Testimonies 10/16/08

[ncsu95]

The sense I got during the hearing is that Nancy felt so helpless during that last trip w/her family because she really wanted to leave and be able to bring the kids with her and she cried that she couldn't because the passports were hidden. THAT is the testimony that was given during the hearing.

It sounds like the Rentz' could have gotten her out of her home (meaning they could probably afford to help her out financially), but she & the girls were trapped due to the passport issue.

Whether or not people agree that she was controlled or not, she said to her family and others that she felt trapped--that was her state of mind the last couple weeks of her life.

And it's true that Brad took both passports and hid them (in his office at Cisco, where he went to retrieve them after her disappearance). Nancy could not leave and take the girls with her--not without their passports. That is not disputed.

That's true. But NC did not have a right to take their children and leave the country. She didn't. I was doing business in Ottawa a few years ago and decided to fly my wife and daughter up for the weekend. I had to sign a letter giving my wife permission to take my daughter out of the country. She didn't have the right to do it without my consent. And that is the way it should be.

 

[ncsu95]

I completely agree with you. I think he went too far when he took the passports.

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

If this was a divorce case and not a murder case, would you feel the same way? Again, I would do the exact same thing if I was in the same situation. Without hesitation or guilt.

 

[ncsu95]

Actually, reading thru these posts, it's sinking in just how in control of the situation BC was. NC and the girls spent a week with her family, then she let them leave for Canada without her. As awful as her situation was, she obviously decided to hang in there thru whatever else she'd have to go thru to end things with him. She was extremely unhappy, but he was running the show.

I guess I'm trying to say something had to happen to change who had the power for him to get to the point of murdering her. His control was working-she was still there although wanting desperately to leave. He would have had no reason to do ANYTHING other than what he was already doing. It was working.

He did not take her passport. She was free to leave the country at any time. She was not free to take his kids and leave the country. And again, I would have done the exact same thing.

 

[ncsu95]

It really seems to me that the main strategy used by Brad's lawyers was to control the information that would be admitted. That included Brad not testifying, so that there was no chance that additional information would come out. Some of that information may have possibly connected BC to the murder.

I hope that there is a way for the Judge to consider all of the information that she has in front of her. At least we know that the deposition videos are being considered.

He did a 7 hour deposition...how on earth could any additional information come out in the custody hearing that was limited overall to less than 7 hours. I doubt there is additional information outside of what CPD may or may not have. But again, he did a 7 hour deposition.

 

[ncsu95]

Thanks Mt3K - see this is the problem I have - if this painting was ordered,(internet maybe?), then who can say for sure that it was Nancy who ordered it ? Nancy's not here to answer that question, all we have is Brad's say so. Brad says Nancy always ran with two sports bras too, but only one was reported as being on her body prior to the autopsy. Brad is not so believable.

The JWB affidavit, and Dr. Hilkey saying it was consistent with his findings is huge - long time problem. Thanks

So he isn't believable because he said she ran with 2 sports bras but was only found with 1? He also didn't say she ran naked in just a sports bra. What point would there be in lying about how many sports bras she wore? That doesn't make sense.

 

[raisincharlie]

One possible hint to that is in the separation agreement it was Nancy who was getting that particular Bear painting, along with some others as well. Since it was her attorney who drew up the agreement, I'm assuming she asked for the paintings she really wanted/liked.

This is true. But I still find it laughable, that during a custody hearing concerning the best interests of two little girls, that this discussion over a painting in the court room is even considered relelvant for Brad's lawyers. If nothing else it shows that this painting and the money associated with it does indeed go into the plus column toward the identification of motive with respect to murder. Don't know how long ago this painting was purchased, but apparently it is still an aggravation...:crazy:

 

[raisincharlie]

So he isn't believable because he said she ran with 2 sports bras but was only found with 1? He also didn't say she ran naked in just a sports bra. What point would there be in lying about how many sports bras she wore? That doesn't make sense.

Sorry you missed the point.

 

[rwesafe]

Sorry you missed the point.

I missed it too. I believe what he actually said was, it was not unusual for her to wear two sports bras...but I could be wrong....

 

[rwesafe]

So he isn't believable because he said she ran with 2 sports bras but was only found with 1? He also didn't say she ran naked in just a sports bra. What point would there be in lying about how many sports bras she wore? That doesn't make sense.

:clap:

 

[SleuthyGal]

This is true. But I still find it laughable, that during a custody hearing concerning the best interests of two little girls, that this discussion over a painting in the court room is even considered relelvant for Brad's lawyers. If nothing else it shows that this painting and the money associated with it does indeed go into the plus column toward the identification of motive with respect to murder. Don't know how long ago this painting was purchased, but apparently it is still an aggravation...:crazy:

A $9K painting would still be an aggravation to me too! Not enough for murder...but...I think they were trying to show that Nancy was a spendthrift, purchased the painting without Brad's permission, and it could not be returned and she lived to tell about it (for awhile anyway).

