Nicholas Francisco, 28, Seattle, 2/13/08 - 4/12 [Archive] - Page 3

RainyNiteNTx

04-08-2009, 06:45 AM

Hi Rainy!

Do you remember where LE said they searched his house and none of his clothes or personal things were gone?

And, where it was said he left his sketchbooks?

Whatever happened to that San Diego-Nicholas-is-Alive report? I still see him listed as missing on the Washington State Missing Persons site.

It also saddens me that TES didn't come to look for Nicholas. Over on the Nancy Moyer board you would not believe the co workers and people who love Nancy that post. They took it upon themselves to contact TES, and TES says they will come.

IMO
M.

Morning M -

I believe his artwork was left on his desk, and IIRC, none of his clothes and personal belongings were missing except his laptop which would have been with him according to that missing persons flyer that was put out @@.

Regarding the other board, this is something I've been saddened about almost since the beginning. It seems no one has stood by NF. There were the initial searchs but once this "secret life" came out, everyone abandoned him at least from our vantage point. His wife divorced him, friends went on with their lives and it is as though he did not have one devoted friend in his life. Where are they?

Even that missing persons' flier was silly - leaves toast in the toaster?? Like that could yield a clue to anything? Aargh.

RainyNiteNTx

04-08-2009, 06:48 AM

29 June 2008

http://www.harambeechurch2.org/worship.php

Throughout this whole asking-people-to-give-Christine money/'prayer' not one mention of Nicholas and his safety. Not one. Not 'we pray that Nicholas is safe and returns to his family'.

He IS the missing person!

Bless this friend of Christine's. She was doing a wonderful thing. But, regardless of why Nicholas was missing, why not a little tiny prayer for him? :( Would that be disloyal to Christine? Why?

IMO.
M.

I completely agree and something I have said from months back. It took an internet poster to make a supporting Nicholas blog where people could leave good wishes and prayers. All of the support blogs and sites were for Christine, not Nicholas. I've said it a million times - Christine is not missing-Nicholas is. I've never seen anything like it.

elf999

04-08-2009, 10:58 AM

Morning M -

I believe his artwork was left on his desk, and IIRC, none of his clothes and personal belongings were missing except his laptop which would have been with him according to that missing persons flyer that was put out @@.

Regarding the other board, this is something I've been saddened about almost since the beginning. It seems no one has stood by NF. There were the initial searchs but once this "secret life" came out, everyone abandoned him at least from our vantage point. His wife divorced him, friends went on with their lives and it is as though he did not have one devoted friend in his life. Where are they?

Even that missing persons' flier was silly - leaves toast in the toaster?? Like that could yield a clue to anything? Aargh.

When the criticism of Christine dies down, that allows me to feel more compassion and think more of Nicholas and his situation, rather than think of how I can defend Christine when I feel that she has been unfairly criticised.

I indeed think it is sad that Nicholas didn't seem to have anybody that cared enough about him when he went missing.

I think Nicholas may have been lacking in having close and satisfying relationships in his life. If you look at his wife and family, they seem to be rather distant and as many people have noted, not involved enough in trying to find him when he went missing. I don't mean this in a negative way, just stating that they do seem distant, and maybe just unable to be more active and outspoken in the search for Nicholas.

Also as far as I know there have not been close friends of Nicholas who have come on the bulletin boards to post about him being missing or to run large,organized searches for him nor keep updated websites to find him. It is possible the friends who said Nicholas was a good family man may not have been close friends, but rather work and social acquaintances that knew him to be that way at a distance.

I'm not trying to imply Nicholas was not a good man but do think that maybe the lack of close relationships may have contributed to his leaving, if he did. Or contributed to him putting himself in situations that might have compromised his safety, if something did happen to him.

I don't feel Nicholas nor any of the people involved in this whole sad situation are bad, or even uncaring. They just may have their own problems and their own demons. There are lots of people who don't care enough about their spouses for instance, but it doesn't mean that they are bad people. The family of origin would be the ones that would have to take the major blame though for problems that Nicholas might have had with feeling comfortable in close relationships with others, but I don't mean to imply this means that I think his family was bad. It just means that his family members may have their own demons as we all do come from our own families with their own problems.

If Nicholas was unhappy and didn't have fully satisfying relationships in his life this could have led to searching at the sites online for something more. And if he didn't have many close attachments I think it makes it more likely that he did leave of his own free well, it's even possible that a contributing factor was that he was afraid to tell Christine he wanted a divorce, it's not uncommon to run into men who are afraid to speak up to their wives. After all she thought things were perfect, and it sure seems like they were far from it.

There is also the possibility that his lack of close relationships might have led to some anxiety and depression which could have been well hidden from others, especially since he wasn't that close to people. In this case it might have led to some behavior with self-destructive aspects to it and he could have put himself in danger.

So I'm still on the fence as to whether he just took off, or something terrible happened to him. I do think however, he might have just decided on the spur of the moment to leave, something that he might have been considering unconsciously for a long time, and suddenly decided to act upon.

All IMO MOO

Cury-us Coyote

04-08-2009, 05:41 PM

MystryPhobia

04-08-2009, 08:08 PM

Unless too much context was removed from ELF’s post, in ELF’s readers digest opinion both CF’s and Nicholas’ families of origin carry the “blame” or responsibility for individually shaping NF’s and CF’s personalities and learned behaviors? Perhaps because approx eighteen years or 65% of life experiences were developed during the earlier years of living at home. With the exception of pre-existing genetic traits, do siblings then likely share a common belief system?

IF interpreted correctly, ELF is theorizing NF’s search for a “close and satisfying” relationships is a potential reason for NF’s disappearance? Was NF’s perception of relationships formed before the Francisco marriage? Did NF’s belief system remain unchanged during the eight years with CF or 35% of NF's life experiences?
jmoI am not clear what you are trying to say in your post. Whether you are agreeing, disagreeing or being sarcastic. IMO ELF's post makes complete sense. Since we have no idea why he disappeared.. it very well could be and probably is that he was searching for something that he was missing in his life.. in that marriage.. That could have led him to make the decision to leave. It could have led someone that was a part of that life to harm him. It could have led someone in his life that was hurt and/or betrayed by it to take matters in their own hands and do something to him. I have always felt that the stuff that he was keeping from those closest to him led to what happened to him.

I still say that the silence of those closest to him says alot about what they think.. know.. or feel happened to him.

CaresForKids

04-08-2009, 10:31 PM

When the criticism of Christine dies down, that allows me to feel more compassion and think more of Nicholas and his situation, rather than think of how I can defend Christine when I feel that she has been unfairly criticised.

I indeed think it is sad that Nicholas didn't seem to have anybody that cared enough about him when he went missing.

I think Nicholas may have been lacking in having close and satisfying relationships in his life. If you look at his wife and family, they seem to be rather distant and as many people have noted, not involved enough in trying to find him when he went missing. I don't mean this in a negative way, just stating that they do seem distant, and maybe just unable to be more active and outspoken in the search for Nicholas.

Also as far as I know there have not been close friends of Nicholas who have come on the bulletin boards to post about him being missing or to run large,organized searches for him nor keep updated websites to find him. It is possible the friends who said Nicholas was a good family man may not have been close friends, but rather work and social acquaintances that knew him to be that way at a distance.

I'm not trying to imply Nicholas was not a good man but do think that maybe the lack of close relationships may have contributed to his leaving, if he did. Or contributed to him putting himself in situations that might have compromised his safety, if something did happen to him.

I don't feel Nicholas nor any of the people involved in this whole sad situation are bad, or even uncaring. They just may have their own problems and their own demons. There are lots of people who don't care enough about their spouses for instance, but it doesn't mean that they are bad people. The family of origin would be the ones that would have to take the major blame though for problems that Nicholas might have had with feeling comfortable in close relationships with others, but I don't mean to imply this means that I think his family was bad. It just means that his family members may have their own demons as we all do come from our own families with their own problems.

If Nicholas was unhappy and didn't have fully satisfying relationships in his life this could have led to searching at the sites online for something more. And if he didn't have many close attachments I think it makes it more likely that he did leave of his own free well, it's even possible that a contributing factor was that he was afraid to tell Christine he wanted a divorce, it's not uncommon to run into men who are afraid to speak up to their wives. After all she thought things were perfect, and it sure seems like they were far from it.

There is also the possibility that his lack of close relationships might have led to some anxiety and depression which could have been well hidden from others, especially since he wasn't that close to people. In this case it might have led to some behavior with self-destructive aspects to it and he could have put himself in danger.

So I'm still on the fence as to whether he just took off, or something terrible happened to him. I do think however, he might have just decided on the spur of the moment to leave, something that he might have been considering unconsciously for a long time, and suddenly decided to act upon.

All IMO MOO

C hasn't has any true close friends come to speak for her either or come forward to organize searches for her missing (now ex) husband. The only people who have truly blogged for her were internet acquaintances she has never spoken to face to face. She too may have had a problem having relationships that stem back from her own parents divorcing or being abusive or what have you. Maybe she was living in her own fairytale world to believe she had the perfect marriage. Those who boast the most usually have the least. So what is your point?

MystryPhobia

04-08-2009, 11:42 PM

C hasn't has any true close friends come to speak for her either or come forward to organize searches for her missing (now ex) husband. The only people who have truly blogged for her were internet acquaintances she has never spoken to face to face. She too may have had a problem having relationships that stem back from her own parents divorcing or being abusive or what have you. Maybe she was living in her own fairytale world to believe she had the perfect marriage. Those who boast the most usually have the least. So what is your point?

I think the point is that some can think that he was doing things secretly.. that could have led to what he chose to do or someone chose to do to him and EVEN if you believe that.. you can still have compassion for the missing person.

Hasn't that been what you wanted? So why be so rude? Or are you just going to scold and disrespect anyone that doesn't see things exactly as you do? We can disagree and still respect one another. It's not personal.

CaresForKids

04-08-2009, 11:55 PM

I think the point is that some can think that he was doing things secretly.. that could have led to what he chose to do or someone chose to do to him and EVEN if you believe that.. you can still have compassion for the missing person.

Hasn't that been what you wanted? So why be so rude? Or are you just going to scold and disrespect anyone that doesn't see things exactly as you do? We can disagree and still respect one another. It's not personal.

Where exactly was I rude and where did I do any scolding or disrespecting, MP? What exactly are you reading that is not here and imagining I said? I asked what elf's point was, plain and simple.

This whole same thing could be used for C too. Maybe it was she who had the secret life and Nick found out. That too could be what led to his disappearance and/or her pregnancy.

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 12:36 AM

When the criticism of Christine dies down, that allows me to feel more compassion and think more of Nicholas and his situation, rather than think of how I can defend Christine when I feel that she has been unfairly criticised.

I indeed think it is sad that Nicholas didn't seem to have anybody that cared enough about him when he went missing.

I think Nicholas may have been lacking in having close and satisfying relationships in his life. If you look at his wife and family, they seem to be rather distant and as many people have noted, not involved enough in trying to find him when he went missing. I don't mean this in a negative way, just stating that they do seem distant, and maybe just unable to be more active and outspoken in the search for Nicholas.

Also as far as I know there have not been close friends of Nicholas who have come on the bulletin boards to post about him being missing or to run large,organized searches for him nor keep updated websites to find him. It is possible the friends who said Nicholas was a good family man may not have been close friends, but rather work and social acquaintances that knew him to be that way at a distance.

I'm not trying to imply Nicholas was not a good man but do think that maybe the lack of close relationships may have contributed to his leaving, if he did. Or contributed to him putting himself in situations that might have compromised his safety, if something did happen to him.

I don't feel Nicholas nor any of the people involved in this whole sad situation are bad, or even uncaring. They just may have their own problems and their own demons. There are lots of people who don't care enough about their spouses for instance, but it doesn't mean that they are bad people. The family of origin would be the ones that would have to take the major blame though for problems that Nicholas might have had with feeling comfortable in close relationships with others, but I don't mean to imply this means that I think his family was bad. It just means that his family members may have their own demons as we all do come from our own families with their own problems.

If Nicholas was unhappy and didn't have fully satisfying relationships in his life this could have led to searching at the sites online for something more. And if he didn't have many close attachments I think it makes it more likely that he did leave of his own free well, it's even possible that a contributing factor was that he was afraid to tell Christine he wanted a divorce, it's not uncommon to run into men who are afraid to speak up to their wives. After all she thought things were perfect, and it sure seems like they were far from it.

There is also the possibility that his lack of close relationships might have led to some anxiety and depression which could have been well hidden from others, especially since he wasn't that close to people. In this case it might have led to some behavior with self-destructive aspects to it and he could have put himself in danger.

So I'm still on the fence as to whether he just took off, or something terrible happened to him. I do think however, he might have just decided on the spur of the moment to leave, something that he might have been considering unconsciously for a long time, and suddenly decided to act upon.

All IMO MOO

I have read this several times and pondered it before replying.

You actually gave me food for thought regarding the possible lack of close and satisfying relationships - the possible searching for something he felt he might be lacking in his life - the possible anxiety or depression. Perhaps the announcement of a third child when he was already working two jobs pushed him over the edge. Perhaps another birthday going by pushed him over the edge. Perhaps working at Publicis as art director pushed him over the edge - we just don't know.

Where my biggest problem with the lack of anyone searching for him is, is, I'm sorry, with Christine. She was his wife at the time - I feel people would have taken their lead from her. Had she put his picture on her MySpace like others did - had she put truly pertinent information on his flyer (or insisted that whoever made it put pertinent information on it), had she created websites and been front and center like so many other family members with missing loved ones do, I feel there would have been more response and interest.

Jeremy Scully's girlfriend let it be known right off the bat that he was loved unconditionally - she refused to let him be beat up in the press or anywhere else. There was another missing case on here (I think it is now gone), where the wife wrote a beautiful open letter to her missing husband, telling him that things were okay, and if he were alive just to come home. Those are the people I respect - the people who put up anniversary billboards and launch campaigns as much as 10 years later.

