was/is a brilliant mastermind, they got lucky because of the lack of interest and lack of competency of law enforcement at the time. So, you never know. Fingers crossed that someday (hopefully sooner rather than later) there will be a resolution.

 

[Hitchcock3000]

This definitely was/is a family of secrets and denial. I can't verify this but someone on YouTube who claimed to know Beverly and tried to defend her revealed some interesting things. One of which is that her ex-husband (presumably Carey and Jason's father) was abusive to her, and the injuries she sustained from his abuse caused her to become addicted to painkillers. This would explain where Jason learned his violent behavior from; Beverly also told journalist David Grann that Jason once broke three of his father's ribs when he was high. Domestic violence and addiction appears to be the norm in this family. Carey does seem to have a close relationship with her father; she frequently posts photos of him, both old family pictures and more recent ones, which is interesting. As previously mentioned, Jason was smoking cigarettes as young as 13 and it was because of an accident that happened to him at that age due to smoking and lawnmower fuel that caused burns on his arms that made him very insecure. That alone shows the lack of parenting.

This person also stated that Beverly was sexually abused by her grandfather (who later committed suicide, supposedly because he was afraid of being exposed). I don't think any of this is far-fetched; it makes sense. While it doesn't excuse Beverly's addiction and the neglect of her children, especially Nicholas, it explains a lot. It also explains why the family is so defensive and downplays and outright denies so much of the dysfunction.

Poor Nicholas, he never had a chance.

The hypocrisy of the family complaining that Nicholas's case doesn't get enough attention and coverage is infuriating. They have done nothing to bring attention to the case; Nicholas might as well have never existed for them since they make a point of not posting anything about him, not even on his birthday or the anniversary of his disappearance, or anything that indicates that they miss him or think about him. it seems deliberate that apart from two photos uploaded over 10 years ago, all the other older family photos do not include Nicholas. Everyone failed Nicholas. Nobody put him first when he was alive and nobody has put him first now. He deserves better.

I agree that it's not out of the realm of possibility that this case will be solved. I don't think anyone in this family was/is a brilliant mastermind, they got lucky because of the lack of interest and lack of competency of law enforcement at the time. So, you never know. Fingers crossed that someday (hopefully sooner rather than later) there will be a resolution.

If this is all true then it certainly explains some stuff.

As cold as it might sound, and I'm not saying this to be callous, but it's mercy in a way that Nicholas is gone (I'm certain he's dead). Considering the indicators that points to Nicholas being neglected, abused and unwanted.

While I believe that Beverly loved him and perhaps the only one to do so, even she was considering giving him up to a home. Being abandoned by your mother would certainly do irreversible damage to a child. The family clearly aren't looking for him, either everyone looked away when it came to the unstable and dangerous enviroment home Nicholas was in or they just didn't have the knowledge to understand the severity of it. Several people have also commented how Nicholas seems to be possibly malnourished as he isn't the weight and height he should be for 13yr old. Beverly slept during the day and worked at night, leaving Jason to be the only adult present in the house and anyone can imagine how that must have been like.

The family choose to protect Jason and anyone else possibly involved rather than use their morality to bring justice and closure to Nicholas and his case. They've tried to erase his existence by keeping quiet about the case and if it wasn't for Frederic Bourdin, they would have gotten away with it.

So yes, Nicholas had no one, his own mother didn't want him anymore. What kind of life is that for a child? He was already having a horrible one. He was going down the wrong path, not of his own fault but due to not having the best environment or family to guide, protect, nourish and love him. How would he have turned out as an adult? Not that that should determine who deserves to live or die, but my point is that it would have been a life of pain and darkness, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.

We already see it with Nicholas who was raging and lashing out of pain, due to what he was going through.

I'm probably saying the obvious, but my point is that sometimes I think it's a mercy when an abused child ends up dying, how can you repair the damage inflicted on their mind and soul? (For example, Peter Conelly aka Baby P).
Some survive and lots don't.

Had Nicholas continued to live, he would have still been enduring loneliness (he was cleary unwanted and I'm sure he sensed that), abuse, pain and neglect and likely to a worse degree if he was abandoned and given up to some home.

Finally bringing to my point that sometimes it's, unfortunately, a mercy.