Moving van at Cooper House now (11/13/08)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I too noticed the kids chairs being taken out of the house in that video. I'm going to assume that the kiddie items are not going into the clutches of any of the lawyers and are being put in storage and waiting for the Lister family to pick up, because the house is being 'staged' for the upcoming sale, and thus only certain furniture will be left in the house as part of this process. I'm having trouble imagining any of the lawyers wanting to take any of the kids' things, including their furniture, even if they have a legal right to it.
 
I don't believe there has been anything shown that proves BC has lied about his version of events. Obviously there is speculation...and if he killed NC, that would be the biggest lie of all.

One of the issues of inconsistency is that Brad varies his story between his affys and his depo at different points. How does one ascertain which version of Brad's story to believe? He also claimed that he fully cooperated with police; police say that is not true and he would not come to the police station to talk with them. Brad's statements also are in conflict with those of the plaintiffs (aside from being in some conflict w/his own statements). I think by the end of this case you'll have trouble narrowing down which lies count among the worst (instead of wondering if there were any lies he told).
 
One of the issues of inconsistency is that Brad varies his story between his affys and his depo at different points. How does one ascertain which version of Brad's story to believe? He also claimed that he fully cooperated with police; police say that is not true and he would not come to the police station to talk with them. Brad's statements also are in conflict with those of the plaintiffs (aside from being in some conflict w/his own statements). I think by the end of this case you'll have trouble narrowing down which lies count among the worst (instead of wondering if there were any lies he told).

Quite possibly...I hope it is that cut and dry in the end. I don't necessarily look at inconsistencies as lies. Human memory is a complicated thing. Remembering exactly what you did is not easy to do. And some people have better long term memory than short term. I tried to think back to exactly what I did this morning, and I can't do it step by step. And I later remembered things that I forgot earlier.

Not saying that is what happened to BC....but inconsistencies don't necessarily mean lies.
 
Quite possibly...I hope it is that cut and dry in the end. I don't necessarily look at inconsistencies as lies. Human memory is a complicated thing. Remembering exactly what you did is not easy to do. And some people have better long term memory than short term. I tried to think back to exactly what I did this morning, and I can't do it step by step. And I later remembered things that I forgot earlier.

Not saying that is what happened to BC....but inconsistencies don't necessarily mean lies.


It is quite easy to remember the truth. Most people don't have trouble with that. That is why BC's memory problems are of concern.

I understand why you might not remember day to day activities, especially when they are part of your routine. But, most people can remember significant things, such as the name of their former fiance. Most people would have also mentioned other serious relationships that they have had when asked about this in the deposition. We know that he was also involved with RKAB. We are not surprised that he forgot to mention that, since she would not have given him a very good reference.

Brad has said that there was only one indiscretion that only happened once with Heather (perhaps true if you take the closet incident as the only time that counted). It took him a year to admit that to NC and much longer to give the details to his (former?) friend Scott. Brad's former colleague clarified that Brad had taken his ring off and paired off with another woman while on the France trip. Apparently, he told Celene that he was leaving his wife Nancy long before that was actually the plan. Why would this person make that up? If you look at the pictures of that trip, it is not hard to believe! This also fits with NC's friends comments about the woman that had called NC. Why would you think that the Detective is not correct in his affidavit, particularly since Brad has been arrested? Why do you assume that absolutely everyone else is possibly lying and that BC must be just mistaken? Why will you give Brad the benefit of the doubt and not take these other positions (which need to be clarified, as do Brad's) into account in your assessment of the case? That is what I don't understand.

Then there is the cleaning issue, Nancy went on a run with Carey, . . . and so on. Certainly, as I emphasized, we need more information, some clarification. I agree with you about this. That is what the trial will be for. But, I do tend to look at other views that are circulating besides BC's shifting version of events.

Anyway, you can forget about all this for a while with your daughter on the way. Tomorrow will be a memorable day! Best wishes to you!
 
One of the issues of inconsistency is that Brad varies his story between his affys and his depo at different points. How does one ascertain which version of Brad's story to believe? He also claimed that he fully cooperated with police; police say that is not true and he would not come to the police station to talk with them. Brad's statements also are in conflict with those of the plaintiffs (aside from being in some conflict w/his own statements). I think by the end of this case you'll have trouble narrowing down which lies count among the worst (instead of wondering if there were any lies he told).

SG, even if Brad's lies are not proven, and his lawyers argue that he was just mistaken at times, will the inconsistencies in his story still play a significant role in swaying a jury? Or will some of this information be ruled out and simply not make it to the trial? I'm not sure how this works.

