Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #25

[momto3kids]

Anderson... I still can't wrap my mind around the thought of anyone who is a parent doing this to a child/children they love. Knowing you are going to cause your children pain with the words you have to tell them, the most heart wrenching word you never want to hear ~dead~, then walk away. This was NOT his parent, neighbor, childhood friend, etc, but their mother.
He speaks about how happy the girls were to see him then when he told them Bella didn't want to listen. At that moment any loving parent would say damit I'm going there for my girls, they need me!

These are my 2 posts back in August you were referring to.........

Originally Posted by Deduction

If Brad is guilty, there is no reason for Brad to go to any of the services, and if he is innocent, IMO, he certainly doesn't owe it to Nancy's family to go. If he is innocent his first duty right now is to get his children back. IMO.

MY response:
No, but he owed it to Nancy the woman he claims to have loved, and wanted the marriage to work with.

Reread BC's affidavit 194 & 195. He spent the morning with the girls before the service on Saturday and told Bella what happened to her mom just before the service.

If BC was anything of a man and not a mouse, he would have sucked it up for those girls he claims he loves and gotten thru it with them. What is a parent for? To be there in time of need. HE WASN'T THERE when they needed him!

How HORRIBLE to tell you children mommy is dead then walk away from them.
It is absolutely disgusting IMO


Originally Posted by Anderson
Well put.

My response:
Thank You Anderson. The more I hear of poor Brad and how he couldn't handle the service and the attention...BULL!

IMO he brought this on himself and no one else did it to him. If he thinks the media is in his face now, he has no idea what it is going to be like when they come to take him to jail.

Those poor children...if he had a thread of decency in his body he would have put those girls feelings 1st and foremost putting his feelings 2nd. That's what parents do!! He should have sucked it up, gone to the service to show them it is OK to be sad.

How, just how can anyone tell a child your mom is ~dead~ and walk away.

His day is coming and not soon enough IMO

 

[Anderson]

Dropping in to say HI!
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, did you all notice on Nancy's blogger she had won front row tickets to John Mayer? From what I gather some friends put her name in and she won. I don't know when they did this and can't seem to locate a link to when the contest began.
What a Birthday present this would have been for NC!!

Hi Mom!

I didn't notice that on the blog. Thanks for pointing it out. Absolutely magic.:dance:

Thanks also for posting your comments again. They seem particularly relevant right now. If he were to get custody, then what would he do, send the girls off on their own (or with someone from his huge support network) everytime he is uncomfortable about a situation or has to go into a stressful environment?? Even IF he isn't responsible for the murder, then doesn't his attitude indicate that he doesn't respond well to stressful situations? As a parent doesn't he need to put his daughters' needs ahead of his own at times? Would he be able to do this if he had custody? Surely this will be taken into account in the court decision.

 

[Anderson]

Interesting. I guess that will include emails I exchanged w/DD last month.

Can you imagine the reams & reams of paper/digital files/discovery that will be amassed from all those people issued subpoenas? The cost from the billable hours alone for the legal assistants to go through all of that ...<shudder>.

And, isn't Brad trying to give the legal bill to NC's father?

 

[Star12]

And, isn't Brad trying to give the legal bill to NC's father?

IIRC, that is standard in a legal action. You always try to get the other guy to pay. It creates a pyschological feeling that you are the wronged party, and if not for the "bad acts" of the other party, you would not be bringing action for relief. Sometimes it works. If you lose your cause, however, it rarely does. So, IMO, I would not give any significance to that.

 

[jmflu]

You know, I really thought this was a GOOD POST. People can come up with all kinds of nonsense about how BC isn't guilty and that his not attending his wife's memorials doesn't indicate guilt. But by God, what is a man made of that cannot even bring himself to go before the public to entreat them to search for his wife's killer???!!! Lord knows, in this day and age, the media would be HAPPY to provide him with that resource. What kind of person is it that can avoid doing this AND not go to any of his wife's memorials?!

A GUILTY one, in my book!

 

[jumpstreet]

What is a man made of that cannot even bring himself to go before the public to entreat them to search for his wife's killer???!!!

Good point. To a certain extent, hasn't he has done this via the attorneys web page (which they highlighted in the media when it was first posted) seeking help/information on the case? Of course, as soon as the page was published, a number of folks categorized it as just as an insincere "stunt"...

