Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[momto3kids]

2nd witness, Krister Lister

Emotional in the beginning, but got better when the testimony went moved to the girls and away from NC.
NC would finish my sentences; she was my soul mate, my everything.
We spoke 3-5x a week.
NC had contacts she had made for a job in Canada.
She was scared for NC, she knew she was trapped.
Krista called her dad while he was on vacation, begging him to come home from the trip to go get Nancy-she needed him.
While in HH, Nancy told her the marriage was over.
Motive was reason for murder, I believe he murdered Nancy.
BC never cleans home or never saw him do laundry. Has visited 5x since beginning of 2007, including March 08 for 5 days.

Krista told Bella always asks...
1-why mommy had to leave her?
2-does mommy still love me?
3-why do I have to speak to daddy, mommy's not there?
4-can mommy see me?

I have no children and prepared for long term.
Jim has flexible hours and can work from home.
Bella is in ballet and gymnastics.
Dog is with friends in Niagara Falls, 8yrs old, St Bernard & Border Collie mix.
I would like to change to phone from webcam because girls are having difficulties with webcam.
When BC speaks to them he asks questions like…where are the dogs? Have you been outside? Etc

Cross….

Girls have NOT seen BC at all this week while in town. It was not in the court order.
NC affair occurred in her 1st year of marriage.
Brett Wilson is old boyfriend-NC was talking to him and had plans on meeting him upon arrival to Canada.
BC was never inappropriate to girls.
NC had $700 for trip.
Sandlin…When do you think he should get the girls back?
Krista….IMO he should never get the girls back…he'll be in JAIL!

 

[Henry7]

MT3K,
Thank you so much for all your posts.
Will be looking forward to hearing more soon!

 

[jmflu]

Let's not rehash that old argument. I understand why he didn't go. I don't think it has anything at all to do with his guilt or innocence.

Ok, let's not rehash that old argument... let's start a new one!

Brad was married, and claimed he loved his wife, and was trying to work things out.

Yet, his wife was suddenly murdered, and he never got to say goodbye.

He did not ever publicly express rage at his loss and the woman he loved being taken violently from him by someone else. He never asked the public for their assistance in finding her killer.

And he gave up the chance to say goodbye in the manner in which it is customary to do so. There were several memorials.

Finally, he never arranged for an obituary. If he didn't want to mourn in public for whatever reason, he could have honored the woman he loved with an obituary and said goodbye to her with a loving tribute.

Brad has not acted in any manner as a man who had his wife stolen from him and brutally murdered.

He has acted as a man who was the murderer.

 

[raisincharlie]

Bc is asking the girls about where the dog is during his web cam visit ? Sneaky. Sneaky.

 

[piedmont]

Maybe not losing his children was top priority to him? If my spouse were trying to take my children to another country...I think I would be throwing out some stop blocks as well. Additionally, a single instance of forgetting the weekly money is hardly evidence of a control tactic.

Granted, on both points. It just struck me as unlikely that he would forget the money as that was such a huge issue to NC. Saying he forgot and not really forgetting just seemed to fit with the passive/aggressive approach.
Maybe he actually did forget.

 

[jmflu]

If anyone thinks the testimony needs to be on a thread of its own, that is fine. I just didn't do it since I was unsure if it would be a conflicting thread because of this one already going.
Feel free to transfer my posts.
I will post more testimony from other witnesses later today or tonight when I get the chance.

You can leave it here if you want! I was just reassuring you that either is fine... you had asked how to start a new thread.

Now go get that new b'day present! :blowkiss:

 

[jmflu]

Granted, on both points. It just struck me as unlikely that he would forget the money as that was such a huge issue to NC. Saying he forgot and not really forgetting just seemed to fit with the passive/aggressive approach.
Maybe he actually did forget.

And it seems to me in his affidavit he made a point to mention that he was always on time with the payment.

 

[ncsu95]

NCSU, would you be happy if he were never charged and we later learn that he did commit the murder? Wouldn't it be better to find that out now, before subjecting the beautiful girls to an unsafe childhood? JMHO

If he committed the murder, I hope he is convicted and rots in jail. But as of now, there is really no evidence that he did. Until there is enough evidence to at least arrest him, he deserves to have his children. I highly doubt that would be an unsafe childhood.


So a question back to you....if 16 years from now, another murder happens similar to this, and the person also confesses to killing NC (and provides evidence to prove it), would you still think it would have been in the best interest of the children that they were taken from their dad?

