Testimonies 10/16/08

[momto3kids]

I have 3 questions for you MT3K or SG.

I know you both believe he is 100% guilty. Ignoring your feelings and what we have heard prior to the hearing, was there any evidence presented at the hearing that:

1. Would make a person have a reasonable belief that he killed her? So someone sitting in the courtroom that had never heard of this case, would they leave with a rational and reasonable believe that BC murdered NC.
We did not see or hear much of the admissible evidence Sasser is reviewing, so it isn't possible to answer this with only a portion of the evidence presented.

2. Would show that his daughters would be in danger in his care, or that he was an unfit parent. Dr. Hilkey bothered me with his statements about BC harbouring anger, has detached presence, can use poor judgement, tunnel visioned. But Dr. Ghould felt it was short term based on his current situation.

And lastly, given just what you heard in the courtroom on Thursday (again, try ignoring your bias going into Thursday that you believe him to be 100% guilty), should BC be given custody of his 2 kids. Tough again since we didn't see all the evidence presented that Sasser is reviewing.


I'm honestly looking for your opinions because I wasn't there. This isn't about whether your are right or wrong...I just want your opinion of these questions based solely on the testimony given Thursday.

NCSU95...

If Judge Sasser was making her decision only on what testimony was presented for custody, and not including the possibility of BC having a role in NC murder.... my answer is nothing proved him unfit. Nothing jumped out at me with what was said.
But Sasser is including in her decision BC possible role involving NC death.

Now with that being said I came out feeling more convinced he murdered NC with what I heard at the hearing. I feel they showed MOTIVE. As sad as it was, NC spending (most likely BC too) habits were proved. I personally think he snapped on Friday night when she got home. He admits they fought Friday over money. They produced the 'Bear' painting bill and had Mr Rentz read it to the court. Had him tell cow much he had given to NC thru the years and why. Money was the issue IMO.

As Mr Rentz said, motive=money.

If Sasser feels she has 'motive' for NC murder he won't get the girl's back. If she feels no evidence was shown he is unfit and not strong enough motive was shown, he will get his girl's back.

 

[momto3kids]

I just wish BC had taken the stand to express his LOVE for his girl's. No one has heard him say it one time since NC murder except in his affidavit.

I know some think he didn't so he wouldn't incriminate himself, but he had already done a deposition, a lenghty one at that. If your attorney's feel confident you are innocent and you know you are...take the stand. This was for his girl's.

Not showing any expression or emotion I feel is going to bear some weight on Sasser's decision. IMO it shows his cold side vs affection for his girl's. Express to the court how you love and want them in your life.

Sometimes after a case we hear a juror say, we wanted to hear from the defendant and since they didn't we feel they had something to hide.

 

[Anderson]

I just wish BC had taken the stand to express his LOVE for his girl's. No one has heard him say it one time since NC murder except in his affidavit.

I know some think he didn't so he wouldn't incriminate himself, but he had already done a deposition, a lenghty one at that. If your attorney's feel confident you are innocent and you know you are...take the stand. This was for his girl's.

Not showing any expression or emotion I feel is going to bear some weight on Sasser's decision. IMO it shows his cold side vs affection for his girl's. Express to the court how you love and want them in your life.

Sometimes after a case we hear a juror say, we wanted to hear from the defendant and since they didn't we feel they had something to hide.

:clap:

I also can't get this out of my mind. I feel very strongly that if BC had nothing to hide, then there would be nothing to prevent him from getting on the stand. Perhaps especially because BC is not an emotional guy, it may have been very convincing for him to show some emotion about his girls. I think Brad missed a good opportunity to do this.

I also wonder why one of Brad's family members did not get on the stand (I believe that AS has pointed to this question, which also lingers for me). I thought that his Mother might testify. It might have helped to change perceptions about her ability to help with the children and her current relationship with the girls. I think that was needed, particularly after reading JL's affidavit. I thought that she missed an opportunity to respond to JL's affidavit and I can't figure out why she didn't take it. Perhaps the lawyers didn't think that it was a good idea for one reason or another? What about Brad's Father?

 

[ncsu95]

But BC doesn't have to prove he loves his kids...that wasn't why they were taken away. They were taken away because it was claimed that he was suicidal and the girls were in danger staying with him. So at the hearing, that wasn't proven, so he should get the kids back.

