You are so correct !!! If you spend some time going back and reading NC's friends affidavits (make a few notes too) you will start to get a clearer picture of the mind games he was playing with her and his attempts at taking CONTROL.
Brad Cooper
- Thread starter SeriouslySearching
- Start date
- Status
You are so correct !!! If you spend some time going back and reading NC's friends affidavits (make a few notes too) you will start to get a clearer picture of the mind games he was playing with her and his attempts at taking CONTROL.
SleuthyGal
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 1
I was being somewhat facetious because I knew from reading the affidavits that he was all about control. He was just so STUPID though. In his rebuttal affidavit he complains/explains that his wife is a spendthrift with expensive tastes and habits and now here's a concrete example of her actually EARNING some money herself and instead of being happy/relieved about it and encouraging her to work and earn more money (hey and if she does that then maybe he wouldn't have to pay as much alimony when they do finalize things), he's pissed off.
JERK!
If this case eventually goes to trial, I hope this particular point is brought up by the DA in their questioning of any friends who are on the stand. Cause it sure paints a telling picture and example of his control issues. And of course they have his own 'words' in his recent rebuttal affidavit, which can be utilized in court to cement the point.
JERK!
If this case eventually goes to trial, I hope this particular point is brought up by the DA in their questioning of any friends who are on the stand. Cause it sure paints a telling picture and example of his control issues. And of course they have his own 'words' in his recent rebuttal affidavit, which can be utilized in court to cement the point.
SusieClue
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 1
Thanks rc, I knew you were the best!:blowkiss:
I'll post anything that he finds...
raisincharlie
Racing Doesn't Lie
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 16,856
- Reaction score
- 141
Star
Are you sure there will be a psych evaluation? I'm not so sure that is the case since the parties resolved the 25th hearing in chambers and without the judge even being present. The psych evalution was a motion by the plaintiffs not a court order and I'm not at all sure the judge ruled on any motions from either side during the hearing of the 25th.
I dunno
hmmm, You are right. I don't remember reading that in the order, now that you mention it. I guess I figgured it would happen because of the October date for the hearing.
raisincharlie
Racing Doesn't Lie
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 16,856
- Reaction score
- 141
hmmm, You are right. I don't remember reading that in the order, now that you mention it. I guess I figgured it would happen because of the October date for the hearing.
Perhaps Brad consented in chambers? He agreed to let his children return to Canada, the only thing we know for sure he refused to do was take the stand.
I don't think he refused to take the stand. There was no 'hearing'. The matter of temporary custody was settled prior to any hearing, and the hearing was then continued until October 13. The order covered a lot of ground, but don't remember the psych eval being memorialized.
raisincharlie
Racing Doesn't Lie
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 16,856
- Reaction score
- 141
Just my interpretation - he came there to fight for his children and in the end he accomplished nothing he intended to do. He came there with affidavits, the ME was there, he brought his proof. Tharrington Smith had the aces - agree or you will be on the stand and you will have to answer questions regarding the murder fo your wife. I contend his lawyer was smart enough to say no way, let em have the kids. In simple terms.
maconrich
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,182
- Reaction score
- 2,764
Finally looking thru BC's site - well actually reading instead of just looking that is - and to his credit he does give N a thumbs up during his discussion of the 2006 FL Ironman event. Who knows there may be more that I've not gotten to yet. Regardless it's good to see another mention of his family (and N specifically) - but to be fair it is obvious the blog is focused on training, etc so not writing about the family doesn't seem abnormal in any way. And I absolutely agree with his statement that having pictures and information about the children online isn't a good idea! So, yes, I can see that the other site might have started out about the little ones but was cleaned up to protect them!
I can also see that some of the info (on his blog) could have been extremely useful when it came to the affidavits (on behalf of N's family) which stated that he worked out however many hours at a time. This information may or may not have been accurate, but it's certainly possible for someone/anyone to read his blog, make assumptions and then take it step further and make it sound like a routine (without ever seeing it or even hearing about it from NC or BC). In fact it was stated that N never complained about his competition/training, and it seems this may have been at least one area where they were compatible (shared interest).
So as far as the custody issue, I'd have to throw out most - if not all - statements regarding his training and the implications that it would interfere with his ability to take care of the children. Granted if he wanted to go to LTF for a late night swim he'd need a babysitter, but imo that's a non-issue. People do adjust their routines when children are involved - and this is especially true for single parents. Bottom line for me is it might have sounded good but there's not much to support it, and there's absolutely nothing that indicates it would be a problem given the change in circumstances.
And FWIW it doesn't look like BC has, at this point, signed up for the 9/14 Duke Half Ironman competition in Raleigh -- SH is on the participant list. (Actually I'm only finding him (BC) on the 2005 result list but I might be missing him.)
IMO the blog doesn't come off as narcissistic --not to say other things about him don't or that he's not-- just that the blog is more of an it is what it is thing, and that it could have provided information that was included in at least one affidavit re the custody issue. Just another FWIW... and another reason for me to wish the clock could be turned back and the tragedy averted...
I can also see that some of the info (on his blog) could have been extremely useful when it came to the affidavits (on behalf of N's family) which stated that he worked out however many hours at a time. This information may or may not have been accurate, but it's certainly possible for someone/anyone to read his blog, make assumptions and then take it step further and make it sound like a routine (without ever seeing it or even hearing about it from NC or BC). In fact it was stated that N never complained about his competition/training, and it seems this may have been at least one area where they were compatible (shared interest).
So as far as the custody issue, I'd have to throw out most - if not all - statements regarding his training and the implications that it would interfere with his ability to take care of the children. Granted if he wanted to go to LTF for a late night swim he'd need a babysitter, but imo that's a non-issue. People do adjust their routines when children are involved - and this is especially true for single parents. Bottom line for me is it might have sounded good but there's not much to support it, and there's absolutely nothing that indicates it would be a problem given the change in circumstances.
And FWIW it doesn't look like BC has, at this point, signed up for the 9/14 Duke Half Ironman competition in Raleigh -- SH is on the participant list. (Actually I'm only finding him (BC) on the 2005 result list but I might be missing him.)
IMO the blog doesn't come off as narcissistic --not to say other things about him don't or that he's not-- just that the blog is more of an it is what it is thing, and that it could have provided information that was included in at least one affidavit re the custody issue. Just another FWIW... and another reason for me to wish the clock could be turned back and the tragedy averted...
Wait a minute. What's all this about a deleted cookie being so irregular. I'm sure we all know how to search the cookies and delete certain internet searches, yet a missing cookie is the crux of one of the defence arguments. Is that was this is about ... the cookie is missing, but trace files remain ... so they must have been planted? Was there a belief around the time of the murder that deleting a cookie after "private browsing" automatically removed all trace files?
Wouldn't a murderer double check that?
Wouldn't a murderer double check that?
Whoa, Mike. Waking up an old thread. Feel free to reply back on a current thread.
Before I answer, let's make sure we're on the same page. Do you think there is one cookie for every search, or do you think Google cookies are per user-and-purpose? Hint: the defense team did a good job tricking you on which it really is.
- Status