Nancy's Friends Object!

[raisincharlie]

If this is a custody hearing - how is digging up dirt on a dead woman relevant? She's obviously not seeking custody.

To me the fact that they (BC's lawyers) are focusing NC, and the possibility of an affair - they are trying to find reasonable doubt that he killed her - not address a custody issue.

The judge in the custody case ought to slap their collective hands - and say he's going to be ruling on brad's fitness as a parent or if the girls are better off with NC's family - so limit your inquiries to those folks. In the custody case - NC isn't a party - and this brings nothing to the table that would help him decide on the girls' future.

Seems to me the primary goal here is intimidation. Intimidation of anyone who has anything negative to say about Brad boy. He appears to be rather ruthless and the focus on phone records, in particular relating to long distance calls, seems to want to make the implication that the friends were in cahoots with the Rentz's in a concerted effort to remove the children. Then add in a possible defense case to prepare in the event he is arrested for murder, the goal will be to discredit potential witnesses. As per usual, Brad continues to use his children as tools and weapons IMO.

 

[caryresident]

BC obviously knows something happened with the tires at some point, and he must think these folks know something about it... it's too pointed a question to just be random. Whether that something is relevant... who knows.



Yeah, exactly. The obviously explanation would be that BC knows for sure (or has reason to believe) that the specific ones he asks might have also had some extracurricular activities. Maybe it's just smoke and mirrors. If not, what's up with that section of Lochmere... more than just neighborhood BBQs going on?... ]



Would have been funny to subpoena her to provide all email/text-messages/letters/etc as evidence that you did not go running with NC on July 12th. . Seriously, the lack of an subpoena for her presumably implies (to me at least) that BC doesn't think she has anything to offer (and/or that she would prefer to hide)




You got that right... [change word "seems" to "is", and you're spot on! ]

I have no proof just heresay that they're swingers. Maybe they've all been with each other

 

[ncnative]

Oh my. I've lived in Lochwood (in Lochmere) for 20 years and had no idea that it was a "swinging community". "Bored housewives"? Dear dear. How does anyone in Nancy Cooper's and her "bored, swinging friend's" age bracket find time to get bored? Silly silly silly. But then, I'm old. What could I possibly know about life?

RasinCharlie, thank you for jerking the conversations back to sensibility and reality.

*reminding self to polish up my cane in hopes of locating swingers of my age bracket :Banane48:, since I'm in Lochmere...I might get lucky...*

I guess this means I'll be getting a subpoena in a few days, you know, since I've posted on the website here.:shakehead:

 

[jmflu]

I have no proof just heresay that they're swingers. Maybe they've all been with each other

I'm thinking not. Because then there wouldn't have been so many accusations of BC having an "affair." It probably wouldn't be that big of a deal to them then.

But that doesn't rule out the possibility that some have experimented, and BC knows who they are, and is trying to use it to his advantage to make his indiscreditions seem less significant in the custody case.

Time will tell.

 

[jumpstreet]

There were a lot of references to a specific "Good Morning America" interview in the subpoena(s)... anyone know (or care to speculate) why? Not sure I recall seeing that particular interview (vs all the other media interviews, etc). Was there anything noteworthy about it?

 

[Daphne69]

I think this is the GMA interview they are referecing. Personally, I don't see anything damaging to BC by NC's friends in it at all.

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/what-happened-to-nancy-cooper/10603605/

EDIT: Ooops! can't be this one, SC isn't in it. Sorry.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think this is the GMA interview they are referecing. Personally, I don't see anything damaging to BC by NC's friends in it at all.

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/what-happened-to-nancy-cooper/10603605/

EDIT: Ooops! can't be this one, SC isn't in it. Sorry.

So is Brad boy just mad at Susan Crook because she spoke on TV ? It seems reasonable to figure that she did not supply an affidavit with respect to the custody case as it is not included in the 14 affidavits filed and in this recent subpeona there is no request for items to support any claim she made in an affidavit, unlike the others that mention an affidavit. Why is he so worried about Susan Crook's conversations with Interact on behalf of Nancy ? Why is there no subpeona for Interact ? The Rentz's subpeona'd Interact for the custody hearing and it seems to be now apparent that wasn't for expert testimony, after reveiwing the accusations leveled by Brad boy in the subpeona to Susan Crook. Hmmmmmm, where there's smoke there's fire for the most part.

 

[jumpstreet]

So is Brad boy just mad at Susan Crook because she spoke on TV ?

He seemed to ask a number of them for information specific to a particular GMA interview... so apparantly in the defense team's eyes, there is something relevent there (not sure what, but it doesn't seem like it's a general "I'm mad at anyone who spoke on TV to anyone" type of query)

The Rentz's subpeona'd Interact for the custody hearing and it seems to be now apparent that wasn't for expert testimony, after reviewing the accusations leveled by Brad boy in the subpoena to Susan Crook.

