Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16 #2

[Just the Fax]

It seems to me , if Judge Sasser wants to consider the possibility Brad is a killer when deciding the custody issue, the CPD and the DA should share some details of their investigation and give her a confidential indication of where their case against him stands. After all, she is a sworn Wake County district court Judge. If they feel the preponderance of the evidence points to his guilt, he should not be allowed custody of those 2 little girls.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thank you for posting those statutes, Boxy. I've got a lot to learn on this subject.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It seems to me , if Judge Sasser wants to consider the possibility Brad is a killer when deciding the custody issue, the CPD and the DA should share some details of their investigation and give her a confidential indication of where their case against him stands. After all, she is a sworn Wake County district court Judge. If they feel the preponderance of the evidence points to his guilt, he should not be allowed custody of those 2 little girls.

Hey JTF! How you be?

To your knowledge, can the DA (legally) share his case info with Sasser without it happening through testimony in open court by witnesses on the stand? I was confused why Stubbs said she would 'prove' that the defendant was 'the only suspect' but then didn't call anyone to the stand who could verify that for the court. I didn't understand promising something and then not delivering on that promise. I thought for sure she would call Det. Daniels to at least verify a couple facts, but nada.... And something Mom and I batted around for awhile afterwards...if Judge Sasser is determined to not ignore the 'elephant in the room' and feels she needs to decide if BC was involved or not or might be involved, then I don't know how she would be able to do this without knowing what's in LE's hands in terms of evidence and results of testing, etc.

 

[Just the Fax]

Hey JTF! How you be?

To your knowledge, can the DA (legally) share his case info with Sasser without it happening through testimony in open court by witnesses on the stand? I was confused why Stubbs said she would 'prove' that the defendant was 'the only suspect' but then didn't call anyone to the stand who could verify that for the court. I didn't understand promising something and then not delivering on that promise. I thought for sure she would call Det. Daniels to at least verify a couple facts, but nada....

Hi SG, that was my question. I too am puzzled why the Judge can't review the CPD's evidence to help her decide if Brad Cooper likely killed his wife. I guess it is like a wrongful death suit filed before a criminal trial. It is up to the plaintiff to 'prove' their case and not up to the Judge to make an independent evaluation of the evidence.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Okay thanks! You reinforced my confusion on this point :wink: Because while the plaintiff and defense attorneys have conducted depos, and put witnesses on the stand, and have highlighted inconsistencies in the version of affy's from BC and his statements, they have nothing to show regarding the criminal aspects of the case because they are not privy to that info. So there's nothing they could really show that would prove any forensic link, for example, since none of that info is released. Nor anything on those computer hard drives or any of it. Talk about cart before the horse here! I am surprised that Sasser took on this burden to try and determine involvement or not in a crime without having access to all of CPD's evidence files. Hmmmmm. A tall order, indeed.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I think he will indeed be arrested.....as will Jason Young. People want these cases solved quickly and most of the time they don't move that fast.

Ann Miller thought she was home free, but she is finally paying for her horrendous deed. IMO BC will too along with JY.

I like your positive thinking tarheel! It took what, 4 years, for Ann Miller to finally get convicted? JLY is almost up to 2 years free since Michelle's murder. Patience sure is a virtue; I've got to get some. But it's important the right person be charged for a crime and that there be no 'rush to judgment.' And in the NC case it's vital that the Judge take her sweet time to make the correct decision for the Cooper kids.

 

[Just the Fax]

Okay thanks! You reinforced my confusion on this point :wink: Because while the plaintiff and defense attorneys have conducted depos, and put witnesses on the stand, and have highlighted inconsistencies in the version of affy's from BC and his statements, they have nothing to show regarding the criminal aspects of the case because they are not privy to that info. So there's nothing they could really show that would prove any forensic link, for example, since none of that info is released. Nor anything on those computer hard drives or any of it. Talk about cart before the horse here! I am surprised that Sasser took on this burden to try and determine involvement or not in a crime without having access to all of CPD's evidence files. Hmmmmm. A tall order, indeed.

