Brad Cooper: Appeal info

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is driven largely by a prejudice against Brad more than concern over the children. I believe, without doubt, that the family loves the children and will do anything to protect them. However, their conviction that Brad is responsible for the death of their daughter/sister is impacting their determination to shield the children from him.

The family didn't "tear" the children away. They were presented with a set of circumstances where these two girls' mother was murdered. They already heard and lived the stories they were told by Nancy about how Brad treated her. They believed their daughter when she told them that Brad had been suicidal, and now their daughter was dead under circumstances which naturally suggest the husband is at least a suspect.

What are they to do? Wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Even if they didn't then know if Brad did it, they certainly knew it was a possibility he did, and not a slight one. Protecting the girls by getting them away was the right thing to do, even if Brad was factually innocent. In the case of vulnerable children, situations like this demand extreme caution.

Ironically, Brad submitting to a video deposition in the custody aspect of the case resulted in one of the stronger pieces of evidence against him. From a pure point of view of avoiding a conviction, he should have not done that. I think this is where his lawyers made their biggest mistake.
 
Thanks for your measured response oenophile, I suppose we'll see what happens next, and then we can debate and discuss that.

The only article I've read as to the state's current intentions is the WRAL article where the DA is quoted to say, Brad "will probably be retried". He says they need to find a court room and a judge... don't they have those?

Sure resources are always tight, but one would expect a stronger statement than that in a first degree murder case. If anything, the lack of the availability of a court room and judge would only help Brad's success in arguing for lower barriers to release pending a retrial, so the statement by itself is unusual.

Thank you! As to the DA comments, I must believe that the DA has too much invested in convicting Brad to not have another trial. I don't see another option.

I had to just repeat this part of your post. Talk about a strawman! Nancy Grace is not even honest about the circumstances regarding the murder of her own boyfriend/fiance, and has developed a lucrative career relaying false "facts" about that murder as her raison d'etre. I would agree she is someone with the "pitchfork" mentality, but she's just in it for the money. She is plain awful, and not to be trusted or believed. I'm sure there are some who think Brad did it just because, but I haven't seen a lot of that in the threads on this sub-forum.

No argument as to Nancy Grace.

As to the threads, I've definitely seen many unsubstantiated arguments or arguments based on previously discredited theories. The shoes and the "fabricated" phone call are the two most egregious examples of this.
 
Evidence submitted in the custody hearing in Oct 2008.

Please be more specific. Where in the custody hearing did the children state or indicate that they were "loathe to talk with him"? This is a very serious and defamatory claim.
 
The documented evidence is the family was concerned about Brad being a danger to himself and the children due to information they had about his mental state and alleged suicidal thoughts at some prior time along with him being a part of a murder investigation. On top of that the family does believe he murdered their loved one and protection of the children is the de facto goal, as it was since this whole horrible mess started.

Understand that, but the information they had about his mental state was inaccurate, and their belief that he murdered their daughter/sister was not proven nor officially accused. They had no right to take his children away, at least not until he was arrested and indicted for the crime.
 
The children were going to be removed from Brad in any event. He got arrested and that was apparently going to happen regardless (because the DA decided he had enough evidence to indict and prove his case before a jury). How harmful would that have been to the children.

The best interests of the children were served in that they were protected, their safety was assured, they were physically away from the local media and ongoing legal battles, they were with family they knew well and loved, surrounded by cousins of a similar age, had good psychological counseling, and were in an emotionally supportive environment.

Let's not forget that Brad agreed to the children staying in Canada on a temporary custody agreement from July 25th for the next 3 months. Then he was in jail.
 
Please be more specific. Where in the custody hearing did the children state or indicate that they were "loathe to talk with him"? This is a very serious and defamatory claim.

It is true. It's in the court record from Oct 17th/18th 2008. The judge reviewed evidence showing the children in video chats with Brad. Testimony during the hearing is that those various sessions were causing distress for the kids.
 
Understand that, but the information they had about his mental state was inaccurate, and their belief that he murdered their daughter/sister was not proven nor officially accused. They had no right to take his children away, at least not until he was arrested and indicted for the crime.

In one of the affidavits, the youngest Rentz sibling was in the car with Nancy & Brad during one of their visits to Canada when a prior suicide attempt by Brad came up in conversation. The information they had about his mental state came from many things, including their own experiences. Even Brad's psychologist at the custody hearing said Brad was under pressure, was anxious. The other psychologist had done tests on Brad as well and those findings showed additional concerns.

The family had every legal right to protect the children and that's what they did, like it or not.
 
Anyway, the issue is the retrial, if there is one, not the custody situation, which will not be changing anytime soon.
 
It is true. It's in the court record from Oct 17th/18th 2008. The judge reviewed evidence showing the children in video chats with Brad. Testimony during the hearing is that those various sessions were causing distress for the kids.

Again, can you show documentation of this? Is this public record that the children were "loathe" to talk with their father? Or if this is not a matter of public record, how do you have access to it?
 
In one of the affidavits, the youngest Rentz sibling was in the car with Nancy & Brad during one of their visits to Canada when a prior suicide attempt by Brad came up in conversation. The information they had about his mental state came from many things, including their own experiences. Even Brad's psychologist at the custody hearing said Brad was under pressure, was anxious. The other psychologist had done tests on Brad as well and those findings showed additional concerns.

