Nancy's Friends Object!

[jumpstreet]

It doesn't matter if Nancy ever had a (non-sexual) affair EIGHT years ago (per his affidavit).

Agreed. I guess it's not clear to me that the recent moves by BC's attorneys pertain to the 4-year (or 8-year) old non-sexual affair mentioned in BC's original affidavit... or... something more recent.

But yeah, as mentioned... other than various word-of-mouth rumors that seem to keep coming up... nothing to substantiate anything like that at this point, so I guess we'll see.

 

[momto3kids]

I remain hopeful he will find the necessary motivation to move forward on this case (and a couple others too).

There is a 1st time for everything!
If the CPD approaches the DA about BC's case and says...we have everything, but waiting on DNA only. So far it is ALL pointing to BC...problem is the civil matter. The defense is trying to make our witnesses talk. It is GOING to hurt our murder trial if it is ruled to make them talk on the stand.

If the DA takes a back seat on this when trials were done up until the last 15? years without DNA being needed to convict...he needs to be replaced in 2 years IMO.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If the DA takes a back seat on this when trials were done up until the last 15? years without DNA being needed to convict...he needs to be replaced in 2 years IMO.

Totally agree. But TWO years is a long time. Is this DA so completely paranoid/sensitive about his record that he would not make a move on murder cases he didn't deem a "complete slam dunk" and let his term run out? Is he an Alex Hunter?

 

[mahmoo]

It's a shame that Nancy's friends are saddled with the cost of retaining attorneys for a situation they had nothing to do with. Secondly, I shudder to think the possibility exists that Katie & Bella could be returned to Brad's care only to be taken away again if he is charged with murder.

 

[jumpstreet]

The actual subpoena's are posted on wral now, along with some of the objections. Some stuff in there implying NC's tires were slashed at some point over the recent past. (The defense requesting plantiff's to communicate any knowledge they have of same). Is that something new, or has it come up before? I don't recall past mention of it...

 

[ncnative]

I don't know that much about the law, but I know the friends have already gotten a lawyer and are fighting this. I do not think they will make the friends give their personal information.

This is about Nancy and Brad, NOT Jessica and her hubby or anyone else! That has NOTHING to do with Brad NOT being a fit parent.

THIS is what shows Brad is NOT a fit parent. His ruthless manner in destroying everything in his path to get what he wants. It's going to backfire, BIG TIME!:bang:

Just think what he'd do to those poor little girls when they wouldn't stop crying or he doesn't understand what the little one wants because he doesn't know how to 'read the signs.'

JMHO
fran

Fran, see where I bolded your comment.

What is your source that Nancy's friends have gotten lawyers, etc.? I must be behind.

 

[jumpstreet]

Fran, see where I bolded your comment.

What is your source that Nancy's friends have gotten lawyers, etc.? I must be behind.

It's mentioned in at least one of the news articles with the story I think. Also, the subpoena's are posted on WRAL now, and some of them already have corresponding objections from the plaintiff's attorneys to the request.

 

[ncnative]

I see. Now begins a new direction of mud slinging diversions from the murder.

If I were any of Nancy's friends who signed affidavits, I would not feel safe until Mr. Murderer is :behindbar seriously

 

[Anubis]

First of all, have any of you actually seen the affidavits to see what the friends swore to? Secondly, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorney's do: they ask for anything and everything including the kitchen sink. It doesn't mean they'll get it or that they are entitled to it; it's just part of the game. A good attorney will simply counter by requesting denial of the request. Thirdly, the statement "you'd better be able to back up what you say" in an affidavit is broad and incorrect. If it is a character affidavit, the person swearing to and signing the affidavit is entitled to state what they believe the character of the individual is (that is, if Nancy stated to her friend that she thought her husband was having an affair, the friend can attest to that in the affidavit without having pictures of the husband cheating) You can attest to what your personal belief of a persons character is WITHOUT anything other than your opinion, based on conversations or eye witness accounts.

 

[ncnative]

I see. Now begins a new direction of mud slinging diversions from the murder.

If I were any of Nancy's friends who signed affidavits, I would not feel safe until Mr. Murderer is :behindbar seriously

In answer to your question, Anubis, if we have "...actually SEEN any of the affidavits...", yes of COURSE. I have read every one of them more than twice. I also live in the neighborhood where Nancy lived. I'm not just sitting around making off-the-wall comments.

By "...Nancy's friends who signed affidavits,..." I was referring to the original affs. If there have been more, I haven't seen them yet.

And, Brad's lawyers are just NOW going for the friends' "proof of what they claimed"? Why not earlier?

 

[raisincharlie]

First of all, have any of you actually seen the affidavits to see what the friends swore to? Secondly, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorney's do: they ask for anything and everything including the kitchen sink. It doesn't mean they'll get it or that they are entitled to it; it's just part of the game. A good attorney will simply counter by requesting denial of the request. Thirdly, the statement "you'd better be able to back up what you say" in an affidavit is broad and incorrect. If it is a character affidavit, the person swearing to and signing the affidavit is entitled to state what they believe the character of the individual is (that is, if Nancy stated to her friend that she thought her husband was having an affair, the friend can attest to that in the affidavit without having pictures of the husband cheating) You can attest to what your personal belief of a persons character is WITHOUT anything other than your opinion, based on conversations or eye witness accounts.

The affidavits are linked in the thread above titled "Legal Docs". So yes we have seen what the friends have sworn to.