I have been out of the loop on this case. Was it determined why the detective filed an affidavit saying BC's statement was inconsistent with his deposition ? It seems that is inserting investigative evidence direct from CPD to the civil case

 

[SleuthyGal]

I have been out of the loop on this case. Was it determined why the detective filed an affidavit saying BC's statement was inconsistent with his deposition ? It seems that is inserting investigative evidence direct from CPD to the civil case

I've read nothing that answers the question of 'why' Daniels wrote the affy; my assumption is that Stubbs requested one of him and Bazemore gave her okay, as long as the scope was limited to not compromise their investigation (and it was very limited in scope, I'd say). But, it did provide just enough corroboration on 2 points: inconsistent statements between police interview, affys and depo testimony, and that BC has not been fully cooperative with police. Note that Daniels did not say what exactly was inconsistent in BC's statements--only that there are inconsistencies.

 

[cygnusx1]

I will concede that the kids are in a better place, at least until his state of limbo is resolved and most likely beyond.

I will not condone the manner in which they arrived there. Had the Rentz's not come in with guns blazing they might have avoided the media circus where their daughter's dirty laundry has been aired in public. Had they been patient and offered Brad help and support, he most likely would have taken them up on their offers to take care of the girls and we would have a lot less to talk about. It would have been much better for everyone involved. The girls would not have been ripped from their fathers arms by men with guns and the public would not have learned of the Cooper's financial woes and marital problems; at least not until the murder trial.

 

[sunflowers]

I believe that Sunflowers is making a reference to something very specific. At one point BC told NC to take the kids and go back to Canada. Brad then changed his mind. At that point he did not seem very interested in the kids. Check the probable cause affidavit. He may well have changed his mind now. Who knows?

There is a possibility that BC will be arrested. It is by no means definite, but there is a possiblity.

Very nice to see you posting again Sunflowers!!

Thanks, Anderson, for welcoming me back. And thanks for clarifying my remarks with the background info. That's what I was referring to---for quite awhile (Mar-April or so), Brad planned on Nancy moving back to CA & taking the kids, and appeared---much as it seems inexplicable to us--totally fine with this decision. Even planned on paying for private school for them. Then, he changed his mind at the end of April (I believe that's the right time period) around the same time he met with his attorneys. At that point, I believe, is when he became opposed to the move, opposed to the girls going to Canada to live or visit, & took the girls' passports.

From my perspective, I believe that his attorney basically said, "Are you crazy?" to him about letting Nancy move to CA with both girls. That's an attorney job---to give legal advice that is in the best interest of the client. Letting Nancy move to CA with the girls wasn't in Brad's best interest, from an attorney or therapist's position. I'm conjecturing that his attorney highly advised against it, & recommended removing the girls' passports or having each parent have 1 passport. An attorney worth their salt would help the client understand that custody is permanent & letting them move to CA is permanent, and you want to think through this decision more clearly. The attorney is hired to represent their client, and that's what I'm envisioning happened.

That's why I said---perhaps not phrased as best I could---that I didn't think Brad cared about the girls. i think he has cared to the best of his ability, but from all of what I read early on, it appeared that he wasn't close or emotionally connected with the girls (perhaps didn't know how, perhaps lack of interest). Out of the country (France) for a few weeks, and never calling home to even just talk with the girls.

So, my point about Brad's "wanting" custody is that I believe it's attorney-driven. At this point, he may indeed want to learn how to be actively involved & emotionally connected with them.

For Judge Sasser to have originally determined that temp custody should go to the Rentz family, she had to have had some belief based on something besides hearsay that Brad might have murdered Nancy. Don't believe she could have made that judgement based on the suicide ideation or attempts, unless those were documented & not just hearsay.

I was appalled to hear how the girls were transferred from Brad to the Rentz's via police officers. Not very well thought out or executed, & horrible for the children. Extremely frightening, I'm sure.

