custody given to nancy's family

[NBC17_Chris]

www.cary.mync.com

[Topsail Girl]

Thanks Chris. I just saw an article on another station but didn't start a thread. I'm glad you did!!

[Topsail Girl]

Would you care to convey your opinion on this decision by Judge Sasser?

[DogWood]

Thanks, Chris!

I didn't see that you'd started this thread...Fantastic job covering this custody hearing!

[RaleighNC]

looks like things will pick up around here today - will be VERY interesting to read the order. Is it possible the order will be sealed for a certain period of time (like if CPD intimated to the judge that an arrest was right around the corner???)

[momto3kids]

Thanks Chris.

I am actually very surprised with this decision. After being there all day Thursday I personally didn't hear anything pointing to BC being unfit.

Obviously Sasser heard something on the depo we didn't or knows something we don't at this time. JMO

[shack]

looks like things will pick up around here today - will be VERY interesting to read the order. Is it possible the order will be sealed for a certain period of time (like if CPD intimated to the judge that an arrest was right around the corner???)

This has changed a lot as far as NC laws go. The men in NC better not ever cause any problems for their wives or their families or your children will be sent out of the country.

[shack]

Thanks Chris.

I am actually very surprised with this decision. After being there all day Thursday I personally didn't hear anything pointing to BC being unfit.

Obviously Sasser heard something on the depo we didn't or knows something we don't at this time. JMO

I wasn't there of course but I have talked extensively about this with attorneys. I was told there was no legal reason for this judge to take this mans children. I was told it would never happen there was no case law in NC where she could justify it. Glad I live in Ohio.

[SleuthyGal]

Wow! I'm surprised!

[Albert]

The custody decision is a very difficult decision to support. Based upon court reports and the WS eyewitness accounts of the custody proceeding there appears to be nothing revealed that differentiates Brads ability versus my ability to be a father. I hope this decision was not based upon speculation of the judge and that, indeed, she was privy to more evidence than what was revealed during the hearing.

For the experts on this list, is it possible for the judge to be privy to information that was not revealed during the hearing?

fwiw, I feel that Brad was very likely involved in this murder but not convinced. How many of us also felt that the Ramsey's were involved in the murder of their daughter? Did the Ramsey's have their other child removed from their custody?

So, outside of the custody hearing and the video depo's what other public evidence did the judge review?

[garner_nc]

Bad precedence was just set. I hope his lawyers are filing an appeal today.

How come this was not a jury trial? I thought some civil cases had jury's.

[SleuthyGal]

FYI, what was presented in the hearing on Thurs was a tiny subset of the entire case...I would say at least 75% of the case was not explored in the courtroom simply because there wasn't time. You have to dig into the volumes of documents and all the videos to get the same view as the judge. And yes, it's possible she knows more. I can't wait to read her ruling--she'll reference what she used to make her decision, perhaps reference specific case law and statutes. I'm sure the defense will appeal the ruling; I would if I were them.

[momto3kids]

Mr Rentz statement now says murderer in single text...Before he stated murderer or murderer's.

snipped...
And we want to reiterate our continuing support of the Cary Police Department and the Wake County District Attorney's Office for the unending attention they are giving to bringing Nancy's murderer to justice.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6464260

[jumpstreet]

This just in:

The court will next consider whether to imprison BC while the investigation continues... just to "be on the safe side".
When, and if he's cleared, he will be released.

Cool, huh? After all, if it's not appropriate for him to have custody of his own children, how can it be appropriate for him to be moving freely in society?...

[garner_nc]

I hate to know that if my spouse died, that the grand parents can petition the courts and take my child away from me. Lots of people do not get along with the in-laws and this ruling sets a bad precedence for the in-laws to take your child away out of spite.

I agree that in-laws should be allowed to see their grandchildren in custody cases but never should they be awarded custody when (according to those that went), they did not prove BC was an unfit parent.

I feel sorry for the girls to now lose their father. What a shame.

[Anderson]

This just in:

The court will next consider whether to imprison BC while the investigation continues... just to "be on the safe side".
When, and if he's cleared, he will be released.

Cool, huh?

What? Really? I am very surprised by that.

[ncsu95]

This is just wrong.

[RaleighNC]

I think this is a joke. ;-)

[SleuthyGal]

Obviously. No source cited. :frown: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jumpstreet]

Guess I must have forgotten the- ... brackets in my post above... sorry 'bout that. ;)

Still though... with today's ruling (and this crazy case), even an announcement along these lines wouldn't surprise me...
I mean, why should the court stop with taking away a few constitutional rights... just take them all!

[momto3kids]

I wasn't there of course but I have talked extensively about this with attorneys. I was told there was no legal reason for this judge to take this mans children. I was told it would never happen there was no case law in NC where she could justify it. Glad I live in Ohio.
I didn't hear anything to convince me BC was unfit. As everyone knows I feel he is responsible for NC murder, but nothing was proven in court. I have absolutely no idea what Sasser has seen, heard or knows.

I said since last Thursday he needed to get on the stand the last 2 minutes on the clock, show some emotion and ask for his girl's back. BC didn't have time to answer questions related to the murder this way. Daniels was only for rebuttal. Strategy move like this was needed IMO.

As SG says, we will have to see what she based her ruling on.

[garner_nc]

This just in:

The court will next consider whether to imprison BC while the investigation continues... just to "be on the safe side".
When, and if he's cleared, he will be released.

Cool, huh? After all, if it's not appropriate for him to have custody of his own children, how can it be appropriate for him to be moving freely in society?...

I personally think they should just lock him up without him ever being charged, placed on death row, and executed. I don't want someone so dangerous even around the other inmates at Central Prison. The sooner he is gone the better for society. We have to think about their safety too.

So much for Due Process...This has APPEAL overturn written all over it.

[SleuthyGal]

I mean, why should the court stop with taking away a few constitutional rights... just take them all!

How do you know constitutional rights were taken away when you don't know what Sasser relied upon to make her ruling? Shouldn't we at least wait to read her full decision ... or was there no decision that would be valid unless she gave back custody to BC?

[Anderson]

I think this is a joke. ;-)

Okay, that makes a bit more sense.

[ncsu95]

So Judge Sasser used to be an associate for Tharington Smith (the plaintiffs attorney). How is that not a conflict of interest?

[RaleighNC]

We should wait until we read her ruling. There has to be SOME merit in her decision - because if there isn't - she'll be crucified by his attorneys.

[SleuthyGal]

She'll have to answer to a higher authority for her decision. No, not Hebrew National. But there are higher-level courts. If her decision is not based on applicable case law it will get dealt with.

[Anderson]

Guess I must have forgotten the- ... brackets in my post above... sorry 'bout that. ;)

Still though... with today's ruling (and this crazy case), even an announcement along these lines wouldn't surprise me...
I mean, why should the court stop with taking away a few constitutional rights... just take them all!

I nearly fell off my chair when I read your post. Very funny.:):rolleyes::)

On the other hand, we still don't know what the Judge used in her ruling. I am frankly not very surprised that the children are going to stay in Canada, given all of the questions that have been raised regarding BC's potential role in NC's death. I suspect that the Judge knows much more than we do. But, IDK.

[momto3kids]

We should wait until we read her ruling. There has to be SOME merit in her decision - because if there isn't - she'll be crucified by his attorneys.

Don't expect it too soon by what this says...:waitasec:

per N&O
Details of the custody arrangement were unavailable until the judge signs the final order in the coming weeks.

[garner_nc]

She'll have to answer to a higher authority for her decision. No, not Hebrew National. But there are higher-level courts. If her decision is not based on applicable case law it will get dealt with.

I wonder if this has ever happened in NC. Or do you think she is creating her own case law? From other cases I have followed there is usually case law cited in testimony to help support either side. I have not heard any mentioned in this case to "guide" Judge Sasser in her decision. Did MOM or SG hear any?

[SleuthyGal]

I guess she probably has up to 30 days to to sign the final order?

[jumpstreet]

How do you know constitutional rights were taken away when you don't know what Sasser relied upon to make her ruling? Shouldn't we at least wait to read her full decision ... or was there no decision that would be valid unless she gave back custody to BC?

Hmmm... I didn't realize we had changed the rules to wait until all facts are known in a case before forming any conclusions...
If that's going to the mode-of-operation in general around here, this board might start getting a lot quieter. ;)

[Anderson]

I didn't hear anything to convince me BC was unfit. As everyone knows I feel he is responsible for NC murder, but nothing was proven in court. I have absolutely no idea what Sasser has seen, heard or knows.

I said since last Thursday he needed to get on the stand the last 2 minutes on the clock, show some emotion and ask for his girl's back. BC didn't have time to answer questions related to the murder this way. Daniels was only for rebuttal. Strategy move like this was needed IMO.

As SG says, we will have to see what she based her ruling on.

I wonder if that actually played a role in Sasser's decision. I don't know if she can take such things into account in her determination. It may have been better for BC to actually get on the stand. IDK.

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder if this has ever happened in NC. Or do you think she is creating her own case law? From other cases I have followed there is usually case law cited in testimony to help support either side. I have not heard any mentioned in this case to "guide" Judge Sasser in her decision. Did MOM or SG hear any?

I do not think she is creating her own case law. She referred to and looked at things in the various books she had while on the bench, throughout the hearing...the lawyers had to cite chapter & verse for their various motions and objections...she looked up a ton of things during the hearing. I'll be very surprised if she was trying to create new case law in the state.

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder if that actually played a role in Sasser's decision. I don't know if she can take such things into account in her determination. It may have been better for BC to actually get on the stand. IDK. Since the burden was on the plaintiffs, I don't think BC getting on the stand or not played a role in her decision--at least I sure hope it didn't factor in. He testified for 7+ hrs in his video dep; she got to look at lots of statements he made, and she also got to compare them side-by-side with written statements he made in his affys. There ARE inconsistencies between and among his various statements. And of course there are inconsistencies between him and the various plaintiff affiants. She'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to at least note and observe some inconsistencies.

[Anderson]

Since the burden was on the plaintiffs, I don't think BC getting on the stand or not played a role in her decision. He testified for 7+ hrs in his video dep; she got to look at lots of statements he made, and she also got to compare them side-by-side with written statements he made in his affys. There ARE inconsistencies between and among his various statements. And of course there are inconsistencies between him and the various plaintiff affiants. She'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to at least observe some inconsistencies.

Thanks for the clarification. If that is the case, I wonder if Judge Sasser will actually explain -- at some point in the near future -- that she made her decision based on inconsistencies in Brad's statements and provide examples. I suppose that she may also just cite a general category (e.g., inconsistencies) and not provide examples. It will be very interesting to learn the details.

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks for the clarification. If that is the case, I wonder if Judge Sasser will actually explain at some point in the near future that she made her decision based on inconsistencies in Brad's statements and provide examples. I suppose that she may also just cite a general category (e.g., inconsistencies) and not provide examples. It will be very interesting to learn the details. Those things should be contained in her written ruling; if she doesn't provide details of how she reached her decision, I'll be shocked.

[Anderson]

Those things should be contained in her written ruling; if she doesn't provide details of how she reached her decision, I'll be shocked.

Thanks! :)

[SleuthyGal]

Hmmm... I didn't realize we had changed the rules to wait until all facts are known in a case before forming any conclusions...
If that's going to the mode-of-operation in general around here, this board might start getting a lot quieter. ;)

Well of course there are no rules--so let me rephrase that I'm curious how you know (or believe) constitutional rights were compromised? Which rights in particular do you think got compromised?

[tarheellvr]

Thank God Nancy's girls can remain in Canada where they belong!

I'm not shocked as some of you are regarding the decision. On the contrary, I knew the outcome would be what it is. As I said before, Judge Sasser based her decision on the well being of the girls.

BC didn't have to prove he was a good parent, nor did his parenting skills have to be disproved. The main issue was/is the girls and what home will be more beneficial for their little lives. Judge Sasser did indeed weigh BC's innocence or guilt as this was of major proportion in this case. She obviously feels as I and MANY others feel.......he is guilty as hell.

[MCDRAW]

This has changed a lot as far as NC laws go. The men in NC better not ever cause any problems for their wives or their families or your children will be sent out of the country.


I agree, it really should make everyone nervous. Someone can make a claim and your children be taken away without any proof. If they had proof he would have already been arrested. IMO

[MCDRAW]

Thank God Nancy's girls can remain in Canada where they belong!

I'm not shocked as some of you are regarding the decision. On the contrary, I knew the outcome would be what it is. As I said before, Judge Sasser based her decision on the well being of the girls.

BC didn't have to prove he was a good parent, nor did his parenting skills have to be disproved. The main issue was/is the girls and what home will be more beneficial for their little lives. Judge Sasser did indeed weigh BC's innocence or guilt as this was of major proportion in this case. She obviously feels as I and MANY others feel.......he is guilty as hell.


Mary Winkler admitted to killing her husband and has custody of her children. It should scare you, if you have children someone could say although you are a good parent, your children would be better off with them. And now, based on this decsion could take your children away from you. If his parenting skills had nothing to do with it, it opens the door for all kinds of things. Someone could have more money, better home, better schools, and get our children. It's scary.

[ncsu95]

Thank God Nancy's girls can remain in Canada where they belong!

I'm not shocked as some of you are regarding the decision. On the contrary, I knew the outcome would be what it is. As I said before, Judge Sasser based her decision on the well being of the girls.

BC didn't have to prove he was a good parent, nor did his parenting skills have to be disproved. The main issue was/is the girls and what home will be more beneficial for their little lives. Judge Sasser did indeed weigh BC's innocence or guilt as this was of major proportion in this case. She obviously feels as I and MANY others feel.......he is guilty as hell.

Well fortunately, we live in a country where someones guilt isn't determined by peoples feelings. The standard of justice is beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case.

[tarheellvr]

Well fortunately, we live in a country where someones guilt isn't determined by peoples feelings. The standard of justice is beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case.

Proof of guilt is MUCH GREATER than reasonable doubt in this case.

[tarheellvr]

Mary Winkler admitted to killing her husband and has custody of her children. It should scare you, if you have children someone could say although you are a good parent, your children would be better off with them. And now, based on this decsion could take your children away from you. If his parenting skills had nothing to do with it, it opens the door for all kinds of things. Someone could have more money, better home, better schools, and get our children. It's scary.

This case is not scary at all. There is vast evidence BC killed those little girl's mother. Under these circumstances he should NEVER have custody.

[ncsu95]

Proof of guilt is MUCH GREATER than reasonable doubt in this case.

Huh? If the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, and the current proof is much greater than reasonable doubt....then why hasn't he been arrested? There is significant amount of doubt in this case. But please, list the "proof of guilt" that you see in this case.

You can go here where I list my reasons for doubt:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72849&page=6

[ncsu95]

This case is not scary at all. There is vast evidence BC killed those little girl's mother. Under these circumstances he should NEVER have custody.

Again, please list out this vast evidence.

[ncsu95]

Again, please list out this vast evidence.

I'm still waiting for that list tarheellvr. You are pretty quick to say there is vast evidence and enough that it goes well past reasonable doubt...so let's hear it. Don't be shy.

[piedmont]

I'm still waiting for that list tarheellvr. You are pretty quick to say there is vast evidence and enough that it goes well past reasonable doubt...so let's hear it. Don't be shy.

While you're waiting, I'd like to say I wonder if the judge really has private info that we don't have. I wonder if CPD saying it's not random is just something they say because it makes people feel better. I wonder if NC's family had anything substantial to get custody originally, other than our hearts go out to them since they lost a daughter. Ofcourse the girls have a nurturing set-up with KL, and that's wonderful, but what about parental rights to their own children?

[ncsu95]

While you're waiting, I'd like to say I wonder if the judge really has private info that we don't have. I wonder if CPD saying it's not random is just something they say because it makes people feel better. I wonder if NC's family had anything substantial to get custody originally, other than our hearts go out to them since they lost a daughter. Ofcourse the girls have a nurturing set-up with KL, and that's wonderful, but what about parental rights to their own children?


Regardless of this case, the defendant has a right to hear evidence against them, and then defend against that evidence. If the judge is using evidence that wasn't included as part of the case that the defense is privy to, it seems like that would be unconstitutional.

[jilly]

I think the key word on this custody Order is temporary! Like the article says - he hasn't lost his parental rights.
The paramount concern for the Judge here is for the children - Not Brad at this time. No one has been charged with the murder. LE is focusing it's investigation on the father of these children. I think the Judge weighed the circumstances and determined that the children are emotionally and physically safer where they are right now, so for the time being, they should stay where they are.

[ncsu95]

I think the key word on this custody Order is temporary! Like the article says - he hasn't lost his parental rights.
The paramount concern for the Judge here is for the children - Not Brad at this time. No one has been charged with the murder. LE is focusing it's investigation on the father of these children. I think the Judge weighed the circumstances and determined that the children are emotionally and physically safer where they are right now, so for the time being, they should stay where they are.

But what happens if he is never charged? It's been 2 years for JY so far. Does there have to be resolution in the criminal system before he can be granted custody again? I doubt LE will ever clear him, but I also doubt they will ever charge him. So what happens? As a father, I'm disgusted with this ruling. I don't think it is fair to remove children when there was no evidence that he has ever harmed the children, abused the children, or neglected the children.

[citygirl]

I think the key word on this custody Order is temporary! Like the article says - he hasn't lost his parental rights.
The paramount concern for the Judge here is for the children - Not Brad at this time. No one has been charged with the murder. LE is focusing it's investigation on the father of these children. I think the Judge weighed the circumstances and determined that the children are emotionally and physically safer where they are right now, so for the time being, they should stay where they are.

