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

[sunflowers]

I don't think he has any real interest in the children either - never have thought he did. This IMO is all about spite, he doesn't really care about the kids only who has control of them. He murdered Nancy - he certainly does not want her parents and sister to have those kids. The children are tools in his world, nothing more, otherwise he would have been a man and a father and he would have never murdered their mother. It's all about Brad and what he wants and who he feels the need to get even with IMO, nothing more.

agreed. to him, i think, the children would get in the way of his life. they didn't before because nancy always had them & he did whatever he wanted. he might be acting like he wants them because he's been instructed to do so by his attorneys---it looks better & more caring & "normal", and will help them with their case for their "non-suspect" that the are already defending...

 

[SleuthyGal]

most of us would be doing everything possible to get our children back. I'm not convinced that he wants his children. Yes, he loves them to the best of his ability, but I don't think he has the interest to make that kind of time & emotional commitment. obviously i could be wrong, but i thought he got interested in the girls in late April because his lawyer told him to get interested in them & not to let them go to Canada with Nancy.

I go back and forth on this one, sometimes more than once in a day. This could be my emotions talking, but I just feel great sadness is encompassing everyone involved in this case, even including the perp. Yep, I do think that. I believe the act of taking someone's life (esp if it was done in anger or as a fight that escalated) is so profound that there is a hole left in the person's spirit that will never be filled. And the resulting pain of this loss to the family, the friends, the community...it just radiates and ripples outward.

I believe BC does love his kids and right now I believe he does want them and want to raise them. Perhaps I'll feel differently tomorrow, I don't know. Of course if this case goes to trial and he's convicted it's a moot point whether he wants them or not.

 

[jumpstreet]

I believe BC does love his kids and right now I believe he does want them and want to raise them

Agree with SG here... [hope that doesn't influence you to change your mind SG... ]

I think his primary motivies in the recent moves are to do any and everything he can think of to try to get the children back. He doesn't have any prior experience in this area, so he's not going to be an "expert" in what one does "when the in-laws are trying to take your kids away". Some of this may also be 'uncharted territory' for K&B even.

Time well tell though - when the custody situation has worked itself out, my prediction is, he (and attorneys) will clam up completely - no longer worried about the "perception", and no longer worried about building "defense" so long as he isn't charged. If he's not arrested in the next 6-8 weeks, he'll likely get the kids back (imo), then (subsequently) move out of town, and that will be that (until further notice at least).

 

[jumpstreet]

[...]
I am reminded of a few things:
1. The Jeffrey McDonald case, where decades after the murder, and conviction, his attorneys keep finding "new evidence"* New evidence must mean old evidence that has been re-heated more times than last month's pizza leftovers.
[...]

That's a blast from the past CP. There's actually a (small) "connection" between the Cooper case, and the MacDonald case... everyone already know what that is? [ I'm sure RC does, so give someone else a chance to respond RC... ]

 

[jmflu]

That's a blast from the past CP. There's actually a (small) "connection" between the Cooper case, and the MacDonald case... everyone already know what that is? [ I'm sure RC does, so give someone else a chance to respond RC... ]

I'm intrigued!!

 

[raisincharlie]

That's a blast from the past CP. There's actually a (small) "connection" between the Cooper case, and the MacDonald case... everyone already know what that is? [ I'm sure RC does, so give someone else a chance to respond RC... ]

No problem, we shall see how sleuthy they are aye ?

 

[jumpstreet]

Two case questions:
(1) In the "response to Rentz complaint" document, it's mentioned that BC has been 'denied any access to the autopsy information, as well as any information related to the murder of his wife'. Is this typical in an ongoing investigation (even if the spouse may not be considered a suspect?). Is it likely that the Rentz's also have been denied access to autopsy/COD information, or hard to say? Seems to me under "normal" circumstances, especially if the spouse isn't a suspect or POI, LE would at least give the immediate family some additional insights other than what the general public is being given. [ Maybe that's not necessarily true, and LE has to take no chances with what is disclosed, regardless of relationship. Just wondering what's "typical" if there is such a thing...]

(2) Looks like G. Rentz is scheduled for a deposition on Oct 8th (prior to the custody). Do the results of custody depositions get entered into public record at any point (prior to the hearing, subsequent to the hearing, never, or "depends") ?

Thanks.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Agree with SG here... [hope that doesn't influence you to change your mind SG... ]

Heh! I'm more oppositional on the Internet than in person. I think as facts emerge I'll figure it out more--I just don't have a solid feel one way or the other when it comes to this custody issue.

If he's not arrested in the next 6-8 weeks, he'll likely get the kids back (imo), then (subsequently) move out of town, and that will be that (until further notice at least).