Yeah, it's curious... the plaintiff's want to know about Interact... and BC wants to know what SC knows about Interact. *Something* must have gone down with Interact at some point. Who knows what.

Hmmmmmm, where there's smoke there's fire for the most part.

You're right RC... it's starting to get pretty smokey around here, that's for sure! [ neighborhood swinging, slashed tires, new implications of a (more recent) affair by NC... Interact involvement... ] At least some of it will probably end up being relevant in the custody hearing... time will tell how much. Whether any of it is relevant to the criminal investigation... that's also an unknown too I suppose (for now).

 

[fran]

Whatever the REASON is for these latest filings by the 'defense,' IMHO, LE is ing with glee!:bang:

I think Brad's slip is showing!

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

I have had no doubt from the time I saw the Rentz's had subpeona'd Interact for the custody issue on 25 July that there is something to it. Brad accuses Susan Crook, basically, of contacting Interact on behalf of Nancy - there has to be a reason why, (if she did) and why Brad wants to know. But funny he didn't subpeona Interact to find out - probably because they have legal grounds to quash a subpeona. Chicken.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It makes one wonder if there are allegations of abuse by Nancy on behalf of herself and/or the kids and if there are incident(s) documented at Interact. And if there is info and it's documented there, it will be found out. And if it exists, and there have been prior incidents with documentation, he's toast from a custody-standpoint (not to mention it sure doesn't help him in the murder case). IMHO.

 

[raisincharlie]

It makes one wonder if there are allegations of abuse by Nancy on behalf of herself and/or the kids and if there are incident(s) documented at Interact. And if there is info and it's documented there, it will be found out. And if it exists, and there have been prior incidents, he's toast from a custody-standpoint (not to mention it sure doesn't help him in the murder case). IMHO.

The judge certainly didn't hesitate to issue the Ex Parte and send LE to collect the children instead of allowing him to turn them over. Sending LE to collect children - an obvious sign of major concern.

 

[fran]

I have had no doubt from the time I saw the Rentz's had subpeona'd Interact for the custody issue on 25 July that there is something to it. Brad accuses Susan Crook, basically, of contacting Interact on behalf of Nancy - there has to be a reason why, (if she did) and why Brad wants to know. But funny he didn't subpeona Interact to find out - probably because they have legal grounds to quash a subpeona. Chicken.

IMHO, the way he {hid} after the Renses arrived, showed his true colors, IMHO, what kind of a man he is (NOT!):chicken:

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

IMHO, the way he {hid} after the Renses arrived, showed his true colors, IMHO, what kind of a man he is (NOT!):chicken:

JMHO
fran

I find it interesting that he never bothered to contact the Rentz's at all. When it came to money he would email Gary Rentz but when Nancy goes missing, he is silent ? WTH ?

 

[SleuthyGal]

The judge certainly didn't hesitate to issue the Ex Parte and send LE to collect the children instead of allowing him to turn them over. Sending LE to collect children - an obvious sign of major concern.

Could Brad be an abusive husband (more than financial/controlling) and possibly an abusive father to those darling little girls? Is that where this smoke is leading? To that type of (4 alarm) fire? :furious:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I find it interesting that he never bothered to contact the Rentz's at all. When it came to money he would email Gary Rentz but when Nancy goes missing, he is silent ? WTH ?

Good point, RC. My take on that...Nancy wasn't really 'missing.' She was right where he placed dumped her (lifeless body) on 7/12. He knew exactly where she was. He didn't report her missing to ANYONE. And to him she wasn't 'missing.' IMHO.

 

[jumpstreet]

When it came to money he would email Gary Rentz but when Nancy goes missing, he is silent ? WTH ?

Not sure I realized this one... do we know who did originally contact the Rentz's? JA? LE? Someone else? [ and when they were contacted]

 

[fran]

Not sure I realized this one... do we know who did originally contact the Rentz's? JA? LE? Someone else? [ and when they were contacted]

Hey! Maybe that's in part of WHY they want their long distance records! He might be trying to {figure out} who called them?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, EXCEPT it was NOT him.

JMHO
fran

 

[jumpstreet]

Doesn't really matter in the long run, EXCEPT it was NOT him.

I guess I wasn't sure we knew even this for certain either. (Though I agree it would seem a reasonable assumption)

 

[jmflu]

Could Brad be an abusive husband (more than financial/controlling) and possibly an abusive father to those darling little girls? Is that where this smoke is leading? To that type of (4 alarm) fire? :furious:

I remember reading that the friends had not really heard NC complain about him hitting her. Other than that one slap on the leg, I understood the situation to be one of intimidation and control rather than physical abuse.