I hesitate to jump in here as I haven't followed every detail as closely as the veteran posters. That being said, were there not videos provided of the children during there video phone calls with daddy? Videos of the children before, during, and after? One would suspect that may have played a part in the judges decision. And your point that this is all temporary is key.

MOO

[piedmont]

Regardless of this case, the defendant has a right to hear evidence against them, and then defend against that evidence. If the judge is using evidence that wasn't included as part of the case that the defense is privy to, it seems like that would be unconstitutional.

That makes sense. I guess the problem was nobody wanted to mess up the criminal investigation or trial.

[momto3kids]

I hesitate to jump in here as I haven't followed every detail as closely as the veteran posters. That being said, were there not videos provided of the children during there video phone calls with daddy? Videos of the children before, during, and after? One would suspect that may have played a part in the judges decision. And your point that this is all temporary is key.

MOO
Yes. Sasser was provided tapes by JL. It is NOT all the sessions as he indicated it was to show the court the girl's were not doing well getting prepared, sitting or after the webcam visits. He was asking the court to change some if not all to phone visitation. He felt it would be easier on the girls.

[SleuthyGal]

Keep in mind that Brad and lawyers agreed to allow the grandparents to continue temp custody on July 25th for the next few months. He could have fought then but he didn't. Those of you who are disgusted and aghast might also want to ask why a parent would choose to not fight for their kids 9 days after the kids were taken on an emergency basis? In those nearly 3 months it gave the plaintiffs plenty of extra time to make their case.

[Anderson]

But what happens if he is never charged? It's been 2 years for JY so far. Does there have to be resolution in the criminal system before he can be granted custody again? I doubt LE will ever clear him, but I also doubt they will ever charge him. So what happens? As a father, I'm disgusted with this ruling. I don't think it is fair to remove children when there was no evidence that he has ever harmed the children, abused the children, or neglected the children.

I would hope that Brad would be cleared, IF he is innocent.

The investigation is ongoing. BC's lawyers could have chosen to put BC on the stand and then we may have known more about the investigation. We do know that Det. Daniels has pointed to inconsistencies in BC's statements. The Judge would be aware of that. Det. Daniels also wrote the probable cause affidavit. We don't know the outcome of the SWs yet. We only know what was taken from the house. Brad's lawyers could have chosen to bring more to light during the custody hearing. If Brad is innocent, then that may have been demonstrated. But, I am no legal expert.

I don't think that we know everything. And I have no idea what the Judge knows, although I had thought that she did would not look at other material related to the investigation. There is, however, a great deal of material for the Judge to look at and take into consideration in the case. Much of it is right here in this forum, I believe.

Time will tell. We will find out more at some point. I guess we all have to have some patience.

[Anderson]

I hesitate to jump in here as I haven't followed every detail as closely as the veteran posters. That being said, were there not videos provided of the children during there video phone calls with daddy? Videos of the children before, during, and after? One would suspect that may have played a part in the judges decision. And your point that this is all temporary is key.

MOO

HI CITYGIRL!

VERY good point. I think that may have played an important role in Sasser's decision!

[jilly]

But what happens if he is never charged? It's been 2 years for JY so far. Does there have to be resolution in the criminal system before he can be granted custody again? I doubt LE will ever clear him, but I also doubt they will ever charge him. So what happens? As a father, I'm disgusted with this ruling. I don't think it is fair to remove children when there was no evidence that he has ever harmed the children, abused the children, or neglected the children.

We'll have to see what exactly the Judge says in this Order but I would think there is nothing to stop him from applying to rescind this Order in a month or two. Let the dust settle.

I agree with you in that LE will never clear him. I don't know about a charge - I don't know what evidence they have. I do know the labs there are months behind with their testing.

With any other case I don't believe the children would have been removed from Brad. The difference here, is that the mother of the children was murdered and no one has been charged. The Judge has eliminated any risk of those children being harmed by a potential suspect.

[jilly]

I hesitate to jump in here as I haven't followed every detail as closely as the veteran posters. That being said, were there not videos provided of the children during there video phone calls with daddy? Videos of the children before, during, and after? One would suspect that may have played a part in the judges decision. And your point that this is all temporary is key.

MOO

Hi Citygirl! Nice to see you again!:)

I see others have answered but I'll say 'yes' I think it would have played a part. That along with the fact that the Plaintiffs have the children in preschool, gymnastics (I think) and ballet to show that the children are flourishing at the present time. Also, the fact that the Listers' are working closely with a child psychologist.

[Just the Fax]

Huh? If the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, and the current proof is much greater than reasonable doubt....then why hasn't he been arrested? There is significant amount of doubt in this case. But please, list the "proof of guilt" that you see in this case.

You can go here where I list my reasons for doubt:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72849&page=6


The judge said she considered the possibility Brad killed Nancy.
This was a civil case where the 'preponderance of the evidence' is the test....not 'reasonable doubt'.

[shack]

I would hope that Brad would be cleared, IF he is innocent.

The investigation is ongoing. BC's lawyers could have chosen to put BC on the stand and then we may have known more about the investigation. We do know that Det. Daniels has pointed to inconsistencies in BC's statements. The Judge would be aware of that. Det. Daniels also wrote the probable cause affidavit. We don't know the outcome of the SWs yet. We only know what was taken from the house. Brad's lawyers could have chosen to bring more to light during the custody hearing. If Brad is innocent, then that may have been demonstrated. But, I am no legal expert.

I don't think that we know everything. And I have no idea what the Judge knows, although I had thought that she did would not look at other material related to the investigation. There is, however, a great deal of material for the Judge to look at and take into consideration in the case. Much of it is right here in this forum, I believe.

Time will tell. We will find out more at some point. I guess we all have to have some patience.


Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Brads 7 hour deposition a form of testimony. It is where I hail from.

[cygnusx1]

Keep in mind that Brad and lawyers agreed to allow the grandparents to continue temp custody on July 25th for the next few months. He could have fought then but he didn't. Those of you who are disgusted and aghast might also want to ask why a parent would choose to not fight for their kids 9 days after the kids were taken on an emergency basis? In those nearly 3 months it gave the plaintiffs plenty of extra time to make their case.

With that logic, why would he fight at all? At that time police were in and out of the house. Media was constantly surrounding them. They were clearly in the spotlight. At that time, it was better for them to be removed from the area and BC realized it, thus granting them the temporary custody. Things have simmered down a bit, so it is not as desperate to get them out of Cary.

That said, I think they should still be out of Cary; but on BC's terms if he so chooses, not the State's. I agree with NCSU95, this is bad precedent.

[fran]

Well, well, well,..........this was some unexpected GOOD news today, wasn't it?:)

Even I wasn't prepared for this tidbit. ;)

Wonder if old Brad is starting to feel a little hot under the collar? :eek:

Maybe he's hearing the sound of a cage door slamming shut in his dreams!:behindbar

Whether Brad is eventually charged or not, at least while there is uncertainty of HIS and the girl's future, the judge had the good sense to leave well enough alone, even if only temporarily.

Good for her!:clap:

JMHO
fran

PS.....PERHAPS it was the NOT suspects lack of ONE word of endearment towards his two young daughters OR his dearly departed wife (that he CLAIMED in an affidavit that he loved) that helped tip the scales toward temporary custody being extended to the family of NC. He couldn't even fake a kind word about his wife in 7 hours of tape, much less his two darling daughters. NOT that he loved them, just that he wanted them. sad,..........really sad.......:( fran

PPS.......as mom said, PERHAPS Brad could have spared just a minute or two on the stand to declare his love for his children,..........NOT hide behind the 5th Amendment at the expense of others, namely his children.:mad:

[Albert]

PERHAPS Brad could have spared just a minute or two on the stand to declare his love for his children,..........:

Makes me wonder if Brad is getting his money's worth with KB since neither Brad's family nor friends were called to testify. Anyway, BC's action of not taking the stand does not bode well for portraying an innocent person. This has nothing to do with how one grieves publicly. Instead it makes Brad look very weak. Perhaps it even makes him look guilty.

Thankfully his children are of such a young age that they will not be aware that their father did not fight like H*** for them.

[SleuthSayer]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

[Anderson]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Brads 7 hour deposition a form of testimony. It is where I hail from.

Yes, I do believe you are correct, Shack. But, if BC had gone on the stand, then I gather that the Det. could have been called as a rebuttal witness. I learned this from Mom and others. More information could have been presented, if this were the case. I don't know what difference this could have made, but it looked to me as though his lawyers were controlling the information that was available. I don't know what this information is, of course. I just know that it was possible for more to come out, if BC took the stand at the hearing. Very hard to understand why this was done, but that was the choice made by BC and his lawyers.

[belimom]

PPS.......as mom said, PERHAPS Brad could have spared just a minute or two on the stand to declare his love for his children,..........NOT hide behind the 5th Amendment at the expense of others, namely his children.:mad:

I agree. If it were me or my husband in BC's shoes, there's no way in hell you'd keep either one of us from pleading and begging with the judge to get our dear children back.

[ncsu95]

I would hope that Brad would be cleared, IF he is innocent.

The investigation is ongoing. BC's lawyers could have chosen to put BC on the stand and then we may have known more about the investigation. We do know that Det. Daniels has pointed to inconsistencies in BC's statements. The Judge would be aware of that. Det. Daniels also wrote the probable cause affidavit. We don't know the outcome of the SWs yet. We only know what was taken from the house. Brad's lawyers could have chosen to bring more to light during the custody hearing. If Brad is innocent, then that may have been demonstrated. But, I am no legal expert.

I don't think that we know everything. And I have no idea what the Judge knows, although I had thought that she did would not look at other material related to the investigation. There is, however, a great deal of material for the Judge to look at and take into consideration in the case. Much of it is right here in this forum, I believe.

Time will tell. We will find out more at some point. I guess we all have to have some patience.


How could they, unless the believe the testimony of Rosemary? I don't think any DNA was found on her that could link her to someone else...and I don't think he had any witnesses (outside of Katie) to his actions that morning prior to the HT videos. So unless they can point this to someone else, he will always be under suspicion. This just doesn't seem like a case with a smoking gun, which will make it both hard to prove and equally hard to disprove.

[sunflowers]

Several things that others have said:
1. this is still TEMPORARY, not permanent custody. the decision was what was in the children's best interests at this point in time
2. neither brad nor his family testified. his 7 hr video doesn't count as testimony because---correct me if i'm wrong--when you testify, the opposing legal team gets to cross-examine you on your testimony so that it's clear. his attorneys clearly didn't want brad saying one thing. however, even in 7 hrs, he didn't talk about any emotional connectedness with his kids. the closest we've heard is that he wants them back.
3. this was CIVIL. totally different than criminal court
4. because of the durham duke lacrosse fiasco last year, there's absolutely no way, no how that Judge Sasser won't have every single t crossed & i dotted in her legal decision re custody. regardless of how she might *feel*, her legal opinion re custoday will be carefully scrutinized & she would be absolutely certain that she made a decision that was well within the law.

[maconrich]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

Honesty if LE has *strong evidence* that suggests the surviving spouse was likely responsible for the death of the other spouse, then yes I would prefer seeing the children placed with other relatives until the police are able to clear or arrest the parent under suspicion.

These children need to be protected and have as much security/stability as possible under the circumstances -- and living with a probable murderer (parent or not) who is apt to be arrested and thrown in jail isn't what I call a stable or secure environment.

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

[shack]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.\

Doesn't matter what the citizens of NC want it has now been made case law. Next time the issue arises this case will be used to get the same out come. This is the only case that can be used because no other family has done this before in the state of NC. In most states a parent must be proven to be unfit to lose their children. This won't be the case from now on in NC.

[Anderson]

How could they, unless the believe the testimony of Rosemary? I don't think any DNA was found on her that could link her to someone else...and I don't think he had any witnesses (outside of Katie) to his actions that morning prior to the HT videos. So unless they can point this to someone else, he will always be under suspicion. This just doesn't seem like a case with a smoking gun, which will make it both hard to prove and equally hard to disprove.

I would hope that wouldn't be the case.

I do hope that this development will encourage BC and lawyers to start helping/cooperating with the murder case, if they haven't already. That would help to move things along. If there is enough evidence against him (we have only a vague idea of what currently exists, but we do know that he has raised the suspicion of investigators), then it may even go to trial. Then, it would depend on the outcome of the trial. He may be proved innocent at that point. Patience. . . .

[shack]

Yes, I do believe you are correct, Shack. But, if BC had gone on the stand, then I gather that the Det. could have been called as a rebuttal witness. I learned this from Mom and others. More information could have been presented, if this were the case. I don't know what difference this could have made, but it looked to me as though his lawyers were controlling the information that was available. I don't know what this information is, of course. I just know that it was possible for more to come out, if BC took the stand at the hearing. Very hard to understand why this was done, but that was the choice made by BC and his lawyers.

I was under the impression it was Nancy's family that ask for the deposition instead of his actually testifying.

[Anderson]

I agree. If it were me or my husband in BC's shoes, there's no way in hell you'd keep either one of us from pleading and begging with the judge to get our dear children back.

Exactly, I think that a lot of us think that it was odd that Brad didn't choose to go on the stand. Others would say that it would be too risky to go on the stand or that BC simply didn't have the sort of personality to act in this way.

[Anderson]

I was under the impression it was Nancy's family that ask for the deposition instead of his actually testifying.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Det. Daniels sat in court all day just in case he was needed as a rebuttal witness. Det. Daniels would have only been called to the stand if Brad had testified. TS could not cross examine Det. Daniels under any other condition. That is my understanding.

[SleuthyGal]

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Det. Daniels sat in court all day just in case he was needed as a rebuttal witness. Det. Daniels would have only been called to the stand if Brad had testified. TS could not cross examine Det. Daniels under any other condition. That is my understanding.

Yes, Daniels spent the bulk of the day sitting in court waiting to possibly get called. I think TS could have called him to the stand if they wanted to or felt the need to, but they had him there I think as leverage in case Brad got on the stand. And then Brad didn't get on the stand. I thought they should have called Daniels to the stand anyway.

[jilly]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

Of course I don't support the State having that sort of blanket discretion. Each case must be adjudged on it's own merits. Also, keep in mind, this is Family Court and you aren't required to have a lawyer represent you.

[sunflowers]

Honesty if LE has *strong evidence* that suggests the surviving spouse was likely responsible for the death of the other spouse, then yes I would prefer seeing the children placed with other relatives until the police are able to clear or arrest the parent under suspicion.

These children need to be protected and have as much security/stability as possible under the circumstances -- and living with a probable murderer (parent or not) who is apt to be arrested and thrown in jail isn't what I call a stable or secure environment.

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

beautifully stated. i totally concur.

[jumpstreet]

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

Shouldn't BC be locked up temporarily (but immediately and indefinitely), until LE and the DA can sort out the root-cause of the crime? Wouldn't that also be in the best interest of the Lochmere neighbors, and the Cary community as a whole?

After all, if he's not fit to have custody (based on suspicion of murder), how can he be fit to remain at large in the community? Shouldn't we play it safe and incarcerate him (at least temporarily), unless he's cleared, and/or can prove himself innocent [ Caveat: any eyewitness who comes forward supporting his innocence will likely be ignored by LE, (again, out of an abundance of caution) while we seek to serve the best interest of society... ]

It only makes sense, right?

[jumpstreet]

This just in-

Citing precedence of the NC custody case, a young midwestern couple have petitioned judge Sasser to award custody to them of the daughter of Michelle Young. "Judge, we can offer this young lady a fine upbringing (and besides, we could use the help of a dependent on our taxes, given the current economy). Until that slimeball JY is cleared, at least award us temporary custody judge... we'll provide her with a fine home in the meantime judge... we promise"...

The hearing is set for later this month...

[Anderson]

Shouldn't BC be locked up temporarily (but immediately and indefinitely), until LE and the DA can sort out the root-cause of the crime? Wouldn't that also be in the best interest of the Lochmere neighbors, and the Cary community as a whole?

After all, if he's not fit to have custody (based on suspicion of murder), how can he be fit to remain at large in the community? Shouldn't we play it safe and incarcerate him (at least temporarily), unless he's cleared, and/or can prove himself innocent [ Caveat: any eyewitness who comes forward supporting his innocence will likely be ignored by LE, (again, out of an abundance of caution) while we seek to serve the best interest of society... ]

It only makes sense, right?

See post #35 on the J Sasser Associate thread!

[SleuthSayer]

Honesty if LE has *strong evidence* that suggests the surviving spouse was likely responsible for the death of the other spouse, then yes I would prefer seeing the children placed with other relatives until the police are able to clear or arrest the parent under suspicion.

These children need to be protected and have as much security/stability as possible under the circumstances -- and living with a probable murderer (parent or not) who is apt to be arrested and thrown in jail isn't what I call a stable or secure environment.

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

If that's the case, I don't understand the dog & pony show of the hearing last week. If it's going to be decided based on some secret details shared between LE and the judge, why not just save the taxpayers some expense and skip the hearing?

[fran]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

Not saying they even can, but not a bad idea, imho. Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many of these unsolved 'wife' murders, missing without a trace, left me for another man BS. IF the guy KNEW he'd be under scrutiny and LE KNEW THEY WERE TOO, PERHAPS there would be more divorces, but less 'wife murders and disappearances.'

Just an observation,
fran

[maconrich]

If that's the case, I don't understand the dog & pony show of the hearing last week. If it's going to be decided based on some secret details shared between LE and the judge, why not just save the taxpayers some expense and skip the hearing?