If you feel this is a criticism, so be it, but its JMO and something I've watched unfold for over a year now.

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 01:07 AM

I have read this several times and pondered it before replying.

You actually gave me food for thought regarding the possible lack of close and satisfying relationships - the possible searching for something he felt he might be lacking in his life - the possible anxiety or depression. Perhaps the announcement of a third child when he was already working two jobs pushed him over the edge. Perhaps another birthday going by pushed him over the edge. Perhaps working at Publicis as art director pushed him over the edge - we just don't know.

Where my biggest problem with the lack of anyone searching for him is, is, I'm sorry, with Christine. She was his wife at the time - I feel people would have taken their lead from her. Had she put his picture on her MySpace like others did - had she put truly pertinent information on his flyer (or insisted that whoever made it put pertinent information on it), had she created websites and been front and center like so many other family members with missing loved ones do, I feel there would have been more response and interest.

Jeremy Scully's girlfriend let it be known right off the bat that he was loved unconditionally - she refused to let him be beat up in the press or anywhere else. There was another missing case on here (I think it is now gone), where the wife wrote a beautiful open letter to her missing husband, telling him that things were okay, and if he were alive just to come home. Those are the people I respect - the people who put up anniversary billboards and launch campaigns as much as 10 years later.

If you feel this is a criticism, so be it, but its JMO and something I've watched unfold for over a year now.

Jeremy Scully had a girl friend who from what was said appeared to already know he was a swinger. She wasn't dependent on him, didn't have his kids to worry about and wasn't pregnant. Christine on the other hand appeared to believe she was in a monogamous relationship, had 2 kids, was totally dependent on him for financial support and was pregnant. These two cases are very different. I don't see how you can expect them to act in the same way.

Not every woman is as accepting of finding out their husband vanished and may have left them for another partner. I personally don't find it that strange that Christine felt the need to make sure her kids were cared for. I also don't find it that odd that she divorced him and is moving on with her life. Sound like she lost that loving feeling after some of the information that was found.

I know I would have a hard time forgiving if after my husband went missing I found out that he had been messing around behind my back. I have to say some of you are much better people then I am. I have to ask if he had been found dead and all of the information about his secret life had come out would you still have expected her to play the grieving widow? Or would you have felt it was okay for her to move on with her life?

Seems that after a year everyone is still running in the same circles. Some believe it is unlikely that he is dead because no physical evidence has been found that anything happened to him that way. Other don't believe he could ever leave without a change of clothes and his sketch books. So round and round we go in circles with half the people not even getting what can still be found on web sites correct much less the stuff that has vanished.

CaresForKids

04-09-2009, 01:13 AM

Depends on whether she was the one who killed him or not.

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 01:41 AM

Depends on whether she was the one who killed him or not.

Ah yes the she was so brilliant that she killed him, hide him and left no evidence in less then 6 hours while thinking that she would get enough donations to live on or she was able to hire someone without anyone finding out and he was willing to hope she got enough donations to both pay him and for her to live on. Or is this where she had a boyfriend who figured it would be better to off him, hide the body and get nothing in return instead of just divorcing him and getting child support? If they were so brilliant why not just kill him and take the car somewhere and set it on fire with him in it. Then they could have got rid of the evidence and had the insurance.

But again we are just running in circles.

CaresForKids

04-09-2009, 01:46 AM

In your very own words Miss Dove..."Anything is possible"...eh?

Musterion

04-09-2009, 01:46 AM

Jeremy Scully had a girl friend who from what was said appeared to already know he was a swinger. She wasn't dependent on him, didn't have his kids to worry about and wasn't pregnant. Christine on the other hand appeared to believe she was in a monogamous relationship, had 2 kids, was totally dependent on him for financial support and was pregnant. These two cases are very different. I don't see how you can expect them to act in the same way.

Not every woman is as accepting of finding out their husband vanished and may have left them for another partner. I personally don't find it that strange that Christine felt the need to make sure her kids were cared for. I also don't find it that odd that she divorced him and is moving on with her life. Sound like she lost that loving feeling after some of the information that was found.

I know I would have a hard time forgiving if after my husband went missing I found out that he had been messing around behind my back. I have to say some of you are much better people then I am. I have to ask if he had been found dead and all of the information about his secret life had come out would you still have expected her to play the grieving widow? Or would you have felt it was okay for her to move on with her life?

Seems that after a year everyone is still running in the same circles. Some believe it is unlikely that he is dead because no physical evidence has been found that anything happened to him that way. Other don't believe he could ever leave without a change of clothes and his sketch books. So round and round we go in circles with half the people not even getting what can still be found on web sites correct much less the stuff that has vanished.

(Bolding mine.)

I can only speak for myself SD. I have stopped running on the 'benefit of the doubt' treadmill which I started out with with Christine, for the most part.

I tried to give a different POV regarding Christine, her actions, her words, etc. I tried to add context so that maybe some of the things that looked odd or questionable could be seen in a different light. It took a lot of my time and patience.

I tried hard to follow where events led. They led me to believe that Christine knows something. I don't know what it is yet, but I do believe it will come out.

I just want to know the truth about what happened to Nicholas.

If I have to stay on this board for the next ten years posting and re posting Nicholas' missing person's statistics, then I will. If I have to post and re post inconsistencies I see in Christine's behaviour regarding this case, I will.

If Nicholas is alive and comes back, I'll stop then. If he's found dead, well, then it has really only just begun at that point.

Also, if you see anything, any thing at all, that you believe is a half truth or incorrect in a post, please point it out on the board! I'm open to being corrected and I know most everyone here would be, too. If you don't then we will just be chasing the wind. But, if you have any real evidence that what is being posted is not right, let's all discuss it!

JMO.
M.

Musterion

04-09-2009, 01:56 AM

Ah yes the she was so brilliant that she killed him, hide him and left no evidence in less then 6 hours while thinking that she would get enough donations to live on or she was able to hire someone without anyone finding out and he was willing to hope she got enough donations to both pay him and for her to live on. Or is this where she had a boyfriend who figured it would be better to off him, hide the body and get nothing in return instead of just divorcing him and getting child support? If they were so brilliant why not just kill him and take the car somewhere and set it on fire with him in it. Then they could have got rid of the evidence and had the insurance.

But again we are just running in circles.

Well, yeah, it happens hundreds of times a year. And, people get away with it. Why is that so hard to believe? Because it's Christine? Because she was pregnant? If she was pregnant at that time, according to her own words, she would have only been in her first trimester when Nicholas disappeared.

She's not a big person, how could she pull it off? IMO, easily. And alone, yes.

Are you saying short women who are in their first trimester of pregnancy never commit murder within a six hour time frame?

First, SD, you are saying she had six hours to do all of this. Let's start there. Where do you get the six hour time frame?

Dialogue with me here. Don't just post and run. Come on now. Do you want the truth or do you just want to believe in Christine so desperately? It's okay if you believe her. I have no problem with that. But, let's have a real dialogue about all of it.

JMO.
M.

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 02:11 AM

Well, yeah, it happens hundreds of times a year. And, people get away with it. Why is that so hard to believe? Because it's Christine? Because she was pregnant? If she was pregnant at that time, according to her own words, she would have only been in her first trimester when Nicholas disappeared.

She's not a big person, how could she pull it off? IMO, easily. And alone, yes.

Are you saying short women who are in their first trimester of pregnancy never commit murder within a six hour time frame?

First, SD, you are saying she had six hours to do all of this. Let's start there. Where do you get the six hour time frame?

Dialogue with me here. Don't just post and run. Come on now. Do you want the truth or do you just want to believe in Christine so desperately? It's okay if you believe her. I have no problem with that. But, let's have a real dialogue about all of it.

JMO.
M.

6 hours comes from him getting home around 7 pm and her calling at 1am if she first called that late. Plus the for spending that time carefully hiding the body and everything, seems she could have come up with a better story then going for sugar and baking cookies. If it was a crime of passion she sure calmed down and thought things out well to get rid of all the evidence and the car and have no one notice them for days. Oh and getting back to the house to call the police.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:29 AM

Where exactly was I rude and where did I do any scolding or disrespecting, MP? What exactly are you reading that is not here and imagining I said? I asked what elf's point was, plain and simple.

This whole same thing could be used for C too. Maybe it was she who had the secret life and Nick found out. That too could be what led to his disappearance and/or her pregnancy.

I didn't say anything about your post in regard to Christine. The point was valid.

That being said.. Your posts are snide and nasty IMO.. if you are talking to someone who doesn't feel the same way you do. I am just trying to figure out what you have to gain by being that way. I don't believe that I am imagining it.

Two intelligent people can see things differently and both points of view can be valid.

I just have a feeling that you are taking it personally and it is not personal.

I believe we are all here for the same reason... because we care.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:38 AM

I have read this several times and pondered it before replying.

You actually gave me food for thought regarding the possible lack of close and satisfying relationships - the possible searching for something he felt he might be lacking in his life - the possible anxiety or depression. Perhaps the announcement of a third child when he was already working two jobs pushed him over the edge. Perhaps another birthday going by pushed him over the edge. Perhaps working at Publicis as art director pushed him over the edge - we just don't know.

Where my biggest problem with the lack of anyone searching for him is, is, I'm sorry, with Christine. She was his wife at the time - I feel people would have taken their lead from her. Had she put his picture on her MySpace like others did - had she put truly pertinent information on his flyer (or insisted that whoever made it put pertinent information on it), had she created websites and been front and center like so many other family members with missing loved ones do, I feel there would have been more response and interest.

Jeremy Scully's girlfriend let it be known right off the bat that he was loved unconditionally - she refused to let him be beat up in the press or anywhere else. There was another missing case on here (I think it is now gone), where the wife wrote a beautiful open letter to her missing husband, telling him that things were okay, and if he were alive just to come home. Those are the people I respect - the people who put up anniversary billboards and launch campaigns as much as 10 years later.

If you feel this is a criticism, so be it, but its JMO and something I've watched unfold for over a year now.

I don't understand why you don't have a huge problem with the lack of searching where the family is concerned. If one of my sons went missing.. I would never wait for their spouse to lead the way. I would become the most annoying, irritating person they had ever met and nobody would stop me.

No matter what anyone thinks of Christine.. that should not give his family a pass. One of them has nothing to do with the other if you ask me.

They owed it to him not to give up on him. We haven't and we don't even know him. Do they google for him? Do they read here? Have they attempted to contact a media outlet to get their son/brother's story out there the way that they think it should have been told? The media would have eaten that up. Why haven't they? Why are they so quiet?

CaresForKids

04-09-2009, 02:39 AM

I didn't say anything about your post in regard to Christine. The point was valid.

That being said.. Your posts are snide and nasty IMO.. if you are talking to someone who doesn't feel the same way you do. I am just trying to figure out what you have to gain by being that way. I don't believe that I am imagining it.

Two intelligent people can see things differently and both points of view can be valid.

I just have a feeling that you are taking it personally and it is not personal.

I believe we are all here for the same reason... because we care.

What would I be taking personally? You seem to be the one who reads things that aren't here. It's all in the attitude you take while you read my posts. I don't write any emotion in my posts, that's your own perception and interpretation.

P.S. This forum isn't about me or you...it's about Nick...let's get back to it.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:43 AM

What would I be taking personally? You seem to be the one who reads things that aren't here. It's all in the attitude you take while you read my posts. I don't write any emotion in my posts, that's your own perception and interpretation.

P.S. This forum isn't about me or you...it's about Nick...let's get back to it.

Yeah.. perfect example!

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 09:11 AM

Jeremy Scully had a girl friend who from what was said appeared to already know he was a swinger. She wasn't dependent on him, didn't have his kids to worry about and wasn't pregnant. Christine on the other hand appeared to believe she was in a monogamous relationship, had 2 kids, was totally dependent on him for financial support and was pregnant. These two cases are very different. I don't see how you can expect them to act in the same way.

Not every woman is as accepting of finding out their husband vanished and may have left them for another partner. I personally don't find it that strange that Christine felt the need to make sure her kids were cared for. I also don't find it that odd that she divorced him and is moving on with her life. Sound like she lost that loving feeling after some of the information that was found.

I know I would have a hard time forgiving if after my husband went missing I found out that he had been messing around behind my back. I have to say some of you are much better people then I am. I have to ask if he had been found dead and all of the information about his secret life had come out would you still have expected her to play the grieving widow? Or would you have felt it was okay for her to move on with her life?

Seems that after a year everyone is still running in the same circles. Some believe it is unlikely that he is dead because no physical evidence has been found that anything happened to him that way. Other don't believe he could ever leave without a change of clothes and his sketch books. So round and round we go in circles with half the people not even getting what can still be found on web sites correct much less the stuff that has vanished.

For me personally, feelings of deep love cannot be turned on and off like a faucet. Even if NF had been found dead and CF later found out about his life, I would have thought she would have grieved deeply at the loss of her husband and the father of her children, so yes I would have expected her to BE the grieving widow, not PLAY the grieving widow as you stated.

Being pregnant and being dependant on him, to me, would only compound the loss she should have felt - not minimized it.

I'm not even talking about forgiveness or acceptance of this news - I'm talking about deep abiding love. I just do not think it can be turned on and off based on any news. JMO

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 09:33 AM

I don't understand why you don't have a huge problem with the lack of searching where the family is concerned. If one of my sons went missing.. I would never wait for their spouse to lead the way. I would become the most annoying, irritating person they had ever met and nobody would stop me.

No matter what anyone thinks of Christine.. that should not give his family a pass. One of them has nothing to do with the other if you ask me.

They owed it to him not to give up on him. We haven't and we don't even know him. Do they google for him? Do they read here? Have they attempted to contact a media outlet to get their son/brother's story out there the way that they think it should have been told? The media would have eaten that up. Why haven't they? Why are they so quiet?

If you want to discuss his family, lets discuss it - but also be willing to discuss Christine.

