custody given to nancy's family

[momto3kids]

I wasn't there of course but I have talked extensively about this with attorneys. I was told there was no legal reason for this judge to take this mans children. I was told it would never happen there was no case law in NC where she could justify it. Glad I live in Ohio.

I didn't hear anything to convince me BC was unfit. As everyone knows I feel he is responsible for NC murder, but nothing was proven in court. I have absolutely no idea what Sasser has seen, heard or knows.

I said since last Thursday he needed to get on the stand the last 2 minutes on the clock, show some emotion and ask for his girl's back. BC didn't have time to answer questions related to the murder this way. Daniels was only for rebuttal. Strategy move like this was needed IMO.

As SG says, we will have to see what she based her ruling on.

 

[garner_nc]

This just in:

The court will next consider whether to imprison BC while the investigation continues... just to "be on the safe side".
When, and if he's cleared, he will be released.

Cool, huh? After all, if it's not appropriate for him to have custody of his own children, how can it be appropriate for him to be moving freely in society?...

I personally think they should just lock him up without him ever being charged, placed on death row, and executed. I don't want someone so dangerous even around the other inmates at Central Prison. The sooner he is gone the better for society. We have to think about their safety too.

So much for Due Process...This has APPEAL overturn written all over it.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I mean, why should the court stop with taking away a few constitutional rights... just take them all!

How do you know constitutional rights were taken away when you don't know what Sasser relied upon to make her ruling? Shouldn't we at least wait to read her full decision ... or was there no decision that would be valid unless she gave back custody to BC?

 

[Anderson]

I think this is a joke. ;-)

Okay, that makes a bit more sense.

 

[ncsu95]

So Judge Sasser used to be an associate for Tharington Smith (the plaintiffs attorney). How is that not a conflict of interest?

 

[RaleighNC]

We should wait until we read her ruling. There has to be SOME merit in her decision - because if there isn't - she'll be crucified by his attorneys.

 

[SleuthyGal]

She'll have to answer to a higher authority for her decision. No, not Hebrew National. But there are higher-level courts. If her decision is not based on applicable case law it will get dealt with.

 

[Anderson]

Guess I must have forgotten the- [sarcasm]...[/sarcasm] brackets in my post above... sorry 'bout that.

Still though... with today's ruling (and this crazy case), even an announcement along these lines wouldn't surprise me...
I mean, why should the court stop with taking away a few constitutional rights... just take them all!

I nearly fell off my chair when I read your post. Very funny.

On the other hand, we still don't know what the Judge used in her ruling. I am frankly not very surprised that the children are going to stay in Canada, given all of the questions that have been raised regarding BC's potential role in NC's death. I suspect that the Judge knows much more than we do. But, IDK.

 

[momto3kids]

We should wait until we read her ruling. There has to be SOME merit in her decision - because if there isn't - she'll be crucified by his attorneys.

Don't expect it too soon by what this says...:waitasec:

per N&O
Details of the custody arrangement were unavailable until the judge signs the final order in the coming weeks.

 

[garner_nc]

She'll have to answer to a higher authority for her decision. No, not Hebrew National. But there are higher-level courts. If her decision is not based on applicable case law it will get dealt with.

I wonder if this has ever happened in NC. Or do you think she is creating her own case law? From other cases I have followed there is usually case law cited in testimony to help support either side. I have not heard any mentioned in this case to "guide" Judge Sasser in her decision. Did MOM or SG hear any?

 

[SleuthyGal]

I guess she probably has up to 30 days to to sign the final order?

 

[jumpstreet]

How do you know constitutional rights were taken away when you don't know what Sasser relied upon to make her ruling? Shouldn't we at least wait to read her full decision ... or was there no decision that would be valid unless she gave back custody to BC?

Hmmm... I didn't realize we had changed the rules to wait until all facts are known in a case before forming any conclusions...
If that's going to the mode-of-operation in general around here, this board might start getting a lot quieter.

 

[Anderson]

I didn't hear anything to convince me BC was unfit. As everyone knows I feel he is responsible for NC murder, but nothing was proven in court. I have absolutely no idea what Sasser has seen, heard or knows.

I said since last Thursday he needed to get on the stand the last 2 minutes on the clock, show some emotion and ask for his girl's back. BC didn't have time to answer questions related to the murder this way. Daniels was only for rebuttal. Strategy move like this was needed IMO.

As SG says, we will have to see what she based her ruling on.

I wonder if that actually played a role in Sasser's decision. I don't know if she can take such things into account in her determination. It may have been better for BC to actually get on the stand. IDK.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder if this has ever happened in NC. Or do you think she is creating her own case law? From other cases I have followed there is usually case law cited in testimony to help support either side. I have not heard any mentioned in this case to "guide" Judge Sasser in her decision. Did MOM or SG hear any?

I do not think she is creating her own case law. She referred to and looked at things in the various books she had while on the bench, throughout the hearing...the lawyers had to cite chapter & verse for their various motions and objections...she looked up a ton of things during the hearing. I'll be very surprised if she was trying to create new case law in the state.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder if that actually played a role in Sasser's decision. I don't know if she can take such things into account in her determination. It may have been better for BC to actually get on the stand. IDK.

Since the burden was on the plaintiffs, I don't think BC getting on the stand or not played a role in her decision--at least I sure hope it didn't factor in. He testified for 7+ hrs in his video dep; she got to look at lots of statements he made, and she also got to compare them side-by-side with written statements he made in his affys. There ARE inconsistencies between and among his various statements. And of course there are inconsistencies between him and the various plaintiff affiants. She'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to at least note and observe some inconsistencies.

 

[Anderson]

Since the burden was on the plaintiffs, I don't think BC getting on the stand or not played a role in her decision. He testified for 7+ hrs in his video dep; she got to look at lots of statements he made, and she also got to compare them side-by-side with written statements he made in his affys. There ARE inconsistencies between and among his various statements. And of course there are inconsistencies between him and the various plaintiff affiants. She'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to at least observe some inconsistencies.

Thanks for the clarification. If that is the case, I wonder if Judge Sasser will actually explain -- at some point in the near future -- that she made her decision based on inconsistencies in Brad's statements and provide examples. I suppose that she may also just cite a general category (e.g., inconsistencies) and not provide examples. It will be very interesting to learn the details.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks for the clarification. If that is the case, I wonder if Judge Sasser will actually explain at some point in the near future that she made her decision based on inconsistencies in Brad's statements and provide examples. I suppose that she may also just cite a general category (e.g., inconsistencies) and not provide examples. It will be very interesting to learn the details.

Those things should be contained in her written ruling; if she doesn't provide details of how she reached her decision, I'll be shocked.

 

[Anderson]

Those things should be contained in her written ruling; if she doesn't provide details of how she reached her decision, I'll be shocked.

Thanks!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hmmm... I didn't realize we had changed the rules to wait until all facts are known in a case before forming any conclusions...
If that's going to the mode-of-operation in general around here, this board might start getting a lot quieter.

Well of course there are no rules--so let me rephrase that I'm curious how you know (or believe) constitutional rights were compromised? Which rights in particular do you think got compromised?

 

[tarheellvr]

Thank God Nancy's girls can remain in Canada where they belong!

I'm not shocked as some of you are regarding the decision. On the contrary, I knew the outcome would be what it is. As I said before, Judge Sasser based her decision on the well being of the girls.

BC didn't have to prove he was a good parent, nor did his parenting skills have to be disproved. The main issue was/is the girls and what home will be more beneficial for their little lives. Judge Sasser did indeed weigh BC's innocence or guilt as this was of major proportion in this case. She obviously feels as I and MANY others feel.......he is guilty as hell.