Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've watched only the first video (Marriage) part of the second video, but...

I think she was fed questions by CPD that they wanted answered without naming him a suspect.

  • How is computer ownership relevant to custody?
  • How is email account ownership/access relevant to custody?
  • How is his area of expertise relevant to custody?

His lawyers were played. Much of that was a police interrogation under the guise of a deposition. I don't understand why his lawyer had him answer questions she objected to based on relevance.

It's an interesting thought Cygnus... that the CPD may be trying to leverage the plaintiff's attorneys to help them with their investigation. Not sure if some of the legal experts here on WS can confirm whether this might be something often done? [ LE partnering with one side or the other to try and influence/manipulate a civil hearing in order to make progress in a criminal matter ]

If LE is suggesting a certain line of questioning to one side, I wonder if in doing so they are also providing some insights as to the status of the criminal investigation (to just one side). That would seem real dicey to me if true.

It would seem more 'above board', to me if LE were trying to not directly involved in the custody hearing (cooperating if asked questions, but not helping to direct or influence the outcome). OTOH, you are right, some of the line-of-questioning from the plaintiffs attorneys implies they have some 'inside' information - perhaps from LE, perhaps from WS (ha ha), or (and probably more likely) from other sources.
 
This deposition is for the custody hearing. That being said, the information revealed could be used in any other action raised against BC in the future. By objecting and then allowing him to answer the questions, his attorney is basically reserving her rights to exclude certain testimony in the future.

Sure, I got that. What I don't understand is why sometimes object and allow him to answer, and sometimes object, and instruct him not to answer?
 
It's an interesting thought Cygnus... that the CPD may be trying to leverage the plaintiff's attorneys to help them with their investigation. Not sure if some of the legal experts here on WS can confirm whether this might be something often done? [ LE partnering with one side or the other to try and influence/manipulate a civil hearing in order to make progress in a criminal matter ]

If LE is suggesting a certain line of questioning to one side, I wonder if in doing so they are also providing some insights as to the status of the criminal investigation (to just one side). That would seem real dicey to me if true.

It would seem more 'above board', to me if LE were trying to not directly involved in the custody hearing (cooperating if asked questions, but not helping to direct or influence the outcome). OTOH, you are right, some of the line-of-questioning from the plaintiffs attorneys implies they have some 'inside' information - perhaps from LE, perhaps from WS (ha ha), or (and probably more likely) from other sources.


IMO, it is outrageous to insinuate that LE is "taking sides" in any murder investigation. And this deposition is evidence in support of the custody hearing.

Of course the attorneys know more than anyone posting on this board. And of course each side knows things the other side does not.

And there is information in the murder investigation that LE does not have at this time. It still is an investigation. And just remember that BC has not been charged with anything at this time.
 
BTW, the name of the Plaintiffs' attorney is Alice Stubbs. IMO, calling her "Nancy Grace" is quite disrespectful. Kindly refer to her properly.
 
Unless he is arrested, he should get the children back. They are his children. They shouldn't have been taken from him to begin with. You guys talk about the emotional trauma of taking them out of their current living arrangements...how about the emotional trauma of having them taken from their dad by sheriff deputies. They were wrong to do it in the first place. If they believe he did it and can prove it, arrest him and then take the kids. But he deserves to have his children until such time as he is arrested for the crime. If he is arrested and acquitted, he should get them back when the trial is over. I doubt he will ever be arrested though based on what has been shown to date.


I agree!
 
IMO, it is outrageous to insinuate that LE is "taking sides" in any murder investigation. And this deposition is evidence in support of the custody hearing.

Why is LE submitting affidavits for the plaintiffs FOR THE CUSTODY HEARING? Is LE taking sides in the custody issue? Why?
 
Why is LE submitting affidavits for the plaintiffs FOR THE CUSTODY HEARING? Is LE taking sides in the custody issue? Why?

I believe that Star answered that question above. LE would not take sides.

The detective may have filed the affidavit because the Judge asked for an update on the investigation before the custody hearing took place. As mentioned above (Star), they will also have other information that is not public. I'm sure that one of the legal experts on the board will have a more detailed explanation.
 
BTW, the name of the Plaintiffs' attorney is Alice Stubbs. IMO, calling her "Nancy Grace" is quite disrespectful. Kindly refer to her properly.

