Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[Anderson]

BC will never be cleared unless or until someone else is arrested. He has provided statements to the police (although none since mid July) and did a 7 hour deposition where he detailed his activities from the morning. The police have access to that deposition. So they have his side of events. BC does not have to prove his innocence (if he is innocent). I'm not sure that he could if he tried (if he is innocent) because its his words versus their opinion. How on earth could he prove it? There are phone records, receipts, emails, etc., that back up his statements. But there is no way he can conclusively show that he is telling the truth. That's why in a criminal case, it's the prosecutions burden to prove guilt instead of the defendants burden to prove innocence. It's sometimes impossible to do, even if you are in fact innocent.

I know that is your position and you have explained to me why you have the postion. I still don't agree, but that's okay. We clearly will never agree. You always return to the idea that he does not have to prove his innocence. I think he does.

However, I respect your position.

 

[raisincharlie]

My opinion is subject to revision based on further information from the hearing. What is the legal standard for the elephant? As I understood the judge's statement, she would need to decide if she thought BC had killed NC, not whether he was a suspect. Perhaps I need to reread her statement.

I never referenced that it related to if BC is a suspect or not. I referenced the elephant which is, is BC involved in Nancy's murder. All I asked was if the elephant was removed by the testimony of the three defense witnesses. The point was simple, it that testimony did not remove the elephant, then the elephant still exists. You indicated that in your opinion that the plaintiffs did not prove the elephant, therefore I wondered and asked how you concluded that - since you admit you were not in the courtroom and did not hear all of the testimony for both sides.

Since the judge heard all the evidence and was prepared to rule yesterday until the trial went long, I submit that if the elephant had been removed, we would not be here waiting for a ruling. The judge could have ruled yesterday if the elephant had been chased from the courtroom. obviously, it was not.

 

[Anderson]

There has been absolutely no evidence AT ALL that he has abused his children. NONE.

You are taking this point out of context. You have to read the whole post, which I already know that you don't agree with (particularly points a, b, and c). You would fall into the (even if you are not one of them {people that do not think Brad is responsible for the murder, abusive etc}) category. I know you exist!

 

[rwesafe]

Clearly NC and BC had a bad relationship. I hope that we have established that. Lets try to remember that NC is not here to defend herself, okay?

RWESAFE, I do understand that you really want BC to have his kids back no matter what and that is admirable of you, in a way. Not everyone holds your opinion, although many seem to on this board.

The real questions are related to his ability to be a good father. If BC starts cooperating in the murder case and he is cleared, then he may have an opportunity to prove that he can be a great parent. However, there has been a stumbling block for him (whether guilty or innocent) related to the three points below.

Unfortunately for Brad, he may not get a chance to prove that he is a great father because NC was murdered. a)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that he may have been responsible for the murder. b)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that if he was responsible that has implications for how he may act in a domestic situation with those children. c)Many people who know him (even if you are not one of them) really believe that BC has always had the tendency to be controlling and abusive.

If NC had not been murdered, then he would have had the chance to be a part time Dad. I am sure that BC loves the kids, but he has not had the opportunity to spend much time with them as the primary caregiver. I do not see any evidence of a strong network of support. His family did not even take the stand to give him support yesterday.

Because of point a, b and c (above in bold), BC is in this position. This does not mean that he is guilty (although he may be). However, it does mean that the Judge needs to proceed with caution, and she appears to be very sensitive to this.

BTW, I would think that many people (although you may not be one of them) would hold that murderers should not raise their children (this is related to your earlier post where you suggested that it was proper that OJ bring up his children, no matter what the outcome was). I know many people that have been raised by relatives and they have turned out to be wonderful people. I just hope that the girls are given a chance to have a good life. Many children never recover from abuse from their early years.

JMO

Clearly NC and BC had a bad relationship. I hope that we have established that. Lets try to remember that NC is not here to defend herself, okay?

No. Statements by her own family have indicated that NC participated in an affair and they also verified that she had a spending problem. Fair is fair. He can not be held in contempt over an event that was duplicated by his wife. Two wrongs do not make a right. But, it also does not make one better than the other

RWESAFE, I do understand that you really want BC to have his kids back no matter what and that is admirable of you, in a way. Not everyone holds your opinion, although many seem to on this board.

