Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[raisincharlie]

I think you're right. Have you ever seen a DA so afraid to get in a courtroom (outside of ex-Boulder, CO DA Alex Hunter)? :banghead:

I don't get it SG - should I blindly believe he has a reason ? Dunno

 

[raisincharlie]

I have to wonder whether NC's family and friends have taken the road that is in the best interests of the girls. I know they have good intentions and strong feelings but I am beginning to wish they had put aside their suspicions and instead tried to support the girls in their home. BC would likely have had a very hard time as a single parent and may have welcomed help if friends and family would have offered. If they had gone to him with an olive branch, the girls could have stayed in their school and maintained their routines and friendships, not to mention their relationship with BC.

From what appears to have been presented at the hearing today, I question whether there was an urgent need to remove the girls. The plaintiff didn't seem to present any evidence that BC killed NC, and I would think they would have done so if they had it. With only the obvious suspicious of friends/family about who killed NC, the girls would have been better being in the home. Strategically, it may have helped with the investigation. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

If it turns out BC did not kill NC, KL may well have unintentionally but needlessly hurt the girls.

Since we really don't know everything said in the courtroom I can't reach this conclusion. The judge took them away for a reason - this is so against a judge's normal reasoning and effort to keep families together that there was something significant to motivate the action in the first place. Since Brad did not take the stand - how much was he really trying to get them back ?

If it turns out BC did murder Nancy, the sooner the children are away from him, the better for them.

 

[Skittles]

I just watched Ed Crump's report ( I had to switch to another PC for that. This one gets stuck on "mute" occasionally). Perhaps Ed just meant the deposition videos as mentioned at the top of this WRAL article.

" A judge says she needs more time to review evidence, including Web chats and a seven-hour taped deposition"

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/

 

[raisincharlie]

I just watched Ed Crump's report ( I had to switch to another PC for that. This one gets stuck on "mute" occasionally). Perhaps Ed just meant the deposition videos as mentioned at the top of this WRAL article.

" A judge says she needs more time to review evidence, including Web chats and a seven-hour taped deposition"

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/

I saw that too which is why I was questioning Ed Crump's report. Why is he saying new evidence. He was the one to break the story about the sealed warrants at Cisco etc - he can't be all wrong can he ? Who knows.:crazy:

 

[ncsu95]

Since we really don't know everything said in the courtroom I can't reach this conclusion. The judge took them away for a reason - this is so against a judge's normal reasoning and effort to keep families together that there was something significant to motivate the action in the first place. Since Brad did not take the stand - how much was he really trying to get them back ?

If it turns out BC did murder Nancy, the sooner the children are away from him, the better for them.

He didn't take the stand so he wouldn't have to be cross examined with regards to Nancys murder. It wouldn't have been about the children. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence offered that he wasn't a good parent or that the kids were at risk.

 

[leelee]

The Rentz's psychologist testifed to what a lot of us in Calgary have thought for a long time, even before the murder.

That affidavit from the lady who was walking her dog sure sounds convincing, not to mention exculpatory, though!

Calgary123 - too right! The psycologist hit the nail on the head when it comes to Brad's personality.

 

[raisincharlie]

He didn't take the stand so he wouldn't have to be cross examined with regards to Nancys murder. It wouldn't have been about the children. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence offered that he wasn't a good parent or that the kids were at risk.

I will agree with that but since it is the identified elephant, no effort. He protected himself over his children IMO. Says something to me.

 

[Just the Fax]

Darn it, just what I did not want to hear :


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3750528/

Stubbs and attorney Wade Smith argued they have "substantial evidence" that he did kill his wife and that he will be charged with murder.

"The (Wake County District Attorney) Colon Willoughby train is coming," Smith said. "It may not be next year. It could be two years. But it's coming."

Guess he knows best.
One of his colleagues has been defending a killer for the past 2 years, under the watchful eye of the very same DA.

 

[KellyCrash]

I saw that too which is why I was questioning Ed Crump's report. Why is he saying new evidence. He was the one to break the story about the sealed warrants at Cisco etc - he can't be all wrong can he ? Who knows.:crazy:

I think he's referring to the video tapes of the webcam chats with Brad & the girls. I would assume the Listers' would have brought that with them from Canada.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think Mom may have posted this, but probably the most emotional testimony was from Mrs. Rentz. She was only on the stand for maybe 10 min but she cried and it was just so sad to listen to her. She's very soft spoken and her pain is evident. I got all teary-eyed when she started crying about the last time she saw Nancy.