As of right now, he hasn't been charged with anything. He is their dad. He deserves to have custody of his kids. They shouldn't have been taken from him to begin with. I can't say with 100% certainty that he did not kill their mom.

 

[ncsu95]

That's not what she said - she said it could be. Brad defines the expenses in the deposition. I agree it should be higher. According to his definitions, it doesn't add up.

It doesn't add up...but I have a church friend that works at Cisco, that makes about $120k. And his take home is around the $5k mark due to all the things he takes out. So I guess it is possible. I'm a big Dave Ramsey fan, so I think the way the Coopers lived was utterly ridiculous.

 

[Anderson]

If he committed the murder, I hope he is convicted and rots in jail. But as of now, there is really no evidence that he did. Until there is enough evidence to at least arrest him, he deserves to have his children. I highly doubt that would be an unsafe childhood.


So a question back to you....if 16 years from now, another murder happens similar to this, and the person also confesses to killing NC (and provides evidence to prove it), would you still think it would have been in the best interest of the children that they were taken from their dad?

As of right now, he hasn't been charged with anything. He is their dad. He deserves to have custody of his kids. They shouldn't have been taken from him to begin with. I can't say with 100% certainty that he did not kill their mom.

Fair enough. But, if you look at the time line, positions of NC's friends, general context and some of the evidence that does exist (keys, phone, jewellry at home when she went missing/ major cleaning job on that day, etc.), then I think that you would have to at least acknowledge that it is possible that BC murdered NC. At the moment, it seems to me that you are arguing with pieces of information rather than looking at the case as a whole. I am sure that it is possible that I could be mistaken. After all, you know people from Cisco, so you may have information that I just don't have. I don't know.

 

[ncsu95]

Fair enough. But, if you look at the time line, positions of NC's friends, general context and some of the evidence that does exist (keys, phone, jewellry at home when she went missing/ major cleaning job on that day, etc.), then I think that you would have to at least acknowledge that it is possible that BC murdered NC. At the moment, it seems to me that you are arguing with pieces of information rather than looking at the case as a whole. I am sure that it is possible that I could be mistaken. After all, you know people from Cisco, so you may have information that I just don't have. I don't know.

Actually, I think I'm doing the opposite. I believe you (and others) are going under the assumption that he did it, and are looking for bits and pieces of information that fit that assumption. I don't know if he did or didn't, but I haven't seen anything at all that disproves what he says happened that morning. The only absolute facts from that morning that I've seen are that she is dead and he went to HT twice and bought detergent, milk, and juice. Everything else is speculation and/or his version of what happened. I do not put much weight in all of the affidavits from her friends because it is all speculation and opinion.

 

[ncsu95]

For example...her friends say he never cleans, so that must mean since he was cleaning that day, he had to be doing it to cover up evidence. I can't make that leap because I don't necessarily believe that he never cleans. I think NC was prone to exaggeration and trashing BC to her friends, so I don't believe that he never cleans. I don't believe that she always took her phone and keys when running. That is speculation. I don't believe that she always wore this pendant and never took it off. It was on a chain...how many women on here sleep with a necklace on? Especially one on a fairly long thin chain. How easy would that be to snag on her hair, hand, something in the bed, etc? So to say she never took it off, when there are many pictures of her not wearing it (even though we don't have the timeframe from those pictures) doesn't make it evidence. It makes it speculation.

 

[raisincharlie]

It doesn't add up...but I have a church friend that works at Cisco, that makes about $120k. And his take home is around the $5k mark due to all the things he takes out. So I guess it is possible. I'm a big Dave Ramsey fan, so I think the way the Coopers lived was utterly ridiculous.

I agree, it seems they both lived well beyond their means. From Brads depositions it is clear, if he is truthful, and there is no reason not to believe it because proof exists, the credit card issues were repeating from one year to the next. Pay off and then repeat - definitely rather crazy.

 

[piedmont]

Didn't AS say they were going to prove thru circumstantial evidence that BC was the murderer? I guess I was surprised they didn't seem to have anything big afterall. Or maybe the defense thwarted that by not having BC testify, so they could then put the detective on?

