Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[raisincharlie]

I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room. IF BC isn't guilty
it doesn't seem like the justice system is serving him very well.
If you google Judge Deborah Sasser it looks like she's been wrong before.

I think if this goes to a hearing - the Detective's testimony will be the key in Judge Sasser's decision. Since he is the one privy to the investigation and its status, I see his testimony as serving the issue well. It isn't about serving Brad well - it is about serving two little girls well.

 

[jumpstreet]

That's my question.

Why is she handling the elephant?

Yeah, I don't know. I think it's called (wanting to) have the cake and eat it too:

LE isn't wanting to name him a suspect or POI... and (presumably for some valid reasons) don't want to explicitly clear him.

Custody judge is wanting to (be able to) say "because there seems to be reason to believe you may have killed your wife, I'm going to err on the side of the kids well-being, and take them from you".

If the elephant at all ends up being a basis... then I would wonder if social services couldn't come and take away JY's tomorrow (on the same basis).

 

[jumpstreet]

I think if this goes to a hearing - the Detective's testimony will be the key in Judge Sasser's decision. Since he is the one privy to the investigation and its status, I see his testimony as serving the issue well. It isn't about serving Brad well - it is about serving two little girls well.

Will be interesting to see if the detective can testify in such a way that it convinces the judge, without tipping off BC's attorneys with information they wouldn't otherwise have. Presumably defendants will be able to cross-examine, and ask him to share all the information and details of the investigation. Can he refuse to answer the questions on the basis that it might undermine an active investigation?

 

[raisincharlie]

Will be interesting to see if the detective can testify in such a way that it convinces the judge, without tipping off BC's attorneys with information they wouldn't otherwise have. Presumably plaintiffs will be able to cross-examine, and ask him to share all the information and details of the investigation. Can he refuse to answer the questions on the basis that it might undermine an active investigation?

I think there is one simple question that can be asked of this detective and the only one that needs to be asked:

After three months of investigation into the murder of Nancy Cooper - is LE able to clear Brad of any and all involvelment in the murder of Nancy Cooper - yes or no.

 

[jmflu]

You are meeting M and SG on the court steps at 9am. I want a full report!

I am?! (I better call in to work quick, then...)

 

[SleuthyGal]

I think there is one simple question that can be asked of this detective and the only one that needs to be asked:

After three months of investigation into the murder of Nancy Cooper - is LE able to clear Brad of any and all involvelment in the murder of Nancy Cooper - yes or no.

That would be the salient question. But does that give her enough for a 'preponderance of evidence' in and of itself?

 

[Star12]

What does that mean exactly? (Sorry (and thankfully I guess) - don't fully understand how custody battles work).

Under what circumstances are 'temporary custody' typically awarded?
Why wouldn't tomorrow's hearing be to decide permanent custody?
Does that mean that even after tomorrow, there will need to be another hearing to decide permanent custody?

Custody is always temporary.

 

[raisincharlie]

That would be the salient question. But does that give her enough for a 'preponderance of evidence' in and of itself?

It doesn't say Brad is cleared of involvement if the detective says no. Isn't that what the judge must decide ? To me it speaks for itself, throw in whatever Tharrington Smith and company has come up with and the judge certainly has more information than she had when she signed the original Ex Parte for temp custody. If K & B wants to open more questioning beyond that - so be it.

 

[jumpstreet]

It doesn't say Brad is cleared of involvement if the detective says no. Isn't that what the judge must decide ? To me it speaks for itself, throw in whatever Tharrington Smith and company has come up with and the judge certainly has more information than she had when she signed the original Ex Parte for temp custody. If K & B wants to open more questioning beyond that - so be it.

If he answers 'no' to the question in your earlier post (they cannot clear him after 3 months), how do you suppose he will respond to this question from K&B: "Do you consider BC a suspect or person-of-interest in the murder investigation?"

 

[SleuthyGal]

It doesn't say Brad is cleared of involvement if the detective says no. Isn't that what the judge must decide ? To me it speaks for itself, throw in whatever Tharrington Smith and company has come up with and the judge certainly has more information than she had when she signed the original Ex Parte for temp custody. If K & B wants to open more questioning beyond that - so be it.

