Nancy's Friends Object!

[SleuthyGal]

Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

I believe BC murdered his wife, but today, with the limited evidence we've been privy to, I would not be able to 'convict' him in a court of law. I've gone on record saying that several times, in fact. I'd have to see all the state's evidence and hear the defense's evidence too. Then I could make up my mind if I thought the DA met their burden of proof. And I know I could make that decision based on the evidence presented regardless of my personal feelings. But on an Internet chat board? Those rules do not apply and we can voice our opinions as long as we stay within the TOS on this forum. And that's a big difference.

 

[Anderson]

BC’s lawyers could just collect some of the items that are mentioned in the section on media (see text below), because this is information that is in the public domain. However, they are trying to find out if there are more appearances in the works. Are NC’s friends legally required to provide this information? IDK. I think that this is partly an attempt to try to limit visibility of this case in the media, a response to recent media representations of Brad. They must be worried about his public image.

“Any and all contracts, correspondence or other documents regarding any appearance, either already made or scheduled in the future with any media outlet, including but not limited to television and radio regarding Nancy Cooper, Bradley Cooper or their children. This request specifically includes but is not limited to any appearance on “Good Morning America.”

I found this is interesting:

“Any and all correspondence, including but not limited to email, memorandum, letters, notes, text messages, etc, blog posts or chat room conversations with Nancy Cooper or any other person concerned with Nancy Cooper from January 1, 2008 until present”.

I wonder if this focus on web-based material has been relevant in other cases. The law firm could collect one of these items, blog posts, but the rest are of a private nature. The videos and photographs that he mentions elsewhere seem to also be of this nature to me, but I am not sure if it is typical to require witnesses to provide this information or what it would mean if they refuse in a legal context. This list of items would also include posts on WS (chat room conversations). I also wonder if lawyers associated with NC’s friends may be able to argue that chat room anonymity should be respected. I don’t know what the legal implications are, but I gather that NC’s friends will have to respond to the subpoena in some way. The Wake Family Law Group is working on behalf of Brett Adams. Will all of NC’s friends that have been subpoenaed need to respond in documents that will then be released to the public? If there are more documents released, then this could be drawn out in the media. That would possibly help to maintain public concern for the murder.

 

[jumpstreet]

This list of items would also include posts on WS (chat room conversations). I also wonder if lawyers associated with NC’s friends may be able to argue that chat room anonymity should be respected. I don’t know what the legal implications are, but I gather that NC’s friends will have to respond to subpoena in some way.

Heh heh... so depending on how these subpoena's play out, and what the judge decides w.r.t. the appeals, we may at last find out if there's any overlap between the posters here on WS, and those listed on the subpeona's/affidavits. That should really be interesting.

Anyway... gotta run now... gotta go meet with my attorn..... uh... "friends" about something.

 

[Fuquaylj]

This has probably been said as I haven't read throught this entire thread, but I think what they've done is actually very smart as far as custody goes....they're saying "you've made all these accusations in your affidavits, now give me one shread of evidence to back any of it up". My bet is that there is none...JMO of course. I do think BC probably did it, by the way, but do not think they had a case to remove his children. I do think it is very unfortunate for NC friends who only love her to be drug through the mud!

 

[Anderson]

I gather that NC’s friends will have to respond to the subpoena in some way. The Wake Family Law Group is working on behalf of Brett Adams. Will all of NC’s friends that have been subpoenaed need to respond in documents that will then be released to the public? If there are more documents released, then this could be drawn out in the media.

After looking further, I guess the objections are already embedded in these documents.

 

[fran]

Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

Ehhh......FWIW, I have at least ONE post on the Ramsey forum, and it said I didn't think the parents did it. But what do I know?



fran

 

[Star12]

Isn't SC an attorney? There is a Susan Davis Crooks that works at Womble Carlyle. I thought her name sounded awfully familiar.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Their focus on web blogs, emails and chat room convos is interesting, even if it happens to be standard verbiage. And yes, there is likely some crossover to the WS community.

 

[The Saint]

it is possible that nancy's friends were keeping diaries and collecting evidence to aid
nancy during her divorce from brad (ie. brad's abusive, perhaps violent, controlling behavior).

this could be a serious defense blunder. the demand for the private information
from nancy's friends only confirms what a jerk brad is and how difficult it must have been for nancy to have been married to him.

she ended up dead at his hands.

i don't care with whom she was having sex or getting comfort. she needed it. she wasn't getting what she needed from her husband. she isn't the one who murdered someone. brad is...