If BC were to "grant an 'exclusive' with Amanda Lamb", where he petitioned the public to help track down the real killer, etc, I also suspect many (most?) would say it's just a disingenuous effort to make himself look good in the public eye.

Still though, if he's innocent, who cares was everyone thinks, if in the end, the appearance might help expedite justice. (So again, good point).

 

[jmflu]

Good point. To a certain extent, hasn't he has done this via the attorneys web page (which they highlighted in the media when it was first posted) seeking help/information on the case? Of course, as soon as the page was published, a number of folks categorized it as just as an insincere "stunt"...

If BC were to "grant an 'exclusive' with Amanda Lamb", where he petitioned the public to help track down the real killer, etc, I also suspect many (most?) would say it's just a disingenuous effort to make himself look good in the public eye.

Still though, if he's innocent, who cares was everyone thinks, if in the end, the appearance might help expedite justice. (So again, good point).

At this point, there's nothing he can do IMO that will help, JS. The man should have been on the news the day her body was found, begging people to help him find her killer!!! Waaaay before he had lawyers!! Her killing should have been a decimating shock, a loss like he had never experienced; even if he had NO love for her left... THE CHILDREN!!! My God!!! At that point he didn't know who killed his wife; might they be after his children next??!!!

 

[Star12]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1236536.html

Hearing today. BC had visitation this weekend, also.

 

[jmflu]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1236536.html

Hearing today. BC had visitation this weekend, also.

THANKS!!

"Bradley Cooper's attorneys are also asking the court in today's hearing to consider limitations on the questions posed of him during a future deposition."

WHAT?!

 

[Star12]

THANKS!!

"Bradley Cooper's attorneys are also asking the court in today's hearing to consider limitations on the questions posed of him during a future deposition."

WHAT?!

just think about it for a second. Yeah, ask about the weather, hockey, Mac or PC, but, ummm, that's about it. :waitasec:

 

[momto3kids]

Interesting....

They also want a protective order to prohibit Stubbs from asking Brad Cooper specific questions during deposition in the custody case.

"Whatever he has he will turn over," she said, but pointed out that the plaintiffs have asked for phone, computer and bank records dating to January of 2008.

She said the request posed an undue burden and could be "unreasonably embarrassing" to her client.

Judge Debra Sasser denied the protective order, calling the requests relevant to the custody case.

http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/3635223/

 

[raisincharlie]

Interesting....

They also want a protective order to prohibit Stubbs from asking Brad Cooper specific questions during deposition in the custody case.

"Whatever he has he will turn over," she said, but pointed out that the plaintiffs have asked for phone, computer and bank records dating to January of 2008.

She said the request posed an undue burden and could be "unreasonably embarrassing" to her client.

Judge Debra Sasser denied the protective order, calling the requests relevant to the custody case.

http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/3635223/

Brad had no problem trying to get all of Nancy's friends to turn over things that might embarass them - good for Judge Sasser in saying no. Good for her to also agree that perhaps the August 8th evaluation might not be free of bias as well, even though the Rentz's will have to pay for another. Interesting.

Seems to me she thinks the murder case is indeed relevant to the custody case - the elephant in the room. Well I guess there will be a continuance of the custody hearing set for the 13th of October.

 

[Star12]

Interesting....

They also want a protective order to prohibit Stubbs from asking Brad Cooper specific questions during deposition in the custody case.

"Whatever he has he will turn over," she said, but pointed out that the plaintiffs have asked for phone, computer and bank records dating to January of 2008.

She said the request posed an undue burden and could be "unreasonably embarrassing" to her client.

Judge Debra Sasser denied the protective order, calling the requests relevant to the custody case.

http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/3635223/

Sounds pretty encouraging. (I'd never seen that site before, Mom.) Judge is being fair. I do wonder, however, why on earth Sandlin et. al. sent BC to some doc who was not even mentioned in previous documents. That seems odd to me. And why was BC allowed what I am guessing was unsupervised visitation for the whole weekend - at least that it what it seemed like to me from the way the news story was written.

