View Full Version : Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 10:42 PM
Since Chico has requested individual threads for topics at least twice today... no time like the present to follow her instructions.
It would be nice to discuss the issues affecting tomorrow's scheduled custody hearing, which should be a biggie, unless all parties meet privately and hash out another temporary arrangement like they did on July 25th.
What do you think are the odds that tomorrow will be a private arrangement between the parties and will not involve the judge?
Anderson
10-15-2008, 10:45 PM
I just wrote this for the general thread and it was closed as I tried to submit:
Wow. Pretty significant development today! I have read through most of the posts, but not all. I suspect that this was probably covered. I see that many posters have suggested that this may be a case of mistaken identity. That is possible. I remember learning about witness accounts not being very reliable. Perhaps LE has already discounted this witness account, but perhaps it is still part of their investigation. IDK.
As you know, I don't know much about these things, but it seems to me that this woman's sighting was recorded by LE. It also seems to me that this information would be part of their investigation, so in a way it is not surprising that there is a witness(seemingly unconfirmed) that we don't know about. LE is not sharing information related to their investigation.
There may be other witnesses that have possibly passed on information to LE. I would imagine that is the case. Who knows what we will learn? Some witness accounts will be credible and some of them will not.
THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES ARE NOT REAL AND DO NOT EXIST TO MY KNOWLEDGE: It is possible that there were witnesses that saw BC driving down the road just after 4 am, NC being dragged into bushes at aroung 8am, BC taking something out of his trunk and then being spotted and driving off at about 5:30 am, NC having breakfast with a friend at JJive at around 9am, BC getting his car washed at around 1pm, NC coming home after the BBQ at around 3am, BC buying more tide at 1:30pm . . . . . You get the idea.
The point is that we really don't know what information is going to come out. Will we ever know all of the details of the investigation? I gather from RC's comment that there will be a detective witness tomorrow. Who knows what will come out there? I suspect that it will be very interesting.
ncsu95
10-15-2008, 10:47 PM
Since Chico has requested individual threads for topics at least twice today... no time like the present to follow her instructions.
It would be nice to discuss the issues affecting tomorrow's scheduled custody hearing, which should be a biggie, unless all parties meet privately and hash out another temporary arrangement like they did on July 25th.
What do you think are the odds that tomorrow will be a private arrangement between the parties and will not involve the judge?
I was thinking before this list affidavit that the Judge would probably extend the temporary custody. She did indicate today that the decision is still for temporary custody. My opinion is still that he deserves to have the kids with him until such time as he is charged with her murder. I'm interested to see what the judge has to say about the latest affidavit. It definitely adds doubt to the whole thing.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 10:48 PM
I just wrote this for the general thread and it was closed as I tried to submit:
Wow. Pretty significant development today! I have read through most of the posts, but not all. I suspect that this was probably covered. I see that many posters have suggested that this may be a case of mistaken identity. That is possible. I remember learning about witness accounts not being very reliable. Perhaps LE has already discounted this witness account, but perhaps it is still part of their investigation. IDK.
As you know, I don't know much about these things, but it seems to me that this woman's sighting was recorded by LE. It also seems to me that this information would be part of their investigation, so in a way it is not surprising that there is a witness(seemingly unconfirmed) that we don't know about. LE is not sharing information related to their investigation.
There may be other witnesses that have possibly passed on information to LE. I would imagine that is the case. Who knows what we will learn? Some witness accounts will be credible and some of them will not.
THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES ARE NOT REAL AND DO NOT EXIST TO MY KNOWLEDGE: It is possible that there were witnesses that saw BC driving down the road just after 4 am, NC being dragged into bushes at aroung 8am, BC taking something out of his trunk and then being spotted and driving off at about 5:30 am, NC having breakfast with a friend at JJive at around 9am, BC getting his car washed at around 1pm, NC coming home after the BBQ at around 3am, BC buying more tide at 1:30pm . . . . . You get the idea.
The point is that we really don't know what information is going to come out. Will we ever know all of the details of the investigation? I gather from RC's comment that there will be a detective witness tomorrow. Who knows what will come out there? I suspect that it will be very interesting.
Great post. Bottom line... there remains a ton more that we don't know, that what we do... despite all the custody-hearing driven information out there.
jmflu
10-15-2008, 10:50 PM
Does anyone know what time they go to court?
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 10:51 PM
With the potential of Detective Daniels taking the stand and Brad himself being required to take the stand - I believe there will be a continuance of the Rentz's maintaining custody and this will be once again decided between the parties and out of the judge's oversight.
K & B and Sandlin/Davidian were given the perfect save face out today when the judge did indeed quash the subpeona's for the investigation records.
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 10:54 PM
I'm betting they will likely settle on a new/extended temp custody arrangement like they did on July 25th.
rwesafe
10-15-2008, 10:54 PM
Since Chico has requested individual threads for topics at least twice today... no time like the present to follow her instructions.
It would be nice to discuss the issues affecting tomorrow's scheduled custody hearing, which should be a biggie, unless all parties meet privately and hash out another temporary arrangement like they did on July 25th.
What do you think are the odds that tomorrow will be a private arrangement between the parties and will not involve the judge?
That's a good question....I would imagine with todays witness both sides strategizing as hard as they can.
Anderson
10-15-2008, 10:56 PM
With the potential of Detective Daniels taking the stand and Brad himself being required to take the stand - I believe there will be a continuance of the Rentz's maintaining custody and this will be once again decided between the parties and out of the judge's oversight.
K & B and Sandlin/Davidian were given the perfect save face out today when the judge did indeed quash the subpeona's for the investigation records.
I hadn't thought of that. Yes, the perfect save face out. It will be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
Anderson
10-15-2008, 10:57 PM
Does anyone know what time they go to court?
You are meeting M and SG on the court steps at 9am. I want a full report!:)
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 11:00 PM
I hadn't thought of that. Yes, the perfect save face out. It will be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
Indeed it will be interesting Anderson :)
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:00 PM
Question: Is tomorrows' hearing (in theory) intended to determine permanent custody?
I thought 'yes'. I thought that the August hearing was going to do that, but the parties themselves met (outside of court), and decided a temporary arrangement.
Certainly tomorrow, the parties may themselves meet (outside of court), and renew the temporary arrangement. If they don't though, could the judge herself just renew the temporary one (that the parties opted for earlier), without giving a reason? Wouldn't she need some basis for it (if she were ordering it over objection of one party or the other)?
Seems like today, she was quoted as saying the hearing tomorrow was to decide temporary custody. If true, I guess I missed when it became a hearing to decide temporary custody vs permanent. If it's only to decide temporary custody... when is the hearing to decide permanent custody?
Let's say BC wants the kids returned, but the judge says "wait another 3 months"... wouldn't she need to give a basis? The obvious basis would be "so we can see if you are arrested by then" of course. However, surely there's some reasonable limit to how long a custody judge could keep a non-named suspect or non-named POI in a 'holding-pattern' when it comes to his children.
All this is with the assumption that the parties don't agree out of court. If they don't, then what reasons might the judge offer to renew the temporary arrangement, and for how long. [ Why not make it 5 years... just to give LE plenty of time? ]
rwesafe
10-15-2008, 11:03 PM
Question: Is tomorrows' hearing (in theory) intended to determine permanent custody?
I thought 'yes'. I thought that the August hearing was going to do that, but the parties themselves met (outside of court), and decided a temporary arrangement.
Certainly tomorrow, the parties may themselves meet (outside of court), and renew the temporary arrangement. If they don't though, could the judge herself just renew the temporary one (that the parties opted for earlier), without giving a reason? Wouldn't she need some basis for it (if she were ordering it over objection of one party or the other)?
Let's say BC wants the kids returned, but the judge says "wait another 3 months"... wouldn't she need to give a basis? The obvious basis would be "so we can see if you are arrested by then" of course. However, surely there's some reasonable limit to how long a custody judge could keep a non-named suspect or non-named POI in a 'holding-pattern' when it comes to his children.
All this is with the assumption that the parties don't agree out of court. If they don't, then what reasons might the judge offer to renew the temporary arrangement, and for how long. [ Why not make it 5 years... just to give LE plenty of time? ]
I don't recall if it was already said or not, but I wonder if the judge will base any of her decision on the psych evaluation that he had...if it is even complete, IIRC, it was not final last week during the depositions?
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:04 PM
tomorrow is for determination of temporary custody.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:09 PM
tomorrow is for determination of temporary custody.
What does that mean exactly? (Sorry (and thankfully I guess) - don't fully understand how custody battles work).
Under what circumstances are 'temporary custody' typically awarded?
Why wouldn't tomorrow's hearing be to decide permanent custody?
Does that mean that even after tomorrow, there will need to be another hearing to decide permanent custody?
Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 11:11 PM
tomorrow is for determination of temporary custody.
I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room. IF BC isn't guilty
it doesn't seem like the justice system is serving him very well.
If you google Judge Deborah Sasser it looks like she's been wrong before.
jmflu
10-15-2008, 11:15 PM
I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room. IF BC isn't guilty
it doesn't seem like the justice system is serving him very well.
If you google Judge Deborah Sasser it looks like she's been wrong before.
Gosh, that's a dangerous road to go down. No one is perfect, even judges. All we can speak to is their integrity.
Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 11:19 PM
Gosh, that's a dangerous road to go down. No one is perfect, even judges. All we can speak to is their integrity.
So if someone isn't a person of interest, hasn't been charged, what's the basis for a Judge for the child custody case to looking at the elephant in the room?
I don't think that the elephant is something she is
supposed to be concerned with.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:19 PM
I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room
Agreed. If the parties don't decide themselves to settle it out of court (probably the judge is hoping desperately for that this evening!), then it will be very interesting to see how the elephant is handled.
jmflu
10-15-2008, 11:22 PM
So if someone isn't a person of interest, hasn't been charged, what's the basis for a Judge for the child custody case to looking at the elephant in the room?
I don't think that the elephant is something she is
supposed to be concerned with.
I can't claim to know the law here. It just seems that if she weren't allowed to be doing what she is doing, someone would have prevented her from doing it.
Do we really expect a judge to determine custody for these children without considering WHY she has to determine it in the first place??
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 11:23 PM
I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room. IF BC isn't guilty
it doesn't seem like the justice system is serving him very well.
If you google Judge Deborah Sasser it looks like she's been wrong before.
I think if this goes to a hearing - the Detective's testimony will be the key in Judge Sasser's decision. Since he is the one privy to the investigation and its status, I see his testimony as serving the issue well. It isn't about serving Brad well - it is about serving two little girls well.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:24 PM
That's my question.
Why is she handling the elephant?
Yeah, I don't know. I think it's called (wanting to) have the cake and eat it too:
LE isn't wanting to name him a suspect or POI... and (presumably for some valid reasons) don't want to explicitly clear him.
Custody judge is wanting to (be able to) say "because there seems to be reason to believe you may have killed your wife, I'm going to err on the side of the kids well-being, and take them from you".
If the elephant at all ends up being a basis... then I would wonder if social services couldn't come and take away JY's tomorrow (on the same basis).
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:27 PM
I think if this goes to a hearing - the Detective's testimony will be the key in Judge Sasser's decision. Since he is the one privy to the investigation and its status, I see his testimony as serving the issue well. It isn't about serving Brad well - it is about serving two little girls well.
Will be interesting to see if the detective can testify in such a way that it convinces the judge, without tipping off BC's attorneys with information they wouldn't otherwise have. Presumably defendants will be able to cross-examine, and ask him to share all the information and details of the investigation. Can he refuse to answer the questions on the basis that it might undermine an active investigation?
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 11:31 PM
Will be interesting to see if the detective can testify in such a way that it convinces the judge, without tipping off BC's attorneys with information they wouldn't otherwise have. Presumably plaintiffs will be able to cross-examine, and ask him to share all the information and details of the investigation. Can he refuse to answer the questions on the basis that it might undermine an active investigation?
I think there is one simple question that can be asked of this detective and the only one that needs to be asked:
After three months of investigation into the murder of Nancy Cooper - is LE able to clear Brad of any and all involvelment in the murder of Nancy Cooper - yes or no.
jmflu
10-15-2008, 11:31 PM
You are meeting M and SG on the court steps at 9am. I want a full report!:)
I am?! (I better call in to work quick, then...)