 

[Anderson]

I do think that Kurtz and Blum are very interested in finding ways to reduce the "media scrutiny" associated with Brad:

"Meanwhile, Kurtz said the next step in the process is a show-cause hearing, during which time the slain woman's friends will have to show why they shouldn't comply with his client's request.

'What we've asked for isn't extraordinary in a custody case," said Kurtz, "let alone in a custody case with so many other issues and such high media scrutiny.'"

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=294b3eed-7b9f-40b8-9bc5-6118662c8004

 

[Anderson]

Their focus on web blogs, emails and chat room convos is interesting, even if it happens to be standard verbiage. And yes, there is likely some crossover to the WS community.

Although I doubt it, I wonder if Brad has been posting somewhere. If so, then perhaps his posts could be used against him in the future, if and when there is a trial. It may also be a possibility that this would be relevant for the custody issue.

However, RKAB mentioned that Brad would have his computer "all wired up" or something along those lines. I gather that means that he would be putting guards in place to protect his anonymity. In that case there wouldn't be a trail. Hopefully NC's friends are also finding ways to not leave a trail. However, I am still unclear on how this information is relevant and can be used.

 

[fran]

FWIW, most people do NOT keep copies of 'chat conversations.' So, all her friends need to do is say they don't have it. IF there was a conversation in chat on Websleuths, NOT to worry, Tricia has a couple of attorneys of her own! This is not new territory for her.

As far as emails, etc,....most people do NOT keep those either. So that point is most likely moot also.

Now as far as their phone records,..........well,.........what does that have to do with Brad Cooper being an unfit father? As far as them maybe talking to Nancy's family in Canada, well duh!!! IMO, there's no reason for them to have their personal phone records.

Text messages? LOL, as if they'd keep them. Sorry guy, don't have 'em.

So, over how many years the friends may have a picture or five or six that include Brad? Big deal......They can email them to his attorney through their attorney.

As far as the correspondence between each other, what does that have to do with the case? Besides, they didn't keep copies. pfftt

AS for Jessica and Brett and the state of THEIR marriage. NONE of their business! period, end of story!!! IF either one of them had an affair, which they state they didn't, what does that have to do with Brad being unfit? They're NOT attempting to get custody of the girls, Nancy's FAMILY is.

This is about BRAD and him being UNFIT to care for those precious little girls. This has NOTHING to do with Nancy's friends.

Nancy's family is attempting to gain custody. Brad already trashed Nancy's twin sister in his original affidavits. Why didn't he follow up with that? Why go after Nancy's friends?

Why not request work records of the FAMILY that's attempting to get custody. He complained in his affidavit that they all worked and wouldn't be around to constantly care for the girls.

Telling, IMHO, that the defendent goes after the friends of his MURDERED wife, just because they stood up for someone who's been permanently silenced.

ALSO, FWIW, bet Brad was REALLY surprised when Nancy's friends stepped forward. He probably thought NO ONE KNEW the cra* he dished out to his poor wife behind that closed door.

Surprise, surprise, he didn't have ULTIMATE control of Nancy after all, did he? Course he found that out when she decided she'd had enough of his BS and was going to leave and take the girls. Guess he showed her though! (imo)

fran

PS....IF he wants any posts on Websleuths, it's a public forum, he can get them himself! "Copy and Paste":crazy:

PPS...I wouldn't put it past Brad to post anonymously on the internet. He's not at UPFRONT type person, IMHO. More of a 'stab in the back' type of guy....Just ask Nancy! oh, wait, we can't...

 

[ncnative]

FWIW, most people do NOT keep copies of 'chat conversations.' So, all her friends need to do is say they don't have it. IF there was a conversation in chat on Websleuths, NOT to worry, Tricia has a couple of attorneys of her own! This is not new territory for her.

As far as emails, etc,....most people do NOT keep those either. So that point is most likely moot also.

Now as far as their phone records,..........well,.........what does that have to do with Brad Cooper being an unfit father? As far as them maybe talking to Nancy's family in Canada, well duh!!! IMO, there's no reason for them to have their personal phone records.

Text messages? LOL, as if they'd keep them. Sorry guy, don't have 'em.

So, over how many years the friends may have a picture or five or six that include Brad? Big deal......They can email them to his attorney through their attorney.

As far as the correspondence between each other, what does that have to do with the case? Besides, they didn't keep copies. pfftt

AS for Jessica and Brett and the state of THEIR marriage. NONE of their business! period, end of story!!! IF either one of them had an affair, which they state they didn't, what does that have to do with Brad being unfit? They're NOT attempting to get custody of the girls, Nancy's FAMILY is.

