Judge issues restraining order to not let BC sell assets

[SleuthyGal]

good points, Raleigh. Brad's affys were so focused on his activities around Nancy's dissapearance/murder and trying to disprove statements made by others in their affys that in the four affy's he submitted he never:

- denied killing Nancy...not one time!

- detailed what kind of environment he would provide for the children on an ongoing basis.

Further, he placed all the blame for their financial sitch onto Nancy.

And, he did scream at Nancy in front of the children (despite saying he did not).

Sasser did mention that because he never took the witness stand she couldn't assess his credibility outside of his affys.

 

[raisincharlie]

But again, nothing that I consider explosive at all...all this posturing to have the custody order sealed.. pfffttt. I don't think it adds to any prejudice--people tend to not change their opinion once they've latched onto it. Evidence during the trial is what will alter opinions (or not).

I'm thinking Alice Stubbs pegged it - they ( BC's legal team) waited until the outcome and when it did not favor the jailed one they decided to file the motion and they would not be in court today if the outcome were different. Once again, his legal team proves to be sorely lacking in simple common sense. But will credit them with dogged determination to uphold the jailed one's image of himself. :crazy:

 

[RaleighNC]

good points, Raleigh. Brad's affys were so focused on his activities around Nancy's dissapearance/murder and trying to disprove statements made by others in their affys that in the four affy's he submitted he never:

- denied killing Nancy...not one time!

- detailed what kind of environment he would provide for the children on an ongoing basis.

Further, he placed all the blame for their financial sitch onto Nancy.

And, he did scream at Nancy in front of the children (despite saying he did not).

Sasser did mention that because he never took the witness stand she couldn't assess his credibility outside of his affys.

Looks like we're both not paying attention on conference calls. ;-)

And - I am right back to what appears to be the guiding sentence in both the judiciary and LE - "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true."

There's just wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many things that, when taken as a whole, don't make sense.

 

[DogWood]

I missed this before in the report from Chris.
======================================
"Lawyers for Nancy's families had also filed a temporary restraining order a couple weeks ago, preventing Brad Cooper from liquidating his assets.

Judge Sasser said that the two sides have agreed on a consent order related to that restraining order, and they will file it sometime next week."

http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/19457/cooper-custody-details-to-be-made-public/

 

[raisincharlie]

I missed this before in the report from Chris.
======================================
"Lawyers for Nancy's families had also filed a temporary restraining order a couple weeks ago, preventing Brad Cooper from liquidating his assets.

Judge Sasser said that the two sides have agreed on a consent order related to that restraining order, and they will file it sometime next week."

http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/19457/cooper-custody-details-to-be-made-public/

This would be consistent with the pattern established by the defendent's lawyers. Go to court to raise a stink and publicity, whine and complain, then quietly settle up. Hmmmm, seems to me a rather elaborate ruse to insure a change of venue for the criminal trial is granted. Should be interesting to hear the argument his legal team will make for the change of venue. Seems they are following the jailed one's wishes since he did not have the opportunity to allow his children to speak to the press.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm thinking Alice Stubbs pegged it - they ( BC's legal team) waited until the outcome and when it did not favor the jailed one they decided to file the motion and they would not be in court today if the outcome were different. Once again, his legal team proves to be sorely lacking in simple common sense. But will credit them with dogged determination to uphold the jailed one's image of himself. :crazy:

But of course they object to info getting out when they don't get to control when and how it gets out so they can put the proper spin on it. It's interesting that case documents being posted on WS or elsewhere seems so threatening to this law firm; why is truth threatening?

 

[SleuthyGal]

His case is likely 18+ months away from going to trial -- will a change of venue really be needed by then? His case will have faded from public view and (unfortunately) someone else/some other murder will likely have grabbed the public's attention by then.

 

[raisincharlie]

His case is likely 18+ months away from going to trial -- will a change of venue really be needed by then? His case will have faded from public view and (unfortunately) someone else/some other murder will likely have grabbed the public's attention by then.

I don't think the trial is 18 months away. The only way that happens is if K keeps throwing things under the wheels to delay it as long as possible, especially if the DA goes for the DP. I just don't see it being that far off honestly. As to the change of venue, it won't matter, K will make a motion for it just for the delay it will cause.

 

[DogWood]

This would be consistent with the pattern established by the defendent's lawyers. Go to court to raise a stink and publicity, whine and complain, then quietly settle up. Hmmmm, seems to me a rather elaborate ruse to insure a change of venue for the criminal trial is granted. Should be interesting to hear the argument his legal team will make for the change of venue. Seems they are following the jailed one's wishes since he did not have the opportunity to allow his children to speak to the press.