I did not say that I want BC to have his kids back no matter what. I'm sorry if my writing is incomprehensible to you, but I absolutely did not say that.

Unfortunately for Brad, he may not get a chance to prove that he is a great father because NC was murdered. a)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that he may have been responsible for the murder. b)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that if he was responsible that has implications for how he may act in a domestic situation with those children. c)Many people who know him (even if you are not one of them) really believe that BC has always had the tendency to be controlling and abusive. They are as I am free to believe what they want. BC lived in a domestic situation for 8 years w/NC and 4 years w/his children in the same neighborhood and despite the fact that the neighbors lived up their behinds and knew all of their personal business not a single one testified to having seen BC act inappropriately with NC or his children.

If NC had not been murdered, then he would have had the chance to be a part time Dad.I am sure that BC loves the kids, but he has not had the opportunity to spend much time with them as the primary caregiver. I do not see any evidence of a strong network of support. His family did not even take the stand to give him support yesterday.
So what? I am a single parent who works full time and travels alot and because of recent deaths of family members, I no longer have a HUGE support system to help me with my child. This does not make me a part time parent nor does it make me less of a parent.
Because of point a, b and c (above in bold), BC is in this position. This does not mean that he is guilty (although he may be). However, it does mean that the Judge needs to proceed with caution, and she appears to be very sensitive to this. Indeed, she should be.

BTW, I would think that many people (although you may not be one of them) would hold that murderers should not raise their children (this is related to your earlier post where you suggested that it was proper that OJ bring up his children, no matter what the outcome was). That is disgusting and I did not say that at all. I know many people that have been raised by relatives and they have turned out to be wonderful people. I just hope that the girls are given a chance to have a good life. Many children never recover from abuse from their early years. There is no evidence that he abused his children, quiet the contrary in fact

 

[Anderson]

So if my wife dies in a car accident, I should have to go through a custody battle to keep my daughter because she is the primary caregiver as a stay at home mom?

You guys keep arguing this...but this custody battle is not about his fitness as a parent. If it was, he would have been given custody yesterday. Go back and look at what MT3K said when she got back. She said:

"Did I feel anything jumped out against BC to not being a fit parent? NO"

And this is from probably the person who is most sure of his guilt on this forum. So this isn't about his fitness as a parent. It's about the belief that he killed NC. If NC had died that day in a car accident, you would not be making the claims about him being not ready to be a full time dad or having a support network. You'd think it was a travesty that his kids were taken from him. Well I think it was a travesty that his kids were taken from him. If he is arrested, my opinion will change.

Please refer to my entire post, which you have cut off in your response. I know that you fall into the "even if you are not one of them {people that do not think Brad is responsible for the murder, abusive etc}" category.

 

[boxy]

Your point is taken. However, sometimes there is irrelevant information posted about NC and that is what I object to. Let me explain.

I agree that it is sometimes necessary to find other witnesses with first hand information to back up NC's postion, but only when it is related to evidence relevant to the custody hearing (or the murder). It may be necessary to have some knowledge of the state of their relationship, but only as it is relevant to the legal issues. And we have established that they had a bad relationship.

However, if statements are made about her character for absolutely no reason, except to imply 'she is just as bad as Brad', as many posters do, then I see absolutely no reason for it. It is not relevant. NC is not on trial. NC is the victim here. I want people to remember that. And I would hope that other posters would also be sensitive to that distinction.

JMHO

NC is the murder victim, that is undisputed (though see Theory D or Theory 4 about a witness protection scheme). Your point about needlessly besmirching NC's character is a good one. To the extent that information about NC or from NC reflects on BC's fitness as a parent, it is relevant and fair game to view critically.

 

[Anderson]

Clearly NC and BC had a bad relationship. I hope that we have established that. Lets try to remember that NC is not here to defend herself, okay?

No. Statements by her own family have indicated that NC participated in an affair and they also verified that she had a spending problem. Fair is fair. He can not be held in contempt over an event that was duplicated by his wife. Two wrongs do not make a right. But, it also does not make one better than the other

RWESAFE, I do understand that you really want BC to have his kids back no matter what and that is admirable of you, in a way. Not everyone holds your opinion, although many seem to on this board.

