custody given to nancy's family

[Just the Fax]

Huh? If the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, and the current proof is much greater than reasonable doubt....then why hasn't he been arrested? There is significant amount of doubt in this case. But please, list the "proof of guilt" that you see in this case.

You can go here where I list my reasons for doubt:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72849&page=6

The judge said she considered the possibility Brad killed Nancy.
This was a civil case where the 'preponderance of the evidence' is the test....not 'reasonable doubt'.

 

[shack]

I would hope that Brad would be cleared, IF he is innocent.

The investigation is ongoing. BC's lawyers could have chosen to put BC on the stand and then we may have known more about the investigation. We do know that Det. Daniels has pointed to inconsistencies in BC's statements. The Judge would be aware of that. Det. Daniels also wrote the probable cause affidavit. We don't know the outcome of the SWs yet. We only know what was taken from the house. Brad's lawyers could have chosen to bring more to light during the custody hearing. If Brad is innocent, then that may have been demonstrated. But, I am no legal expert.

I don't think that we know everything. And I have no idea what the Judge knows, although I had thought that she did would not look at other material related to the investigation. There is, however, a great deal of material for the Judge to look at and take into consideration in the case. Much of it is right here in this forum, I believe.

Time will tell. We will find out more at some point. I guess we all have to have some patience.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Brads 7 hour deposition a form of testimony. It is where I hail from.

 

[cygnusx1]

Keep in mind that Brad and lawyers agreed to allow the grandparents to continue temp custody on July 25th for the next few months. He could have fought then but he didn't. Those of you who are disgusted and aghast might also want to ask why a parent would choose to not fight for their kids 9 days after the kids were taken on an emergency basis? In those nearly 3 months it gave the plaintiffs plenty of extra time to make their case.

With that logic, why would he fight at all? At that time police were in and out of the house. Media was constantly surrounding them. They were clearly in the spotlight. At that time, it was better for them to be removed from the area and BC realized it, thus granting them the temporary custody. Things have simmered down a bit, so it is not as desperate to get them out of Cary.

That said, I think they should still be out of Cary; but on BC's terms if he so chooses, not the State's. I agree with NCSU95, this is bad precedent.

 

[fran]

Well, well, well,..........this was some unexpected GOOD news today, wasn't it?

Even I wasn't prepared for this tidbit.

Wonder if old Brad is starting to feel a little hot under the collar?

Maybe he's hearing the sound of a cage door slamming shut in his dreams!:behindbar

Whether Brad is eventually charged or not, at least while there is uncertainty of HIS and the girl's future, the judge had the good sense to leave well enough alone, even if only temporarily.

Good for her!:clap:

JMHO
fran

PS.....PERHAPS it was the NOT suspects lack of ONE word of endearment towards his two young daughters OR his dearly departed wife (that he CLAIMED in an affidavit that he loved) that helped tip the scales toward temporary custody being extended to the family of NC. He couldn't even fake a kind word about his wife in 7 hours of tape, much less his two darling daughters. NOT that he loved them, just that he wanted them. sad,..........really sad....... fran

PPS.......as mom said, PERHAPS Brad could have spared just a minute or two on the stand to declare his love for his children,..........NOT hide behind the 5th Amendment at the expense of others, namely his children.

 

[Albert]

PERHAPS Brad could have spared just a minute or two on the stand to declare his love for his children,..........:

Makes me wonder if Brad is getting his money's worth with KB since neither Brad's family nor friends were called to testify. Anyway, BC's action of not taking the stand does not bode well for portraying an innocent person. This has nothing to do with how one grieves publicly. Instead it makes Brad look very weak. Perhaps it even makes him look guilty.

Thankfully his children are of such a young age that they will not be aware that their father did not fight like H*** for them.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

 

[Anderson]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Brads 7 hour deposition a form of testimony. It is where I hail from.

Yes, I do believe you are correct, Shack. But, if BC had gone on the stand, then I gather that the Det. could have been called as a rebuttal witness. I learned this from Mom and others. More information could have been presented, if this were the case. I don't know what difference this could have made, but it looked to me as though his lawyers were controlling the information that was available. I don't know what this information is, of course. I just know that it was possible for more to come out, if BC took the stand at the hearing. Very hard to understand why this was done, but that was the choice made by BC and his lawyers.

 

[belimom]

PPS.......as mom said, PERHAPS Brad could have spared just a minute or two on the stand to declare his love for his children,..........NOT hide behind the 5th Amendment at the expense of others, namely his children.

I agree. If it were me or my husband in BC's shoes, there's no way in hell you'd keep either one of us from pleading and begging with the judge to get our dear children back.

 

[ncsu95]

I would hope that Brad would be cleared, IF he is innocent.

The investigation is ongoing. BC's lawyers could have chosen to put BC on the stand and then we may have known more about the investigation. We do know that Det. Daniels has pointed to inconsistencies in BC's statements. The Judge would be aware of that. Det. Daniels also wrote the probable cause affidavit. We don't know the outcome of the SWs yet. We only know what was taken from the house. Brad's lawyers could have chosen to bring more to light during the custody hearing. If Brad is innocent, then that may have been demonstrated. But, I am no legal expert.

I don't think that we know everything. And I have no idea what the Judge knows, although I had thought that she did would not look at other material related to the investigation. There is, however, a great deal of material for the Judge to look at and take into consideration in the case. Much of it is right here in this forum, I believe.

Time will tell. We will find out more at some point. I guess we all have to have some patience.

