WTH Are Brad's Lawyers Up To Now???? #2

[garner_nc]

Your Welcome...Just trying to help

 

[jumpstreet]

Here is the docket information: #7 down the page

http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/dat...13.2008/D._DEBRA_S__SASSER.8B.9_00.TRIALS.txt

Cool link - thanks, and welcome!

Here's the one for the hearing on psych exam for this coming Monday (Sep 29th).

{Though, as TG posted, sounds like the word on that one is that it's unlikely to be heard, and will just be pushed to the 13th with all the other stuff set for the 13th }

I would think, they psych exam motion needs to be heard and ruled on first, regardless. If the judge agrees to it, then seems they'll need the results of that before a final ruling on custody can be made (so custody piece will presumably have to be continued). If the judge doesn't agree to it (on the 13th, or prior), then they can proceed to hear viewpoints on the various other motions (including defense's motion to dismiss the whole thing altogether).

Thanks again Garner, and TG...

 

[jumpstreet]

Lot to cover in 2 hours. Good luck Judge Sasser.

Thanks Garner NC for the link. Looks to me this was signed 7/30 so not at all sure how the hearing for the 22 of September even got scheduled. Hmmmmm.

I wasn't sure I recalled that the 22nd Sep psych exam date was 'firm'? I was trying to recall where I read it. Regardless, it could have been errant information in a news article from way back when, and it's always been set for the 26th anyway?

 

[Topsail Girl]

I wasn't sure I recalled that the 22nd Sep psych exam date was 'firm'? I was trying to recall where I read it. Regardless, it could have been errant information in a news article from way back when, and it's always been set for the 26th anyway?

The 26th is today LOL :crazy: I was sure I heard the week of the 22nd but it must have changed to the 29th. I had contacted 2 of my "contacts" and both said the same about the 29th and the delay till Oct so I didn't bother to post the second round of info.

Like Garner, I'm just trying to help when I can since I luvs all of yas

 

[raisincharlie]

The 26th is today LOL :crazy: I was sure I heard the week of the 22nd but it must have changed to the 29th. I had contacted 2 of my "contacts" and both said the same about the 29th and the delay till Oct so I didn't bother to post the second round of info.

Like Garner, I'm just trying to help when I can since I luvs all of yas

Topsail, if one can believe the N & O - the motion was due to be heard on Monday the 22nd:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1174638.html

Last month, attorneys for Nancy Cooper's family had asked a judge to demand a psychological evaluation of her husband, but withdrew the request as they negotiated a temporary agreement over custody of the couple's daughters. They are now asking that a judge hear a new request for a psychological evaluation on Sept. 22.



Note the article is dated 12 August, 2008

 

[Topsail Girl]

Topsail, if one can believe the N & O - the motion was due to be heard on Monday the 22nd:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1174638.html

Last month, attorneys for Nancy Cooper's family had asked a judge to demand a psychological evaluation of her husband, but withdrew the request as they negotiated a temporary agreement over custody of the couple's daughters. They are now asking that a judge hear a new request for a psychological evaluation on Sept. 22.



Note the article is dated 12 August, 2008

Thanks RC. You have just confirmed to me that at least this day I am NOT losing my mind!!!! LOL :blowkiss:

Also wanted to tell you that I read up on Rowan - I can't bring myself to keep up with those type cases. I can't recall which thread we were discussing it in but I wanted to tell you that I do agree with your statements regarding the body disposal, etc.

 

[raisincharlie]

Thanks RC. You have just confirmed to me that at least this day I am NOT losing my mind!!!! LOL :blowkiss:

Also wanted to tell you that I read up on Rowan - I can't bring myself to keep up with those type cases. I can't recall which thread we were discussing it in but I wanted to tell you that I do agree with your statements regarding the body disposal, etc.

Topsail - I normally do not follow such cases as Rowan's either because of the strong emotional overload. However, Rowan disappeared less than 50 mile from us, we helped search for this little one and I can't even begin to explain the scars this evil deed has left on my soul. I will see it through.

Kelly Morris

 

[jumpstreet]

The 26th is today LOL :crazy:

Typo on my part - sorry to add confusion to the already confused situation. Edited my post to read 29th now. [ Either N&O didn't have it exactly right to begin with, or since Aug 12th, it got pushed out 1 week... probably the latter] Anyway TGIF.

 

[Topsail Girl]

Typo on my part - sorry to add confusion to the already confused situation. Edited my post to read 29th now. [ Either N&O didn't have it exactly right to begin with, or since Aug 12th, it got pushed out 1 week... probably the latter] Anyway TGIF.