It was meant a a compliment Star!
(not a fan I take it... )
 
I believe that Star answered that question above. LE would not take sides.

The detective may have filed the affidavit because the Judge asked for an update on the investigation before the custody hearing took place. As mentioned above (Star), they will also have other information that is not public. I'm sure that one of the legal experts on the board will have a more detailed explanation.

The thought started with the 'line of questioning' from the plaintiffs. Someone suggested that they "seem" to have inside information of some kind on a couple of fronts. The question is: Might they have gotten the information, and/or some suggestions from LE? Or... would they have had to obtain the information completely on their own. [ e.g. asking pointed questions about the ring, the vase in the cleanup, etc ]
 
The thought started with the 'line of questioning' from the plaintiffs. Someone suggested that they "seem" to have inside information of some kind on a couple of fronts. The question is: Might they have gotten the information, and/or some suggestions from LE? Or... would they have had to obtain the information completely on their own. [ e.g. asking pointed questions about the ring, the vase in the cleanup, etc ]

I really don't know, but I'm sure that someone will. However, I would imagine that all information is being relayed in a way that is in keeping with accepted legal practices.

Hopefully, someone with more knowledge will clarify this issue.
 
I really don't know, but I'm sure that someone will. However, I would imagine that all information is being relayed in a way that is in keeping with accepted legal practices.

Hopefully, someone with more knowledge will clarify this issue.

Agreed. [ Which is why my "guess" is that they've gotten their inside/other information from "other sources" (not LE)... but who knows... ]
 
It was meant a a compliment Star!
(not a fan I take it... )

I have no thoughts either way on NG. However, the attorney's name is Alice Stubbs. She works for a highly respected law office, and has considerable abilities.

When you call people "names" you do not hurt their reputation so much as you call your own credibiity into question. Respect is a two way street.

And on another note, as far as Cyg's question about the detective's affidavit, I do not see that as taking sides. I see that as his calling notice to the fact that there are descrepancies in the depo as opposed to what BC said in his previous statements to LE.
 
*When someone is lying to you they will try to put distance between you. They may put a book or a drinking glass between you because they are uncomfortable with lying to you. They don't want to look you in the eye.

*If someone is telling you, "This is the honest truth, " while shaking their head no, they are lying.

*A liar may be very expansive in their body language. They may wave their arms and become very dramatic. Their voice may raise and they will talk rapidly and become very animated.

*If someone doesn't use pronouns, they may be lying to you.

*The Eyes: Children often refrain from looking into their parents’ eyes when lying. This is because they are afraid of seeing themselves ‘caught in the act’. They will often divert their line of sight long enough to lie and return when they are telling the truth. Adults have this problem too, with some extreme cases preventing liars from looking at you at all.

*Remember those that speak the truth do so in fluid, coordinated manner. Any discrepancies from the norm are clues that he or she is lying.

*Palms: Open palms signals honesty, which is the reason we shake hands to show acceptance to friends and strangers. Those who are innocent of crimes will often throw their palms in the air, while those who are guilty will hide them in their pockets.

------------------------------------------------------


#1 - To start, the most common and well-known of body language signs that lies are being told: everybody knows that a liar avoids eye contact. Even the liar--which is an important consideration. So, just as often as eye contact is avoided during the telling of lies, a liar will often make too much prolonged eye contact while telling his/her lies. The body language can go the traditional way, or the liar may overcompensate to the other extreme when trying to hide the lies.

#2 - A liar often subconsciously seeks a symbolic protective buffer between him/herself and the receiver of the lies. Consider it a sort of liar shield. One of the more prominent body language signs, this usually takes the form of a liar absent-mindedly placing an object between him/herself and the other person.

#3 - When someone's body language assumes a defensive position, it can indicate lies. Most commonly, a liar will fold his/her arms or legs. A small step or two backwards falls into this category of defensive signs as well.

#4 - Lies are easiest to tell when they're not told per se. Evasive answers and statements (i.e., "Why would I do that?") can be a good indicator that the truth is being avoided by a frightened liar. Similarly, incredulous repetition of accusatory questions in lieu of responses can also point to forthcoming lies.

#5 - Watch for body language indicating a dry mouth. Commonly, the signs are frequent licking of the lips, swallowing, or sipping a beverage.