We do not know what his family is doing or not doing. Perhaps they hired a PI who is searching every day. Perhaps they are working with missing organizations who are helping them. From what I have read about them from people who are close to them, they are very religious people - maybe they are relying solely on God - the only one who has the answers. Perhaps they are spending their evenings researching and looking. Perhaps they do read here and it is with great restraint that they don't post under a "secret" name.

I believe it was Christine who stated in her one year interview that just because people do not see/know what is going on in the search for NF does not mean it is NOT going on. That could apply to NF's family as well.

When NF was the devoted loving cooking baking husband, we were to ooh and aah and not say one bad word - then when NF was the bad evil money hiding, secret pervert, we were to cluck and tsk tsk. Sorry, but I refuse to base my feelings about a missing case on how the wife/ex wife wants and at times has demanded us to feel.

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 09:35 AM

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 09:59 AM

I don't understand why you don't have a huge problem with the lack of searching where the family is concerned. If one of my sons went missing.. I would never wait for their spouse to lead the way. I would become the most annoying, irritating person they had ever met and nobody would stop me.

No matter what anyone thinks of Christine.. that should not give his family a pass. One of them has nothing to do with the other if you ask me.

They owed it to him not to give up on him. We haven't and we don't even know him. Do they google for him? Do they read here? Have they attempted to contact a media outlet to get their son/brother's story out there the way that they think it should have been told? The media would have eaten that up. Why haven't they? Why are they so quiet?

I don't think anyone is giving Nick's family a "free pass". I think that so little has been heard from them that people don't know what to make of it. They didn't spend much time with the media and they don't appear to have much of an online presence. There's nothing really to discuss other than the possible reasons for their silence and apparent inaction.

Christine on the other hand was very vocal in the media and has had a strong online presence. She has said and done things that have created suspicion. I believe she manipulated the finding of the adult accounts that allegedly belong to Nick and supposedly "prove" he had been meeting people online for sex. That's one of the reasons I don't take anything said about the second life at face value.

I don't believe that the finding of these accounts out of the hundreds of thousands that use "Steven" or some variation of the name as the 'user name' and have absolutely nothing to connect them to Nick except some traits or interests that he shares with countless numbers of other people happened by accident. For that matter I don't believe it was an accident that it was suddenly decided he was using the name "Steven" for his alleged secret life.

Whether or not there is any truth to the secret life, how all of this has unfolded has been odd and questionable.

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 10:04 AM

I didn't say anything about your post in regard to Christine. The point was valid.

That being said.. Your posts are snide and nasty IMO.. if you are talking to someone who doesn't feel the same way you do. I am just trying to figure out what you have to gain by being that way. I don't believe that I am imagining it.

Two intelligent people can see things differently and both points of view can be valid.

I just have a feeling that you are taking it personally and it is not personal.

I believe we are all here for the same reason... because we care.

(highlighted by me)
I disagree. I think there are several agendas on this board and not all of them are because people care about Nicholas. MOO

elf999

04-09-2009, 11:15 AM

For me personally, feelings of deep love cannot be turned on and off like a faucet. Even if NF had been found dead and CF later found out about his life, I would have thought she would have grieved deeply at the loss of her husband and the father of her children, so yes I would have expected her to BE the grieving widow, not PLAY the grieving widow as you stated.

Being pregnant and being dependant on him, to me, would only compound the loss she should have felt - not minimized it.

I'm not even talking about forgiveness or acceptance of this news - I'm talking about deep abiding love. I just do not think it can be turned on and off based on any news. JMO

I think true love is a gift and a blessing.

When someone wears rose-colored glasses when viewing their spouse or lover I think it's most likely because they want or need them to be something more than they are.... the perfect husband, lover, wife. Hasn't anyone else here minimized another person's faults or magnified their positive qualities to try to turn them into their perfect love? I tell you, I have. And I see others doing it too, turning a blind eye, making excuses, trying to make the loved one seem better in their own eyes, and the eyes of others, these seem like natural defense mechanisms to me. It's human nature, because most of us would like to have that perfect love we crave, and it's elusive.

A good example would be when the husband or wife cheats, the spouse blinds themselves to it, and is still convinced their marriage is great. Sad but true it happens every day.

In fact I think that deep love comes when you take the rose-colored glasses off, and start seeing your spouse the way they really are, and can still love them, or learn to truly love them, just because they are them.

My personal opinion is that it's probably true that Christine didn't have that deep love that comes from time, and work and great intimacy, and it doesn't appear that Nicholas did either. Christine moved on, and I don't fault her for that.

IMO MOO

Cury-us Coyote

04-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Does anyone recall everyone LE reportedly interviewed with regard to Nicholas' disappearance? TIA

Cury-us Coyote

04-09-2009, 11:56 AM

There may be a slight problem, then, on Christine saying she told Nicholas she was pregnant on his birthday.

Nicholas' birthday is 23 January.

According to Christine, she said that her baby had been born six weeks early. From what you are saying, the baby was born in August. Let's say 31 August. That would make the due date on 12 October, if the baby was born six weeks early. This is all according to what she's said.

Now, according to this:

http://www.justmommies.com/duedate.shtml

12 October due date would mean 20 January conception.

Maybe I got it wrong. But, unless there was a vision from God telling Christine that she was three days pregnant, there would be just no way she could have known she was pregnant and able to tell Nicholas, truthfully, that they were going to have their third child.

I'm open to correction, if I got any of the dates wrong. I hope I am wrong.

JMO.
M.

The Harambee Church Prayer for Hope and Thanksgiving on June 29, 2008 reported CF was placed on bedrest at only 26 weeks along.
http://www.harambeechurch2.org/worship_liturgy.php

According to due date calendar, conception 1/10, due date 10/3, 26 weeks equals to 6/27.
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/pregnancycalendar/l/blpregcalc.htm

An August birthdate would be sometime between week 31 thru week 35, IMO. Child's weight and term unknown. IMO, natural medicine and midwifes all use same calendar.

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 12:20 PM

Does anyone recall everyone LE reportedly interviewed with regard to Nicholas' disappearance? TIA

As I recall they talked to Christine, family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Other than Christine, I don't recall it ever being reported that anyone went or was brought in to sit with LE at KCSO for a formal interview.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 12:59 PM

I didn't say anything about your post in regard to Christine. The point was valid.

That being said.. Your posts are snide and nasty IMO.. if you are talking to someone who doesn't feel the same way you do. I am just trying to figure out what you have to gain by being that way. I don't believe that I am imagining it.

Two intelligent people can see things differently and both points of view can be valid.

I just have a feeling that you are taking it personally and it is not personal.

I believe we are all here for the same reason... because we care.

(highlighted by me)
I disagree. I think there are several agendas on this board and not all of them are because people care about Nicholas. MOO

LOL I see your point BUT have to stick by my original statement. We may not all "care" in the same way but if we didn't care then we wouldn't be here.. no matter what the agenda is.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 01:14 PM

I don't think anyone is giving Nick's family a "free pass". I think that so little has been heard from them that people don't know what to make of it. They didn't spend much time with the media and they don't appear to have much of an online presence. There's nothing really to discuss other than the possible reasons for their silence and apparent inaction.

Christine on the other hand was very vocal in the media and has had a strong online presence. She has said and done things that have created suspicion. I believe she manipulated the finding of the adult accounts that allegedly belong to Nick and supposedly "prove" he had been meeting people online for sex. That's one of the reasons I don't take anything said about the second life at face value.

I don't believe that the finding of these accounts out of the hundreds of thousands that use "Steven" or some variation of the name as the 'user name' and have absolutely nothing to connect them to Nick except some traits or interests that he shares with countless numbers of other people happened by accident. For that matter I don't believe it was an accident that it was suddenly decided he was using the name "Steven" for his alleged secret life.

Whether or not there is any truth to the secret life, how all of this has unfolded has been odd and questionable.

The online accounts were Nicholas' and I wish we could just get over that fact. I don't say this to slam on Nicholas in anyway. I just wonder why some hold so tight to the arguement that there is no proof of it and all that? Why are they so afraid to admit that Nicholas participated in these activities? It says nothing about the fact that he is a fellow human being that deserves what all the rest of us deserve. It just is what it is and it very well could lead to what happened to him. But.. you Cheri.. won't look or investigate it.. because you don't want to harm his reputation. When you could be the one that would find something that the rest of us didn't see. Who knows. I believe that all of us have our talents and experiences that lead us as we try.. most of the time in vain.. to help to locate missing people. If we can't all work together but go in different way.. how will that ever help to truly find him?

If we are truly looking at all possiblities.. and being open to all possibilities then we have to look at all of them equally. Christine's actions do not give his family a pass. Just as theirs do not give her a pass.

What would you be doing if Nicholas was your brother.. your son? If you learned all the stuff that we have learned of Nicholas.. (even if you didn't believe) what would you do? Would you let a year go by? Would you be quiet because some detective (who is not even openly searching for Nicholas anymore but only following up on leads when they come in) told you to stay quiet?

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 01:16 PM

Musterion

04-09-2009, 01:22 PM

6 hours comes from him getting home around 7 pm and her calling at 1am if she first called that late. Plus the for spending that time carefully hiding the body and everything, seems she could have come up with a better story then going for sugar and baking cookies. If it was a crime of passion she sure calmed down and thought things out well to get rid of all the evidence and the car and have no one notice them for days. Oh and getting back to the house to call the police.

Good morning SD!

Let's start with the car in this time line.

The car was not discovered until five days after Nicholas disappeared.

He left work at six pm, 13 February, Wednesday. The car was not found until 18 February, Monday.

Five days to move a car. Not six hours.

Call to 911. Report taken at 1 or 2 AM. Call could have been from a cell phone anywhere, not just from the home.

The report was taken over the phone. LE did not, to my knowledge, come to the house the early morning hours of Valentine's Day. Maybe they did. But, I haven't heard.

Do you see any of these, SD, as different from the scenario you've been led to believe? Are these possibilities to you at all?

JMO.
M.

Musterion

04-09-2009, 01:26 PM

Yeah lets! IF CW closes this forum, she won't reopen it due to lack of news. I'm sure that would thrill several people if this forum was closed.

You're right as rain, Rainy.

We can all dialogue and be respectful and kind. This is an emotional case for many of us.

This is about Nicholas and getting the truth and hopefully finding him.

Please, everyone, let's not get this board closed.

JMO.
M.

Cury-us Coyote

04-09-2009, 01:30 PM

<respectfully snipped>

If we can't all work together but go in different way.. how will that ever help to truly find him?

IF one believes this, why question whether others agree, disagree, or are being sarcastic? And why totally agree with others? Why can't the photo overlay tool used to prove NF's identity be shared? Seeing any and all proof like redacted bank statement(s), IM conversations captured, etc could lead to future agreement and productive brainstorming, IMO.

Musterion

04-09-2009, 01:39 PM

I think true love is a gift and a blessing.

When someone wears rose-colored glasses when viewing their spouse or lover I think it's most likely because they want or need them to be something more than they are.... the perfect husband, lover, wife. Hasn't anyone else here minimized another person's faults or magnified their positive qualities to try to turn them into their perfect love? I tell you, I have. And I see others doing it too, turning a blind eye, making excuses, trying to make the loved one seem better in their own eyes, and the eyes of others, these seem like natural defense mechanisms to me. It's human nature, because most of us would like to have that perfect love we crave, and it's elusive.

A good example would be when the husband or wife cheats, the spouse blinds themselves to it, and is still convinced their marriage is great. Sad but true it happens every day.

In fact I think that deep love comes when you take the rose-colored glasses off, and start seeing your spouse the way they really are, and can still love them, or learn to truly love them, just because they are them.

My personal opinion is that it's probably true that Christine didn't have that deep love that comes from time, and work and great intimacy, and it doesn't appear that Nicholas did either. Christine moved on, and I don't fault her for that.

IMO MOO

Hi elf,

You think that it is fine that Christine moved on?

Drew Peterson has moved on and not many people think that is fine.
Any person of the male gender who acted and moved on as Christine has done would probably be in jail. And you're saying it is fine that she moved on?

Christine has been caught in lies. IMO. Why would she lie about the conception date of her child? I'd love to hear explanations for this, because maybe it would make some sense to me then.

Truthfully, how can she announce she felt her baby move at just a few weeks after conception? Trust me, I searched and gave her the benefit of the doubt, but what she is wanting people to believe is impossible.

Why would she not go ahead and do the 48 Hours show about Nicholas missing? Why would she not give her signature, early on, to have billboards put up about Nicholas?

Why would she list herself single on her MySpace page, before she even filed for divorce? With a coy and smiling happy picture of herself?

I'd really like to hear how you can excuse or justify these things. And there's more. But, let's start there.

I'm open to hearing and open to being flat out wrong.

JMO.
M.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 01:52 PM

IF one believes this, why question whether others agree, disagree, or are being sarcastic? And why totally agree with others? Why can't the photo overlay tool used to prove NF's identity be shared? Seeing any and all proof like redacted bank statement(s), IM conversations captured, etc could lead to future agreement and productive brainstorming, IMO.

I don't question whether others agree. I am only asking to get past that one point. We can investigate something based on information we have even if we don't think that it will lead to something or believe it. No matter what any of our guts tell us.. we don't know what happened to him and really anything is possible. So, why close ourselves off.

I don't think the Christine killed Nicholas but I am not against looking at everything and seeing where it leads us.

I don't know what you are talking about with the photo overlay tool. CaresForKids said that she was familiar with Nicholas.. have her look at it and tell you if it is him or not. I know his wife looked at it and without a doubt said that it was him. But then I know that some won't believe that because it came from her. We have to give up on this everything Christine does is bad and everything Nicholas did is good bit. Or on the other side.. and just to be fair.. the everything Nicholas did is bad and Christine is good. I have a feeling.. somewhere in the middle is the reality.