 

[Anderson]

Thanks, Anderson, for welcoming me back. And thanks for clarifying my remarks with the background info. That's what I was referring to---for quite awhile (Mar-April or so), Brad planned on Nancy moving back to CA & taking the kids, and appeared---much as it seems inexplicable to us--totally fine with this decision. Even planned on paying for private school for them. Then, he changed his mind at the end of April (I believe that's the right time period) around the same time he met with his attorneys. At that point, I believe, is when he became opposed to the move, opposed to the girls going to Canada to live or visit, & took the girls' passports.

From my perspective, I believe that his attorney basically said, "Are you crazy?" to him about letting Nancy move to CA with both girls. That's an attorney job---to give legal advice that is in the best interest of the client. Letting Nancy move to CA with the girls wasn't in Brad's best interest, from an attorney or therapist's position. I'm conjecturing that his attorney highly advised against it, & recommended removing the girls' passports or having each parent have 1 passport. An attorney worth their salt would help the client understand that custody is permanent & letting them move to CA is permanent, and you want to think through this decision more clearly. The attorney is hired to represent their client, and that's what I'm envisioning happened.

That's why I said---perhaps not phrased as best I could---that I didn't think Brad cared about the girls. i think he has cared to the best of his ability, but from all of what I read early on, it appeared that he wasn't close or emotionally connected with the girls (perhaps didn't know how, perhaps lack of interest). Out of the country (France) for a few weeks, and never calling home to even just talk with the girls.

So, my point about Brad's "wanting" custody is that I believe it's attorney-driven. At this point, he may indeed want to learn how to be actively involved & emotionally connected with them.

For Judge Sasser to have originally determined that temp custody should go to the Rentz family, she had to have had some belief based on something besides hearsay that Brad might have murdered Nancy. Don't believe she could have made that judgement based on the suicide ideation or attempts, unless those were documented & not just hearsay.

I was appalled to hear how the girls were transferred from Brad to the Rentz's via police officers. Not very well thought out or executed, & horrible for the children. Extremely frightening, I'm sure.

I agree Sunflowers. Everyone forgets about the period when BC had no time for NC or the children. All of his time was spent on the MBA, Ironman, trips to France, boat show trips, trips to the closet and so on. BC told NC to go back to Canada with the children and that was the plan. Your theory about the attorney may well be the case. Then suddenly Brad wants to slow down the separation process and he starts making lists for himself: the kids favorite food and color and a reminder to get (or check on?) life insurance on the other side of this paper. NC and HP found this list very disturbing. So do I. In KL's affidavit we learn that NC was very worried about BC's ability to take care of the children.

BTW, the 75 thousand dollar life insurance policy that BC stands to collect was a major theme in the Canadian coverage. Do we know when he bought the insurance policy? I gather that Brad hasn't collected yet, because it is not appropriate at this time (because of Nancy). Could it really be because BC is being investigated for murder? Hmmm. . . I suppose that BC hopes that this money will go towards the legal bills eventually. Later, when it is more appropriate.

 

[cygnusx1]

If BC was afraid of having to pay alimony, child support, school, etc, murdering NC was a strange way of getting out of it. If he didn't want the kids, murdering her was a strange way of getting rid of them.

 

[Skittles]

BTW, the 75 thousand dollar life insurance policy that BC stands to collect was a major theme in the Canadian coverage. Do we know when he bought the insurance policy? I gather that Brad hasn't collected yet, because it is not appropriate at this time (because of Nancy). Could it really be because BC is being investigated for murder? Hmmm. . . I suppose that BC hopes that this money will go towards the legal bills eventually. Later, when it is more appropriate.

Brad talks about this in his deposition. $75,000 is the default spouse insurance amount under the Cisco plan. From the way he talks about it he's had this insurance on Nancy for years. Search for "insurance" in my deposition index thread and go listen.

 

[Anderson]

Brad talks about this in his deposition. $75,000 is the default spouse insurance amount under the Cisco plan. From the way he talks about it he's had this insurance on Nancy for years. Search for "insurance" in my deposition index thread and go listen.

Thanks Skittles. The list (also discussed in the deposition) that BC made suggests that life insurance was on his mind recently. I suppose that bothers me.

