What is considered CONTROLLING?

[Anderson]

Anderson,

Read the affidavits, examples as put forth in RKAB post are there in black and white as to some of NC's behaviors, as I stated in another post, it is all "he said, she said". Of course NC did not deserve to be murdered, I do not think anyone meant to imply that, I certainly did not. Simply put she had her controlling behaviors as well, but wait, she was a human being and some less than desirable behavior comes from all us, BC and NC included.

Of course I have read the affidavits. In some cases there is first-hand information that is related to BC's behaviour (e.g., Krista's affidavit).

We have established that BC and NC had a bad relationship. That would be the only reason to speculate on NC's behaviour. Can you think of another reason to do this? We all agree that none of us really have any idea about what their relationship looked like on the inside.

However, RKAB's comments are based on her experience with BC. It is very different for her to make a comment about BC than it is for one of us to speculate on this issue.

BC is also the person that MAY have murdered NC. It makes sense to discuss BC's behaviour, because it is relevant to the ongoing investigation.

 

[jmflu]

And BC told us directly (via deposition and affidavits) about Nancy's behavior. So why is it wrong for me to point out the same type of behavior just because she was murdered? We are talking about behavior on both of there parts from before July 12th, 2008. It's a fair discussion in a thread titled "what is considered CONTROLLING?".

Are you talking about the affidavits that did or did not agree with the deposition statements Brad made? Because, you know, there are a lot of inconsistencies (read: lies).

 

[justthinking2008]

jmflu,

BTW, I like reading your posts, I think they are intelligent, informative and well thought out. I know you think BC is guilty, I am on the fence. All I am asking from you or any other poster on this board is to use a bit more objectivity, consider the whole picture, it may not change your mind, but it will at least get the wheels turning in other directions.

 

[shack]

I have no doubt Nancy was killed for the very reason that Nancy was trying to start a new life without Brad.

She was controlled, no doubt in my mind. When Nancy wanted a Divorce, that is the ultimate loss of control in the mind of Brad and a significant blow to his personality as "he was at fault" for the breakdown of the marriage. That he is to blame, his actions, his faults. To Brad that is the "ultimate" loss of control and my killing Nancy he gained control not only of the future of Nancy, but the children also.


If a person feels controlled and trapped then they are.

Why would he blame himself for the divorce. She cheated the first year of their marriage and we don't know how many other times. It was said in court the first affair that means there were more. Isn't the guy she spent the week end with at the beach the same guy that told her he would like to *advertiser censored** her brains out? Maybe she liked that idea and that's why she went to the beach.

 

[Anderson]

I know why RKAB posted it. I'm simply pointing out that many of the things she had bolded would apply to NCs behavior towards BC as well. So the control went both ways. I am not attacking NC. I am not even remotely suggesting she deserved to be murdered. However, if everyone is going to point out the way BC controlled NC, then it is fair to say that NC also controlled BC. And remember, BC has not been charged with a crime, so you are making comments about someone that still has the presumption of innocence from our legal system.

First, please read post #126.

Please note that I don't think that you have any reason/evidence to think that the bolded points on RKAB's post are related to NC's behaviour.

NCSU's comments in italics below:

"However, if everyone is going to point out the way BC controlled NC, then it is fair to say that NC also controlled BC."

How is this relevant to the murder investigation? We already know that they had a bad relationship. What else does NC's behaviour have to do with the murder investivation? Can you think of a reason to speculate on NC's behaviour further?

"And remember, BC has not been charged with a crime, so you are making comments about someone that still has the presumption of innocence from our legal system."

I agree that it is possible that BC may not have murdered NC. He has not been charged. However, Brad is under investigation for the murder. NC is not.

 

[jmflu]

jmflu,

BTW, I like reading your posts, I think they are intelligent, informative and well thought out. I know you think BC is guilty, I am on the fence. All I am asking from you or any other poster on this board is to use a bit more objectivity, consider the whole picture, it may not change your mind, but it will at least get the wheels turning in other directions.

I'll try. Your post and request are very respectful and I appreciate that.

