State v Brad Cooper 4-8-2011

[RaleighNC]

Just to level set a little more on the perception issue and BC's memory issues, lies, etc.

BC showed up in good faith believing he was giving a deposition for a child custody hearing. What he encountered was a 6 hour murder investigation interrogation.

I look at it as being similar to preparing for your high school math final exam and being handed the SAT. Sure in theory you should know all the answers but it is not what you prepared for, it is not where your mind was set when you entered. How much will you really be able to answer on the fly without being confused, irritated, worried about how to answer, not remembering details, etc.

If BC went into that thinking it was only about "custody" then he should have fired Kurtz right then, as well as his custody attorney. No attorney worth their salt wouldn't be able to figure out this was a HUGE fishing expedition - in fact - I believe that the Rentz's motions clearly spell out that they think he killed Nancy - therefore is an unfit father.

He was also well represented by counsel there - who could have objected and told him not to answer MUCH more than she did.

Don't feel sorry for Brad in this deposition - he knew the game going in. Heck - I knew the game going in and we've already established my legal background comes from Judge Judy....

 

[otto]

Wait was that JP's wife or somebody else? And was JP who HM was having the affair with when she had the affair with BC? And why does this look like a March Madness bracket?

ETA: this is so going to be a movie on Lifetime!

Maybe Brad can sue Lifetime for 3 million dollars alleging that it is an invasion into his life.

 

[Tipstaff]

Brad Garret as BC

 

[otto]

If BC went into that thinking it was only about "custody" then he should have fired Kurtz right then, as well as his custody attorney. No attorney worth their salt wouldn't be able to figure out this was a HUGE fishing expedition - in fact - I believe that the Rentz's motions clearly spell out that they think he killed Nancy - therefore is an unfit father.

He was also well represented by counsel there - who could have objected and told him not to answer MUCH more than she did.

Don't feel sorry for Brad in this deposition - he knew the game going in. Heck - I knew the game going in and we've already established my legal background comes from Judge Judy....

I understand that legally he was in a position to answer pretty much any questions put to him, but ethically I think the scope of the questioning should have been limited to the reason for the examination for discovery. He was there to discuss the custody of his children. I think some of the questions went way too far. Did Krista undergo the same set of questions? Usually in a custody dispute, both parties seeking custody undergo that process.

 

[lib's mom]

I understand that legally he was in a position to answer pretty much any questions put to him, but ethically I think the scope of the questioning should have been limited to the reason for the examination for discovery. He was there to discuss the custody of his children. I think some of the questions went way too far. Did Krista undergo the same set of questions? Usually in a custody dispute, both parties seeking custody undergo that process.

I know Mrs. Rentz had a depo. She testified about it (a little), so I would think Mr. Rentz and Krista had one also. MOO. Mrs. Rentz said her's lasted all day, but of course I have no idea what was asked. But BC's attorney would have done their depos, correct? I believe Mrs. Rentz talks about being at Ms. Sandlin's office when she did the depo. I would imagine Sandlin would be hardcore. MOO

 

[grommet]

are you saying Brad resigned and then got rehired?

Let's just say it's possible that Brad's employment with Cisco was terminated over the course of the last two years - after that article was published.

 

[otto]

I know Mrs. Rentz had a depo. She testified about it (a little), so I would think Mr. Rentz and Krista had one also. MOO. Mrs. Rentz said her's lasted all day, but of course I have no idea what was asked. But BC's attorney would have done their depos, correct? I believe Mrs. Rentz talks about being at Ms. Sandlin's office when she did the depo. I would imagine Sandlin would be hardcore. MOO

I suppose they had the same gruesome questions. I really feel for people that have to undergo that experience.

 

[cityslick]

If BC went into that thinking it was only about "custody" then he should have fired Kurtz right then, as well as his custody attorney. No attorney worth their salt wouldn't be able to figure out this was a HUGE fishing expedition - in fact - I believe that the Rentz's motions clearly spell out that they think he killed Nancy - therefore is an unfit father.

He was also well represented by counsel there - who could have objected and told him not to answer MUCH more than she did.

Don't feel sorry for Brad in this deposition - he knew the game going in. Heck - I knew the game going in and we've already established my legal background comes from Judge Judy....

I still think that his lawyers gave him advice on how to answer certain questions, when to be vague and not vague, look for opportunities to paint yourself in a positive light but at the same time do not paint NC in a negative light, etc. They probably also told him not to volunteer information, only answer things that are specifically asked of you.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Ok so I was looking back over the affidavits for this trial and several things really bothered me but one really stuck out in my mind. Why did Michael Morwick give two very different statements in 2 different affidavits?

 

[RaleighNC]

Custody dispute -

Like I said - the Rentz's stated that they believed he killed the childrens' mother - so - in that essence, the questions were relevant. i.e. - wife kill =! good father

He cold have declined to be interviewed / deposed and that would have been a red flag. But - there were no surprises.