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:32 PM
I think there is one simple question that can be asked of this detective and the only one that needs to be asked:
After three months of investigation into the murder of Nancy Cooper - is LE able to clear Brad of any and all involvelment in the murder of Nancy Cooper - yes or no.
That would be the salient question. But does that give her enough for a 'preponderance of evidence' in and of itself?
Star12
10-15-2008, 11:36 PM
What does that mean exactly? (Sorry (and thankfully I guess) - don't fully understand how custody battles work).
Under what circumstances are 'temporary custody' typically awarded?
Why wouldn't tomorrow's hearing be to decide permanent custody?
Does that mean that even after tomorrow, there will need to be another hearing to decide permanent custody?
Custody is always temporary.
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 11:37 PM
That would be the salient question. But does that give her enough for a 'preponderance of evidence' in and of itself?
It doesn't say Brad is cleared of involvement if the detective says no. Isn't that what the judge must decide ? To me it speaks for itself, throw in whatever Tharrington Smith and company has come up with and the judge certainly has more information than she had when she signed the original Ex Parte for temp custody. If K & B wants to open more questioning beyond that - so be it.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:41 PM
It doesn't say Brad is cleared of involvement if the detective says no. Isn't that what the judge must decide ? To me it speaks for itself, throw in whatever Tharrington Smith and company has come up with and the judge certainly has more information than she had when she signed the original Ex Parte for temp custody. If K & B wants to open more questioning beyond that - so be it.
If he answers 'no' to the question in your earlier post (they cannot clear him after 3 months), how do you suppose he will respond to this question from K&B: "Do you consider BC a suspect or person-of-interest in the murder investigation?"
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:43 PM
It doesn't say Brad is cleared of involvement if the detective says no. Isn't that what the judge must decide ? To me it speaks for itself, throw in whatever Tharrington Smith and company has come up with and the judge certainly has more information than she had when she signed the original Ex Parte for temp custody. If K & B wants to open more questioning beyond that - so be it.
Does not being cleared (yet) = responsible for the murder? I guess if it's a temporary situation the judge can decide better safe than sorry and do another temporary stint.
jmflu
10-15-2008, 11:43 PM
What is, actually, the purpose in declaring someone "a person of interest?"
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:44 PM
You are meeting M and SG on the court steps at 9am. I want a full report!:)
???? hmroo?
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:46 PM
What is, actually, the purpose in declaring someone "a person of interest?"
The term was started after the Richard Jewel case (and resultant lawsuit)...it gives the police and the media a way to describe someone who is being looked at but they are not calling them a 'suspect' which has some legal implications.
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 11:46 PM
If he answers 'no' to the question in your earlier post (not cleared), how do you suppose he will respond to this question from K&B: "Do you consider BC a suspect or person-of-interest in the murder investigation?"
I don't think such a question will be allowed. The detective has sworn to inconsistencies - which an argument can be made is the root cause of why Brad cannot be ruled out, if of course the answer is no. It is already known that no suspect or person of interest has been named - this would be the answer given were such question allowed. Again, this answer does not rule Brad out.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:46 PM
What is, actually, the purpose in declaring someone "a person of interest?"
I've lost sight of it actually. Some time ago, there was considerable discussion on why LE often goes out of their way to not expicltly "name" someone a suspect or POI, and therefore, little can be read into them not doing so. My observation is it seems almost random when they do/don't, but I assume there's some rhyme or reason to it.
In this case though, it would seem that LE has gone out of their way to not explicitly name him (or any) suspects or POIs (when it's obviously from all the custody affidavits that they are clearly interested in him).
Perhaps tomorrow, when/if the detective gets on the stand, LE will at least dismiss with that superficial facade.
Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 11:47 PM
I think if this goes to a hearing - the Detective's testimony will be the key in Judge Sasser's decision. Since he is the one privy to the investigation and its status, I see his testimony as serving the issue well. It isn't about serving Brad well - it is about serving two little girls well.
I thought it was supposed to be about justice and fairness.
It always seems like it's just a game.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:48 PM
I don't think such a question will be allowed. The detective has sworn to inconsistencies - which an argument can be made is the root cause of why Brad cannot be ruled out, if of course the answer is no. It is already known that no suspect or person of interest has been named - this would be the answer given were such question allowed. Again, this answer does not rule Brad out.
You're kidding, right!?
You think that the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask him if he can clear BC or not... and yet the defendants (on cross), won't be allowed to ask him if he considers BC a suspect/person-of-interest?
The question isn't "have you named a suspect or POI... the question is... do you consider BC a suspect/POI"... so responding "we haven't named a suspect/POI"... (if the question is allowed, and I certainly can't see why it wouldn't be), I would think would be considered non-responsive on the part of the detective.
What th'...
raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 11:48 PM
Does not being cleared (yet) = responsible for the murder? I guess if it's a temporary situation the judge can decide better safe than sorry and do another temporary stint.
It means there is something in the evidence that indicates he could be involved - otherwise LE could say yes he was cleared.
Star12
10-15-2008, 11:50 PM
As for the elephant........ All parties involved know about it. It would be very strange for the judge to not know about it. It really can't be tried tomorrow, in a civil court custody hearing, but that big ole' gray elephant can't help but be noticed there in the courtroom. Should the elephant be considered in the custody hearing? It shouldn't. But then again, there it is taking up all that space, and if it weren't for the elephant, and how it came to be, there wouldn't be any hearing at all.
As far as the "closed door session" it's always best if the parties can work things out prior to trial. More can be said and discussed and compromises made behind those closed doors whereas in a courtroom setting there is no discussion, no compromises. It's really the best way, IMO.
Star12
10-15-2008, 11:52 PM
If he answers 'no' to the question in your earlier post (they cannot clear him after 3 months), how do you suppose he will respond to this question from K&B: "Do you consider BC a suspect or person-of-interest in the murder investigation?"
By saying, "He has not been named a POI or a suspect. This is an on-going investigation, and forensic tests are not yet back".
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:52 PM
I can't imagine that all the evidence the judge needs to make a determination is available. The psych evaluation/report? Don't those take some time to complete? That's a big piece needed.
momto3kids
10-15-2008, 11:55 PM
I think there is one simple question that can be asked of this detective and the only one that needs to be asked:
After three months of investigation into the murder of Nancy Cooper - is LE able to clear Brad of any and all involvelment in the murder of Nancy Cooper - yes or no.
If I hear the question I will be sure to let you know. I will be taking notes on who testifies or what is said. I know the media will hit the highlights of the case, but I believe there will be some interesting statements and questions.
This is all IF it is not settled behind closed doors.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:56 PM
By saying, "He has not been named a POI or a suspect. This is an on-going investigation, and forensic tests are not yet back".
Ah... but that would be not answering the question!
Unlike in a presser (and/or presidential debate [sorry, couldn't resist :) ]), when you can respond in whatever way you want (sensibly or otherwise); when you're on the witness stand, I think you're compelled to answer the question asked. Otherwise, why not just spout jibberish then to any question you're asked that you don't want to answer straightforwardly... [a la Michael Scott in Jan v Dunder Miflin, circa 2008 :D ]
If he's asked "has BC been named a suspect or POI", then it's fine to respond that way ("no, he hasn't").
However, if he's asked "In your expert opinion, is BC considered or being treated by CPD as if he is a suspect/POI", then responding "he has not been named a suspect/POI" wouldn't make any sense. Presumably the judge (if the question is allowed), would direct the witness to answer the question as asked.
jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 11:58 PM
I can't imagine that all the evidence the judge needs to make a determination is available. The psych evaluation/report? Don't those take some time to complete? That's a big piece needed.
Even BC, in his depo, said that the final report from the eval he had done wasn't completed yet. No doubt the one he was ordered to complete recently isn't complete yet either.
Hey... just remembering, we have the doctor's private mobile phone number from the depo... we can just call him and ask him. Anyone want to check? Any wagers on how fast that num got changed? :)
SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 11:59 PM
However, if he's asked "In your expert opinion, is BC considered or being treated by CPD as if he is a suspect/POI", then responding "he has not been named a suspect/POI" wouldn't make any sense. Presumably the judge (if the question is allowed), would direct the witness to answer the question as asked.
He can respond that such a determination is not up to him (which might be true) and that the DA and his superiors in LE have not labeled BC as a POI/suspect. That would be a valid response.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:02 AM
You're kidding, right!?
You think that the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask him if he can clear BC or not... and yet the defendants (on cross), won't be allowed to ask him if he considers BC a suspect/person-of-interest?
The question isn't "have you named a suspect or POI... the question is... do you consider BC a suspect/POI"... so responding "we haven't named a suspect/POI"... (if the question is allowed, and I certainly can't see why it wouldn't be), I would think would be considered non-responsive on the part of the detective.
What th'...
Why does everyone ask me if I am kidding or serious ?
I never said the plaintiff's lawyer would be allowed to ask the question, I simply stated it is the relevant question for the judge.
I believe that TS will be limited to questioning related to specifically what was stated in his affidavit. Said affidavit does not contain anything about suspects or persons of interest so why should Brad's lawyers be allowed to ask it ? A line of questioning about inconsistencies is perfectly well in line with what the detective has sworn too. Don't know about you but I don't think that is an area that Brad's lawyers really want to pursue.
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 12:07 AM
He can respond that such a determination is not up to him (which might be true) and that the DA and his superiors in LE have not labeled BC as a POI/suspect. That would be a valid response.
K&B: "In your expert opinion, is BC being treated by CPD as a suspect or person-of-interest"
Detective: "That determination is not up to me"
K&B: "Uhhh... judge, a little help with the witness here..."
Anderson
10-16-2008, 12:08 AM
???? hmroo?
Just joking, based on the posts I read earlier. I hope that one of you will go. But, I'm sure that you will be responsible and go to work. :rolleyes::)
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 12:11 AM
Why does everyone ask me if I am kidding or serious ?
I never said the plaintiff's lawyer would be allowed to ask the question, I simply stated it is the relevant question for the judge.
I believe that TS will be limited to questioning related to specifically what was stated in his affidavit. Said affidavit does not contain anything about suspects or persons of interest so why should Brad's lawyers be allowed to ask it ? A line of questioning about inconsistencies is perfectly well in line with what the detective has sworn too. Don't know about you but I don't think that is an area that Brad's lawyers really want to pursue.
Yeah, I agree it's a reasonable question for them.
I thought (correct if I'm wrong) though, that once someone makes a statement, that the defense has the option then to ask a line of questioning that may be related to that statement.
If the detective states that they haven't cleared BC... then to me, his sworn statements to the court are now broader than "there are inconsistencies".
It therefore, should open the door for K&B to ask a follow-on question: "In your expert opinion, is CPD treating him like a suspect/POI"?.
To me, if the judge asks, or allows the first question (your question), and the detective responds with a "no, he has not been cleared", then it is a reasonable and fair follow-up. If a judge says otherwise, I'd be crying foul pretty quickly.
To your point about whether or not they would want to ask this question, who knows... but it seems to me that this one, (and others that may be related) would be fair game... if the detective is allowed to respond to the question you pose. Bottom line, I don't think this is a "one simple question, then let's all go home" type of situation, but we'll see.
[ As to the kidding/serious part... don't worry, I get that a lot too on this board... :) ]
SleuthyGal
10-16-2008, 12:34 AM
Why does everyone ask me if I am kidding or serious ?
I don't know! But, for some reason your asking made me laugh. And no, I'm not kidding. :wink: :bang:
Seriously, if anyone is really interested in learning legal procedures, etc. spend some time watching CourtTV or I guess it's now called truTV. Follow a trial or two. After watching a few cases start to finish you'll learn a lot. The first case I followed in-depth was the O.J. murder case, and later the O.J. civil case (which was not televised but the daily court reporter's transcription was available). I read everything, followed every motion, every piece of evidence. I also followed start-to-finish the David Westerfield murder case, the Laci Peterson murder case and there might have been another one or two after that one as well. Much better than the law course I took in college many years ago, which was required and which I did not enjoy.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:35 AM
Yeah, I agree it's a reasonable question for them.
