Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[ncsu95]

This is a very interesting article. Thanks for the link!!

That's not an article. It's a blog.

 

[ncsu95]

No, her affidavit does not say she gave her statement on the 13th.



The sometime later could have been on the 13th or it could have been as she apparently testified that it was about a week later.

Don't let facts get in the way of discrediting a witness.

 

[Anderson]

Ghould's testimony...BC witness

Questions given by Sandlin to Dr Ghould
1-Does BC display mental abnormalities? None
2-Any risks to parent children? Not at risk
3-Flight risk? No risk for child abduction
4-Atypical emotion? No. Due to death of wife this is typical response.

BC emotional experiences-withdraw, not overly expressive with emotion
His behavior is consistant behavior now as prior to NC death

In explaining scores he explains state vs traite.
State=short term, currently
Traite=long term

BC state=showing fustration
BC state high, traite low
Dr Ghould explains he has never seen this before. It is total opposite. It always has traite as long term and the higher number, but BC is flipped.

On BC rebuttal affidavit Dr Ghould asked for specific items to back what BC put on his affidavit. BC produced all of it. Cell bills, water bill dates, cc bills, etc.

Is there any reason BC shouldn't get his children? Nothing on the testing I did shows he shouldn't.

Part 2 coming...Smith crossexam...

Thanks for doing this Mom. It is very interesting to look at these.

 

[raisincharlie]

Wade Smith cross Ghould..

Only SH would speak to you? Yes, he felt compelled to speak even after he found out about the affair of his wife and BC. He is still angry about it.
SH did say BC will never be the father he is.
SH stated BC was shocked about NC death.
SH says BC shows no emotion.
SH called BC + NC are in a marital contract.

Did you interview NC family? Didn't feel like NC family interview would be helpful with exam-they are too biased.

This was very simple testimony, much not heard, and for some reason Wade Smith didn't push too many questions.

Thanks Mt3K. Hmmmmm. This link to Scott Heider is interesting. In his affidavit he states that he learned of the indiscretion between Brad and his wife in December of 2006. In Brads video deposition, part 3, Brads says that he told SH about the indiscretion only about a month before the deposition, which would be early September. Dr. Ghould conducted his efforts in August if you know ?

 

[momto3kids]

With all I heard yesterday I am certain NC WAS going to move to Canada. Her mom's testimony was the hardest for me. Her telling how she and NC went for brunch on Sunday morning, did a little shopping then headed to the airport in Charlotte. They stayed over night in Charlotte on Saturday.

Her last moments with NC at the airport, NC holding her and crying pleading to go home with them, but so upset she can't because of the passport issue.
Tough to hear I tell you.

Donna Rentz first statement about Nancy.
I Love Her Desperately

 

[momto3kids]

Thanks Mt3K. Hmmmmm. This link to Scott Heider is interesting. In his affidavit he states that he learned of the indiscretion between Brad and his wife in December of 2006. In Brads video deposition, part 3, Brads says that he told SH about the indiscretion only about a month before the deposition, which would be early September. Dr. Ghould conducted his efforts in August if you know ?

I am not sure when he met with Dr Ghould, but certain it was told. Dr Ghould spoke much about SH because he is the only one he interviewed. Did the last week of Aug and 1st week of Sept over lap?

 

[Anderson]

With all I heard yesterday I am certain NC WAS going to move to Canada. Her mom's testimony was the hardest for me. Her telling how she and NC went for brunch on Sunday morning, did a little shopping then headed to the airport in Charlotte. They stayed over night in Charlotte on Saturday.

Her last moments with NC at the airport, NC holding her and crying pleading to go home with them, but so upset she can't because of the passport issue.
Tough to hear I tell you.

Donna Rentz first statement about Nancy.
I Love Her Desperately

That is so sad. This tells us so much about NC's frame of mind at that time.

 

[momto3kids]

Thanks for doing this Mom. It is very interesting to look at these.

I am happy to do it. Just hope it can give some insight to what occured and what the media didn't put out there.