I look forward to reading AL's book!
 
SG, even if Brad's lies are not proven, and his lawyers argue that he was just mistaken at times, will the inconsistencies in his story still play a significant role in swaying a jury? Or will some of this information be ruled out and simply not make it to the trial? I'm not sure how this works.

I look forward to reading AL's book!

Most likely every LEO Brad spoke to will be on the stand during the trial - if there are lies, they will be told (think vacuuming a gas spill maybe or cleaning the garage). There is also a possibility that portions of his deposition will be introduced for comparison. There is a significant difference between an inconsistentcy and a lie - the difference will be easily identified. The lies will have an impact on the jury, the repeated and numerous inconsistencies will raise reasonable doubt in a jury's mind as to the jailed one's truthfulness overall.
 
SG, even if Brad's lies are not proven, and his lawyers argue that he was just mistaken at times, will the inconsistencies in his story still play a significant role in swaying a jury? Or will some of this information be ruled out and simply not make it to the trial? I'm not sure how this works.

I look forward to reading AL's book!

Statements that Brad made in all his affys as well as his depo are 'game' if the prosecutors want to use any of it. If he takes the stand he will be confronted with his 'inconsistencies.' It will ultimately be up to a jury to decide what to believe or not when statements are compared to those of other witnesses who may have statements that differ--that goes for any witness who testifies. The jury is the ultimate decider of what is true. Information that is considered hearsay would not make it in (Judge Sasser dismissed such statements from her consideration, and said so).
 
LOL. This again? This one was proof positive that an anonymous person can make up pretty much any story and post it on the Internet without a shred of proof and some people will believe it.

Keep in mind that the guy who spun this yarn supported his claim by saying that his employer was a Cisco customer and that status of being a customer somehow afforded him access to people at Cisco who: 1) knew Brad's salary and bonus information and 2) would be willing to disclose that information to employees of customers.

I read back over his posts because I didn't know who you were talking about since I came on to WS later in the case, and it doesn't sound (to me) like a person who made a bunch of stuff up. He sounds extremely sincere, and he said a couple of good friends of his work for Cisco, not that his status of being a customer afforded him access to people at Cisco. I believe this guy knows what he is talking about, so I do hope this bonus is being looked into.
 
I know the bonus plan. Here it is for non-executives (of which Brad was NOT an executive) and it's not for SALES - and Brad was not SALES. Brad confirms this in his deposition. I believe that he was telling the truth - why? because it is obvious that Cisco is cooperating with the police, it's a payment that is either direct deposited (as he said his checks were) and it's virtually impossible for a regular old employee of a multi billion dollar company to "hide" money - he paid taxes, SS, probably had his whopping 1% employee stock purchase plan money taken out of it, etc. And - I believe it because it accurately reflects what I KNOW to be the Cisco bonus plan.

Overall base bonus: 14% of salary

Things that impact bonus:
Cisco's profitability, customer sat, on time ships, other performance metrics
The individual employee's performance - this is for an "average" performer. Top performers get more.

How it's paid:
7% in late Feb early March - Cisco's "mid-year"
Balance - in September - after Cisco's fiscal year close (July 31st) and performance reviews

Brad stated that his bonus for this past year (which would be Cisco's 2008 FY that ended in July - makes sense) was about $25K (don't remember the exact amount) He said it was his "total" bonus and that makes sense because that's how they sent the letters (it looks better) to state your "full year" bonus as the amount and then mention that part has already been paid. It was also right around the time he needed cash for the shrink and just prior to the depositions.... This past year, due to some cash shortages or whatever - Cisco paid 3.5% in February instead of the normal 7%. He also said he was a "top performer" - a total of about $25K is consistent with what a top performer with his base salary would have gotten in FY 2008.

The other poster is spewing WILD allegations that somehow he or his friends had access to Cisco confidential salary information. No freaking way.

Now - the other item is stock options. It is possible that Brad was issued some nice options (which are probably now worthless based on stock price) and that if they fully vested WOULD be worth $250K, or at least would have when we started talking about this in July. However, he also admitted that he had already exercised as many options as he could to pay bills (along with all the stock they bought) So - you can see how the legend of Brad's pay COULD be based in some SLIGHT reality - but not that he was cut a check for $250K. Also - he states in his depo that he is in charge of a team that does internal VoIP rollouts - NOT at customers.

He has had no trouble telling this - and what he has said is consistent to what I know to be true. it's also something to confirm very easily with a cooperative employer and since he was going through a separation - it WOULD have been discoverable. it was also very fresh in his mind because the bulk payment was recently received.