I did not say that I want BC to have his kids back no matter what. I'm sorry if my writing is incomprehensible to you, but I absolutely did not say that.

Unfortunately for Brad, he may not get a chance to prove that he is a great father because NC was murdered. a)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that he may have been responsible for the murder. b)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that if he was responsible that has implications for how he may act in a domestic situation with those children. c)Many people who know him (even if you are not one of them) really believe that BC has always had the tendency to be controlling and abusive. They are as I am free to believe what they want. BC lived in a domestic situation for 8 years w/NC and 4 years w/his children in the same neighborhood and despite the fact that the neighbors lived up their behinds and knew all of their personal business not a single one testified to having seen BC act inappropriately with NC or his children.

If NC had not been murdered, then he would have had the chance to be a part time Dad.I am sure that BC loves the kids, but he has not had the opportunity to spend much time with them as the primary caregiver. I do not see any evidence of a strong network of support. His family did not even take the stand to give him support yesterday.
So what? I am a single parent who works full time and travels alot and because of recent deaths of family members, I no longer have a HUGE support system to help me with my child. This does not make me a part time parent nor does it make me less of a parent.
Because of point a, b and c (above in bold), BC is in this position. This does not mean that he is guilty (although he may be). However, it does mean that the Judge needs to proceed with caution, and she appears to be very sensitive to this. Indeed, she should be.

BTW, I would think that many people (although you may not be one of them) would hold that murderers should not raise their children (this is related to your earlier post where you suggested that it was proper that OJ bring up his children, no matter what the outcome was). That is disgusting and I did not say that at all. I know many people that have been raised by relatives and they have turned out to be wonderful people. I just hope that the girls are given a chance to have a good life. Many children never recover from abuse from their early years. There is no evidence that he abused his children, quiet the contrary in fact

Please refer to post #367 for part of my response. I really do not think that NC's character is at issue here. I think Nancy deserves some respect on this forum. It is after all her forum.:waitasec::crazy:

Thank you for clarifying your OJ comment, which I read earlier. I am very glad that I was wrong about your postion. :clap:

As far as the rest of the post goes, well I already know that we don't agree. I am just pointing out what others think and clearly many other people that are close to the case and know Brad would not agree with your position. You clearly fall into the "even if you are not one of them{people that do not think Brad is responsible for the murder, abusive etc}" category.

I told you that your principals are admirable in a way. Lets just agree to disagree about the rest of it, okay?

I don't know that he is innocent or guilty, but I do hope that the welfare of the children is put first. JMHO

 

[boxy]

At the risk of revealing too much of my identity, I can only say a close family member, who is involved in the judicial system in a high capacity, has told me this will be Judge Sasser's top priority.

With this said, I firmly believe those little girls are going back to Canada very soon.

Judge Sasser's decision will be critically reviewed so it must conform to the legal standards, whatever those are, as well as findings of facts. I hope the legal basis is more defined than a King Solomon-like "what is best for the children".

 

[Anderson]

NC is the murder victim, that is undisputed (though see Theory D or Theory 4 about a witness protection scheme). Your point about needlessly besmirching NC's character is a good one. To the extent that information about NC or from NC reflects on BC's fitness as a parent, it is relevant and fair game to view critically.

Yes, Boxy, I do agree there is some information that we must look at. Thanks for accepting my point.

 

[boxy]

I never referenced that it related to if BC is a suspect or not. I referenced the elephant which is, is BC involved in Nancy's murder. All I asked was if the elephant was removed by the testimony of the three defense witnesses. The point was simple, it that testimony did not remove the elephant, then the elephant still exists. You indicated that in your opinion that the plaintiffs did not prove the elephant, therefore I wondered and asked how you concluded that - since you admit you were not in the courtroom and did not hear all of the testimony for both sides.

Since the judge heard all the evidence and was prepared to rule yesterday until the trial went long, I submit that if the elephant had been removed, we would not be here waiting for a ruling. The judge could have ruled yesterday if the elephant had been chased from the courtroom. obviously, it was not.