I thought (correct if I'm wrong) though, that once someone makes a statement, that the defense has the option then to ask a line of questioning that may be related to that statement.
If the detective states that they haven't cleared BC... then to me, his sworn statements to the court are now broader than "there are inconsistencies".
It therefore, should open the door for K&B to ask a follow-on question: "In your expert opinion, is CPD treating him like a suspect/POI"?.
To me, if the judge asks, or allows the first question (your question), and the detective responds with a "no, he has not been cleared", then it is a reasonable and fair follow-up. If a judge says otherwise, I'd be crying foul pretty quickly.
To your point about whether or not they would want to ask this question, who knows... but it seems to me that this one, (and others that may be related) would be fair game... if the detective is allowed to respond to the question you pose. Bottom line, I don't think this is a "one simple question, then let's all go home" type of situation, but we'll see.
[ As to the kidding/serious part... don't worry, I get that a lot too on this board... :) ]
You are still not following my thought. The question is rhetorical for the judge alone to ask and answer. To reach that answer she needs only to listen to the questions put to the detective and his answers to determine if LE is or is not able to clear Brad. Be those questions from TS or Brad's lawyers. No one has to ask this question out loud, the judge must answer it for herself - if she reaches a no conclusion as to whether LE can rule Brad out then she can conclude his possible involvement. If she reaches a conclusion that LE has ruled him out, again based on questions and answers, she can conclude Brad has no involvement.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:37 AM
I don't know! But, for some reason your asking made me laugh. And no, I'm not kidding. :wink: :bang:
Well we could certainly use some levity tonight. Glad you got a chuckle out of it :) I'm not kidding.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:41 AM
That is true. People do ask you that question quite often. :):crazy:
I think that the reality of legal practices are stunning to many of us! Thanks for sharing your expertise with us, RC.
No expertise involved Anderson, just simple logic. I am simple, no rocket scientist, and I am not kidding :)
SleuthyGal
10-16-2008, 12:41 AM
Well we could certainly use some levity tonight. Glad you got a chuckle out of it :) I'm not kidding.
I always know when you are and aren't. <insert Mr. Ed laugh>
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:49 AM
I thought it was supposed to be about justice and fairness.
It always seems like it's just a game.
I think we just see this differently. I don't see this as being about Brad's welfare. I see it as being about the welfare of two little girls who have lost their mother and have been thrown into an argument. To me, their welfare is the most important issue in this custody case, as it should be.
I do however find lawyers to be great game players and excellent actors.
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 06:32 AM
I do however find lawyers to be great game players and excellent actors.
Sometimes, we even find excellent actors who play lawyers.
Denny Crane! :D
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 06:37 AM
You are still not following my thought. The question is rhetorical for the judge alone to ask and answer. To reach that answer she needs only to listen to the questions put to the detective and his answers to determine if LE is or is not able to clear Brad. Be those questions from TS or Brad's lawyers. No one has to ask this question out loud, the judge must answer it for herself - if she reaches a no conclusion as to whether LE can rule Brad out then she can conclude his possible involvement. If she reaches a conclusion that LE has ruled him out, again based on questions and answers, she can conclude Brad has no involvement.
Yeah, in your original post on the subject, I definitely missed the notion that this wasn't an actual question that might be explicitly asked the witness.
Let me confirm this though at least: If the plaintiffs were allowed to explicitly ask the witness your question ("have you excluded BC yet"), and the witness responds with a 'no', then would a reasonable follow-up question (from the defense side or wherever) be "Is Mr. Cooper being treated like a suspect/POI, in your opinion"?
tippytoes
10-16-2008, 07:22 AM
I,for one, would like for the prosecution to decide whether or not to name BC a POI. The title gives him certain rights (to be read the miranda warning). It's put-up-or-shut-up time.
If they decide to go forward, I will feel more confident that they have a case. If not, it's time to stop dangling the charge and face the fact that he will have custody until such time as charges are filed.
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 07:43 AM
I,for one, would like for the prosecution to decide whether or not to name BC a POI. The title gives him certain rights (to be read the miranda warning). It's put-up-or-shut-up time.
If they decide to go forward, I will feel more confident that they have a case. If not, it's time to stop dangling the charge and face the fact that he will have custody until such time as charges are filed.
Agreed! If they take away his kids, on some contrived or derived basis by the custody judge that he may have been responsible... and yet, he still isn't named a suspect, or POI, that will fly in the face of reason.
Heck... even JY at least got the courtesy of being named a POI... and he had no children taken away from him!
tippytoes
10-16-2008, 07:53 AM
Agreed! If they take away his kids, on some contrived or derived basis by the custody judge that he may have been responsible... and yet, he still isn't named a suspect, or POI, that will fly in the face of reason.
Heck... even JY at least got the courtesy of being named a POI... and he had no children taken away from him!
That's where the "elephant in the room" cuts both ways. If the prosecution has something on him, then they need to show their cards.
BC has never been accused of being bad to his children and if there isn't a murder "suspicion" being investigated by LE, he should have custody of his children. I feel for NC's family, but they don't have custodial rights at this time and IMO, they shouldn't have gotten custody.
I hope today we will learn more. IF they have the goods, BC shouldn't get his kids. The back and forth and back again is chaotic for the girls. If not, turn the girls over and build the case (oh, and interview witnesses!)
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 08:21 AM
Mt3K and others that may be heading to the hearing this am - would you please listen to hear if the Judge will allow the motion filed by the plaintiff's on 2 October concerning the submission of Nancy's statements? I think this is an important aspect - as these statements are Nancy's alone and may be much more telling than statements from others. Thanks !!!
When I first heard the circumstances of this case (missing jogger, then found murdered off the side of the road in an undeveloped subdivision, then details of strangulation, etc.), my initial reaction was, "Random stranger, sexual assault, DNA will catch perp eventually."
Unfortunately, much of NC and BC's "dirty laundry" has been aired in the process.
In order to protect the children from any further disclosures from now until the case goes to trial (with any suspect, as I am in the SODDI camp until evidence indicates otehrwise), it would seem that staying temporarily with NC's family--with liberal private visitation with BC--would protect the girls the best.
Once the case is over, and the criminal sentenced, if BC is not the one who did it, he should immediately regain full custody of the children.
If they remain in NCarolina during this process, there is too much chance of the media glare causing them harm, IMO.
We shall see, of course.
Does NCarolina have "guardian at litems" AKA court appointed independent parties looking out for the best interests of the children?
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 08:55 AM
If being the most likely suspect that killed his wife was criteria for losing custody of his young kids, why is Jason Young allowed to keep his 5 year old daughter ?
This custody case should be interesting, as it could give Linda Fisher some hope to do the same thing and win. If nothing else, it will compel Jason Young to speak for the first time in 2 years.
tippytoes
10-16-2008, 08:58 AM
When I first heard the circumstances of this case (missing jogger, then found murdered off the side of the road in an undeveloped subdivision, then details of strangulation, etc.), my initial reaction was, "Random stranger, sexual assault, DNA will catch perp eventually."
Unfortunately, much of NC and BC's "dirty laundry" has been aired in the process.
In order to protect the children from any further disclosures from now until the case goes to trial (with any suspect, as I am in the SODDI camp until evidence indicates otehrwise), it would seem that staying temporarily with NC's family--with liberal private visitation with BC--would protect the girls the best.
Once the case is over, and the criminal sentenced, if BC is not the one who did it, he should immediately regain full custody of the children.
If they remain in NCarolina during this process, there is too much chance of the media glare causing them harm, IMO.
We shall see, of course.
Does NCarolina have "guardian at litems" AKA court appointed independent parties looking out for the best interests of the children?
runr, I don't know if it's a guardian ad litem state. I wish SOMEONE would look out for the best interests of the children, but until now, no one has so.... I think not.
As far as the custody being decided when (and IF, big IF in North Carolina) charges are filed, I don't think the state can afford to wait. Unless this case is fast tracked before Albaroa and Young (both of whom I absolutely believe are guilty), it would be a mistake to wait the eternity it takes with the NC District Attroney. I hope not.
I truly hope today is a "put up or shut up" ruling. IF they have evidence, I have no problem. If NOT, they have some explaining to do regarding keeping a biological father a country from his children.
tippytoes
10-16-2008, 09:00 AM
If being the most likely suspect that killed his wife was criteria for losing custody of his young kids, why is Jason Young allowed to keep his 5 year old daughter ?
This custody case should be interesting, as it could give Linda Fisher some hope to do the same thing and win. If nothing else, it will compel Jason Young to speak for the first time in 2 years.
This case isn't a spring board for the Young case. Jason has custody of his daughter. Brad shouldn't be separated, by an entire country, from his girls without evidence.
The DA can't re-write the mistakes in the Young case. "MOST LIKELY" is not a standard.
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 09:18 AM
This case isn't a spring board for the Young case. Jason has custody of his daughter. Brad shouldn't be separated, by an entire country, from his girls without evidence.
The DA can't re-write the mistakes in the Young case. "MOST LIKELY" is not a standard.
Who said there are mistakes in the Young case ?
I simply said if the Judge plans to consider that Brad killed his wife in deciding custody, then the same standard may be used in the Young case, if Linda decides to sue for custody of her Cassidy.
CyberPro
10-16-2008, 09:22 AM
When I first heard the circumstances of this case (missing jogger, then found murdered off the side of the road in an undeveloped subdivision, then details of strangulation, etc.), my initial reaction was, "Random stranger, sexual assault, DNA will catch perp eventually."
Unfortunately, much of NC and BC's "dirty laundry" has been aired in the process.
In order to protect the children from any further disclosures from now until the case goes to trial (with any suspect, as I am in the SODDI camp until evidence indicates otehrwise), it would seem that staying temporarily with NC's family--with liberal private visitation with BC--would protect the girls the best.
Once the case is over, and the criminal sentenced, if BC is not the one who did it, he should immediately regain full custody of the children.
If they remain in NCarolina during this process, there is too much chance of the media glare causing them harm, IMO.
We shall see, of course.
Does NCarolina have "guardian at litems" AKA court appointed independent parties looking out for the best interests of the children?
North Carolina does have "Guardian ad litems", but AFAIK none have been appointed in this case. This is probably due to the grandparents obtaining temporary custody under the Ex Parte order. Although they do have a dog in the fight, they are suitable custodians of the interests of the minors involved, and have TS as competent counsel in the case to ensure that the minor's interest is considered.
CyberPro
jmflu
10-16-2008, 09:40 AM
If being the most likely suspect that killed his wife was criteria for losing custody of his young kids, why is Jason Young allowed to keep his 5 year old daughter ?
This custody case should be interesting, as it could give Linda Fisher some hope to do the same thing and win. If nothing else, it will compel Jason Young to speak for the first time in 2 years.
Nothing wrong with referring to another case as an example, JTF, and as a comparison.
I also feel that if non-believers can post here, believers can post "there."
maconrich
10-16-2008, 09:42 AM
North Carolina does have "Guardian ad litems", but AFAIK none have been appointed in this case. This is probably due to the grandparents obtaining temporary custody under the Ex Parte order. Although they do have a dog in the fight, they are suitable custodians of the interests of the minors involved, and have TS as competent counsel in the case to ensure that the minor's interest is considered.
CyberPro
ICAM!! There had to have been a good reason for the court to turn the children over to Nancy's family. As has been pointed out many times, NC isn't a state that's concerned about the rights of grandparents, so the fact the judge awarded temporary custody to them says a lot (to me).
As far as today, I'm inclined to go with those who won't be surprised if the involved parties reach an agreement (between themselves). And IMO it is NOT in the best interest of the children to be handed over to BC right now. There is too much at stake and it's better to err on the side of safety than to take the chance that the girls might be hurt or that BC might take off with them.
That said, if he does decide to go thru with the hearing, it should be interesting...
ETA: I also agree that the Young case IS very relevant to this case and see no reason it shouldn't be discussed when appropriate!! And in this case it absolutely was!!
jmflu
10-16-2008, 09:50 AM
No, your first post clearly was. The ignore post was just silliness because I know you know where it is.