Aww no harm no foul We all make typo's. Specially me right now. My right arm is in a sling so I'm typing the hunt n peck way. Glad to have you along.

RC I didn't realize Rowan was that close. Now I understand. I don't know if Kelly will ever be found at this rate but I'm gonna try to help.

 

[jilly]

Lot to cover in 2 hours. Good luck Judge Sasser.

LOL - this took me back a few years when I was a Court Clerk. The lawyers give the time estimates and 9 times out of 10 they will under estimate. Mainly so they can get before a judge within a decent time frame. Once they're in, they're in 'cause no Judge is going to say 'you're over your estimate so please go home".
If they're 'realistic' shall we say :crazy:about how long the matter will take and say 4 hrs then they'll be waiting longer to get before a Judge because of the backlog.

Anyways...it was pretty frustrating and so I agree - "Lot to cover in 2 hours."

 

[ncnative]

Dang, Topsail! Just when I was about to run across the back woods to A.L's house to ask her...

(I would never make it because there's a creek with lots of snakes, and I can't run anyway!).:chicken:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Well K&B have been busy adding to their pages...looky what they've added about the necklace and shoes.

 

[per_curiam]

First of all, K&B's typist needs to learn proper punctuation.

K&B's need for posting this garbage is tacky tacky tacky. It is along the lines of kids running back and forth saying, "Neener neener neener. Ha ha I told you so."

The fact that K&B needs to do this silly unnecessary crap for the public to view makes them look ridiculous. If they were a bit more professional they would not resort to this. They obviously like to slam HP and JA Young (detective).

Why did Brad go to K&B in the first place? Did he not do his research to find the best lawyers? He probably didn't think he'd be found out.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Did he not do his research to find the best lawyers?

1. T/S was already hired (and previously as well by his wife for the divorce)
2. His check 'bounced' at the next lawyer's firm

From K&B website: "Hannah Pritchard swore under oath during the custody proceeding that Nancy never took it off under any circumstance."

As for HP's statement on the stand...she said SHE never personally saw Nancy not wearing her necklace, and she saw Nancy nearly every day. She couldn't say for sure that Nancy never ever took it off, only that every time she saw her, she was wearing it, and to her knowledge Nancy never took it off.

But the main question is: was Nancy wearing her diamond necklace at the BBQ Fri. 7/11? Was she wearing it when she left to go home around midnight? There is no statement from Brad that Nancy took a shower between 12:30am and 7am. What Nancy was wearing in some photograph a couple weeks or 3 before isn't as important as whether she had that necklace on her last night alive.

 

[ncsu95]

Well K&B have been busy adding to their pages...looky what they've added about the necklace and shoes.

As I said, 1 photo of her not wearing the necklace makes the whole necklace issue a "non issue". Well there is one from 3 weeks before she was killed.

 

[ncsu95]

And their comments about the shoes is the same thing I said...He said Saucony and would know the brand of shoes. The ones in the garage were asics.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm sure the DA's case is not based on the necklace and those shoes. Considering they didn't seize either of those items until after Brad was in jail, and they indicted before they had that evidence, this may be some 'icing' on the prosecution case. Unless they find 2 left shoes discarded outside somewhere, the shoes may strongly hint at Brad grabbing a non-matching 'pair,' but it won't necessarily be proved. And if they found the 2 left shoes somewhere in the house...well...I don't know what that means exactly since neither was discarded.

 

[SleuthyGal]

NCSU, I understand why you're doing it (giving Brad the benefit of the doubt), though I think believing every statement he makes as if it's the truth/gospel, instead of just putting a big ? over it, makes it more challenging to look at the evidence objectively. How can you believe everything Brad says? I can see questioning what he says but the guy has lied--how do you know which statements are truth and which are lies?

 

[ncsu95]

I'm sure the DA's case is not based on the necklace and those shoes. Considering they didn't seize either of those items until after Brad was in jail, and they indicted before they had that evidence, this may be some 'icing' on the prosecution case. Unless they find 2 left shoes discarded outside somewhere, the shoes may strongly hint at Brad grabbing a non-matching 'pair,' but it won't necessarily be proved. And if they found the 2 left shoes somewhere in the house...well...I don't know what that means exactly since neither was discarded.

I agree that this isn't there whole case. My point is that I believe this removes the necklace as an issue. All it took was 1 photo of her not wearing it, which they have not shown. I agree with your point about the shoes...we don't know if they have found them or not. But he did say she was wearing Saucony running shoes, and he would know the difference between Saucony and Asics.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I believe this removes the necklace as an issue.

Not totally. Was she wearing it at the BBQ? If yes, did she take it off upon arriving home? You can't say one way or the other for sure, so it stays in limbo.