Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #25

[reddress58]

I think somehow it's a way around Brad having to be cross examined about the contents of his affidavit. To me, it is his counsel back-pedaling after stupidly allowing him to include such damning statments to begin with. They want the judge to base his decision on what kind of parent he was BEFORE NC's death. The grandparents are not allowed to give any evidence of what may have happened afterwards. Just my guess.

 

[mahmoo]

Hi Ya'll :wave:.....I'm still lurking in the shadows lol.

Something I wonder with the custody issue......does BC "really" want the girls or his attorney pushing the issue and telling him he's "got" to do that ......don't like saying that but.....

 

[jumpstreet]

I'm stumped, too. Wish some of our legal gurus would sign on.

Well, I'm no legal guru (or, at least I don't play one on TV)... but my take on it is this:

Legally, the first burden of the plaintiffs is to establish/demonstrate that BC is an unfit father. Until that's established, it's pointless to talk about where the girls might have a "better" home.

Until the plaintiffs can demonstrate to the court, that BC is an unfit father, then the girls are "by definition" best served by being with their father (in the eyes of the court).

In other words, the defense doesn't want the waters to be muddied by testimony like "in Canada the girls would have a better life, a more stable life, etc" discussed (yet). These things are irrelevant unless it is first established BC is "unfit".

Another way to look at it (very hypothetical) Let's say someone wanted to come in and take your kids, let's say they were really wealthy, and could provide for them a "better" home, meet all their needs, and shower them with love. Even if it that were true that the (hypothetical) plaintiffs in this example could demonstrate that they could provide a "better" home than you... it's pointless legally, unless it's been established that you are unfit. [ Again, this is an oversimplified example, but kinda explains the rationale of the law ]

In the BC case, the defense is trying to limit the scope to "first things first". This way they can focus their defense. If the plaintiffs have evidence that BC is unfit father, then it's a non-issue. If they don't, then it will be a short day in court. [ Obviously the plaintiffs push/request for a psycho exam is along the lines of trying to establish "fitness" as a parent ]

 

[momto3kids]

My take on this is the 1st part has to pertain to the plaintiff's proving BC is unfit 1st and foremost before the 2nd part to accusations or opinions can be heard.

1st part is going to be facts. This will force the plaintiffs to show the courts BC has had something like.....SS called previously on him for the children, abusive to them, leaving them home for hours with no adult supervision, no job to support them, alcoholic, sells drugs from home, unlocked weapons, mentally unstable on antidepressants, etc. Just not fit to care for his children or have them in his care.
The one thing they can do is show he was in possession of the Passports. But yet they all put in their affidavits he took the passports to keep NC here and so he was not actually the flight risk.

2nd part is going to be opinions. The courts will hear evidence to the best interests of the girls. This would possibly allow the accusations of $ for food, anger issues, etc.

 

[momto3kids]

Well, I'm no legal guru (or, at least I don't play one on TV)... but my take on it is this:

Legally, the first burden of the plaintiffs is to establish/demonstrate that BC is an unfit father. Until that's established, it's pointless to talk about where the girls might have a "better" home.

Until the plaintiffs can demonstrate to the court, that BC is an unfit father, then the girls are "by definition" best served by being with their father (in the eyes of the court).

In other words, the defense doesn't want the waters to be muddied by testimony like "in Canada the girls would have a better life, a more stable life, etc" discussed (yet). These things are irrelevant unless it is first established BC is "unfit".

Another way to look at it (very hypothetical) Let's say someone wanted to come in and take your kids, let's say they were really wealthy, and could provide for them a "better" home, meet all their needs, and shower them with love. Even if it that were true that the (hypothetical) plaintiffs in this example could demonstrate that they could provide a "better" home than you... it's pointless legally, unless it's been established that you are unfit. [ Again, this is an oversimplified example, but kinda explains the rationale of the law ]

In the BC case, the defense is trying to limit the scope to "first things first". This way they can focus their defense. If the plaintiffs have evidence that BC is unfit father, then it's a non-issue. If they don't, then it will be a short day in court. [ Obviously the plaintiffs push/request for a psycho exam is along the lines of trying to establish "fitness" as a parent ]

JS...you and I are saying just about the same thing.

What BC attorney's are doing is forcing the CPD to name their suspect before this hearing in a non direct way. This is IMO the one thing the court will definetely have to look at 1st and foremost if he is named. This will then be a fact and not an opinion if he gets named.

Oct 13 is 90 days since NC was murdered and I wonder if the judge did this knowing the forensic's would be back and give the CPD time to put their case together and get his sorry butt.

 

[reddress58]

Jump & Mom, thank you BOTH for clarification. I obviously have a lot to learn about the law.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Oct 13 is 90 days since NC was murdered and I wonder if the judge did this knowing the forensic's would be back and give the CPD time to put their case together and get his sorry butt.