 

[piedmont]

I have a question, being in the banking industry I know a thing or two about joint accounts and joint credit. When BC removed NC from the accounts and credit cards, she had to give her permission for him to do so. You cannot add or subtract someone from an account if they do not give their permission. Many times in the case of credit a bank will not allow one of the applicants to be removed without completely closing the account and opening a new one, again to close an account both applicants have to agree to it. SO...how did he remove her without her permission, any thoughts? Could it be that she did agree because she knew the situation they were getting into and agreed to the controls, but told her friends otherwise in order to keep up appearances. I agree with Raleigh, they were headed to BK in a hurry, and that would be hard for them to explain to their well to do friends. Again, another control issue or damage control issue, either way control just the same on both parts.

Yes, either they agreed, or he simply had his paycheck start going into a new account that he opened in his name only.

 

[Anderson]

jmflu,

BTW, I like reading your posts, I think they are intelligent, informative and well thought out. I know you think BC is guilty, I am on the fence. All I am asking from you or any other poster on this board is to use a bit more objectivity, consider the whole picture, it may not change your mind, but it will at least get the wheels turning in other directions.

I think that it is very important to be objective, consider evidence, and look at the 'whole picture'. I am glad that you feel the same way.

 

[water_dancing]

How is this relevant to the murder investigation? We already know that they had a bad relationship. What else does NC's behaviour have to do with the murder investivation? Can you think of a reason to speculate on NC's behaviour further?

In this case, her behavior may be very relevant to the investigation. It may lead to another person who had a motive to kill her. She was known to have had at least one affair in the past, it was speculated that she spent time at the beach with someone else, and there were at least 2 neighbors/friends that said that they wanted to *advertiser censored** her however it remains to be seen if anything came of that. I am absolutely NOT saying in any way that she is to blame for what happened. Nothing justifies being murdered, esp in the brutal, senseless way she was. What I am saying is that this may have been intimate partner violence but BC may not have been the intimate partner.

 

[boxy]

In this case, her behavior may be very relevant to the investigation. It may lead to another person who had a motive to kill her. She was known to have had at least one affair in the past, it was speculated that she spent time at the beach with someone else, and there were at least 2 neighbors/friends that said that they wanted to *advertiser censored** her however it remains to be seen if anything came of that. I am absolutely NOT saying in any way that she is to blame for what happened. Nothing justifies being murdered, esp in the brutal, senseless way she was. What I am saying is that this may have been intimate partner violence but BC may not have been the intimate partner.

If it was intimate partner violence, then that rules out BC as he and NC were not intimate, at least according to one of NC's friends.

 

[Skittles]

I have a question, being in the banking industry I know a thing or two about joint accounts and joint credit. When BC removed NC from the accounts and credit cards, she had to give her permission for him to do so. You cannot add or subtract someone from an account if they do not give their permission. Many times in the case of credit a bank will not allow one of the applicants to be removed without completely closing the account and opening a new one, again to close an account both applicants have to agree to it. SO...how did he remove her without her permission, any thoughts? Could it be that she did agree because she knew the situation they were getting into and agreed to the controls, but told her friends otherwise in order to keep up appearances. I agree with Raleigh, they were headed to BK in a hurry, and that would be hard for them to explain to their well to do friends. Again, another control issue or damage control issue, either way control just the same on both parts.

Brad said in his deposition that he opened a new account in his name. Just go to my Deposition Index thread and search on "bank" to find the where it is in the videos.

 

[piedmont]

Brad said in his deposition that he opened a new account in his name. Just go to my Deposition Index thread and search on "bank" to find the where it is in the videos.

Do we know if he had this idea on his own, or did a counselor suggest that to him?

 

[Skittles]

All he said is it was in February, 2008. In another tape he said they went to the marriage counselor in Feb-Mar 2008.

 

[RaleighNC]

I think that water dancing has a valid point.

NC's behavior is also relevant in that it could explain the context of Brad's behavior.

If NC had saved money, lived within their means, etc and Brad suddenly removed her access to the accounts, his behavior could be looked at as controlling. Because it has been documented and established that she spent money they didn't have, and in direct disagreement with Brad (the $9K painting) his behavior is justified as a reaction to hers.

And while 2 wrongs don't make a right, her earlier affair may have set the tone as to what was acceptable behavior in a marriage.

How about the arguments? It appears that yelling and the raising of voices was not uncommon. If both are yelling, do you only call one person out for being aggressive, or setting a bad example, or being a bad parent if this was in front of the children?

