DP Hearing Dec 5/08

[raisincharlie]

An aggravating factor to me would be that two small children remmotherless, but that's just my opinion.

I wonder if Nancy's family has any input like in California.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Hearing like this - maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. Would the defense be able to argue? And if so, how can they argue say mitigation (duress) when there hasn't even been a trial.

Hi Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

If I understand the Rule 24 Hearing procedure - there is no argument, the prosecutor uses this to announce if they intend to seek the death penalty. This is followed up later by another hearing in which both sides are allowed to argue the merits/demerits before a judge.

 

[SleuthyGal]

An aggravating factor to me would be that two small children remmotherless, but that's just my opinion.

I wonder if Nancy's family has any input like in California.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Hearing like this - maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. Would the defense be able to argue? And if so, how can they argue say mitigation (duress) when there hasn't even been a trial.

This is for the prosecution to decide whether they will go for the DP as part of their charges and this hearing is for them to discuss, legally. Nothing for the defense to do at this point. The defense doesn't get a say in whether charges are brought or not.

 

[jilly]

Hi Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

If I understand the Rule 24 Hearing procedure - there is no argument, the prosecutor uses this to announce if they intend to seek the death penalty. This is followed up later by another hearing in which both sides are allowed to argue the merits/demerits before a judge.

Backatcha RC!:blowkiss: Thanks to you and SG - I got it now!

SG - Thanks for your response on #6. I see your point but I don't know whether that would be considered in this case. It seems like it might have been intended for something like monetary gain as in life insurance/ inheritance etc. In this particular case it would be like saying he murdered his wife to avoid a potential divorce settlement.

 

[raisincharlie]

Backatcha RC!:blowkiss: Thanks to you and SG - I got it now!

SG - Thanks for your response on #6. I see your point but I don't know whether that would be considered in this case. It seems like it might have been intended for something like monetary gain as in life insurance/ inheritance etc. In this particular case it would be like saying he murdered his wife to avoid a potential divorce settlement.

Jilly,

I see this as having potential. In Brad's deposition he claimed he could not financially accomodate the values presented in the agreement. Also all he did was whine about all the debt Nancy incurred. Would he not be gaining financially if Nancy was no longer on the planet ? She could not spend his money, he would not have to pay money determined by others to her to support his children - he could keep all his money right in his little pocket. Could this be considered a financial gain ? I think a case could be made for such.

 

[AmarilloByAM]

Number 9 scares me, I keep wondering if it is true that Bella saw her Mum that morning as was posted on a blog. I truly hope not.

My stomach sank when I just ready Number 9. Thinking about those girls when they are old enough to understand how they lost their mother is almost too much.

 

[raisincharlie]

My stomach sank when I just ready Number 9. Thinking about those girls when they are old enough to understand how they lost their mother is almost too much.

I keep thinking about that post about Bella, then I think about the Ex Parte for custody being granted with no input from LE and very little actual reality - sure makes me wonder.

 

[sunflowers]

I keep thinking about that post about Bella, then I think about the Ex Parte for custody being granted with no input from LE and very little actual reality - sure makes me wonder.

yes. i wondered, too. and think it's likely. it's one of the few things that would make a judge so quickly completely grant temp custody to an extended family member out of the country without input from LE or any real facts about anything.

it just doesn't happen like that, so there's something here that we don't know about. something persuasive and convincing, and it's not from LE or from hearsay about suicide attempts etc

 

[Star12]

http://www.canada.com/news/canada/story.html?id=925399

"Asked if Mr. Cooper's Canadian citizenship would be a factor in whether the prosecution pursues a capital case, Mr. Cummings said: "Not at this point, anyway -- it's not an issue for me."

Until last fall, any Canadian facing a death sentence in another country could have relied on the Canadian government's help in avoiding execution. But last October, the Conservative government -- in response to the case of an Alberta-born killer, Ronald Smith, on death row in Montana -- revealed that it would no longer seek clemency for Canadians facing execution in democratic countries, such as the United States."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This seems to answer the Canadian stance on the DP in the US.

 

[jilly]

http://www.canada.com/news/canada/story.html?id=925399

"Asked if Mr. Cooper's Canadian citizenship would be a factor in whether the prosecution pursues a capital case, Mr. Cummings said: "Not at this point, anyway -- it's not an issue for me."

Until last fall, any Canadian facing a death sentence in another country could have relied on the Canadian government's help in avoiding execution. But last October, the Conservative government -- in response to the case of an Alberta-born killer, Ronald Smith, on death row in Montana -- revealed that it would no longer seek clemency for Canadians facing execution in democratic countries, such as the United States."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This seems to answer the Canadian stance on the DP in the US.