90 days sounds like enough time to me, but then you look at a case like the M.Y. case that has dragged on since Nov '06 and you wonder if anything can happen in a timely manner. I bet the CPD will have their part mostly wrapped-up, but being allowed to call him a "POI" if the DA doesn't give the thumbs up? I don't know. "" definitely.

 

[reddress58]

Hi Ya'll :wave:.....I'm still lurking in the shadows lol.

Something I wonder with the custody issue......does BC "really" want the girls or his attorney pushing the issue and telling him he's "got" to do that ......don't like saying that but.....

Oh, I think he really wants them. He just didn't want Nancy. If he wins this case, all his dreams (and plans) come true. Please, I pray to whatever greater powers that be, let the arrest take place before that hearing!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks for the explanation on how the bifurcated process works.

BC was mostly an absent father and I don't know if that can be construed as an 'unfit' parent. The fact is he was working more than 40 hrs a week + pursuing his MBA + training for an Ironman and that covered a significant portion of the kids' lives. How much time, realistically, could he have spent with those kids given the fact there are still only 24 hrs in a day?

In his affidavit he talks about the kids having their friends at their school and in the community. But let's be serious: who is going to want to deal with HIM in allowing their kids to socialize? Most of the kids' friends were Nancy's friends. They all believe he murdered Nancy. What existing NC friend is going to allow their precious kids to be around HIM? Who is going to call him to coordinate play dates for the girls? The kids' social structure has also been fractured as a result.

And I agree with Mahmoo on the point of wanting the kids really & truly. Deep down I think he'd probably prefer to be a single/unencumbered bon vivant now that he finally got rid of Nancy. Of course he'll never admit that, but this is a man who enjoyed a traditional homelife where the wife did the caretaking of hearth, home and kids and he got to beat his manly chest, earn the $$$ and control the little kingdom. As a single father he won't have this dream realized until he finds wifey #2 to marry/control/raise the kids or an understanding girlfriend who will take on that role. Raising kids is hard, and I don't think he has the patience for it fulltime, and certainly not the ability to raise them on his own without female assistance. And, from an emotional standpoint I highly doubt he can understand or have the empathy of the level of ongoing grief his daughters will experience throughout their lives. They will NEVER get over this...not ever. When those girls grow up and are old enough to do some 'research' on their own, they will learn the facts and come to hate what their father did to their mother and them.

IMHO.

 

[momto3kids]

Oh, I think he really wants them. He just didn't want Nancy. If he wins this case, all his dreams (and plans) come true. Please, I pray to whatever greater powers that be, let the arrest take place before that hearing!

The saddest part of this entire thing is if he wins them the Rentz's will never see them again. BC will see to it, especially since they have taken the girls for this period of time!

CPD has got to step it up like I am sure they are! But MR. pussypants DA has to allow this action to take place, step back and get a friggin back bone. He is becoming a thorn in my side with all these Wake County cases piling up.

 

[momto3kids]

Thanks for the explanation on how the bifurcated process works.

BC was mostly an absent father and I don't know if that can be constituted as an 'unfit' parent. The fact is he was working more than 40 hrs a week + pursuing his MBA + training for an Ironman and that covered a significant portion of the kids' lives. How much time, realistically, could he have spent with those kids given the fact there are still only 24 hrs in a day?

And I agree with Mahmoo on the point of wanting the kids really & truly. Deep down I think he'd probably prefer to be a single/unencumbered bon vivant now that he finally got rid of Nancy. Of course he'll never admit that, but this is a man who wants a traditional homelife where the wife does all the caretaking of hearth, home and kids and he gets to beat his manly chest and earn the $$$ and control his little kingdom. As a single father he won't have this little dream realized until he finds wifey #2 to marry/control/raise the kids or an understanding girlfriend who will take on that role. Raising kids is hard and I don't think he has the patience for it and certainly not the ability to raise them on his own without female assistance.

IMHO.

But you forget his bf SH can show him to to do it all!:clap:

Speaking of Mr.H...saw the man the other day. He is not as tall as I expected, but was outdoors playing frisby with one of his sons. He is a hands on dad I have to admit.

 

[SleuthyGal]

But you forget his bf SH can show him to to do it all!:clap:

Speaking of Mr.H...saw the man the other day. He is not as tall as I expected, but was outdoors playing frisby with one of his sons. He is a hands on dad I have to admit.

He can learn a thing or two from Mr. H and how to put one's kids first, if he'll pay attention. But don't forget, the H kids still have their mother. As awful a spouse as she was, at least his kids don't have that loss to contend with. I suspect SH is much more in-tune with the needs of his kids than BC is with his. And regardless, daughters have a special/unique bond with their moms that no father can imitate or supply and no other female can have with them. They are changed forever. IMHO.

 

[mahmoo]

No matter how this ends......the little girls lose.

