New "I'm not convinced" thread

Since the other one was locked (for good reason), let's start another and keep the personal attacks out of it.

I have watched 7 of the 10 deposition videos and I find his story to be credible. Obviously he is still the likely culprit because he is the husband, but I just found him to be forthcoming and credible in the videos. He answered every question clearly, without hesitation. So either he has gone over these "lies" so much that he believes them now, or he is telling the truth. I'm even more in the "not convinced" category than I was before.

Of course, I know this isn't a popular opinion around here.

I have really tried to wrap my head around all of these terrible events, and I just do not see how the information available at this time to the public could clearly indicate anything about the perpetrator.

Are there social circumstances and indicators of unhappy people? yes
Have we been shown any definitive evidence regarding the killer? not yet

I have remained open to the information as we know it all along, and continue to wait for info that may hopefully lead to justice for this family.

ncsu95 said:

Since the other one was locked (for good reason), let's start another and keep the personal attacks out of it.

I have watched 7 of the 10 deposition videos and I find his story to be credible. Obviously he is still the likely culprit because he is the husband, but I just found him to be forthcoming and credible in the videos. He answered every question clearly, without hesitation. So either he has gone over these "lies" so much that he believes them now, or he is telling the truth. I'm even more in the "not convinced" category than I was before.

Of course, I know this isn't a popular opinion around here.

Click to expand...

The only place I saw him forthcoming and credible was when he was speaking about his job and his financial situation since Nancy's death,and the painting. I'm not saying there weren't others and I have not watched all the videos yet. I do however think he is fibbing about Celine and Heather among other things. However the things that come to mind right now are the two of them. That does not mean he killed his wife. He did admit in his depo that Nancy and he were fighting on Friday because he did not bring her the 300 dollars as he was supposed to do. That to me is a double edged sword for him. On the one hand he wants us to believe that he wasn't controlling and on the the other he admits he is. I am about to retire for some date time with my hubby but I would like to contine to post with you on this thread tomorrow.

Topsail Girl said:

The only place I saw him forthcoming and credible was when he was speaking about his job and his financial situation since Nancy's death,and the painting. I'm not saying there weren't others and I have not watched all the videos yet. I do however think he is fibbing about Celine and Heather among other things. However the things that come to mind right now are the two of them. That does not mean he killed his wife. He did admit in his depo that Nancy and he were fighting on Friday because he did not bring her the 300 dollars as he was supposed to do. That to me is a double edged sword for him. On the one hand he wants us to believe that he wasn't controlling and on the the other he admits he is. I am about to retire for some date time with my hubby but I would like to contine to post with you on this thread tomorrow.

Click to expand...

I think that I view things differently because I'm a guy. I don't view the actions as controlling. Why would he lie about Celine and Heather? What would he gain from that? Him having an affair(s) doesn't make him an unfit father since the mother is deceased. So why would he lie? And why would he lie about something that others could refute.

ncsu95 said:

So either he has gone over these "lies" so much that he believes them now, or he is telling the truth. I'm even more in the "not convinced" category than I was before.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Given the 7+ hours of grilling by Nancy Grace, I think he held up remarkably well, and probably better than most.

Most responses, even though for the morning of the 12th, I thought, were remarkably straight, and as you say, without hesitation.

I wouldn't be surprised at all for him to set up an appointment to talk to CPD (with his attorneys) before the 16th...

PS: Thanks for setting up the thread again ncsu...... previous one brought a lot of good posts out (before it unraveled a bit)... agree, let's try to keep it on topic and respectful this time...

jumpstreet said:

Agreed. Given the 7+ hours of grilling by Nancy Grace, I think he held up remarkably well, and probably better than most.

Most responses, even though for the morning of the 12th, I thought, were remarkably straight, and as you say, without hesitation.

I wouldn't be surprised at all for him to set up an appointment to talk to CPD (with his attorneys) before the 16th...

PS: Thanks for setting up the thread again ncsu...... previous one brought a lot of good posts out (before it unraveled a bit)... agree, let's try to keep it on topic and respectful this time...

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that it is very important to be respectful. ...:clap:

One of the things that we can see after viewing the tapes (I am still working on this) is that there are many things that will come up in the custody hearing that we just do not know about yet. For example, as we can see from Ms. Stubb's questions, it seems that she may have talked to other people regarding this case, e.g., Celene. It will be interesting to see how that develops.

I know that this is a hypothetical question, but I am just curious about your answers. The question is, if Celene does speak in support of NC's family, and, if it turns out to be the case that Brad was not truthful, then what would this mean to websleuthers that are 'not convinced'? Would that alter your position at all?