Not for me Star. This article was in the Calgary Herald which I posted at the beginning of this thread. If you read the paragraphs after your quote, it doesn't seem clear at all.....at least to me.

 

[Star12]

Not for me Star. This article was in the Calgary Herald which I posted at the beginning of this thread. If you read the paragraphs after your quote, it doesn't seem clear at all.....at least to me.

Why, so you did, Jilly. Sorry. I only noticed it in the stickies threads.

However, the article also says:

"But during a September court hearing in Smith's lawsuit over the new policy the government's lawyer clarified Canada's official stance, saying the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country."

The ambiguity had arising about whether it would apply to only mass or multiple murderers and would be applied on a case to case basis, however the government's attorney said "the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country".

I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[jilly]

Jilly,

I see this as having potential. In Brad's deposition he claimed he could not financially accomodate the values presented in the agreement. Also all he did was whine about all the debt Nancy incurred. Would he not be gaining financially if Nancy was no longer on the planet ? She could not spend his money, he would not have to pay money determined by others to her to support his children - he could keep all his money right in his little pocket. Could this be considered a financial gain ? I think a case could be made for such.

I see your point RC and maybe you're right.
Thing is.....I don't think he murdered for financial gain so to speak. The terms of the separation had not been settled. I think he simply went into a rage and boiled over. He had lost control of her.

 

[raisincharlie]

I see your point RC and maybe you're right.
Thing is.....I don't think he murdered for financial gain so to speak. The terms of the separation had not been settled. I think he simply went into a rage and boiled over. He had lost control of her.

Hi Jilly

I'm thinking ADA Cummings can make a case for it using Brad's own words. All he has done is complain about money and Nancy spending it. Would serve him right if his own words come back to be a deciding factor in his punishment.

 

[jilly]

Why, so you did, Jilly. Sorry. I only noticed it in the stickies threads.

However, the article also says:

"But during a September court hearing in Smith's lawsuit over the new policy the government's lawyer clarified Canada's official stance, saying the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country."

The ambiguity had arising about whether it would apply to only mass or multiple murderers and would be applied on a case to case basis, however the government's attorney said "the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country".

I thought that was pretty clear.

Well now that you spell it out for me, it would seem so!:crazy: Still the article's title says that the Cooper case may test the clemency policy so....maybe they're just as confused as me!lol

 

[per_curiam]

Once BC is sentenced, tried, found guilty, what happens with his home and the rest of his estate? Legally, who handles the selling of the home? Will that job go to attorneys or will his parents do it? All of his assets will probably go to paying attorneys, right? Would there be anything left over for his children? Sorry, I'm not a whiz in this department. I know that Google is my friend. You guys are faster than my bumbling trips to Google when it comes to legal. :snail:

 

[raisincharlie]

Once BC is sentenced, tried, found guilty, what happens with his home and the rest of his estate? Legally, who handles the selling of the home? Will that job go to attorneys or will his parents do it? All of his assets will probably go to paying attorneys, right? Would there be anything left over for his children? Sorry, I'm not a whiz in this department. I know that Google is my friend. You guys are faster than my bumbling trips to Google when it comes to legal. :snail:

I would think that if Brad has not already designated someone other than Nancy as an executor he could take the time to do that now or at least assign a Power of Attorney to handle his personal affairs. He has a public defender because he says he can't pay for representation, that tells me he isn't going to be able to hang onto the house and he may have to have someone put it on the market to sell even before he is tried if he can't make the payments. I would think Kurtz is advising him of such matters as it seems to me his chances of getting out on bail at this point are minimal until Dec 5, if the DA goes for the DP, he won't get bail.

 

[per_curiam]

Thanks RC. That's along the lines of what I thought.

Now, to figure out why I can't get into my User Control Panel and other WS account things. That little box is talking to me as if I am not "privileged" to access my own account. I am at a loss. I can post, but not access my account info!

 

[jilly]

Hi Jilly

I'm thinking ADA Cummings can make a case for it using Brad's own words. All he has done is complain about money and Nancy spending it. Would serve him right if his own words come back to be a deciding factor in his punishment.

RC I think you're right.

Unfortunately, this entire tragedy comes down to money no matter how you look at it.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder if Cisco has terminated his employment yet.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC I think you're right.

Unfortunately, this entire tragedy comes down to money no matter how you look at it.

Extremely sick reason, but I agree with you, the biggest issue was money and a man who couldn't adapt.

 

[ncsu95]

I wonder if Cisco has terminated his employment yet.

Well he didn't show up for work this week, so imagine they have.