Musterion

04-09-2009, 01:57 PM

Musterion

04-09-2009, 02:03 PM

I don't question whether others agree. I am only asking to get past that one point. We can investigate something based on information we have even if we don't think that it will lead to something or believe it. No matter what any of our guts tell us.. we don't know what happened to him and really anything is possible. So, why close ourselves off.

I don't think the Christine killed Nicholas but I am not against looking at everything and seeing where it leads us.

I don't know what you are talking about with the photo overlay tool. CaresForKids said that she was familiar with Nicholas.. have her look at it and tell you if it is him or not. I know his wife looked at it and without a doubt said that it was him. But then I know that some won't believe that because it came from her. We have to give up on this everything Christine does is bad and everything Nicholas did is good bit. Or on the other side.. and just to be fair.. the everything Nicholas did is bad and Christine is good. I have a feeling.. somewhere in the middle is the reality.

But, here again, M., I believe Christine manipulated that photo to get into the hands of people. Why?

We have to get the answers to why.

JMO.
M.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:13 PM

Hi elf,

You think that it is fine that Christine moved on?

Drew Peterson has moved on and not many people think that is fine.
Any person of the male gender who acted and moved on as Christine has done would probably be in jail. And you're saying it is fine that she moved on?

Christine has been caught in lies. IMO. Why would she lie about the conception date of her child? I'd love to hear explanations for this, because maybe it would make some sense to me then.

Truthfully, how can she announce she felt her baby move at just a few weeks after conception? Trust me, I searched and gave her the benefit of the doubt, but what she is wanting people to believe is impossible.

Why would she not go ahead and do the 48 Hours show about Nicholas missing? Why would she not give her signature, early on, to have billboards put up about Nicholas?

Why would she list herself single on her MySpace page, before she even filed for divorce? With a coy and smiling happy picture of herself?

I'd really like to hear how you can excuse or justify these things. And there's more. But, let's start there.

I'm open to hearing and open to being flat out wrong.

JMO.
M.

I think the DP comparison isn't fair but I can see your point about them moving on. DP had motive, means and opportunity and a history of questionable activities.

In your opinion or anyone elses..

What is Christine's motive?

What would have been her means?

Opportunity?

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:18 PM

But, here again, M., I believe Christine manipulated that photo to get into the hands of people. Why?

We have to get the answers to why.

JMO.
M.

Let's say that she did.

What does that change? The photo is of Nicholas. The account hadn't been logged into in some time. Nothing really came of that information.. other than that perhaps he was getting a little something on the side.

What would she have to gain by wanting that out there? LE has for all practical purposes.. cleared her.. and as much as stated so in an email to someone on Cheri's board when they said it was a shame that people where looking at her like that. Sorry.. can't remember exactly what it said.

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 02:25 PM

The online accounts were Nicholas' and I wish we could just get over that fact. I don't say this to slam on Nicholas in anyway. I just wonder why some hold so tight to the arguement that there is no proof of it and all that? Why are they so afraid to admit that Nicholas participated in these activities? It says nothing about the fact that he is a fellow human being that deserves what all the rest of us deserve. It just is what it is and it very well could lead to what happened to him. But.. you Cheri.. won't look or investigate it.. because you don't want to harm his reputation. When you could be the one that would find something that the rest of us didn't see. Who knows. I believe that all of us have our talents and experiences that lead us as we try.. most of the time in vain.. to help to locate missing people. If we can't all work together but go in different way.. how will that ever help to truly find him?

If we are truly looking at all possiblities.. and being open to all possibilities then we have to look at all of them equally. Christine's actions do not give his family a pass. Just as theirs do not give her a pass.

What would you be doing if Nicholas was your brother.. your son? If you learned all the stuff that we have learned of Nicholas.. (even if you didn't believe) what would you do? Would you let a year go by? Would you be quiet because some detective (who is not even openly searching for Nicholas anymore but only following up on leads when they come in) told you to stay quiet?

I continue to say there is no proof that these accounts are Nick's because there is in fact no proof that they are.

Please don't waste my time telling me again that the claim of a single poster online that there was a receipt of some sort is proof. The existance of that receipt has never been comfirmed by anyone else. For that matter we don't even know if the person who made claim actually saw a receipt or was taking the word of somebody else. Also, there would have been no receipt for purchasing an online membership at AFF. There would just be a line on a credit card or bank statement showing who the payment was made to and for how much. Its unlikely it would confirm which specific account belonged to the member.

Don't presume to know what I will and will not consider or what I have or have not looked at. I have looked at all the accounts that are said to be Nick's which is why I know that all but one had been closed or had no activity for a year or more. I found nothing on any of them that conclusively linked them to Nick. That does not mean I have ruled out the possibility that Nick was having an affair or affairs or even that he had met people online.

I don't think its fair for you to tell me that I'm refusing to look at all possibilites when you yourself are not willing to consider them all. Why is it so important to you that I accept everything that is being said about Nick? Most of what has been said is pure speculation after all. Nobody can say with any certainty what Nick did unless they were doing it with him.

It is possible that some, maybe all of what is being said is untrue or grossly exaggerated. The point I had been trying to get across was that all this stuff was found rather easily and quickly considering the number of adult sites there are and the number of members on each of those sites and that there has never been any real confirmation of anything. Why were people looking for Nick as Steven? I think there was more to it than just thinking he might be using his middle name. I don't recall any accounts with 'Nick' or 'Nicholas' in the name being offered up as possibilities. Not even any 'Sisco's' a nick we knew he used.

I'm not bothered about Nick's reputation being hurt. If he did these things he did them. It makes no difference in my life and it doesn't change the fact that he is at this point a missing person who needs to be found and quite possibly a victim of something worse.

What bothers me is somebody has worked hard to sell this. To convince everyone that Nick was some sort of sexually depraved maniac cheating on his wife on a regular basis even though there is nothing concrete to support it. Why? Who gains from this and how?

Musterion

04-09-2009, 02:33 PM

I think the DP comparison isn't fair but I can see your point about them moving on. DP had motive, means and opportunity and a history of questionable activities.

In your opinion or anyone elses..

What is Christine's motive?

What would have been her means?

Opportunity?

Mystry, you know me. I don't say any of this stuff lightly.

I say it because this is where, IMO, evidence has led. To Christine. It always comes back to her.

I don't know if Christine has a questionable history or not. I don't know what her life was like before Nicholas. I don't know if past relationships were rocky or rage filled. I don't know if she was verbally, emotionally or physically abusive in any past relationships.

I think it is very possible that Christine found out something about Nicholas and it enraged her.

I also think it is very possible that she either met someone and had feelings for him or it went even further than just feelings.

She had opportunity and means, IMO. Nicholas lived with her. We do not know if he got home that night or not. Can you say with certainty that he didn't come home that night?

The means could be many things, including having someone help her.

Why do you feel it is so unlikely that she could have had him killed?

Christine's been lying, Mystry. As the spouse of a missing person any lies should be red flags. Huge red flags. IMO.

Sometimes people murder their spouse and it isn't about money or convenience to them. Sometimes it is just anger and rage.

I'm not saying that Christine did kill Nicholas. I'm saying that she does have opportunity and she does have motive. And until we can find out why she has lied about certain things, we can't move ahead.

JMO.
M.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:36 PM

I continue to say there is no proof that these accounts are Nick's because there is in fact no proof that they are.

Please don't waste my time telling me again that the claim of a single poster online that there was a receipt of some sort is proof. The existance of that receipt has never been comfirmed by anyone else. For that matter we don't even know if the person who made claim actually saw a receipt or was taking the word of somebody else. Also, there would have been no receipt for purchasing an online membership at AFF. There would just be a line on a credit card or bank statement showing who the payment was made to and for how much. Its unlikely it would confirm which specific account belonged to the member.

Don't presume to know what I will and will not consider or what I have or have not looked at. I have looked at all the accounts that are said to be Nick's which is why I know that all but one had been closed or had no activity for a year or more. I found nothing on any of them that conclusively linked them to Nick. That does not mean I have ruled out the possibility that Nick was having an affair or affairs or even that he had met people online.

I don't think its fair for you to tell me that I'm refusing to look at all possibilites when you yourself are not willing to consider them all. Why is it so important to you that I accept everything that is being said about Nick? Most of what has been said is pure speculation after all. Nobody can say with any certainty what Nick did unless they were doing it with him.

It is possible that some, maybe all of what is being said is untrue or grossly exaggerated. The point I had been trying to get across was that all this stuff was found rather easily and quickly considering the number of adult sites there are and the number of members on each of those sites and that there has never been any real confirmation of anything. Why were people looking for Nick as Steven? I think there was more to it than just thinking he might be using his middle name. I don't recall any accounts with 'Nick' or 'Nicholas' in the name being offered up as possibilities. Not even any 'Sisco's' a nick we knew he used.

I'm not bothered about Nick's reputation being hurt. If he did these things he did them. It makes no difference in my life and it doesn't change the fact that he is at this point a missing person who needs to be found and quite possibly a victim of something worse.

What bothers me is somebody has worked hard to sell this. To convince everyone that Nick was some sort of sexually depraved maniac cheating on his wife on a regular basis even though there is nothing concrete to support it. Why? Who gains from this and how?

You say it doesn't matter to you and then go on to say that someone is trying to convince you that he is some sexually depraved maniac cheating on his wife on a regular basis.

I assume that you are talking about Christine but want to say again for the record.. I have have never said that is how I think about what was found. Quite the opposite actually.

I respectfully disagree that there is nothing concrete to support the claim tho. I believe that the pictures, blogs and accounts that Nicholas has, proves what his intentions were.. whether he acted on them is another thing entirely.. but to say there is nothing concrete to prove it.. seems almost ridiculous to me.

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 02:45 PM

I don't question whether others agree. I am only asking to get past that one point. We can investigate something based on information we have even if we don't think that it will lead to something or believe it. No matter what any of our guts tell us.. we don't know what happened to him and really anything is possible. So, why close ourselves off.

I don't think the Christine killed Nicholas but I am not against looking at everything and seeing where it leads us.

I don't know what you are talking about with the photo overlay tool. CaresForKids said that she was familiar with Nicholas.. have her look at it and tell you if it is him or not. I know his wife looked at it and without a doubt said that it was him. But then I know that some won't believe that because it came from her. We have to give up on this everything Christine does is bad and everything Nicholas did is good bit. Or on the other side.. and just to be fair.. the everything Nicholas did is bad and Christine is good. I have a feeling.. somewhere in the middle is the reality.

I don't think there was enough of the face showing to make a positive ID.

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 02:49 PM

I don't question whether others agree. I am only asking to get past that one point. We can investigate something based on information we have even if we don't think that it will lead to something or believe it. No matter what any of our guts tell us.. we don't know what happened to him and really anything is possible. So, why close ourselves off.

I don't think the Christine killed Nicholas but I am not against looking at everything and seeing where it leads us.

I don't know what you are talking about with the photo overlay tool. CaresForKids said that she was familiar with Nicholas.. have her look at it and tell you if it is him or not. I know his wife looked at it and without a doubt said that it was him. But then I know that some won't believe that because it came from her. We have to give up on this everything Christine does is bad and everything Nicholas did is good bit. Or on the other side.. and just to be fair.. the everything Nicholas did is bad and Christine is good. I have a feeling.. somewhere in the middle is the reality.

(highlighted by me)
And why is that Mystry? Why? This board is full of sympathetic, empathetic people who respond to family members here, so why is she an exception?

Is it because her version of events no matter what it pertained to never quite added up?

Or is it because she is completely misunderstood in every thing she says?

Honestly asking....

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:49 PM

Mystry, you know me. I don't say any of this stuff lightly.

I say it because this is where, IMO, evidence has led. To Christine. It always comes back to her.

I don't know if Christine has a questionable history or not. I don't know what her life was like before Nicholas. I don't know if past relationships were rocky or rage filled. I don't know if she was verbally, emotionally or physically abusive in any past relationships.

I think it is very possible that Christine found out something about Nicholas and it enraged her.

I also think it is very possible that she either met someone and had feelings for him or it went even further than just feelings.

She had opportunity and means, IMO. Nicholas lived with her. We do not know if he got home that night or not. Can you say with certainty that he didn't come home that night?

The means could be many things, including having someone help her.

Why do you feel it is so unlikely that she could have had him killed?

Christine's been lying, Mystry. As the spouse of a missing person any lies should be red flags. Huge red flags. IMO.

Sometimes people murder their spouse and it isn't about money or convenience to them. Sometimes it is just anger and rage.

I'm not saying that Christine did kill Nicholas. I'm saying that she does have opportunity and she does have motive. And until we can find out why she has lied about certain things, we can't move ahead.

JMO.
M.

I just go back to the beginning and remember what she said.. how adamant she was.. desperate.. lashing out at anyone or anything that felt he could have left.. then you can see how things changed.. slowly. I guess I could almost see myself going through the same kind of progression.. if she didn't know and was just a witness to it being found.

Plus.. I trust LE. They are trained to look for all of those subtle things that people do and say. They have been with her. They have investigated his disappearance. They have searched her home. They have watched her reaction to things. They found information (statements, photos, text messages.. etc) that he was keeping secrets from his wife and IMO they have come to the conclusion that he probably walked. That is just the impression that I get.

And.. as I have said before.. I have been on here before and I was part of a lynch mob that convicted a husband of murder and any number of other crimes against his wife only to find out that she walked! Away from her life, away from her 2 children, job, car, family EVERYTHING.. with just the clothes on her back and her purse. I promises myself that I would never do that again.. that everything I said on these boards.. I would be able to stand behind.. no matter what the outcome.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:54 PM

(highlighted by me)
And why is that Mystry? Why? This board is full of sympathetic, empathetic people who respond to family members here, so why is she an exception?

Is it because her version of events no matter what it pertained to never quite added up?

Or is it because she is completely misunderstood in every thing she says?

Honestly asking....