I don't think the decision was based only on unreleased information, and I'm not really sure the judge has access to LE info. So I probably need to revise my statement a bit and just say that she used the available information to make a decision that's in the best interests of the children.

As far as having the hearing or not having it, if it wasn't required by law I wouldn't have had a problem with them skipping it and just extending the existing temporary custody order.

That said, I'm sure we would have more info if BC had opted to take the stand, thus allowing Det. Daniels to do the same, but I understand why he didn't. I don't, however, understand why he didn't work something out with Nancy's family so that the children could remain where they were for awhile longer. I really don't feel it was in BC's best interest to allow the hearing to take place.

Anderson -- TY for the heads up on the #35 post!! I wasn't quite sure what to think till I read that ;)

[tarheellvr]

I'm still waiting for that list tarheellvr. You are pretty quick to say there is vast evidence and enough that it goes well past reasonable doubt...so let's hear it. Don't be shy.

While not shy, I am inclined to say if you had/have read the posts on this forum and STILL have to ask me for "a list", you obviously aren't reading what I am.

Also, do you not think LE has MUCH evidence the public isn't privy to??? Your comments regarding why he isn't already in custody says a lot. It's more than obvious they are still in the process of building a case that can be submitted to the GJ......a case that can and will be won in court.

Just face it, BC is guilty as hell......those heavily involved in the case know it and he WILL be arrested. Judge Sasser did indeed take a bold step as the girl's needs were put first because after all, this is a civil case not a criminal case and the prevalent issue is custody and what is best for the 2 children at the present time. Kudos to Judge Sasser......she did her job and did it well!

[cygnusx1]

Not saying they even can, but not a bad idea, imho. Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many of these unsolved 'wife' murders, missing without a trace, left me for another man BS. IF the guy KNEW he'd be under scrutiny and LE KNEW THEY WERE TOO, PERHAPS there would be more divorces, but less 'wife murders and disappearances.'

Just an observation,
fran

So what other parts of the Constitution are willing to shred "for the children".

[ncsu95]

While not shy, I am inclined to say if you had/have read the posts on this forum and STILL have to ask me for "a list", you obviously aren't reading what I am.

Also, do you not think LE has MUCH evidence the public isn't privy to??? Your comments regarding why he isn't already in custody says a lot. It's more than obvious they are still in the process of building a case that can be submitted to the GJ......a case that can and will be won in court.

Just face it, BC is guilty as hell......those heavily involved in the case know it and he WILL be arrested. Judge Sasser did indeed take a bold step as the girl's needs were put first because after all, this is a civil case not a criminal case and the prevalent issue is custody and what is best for the 2 children at the present time. Kudos to Judge Sasser......she did her job and did it well!

So are you heavily involved in this case and privy to info the rest of us are not? I don't think he is guilty as hell (although he very well may be guilty), and I have serious doubts that he will ever be arrested.

[maconrich]

So what other parts of the Constitution are willing to shred "for the children".

???? (as in what are you even talking about??)

[TXredhead178]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I share the concerns expressed by others over Judge Sasser's decision this week, and I certainly would not want to see a dangerous precedent being set. That said, I have to wonder if the judge's decisions on custody have been, at least in part, motivated by the possibilty that Bella and/or Katie may have seen or heard something unusual in the early morning hours of July 12, and if so, they might be reluctant to say anything about it while in their father's care. (Wasn't that part of the reasoning for the first temporary custody order?) That, to me, would be a good reason in these circumstances, to continue temporary custody with extended family at this time.

I am very interested in reading Judge Sasser's latest ruling when it's available.

[cygnusx1]

???? (as in what are you even talking about??)

SleuthSayer posed the question:

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

To which Fran replied:
Not saying they even can, but not a bad idea, imho.

So if she's willing to automatically have the State take the kids away from those who haven't been charged with a crime, what other parts of the Constitution is she willing to shred.

[maconrich]

SleuthSayer posed the question:



To which Fran replied:


So if she's willing to automatically have the State take the kids away from those who haven't been charged with a crime, what other parts of the Constitution is she willing to shred.

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

[SleuthyGal]

I have to wonder if the judge's decisions on custody have been, at least in part, motivated by the possibilty that Bella and/or Katie may have seen or heard something unusual in the early morning hours of July 12, and if so, they might be reluctant to say anything about it while in their father's care. (Wasn't that part of the reasoning for the first temporary custody order?)

welcome TXRedhead!

To our knowledge, nothing in the original ex-parte emergency order said anything about either of the kids overhearing anything in the house that night/morning. And it does not appear that this is a reason for the temp custody being extended. There was a lot of stuff for the judge to work with, aside from speculating what the kids may have heard on 7/12.

[MCDRAW]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.



I don't support the taking of children away unless they could prove that he had abused the children in some way. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[maconrich]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

oooohhhhh that's the part of the constitution y'all are talking about, duh! :bang:

[boxy]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

Parents have constitutional rights. For example, read the ex parte order (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/17/3222032/20080717103017508.pdf), page 2 of 3, Findings of Fact #9. "Defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children."

I am still waiting to read Judge Sasser's written order to see what she found to be clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

[SleuthyGal]

"Defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children."

FYI and of interest: at the hearing last week Judge Sasser said, after the plaintiffs rested, and when the defense tried to get the case dismissed, before it was their turn to present, that based on what was presented so far in the hearing, the plaintiffs had (already) proved that the defendant acted inconsistently.... I wrote it down in my notes at the time so I wouldn't forget. So then the judge denied the motion to dismiss and the defense put on their case.

[fran]

Fran,

I am not trying to be rude, but how is it you seem to know so much about this case and you are in Southern California. I am not saying you do not have a right to be interested, but what do you know about our area, and the other crimes in this area similar to this one. Most recently a woman was attacked within a few miles of where NC's body was found, she was not killed because her attackers were scared off by someone, this attack happened in daylight. You seem all for stripping constitutional rights from anyone who does not support your point of view, to me this speaks of lynch mob mentality, which IMO is very dangerous.

IMHO, it was a hypothetical question which I gave a hypothetical answer. Of course we can't do this in a blanket sort of way, as it would be against the Constitution.

OTOH, when are these murders and disappearances of wives/mothers going to stop?

This is an opinion forum and it is MY opinion Brad Cooper murdered his wife. Time will tell if LE can prove it.

As for knowing so much about the case when I don't live there? Sorry, my sources are confidential. ;)

JMHO
fran

PS.....I also believe Jason killed Michelle Young and Raven killed Janet Abaroa and Scott killed (still missing) Kelly Morris and .....................well,..........you get the point. NO, I don't think ALL husbands and SOs killed the murdered or missing wife or g/f,...............but MANY unsolved cases it is MOST likely. I'm not on a jury so I can THINK they did it BEFORE a trial....fran

[ncsu95]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

If LE has strong evidence, then they should arrest the person and allow them their due process.

If they don't have enough to arrest, then who would determine what "strong evidence" means? Again, we live in a country where people have rights guaranteed to them by the constitution. Part of that right is the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. If they have strong evidence, arrest BC and give him his day in court. If not, give him his kids back. He was not shown to be a neglectful father. He was not shown to be a bad father.

[ncsu95]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??


Again, if there is strong evidence, then make an arrest. But "strong evidence" is a subjective term, and differs based on opinion.

[SleuthyGal]

I think the question is, "what does the DA consider "strong evidence?" Because it's not up to LE to decide when to arrest, unless the person is caught in the middle of committing a crime, is resisting arrest, or any immediate danger. For a murder charge it's up to the DA when there's 'enough' to move forward...not the sheriff and not the PD.

[justthinking2008]

As for knowing so much about the case when I don't live there? Sorry, my sources are confidential. ;)

JMHO
fran



If your confidential informants have this much strong evidence, may I humbly suggest you contact LE and give them this information so we may arrest the perp. I do not know if BC is guilty or not, believing testimony from eyewitness who claims to have seen NC that morning running, it would make it almost impossible to believe he committed the crime. If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

[SleuthyGal]

If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

Actually the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[boxy]

I think the question is, "what does the DA consider "strong evidence?" Because it's not up to LE to decide when to arrest, unless the person is caught in the middle of committing a crime, is resisting arrest, or any immediate danger. For a murder charge it's up to the DA when there's 'enough' to move forward...not the sheriff and not the PD.

I don't think that's entirely correct for North Carolina. LE can arrest someone for murder without involvement of the DA. The arrested person then would have a probable cause hearing to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support charging them. LE doesn't have to catch them in the act.

Alternatively, the DA (or maybe LE as well) can take the case to a grand jury. If a true bill of indictment is returned by the GJ, then a warrant is issued for arrest. In this case, no probable cause hearing is held. I would expect this would be the route that will be followed in the criminal aspect of this case.

[garner_nc]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

Taking of a child would fall under the Due process clause of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. It says "no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.". One could contend that BC did not receive a fair Judge in that she had her mind made up prior to the court proceedings since according to many on this site - evidence of a unfit father was not presented. Of course we do not know all the details.

This also falls under the "Presumption of innocence" which is based on Coffin v. United States. Innocent until proven guilty which follows the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? Refresh of history - Salem witch trials, Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay -Terror Suspects - All examples of where people were "presumed guilty". This is what the Constitution protects, our Freedoms.

Unfortunately, many people are willing to toss aside those Freedoms without really thinking about the consequences.

[SleuthyGal]

I think in this case (the Cooper murder case) it's up to the DA to decide when he feels there's 'enough' evidence to go to the GJ. LE is not just going to decide to arrest BC one day and go off on their own and do it without the approval of Willoughby.

[boxy]

Actually the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

There are different standards that must be met for the criminal murder and civil custody cases. In the former, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. For the civil custody case, the standard appears to be by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher burden than preponderance of the evidence used in most civil matters. It is conceivable there is enough evidence to meet the clear and convincing evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I didn't hear evidence that I thought was clear and convincing in the custody case. It could be there is other evidence but if the judge is privy to that but not the defense, that would seem to be a violation of due process. Or perhaps there is other evidence we've not seem but K&B didn't access that other evidence (like the full 911 tape) or didn't want to look at it.

[fran]

If your confidential informants have this much strong evidence, may I humbly suggest you contact LE and give them this information so we may arrest the perp. I do not know if BC is guilty or not, believing testimony from eyewitness who claims to have seen NC that morning running, it would make it almost impossible to believe he committed the crime. If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

FWIW, I have NOT been in contact with 'confidential informants' regarding this case that can give 'material information' to LE. Whatever I've heard or seen is nothing that hasn't been said or seen here on Websleuths. Oh, maybe different source than in the media, but nothing that can be used in court. I just choose not to discuss it further.

I've seen enough of these cases in the past few years to form my opinion that Brad Cooper murdered his wife Nancy Cooper. Heck, I could be wrong. But then, I'm not on the jury, so it doesn't really mean much.

I'm not quite sure what 'beyond shadow of a doubt' would be, but using 'reason,' I think Brad murdered Nancy. Whether LE will be able to prove it to a jury, I dunno. Time will tell.

JMHO
fran

PS....I can think of a couple of different 'hooks' which might grab a juror to 'guilty.' I just don't know if LE has any of them. ;)

[ncsu95]

IMHO, it was a hypothetical question which I gave a hypothetical answer. Of course we can't do this in a blanket sort of way, as it would be against the Constitution.

OTOH, when are these murders and disappearances of wives/mothers going to stop?

This is an opinion forum and it is MY opinion Brad Cooper murdered his wife. Time will tell if LE can prove it.

As for knowing so much about the case when I don't live there? Sorry, my sources are confidential. ;)

JMHO
fran

PS.....I also believe Jason killed Michelle Young and Raven killed Janet Abaroa and Scott killed (still missing) Kelly Morris and .....................well,..........you get the point. NO, I don't think ALL husbands and SOs killed the murdered or missing wife or g/f,...............but MANY unsolved cases it is MOST likely. I'm not on a jury so I can THINK they did it BEFORE a trial....fran

They will never stop. Just like wars, rapes, stealing, speeding, suicides, etc.

[ncsu95]

Taking of a child would fall under the Due process clause of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. It says "no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.". One could contend that BC did not receive a fair Judge in that she had her mind made up prior to the court proceedings since according to many on this site - evidence of a unfit father was not presented. Of course we do not know all the details.

This also falls under the "Presumption of innocence" which is based on Coffin v. United States. Innocent until proven guilty which follows the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? Refresh of history - Salem witch trials, Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay -Terror Suspects - All examples of where people were "presumed guilty". This is what the Constitution protects, our Freedoms.

Unfortunately, many people are willing to toss aside those Freedoms without really thinking about the consequences.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[gritguy]

I don't know that this is how it will work in this case, but frequently the winning party writes a draft order for the judge to sign.

That order should contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings should be supported by evidence properly in the record, and the conclusions should flow from that evidence. The losing party can appeal that order. Whoever is drafting it, winning party or the judge herself, will try to make the thing as bulletproof as possible against appeal. The losing party, if they want to appeal, will look for the wrongly considered evidence or the leap of logic not supported by statute or caselaw.

The idea that the judge has secret information seems baseless to me. If she does, and she can't put it in the order, she'll have to support the order with whatever facts were in the record. On appeal, there's no way those judges are being briefed on any secret evidence.

On the surface, it seems like an aggressive order, given the general bias (properly) in favor of parents maintaining custody. However, the law has a soft spot for children. I wasn't there and I didn't read the evidence so I have no real clue. The order will lay it out though.

[Maja]

Actually the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And a "reasonable person", in this case the Judge, believes "more likely than not" the children's welfare is more secure in Canada. I think that's the beauty of civil matters...evidence matters however, patterns of behavior and red flags can be used as weighty.

[MCDRAW]

Taking of a child would fall under the Due process clause of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. It says "no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.". One could contend that BC did not receive a fair Judge in that she had her mind made up prior to the court proceedings since according to many on this site - evidence of a unfit father was not presented. Of course we do not know all the details.

This also falls under the "Presumption of innocence" which is based on Coffin v. United States. Innocent until proven guilty which follows the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? Refresh of history - Salem witch trials, Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay -Terror Suspects - All examples of where people were "presumed guilty". This is what the Constitution protects, our Freedoms.

Unfortunately, many people are willing to toss aside those Freedoms without really thinking about the consequences.



I agree. I think people are willing to toss aside other peoples freedoms without really thinking about the consequeces. The problem with that is one day the loss of freedom becomes everyones. Today it's a suspected murderer...tomorrow someone can provide a "better" life. To me this has been a scary ruling.

[SleuthyGal]

When I was referring to "beyond a reasonable doubt" I was talking only of a criminal case. I know it's a different standard in civil cases and things run differently in family court. I was addressing JustThinking's comment of "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which is a standard lots of people incorrectly think applies to criminal court cases.

[gritguy]

I agree. I think people are willing to toss aside other peoples freedoms without really thinking about the consequeces. The problem with that is one day the loss of freedom becomes everyones. Today it's a suspected murderer...tomorrow someone can provide a "better" life. To me this has been a scary ruling.

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.

Now, I don't know what the basis for the decision is, and the reluctance to take children away from natural parents should be high (due to the presumption that living with natural parents or a parent is usually in the best interest of the child and also the rights of the parent), but I think it is too early to say the judge made a mistake.

The girls' constitutional rights and welfare are at stake, and some evidence convinced the judge that removal outweighed the ordinary and real benefit of a child living with the natural parent. What that evidence is will be known soon.

[boxy]

And a "reasonable person", in this case the Judge, believes "more likely than not" the children's welfare is more secure in Canada. I think that's the beauty of civil matters...evidence matters however, patterns of behavior and red flags can be used as weighty.

Wrong. The preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) standard is not the standard for this custody case. The standard is clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard. The plaintiff has to show through clear and convincing evidence that BC either abused, neglected, or abandoned his children. Abuse might be shown if there is a substantial risk to their safety.

I didn't see evidence to convince me of this. I'm waiting to read what the judge found to be clear and convincing.

[tarheellvr]

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.

Now, I don't know what the basis for the decision is, and the reluctance to take children away from natural parents should be high (due to the presumption that living with natural parents or a parent is usually in the best interest of the child and also the rights of the parent), but I think it is too early to say the judge made a mistake.

The girls' constitutional rights and welfare are at stake, and some evidence convinced the judge that removal outweighed the ordinary and real benefit of a child living with the natural parent. What that evidence is will be known soon.


Very well said. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

[boxy]

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.


Where does this come from? This is not how I read state statutes or decisions of the NC Supreme Court. Someone (usually the state through DSS) has to prove abuse, neglect, or abandonment with clear and convincing evidence. Only after such a finding is adjudicated does the court consider the best interests of the children in the dispositional phase, which may be to remain with the parent(s) despite abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Woe to all parents if the state can start deciding what is best for children without first proving an unfit parent.

[justthinking2008]

Please forgive me for my semantical error, I realize it is beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think it is going to be hard to prove she did not leave the house. The ME's in this case have a very hard job, the burden of many proofs will lay on them. I understand the body was in awful condition and that makes it difficult to determine if there were any struggles or bruises that were indicative of a struggle of some sort. I am not convinced of BC's innocence, the opposite in fact, but I do wholly believe that if he did it, he did not act alone, someone helped him, IMHO.