#6 - Silence is particularly uncomfortable to a liar. It provides opportunity for the other person to think over what's being said and to possibly detect the lies. At the very least, follow-up questions may arise. A liar will try to fill all pauses, often resulting in pointless or odd conversation and non-sequiturs, both telling signs to look for.

#7 - Body language that is reserved and stiff, as if to avoid drawing any attention, is one of the key signs of lies. This often takes the form of the liar holding his/her arms straight down and his/her head and legs rigid. This can even be looked at as a lack of body language.

#8 - A liar will usually be deliberate about gestures and expressions in an attempt to make the lies come across as believable. With attention to his/her body language, you should be able to pick up that the gestures and expressions are slightly misaligned with the statements. If the body language doesn't quite flow in a natural manner with the verbal language, it's being forced-probably for a reason. Such signs also include expressions that appear inauthentic (often a fake smile, notable because it doesn't narrow the eyes or wrinkle skin all around the face the way an authentic smile does).

close window#9 - Lies require thought and attention to detail, especially when they have to be told on the spot, unrehearsed. Body language indicating excessive or seemingly uncalled for thought processes (you can "see the gears turning") can be one of the more telling body language signs of a liar. Also--and there have actually been body language studies on this--when someone is trying to recall something that happened, they will usually gaze upward; conversely, when someone is pretending to recall something, they will usually gaze downward.

#10 - One of the more visible signs of lies is sweat. Most commonly, a liar will sweat on the forehead and palms. Forehead sweat is the easier to spot. However, watch for body language signs of sweat too: wiping the brow or drying hands on pants, a tablecloth, etc.

#11 - Two signs of an adrenaline rush can be indicative of lies as well. While sweat can fall under this category, which isn't so much body language as physical body changes, the two key signs to watch for are a flushed face and dilating pupils. Both together should definitely raise your suspicion that you're dealing with a liar.


#12 - Excessive gestures are important body language signs indicating lies. In a subconscious effort to enhance believability, a liar will promote his/her words with unnaturally pronounced gesturing. Also on a subconscious level, the body language serves to divert attention from the dishonest words and face.

#13 - Body language signs indicating nervousness are key to detecting lies. A liar often fidgets. This includes drumming fingers, biting or picking at fingernails, biting lips, twirling hair, and picking at or adjusting clothing. There are too many signs to list, but any similar body language can be taken as signs of lies.

#14 - A liar frequently mumbles or speaks in a lowered, monotonous tone, especially at the exact time lies are being uttered. Such modulations in speech are primarily signs that either the liar lacks confidence that the lies are believable, or that the liar feels guilty about telling the lies. From a body language standpoint, these signs are often accompanied by a lowered head and slouching shoulders.

#15 - Shifting from foot to foot is often the body language of a liar. Similarly, a liar doesn't always keep his/her feet flat on the ground (whether standing or sitting). This body language generally falls under signs of the "flight instinct" category, which stems from fear or discomfort--both emotions that are triggered by telling lies.

#16 - A liar usually tries to change the subject from whatever discussion is prompting his/her lies. Any conversational signs of this desire to move on before the subject is resolved of its own accord should make you wary of lies.

#17 - Similar to the previous entry, when you suspect lies, try changing the subject suddenly. Look for the suspected liar to have a noticeable, immediate change in overall body language. If the person's body language becomes more relaxed and comfortable, you've just witnessed one of the most telling signs of a liar.

#18 - When you notice someone keeping their body somewhat askew, pointed away from you, it can be one of the body language signs that lies are being told. It's debatable why a liar does this--it could be guilt, a flight instinct, facilitating a lack of eye contact, or any number of other subconscious body language workings.

#19 - A liar frequently interrupts his/her lies with throat clearing, small coughs, and/or sniffles.

#20 - Body language that almost seems to be trying to literally conceal lies is often just that. Most often, a liar will somehow cover his/her mouth and throat. This can mean touching these parts or holding something up in front of them. Such signs are among the more common and prominent. Touching other parts of the face with some frequency in any of a number of ways is also consistent with the behavior of a liar.

#21 - Finally, beware the person who uses (and particularly overuses) language like "honestly," "believe me," "to tell the truth," etc. S/he is almost certainly being deceptive.
 