I am sorry, I did not catch your meaning initially and am still having difficulty following. I am not sure what the relevance of my attendance at the hearing or lack thereof is, beyond the obvious that I may not have all the testimony (though one person who did attend stated that she did not think it was proved that BC was responsible for NC's death, or something similar to that). I also do not think one should draw conclusions about how Judge Sasser will rule based on the timing of her decision. It is appropriate to take whatever time necessary to make a sound ruling, plus she will probably want to write a rationale for her ruling. Finally, it is not at all clear that it was defense's burden to remove the elephant. In my imperfect understanding, it is the plaintiff's burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that BC is an unfit parent. If that is not correct, I would appreciate a reference for a different legal standard for this decision.

 

[DogWood]

Good afternoon, everyone!

Another update from Chris Cowperthwaite, NBC 17. Excellent job yesterday getting the news to us. I just wanted to say thanks!

"Thursday, Judge Debra Sasser heard close to eight hours of testimony from both sides.

She is expected to make a decision sometime after the weekend."

http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11271/still-no-decision-in-cooper-custody/

 

[DogWood]

SG - according to the court ruling - there were to have been two weekend visits before the hearing yesterday. Seems to me a long time has transpired, plenty of time for a check to have cleared, especially a cashiers check. Like a majority of things relating to Brad and money - this doesn't make much sense to me.

Ditto!

Sure would like to know more about this.

 

[cygnusx1]

Most of all, he allegedlytook their Mother from them and this act was the cruelest, most heartless thing he could EVER do to thim.

There, fixed that for ya.

 

[raisincharlie]

I am sorry, I did not catch your meaning initially and am still having difficulty following. I am not sure what the relevance of my attendance at the hearing or lack thereof is, beyond the obvious that I may not have all the testimony (though one person who did attend stated that she did not think it was proved that BC was responsible for NC's death, or something similar to that). I also do not think one should draw conclusions about how Judge Sasser will rule based on the timing of her decision. It is appropriate to take whatever time necessary to make a sound ruling, plus she will probably want to write a rationale for her ruling. Finally, it is not at all clear that it was defense's burden to remove the elephant. In my imperfect understanding, it is the plaintiff's burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that BC is an unfit parent. If that is not correct, I would appreciate a reference for a different legal standard for this decision.

Lets clear it up then . You admit that based on your understanding it is the plaintiffs burden to basically prove that BC is an unfit parent. Apparently the judge believes there is much more than that that she must consider before making a decision about where these little children are placed.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3725941/

"Prather argued Monday that the Rentzes' assertion that her client was involved in his wife's death is based on "hearsay and belief," but Sasser said the allegations are enough of a concern for the children's wellbeing for the custody case to proceed."

"I have to deem enough facts in the allegation as truth," she said. "It doesn't matter if they can prove it or not, at this point."


The judge has clearly indicated that the wellbeing of the children must also be weighed, as well as the proverbial elephant - was BC involved or not in Nancy's death. A preponderance only means is it more or less likely - in this case is it more or less likely that BC was involved - it is not required to be proven according to the judge. So it becomes moot to rely on a statement of someone saying no it was not proven does it ?

The relevance of whether you were in attendance or not does indeed mean you did not hear testimony on which to decide more or less likely but yet you believe the elephant was not proven, not taking into account that it does not have to be proven.

As to when the judge rules, I don't care if she takes a week. The longer the better as there is much to review. However, the media reported that she could have ruled yesterday as each side was only suppose to have 3.5 hours each. Again another moot point as testimony and argument did exceed the time frame and the judge was provided with video of the children interacting with Brad during the web chats. So I prefer she watch those closely and if it takes a week, so be it.

I agree it was not the defense's burden to prove if it is more or less likely that Brad was involved in Nancy's murder. But I do wonder why the only witnesses the defense presented definitely addressed that issue. Surely Ms. Zedneck has nothing to offer as to if Brad was a fit parent.

 

[raisincharlie]

Ditto!

Sure would like to know more about this.

I have the dates of the visits. BRB Testimony on the 16th , please keep in mind.


The dates the children were in Raleigh for visits are listed here:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/03/3668365/26275-Oct._2_affidavit_of_Jim_Lister.pdf


Seems to me there should have been plenty of time for a cashiers check to have cleared with no problem.