[SleuthyGal]

Until we can read the ruling from the judge we're not going to know or understand how how she decided. She has a basis for making her decision--we don't yet know what that basis was and what all went into it. I understand that many people believe she made an incorrect and biased decision; I don't know that to be true. I need to see the ruling. I thought it could have gone either way when I left the courtroom. There was a lot of corroborating evidence from the affiants, witnesses, and there were inconsistencies made by the defendant. If he was caught in any lie, no matter how small or insignificant, his credibility would be greatly compromised. The judge would notice it and it would not impress her! A videotape depo is not the time to make inconsistent statements; there's a good chance of being caught.

[SleuthyGal]

I still think it is going to be hard to prove she did not leave the house. The ME's in this case have a very hard job, the burden of many proofs will lay on them. I understand the body was in awful condition and that makes it difficult to determine if there were any struggles or bruises that were indicative of a struggle of some sort. I am not convinced of BC's innocence, the opposite in fact, but I do wholly believe that if he did it, he did not act alone, someone helped him, IMHO.

Did you see the list of items seized from the search warrants? This list is in the legal docs section. If there is any forensic evidence from inside the house, that will tell the story, at least to some degree. They also removed a pair of blue/gray running shoes (we don't know whose, but we think they are Nancy's). They took a pretty long list of items and we do not know what the tests reveal, if anything. Is it possible to totally clean a murder scene and transport vehicle such that no evidence can ever be found? Possible, but not probable; the tests get ever more precise.

[justthinking2008]

Yes I have seen the list of items taken in the SW, but I am not sure anything has been determined from these items. For example, I have a rug in bedroom at one time or another I am sure I have cried, sneezed, bled, lost nails, and maybe even something more gross, who knows. So it would be difficult to say without any reasonable doubt that whatever is found on the items removed her home happened the night she may or may not have been killed there. As far as hair in the lid of the trunk, I have on more than one occasion hit my head on the trunk lid while removing groceries or other items from the trunk. The unfortunate thing for NC is that she had Crohn's disease, she could have lost control of herself in a car as well, that is not unusual for people with Crohn's, my mother had it, I know. As I said earlier, forensics has one heck of a hard job ahead of them. If BC did this I want him in jail, I want the girls in Canada, I just hope for the sake of everyone involved some sort of resolution comes, and comes quickly.

[ncsu95]

Yes I have seen the list of items taken in the SW, but I am not sure anything has been determined from these items. For example, I have a rug in bedroom at one time or another I am sure I have cried, sneezed, bled, lost nails, and maybe even something more gross, who knows. So it would be difficult to say without any reasonable doubt that whatever is found on the items removed her home happened the night she may or may not have been killed there. As far as hair in the lid of the trunk, I have on more than one occasion hit my head on the trunk lid while removing groceries or other items from the trunk. The unfortunate thing for NC is that she had Crohn's disease, she could have lost control of herself in a car as well, that is not unusual for people with Crohn's, my mother had it, I know. As I said earlier, forensics has one heck of a hard job ahead of them. If BC did this I want him in jail, I want the girls in Canada, I just hope for the sake of everyone involved some sort of resolution comes, and comes quickly.


Is this a case of to much information, cause I'm thinking :Banane59:



(just kidding, I just love that emoticon).

[gritguy]

Where does this come from? This is not how I read state statutes or decisions of the NC Supreme Court. Someone (usually the state through DSS) has to prove abuse, neglect, or abandonment with clear and convincing evidence. Only after such a finding is adjudicated does the court consider the best interests of the children in the dispositional phase, which may be to remain with the parent(s) despite abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Woe to all parents if the state can start deciding what is best for children without first proving an unfit parent.

I just spent a little time reading Adams v. Tessener, and I think your statement is correct. Reading it toward the present case (removal to non-parent custody when a parent is available) a standard "best interests of the child" test cannot be used absent a finding that the parent is unfit or in some way acted inconsistently with his constitutional parental rights (the weight is heavier than the presumption I stated and there must indeed be the finding as you state).

Here is what the North Carolina Supreme Court said:

"Petersen and Price, when read together, protect a natural parent's paramount constitutional right to custody and control of his or her children. The Due Process Clause ensures that the government cannot unconstitutionally infringe upon a parent's paramount right to custody solely to obtain a better result for the child. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at 72-73, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 61 (“the Due Process Clause does not permit a [s]tate to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made”). As a result, the government may take a child away from his or her natural parent only upon a showing that the parent is unfit to have custody, see Jolly v. Queen, 264 N.C. 711, 715-16, 142 S.E.2d 592, 596 (1965), or where the parent's conduct is inconsistent with his or her constitutionally protected status"

I learn something every day. Unfortunately, I forget about two things a day. I'll try to read the cases first before making any more generalized statements about the law!

Anyway, this standard certainly seems fair, and it will be interesting to see how the order reads.

[justthinking2008]

Is this a case of to much information, cause I'm thinking :Banane59:



(just kidding, I just love that emoticon).

TMI :rolleyes: Maybe

Point I was trying to make is the items removed from her home may or may not prove anything, because anything can happen in your home, things you may not want to talk about, YKWIM.

[maconrich]

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.

Now, I don't know what the basis for the decision is, and the reluctance to take children away from natural parents should be high (due to the presumption that living with natural parents or a parent is usually in the best interest of the child and also the rights of the parent), but I think it is too early to say the judge made a mistake.

The girls' constitutional rights and welfare are at stake, and some evidence convinced the judge that removal outweighed the ordinary and real benefit of a child living with the natural parent. What that evidence is will be known soon.

:bow:

[Star12]

I don't remember anyone saying that BC was an unfit parent. This was not a hearing to terminate parental rights. I did hear Wade Smith say that there was a lot of detail that still had to go into the Order - such as visitation. Visitation is a form of custody. BC is still the father, and he still can have vital input into the lives of Bella and Katie. That's Freedom.

And BC's life has not been taken from him. BC is not in jail, so his liberty is not in question. And property? No property has been taken from him. Well, maybe some possible evidence was taken, but that was taken under due process via the sw. That's Freedom.

No one from LE to the court system is acting in any way prejudicial to BC. The authorities are acting in a methodical, careful manner to make sure that BC's rights are preserved. One life has been lost, by whose hand and for what reason we do not fully know. Our laws, and human decency, say that one person does not have the right to take another person's life. There are also laws preserving personal rights as well. That's Freedom.

And the lives of innocent children should be protected and nurtured and loved unconditionally. And they should be allowed to grow and develop and expand their hearts and minds in safety and appropriately. That's Freedom.

As long as BC is under a cloud of suspicion, as long as he is working his job and trying to work with his attorneys, as long as he is preoccupied with his personal situation (whether or not he is involved in Nancy's death and whether or not any of the other allegations are true) should his children be deprived of their Freedom to grow and live in a situation where their needs can be taken care of consistently, and where they will have an extended family with which they can interact and cherish and be cherished?

[Maja]

Wrong. The preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) standard is not the standard for this custody case. The standard is clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard. The plaintiff has to show through clear and convincing evidence that BC either abused, neglected, or abandoned his children. Abuse might be shown if there is a substantial risk to their safety.

I didn't see evidence to convince me of this. I'm waiting to read what the judge found to be clear and convincing.

I was of the understanding the standard for determination of custody is the "best interest of the child" standard.

When a husband and/or wife verbally or physically abuses the other and the children are exposed, is it possible for that to be considered neglect or abuse?

[boxy]

I just spent a little time reading Adams v. Tessener, and I think your statement is correct. Reading it toward the present case (removal to non-parent custody when a parent is available) a standard "best interests of the child" test cannot be used absent a finding that the parent is unfit or in some way acted inconsistently with his constitutional parental rights (the weight is heavier than the presumption I stated and there must indeed be the finding as you state).

Here is what the North Carolina Supreme Court said:

"Petersen and Price, when read together, protect a natural parent's paramount constitutional right to custody and control of his or her children. The Due Process Clause ensures that the government cannot unconstitutionally infringe upon a parent's paramount right to custody solely to obtain a better result for the child. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at 72-73, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 61 (“the Due Process Clause does not permit a [s]tate to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made”). As a result, the government may take a child away from his or her natural parent only upon a showing that the parent is unfit to have custody, see Jolly v. Queen, 264 N.C. 711, 715-16, 142 S.E.2d 592, 596 (1965), or where the parent's conduct is inconsistent with his or her constitutionally protected status"

I learn something every day. Unfortunately, I forget about two things a day. I'll try to read the cases first before making any more generalized statements about the law!

Anyway, this standard certainly seems fair, and it will be interesting to see how the order reads.

I thought this section from the Adams v Tessener decision is also illustrative of the well established judicial principle that the natural parent is presumed to be fit unless proved otherwise.

This Court has recognized that the protection of the family unit is guaranteed by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 401, 445 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1994). The United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that a parent enjoys a fundamental right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control” of his or her children under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 57 (2000). In Troxel, the United States Supreme Court held that a fit parent is presumed to act in the child's best interest and that there is “normally . . . no reason for the [s]tate to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children.” Id. at 68-69, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 58. Similarly, this Court has enunciated the fundamental principle that “absent a finding that parents (i) are unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally-protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail.” Petersen, 337 N.C. at 403-04, 445 S.E.2d at 905.
We further elaborated on this principle in Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 484 S.E.2d 528 (1997). In Price, the defendant gave birth to a child out of wedlock and represented that the plaintiff was the father. Id. at 70-71, 484 S.E.2d at529. When the defendant and the plaintiff separated, the child remained in the plaintiff's physical custody for approximately six additional years. Id. at 71, 484 S.E.2d at 529-30. A court- ordered blood test ultimately excluded the plaintiff as the biological father of the child. Id.
The trial court concluded that both the plaintiff and the defendant were fit and proper to have custody of the child. Id. at 71, 484 S.E.2d at 530. The trial court then determined that the child's best interests would be served by granting primary custody to the plaintiff. Id. The trial court stated, however, that it was precluded from granting custody to the plaintiff under Petersen. Id. Accordingly, the trial court granted custody to the defendant. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody award. Id. at 71-72, 484 S.E.2d at 530.

[Maja]

If your confidential informants have this much strong evidence, may I humbly suggest you contact LE and give them this information so we may arrest the perp. I do not know if BC is guilty or not, believing testimony from eyewitness who claims to have seen NC that morning running, it would make it almost impossible to believe he committed the crime. If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

Even if NC did leave the house that morning, there was a LONG time between 7:00 AM - 1:30 PM, even with the "alleged" morning run.

[boxy]

I don't remember anyone saying that BC was an unfit parent.

BC either has to be an unfit parent or act in a manner inconsistent with his constitutionally-protected role as parent for him to not retain custody. In the ex parte order, Sasser indicated the latter but based that decision on facts that we now know are not true.

I did hear Wade Smith say that there was a lot of detail that still had to go into the Order - such as visitation. Visitation is a form of custody. BC is still the father, and he still can have vital input into the lives of Bella and Katie. That's Freedom.

Visitation is not custody. Visitation is just that, visiting. BC can not say where his children will live, where they will go to school, what they should eat, what church they will attend, how they should be disciplined, or any other decision that parents make. At least temporarily, he has none of the rights of a parent.

As long as BC is under a cloud of suspicion, as long as he is working his job and trying to work with his attorneys, as long as he is preoccupied with his personal situation (whether or not he is involved in Nancy's death and whether or not any of the other allegations are true) should his children be deprived of their Freedom to grow and live in a situation where their needs can be taken care of consistently, and where they will have an extended family with which they can interact and cherish and be cherished?

Freedom includes the rule of law. Under the laws of North Carolina and the US, none of the things you mention in this paragraph are sufficient to remove a child, even temporarily, from the custody of a natural parent.

[boxy]

I was of the understanding the standard for determination of custody is the "best interest of the child" standard.
That is not my understanding at all. There are two parts to a custody decision. In the first part, called adjudication, a decision is made as to whether there is a reason to remove a child from his/her current custody. I've posted references to statutes and case law listing the possible reasons and "the best interests of the child" are not among them. Gritguy and I have posted from another NC Supreme Court case here again showing that first someone must show the parent is unfit or acting in a manner inconsistent with their constitutionally protected status as a parent.

The second part, called disposition, follows if there is such a finding. In the dispositional stage the best interests of the child are considered.


When a husband and/or wife verbally or physically abuses the other and the children are exposed, is it possible for that to be considered neglect or abuse?

I think this could qualify as an unfit parent, at least the physical abuse part, but I haven't researched that question so don't quote me.

[boxy]

I was of the understanding the standard for determination of custody is the "best interest of the child" standard.

When a husband and/or wife verbally or physically abuses the other and the children are exposed, is it possible for that to be considered neglect or abuse?

More from Adams v Tessener

“that the Due Process Clause would be offended '[i]f a [s]tate were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest.' Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-63, 53 L. Ed. 2d 14, [46-47 (1977)] (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment).”

[TXredhead178]

To our knowledge, nothing in the original ex-parte emergency order said anything about either of the kids overhearing anything in the house that night/morning. And it does not appear that this is a reason for the temp custody being extended. There was a lot of stuff for the judge to work with, aside from speculating what the kids may have heard on 7/12.

Thanks for the welcome, SleuthyGal!

Yes, I agree there are many things for the judge to work with. I believe it was one of the plaintiffs' pleadings that raised the issue of the girls' ability to feel speak freely about that day, if indeed there's anything to talk about.

I think this issue was raised more in the context of the girls' emotional well-being. I guess it always stood out to me because the thought of BC murdering NC in their home as their little girls slept is so very disturbing. I have to wonder why both girls reportedly seem anxious whenever they speak with their father now via videoconference.

Just more food for thought, I suppose. I really appreciate the intelligent level of discussion on this forum and look forward to reading more posts.

[cygnusx1]

I have to wonder why both girls reportedly seem anxious whenever they speak with their father now via videoconference.

Because they are young and they have been away from him for so long he is starting to fade from their memories and it is also an artificial environment.

[garner_nc]

I can see why the kids do not want to talk especially when they have not seen their father in months. I'm sure talking to him is a pain when they have all these new toys and environment to play in. Kid in the candy store...Would you want to talk on the webcam or play with a baby-doll....A baby doll is more important to a young child. I'm sure if BC was in the same room with them, they would be in his arms and wanting to go home with him. To those kids, they have lost both of their parents. Do you really think they comprehend daddy on the webcam thing...I have a hard enough time getting my 3 yr old to talk on the phone.

[justthinking2008]

Garner,

I have thought about this as well. I can remember as a child going to stay with my aunt, who had no children and was extremely indulgent with me, I did not want to go home to my parents. I wanted to stay with her and my uncle get and play with new toys, go to McDonald's, the park etc, I did not even want to talk to my parents on the phone, so what you are saying is very plausible.

[TXredhead178]

Because they are young and they have been away from him for so long he is starting to fade from their memories and it is also an artificial environment.

Possibly, but in my own experience (when my ex-spouse and I lived 1,200 miles apart, my youngest child was about the same age as the C's oldest daughter, and we used videoconferencing to bridge the gaps in parenting time), I don't recall any time that my children were ever anxious about speaking with either my ex-spouse or me over that medium -- even with the emotional trauma of the divorce. I doubt that BC is fading from his children's memories, especially with other forms of contact that have been ongoing. Not sure what is meant by "artificial enviornmnent," but from what I've read it does seem that KL & JL are doing everything they can to make this situation easier on the children, including counseling for all concerned. It sounds like a stable, though at least initially, less familiar, environment for the children.

It will be interesting to see how, if at all, the judge's review of the videotaped phone conferences between the children and the father, has informed her decision to continue the temporary custodial arrangements.

[reddress58]

Possibly, but in my own experience (when my ex-spouse and I lived 1,200 miles apart, my youngest child was about the same age as the C's oldest daughter, and we used videoconferencing to bridge the gaps in parenting time), I don't recall any time that my children were ever anxious about speaking with either my ex-spouse or me over that medium -- even with the emotional trauma of the divorce. I doubt that BC is fading from his children's memories, especially with other forms of contact that have been ongoing. Not sure what is meant by "artificial enviornmnent," but from what I've read it does seem that KL & JL are doing everything they can to make this situation easier on the children, including counseling for all concerned. It sounds like a stable, though at least initially, less familiar, environment for the children.

It will be interesting to see how, if at all, the judge's review of the videotaped phone conferences between the children and the father, has informed her decision to continue the temporary custodial arrangements.
Unless BC dresses as Big Bird, I'm not the least surprised he can't keep the girls' attention for 15 minutes straight. Don't think video conferencing with a live human being is age-appropriate for them.

ETA: Not taking away from your own child. She may be exceptional.

[cygnusx1]

Not sure what is meant by "artificial enviornmnent," ...

I meant that the web-cam is an artificial environment for him to interact with his kids.

[reddress58]

I wonder if there is a way that BC could watch the children play through webcam, with them knowing he was there. That would make the artificial environment more natural. If he were in the same room with them at home, he wouldn't have 15 min. one on one conversations. They would be moving about between interactions. BC could, this way, get the joy of "being with" his daughters, and the children could come up and talk to him when they felt moved to do so.

[garner_nc]

It will be interesting to see how, if at all, the judge's review of the videotaped phone conferences between the children and the father, has informed her decision to continue the temporary custodial arrangements.

I did not like those being presented as evidence. For all we know the kids were told to misbehave since they were on camera. It is to easy to coach a child or distract a child. "When you get done talking to daddy we are going to the toy store...." I know my child would say "See Ya dad..." and would be anxious to get off the webcam.

TXredhead178 - I'm sure you reinforced your ex's feelings to your child while he was 1200 miles away. I'm sure you said "He loves you, he misses you..." I'm sure that had an impact on the video conference success.

