Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[SleuthyGal]

My impressions of the custody hearing after sitting through most of the testimony yesterday (though I missed the eyewitness and Hiller's testimony):

1. Did the 'elephant' leave the room? No

2. Did the 'elephant' get bigger? No

3. Was evidence presented to show any abuse of the kids? No. (In fact he was mostly away from the kids because of work/school/Ironman. Nancy did the lionshare of the caretaking...the psychologist said that, as did Krista and others.)

4. Was any evidence shown during the hearing that proved Brad committed or was involved in the murder? No, but there are inconsistencies in his statements from affys, depos and other accounts. Basically same as before.

5. Was any evidence shown (during the hearing) that Brad is the only suspect? No. Det. Daniels was never called to the stand by either plaintiffs or defense.

6. Was any evidence shown (during the hearing) that Brad is cleared of suspicion? No.

7. Was Brad shown psychologically to be a depressed, suicidal person? No. Anxious, some. Some anger, yes. Narcissistic, yes. No surprises in any of that.

8. Was Brad shown to be 'unfit' during the hearing? No.

9. Does Attorney Lynn Prather have the best cheekbones...like cheekbones to die for? Yes. Ladies, if you're looking to enhance your cheekbones, this is the woman you want to emulate. :smile:

So in a way, the hearings didn't really ADD to the bulk of knowledge. In fact it's all the affys and the depo and the reports and the other stuff that forms the bulk of this case.

 

[rwesafe]

I am talking about people close to the CASE - I didn't say close to BC. Just wanted to clarify.

I am talking about people close to the case in my comments (not myself for example). The only reason that I added the other category is because I knew that you and others wouldn't agree with their position (Not that there is anything wrong with that). However, I think that their position holds at least some weight with the Judge.

I went out of my way to say that the outcome of the custody battle really will not say anything definitively about his innocence. That is the main point that I am trying to make.

Nor will it say anything about his guilt...

 

[SleuthyGal]

WELCOME AmarilloByAM

I really enjoyed your post--it was a great first one!! :smile:

Also loved your reiteration of your convo w/your sister when she saw BC & folks at the Chick-fil-A. I had never seen him in person before yesterday (I attended the hearing) and yes, he is very tall and lanky. I LOL'd at your sister's 'Lurch' description as that was the exact character I envisioned after seeing his height and posture! And yes, his countenance is also quite sad.

 

[raisincharlie]

My impressions of the custody hearing after sitting through most of the testimony yesterday (though I missed the eyewitness and Hiller's testimony):

1. Did the 'elephant' leave the room? No

2. Did the 'elephant' get bigger? No

3. Was evidence presented to show any abuse of the kids? No. (In fact he was mostly away from the kids because of work/school/Ironman. Nancy did the lionshare of the caretaking...the psychologist said that, as did Krista and others.)

4. Was any evidence shown during the hearing that proved Brad committed or was involved in the murder? No, but there are inconsistencies in his statements from affys, depos and other accounts. Basically same as before.

5. Was any evidence shown (during the hearing) that Brad is the only suspect? No. Det. Daniels was never called to the stand by either plaintiffs or defense.

6. Was any evidence shown (during the hearing) that Brad is cleared of suspicion? No.

7. Was Brad shown psychologically to be a depressed, suicidal person? No. Anxious, some. Some anger, yes. Narcissistic, yes. No surprises in any of that.

8. Was Brad shown to be 'unfit' during the hearing? No.

9. Does Attorney Lynn Prather have the best cheekbones...like cheekbones to die for? Yes. Ladies, if you're looking to enhance your cheekbones, this is the woman you want to emulate. :smile:

So in a way, the hearings didn't really ADD to the bulk of knowledge. In fact it's all the affys and the depo and the reports and the other stuff that forms the bulk of this case.

Why did they have this hearing again ?:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

If nothing has changed since the ex parte, and nothing has been presented then nothing is going to change either I reckon :bang:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Why did they have this hearing again ?:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

If nothing has changed since the ex parte, and nothing has been presented then nothing is going to change either I reckon :bang:

It reminded me somewhat of when one has to go to a meeting and do a Powerpoint preso for the execs when there are full reports already done, but you gotta do the dog & pony show nonetheless. Except THIS exec (Judge Sasser) is very detailed, was referring to case law often, had her case law books open and used them a lot during the hearing. She knows her stuff backwards and forwards, and it was obvious to everyone in that room! But is her decision any easier? No I highly doubt it is.

 

[raisincharlie]

It reminded me somewhat of when one has to go to a meeting and do a Powerpoint preso for the execs when there are full reports already done, but you gotta do the dog & pony show nonetheless. Except THIS exec (Judge Sasser) is very detailed, was referring to case law often, had her case law books open and used them a lot during the hearing. She knows her stuff backwards and forwards, and it was obvious to everyone in that room! But is her decision any easier? No I highly doubt it is.