 

[Anderson]

If BC was afraid of having to pay alimony, child support, school, etc, murdering NC was a strange way of getting out of it. If he didn't want the kids, murdering her was a strange way of getting rid of them.

I agree. Murder is never a completely rational thing, though. Of course I understand that he MAY not be responsible for the murder. And, of course I would only want to see Brad charged if there is evidence that demonstrates that he did this.

 

[ncsu95]

I agree Sunflowers. Everyone forgets about the period when BC had no time for NC or the children. All of his time was spent on the MBA, Ironman, trips to France, boat show trips, trips to the closet and so on. BC told NC to go back to Canada with the children and that was the plan. Your theory about the attorney may well be the case. Then suddenly Brad wants to slow down the separation process and he starts making lists for himself: the kids favorite food and color and a reminder to get (or check on?) life insurance on the other side of this paper. NC and HP found this list very disturbing. So do I. In KL's affidavit we learn that NC was very worried about BC's ability to take care of the children.

BTW, the 75 thousand dollar life insurance policy that BC stands to collect was a major theme in the Canadian coverage. Do we know when he bought the insurance policy? I gather that Brad hasn't collected yet, because it is not appropriate at this time (because of Nancy). Could it really be because BC is being investigated for murder? Hmmm. . . I suppose that BC hopes that this money will go towards the legal bills eventually. Later, when it is more appropriate.

It was offered through his benefits with Cisco. Pretty standard. My company allows me to have a $100k on my wife. In general, with a stay at home mom situation, the earner should have about 10x their salary in life insurance and 300-400k on the stay at home mom. This will allow them to maintain the current lifestyle of the kids (school or nanny, or whatever). He was actually under-insured for her.

 

[water_dancing]

Thanks Skittles. The list (also discussed in the deposition) that BC made suggests that life insurance was on his mind recently. I suppose that bothers me.

When I look at this, I would be interested in knowing the context of it. It is possible that BC was referring to needing to check HIS life insurance when he put it on that list-they were deep in debt, they had 2 young kids, and BC was the only one working. Is it possible that BC attended a seminar at work where life insurance was discussed? Did he speak to a financial planner about their debt and life insurance was something that person asked about? It is also possible when he spoke to the divorce lawyer it was suggested having HIS life insurance at a certain level would look better in a custody situation.

I think there could be several plausible explanations for checking on life insurance. An HR person at Cisco may have more information about what he was check and if he made any attempts to increase coverage.

 

[momto3kids]

It was offered through his benefits with Cisco. Pretty standard. My company allows me to have a $100k on my wife. In general, with a stay at home mom situation, the earner should have about 10x their salary in life insurance and 300-400k on the stay at home mom. This will allow them to maintain the current lifestyle of the kids (school or nanny, or whatever). He was actually under-insured for her.

Are you saying your company offers 10X or a company should offer this? My husbands company has unbelievable benefits and his only offers 4x. I just have never heard of 10x.

 

[ncsu95]

Are you saying your company offers 10X or a company should offer this? My husbands company has unbelievable benefits and his only offers 4x. I just have never heard of 10x.

No, my company offers 5x. I'm saying the proper level of life insurance a person needs is 10x there salary (based on Dave Ramsey guidelines).

 

[Skittles]

When I look at this, I would be interested in knowing the context of it. It is possible that BC was referring to needing to check HIS life insurance when he put it on that list-they were deep in debt, they had 2 young kids, and BC was the only one working. Is it possible that BC attended a seminar at work where life insurance was discussed? Did he speak to a financial planner about their debt and life insurance was something that person asked about? It is also possible when he spoke to the divorce lawyer it was suggested having HIS life insurance at a certain level would look better in a custody situation.

I think there could be several plausible explanations for checking on life insurance. An HR person at Cisco may have more information about what he was check and if he made any attempts to increase coverage.

Yes. Also his lawyer would need information on his life insurance (amounts and beneficiaries) for estate planning if he were doing his will. One other reason to have life insurance on the list is if he needed to change the beneficiaries, e.g. if one of them died.