This is about BRAD and him being UNFIT to care for those precious little girls. This has NOTHING to do with Nancy's friends.

Nancy's family is attempting to gain custody. Brad already trashed Nancy's twin sister in his original affidavits. Why didn't he follow up with that? Why go after Nancy's friends?

Why not request work records of the FAMILY that's attempting to get custody. He complained in his affidavit that they all worked and wouldn't be around to constantly care for the girls.

Telling, IMHO, that the defendent goes after the friends of his MURDERED wife, just because they stood up for someone who's been permanently silenced.

ALSO, FWIW, bet Brad was REALLY surprised when Nancy's friends stepped forward. He probably thought NO ONE KNEW the cra* he dished out to his poor wife behind that closed door.

Surprise, surprise, he didn't have ULTIMATE control of Nancy after all, did he? Course he found that out when she decided she'd had enough of his BS and was going to leave and take the girls. Guess he showed her though! (imo)

fran

PS....IF he wants any posts on Websleuths, it's a public forum, he can get them himself! "Copy and Paste":crazy:

PPS...I wouldn't put it past Brad to post anonymously on the internet. He's not at UPFRONT type person, IMHO. More of a 'stab in the back' type of guy....Just ask Nancy! oh, wait, we can't...

Wow. Whew. Thanks Fran. "...stab in the back type of guy...just ask Nancy!" I would be afraid if I were some of Nancy's friends, too. Or, if I were RKAB. :no: Won't they EVER get this case (and Michelle Young's) over the hill??

 

[fran]

[/B]

Wow. Whew. Thanks Fran. "...stab in the back type of guy...just ask Nancy!" I would be afraid if I were some of Nancy's friends, too. Or, if I were RKAB. :no: Won't they EVER get this case (and Michelle Young's) over the hill??

Hi ncnative!

You know, I have to believe LE will eventually solve both of these cases. It may not be today or tomorrow, but in the end, I HAVE to believe there will be justice for these two poor ladies and many more that have gone before and after them.

In the OT thread, I posted a NC case that happened just this week and the guy is already in jail. They're still looking for Kelly Morris down in Stem, but it's pretty obvious what happened to her. They just have to FIND her! (Topsail Girl is assisting in the search, btw) FWIW, her car, with keys, purse, and cell phone were found in a similar location as Nancy, an undeveloped housing area. Must be a popular type spot!

As for Brad intimidating Nancy's friends and his 'former' friends into NOT talking to LE about HIM, he needs to get over himself. This is NOT about HIM, this is about NANCY and MURDER. THIS is NOT about CONTROLLING someone or something, this is about SOLVING a MURDER. This is SERIOUS stuff. Bullying isn't going to cut it here, IMHO.

Which brings me back to the subject of this particular thread. The current court case should be for information regarding his being an unfit parent. But I fail to see what Nancy's friends 'personal lives' have to do with Brad's dispute with Nancy's parents. His beef on THIS case is with THEM, not the Friends of Nancy!.....................THAT is UNLESS he has SOMETHING to hide!:doh:

LE is loving this. Keep it coming Brad. You may have just given LE a MOTIVE! to go along with that MEANS and OPPORTUNITY! Your narcissim is showing! :loser:

JMHO
fran

 

[ncnative]

So Topsail Girl is along for the search of the young woman in Stem, NC? It is SO muggy and hot outside, good luck to them. Remember after Hurricane Fran, how muggy and hot it was? Then, it was unbearable plus, we had half our roof gone, so add mosquitos and squirrels, etc. to the atmosphere.

Brad Cooper must have taken a trip somewhere, since his car has been backed into the same place in front of his garage for several days now. First time I've seen it backed in. He should have plenty of time to read about himself on the news, message boards and the like.

I re-read a few affidavits today. I had forgotten the ones who said Nancy mentioned "brown bugs in Brad's mattress", along with his dirty sheets. Bed bugs/lice? It's easy to bring them home, especially a traveller like Brad who "gets around", shall we say?

 

[gritguy]

Isn't SC an attorney? There is a Susan Davis Crooks that works at Womble Carlyle. I thought her name sounded awfully familiar.

My old firm...

 

[jumpstreet]

My old firm...

Cool. Do you know if the SC that is (apparently) an attorney there is the same one subpoenaed by BC recently... or... don't know?

 

[gritguy]

Cool. Do you know if the SC that is (apparently) an attorney there is the same one subpoenaed by BC recently... or... don't know?

I don't know, but I did see the original document and then the motion to quash say Susan Crook whereas the WCSR lawyer is Susan Crooks. Perhaps a different person, unless that name is corrected elsewhere.