On the record so to speak. Glad to hear she is meticulous in refering to case law and is very detailed. She certainly does not have an easy decision to make, no envy from here.

 

[boxy]

Does this quote make it any plainer for you that the judge herself claimed the murder to have a bearing :

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3635223/


Sandlin also asked the judge Monday to consider Brad Cooper's fitness as a parent separately from the custody of his daughters.

While she agreed to separate hearings for a permanent custody hearing, Sasser warned the split would be time-consuming and burdensome and denied the motion for the temporary custody hearing, scheduled for Oct. 16.

Sandlin also acknowledged that the open murder case complicates a decision on custody.

If no one is charged in Nancy Cooper's death before the custody hearing, Sasser said, her decision would be more difficult because she would have to make that determination – a critical factor in deciding whether the children would be safe – herself.

"The elephant that sits in the room is that if there is evidence that Mr.Cooper is in any way responsible for his wife's death, that's certainly relevant in the custody case," Sasser concluded.


It is clear the judge made no separation (bifurcation) of requirements for the temp custody hearing of the 16th. But would allow seperation during a hearing for permanent custody.

So we will have to agree to disagree - you think the hearing was about fitness. I believe it was about fitness, wellbeing of the children and whether or not Brad was or was not involved in the murder of his wife with respect to determining the safety of the children. The motion to dismiss reiterates the judges finding that the murder is relevant to what she must decide. Don't know what else to say except I don't agree this hearing will be decided on Brad's fitness as a parent alone. It isn't gonna happen.

I never said the murder had no bearing on the custody case. Of course, it does. In fact, it is the only significant disputed issue. I haven't seen anyone suggest BC should be found to be a fit parent if he is responsible for the death of NC. On the other hand, if he did not, there is nothing else that remotely suggests he should not retain custody. What is not clear is on what basis Judge Sasser will decide. Some here have suggested the standard is that if there is any chance BC is responsible for NC's death, then he should not have custody. The judge actually said "if there is evidence that [he] is in any way responsible", not if there is any evidence that he is responsible. Two very different statements. It would seem the standard is that of the preponderance of the evidence that BC is responsible.

 

[jilly]

Dr. James Hilkey, a forensic psychologist for the Rentzes and Lister, testified that he found Brad Cooper to be narcissistic and arrogant with anxiety and anger issues.

"He can keep it in check, but when it does manifest itself, it is usually directed at family members," Hilkey said. "My opinion is that this is a longstanding anger that has been with him for a fair amount of time."

I think if this does not give someone pause, then nothing will. But it says to me those children are not safe in Brad's care.

LE has not named a suspect, or POI , but they sure as heck haven't cleared Brad Cooper and they certainly haven't been writing search warrant affidavits against anyone else.

Good points RC. This just might be the knockout punch the Judge needs to make an Order allowing the children to stay with the Listers. I believe Judge Sasser is doing everything she can right now to find a way to maintain the status quo. At this point it might be too much of a gamble to place them with their father based on the psychologist's assessment and as you say, the fact that he has not been cleared.

 

[Maja]

http://crookedincanada.com/2008/10/18/for-now-only-brad-cooper-knows-he-killed-his-wife/

From Canada...

 

[shack]

http://crookedincanada.com/2008/10/18/for-now-only-brad-cooper-knows-he-killed-his-wife/

From Canada...

That story is now moot since we know BC wasn't the last person to see NC alive. Actually the last person to see her alive was her killer and before that the lady walking her dog. Does anybody wonder why Carry police have not mentioned the lady walking her dog. She tells them several times she saw NC and they just ignore her. Something smells to high heaven with that. If I was a resident of Cary I sure would want an explanation for that.

 

[raisincharlie]

That story is now moot since we know BC wasn't the last person to see NC alive. Actually the last person to see her alive was her killer and before that the lady walking her dog. Does anybody wonder why Carry police have not mentioned the lady walking her dog. She tells them several times she saw NC and they just ignore her. Something smells to high heaven with that. If I was a resident of Cary I sure would want an explanation for that.

I'm not sure that Ms. Zednick was helpful since her testimony was quite different from that of her affidavit.

http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/

On July 12, she said she was walking her dog when she saw a jogger come by, and they said "Hi" to each other.
When she saw flyers with Nancy Cooper's picture later on, Zednick said she recognized the face.
"I saw her jogging," said Zednick.
After a game of phone tag, Zednick said she finally gave a statement to police - a week after Cooper disappeared.
She claimed she gave police her information seven times, but has never heard back from investigators.
After Nancy Cooper's autopsy was released, Zednick said she finally decided to contact Brad Cooper's attorneys.
"I think it was her. In my opinion it was her," said Zednick. "She was so close to me."
Attorney Wade Smith cross examined Zednick, attempting to establish that the split-second sighting was too quick to really recognize a complete stranger.
"Her head turned, because she kept running," said Zednick. "She did not stop."



