Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #27

[SleuthyGal]

Have you listened to the line of questioning regarding the parking lot argument? I am curious if your opinion would be the same after listening. If you have, then we just disagree on that point.

Hey Red, I hate to do this to you, but do you remember which video this was on? I missed it (apparently I didn't get through as much of the depo testimony as I originally thought). I need to listen to it since it's a significant area of inconsistency.

 

[Anderson]

The July thing was an emergency order at a time when the Murder investigation was just beginning. Things were chaotic. She had nothing to go on back then other than what the Rentz family said. He didn't have the opportunity to defend himself and the order was given without his representation. That is completely different.

Where did the judge say she would decide if he committed the murder or not? She said she would take the investigation into account from what I remember, I could be wrong. I'll say this, I would have extreme issue with a custody judge making a determination of someones guilt or innocence in a murder case that is still under investigation. That would contaminate any future criminal trial. She can make determination of his character, but not of his guilt or innocence.

Regarding the emergency custody, the Judge was most likely basing her decision on more information than NC's family put forth. She had early access to information and likely knew things then that we still have no access to. Brad had the opportunity to represent himself in a custody hearing in July. He didn't take it!

 

[ncsu95]

Regarding the emergency custody, the Judge was most likely basing her decision on more information than NC's family put forth. She had early access to information and likely knew things then that we still have no access to. Brad had the opportunity to represent himself in a custody hearing in July. He didn't take it!

My opinion with the July hearing that BC make the temporary custody agreement was that it was being done in the best interest of the girls. Things were still very new at the time. He needed to work through a bunch of things and let the media circus, etc. die down.

 

[reddress58]

Hey Red, I hate to do this to you, but do you remember which video this was on? I missed it (apparently I didn't get through as much of the depo testimony as I originally thought). I need to listen to it since it's a significant area of inconsistency.

I believe it was #3, the mental exam one. It was the last one I looked at last night. I've been skipping around.

 

[Anderson]

I believe he was simply mistaken. Or, it's possible that a few things were in the center of the garage. But again, when are you (or others) suggesting that he cleaned the garage? I doubt he did it in the middle of the night on the 11th/12th. That would cause too much attention. I doubt he did it on the morning of the 12th. He didn't have time to do this without being noticed. So when did he do it? It had to be before then...so it makes sense that it had to be before the 8th since BC worked on the 9th - 11th.

GB sounds quite sure and I don't see why he would weigh in with this information otherwise, since he has nothing to gain.

Perhaps we will find that there other witnesses one way or the other to help clarify the issue.

 

[SleuthyGal]

The thing about why the plaintiffs attorneys are going after all these areas is that Brad listed over 165 items in his original affy and all that is discoverable. Brad stated he and Nancy only had one argument in front of the kids. He didn't have to say that--he didn't have to write any of it. But once he did and signed his name to this legal document, that gives the opposing lawyers latitude to prove that what he wrote/testified to is wrong. HE OPENED THE DOOR HIMSELF! This was not required that he do so, but he did it.

If TS did not explore each and every statement he made and find areas of discrepancies they would be incompetent and would be subject to malpractice and could be successfully sued by their client(s) for malpractice. It isn't *personal*; they're doing the job they were hired to do. There are a ton of he said/she said type statements across the affys. However, some statements can be verified as true or false because of witnesses.

We can all choose to ignore each and every area of conflict if we desire, but the lawyers have a professional obligation to not ignore anything and pursue each statement. Bottom line: if you don't want to get caught in a lie then don't lie, if you don't want discovery about areas of your life, then don't make proclamations and statements about those areas in a discoverable legal document. And if you do all of the above then you should expect to be held accountable for each and every statement you make because you will be (whether that's fair or not).

 

[Anderson]

My opinion with the July hearing that BC make the temporary custody agreement was that it was being done in the best interest of the girls. Things were still very new at the time. He needed to work through a bunch of things and let the media circus, etc. die down.

So you feel that this was purely Brad's decision?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Maybe he has a different definition of heated. Maybe the one in Feb was a knock-down screaming match, versus general arguing, even with a raised voice.

In his affy Brad said he never swore in front of the girls and didn't use that language with Nancy. He also said he never raised his voice at any other time than that Feb fight that the neighbors heard.

He said it, he was specific about what he said in his affys, and the attorneys have a witness who heard and saw something specific in direct conflict with his statements. It's not a matter of degrees...he laid the foundation himself and very specifically at that.

 

[reddress58]

The thing about why the plaintiffs attorneys are going after all these areas is that Brad listed over 165 items in his original affy and all that is discoverable. Brad stated he and Nancy only had one argument in front of the kids. He didn't have to say that--he didn't have to write any of it. But once he did and signed his name to this legal document, that gives the opposing lawyers latitude to prove that what he wrote/testified to is wrong. HE OPENED THE DOOR HIMSELF! This was not required that he do so, but he did it.

If TS did not explore each and every statement he made and find areas of discrepancies they would be incompetent and would be subject to malpractice and could be successfully sued by their client(s) for malpractice. It isn't *personal*; they're doing the job they were hired to do. There are a ton of he said/she said type statements across the affys. However, some statements can be verified as true or false because of witnesses.