Latching on to wild and baseless assertions (like saying a Cisco customer has access to employee private data) and having that be so far off the mark from what is known and reasonable makes us look bad because it shows that we are very gullible to noncredible sources posting something that doesn't make "sense" and we run with it like it's gospel.

Not EVERYTHING he says is a lie.
 
I too noticed the kids chairs being taken out of the house in that video. I'm going to assume that the kiddie items are not going into the clutches of any of the lawyers and are being put in storage and waiting for the Lister family to pick up, because the house is being 'staged' for the upcoming sale, and thus only certain furniture will be left in the house as part of this process. I'm having trouble imagining any of the lawyers wanting to take any of the kids' things, including their furniture, even if they have a legal right to it.
SG...I would love to think that is what was occuring, but why not leave it with the other children's items that are in the garage?

If they consider this staged, they need staging lesson 101. They did total opposite to stage a home.
1-Remove the clutter, and personal items 1st and foremost.
2-Remove bulky, non-necessary or eye sore furniture next.
3-Dining room suites stay, made simple & classy, and used to help for room size purpose for potential buyers.
They took this to storage.
So I have to say it is greed, not staging at this time.
 
I know the bonus plan. Here it is for non-executives (of which Brad was NOT an executive) and it's not for SALES - and Brad was not SALES. Brad confirms this in his deposition. I believe that he was telling the truth - why? because it is obvious that Cisco is cooperating with the police, it's a payment that is either direct deposited (as he said his checks were) and it's virtually impossible for a regular old employee of a multi billion dollar company to "hide" money - he paid taxes, SS, probably had his whopping 1% employee stock purchase plan money taken out of it, etc. And - I believe it because it accurately reflects what I KNOW to be the Cisco bonus plan.

Overall base bonus: 14% of salary

Things that impact bonus:
Cisco's profitability, customer sat, on time ships, other performance metrics
The individual employee's performance - this is for an "average" performer. Top performers get more.

How it's paid:
7% in late Feb early March - Cisco's "mid-year"
Balance - in September - after Cisco's fiscal year close (July 31st) and performance reviews

Brad stated that his bonus for this past year (which would be Cisco's 2008 FY that ended in July - makes sense) was about $25K (don't remember the exact amount) He said it was his "total" bonus and that makes sense because that's how they sent the letters (it looks better) to state your "full year" bonus as the amount and then mention that part has already been paid. It was also right around the time he needed cash for the shrink and just prior to the depositions.... This past year, due to some cash shortages or whatever - Cisco paid 3.5% in February instead of the normal 7%. He also said he was a "top performer" - a total of about $25K is consistent with what a top performer with his base salary would have gotten in FY 2008.

The other poster is spewing WILD allegations that somehow he or his friends had access to Cisco confidential salary information. No freaking way.

Now - the other item is stock options. It is possible that Brad was issued some nice options (which are probably now worthless based on stock price) and that if they fully vested WOULD be worth $250K, or at least would have when we started talking about this in July. However, he also admitted that he had already exercised as many options as he could to pay bills (along with all the stock they bought) So - you can see how the legend of Brad's pay COULD be based in some SLIGHT reality - but not that he was cut a check for $250K. Also - he states in his depo that he is in charge of a team that does internal VoIP rollouts - NOT at customers.

He has had no trouble telling this - and what he has said is consistent to what I know to be true. it's also something to confirm very easily with a cooperative employer and since he was going through a separation - it WOULD have been discoverable. it was also very fresh in his mind because the bulk payment was recently received.

Latching on to wild and baseless assertions (like saying a Cisco customer has access to employee private data) and having that be so far off the mark from what is known and reasonable makes us look bad because it shows that we are very gullible to noncredible sources posting something that doesn't make "sense" and we run with it like it's gospel.

Not EVERYTHING he says is a lie.

I don't think "we" have been rendered non-credible (as in WS.)

1) Isn't it possible, although BC was not in sales, that he knew someone in power at Amex and thus could have helped land that account?

2) I don't think Canadian citizens have SS taken out of their check.

3) I also believe it is possible that BC TOLD or BRAGGED about the bonus to someone he knew, that the poster knows. Even though salaries are supposed to be confidential, if the person making that salary chooses to tell someone... and BTW, it's also possible BC claimed he made that bonus, and told someone that, and that's why people believe it. He seems to have a very large ego.
 
I don't know what they left in the house or what the plans are for who to get what, exactly, and when. I suspect they are preparing for a couple different events, one of which is to sell the house and the other to transfer kids' things to the Rentz/Listers.

Without seeing what is actually there and where it's been placed I can't know, I can only guess. Seriously, what value would the kiddie furniture have that would help satisfy the debt? Either way, the fault lies with the one who committed the crime, not with the lawyers who are (attempting to) collect on their fees, even if they are greedy. Those fees were disclosed up-front and the defendant could have chosen a different path and/or renegotiated. He decided to transfer all these assets in July, and that was his choice--as such I assign all blame to him and his 'choices.' This is just the latest in a cascade of actions all stemming from the murder.

While some things have sentimental value and perhaps some decent financial value, it is ultimately meaningless in the face of the loss of Nancy.
 
I am just curious... at first I was thinking BC had to do all this in July to pay his lawyers. Then I was thinking, but what if he won? What would the kids have to come home to? Well, I guess that is why the moving van didn't come right after he signed over everything to his family... just in case?
 
I don't think "we" have been rendered non-credible (as in WS.)

1) Isn't it possible, although BC was not in sales, that he knew someone in power at Amex and thus could have helped land that account?

2) I don't think Canadian citizens have SS taken out of their check.

3) I also believe it is possible that BC TOLD or BRAGGED about the bonus to someone he knew, that the poster knows. Even though salaries are supposed to be confidential, if the person making that salary chooses to tell someone... and BTW, it's also possible BC claimed he made that bonus, and told someone that, and that's why people believe it. He seems to have a very large ego.

1. Possible - it would have been an award - also taxable and reported as income. On video #3 last 4 minutes - BC states that his 2007 adj gross income was $170K - but that included stock sold and options exercised in 2007. According to his deposition, 2008 looks to be roughly the same with 2 raises - without the options / stock as that was depleted.

2. According to web research - SS is taken out of folks who work in this country because they are also eligible for benefits after 10 years or so regardless of citizenship.

3. And yes- perhaps he did brag but we're getting that at LEAST second hand - would you believe that over what he clearly said under oath (again - not everything he has said is a lie), knowing that his employer would cooperate and that it WOULD be confirmed. If Brad Cooper had a $250K bonus - you can be assured that his attorneys would have found it.

So - yes - again - it does make us (WS) look like we'll believe anything posted here even when credible evidence exists to the contrary. (If you think I am credible) Couple my statements with BC's depo, and some other posters who validated my info vs "I know company confidential info" man and I think this issue should be considered closed.

In the words of my legal hero, Judge Judy, "if it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Brad getting $250K as a bonus and it being "hidden somewhere" doesn't make sense.
 
Seriously, what value would the kiddie furniture have that would help satisfy the debt?
This is why in my previous posts I asked why take the kids table set? What value can there be in it? $50? Heartless, if this is why it was taken.
Those fees were disclosed up-front and the defendant could have chosen a different path and/or renegotiated. How does anyone know if he is being charged correctly? He's were he belongs :behindbar, and can't look the bill over. Sure he put himself there, but this is coming from what is left to the girl's. I personally posted this wknd how I almost got ripped off and challenged it, cutting my bill by thousands.
This is just the latest in a cascade of actions all stemming from the murder.
Absolutely. But let the girl's have their personal items. Some might disagree, but I consider this a toy since it was most likely played on like a desk to draw, color, make puzzles, etc.

While some things have sentimental value and perhaps some decent financial value, it is ultimately meaningless in the face of the loss of Nancy.

SG...refresh me, when did Sandlin join in and why? I'm looking back and she came in after the Ex Parte and was not his representative for the seperation negotiation. Do you know why this changed faces mid way?
 
I am still annoyed that he was looking at asset protection in JULY. July was supposed to be "trying to find Nancy's killer and getting my girls back"... No one worries about asset protection for a CUSTODY case, do they? It's not like he could be stashing stuff to qualify for a public custody attorney.

To me this shows willful and deliberate actions to hide assets in anticipation of a CRIMINAL trial. (as does the almost immediate hiring of K&B)

And yes - I know that the spouse is the first person that LE looks at - but people adamantly deny involvement and don't prepare like this - they have faith in the system because they KNOW THEY ARE INNOCENT and just can't comprehend how LE could get things that wrong - esp middle class guys who have never been in trouble with the police.

I'll ask again - what innocent person DOES THIS? He's just about admitting that he expects to be charged sooner rather than later - and at that time he knew more about what evidence the police had (or could find) better than ANYONE.

Whether he did this on his own or under the advice of counsel - this speaks volumes on what he expected to happen. And innocent people do NOT expect to be arrested - especially only 2 weeks after their spouse is murdered.

So no - this is not evidence - but it pegs the HinkyMeter.
 
1. Possible - it would have been an award - also taxable and reported as income. On video #3 last 4 minutes - BC states that his 2007 adj gross income was $170K - but that included stock sold and options exercised in 2007. According to his deposition, 2008 looks to be roughly the same with 2 raises - without the options / stock as that was depleted.

2. According to web research - SS is taken out of folks who work in this country because they are also eligible for benefits after 10 years or so regardless of citizenship.

3. And yes- perhaps he did brag but we're getting that at LEAST second hand - would you believe that over what he clearly said under oath (again - not everything he has said is a lie), knowing that his employer would cooperate and that it WOULD be confirmed. If Brad Cooper had a $250K bonus - you can be assured that his attorneys would have found it.

So - yes - again - it does make us (WS) look like we'll believe anything posted here even when credible evidence exists to the contrary. (If you think I am credible) Couple my statements with BC's depo, and some other posters who validated my info vs "I know company confidential info" man and I think this issue should be considered closed.

In the words of my legal hero, Judge Judy, "if it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Brad getting $250K as a bonus and it being "hidden somewhere" doesn't make sense.

Perhaps the other poster was mistaken. However, I do believe he was posting information that he believed to be true and did not post information to deliberately mislead. He was very passionate in his posting. There are a lot of passionate posters and there have been a lot of thoughts bantered about and information passed along that we can each choose to believe or not believe, but I don't believe one thought makes us look like anything in particular. After all, there is still the talk of the 4 am HT shop. One person posted this information and sounds credible, just as the other poster sounded credible. No one has accused her of making us look like we will believe anything posted on here, although some believe her and some don't.

In other words, we wouldn't have as much to discuss on here if some thoughts weren't correct, because our purpose is to get at the truth. There will be truths and untruths but I haven't run across anyone yet that I believe is deliberately misleading.
 
SG...refresh me, when did Sandlin join in and why? I'm looking back and she came in after the Ex Parte and was not his representative for the seperation negotiation. Do you know why this changed faces mid way?

I saw a short news snippet with some items being brought out of the house. What I don't know is where those particular items were going, who to, or for what specific reason. I could speculate, but I'm not comfortable doing that since I have as much of a chance to be wrong as being correct, so all I can do is shrug and say 'dunno' wrt the furniture, the kiddie items, etc. There's really only one way to find out for sure and that is ask Sandlin directly (or someone who has direct knowledge of what items went where/to who).

As for Sandlin, she is a custody lawyer; I assume her expertise was needed by K&B for whatever reason and her firm was brought in. Again, I'm guessing here since I'm not privy to their legal strategy.
 
I'll ask again - what innocent person DOES THIS? He's just about admitting that he expects to be charged sooner rather than later - and at that time he knew more about what evidence the police had (or could find) better than ANYONE.

Whether he did this on his own or under the advice of counsel - this speaks volumes on what he expected to happen. And innocent people do NOT expect to be arrested - especially only 2 weeks after their spouse is murdered.

So no - this is not evidence - but it pegs the HinkyMeter.

I agree. I really thinks this makes him look as though he was fully preparing to be charged, as did his lawyers, who wanted to ensure they would be compensated financially somehow.
 
I am still annoyed that he was looking at asset protection in JULY. July was supposed to be "trying to find Nancy's killer and getting my girls back"... No one worries about asset protection for a CUSTODY case, do they? It's not like he could be stashing stuff to qualify for a public custody attorney.

To me this shows willful and deliberate actions to hide assets in anticipation of a CRIMINAL trial. (as does the almost immediate hiring of K&B)

And yes - I know that the spouse is the first person that LE looks at - but people adamantly deny involvement and don't prepare like this - they have faith in the system because they KNOW THEY ARE INNOCENT and just can't comprehend how LE could get things that wrong - esp middle class guys who have never been in trouble with the police.

I'll ask again - what innocent person DOES THIS? He's just about admitting that he expects to be charged sooner rather than later - and at that time he knew more about what evidence the police had (or could find) better than ANYONE.

Whether he did this on his own or under the advice of counsel - this speaks volumes on what he expected to happen. And innocent people do NOT expect to be arrested - especially only 2 weeks after their spouse is murdered.

So no - this is not evidence - but it pegs the HinkyMeter.

You're right, RNC, it sure does set off that hinky meter!

There's a quote said by ex-detective, Chris Morgan, over and over again in the book I'm reading, "Things that are the truth, make sense." Generally if one has to twist a scenario around and around, bypassing the simplest explanation, that is a sign that the truth is being bypassed as well. Not always, of course, but more often than not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
4,236
Total visitors
4,406

Forum statistics

Threads
592,406
Messages
17,968,493
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top