Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[raisincharlie]

Thanks - fixed my post to read "murder investigation"... You knew what i meant though, right?



Yeah, but up until the custody judge's statement explicitly including it, many felt the information related to the murder investigation (in the affidavits - BC's especially) had no place in a custody hearing. That might have been a fair point prior to the judge's statements... but no longer.



Hmmm... hard to say. Regardless, I just wonder if MH's affidavit is "only the beginning" of the type of (murder investigation) information that might be put out there for the custody hearing (even from folks - friends/neighbors/etc who wouldn't have otherwise "neede to talk" at all...)

Guess we'll see...

The murder case has always been central and it is obvious - there is no other reason why the judge sent 5 LE officers to collect the children based on what little was presented in the Ex Parte.

I will agree that many of the affidavits point squarely at the murder case, that sort of pretty much proves the murder has indeed taken center stage since the beginning. No doubt BC has tried to prove his innocence throughout his affidavits. Again more acknowledgement that even he and his lawyers were aware the murder was a central issue. All the motions filed to exclude it also provides further acknowledgement that they know the murder is central to the custody issue. The fact they failed to have it removed was to be expected, and not trying would have been beyond ignorant.

I don't see that anything has changed about the custody issue since 16 July. The judge was forced by BC's lawyers to rule on it - we heard about it. She is well within her rights as the sole decision maker to determine what is essential to the custody issue and what is not. She granted the Ex Parte on the 16th - her position has not changed.

 

[jumpstreet]

I don't see that anything has changed about the custody issue since 16 July

If nothing else, the notion that BC (and/or his attorneys) were 'out of line' in putting forth seemingly 'murder-defense and PR type' information for a custody hearing is no longer really valid. [ The judge opened the door explicitly (and you're right, maybe it was opened all along implicitly because of the ex-parte ruling) ]

Certainly lots of posters on WS and elsewhere couldn't understand why BC's attorneys were putting so much focus on seemingly murder defense type stuff in their custody hearing submissions. Many even seemed to derive some form of "guilt" from these actions Of course now, it should make sense (if it didn't already).

Still unclear to me in general (regardless of the judge's recent statement) how much more 'MH-like' affidavits may come forth that wouldn't otherwise be put in the public eye (had there been no custody hearing). It seems a very unusual element - certainly an interesting one.

 

[cygnusx1]

Seems that in this case, with information pertaining to the murder investigation suddenly 'on the table' in the custody hearing... that adds a new dynamic to the "waltzing" they (LE) may need to end up doing. Perhaps even to the detriment of the investigation.

[ If not for the custody hearing - no way the public at large would likely know this latest piece of info ]

Yep. So really, if this case is lost because of contamination of the investigation, it is entirely likely that it is due to the Rentz's pushing the custody issue before an arrest is even made.

 

[jumpstreet]

Yep. So really, if this case is lost because of contamination of the investigation, it is entirely likely that it is due to the Rentz's pushing the custody issue before an arrest is even made.

Fascinating point cygnus...

 

[momto3kids]

What's next? With all the twists and turns this case has taken, International attention (which I understand why), many unprecedented things occuring within the custody case....will the criminal case end up on Court TV? How many producers are getting wind of it?
I don't know how many movie production studio's remain in Wilmington, but one could travel daily (2 hrs ea way) to be in on the court hearings (criminal) to determine how good it might just be.

IMO many things that have happened and are getting ready to happen are just not the norm. Grandchildren removed in the manner they were, a judge for custody will determine if BC has any involvement in NC murder, affidavits out the waz zoo and being amended..what else is yet to come?

 

[raisincharlie]

Yep. So really, if this case is lost because of contamination of the investigation, it is entirely likely that it is due to the Rentz's pushing the custody issue before an arrest is even made.

What do you mean by contamination of the investigation ?

