There is not proof of a lie there. According to his entry, it was his first run/ride in 5 months. You don't know whether he continued training after that first session unless you were training with him. SH affidavit #14 says "Brad relaxed his efforts to train for a triathalon..." You don't know to what period he was referring. If he could only run/ride once or twice a week, he may not consider that training. I certainly wouldn't. Or do you consider *any* exercise bewteen January and July to be training?
So you never broke a publicly announced New Year's resolution? You never announced a project you were going to do and never finished it or even started it?
At the time of his announcement, his goal may have been to do the Lake Placid event. But is there proof of him actually registering? Is there proof of him training after his 10 Jan entry?
Here's what I see:
85-90% of the affidavits in support of the Rentz's motion are hearsay; "Nancy said Brad did..." There are a few incidents that were personally witnessed but not nearly enough to convince me she was abused.
80-90% of the affidavits in support of Brad are either observations by the affiant, or can be verified by records. Several of those affidavits are by those who would know first-hand if some of the hearsay were true or not; e.g. the preschool teachers say they have never witnessed anything the Rentz affidavits claim nor that BC's behavior/actions are different than most fathers. Certainly if one of them had witnessed the screaming/crying incident claimed in the Rentz affidavits, they would not have assented to an affidavit in support of BC.
If it was a different teacher that witnessed the screaming/crying incident, where is the affidavit from that teacher stating he/she personally witnessed the event?
MM's affidavit in support of BC is essentially cross-examination. He states a lot of hearsay in the one in support of the Rentz's. in the BF affidavit, he states that he did not personally witness *any* of what was claimed in his affidavit for the Rentz's.
If you put the Rentz's affiants on the stand, just about every single statement would be objected to and sustained as hearsay. For those statements that were objected to and overruled, there would be cross-examination that looked like MM's second affidavit.
So I'm on the not-enough-evidence-to-convict side of this debate; SO FAR.
I agree that he is suspect #1 and is most likely the perp. But that is opinion.
Show me the facts that prove that he did it and I'll say "Hang him!":behindbar
But the circumstances of his marriage are not proof of murder.
P.S. Has anybody done an OCR scan of the legal documents so they can be searched easier?
