Testimonies 10/16/08

[Anderson]

He did a 7 hour deposition...how on earth could any additional information come out in the custody hearing that was limited overall to less than 7 hours. I doubt there is additional information outside of what CPD may or may not have. But again, he did a 7 hour deposition.

If Brad had testified, then Det. Daniels could have been called as a rebuttal witness. Ta da - - - more information. But only in that case. See Mom's post above. It is in Brad's favour, so you should be happy about it.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

IMO

I agree Anderson. Taking of the passports alone perhaps is not significant in the course of a divorce. But then in the coinky-dink of all coinky-dinks...the "trapped feeling" spouse ends up murdered. It would be complete incompetence on the part of any police dept to not at least investigate the intimate partner/spouse in such a situation where the spouse was the last person known for *sure* to see the victim, and there was not only marital discord, but the couple was heading to a divorce and it was not amicable.

 

[ncsu95]

I agree Anderson. Taking of the passports alone perhaps is not significant in the course of a divorce. But then in the coinky-dink of all coinky-dinks...the "trapped feeling" spouse ends up murdered. It would be complete incompetence on the part of any police dept to not at least investigate the intimate partner/spouse in such a situation where the spouse was the last person known for *sure* to see the victim, and there was not only marital discord, but the couple was heading to a divorce and it was not amicable.

The point that rwesafe and I are making is that taking the passports wasn't a controlling action, but was a reasonable action for anyone in his situation to do. That has nothing to do with the murder. Taking the passports was rational and justified in my opinion.

 

[Anderson]

If this were a divorce case instead of a murder case, would you find it reasonable that the husband took the passports to prevent his wife from taking his kids and leaving the country?

Take BC out of it and put whoever you want in. Is the action alone a reasonable action in a divorce situation?

We are talking this case and we are talking about Brad. Is it legal for a spouse to take a passport in a given situation? I don't know.

I believe that my answer holds.

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

JMHO

 

[ncsu95]

We are talking this case and we are talking about Brad. Is it legal for a spouse to take a passport in a given situation? I don't know.

I believe that my answer holds.

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

JMHO

Why won't you answer the question?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Take BC out of it and put whoever you want in. Is the action alone a reasonable action in a divorce situation?

No I actually don't find it a reasonable move when there are other (legal) ways to deal with this issue than the removal and hiding of passports by the husband.

 

[ncsu95]

One more thing with regards to the passport...don't forget that he offered to let her possess 1 of them so that he would be under the exact same constraints. That way, neither of them could travel outside the country with the kids without the other parent knowing and/or agreeing. That is far from controlling, and quite rational in a divorce situation.

 

[ncsu95]

No I actually don't find it a reasonable move when there are other (legal) ways to deal with this issue than the removal and hiding of passports by the husband.

Thanks for answering. What other ways would you suggest?

 

[SleuthyGal]

I've never gone through a divorce so I have no idea...but if in such a situation and I was going through a divorce I would consult my attorney to find out how to deal with this...this could not have been the first time one spouse was worried that another spouse might take kids and leave the country...surely there is something that can be done from a legal standpoint, and relatively quickly at that.

Remember, there was testimony by several individuals that Brad WANTED Nancy to leave and take the kids with her (back to Canada). He moved the date of their departure up! Once he saw the draft separation agreement and the financial terms, he changed his mind. He himself said HE altered the plans, during his interview with detectives. It's in the affidavit.

 

[Anderson]

Why won't you answer the question?

I have already said so many times in this conversation what I think about Brad taking the passports. Just look at those posts and extrapolate. I would be very concerned if I were in a relationship where that happened, but I am not here to talk about myself.

Having said that, I understand that others hold different views and I have made room for this. I have also said that I don't know what would be legally acceptable.

I think that my answer holds, because we are talking about this case.

Answer below again for context:

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

 

[ncsu95]

I've never gone through a divorce so I have no idea...but if in such a situation and I was going through a divorce I would consult my attorney to find out how to deal with this...this could not have been the first time one spouse was worried that another spouse might take kids and leave the country...surely there is something that can be done from a legal standpoint, and relatively quickly at that.

Remember, there was testimony by several individuals that Brad WANTED Nancy to leave and take the kids with her (back to Canada). He moved the date of their departure up! Once he saw the draft separation agreement and the financial terms, he changed his mind. He himself said HE altered the plans, during his interview with detectives. It's in the affidavit.

Yes, he did change the plans. But here are some thoughts:

1. There was no civil case yet since neither had filed for divorce.
2. He had full joint custody of his children at that time since they were legally married and living together.
3. She did not have a legal right to leave the country with the children without his consent.
4. He had as much legal right to possess the passports as she did.
5. He had a justified fear that she would illegally leave the country with his kids. Her mom basically testified to this in court by describing the conversation at the airport. NC desperately wanted to go back to Canada, and probably would have if she had the passports.
6. He took them and then offered to give her 1 so that they both had the same constraints. Again, there was no legal action underway, so outside of spending money to go to court to get a restraining order preventing her from leaving the country with the kids, what else could he have done? And since he had as much right to them as she did, his actions were cheaper and more rational than going to court. A separation agreement would have worked this out with a court order, but they didn't have one yet.
7. He did not take her passport, which goes against the thought of being controlling. If he was trying to control her, he could have also taken that one. She was free to leave the country and could have boarded the plane back to Canada with her family if she chose to do so...just not without the kids (again, she legally couldn't have done this anyways).