How could they, unless the believe the testimony of Rosemary? I don't think any DNA was found on her that could link her to someone else...and I don't think he had any witnesses (outside of Katie) to his actions that morning prior to the HT videos. So unless they can point this to someone else, he will always be under suspicion. This just doesn't seem like a case with a smoking gun, which will make it both hard to prove and equally hard to disprove.

 

[sunflowers]

Several things that others have said:
1. this is still TEMPORARY, not permanent custody. the decision was what was in the children's best interests at this point in time
2. neither brad nor his family testified. his 7 hr video doesn't count as testimony because---correct me if i'm wrong--when you testify, the opposing legal team gets to cross-examine you on your testimony so that it's clear. his attorneys clearly didn't want brad saying one thing. however, even in 7 hrs, he didn't talk about any emotional connectedness with his kids. the closest we've heard is that he wants them back.
3. this was CIVIL. totally different than criminal court
4. because of the durham duke lacrosse fiasco last year, there's absolutely no way, no how that Judge Sasser won't have every single t crossed & i dotted in her legal decision re custody. regardless of how she might *feel*, her legal opinion re custoday will be carefully scrutinized & she would be absolutely certain that she made a decision that was well within the law.

 

[maconrich]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

Honesty if LE has *strong evidence* that suggests the surviving spouse was likely responsible for the death of the other spouse, then yes I would prefer seeing the children placed with other relatives until the police are able to clear or arrest the parent under suspicion.

These children need to be protected and have as much security/stability as possible under the circumstances -- and living with a probable murderer (parent or not) who is apt to be arrested and thrown in jail isn't what I call a stable or secure environment.

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

 

[shack]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

\

Doesn't matter what the citizens of NC want it has now been made case law. Next time the issue arises this case will be used to get the same out come. This is the only case that can be used because no other family has done this before in the state of NC. In most states a parent must be proven to be unfit to lose their children. This won't be the case from now on in NC.

 

[Anderson]

How could they, unless the believe the testimony of Rosemary? I don't think any DNA was found on her that could link her to someone else...and I don't think he had any witnesses (outside of Katie) to his actions that morning prior to the HT videos. So unless they can point this to someone else, he will always be under suspicion. This just doesn't seem like a case with a smoking gun, which will make it both hard to prove and equally hard to disprove.

I would hope that wouldn't be the case.

I do hope that this development will encourage BC and lawyers to start helping/cooperating with the murder case, if they haven't already. That would help to move things along. If there is enough evidence against him (we have only a vague idea of what currently exists, but we do know that he has raised the suspicion of investigators), then it may even go to trial. Then, it would depend on the outcome of the trial. He may be proved innocent at that point. Patience. . . .

 

[shack]

Yes, I do believe you are correct, Shack. But, if BC had gone on the stand, then I gather that the Det. could have been called as a rebuttal witness. I learned this from Mom and others. More information could have been presented, if this were the case. I don't know what difference this could have made, but it looked to me as though his lawyers were controlling the information that was available. I don't know what this information is, of course. I just know that it was possible for more to come out, if BC took the stand at the hearing. Very hard to understand why this was done, but that was the choice made by BC and his lawyers.

I was under the impression it was Nancy's family that ask for the deposition instead of his actually testifying.

 

[Anderson]

I agree. If it were me or my husband in BC's shoes, there's no way in hell you'd keep either one of us from pleading and begging with the judge to get our dear children back.

Exactly, I think that a lot of us think that it was odd that Brad didn't choose to go on the stand. Others would say that it would be too risky to go on the stand or that BC simply didn't have the sort of personality to act in this way.

 

[Anderson]

I was under the impression it was Nancy's family that ask for the deposition instead of his actually testifying.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Det. Daniels sat in court all day just in case he was needed as a rebuttal witness. Det. Daniels would have only been called to the stand if Brad had testified. TS could not cross examine Det. Daniels under any other condition. That is my understanding.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Det. Daniels sat in court all day just in case he was needed as a rebuttal witness. Det. Daniels would have only been called to the stand if Brad had testified. TS could not cross examine Det. Daniels under any other condition. That is my understanding.

Yes, Daniels spent the bulk of the day sitting in court waiting to possibly get called. I think TS could have called him to the stand if they wanted to or felt the need to, but they had him there I think as leverage in case Brad got on the stand. And then Brad didn't get on the stand. I thought they should have called Daniels to the stand anyway.

 

[jilly]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

Of course I don't support the State having that sort of blanket discretion. Each case must be adjudged on it's own merits. Also, keep in mind, this is Family Court and you aren't required to have a lawyer represent you.

 

[sunflowers]

Honesty if LE has *strong evidence* that suggests the surviving spouse was likely responsible for the death of the other spouse, then yes I would prefer seeing the children placed with other relatives until the police are able to clear or arrest the parent under suspicion.

These children need to be protected and have as much security/stability as possible under the circumstances -- and living with a probable murderer (parent or not) who is apt to be arrested and thrown in jail isn't what I call a stable or secure environment.

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

beautifully stated. i totally concur.

 

[jumpstreet]

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

Shouldn't BC be locked up temporarily (but immediately and indefinitely), until LE and the DA can sort out the root-cause of the crime? Wouldn't that also be in the best interest of the Lochmere neighbors, and the Cary community as a whole?

After all, if he's not fit to have custody (based on suspicion of murder), how can he be fit to remain at large in the community? Shouldn't we play it safe and incarcerate him (at least temporarily), unless he's cleared, and/or can prove himself innocent [ Caveat: any eyewitness who comes forward supporting his innocence will likely be ignored by LE, (again, out of an abundance of caution) while we seek to serve the best interest of society... ]

It only makes sense, right?