 

[DogWood]

I have the dates of the visits. BRB Testimony on the 16th , please keep in mind.


The dates the children were in Raleigh for visits are listed here:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/03/3668365/26275-Oct._2_affidavit_of_Jim_Lister.pdf


Seems to me there should have been plenty of time for a cashiers check to have cleared with no problem.

OK. Thanks!

I can't see any reason a check, especially a CC (which is certified funds) would not of cleared by now. None.

Hope my connection lasts longer today. lol

So far, so good! :woohoo:

 

[boxy]

Lets clear it up then . You admit that based on your understanding it is the plaintiffs burden to basically prove that BC is an unfit parent. Apparently the judge believes there is much more than that that she must consider before making a decision about where these little children are placed.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3725941/

"Prather argued Monday that the Rentzes' assertion that her client was involved in his wife's death is based on "hearsay and belief," but Sasser said the allegations are enough of a concern for the children's wellbeing for the custody case to proceed."

"I have to deem enough facts in the allegation as truth," she said. "It doesn't matter if they can prove it or not, at this point."


The judge has clearly indicated that the wellbeing of the children must also be weighed, as well as the proverbial elephant - was BC involved or not in Nancy's death. A preponderance only means is it more or less likely - in this case is it more or less likely that BC was involved - it is not required to be proven according to the judge. So it becomes moot to rely on a statement of someone saying no it was not proven does it ?

The relevance of whether you were in attendance or not does indeed mean you did not hear testimony on which to decide more or less likely but yet you believe the elephant was not proven, not taking into account that it does not have to be proven.

As to when the judge rules, I don't care if she takes a week. The longer the better as there is much to review. However, the media reported that she could have ruled yesterday as each side was only suppose to have 3.5 hours each. Again another moot point as testimony and argument did exceed the time frame and the judge was provided with video of the children interacting with Brad during the web chats. So I prefer she watch those closely and if it takes a week, so be it.

I agree it was not the defense's burden to prove if it is more or less likely that Brad was involved in Nancy's murder. But I do wonder why the only witnesses the defense presented definitely addressed that issue. Surely Ms. Zedneck has nothing to offer as to if Brad was a fit parent.

The quote from above appears to refer to Judge Sasser's ruling on the motion to dismiss. As I understand how MTDs work, the facts must be interpreted in the most favorable light to the non-moving party. In this case, the non-moving party (plaintiffs) claimed that BC killed NC. Sasser could not grant dismissal because she had to accept the facts alleged by the plaintiffs as true. If the facts could not be true or there is no basis in law for granting what the plaintiffs seek, then the judge can dismiss.

At the hearing, however, the legal standard, as I understand it, is preponderance of the evidence, which is often described as whether it is more likely than not that something is true. In this case, is it more likely than not that BC is an unfit parent? The burden to show that is on the plaintiff. Again, this is my understanding of the legal standard and I'm happy to revise upon better information.

From reviewing all the info available, it does not appear even the plaintiffs claim that BC is unfit for any reason other than their allegation that he murdered NC. In my opinion, the plaintiffs also have not show that it is more likely than not that BC killed NC. Statistically, BC did it. A spouse almost always has motive and opportunity, which is what the NC's father claims as the basis for his opninion. But based on evidence, there is little else known to the public (or at least to me) implicating BC, so less than 50%.

Only two people from here have said they were at the hearing, which certainly hasn't limited comment from many others. I don't see relevance to being present or not to all the speculation and opinion rendering that goes on here.

 

[rwesafe]

Please refer to post #367 for part of my response. I really do not think that NC's character is at issue here. I think Nancy deserves some respect on this forum. It is after all her forum.:waitasec::crazy:

Thank you for clarifying your OJ comment, which I read earlier. I am very glad that I was wrong about your postion. :clap:

As far as the rest of the post goes, well I already know that we don't agree. I am just pointing out what others think and clearly many other people that are close to the case and know Brad would not agree with your position. You clearly fall into the "even if you are not one of them{people that do not think Brad is responsible for the murder, abusive etc}" category.

I told you that your principals are admirable in a way. Lets just agree to disagree about the rest of it, okay?