And 1 more thing...if she wasn't planning on taking the kids and leaving without his consent, why were the passports an issue to begin with? He obviously was concerned about her doing that.

 

[Anderson]

Yes, he did change the plans. But here are some thoughts:

1. There was no civil case yet since neither had filed for divorce.
2. He had full joint custody of his children at that time since they were legally married and living together.
3. She did not have a legal right to leave the country with the children without his consent.
4. He had as much legal right to possess the passports as she did.
5. He had a justified fear that she would illegally leave the country with his kids. Her mom basically testified to this in court by describing the conversation at the airport. NC desperately wanted to go back to Canada, and probably would have if she had the passports.
6. He took them and then offered to give her 1 so that they both had the same constraints. Again, there was no legal action underway, so outside of spending money to go to court to get a restraining order preventing her from leaving the country with the kids, what else could he have done? And since he had as much right to them as she did, his actions were cheaper and more rational than going to court. A separation agreement would have worked this out with a court order, but they didn't have one yet.
7. He did not take her passport, which goes against the thought of being controlling. If he was trying to control her, he could have also taken that one. She was free to leave the country and could have boarded the plane back to Canada with her family if she chose to do so...just not without the kids (again, she legally couldn't have done this anyways).


And 1 more thing...if she wasn't planning on taking the kids and leaving without his consent, why were the passports an issue to begin with? He obviously was concerned about her doing that.

Hmmmm . . . It is beginning to sound like a motive for murder. Clearly Nancy would not leave without the kids.

 

[ncsu95]

Hmmmm . . . It is beginning to sound like a motive for murder.

No, more like justification for taking the kids passports.

 

[SleuthyGal]

1. Brad and Nancy had already retained separate counsel, which is why there were 2 drafts of a separation agreement sent to Brad. The separation was initiated by Nancy in March.

2. Brad removed the passports after seeing the separation agreements (in April).

3. Brad could have asked his lawyer to address the passport issue since he had already retained counsel.

4. Brad removed both passports and took them to his office. Brad did not say this was on the advice of his attorney. Brad retained 'control.'

5. You asked if there were other ways Brad could have dealt with the passport issue. I gave you an example.

 

[Anderson]

No, more like justification for taking the kids passports.

Perhaps, he saw it that way. As SG has mentioned, there must have been a legal course of action that Brad could have taken in this circumstance.

 

[jilly]

7. He did not take her passport, which goes against the thought of being controlling. If he was trying to control her, he could have also taken that one. She was free to leave the country and could have boarded the plane back to Canada with her family if she chose to do so...just not without the kids (again, she legally couldn't have done this anyways).

He knew darn well she wouldn't leave without the children. Of course it was control.

 

[Star12]

Perhaps, he saw it that way. As SG has mentioned, there must have been a legal course of action that Brad could have taken in this circumstance.

He at first TOLD her to take the kids and go to Canada and he never wanted to see them again. And Krista came down to help Nancy pack to make that happen. BC saw how much it was going to cost him, and he changed her moving plans and took one of the passports. The one was all that he needed to take. (Do we actually have notice that he only took one from someone other than BC?). Nancy would not go without one of her babies. And he refused the notion of separate maintainance. Big time control, there. She could not work, could not support herself, would not abandon a child.

(However, an interesting fact is that, once confronted with the actual 24/7 care and control of a child, a male parent with limited parenting skills often will change his mind about custody - since it usually isn't about the child at all. It's about control of the mother).

He was basically holding Nancy against her will, using the strongest card a man can use against a woman - her children.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I imagine it would take the wind out of many divorcing/estranged husband's sails if upon separation where custody was going to be an issue the wife said, "Sure..you take the kids...I trust you...you can have full custody!" How many men would suddenly start to backpedal big time when handed the very thing they say they want? And I don't mean the devoted fathers out there who take their parenting very seriously. I'm talking about the ones who don't spend much time with the kids but (tend to) use those same kids as pawns during a divorce. Of course as a friend of mine once said to me, "yeah and between the ages of 13 and 18 you couldn't give away your kids...no one would want them during THAT period of time what with teenage angst and rebellion and asking for a car and money, etc, etc!"

 

[boxy]

This is true. But I still find it laughable, that during a custody hearing concerning the best interests of two little girls, that this discussion over a painting in the court room is even considered relelvant for Brad's lawyers. If nothing else it shows that this painting and the money associated with it does indeed go into the plus column toward the identification of motive with respect to murder. Don't know how long ago this painting was purchased, but apparently it is still an aggravation...:crazy:

The custody hearing is about whether the girls have been abused, neglected, or abandoned. If the judge does not find that there is clear and convincing evidenced that they have been, then they are returned to BC.

 

[boxy]

Considering that Mr. Rentz agreed that Nancy needed control with spending, I do not understand being petty enough to continue arguing it given the focus of the hearing being an issue of custody. All it shows to me is confirmation of a potential motive - Nancy didn't obey, Nancy spent too much of Brad's money. What I fail to see is how this argument makes Brad appear to be deserving of having his children returned to him. :crazy:

Read (or reread) the ex parte custody petition. The plaintiffs claim that BC was controlling of money, so the line of questioning was very relevant to that claim. If the plaintiffs didn't want to go through that questioning, they could have amended or withdrawn the petition.