If he's still employed he needs to stay in NC unless his company relocates him elsewhere (or I suppose unless he finds a different job). I have no idea what happens if he tries to move back to Canada and how that would sway or change the momentum of the criminal case, if at all. I do worry that the kids will be cut off completely from their maternal grandparents and maternal aunts/uncles/cousins. Those kids need everyone around them; that is so important to their well being.

(Out of all the horrendous and vile things O.J. Simpson did (and there were a ton of vile things), the one decent thing he did is that he did not keep Nicole's family from regularly seeing/having a very close rel'p with the kids after he won back custody...even the oldest sister, Denise, who he despises and who openly despises him, maintained a close rel'p with the 2 youngest kids throughout the years. Of course he's still the scum of the earth who butchered 2 innocent people...:furious

 

[SleuthyGal]

No problem, we shall see how sleuthy they are aye ?

Would that be the Wade Smith connection? Smith was MacDonald's co-defense attorney and the Tharrington Smith firm, of which Wade is a principal, is now representing the Rentz family in the custody case. If it's some other connection then I'm stumped.

 

[Star12]

Would that be the Wade Smith connection? Smith was MacDonald's co-defense attorney and the Tharrington Smith firm, of which Wade is a principal, is now representing the Rentz family in the custody case. If it's some other connection then I'm stumped.

Or, me. I was deeply fascinated by the McDonald case, and now the Cooper case. I also worked with the prosecuting atty. Always wanted a big floppy hat. Boy, just sitting here thinking about it, it's amazing how much I remember about that case........

 

[ncsu95]

Been playin' catch-up with the most recent comments and postings.

I am reminded of a few things:

1. The Jeffrey McDonald case, where decades after the murder, and conviction, his attorneys keep finding "new evidence"* New evidence must mean old evidence that has been re-heated more times than last month's pizza leftovers.

2. Several cases that I have heard about where the perp kills someone and burys them in a location, but has second thoughts about the location. Then the perp returns to the scene of the burial and exhumes the body, only to take it to a different location and bury it again. As the shampoo bottle says, repeat. I have heard of some perps who do this about 10 times, and they often are caught during one of the disposal trips.

Why am I reminded of these things? Because of the amendments to the affidavits. Why would you need to amend an affidavit if you told the correct, whole truth in it to begin with? BC via K&B cannot seem to leave well ehough alone in his tales of this situation. He keeps delivering information, changing it, laying smoke screens, deflecting attention from his shortcomings while magnifying everyone elses. This is nothing new... Shakespear said: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..." and "Methinks he doth protest too much"

CyberPro

He amended it to refute specific things that probably took a while to gather...such as phone records.

 

[Anderson]

He amended it to refute specific things that probably took a while to gather...such as phone records.

Only phone records, or are you also referring to other things that took a while to gather?

 

[ncnative]

Since you mention the MacDonald case and the "big floppy hat", I have a memory from those times. When the MacDonald case was fresh and new, LE was looking for and stopping quite a few young women in big floppy hats. At the time I was still living at home in Pinehurst NC. I had long blonde hair while wearing the popular big floppy hat of the era. Police stopped me to investigate! I thought it was hilarious. I was on my way to school. My dad was a special agent of the SBI at the time. In one way he was mortified that they stopped me, then again, he understood. Fayetteville/Ft. Brag is near Pinehurst.

As to Dr. Jeff MacDonald, my mother-in-law worked in the business offices of a hospital. She knew many nurses who worked with MacDonald. The nurses reported that MacDonald talked to the nurses like they were worthless swine. Treated them terribly on the job. She shared some of his choice words that he used. Unbelievable how he got away with that. That would not go over well at all in today's world. (It wouldn't have gone over well with me back then, either.)

People can be so charming, respectable and the like in public, while behind the scenes, certain people with psychological disorders can turn into raging opposites. I've seen this for myself. As well, I did an internship during training in college where my patients were all sorts of psychiatric patients. Some came to me with a guard for my protection, and I counted my instruments before and after each patient. I did not turn my back on them, either.

People are so unpredictable. After my own experiences, I know that a murderer can be someone who acts like an innocent decent person but is a terror behind closed doors.

I'm trying to recall what Sleuthy is asking about, regarding the similarities betw. the Cooper and MacDonald cases. I'm too tired. I keep seeing the photos (in my mind) that were popular back then. Was it in "Life Magazine" that I saw those photos?

 

[jumpstreet]

Would that be the Wade Smith connection? Smith was MacDonald's co-defense attorney and the Tharrington Smith firm, of which Wade is a principal, is now representing the Rentz family in the custody case. If it's some other connection then I'm stumped.