I cannot see NC's family doing that for BC. Kids need reassurance and I'm sure they feel like BOTH of their parents have abandoned them. I doubt they are telling them that daddy misses them and daddy loves them. I bet he is only mentioned when the dreaded webcam task is scheduled. "Lets go kids and talk to your daddy" [in the most sarcastic dreaded tone].

[ncsu95]

It will be interesting to see how, if at all, the judge's review of the videotaped phone conferences between the children and the father, has informed her decision to continue the temporary custodial arrangements.

I did not like those being presented as evidence. For all we know the kids were told to misbehave since they were on camera. It is to easy to coach a child or distract a child. "When you get done talking to daddy we are going to the toy store...." I know my child would say "See Ya dad..." and would be anxious to get off the webcam.

TXredhead178 - I'm sure you reinforced your ex's feelings to your child while he was 1200 miles away. I'm sure you said "He loves you, he misses you..." I'm sure that had an impact on the video conference success.

I cannot see NC's family doing that for BC. Kids need reassurance and I'm sure they feel like BOTH of their parents have abandoned them. I doubt they are telling them that daddy misses them and daddy loves them. I bet he is only mentioned when the dreaded webcam task is scheduled. "Lets go kids and talk to your daddy" [in the most sarcastic dreaded tone].

I would agree, especially since KL admitted the kids hadn't seen there dad last week because the courts hadn't ordered it. That was absolutely not in the best interest of the children.

[justthinking2008]

These children will likely suffer abandonment issues for the rest of their life, they have in essence lost both parents and their little minds while occupied with other things still feel abandoned. I do not care how much "love" Krista gives these kids she is not NC or BC, the children should be with him. Adoption never works regardless of the circumstances.

[maconrich]

These children will likely suffer abandonment issues for the rest of their life, they have in essence lost both parents and their little minds while occupied with other things still feel abandoned. I do not care how much "love" Krista gives these kids she is not NC or BC, the children should be with him. Adoption never works regardless of the circumstances.

Not meaning to pounce on you, but I have to take issue with the adoption never works statement. I'm not sure if you mean in general or with this particular family (even though adoption doesn't have anything to do with this family)?

Regardless there are many situations where children are much better off with a loving adoptive family than they would have been with their biological parents. Some 'parents' are biological parents period and have no business having or raising a child.

With BC I'm not sure that's the case, but apparently he was an absent parent until Nancy started looking at leaving the early part of this year. She noted that this is when he changed and started spending time with the children and being more attentive to them, and others made the same observation.

Better late than never, I guess, but despite his long work hours, long training hours and whatever else he was occupied with there was no reason he couldn't have made time to spend with those girls. A lot of working parents do set aside time for their children -- SH is one example but I'm sure there are plenty more in their circle of friends who did (and do) the same.

Meaning, IMO, spending quality time with the girls didn't seem to be high on BC's list of priorities until he realized Nancy was going to leave him. Sadly that had to have had an impact on their bonding with him - or more specifically the lack of bonding. And while the children appear to 'love' their father, they were (most likely) much closer to their mother since she was their primary caretaker (security, etc) from day one.

I'm not saying BC doesn't 'love' them because he probably does (even if he never said it during his deposition). But, if he killed Nancy, he obviously didn't love them enough or he *never* would have taken her from their lives.

As far as the webcam visits I agree with those who pointed out it's an artificial environment and that alone would make it a bit strained. As would the ages of the children. I do not in any way believe anyone has been or would encourage them to act out during the sessions, and it's likely that JL was involved instead of KL for that very reason (so no negative vibes came across).

I do agree with the L's that phone conversations might be a better mode of communication, although I wouldn't stop the webcam visits -- maybe just mix things up a little adding more phone visits and a little less webcam visits. And again I think a lot of the tension is because of how young the girls are and just having to stay put for that long.

Maybe adding videos that they know are going to 'daddy' would be another option. That way the camcorder could follow them around and they could talk to BC while they played (or did whatever activity). It would be nice to make some following them thru various parts of the day and ending with them going to bed and telling him goodnight. Something along those lines would allow him to 'see' them in a less restrictive way and it seems their behavior would be more natural and at ease. Naturally the supervised visits should be continued too and are probably the best form of interaction.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe in my heart of hearts that it would be in their best interests to be with BC right now (full time that is). Something has to give with the criminal case first, and hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later...

[runr]

FYI I am in the:
"no evidence yet indicates to me that BC did this crime,"
"unless there is clear documentation that he is a danger to the girls, he should have custody," and
"although I believe that there is evidence of a dysfunctional relationship between NC and BC, that does not mean that he murdered her"
camp,
BUT
adoption is a wonderful opportunity for many children that has absolutely nothing to do with this case of temporary custody.

There are millions of non-baby adoptees who dispute your statement that "adoption never works."

[pamlet]

I would agree, especially since KL admitted the kids hadn't seen there dad last week because the courts hadn't ordered it. That was absolutely not in the best interest of the children.

I've thought a lot about the statement from KL that the courts hadn't ordered it ... and the affies regarding when the police came to take the girls from BC ... how the older one clung to him and she cried the whole way... It was heartbreaking to read those affies..

[justthinking2008]

maconrich, are you adopted? Well if you are not you could not possibly know the effects of adoption on children and the issues it presents later in life, no matter how good it was for them at the time. You are buying into the myths society wants you too, you must understand that for the most part not in this case, adoption is big business. Please do not take my word for it, go to adoptioncrossroads.org, Joe Soll is a leading expert in working with adoption issues, you will find all the information you need there, warning it is not pretty, and if you are adoptive parent you will never understand it. Custody needs to be taken from KL immediately before her attitude injures the girls attitude.

[chauncey7381]

I've thought a lot about the statement from KL that the courts hadn't ordered it ... and the affies regarding when the police came to take the girls from BC ... how the older one clung to him and she cried the whole way... It was heartbreaking to read those affies..

The Listers may be providing a stable/nurturing environment for the children at this juncture, however, some of the testimony that Momt3kids provided is disturbing, regarding Krista Lister's CLEARLY-NO DOUBT ABOUT IT-hatred towards Brad Cooper. I understand her emotions as she believes Brad murdered her sister. Jim Lister is the one who is involved in all of interactions with the children and Brad Cooper. I get the impression that the Listers would be completely happy if these children had nothing to do with their father at all. The packages Brad sent them...did they give these to the children? The Lister attitude is if the court doesn't rule it, then tough. Telling the children's counselor that Brad Cooper murdered my sister was out there, I have hard time believing the Lister's are not disparaging their father within earshot.

I know Judge Sasser on somewhat of a personal level, as we have been members of the same church for many many years, since my children were born. She is/has been an active member of our church, serving on various committees as I have through out the years. I do believe she is doing what she feels is BEST for the girls at this juncture---I can only hope she will address what can be sent/given/pictures/drawings etc to their Dad, the supervised visitations.

I don't agree with her ruling one bit, yet. Brad Cooper has not been found to be unfit parent IMO. I look forward to reading the custody order's parameters.

[chauncey7381]

Custody needs to be taken from KL immediately before her attitude injures the girls attitude.

I am hoping that Sasser is going to address this in her order.

[maconrich]

maconrich, are you adopted? Well if you are not you could not possibly know the effects of adoption on children and the issues it presents later in life, no matter how good it was for them at the time. You are buying into the myths society wants you too, you must understand that for the most part not in this case, adoption is big business. Please do not take my word for it, go to adoptioncrossroads.org, Joe Soll is a leading expert in working with adoption issues, you will find all the information you need there, warning it is not pretty, and if you are adoptive parent you will never understand it. Custody needs to be taken from KL immediately before her attitude injures the girls attitude.

My son was adopted by both of my parents and myself (I'm his biological mother also). His biological father was an abusive, self-centered, controlling moron who threatened to kill both of us many times while we were together and started the threats again when he realized the court would order him to pay child support. He signed off all parental rights, meaning he wouldn't have to pay support and opened the door for the adoption which made sure my child would remain with my family if anything happened to me. Granted I never kept it a secret who the biological father was and didn't throw away pictures or anything (even kept his birth certificate the same). He met him when he was about 7 and hasn't expressed or displayed any interest in him since then -- actually he didn't before that because there was no bond between them. In addition I didn't trash him to my son -- made it clear there were issues but didn't go into details. And I believe 100% that if that person hadn't been afraid of me and of what would happen to him (compliments of either myself or my family) if he attemped to carry out his threats, I wouldn't be here today. Getting my child out of the situation was the best thing I could have done -- he was raised in a healthy and loving home instead of one where an egocentric, mean and hateful man would have been his role-model.

I also have a niece who was adopted and many friends who were, too. Most have no interest in seeing or contacting their biological parents and love their adoptive family and consider them their 'real' family. And they are and have been their real family. Donating an egg or sperm doesn't qualify someone to be a parent and, imo, some people should be surgically prevented from having children. Abuse, neglect and death are too often the consequences when these 'people' keep children they only want because they are 'theirs' and don't have the ability to love and take care of. No child should have to live with that -- and sadly many do not because they're killed at the hands of the same warped monsters that created them.

I will give credit to those who realize they are not cut out to be parents and give their children up for adoption -- especially at birth before permanent damage can be done. Likewise I respect parents who remove themselves and their child/children from abusive and dangerous relationships. I know what it's like to protect a child from a monster so they never have to experience or witness abuse. I left when my son was an infant and never let him out of my sight -- to the point that I took him with me when I went to the bathroom. Some of my friends weren't so lucky and do have scars from being exposed to one or both of their biological parents. They are the ones who have had a hard time and have had to work thru and past issues and they've done so with the help of their adoptive parents.

In addition to my personal experience I worked for several years as a family specialist and, sadly, most of the children were still living with their biological parents and had emotional and physical scars that will last a life-time. I do realize there are cases where adoption may not work out, but I also know there are times when it is the one option that allows a child to have a healthy homelife - and sometimes simply a *life*.

No disrespect intended, and perhaps I am too close to this subject to maintain a great deal of objectivity. But I refuse to give a free pass to anyone just because they helped create a child - it's what happens after conception that concerns me.

[tarheellvr]

maconrich, are you adopted? Well if you are not you could not possibly know the effects of adoption on children and the issues it presents later in life, no matter how good it was for them at the time. You are buying into the myths society wants you too, you must understand that for the most part not in this case, adoption is big business. Please do not take my word for it, go to adoptioncrossroads.org, Joe Soll is a leading expert in working with adoption issues, you will find all the information you need there, warning it is not pretty, and if you are adoptive parent you will never understand it. Custody needs to be taken from KL immediately before her attitude injures the girls attitude.

Are YOU adopted? Well, I WAS and I had/have a loving relationship with my family. I highly resent your implication that all adoptions are wrong. Through my work, I've been in contact with many, many adult adoptees who have searched and found....myself included. Yes, some are happy reunions, but just as many are not. I, myself, would never have chosen my birth family over my adopted family given the choice. Yes, there are unhappy adult adoptees out there, but there are also just as many adult adoptees who have no desire what-so-ever to search as they feel emotionally complete just as they are.

There are many "JOE SOLLS" out there, likewise there are many proponents of adoption....so please don't use his expertise as the "holy word" on this subject. Believe me......he IS NOT!!!!!

Krista and Jim are the best people to create an environment for Nancy's girls and I highly resent your attitude towards them. If you believed in your heart your twin sister's husband murdered her, whether or not her daughters saw their father while in Raleigh would not be high on your list of priorities.
Krista and Jim love these little girls and are providing the best possible environment for them. Krista a bad influence for her sister's girls????? You really don't have a clue do you?

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: to you Judge Sasser. Nancy's girls are where they SHOULD BE.

[Star12]

My son was adopted by both of my parents and myself (I'm his biological mother also). His biological father was an abusive, self-centered, controlling moron who threatened to kill both of us many times while we were together and started the threats again when he realized the court would order him to pay child support. He signed off all parental rights, meaning he wouldn't have to pay support and opened the door for the adoption which made sure my child would remain with my family if anything happened to me. Granted I never kept it a secret who the biological father was and didn't throw away pictures or anything (even kept his birth certificate the same). He met him when he was about 7 and hasn't expressed or displayed any interest in him since then -- actually he didn't before that because there was no bond between them. In addition I didn't trash him to my son -- made it clear there were issues but didn't go into details. And I believe 100% that if that person hadn't been afraid of me and of what would happen to him (compliments of either myself or my family) if he attemped to carry out his threats, I wouldn't be here today. Getting my child out of the situation was the best thing I could have done -- he was raised in a healthy and loving home instead of one where an egocentric, mean and hateful man would have been his role-model.

I also have a niece who was adopted and many friends who were, too. Most have no interest in seeing or contacting their biological parents and love their adoptive family and consider them their 'real' family. And they are and have been their real family. Donating an egg or sperm doesn't qualify someone to be a parent and, imo, some people should be surgically prevented from having children. Abuse, neglect and death are too often the consequences when these 'people' keep children they only want because they are 'theirs' and don't have the ability to love and take care of. No child should have to live with that -- and sadly many do not because they're killed at the hands of the same warped monsters that created them.

I will give credit to those who realize they are not cut out to be parents and give their children up for adoption -- especially at birth before permanent damage can be done. Likewise I respect parents who remove themselves and their child/children from abusive and dangerous relationships. I know what it's like to protect a child from a monster so they never have to experience or witness abuse. I left when my son was an infant and never let him out of my sight -- to the point that I took him with me when I went to the bathroom. Some of my friends weren't so lucky and do have scars from being exposed to one or both of their biological parents. They are the ones who have had a hard time and have had to work thru and past issues and they've done so with the help of their adoptive parents.

In addition to my personal experience I worked for several years as a family specialist and, sadly, most of the children were still living with their biological parents and had emotional and physical scars that will last a life-time. I do realize there are cases where adoption may not work out, but I also know there are times when it is the one option that allows a child to have a healthy homelife - and sometimes simply a *life*.

No disrespect intended, and perhaps I am too close to this subject to maintain a great deal of objectivity. But I refuse to give a free pass to anyone just because they helped create a child - it's what happens after conception that concerns me.

Bravo to you!

[justthinking2008]

If you believed in your heart your twin sister's husband murdered her, whether or not her daughters saw their father while in Raleigh would not be high on your list of priorities.

What I believe in my heart and what is true are sometimes two different things, which may well be the case here. KL wants those girls to replace NC in her life, that is what I believe in my heart. You say you would choose your adopted family over your biological family, that concept can have no basis in truth as you have no real idea what life would have been like in your biological family, again another belief from the heart, not the mind, once again you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, please respect the fact that I am also entitled to mine. I realize that Joe Soll and the others like him are not the "end all" on the adoption subject; however, years of research by professionals has been done on both sides of the argument. It has been found that children of adoption suffer with denial issues, abandonment issues, loyalty issues and have an overall sense of feeling different. Do not argue this with me, I am only referring to professional research done on the matter. I do not want NC's children to grow up feeling abandoned by their father, unfortunately they are going to feel abandoned by NC even though it was no fault of hers she left them. Unless BC is charged with a crime or even noted as a person of interest these children should be returned to him immediately. Is not fair to the children to be taken away from their home, toys, friends, familiar surroundings and to be placed in an area totally foreign to them. KL is not promoting a relationship with BC thru her own selfish motives, and I think this speaks volumes regarding her personality. If and when the children are returned to their father they may be wary of him, if KL has made them believe he killed their mother. Also BC may have been an absentee father who was interested in furthering his education to provide better for the family, or had some temporary obsession with physical training for a competition, but that does not make him a bad dad. Even the people that are on the guilty side of the fence agree nothing has been shown to prove him unfit. BC has submitted to psych. tests and 7 hours of deposition, which incidentally is why he did not take the stand, that is why NC's family wanted to depo, Stubbs could have called BC if she had wanted. I would love to see a psychological profile on KL, since everyone seems to believe that she is a better parent than BC, and if my memory serves me correctly, she does not have children and has no experience parenting at all.

[justthinking2008]

Maconrich,

Touché, point well made, appreciate the respectful tone of your post and sorry for your past situation.

[eye_believe]

Justthinking2008..... you are "on" to something...

People often "want" what they c..'. .... period

[SleuthyGal]

I was thinking about this custody issue today (when I wasn't particularly expecting to think about this case at all). You know, so many men want nothing to do with their kids...they divorce the wife or abandon the GF and the kids are left to fend for themselves w/no father figure. So it's particularly poignant when I see men who WANT to parent and want to spend time with their kids on a daily basis. And for that reason I'm pretty sad about this Cooper situation.

Those kids need/want their father. They also need/want their extended family too. I believe it ultimately hurts the kids to not have ready access to everyone who loves them. I understand the reality here, but I'm just saying, I don't like it.

When I was growing up, fathers spent their time at work and the major child rearing was left to the mothers, by and large. My dad came home from work, expected dinner on the table, then he watched TV until after the news, and went to bed. There was a TV in every room, including the kitchen, and we kids were not allowed to talk during dinner because the news was on! (not kidding). Certainly not ideal, and I think back now and see that it was a lousy way to raise kids, but it wasn't considered anything but standard then. Today that might be considered 'unfit.' (My parents still do this--they have 4 TVs in their apt. :rolleyes: :frown:)

I'm sure the Listers are providing a loving home--I don't doubt that for a single moment. But those kids also need more frequent access to their father, at least until he's been indicted for the crime.

