Nancy's Friends Object!

[momto3kids]

Tires slashed has a date of Jan 1, 2006 to now....the area has had many break-ins like I have been trying to say. I believe someone else I heard of getting broken into had tires slashed.

Now this is crossing the line and the LE and/or DA need to address it.......and all correspondence between person subpoena'd and the LE and/ or DA.

The subpoena was for today's date to appear. I wonder if it was heard..anyone know?

 

[EntreNous]

Wow. This insinuation just keeps coming up (both through official channels, as well as the word-of-mouth channels... ). It's why Theory B (or some variant) remains on the table. Maybe there's nothing there... but dang... it sure keeps coming up...

If Theory B were still on the table, LE would be asking for this information, NOT K&B. If Theory B were still on the table, LE wouldn't still be looking at BC because afterall, if Theory B were still on the table LE would have stopped looking at BC a long time ago.

 

[EntreNous]

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.'

Let 'em keep on fishing. They're not going to get anywhere with this and they're just "fleshing out" what a seedy creep their client is.

Great job Putz & Doom! :crazy:

You really have Brad Cooper on the road to nowhere!:behindbar

 

[momto3kids]

Susan Crook was one of the people who appeared on GMA. I had not seen this name before. She got a subpoena also.

 

[news247]

"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....

hummm. i didn't get that feeling at all - i thought he meant he needed to "filll our" 'add to " "flesh out" the stories....but that's just me.

 

[momto3kids]

Dear K&B...word to the wise. Keep Fishing and you might get more than you bargained for!:clap:

 

[SleuthyGal]

'Flesh out'
'Fishing'

I feel a bout of alliteration coming on.

However, I challenge the defense to use palindromes as a unique technique to show oneupmanship over the plaintiffs. That would make for a much more interesting (not to mention brief) set of subpoenas. Then again, lawyers are not into being brief on ummm...briefs (or boxers).

 

[SleuthyGal]

Asking for info about slashing of tires NC's car tires from 2006 and on... ???

Susan Crook is being asked for info about any contact with Interact from Jan 2007 and on. She is also being asked for info concerning a rel'p between Nancy and { blocked out on document}.

 

[jmflu]

Palindromes?

I thought I was good with words, but this is a new one!

 

[jilly]

Unbelievable after learning about this - two words come to mind - intimidation and distraction.

Imo, if it comes down to a custody hearing, the Judge will only be concerned with the results of a psych exam and any other professional opinion with respect to BCs mental stability. I have to say, though, these subpoenas certainly give a flavor for that!:crazy:

 

[momto3kids]

Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

This friend has my curiousity up because she obviously knew quite a bit to get involved with Interact on behalf of her friend.

 

[jumpstreet]

If Theory B were still on the table, LE would be asking for this information, NOT K&B. If Theory B were still on the table, LE wouldn't still be looking at BC because afterall, if Theory B were still on the table LE would have stopped looking at BC a long time ago.

It's a good point. Although I'm not sure we know for sure that LE is still looking at BC. We only know that they were looking at him fairly closely nearly 2 months ago. [ I guess we know/assume that they haven't requested any SW's for anyone else, so maybe they are still looking at him, but our info is fairly on exactly what/who LE is looking at is fairly dated wouldn't you say? ]

 

[jumpstreet]

Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

This friend has my curiosity up because she obviously knew quite a bit to get involved with Interact on behalf of her friend.

Item 12 on Susan Crook's affidavit implies she has knowledge of a specific person who NC may have had relations with since Jan 1 2007 (so presumably, this is a different relationship than the 4-year old non-sexual one that BC initially made mention of in his affidavit). Maybe he didn't want to pull out any big bombshells (out of respect) in his initial rebuttal affidavit?

Who knows how much of this will be relevant in the custody hearing, maybe some, maybe none. (But probably at least some...)

All of this could very well be 'smoke and mirrors' as mentioned, and no doubt some of it is. But y'all... this is a lot of smoke... and you know what they say about "where there's smoke..." [Not sayin'... I'm just sayin' ]

 

[Skittles]

Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

This friend has my curiousity up because she obviously knew quite a bit to get involved with Interact on behalf of her friend.

Is Susan the one who came out on somebody's lawn (Diana's?) to do an interview as the "spokespeson" for friends of Nancy after Nancy's was found?

 

[jumpstreet]

Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?

My assumption is that all the custody affidavits have been posted, and the SC did not submit one. I didn't see anything in BC's subpoena of her that indicated she had submitted one. [ Presumably, BC is free to subpoena anyone he wants to as it pertains to collecting data for the custody hearing, whether or not they previously submitted an affidavit for the plaintiff's... ]

 

[jmflu]

Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

Where, Mom? Not sure where to look at this...

 

[momto3kids]

Item 12 on Susan Crook's affidavit implies she has knowledge of a specific person who NC may have had relations with since Jan 1 2007 (so presumably, this is a different relationship than the 4-year old non-sexual one that BC initially made mention of in his affidavit). Maybe he didn't want to pull out any big bombshells (out of respect) in the initial one?

Who knows how much of this will be relevant in the custody hearing, maybe some, maybe none. (But probably at least some...)

All of this could very well be 'smoke and mirrors' as mentioned, and no doubt some of it is. But y'all... this is a lot of smoke... and you know what they say about "where there's smoke..." [Not sayin'... I'm just sayin' ]

BC and mommy dearest have had time to search the home with a fine tooth comb on a daily basis. He has probably located a business card or name mentioned in a Birthday Card and is grasping at straws.

IF and a big IF she was turning to a male for someone to talk to it does NOT warrant murder! If he pulls this stunt it is going to do only 1 thing to him. Show additional motive for murder! He needs to calm his heels and think this one out IMO

 

[momto3kids]

Where, Mom? Not sure where to look at this...

WRAL the 3rd? person I believe. After JA and BA.

 

[jumpstreet]

Where, Mom? Not sure where to look at this...

Hi jmflu... the subpoena of SC can be found on page 16 of the document posted here.

All the subpoenas that BC's defense team submitted today (along with a number of associated appeals from plaintiff's are bundled in that same file.

 

[jmflu]

It is possible, perhaps, that it wasn't a man. And that might be, perhaps, why it didn't come up before? Not saying she was a lesbian, I hope no one is thinking I am saying that! But encounters have been known to happen... maybe I'm just crazy... but it's possible she had a liason with a close friend at some point. Just another possibility.