Testimonies 10/16/08

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SleuthyGal said:
You believe there has been no evidence? Zero? So for instance, if he lied and it can be proven, that remains in the speculation category? There has been almost no evidence results released to us, the public, by the police dept. That doesn't mean no evidence exists. It does mean the public (which includes us WSers) are not privy to what may exist. To assume there is none is likely incorrect.
Click to expand...

I have not seen any evidence yet that allows me to draw a reasonable conclusion that he murdered her. That is my opinion.
 
With a full day in court on the 16th, it proves even the judge is having a hard time making a decision. I know I wouldn't want to be the one making this decision.

But yet again, these precious girl's are put on a plane, fate unknown. How much more are Bella & Katie asked to endure?

We must remember these are also innocent victims the youngest ones at that.
 
momto3kids said:
With a full day in court on the 16th, it proves even the judge is having a hard time making a decision. I know I wouldn't want to be the one making this decision.

But yet again, these precious girl's are put on a plane, fate unknown. How much more are Bella & Katie asked to endure?

We must remember these are also innocent victims the youngest ones at that.
Click to expand...

Well, they have to get back on with life. I'm sure Krista made sure the plane ride was seen as an adventure.

I wonder if they saw Brad while they were here... if he made any attempt...
 
jmflu said:
Well, they have to get back on with life. I'm sure Krista made sure the plane ride was seen as an adventure.

I wonder if they saw Brad while they were here... if he made any attempt...
Click to expand...

Come on now. I doubt he saw them because as KL said...."the court didn't order it".
 
They have had so many plane rides now it is most likely long and boring to them, especially at their age.

I know BC had not seen the girls by Thursday hearing. I really think if he didn't get the chance to see them while they were here and he does win them back...NC family might not ever get the opportunity to be with them again. Sad, but true.

KL went by court orders she said and wasn't going to flex at all.
 
ncsu95 said:
Come on now. I doubt he saw them because as KL said...."the court didn't order it".
Click to expand...

So... you think he shouldn't have even tried, while they were in the country?
 
Mom, that's my same fear. If custody returns back to Brad then I think it unlikely the Rentz' or Lister families will ever see those girls again if he has anything to say about it. I understand why they felt compelled to go for the emergency ex-parte and I see their POV, but it's a huge gamble because they might have won the battle only to lose the larger war.

IMHO Brad will never forgive the family for doing this to him...even if he's guilty he'll still probably feel they had no right to take his kids. And you know who will suffer in the end? The kids. Those kids love both the grandparents/aunts/uncles and their father. Can the adults ever come together on that one point? Somehow I doubt it.
 
SleuthyGal said:
Mom, that's my same fear. If custody returns back to Brad then I think it unlikely the Rentz' or Lister families will ever see those girls again if he has anything to say about it. I understand why they felt compelled to go for the emergency ex-parte and I see their POV, but it's a huge gamble because they might have won the battle only to lose the larger war.

IMHO Brad will never forgive the family for doing this to him...even if he's guilty he'll still probably feel they had no right to take his kids. And you know who will suffer in the end? The kids. Those kids love both the grandparents/aunts/uncles and their father. Can the adults ever come together on that one point? Somehow I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I think it would be so incredibly sad for Bella and Katie to not have access to that wonderful extended family.
 
jmflu said:
So... you think he shouldn't have even tried, while they were in the country?
Click to expand...

We don't know if he did. All we know is that she wouldn't let him unless the court ordered it.
 
SleuthyGal said:
Mom, that's my same fear. If custody returns back to Brad then I think it unlikely the Rentz' or Lister families will ever see those girls again if he has anything to say about it. I understand why they felt compelled to go for the emergency ex-parte and I see their POV, but it's a huge gamble because they might have won the battle only to lose the larger war.

IMHO Brad will never forgive the family for doing this to him...even if he's guilty he'll still probably feel they had no right to take his kids. And you know who will suffer in the end? The kids. Those kids love both the grandparents/aunts/uncles and their father. Can the adults ever come together on that one point? Somehow I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Considering the scrutiny he will remain under for an extended period of time....I doubt he will prevent them from seeing their children.
 
momto3kids said:
Your most welcome. I am happy I was able to do it with SG. I think we all want what is in the best interest of Bella & Katie.

I expected to see DD and the Morwicks present, but neither families were there. Since NC's friends weren't subpoenaed, I expect they didn't want to be present to hear HP bombshell.
Click to expand...
I've been out of town for over a week visiting family and enjoying peak leaf season in the NC mountains. Wow! I can't believe how many new threads were made in my absence. It's taken a day & 1/2 to read everything! Thanks Mom (& SG) for a wonderful recap of court proceedings.

