Discussion in 'Nancy Cooper' started by chicoliving, Oct 12, 2008.
The other thread was getting pretty long so here ya go.
:Banane29: Yay! Let me enjoy the new fresh thread whilst there is lots of room!
Thanks for the new one, Chico!
How many more days till Brad's custody matter will be heard in court?
Here is something that has bothered me since I started listening to the tapes on Friday night. when asked, Brad says he 'wants to see his girls again' I have not heard the word 'love' come from his mouth !! ( and when passed the second thing was to help in the investigation of Nancy's murder . Have I got that right ?)
I want to have the girls again because I love them and miss them.
I need the girls in my life cause I love them so much.
I want to see them ?? When? When you finish work? come in from a run ?
Such a cold fish, imo
It is our Thanksgiving this weekend and I am so thankful that the girls are with a loving extended family . I am so thankful the Rentz's are fighting for them with such a competent law firm.
I think the actual hearing is scheduled for the 16th - Thursday. I think.
Happy Thanksgiving Jess ( and Ms. Jilly)
Jess, from his very first deposition I have never felt there was a normal bond between Brad and the children. Don't know why, just always felt they were more tools for his games, nothing more. I can't explain it - just reading between the lines I suppose. This is also how I view this custody issue - the fight is not to get them back as much as it is to keep them from the Rentz's. The added motivation now IMO is since he has made arrangements for his Mum to come back - he wants the kids back so if anything happens, his family will already have custody of the kids, and not the Rentz's. As I said I can't explain it, just how he says things and how he has described going about things - cold fish indeed.
He raises the issue of Nancy punishing him how many times in his deposition ? A lot, I don't think he is done punishing Nancy yet.
You've got to be kidding. He's using his kids as pawns? For what purpose? I'm sure Brad loves his kids. Just because he didn't specifically say it in the deposition doesn't mean anything. He wasn't asked if he loves his kids. He's a guy. Guys think differently than women.
I'm a guy too and I have a young daughter.
I'm not kidding. I've looked at the totality of Brad's works to date - the children are pawns, always have been IMO.
He was clearly nervous during the deposition. I think a lot of his memory loss was genuinly attributed to that. (not all. Some forgetfulness did seem intentional) Calgary123 noted on the "did or didn't he" thread that Brad stated he was engaged to a woman named Jennifer Wilson. According to C123, that was not her name! With something so easily checked out, he must have been rattled by the inquisiton. THAT is something you don't typically forget unless you are under extreme stress or in late-stage dementia. JMO
Sounds to me that he was weak when it came to women. Nancy pursued him and he finally gave in. I'll bet HM pursued him as well and he finally gave in to her. Not unexpected of a socially awkward, introverted person.
Does anyone have the link handy to Scott Heider's blog ?
I only ask because Alice Stubbs asked Brad about who he has socialized with since Nancy's death and what activities that included. He references having lunch with Scott Heider but never mentions about their trip to, was if Nags Head ? Just wanted to see if Heider has taken down his blog and if anyone from TS is reading, they can check out Mr. Heider's version of how they have socialized since Nancy was murdered.
Found it :http://scottheiderexperience.blogspot.com/
Guess he decided to take that entry out....
Part #23 pages 8- 11, 12, 13, or so. Hatteras
I think BC is held to a standard on alot of things that comes from a woman's point of view. Men do think in a more "state the facts" way versus more emotional way. I know that I, as a woman, can assign all kinds of meaning to something my husband says or does, and I can actually be way off track.
And who wouldn't be fidgeting with a pen if having to answer direct question after direct question about something where so much was at stake. And also you'd have to keep from getting defensive even when asked questions you resented or thot were irrelevent.
To me, he could be guilty-probably is-but comes across like he's telling the truth.
I did notice some major eye blinking going on when asked if he had ever argued with Nancy in the pre-school parking lot, and he answered "no". We have testimony from an eye-witness to the contrary.
The fact that TS has obtained an affidavit from Shirley Hull, who states she witnessed this, and from Gary Beard who could describe how the garage appeared 4 days before Nancy went missing, tells me that Ms. Stubbs and her staff have been extremely thorough. Uh oh.
RC, did TS obtain these two affidavits after Brad's deposition?
The affidavits, both are dated after the deposition, 7 October I think. Will look. Seems to me however, Ms. Stubbs was already aware fo these folks before the deposition since she asked the questions. Most likely got the pest guy from reviewing financial records - no idea how they came up with Ms. Hull, other than they had a list of kids at the school and checked out the parents.
Was interesting issuing the affidavits after the deposition - gotcha moment.
Shirley Hull 10/7/08
Gary Beard 10/8/08
Yeah, I bet he never thought anybody was listening to them in that parking lot. He figured the only witnesses were either too young to tell.....or were....deceased.
Gimme a break! Now you are ascribing a heated argument in a parking lot to premeditation. You are now saying that he was planning her murder since May 24 and argued like that knowing she would be dead in July. He wasn't thinking about anything other than the argument at the moment. He either didn't care who was listening or didn't know if anybody was listening. He didn't "figure" anything.
I could see him forgetting about the parking lot argument if you had lots of arguments. The garage thing however does seem to be a lie if he said he cleaned it while NC was still gone on her trip with her family. Or the pest control guy is lying or mistaken. Less likely, maybe.
I guess I find it hard to imagine lying on videotape to a bunch of lawyers and thinking you'd get away with it. So much easier and smarter to tell the truth.
Also, I guess he has to answer all this for the custody suit. Just reminds me of a very good youtube video I saw recently where a defense attorney explains why you should never say anything period to the police-innocent or guilty. It never helps you. And the policeman agreed.
Piedmont - I would agree about the parking lot argument being forgotten if the couple had lots of arguments, that would be sensible if one thinks about it. The problem I see for Brad is in his affidavit he clearly states that he and Nancy only had one "heated" argument and that was in February and at home. He also states the neighbors came over about taking the kids away from the argument for a while and that both he and Nancy were embarassed. He also states they did not argue infront of the children in the same affidavit. So I think you can see why people are wondering why he said "no" to the parking lot argument. Although I tend to agree with you, that it is likely he forgot about it, because it was more common than not.
Lines 155 - 157 http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/23/bradley%20cooper.pdf
RC-Plus when living in a hostile situation in the same house while wife pursuing divorce, it's kind of preposterous that they'd never argue in front of the children. The couple that could pull that off would be quite remarkable, in my opinion. Maybe in the affidavit he got carried away with trying to make himself look good and really shouldn't have made those blanket statements. Seems unrealistic.
And when you think about it, there are plenty of lousy husbands and lousy fathers who aren't murderers. Maybe I'm being overly sympathetic toward him and he doesn't deserve the sympathy!
Separate names with a comma.