 

[carolinalady]

Did we hear who will be conducting the mental fitness evaluation? I know that BC's attorney submitted to one by a psych. of their choosing which the Rentz's atty said was probably biased. I know in the Rentz's original request for the eval, they requested a certain psych. or 2 (which could be perceived as biased as well since there is a reason the plantiff's are requests said doctors).

I just don't remember if they said who will be performing the eval.

 

[cygnusx1]

What do you mean by contamination of the investigation ?

Publicizing information that defense would not normally have at this point during an investigation.

The custody case is more or less forcing both sides in the murder case to tip their hands. If that gives the defense a leg up that they wouldn't have had without the custody case, and they win, then the custody case jeopardized the murder case.

It appears the murder case is going to be tried by the custody court with a single judge ruling the outcome. The Ex Parte order must have required some input from LE for that order to be executed so quickly. If the psych eval comes out favorable to BC, then the Rentz's would have to get even more input from LE to win thus LE would be tipping their hand.

I would imagine the outcome of this issue will weigh *heavily* in the minds of the jury during the murder trial. If the judge rules BC a fit parent, then that implies that that judge did not hear enough in the evidence presented that she believed him to be the murderer.

On the other hand, if she rules in favor of the Rentz's, that would create an unfair trial situation possibly leading to a mistrial or at the very least a change of venue.

 

[jumpstreet]

What do you mean by contamination of the investigation ?

One example could be more reluctance on the part of the general public to provide details and/or get involved in the case (not wanting any statements they make to be pulled into public record in a very public custody hearing, etc).

[ e.g. let's say the previous mentioned receptionist at LTF... maybe they know something... maybe they don't... maybe they're not wanting to share anything with anyone at this point, for fear they would get subpeoned in the (more public) custody case, and end up in the public eye. Therefore, they keep quiet... less reluctant to "get involved" ] In the end, this attitude (brought on by the public custody hearing) - may very well impede the investigation...

Bottom line, the public custody hearing tying in an active criminal investigation certainly changes the landscape/dynamic. It's unclear exactly how it might change the outcome/timing of that investigation, but it seems reasonable to think the investigation very well could be impacted in some way (negatively (or yes, even positively)) by this added dynamic.

Do you think the public custody hearing has zero chance of having any impact on the progress/timing of the criminal investigation, and the information LE is able to obtain, from who, and when?

You and Cygnus are right also in that the initial domino here was tossed when the ex-parte was requested. Not saying in their mind there was any choice, but it is somewhat ironic (to me anyway), that the act of trying to get the kids away from BC, could very well end up resulting in justice taking longer than it otherwise would have. In the end (especially if an arrest is never made), it will be impossible to know for sure.

 

[raisincharlie]

Publicizing information that defense would not normally have at this point during an investigation.

The custody case is more or less forcing both sides in the murder case to tip their hands. If that gives the defense a leg up that they wouldn't have had without the custody case, and they win, then the custody case jeopardized the murder case.

It appears the murder case is going to be tried by the custody court with a single judge ruling the outcome. The Ex Parte order must have required some input from LE for that order to be executed so quickly. If the psych eval comes out favorable to BC, then the Rentz's would have to get even more input from LE to win thus LE would be tipping their hand.

I would imagine the outcome of this issue will weigh *heavily* in the minds of the jury during the murder trial. If the judge rules BC a fit parent, then that implies that that judge did not hear enough in the evidence presented that she believed him to be the murderer.

On the other hand, if she rules in favor of the Rentz's, that would create an unfair trial situation possibly leading to a mistrial or at the very least a change of venue.

Got ya - thanks.

I think if BC is indicted a change of venue will definitely be a given. Also I don't see how BC can get more information from the custody case than what the law would require under discovery in the criminal case. Once he is indicted, if he is indicted, the DA must turn over all of their evidence anyhow so I'm not sure this could happen. Lot of high emotion in the area and you are correct, the custody issue has elevated the level of involvement by the press and the public.