 

[momto3kids]

That is so sad. This tells us so much about NC's frame of mind at that time.

I know, it really is. NC crying to go home to Canada with her family, and telling JA she didn't want to rock the boat with BC. She really was ready to leave, just not permanently.

 

[Anderson]

Although it is interesting that one person saw NC on the 12th, I think that it may be important to LE for the information to be confirmed by another person to give the eyewitness account more credibility.

Here are a couple of excerpts from one article on eyewitness accounts:

"Although jurors rely heavily on eyewitness identification, there is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness identification is highly fallible and that eyewitness confidence is a poor guide to accuracy."

"Why is mistaken identity so common? One reason is poor encoding at time of initial perception. This could be due to poor visibility (bad lighting, brief duration, long distance, etc.) or to the tricks played by human perception. A second reason is faulty memory. Memory has several quirks which affect reliability, including 1) low resolution (a remembered face is not as clear as one actually viewed), 2) the tendency for memories to be constructed so that missing information is supplied from expectations/biases or from an external source (TV, newspaper, other witnesses, the police, etc) or from other memories and 3) systematic perceptual distortions in memory (small sizes grow and large sizes shrink, color are remembered as brighter, etc.) "

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

 

[pamlet]

No, her affidavit does not say she gave her statement on the 13th.



The sometime later could have been on the 13th or it could have been as she apparently testified that it was about a week later.

Thanks for pointing that out - that's how I thought I remembered her affidavit ..

I found it credible that she feels she DID see Nancy - I also think it's very interesting that she feels the police did not care about her report... To me that is very odd - BUT maybe they are investigating other sightings that we are not hearing about.

 

[Star12]

With all I heard yesterday I am certain NC WAS going to move to Canada. Her mom's testimony was the hardest for me. Her telling how she and NC went for brunch on Sunday morning, did a little shopping then headed to the airport in Charlotte. They stayed over night in Charlotte on Saturday.

Her last moments with NC at the airport, NC holding her and crying pleading to go home with them, but so upset she can't because of the passport issue.
Tough to hear I tell you.

Donna Rentz first statement about Nancy.
I Love Her Desperately

This just breaks my heart in little tiny pieces. :cry: :canada:

 

[Albert]

I'm sorry folks, you can say that an emotional (but not sexual) relationship with someone other than your spouse can be hurtful and damaging, but I know no one who would call that an "affair."

If someone says someone had an "affair," to me, that means they had "sex."
And normally, it means more than once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_affair

 

[jmflu]

That's not an article. It's a blog.

I did not mean to infer it was factual. Sorry for the word mis-use.

 

[boxy]

Thanks for posting your notes from the hearing, Mt3k.

The 911 tape we all heard in public is edited.

What was in the unedited version that was not in the edited version?

On Wedn. the 9th...NC informed JA she would listen to BC and not rock the boat.

What does this mean? NC was not going to contest the terms of the separation? She wasn't going to complain to him? She was going to try to reconcile?

 

[boxy]

"The best interests of the children is the guiding star." I don't have the law in front of me, but that is what it says. That certainly does give a judge a lot of latitude, but then every case is different, different situations, living conditions, beliefs, and so forth. Always, though, the best interests of the children.

Google has no results for "The best interests of the children is the guiding star."
I looked through the North Carolina statutes and found nothing relevant. I'm obviously looking in the wrong place but don't know where else to look. Almost everything that comes up in google is about custody of children of divorcing couples. I would find it very helpful if someone had a relevant legal reference or two.

 

[jmflu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_affair

Verrrry interesting! Thanks, Albert!

 

[jmflu]

What is an Affair?

by Steven W. Harley, M.S.


Just the other day, I again found myself thinking about the question "What is an affair?" Understanding that the left hemisphere of the brain is used for more logic and systematic thinking and the right hemisphere of the brain is used for more abstract and emotional thinking, here is how I processed the question. (Please, no email offering assessments on possible mental disorders that I may have.)
Left Brain: In the context of marital infidelity, an affair is when a married individual has intercourse with a person to whom they are not married.