 

[SleuthyGal]

First of all, have any of you actually seen the affidavits to see what the friends swore to? Secondly, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorney's do: they ask for anything and everything including the kitchen sink. It doesn't mean they'll get it or that they are entitled to it; it's just part of the game. A good attorney will simply counter by requesting denial of the request. Thirdly, the statement "you'd better be able to back up what you say" in an affidavit is broad and incorrect. If it is a character affidavit, the person swearing to and signing the affidavit is entitled to state what they believe the character of the individual is (that is, if Nancy stated to her friend that she thought her husband was having an affair, the friend can attest to that in the affidavit without having pictures of the husband cheating) You can attest to what your personal belief of a persons character is WITHOUT anything other than your opinion, based on conversations or eye witness accounts.

Anubis, HERE are the affidavits from Nancy's friends.

And here is the rebuttal affidavit by Brad and his side.

All are listed and linked in the LEGAL DOCUMENTS thread at the top of the forum.

 

[ncnative]

Anubis, and yes I have seen/read the subpoenas of Nancy's friends. We at Websleuths have the legal documents listed on the index page of Nancy Cooper's page.

 

[jumpstreet]

Anubis, and yes I have seen/read the subpoenas of Nancy's friends. We at Websleuths have the legal documents listed on the index page of Nancy Cooper's page.

The recent subpoena's from BC's side aren't yet posted on the Legal Documents thread of WebSleaths. I'm sure they will be at some point. They are available here in the meantime.

Interesting stuff... as Anubis mentioned, no doubt BC's attorneys realize that much of their requests will be turned down. However, it's possible (and may not be a complete surprise) for the custody judge, out of an abundance of caution w.r.t. custody matters, decide that some of it is reasonable and require the plaintiff's to provide it, so that the most informed decision can be made in the custody matter. We'll see.

 

[news247]

The recent subpoena's from BC's side aren't yet posted on the Legal Documents thread of WebSleaths. I'm sure they will be at some point. They are available here in the meantime.

Interesting stuff... as Anubis mentioned, no doubt BC's attorneys realize that much of their requests will be turned down. However, it's possible (and may not be a complete surprise) for the custody judge, out of an abundance of caution w.r.t. custody matters, decide that some of it is reasonable and require the plaintiff's to provide it, so that the most informed decision can be made in the custody matter. We'll see.

Oh - SORRY, jumpstreet! I posted link to the docs in the DOC thread...didn't realize you had already posted them here - so sorry.

They are interesting reading for sure.

 

[news247]

The actual subpoena's are posted on wral now, along with some of the objections. Some stuff in there implying NC's tires were slashed at some point over the recent past. (The defense requesting plantiff's to communicate any knowledge they have of same). Is that something new, or has it come up before? I don't recall past mention of it...

yeah - the tire deal is interesting, would like to know the details, but....i'm nosy, i admit it!

also kinda interesting - SOME of the ppl are asked to provide info about affairs (both adams, d. duncan, m.morwick - Can't remember which others, have to go back and read.....) but some are not asked - wonder what's up with that.

also, nothing for Carrie - wonder why not. of course, her's was just factual info - she did not run with nancy that day, period. so i guess that's why, she gave no opinions or speculations.

there seems to be so much more to this case than we know right now.

 

[jumpstreet]

yeah - the tire deal is interesting, would like to know the details, but....i'm nosy, i admit it!

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.

also kinda interesting - SOME of the ppl are asked to provide info about affairs (both adams, d. duncan, m.morwick - Can't remember which others, have to go back and read.....) but some are not asked - wonder what's up with that.

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?... ]

also, nothing for Carrie - wonder why not. of course, her's was just factual info - she did not run with nancy that day, period. so i guess that's why, she gave no opinions or speculations.

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)

there seems to be so much more to this case than we know right now.

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

 

[momto3kids]

Updated per WRAL.COM

"We are not on a fishing expedition," Kurtz said. "It's very important information, and certainly, these are things we need to flesh out."

Kurtz would not say why he wants information regarding any extramarital affairs in the Adams' marriage, but said: "I think that is a very valid question that I fully expect will be made clearer somewhere down the road."

Important in a custody hearing???:waitasec:
I thought this was custody of Bella and Katie Cooper not the Adam's son.

I guess Kurtz is either reading the boards or knows darn well this is a 'fishing expedition.'

 

[ncnative]

yeah - the tire deal is interesting, would like to know the details, but....i'm nosy, i admit it!

also kinda interesting - SOME of the ppl are asked to provide info about affairs (both adams, d. duncan, m.morwick - Can't remember which others, have to go back and read.....) but some are not asked - wonder what's up with that.

also, nothing for Carrie - wonder why not. of course, her's was just factual info - she did not run with nancy that day, period. so i guess that's why, she gave no opinions or speculations.

there seems to be so much more to this case than we know right now.

Ah yes! More than we know is so true.:eye:

I wonder if Brad "knew" any other women in Nancy's circle? I hope not. If not, he wants to embarrass someone who he thinks had an affair, but what the heck does that have to do with Nancy's demise? I suppose it casts a shadow off Brad and onto someone else.

 

[ncnative]

"Flesh out." Interesting choice of words from Kurtz. He must be hinting at pleasures of the flesh, sins of the flesh. A diversion from the murderer. Flesh. Hmmmm....