I think that she brought some of it on herself because of the things that M has been pointing out. Some of it came from people's initital gut reaction to her. I haven't seen alot of change in those that first posted they didn't like her. For some reason.. she provoked alot of emotion from people AS SOON as she spoke.

But.. a photo? Any number of people that knew him could verify this also.. so, why lie about that?

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 02:56 PM

You say it doesn't matter to you and then go on to say that someone is trying to convince you that he is some sexually depraved maniac cheating on his wife on a regular basis.

I assume that you are talking about Christine but want to say again for the record.. I have have never said that is how I think about what was found. Quite the opposite actually.

I respectfully disagree that there is nothing concrete to support the claim tho. I believe that the pictures, blogs and accounts that Nicholas has, proves what his intentions were.. whether he acted on them is another thing entirely.. but to say there is nothing concrete to prove it.. seems almost ridiculous to me.

I'm sorry MP, but unless you can prove that the accounts are Nick's then the pictures and blogs that are on them are meaningless and do not in any way prove his intentions.

Again, the point that I'm trying to make is that somebody is pushing an agenda and what is behind that agenda may be an important piece in finding out what has happened to Nick.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 02:58 PM

I don't think there was enough of the face showing to make a positive ID.

You couldn't look at the same picture of your spouse and know if it was him or not? Not only that but she still had the computer chair and knew where they lived when he took it. So, there is more to the picture than just his body.

MystryPhobia

04-09-2009, 03:06 PM

I'm sorry MP, but unless you can prove that the accounts are Nick's then the pictures and blogs that are on them are meaningless and do not in any way prove his intentions.

Again, the point that I'm trying to make is that somebody is pushing an agenda and what is behind that agenda may be an important piece in finding out what has happened to Nick.

and again.. whether there was or is an agenda or not.. we all have common sense and can draw our own conclusions.

Even if she is ticked at him and wants to smear his name and is feeding information to come out about him.. how does that change what he was doing?

Or are you saying that she created that site with her husbands naked body pic years before he was to come up missing.. to set him up for what she and her lover were going to do to him years later? If she did do this.. then why didn't she log in for years and especially why didn't she before he went missing to show that he was still doing that?

That doesn't sound logical. Can you give me that? (Hypothetically anyway since I know you don't agree it was him)

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 03:08 PM

You couldn't look at the same picture of your spouse and know if it was him or not? Not only that but she still had the computer chair and knew where they lived when he took it. So, there is more to the picture than just his body.

Yes, I think a spouse can make a mistake when trying to identify someone from a partial picture. All it takes is the picture being of someone with similar build and characteristics.

How many people do you think have that exact same office chair? The chair is meanigless as an identifier.

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 03:14 PM

Good morning SD!

Let's start with the car in this time line.

The car was not discovered until five days after Nicholas disappeared.

He left work at six pm, 13 February, Wednesday. The car was not found until 18 February, Monday.

Five days to move a car. Not six hours.

Call to 911. Report taken at 1 or 2 AM. Call could have been from a cell phone anywhere, not just from the home.

The report was taken over the phone. LE did not, to my knowledge, come to the house the early morning hours of Valentine's Day. Maybe they did. But, I haven't heard.

Do you see any of these, SD, as different from the scenario you've been led to believe? Are these possibilities to you at all?

JMO.
M.

Okay so how did she hid the car for the 5 days? We can be fairly sure that she didn't have it in her driveway or even the garage. To much risk if the police had come right out. It would have been an even bigger risk for her to be driving it around after a report had been made.

If a cell phone was used to call 911 there would have been a record that it wasn't coming from her house and if I remember right would even have been traced. King County has had a very advanced 911 system for quite a while now. They don't even have to ask for your address when you call any more.

Even for small stuff the Sheriff office sends out an officer. I had one at my house for a simple car prowl within an hour. So yes I do believe that they had an officer to the house that night.

This also comes back to why risk making the call from a cell phone while out hiding the body. It could be traced and she might not be home when the police arrived.

So living in the area and having called 911 several times for smaller stuff I don't see any of the above as being very likely at all.

JMO

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 03:15 PM

I think that she brought some of it on herself because of the things that M has been pointing out. Some of it came from people's initital gut reaction to her. I haven't seen alot of change in those that first posted they didn't like her. For some reason.. she provoked alot of emotion from people AS SOON as she spoke.

But.. a photo? Any number of people that knew him could verify this also.. so, why lie about that?

Okay thanks. I would sure hate for all of us to be on a jury together - we would never get anything done :tongueside:

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 03:19 PM

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 03:21 PM

and again.. whether there was or is an agenda or not.. we all have common sense and can draw our own conclusions.

Even if she is ticked at him and wants to smear his name and is feeding information to come out about him.. how does that change what he was doing?

Or are you saying that she created that site with her husbands naked body pic years before he was to come up missing.. to set him up for what she and her lover were going to do to him years later? If she did do this.. then why didn't she log in for years and especially why didn't she before he went missing to show that he was still doing that?

That doesn't sound logical. Can you give me that? (Hypothetically anyway since I know you don't agree it was him)

For starters, even if the accounts are Nick's, the only thing they prove is that he had the accounts. They do not prove anything beyond that. They don't prove he met anyone IRL, or that he had sex with anyone he met on them.

I don't think I've said anything that could possibly lead you or anyone to think that I'm saying Christine set up any of these accounts for some pre-meditated reason. But yes, I will agree that what you suggested I might be saying does not sound logical as long as we're clear that I didn't actually suggest any such thing.

And with regards to last logins. Do we know who last logged onto the AFF account? Do we know how long before that it had been accessed?

Musterion

04-09-2009, 03:47 PM

Okay so how did she hid the car for the 5 days? We can be fairly sure that she didn't have it in her driveway or even the garage. To much risk if the police had come right out. It would have been an even bigger risk for her to be driving it around after a report had been made.

If a cell phone was used to call 911 there would have been a record that it wasn't coming from her house and if I remember right would even have been traced. King County has had a very advanced 911 system for quite a while now. They don't even have to ask for your address when you call any more.

Even for small stuff the Sheriff office sends out an officer. I had one at my house for a simple car prowl within an hour. So yes I do believe that they had an officer to the house that night.

This also comes back to why risk making the call from a cell phone while out hiding the body. It could be traced and she might not be home when the police arrived.

So living in the area and having called 911 several times for smaller stuff I don't see any of the above as being very likely at all.

JMO

Then, it might suggest that she had someone help her.

JMO.
M.

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 04:00 PM

I think true love is a gift and a blessing.

When someone wears rose-colored glasses when viewing their spouse or lover I think it's most likely because they want or need them to be something more than they are.... the perfect husband, lover, wife. Hasn't anyone else here minimized another person's faults or magnified their positive qualities to try to turn them into their perfect love? I tell you, I have. And I see others doing it too, turning a blind eye, making excuses, trying to make the loved one seem better in their own eyes, and the eyes of others, these seem like natural defense mechanisms to me. It's human nature, because most of us would like to have that perfect love we crave, and it's elusive.

A good example would be when the husband or wife cheats, the spouse blinds themselves to it, and is still convinced their marriage is great. Sad but true it happens every day.

In fact I think that deep love comes when you take the rose-colored glasses off, and start seeing your spouse the way they really are, and can still love them, or learn to truly love them, just because they are them.

My personal opinion is that it's probably true that Christine didn't have that deep love that comes from time, and work and great intimacy, and it doesn't appear that Nicholas did either. Christine moved on, and I don't fault her for that.

IMO MOO

I agree with all of your post except the last sentence. I would think if CF and NF divorced under normal circumstances, i.e. irreconcilable differences, yes they would probably both want and need to move on.

However, Nicholas is missing. Maybe CF had to move on financially or physically such as moving to a different house, but I don't see how she could move on emotionally. Wouldn't a person worry at night about their missing spouse or ex-spouse? Wouldn't a person wonder if they were hungry, sick, being hurt, being confined? Wouldn't they wonder about them every time they looked into the face of their children? I don't know how anyone can really move on entirely when they have no idea if their husband/father of their children is alive or laying in a shallow grave somewhere. To me that would not even have to be deep, abiding love for that person, but rather a humane concern. IMO

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 04:03 PM

I knew a woman who's husband died when their kids were small. I don't think she ever got over the anger of him leaving her. She even wanted to burn a rocking chair on his grave because he hadn't wanted her to buy it but after she did he would rock the kids in it but hadn't ever told her. She only found out after he was dead and one of the kids said something.

So yes anger is very common. Even if a person dies.

I agree - anger is a common reaction. But Christine does not know if Nicholas left her of his own free will or met with foul play. It would be hard to fathom she could be angry if he met with foul play. IMO

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 04:07 PM

Okay so how did she hid the car for the 5 days? We can be fairly sure that she didn't have it in her driveway or even the garage. To much risk if the police had come right out. It would have been an even bigger risk for her to be driving it around after a report had been made.

If a cell phone was used to call 911 there would have been a record that it wasn't coming from her house and if I remember right would even have been traced. King County has had a very advanced 911 system for quite a while now. They don't even have to ask for your address when you call any more.

Even for small stuff the Sheriff office sends out an officer. I had one at my house for a simple car prowl within an hour. So yes I do believe that they had an officer to the house that night.

This also comes back to why risk making the call from a cell phone while out hiding the body. It could be traced and she might not be home when the police arrived.

So living in the area and having called 911 several times for smaller stuff I don't see any of the above as being very likely at all.

JMO

I think we all know the car was not in the driveway after Nick went missing.

What we don't know is where it was from the time he left work until the day it was found. Was it in that parking lot for 5 days and it took somebody that long to notice or was it left there at some point after the 13th? Maybe it was parked there on the day it was found... ??

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 04:19 PM

I agree - anger is a common reaction. But Christine does not know if Nicholas left her of his own free will or met with foul play. It would be hard to fathom she could be angry if he met with foul play. IMO

To emotions it doesn't matter. He is gone. Fear and anger would be the two big emotions. At this point it would appear that anger has won out. With her not knowing there isn't going to be grief until she knows he met with foul play and even then with the other stuff she seems to have found out I don't think there will be a lot of grief.

Woman who find out their husband was unfaithful after his death spend very little time on grief and a lot on anger.

JMO

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 04:24 PM

I think we all know the car was not in the driveway after Nick went missing.

What we don't know is where it was from the time he left work until the day it was found. Was it in that parking lot for 5 days and it took somebody that long to notice or was it left there at some point after the 13th? Maybe it was parked there on the day it was found... ??

And that is the million dollar question. Was the car there all the time? Was it being driven around by the killer? Was it being driven around by Nicholas? Did he park the car there never dreaming someone would come and tow it away? Why if he had been killed didn't someone try to get rid of it better? Burn it? Push it off a bridge? Drive it out of state?

Personally I don't think he thought anyone would notice it and he drove it there and had been driving it. Some people thought the car was being moved.

JMO

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 04:30 PM

Then, it might suggest that she had someone help her.

JMO.
M.

That still comes back to what would be gained and I posted about that in the other post.

If it was a man then I can see it he would get away with no child support but as a woman she could have just divorced him and would have gotten support. YES it really is different if it is a man or a woman.

Also someone good enough and willing to kill him, hid the body and leave no trace. Would cost a lot and wouldn't be willing to wait to see if there was donations since he would be making sure not insurance would be collected.

Why not just a drive by from a stolen car. Nicholas is still dead and Christine collects.

Just don't seen Christine or Christine with help killing him.

jmo

Cheri_G

04-09-2009, 04:38 PM

And that is the million dollar question. Was the car there all the time? Was it being driven around by the killer? Was it being driven around by Nicholas? Did he park the car there never dreaming someone would come and tow it away? Why if he had been killed didn't someone try to get rid of it better? Burn it? Push it off a bridge? Drive it out of state?

Personally I don't think he thought anyone would notice it and he drove it there and had been driving it. Some people thought the car was being moved.

JMO

I think, since LE (if IRC) said there was no evidence of struggle within or around the car, that Nick got out of it of his own accord. However, it can't be said for sure that that happened where the car was found or some place else.

Musterion

04-09-2009, 05:27 PM

I just go back to the beginning and remember what she said.. how adamant she was.. desperate.. lashing out at anyone or anything that felt he could have left.. then you can see how things changed.. slowly. I guess I could almost see myself going through the same kind of progression.. if she didn't know and was just a witness to it being found.

Plus.. I trust LE. They are trained to look for all of those subtle things that people do and say. They have been with her. They have investigated his disappearance. They have searched her home. They have watched her reaction to things. They found information (statements, photos, text messages.. etc) that he was keeping secrets from his wife and IMO they have come to the conclusion that he probably walked. That is just the impression that I get.

And.. as I have said before.. I have been on here before and I was part of a lynch mob that convicted a husband of murder and any number of other crimes against his wife only to find out that she walked! Away from her life, away from her 2 children, job, car, family EVERYTHING.. with just the clothes on her back and her purse. I promises myself that I would never do that again.. that everything I said on these boards.. I would be able to stand behind.. no matter what the outcome.

I understand about the other case. And how bad you felt when he had done nothing wrong.

I don't know, though, Mystry if that woman's spouse did anything at all to draw suspicion to himself. I don't think he did.

I don't think he lied about having to keep quiet about the case. Or refused to sign off on billboards to find the missing spouse. Or decline to do a 48 Hours Mystery segment to help find the missing spouse. I don't think that he fabricated the timing of conception of his child. And on and on.

For me, I don't believe this is lynch mob behaviour.

In the beginning, when I saw Christine speak, I gave her 100% of the benefit of the doubt. No one has changed my mind. It is Christine's actions that have changed my mind.

There were things in her interviews that I thought odd. But, I still gave her benefit of being under duress. However, as the months unfolded and events transpired, I would go back and view the news footage in light of the new information. Doing that, I saw that the incongruence of her words and actions along with her nonverbal communication were obvious. I began to see that, from the beginning, there were signs of deception and I couldn't deny that or make excuses or put context around them to have them make sense.