[MCDRAW]

The Listers may be providing a stable/nurturing environment for the children at this juncture, however, some of the testimony that Momt3kids provided is disturbing, regarding Krista Lister's CLEARLY-NO DOUBT ABOUT IT-hatred towards Brad Cooper. I understand her emotions as she believes Brad murdered her sister. Jim Lister is the one who is involved in all of interactions with the children and Brad Cooper. I get the impression that the Listers would be completely happy if these children had nothing to do with their father at all. The packages Brad sent them...did they give these to the children? The Lister attitude is if the court doesn't rule it, then tough. Telling the children's counselor that Brad Cooper murdered my sister was out there, I have hard time believing the Lister's are not disparaging their father within earshot.

I know Judge Sasser on somewhat of a personal level, as we have been members of the same church for many many years, since my children were born. She is/has been an active member of our church, serving on various committees as I have through out the years. I do believe she is doing what she feels is BEST for the girls at this juncture---I can only hope she will address what can be sent/given/pictures/drawings etc to their Dad, the supervised visitations.

I don't agree with her ruling one bit, yet. Brad Cooper has not been found to be unfit parent IMO. I look forward to reading the custody order's parameters.


The alienation of a parent is never good. Regardless, of what Brad Cooper is or is not, he is their Dad. And they love him and always will. I really think NC's family knew exactly what to say to get those children. I understand their anger but I really can't see how the judge would think that environment is better for the children.

[Albert]

You know, so many men want nothing to do with their kids...they divorce the wife or abandon the GF and the kids are left to fend for themselves w/no father figure.

Likewise, so many women want kids only to collect a larger welfare check. They have no desire for a man in their life and really don't care much for their kids as long as the welfare check arrives on time. These kids are victimized by the greed of women who want a larger welfare check.

Hopefully this comment is as outrageous as yours.

[SleuthyGal]

Why is my comment outrageous? It's absolutely true that some men want nothing to do with the kids they sire. Take a look at the court dockets to get a sense of this. I'm DEFENDING the men who do want to be with their kids--and that includes BC.

And I agree with you that some women also do not care about having an intact family for their kids and will have kids without thinking about the family unit and yes, sometimes that does include greed and the welfare check. These things do happen in our society.

Neither situation applies to the Cooper case.

[justthinking2008]

McDraw,

You are really onto to something, they knew exactly what to say and how to go about, Mr. Rentz was a social services director in Canada. BC never stood a chance and neither would any of us if a social worker came after our children.

[ncsu95]

I was thinking about this custody issue today (when I wasn't particularly expecting to think about this case at all). You know, so many men want nothing to do with their kids...they divorce the wife or abandon the GF and the kids are left to fend for themselves w/no father figure. So it's particularly poignant when I see men who WANT to parent and want to spend time with their kids on a daily basis. And for that reason I'm pretty sad about this Cooper situation.

Those kids need/want their father. They also need/want their extended family too. I believe it ultimately hurts the kids to not have ready access to everyone who loves them. I understand the reality here, but I'm just saying, I don't like it.

When I was growing up, fathers spent their time at work and the major child rearing was left to the mothers, by and large. My dad came home from work, expected dinner on the table, then he watched TV until after the news, and went to bed. There was a TV in every room, including the kitchen, and we kids were not allowed to talk during dinner because the news was on! (not kidding). Certainly not ideal, and I think back now and see that it was a lousy way to raise kids, but it wasn't considered anything but standard then. Today that might be considered 'unfit.' (My parents still do this--they have 4 TVs in their apt. :rolleyes: :frown:)

I'm sure the Listers are providing a loving home--I don't doubt that for a single moment. But those kids also need more frequent access to their father, at least until he's been indicted for the crime.


Thank you for sharing this. I know you are in the 97% guilty club, so this says a lot.

[Star12]

I was thinking about this custody issue today (when I wasn't particularly expecting to think about this case at all). You know, so many men want nothing to do with their kids...they divorce the wife or abandon the GF and the kids are left to fend for themselves w/no father figure. So it's particularly poignant when I see men who WANT to parent and want to spend time with their kids on a daily basis. And for that reason I'm pretty sad about this Cooper situation.

Those kids need/want their father. They also need/want their extended family too. I believe it ultimately hurts the kids to not have ready access to everyone who loves them. I understand the reality here, but I'm just saying, I don't like it.

When I was growing up, fathers spent their time at work and the major child rearing was left to the mothers, by and large. My dad came home from work, expected dinner on the table, then he watched TV until after the news, and went to bed. There was a TV in every room, including the kitchen, and we kids were not allowed to talk during dinner because the news was on! (not kidding). Certainly not ideal, and I think back now and see that it was a lousy way to raise kids, but it wasn't considered anything but standard then. Today that might be considered 'unfit.' (My parents still do this--they have 4 TVs in their apt. :rolleyes: :frown:)

I'm sure the Listers are providing a loving home--I don't doubt that for a single moment. But those kids also need more frequent access to their father, at least until he's been indicted for the crime.

My ex fought me tooth and nail for the girls. We were in court every 3 months. I was advised to move away because of all the harassment on all levels. Suport quit long before. He had my address and phone number. I moved out of state. After the last trip to court, after I had moved, never heard a word from him again. Not a call, birthday card, present, nothing.

Sometimes the custody battles are harassment, sometimes they are a result of pride, sometimes they want to keep control of the situation, sometimes it's the only way they can punish the ex wife, sometimes because they are wanting to keep their "possession/s", and once in a while they truly believe they would be the better parent. It's not always because they love their children. My ex called my girls "little chits" to their faces, and worse - they were female so you can guess. Same thing he called me. Now my daughter has a beautiful 2-1/2 year old daughter. She's not interested in letting her dad know.

I'm a nice person. But I do immensely hate my ex. Yet I made sure that when the girls were little they had their nightly phone calls, all their visitations and more, told my children how lucky they were to have two houses, and two parents who loved them. I can relate to Krista. She doesn't need to like BC, or even tolerate him. Her behavior in the courtroom is completely understandable to me. But that behavior was not in front of the children, and I do not believe she is anything but appropriate in front of the children.

However, did you catch the testimony that BC is pumping the girls for information about what goes on in the Lister household? When my ex's attorney was presented with evidence that he was doing the same thing he
was horrified - that is emotionally abusive to the children. Oh, and btw, my kids acted the same way with the nightly phone calls, hanging up on him, hiding in the bathroom, acting out, not responding to him. So I'm not surprised at Bella and Katie's behavior. BC is pushing the girls, pumping them, creating emotional chaos in the girls. Yes, the probably do love him, but they also love Jim and Krista. I think BC needs some lessons in appropriate behavior.

[Star12]

Likewise, so many women want kids only to collect a larger welfare check. They have no desire for a man in their life and really don't care much for their kids as long as the welfare check arrives on time. These kids are victimized by the greed of women who want a larger welfare check.

Hopefully this comment is as outrageous as yours.

I find that comment incredibly outrageous, and take offense. So you think a man should not provide for his children?

[justthinking2008]

BC has every right to know what goes on in that household, if those were my kids, I would not be pumping them, I would be outright asking them. The Listers do not have the market cornered on parenting. BTW, how do you know what goes on in that home, are you there or have you been there, just curious.

[Star12]

BC has every right to know what goes on in that household, if those were my kids, I would not be pumping them, I would be outright asking them. The Listers do not have the market cornered on parenting. BTW, how do you know what goes on in that home, are you there or have you been there, just curious.

It helps if you actually read the available material - affidavits, postings of eyewitnesses, msm articles with transcripts.

And what an odd question to ask.

[justthinking2008]

I have read all of the affidavits, why do you not lend any credence to the ones in support of Brad. Also there are no eyewitnesses to anything, just people repeating things said to them by an angry spouse about to divorce. Please point out one eyewitness account of BC being a bad parent. We have no information regarding the Lister's ability to parent, we again know nothing of them other than things that were told to affiants by NC. We do; however, have eyewitness statements of BC spending time with and playing with his children. As SG pointed out, some of the dad's today are different than the dad's of yesteryear, men typically do not get overly involved in the raising of the children, they are just not expected to unless something occurs such as the death of the mother that brings them into the forefront. The role that BC is attempting to fill is normal under the circumstances, the rest of his parenting role is fairly normal as well. Just depends on your POV.

[Albert]

I find that comment incredibly outrageous, and take offense. So you think a man should not provide for his children?

You know, so many men want nothing to do with their kids

I responded to the fact that SQ indicated so many men want nothing to do with their kids. I was just trying to keep it balanced to indicate the same is true about women.

[SleuthyGal]

As SG pointed out, some of the dad's today are different than the dad's of yesteryear, men typically do not get overly involved in the raising of the children, they are just not expected to unless something occurs such as the death of the mother that brings them into the forefront.

Actually the point I was making is that when I was a kid my father wasn't very 'active' with my brother and me (unless you count watching TV as 'active,') and back then that was pretty much the norm. I've noticed men being much more active and involved with their kids nowadays, which is a good thing. No, not all men, but certainly more than when I was growing up. I think the caretaking roles have evolved a lot since I was a child and now I see many men being as equally involved in childcare, and in some cases, perhaps even more!

SH is an example of an evolved, involved, caring father, and probably a good model to follow. Maybe BC can/will learn from him.

[SleuthyGal]

Star, you are indeed a nice person! I'm so sorry about what you had to contend with in your marriage and the ensuing custody battle. I'm glad you survived and came through intact. :smile:

[chauncey7381]

The alienation of a parent is never good. Regardless, of what Brad Cooper is or is not, he is their Dad. And they love him and always will. I really think NC's family knew exactly what to say to get those children. I understand their anger but I really can't see how the judge would think that environment is better for the children.

I've thought about this since it happened. Ummmm. When this case first broke, there was very intense media scrutiny. Having lost your wife and claiming innocence, having the CPD and everyone against you, I don't think that would have been a good environment for the children at that time. To me that is why the temporary arrangements were negotiated in the private room. I was surprised with the recent testimony from the Listers and the Rentzs.

Now that matters have calmed down, he still isn't charged, I'm truly having a hard time understanding why his children cannot be back with him presently. I sense the Listers do not want Brad Cooper to have anything to do with his children. I wasn't there in the courtroom, my opinion is only based on what I have read here and through the media (which is a good spin-cycle) so take their viewpoint with a grain of salt.

The order is still temporary. We don't know for how long, probably into 2009. As I said earlier, I hope Judge Sasser will address Brad Cooper's interactions with his children and Krista Lister's emotional feelings. Ummm, make sure the court order spells out what is and what isn't allowed!

I do wish CPD would charge/clear this guy one way or another in the near future. You gotta wonder if all the forensic evidence is still not analyzed, and if that's a underlying reason for the temporary order continuance. That's speculation on my behalf, a little Oliver Stone flows in my blood sometimes.

[chauncey7381]

However, did you catch the testimony that BC is pumping the girls for information about what goes on in the Lister household?

No, I didn't, do you have a link? Is this in Momt3Kids notes? I'm sure Judge Sasser will make that determination when viewing the webcam sessions.

[chauncey7381]

Unless BC is charged with a crime or even noted as a person of interest these children should be returned to him immediately.

That's my current sentiment. Waiting to read Sasser's order.


Is not fair to the children to be taken away from their home, toys, friends, familiar surroundings and to be placed in an area totally foreign to them.

They are young, their mindset is on toys, dolls, other kids their age etc., maybe they are being told their on vacation for a bit. Who knows. They may not remember any of this, when it's resolved, especially the younger one. I do think the Listers and Rentzs are providing well for the children, it's the emotions they harbor towards Brad that is troubling.

KL is not promoting a relationship with BC thru her own selfish motives, and I think this speaks volumes regarding her personality. If and when the children are returned to their father they may be wary of him, if KL has made them believe he killed their mother. Also BC may have been an absentee father who was interested in furthering his education to provide better for the family, or had some temporary obsession with physical training for a competition, but that does not make him a bad dad. Even the people that are on the guilty side of the fence agree nothing has been shown to prove him unfit. BC has submitted to psych. tests and 7 hours of deposition, which incidentally is why he did not take the stand, that is why NC's family wanted to depo, Stubbs could have called BC if she had wanted. I would love to see a psychological profile on KL, since everyone seems to believe that she is a better parent than BC, and if my memory serves me correctly, she does not have children and has no experience parenting at all.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I CONCUR! I said this a long time ago, the in-laws should submit to one too. I think one could argue they might have some anger issues!

[wirehair]

Most parents do not have any parenting experience until the day they bring their baby home from the hospital. Most parents have learned parenting skills from their own parents....good or bad. The majority of the time when a dad picks his child up from school he doesn't even know which teacher's room to have paged. Most likely the aunt was raised in a very loving home and is passing this on to the care of the two lovely girls.

[TXredhead178]

Star, I've had a very similar experience as yours re: my ex-spouse and my children. Kudos to you for taking the high road and doing right by your kids! Because of the 2-year-long custody battle I went through, and the antics of my ex- and his new wife, I'm very cognizant of and sensitive to the issue of parental alienation and the devastating effects it has on children. And I agree it's possible to dislike one's ex-spouse yet remain very supportive of the kids' relationship with them. It's a function of one's level of maturity, in my opinion.

As far as the Cooper case, it seems to me it would be in the best interest of the children, who are dealing with the devastating loss of their mother, to have as much of their family as possible available to them. It's unfortunate that everyone involved lives so far apart. I honestly don't know what's best in this situation. The first temporary change in custody was understandable under the circumstances, but as time goes on and a suspect in NC's death has yet to be named, I'm starting to question whether it remains in the girls' best interests to be separated from their father. I'm hoping the detials of Judge Sasser's latest ruling will shed more light on all of this.

[eye_believe]

dear justthinking2008, you were on to something yesterday?

concerning K (emotions & motives)
people often desperately want what they c..'t ....

[jilly]

Justthinking2008..... you are "on" to something...

People often "want" what they c..'. .... period

dear justthinking2008, you were on to something yesterday?

concerning K (emotions & motives)
people often desperately want what they c..'t ....

What's your point?:confused:

[Jess]

It appears to me that Brad acted, as he always acted, in the fight for custody of the girls. He used money. Never once did we hear any emotion, an "I love them, miss them, need them," I think to him, the fact that he was paying lawyers,being questioned and submitting to a psych evaluation, was enough.To him, these things proved that he wanted his girls. Maybe this is the only way he knows ?? Family upbringing ??( and perhaps that is how he was with Nancy. He 'gave' her things, but perhaps was not emotionally intimate with her?)

The Rentz's and Listers appear to be passionate, showing all their emotions. However I do believe that they are following the ruling of the judge. I do not believe, no matter what others think, that they are dissing their father.I do not believe that Krista is replacing their mother. why else would Bella ask about Nancy? She knows they are two different people.

How fortunate for the girls that at this time in their lives, they are surrounded by demonstratively loving people. Children have to be shown love -- the words are not enough.

No one knows what the future holds for these little girls . It is all so sad.

[tarheellvr]

You miss the point, regardless of KL's parenting abilities or lack thereof, these girls have a biological parent that loves them ,wants them, and has experience with them, knows their likes and dislikes, even if he had to write it down, they should be at home with BC, time for vacation to end.

Thank God Nancy's girls had Judge Sasser as their adversary!

At home with BC.......but of course let them live with the suspected murderer of their mother, after all he is their biological father. For the life of me, I can't understand this line of thinking.

Yes, he knows them. Want them? Love them? How do we know....he sure as hell never said so in court when he had the chance. Even in his disposition never ONCE did he say I LOVE MY DAUGHTERS. Never ONCE did he say I LOVE MY WIFE.

Bella and Katie are where they should be. We'll find out soon enough how and why Judge Sasser made her decision. Even then, I'm quite sure there will STILL be the BC whinners.

[SleuthyGal]

Thank God Nancy's girls had Judge Sasser as their adversary!

At home with BC.......but of course let them live with the suspected murderer of their mother, after all he is their biological father. For the life of me, I can't understand this line of thinking.

Yes, he knows them. Want them? Love them? How do we know....he sure as hell never said so in court when he had the chance. Even in his disposition never ONCE did he say I LOVE MY DAUGHTERS. Never ONCE did he say I LOVE MY WIFE.

Bella and Katie are where they should be. We'll find out soon enough how and why Judge Sasser made her decision. Even then, I'm quite sure there will STILL be the BC whinners.

Hi THL,

I think you mean advocate.

As you know I believe BC likely did the deed, but I do think the state needs to prove it (and I personally want to see what evidence links him to the crime). I'm also a believer in constitutional rights, which is why I can't just say 'fry him.' So you know my viewpoint.

Anyway, a couple of points: the deposition was plaintiff's lawyers asking questions and they controlled what got asked. I don't recall them ever asking BC about his feelings towards anything. If they did, I missed it. He could have interjected his feelings for his daughters I suppose, and he didn't, but neither was he asked.

As you know, he didn't take the stand at the custody hearing; whether that was his call, his lawyers' call or a joint decision I don't know. He did declare in his affy that he "loved Nancy very much" and "wanted the marriage to work." He also talked about the kids and that he told them many times a day, "I love you." So there is 'testimony' there, since affy's are entered into the record and are part of what the judge looks at.

This removal of kids from a custodial parent is a complicated one...not so much if there is abuse or a parent is unfit, because that is a much easier call--in fact, it's a no-brainer. But neither abuse nor unfitness was obvious in this case. It wasn't demonstrated at the hearing, so it would have to come down to what the judge saw in the rest of the materials that made her decide the way she did. When I left the courtroom that day, I thought custody of the kids might well return to BC.

Merging the crime w/parental fitness, before there's been any criminal case movement, seems strange to me...perhaps because that's not the order one normally sees in these situations.