Yes, that's the connection. Good work. Wade S (along with Bernie Segal if I recall) were co-defense lawyers of MacDonald down the stretch. Jim Blackburn of course was the NC prosecutor at the time, and this case put him 'on the map'. Wade is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the custody case (along with A. Stubbs). Wade was seen in some of the video clips on the day all parties went to court (and ultimately "temporarily settled"). We may seen him again - depending on how the custody stuff unfolds. He's a seasoned attorney that's for sure.

I am just realizing though, and maybe it's coincidence, or ... maybe not... that the "connection" between these 2 cases... has the exact same initials as this forum. WS.

 

[jilly]

most of us would be doing everything possible to get our children back. I'm not convinced that he wants his children. Yes, he loves them to the best of his ability, but I don't think he has the interest to make that kind of time & emotional commitment. obviously i could be wrong, but i thought he got interested in the girls in late April because his lawyer told him to get interested in them & not to let them go to Canada with Nancy.

I think he took an interest for joint custody, didn't he? I'm not prepared to write him off in the father department (except for the fact that he did committed the worst act of cruelty to those children when he killed their mother).

Some men just aren't as good fathers as others but from what I've read and seen in photos, he was trying. Nancy was the SAHM and he was the breadwinner. Seems that they defined their roles.

 

[jilly]

Heh! I'm more oppositional on the Internet than in person. I think as facts emerge I'll figure it out more--I just don't have a solid feel one way or the other when it comes to this custody issue.



If he's still employed he needs to stay in NC unless his company relocates him elsewhere (or I suppose unless he finds a different job). I have no idea what happens if he tries to move back to Canada and how that would sway or change the momentum of the criminal case, if at all. I do worry that the kids will be cut off completely from their maternal grandparents and maternal aunts/uncles/cousins. Those kids need everyone around them; that is so important to their well being.

I wonder how long Cisco will keep him on Admin Leave. It sounds like it's complicated for him right now - he's applied for US citizenship. Someone posted that because of that he cannot return to Canada for a year.

I worry about the kids too. With this bitter custody battle, it doesn't sound like he'd want the kids to be with Nancy's family in any capacity if and when he's charged. We haven't heard of anyone on his side who would take two small children. We know that grandparents don't have any rights in NC. I wonder if that changes if BC is convicted of murder.

 

[CyberPro]

He amended it to refute specific things that probably took a while to gather...such as phone records.

There should be no need to ammend the affidavit to include phone records, or anthing like that. They have no place in the affidavit anyway, since it is sworn, but if accepted as evidence, it will still have to be examined and presented at a trial, if it gets to that point.

Also, IMO, the material posted on the K&B website have more potential for tainting the potential jury pool than anything posted here. The link to the K&B material was posted on the WRAL website, and anyone who is mildly interested can go there to look at this, while WS has to be looked for to be seen.

CyberPro

 

[jmflu]

Also, IMO, the material posted on the K&B website have more potential for tainting the potential jury pool than anything posted here. The link to the K&B material was posted on the WRAL website, and anyone who is mildly interested can go there to look at this, while WS has to be looked for to be seen.CyberPro

I agree. If it goes to trial, can K&B claim the jury pool has been tainted even though they are a contributor to said tainting? And if they move for a change of venue, would it be honored given their contribution?

 

[Just the Fax]

I wonder how long Cisco will keep him on Admin Leave. It sounds like it's complicated for him right now - he's applied for US citizenship. Someone posted that because of that he cannot return to Canada for a year.

I worry about the kids too. With this bitter custody battle, it doesn't sound like he'd want the kids to be with Nancy's family in any capacity if and when he's charged. We haven't heard of anyone on his side who would take two small children. We know that grandparents don't have any rights in NC. I wonder if that changes if BC is convicted of murder.

Novo Nordisk did not take the "Administrative leave" route with Jason Young. He was terminated 2 weeks ago.

 

[RaleighNC]

Novo Nordisk did not take the "Administrative leave" route with Jason Young. He was terminated 2 weeks ago.

Just 2 weeks ago????

Tough spot for an employer - admin leave may be the easiest thing to do - stuff him a way and still pay him. Would YOU want to work along side BC? It's possible that they are merely paying him to stay away and not open the Pandora's box of issues with him being on site and expecting other folks to work with him amid the suspicions. Firing him would look callous and perhaps unfounded since he has not been charged.

My guess is that he's sitting round stewing over all the people that have wronged him and he spent considerable time responding to each and every allegation in the affidavits - probably getting madder by the word. I can't see that being healthy for someone that potentially has a violent tendency........ But - aside from hitting the HT with Mommie Dearest - what else does he have to do but simmer?