I am not trying to make anyone believe Christine is guilty of anything. She, IMO, is doing that all on her own.

You told me you didn't think it was fair to compare Christine to Drew Peterson. Maybe not. But, I don't think Christine should be compared in any way, shape or form to Beth Smith's husband. A man who didn't lie or try to manipulate people on crime message boards.

Don't let that experience put blinders on viewing the reality of this or other missing person's cases. You are kind and compassionate and wise. You have a great analytical mind. Your thoughts are invaluable, IMO.

JMO.
M.

Musterion

04-09-2009, 05:42 PM

That still comes back to what would be gained and I posted about that in the other post.

If it was a man then I can see it he would get away with no child support but as a woman she could have just divorced him and would have gotten support. YES it really is different if it is a man or a woman.

Also someone good enough and willing to kill him, hid the body and leave no trace. Would cost a lot and wouldn't be willing to wait to see if there was donations since he would be making sure not insurance would be collected.

Why not just a drive by from a stolen car. Nicholas is still dead and Christine collects.

Just don't seen Christine or Christine with help killing him.

jmo

To me, SD, that line of reasoning is curious.

Because the prisons are full of men and women who could have divorced instead of murdered. We could name many of them right now.

As odd as it is there are many people who killed their spouse because they did not believe in divorce. That is not right thinking. Nonetheless it seems a way out to them.

You keep coming back to money. But, it isn't always about money. Murder isn't always rational.

If your gut is just telling you that Christine knew nothing, knows nothing, had nothing to do with Nicholas' disappearance then say so. Because it seems to me that you are not even open to any information that might make Christine look guilty of anything.

JMO.
M.

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 06:51 PM

To me, SD, that line of reasoning is curious.

Because the prisons are full of men and women who could have divorced instead of murdered. We could name many of them right now.

As odd as it is there are many people who killed their spouse because they did not believe in divorce. That is not right thinking. Nonetheless it seems a way out to them.

You keep coming back to money. But, it isn't always about money. Murder isn't always rational.

If your gut is just telling you that Christine knew nothing, knows nothing, had nothing to do with Nicholas' disappearance then say so. Because it seems to me that you are not even open to any information that might make Christine look guilty of anything.

JMO.
M.

Christine is "guilty" of a lot of things. I think she was guilty of being naive and over sheltered since she was married. I think she was guilty of trying to ignore any problem that might have been happening in her relationship. I think she was guilty of trying to make everyone believe that they had a perfect relationship and that he would never leave her. I think she was to some degree self-centered. I think she lied about her and Nicholas relationship to try to make it look much better then it was. I think she was wrong to hid behind the Bible when she started to feel attacked by people on the boards.

I just can't see her either killing him so perfectly or finding someone who would do it for her so she wouldn't have to divorce him.

At this point in time the only reason that has come up that could possibly be true is she killed him and had the body hid so she wouldn't have to divorce him. If that is true then she really messed up because she still had to divorce him.

I'm open to hearing any ideas, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to see if I can poke holes in them. I'm still trying to figure out where Nicholas is or where in the area his body could be and not found.

My feelings on this from the beginning was that Nicholas got tired of having a the responsibility for supporting his say at home wife and kids. I think he got married young and wanted out. I think that Christine could be demanding and more so then he wanted to put up with. I haven't seen any information that really changes my mind on that. If there was a single drop of blood, a single sign of struggle anywhere, anything at all that pointed to foul play I haven't found it so I say with my original feeling that has only grown stronger with everything else that has been said or found including how Christine acts.

RainyNiteNTx

04-09-2009, 07:29 PM

SilverDove

04-09-2009, 07:51 PM

SilverDove - let say NF left voluntarily...

Do you think it possible that he approached Christine with how unhappy he was before he left? Do you think it possible that he might have even left a day or two before and said he would be back in a day or so to get his things? Do you think it possible he may have turned his cell phone off that day at work - possibly due to Christine calling and calling asking him to come home that night to see her and the kids?

Her first media interview said "if you don't find him, these kids won't have a daddy". Well, if NF was dead and his body located, those kids still would not have a daddy. Within just a couple of days, pleas for money were sent out....how did Christine know he was gone forever and there wouldn't be a paycheck ever again from him? He could have walked in the door begging forgiveness by the end of the week.

I don't think Christine killed Nicholas or had him killed, but I have always contended that there is more to this story than meets the eye. JMO

I some how don't see him having left before that night other wise why would she decide to suddenly call the police to say he was missing the night he decided not to go back to work?

Now could she have had a gut feeling that she didn't even want to acknowledge that caused her to word things the way she did. I can see that happening. Might even have been why the way she was talking and behaving seem so odd. Might even be why she dressed up the way she did for some of the interviews. Somewhere deep down she hope he would see her and see what he was missing out on.

When I first hear the cell phone was and wasn't working I figured he didn't want her calling him for some reason. Because she called to much? Because he was leaving and didn't want it traced?

eta: The other thing in moving who knows what she might have found hidden away. Maybe she has told the LE other things we don't know but after things like "Cry me a River" why would she ever put much more of it out publicly? I can totally see her not sharing anything more she has found because of all the anger over what already has been found.
JMO

Musterion

04-09-2009, 10:29 PM

Let's say that she did.

What does that change? The photo is of Nicholas. The account hadn't been logged into in some time. Nothing really came of that information.. other than that perhaps he was getting a little something on the side.

What would she have to gain by wanting that out there? LE has for all practical purposes.. cleared her.. and as much as stated so in an email to someone on Cheri's board when they said it was a shame that people where looking at her like that. Sorry.. can't remember exactly what it said.

That is what I am trying to understand. Why. Why would and does she continue to post or manipulate posters to drop hints or justify her own actions? Why is it so important to her that the focus, now, be on Nicholas' family?

I disagree that LE has cleared her of anything. They don't even know if they have a murder or someone who skipped town yet.

Sgt. Urquhart was agreeing with a poster who said that they didn't believe Christine knew beforehand that Nicholas was leaving her, that she was milking the public for money, or that she knows where Nicholas is. Then, he goes on to say the popular 'no proof this, no proof that'. He has no idea what Christine did or didn't do if he has no idea what happened to Nicholas. That, to me, is frustrating to hear, that Christine has been cleared.

LE can say a lot of things for a lot of reasons. If they suspected Christine I doubt they would say it. But, I do believe, they would continue watching her and giving her a false sense of security that she is not suspected. I would hope so.

Christine gained a lot by putting that picture out there as well as the other secret life information. She has gained your sympathy. She has gained many people's sympathy. She has caused chaos and confusion. Every little thing that has been brought out to the public has been by Christine. Directly or indirectly. Piece by piece, in her timing. To me, she is building a case. A case against Nicholas and a case for her. For whatever reason, I see that fairly clearly.

The questions to ask, IMO, are still why? Why is she lying? Why is she still posting and caring what we think on this board?

But, no one can seem to answer that. Doesn't that matter, Mystry?

Doesn't the timing of the conception of her child seem like a HUGE thing to anyone else? And if not why? This should be something that is alarming to everyone. IMO.

JMO.
M.

invreporter1105

04-09-2009, 10:37 PM

Not to be forgotten on this holiday weekend. It has been 14 months since his disappearance. May you have a blessed Easter.

:rose:

invreporter1105

04-09-2009, 11:49 PM

I'm sorry INV. I lost my dad 4 weeks ago Monday. This will be our first holiday without him.

Best wishes and prayers to you.:rose:

Thanks Reaper. I feel for Nicholas' children and his parents. They have had to endure through a year's worth of holidays without him. I just hope one day he will come forward so that his kids will have their father again. It's a real mystery and it seems that he is missing without a trace.

Musterion

04-10-2009, 01:30 AM

Hi Inv!

Thank you for starting this thread. I know that you have a special interest in this case.

Please, tell me your thoughts, one plus years that Nicholas has been gone.

JMO.
M.

invreporter1105

04-10-2009, 01:50 AM

Hi Inv!

Thank you for starting this thread. I know that you have a special interest in this case.

Please, tell me your thoughts, one plus years that Nicholas has been gone.

JMO.
M.

Hi! Good to see you again. :smile:

My thoughts keep changing from day-to-day on this one. I want so hard to believe that Nicholas is alive. I know that this is still an open case, but I would say the file has been collecting dust for quite awhile since there have been no real leads. I read alot of speculation here and other places about Nicholas possibly having internet access and posting online, but how can anyone be certain of that? Wouldn't LE follow-up on this? If Nicholas has been found, the case would be closed regardless whether any public announcement would be made.

Right now my only thought is that Christine may have found out about Nicholas' 'secret life' prior to the date he disappeared. I am not saying she was involved. But let's look at what we know for a minute. We know Christine had been to Federal Way prior to NF's car being found at the condo. Didn't she say she would occasionally make a shopping trip there? Anyway, we aren't sure if CF discovered NF's secret life or if LE made the discovery. I remember the email from LE saying they discovered the secret life, but I also remember an email from LE stating that Christine had been talking about the secret life publicly whether online, or in the real world.

To be completely honest, everyone who has been following this case may never know what really happened to Nicholas after he left Publicis on Feb. 13. Even if his parents know that he is alive, they may never say.

RainyNiteNTx

04-10-2009, 07:34 AM

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 02:17 PM

I know I wouldn't but then I am not defending C either.

SilverDove

04-10-2009, 07:36 PM

Morning M - Every single thing that does not add up or make sense about this case bothers me.

I wonder if the people who are defending Christine for all of her actions/inactions, lies, pretenses would defend Nicholas if the situation were reversed. Somehow I doubt that.

I tend to look at this case as it is not against what any other case I have heard of. I find it unlikely that there is another case just like this one with the roles reversed of a stay at home father having a working mother vanish.

Also as near as I can see there doesn't seem to be a financial motive for anyone killing Nicholas or at least not one anyone has found any evidence of. Now there was the money taken from the cash machine but if that was it why wasn't the money just stolen from him there and his body be right there. That is what has happened with every other cash machine robbery I've heard of in Seattle.

Christine conception date at worse would have been earlier then was first stated. This isn't totally uncommon thing to have happen. Some times a woman even appears to have a light period so it appears the first missed is a month later. Unless someone can show me that Nicholas was gone for a month before he vanished then I don't see it as a big thing.

Christine appeared to be totally dependent on Nicholas for a lot of things. Keeping track of the finances at the very least. So if she made a total hash out of the whole donation thing it wouldn't be all that surprising. She hadn't been dealing with money on her own.

Most lies at the beginning would appear to be to make her marriage, herself as a wife and Nicholas look good. We are just perfect nothing wrong here to cause any of this type of thing. Then as things went on and the shock of him leaving wore of she started to look at things differently.

At the very start I figured Nicholas left because Christine was high maintenance. I'm still feeling that is what happened. Nothing that has been found changes that feeling. No evidence of foul play. No one who knows or lived near them have come forward to say anything that might appear to be a body being moved or someone hearing something that says he might have been killed. There have even been thing found (although I know some don't give them any credit) that might even lead to him having been involved with some who might have even help him move on.

In my book the only thing Nicholas did wrong would have been to leave without telling his wife where he was going or checking back on his kids.

So if that is supporting Christine fine. I see it as looking at what is and trying to analyze it rather then comparing it to cases that just aren't the same.

I would have an easier time thinking Nicholas was dead if even one drop of blood or one sign of struggle had been found anywhere. Or even one real reason that made sense to me as to why anyone killed him. A dependent wife killing or having him killed then hiding the body so well no one can find it while leaving the car parked at a condo, someone killing him for the 50 dollars or so and again going to all the risk and trouble to hid is body and leave no sign, Mars Hill killing him and hiding the body, none of these make any real sense.

elf999

04-10-2009, 08:17 PM

I tend to look at this case as it is not against what any other case I have heard of. I find it unlikely that there is another case just like this one with the roles reversed of a stay at home father having a working mother vanish.

Also as near as I can see there doesn't seem to be a financial motive for anyone killing Nicholas or at least not one anyone has found any evidence of. Now there was the money taken from the cash machine but if that was it why wasn't the money just stolen from him there and his body be right there. That is what has happened with every other cash machine robbery I've heard of in Seattle.

Christine conception date at worse would have been earlier then was first stated. This isn't totally uncommon thing to have happen. Some times a woman even appears to have a light period so it appears the first missed is a month later. Unless someone can show me that Nicholas was gone for a month before he vanished then I don't see it as a big thing.

Christine appeared to be totally dependent on Nicholas for a lot of things. Keeping track of the finances at the very least. So if she made a total hash out of the whole donation thing it wouldn't be all that surprising. She hadn't been dealing with money on her own.

Most lies at the beginning would appear to be to make her marriage, herself as a wife and Nicholas look good. We are just perfect nothing wrong here to cause any of this type of thing. Then as things went on and the shock of him leaving wore of she started to look at things differently.

At the very start I figured Nicholas left because Christine was high maintenance. I'm still feeling that is what happened. Nothing that has been found changes that feeling. No evidence of foul play. No one who knows or lived near them have come forward to say anything that might appear to be a body being moved or someone hearing something that says he might have been killed. There have even been thing found (although I know some don't give them any credit) that might even lead to him having been involved with some who might have even help him move on.

In my book the only thing Nicholas did wrong would have been to leave without telling his wife where he was going or checking back on his kids.

So if that is supporting Christine fine. I see it as looking at what is and trying to analyze it rather then comparing it to cases that just aren't the same.

I would have an easier time thinking Nicholas was dead if even one drop of blood or one sign of struggle had been found anywhere. Or even one real reason that made sense to me as to why anyone killed him. A dependent wife killing or having him killed then hiding the body so well no one can find it while leaving the car parked at a condo, someone killing him for the 50 dollars or so and again going to all the risk and trouble to hid is body and leave no sign, Mars Hill killing him and hiding the body, none of these make any real sense.