[justthinking2008]

Jilly,

The indication is maybe KL cannot have children of her own, so she wants someone else's children. At lot of times this is the premise for adoption. People try for years to have children and cannot, so they turn to adoption. I am not saying this is always the reason for adoption, but according to research 75% to 80% of adoptive parents are reproductively challenged.

Jess,

Did you read any of the affidavits in favor of BC, they all say he was a loving parent, and regardless of how passionate the Listers and the Rentz are, these children belong with their father. The one thing I can see they are really passionate about is ruining the relationship BC has with his children, IMO. Also I do not believe those little girls will ever cross the border again, I believe KL will never turn them over no matter what any judge says.

Tarheel,

He did say he loved his wife and he said he loves his girls, please read affidavits and watch deposition, I am not a BC whiner, I do not know if he is the murderer or not, all I know for sure is he has not been charged or named a person of interest.


SG,

As usual well said, I think by the time this case is over there is going to be some sort of strange twist, something that no one has thought of that will prove the murderer, will that be BC, I do not know, unfortunately we will have to wait and see.

[chauncey7381]

dear justthinking2008, you were on to something yesterday?

concerning K (emotions & motives)
people often desperately want what they c..'t ....

Gotcha EB. KL wants children and her affliction with Crohns may be the reason she "cannot or will not" due to potential risks.

[Jess]

Oh yes, I watched the taped deposition and read all the affidavits. It was an open ended question to which he replied a( I want to see my girls and I believe with some 'prompting' by the questioner, b) to help in the investigation into Nancy's murder.

I BELIEVE those that were at the hearing that nothing negative came up about his parenting skills. Nowhere did I write that I thought Brad was a bad or unloving father. I do think he was unemotional and that just might be his makeup.

If the court orders the girls back to NC and back with their father, I believe that the Rentz's and Listers' will comply.

Time will tell,

[chauncey7381]

The indication is maybe KL cannot have children of her own, so she wants someone else's children.

Not just someone elses, she would LOVE to raise her sister's children. NO DOUBT in my mind about that.

Also I do not believe those little girls will ever cross the border again, I believe KL will never turn them over no matter what any judge says.

Would she not be bound by international law to do such. Aren't there custodial laws in place between Canada /USA to prevent that her from not complying with the US ruling.



I think by the time this case is over there is going to be some sort of strange twist, something that no one has thought of that will prove the murderer, will that be BC, I do not know, unfortunately we will have to wait and see.

I believe it will get solved and that it will be a shocker to many. I'm the opposite of Sleuthy Gal, 97% sure Brad Cooper is innocent.

[ncsu95]

It appears to me that Brad acted, as he always acted, in the fight for custody of the girls. He used money. Never once did we hear any emotion, an "I love them, miss them, need them," I think to him, the fact that he was paying lawyers,being questioned and submitting to a psych evaluation, was enough.To him, these things proved that he wanted his girls. Maybe this is the only way he knows ?? Family upbringing ??( and perhaps that is how he was with Nancy. He 'gave' her things, but perhaps was not emotionally intimate with her?)

The Rentz's and Listers appear to be passionate, showing all their emotions. However I do believe that they are following the ruling of the judge. I do not believe, no matter what others think, that they are dissing their father.I do not believe that Krista is replacing their mother. why else would Bella ask about Nancy? She knows they are two different people.

How fortunate for the girls that at this time in their lives, they are surrounded by demonstratively loving people. Children have to be shown love -- the words are not enough.

No one knows what the future holds for these little girls . It is all so sad.

Lack of emotion in a public setting doesn't mean jack.

[ncsu95]

Hi THL,

I think you mean advocate.

As you know I believe BC likely did the deed, but I do think the state needs to prove it (and I personally want to see what evidence links him to the crime). I'm also a believer in constitutional rights, which is why I can't just say 'fry him.' So you know my viewpoint.

Anyway, a couple of points: the deposition was plaintiff's lawyers asking questions and they controlled what got asked. I don't recall them ever asking BC about his feelings towards anything. If they did, I missed it. He could have interjected his feelings for his daughters I suppose, and he didn't, but neither was he asked.

As you know, he didn't take the stand at the custody hearing; whether that was his call, his lawyers' call or a joint decision I don't know. He did declare in his affy that he "loved Nancy very much" and "wanted the marriage to work." He also talked about the kids and that he told them many times a day, "I love you." So there is 'testimony' there, since affy's are entered into the record and are part of what the judge looks at.

This removal of kids from a custodial parent is a complicated one...not so much if there is abuse or a parent is unfit, because that is a much easier call--in fact, it's a no-brainer. But neither abuse nor unfitness was obvious in this case. It wasn't demonstrated at the hearing, so it would have to come down to what the judge saw in the rest of the materials that made her decide the way she did. When I left the courtroom that day, I thought custody of the kids might well return to BC.

Merging the crime w/parental fitness, before there's been any criminal case movement, seems strange to me...perhaps because that's not the order one normally sees in these situations.


There you go tarheellvr...that is not from a "BC whiner". This is from someone who believes he is guilty...but understands that BC has rights. Also, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not a court of public opinion. It's an absolute travesty that the family court has temporarily taken away his kids.

[jumpstreet]

[....] Neither abuse nor unfitness was obvious in this case. It wasn't demonstrated at the hearing, so it would have to come down to what the judge saw in the rest of the materials that made her decide the way she did. When I left the courtroom that day, I thought custody of the kids might well return to BC.


Based on what we currently know (even from folks that we in the courtroom), it seems the judge has either made the wrong (legal) decision, or is privy to information that (even those in the courtroom) weren't privy too.

How about this thought: The judge has no earthly idea whether BC did it or not (even with all the information she has at her disposal). She can either give him the kids, or not. If she gives the kids to the in-laws and she's wrong, the worst that will happen is she'll get reversed on appeal. If she gives the kids to BC and she's wrong (ie, he's the killer, and is potentially never brought to trial, etc), the judge may view this as worse.

While there may be no legal basis for the decision, perhaps the judge is (intentionally) trying to err on the side of 'caution', even if it indeed means (temporarily) doing an injustice to an innocent father. [ She figures if she's reversed on appeal, it wouldn't be her call anyway, and in the meantime, she doesn't have to risk having awarded custody in the wrong direction ]

Regardless, it seems odd to me that the judge gets so long to document the rationale for the decision, but I guess that's the way the crazy "system" works.

[justthinking2008]

Not just someone elses, she would LOVE to raise her sister's children. NO DOUBT in my mind about that.



Would she not be bound by international law to do such. Aren't there custodial laws in place between Canada /USA to prevent that her from not complying with the US ruling.





I believe it will get solved and that it will be a shocker to many. I'm the opposite of Sleuthy Gal, 97% sure Brad Cooper is innocent.

For sure she could not get a closer genetic match without having children herself.

She would be bound by law, but if she decides to not comply it can be a long difficult fight for BC and an expensive one, which he can hardly afford at the moment. When custody is returned to BC I think we will then see KL's true motives. I honestly believe she would contend that BC did it even if someone else confessed, in order to keep those kids. I understand removing the kids to begin with after all the media circus and police interviews, I highly disagree with how it was done, that was a circus in itself. IMO by removing the children in such a manner they were trying to make BC look bad, and they succeeded. This whole custody issue has been a well played poker hand IMO. It is crucial to remember that Rentz was a social worker he knows how to remove children from parents.

I am 80% convinced of BC's innocence and 20% on the fence, but what I am 100% sure of is, if he did not kill NC, Wake county is going to be sued to the tune of millions.:Banane27:

[SleuthyGal]

There you go tarheellvr...this if not from a "BC whiner". This is from someone who believes he is guilty...but understands that BC has rights. Also, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not a court of public opinion. It's an absolute travesty that the family court has temporarily taken away his kids. In family court I don't know that there's any presumption of "innocence," though the burden to prove a parent unfit is on the plaintiffs. The judge obviously felt she had a legal basis for the children to stay with the Rentz/Listers. It doesn't matter how angry/frustrated people get--the judge ruled for now and unless it gets overturned on appeal (if the defense appeals), it's not going to change this round. There will be future hearings, so this is not forever.

[justthinking2008]

In family court I don't know that there's any presumption of "innocence," though the burden to prove a parent unfit is on the plaintiffs. The judge obviously felt she had a legal basis for the children to stay with the Rentz/Listers. It doesn't matter how angry/frustrated people get--the judge ruled for now and unless it gets overturned on appeal (if the defense appeals), it's not going to change this round. There will be future hearings, so this is not forever.

Most of the attorney's I have spoken with are most anxious to see the judge's findings in this case. None of them think what she did had any legal basis and feel she is trying to establish new case law.

[jilly]

Jilly,

The indication is maybe KL cannot have children of her own, so she wants someone else's children. At lot of times this is the premise for adoption. People try for years to have children and cannot, so they turn to adoption. I am not saying this is always the reason for adoption, but according to research 75% to 80% of adoptive parents are reproductively challenged.


I know what the inference is and I know your position. My question was directed specifically to Eye and his/her 2 posts.

[SleuthyGal]

I do find it strange though that there is outcry when people look at the affys and see signs of BC's guilt, but the same people who will outcry at that will then turn around and imbue KL with all kinds of intent (to 'steal'/raise NC's daughters) and they have never met her or her family.

It's ironic that one can have such great imagination when it comes to seeing nefarious actions on the part of NC's family, where no evidence of such exists, but at the same time they cannot imagine BC being involved in his wife's death, even though there is some circumstantial evidence that could at least give one some pause.

What that indicates to me is an inability (or unwillingness) to look at everything (or perhaps anything) with any level of objectivity. Why the lack of objectivity? Close friend of the non-suspect? Inability to understand different perspectives?

I would hope that the one thing everyone could agree upon is that whoever is responsible for NC's murder is properly determined and appropriately punished, even if it's a close friend who did the deed. And if that is not something that is wanted or is tolerable, then I suggest that person or persons have a whole different agenda and justice is not a part of that agenda.

[jumpstreet]

The judge obviously felt she had a legal basis for the children to stay with the Rentz/Listers

Most of the attorney's I have spoken with are most anxious to see the judge's findings in this case. None of them think what she did had any legal basis and feel she is trying to establish new case law.

Per my post above, it's not clear at all to me that the judge does in fact, feel there is a legal basis. I wonder if she's just "buying some time" via waiting on the appeal. If an arrest happens between now and then, it's a moot point. If not, then well, at least she didn't take the chance of making the "wrong" decision for the girls. Theory: she feels the kids are in the "safer/better" place in the meantime, even without a strong legal basis whatsoever. She's rather get reversed on this one... than make the "wrong" decision for the girls. It's just a thought.

ETA: Now recalling someone posted that temporary custody decisions can't be appealed? Can anyone confirm whether that's true or not? If yes, then my (completely speculative) theory (as to the judge's thought-process) wouldn't really hold.

[SleuthyGal]

Most of the attorney's I have spoken with are most anxious to see the judge's findings in this case. None of them think what she did had any legal basis and feel she is trying to establish new case law. We'll see if K&B appeal the decision. The judge will be challenged if she attempted to create new case law...though she might not be overturned if such a thing happened, but she will likely be challenged. If a higher court hears the argument and decides to uphold Judge Sasser's decision, will you (all) still think it's unconstitutional/unfair/etc?

[jumpstreet]

We'll see if K&B appeal the decision. The judge will be challenged if she attempted to create new case law...though she might not be overturned if such a thing happened, but she will likely be challenged. If a higher court hears the argument and decides to uphold Judge Sasser's decision, will you (all) still think it's unconstitutional/unfair/etc?

If the US Supreme Court ends up hearing it, and agreeing with Judge Sasser, then I would say yes, it would seem to lend some credibility to her decision... :)

Until then... and especially until we see the rationale... it seems reasonable to want to understand more about her decision.

[SleuthyGal]

If the US Supreme Court ends up hearing it, and agreeing with Judge Sasser, then I would say yes, it would seem to lend some credibility to her decision... :)

Until then... and especially until we see the rationale... it seems reasonable to want to understand more about her decision.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US Supreme court is not going to hear this case. However, there are 2 more levels of courts in NC: the Court of Appeals and then the State Supreme Court. There are no further appeals past the State Supreme Court, and at that level they only rule on judicial error.

[PhoneBoothBandit]

I think the opposing testimony from the two psychologists is significant. One implies that Brad is not typically 'angry' but tends to withdraw from emotional experiences... While the other claims that Brad has anxiety issues which manifest into anger.

The fact Brad didn't take the stand holds a lot of weight too. Obviously the Judge had to decide who would be the best caretaker for the children at this time, how is that ever going to be achieved when she can't even heard from Brad? That was a very stupid move IMO.

In deciding what is best for the children she probably relied heavily upon the fact that since their mother was found dead, the children have been in the care of Nancy's family and wanted to enforce some stability there.

I'm eagerly awaiting the findings.

[MCDRAW]

We'll see if K&B appeal the decision. The judge will be challenged if she attempted to create new case law...though she might not be overturned if such a thing happened, but she will likely be challenged. If a higher court hears the argument and decides to uphold Judge Sasser's decision, will you (all) still think it's unconstitutional/unfair/etc?


I will still believe it's unconstitutional unless he was proven an unfit parent. Innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't even been arrested yet. It looks like they are going to punish him any way by taking his children away. I say, arrest him, convict him, then take custody away.

[momto3kids]

I think the opposing testimony from the two psychologists is significant. One implies that Brad is not typically 'angry' but tends to withdraw from emotional experiences... While the other claims that Brad has anxiety issues which manifest into anger.

The fact Brad didn't take the stand holds a lot of weight too. Obviously the Judge had to decide who would be the best caretaker for the children at this time, how is that ever going to be achieved when she can't even heard from Brad? That was a very stupid move IMO.

In deciding what is best for the children she probably relied heavily upon the fact that since their mother was found dead, the children have been in the care of Nancy's family and wanted to enforce some stability there.

I'm eagerly awaiting the findings.

I feel exactly the same way and said when I left the courthouse he needed to take the stand. There are many times in our lives we don't want to subject ourselves to things that we are uncomfortable with, but this is 1 time if any he needed to do it.

The judge needed to hear what his intentions were for the girls and their future living conditions. Such as...working from home, staying in the same school with their friends, same neighborhood, ballet, etc. This is what KL did and the courts needed to hear it from him....how the girl's were going to be cared for. He didn't do it!

This was his opportunity to show his emotion and tell the courts how much he loved his girl's and wanted them back...He didn't do it!

IMO, it hurt him. I wonder if he knew this would be the decision if he would have taken it on the 16th? It surely couldn't have hurt him any worse than it did with the outcome he got.

[PhoneBoothBandit]

You're not found guilty or not guilty in a Family Court in respect to child custody arrangements. In a custody dispute, parents/caregivers can argue emotional abandonment, neglect, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, so on and so forth ... you don't have to be found 'guilty' of those crimes for them to be taken into consideration, because if they are not prosecuted, they remain allegations.

I think the speculation put forth about Brad being Nancy's killer is valid in this case - this case isn't about his guilt, but rather about his ability to be the best caregiver in light of the argument against his parenting abilities. The primary interests in custody cases are the best interests of the children. It's unfortunate that the best interests of the child aren't with their father considering they have lost their mother, however this may not have been the outcome had he took the stand.

[reddress58]

I do find it strange though that there is outcry when people look at the affys and see signs of BC's guilt, but the same people who will outcry at that will then turn around and imbue KL with all kinds of intent (to 'steal'/raise NC's daughters) and they have never met her or her family.

It's ironic that one can have such great imagination when it comes to seeing nefarious actions on the part of NC's family, where no evidence of such exists, but at the same time they cannot imagine BC being involved in his wife's death, even though there is some circumstantial evidence that could at least give one some pause.

What that indicates to me is an inability (or unwillingness) to look at everything (or perhaps anything) with any level of objectivity. Why the lack of objectivity? Close friend of the non-suspect? Inability to understand different perspectives?

I would hope that the one thing everyone could agree upon is that whoever is responsible for NC's murder is properly determined and appropriately punished, even if it's a close friend who did the deed. And if that is not something that is wanted or is tolerable, then I suggest that person or persons have a whole different agenda and justice is not a part of that agenda.
Probably the best post I've read in months on this site. SG, this is exactly what I was thinking and trying to find words to express. As usual, you did and did it better than I could ever have. Thanks.

(my bolding for emphasis of my thoughts)

[Maja]

IMO, BC's lawyers have noted all along his inability to express real emotion and, in fact, his lack of it may do worse harm than good. Additionally, it may very well be it wouldn't "look good" for BC (via lawyers) to make it appear he was fighting for custody, when in reality he deeply knew he couldn't handle being the sole custodian alone and the suggestion his mother come help out didn't appeal to him either as he would perhaps be trapped with her. From what I gather, he may feel intimidated by her. But it looked good to suggest it to the court.

All in all, it appears BC is a deeply wounded man. His apparent lack of respect for life (Jennifer Windsor Ball's affidavit where she describes the events around her grandfather dying and BC not only didn't come to her but was gone three days, his described lack of evident emotional support during the loss of five babies during pregnancy, his non-presence at the memorial in Cary or Canada - despite "what everyone might think", his lack of visible emotion to date) really are deeply concerning to me.

When the decision to grant temporary custody to NC's family was announced, it just took my breath away and brought a tingling sense of peace to me, I didn't even know NC, but after following EVERY detail of this story since the day she was announced missing until this moment, I understand the passionate push for the right thing to be done in terms of her little ladies being in the next-best place.