 

[momto3kids]

But BC doesn't have to prove he loves his kids...that wasn't why they were taken away. They were taken away because it was claimed that he was suicidal and the girls were in danger staying with him. So at the hearing, that wasn't proven, so he should get the kids back.

You are correct. He doesn't have to prove his love.

But since it wasn't proven he was suicidal and the girl's were in danger that is MORE reason to take the stand. This might have been his only time to get up there show some emotion then to remain emotionless.

He had only 1 person to sway the decision with, not 12.

The only thing I can think is Det Daniels scarred BC & team to getting on the stand, because he would have been called right after to the stand. But again, if BC is innocent and his team believes in him he has nothing to hide.

Personally I or my husband would be clawing to get on the stand to announce our love for our children. Our eyes would be swollen shut from crying so hard, but I'd testify. Did his coldness hurt him? IDK

 

[Skittles]

Ghould's testimony...defendent witness

Questions given by Sandlin to Dr Ghould
1-Does BC display mental abnormalities? None
2-Any risks to parent children? Not at risk
3-Flight risk? No risk for child abduction
4-Atypical emotion? No. Due to death of wife this is typical response.

BC emotional experiences-withdraw, not overly expressive with emotion
His behavior is consistant behavior now as prior to NC death

In explaining scores he explains state vs traite.
State=short term, currently
Traite=long term

BC state=showing fustration
BC state high, traite low
Dr Ghould explains he has never seen this before. It is total opposite. It always has traite as long term and the higher number, but BC is flipped.

On BC rebuttal affidavit Dr Ghould asked for specific items to back what BC put on his affidavit. BC produced all of it. Cell bills, water bill dates, cc bills, etc.

Is there any reason BC shouldn't get his children? Nothing on the testing I did shows he shouldn't.

Wade Smith cross Ghould..

Only SH would speak to you? Yes, he felt compelled to speak even after he found out about the affair of his wife and BC. He is still angry about it.
SH did say BC will never be the father he is.
SH stated BC was shocked about NC death.
SH says BC shows no emotion.
SH called BC + NC are in a marital contract.

Did you interview NC family? Didn't feel like NC family interview would be helpful with exam-they are too biased.

This was very simple testimony, much not heard, and for some reason Wade Smith didn't push too many questions.

mom, FYI, The doctor's name is spelled Gould. Full name is Jonathan W. Gould. You may want to edit your posts because people may search on that later.

Thanks so much for all the work you've done. I'm reading your posts while taking a break from the deposition index.

 

[raisincharlie]

NCSU95...

If Judge Sasser was making her decision only on what testimony was presented for custody, and not including the possibility of BC having a role in NC murder.... my answer is nothing proved him unfit. Nothing jumped out at me with what was said.
But Sasser is including in her decision BC possible role involving NC death.

Now with that being said I came out feeling more convinced he murdered NC with what I heard at the hearing. I feel they showed MOTIVE. As sad as it was, NC spending (most likely BC too) habits were proved. I personally think he snapped on Friday night when she got home. He admits they fought Friday over money. They produced the 'Bear' painting bill and had Mr Rentz read it to the court. Had him tell cow much he had given to NC thru the years and why. Money was the issue IMO.

As Mr Rentz said, motive=money.

If Sasser feels she has 'motive' for NC murder he won't get the girl's back. If she feels no evidence was shown he is unfit and not strong enough motive was shown, he will get his girl's back.

This seems like a minor detail but I will ask it anyhow. With regards to the receipt for the painting - the Bear- who produced the receipt, Sandlin ? Do you recall if it was such that the person making the purchase had to actually sign and if so whose name was it - Nancy or Brad ? If you know. TIA

Also with respect to your post 718 in the custody hearing part 1 thread - thanks for mentioning that the judge made the comment about having watched BC's deposition tape. Seems to me that Tharrington Smith got in the basics of JWB's affidavit through Dr. Hilkey anyhow.

 

[chauncey7381]

MT3K--Thanks for the notes, I really do appreciate your effort and attendance.

One quick question and followup. Where was Diana Duncan? Did she testify?

Thanks.

 

[momto3kids]

mom, FYI, The doctor's name is spelled Gould. Full name is Jonathan W. Gould. You may want to edit your posts because people may search on that later.

Thanks so much for all the work you've done. I'm reading your posts while taking a break from the deposition index.

Thanks Skittles. I don't know why I put an H in there. My notes have Gould without an H. I guess someone on here had an H in it and I repeated it :waitasec:.