I don't know that he is innocent or guilty, but I do hope that the welfare of the children is put first. JMHO

As far as the rest of the post goes, well I already know that we don't agree. I am just pointing out what others think and clearly many other people that are close to the case and know Brad would not agree with your position. You clearly fall into the "even if you are not one of them{people that do not think Brad is responsible for the murder, abusive etc}" category.

According to your crowd..no one is close to BC. I am not asking anyone to agree with my position. I am happy to remain "one of them" until some solid proof, not mere speculation, leads me in a different directionI believe in my civil right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If others prefer it the other way around, I'm fine with that.

 

[Anderson]

As far as the rest of the post goes, well I already know that we don't agree. I am just pointing out what others think and clearly many other people that are close to the case and know Brad would not agree with your position. You clearly fall into the "even if you are not one of them{people that do not think Brad is responsible for the murder, abusive etc}" category.

According to your crowd..no one is close to BC. I am not asking anyone to agree with my position. I am happy to remain "one of them" until some solid proof, not mere speculation, leads me in a different directionI believe in my civil right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If others prefer it the other way around, I'm fine with that.

I am talking about people close to the CASE - I didn't say close to BC. Just wanted to clarify.

I am talking about people close to the case in my comments (not myself for example). The only reason that I added the other category is because I knew that you and others wouldn't agree with their position (Not that there is anything wrong with that). However, I think that their position holds at least some weight with the Judge.

I went out of my way to say that the outcome of the custody battle really will not say anything definitively about his innocence. That is the main point that I am trying to make.

 

[raisincharlie]

The quote from above appears to refer to Judge Sasser's ruling on the motion to dismiss. As I understand how MTDs work, the facts must be interpreted in the most favorable light to the non-moving party. In this case, the non-moving party (plaintiffs) claimed that BC killed NC. Sasser could not grant dismissal because she had to accept the facts alleged by the plaintiffs as true. If the facts could not be true or there is no basis in law for granting what the plaintiffs seek, then the judge can dismiss.

At the hearing, however, the legal standard, as I understand it, is preponderance of the evidence, which is often described as whether it is more likely than not that something is true. In this case, is it more likely than not that BC is an unfit parent? The burden to show that is on the plaintiff. Again, this is my understanding of the legal standard and I'm happy to revise upon better information.

From reviewing all the info available, it does not appear even the plaintiffs claim that BC is unfit for any reason other than their allegation that he murdered NC. In my opinion, the plaintiffs also have not show that it is more likely than not that BC killed NC. Statistically, BC did it. A spouse almost always has motive and opportunity, which is what the NC's father claims as the basis for his opninion. But based on evidence, there is little else known to the public (or at least to me) implicating BC, so less than 50%.

Only two people from here have said they were at the hearing, which certainly hasn't limited comment from many others. I don't see relevance to being present or not to all the speculation and opinion rendering that goes on here.

Does this quote make it any plainer for you that the judge herself claimed the murder to have a bearing :

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3635223/


Sandlin also asked the judge Monday to consider Brad Cooper's fitness as a parent separately from the custody of his daughters.

While she agreed to separate hearings for a permanent custody hearing, Sasser warned the split would be time-consuming and burdensome and denied the motion for the temporary custody hearing, scheduled for Oct. 16.

Sandlin also acknowledged that the open murder case complicates a decision on custody.

If no one is charged in Nancy Cooper's death before the custody hearing, Sasser said, her decision would be more difficult because she would have to make that determination – a critical factor in deciding whether the children would be safe – herself.

"The elephant that sits in the room is that if there is evidence that Mr.Cooper is in any way responsible for his wife's death, that's certainly relevant in the custody case," Sasser concluded.


It is clear the judge made no separation (bifurcation) of requirements for the temp custody hearing of the 16th. But would allow seperation during a hearing for permanent custody.

So we will have to agree to disagree - you think the hearing was about fitness. I believe it was about fitness, wellbeing of the children and whether or not Brad was or was not involved in the murder of his wife with respect to determining the safety of the children. The motion to dismiss reiterates the judges finding that the murder is relevant to what she must decide. Don't know what else to say except I don't agree this hearing will be decided on Brad's fitness as a parent alone. It isn't gonna happen.