I have been on topic and tried to guide you to that as well....yeah, let a mod sort it out.
There IS an ignore button?? Where?
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 09:51 AM
No, your first post clearly was. The ignore post was just silliness because I know you know where it is.
I have been on topic and tried to guide you to that as well....yeah, let a mod sort it out.
I don't need to be guided when I did nothing wrong....k ?
It was not my intention to post here today and then be immediately attacked.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 09:52 AM
"Non believers" aren't banned from anywhere. Just because not everyone is in agreement that Brad should be in handcuffs doesn't take away posting rights.
Not trying to take away rights, TT, trying to expand them.
I believe it was your post in the other thread that wished all the believers would just leave that thread to the nons.
No one is banned... yet.
tippytoes
10-16-2008, 09:53 AM
I don't need to be guided when I did nothing wrong....k ?
It was not my intention to post here today and then be immediately attacked.
Who attacked you? There were several posters discussing the custody hearing until your post. Re read.
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 09:55 AM
chicoliving already closed the general discussion thread because of attacks, insults or whatever you want to call it....Can we please not go down that road again?
tippytoes
10-16-2008, 09:56 AM
Not trying to take away rights, TT, trying to expand them.
I believe it was your post in the other thread that wished all the believers would just leave that thread to the nons.
No one is banned... yet.
That's not what happened to the first non-100% believer thread, but the great thing is that ALL posters can add to any thread. Because I don't 100% believe Brad should be in jail at this moment, I am not relegated to a non-believer thread.
The first day that thread opened, I posted, but the thread was bombarded by "believers" Brad is guilty.
Reardless, I am sure I am allowed to post in the custody thread, whether I believe or not and that's the reason I am on this thread. I would like to get back to that topic if it's ok.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 09:59 AM
That's not what happened to the first non-100% believer thread, but the great thing is that ALL posters can add to any thread. Because I don't 100% believe Brad should be in jail at this moment, I am not relegated to a non-believer thread.
The first day that thread opened, I posted, but the thread was bombarded by "believers" Brad is guilty.
Reardless, I am sure I am allowed to post in the custody thread, whether I believe or not and that's the reason I am on this thread. I would like to get back to that topic if it's ok.
Don't feel intimidated just because there are a lot of people who think Brad is guilty. There are plenty of people who believe he's not that coexist on that thread just fine. But when we get all emotional about it and start insulting each other and speaking with sarcasm, threads get shut down and people get banned. We welcome you and your point of view anywhere you like to post. :crazy:
ncsu95
10-16-2008, 10:11 AM
ICAM!! There had to have been a good reason for the court to turn the children over to Nancy's family. As has been pointed out many times, NC isn't a state that's concerned about the rights of grandparents, so the fact the judge awarded temporary custody to them says a lot (to me).
As far as today, I'm inclined to go with those who won't be surprised if the involved parties reach an agreement (between themselves). And IMO it is NOT in the best interest of the children to be handed over to BC right now. There is too much at stake and it's better to err on the side of safety than to take the chance that the girls might be hurt or that BC might take off with them.
That said, if he does decide to go thru with the hearing, it should be interesting...
ETA: I also agree that the Young case IS very relevant to this case and see no reason it shouldn't be discussed when appropriate!! And in this case it absolutely was!!
Why couldn't he leave with his girls? He's neither a suspect or a POI in the murder of Nance, so doesn't that mean he is free to go where he wants with his children?
maconrich
10-16-2008, 10:12 AM
Who said there are mistakes in the Young case ?
I simply said if the Judge plans to consider that Brad killed his wife in deciding custody, then the same standard may be used in the Young case, if Linda decides to sue for custody of her Cassidy.
Soooo I can't help but wonder if this case might end up being a reference point in NC?? And if so I wonder if it might help reduce the number of women murdered by their husbands in these parts?? :blowkiss:
Sorry to be forgetful but what time is this coming down today??
NCSU -- was typing while you posted so will answer you in this post (instead of doing a back to back one). What I meant by taking off is more along the lines of vanishing before the murder case is solved - or at least before he's cleared.
ncsu95
10-16-2008, 10:14 AM
There used to be. But I don't see it anymore.
Hey mods, what happened to the ignore user button?
Click on the users name that you want to ignore. Right under there name, click on "user list" -> "add to ignore list".
That should do it.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 10:15 AM
Click on the users name that you want to ignore. Right under there name, click on "user list" -> "add to ignore list".
That should do it.
So, when you do that, you won't see anything they post, is that it?
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 10:21 AM
So, when you do that, you won't see anything they post, is that it?
Works like a charm !
The poster you choose to ignore simply goes 'poof' :)
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 10:22 AM
Why couldn't he leave with his girls? He's neither a suspect or a POI in the murder of Nance, so doesn't that mean he is free to go where he wants with his children?
Perhaps the difference is Brad hasn't been publically named as a suspect or person of interest. Because that hasn't happened, doesn't mean he isn't one or the other to LE.
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 10:27 AM
Perhaps the difference is Brad hasn't been publically named as a suspect or person of interest. Because that hasn't happened, doesn't mean he isn't one or the other to LE.
You won't likely see either of those terms used by the DA or LE in any Wake County jurisdiction. If not the 'suspect', he is obviously a 'person of interest'. Some hear that he is not 'named' either one and think he is home free. As you pointed out RC, the key word is 'named'.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 10:32 AM
Works like a charm !
The poster you choose to ignore simply goes 'poof' :)
Cool!
I don't want to ignore anybody, 'cause I don't want to miss anything! lol
But it's good to know it's there!
jmflu
10-16-2008, 10:36 AM
So I don't see SG on here this morning; I wonder if she went with Mom to the courthouse.
Mom must not be able to use her laptop in the courtroom, or she would be keeping us in the loop, I'm sure!!!
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 10:38 AM
So I don't see SG on here this morning; I wonder if she went with Mom to the courthouse.
Mom must not be able to use her laptop in the courtroom, or she would be keeping us in the loop, I'm sure!!!
I went to the very first proceeding when they agreed in Chambers.
The Judge was very clear to the reporters....use a blackberry devise in court and go to jail for contempt.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 10:44 AM
I went to the very first proceeding when they agreed in Chambers.
The Judge was very clear to the reporters....use a blackberry devise in court and go to jail for contempt.
Ooooooooh... so Mom could be in jail right now... JK!!!!! lol
So when you went, were you just sitting there while they did everything behind closed doors?!
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 10:49 AM
Ooooooooh... so Mom could be in jail right now... JK!!!!! lol
So when you went, were you just sitting there while they did everything behind closed doors?!
I was in the courtroom but the judge made me leave when the witnesses came in. She then allowed about 25-30 reporters in to fill the very small courtroom. I could hear the judge's order about cell phones and computers from my position at the door. (got the visual :crazy:)
Our locals will be lucky if they make it in the actual courtroom today.
ncsu95
10-16-2008, 10:53 AM
You won't likely see either of those terms used by the DA or LE in any Wake County jurisdiction. If not the 'suspect', he is obviously a 'person of interest'. Some hear that he is not 'named' either one and think he is home free. As you pointed out RC, the key word is 'named'.
No, obviously he is the primary suspect. I was pointing out that I don't think that legally he is required to stay in the area.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 10:54 AM
I'm surprised I don't see any video on WRAL of the plaintiffs and the defendant walking the sidewalks to the courtroom...
How long did it take last time? They are going on 2 hours now...
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 10:57 AM
The morning fodder:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:02 AM
WRAL's morning fodder - good morning all.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
Henry7
10-16-2008, 11:04 AM
Hi RC, Here's another one on WRAL -
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 11:05 AM
WRAL's morning fodder - good morning all.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
Definitely no filing stories from the courtroom - darn we have to wait til lunch break (if there is one) ! :crazy:
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:05 AM
Wowee... "fodder" is the word of the day!!! LOL
Thanks for all the links, everyone!!
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 11:06 AM
Hello Henry7 :)
Thanks for the link !
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:10 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
here's a link from wral:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:15 AM
There is no doubt how Nancy's sister and father feel toward ole Brad, huh? I feel so badly for them.
ETA - hey Zoe and Henry7 - long time no see.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:20 AM
There is no doubt how Nancy's sister and father feel toward ole Brad, huh? I feel so badly for them.
ETA - hey Zoe and Henry7 - long time no see.
TG - Do you think NC's dad's comment will sound frivolous? He stated that he thinks Brad killed Nancy because he was the only one with motivation and access... I guess their attorney would have told him what to say or how to say it but it sounds like Brad is a default rather than he felt he was a danger to NC...
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:22 AM
Don't know - I don't see it that way. Her sister said she feared for Nancy's safety for months before her death so to me that just reinforces Nancy's dad's comments and beliefs.
ETA - the comments together taken from 2 of Nancy's family members would make me think it would not sound frivolous to the judge.
i have been lurking...and, like everyone else, waiting.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:25 AM
Don't know - I don't see it that way. Her sister said she feared for Nancy's safety for months before her death so to me that just reinforces Nancy's dad's comments and beliefs.
ETA - the comments together taken from 2 of Nancy's family members would make me think it would not sound frivolous to the judge.
GOOD. Thx!
Oh, BTW... since we have this story about her dad's testimony, does that mean the hearing is over since they can't post stories from the courtroom?
Or are they allowed to step outside and post them?
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:28 AM
GOOD. Thx!
Oh, BTW... since we have this story about her dad's testimony, does that mean the hearing is over since they can't post stories from the courtroom?
Or are they allowed to step outside and post them?
I don't think the hearing is over but I don't think the judge would allow the reporters to just come and go when they feel like it. So I'm thinking maybe a quick recess was called possibly.
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:30 AM
YEEEOOUUCHHH!!!!
Nancy Cooper's family has said in court documents that they do not think she ever went jogging that day.
In opening statements, Alice Stubbs, attorney for Nancy Cooper's family, said there is substantial evidence that links Brad Cooper to the crime.
"We maintain that not only is he a suspect, he is the only suspect," Stubbs said.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
I'll bet knothead and bonehead like that lol!!!!!!!!!
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:31 AM
I don't think the hearing is over but I don't think the judge would allow the reporters to just come and go when they feel like it. So I'm thinking maybe a quick recess was called possibly.
Ohhh. Ok. So, the reporters are allowed to post outside the courtroom; it has more to do with interrupting the proceeding being what the judge is concerned about, rather than letting the info out before she is ready?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 11:32 AM
Don't know - I don't see it that way. Her sister said she feared for Nancy's safety for months before her death so to me that just reinforces Nancy's dad's comments and beliefs.
ETA - the comments together taken from 2 of Nancy's family members would make me think it would not sound frivolous to the judge.
The other thing to think about, we aren't hearing everything, just what a reporter is putting out. I don't think some of the most poignant statements will be reported. i.e. Krista Lister fearing for Nancy for months, surely she was asked why. I suspect we won't hear those reasons.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:32 AM
Holy cow!!!
They have EVIDENCE!!!!
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 11:36 AM
From this link I find it interesting that the judge is indeed asking questions:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
Taking the witness stand today in a custody hearing about the Coopers' two young daughters, Garry Wrentz was asked by Wake County District Judge Debra Sasser whether he believed Bradley Cooper killed his wife, Nancy. "Yes I do," Wrentz said. When Sasser asked him why, Wrentz said: "He's the only person I can think of with the motivation and the access."
So I go back to my one question for Detective Daniels...ouch !
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:36 AM
Holy cow!!!
They have EVIDENCE!!!!
That's my reaction too. Certainly if they are saying they have substantial evidence then they really do. I can't see them blowing smoke just to try and win this custody battle. They must have something they deem solid to make such a bold statment in my opinion.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:38 AM
That's my reaction too. Certainly if they are saying they have substantial evidence then they really do. I can't see them blowing smoke just to try and win this custody battle. They must have something they deem solid to make such a bold statment in my opinion.
:woohoo::clap:
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:39 AM
Do we have an "I'm praying I know what I'm talking about" Icon?? Cause I sure could use it right now. But it does make sense to me. Don't you think??
