Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #24

[SleuthyGal]

I think instead of assuming guilt or innocence it's more straightforward to look at his statements that he told police, compare them to statements that he put in his affadavit and see which statements are in conflict with each other (not trying to make them fit any particular scenario of innocent or guilty).

If he lied about a detail or time or whatever then put a checkmark against the statements that are in conflict.

If you find that there are several lies (or inconsistencies if you prefer that term), you need to ask yourself WHY this guy would lie? Can you trust his stories? Can you determine which version of his conflicting statements are true? Which one is the 'truth?' What is the real story?

 

[jumpstreet]

I see what you mean. There is a slight chance that there is a whole other investigation that is taking place that we don't know about. I bet Brad would like to be cleared because of his job and to get his children back if he were proved to be innocent. In that case, I imagine that there would great incentive for him to push for a public statement to that effect. Especially with another child custody hearing coming up in a couple of weeks.

Agreed! Rulings up the upcoming custody related events (plantiffs request to have defendant submit to psychiatric probe - judge supposed to rule around Sep 20th or so iirc), and of course the next (scheduled) hearing for permanent custody in October (assuming it doesn't get continued again, waiting on the results of the psyche prove (if ordered)).

 

[SleuthyGal]

it's easier to understand inconsistencies and/or mis-alignments from an innocent man with incompetent counsel trying to do his best in stressful circumstances to put together a custody affidavit...

Why do you assume he has incompetent counsel?

 

[Anderson]

If you find that someone lies to you then it casts doubt on other things they say. You suspect they could be lying about other things too and you don't know which things are actually true or not. That may not be fair, but that's how our brains work. Lies that are caught/found out don't serve to make a person look innocent.

:yes:

 

[jumpstreet]

If you find that there are several lies you need to ask yourself WHY this guy would lie? Can you trust his stories? Can you determine which version of his conflicting statements are true?

Exactly... that's the exact question I ask myself. Why would this guy lie and/or not align his custody affidavit fairly perfectly? It's inconceivable to me that he would do that if he was guilty in this case, with a written copy of the LE warrant in front of him, and time to prepare. That's where I'm bogging down.

In this particular case, I'm left with the alternative to consider he's innocent, and simply under stress, desperate, and unable to put those two pieces together. I cannot help but think this might be a more plausible explanation for the lack of consistent mesh between the 2 timelines.

Not saying this proves anything, or is a basis for innocence... just saying (for me), it's a somewhat more reasonable way to explain any inconsistencies.

 

[jumpstreet]

Why do you assume he has incompetent counsel?

It was offered as an explanation to the dilima of inconsistency (by MT3 I think)...

Incompetent may be too strong, but regardless of guilt/innocence, I would think his counsel would have suggested a smoother "marriage" between the 2 timelines. In fact, I can't believe counsel allowed him to disclose as much as he did in his custody affidavits (again, regardless of guilty/innocence). Much of it wasn't germane to the custody hearing, and could only serve to be used (or misconstrued) by any opposition (LE or plaintiffs or whoever). Custody affidavit should have been "need to know" only, and strictly pertain, and with total emphasis on "fitness as a father" (imo).

 

[jumpstreet]

I am still wondering if would have had access to the probable cause affidavit, and perhaps someone could answer that

I wondered the exact same thing, and it is one of my 'premises' here. If he didn't, then all bets are off with my 'quasi conclusion'. RC might could re-confirm, but I'm fairly sure it was discussed, and RC indicated the warrant, in it's entirety, including the affidavit would have been available to BC immediately.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Why would this guy lie and/or not align his custody affidavit fairly perfectly? It's inconceivable to me that he would do that if he was guilty in this case, with a written copy of the LE warrant in front of him, and time to prepare. That's where I'm bogging down.

:banghead:

Yah...it sure makes it difficult to discuss the actual statements and facts when one is having a case of the brain twists. :weaklink:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I would think his counsel would have suggested a smoother "marriage" between the 2 timelines. In fact, I can't believe counsel allowed him to disclose as much as he did in his custody affidavits (again, regardless of guilty/innocence).