 

[Star12]

Brad had no problem trying to get all of Nancy's friends to turn over things that might embarass them - good for Judge Sasser in saying no. Good for her to also agree that perhaps the August 8th evaluation might not be free of bias as well, even though the Rentz's will have to pay for another. Interesting.

Seems to me she thinks the murder case is indeed relevant to the custody case - the elephant in the room. Well I guess there will be a continuance of the custody hearing set for the 13th of October.

RC, I've been thinking the same thing for a while now - there just is no time for the eval to be done before Oct. 13.

Yes, I'm thinking it was a good day in court today, elephants and all. (I would have hated going up to the 8th floor in one of those little elevators with that elephant, though).

 

[jumpstreet]

Good for her to also agree that perhaps the August 8th evaluation might not be free of bias as well, even though the Rentz's will have to pay for another. Interesting.

Prediction: The Aug 8 eval that Brad paid for ends up saying he's "mentally stable and fit". The eval that the in-laws pay for will end up saying "not so much".

My guess is there is a degree of subjectivity in the evals. Call me cynical... but what are the chances that the test results end up favorable for whoever is paying the bill? What happens then... tie goes to the defendant?

 

[jmflu]

Interesting....

She said the request posed an undue burden and could be "unreasonably embarrassing" to her client.

Judge Debra Sasser denied the protective order, calling the requests relevant to the custody case. [/I]

http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/3635223/

Unreasonably embarrassing. GOOD!!!!!!!
Online liasons to the extreme, methinks!!!

I like that Judge Sasser...

 

[raisincharlie]

Prediction: The Aug 8 eval that Brad paid for ends up saying he's "mentally stable and fit". The eval that the in-laws pay for will end up saying "not so much".

My guess is there is a degree of subjectivity in the evals. Call me cynical... but what are the chances that the test results end up favorable for whoever is paying the bill? What happens then... tie goes to the defendant?

For the most part I would agree with this - the one paying the bill benefits. However if you recall, the Rentz's, in the original motion left the selection of the shrink to the court. Thereby effectively eliminating the bias regardless of who is paying the bill. The shrink doesn't even need to know who is paying the bill, all they know is they must meet the court's need regardless of outcome.

Don't you even find it odd that Brad is going to all this trouble before the issue is even ruled upon ? I do, it tells me there is truth despite claims otherwise. Brad is in major CYA mode - cart before the horse.

 

[jumpstreet]

Don't you even find it odd that Brad is going to all this trouble before the issue is even ruled upon ?

Yeah, struck me as odd...

 

[SleuthyGal]

Interesting day/interesting hearing.

I agree with the judge's decisions; I thinks she's being as fair as she can be.

Why would possible 'embarrassment' be a reason to limit discovery/disclosure of financial and other documentation from Jan 2008 to present? What is 'reasonable' embarrassment vs. 'unreasonable embarrassment?' Since when did feelings ever come into play when one is talking about legal actions and discovery? (BTW, what do you think is so egregious that his lawyer seeks to hide? Are we talking *advertiser censored* addiction? Escort services?) Why are Brad's feelings of embarrassment to be considered in this legal action when those of the various affiants are not (and whatever he's hiding may be very much related to a determination of fitness for custody?) I'm actually wondering if what they seek to hide could be used in the murder investigation and if that's the (underlying real) reason they want it excluded?

As for the psych evaluations I think the judge made a fair call there too. If the plaintiffs are willing to pay (and I'm sure they are) then it isn't going to hurt to have 2 separate opinions. The welfare of the children has to come first, even though part of me cringes that the kids were taken away from their father immediately. Again, WHAT was offered as proof to the court that made the original judge feel this action HAD to occur on an emergency basis?

So Oct 13th....anyone think there will be further delays/continuances and no decision will be forthcoming? The timing is getting dicey; if the DA is not ready to proceed forward (and I suspect he still won't be even in Oct), and there is no other cause for why the kids should remain with the maternal family, then those kids will be returned, perhaps only to be wrenched away later when/if the DA decides he is ready to move forward. Very dicey indeed, although the state really can't concern itself so much with the custody issue as that is wholly a civil matter.

 

[jmflu]

Someone on GOLO just said the autopsy results are being released...

Maybe I'm losing my mind to even wonder if that's true, considering the source, but thought I might ask one of the better sleuths on here to sniff out this info!