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

[RaleighNC]

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.

Chris Morgan must be a Judge Judy fan, too. :dance:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Chris Morgan must be a Judge Judy fan, too. :dance:

Perhaps he is. I think Willoughby must be too since apparently that's a saying he too is fond of. They used it a lot during the Ann Miller case circa 2000 - 2005.

 

[RaleighNC]

I took some time to read back over the other poster that was so adamant about the $285K (!) bonus. Here's 3 of his / her postings:


D99gr81 said:


NO SIR...he all ready received those bonuses last year....2007 ... highest paid CCIE for that year. This is fact. Their sales this year is way down so he will not receive bonuses like those. Again I can spell it out... just not on this forum. not risking my career when there is an order not to speak about this case. But don't frigging talk down to me when you have no clue.


OK here you go... here is a way you can understand how I in fact do know. You obviously are claiming you know someone who knows... and if that the case here is some info for you. You say Cisco doesn't have contracts... wrong and to prove you I will give you my companies contract number. The reason I can do this is because it also comes with a user name for our company which I will not give you. If you have as good a contact that you claim to have he will be able to tell you what company the contract IS for. I ask you respect me if you do really have a contact and not blab it on here but rather PM me.


the number is 1008942.


First bold you are completely wrong. He IS on that sales account. And their sales bonuses for that account ARE quarterly.

Second bold...WHO SAID IT WENT ANYWHERE? I know rich people who complain about small debts. And frankly he earned the money so doesn't matter if he was not happy about what she was spending HE HAS THAT right. I could be wrong on the year but Cisco I believe back in 99 gave all employees a 100% bonus for Christmas. Cisco DOES take care of there own...that have many bonuses for many different reasons....

You know what... I don't care anymore... don't believe me... really its not important... most here think he did it and its just another reason he is guilty anyway.

So - according to this poster, the bonus was paid in 2007. In deposition #3 - BC states that his 2007 tax return had an adjusted gross income of $170K - about $35K - $50K higher than what he states is his salary due to stock and stock options. Brad debunks the $285K myth right there. No doubt his attorneys would be privy to his salary / 2007 return as would AS as the attorney in a divorce proceeding - I suspect she already had a copy of the 2007 return and would confirm his deposition statements.

So - it would appear that either 1) he didn't get a $285K bonus in 2007, or, 2) he lied on his federal tax return where he'd have to attach a W-2 from his only employer that would VERY CLEARLY state any income that BC earned from them in 2007, or, 3) Cisco is somehow paying him in cash (?) that they are not paying federal income tax, state tax, SS benefits or Medicare benefits on.

Wonder what d99gr81 would say based on Brad's deposition that he earned only 66% of what he / she said his BONUS was last year? Would he / she believe Brad?

 

[raisincharlie]

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.

Yep - big time hinky meter peg. Add in the last "cooperation" with LE was the 15th when Nancy's body was identified, the retainment of K & B about the same date and he might as well have bought a neon sign after K & B started advertising for him with dis-information.

 

[eye_believe]

You're right, RNC, it sure does set off that hinky meter! et.al.
---------------------------------

hum. he signed his belongings over in July,
and now you all think that spells g.u.i.l.t ???

Wow. I am speechless.
That conclusion doesn't make sense to me.

I think maybe he had to sign it over in July in order to afford Lawyers to help him fight an "arduous" CUSTODY battle (brought on by others) in order to get his daughters back.

If he were a "guilty and selfish man (as many here say) who 'expects' to get arrested" I don't think he would have sacrificed everything in July in order to fight such a public and expensive custody battle.

A "selfish, guilty (as you say)" person would probably have stayed out of the limelight and kept the assets to himself and just kept extending the temporary custody agreement over and over at little or no cost to himself.

Just my 2 cents worth, but, in July BC sacrificed everything to fight the custody battle. Didn't he.
Maybe, just maybe he thought it was the only battle on the horizon.

 

[raisincharlie]

You're right, RNC, it sure does set off that hinky meter! et.al.
---------------------------------

hum. he signed his belongings over in July,
and now you all think that spells g.u.i.l.t ???

Wow. I am speechless.
That conclusion doesn't make sense to me.

I think maybe he had to sign it over in July in order to afford Lawyers to help him fight an "arduous" CUSTODY battle (brought on by others) in order to get his daughters back.

If he were a "guilty and selfish man (as many here say) who 'expects' to get arrested" I don't think he would have sacrificed everything in July in order to fight such a public and expensive custody battle.

A "selfish, guilty (as you say)" person would probably have stayed out of the limelight and kept the assets to himself and just kept extending the temporary custody agreement over and over at little or no cost to himself.

Just my 2 cents worth, but, in July BC sacrificed everything to fight the custody battle. Didn't he.
Maybe, just maybe he thought it was the only battle on the horizon.