I could be wrong but I think the civil case for custody will be held out of public access since it involves minor children so this will block one information access route other than just learning the outcome. I also have serious doubt that anything, to include the affidavits, associated with the civil case would be allowed under a criminal proceeding. I only say that because civil cases are indeed inflamatory and concluded on a much lower standard of proof.

I don't see any of these affidavits being allowed as from the criminal requirements - most of them are filled with what would be defined as hersay evidence and not first hand knowledge. Again a much lower standard than what a criminal case requires. So I'm not sure there really is a potential for cross contamination if indeed BC is indicted.

 

[raisincharlie]

One example could be more reluctance on the part of the general public to provide details and/or get involved in the case (not wanting any statements they make to be pulled into public record in a very public custody hearing, etc).

[ e.g. let's say the previous mentioned receptionist at LTF... maybe they know something... maybe they don't... maybe they're not wanting to share anything with anyone at this point, for fear they would get subpeoned in the (more public) custody case, and end up in the public eye. Therefore, they keep quiet... less reluctant to "get involved" ] In the end, this attitude (brought on by the public custody hearing) - may very well impede the investigation...

Bottom line, the public custody hearing tying in an active criminal investigation certainly changes the landscape/dynamic. It's unclear exactly how it might change the outcome/timing of that investigation, but it seems reasonable to think the investigation very well could be impacted in some way (negatively (or yes, even positively)) by this added dynamic.

Do you think the public custody hearing has zero chance of having any impact on the progress/timing of the criminal investigation, and the information LE is able to obtain, from who, and when?

Actually I don't think the custody case will influence LE's investigation. If they are focusing on Brad for the criminal aspect, they already have conducted numerous interviews and it is very possible any interview information is already done with. If LE is focusing on someone else, I see zero affect of the custody case on someone else that might be in the sights so to speak.

Think about it - at the begining of September - LE conducted the third interview with Hiller - at that point LE for some reason had reason to believe that someone had used Nancy's phone. The investigation has advanced a lot if you think about it. The asking alone indicates LE already knows exactly where they are going. What could come out in the custody case to change this direction - I don't see it myself.

 

[jumpstreet]

I could be wrong but I think the civil case for custody will be held out of public access since it involves minor children so this will block one information access route other than just learning the outcome

Indeed. Based on the involvement of minor children, and, given the ties to an open murder investigation, I'm surprised there hasn't been some ruling to suppress and keep out of public access all the affidavits/testimony and subpoenas related to the custody.

If it's reasonable for the details of the civil trial itself to be held out of public access, why not information pertaining directly to those proceedings?

I really wish that would have been the rule from the 'get-go'... then we wouldn't have access to any of the he-said/she-said anyway... would have been much 'cleaner'. [ Of courrse the media might not be as happy, but that's another topic... ]

 

[raisincharlie]

Indeed. Based on the involvement of minor children, and, given the ties to an open murder investigation, I'm surprised there hasn't been some ruling to suppress and keep out of public access all the affidavits/testimony and subpoenas related to the custody.

If it's reasonable for the details of the civil trial itself to be held out of public access, why not information pertaining directly to those proceedings?

I really wish that would have been the rule from the 'get-go'... then we wouldn't have access to any of the he-said/she-said anyway... would have been much 'cleaner'. [ Of courrse the media might not be as happy, but that's another topic... ]

You wouldn't be happy either :crazy:

You are sensible enough to draw your own conclusions from the he said/she said stuff.

 

[jumpstreet]

Think about it - at the begining of September - LE conducted the third interview with Hiller - at that point LE for some reason had reason to believe that someone had used Nancy's phone. The investigation has advanced a lot if you think about it. The asking alone indicates LE already knows exactly where they are going. What could come out in the custody case to change this direction - I don't see it myself.

Agreed, it's not guaranteed to impact it. Not knowing exactly where LE stands makes it impossible to determine. If LE has nearly enough for an arrest, and they're only an explanation-for-phone-call away from an arrest, then the custody hearing is unlikely to have a bearing.

