Tink56
MOO...IMO
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,640
- Reaction score
- 25,147
This is my first post, but I, too, have been reading for several days.
I spent a little bit of time comparing the affidavits of Nancy's friends with Brad's rebuttal. It was interesting the way in which he tried to pick them apart, but in the process I think he revealed quite a bit about his personality.
(BTW, I agree with the rest of you who see that it is apparent that BC and NC were opposites and probably were not a good match for marriage.)
I wanted to see what assertions Brad did NOT rebut. Here's my hurried list of the things he did not address:
1. The affair with Heather--he claims it was a one-time indiscretion and the only time he strayed, despite the claims of other affair. It interesting that Heather supposedly told Nancy about some of the other affairs. I wonder if NM was such a "good friend" that she told Nancy's neighbors and Nancy all about Brad.
2. The name calling--in front of the children and neighbors (He briefly addresses this when he says that, "They both said things they regretted."
3. He doesn't deny that he followed Nancy and Krista and spackled the walls after they painted.
4. Several other posters have mentioned how Brad minimizes his manipulation of the money and the amounts. He slips into his rebuttal that he changed the day he gave Nancy the money from Monday to Friday, which would have left her without funds for a number of days.
He also says that he gave Nancy 80% of the family funds remaining after he paid the re-occurring expenses. He gave Nancy $1,200/month (which is really about $280/wk considering 4.3 weeks/month). He said that he used the remaining 20% for lunch, gifts for the girls, credit card bills, etc. This is probably one of the most ludicrous assertions he makes--that's $300/month or about $70/week. Something is seriously wrong with his calculations. There is no way he could have done all he said with this amount!
5. He doesn't respond to the assertions about the recent outing with his parents.
6. Brad continues to be rather clever in his rebuttal presentation. He leads the reader to believe that he always gave Nancy the money, but the email he cites is dated April 22nd.
7. Brad doesn't deny changing the date he wanted Nancy and the girls to leave for Canada.
8. Brad doesn't deny that he told Nancy to exchange the foreign money if she needed extra cash.
9. Brad's web site obviously negates his comments about not training since June 2007. Perhaps he was prevaricating on the site???
10. Brad doesn't deny that he did not inform Nancy about canceling the credit cards and removing her from the bank account before he did it.
Regardless of the things Brad says he is now doing, and Nancy's friends agreed he had become more attentive during the last 2 months, he still exhibited a pattern of disinterest and actions motivated by anger and cruelty. It's really sad to see a marriage disintegrate to this extent.
A couple of things about which I'm curious include why Brad would borrow from his 401K to pay off the credit cards. Isn't this type of borrowing taxed at a high rate? Couldn't he have taken a second trust deed on the home?
And, can the affidavits in a Civil trial be used in a criminal trial?
If the documents can be used in a criminal trial, the information and misinformation could have a significant impact on a circumstantial evidence case.
I spent a little bit of time comparing the affidavits of Nancy's friends with Brad's rebuttal. It was interesting the way in which he tried to pick them apart, but in the process I think he revealed quite a bit about his personality.
(BTW, I agree with the rest of you who see that it is apparent that BC and NC were opposites and probably were not a good match for marriage.)
I wanted to see what assertions Brad did NOT rebut. Here's my hurried list of the things he did not address:
1. The affair with Heather--he claims it was a one-time indiscretion and the only time he strayed, despite the claims of other affair. It interesting that Heather supposedly told Nancy about some of the other affairs. I wonder if NM was such a "good friend" that she told Nancy's neighbors and Nancy all about Brad.
2. The name calling--in front of the children and neighbors (He briefly addresses this when he says that, "They both said things they regretted."
3. He doesn't deny that he followed Nancy and Krista and spackled the walls after they painted.
4. Several other posters have mentioned how Brad minimizes his manipulation of the money and the amounts. He slips into his rebuttal that he changed the day he gave Nancy the money from Monday to Friday, which would have left her without funds for a number of days.
He also says that he gave Nancy 80% of the family funds remaining after he paid the re-occurring expenses. He gave Nancy $1,200/month (which is really about $280/wk considering 4.3 weeks/month). He said that he used the remaining 20% for lunch, gifts for the girls, credit card bills, etc. This is probably one of the most ludicrous assertions he makes--that's $300/month or about $70/week. Something is seriously wrong with his calculations. There is no way he could have done all he said with this amount!
5. He doesn't respond to the assertions about the recent outing with his parents.
6. Brad continues to be rather clever in his rebuttal presentation. He leads the reader to believe that he always gave Nancy the money, but the email he cites is dated April 22nd.
7. Brad doesn't deny changing the date he wanted Nancy and the girls to leave for Canada.
8. Brad doesn't deny that he told Nancy to exchange the foreign money if she needed extra cash.
9. Brad's web site obviously negates his comments about not training since June 2007. Perhaps he was prevaricating on the site???
10. Brad doesn't deny that he did not inform Nancy about canceling the credit cards and removing her from the bank account before he did it.
Regardless of the things Brad says he is now doing, and Nancy's friends agreed he had become more attentive during the last 2 months, he still exhibited a pattern of disinterest and actions motivated by anger and cruelty. It's really sad to see a marriage disintegrate to this extent.
A couple of things about which I'm curious include why Brad would borrow from his 401K to pay off the credit cards. Isn't this type of borrowing taxed at a high rate? Couldn't he have taken a second trust deed on the home?
And, can the affidavits in a Civil trial be used in a criminal trial?
If the documents can be used in a criminal trial, the information and misinformation could have a significant impact on a circumstantial evidence case.