Daphne69
10-16-2008, 11:41 AM
As for the elephant........ All parties involved know about it. It would be very strange for the judge to not know about it. It really can't be tried tomorrow, in a civil court custody hearing, but that big ole' gray elephant can't help but be noticed there in the courtroom. Should the elephant be considered in the custody hearing? It shouldn't. But then again, there it is taking up all that space, and if it weren't for the elephant, and how it came to be, there wouldn't be any hearing at all.
As far as the "closed door session" it's always best if the parties can work things out prior to trial. More can be said and discussed and compromises made behind those closed doors whereas in a courtroom setting there is no discussion, no compromises. It's really the best way, IMO.
Bolding is mine.
You don't think a judge should consider whether or not someone MAY be involved in murder when deciding custody? I do. I would hope any judge deciding for my children would as well. I think it's very important to fitness as a parent. I'm not saying it means he's 100% guilty, but I do think the possibility should be weighed.
(I'm catching up on my reading, so forgive me if this topic is dead now.)
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 11:43 AM
That's my reaction too. Certainly if they are saying they have substantial evidence then they really do. I can't see them blowing smoke just to try and win this custody battle. They must have something they deem solid to make such a bold statment in my opinion.
Well - Wade himself has been actively involved in this case - and we are well aware of his history. I don't see smoke or mirrors to follow up that statement.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:44 AM
do we have an "i'm praying i know what i'm talking about" icon?? Cause i sure could use it right now. But it does make sense to me. Don't you think??
yes! :)
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:47 AM
Well - Wade himself has been actively involved in this case - and we are well aware of his history. I don't see smoke or mirrors to follow up that statement.
Nor do I and thanks for weighing in. JMFLU, thank you too. With the way the Michelle Young case and now the Kelly Morris case has gone, I get jumpy and start doubting myself over things that I shouldn't.
KellyCrash
10-16-2008, 11:51 AM
TG - Do you think NC's dad's comment will sound frivolous? He stated that he thinks Brad killed Nancy because he was the only one with motivation and access... I guess their attorney would have told him what to say or how to say it but it sounds like Brad is a default rather than he felt he was a danger to NC...
Garry Rentz has said in a press conference that before the murder he did not fear for her safety. Donna Rentz interrupted and said she did. It was in one of the news conferences shortly after the murder.
Anyone else notice all the errors in the N&O article. Geez.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 11:53 AM
Garry Rentz has said in a press conference that before the murder he did not fear for her safety. Donna Rentz interrupted and said she did. It was in one of the news conferences shortly after the murder.
Anyone else notice all the errors in the N&O article. Geez.
Errors... as in, typos?
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 11:56 AM
I have to leave to meet my mom for lunch JMFLU - call me if something happens like Brad breaks down and confesses. I'll be back in about an hour. LOL :-)
Or if a decision is made.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 11:58 AM
Garry Rentz has said in a press conference that before the murder he did not fear for her safety. Donna Rentz interrupted and said she did. It was in one of the news conferences shortly after the murder.
Anyone else notice all the errors in the N&O article. Geez.
KellyCrash - I do remember the information you noted above. It was one of the statements that made me wonder if the vacation the week before that Nancy took with her parents had resulted in the formulation of a plan for Nancy to get away from Brad. I'm still wondering about it.
snowshuze
10-16-2008, 12:02 PM
KellyCrash - I do remember the information you noted above. It was one of the statements that made me wonder if the vacation the week before that Nancy took with her parents had resulted in the formulation of a plan for Nancy to get away from Brad. I'm still wondering about it.
Dad may have been less stressed about her safety because there was possibly a plan in place for her LEAVING?
Sounds very plausible.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 12:04 PM
Story updated with Krista's comments:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:08 PM
Dad may have been less stressed about her safety because there was possibly a plan in place for her LEAVING?
Sounds very plausible.
Dunno why I think that, it just seems to me that Nancy needed empowerment and who else was to provide it but family? I also think there is a possibility that Brad became aware of it. He would not be happy to lose control, nor to actually have to pay money at a rate and on a schedule dictated by anyone other than himself.
gritguy
10-16-2008, 12:11 PM
When I first heard the circumstances of this case (missing jogger, then found murdered off the side of the road in an undeveloped subdivision, then details of strangulation, etc.), my initial reaction was, "Random stranger, sexual assault, DNA will catch perp eventually."
Unfortunately, much of NC and BC's "dirty laundry" has been aired in the process.
In order to protect the children from any further disclosures from now until the case goes to trial (with any suspect, as I am in the SODDI camp until evidence indicates otehrwise), it would seem that staying temporarily with NC's family--with liberal private visitation with BC--would protect the girls the best.
Once the case is over, and the criminal sentenced, if BC is not the one who did it, he should immediately regain full custody of the children.
If they remain in NCarolina during this process, there is too much chance of the media glare causing them harm, IMO.
We shall see, of course.
Does NCarolina have "guardian at litems" AKA court appointed independent parties looking out for the best interests of the children?
NC does have this program. I used to do it as a volunteer when I was in law school. All the cases I had involved poor children with nonfunctional families. In this case, there are active and funded parties, so I'm not surprised the judge hasn't taken that route.
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 12:27 PM
That's my reaction too. Certainly if they are saying they have substantial evidence then they really do. I can't see them blowing smoke just to try and win this custody battle. They must have something they deem solid to make such a bold statment in my opinion.
Hi Topsail girl.
I was under the impression the LE investigative file was not made available to anyone, including the plaintiff's in this custody hearing. How could Mrs Stubbs know much more about the evidence of murder than we do ?
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 12:37 PM
Hi Topsail girl.
I was under the impression the LE investigative file was not made available to anyone, including the plaintiff's in this custody hearing. How could Mrs Stubbs know much more about the evidence of murder than we do ?
And if this evidence proves he did it - then why is he not in hand cuffs?
ncsu95
10-16-2008, 12:38 PM
Hi Topsail girl.
I was under the impression the LE investigative file was not made available to anyone, including the plaintiff's in this custody hearing. How could Mrs Stubbs know much more about the evidence of murder than we do ?
I was about to post the same question. What evidence could they have that K&B don't have? I sincerely hope that CPD isn't providing evidence to one side but not the other.
tarheellvr
10-16-2008, 12:39 PM
And if this evidence proves he did it - then why is he not in hand cuffs?
I think we can look at the Ann Miller case for an answer as to why he isn't in handcuffs.
Also Jason Young..........
ncsu95
10-16-2008, 12:41 PM
Is anyone actually surprised that her family thinks he did it? This isn't really a big deal that they said so in court.
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 12:44 PM
Is anyone actually surprised that her family thinks he did it? This isn't really a big deal that they said so in court.
No - I would expect them to otherwise they would not be fighting for custody. If they thought he was innocent then they would be saying BC needs to have HIS children because that is what NC would have wanted.
jilly
10-16-2008, 12:47 PM
I think we can look at the Ann Miller case for an answer as to why he isn't in handcuffs.
Also Jason Young..........
Amen to that!
tarheellvr
10-16-2008, 12:49 PM
Hi Topsail girl.
I was under the impression the LE investigative file was not made available to anyone, including the plaintiff's in this custody hearing. How could Mrs Stubbs know much more about the evidence of murder than we do ?
JTF in Amanda Lamb's book Deadly Dose, Eric Miller's family was in constant contact with lead investigator, Chris Morgan, who also kept them abreast of evidence,leads,etc. Could a similar situation be the case here?
Star12
10-16-2008, 12:51 PM
Wonder if this will go to more than one day. Still have the detective, BC, and whatever other witnesses they may call. Gould? Friends? The PIs? Hilke from Durham? It's also possible the judge may not give her ruling immediately. Oh, a long, nerve-wracking day for everyone!
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 12:56 PM
I was about to post the same question. What evidence could they have that K&B don't have? I sincerely hope that CPD isn't providing evidence to one side but not the other.
Perhaps Tharrington Smith employed a P.I. Brad did.
tarheellvr
10-16-2008, 01:04 PM
Jilly....wish I were as chilled out as Peppur seems to be :)
All I can think of are Nancy's girls and the ramifications this hearing will have on them.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 01:09 PM
The most recent update at WRAL indicates that Detective Daniels, if he testifies, will testify as a rebuttal witness. So TS is apparently thinking Brad will testify and therefore they can rebutt his testimony by using the detective to point out the inconsistencies. Hmmm, smart move.
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 01:14 PM
JTF in Amanda Lamb's book Deadly Dose, Eric Miller's family was in constant contact with lead investigator, Chris Morgan, who also kept them abreast of evidence,leads,etc. Could a similar situation be the case here?
Yes and they were sworn to keep this privileged info totally private.
It is also likely Linda Fisher has been given some 'non public' information about her daughter's murder and she can't divulge it to anyone.
This type of civil dispute in the middle of a criminal investigation is unprecedented (at least in these parts)
Do we have an "I'm praying I know what I'm talking about" Icon?? Cause I sure could use it right now. But it does make sense to me. Don't you think??
:praying:
RaleighNC
10-16-2008, 01:45 PM
I fully expect that TS and the Rentz's have their own PI.
I also think that there was something pivotal that was empowering Nancy in the days before her death - something where she was pushing Brad's buttons - something someone that felt trapped with no money and no family around WOULD NOT have done. I don't think it's her family - I think it's a relationship interest.
I can't see that even having made plans to leave with her family would have given her the immediate strength she would have needed if Brad decided to toss her out with the children - what would she do? With 2 kids and no money or credit cards? Someone that was that scared / emotionally beaten down would not be doing any of this - it takes getting away and having someone right there.
On second thought.....
ARE WE SURE THAT THE RENTZ'S WERE IN CANADA? Or her sister? Maybe they WERE here and BC found out this was the weekend???? And they would be helping her get set up on her own???? Makes sense why Nancy wouldn't care about the tennis thing..... or have to find someone to watch the children.....
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 01:56 PM
Hi Topsail girl.
I was under the impression the LE investigative file was not made available to anyone, including the plaintiff's in this custody hearing. How could Mrs Stubbs know much more about the evidence of murder than we do ?
I was thinking along the line of TS hiring a PI as well. So JTF, are you thinking Stubbs is blowing smoke regarding her phrase "substantial evidence"?
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 02:03 PM
I was thinking along the line of TS hiring a PI as well. So JTF, are you thinking Stubbs is blowing smoke regarding her phrase "substantial evidence"?
For this civil case, all she needs to show the judge is he is more likely than not to be the killer. Based on the SW's , autopsy report and his 8 hours of recorded statements, that seems rather obvious to many of us.
He had obvious motive and opportunity.
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:08 PM
So not so much blowing smoke just more of "over proving " (is that a word? LOL) her case at this point in time. Gotcha :)
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 02:11 PM
So not so much blowing smoke just more of "over proving " (is that a word? LOL) her case at this point in time. Gotcha :)
Kinda like the Michelle Young case.
Mrs Stubbs would just state the obvious...
JY is the ONLY suspect
Based on the publically disclosed evidence, he is very likely the killer.
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:16 PM
Kinda like the Michelle Young case.
Mrs Stubbs would just state the obvious...
JY is the ONLY suspect
Based on the publically disclosed evidence, he is very likely the killer.
Exactly. What I wouldn't give for this to be Jason's day in court as well.
I wonder what is taking so long. There has not been an update since noon. I wonder if they took a lunch break and if so why the reporters weren't scrambling to give another update.
Henry7
10-16-2008, 02:16 PM
Updated article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:18 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
"I feel like Brad has murdered my sister, and I deem it extremely inappropriate for the girls to be around him," Nancy Cooper's identical twin sister, Krista Lister, said.
Lister said she thinks her sister's death should be resolved before the permanent custody dispute is resolved.
When asked if she thought Brad Cooper should get his children back after the homicide is solved, she said, "He'll be in jail."
I spoke too soon!!!!
Henry7
10-16-2008, 02:18 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
Excerpt from article:
One friend said Nancy Cooper was so concerned, she called Interact, Wake County's crisis shelter for domestic violence.
Her sister had begged their parents to rescue Nancy and bring her and the girls home to Canada.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 02:20 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
jmflu
10-16-2008, 02:24 PM
"One friend said Nancy Cooper was so concerned, she called Interact, Wake County's crisis shelter for domestic violence. Her sister had begged their parents to rescue Nancy and bring her and the girls home to Canada."