Very nice post Silver Dove, you summed up everything very well and I do agree with most of what you say. The only things I might say I differ on are I don't know about Christine being high maintenance, she very well may be, but I also think there were long-standing problems in the relationship, and it always takes two to tango, in my estimation.

I think that infidelity in general is wrong so I would have to say I think what Nicholas did there was wrong. I do believe that he was cheating, after examining the sources of information about it, I find them credible.

I look at the big picture, and I'm pretty good at that, generally, and I see Christine's actions to be consistent over the course of the past year or so. I don't know that she lied, but if she lied I haven't seen any indication that she told lies to cover up any crime. It's just too bad people just don't let the things with her go IMO.

Great post thanks.

IMO MOO

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 08:30 PM

Elf, just out of curiosity, how long have you known Nick and Christine and are you male or female?

SilverDove

04-10-2009, 09:17 PM

Elf, just out of curiosity, how long have you known Nick and Christine and are you male or female?

I thought we weren't going to make this about the other posters. You sure seem to have a great deal of interest in them.

BTW If we are going to go with asking personal questions, are you male or female and how long have you know "Nick" and Christine? Also how do you know he would want to be called Nick?

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 09:19 PM

I thought we weren't going to make this about the other posters. You sure seem to have a great deal of interest in them.

BTW If we are going to go with asking personal questions, are you male or female and how long have you know "Nick" and Christine? Also how do you know he would want to be called Nick?

WOW! First time I ever asked sweetness and I didn't ask YOU. :tonguewag:

To answer your questions, yes I am. About this long and cuz he told me.

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 09:31 PM

WOW! First time I ever asked sweetness and I didn't ask YOU. :tonguewag:

To answer your questions, yes I am. About this long and cuz he told me.

Do you have a link to that?

Personally.. if LE hasn't stated it as fact.. and there is no concrete evidence of it.. I don't believe it.:tonguewag:

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 09:35 PM

Do you have a link to that?

Personally.. if LE hasn't stated it as fact.. and there is no concrete evidence of it.. I don't believe it.:tonguewag:

Eh...like your opinion makes any difference. :laugh:

Now back to our regular thread line...

SilverDove

04-10-2009, 09:47 PM

WOW! First time I ever asked sweetness and I didn't ask YOU. :tonguewag:

To answer your questions, yes I am. About this long and cuz he told me.

So you have been in contact with Nicholas. Was this before or after he went missing. I think I remembering you were sending him messages on virb which no one else has ever found. Is there any other information that you have that might help us look for him other then that he likes to go by Nick?

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 09:51 PM

So you have been in contact with Nicholas. Was this before or after he went missing. I think I remembering you were sending him messages on virb which no one else has ever found. Is there any other information that you have that might help us look for him other then that he likes to go by Nick?

Any information I had I relayed to LE. But just to satisfy your curiosity, it was all from BEFORE he went missing.

Did you ever see him when you went to the Wet Spot?

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 09:54 PM

Eh...like your opinion makes any difference. :laugh:

Now back to our regular thread line...
So.. since you have now stated over and over again that you have had some kind of relationship with Nicholas.. how about if you tell us who you are? Because it seems like you are being more of a troll and trying to get the thread shut down then really, truly caring about what happened to this him and wanting to discuss that?

I will ask, again.. for about the 10th time. What is your relationship with the missing man? How do we know that you are not him? How do we know that you didn't have something to do with him disappearance?

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:00 PM

SD.. you have a PM!

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:04 PM

Any information I had I relayed to LE. But just to satisfy your curiosity, it was all from BEFORE he went missing.

Did you ever see him when you went to the Wet Spot?

She didn't have to see him. LE KNOWS that he was a member there! It was one of the first things that they found about him.

Weren't you listening in the beginning when SD was talking about the Wet Spot??(which is it now called The Center For Sex Positive Culture) The detective actually came on here.. because someone that knew what he had found saw her posts.. and asked her what she knew about Nicholas because she knew things about him that others didn't???

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:05 PM

So.. since you have now stated over and over again that you have had some kind of relationship with Nicholas.. how about if you tell us who you are? Because it seems like you are being more of a troll and trying to get the thread shut down then really, truly caring about what happened to this him and wanting to discuss that?

I will ask, again.. for about the 10th time. What is your relationship with the missing man? How do we know that you are not him? How do we know that you didn't have something to do with him disappearance?

Oh puhleeeze! If anyone is trying to get this thread closed, it is you.

All I have ever said was I spoke with him on etsy. Is that so hard to accept? Does it bother you that much that I ever spoke to him through etsy at all? I asked him if I could call him Nick because that was my Grandfather's name and I liked it better than Nicholas. OK? Happy now? :bored:

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:12 PM

She didn't have to see him. LE KNOWS that he was a member there! It was one of the first things that they found about him.

Weren't you listening in the beginning when SD was talking about the Wet Spot??(which is it now called The Center For Sex Positive Culture) The detective actually came on here.. because someone that knew what he had found saw her posts.. and asked her what she knew about Nicholas because she knew things about him that others didn't???

I don't care about the other person, I was simply asking if she ever saw him there. Why do you feel you must answer for SD anyway?

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:15 PM

Oh puhleeeze! If anyone is trying to get this thread closed, it is you.

All I have ever said was I spoke with him on etsy. Is that so hard to accept? Does it bother you that much that I ever spoke to him through etsy at all? I asked him if I could call him Nick because that was my Grandfather's name and I liked it better than Nicholas. OK? Happy now? :bored:

No... I am not bothered by it. Why would I be? I didn't know Nicholas. Never met him. Have no connection with him except he is from my area and I know someone he worked with. I just want to know who is posting.. especially if they are saying that they are familiar with the missing person. All the inuendo and secrecy makes you look like you have something to hide.. IMO

For the record.. I have tried very hard to keep the thread going and people interested as have some of the others here. We don't want to fight.. we want the truth to come out.. what ever that is.

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:19 PM

I don't care about the other person, I was simply asking if she ever saw him there. Why do you feel you must answer for SD anyway?

Because it was obviously meant as a slam in some way and not a legit question.. kinda like the one about her being on social security.. low blow kind of thing.

If she had seen him there then she would have said that but instead.. and since you were reading early on, you should be familiar with this.. she stated that she hadn't been there but that she knew people that had and that is how she knew of the place and the people associated with it.

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:19 PM

No... I am not bothered by it. Why would I be? I didn't know Nicholas. Never met him. Have no connection with him except he is from my area and I know someone he worked with. I just want to know who is posting.. especially if they are saying that they are familiar with the missing person. All the inuendo and secrecy makes you look like you have something to hide.. IMO

For the record.. I have tried very hard to keep the thread going and people interested as have some of the others here. We don't want to fight.. we want the truth to come out.. what ever that is.

Suffice it to say, you sure have a funny way of showing your concern.

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:22 PM

Because it was obviously meant as a slam in some way and not a legit question.. kinda like the one about her being on social security.. low blow kind of thing.

If she had seen him there then she would have said that but instead.. and since you were reading early on, you should be familiar with this.. she stated that she hadn't been there but that she knew people that had and that is how she knew of the place and the people associated with it.

Uh huh...your perception and imagination at it's greatest again.

I thought we were going to focus back on the case at hand? Or was that just for the goose and not the gander?

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:22 PM

Suffice it to say, you sure have a funny way of showing your concern.

Well.. that is your opinion and you are entitled.

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:23 PM

Well.. that is your opinion and you are entitled.

Yes, yes I am. :biggrin:

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:25 PM

Uh huh...your perception and imagination at it's greatest again.

I thought we were going to focus back on the case at hand? Or was that just for the goose and not the gander?
You asked a question.. I was merely answering it based on what I know of SD and what she has posted before.

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:26 PM

You asked a question.. I was merely answering it based on what I know of SD and what she has posted before.

You said that already.

CaresForKids

04-10-2009, 10:31 PM

Before I go, I failed to answer SD and her question regarding Virb. No, Nick never replied to me there. I was going in once monthly and leaving a text message in his PM as it looked like there may have been some activity on his account but now I only go about every other month. He had his Virb account for apprx 2 years before he disappeared, according to his profile.

MystryPhobia

04-10-2009, 10:37 PM

You said that already.

Alrighty then.. nothing left to say. I have a soccer game tonight so gotta go. You have a great night.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 12:16 AM

Christine is "guilty" of a lot of things. I think she was guilty of being naive and over sheltered since she was married. I think she was guilty of trying to ignore any problem that might have been happening in her relationship. I think she was guilty of trying to make everyone believe that they had a perfect relationship and that he would never leave her. I think she was to some degree self-centered. I think she lied about her and Nicholas relationship to try to make it look much better then it was. I think she was wrong to hid behind the Bible when she started to feel attacked by people on the boards.

I just can't see her either killing him so perfectly or finding someone who would do it for her so she wouldn't have to divorce him.

At this point in time the only reason that has come up that could possibly be true is she killed him and had the body hid so she wouldn't have to divorce him. If that is true then she really messed up because she still had to divorce him.

I'm open to hearing any ideas, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to see if I can poke holes in them. I'm still trying to figure out where Nicholas is or where in the area his body could be and not found.

My feelings on this from the beginning was that Nicholas got tired of having a the responsibility for supporting his say at home wife and kids. I think he got married young and wanted out. I think that Christine could be demanding and more so then he wanted to put up with. I haven't seen any information that really changes my mind on that. If there was a single drop of blood, a single sign of struggle anywhere, anything at all that pointed to foul play I haven't found it so I say with my original feeling that has only grown stronger with everything else that has been said or found including how Christine acts.

Fair enough, Silver Dove. :) I respect your opinion and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I think there is a lot of truth to what you are saying. Your post is honest and thoughtful. And put very well!

JMO.
M.

invreporter1105

04-11-2009, 12:39 AM

Hi, Mama. I've seen some of the Myspace and other accounts that supposedly belong to Nicholas. I don't know how anyone could confirm he owns these accounts unless they have access to the control panels. Anyway, most of these accounts haven't been logged into since late 06 or early 07. Nicholas went missing Feb of 08. It seems strange to me that if he does own these accounts, why didn't he access them for 1+ years prior to his disappearance?

Musterion

04-11-2009, 01:10 AM

SilverDove - let say NF left voluntarily...

Do you think it possible that he approached Christine with how unhappy he was before he left? Do you think it possible that he might have even left a day or two before and said he would be back in a day or so to get his things? Do you think it possible he may have turned his cell phone off that day at work - possibly due to Christine calling and calling asking him to come home that night to see her and the kids?

Her first media interview said "if you don't find him, these kids won't have a daddy". Well, if NF was dead and his body located, those kids still would not have a daddy. Within just a couple of days, pleas for money were sent out....how did Christine know he was gone forever and there wouldn't be a paycheck ever again from him? He could have walked in the door begging forgiveness by the end of the week.

I don't think Christine killed Nicholas or had him killed, but I have always contended that there is more to this story than meets the eye. JMO

Hi Rainy,

The phraseology of if 'you' can't find him is curious. It seems to be a disconnect from the relationship. The most common reply would be, "we have to find my husband" or "please help me find my husband".

That bothers me.

And, I agree with you, I don't think Christine actually killed Nicholas herself. I converse about the possibility because I believe it has to be looked at. Eliminated.

There is more than meets the eye, Rainy. Christine's words and actions scream that. IMO.

M.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 01:26 AM

To emotions it doesn't matter. He is gone. Fear and anger would be the two big emotions. At this point it would appear that anger has won out. With her not knowing there isn't going to be grief until she knows he met with foul play and even then with the other stuff she seems to have found out I don't think there will be a lot of grief.

Woman who find out their husband was unfaithful after his death spend very little time on grief and a lot on anger.

JMO

Grief, IMO, has to come. It comes at some point whether we want it to or not. With Christine moving into a new relationship and marriage I'd hope that her 'betrothed' is prepared to experience the fall out that will come.

Christine and Nicholas were together many years and made beautiful babies together. There is a natural tendency, if you feel you've been betrayed and your spouse has cheated on you, to find someone who makes you feel worthwhile, makes you feel validated and desirable. Makes the chaos of being betrayed into some sort of day to day normalcy. However, if healing is to be had, grief, pure and raw, has to come. When it does, it can destroy the very relationship that you sought out to make you feel whole. Does this new man have it in him to walk through all of what that brings? If he doesn't, then the Francisco children will be the ones that suffer again, still, always.

JMO.
M.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 01:32 AM

I some how don't see him having left before that night other wise why would she decide to suddenly call the police to say he was missing the night he decided not to go back to work?

Now could she have had a gut feeling that she didn't even want to acknowledge that caused her to word things the way she did. I can see that happening. Might even have been why the way she was talking and behaving seem so odd. Might even be why she dressed up the way she did for some of the interviews. Somewhere deep down she hope he would see her and see what he was missing out on.

When I first hear the cell phone was and wasn't working I figured he didn't want her calling him for some reason. Because she called to much? Because he was leaving and didn't want it traced?

eta: The other thing in moving who knows what she might have found hidden away. Maybe she has told the LE other things we don't know but after things like "Cry me a River" why would she ever put much more of it out publicly? I can totally see her not sharing anything more she has found because of all the anger over what already has been found.
JMO

But, she has put more out publicly. Indirectly or directly.

Christine has been the one to put all of the information of Nicholas' secret life into the public realm.

That is what I keep asking, SD. Why? Why would Christine care what we think here, on this board? Why would she take the time to post in defense of herself or PM other posters with information to make herself look favourable?

It makes no sense, unless......?

What do you think?

JMO.
M.

RainyNiteNTx

04-11-2009, 08:07 AM

Very nice post Silver Dove, you summed up everything very well and I do agree with most of what you say. The only things I might say I differ on are I don't know about Christine being high maintenance, she very well may be, but I also think there were long-standing problems in the relationship, and it always takes two to tango, in my estimation.