My one question is to Mom.... What exactly was HP's bomshell that DD and the Morwicks did not want to be present to hear?!! That comment didn't make any sense to me.
 
What exactly was HP's bomshell that DD and the Morwicks did not want to be present to hear?!! That comment didn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

MM allegedly told Nancy one time when he was inebriated, that "he'd like to *advertiser censored** her brains out." And CD (DD's husband) allegedly came over to Nancy's house, he was inebriated, and he stared at her a really long time and said, "you know you feel it too!"

BTW, WELCOME BACK!! I'm so jealous you got to see the leaves :leaf: changing in the mountains!!
 
SleuthyGal said:
MM allegedly told Nancy one time when he was inebriated, that "he'd like to *advertiser censored** her brains out." And CD (DD's husband) allegedly came over to Nancy's house, he was inebriated, and he stared at her a really long time and said, "you know you feel it too!"

BTW, WELCOME BACK!! I'm so jealous you got to see the leaves :leaf: changing in the mountains!!
Click to expand...
How did WS find this out? Was it disclosed in the hearing?
 
BC case....Ex Parte #9 states defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children.

I found the following case, as I am sure there are many more, interesting to read.

Owenby vs Young, went to the Supreme Court of NC in 2003, (grandmother vs son in law). Of course it's based on the "best interest of the children." It had different parental issues than BC. This case has many cases cited within it to help give us better perspective on how a decision like this is reached.


http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:UbE2NTQuW6EJ:www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2003/286-02-1.htm+inconsistent+constitution+protected+status+as+parent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
 
momto3kids said:
BC case....Ex Parte #9 states defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children.

I found the following case, as I am sure there are many more, interesting to read.

Owenby vs Young, went to the Supreme Court of NC in 2003, (grandmother vs son in law). Of course it's based on the "best interest of the children." It had different parental issues than BC. This case has many cases cited within it to help give us better perspective on how a decision like this is reached.


http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:UbE2NTQuW6EJ:www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2003/286-02-1.htm+inconsistent+constitution+protected+status+as+parent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Click to expand...

Interesting case but the one you want to read is probably Speagle v. Seitz, in which a mother was acquitted of murder of the father of her child but the NC Supreme Court found that evidence of her involvement in the murder should be considered and agreed that she had acted in a manner inconsistent with her constitutionally protected status as parent. It even cites the custody case of OJ Simplson's children.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2001/032-01-1.htm
 
boxy said:
Interesting case but the one you want to read is probably Speagle v. Seitz, in which a mother was acquitted of murder of the father of her child but the NC Supreme Court found that evidence of her involvement in the murder should be considered and agreed that she had acted in a manner inconsistent with her constitutionally protected status as parent. It even cites the custody case of OJ Simplson's children.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2001/032-01-1.htm
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen this one. It's most interesting I must say.
Thanks for posting it.
 
That is an interesting case and I think we all agree that the children should be with NC family if BC committed this crime. That is the biggest difference in this case and the BC/NC case. In that case, the mother was arrested, charged and it went to trial. She was acquitted of all charges but the preponderance of the evidence was such that it proved she was involved in the murder.

I have no problem with NC family having the kids if BC is charged with this crime. Until then, I do not see where his actions were inconsistent with his protected status based on all these court cases that have been referenced today.
 
garner_nc said:
That is an interesting case and I think we all agree that the children should be with NC family if BC committed this crime. That is the biggest difference in this case and the BC/NC case. In that case, the mother was arrested, charged and it went to trial. She was acquitted of all charges but the preponderance of the evidence was such that it proved she was involved in the murder.

I have no problem with NC family having the kids if BC is charged with this crime. Until then, I do not see where his actions were inconsistent with his protected status based on all these court cases that have been referenced today.
Click to expand...

One thing I did not understand about the NCSC opinion in the Speagle v. Seitz case was the statement that the standard of proof in custody cases is preponderance of the evidence. The state statutes seem to say the standard is clear and convincing evidence. Either the law has changed or I'm reading the statutes wrong. It would be good to know for the Cooper case what the standard of proof is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 96 more.
Total: 3,948 (members: 97, guests: 3,851)

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
3,851
Total visitors
3,948
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,194
Messages
17,982,227
Members
229,050
Latest member
utahtruecrimepod
Back
Top