1. How do you know his counsel DIDN'T suggest it?
2. You realize that his lawyer cannot FORCE him to do something he doesn't want to do (or alternatively forbid him from doing something he does want to do or does want to say), right? This is not a parent/child relationship. The attorney can only counsel, he can't force.

 

[raisincharlie]

I wondered the exact same thing, and it is one of my 'premises' here. If he didn't, then all bets are off with my 'quasi conclusion'. RC might could re-confirm, but I'm fairly sure it was discussed, and RC indicated the warrant, in it's entirety, including the affidavit would have been available to BC immediately.

Everything we have seen was left in the residence at the conclusion of the search. This is documented on the page following the inventory section that a copy of the inventory was left. Do not forget, LE also conducted a search of Brad himself, more than likely they handed him a copy of the warrant in person as is required by law.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yes, I keep thinking that if this were a movie, it would be over already. :crazy:

There do not seem to be any competing theories that leave out Brad as a key suspect. If they exist, then I would like to know about them. One of the things that we do know is that this was not random. Someone that she knew did this.

There has been speculation that there probably is not any evidence to tie Brad to the case, because he has not been arrested. Some of the recent comments are based on the recent press release from the LE that clarify that the SWs should not be thought of as evidence.

However, on NC's birthday Chief Bazemore emphasized that progress has been made in the case, and I believe that she was confident that it would be solved. It seems to me that this is an indication that they believe they are on the right track.

I think RC already clarified this for me, so if I am right and correct me if I am wrong, we would know (through the media that would keep track of other SWs that may have been issued) if LE had turned their eyes to another possible suspect. It seems to me that if Brad were cleared they may even make a statement to that effect, although I am not at all sure about this.

Of course we will not be able to know anything for sure until we have more information, but we can see which direction the investigation is taking. It doesn't make sense to talk about a guilty verdict at this point. We still know more about possible evidence they are looking at that may link BC to the crime.

Just some thoughts

Anderson

The media has "gofers" they send to the court house to check for warrants. As long as the gofer is armed with the case name and case number they will be able to check on warrants issued against the case number - it would not matter to whom the warrants are issued. In other words if a warrant is served on Joe Smoe in connection with this case - the Clerk of the Court is going to release that warrant if it is not sealed. If it is sealed there will be a sealing sheet that basically says it is sealed. Long story short, if there are other warrants for this case, the media will know it.

 

[momto3kids]

Maybe these mis-steps on the part of the defense team are intentional, so as to provide grounds for appeal on the basis of incompetent defense counsel. Talk about planning ahead!

Now JS....YOU put incompetent counsel. Do NOT put words in my mouth or point the finger for something you said. Period!

 

[jumpstreet]

Now JS....YOU put incompetent counsel. Do NOT put words in my mouth or point the finger for something you said. Period!

Humble apologies MT3 - you are right (and thanks for pulling it up). I was the one who used the word 'incompetent' to begin with. In my "defense", though it was a response to this comment from you (this time I'll quote it [ but the bolding is mine] ) -

IF this LE affidavit was available, his so called attorneys should have made darn sure it was included!

While you didn't use the word incompetent... I didn't exactly take your post as "term of endearment" for BC's defense counsel... fwiw Nor this one-

[...] makes me realize just how good(NOT) a team he has working for him.

In any case, apologies again if I ruffled any feathers.

 

[raisincharlie]

Maybe these mis-steps on the part of the defense team are intentional, so as to provide grounds for appeal on the basis of incompetent defense counsel. Talk about planning ahead!

I don't see a mis-step on the part of his attorney. It is very possible Brad was advised that anything he said in the affidavit for custody would be subject to cross examination. Keep in mind the warrants were sealed - this means there was limited information available to the Rentz's. The Rentz's believed Nancy did not go running. I cannot say if LE would relay the information that Brad told them to the Rentz's - I suspect not since Le is not obligated to do so in detail. From that perspective it is likely that Brad was advised not to mention anything he told LE relating to what time he got up and that both he and Nancy were caring for Katie at 4 am. I would say that is good advice.