The family had every legal right to protect the children and that's what they did, like it or not.

No, they did not. The suicide was an accusation by the Rentz's that was not substantiated. Without substantiation, there is not a mental state issue with Brad, this is simply a tactic to get custody of the kids.
 
Let's not forget that Brad agreed to the children staying in Canada on a temporary custody agreement from July 25th for the next 3 months. Then he was in jail.

Out of curiosity, don't you agree that this shows an incredible amount of goodwill and concern for his children's future on the part of Brad?
 
I am trying to think of other cases where the parent was in jail and the kid(s) went to live with family members after a custody ruling and then returned after either a NG Verdict or an acquittal.
All I can think of is OJ Simpson.
Any others?

Also, I wonder if BC's lawyers will be back for this and who will preside over the case?
I am going to TRY and keep an open mind for the second round, I was too quick to judge the first go -round,
 
I think testifying at the first custody hearing is one of the things that lead to his conviction. He should avoid giving any more depositions until the murder charge has been dealt with.
 
Out of curiosity, don't you agree that this shows an incredible amount of goodwill and concern for his children's future on the part of Brad?

As a parent, I think this shows the normal amount of goodwill and concern. Had he started demonstrating this goodwill and concern earlier, he could avoided giving the taped deposition that locked his defense into a storyline that did not match the facts.
 
I think testifying at the first custody hearing is one of the things that lead to his conviction. He should avoid giving any more depositions until the murder charge has been dealt with.

I was reading a little about the Jason Young trial (of which I have not really followed and so have no opinion on), and the state's response to the appeal basically used Young's lack of deposition in the custody case against him. Which leads to a fascinating legal question: if the police get involved in the custody case, isn't the state basically using the kids in order to get the potential suspect to waive his fifth amendment rights? All it takes is one misremembered moment to claim that the suspect lied. If the suspect doesn't do the deposition, (s)he loses the kids. If (s)he does, then it can be twisted around in a trial without an opportunity for rebuttal. Is it legal for the state to assist in a civil matter in order to sidestep fifth amendment rights?
 
I think testifying at the first custody hearing is one of the things that lead to his conviction. He should avoid giving any more depositions until the murder charge has been dealt with.

He didn't testify at the custody hearing itself but yes he did agree to sit for that deposition before the hearing. If his multiple attorneys didn't advise him his statements could be used by investigators working on his wife's murder case then they really screwed up. Then, lying over and over in his deposition ultimately tripped him up; it was his decision to lie and take that gamble.

As we know, that deposition will be available as evidence in any future murder trial too.
 
I'm still a bit confused about these so-called lies that Brad supposedly had in his deposition. All of them were about attempts to recollect what he did, is that correct? As far as I can recall, the only things that he didn't recollect properly were his activities on the computer Friday night, and the name of someone from Canada.

It doesn't make sense why he would lie about being on the computer when it was easily verifiable that he was active there. Especially since it doesn't actually add anything to his guilt other than to call him a liar. If you call him a liar, then you must also call all of Nancy's friends liars for the things that they didn't properly recollect.
 
I'm still a bit confused about these so-called lies that Brad supposedly had in his deposition. All of them were about attempts to recollect what he did, is that correct? As far as I can recall, the only things that he didn't recollect properly were his activities on the computer Friday night, and the name of someone from Canada.

It doesn't make sense why he would lie about being on the computer when it was easily verifiable that he was active there. Especially since it doesn't actually add anything to his guilt other than to call him a liar. If you call him a liar, then you must also call all of Nancy's friends liars for the things that they didn't properly recollect.

He did not provide names, most likely because he wanted to keep them out of his troubles. Didn't he also fail to remember the name of his nephew? I think that shows good judgment, as no one wants the name of a young child all over the courts and the internet in association with a murder.
 
I am trying to think of other cases where the parent was in jail and the kid(s) went to live with family members after a custody ruling and then returned after either a NG Verdict or an acquittal.
All I can think of is OJ Simpson.
Any others?

Also, I wonder if BC's lawyers will be back for this and who will preside over the case?
I am going to TRY and keep an open mind for the second round, I was too quick to judge the first go -round,

Didn't Jason Young have visitation with his daughter when he was released on bail? I can understand that a custody application should wait until after a verdict is finalized, but if someone is out of prison awaiting a new trial, contact between parent and children should be an option.
 
I'm still a bit confused about these so-called lies that Brad supposedly had in his deposition. All of them were about attempts to recollect what he did, is that correct? As far as I can recall, the only things that he didn't recollect properly were his activities on the computer Friday night, and the name of someone from Canada.

It doesn't make sense why he would lie about being on the computer when it was easily verifiable that he was active there. Especially since it doesn't actually add anything to his guilt other than to call him a liar. If you call him a liar, then you must also call all of Nancy's friends liars for the things that they didn't properly recollect.

My statement is made with the belief that Brad is guilty. By giving the deposition, before discovery, he locked himself into the claim that he never Googled Fielding Drive. Had he not been stuck with that claim, his lawyer could have claimed he wanted to build a house there and he was looking at lots before lunch on Friday. That would have been a lot more believable than the "the-cops-framed-me" story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
2,219
Total visitors
2,340

Forum statistics

Threads
602,105
Messages
18,134,720
Members
231,233
Latest member
Shablee
Back
Top