 

[Anderson]

Actually, I think I'm doing the opposite. I believe you (and others) are going under the assumption that he did it, and are looking for bits and pieces of information that fit that assumption. I don't know if he did or didn't, but I haven't seen anything at all that disproves what he says happened that morning. The only absolute facts from that morning that I've seen are that she is dead and he went to HT twice and bought detergent, milk, and juice. Everything else is speculation and/or his version of what happened. I do not put much weight in all of the affidavits from her friends because it is all speculation and opinion.

I would be very happy to see Brad cleared. That would be wonderful news for the girls, who would, I am sure, always miss their father. It seems to me that you are starting with the assumption that BC should have the girls until he is proven guilty. Brad may not be guilty, but there are too many questions. He is a person of interest for a reason, so until that reason has gone away, I do not want to see the girls put at risk.

In your argument you, again, focus on a couple of facts rather than looking at the general social context (we have much more than speculation regarding the state of the relationship including BC's deposition). What about the keys, cell phone and jewellry? I would like to see BC cooperate with LE. I feel sure that he would if he were innocent, although that doesn't necessarily mean he did it. Collectively, all of the information just doesn't add up. Look at the list again. Look at the whole picture beyond that list.

I am worried about the welfare of the children at this particular point. I am not convinced that he is a safe parent to be with. I also don't see evidence of a support network to help BC with being a single parent. BC hasn't gone out of his way to demonstrate that he has a support network. Because of what has happened, I would like to see BC move far away from the controversy before the children are given to him. I would also like to see him cleared of suspicion.

 

[raisincharlie]

SG or Mt3K

Wondering if either of you can help me out with the following question. A little bird has told me that during KL's testimony she indicated that according to the agreement - Nancy's family and Brad were to split the costs of the visitations between Brad and the girls. She also indicated that Brads funds have not cleared.

In other words, he hasn't settled up on those costs in an appropriate manner. Yet in his deposition with Alice Stubbs, she asks him the balance of his checking account, to which he replies $10 K


Do either of you recall more information about this issue that you can contribute from your in courtroom observations ?

 

[SleuthyGal]

For those in the courtroom yesterday (thanks for the firsthand reflections, BTW, I'm sure it was gut wrenching to watch at times)...but any reflections on the attorneys in general for both sides? Certainly they plaintiffs have a seasoned and polished team... how did the K&B and Sandlin folks appear - out-of-their-league? just competent? or, also seasoned/polished? [ Just curious ]

Both attorneys seem quite competent. It was Debbie Sandlin for the defense and Alice Stubbs for the plaintiffs. Sandlin has a slightly more aggressive/sarcastic tone and given that she was on the defense (literally and figuratively) perhaps not surprising. She would sometimes interrupt a witness and Stubbs had to intervene a few times so the witness could finish. Stubbs is about as round as my pinky, very polished, confident and focused.

 

[Anderson]

For example...her friends say he never cleans, so that must mean since he was cleaning that day, he had to be doing it to cover up evidence. I can't make that leap because I don't necessarily believe that he never cleans. I think NC was prone to exaggeration and trashing BC to her friends, so I don't believe that he never cleans. I don't believe that she always took her phone and keys when running. That is speculation. I don't believe that she always wore this pendant and never took it off. It was on a chain...how many women on here sleep with a necklace on? Especially one on a fairly long thin chain. How easy would that be to snag on her hair, hand, something in the bed, etc? So to say she never took it off, when there are many pictures of her not wearing it (even though we don't have the timeframe from those pictures) doesn't make it evidence. It makes it speculation.

Actually, NC said that he never cleans, I believe.

 

[ncsu95]

It seems to me that you are starting with the assumption that BC should have the girls until he is proven guilty.

Yes, that is the stance I am taking.

 

[RaleighNC]

Honestly - I don't believe that he ever cleaned - and - really (flame suit on) why the heck should he?

On the surface (and that seems to be what this marriage was all about) with Nancy not working outside the home, having day care / preschool for this girls for at least a few hours each week, why the heck should cleaning house be his responsibility?

By all accounts - he spent long hours at work - not surprising - that's just the way it is these days. But - he did do "Daddy time" - because Nancy did have enough time in the evenings and on the weekends to do "girl only" stuff.

IMHO -cleaning the house should have been part of the duties that were on her side of the To Do list. If I was as stay at home mom, I'd clean my house.

Heck - I work, but hubby works more / longer / travels, so the house cleaning is mine. That's just fair.

They choose more traditional roles - and in that scenario, the housework should have been hers.

So - really - that's why I think he didn't normally do ANY - because if I was in his shoes - I wouldn't either.