It sure is consitent. And to think the jailed one was complaining about the Rentz family talking about the children in the pressers?

So I take it there won't be a hearing on Monday...

 

[RaleighNC]

But of course they object to info getting out when they don't get to control when and how it gets out so they can put the proper spin on it. It's interesting that case documents being posted on WS or elsewhere seems so threatening to this law firm; why is truth threatening?

And their own spin is so "wobbly". If they are reading WS - they are not doing a very good job with comprehension.....

They still are saying that LE should have taken Brad's clothes back in JUNE.

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/Investigation/Mussed-Clothing.asp

 

[raisincharlie]

It sure is consitent. And to think the jailed one was complaining about the Rentz family talking about the children in the pressers?

So I take it there won't be a hearing on Monday...

You weren't suppose to remember that part, the Rentz's giving information on the childrens well being. :crazy:

Doesn't look like there will be a hearing since they settled yet again.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Maybe if LE had taken his clothes back in June (like all of them), he would have been busy purchasing new clothes instead of worrying about things like laundry, trips to HT, changing shoes, organizing shoes on the garage shelf, etc, etc, etc.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I realized the other night that I could never commit a crime (and expect to get away with it). I'd be leaving dog hair as my calling card...

< now where IS that lint brush anyway? >

 

[DogWood]

You weren't suppose to remember that part, the Rentz's giving information on the childrens well being. :crazy:

Doesn't look like there will be a hearing since they settled yet again.

Whoops!

I'd sure like to know why WRAL and the N&O haven't been as vigilant in filing their own requests in Michelle Young's case.

From the link above...

"Capitol Broadcasting and the News & Observer had filed their own request that the ruling be made public, as well.

"Our courts have said again and again that only extraordinary circumstances compel the sealing of court records," said attorney Amanda Martin. "Your order does not pose a substantial risk of harm to the defense."

 

[raisincharlie]

Whoops!

I'd sure like to know why WRAL and the N&O haven't been as vigilant in filing their own requests in Michelle Young's case.

From the link above...

"Capitol Broadcasting and the News & Observer had filed their own request that the ruling be made public, as well.

"Our courts have said again and again that only extraordinary circumstances compel the sealing of court records," said attorney Amanda Martin. "Your order does not pose a substantial risk of harm to the defense."

I think the kool aide supply ran out. Too many victims, no answers, and no decisions, just lots of sealed warrants. Enough is enough, if LE and the DA won't bring the criminals in, the public should know why.

 

[RaleighNC]

RC - I think you are correct. Women dying presumably at the hands of their SO's reached epidemic proportions in NC and the public wanted answers.

I only hope the fight to keep the pressure on and keep the records public continues for all victims.

 

[DogWood]

I think the kool aide supply ran out. Too many victims, no answers, and no decisions, just lots of sealed warrants. Enough is enough, if LE and the DA won't bring the criminals in, the public should know why.

Sure seems like the DA has held onto executed SW's in that case before returning them as well.

That hasn't been the case here that we know of.

Enough is enough...

 

[raisincharlie]

Sure seems like the DA has held onto executed SW's in that case before returning them as well.

That hasn't been the case here that we know of.

Enough is enough...

Early in this case the sealing of warrants was standard. I do believe, from watching the court discuss with Capitol Broadcasting, that a page was turned. The lawyers pointed out that sealed warrants were becoming the norm and not the exception. The look on Judge Stephens face at that comment and his response made it plain that a nerve was struck. Warrants began to get unsealed very quickly thereafter. Capitol Broadcasting made a point and it was a good one, and an irrefutable point because it was quite true. Not just in Nancy's case but in numerous others.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It was a good argument to make and one that can't be denied. The state was in danger of making the sealing of documents more the norm. Not a good precedent.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC - I think you are correct. Women dying presumably at the hands of their SO's reached epidemic proportions in NC and the public wanted answers.

I only hope the fight to keep the pressure on and keep the records public continues for all victims.

I hope so too Raleigh NC - I really do. While I sometimes don't think we really need the information, revealing the information often makes LE and the DAs remember that they must proceed on their jobs to obtain not only the truth but to serve the public. The one thing about Nancy's case that has had a positive side, it gives back a voice to the victims - it reinforces the need for justice to prevail when wrong has been inflicted and the public being reminded of that fact is never a bad thing.