Does not being cleared (yet) = responsible for the murder? I guess if it's a temporary situation the judge can decide better safe than sorry and do another temporary stint.

 

[jmflu]

What is, actually, the purpose in declaring someone "a person of interest?"

 

[SleuthyGal]

You are meeting M and SG on the court steps at 9am. I want a full report!

???? hmroo?

 

[SleuthyGal]

What is, actually, the purpose in declaring someone "a person of interest?"

The term was started after the Richard Jewel case (and resultant lawsuit)...it gives the police and the media a way to describe someone who is being looked at but they are not calling them a 'suspect' which has some legal implications.

 

[raisincharlie]

If he answers 'no' to the question in your earlier post (not cleared), how do you suppose he will respond to this question from K&B: "Do you consider BC a suspect or person-of-interest in the murder investigation?"

I don't think such a question will be allowed. The detective has sworn to inconsistencies - which an argument can be made is the root cause of why Brad cannot be ruled out, if of course the answer is no. It is already known that no suspect or person of interest has been named - this would be the answer given were such question allowed. Again, this answer does not rule Brad out.

 

[jumpstreet]

What is, actually, the purpose in declaring someone "a person of interest?"

I've lost sight of it actually. Some time ago, there was considerable discussion on why LE often goes out of their way to not expicltly "name" someone a suspect or POI, and therefore, little can be read into them not doing so. My observation is it seems almost random when they do/don't, but I assume there's some rhyme or reason to it.

In this case though, it would seem that LE has gone out of their way to not explicitly name him (or any) suspects or POIs (when it's obviously from all the custody affidavits that they are clearly interested in him).

Perhaps tomorrow, when/if the detective gets on the stand, LE will at least dismiss with that superficial facade.

 

[Bob&Bob]

I think if this goes to a hearing - the Detective's testimony will be the key in Judge Sasser's decision. Since he is the one privy to the investigation and its status, I see his testimony as serving the issue well. It isn't about serving Brad well - it is about serving two little girls well.

I thought it was supposed to be about justice and fairness.

It always seems like it's just a game.

 

[jumpstreet]

I don't think such a question will be allowed. The detective has sworn to inconsistencies - which an argument can be made is the root cause of why Brad cannot be ruled out, if of course the answer is no. It is already known that no suspect or person of interest has been named - this would be the answer given were such question allowed. Again, this answer does not rule Brad out.

You're kidding, right!?

You think that the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask him if he can clear BC or not... and yet the defendants (on cross), won't be allowed to ask him if he considers BC a suspect/person-of-interest?

The question isn't "have you named a suspect or POI... the question is... do you consider BC a suspect/POI"... so responding "we haven't named a suspect/POI"... (if the question is allowed, and I certainly can't see why it wouldn't be), I would think would be considered non-responsive on the part of the detective.

What th'...

 

[raisincharlie]

Does not being cleared (yet) = responsible for the murder? I guess if it's a temporary situation the judge can decide better safe than sorry and do another temporary stint.

It means there is something in the evidence that indicates he could be involved - otherwise LE could say yes he was cleared.

 

[Star12]

As for the elephant........ All parties involved know about it. It would be very strange for the judge to not know about it. It really can't be tried tomorrow, in a civil court custody hearing, but that big ole' gray elephant can't help but be noticed there in the courtroom. Should the elephant be considered in the custody hearing? It shouldn't. But then again, there it is taking up all that space, and if it weren't for the elephant, and how it came to be, there wouldn't be any hearing at all.

As far as the "closed door session" it's always best if the parties can work things out prior to trial. More can be said and discussed and compromises made behind those closed doors whereas in a courtroom setting there is no discussion, no compromises. It's really the best way, IMO.

 

[Star12]

If he answers 'no' to the question in your earlier post (they cannot clear him after 3 months), how do you suppose he will respond to this question from K&B: "Do you consider BC a suspect or person-of-interest in the murder investigation?"

By saying, "He has not been named a POI or a suspect. This is an on-going investigation, and forensic tests are not yet back".