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

[Topsail Girl]

No problem here with Ike - lots of rain and some winds below 50 mph but no real problems. South of us however had some heavy damages- mainly tree damage and power outages. But I surely watched my beloved Galveston be destroyed...

Oh I know - it's so sad. :cry: I'm glad you're safe. I can't bare to look at pictures of the aftermath.

 

[Anderson]

Particularly because I don't think that BC would want to risk evidence emerging that contradicted his story, I think that after 6 fits.

Sorry, I actually meant to say around 6. I didn't mean to misrepresent someone else's position.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Can someone point me to the original complaint by the Rentz family that Brad is responding to in his recent filings? They respond point by point based on the numbering of the complaint and the only one I can find here is the ex-parte brief and that numbering does not match the numbering in the K&B documents.

thanks ahead of time.

 

[raisincharlie]

Can someone point me to the original complaint by the Rentz family that Brad is responding to in his recent filings? They respond point by point based on the numbering of the complaint and the only one I can find here is the ex-parte brief and that numbering does not match the numbering in the K&B documents.

thanks ahead of time.

There's a page or two missing in the filings posted on WRAL as well. I don't know of any other complaint that was posted on WRAL other than the ex parte complaint - sorry - can't help you

 

[Anderson]

I guess I'm just saying that it doesn't surprise me that they would ask for a dismissal.

I do agree with you on that!

 

[Star12]

There's a page or two missing in the filings posted on WRAL as well. I don't know of any other complaint that was posted on WRAL other than the ex parte complaint - sorry - can't help you

missing or just out of order?

 

[reddress58]

Ya'll make sure you read Brad's amended rebuttal affidavit on the WARL site. He continues to slam Nancy and her friends...

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm currently going through the amendment and rebuttal affidavit. In absolutely no particular order:

1. My first thought, being personally opposed to carrying consumer debt or having any debt on depreciating assets, is that I would be upset if I had a spouse who lived beyond our means and budget or ever compromised our savings. (That's my personal bailiwick as I'm a big believer in establishing and maintaining savings and not spending more than budgeted for discretionary items). "Cary Lifestyle" be damned--financial freedom is where it's at! (IMHO) Those two needed a Dave Ramsey intervention.

2. The various calls and cell phone records presented do appear to counter the allegations of not being in touch on that boat show weekend and during the HH trip early July. No phone records were presented about the allegation of lack of communication during the MBA trip.

3. Brad's assertion that his indiscretion was a "one-time thing only" is bold...simply because if there were 2 or more encounters with that individual, that truth will likely emerge in sworn testimony. He didn't address the allegation that his "one time indiscretion" was alleged to have occurred in his home, in his daughter's BR while she was sleeping. I wonder why? That would have been something I would have addressed immediately in a rebuttal. Further encounters with anyone else are denied.

4. Emotional Instability: the best way to challenge that is to be evaluated by a competent psychiatrist and go through whatever the latest testing is to determine such things. That would settle the matter, I would think.

5. So where is Interact going to ummm... interact in all of this? I suppose they'll be subpoenaed again? This will be important if they have records from a prior contact.

6. Interesting verbiage around the whole running gestalt and why Nancy chose to run with the elusive Carrie (Carey?). Brad takes great pains to ensure that it is understood that Jessica was a slow runner and could not have kept up with Nancy and Carey in speed. Not sure how that's particularly relevant to either the custody matter or the homicide case. (personal side note: I'm impressed with anyone who can complete a half marathon, regardless of whether they run, walk, or crawl across that finish line).

7. Regarding Nancy's running/speed: so Brad is in essence saying Nancy was a fast runner, capable of not only completing a 13 mile run, but was working on her timing And was faster than the average runner/'clique' member in her circle. Soooo...that means she would likely have been able to outrun an attacker on trail since she was in such great shape and had attained some level of speed gains, right? Or someone trying to abscond with her would have had quite a fight on their hands, no?

 

[raisincharlie]

Ya'll make sure you read Brad's amended rebuttal affidavit on the WARL site. He continues to slam Nancy and her friends...

Reddress - I can't help but wonder why the number of Nancy's phone calls increased from an average of 11 per day to over 23 per day in the month preceeding her death. You will note the increase starts in March and rapidly rises. That sure is a lot of phone calls. Looks like something was definitely going on, stress or something - sure is a whole bunch of talking.

Are you surprised he continues to besmirch Nancy and her friends really?

 

[raisincharlie]

I'm currently going through the amendment and rebuttal affidavit. In absolutely no particular order:

1. My first thought, being personally opposed to carrying consumer debt or having any debt on depreciating assets, is that I would be upset if I had a spouse who lived beyond our means and budget or ever compromised our savings. (That's my personal bailiwick as I'm a big believer in establishing and maintaining savings and not spending more than budgeted for discretionary items). "Cary Lifestyle" be damned--financial freedom is where it's at! (IMHO) Those two needed a Dave Ramsey intervention.

2. The various calls and cell phone records presented do appear to counter the allegations of not being in touch on that boat show weekend and during the HH trip early July. No phone records were presented about the allegation of lack of communication during the MBA trip.