I have no thoughts either way on NG. However, the attorney's name is Alice Stubbs. She works for a highly respected law office, and has considerable abilities.

No doubt. NG has considerable abilities too though... :)

When you call people "names" you do not hurt their reputation so much as you call your own credibiity into question.

Heh heh, as if I have any cred on this board... :D Anyway - sorry if I touched a nerve with it... shall keep it straight up AS from here.

And on another note, as far as Cyg's question about the detective's affidavit, I do not see that as taking sides. I see that as his calling notice to the fact that there are descrepancies in the depo as opposed to what BC said in his previous statements to LE.

Agreed. I took Cyg's point to be less tied to the affidavit from LE, but more to the the line-of-questioning from the plaintiff's attorney - (AS). Just speculation on whether or not LE could have suggested a line-of-questioning at some point in time. Maybe so, or maybe not, but some of her questions seemed fairly pointed... no doubt they have many sources, and maybe LE isn't one of them... (or maybe they are - that's just the question being kicked around...)
 
Anyone else notice when BC was asked about vaccuming his trunk on 11th, 12th, 13th, etc. that when Alice asked about the 12th he said 'NO' but slightly shook his head 'Yes'. I noticed this on a couple of other 'no' answers as well... :waitasec:

Here is the video:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3709789/
This particular questioning is around 12:30 into this video. See what you think.
 
He did say that. June 28th he cleaned the garage so that Nancy could get HER car into the garage so that the car wouldn't be so hot in the summer months. It made it sound to me, as if there was no room for either vehicle untill he cleaned it for her vehicle. That has me puzzled because of the pest control guy's affy.

Not much of a puzzle Topsail. Gary Beard, the pest control guy, filed his affidavit on 9 October - a week after Brad's deposition. He says on July 8th the garage was as always - filled up with no room to park a vehicle inside. By obtaining this affidavit after Brad gave his deposition, it clearly indicates that this is another inconsistent statement by Brad and was not what LE observed during their look through of the house to see if Nancy was there on the 12th.

Obviously, Tharrington Smith had reason to believe this was an inconsistent statement and searched out Mr. Beard to check this issue out. I think it is worth remembering that Wade Smith sat through Brad's deposition, a tremendous amount of criminal law experience in the room with Ms. Stubbs. TS has done their homework of the possible crminal implications related to the custody issue.
 
TS has done their homework of the possible crminal implications related to the custody issue.

RC - do you think they've been reading WS?

Seriously - is it possible LE themselves is one of their sources, or
would it be 'off limits' for LE to provide any 'inside info' to the plaintiffs (only)?

[ If not LE, then TS must have some other source of info that would
compel them to get an affy from the pest guy. [ Or maybe in
this instance, the pest guy came to TS directly, who knows... ]
 
Here is the video:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3709789/
This particular questioning is around 12:30 into this video. See what you think.

What I find very interesting about this whole conversation is BC said he vacuumed Nancy's car on the 28th of June, his car, and then he also cleaned and vacuumed the garage. I find it interesting as in the sw affidavit he did tell LE about cleaning his car the week before, he cleaned it because he had spilled gas in the car. In the deposition he says he cleaned the gas with shop towels and that the odor remained for a while, he also makes it plain in the deposition this occured before cleaning it on the 28th of June so there seems to be a conflict of information here.

The other interesting thing is he also says he vacuumed the garage. If it turns out that the hair found on the front right spoiler of the car and inside the left front wheel well turns out to be Nancy's hair, it is going to be very difficult to explain how it could have gotten there since he also says in this depostion there was no room for a car in the garage and his was normally parked in the drive. It just keeps getting more and more interesting and more and more inconsistent. :)
 
Why is LE submitting affidavits for the plaintiffs FOR THE CUSTODY HEARING? Is LE taking sides in the custody issue? Why?

LE submitted affys for both sides. If you recall the 4 affys filed by the cops who did the transfer of the children from Brad to the Rentz'? That was done for Brad's side.

The attorneys can ask for an affy detailing a specific incident and it is legally sanctioned to give an affy if so requested...doesn't matter who you are or what your job or how you are involved in the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
2,321
Total visitors
2,525

Forum statistics

Threads
600,429
Messages
18,108,628
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top