I think that infidelity in general is wrong so I would have to say I think what Nicholas did there was wrong. I do believe that he was cheating, after examining the sources of information about it, I find them credible.

I look at the big picture, and I'm pretty good at that, generally, and I see Christine's actions to be consistent over the course of the past year or so. I don't know that she lied, but if she lied I haven't seen any indication that she told lies to cover up any crime. It's just too bad people just don't let the things with her go IMO.

Great post thanks.

IMO MOO

Christine is the one who started playing verbal volleyball with the message board posters here from her blog. She is the one who accused everyone of having "slandering tunnel vision" when those of us here were considering the option that Nicholas voluntarily left.

From the onset people who have been here for years and followed numerous cases were expected to think like she wanted people to think. At first we were not to even entertain that Nicholas could have left voluntarily - in fact we were bashed in between Bible scriptures for doing so.

Then she pointed several people to this secret life and we were to do an abrupt about face and jump on that train. So when you say people here should let things go - my question is why? Nicholas is still missing.

RainyNiteNTx

04-11-2009, 08:14 AM

Christine is "guilty" of a lot of things. I think she was guilty of being naive and over sheltered since she was married. I think she was guilty of trying to ignore any problem that might have been happening in her relationship. I think she was guilty of trying to make everyone believe that they had a perfect relationship and that he would never leave her. I think she was to some degree self-centered. I think she lied about her and Nicholas relationship to try to make it look much better then it was. I think she was wrong to hid behind the Bible when she started to feel attacked by people on the boards.

I just can't see her either killing him so perfectly or finding someone who would do it for her so she wouldn't have to divorce him.

At this point in time the only reason that has come up that could possibly be true is she killed him and had the body hid so she wouldn't have to divorce him. If that is true then she really messed up because she still had to divorce him.

I'm open to hearing any ideas, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to see if I can poke holes in them. I'm still trying to figure out where Nicholas is or where in the area his body could be and not found.

My feelings on this from the beginning was that Nicholas got tired of having a the responsibility for supporting his say at home wife and kids. I think he got married young and wanted out. I think that Christine could be demanding and more so then he wanted to put up with. I haven't seen any information that really changes my mind on that. If there was a single drop of blood, a single sign of struggle anywhere, anything at all that pointed to foul play I haven't found it so I say with my original feeling that has only grown stronger with everything else that has been said or found including how Christine acts.

Very good post and one that needs to be given considerable thought IMO. It would certainly explain a lot of things that Christine did and did not do.

My problem with Nicholas leaving voluntarily and just being tired of being married is what we have been told about him. Every one described him as loving his children. There is a picture of him at work and his bulletin board is full of drawings from his children. He made special customized labels for Christine for a Christmas present.

Was that all an act? It seems to go beyond being the dutiful husband and father IMO.

Pag Boi

04-11-2009, 09:01 AM

Pag Boi

04-11-2009, 09:07 AM

RainyNiteNTx

04-11-2009, 09:53 AM

Hi Rainy,

The phraseology of if 'you' can't find him is curious. It seems to be a disconnect from the relationship. The most common reply would be, "we have to find my husband" or "please help me find my husband".

That bothers me.

And, I agree with you, I don't think Christine actually killed Nicholas herself. I converse about the possibility because I believe it has to be looked at. Eliminated.

There is more than meets the eye, Rainy. Christine's words and actions scream that. IMO.

M.

Morning M :)

I agree that every possibility needs to be looked at. Basic psychology 101 - when the words and behavior do not match, watch the behavior.

elf999

04-11-2009, 12:04 PM

Let's flip that coin.

My problem with CF having something to do w/NF's disappearnce is contradicted by what everything we have been told about her. She was a loving mom & wife. No hint of DV or abnormal marital discord. The only peeps saying horrible things about CF are strangers on message boards. I find their whole NF is good/CF is bad scenario disturbing. JMOO

ITA. Apply "Occam's razor" and you will see that the simplest explanation is that Christine had nothing to do with Nicholas's disappearance. You can pick apart her personality if you like, complain that she didn't love him enough or shouldn't have given away his dog (even though she had found he was cheating and was divorcing him)... but there has been no solid information indicating that Christine might have been involved in some kind of crime. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Examine your own opinions for projections my friends!

Many Blessings

IMO, MOO

SilverDove

04-11-2009, 03:27 PM

Very good post and one that needs to be given considerable thought IMO. It would certainly explain a lot of things that Christine did and did not do.

My problem with Nicholas leaving voluntarily and just being tired of being married is what we have been told about him. Every one described him as loving his children. There is a picture of him at work and his bulletin board is full of drawings from his children. He made special customized labels for Christine for a Christmas present.

Was that all an act? It seems to go beyond being the dutiful husband and father IMO.

No one is 100% how they appear. I have also read people who knew Nicholas say they didn't know him well because he was quiet but that he was very nice. People almost always have nice and not nice sides. It would make crime fighting really easy if people were all one way or the ever. You would be able to spot the evil people instantly, but that isn't true.

Love is also a funny word it never means completely the same thing to any two people. Some do all the "right" things because they don't really feel it and are trying to make a show of it. Others seem to make a million mistakes but feel deeply and just aren't finding the correct way to show it. Some put on great shows of love over people they have never met. It makes it hard to tell who is in love and who is just going though the act for some other reason.

One good mother kills her children because she doesn't think she can raise them right. A seemingly loving father kills all of his children because his wife is leaving him. People do strange and horrible things that no one would expect.

There is also a real current of don't speak bad of the dead that runs through this search. When something negative is brought up about Nicholas there is a scream to protect his reputation and how will you feel if he is dead, but at the same time the living are not given the same protection. The very things that aren't suppose to be talked about because he could be dead are the same things that might help find him or explain why he is gone.

I don't believe that either Christine or Nicholas are completely saints or sinner but like all of us some combination of both. Both have/are playing roles that they think they should.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 03:36 PM

ITA. Apply "Occam's razor" and you will see that the simplest explanation is that Christine had nothing to do with Nicholas's disappearance. You can pick apart her personality if you like, complain that she didn't love him enough or shouldn't have given away his dog (even though she had found he was cheating and was divorcing him)... but there has been no solid information indicating that Christine might have been involved in some kind of crime. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Examine your own opinions for projections my friends!

Many Blessings

IMO, MOO

Hi elf,

IMO, Occam's Razor, would implicate Christine. Applied correctly, Christine would be the statistical and logical and simplest suspect in the disappearance of Nicholas Francisco.

M.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 03:44 PM

SilverDove

04-11-2009, 03:53 PM

Hi elf,

IMO, Occam's Razor, would implicate Christine. Applied correctly, Christine would be the statistical and logical and simplest suspect in the disappearance of Nicholas Francisco.

M.

Occoma's Razor says that there are to many things that Christine would have to pull off without leaving any evidence to have been the suspect. As it now appears she would have to have pulled off the perfect crime. No physical evidence, no waking the kids, moving cars and even with someone to help her there was no one who saw anything and she would have no way to pay them for sure. It would all depend on enough people sending her money. So way to many what ifs. So in the end she doesn't fit.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 04:37 PM

Occoma's Razor says that there are to many things that Christine would have to pull off without leaving any evidence to have been the suspect. As it now appears she would have to have pulled off the perfect crime. No physical evidence, no waking the kids, moving cars and even with someone to help her there was no one who saw anything and she would have no way to pay them for sure. It would all depend on enough people sending her money. So way to many what ifs. So in the end she doesn't fit.

I understand what you're saying.

IMO, I believe looking at who has motive and opportunity are to be looked at first. Christine had both.

The simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) would be, IMO, the wife did it.

Also, we don't know that there was no evidence. It is an ongoing investigation and LE has said they don't discuss evidence.

A perfect crime may very well have been pulled off. We don't know unless and until Nicholas is found.

How do you know, SD, that no one saw anything? If you re read the list that Cheri sent to Detective Holland, it is interesting what he did not answer. A very simple question was asked: Were the neighbours questioned. He chose not to answer that. Why? Maybe someone did see something. Because it is not announced to the public to assume no one saw anything would be premature, IMO.

If Christine had someone help her it does not mean that she paid them. Or offered to pay them. It isn't always about money.

JMO.
M.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 04:45 PM

Musterion

04-11-2009, 04:51 PM

ITA. Apply "Occam's razor" and you will see that the simplest explanation is that Christine had nothing to do with Nicholas's disappearance. You can pick apart her personality if you like, complain that she didn't love him enough or shouldn't have given away his dog (even though she had found he was cheating and was divorcing him)... but there has been no solid information indicating that Christine might have been involved in some kind of crime. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Examine your own opinions for projections my friends!

Many Blessings

IMO, MOO

elf,

How do you know Nicholas didn't find Christine was cheating?

It seems to me the fabrication of a date of conception may be suspect and point to that very thing.

As well as announcing an engagement within a year of Nicholas' disappearance.

IMO.
M.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 05:09 PM

So you think LE and NF's own family are inept or covering up for CF?

Just like CheriG doesn't believe there is any proof of NF;s online activity, I don't believe that you all have proven it was CF doing all the online activity credited to her. I also don't think anyone posting here is sharper than the investigators. JMOO tho

An attempt to deflect the question of Christine's credibility or involvement of Nicholas' disappearance by ridiculing posters is an obvious tactic and a waste of time. IMO.

Let's look at what you're saying about Christine's on line activity, though.

Are you saying it was not Christine on The Francisco's web site speaking to people from the crime forums?

Are you saying that it was not Christine on Etsy receiving donations from people there?

Are you saying it was not Christine on "supportingchristine" blog giving updates on her life?

Are you saying someone else put a picture of Christine up on a MySpace account, attributed to her, saying she was single? This picture with a coy smile and only weeks after Nicholas disappeared and she was very much not single?

Are you saying it was not Christine who contacted me and gave me her personal email to correspond with her?

Are you saying the poster on here who said that Nicholas was alive in San Diego is not Christine?

Could you clarify what you mean?

IMO.
M.

Musterion

04-11-2009, 08:04 PM

ITA. Apply "Occam's razor" and you will see that the simplest explanation is that Christine had nothing to do with Nicholas's disappearance. You can pick apart her personality if you like, complain that she didn't love him enough or shouldn't have given away his dog (even though she had found he was cheating and was divorcing him)... but there has been no solid information indicating that Christine might have been involved in some kind of crime. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Examine your own opinions for projections my friends!

Many Blessings

IMO, MOO

Some would say there is enough circumstantial evidence to lead to a conclusion that Christine may know more than she has been saying concerning Nicholas' disappearance.

Many of us have been watching the 'duck' for over a year. It consistently quacks the same way. With attempts to manipulate and lies. Yes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

IMO.
M.

elf999

04-11-2009, 11:31 PM

I meant by projections that I think that in this missing persons case that people are sometimes projecting their own buried feelings and fears etc. onto Christine. I can't help but feel that Christine has hit some kind of universal psychological nerve in some people. The way Christine acted after Nicholas went missing, talking about herself, her own needs and fears, and saying everything was perfect and then finding out about the adultery and then getting a rather hasty divorce, to some it's like she abandoned him when he was missing. I think this may cause some people to see and read more into Christine's actions than is really there (projection). I don't mean this to be criticizing anyone, please don't take it that way.

I just hope someday that Nicholas is found, and even though it wouldn't be good that he just walked out and left, it would be really good if he is alive and well somewhere.

Many Blessings

IMO MOO

CaresForKids

04-11-2009, 11:54 PM

elf999

04-12-2009, 01:35 AM

Buried feelings and fears of what? :huh:

You can read basic Freudian theory for more information on projection and transference. I was speaking about buried feelings and fears from childhood, they are really tranferences, according to Freud. I guess Freud is outdated and some say he's dead, but he's still alive in my book.

Many Blessings

IMO MOO

CaresForKids

04-12-2009, 01:40 AM

Odd comparison and interpretation of Dr. Freud's work.

SeattleEddie

04-12-2009, 05:52 AM

The projection and transference rationale is tired old voodoo called up by people who are not well versed in Freudian psychology to explain away behaviours they cannot otherwise dismiss. There's quite a difference between the two. The only relevance in this case is that the defense mechanism of projection is not unusual in narcissistic personalities. Assuming that the missing man's wife is so important as to "hit some kind of universal psychological nerve" is further evidence of the delusion.

Musterion

04-13-2009, 01:32 AM

Hi! Good to see you again. :smile:

My thoughts keep changing from day-to-day on this one. I want so hard to believe that Nicholas is alive. I know that this is still an open case, but I would say the file has been collecting dust for quite awhile since there have been no real leads. I read alot of speculation here and other places about Nicholas possibly having internet access and posting online, but how can anyone be certain of that? Wouldn't LE follow-up on this? If Nicholas has been found, the case would be closed regardless whether any public announcement would be made.

Right now my only thought is that Christine may have found out about Nicholas' 'secret life' prior to the date he disappeared. I am not saying she was involved. But let's look at what we know for a minute. We know Christine had been to Federal Way prior to NF's car being found at the condo. Didn't she say she would occasionally make a shopping trip there? Anyway, we aren't sure if CF discovered NF's secret life or if LE made the discovery. I remember the email from LE saying they discovered the secret life, but I also remember an email from LE stating that Christine had been talking about the secret life publicly whether online, or in the real world.

To be completely honest, everyone who has been following this case may never know what really happened to Nicholas after he left Publicis on Feb. 13. Even if his parents know that he is alive, they may never say.

Hi Inv,

Discouraging to think those of us who follow this case may never know what's happened to this young father, isn't it?

I do, too, believe Christine knows more about Nicholas' disappearance than she has revealed. And, it could be merely that she found out about his secret life before his disappearance, as you said. So much doesn't add up. So many inconsistencies and confusion. Confusion on how the secret life came out. Confusion on why the move. Confusion on why Christine cares about what we posters on a crime board think of her and her actions. Etc.

I'm glad you're still thinking and watching and caring about this case.

Take care, Inv and Happy Easter.