3. Brad's assertion that his indiscretion was a "one-time thing only" is bold...simply because if there were 2 or more encounters with that individual, that truth will likely emerge in sworn testimony. He didn't address the allegation that his "one time indiscretion" was alleged to have occurred in his home, in his daughter's BR while she was sleeping. I wonder why? That would have been something I would have addressed immediately in a rebuttal. Further encounters with anyone else are denied.

4. Emotional Instability: the best way to challenge that is to be evaluated by a competent psychiatrist and go through whatever the latest testing is to determine such things. That would settle the matter, I would think.

5. So where is Interact going to ummm... interact in all of this? I suppose they'll be subpoenaed again? This will be important if they have records from a prior contact.

I'm not so easily swayed by the phone records. You will note they do not contain information as whether the call was actually answered and the duration of the call. Without that information, it really means very little to me - it also looks as though Nancy made more calls and the times given seem to be an effort to establish contact rather than having made it, if that makes sense. :crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Now now - you aren't suppose to notice the obvious. :crazy:

Actually he currently has three less mouths to feed, unless you count those 4 or 5 lawyers he has contracted trying to prove he is innocent of something LE has not yet accused him of.

I was assuming that he's been still paying for the kids' expenses even though they are with the in-laws, hence why I didn't count them. But yes, let's not forget the 4 to 5 lawyers, their kids, those kids' college funds, etc, etc. Lawyers do have a tendency to devour a substantial portion of your *advertiser censored*(ets) in retention fees, discovery, litigation and defense. That's one reason why it's really important to avoid killing someone, if you can at all help it. :bang:

 

[jumpstreet]

Ya'll make sure you read Brad's amended rebuttal affidavit on the WARL site. He continues to slam Nancy and her friends...

BC's rebuttal affidavit doesn't come across to me as a slam on any of NC's friends at all. To me, it comes across as "matter of fact" responses to their accusations. Their affidavits seem subjective, whereas BC's rebuttal seems much more objective, and again, matter-of-fact.

The only (mild) slam that I saw was on JA's current abilities as a runner...

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm not so easily swayed by the phone records. You will note they do not contain information as whether the call was actually answered and the duration of the call. Without that information, it really means very little to me

I noticed that too. It would be important to see the actual phone record and LENGTH of each call to see if actual conversation were occurring rather than phone tag.

 

[jmflu]

BC's rebuttal affidavit doesn't come across to me as a slam on any of NC's friends at all. To me, it comes across as "matter of fact" responses to their accusations. Their affidavits seem subjective, whereas BC's rebuttal seems much more objective, and again, matter-of-fact.

The only (mild) slam that I saw was on JA's current abilities as a runner...

I also felt he slammed JA when he said he was unsure how she would know about his relationship with his mother, etc. etc. He knows damn well how she knew, but he was being snitty.

Anyone else notice he can't decide whether JA's name has an "s" on the end of it or not?

 

[jumpstreet]

I'm not so easily swayed by the phone records. You will note they do not contain information as whether the call was actually answered and the duration of the call. Without that information, it really means very little to me - it also looks as though Nancy made more calls and the times given seem to be an effort to establish contact rather than having made it, if that makes sense. :crazy:

Don't the phone records at least suggest that there were attempts being made to communicate during time periods where plaintiff affidavits have asserted there was no communication?

 

[raisincharlie]

Don't the phone records at least suggest that there were attempts being made to communicate during time periods where plaintiff affidavits have asserted there was no communication?

I believe I said as much in the last line.

 

[Daphne69]

So I'm the only one thinking he did this under cover of night?

I'm late to the party, but I've got your back, jmflu. I'm thinking earlier, dead by 4 am.

 

[jumpstreet]

I believe I said as much in the last line.

Agree, it's hard to know. I guess the "picture painted" in the original affidavit (at least what seemed to me) was one where BC just went AWOL during those periods, with no regard for his family or NC, etc. That was the "sense" I was getting from the plaintiff affidavits telling of it. [ Maybe that wasn't their intent, but it was certainly the sense I got ]

These phone records suggest (at least to me) that the picture of an AWOL husband during those time periods (if that was the intention) might not be 100% accurate.

Agree though, anything is still possible here.

 

[Daphne69]

Don't the phone records at least suggest that there were attempts being made to communicate during time periods where plaintiff affidavits have asserted there was no communication?

Don't these phone records look like Excel spreadsheets? I'm not saying BC couldn't produce the actual bill detail, but he's demanding every scrap of paper from every person who ever said anything and he can't at least photocopy the actual bill?:crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Regarding Nancy's running/speed: so Brad is in essence saying Nancy was a fast runner, capable of not only completing a 13 mile run, but was working on her timing AND was faster than the average runner/'clique' member in her inner circle. That tells me she was FIT and had both endurance and speed.

Soooo...a natural inference is that she would likely have been able to outrun an attacker on a trail since she was in such great shape and had attained some level of speed gains, right?

Or someone trying to abscond with her would have had quite a fight on their hands, and had to have chased her.