I agree he was very calm and kept his voice even and composed. There were certain lines of questioning by Alice Stubbs that were so specific that I am positive she must have something that will be in direct conflict with some things he said, first thing that comes to mind is his rel'p with this Celine person. Stubbs' questions were numerous and specific and she ended her line of questioning by asking Brad if he thought Celine was an honest/truthful person and he said that to the best of his knowledge she was/is. So they've got something there...

I don't believe he was truthful on all answers and I think we'll learn more as time goes on. There are some inconsistencies in things he said in his depo vs. things in his affys and those things may prove to be significant.

While his voice was steady his body language was telling a whole other story. Sometimes he was calm and other times he was squirming and his hands were wringing--I take those as signs that go beyond mere nervousness and show areas where he might not be forthcoming. There are numerous studies that prove when someone lies, the telling of a lie itself causes physiological changes in the body and creates tension that has to be released in some way. Some people twitch, some shake their leg, some play with their hands, some make certain facial signals or shrug shoulders or a myriad of other things. I've done some reading on this subject and humans communicate nonverbally and that is 70% of the real 'message' vs. 30% of what is said verbally.

Anderson said:

Yes, I agree that it is very important to be respectful. ...:clap:

One of the things that we can see after viewing the tapes (I am still working on this) is that there are many things that will come up in the custody hearing that we just do not know about yet. For example, as we can see from Ms. Stubb's questions, it seems that she may have talked to other people regarding this case, e.g., Celene. It will be interesting to see how that develops.

I know that this is a hypothetical question, but I am just curious about your answers. The question is, if Celene does speak in support of NC's family, and, if it turns out to be the case that Brad was not truthful, then what would this mean to websleuthers that are 'not convinced'? Would that alter your position at all?

Click to expand...

I have no idea why the trip to France is even relevant. He has cheated on her in the past, so it wouldn't be groundbreaking. That makes him a lousy husband. It has no relevancy as to how he is as a father. It also would have no real relevancy as to whether he murdered NC or not.

SleuthyGal said:

I agree he was very calm and kept his voice even and composed. There were certain lines of questioning by Alice Stubbs that were so specific that I am positive she must have something that will be in direct conflict with some things he said, first thing that comes to mind is his rel'p with this Celine person. Stubbs' questions were numerous and specific and she ended her line of questioning by asking Brad if he thought Celine was an honest/truthful person and he said that to the best of his knowledge she was/is. So they've got something there...

I don't believe he was truthful on all answers and I think we'll learn more as time goes on. There are some inconsistencies in things he said in his depo vs. things in his affys and those things may prove to be significant.

While his voice was steady his body language was telling a whole other story. Sometimes he was calm and other times he was squirming and his hands were wringing--I take those as signs that go beyond mere nervousness and show areas where he might not be forthcoming. There are numerous studies that prove when someone lies, the telling of a lie itself causes physiological changes in the body and creates tension that has to be released in some way. Some people twitch, some shake their leg, some play with their hands, some make certain facial signals or shrug shoulders or a myriad of other things. I've done some reading on this subject and humans communicate nonverbally and that is 70% of the real 'message' vs. 30% of what is said verbally.

Click to expand...

I will admit that I didn't watch much of the video. I had it playing down in the corner while I worked today...so I listened more than watched. I know that I rarely keep my hands still when I'm in a meeting (much less a deposition...which I've never done). I'm continuously messing with something like a pen, or doodling, or whatever. I've certainly never killed anyone though.

ncsu95 said:

I have no idea why the trip to France is even relevant. He has cheated on her in the past, so it wouldn't be groundbreaking. That makes him a lousy husband. It has no relevancy as to how he is as a father. It also would have no real relevancy as to whether he murdered NC or not.

Click to expand...

I believe it goes to his truthfulness. He made the statement in his affys that he only cheated one time (with HM). If the plaintiff attorneys can show that he lied about that, it brings into question his truthfulness about other statements in his affys, including his actions involving the death of his wife. The implication being that if he'll lie about something that is not 'relevant to how he is as a father,' he'll also lie about something that is relevant (i.e. killing the kids' mother).

Also, the relevance of the one encounter he does admit to goes directly to his fitness as a parent: he and HM left 3 kids elsewhere in the house alone and unsupervised while he and HM had their tryst in the bedroom closet. There was no testimony that any of the kids were asleep--he says he doesn't remember where the kids were or what they were doing. So his and HM's actions directly impacted the well-being of 3 kids under the age of 5--not something any judge or court will take lightly.

ncsu95 said:

I will admit that I didn't watch much of the video. I had it playing down in the corner while I worked today...so I listened more than watched.

Click to expand...