We can all choose to ignore each and every area of conflict if we desire, but the lawyers have a professional obligation to not ignore anything and pursue each statement. Bottom line: if you don't want to get caught in a lie then don't lie, if you don't want discovery about areas of your life, then don't make proclamations and statements about those areas in a discoverable legal document. And if you do all of the above then you should expect to be held accountable for each and every statement you make because you will be (whether that's fair or not).

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[ncsu95]

So you feel that this was purely Brad's decision?

He agreed to resolution prior to the hearing. I believe he did this based on his attorney's recommendation. I have absolutely no knowledge about what went on...it's only my opinion.

 

[Anderson]

The thing about why the plaintiffs attorneys are going after all these areas is that Brad listed over 165 items in his original affy and all that is discoverable. Brad stated he and Nancy only had one argument in front of the kids. He didn't have to say that--he didn't have to write any of it. But once he did and signed his name to this legal document, that gives the opposing lawyers latitude to prove that what he wrote/testified to is wrong. HE OPENED THE DOOR HIMSELF! This was not required that he do so, but he did it.

If TS did not explore each and every statement he made and find areas of discrepancies they would be incompetent and would be subject to malpractice and could be successfully sued by their client(s) for malpractice. It isn't *personal*; they're doing the job they were hired to do. There are a ton of he said/she said type statements across the affys. However, some statements can be verified as true or false because of witnesses.

We can all choose to ignore each and every area of conflict if we desire, but the lawyers have a professional obligation to not ignore anything and pursue each statement. Bottom line: if you don't want to get caught in a lie then don't lie, if you don't want discovery about areas of your life, then don't make proclamations and statements about those areas in a discoverable legal document. And if you do all of the above then you should expect to be held accountable for each and every statement you make because you will be (whether that's fair or not).

Thanks SG. And I believe that you and other websleuthers predicted that this would happen very early.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I believe it was #3, the mental exam one. It was the last one I looked at last night. I've been skipping around.

Thank you! :blowkiss:

 

[raisincharlie]

I believe he was simply mistaken. Or, it's possible that a few things were in the center of the garage. But again, when are you (or others) suggesting that he cleaned the garage? I doubt he did it in the middle of the night on the 11th/12th. That would cause too much attention. I doubt he did it on the morning of the 12th. He didn't have time to do this without being noticed. So when did he do it? It had to be before then...so it makes sense that it had to be before the 8th since BC worked on the 9th - 11th.

Why would it draw attention ? There are no windows to see into the garage, one doesn't have to open the door to clean the garage. I don't think cleaning his garage in the middle of the night would draw anyone's attention given those facts alone. He had plenty of time to move things around. Had he cleaned his garage two weeks before, why was Nancy's car still parked out in the drive ? He cleaned it out for her didn't he, so he says ?

 

[Anderson]

He agreed to resolution prior to the hearing. I believe he did this based on his attorney's recommendation. I have absolutely no knowledge about what went on...it's only my opinion.

I agree that his attorneys most likely recommended that Brad take this option. However, that leads me to ask what information was floating around. The attorneys were basing their recommendation on something (IMO this was about much more than just allowing Brad to 'get things sorted out' or waiting for media coverage to simmer down).

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks SG. And I believe that you and other websleuthers predicted that this would happen very early.

You're welcome. This is standard fare in the world of civil trials, depositions, etc. Every statement uttered under oath is subject to discovery and cross examination, and I would be shocked at any attorney who didn't delve into each statement (and not just on this case, but on any case they handled). Anal retentiveness scores points and wins cases because thoroughness is always in a client's best interest. And continuing with that theme, believe me, if I were paying $200+ an hour to an attorney, I'd want (and expect) that attorney to be more thorough than a proctology exam!

 

[raisincharlie]

I believe it was #3, the mental exam one. It was the last one I looked at last night. I've been skipping around.

Speaking of mental exams - what do you think the possibilities are that the court ordered mental exam will include a viewing of the deposition tape ?

 

[Anderson]

You're welcome. This is standard fare in the world of civil trials, depositions, etc. Every statement uttered under oath is subject to discovery and cross examination, and I would be shocked at any attorney who didn't delve into each statement (and not just on this case, but on any case they handled). Anal retentiveness scores points and wins cases because thoroughness is always in a client's best interest. And continuing with that theme, believe me, if I were paying $200+ an hour to an attorney, I'd want (and expect) that attorney to be more thorough than a proctology exam!

I learn more here everyday!

 

[SleuthyGal]

I learn more here everyday!

For the record, I've had neither experience. :wink: :smile:

 

[Anderson]

Speaking of mental exams - what do you think the possibilities are that the court ordered mental exam will include a viewing of the deposition tape ?

Interesting. That makes a lot of sense. In any case, we know that the examiner has access to the information! It would be hard to ignore, I imagine.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Speaking of mental exams - what do you think the possibilities are that the court ordered mental exam will include a viewing of the deposition tape ?

It would be helpful to a psychologist doing a thorough mental evaluation, so I'd expect they would watch at least some of the deposition, if not the entire thing. It's out there and available; no reason not to watch at least some of it.