Her affidavit can be found in the legal docs thread. You will note the differences. From her affidavit she says she gave her statement on the 13th, the same day she called.

 

[boxy]

9. Does Attorney Lynn Prather have the best cheekbones...like cheekbones to die for? Yes. Ladies, if you're looking to enhance your cheekbones, this is the woman you want to emulate. :smile:

Thanks for the recommendation!
http://www.kurtzandblum.com/Bio/LynnPrather.asp

 

[jmflu]

http://crookedincanada.com/2008/10/18/for-now-only-brad-cooper-knows-he-killed-his-wife/

From Canada...

This is a very interesting article. Thanks for the link!!

 

[Star12]

Upon rereading the elephant statement, it appears Judge Sasser refers to evidence that BC murdered NC, not whether he is a suspect.


http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/3751368/

Anyone know the legal basis upon which the judge must base her decision? Is there a state statute or case law that addresses this?

"The best interests of the children is the guiding star." I don't have the law in front of me, but that is what it says. That certainly does give a judge a lot of latitude, but then every case is different, different situations, living conditions, beliefs, and so forth. Always, though, the best interests of the children.

 

[boxy]

I'm not sure that Ms. Zednick was helpful since her testimony was quite different from that of her affidavit.

http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11171/custody-battle-in-cooper-case-begins/

On July 12, she said she was walking her dog when she saw a jogger come by, and they said "Hi" to each other.
When she saw flyers with Nancy Cooper's picture later on, Zednick said she recognized the face.
"I saw her jogging," said Zednick.
After a game of phone tag, Zednick said she finally gave a statement to police - a week after Cooper disappeared.
She claimed she gave police her information seven times, but has never heard back from investigators.
After Nancy Cooper's autopsy was released, Zednick said she finally decided to contact Brad Cooper's attorneys.
"I think it was her. In my opinion it was her," said Zednick. "She was so close to me."
Attorney Wade Smith cross examined Zednick, attempting to establish that the split-second sighting was too quick to really recognize a complete stranger.
"Her head turned, because she kept running," said Zednick. "She did not stop."



Her affidavit can be found in the legal docs thread. You will note the differences. From her affidavit she says she gave her statement on the 13th, the same day she called.

No, her affidavit does not say she gave her statement on the 13th.

14. On Sunday I saw the people searching the lake behind our house. I told my husband about seeing Nancy Cooper on Sunday, July 13, 2008 and he told me I should call the police to tell them that I had seen her. I called the police and left a voice message on a voice mail. Sometime later, a police officer called and left a message on my home phone. I called the police back and finally talked with someone. I left my statement with the police. To date, no officer has come to speak with me.

The sometime later could have been on the 13th or it could have been as she apparently testified that it was about a week later.

 

[raisincharlie]

No, her affidavit does not say she gave her statement on the 13th.



The sometime later could have been on the 13th or it could have been as she apparently testified that it was about a week later.

Could have been but it does not say it was a week later does it ? The only date shown is the 13th is it not ? Any lawyer worth their salt will make the same point.

 

[raisincharlie]

Interesting Mt3K.

I find the reference that the tests could vary between times. I have wondered if Ghould's test being done in early August, less stress for BC at that time, could vary significantly from Hilkey's done the day after 7 hours of deposition which was not to BC's liking, so therefore more stressed.

It seems from the cross exam there is some agreement that the timing could be the difference if I am understanding your notes ?

So I guess it shows the possiblity that if Brad was heavily stressed on July the 12th - he could have well directed anger towards a family member.

 

[momto3kids]

Interesting Mt3K.

I find the reference that the tests could vary between times. I have wondered if Ghould's test being done in early August, less stress for BC at that time, could vary significantly from Hilkey's done the day after 7 hours of deposition which was not to BC's liking, so therefore more stressed.

It seems from the cross exam there is some agreement that the timing could be the difference if I am understanding your notes ?

So I guess it shows the possiblity that if Brad was heavily stressed on July the 12th - he could have well directed anger towards a family member.

RC...if only I could have heard this testimony better. That darn speaker messed up and a surge hit the judge's computer which she had worked on and remained working.
Both Dr's kept turning to her to address the tests. Smith even got up behind Ghould to look over his shoulders to read the results and have it explained. I caught enough to make some sense out of what they were saying...

I am going to post what I heard from Ghould...he was really so soft spoken.

 

[Anderson]

Nor will it say anything about his guilt...

Exactly, I should have also said that.

However, that is not related to my own opinion, of course.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC...if only I could have heard this testimony better. That darn speaker messed up and a surge hit the judge's computer which she had worked on and remained working.
Both Dr's kept turning to her to address the tests. Smith even got up behind Ghould to look over his shoulders to read the results and have it explained. I caught enough to make some sense out of what they were saying...

I am going to post what I heard from Ghould...he was really so soft spoken.

Appreciate the info Mt3K. No shrink scientist here but have to admit it is somewhat interesting.