The taking of passports - if this was in reaction to a threat to take the children to Canada - is this not something that any of us would do? (Now, we can argue WHY he took them - to control her, or to keep access to the children because he loved them, but since he's not talking, we can only point to the action)

The following to the gas station.... If I was on a budget and couldn't feed a family of 4 on $1200 a month, and was continually running out of money, and then said I had no money for gas, would you just hand over $$ to me, or would you PUT GAS IN MY CAR to see it with your very own eyes? Checking the mileage on a car, calling if someone is one minute late, verifying their whereabouts - that's controlling. Putting gas in a car based on the poor cash management issue, I will contend is not.

So - the context in which many of these actions take place is very relevant. And her friends are going to give the worst possible context - either because they want to support her, or she was less than fair in her explanation of the "whys".

I am more concerned about the action that don't really appear to be "in response" to things - or are odd in themselves- like the list that RC put together in the other thread than the controlling items that in themselves don't prove anything and sometimes - I think are NORMAL reactions to their financial situation, or their pending separation / divorce.

 

[jmflu]

I think that water dancing has a valid point.

NC's behavior is also relevant in that it could explain the context of Brad's behavior.

If NC had saved money, lived within their means, etc and Brad suddenly removed her access to the accounts, his behavior could be looked at as controlling. Because it has been documented and established that she spent money they didn't have, and in direct disagreement with Brad (the $9K painting) his behavior is justified as a reaction to hers.

And while 2 wrongs don't make a right, her earlier affair may have set the tone as to what was acceptable behavior in a marriage.

How about the arguments? It appears that yelling and the raising of voices was not uncommon. If both are yelling, do you only call one person out for being aggressive, or setting a bad example, or being a bad parent if this was in front of the children?

The taking of passports - if this was in reaction to a threat to take the children to Canada - is this not something that any of us would do? (Now, we can argue WHY he took them - to control her, or to keep access to the children because he loved them, but since he's not talking, we can only point to the action)

The following to the gas station.... If I was on a budget and couldn't feed a family of 4 on $1200 a month, and was continually running out of money, and then said I had no money for gas, would you just hand over $$ to me, or would you PUT GAS IN MY CAR to see it with your very own eyes? Checking the mileage on a car, calling if someone is one minute late, verifying their whereabouts - that's controlling. Putting gas in a car based on the poor cash management issue, I will contend is not.

So - the context in which many of these actions take place is very relevant. And her friends are going to give the worst possible context - either because they want to support her, or she was less than fair in her explanation of the "whys".

I am more concerned about the action that don't really appear to be "in response" to things - or are odd in themselves- like the list that RC put together in the other thread than the controlling items that in themselves don't prove anything and sometimes - I think are NORMAL reactions to their financial situation, or their pending separation / divorce.

I maintain that being a controlling person and the justification for it are two separate things. BC has a history that goes back further than Nancy, as is evidenced by what RKAB is telling us, what JWB attested to, and that continued with NC, from what NC's friends and family said. If NC needed gas, BC could have driven her car and put it in. To follow her was demeaning and creepy.

 

[cygnusx1]

I maintain that being a controlling person and the justification for it are two separate things. BC has a history that goes back further than Nancy, as is evidenced by what RKAB is telling us, what JWB attested to, and that continued with NC, from what NC's friends and family said. If NC needed gas, BC could have driven her car and put it in. To follow her was demeaning and creepy.

Unless he was on his way somewhere else after gassing her up; then it was saving time/gas.

 

[ncsu95]

Unless he was on his way somewhere else after gassing her up; then it was saving time/gas.

Wasn't he following them to pick up stuff for the birthday party?

 

[cygnusx1]

Wasn't he following them to pick up stuff for the birthday party?

I believe you're right and that all the SUV seats were full so he couldn't ride with them. Also, in the affidavit, he says he filled it up and has a receipt/statement to prove it. He didn't fill it with the minimum amount needed to do the errand(s) they were currently running.

 

[jmflu]

Unless he was on his way somewhere else after gassing her up; then it was saving time/gas.

It seems silly to me that he would actually not think she would use the $30 or $40 he gave her for gas. Did he think she would risk running out of gas and being stranded somewhere?

Several thousand for a necklace, but can't trust her with less than $50 for gas?

 

[ncsu95]

It seems silly to me that he would actually not think she would use the $30 or $40 he gave her for gas. Did he think she would risk running out of gas and being stranded somewhere?

Several thousand for a necklace, but can't trust her with less than $50 for gas?

The cash only system started this year. The necklace was bought last year.