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 02:24 PM
Updated article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
Thanks Henry7
From your link to the N & O article above , we now have confirmation of contact with Interact concerning Nancy's situation:
"This morning's testimony shed more light on the strains in the couple's marriage in the months before her death. One friend said Nancy Cooper was so concerned, she called Interact, Wake County's crisis shelter for domestic violence."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:26 PM
I'm betting this friend was either Diana or Jessica. I wonder if the friend called for Nancy or if it was Nancy that called for herself and her girls. I can be interpreted either way me thinks.
RaleighNC
10-16-2008, 02:26 PM
Her family has to be beating themselves up - one can understand why they are fighting so hard for the children, as they felt that Nancy was in danger and could not / did not get her out of there. They will fight for custody with everything they have.
There has to be an amazing amount of guilt.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 02:26 PM
Gosh, I'm sorry Henry and RC, we are all posting the same thing! LOL
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:29 PM
Her family has to be beating themselves up - one can understand why they are fighting so hard for the children, as they felt that Nancy was in danger and could not / did not get her out of there. They will fight for custody with everything they have.
There has to be an amazing amount of guilt.
I see your point however I know from first hand experience that you can't make the victim get away from the abuser till the victim is ready to get away. Both mentally and physically. Maybe Nancy just wasn't there in one or both areas just yet. I hope whatever guilt her family feels that they can overcome that and redeem themselves through loving and caring for those precious girls.
snowshuze
10-16-2008, 02:29 PM
I hear the clock ticking for Bad Brad.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 02:30 PM
Gosh, I'm sorry Henry and RC, we are all posting the same thing! LOL
No problems :) Just shows everyone cares. Now we know the Interact connection, it was related to Nancy's situation. Would like to know what the Interact representative has to offer now, definitely not expert testimony, something specific to Nancy. Very sad.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 02:34 PM
I'm betting this friend was either Diana or Jessica. I wonder if the friend called for Nancy or if it was Nancy that called for herself and her girls. I can be interpreted either way me thinks.
Hard to tell from how it is written if it was Nancy or a friend who made the call. If it was Jessica Adam that made the call, it goes a long way toward explaining why she made the choice to call LE and report Nancy missing.
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:41 PM
Hard to tell from how it is written if it was Nancy or a friend who made the call. If it was Jessica Adam that made the call, it goes a long way toward explaining why she made the choice to call LE and report Nancy missing.
Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know though if Interact would cooperate with Jessica if she was calling on behalf of someone else. Hmmm... I would like to know.
Daphne69
10-16-2008, 02:43 PM
I see your point however I know from first hand experience that you can't make the victim get away from the abuser till the victim is ready to get away. Both mentally and physically. Maybe Nancy just wasn't there in one or both areas just yet. I hope whatever guilt her family feels that they can overcome that and redeem themselves through loving and caring for those precious girls.
I was thinking along similar lines last week. NC was ready to leave, but she was also a mother. She couldn't leave without both her girls, meaning she needed their passports to go to the place where she had her support. I'm sure she thought that she was making progress toward getting out.
One way of looking at this that occurred to me is that she loved her girls so much it ultimately cost her her life. So sad.
Daphne69
10-16-2008, 02:46 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know though if Interact would cooperate with Jessica if she was calling on behalf of someone else. Hmmm... I would like to know.
As a former employee of Interact, I can say that the basic answer is "no." They wouldn't help NC through JA. They would, however, talk to JA about resources that are available and what she (JA) could or couldn't do to help.
ETA: They would also strongly encourage JA to get NC to call Interact herself.
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:47 PM
I was thinking along similar lines last week. NC was ready to leave, but she was also a mother. She couldn't leave without both her girls, meaning she needed their passports to go to the place where she had her support. I'm sure she thought that she was making progress toward getting out.
One way of looking at this that occurred to me is that she loved her girls so much it ultimately cost her her life. So sad.
Oh how right you are Daphne69. :no:
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:49 PM
As a former employee of Interact, I can say that the basic answer is "no." They wouldn't help NC through JA. They would, however, talk to JA about resources that are available and what she (JA) could or couldn't do to help.
Great info!! Thanks!!! So Jessica or Diana could have gotten some info and some ideas about how to help Nancy but they would not havebeen able to make any moving arrangements or financial help or some such for Nancy. So that makes me think that maybe the friend called and then encouraged Nancy to call. Maybe Brad found that out and it was fuel added to the fire in his opinion.
Star12
10-16-2008, 02:52 PM
Hard to tell from how it is written if it was Nancy or a friend who made the call. If it was Jessica Adam that made the call, it goes a long way toward explaining why she made the choice to call LE and report Nancy missing.
I was confused at first, too, but on second reading it sounds like Nancy made the call. And I think the only reason she didn't leave is BC had the children's passports and she would not leave without Bella and Katie. I do think, though, that Interact can help with passport issues. I think Iad that on their old site.
As far as if Nancy was planning on leaving on Saturday instead of painting, wouldn't the Rentz's have known that?
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 02:56 PM
As far as if Nancy was planning on leaving on Saturday instead of painting, wouldn't the Rentz's have known that?
I think they would have known,yes. I also think Jessica would have known and when Nancy didn't show up at the appointed time or location Jessica became frantic. However I really really don't think Nancy would leave without both girls and their pass ports. Only other theory I have is maybe she was just going to a safe house in the states with the girls until she and Brad could hash out the divorce and custody in court. In that case she could have been scheduled to leave that Sat morning and not needed all the passports.
LivinginNC
10-16-2008, 02:59 PM
JA is in the courtroom today as I saw her on the News 14 update at noon. I don't know who else may be there to testify about Interact. Could it be that they were planning on painting the apartment that JA owns, getting it ready for NC to move into with the girls. Maybe NC's parents were helping her financially as they had helped her in the past (again stated in the noon news update, I do not have a link as I saw it live on tv).
RaleighNC
10-16-2008, 03:04 PM
I think she was going to stay in Cary, but get out of the house. It had to be horribly unhealthy to have 2 people that disliked each other so, who were yelling at each other fairly regularly, etc. trying to raise children.
Wasn't a mention made of some recent bedwetting or behavioral issues with one of the kids? I could see how that would have brought it home to NC that she had to get out of the house - even if she could not get back to Canada - it was impacting the children.
Something big was on the horizon. The same thing that empowered Nancy most likely drove pushed Brad over the edge, IMO.
This case continues to make me dreadfully sad. As a twin, Krista's pain must be almost unbearable. I hope she has a good support network and is working with a competent therapist.
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 03:05 PM
If she was planning on running away, don't you think her friends would have known especially JA? None of her friends stated in the affy's that she was planning on leaving. Yes she was planning on leaving eventually but not in a secretive manner as being discussed. If that is what she was planning then I think her friends would have said so in there affy's.
That would be another strike against BC for motive if that was the case and he found out...
ncsu95
10-16-2008, 03:12 PM
If she was planning on running away, don't you think her friends would have known especially JA? None of her friends stated in the affy's that she was planning on leaving. Yes she was planning on leaving eventually but not in a secretive manner as being discussed. If that is what she was planning then I think her friends would have said so in there affy's.
That would be another strike against BC for motive if that was the case and he found out...
Exactly. In fact, her friends says they were supposed to paint. So it's pretty safe to assume that NC was not leaving that weekend.
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 03:17 PM
Exactly. In fact, her friends says they were supposed to paint. So it's pretty safe to assume that NC was not leaving that weekend.
Good points NCSU and Garner. So maybe that Saturday wasn't the day but maybe she was scheduled to help JA paint the apartment for herslef and the girls as Livingin NC posted. Thanks for all the ideas and theories everyone.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 03:35 PM
I will buy coffee for anyone that wants to get together and discuss the case this evening! PM me!
Just the Fax
10-16-2008, 03:42 PM
I will buy coffee for anyone that wants to get together and discuss the case this evening! PM me!
I'm watching the NCSU vs Florida State game tonight .
Are you buying beer ? :Banane35:
DogWood
10-16-2008, 03:44 PM
I haven't seen this linked yet, hope it's not a repeat.
It sounds like they should be done? Heather Moore states that the judge is sticking to a tight schedule only allowing each side 3 hrs. and 15 minutes to present.
http://news14.com/Video/video_pop.aspx?vids=71919&sid=1&rid=94
Topsail Girl
10-16-2008, 03:46 PM
I'm watching the NCSU vs Florida State game tonight .
Are you buying beer ? :Banane35:
:eek: If JMFLU is buying beer then I'm passing on the fair and going with y'all!!!!!
jmflu
10-16-2008, 03:47 PM
I'm watching the NCSU vs Florida State game tonight .
Are you buying beer ? :Banane35:
Why do I see us in a sports bar with you drinking the beer and sneaking peeks at the game while you try to insert intelligent comments about the case the whole time? LOL!!!
Kinda like writing off the dinner because you bring up business... once... :)
DogWood
10-16-2008, 03:48 PM
"At one point Stubbs played a phone message left by Nancy on the Rentz's answering machine on July 7; it directly contradicted Brad Cooper's testimony through a video deposition that he had meticulously cleaned the couple's house while she was on vacation.
"I had to call the exterminator. There were these wormy things; I don't even know what they were," said Nancy. "I'm so furious at how disgusting the house was."
"Under cross examination, defense attorneys asked Rentz about his assertion that Brad had not been a good father; Rentz testified that Cooper did not attend Katie's birthday party.
When asked if anyone had bothered telling Brad Cooper about the party, he replied, "Let me answer it this way: Good Morning America knew."
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
(This one is loaded with info from today guys.)
here's a link from our local paper -- hope it's not a repeat:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
partial quote from article:
A forensic psychologist retained by Nancy Cooper's family testified this afternoon that Cooper's husband has underlying anger issues.
Brought to the stand in the fight to keep Nancy Cooper's young daughters away from their father, who Cooper's family believe murdered her, Dr. James Hilkey said those anger issues have been there a long time.
"He can usually keep that under check, but sometimes, it comes up, and that anger is most obviously directed at family members," Hilkey said in today's custody hearing in Wake County District Court.
Hilkey observed Bradley Cooper over the course of a two-day battery of psychological tests and interviews, the psychologist said. Hilkey said that Bradley Cooper also showed signs of being arrogant and narcissistic.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 03:58 PM
here's a link from our local paper -- hope it's not a repeat:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1257208.html
partial quote from article:
"He can usually keep that under check, but sometimes, it comes up, and that anger is most obviously directed at family members," Hilkey said in today's custody hearing in Wake County District Court.
Hilkey observed Bradley Cooper over the course of a two-day battery of psychological tests and interviews, the psychologist said. Hilkey said that Bradley Cooper also showed signs of being arrogant and narcissistic.
EXCELLENT! Thanks, Zoe, hadn't seen that! :blowkiss:
"At one point Stubbs played a phone message left by Nancy on the Rentz's answering machine on July 7; it directly contradicted Brad Cooper's testimony through a video deposition that he had meticulously cleaned the couple's house while she was on vacation.
"I had to call the exterminator. There were these wormy things; I don't even know what they were," said Nancy. "I'm so furious at how disgusting the house was."
"Under cross examination, defense attorneys asked Rentz about his assertion that Brad had not been a good father; Rentz testified that Cooper did not attend Katie's birthday party.
When asked if anyone had bothered telling Brad Cooper about the party, he replied, "Let me answer it this way: Good Morning America knew."
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
(This one is loaded with info from today guys.)
Thanks for the link, DogWood!
Interesting, IMHO.
Gosh, I hope Brad doesn't get custody of those two little girls. After what happened to Nancy, I just can't imagine what would happen to the girls if Brad 'lost it' with them, IMHO.
I like Mr. Rentz's comment about GMA. ;)
JMHO
fran
caryresident
10-16-2008, 04:22 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
:chicken:
From the News & Observer:
"Hilkey said that Bradley Cooper also showed signs of being arrogant and narcissistic."
From the Wake site:
Dr. Hilkey: "described Cooper as a very smart, complex man in a “complex, precarious” situation who is “extremely defensive” and has harbored a fair amount of anger for a long time."; "There are times, though, that Dr. Hilkey said Cooper’s anger surfaces, and he tends to aim it at family members."; " “detached presence,” ".