That fact that no witnesses took the stand who could actually comment on the murder investigation, Brad's status as a suspect, and Brad himself did not take the stand is a big clue that there was a lot of :chicken: being played in that courtroom. No one wanted to 'go there' first.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It's pretty pathetic that a parent had to give money to a couple that had taxable income last year of $170k.

I'd like to know what BC spent on his various activities...Ironman, etc. I agree that their spending habits were far beyond what they could afford.

 

[jilly]

That's true. But NC did not have a right to take their children and leave the country. She didn't. I was doing business in Ottawa a few years ago and decided to fly my wife and daughter up for the weekend. I had to sign a letter giving my wife permission to take my daughter out of the country. She didn't have the right to do it without my consent. And that is the way it should be.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with the law.

Some of us discussed this eons ago - yes, Nancy would have needed written consent from BC as well as the passports, if flying and consent and birth certificates (possibly) if driving. I think we can safely assume that even if she did have the passports, he wouldn't have accomodated with his consent.
I've always found it strange that they both seemed to have an issue about the passports. Maybe neither of them knew that BC had to consent as well? Or maybe, she was going to gamble in getting through Canada Customs without his consent. Sometimes Canada Customs seems to be more interested in collecting tax than other matters of importance. That's jmo.

 

[raisincharlie]

A $9K painting would still be an aggravation to me too! Not enough for murder...but...I think they were trying to show that Nancy was a spendthrift, purchased the painting without Brad's permission, and it could not be returned and she lived to tell about it (for awhile anyway).

That fact that no witnesses took the stand who could actually comment on the murder investigation, Brad's status as a suspect, and Brad himself did not take the stand is a big clue that there was a lot of :chicken: being played in that courtroom. No one wanted to 'go there' first.

Considering that Mr. Rentz agreed that Nancy needed control with spending, I do not understand being petty enough to continue arguing it given the focus of the hearing being an issue of custody. All it shows to me is confirmation of a potential motive - Nancy didn't obey, Nancy spent too much of Brad's money. What I fail to see is how this argument makes Brad appear to be deserving of having his children returned to him. :crazy:

 

[ncsu95]

Sorry you missed the point.

I believe you were saying that he isn't believable because he said she ran in 2 sports bras but was only found in 1. Was that not your point?

 

[ncsu95]

I'd like to know what BC spent on his various activities...Ironman, etc. I agree that their spending habits were far beyond what they could afford.

Yep...and just to be clear, I said couple because they both spent like drunken congressmen.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Considering that Mr. Rentz agreed that Nancy needed control with spending, I do not understand being petty enough to continue arguing it given the focus of the hearing being an issue of custody. All it shows to me is confirmation of a potential motive - Nancy didn't obey, Nancy spent too much of Brad's money. What I fail to see is how this argument makes Brad appear to be deserving of having his children returned to him. :crazy:

You're right. It neither proves nor disproves Brad's fitness as a parent. It's not even in the ballpark. And yet...valuable court time was spent on those questions by the defense.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yep...and just to be clear, I said couple because they both spent like drunken congressmen.

LOL. They both should have been turned over Dave Ramsey's knee for a (financial) spanking.

 

[ncsu95]

LOL. They both should have been turned over Dave Ramsey's knee for a (financial) spanking.

It's like Latrell Sprewell (ex-NBA player) that refused a $21 Million dollar contract because he said he had to feed his family.


I know this is off topic, but it's funny (and he never got another contract):


The contract battle between the Minnesota Timberwolves and Latrell Sprewell heated up yesterday as Sprewell refused to feed his family until his contractual demands are met. The 34-year-old forward is in the last year of his deal and looking for an extension worth around $14 million per year. He claimed that any less would prevent him from feeding his family.

“I told you I needed to feed my family,” Sprewell said at a press conference yesterday. “They offered me 3 years at $21 million. That’s not going to cut it. And I’m not going to sit here and continue to give my children food while this front office takes money out of my pocket. If [owner Glen] Taylor wants to see my family fed, he better cough up some money. Otherwise, you’re going to see these kids in one of those Sally Struthers commercials soon.”

 

[Anderson]

If this was a divorce case and not a murder case, would you feel the same way? Again, I would do the exact same thing if I was in the same situation. Without hesitation or guilt.

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

IMO

 

[ncsu95]

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

IMO

If this were a divorce case instead of a murder case, would you find it reasonable that the husband took the passports to prevent his wife from taking his kids and leaving the country?

Take BC out of it and put whoever you want in. Is the action alone a reasonable action in a divorce situation?