 

[jilly]

Thanks Skittles. I don't know why I put an H in there. My notes have Gould without an H. I guess someone on here had an H in it and I repeated it :waitasec:.

Maybe because of halloween coming up, you've been thinking of ghouls!

 

[Anderson]

But BC doesn't have to prove he loves his kids...that wasn't why they were taken away. They were taken away because it was claimed that he was suicidal and the girls were in danger staying with him. So at the hearing, that wasn't proven, so he should get the kids back.

Court rooms are theatres of a certain sort. My comments in the post above are partly related to the way that BC's lawyers chose to use that forum. I just don't think that it was a very good strategy for BC not to take the opportunity to speak, particularly about his love for his daughters: a missed opportunity.

The decision for BC not to testify may be based on eliminating possible information that would arise if he did. So I am left wondering what is being hidden. I gather that Det. Daniels likely would have been called as a witness, if BC had gone on the stand. I would have been much more convinced that BC had nothing to hide, if the proceedings appeared to be open and transparent. Sometimes, I think, we can learn more from information that is not being discussed, although this is sometimes more difficult or impossible to see.

Of course, the Judge will be privy to quite a lot of information, including the deposition videos. That is probably why the lawyers thought that it would be acceptable not to put BC on the stand. I still think that it would have been more compelling to see BC stand up and speak his piece in front of NC's friends and family. And, I still wonder why his family did not go on the stand, as AS has emphasized.

As far as the suicide issue goes, I think that JD's affidavit will probably be considered by the Judge. JD was privy to information about a suicide threat by Brad; BC was in the car while the conversation about this issue took place and he did not dispute this at the time. I agree that Brad probably will not commit suicide, but the suicide threats are a control mechanism used in abusive relationships (refer to unconvinced thread 1 for a source that discusses this).

 

[Anderson]

Maybe because of halloween coming up, you've been thinking of ghouls!

:crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

The decision for BC not to testify may be based on eliminating possible information that would arise if he did. So I am left wondering what is being hidden.

I agree w/that assessment. Def. a strategic decision to not put BC on that stand. Obviously his lawyers are trying to protect him on the criminal side while straddling that civil/custody side. They sure don't want any detective on the stand where focus on the murder would start taking more shape. It's one thing for the affiants to to all say they feel he did it--a whole other matter if the lead detective says the evidence is leading them to the same conclusion.

 

[ncsu95]

You are correct. He doesn't have to prove his love.

But since it wasn't proven he was suicidal and the girl's were in danger that is MORE reason to take the stand. This might have been his only time to get up there show some emotion then to remain emotionless.

He had only 1 person to sway the decision with, not 12.

The only thing I can think is Det Daniels scarred BC & team to getting on the stand, because he would have been called right after to the stand. But again, if BC is innocent and his team believes in him he has nothing to hide.

Personally I or my husband would be clawing to get on the stand to announce our love for our children. Our eyes would be swollen shut from crying so hard, but I'd testify. Did his coldness hurt him? IDK

Personally, they would have had to arrest me to take away my daughter, and I wouldn't have made an agreement to extend it 3 months either.

 

[ncsu95]

Court rooms are theatres of a certain sort. My comments in the post above are partly related to the way that BC's lawyers chose to use that forum. I just don't think that it was a very good strategy for BC not to take the opportunity to speak, particularly about his love for his daughters: a missed opportunity.

The decision for BC not to testify may be based on eliminating possible information that would arise if he did. So I am left wondering what is being hidden. I gather that Det. Daniels likely would have been called as a witness, if BC had gone on the stand. I would have been much more convinced that BC had nothing to hide, if the proceedings appeared to be open and transparent. Sometimes, I think, we can learn more from information that is not being discussed, although this is sometimes more difficult or impossible to see.

Of course, the Judge will be privy to quite a lot of information, including the deposition videos. That is probably why the lawyers thought that it would be acceptable not to put BC on the stand. I still think that it would have been more compelling to see BC stand up and speak his piece in front of NC's friends and family. And, I still wonder why his family did not go on the stand, as AS has emphasized.

As far as the suicide issue goes, I think that JD's affidavit will probably be considered by the Judge. JD was privy to information about a suicide threat by Brad; BC was in the car while the conversation about this issue took place and he did not dispute this at the time. I agree that Brad probably will not commit suicide, but the suicide threats are a control mechanism used in abusive relationships (refer to unconvinced thread 1 for a source that discusses this).