And about JWB's affidavit: "Dr. Hilkey testified that the affidavit supported some of his assessments about Brad’s personality."
So, in other words, what I've tried to relay all along. Maybe now certain people will understand and maybe agree that the ex's aren't a bunch of bitter, axe grinding (sorry, RC) hens (or however else people have attempted to reduce our side to).
I desperately hope those little girls are returned to Canada.
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 04:29 PM
Thanks for the link, DogWood!
Interesting, IMHO.
Gosh, I hope Brad doesn't get custody of those two little girls. After what happened to Nancy, I just can't imagine what would happen to the girls if Brad 'lost it' with them, IMHO.
I like Mr. Rentz's comment about GMA. ;)
JMHO
fran
Mr. Rentz didn't really answer the question.
ncnative
10-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Wow. Just read the one that Dogwood posted on the other documents board. Mike Morwick, drunk, saying he'd "...like to F Nancy's brains out." And, Craig Duncan saying something of a similar nature about her while HE was drunk. Poor Diana having to go through that being publicized, and Clea. I believe this came from Hanna Prichard's testimony? I read it all, then forgot who said what when I came over here. Whew. Wish I had gone to the courthouse today.
I do love learning other things that we haven't heard yet. Good that Nancy's parents had that phone message from her describing the wormy infestation after she returned from vacation in July.
I had a big laugh when Sandlin questioned the "bug man's" credibility because she mentioned that hadn't he gone through a teenage girl's underwear drawer! I haven't thought about an exterminator doing that! Glad I don't have an exterminator!
Mr. Rentz didn't really answer the question.
Sure he did. He said 'Let me answer it this way, "Good Morning America knew."'
I do NOT believe the answer was lost on the judge.
JMHO
fran
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:35 PM
Wow. Just read the one that Dogwood posted on the other documents board. Mike Morwick, drunk, saying he'd "...like to F Nancy's brains out." And, Craig Duncan saying something of a similar nature about her while HE was drunk. Poor Diana having to go through that being publicized, and Clea. I believe this came from Hanna Prichard's testimony? I read it all, then forgot who said what when I came over here. Whew. Wish I had gone to the courthouse today.
I do love learning other things that we haven't heard yet. Good that Nancy's parents had that phone message from her describing the wormy infestation after she returned from vacation in July.
I had a big laugh when Sandlin questioned the "bug man's" credibility because she mentioned that hadn't he gone through a teenage girl's underwear drawer! I haven't thought about an exterminator doing that! Glad I don't have an exterminator!
WHOA... where was THAT???
RaleighNC
10-16-2008, 04:38 PM
From the News & Observer:
"Hilkey said that Bradley Cooper also showed signs of being arrogant and narcissistic."
From the Wake site:
Dr. Hilkey: "described Cooper as a very smart, complex man in a “complex, precarious” situation who is “extremely defensive” and has harbored a fair amount of anger for a long time."; "There are times, though, that Dr. Hilkey said Cooper’s anger surfaces, and he tends to aim it at family members."; " “detached presence,” ".
And about JWB's affidavit: "Dr. Hilkey testified that the affidavit supported some of his assessments about Brad’s personality."
So, in other words, what I've tried to relay all along. Maybe now certain people will understand and maybe agree that the ex's aren't a bunch of bitter, axe grinding (sorry, RC) hens (or however else people have attempted to reduce our side to).
I desperately hope those little girls are returned to Canada.
Unfortunately, expert psychological testimony will always be suspect for me. In fact - so are many expert witnesses - as it seems that sides always have dueling experts that will testify to completely opposite opinions and base it on "tests and science" and tout their credentials.
I am not sure it's even possible to get a true unbiased assessment of someone's psychological state - it's not like "yes, he has this broken bone as shown here on this Xray and we could all see it" and someone refuting that would look foolish - it's all opinion, different schools of thought, different testing methodologies and often different conclusions. :waitasec:
And honestly - I hope they didn't pay a fortune to have someone say he was arrogant and narcissistic.... (and that also doesn't necessarily make him violent)
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:42 PM
I was surprised to see that Krista said Nancy had had an affair in the first year of their marriage. This really surprised me, because I felt Brad would have let the whole world know if HE had known. Now, he did mention an affair that wasn't sexual. Is this the one Krista speaks of? Surely not two people call it an affair if there was nothing sexual? And if he thought it wasn't, and found out today it was... I bet he got furious with Nancy all over again...
FWIW, I'd say he's arrogant and narcissistic for free.
Just sayin,
fran
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 04:43 PM
Soon we should hear the defense case aye ? Any betters -does Brad take the stand ? I vote no way.
Very interesting stuff so far, the little bit of it that we have heard that is. Arrogant and narcissistic, hmmmm.
Sandlin was so concerned about the level of 'hear-say' evidence being let into the testimony she even used hear-say with regard to the 'bug guy' and the unproven allegation that he went through a young girl's underware drawer.:waitasec:
JMHO
fran
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:47 PM
Didn't court recess at 4??
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 04:49 PM
Unfortunately, expert psychological testimony will always be suspect for me. In fact - so are many expert witnesses - as it seems that sides always have dueling experts that will testify to completely opposite opinions and base it on "tests and science" and tout their credentials.
I am not sure it's even possible to get a true unbiased assessment of someone's psychological state - it's not like "yes, he has this broken bone as shown here on this Xray and we could all see it" and someone refuting that would look foolish - it's all opinion, different schools of thought, different testing methodologies and often different conclusions. :waitasec:
And honestly - I hope they didn't pay a fortune to have someone say he was arrogant and narcissistic.... (and that also doesn't necessarily make him violent)
I'm not much for experts such as shrinks. They do have a tendency to have opposing opinions dependent on who is paying and in the end seem to cancel each other out because of the wide swing in views. Good gig if you can do it though. :crazy:
snowshuze
10-16-2008, 04:49 PM
The pendant she never took off is in Brads possesion. <thud>
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 04:50 PM
Sure he did. He said 'Let me answer it this way, "Good Morning America knew."'
I do NOT believe the answer was lost on the judge.
JMHO
fran
Was that answer a "yes" or a "no"?
RaleighNC
10-16-2008, 04:50 PM
Wow. Just read the one that Dogwood posted on the other documents board. Mike Morwick, drunk, saying he'd "...like to F Nancy's brains out." And, Craig Duncan saying something of a similar nature about her while HE was drunk. Poor Diana having to go through that being publicized, and Clea. I believe this came from Hanna Prichard's testimony? I read it all, then forgot who said what when I came over here. Whew. Wish I had gone to the courthouse today. (snip)
I have a feeling this is going to get a lot uglier when it's all said and done. That's just not normal behavior at a block party (not sure where this occured, but picked block party for effect)... It's quite possible that the rumors were somewhat at least slightly grounded in fact..... the whole smoke / fire thing.
I just read Mike M's affidavits back to back (he submitted for both Brad and the Rentz's. Very odd. Both sides of the fence, perhaps? Very odd.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:51 PM
The pendant she never took off is in Brads possesion. <thud>
Where'd you get that from????
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 04:51 PM
Sandlin was so concerned about the level of 'hear-say' evidence being let into the testimony she even used hear-say with regard to the 'bug guy' and the unproven allegation that he went through a young girl's underware drawer.:waitasec:
JMHO
fran
Seems to me, it tends to show how observant the guy could be, thus increasing the credibility of his observation powers on the 8th of July.
I am not sure it's even possible to get a true unbiased assessment of someone's psychological state - it's not like "yes, he has this broken bone as shown here on this Xray and we could all see it" and someone refuting that would look foolish - it's all opinion, different schools of thought, different testing methodologies and often different conclusions. :waitasec:
I agree, mental health is always quite subjective. There are a lot of standardized tests that are used in psychological evaluation and are based on a scoring system. Again, it's all open to interpretation as well.
The psychological evaluation that he paid $12,000 for will probably say what a swell guy he is. It does sometimes seem to favour whoever paid for it, unfortunately.
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 04:53 PM
I have a feeling this is going to get a lot uglier when it's all said and done. That's just not normal behavior at a block party (not sure where this occured, but picked block party for effect)... It's quite possible that the rumors were somewhat at least slightly grounded in fact..... the whole smoke / fire thing.
I just read Mike M's affidavits back to back (he submitted for both Brad and the Rentz's. Very odd. Both sides of the fence, perhaps? Very odd.
Did Nancy leave the party by herself?
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 04:53 PM
Was that answer a "yes" or a "no"?
Was this the birthday where they were saying he did not call? Weren't the kids in Canada at the time if so?
That would be awkward if he did show up if this is the Birthday they are referring to.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:56 PM
Was this the birthday where they were saying he did not call? Weren't the kids in Canada at the time if so?
That would be awkward if he did show up if this is the Birthday they are referring to.
I think they were just saying that Daddy didn't even call to wish his little girl happy birthday, to talk to her. It's about the children, so speaking with whomever picked up the phone would only be a momentary discomfort.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:57 PM
Could someone please point out where I can find the part about the two drunk neighbors making those comments??
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 04:57 PM
I think they were just saying that Daddy didn't even call to wish his little girl happy birthday, to talk to her. It's about the children, so speaking with whomever picked up the phone would only be a momentary discomfort.
I thought the testimony was that he did not show up for the party. Let me re-read the article...
jmflu
10-16-2008, 04:58 PM
I thought the testimony was that he did not show up for the party. Let me re-read the article...
Seems like I read this somewhere earlier than today.
RaleighNC
10-16-2008, 04:59 PM
Could someone please point out where I can find the part about the two drunk neighbors making those comments??
Quite complete coverage:
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
snowshuze
10-16-2008, 05:00 PM
Where'd you get that from????
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
Stubbs asked Prichard why she believes Brad Cooper killed his wife.
Prichard said Nancy had a diamond pendant that she never took off; she ran wearing it, went to the pool wearing it.
Brad Cooper apparently has possession of that pendant now, and Prichard said that "hammers it home."
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:00 PM
I think they were just saying that Daddy didn't even call to wish his little girl happy birthday, to talk to her. It's about the children, so speaking with whomever picked up the phone would only be a momentary discomfort.
When asked if anyone had bothered telling Brad Cooper about the party, he replied, "Let me answer it this way: Good Morning America knew."
According to the carymync.com site.
I don't care if Good Morning America knew, the
Today Show knew, or that other show.
Did anyone bother to tell BC?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:00 PM
Could someone please point out where I can find the part about the two drunk neighbors making those comments??
I think it is in the link noted in post 175. The pendant info is there as well, I think.
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 05:00 PM
Seems like I read this somewhere earlier than today.
Under cross examination, defense attorneys asked Rentz about his assertion that Brad had not been a good father; Rentz testified that Cooper did not attend Katie's birthday party.
When asked if anyone had bothered telling Brad Cooper about the party, he replied, "Let me answer it this way: Good Morning America knew."
If I were BC, I would not have gone to the party either. I think that is beyond reasonable. I am assuming we are talking about a recent birthday and not one from last year.
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:01 PM
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
Stubbs asked Prichard why she believes Brad Cooper killed his wife.
Prichard said Nancy had a diamond pendant that she never took off; she ran wearing it, went to the pool wearing it.
Brad Cooper apparently has possession of that pendant now, and Prichard said that "hammers it home."
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
jmflu
10-16-2008, 05:01 PM
Thanks, RNC and Snowshuz!
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:02 PM
I think they were just saying that Daddy didn't even call to wish his little girl happy birthday, to talk to her. It's about the children, so speaking with whomever picked up the phone would only be a momentary discomfort.
So, they think he killed his wife but he's welcome at the party?
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 05:02 PM
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
Since she is not wearing it - then he killed her because she never took it off.
longtimelurker
10-16-2008, 05:04 PM
I hope all the friends and neighbors have solid alibis as to where they were
when Nancy went missing..... I suppose one of the "group of friends "could have killed Nancy figuring " they'll never suspect me, they'll suspect " Brad".........