Right Brain: No, wait. Must it be intercourse? Or, could it include any kind of "sexual contact?"

Left Brain: Hmm... Alright. How about this: In the context of marital infidelity, an affair is when a married individual has sexual contact with a person to whom they are not married.

Right Brain: No, wait. What about the emotional element. What about the feeling?

Left Brain: Hmm... Alright. How about this: In the context of marital infidelity, an affair is when a married individual has sexual contact and emotional attraction to a person to whom they are not married.

Right Brain: No, wait. What about a "one night stand?" Emotional? Lust, maybe. But, emotional? Apples and oranges.

Left Brain: Hmm... Alright. How about this: In the context of marital infidelity, an affair is when a married individual has sexual contact and/or emotional attraction to a person to whom they are not married.

Right Brain: Emotional attraction? Any emotional attraction? Really?

Left Brain: Hmm... Alright. How about this: In the context of marital infidelity, an affair is when a married individual has sexual contact and/or inappropriate emotional attraction to a person to whom they are not married.

Right Brain: Wait! Why are we doing this?

Left Brain: You know. We get asked this question all the time. People want to know if they or their spouse is guilty of committing an "affair" in order to understand what just happened and then to begin the recovery process.

Right Brain: Hmm... How about this: In the context of marital infidelity, an affair is however the offended spouse defines it.

Left Brain: I hate it when you do that.

(Again, please, no email offering assessments on possible mental disorders that I may have. I already know of them.)



Discussions (or arguments) about what to include or exclude from the definition of marital infidelity is an effective way to get lost down a path where "Left Brainers" typically dwell and where "Right Brainers" typically get offended. The bottom line to the question is, "Specifically, what was it about the inappropriate relationship' that caused the damage in the marriage?" Was it the sex ([insert definition here]), the emotional bond, the amount of time spent together, the physical attraction? What was it? Talk about it. Get a clear understanding. If you don't understand how or why it happened and why it hurt the spouse, the probability of it happening again is very high.

Asking others to define the term for you is not the answer. If you boil it all down, you are left with the fact that you both need to work together in developing a plan to prevent this "beast" from ever attacking your marriage again. If you don't know what it looks like, if you don't know where it hides, if you don't know what its touch feels like, then how will you ever protect your marriage from its venom again?

Food for thought...

 

[momto3kids]

Thanks for posting your notes from the hearing, Mt3k.


What was in the unedited version that was not in the edited version?

CC employment and location. Could have been more, but I was watching JA reaction to the tape more than listening. JA kept her eyes closed most of the time on the witness stand while the tape played. When I heard Tryon Road I realized information was on the tape that I hadn't heard.

What does this mean? NC was not going to contest the terms of the separation? She wasn't going to complain to him? She was going to try to reconcile? The testimony was about JA calendar and NC painting. JA was explaining her calendar and had asked NC to help paint another room beginning Wedn. Since BC had come to pick the girls up after work to take them home on Tues? I believe it was...it appeared she was not going to push the issue for another day right away. So she made that statement about 'rock the boat.' I came away with the feeling he wasn't happy with getting the girls after work.

This was during cross exam by Sandlin...she was pushing to find out why JA had NOT put painting on Sat on her calendar.

 

[boxy]

§ 7B‑805. Quantum of proof in adjudicatory hearing.

The allegations in a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency shall be proved by clear and convincing evidence. (1979, c. 815, s. 1; 1998‑202, s. 6; 1999‑456, s. 60.)

§ 7B‑807. Adjudication.
(a) If the court finds that the allegations in the petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the court shall so state. If the court finds that the allegations have not been proven, the court shall dismiss the petition with prejudice, and if the juvenile is in nonsecure custody, the juvenile shall be released to the parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_7B/Article_8.html

Is this the standard by which Judge Sasser must decide? If so, the bar appears higher than the usual civil standard of preponderance of the evidence.