Krista was also heartbreaking on the stand as she described her bond with her sister.

Their other sister, Jill Dean and her husband were in the courtroom....Jill is a gorgeous woman...all the Rentz ladies are lovely--I don't think the TV cameras do them justice.

Everyone (to me) looks soooo tall. I felt like Tim Conway (doing Dorf on Golf). Next time I'm getting some stilts!

Jessica did very well on the stand. The entire 911 tape was played, including the redacted pieces. The defense complained that they didn't get a copy of the entire recording and only got the edited version (sounded a bit whiny when Kurtz was making this statement to the judge).

Carey Clark apparently works at a veterinary office somewhere and Jessica had suggested to Brad that he could look for her (Carey) there on that Saturday morning. Jessica had not personally met Carey Clark before but did know of her.

** Note: Jessica had suggested to Brad that Brad look at NC's phone to get Carey's phone number since Nancy is the one who regularly ran with it. Brad said, "Oooh that's a good idea." Then he looked and said, "Oh her phone is locked!"

Hannah was very powerful on the stand. She was clear, decisive, a real pistol who did not back down and was very sure of herself. She testified that once Nancy got her diamond necklace (last Oct I think) she personally did not see Nancy without the necklace on. Sandlin asked Hannah if Nancy could have taken the necklace off to have it cleaned and Hannah stated she had no knowledge of such a thing and could not speculate on that. But it was the necklace not being on Nancy (and being found in Brad's possession) that cemented the 'who done it' for Hannah.

SG - I did go back to the deposition - part 4 Finances 29:40 or there abouts begins the discussion of jewelry. Brad does say the diamond pendent was located in a desk drawer. Listening a little more he talks about the white gold band with diamonds and saphires which we see in several pictures of Nancy, he deflects from the location of this ring. He also says Nancy's engagement ring is at the jewelers and no idea where her wedding band is. Ms. Stubbs does ask him specifically if Nancy took the pendent off and he says yes. But - you are correct that Brad says the necklace is in a desk drawer.

One other thing to add - Brad said he finally confessed to Scott Heider, about a month before the deposition, that he had an "indiscretion" with Scott's former wife HM. How odd.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think he's referring to the video tapes of the webcam chats with Brad & the girls. I would assume the Listers' would have brought that with them from Canada.

That would make sense - the web chats. Thanks.

 

[jumpstreet]

I think you're right. Have you ever seen a DA so afraid to get in a courtroom (outside of ex-Boulder, CO DA Alex Hunter)? :banghead:

Funny.

Serious question: What is your confidence level that LE is doing a thorough job with the investigation of the murder?
Serious question: What is your confidence level that the Wake County DA is doing a good job with bringing cases to trial?

---


I say funny, because my sense is that most who are on the "BC definitely did it" page, will give a high confidence to question #1, but yet a low confidence to question #2.

LE gets the full benefit of the doubt, and yet the DA doesn't get the same...

Face it ya'll ... LE may very well have not have found 'jack' in the NC or MY cases. No SW's for other folks doesn't mean LE is hot on the trai of the perp, it just means they haven't returned enough phone calls yet (from eye-witnesses) or whatever to get probable cause.

[ Hence the reason WS said the DA's train could take 2 years or more (hilarious, btw) to arrive.... he knows that LE has found very little of substance to date...]

... and then there's the matter of that pesky phone call from NC's locked mobile phone...

 

[jumpstreet]

If it turns out BC did murder Nancy, the sooner the children are away from him, the better for them.

Pretty big "if" at this point, wouldn't you say?...

 

[jumpstreet]

Wade Smith cross examined Ms. Zednick: http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/

"I think it was her. In my opinion it was her," said Zednick. "She was so close to me."
Attorney Wade Smith cross examined Zednick, attempting to establish that the split-second sighting was too quick to really recognize a complete stranger.
"Her head turned, because she kept running," said Zednick. "She did not stop."

If only WS would have asked Zednick if she owned or had ever worn a "floppy hat", it would have just been too perfect.

Seriously, the parallels are fairly palatable:

- spouse murdered...
- husband the frontrunner suspect, as the media/prosection/plaintiffs feed the frezy...
- inlaws go the warpath...
- late breaking eye-witness who can throw a wrench in the whole works comes forward at the midnight hour (Zednick / floppy-hat chick)

It's just too much for coincidence ya'll! [ Of course, this time WS is on the 'other side' of the table, but I bet he's secretly wishing he was defending BC so he could really turn some heads and put the screws to the DA's office one more time for the road...]