That said , I agree with Mr. Rentz that Brad is the only one that we
know of that had a motive( financial gain and hate)
If someone else had a strong motive.....I hope one of those Private Investigators or the Cary Police would have uncovered it by now.
If someone else in the "Group" did it I would think there would be gossip flying about that as a possibility also.........
IMHO, Just thought I would stir up the pot!
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:05 PM
Since she is not wearing it - then he killed her because she never took it off.
I've got to go back to my other hobby.
snowshuze
10-16-2008, 05:07 PM
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
If she never took off the pendant, and she wasn't wearing it during the autopsy, how did Brad get it?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:07 PM
I hope all the friends and neighbors have solid alibis as to where they were
when Nancy went missing..... I suppose one of the "group of friends "could have killed Nancy figuring " they'll never suspect me, they'll suspect " Brad".........
That said , I agree with Mr. Rentz that Brad is the only one that we
know of that had a motive( financial gain and hate)
If someone else had a strong motive.....I hope one of those Private Investigators or the Cary Police would have uncovered it by now.
If someone else in the "Group" did it I would think there would be gossip flying about that as a possibility also.........
IMHO, Just thought I would stir up the pot!
Stir away ! :)
I haven't seen any other warrants issued to anyone else or on any location or equipment that is not directly associated with one Brad Cooper. Maybe MH can explain it, when he takes the stand about LE trying to coerce him, if he is even there. :crazy:
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 05:09 PM
So, they think he killed his wife but he's welcome at the party?
Of course he was invited - with open arms...Can you imagine what would of happened had he shown up? I'm sure it would not have been pretty.
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 05:09 PM
Plaintiffs didn't call the detective it seems?
jmflu
10-16-2008, 05:09 PM
So, they think he killed his wife but he's welcome at the party?
I imagine not! But he could have called!
jmflu
10-16-2008, 05:10 PM
I think it is in the link noted in post 175. The pendant info is there as well, I think.
WOW... that was a hell of an article...
garner_nc
10-16-2008, 05:10 PM
I've got to go back to my other hobby.
I was being sarcastic...I think it is a stretch to assume because she was not wearing something that means he did it....
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 05:11 PM
Stir away ! :)
I haven't seen any other warrants issued to anyone else or on any location or equipment that is not directly associated with one Brad Cooper. Maybe MH can explain it, when he takes the stand about LE trying to coerce him, if he is even there. :crazy:
Are you assuming that LE is doing a thorough job with the investigation? Is that a reasonable assumption?
jmflu
10-16-2008, 05:12 PM
I was being sarcastic...I think it is a stretch to assume because she was not wearing something that means he did it....
I think he, and we all who know your posts, knew that.
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:12 PM
Of course he was invited - with open arms...Can you imagine what would of happened had he shown up? I'm sure it would not have been pretty.
Are you being sarcastic?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:12 PM
I was being sarcastic...I think it is a stretch to assume because she was not wearing something that means he did it....
Dunno but could that necklace have left the mark on Nancy's neck ?
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:14 PM
I was being sarcastic...I think it is a stretch to assume because she was not wearing something that means he did it....
Evidently not to the person who said it.
Star12
10-16-2008, 05:16 PM
Dunno but could that necklace have left the mark on Nancy's neck ?
wonder if the chain is broken.......
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:18 PM
wonder if the chain is broken.......
I always thought it was kind of odd that she wore
a dress to the party.
ncnative
10-16-2008, 05:25 PM
From the News & Observer:
"Hilkey said that Bradley Cooper also showed signs of being arrogant and narcissistic."
From the Wake site:
Dr. Hilkey: "described Cooper as a very smart, complex man in a “complex, precarious” situation who is “extremely defensive” and has harbored a fair amount of anger for a long time."; "There are times, though, that Dr. Hilkey said Cooper’s anger surfaces, and he tends to aim it at family members."; " “detached presence,” ".
And about JWB's affidavit: "Dr. Hilkey testified that the affidavit supported some of his assessments about Brad’s personality."
So, in other words, what I've tried to relay all along. Maybe now certain people will understand and maybe agree that the ex's aren't a bunch of bitter, axe grinding (sorry, RC) hens (or however else people have attempted to reduce our side to).
I desperately hope those little girls are returned to Canada.
:Banane35::bow::bow::thumb: I've always known that you and JWB have known of what you speak, all along. So do the Rentzs and the shrink. Lots of others too. People who KNOW him.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:25 PM
I always thought it was kind of odd that she wore
a dress to the party.
I thought it was odd Brad couldn't remember if the dress was green or orange...:crazy:
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:26 PM
I thought it was odd Brad couldn't remember if the dress was green or orange...:crazy:
I think it's odd that I'm still here.
Bob&Bob
10-16-2008, 05:27 PM
:Banane35::bow::bow::thumb: I've always known that you and JWB have known of what you speak, all along. So do the Rentzs and the shrink. Lots of others too. People who KNOW him.
I thought Dr. Gould was the psychologist?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:29 PM
From the News & Observer:
"Hilkey said that Bradley Cooper also showed signs of being arrogant and narcissistic."
From the Wake site:
Dr. Hilkey: "described Cooper as a very smart, complex man in a “complex, precarious” situation who is “extremely defensive” and has harbored a fair amount of anger for a long time."; "There are times, though, that Dr. Hilkey said Cooper’s anger surfaces, and he tends to aim it at family members."; " “detached presence,” ".
And about JWB's affidavit: "Dr. Hilkey testified that the affidavit supported some of his assessments about Brad’s personality."
So, in other words, what I've tried to relay all along. Maybe now certain people will understand and maybe agree that the ex's aren't a bunch of bitter, axe grinding (sorry, RC) hens (or however else people have attempted to reduce our side to).
I desperately hope those little girls are returned to Canada.
LOL - you aren't going to let me live that axe down are you RKAB ? :)
I've known this to be true from the beginning and yes it seems to me, as surmised, JWB did the affidaivt because she believed it was the right thing to do. I'm still sticking up for the bug man too !:crazy:
ncnative
10-16-2008, 05:31 PM
WHOA... where was THAT???
JMFLU, it's on the media thread, I think. Dogwood posted it. I'm sorry I don't have it for you. It was different from all the other ones in that it had jucier info. I'll go look.
calgary123
10-16-2008, 05:37 PM
The Rentz's psychologist testifed to what a lot of us in Calgary have thought for a long time, even before the murder.
That affidavit from the lady who was walking her dog sure sounds convincing, not to mention exculpatory, though!
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 05:37 PM
LOL - you aren't going to let me live that axe down are you RKAB ? :)
I've known this to be true from the beginning and yes it seems to me, as surmised, JWB did the affidaivt because she believed it was the right thing to do.
Wonder why the judge didn't allow the JWB testimony...
... also wondering why it seems the plaintiffs opted not to put the detective on the stand...
Skittles
10-16-2008, 05:39 PM
"At one point Stubbs played a phone message left by Nancy on the Rentz's answering machine on July 7; it directly contradicted Brad Cooper's testimony through a video deposition that he had meticulously cleaned the couple's house while she was on vacation.
"I had to call the exterminator. There were these wormy things; I don't even know what they were," said Nancy. "I'm so furious at how disgusting the house was."
You know, this is just so poetic. If it's true that Brad didn't clean, and he left so much of a mess that wormy things showed up, which caused Nancy to call the exterminator on the 7th, who arrives and sees the mess in the garage (and the wormy things), and can now testify about both, then Brad really has caused that great circle of Karma to come back around in a hurry!
ncnative
10-16-2008, 05:39 PM
"At one point Stubbs played a phone message left by Nancy on the Rentz's answering machine on July 7; it directly contradicted Brad Cooper's testimony through a video deposition that he had meticulously cleaned the couple's house while she was on vacation.
"I had to call the exterminator. There were these wormy things; I don't even know what they were," said Nancy. "I'm so furious at how disgusting the house was."
"Under cross examination, defense attorneys asked Rentz about his assertion that Brad had not been a good father; Rentz testified that Cooper did not attend Katie's birthday party.
When asked if anyone had bothered telling Brad Cooper about the party, he replied, "Let me answer it this way: Good Morning America knew."
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
(This one is loaded with info from today guys.)
CHECK OUT THIS LINK from Dogwood's post: IT'S JUICY. Juicy, I say. This is the one, JMFLU. It tells of everyone's testimony. Hannah Prichard's is especially interesting with the drunken Michael Morwick, drunken Craig Duncan. Read all of it!
Star12
10-16-2008, 05:39 PM
NCN, as long as the Rentz's are in town, now would be a good time to get the materials from Nancy's birthday party to them.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:40 PM
Wonder why the judge didn't allow the JWB testimony...
... also wondering why it seems the plaintiffs opted not to put the detective on the stand...
I doubt JWB was present.
Detective Daniels, as noted in several articles, is in court for one purpose - rebuttal witness after the defense has presented their case.
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 05:43 PM
I doubt JWB was present.
Also as noted in several articles:
Before the defense began, Judge Sasser told the plaintiffs she was not allowing Jennifer Windsor Ball’s affidavit into evidence.
So you think the judge didn't allow her affidavit into evidence because she didn't make the road trip... or do you suppose there was another reason?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:47 PM
Also as noted in several articles:
Before the defense began, Judge Sasser told the plaintiffs she was not allowing Jennifer Windsor Ball’s affidavit into evidence.
So you think the judge didn't allow her affidavit into evidence because she didn't make the road trip... or do you suppose there was another reason?
How can she be cross examined if she is not there to testify to what she put in an affidavit ? The defense must be given the opportunity to cross examine witnesses against. Why would the judge allow an affidavit if the person cannot attend court to testify to the accuracy of their account ?
ncnative
10-16-2008, 05:48 PM
Star12, why did you feel the need to say that? I have it for a reason. I will give it to them when I give it to them.
ncnative
10-16-2008, 05:49 PM
NCN, as long as the Rentz's are in town, now would be a good time to get the materials from Nancy's birthday party to them.
This is what I forgot to quote, Star.
jumpstreet
10-16-2008, 05:55 PM
How can she be cross examined if she is not there to testify to what she put in an affidavit ? The defense must be given the opportunity to cross examine witnesses against. Why would the judge allow an affidavit if the person cannot attend court to testify to the accuracy of their account ?
So anyone submitting an affidvait, from either side, had to be in attendance today in order for their statements to be considered?
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 05:59 PM
WRAL update - Dr. Ghould for the defense:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/
The first witness for the defendants, Dr. Jonathan Ghould, testified that he found Brad Cooper to be normal with no significant anger issues during an evaluation. He said he was not surprised that Brad Cooper had some frustrations because of the circumstances he is under.
minachica
10-16-2008, 06:06 PM
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
Under cross examination, Dr. Gould admitted that it he was advocating for Brad Cooper, it would be “quite extraordinary” to only interview one other person, much less someone in [Scott] Heider’s position.
(at the very end of the article - at time of posting. Also, bolding mine)
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 06:06 PM
Update wake mync:
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
He said Cooper showed no abnormalities or mental illness, and showed no inappropriate or at-risk behavior towards his children.
Much like an armadillo, Dr. Gould said Cooper has a tendency to retreat into himself when confronted with emotionally significant events.
Brad Cooper does not normally tend to be an angry person, but Dr. Gould said he was very frustrated with the situation he found himself in.
Dr. Gould testified he couldn’t accurately predict if Cooper was a flight risk, bud did not believe there was a major risk there.
The doctor acknowledged that the only other person he interviewed as part of his analysis was Scott Heider, who is the husband of a woman Brad Cooper has admitted to sleeping with.
Under cross examination, Dr. Gould admitted that it he was advocating for Brad Cooper, it would be “quite extraordinary” to only interview one other person, much less someone in Heider’s position.
raisincharlie
10-16-2008, 06:06 PM
http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/
Under cross examination, Dr. Gould admitted that it he was advocating for Brad Cooper, it would be “quite extraordinary” to only interview one other person, much less someone in [Scott] Heider’s position.
(at the very end of the article - at time of posting)
uh oh - jinx :)
minachica
10-16-2008, 06:07 PM
uh oh - jinx :)
Darn! Thought I could beat you just ONCE!!:crazy:
ETA: Oh looks like I did!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0