[SleuthyGal]

Probably the best post I've read in months on this site. SG, this is exactly what I was thinking and trying to find words to express. As usual, you did and did it better than I could ever have. Thanks.

(my bolding for emphasis of my thoughts)

Awww thanks, Reddress! That made my day. :blowkiss:

[raeann]

It is very wrong to assume that the lack of emotional EXPRESSION equals a lack of respect for life or a lack of FEELING of emotion. Everyone responds differently to stress and tragedy, and no one has a right to say how anyone else MUST react or express themselves in any certain circumstance. I can understand that some might prefer that another person become distraught or tearful or hysterical over an event, because that is how they feel that they themselves would react. However, that does not mean that it is WRONG for someone to be stoic or quiet or withdrawn. For many people, grief is a highly personal thing, and showing it in front of others only makes the experience more painful.

[Maja]

It is very wrong to assume that the lack of emotional EXPRESSION equals a lack of respect for life or a lack of FEELING of emotion. Everyone responds differently to stress and tragedy, and no one has a right to say how anyone else MUST react or express themselves in any certain circumstance. I can understand that some might prefer that another person become distraught or tearful or hysterical over an event, because that is how they feel that they themselves would react. However, that does not mean that it is WRONG for someone to be stoic or quiet or withdrawn. For many people, grief is a highly personal thing, and showing it in front of others only makes the experience more painful.

You make a great point Reann. I am aware some are "blowers" and some are "stuffers" when it comes to dealing with challenges. However, the eyes are the windows to the soul and I've come to believe it's near impossible for them now to show indicators of what's going on inside. For me, it has been the overall look in BC's eyes. IMO he really has a very cold/distant look about him. Again, IMHO, BC is a deeply troubled man.

[shack]

You make a great point Reann. I am aware some are "blowers" and some are "stuffers" when it comes to dealing with challenges. However, the eyes are the windows to the soul and I've come to believe it's near impossible for them now to show indicators of what's going on inside. For me, it has been the overall look in BC's eyes. IMO he really has a very cold/distant look about him. Again, IMHO, BC is a deeply troubled man.


Of course he is a deeply troubled man. What man wouldn't be troubled. His wife was murdered LE thinks you did it. Now add to that his in -laws stab him in the back and take his children. Are you expecting him to have a twinkle in his eyes?

[justthinking2008]

Of course he is a deeply troubled man. What man wouldn't be troubled. His wife was murdered LE thinks you did it. Now add to that his in -laws stab him in the back and take his children. Are you expecting him to have a twinkle in his eyes?

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Not everyone shows emotion, that does mean that person does not care. I did not cry at mother's or father's funeral, my mother taught me not to cry or show emotion in public, she thought it was a mark of poor breeding. I do not like to be touched by people I do not know, nor do I touch people I do not know. I do not hold my husband's hand in public or put on any other public displays of affection or emotion, I just do not feel it is appropriate. I can fully understand BC's attitude and lack of emotional displays I would be no different. In the privacy of my own home I am very loving and affectionate with my husband and my children, but that is our place and time. So for all you huggy, warm and fuzzy folks, not all of us appreciate that kind of attention or even want it.

[Maja]

Of course he is a deeply troubled man. What man wouldn't be troubled. His wife was murdered LE thinks you did it. Now add to that his in -laws stab him in the back and take his children. Are you expecting him to have a twinkle in his eyes?


Shack,

You make an excellent point of drawing on the current events in BC's life. My personal assessment includes a chronology past behaviors as well as current. As articulated in my previous post where I highlighted my course of reasoning and how I came to my assertion he has been deeply troubled for a LONG time; perhaps his whole life.

[Maja]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Not everyone shows emotion, that does mean that person does not care. I did not cry at mother's or father's funeral, my mother taught me not to cry or show emotion in public, she thought it was a mark of poor breeding. I do not like to be touched by people I do not know, nor do I touch people I do not know. I do not hold my husband's hand in public or put on any other public displays of affection or emotion, I just do not feel it is appropriate. I can fully understand BC's attitude and lack of emotional displays I would be no different. In the privacy of my own home I am very loving and affectionate with my husband and my children, but that is our place and time. So for all you huggy, warm and fuzzy folks, not all of us appreciate that kind of attention or even want it.


Justthinking2008

I appreciate you articulating your personal experience with emotion/affection and how you express it. While you are not alone in how you show emotion, I cannot believe your eyes did not show any emotion (not necessarily in the form of tears either). I'm surmising if you were to ask someone close to you if they could see pain in your eyes at your mom and dad's funeral, they would say your countenance spoke. I can also imagine your eyes speak tenderness in public although you choose not to be physically expressive.

In BC's case there has been a haunting lack of expression in his eyes or otherwise. I would think at some point during the 7 hour video dep. he would have had pause for the "lump in the throat" moment, at least. I appreciate a forum where I can express my assessment/thoughts on this case.

Thank you again Justthinking2008, your perspective is valuable and I appreciate your views and wisdom.

[RaleighNC]

so - what's changed between when he AGREED to have the children with NC's family and now where he "wants" them back?

Certainly early on - he didn't necessarily feel that his inlaws were stabbing him in the back - because he let them take her. He also wasn't looked at as suspiciously as he is now.

IMO what has changed is that he's gone from "Husband of murdered woman" (sympathetic) to potential suspect (not sympathetic) So - trying to get kids back as "good father being wronged by family court system" could swing things back (to sympathetic).

I believe that he's using custody to force the hand of law enforcement and this legal issue is only a dry run for the legal battle - thus the unwillingness to take the stand and testify.

Sadly, I don't believe he sees this as about the girls, at all.

[SleuthyGal]

so - what's changed between when he AGREED to have the children with NC's family and now where he "wants" them back?

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information. The ultimate answer to this conspiracy may in fact lie in the world of Faye Resnick.

[shack]

Shack,

You make an excellent point of drawing on the current events in BC's life. My personal assessment includes a chronology past behaviors as well as current. As articulated in my previous post where I highlighted my course of reasoning and how I came to my assertion he has been deeply troubled for a LONG time; perhaps his whole life.

I wasn't aware that you knew him before and had the opportunity to look into his eyes. It was the look in his eyes that convinced you he is a very troubled person wasn't it?

[RaleighNC]

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information.

I can't get 4 people to agree on dinner and yet we've seen this plot masterminded internationally. :eek: These folks are missing their calling - I am thinking world domination and not just custody of a couple of minors.....

Thanks for the smile today. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

[jumpstreet]

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information. The ultimate answer to this conspiracy may in fact lie in the world of Faye Resnick.

Not sure why, but for some reason, this theory seems incomplete with including the lady in the floppy hat...

[reddress58]

I can't get 4 people to agree on dinner and yet we've seen this plot masterminded internationally. :eek: These folks are missing their calling - I am thinking world domination and not just custody of a couple of minors.....

Thanks for the smile today. :clap::clap::clap::clap:


...more of a side-splitting laugh for me! :Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie:

[momto3kids]

Not sure why, but for some reason, this theory seems incomplete with including the lady in the floppy hat...
What's so sad about this theory is some actually believe it.
Kudos SG!

[momto3kids]

Some have also mentioned they think this was NOT NC body that was found and a coverup to get her to Canada.
So SG, toss the ME and LE into your conspiracy theory. :clap:

[SleuthyGal]

I'm just utilizing what has been provided by various WS correspondents in seeing the big picture here. The fickle finger of fate points anywhere (and everywhere). It simply must; there is no reasonable scenario that can include the husband's involvement. Nefarious, I say! A dastardly conspiracy of epic proportions.
http://cdn-www.answerbag.com/images/avatars/50/216005_1194280529.gif

[piedmont]

BC may be guilty, but what I've seen in his eyes is sadness. I'm sure there's plenty of anger and resentment in there too.

If I've got him somewhat figured out-public displays of emotion would be the last thing he'd want to do and would greatly resent being expected to do that. Not sure he would allow himself to feel much of anything except anger.

[momto3kids]

BC doesn't have to shed tears in order to express emotion. Emotion comes in many more forms than tears. Body language, words spoken, facial expression and responses displays emotion as well.

BC needed to get on the stand. Tell the court what his intent is when he gets his girl's back, what arrangements have been made, including both families in their lives, why he agreed to let them go to Canada in July, how he can't wait for his webcam visits to see them again....all the time he has his head tilted down and obvious to us he is hurting. They show him a picture of Bella & Katie and he smiles to say how much he misses them in his life. No tears, just moving testimony.

We have all done things we absolutely dreaded, but this is one time he had to put those feelings to the side and do what ever it took to get those girl's back.

It might, just might have changed his outcome, IMO.

[Skittles]

Breaking news. Brad indicted by grand jury. There's a thread started already.

[reddress58]

What do ya know, SG. Your words today obviously will have put a few people in their places. I am so thankful for CPD, for the sake of Bella, Katie and the whole Rentz clan.

[SleuthyGal]

Wow. I was just making an observation and of course being snarky.

[momto3kids]

Hi there RaleighNC,

Well the spin on this is that the intense media glare and initial rush of LE, combined with BC's grief was such that it wouldn't have been healthy for the girls to be in Cary, so BC graciously and generously agreed to extend the temp custody until the initial onslaught passed. This action has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with any potential criminal case and was definitely not done to bypass any legal issue relating to a criminal investigation.

However, since the bright glare seems to have subsided a bit, BC is ready to assume/resume full custody, and now those evil Rentz/Lister families are trying to either replace Nancy altogether by keeping custody of the girls {this makes no sense} or outright steal the girls because {insert strange reasoning that has to do with KL's ability to have kids or not, based on wild speculation of KL's fertility}. Of course this was the nefarious/hidden plan all along {wink/wink}, and it's just so convenient that NC was murdered so this devious plan could finally be put into action.

Obviously the judge is in on this conspiracy and is fully in collusion with the plaintiffs, as is the State of North Carolina, the entire U.S., and perhaps the entire country of Canada. It might include Al Qaeda, but that's not been determined yet since the CIA has been unresponsive in answering requests for information. The ultimate answer to this conspiracy may in fact lie in the world of Faye Resnick.

I am still LMAO :floorlaugh: with your post! The ludicrous thoughts some have :bang:
But, IMO it is coming from BC camp who believes this.:rolleyes:

[momto3kids]

And WHO made it this way Mr Cooper :confused:
Is reality starting to settle in? :boohoo:
Do you realize this :behindbar is your new home?:clap:

EDMONTON - Brad Cooper is more concerned about being away from his daughters than his arrest for the murder of his wife, one of his lawyers says.

"He is very sad," said Seth Blum, who is representing Cooper alongside lawyer Howard Kurtz. "He is certainly concerned for what's happening to him, but his greatest concern is that he is not with his daughters."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=d0f33237-c105-4905-a5b5-f026e8887939

[CyberPro]

And WHO made it this way Mr Cooper :confused:
Is reality starting to settle in? :boohoo:
Do you realize this :behindbar is your new home?:clap:

EDMONTON - Brad Cooper is more concerned about being away from his daughters than his arrest for the murder of his wife, one of his lawyers says.

"He is very sad," said Seth Blum, who is representing Cooper alongside lawyer Howard Kurtz. "He is certainly concerned for what's happening to him, but his greatest concern is that he is not with his daughters."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=d0f33237-c105-4905-a5b5-f026e8887939

{bolding is mine}

Ok Kiddies, we are going to have a test now.... please get out your phonetic alphabet chart and look up the following reference:

Bravo Sierra (BS)

CyberPro

[momto3kids]

{bolding is mine}

Ok Kiddies, we are going to have a test now.... please get out your phonetic alphabet chart and look up the following reference:

Bravo Sierra (BS)

CyberPro

Now I have to clean up the coffee I have spit all over my laptop!

[sunflowers]

BC doesn't have to shed tears in order to express emotion. Emotion comes in many more forms than tears. Body language, words spoken, facial expression and responses displays emotion as well.

BC needed to get on the stand. Tell the court what his intent is when he gets his girl's back, what arrangements have been made, including both families in their lives, why he agreed to let them go to Canada in July, how he can't wait for his webcam visits to see them again....all the time he has his head tilted down and obvious to us he is hurting. They show him a picture of Bella & Katie and he smiles to say how much he misses them in his life. No tears, just moving testimony.

We have all done things we absolutely dreaded, but this is one time he had to put those feelings to the side and do what ever it took to get those girl's back.

It might, just might have changed his outcome, IMO.

With most people, it's absolutely the right thing to put the person on the stand. For some reason, his attorneys quite consciously decided not to put him on the stand, and also not to put his famlly on the stand. It's so totally strange that he wasn't put on the stand---tells me that his lawyers, for some reason that was clearly thought out, didn't want him testifying.

i don't think it was brad's decision, but rather the wisdom of his attorneys.

perhaps, just perhaps, the real concern has been masked behind all of the platitudes of his attorneys about wanting his children, and the real concern was not the custody, but rather being implicated in murdering his wife while he was testifying about the kids.

the attorneys directed what happened in that hearing. if i were brad, i would defer to whatever they said within reason because they're the experts and i need their wisdom to navigate this custody/murder defense maze

[ncsu95]

With most people, it's absolutely the right thing to put the person on the stand. For some reason, his attorneys quite consciously decided not to put him on the stand, and also not to put his famlly on the stand. It's so totally strange that he wasn't put on the stand---tells me that his lawyers, for some reason that was clearly thought out, didn't want him testifying.

i don't think it was brad's decision, but rather the wisdom of his attorneys.

perhaps, just perhaps, the real concern has been masked behind all of the platitudes of his attorneys about wanting his children, and the real concern was not the custody, but rather being implicated in murdering his wife while he was testifying about the kids.

the attorneys directed what happened in that hearing. if i were brad, i would defer to whatever they said within reason because they're the experts and i need their wisdom to navigate this custody/murder defense maze


I agree completely.

[SeriouslySearching]

Originally posted by Momto3kids: EDMONTON - Brad Cooper is more concerned about being away from his daughters than his arrest for the murder of his wife, one of his lawyers says.

"He is very sad," said Seth Blum, who is representing Cooper alongside lawyer Howard Kurtz. "He is certainly concerned for what's happening to him, but his greatest concern is that he is not with his daughters."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...5-f026e8887939And if you believe this from the defense team, I have a lovely bridge for sale...

If you think for one second that he is more concerned with the girls than his arrest...think again! It is and always will be about Brad.

People like Brad don't relate to emotional issues such as the "love for his girls". The loss he is feeling is just that...he lost. It is about possession instead of love, imo.

Btw~ The reason Brad could not be put on the stand is because it could cross over into incriminating testimony as to why the children are there in the first place, imo.

[raisincharlie]

And if you believe this from the defense team, I have a lovely bridge for sale...

If you think for one second that he is more concerned with the girls than his arrest...think again! It is and always will be about Brad.

People like Brad don't relate to emotional issues such as the "love for his girls". The loss he is feeling is just that...he lost. It is about possession instead of love, imo.

Btw~ The reason Brad could not be put on the stand is because it could cross over into incriminating testimony as to why the children are there in the first place, imo.

SS - on this issue I totally agree with you. Of note, in April Brad could not wait for Nancy and the girls to leave - he didn't want to see them again, he just wanted them gone. What changed his mind was a separation agreement which involved money. Pretty dramatic turn around by Brad following that - the super dad act begins. The vacation Nancy and the girls took the week before Nancy was murdered was taken at High Rock Lake and Hilton Head, for some reason Brad was unaware of that and thought they were at Lake Norman - kinda close but no cigar. Obviously he didn't care to find out where they were actually going, he had a garage and a car to clean up instead.

To me this whole custody issue was about two things - one, control as you state. The second IMO is spite. He wanted the kids back so he could hand them over to his Mother who has been staying with him for most of time since the murder. In his deposition he states his Mother was to return in October prepared to stay up to one year. No way did he want the Rentz's, Nancy's family, to have those children. The first hearing was a game, the second hearing was a bit more serious but in the first case - Brad agreed to this arrangement outside of a court room. In the second case he was just plain too chicken to get on the stand and fight for his kids. It is obvious from that fact alone, his major concern was for himself and not for his kids. I don't buy his whinning nor his lawyers whinning - as Cyber Pro pointed out - Bravo Sierra = BS.

[fran]

FWIW, I don't have a link as to which affidavit it is, but the way Brad talked about Krista (Nancy's twin) and how she was afflicted with the same medical condition as Nancy (chrones disease) and how it would effect her and make it impossible for her to appropriately take care of the children, gives me great pause.

Was this a glimpse into the type of treatment Brad gave his wife when she'd be ill because of a flare-up of symptoms? Was he as hostile, or more so (as everyone knows abusers hide behind closed doors) with Nancy?

Although it is hear-say from NC's friends as to the treatment BC and his mom inflicted on her during a recent visit where NC was ill, these statements about Krista give more credance to the 'friends' and the believeablity of NC's statements about BC being controlling and uncaring, etc as NOT being 'imbellished,'........ but truth!

IMHO, when the judge made her decision, I'm sure she took these various statements by BC and NC's friends and compared them. This shows a jekyl/hyde personality for BC, imho. NOT to mention, as others have stated, 'control issues!'

JMHO
fran

[SleuthyGal]

I was remembering the questioning of Krista on the stand and her being asked how she felt about the girls seeing Brad in the future and she said that wouldn't be an issue because he'd be in JAIL (and the emphatic way she said it and the collective gasp/churtling of the gallery). She was right...we just didn't realize how close it was to happening. She must have known it was coming soon.