 

[raisincharlie]

Pretty big "if" at this point, wouldn't you say?...

Not in my book - it got smaller for me when Brad passed on taking the stand to prevent LE from being called in rebutal of his statements. A lot smaller if.

 

[jumpstreet]

Not in my book

You're kidding, right???!!!

[ Sorry RC... couldn't resist. ]

 

[raisincharlie]

You're kidding, right???!!!

[ Sorry RC... couldn't resist. ]

Perfectly serious - I couldn't resist either

 

[Anderson]

If only WS would have asked Zednick if she owned or had ever worn a "floppy hat", it would have just been too perfect.

Seriously, the parallels are fairly palatable:

- spouse murdered...
- husband the frontrunner suspect, as the media/prosection/plaintiffs feed the frezy...
- inlaws go the warpath...
- late breaking eye-witness who can throw a wrench in the whole works comes forward at the midnight hour (Zednick / floppy-hat chick)

It's just too much for coincidence ya'll! [ Of course, this time WS is on the 'other side' of the table, but I bet he's secretly wishing he was defending BC so he could really turn some heads and put the screws to the DA's office one more time for the road...]

I don't really understand all of the above post, but I may be missing some context.

For a moment I want to return to some basics:

1. NC went missing.
2. NC's keys and cell phone were found at home.
3. BC had been cleaning for several hours the same day that NC went missing.
4. BC did not like to clean (NC has testified that the house was a mess when she got home from holiday).
5. BC did not call NC's parents to tell them that she was missing (he left this up to her friends).
6. BC never called NC's parents to tell them that he was worried about her.
7. BC was very angry at NC the night before she went missing.
8. BC had probably started to realize that NC was going to leave very soon. (This is when a spouse is most likely to become violent; also consider that the list seen by HP and her testimony that she went to Interact and that he had changed NC's plans to leave sooner by holding one passport; there was was also limiting her allowance and playing games by following her around to fill her tank, buy groceries etc. )
9. BC may have figured out that NC was communicating with BW and was likely jealous.
10. BC likely had red marks on his neck (and his arms?) shortly after NC's disappearance.
11. NC was found with no clothes, jewellry, shoes etc. (these items appear to have been found in the house; he may have gotten rid of these if there had been more time)
12. BC did not attend NC's funeral or her memorial. BC did not let his Brother attend NC's memorial (he also told his daughter's about NC before the funeral and then did not attend with them)
13. BC has not fully cooperated with LE. (They have asked him to come in to be interviewed and he has refused; why doesn't he want the murder investigation to move ahead?)
14. An eyewitness says that she saw NC on the morning that she went jogging (perhaps, eyewitness accounts are often unreliable, we don't know what other eyewitness accounts are available at this point or what they have seen)
15. Psychologists have differing assessments of BC, but one emphasizes that he has some deep anger (WS posters from Canada that know Brad have agreed with that assessment- Hi LL; so has JWB)
15. BC does not take the stand in the custody hearing (what does he have to hide?)
17. Nobody from BC's family takes the stand in the custody hearing (that seems odd, if he wants his kids back)
18. BC does not seem to have many friends. Those that BC mentioned in the deposition do not seem to be very close friends, according to Canadian WS posters. Brad also admits that he no longer speaks to them.
19. BC seems to be the person of interest in the murder case.
20. I do not see any evidence that Brad has a very solid support network to help him with caring for the children.

As you know, I am missing many, many points.

I am not saying that BC is necessarily guilty (although that's what my gut tells me). I am also not convinced that Brad is in a position to care for his children now. I would like to see him cleared of the murder before the children are returned to him. I think that if Brad is cleared, he would also want to consider moving far away from Cary and start a fresh life before bringing his children back to live with him. As far as I can tell, that is not going to happen for a long time.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Jess]

There were no impassioned speeches about his tenderness as a father or adoration of his daughters

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1258347.html


This is something that has been nagging me since I watched the videos last week. I can not remember Brad ever saying, I love Bella and Katie, I miss them, my life is empty without them etc etc. Only that he wants them back.

 

[raisincharlie]

Anderson

Excellent list. As you know, I do not believe in coincidences, only the illusion of them. The list of illusions is very long in this case. By Detective Daniels issuing an affidavit in the custody case, it has led me to re-watch the deposition tapes again and in a much slower manner and using affidavits to check against. The list gets even longer. Whew.