 

[fran]

No matter how this ends......the little girls lose.

Now that I can understand and agree with!

JMHO
fran

PS....Oh, and thanks to all who explained reddress58's post that started this discussion....fran

 

[SleuthyGal]

AH! My work had this site blocked for the last couple weeks so I could not get on... Not sure why its working now but I am not complaining. Anyone have any new info on this case?

My browser somehow missed this post from yesterday. Welcome back d99gr81! Glad your company's firewall let this site through.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Slightly off topic but did anyone else notice the name of the investigating officer in the case of Maria Teresa Herrera-Diaz that lived right around the corner from Nancy? Officer J.A. Young again...poor man!!!

No! Hadn't noticed that as I have not yet read any of the Herrera-Diaz info yet. Poor Officer Young. He's having a busy summer full of murder, mayhem, and probably unending paperwork. It's gotta wear one's emotions down I would think.

 

[Anderson]

The saddest part of this entire thing is if he wins them the Rentz's will never see them again. BC will see to it, especially since they have taken the girls for this period of time!

CPD has got to step it up like I am sure they are! But MR. pussypants DA has to allow this action to take place, step back and get a friggin back bone. He is becoming a thorn in my side with all these Wake County cases piling up.

Do we know if BC will have to go through with the psychiatric examination that NC's parents have asked for? I hope so. I don't know what would be found, but, it sounds like that is an opportunity to demonstrate that he would not be a suitable caretaker for the children. IF he did do this, and many of us believe that he is looking guilty, then hopefully an exam like that would reveal his violent tendencies.

Even if he does want the children, I do think that part of the reason that this has been filed is related to his public image, his character, possibly in anticipation of being charged with the murder. It would not look good for him in a murder trial, if he had never done anything to try to get the children back. I am actually surprised that this didn't happen sooner. I wonder if this is a response to recent events, which we know nothing about. LE had said that they were making progress.

Just a clarification -- I am not talking about a "guilty verdict", which does not make sense to discuss until there have been more developments. Even then a guilty verdict will depend on what shape the trial takes.

Just some thoughts.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Do we know if BC will have to go through with the psychiatric examination that NC's parents have asked for? I hope so. I don't know what would be found, but, it sounds like that is an opportunity to demonstrate that he would not be a suitable caretaker for the children. IF he did do this, and many of us believe that he is looking guilty, then hopefully an exam like that would reveal his violent tendencies.

Even if he does want the children, I do think that part of the reason that this has been filed is related to his public image, his character, possibly in anticipation of being charged with the murder. It would not look good for him in a murder trial, if he had never done anything to try to get the children back. I am actually surprised that this didn't happen sooner. I wonder if this is a response to recent events, which we know nothing about. LE had said that they were making progress.

Just a clarification -- I am not talking about a "guilty verdict", which does not make sense to discuss until there have been more developments. Even then a guilty verdict will depend on what shape the trial takes.

Just some thoughts.

Hi Anderson! I agree with your points. No we don't yet know if he will be required to partake of a psych evaluation. I hope so, but I don't know how the laws work or what the judge will decide. It certainly seems warranted since there was a murder, there was deep and openly hostile martial discord in the household, and there were allegations of behaviors that would lead one to think the children's well-being could be compromised. And don't forget Interact was subpoenaed back in July; there may be something there we are not aware of at this point--something beyond their providing expert commentary.

I also agree with your opinion that this move has some PR motive behind it. Image. Hmmmm....

 

[Anderson]

Hi Anderson! I agree with your points. No we don't yet know if he will be required to partake of a psych evaluation. I hope so, but I don't know how the laws work or what the judge will decide. It certainly seems warranted since there was a murder, there was deep and openly hostile martial discord in the household, and there were allegations of behaviors that would lead one to think the children's well-being could be compromised. And don't forget Interact was subpoenaed back in July; there may be something there we are not aware of at this point--something beyond their providing expert commentary.

I also agree with your opinion that this move has some PR motive behind it. Image. Hmmmm....

I guess we just have to wait and see . . .

 

[ncnative]

Haaaaaa!!!! Momto3Kids calling the DA "Mr.Pussypants"!!! :thumb::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:You made my day.

The Herrera-Diaz murder is right down the road from here where Nancy's/my house is. Dang. And the Herrera-Diaz murder IS in Heather Metour's neighborhood. It's getting too tight around here. You'd think people would just find something else to do besides murder their wives. I mean, can't they figure out that they'll be caught and go to prison? Duh:bang: Maybe they see OJ, Jason Young and Brad Cooper and think, hey, I'll get off and get on with my life.

So now we have Nancy Cooper, Jenna Nielson, Michelle Young and the Herrera-Diaz murders right here in a little circle, all unsolved. What next? I'm going to make sure my husband is reeeeally happy, just in case. :shakehead: