Search results

Right - recalling that now too... thanks.

I guess I wasn't sure we knew even this for certain either. (Though I agree it would seem a reasonable assumption)

Not sure I realized this one... do we know who did originally contact the Rentz's? JA? LE? Someone else? [ and when they were contacted]

:rolling: Hee hee... yes, I do remember you mentioned that. :)

He seemed to ask a number of them for information specific to a particular GMA interview... so apparantly in the defense team's eyes, there is something relevent there (not sure what, but it doesn't seem like it's a general "I'm mad at anyone who spoke on TV to anyone" type of query) Yeah...

The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake." So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be...

Thanks - good info, and makes sense...

There were a lot of references to a specific "Good Morning America" interview in the subpoena(s)... anyone know (or care to speculate) why? Not sure I recall seeing that particular interview (vs all the other media interviews, etc). Was there anything noteworthy about it?

Okay - thanks. So while we know that no indictments have been issued in this case... we don't know for sure that no presentations have been put forth to the GJ in this case. [ ie, it's possible the DA has gone to the GJ on this one (and/ even the MY case for that matter), but been denied by...

Scandalous jmflu... just scandalous! ;)

Agreed. Also agreed, if we assume he is guilty. [ Though, side-bar, as posted before, I remain one of the (few?) still not fully convinced of that ;) No attacks please... it's late... :) ]

Hi jmflu... the subpoena of SC can be found on page 16 of the document posted here. All the subpoenas that BC's defense team submitted today (along with a number of associated appeals from plaintiff's are bundled in that same file.

My assumption is that all the custody affidavits have been posted, and the SC did not submit one. I didn't see anything in BC's subpoena of her that indicated she had submitted one. [ Presumably, BC is free to subpoena anyone he wants to as it pertains to collecting data for the custody...

Item 12 on Susan Crook's affidavit implies she has knowledge of a specific person who NC may have had relations with since Jan 1 2007 (so presumably, this is a different relationship than the 4-year old non-sexual one that BC initially made mention of in his affidavit). Maybe he didn't want to...

It's a good point. Although I'm not sure we know for sure that LE is still looking at BC. We only know that they were looking at him fairly closely nearly 2 months ago. [ I guess we know/assume that they haven't requested any SW's for anyone else, so maybe they are still looking at him, but...

BC obviously knows something happened with the tires at some point, and he must think these folks know something about it... it's too pointed a question to just be random. Whether that something is relevant... who knows. Yeah, exactly. The obviously explanation would be that BC knows for...

The recent subpoena's from BC's side aren't yet posted on the Legal Documents thread of WebSleaths. I'm sure they will be at some point. They are available here in the meantime. Interesting stuff... as Anubis mentioned, no doubt BC's attorneys realize that much of their requests will be...

It's mentioned in at least one of the news articles with the story I think. Also, the subpoena's are posted on WRAL now, and some of them already have corresponding objections from the plaintiff's attorneys to the request.

The actual subpoena's are posted on wral now, along with some of the objections. Some stuff in there implying NC's tires were slashed at some point over the recent past. (The defense requesting plantiff's to communicate any knowledge they have of same). Is that something new, or has it come...

Agreed. I guess it's not clear to me that the recent moves by BC's attorneys pertain to the 4-year (or 8-year) old non-sexual affair mentioned in BC's original affidavit... or... something more recent. But yeah, as mentioned... other than various word-of-mouth rumors that seem to keep coming...