 

[jumpstreet]

I don't see a mis-step on the part of his attorney. It is very possible Brad was advised that anything he said in the affidavit for custody would be subject to cross examination. Keep in mind the warrants were sealed - this means there was limited information available to the Rentz's. The Rentz's believed Nancy did not go running. I cannot say if LE would relay the information that Brad told them to the Rentz's - I suspect not since Le is not obligated to do so in detail. From that perspective it is likely that Brad was advised not to mention anything he told LE relating to what time he got up and that both he and Nancy were caring for Katie at 4 am. I would say that is good advice.

That makes sense to me RC. That seems a pretty plausible explanation for why there isn't perfect alignment between the two timelines/statements either (even when he has a copy of LE's right in front of him).

{Guilty or innocent} If it was somewhat done under the advise of his attorney as you suggest, then we can't necessarily infer the any inconsistencies in the affidavits to be more evidence of guilt. [ But also not any more evidence of innocence, as I was trying to find my way to, if at all possible ]. Thanks again.

 

[momto3kids]

IF this LE affidavit was available, his so called attorneys should have made darn sure it was included!

He and his team made sure he bashed his dead wife, her family and friends...BUT to not state this little bit of tidbit to show he does provide attention to his girls IMO, this is one of the biggest misses they made! But you get what you pay for.

He never got up with Katie, she might have gotten up, but he was already up.

This 1 item makes me realize just how good(NOT) a team he has working for him.

Also IMO there are members on this board who did not sit for a Bar Exam but appear they could meet this challenge a bit better.

Prime example is the LE affidavit and BC affidavit as many are calling into question why they are NOT matching up.

As many have said, BC didn't need to put half of what he put in his affidavit when it didn't pertain to custody.

And the list goes on........

 

[momto3kids]

From that perspective it is likely that Brad was advised not to mention anything he told LE relating to what time he got up and that both he and Nancy were caring for Katie at 4 am. I would say that is good advice.

So if I am reading this correct...it is good advice on the part of K&B to not mention 4am because
a) high hopes the LE doesn't mention to the Rentz's that on the 12th they were aware of a 4am wakeup
b) we have worse things to worry about then when you woke up
c) it will be a few years before we have to address this inconsistency in court

Hmm....this inconsistency has already come back to bite him and its only been 7 weeks.

BC's web of lies are already getting tangled:crazy: with more to come IMO

 

[SleuthyGal]

Mom, care to take a stab at what you consider the top 10 lies (or ummm..."inconsistencies") by Brad? I think it would be helpful.

 

[raisincharlie]

So if I am reading this correct...it is good advice on the part of K&B to not mention 4am because
a) high hopes the LE doesn't mention to the Rentz's that on the 12th they were aware of a 4am wakeup
b) we have worse things to worry about then when you woke up
c) it will be a few years before we have to address this inconsistency in court

Hmm....this inconsistency has already come back to bite him and its only been 7 weeks.

BC's web of lies are already getting tangled:crazy: with more to come IMO

It was good advice even for a murderer. No where in the Rentz's findings is this issue mentioned nor is it mentioned in any of the friends affidavits. Why would a lawyer not advise his client to minimize his comments if they have not been addressed ? Don't get me wrong - much of his affidavit is CYA however, not mentioning this tidbit was also CYA. Civil court and criminal court have very different standards for proof. Unlike a criminal case - Brad would be required to take the stand in a civil matter. In the event he does not answer a question it is allowable for the judge to infer that the question not responded to is a positve. Why hand over ammunition when someone is holding a gun at your head? While we may not like that concept - it is the law.

I'm not defending him or his lawyers. I am however saying that there are distinct differences between court systems, criminal - vs - civil and it would be a good thing to keep in mind.

 

[momto3kids]

Mom, care to take a stab at what you consider the top 10 lies (or ummm..."inconsistencies") by Brad? I think it would be helpful.

SG...#1 on the list is the 4am wake up.

ANY person fighting for their children would be darn sure to state they got up at 4am to tend to a child of theirs who needed them. I don't care if it was a bad nightmare or they were sick, but it needed to be there to prove they were there in time of need for their child. NO ifs, ands or buts about that one.

He was already up and not woken up. Yes, Katie might have gotten woken up, but not BC.