Ahhh then you missed all the nonverbal communication, which as experts in communication will tell you, comprise at least 70% of what's actually being communicated. In Brad's case he doesn't always play with a pen or wring his hands. Those (nonverbal) behaviors are much more noticeable and distracting when questions concerning his whereabouts on the day Nancy went missing are asked, as well as during questions about his cleaning of the house, and other activities. It's not that he does it at all, it's that he does it inconsistently, and only during certain lines of questioning. And it's not just his hands but it's also his level of eye contact, facial movements, micro-expressions, pupil dilation, posture, cadence and tone of voice...those are all nonverbal clues that tell a full picture far beyond what words he's using, and those are the very things that one cannot easily control and in many cases cannot be controlled at all.

Anderson said:

if Celene does speak in support of NC's family, and, if it turns out to be the case that Brad was not truthful, then what would this mean to websleuthers that are 'not convinced'? Would that alter your position at all?

Click to expand...

To me, it seems that he has made the distinction between intercourse and non-intercourse. When he stated there was a single indiscretion in his affidavit, but then in the deposition described 2 other encounters (non-intercourse), then it draws this line of distinction for me. Nothing wrong with that per se I suppose.

If (hypothetically) Celene comes forward and testifies that there were some encounters (but non-intercourse), then I suppose it would depend on the nature of the encounters. as to whether he should have (himself) drawn her into this thing earlier.

Even with that said, even if it comes out that there have been other indiscretions that he did not admit to, I don't know that this alone would significantly alter my position of being not fully convinced that he committed the crime in question.

He said in the deposition that he did not "open-mouth" kiss Celene. At most, he said he kissed her on the cheek, which is custom in France.

SleuthyGal said:

I believe it goes to his truthfulness. He made the statement in his affys that he only cheated one time (with HM). If the plaintiff attorneys can show that he lied about that, it brings into question his truthfulness about other statements in his affys, including his actions involving the death of his wife. The implication being that if he'll lie about something that is not 'relevant to how he is as a father,' he'll also lie about something that is relevant (i.e. killing the kids' mother).

Also, the relevance of the one encounter he does admit to goes directly to his fitness as a parent: he and HM left 3 kids elsewhere in the house alone and unsupervised while he and HM had their tryst in the bedroom closet. There was no testimony that any of the kids were asleep--he says he doesn't remember where the kids were or what they were doing. So his and HM's actions directly impacted the well-being of 3 kids under the age of 5--not something any judge or court will take lightly.

Click to expand...

That is very well put. Great points about the 'tryst' with HM, and the possibility that the kids may have been present. This was another thing that was in the friends' affidavits. And BC doesn't exclude the possibility that the kids were present in his answer. It is sometimes important to look at what Brad doesn't say in his answers.

If he turns out to be lying in some cases, such as the discussion on Celene, then it is very difficult to characterize Brad as "forthcoming" in his answers.

IMO

jumpstreet said:

To me, it seems that he has made the distinction between intercourse and non-intercourse. When he stated there was a single indiscretion in his affidavit, but then in the deposition described 2 other encounters (non-intercourse), then it draws this line of distinction for me. Nothing wrong with that per se I suppose.

If (hypothetically) Celene comes forward and testifies that there were some encounters (but non-intercourse), then I suppose it would depend on the nature of the encounters. as to whether he should have (himself) drawn her into this thing earlier.

Even with that said, even if it comes out that there have been other indiscretions that he did not admit to, I don't know that this alone would significantly alter my position of being not fully convinced that he committed the crime in question.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

If Brad lied about what his degree of involvement with Celene, then that could only happen if Celene comes forward. Ms. Stubbs asked him if he thought that Celene is a truthful person. I think that there must be something behind that question.

Okay, Jump, let me ask you two other questions: If it turns out that BC has not told the truth several times in his statements, then would that alter your position? If it turns out that Brad has changed his story from his original statements to LE, then would that change your position?

I have in mind that LE has already indicated that some of the answers do not match with Brad's earlier statements. We don't know exactly what that is meant by that, as far as I know. Chief Bazemore has said that they still do not want to jeopardize their investigation.

Anderson said:

Okay, Jump, let me ask you two other questions: If it turns out that BC has not told the truth several times in his statements, then would that alter your position? If it turns out that Brad has changed his story from his original statements to LE, then would that change your position?

Click to expand...

Good questions Anderson! In general, my position remains: "BC may very well be innocent".
Being a "benefit-of-the-doubt" type of person by nature, in order for that position to change substantially, I'll need to have information which essentially leaves no room to reasonably conclude he may be innocent.

To answer your specific question, [ what if we find out he systemically hasn't told the truth ] it would basically "depend on the specifics". .