If LE is 'grasping at straws', or, not really that close to an arrest, and still looking for solid leads (ie, the forensics yielded nothing conclusive, there's a lot of reasonable doubt they need to work through), then having some additional witness testimony might not hurt.

The public nature of the custody hearing would seem to have the potential to impact additional witness testimony (who knows).

To me, the potential is there, that's all. If an arrest is made fairly quickly, before the custody hearings take place, then it likely had little to no impact. If an arrest is not made any time soon (or never), then it will be hard to know for sure what (if any) bearing the custody hearing had on that investigation. It may very well have had some though (it's conceivable, to me, depending on where LE is in the process).

 

[cygnusx1]

Got ya - thanks.
I don't see any of these affidavits being allowed as from the criminal requirements - most of them are filled with what would be defined as hersay evidence and not first hand knowledge. Again a much lower standard than what a criminal case requires. So I'm not sure there really is a potential for cross contamination if indeed BC is indicted.

I thought about the affidavits and such being inadmissible during the murder trial. But could the Judge herself be called in as a character witness if BC wins custody? The defense could ask the judge why she did not rule in favor of the Rentz's thus getting her opinion of the murder case into the record and the jury's minds.

 

[jumpstreet]

You wouldn't be happy either :crazy:

You are sensible enough to draw your own conclusions from the he said/she said stuff.

Well, sometimes, I think that I would have just as soon not known some of that stuff... .

For the overall situation, in hindsight, I do wonder if it wouldn't have been better to keep that stuff under wraps (for the reasons you mention). It's certainly not too late now I assume for the judge to order future custody related documents/affidavits/subpeonas to be kept out of the public eye [ due to minor children, and strong ties of case to open murder investigation ]

 

[raisincharlie]

I thought about the affidavits and such being inadmissible during the murder trial. But could the Judge herself be called in as a character witness if BC wins custody? The defense could ask the judge why she did not rule in favor of the Rentz's thus getting her opinion of the murder case into the record and the jury's minds.

I have no idea if the judge could be called in to be honest with you but I would suspect not if the judge presiding over the criminal case rules that nothing from the custody case would be allowed.

I just don't know. Good question.

 

[raisincharlie]

Well, sometimes, I think that I would have just as soon not known some of that stuff... .

For the overall situation, in hindsight, I do wonder if it wouldn't have been better to keep that stuff under wraps (for the reasons you mention). It's certainly not too late now I assume for the judge to order future custody related documents/affidavits/subpeonas to be kept out of the public eye [ due to minor children, and strong ties of case to open murder investigation ]

I'm not well versed in NC rules regarding the release of items related to civil matters but it seems to me those rules must be very lax to have allowed these affidavits to be public knowledge. In fact it seems almost insane to me.

I don't think anything relating to custody of children should be released. We have seen the results of doing so - FLAME WARS have ensued.

 

[Star12]

"I could be wrong but I think the civil case for custody will be held out of public access since it involves minor children so this will block one information access route other than just learning the outcome. I also have serious doubt that anything, to include the affidavits, associated with the civil case would be allowed under a criminal proceeding. I only say that because civil cases are indeed inflamatory and concluded on a much lower standard of proof."--RC

aaaaauh. I sure hated sitting there on the stand in the custody hearing, and seeing all these strangers sitting in the courtroom. Courtroom 8B, Wake County Courthouse.

 

[SleuthyGal]

So this deposition of BC today--

It's kind of like being put on the stand, except only one side is throwing questions at you and you have to answer or else take the 5th, unless your attorney directs you not to answer certain questions.

But some things may emerge in the course of the deposition which would not be seen in a favorable light by the judge, so there is exposure there. I guess part of me is surprised they (K&B) decided to continue with the custody case, allowed BC to be deposed, and not try to just extend temp custody for a few more months to delay or circumvent this process right now.

Thoughts?