Why didn't he hired Sandlin & Davidian to start with ? Why hire a law firm that approached the entire custody issue by trying to prove the jailed one wasn't involved in the murder fo his wife ? That makes no sense period.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I didn't call him 'selfish & guilty,' though I do agree that someone who assigns their household assets over to their lawyers within the first 2 weeks of a murder investigation is someone who expects to be spending a lot of money, or doesn't have the cash flow to cover those expenses, or wants to protect their assets. But here's the thing: the kids were taken during an emergency ex-parte hearing. The next hearing was to be on July 25th. The assets were already transferred by this point (supposedly). And what was the outcome of this hearing? Oh right...there was no hearing...a temporary custody arrangement was negotiated outside of court and thus no hearing took place. However, there were a lot of affidavits done before 7/25 on both sides of the fence (billable hrs being racked up). But all agreements were done outside of the courtroom and between the 2 parties.

And the next hearing after that was Oct. 16th. Another temporary custody arrangement could have been (easily) negotiated as well, but it wasn't and we know the outcome.

Did BC have reason to believe that he was going to have to pay for more than a custody fight? I think it's very possible he did expect that; he hired criminal defense lawyers from the get-go.

And why would he expect such a thing? He didn't even give an interview at police headquarters? No suspect was formally/publicly named. I can see needing to take care of assets after one is arrested (although he's got a public defender), but within the first 2 weeks of his wife being murdered? I dunno.

 

[RaleighNC]

Honestly, if Nancy's death did not involve Brad, he'd have the $75K life insurance policy at his disposal fairly quickly and that should have more than covered his legal bills for CUSTODY.

His actions indicate he KNEW what was coming - i.e. hiring a CRIMINAL firm right off the bat, and as SG pointed out - focusing all his efforts on disproving he killed Nancy.

Also - were his belongings signed over to his attorneys or to his parents? I believe that the first report that they were to his parents. Regardless, if he were innocent, this should not have been a mega dollar civil custody case - he has a good job and had recently paid off most of the unsecured debt, he'd be selling a car, and he'd have the life insurance - he'd have been able to pay a decent sized custody bill - and -he'd have gotten the life insurance.........

This whole criminal thing mucked things up - and in order to get a public defender, etc - that is why you'd want to appear less able to pay for things.... He had options to pay for the civil work. His actions seem to indicate he was preparing for what was inevitable.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Honestly, if Nancy's death did not involve Brad, he'd have the $75K life insurance policy at his disposal fairly quickly and that should have more than covered his legal bills for CUSTODY.

His actions indicate he KNEW what was coming - i.e. hiring a CRIMINAL firm right off the bat, and as SG pointed out - focusing all his efforts on disproving he killed Nancy.

Also - were his belongings signed over to his attorneys or to his parents? I believe that the first report that they were to his parents. Regardless, if he were innocent, this should not have been a mega dollar civil custody case - he has a good job and had recently paid off most of the unsecured debt, he'd be selling a car, and he'd have the life insurance - he'd have been able to pay a decent sized custody bill - and -he'd have gotten the life insurance.........

This whole criminal thing mucked things up - and in order to get a public defender, etc - that is why you'd want to appear less able to pay for things.... He had options to pay for the civil work. His actions seem to indicate he was preparing for what was inevitable.

Good point about the insurance policy, yes.

Also yes you're correct--the assets were transferred to his parents. That is a tactical move as the parents could have transferred them back if/when needed or reassign them to the lawyers (as was done). I doubt his parents wanted or needed his furniture--it was done to preserve the assets so that he no longer technically 'owned' them and thus they were unavailable for the plaintiffs to seize (that's fairly obvious).

Why did Brad believe that the plainfiffs were going to go after his assets? Why did he believe he'd need to sell everything in order to pay for a custody case? He certainly made enough money from salary + bonus -- why would he believe his job was in jeopardy and thus have to liquidate the contents of his house, his cars...basically everything? Brad claims he was $25K in debt...that's really not that much, considering his earnings.

So what is the truth? I believe the truth is he knew he would probably be arrested at some point, might face a WD suit at some point, and was maneuvering to protect his assets so they could be used to pay a huge criminal defense debt in addition to custody debt. The bulk of his custody case (as RaisinCharlie already mentioned) was trying to prove he had no connection to his wife's murder; much less was done on the parental fitness question. K&B are, first and foremost, criminal defense attorneys, per their own market positioning.

 

[raisincharlie]

The jailed one also has ESP - he hired a lawyer before his kids were taken away...:crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

The jailed one also has ESP - he hired a lawyer before his kids were taken away...:crazy:

:-O

I didn't even think of that.

Yes you're right!

He hired his team on the day or immediately after Nancy's body was found. Why that was faster than when Ann Miller hired Wade Smith--in her case she actually went to the police dept to give a statement after hubby died, then hired a defense attorney.

Interesting!

 

[RaleighNC]

Not the actions of an innocent man.....

So - the wrangling was NOT to pay for his custody case - it was - as you state - maneuvering in anticipation of WD / criminal. No one does this crap for a custody case in order to pay for their attorneys.

And to do it BEFORE his kids were removed pretty much erases all credibility that it was done to pay the custody attorney.

Good work SG and RC!

 

[SleuthyGal]

RC gets the prize because: the timing of his hiring his criminal defense/custody attorney is key here -- he had NO way of knowing that an emergency ex-parte order was coming down and thus no way of knowing he would need a lawyer to fight a custody case in the first place.

 

[momto3kids]

I think this moving van and items will get heated Friday? in court.

It appears NC died intestate and there is intestate succession to follow. Somehow signing everything over to his parents, they to the attorneys, has missed one of the major succession following BC, the girl's.

Sure the girl's are minors and BC is alive to speak for the girl's in his signing over any assets, but this is a unique situation to say the least. I think there is going to be a battle yet to come over this. The girl's are entitled to 2/3 of NC 1/2 of assets. I believe Sasser will see the girl's are going to get what they are entitled to, at least I hope so. This going in and taking most likely anything of value for possible payment is absolutely wrong, if that is the reason for doing it.

NC recognizes marital property and it means even his BMW is 50% NC, even without her name on it.

FWIW...in bankruptcy there is a succession order to follow in payment from the sale. You can't go take windows out of the home since you are owed $$ for installing them, there is an order to follow of who and how you get paid.

North Carolina General Statutes § 29-14

Share of surviving spouse.

Real Property. – The share of the surviving spouse in the real property is:

If the intestate is survived by two or more children, or by one child and any lineal descendant of one or more deceased children or by lineal descendants of two or more deceased children, a one‑third undivided interest in the real property;

Personal Property. – The share of the surviving spouse in the personal property is:

If the intestate is survived by two or more children, or by one child and any lineal descendant of one or more deceased children, or by lineal descendants of two or more deceased children, and the net personal property does not exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in value, all of the personal property; if the net personal property exceeds thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in value, the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) plus one third of the balance of the personal property;

http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/chapter_29/gs_29-14.html

 

[Anderson]

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:
[/QUOTE]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). [/QUOTE]

Thanks very much RC and SG!

It looks like the inconsistencies have the potential to play a very important role in the trial, regardless of whether they are proven or not. So, they are definitely worth consideration.

 

[Anderson]

hum. he signed his belongings over in July,
and now you all think that spells g.u.i.l.t ???

Wow. I am speechless.
That conclusion doesn't make sense to me.

I think maybe he had to sign it over in July in order to afford Lawyers to help him fight an "arduous" CUSTODY battle (brought on by others) in order to get his daughters back.

If he were a "guilty and selfish man (as many here say) who 'expects' to get arrested" I don't think he would have sacrificed everything in July in order to fight such a public and expensive custody battle.

A "selfish, guilty (as you say)" person would probably have stayed out of the limelight and kept the assets to himself and just kept extending the temporary custody agreement over and over at little or no cost to himself.

Just my 2 cents worth, but, in July BC sacrificed everything to fight the custody battle. Didn't he.
Maybe, just maybe he thought it was the only battle on the horizon.

I believe that I was the poster that recently asserted that Brad was selfish.

Very early on, Mr. R said that the only decent thing that the murderer could do at that point was to confess. IF BC is guilty as many (including investigators and a grand jury) believe that he is, then I agree that was his last chance to do something decent for the girls. Rather than spending an extravagant amount on uncalled for mental evaluations and choosing to proactively fight the possible murder charge, he could have given what he could to the girls. I do believe that would have been the least selfish (although very difficult) course of action. Of course very few people would have acted in this way.


Just my opinion

 

[raisincharlie]

SG - thanks for the photo you recently posted of the positions of the cars when parked at the residence. In looking at the white BMW - kinda hard to tell but it appears to have a sunroof - do you think ?


Look at this - pretty sure the date is 10/27/08 - at the beginning

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=6473483

 

[Star12]

SG - thanks for the photo you recently posted of the positions of the cars when parked at the residence. In looking at the white BMW - kinda hard to tell but it appears to have a sunroof - do you think ?


Look at this - pretty sure the date is 10/27/08 - at the beginning

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=6473483

Is that indeed Cooper's BMW? It's surely a white car with a sunroof, but it also appears to be pulled in backwards.

(The clapping never fails to make me smile).

 

[SleuthyGal]

SG - thanks for the photo you recently posted of the positions of the cars when parked at the residence. In looking at the white BMW - kinda hard to tell but it appears to have a sunroof - do you think ?


Look at this - pretty sure the date is 10/27/08 - at the beginning

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=6473483

You're welcome! I assume the BMW pulled in backwards was his car. It does look like there's a sunroof, but I can't tell for sure.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Regarding the position those cars were parked in the driveway...that obviously was the norm since that pic was taken before the murder. So I have 2 questions:

- which side of the garage did Brad say he cleaned out (according to him on 6/28/08)?

- which side of the garage actually was cleaned out when cops saw it on 7/12/08?

Clearly the left side of the driveway was where Nancy parked. Therefore he should have cleaned out that side of the garage to make room for her car. I remember Mom saying she saw the garage door open and the right side of the garage is what had been cleaned out.