Certainly (again, being a 'benefit-of-the-doubt' type of person), I can conceive of a scenario, where under the distress of wife being found missing/murdered, kids being ripped away by the police, and the overall stress of a situation... that one may have not been completely coherent all initial off-the-cuff responses. I could allow ample room for subsequent clarifications if that's the way it ends up going.

I understand being a 'benefit of the doubt' type of person may put me in the minority on WS... but hopefully the above at least explains how I'm at my current position, and what it would take to change that.

Much has been made of NC having to take a taxi to the hospital during a miscarriage. People say that is a sign of lack of caring and control. Let's think about this for a bit.

At the time, they had only one car. He said he sometimes worked from home and other times went to the office. Perhaps that was one of his office days.

Do you think he drove the car that day *knowing* she was going to miscarry?

He worked in RTP which is a often 30-minute drive from their home. Would those who denigrate him for having her take a taxi have preferred that she wait for 30 minutes for him to get home to her to the hospital that is five minutes away? Were it my wife, I'd ask her to get to the hospital as soon as practical (911 if necessary) and that I would meet her there. A taxi (or a friend/neighbor) would likely have her at the hospital even before he would be able to get home. The taxi rumor does not say anything other than she had to take a taxi there. Do you think its possible he got to the hospital as soon as he could, and drove her home?

Even IF she had the car that day, would you want her driving in the middle of a miscarriage?

Everybody sees the one car thing as a sign of control. Presumably they were in a happier place when they were trying to conceive. Do you think its possible that she was content with the transportation arrangement given that he was most likely making less, they were house-poor, and they HAD to have a Beamer? If they had lived within their means they could have had two smaller/cheaper/used cars at that time. That was a choice they most likely made together.

Do you think its possible that HP embellished a little by saying "taxis" when it most likely happened only one time?

So in every family that has a single working spouse/parent with one car, the husband/father is a controlling SOB?

jumpstreet said:

Good questions Anderson! In general, my position remains: "BC may very well be innocent".
Being a "benefit-of-the-doubt" type of person by nature, in order for that position to change substantially, I'll need to have information which essentially leaves no room to reasonably conclude he may be innocent.

To answer your specific question, [ what if we find out he systemically hasn't told the truth ] it would basically "depend on the specifics". .

Certainly (again, being a 'benefit-of-the-doubt' type of person), I can conceive of a scenario, where under the distress of wife being found missing/murdered, kids being ripped away by the police, and the overall stress of a situation... that one may have not been completely coherent all initial off-the-cuff responses. I could allow ample room for subsequent clarifications if that's the way it ends up going.

I understand being a 'benefit of the doubt' type of person may put me in the minority on WS... but hopefully the above at least explains how I'm at my current position, and what it would take to change that.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about where you are situated in respect to everyone else on the board. That is not the point of my questions. I am just trying to understand some of your arguments.

Okay, so it will depend on the "specifics." I think that there is a lot of information that we don't have, so who knows at this point what specific information will emerge. Of course 'specifics' is another one of those very general categories . . .

Anderson said:

Don't worry about where you are situated in respect to everyone else on the board

Click to expand...

Definitely not worried about it... I'm solid there... just acknowledging that 'benefit-of-the-doubt' doesn't seem to be an incredibly prevalent trait here... (doesn't bother me or worry me at all, just an observation, I completely respect everyone's right to their views, etc!)

I am just trying to understand some of your arguments.

Okay, so it will depend on the "specifics." I think that there is a lot of information that we don't have, so who knows at this point what specific information will emerge

Click to expand...

Yeah, with all the info we have... still more that we don't know than what we do. If the specifics end up adding up to: 'no reasonable way one could conclude he may be innocent', then my position of "He may very well be innocent" would change.

Good news though - come next week though, the custody judge is scheduled to tell us whether BC did it or not, so that datapoint will help a lot! [ Unless there is a continuance/temporary agreement (likely of course)]. Once we have that piece of the puzzle though, we can all move on to the next step. [ ie, if it's not BC, who are the other possible candidates, etc ]

Anderson said:

That is very well put. Great points about the 'tryst' with HM, and the possibility that the kids may have been present. This was another thing that was in the friends' affidavits. And BC doesn't exclude the possibility that the kids were present in his answer. It is sometimes important to look at what Brad doesn't say in his answers.

If he turns out to be lying in some cases, such as the discussion on Celene, then it is very difficult to characterize Brad as "forthcoming" in his answers.

IMO

Click to expand...

But this wasn't an issue in the separation agreement between BC and NC. In that agreement, he would get part time custody. So why is it an issue since she is gone?