With regards to him taking the stand...I think if this was in front of a jury, he would have needed to. This was just a judge, and the judge really shouldn't take emotion into the decision.

 

[Anderson]

With regards to him taking the stand...I think if this was in front of a jury, he would have needed to. This was just a judge, and the judge really shouldn't take emotion into the decision.

Someone else will probably know if BC would have had to take the stand if there had been a jury. I am not sure. I do see what you mean: because a jury is not playing a role in the decision, it may not be as important. I believe that BC's lawyers could have made a similiar decision to leave BC off the stand even if there had been a jury. Again, I am not sure, but it seems to me that the Sasser is acting as both Judge and jury in this case. Perhaps SG, RC or others could elaborate or clarify this, as I also have questions.

This hearing still took place in a court room. There was an audience. NC's friends and family were present. BC could be cross examined in front of this audience. I think that it made a big difference that Brad did not take the opportunity to display his affection for his girls in this forum. But, I am probably more concerned about the decision not to put BC on the stand because this was a way to control the information that could be presented in the hearing. I am sure that the Judge noticed all of these things. I have absolutely no idea what role this could play in her determination.

 

[momto3kids]

This seems like a minor detail but I will ask it anyhow. With regards to the receipt for the painting - the Bear- who produced the receipt, Sandlin ? Do you recall if it was such that the person making the purchase had to actually sign and if so whose name was it - Nancy or Brad ? If you know. TIA

Also with respect to your post 718 in the custody hearing part 1 thread - thanks for mentioning that the judge made the comment about having watched BC's deposition tape. Seems to me that Tharrington Smith got in the basics of JWB's affidavit through Dr. Hilkey anyhow.

Cross exam notes, so it was Sandlin who had him read it to the court. He was trying to convert the amount in his head from Canadian $ to American $ for the court. He mentioned several amounts, I heard $8K and figures to $9K. Maybe SG can recall the exact amount in US dollars.

I don't remember who signed, but I imagine NC since she was the one who ordered and the one home every day.

In regards to JWB affidavit, Sasser reviewed it during break when the plaintiff's rested their case and had asked for it to be part of their evidence. After break Sasser announced she would not allow it.

Yes, Hilkey got his say in on the JWB affidavit and that can't be ignored.

 

[momto3kids]

MT3K--Thanks for the notes, I really do appreciate your effort and attendance.

One quick question and followup. Where was Diana Duncan? Did she testify?

Thanks.

Your most welcome. I am happy I was able to do it with SG. I think we all want what is in the best interest of Bella & Katie.

I expected to see DD and the Morwicks present, but neither families were there. Since NC's friends weren't subpoenaed, I expect they didn't want to be present to hear HP bombshell.

 

[rwesafe]

I agree that Brad probably will not commit suicide, but the suicide threats are a control mechanism used in abusive relationships (refer to unconvinced thread 1 for a source that discusses this).

I still don't see how he is considered controlling? Her dad had to tighten the purse strings and said in a court of law that it seemed reasonable given her spending habits that BC needed to as well. So we can see that there was reason to put her on an allowance. So how is this controlling an abusive?$300 a week is hardly a measly amount of money to purchase food and incidentals with.

Beyond the money thing, that even her father had to reign in, she had tons of freedom. She vacationed with friends, ran, stayed out late with the girls, took vacations with her family....where exactly is this abusive control? She had the most expensive clothes, cars, jewelry, art....cell phone....

Additionally, I think it is safe to say that NC exaggerated a bit because I truly don't think her friends had any idea about their debt. I think NC was ashamed of it and tried to make it seem like BC was trying to control the finances because it is just a bit too humiliating to tell the jones' that you can no longer keep up.

As far as the suicide thing...Perhaps after he fessed up about the affair he made a comment to the effect that it was a stupid mistkae and I could just kill myself for being so stupid....an off handed comment that was again delivered to her friends with more exaggeration than merit. I hear lot's of people use that off handed remark when they make a stupid mistake....Heck, I myself say it all the time...I better quit it...just in case .Two doctors stated that he was not suicidal.

 

[rwesafe]

Cross exam notes, so it was Sandlin who had him read it to the court. He was trying to convert the amount in his head from Canadian $ to American $ for the court. He mentioned several amounts, I heard $8K and figures to $9K. Maybe SG can recall the exact amount in US dollars.

8 or 9k for interior house paint?