Unethical to have things go that far? Not really - if they think he's a killer, womanizer, egotist, spendthrift, control freak, someone who yells a lot, someone who works far too much, etc - then all need to be explored as examples of poor fathering.

Like I said - more than adequately represented - both in the custody department and in the criminal department - so all parties knew what they were getting into and prepared him appropriately.

As far as emotion- I think no emotion is better than fake emotion - and certainly showing anything like anger or frustration would be bad - even if it were in response to legitimate response type situations. (Of course - this is all pretty easy when you are a super controlled personality type person...)

 

[NCEast]

Ok so I was looking back over the affidavits for this trial and several things really bothered me but one really stuck out in my mind. Why did Michael Morwick give two very different statements in 2 different affidavits?

Do you mean one for the Rentz family's side and then another for Brad's side?

 

[CyberPro]

If BC went into that thinking it was only about "custody" then he should have fired Kurtz right then, as well as his custody attorney. No attorney worth their salt wouldn't be able to figure out this was a HUGE fishing expedition - in fact - I believe that the Rentz's motions clearly spell out that they think he killed Nancy - therefore is an unfit father.

He was also well represented by counsel there - who could have objected and told him not to answer MUCH more than she did.

Don't feel sorry for Brad in this deposition - he knew the game going in. Heck - I knew the game going in and we've already established my legal background comes from Judge Judy....

Knowing the situation, I really could not believe his legal folks allowed him to waltz into that deposition! Geez - talking for all that time under oath and hoping to keep all the facts aligned with what might be discovered as evidence? Yikes.

 

[johnfear]

Ok so I was looking back over the affidavits for this trial and several things really bothered me but one really stuck out in my mind. Why did Michael Morwick give two very different statements in 2 different affidavits?

Keep reading, it gets WAY better.

There are several folks in there that have now contradicted what they were saying before.

I find it odd that no one here finds it EXTREMELY strange that a person who has testified in both cases would call the prosecutor (and possibly the judge's office) to say the jurors were talking about the case.

I am telling you guys I am an ANTI-conspiracy theorist and there is something hinky about this case. And we all know when something's hinky, Velma needs to do an experiment.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Do you mean one for the Rentz family's side and then another for Brad's side?

Correct but I don't just mean there are two I mean the two have conflicting information.

 

[NCEast]

Correct but I don't just mean there are two I mean the two have conflicting information.

Did you find them in the section of affidavits that Fran submitted on here in 2008?
If not, can you supply the links please?

 

[johnfear]

Did you find them in the section of affidavits that Fran submitted on here in 2008?
If not, can you supply the links please?

They are there. Rentz family ones have him listed.

The other is under Cooper friends and family.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Did you find them in the section of affidavits that Fran submitted on here in 2008?
If not, can you supply the links please?

Yes I found them in the affidavits section on here.

 

[NCEast]

They are there. Rentz family ones have him listed.

The other is under Cooper friends and family.

Thanks, that's where I'm reading.

 

[less0305]

Keep reading, it gets WAY better.

There are several folks in there that have now contradicted what they were saying before.

I find it odd that no one here finds it EXTREMELY strange that a person who has testified in both cases would call the prosecutor (and possibly the judge's office) to say the jurors were talking about the case.

I am telling you guys I am an ANTI-conspiracy theorist and there is something hinky about this case. And we all know when something's hinky, Velma needs to do an experiment.

Well, maybe when Brad's side gets to present evidence all of your conspiracy theories will be played out by him. Because surely if there is any chance at all that he could point the finger to someone else he would - in fact, it's so funny to me that in all this time Brad never once said he suspected anyone in their circle, in their neighborhood, in their friends, in his co-workers. If he knew, as the defense says and the group of SODDI on here say, that he was targeted from day one by the police then don't you know he'd be throwing anybody under the bus that had a remote chance of having done this to Nancy. No, he cooked up the stranger abduction/rapist/killer story before he dumped the body, hence the sports bra and running story, and he had to stick with it from then on out. He said she went running - therefore stranger had to have done it. He made a veiled attempt at a slight chance of suspicion on CC, but that didn't float past the first minute. She was accounted for at 7 a.m. apparently with an alibi. If he or his defense team have any minute, teeny, tiny, obscure piece of evidence that someone they knew did this to Nancy they will shout it from the top of the courthouse when they have their turn. I'll wait on it, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[sunshine05]

Ok so I was looking back over the affidavits for this trial and several things really bothered me but one really stuck out in my mind. Why did Michael Morwick give two very different statements in 2 different affidavits?

I just looked them up and read them and, did I see that correctly that they both have the same date? (7/23/08)

It makes no sense to write two documents that completely contradict each other! And I thought it was interesting that M and NC went on vacation together without C and BC. That is so odd.