GUILTY NJ - Brendan Creato, 3, found dead in Cooper River Park, 13 Oct 2015

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Thanks Vail for your detailed summary of the testimony! I don't always have time to watch or catch up and I truly appreciate it.

:yourock:
 
Since we have a whole trial ahead of us, does anyone know who I could get in touch with to let know that the acoustics of the live stream is so bad and it's so hard to hear? I mean what's the point of live-streaming it if it is so hard to hear? Bringing cameras in and recording everything when a lot of it can't be understood?
 
According to media reports, the ex-girlfriend, Julie Stensky, will be called to testify tomorrow in the prosecution's case. It also appears that she may plead the fifth, unless offered immunity. It sounds like that issue will be resolved via the judge away from the jury and before the trial resumes.

I am expecting the prosecution to offer her immunity, since she is not who they are going after and has a solid alibi for the overnight hours Brendan went missing. If she is offered immunity, she will have to testify. The fifth amendment is based on fear of future prosecution, which obviously will no longer be a concern if she gets immunity from prosecution. A hostile Julie on the stand will be fascinating testimony!

But, if she does not get immunity and pleads the fifth, that alone could be damaging to DJ's case. People often mistakenly think that witnesses only plead the fifth because they are guilty of something that they do not want to reveal. In this case the jury could think that Julie pleading the fifth means she knows something about Brendan's murder that she isn't letting on -- like she either helped plot it or helped cover it up after the fact. If the jury makes that assumption based on Julie's fifth amendment plea, DJ is sunk.

But innocent people do have reason to plead the fifth. You are allowed to plead it if you have a reasonable belief that your testimony could be used by a prosecutor against you, even if the prosecutor would be erroneous to do so. In other words, based on how the prosecution has already vilified her as being DJ's motive to kill his son, it is reasonable, IMO, for Julie to think that testifying about her dislike of kids, and Brendan in particular, could be used as evidence that she was an accessory to murder -- even if it is 100% true that she had absolutely no knowledge of a crime against Brendan either before or after it allegedly happened. For this reason, if Julie does plead the fifth, the judge will likely instruct the jury that they should not make any negative inference from that. I am somewhat skeptical, however, that this instruction is very effective.

It should be an interesting morning!
 
wswallace1 said:
According to media reports, the ex-girlfriend, Julie Stensky, will be called to testify tomorrow in the prosecution's case. It also appears that she may plead the fifth, unless offered immunity. It sounds like that issue will be resolved via the judge away from the jury and before the trial resumes.

I am expecting the prosecution to offer her immunity, since she is not who they are going after and has a solid alibi for the overnight hours Brendan went missing. If she is offered immunity, she will have to testify. The fifth amendment is based on fear of future prosecution, which obviously will no longer be a concern if she gets immunity from prosecution. A hostile Julie on the stand will be fascinating testimony!

But, if she does not get immunity and pleads the fifth, that alone could be damaging to DJ's case. People often mistakenly think that witnesses only plead the fifth because they are guilty of something that they do not want to reveal. In this case the jury could think that Julie pleading the fifth means she knows something about Brendan's murder that she isn't letting on -- like she either helped plot it or helped cover it up after the fact. If the jury makes that assumption based on Julie's fifth amendment plea, DJ is sunk.

But innocent people do have reason to plead the fifth. You are allowed to plead it if you have a reasonable belief that your testimony could be used by a prosecutor against you, even if the prosecutor would be erroneous to do so. In other words, based on how the prosecution has already vilified her as being DJ's motive to kill his son, it is reasonable, IMO, for Julie to think that testifying about her dislike of kids, and Brendan in particular, could be used as evidence that she was an accessory to murder -- even if it is 100% true that she had absolutely no knowledge of a crime against Brendan either before or after it allegedly happened. For this reason, if Julie does plead the fifth, the judge will likely instruct the jury that they should not make any negative inference from that. I am somewhat skeptical, however, that this instruction is very effective.

It should be an interesting morning!
Click to expand...

You are right this could be very interesting testimony or maybe no testimony. If Julie decides to testify and is a hostile witness it could very well back fire for DJ if she is not careful. It may not matter to her though. I guess we shall see. I will not be able to watch it live darn it.
 
mothwings said:
Since we have a whole trial ahead of us, does anyone know who I could get in touch with to let know that the acoustics of the live stream is so bad and it's so hard to hear? I mean what's the point of live-streaming it if it is so hard to hear? Bringing cameras in and recording everything when a lot of it can't be understood?
Click to expand...

Many of the audio/video recordings are poor quality period and were also hard for the jury. They receive transcripts so have clearer access to the information. The recordings still must be played in court for the record, bad or not. I imagine once the trial is over the media will get those transcripts and can report on them more clearly. I am still quite impressed by some of the details the reporters caught that I couldn't, even rewatching some parts, so I think being there in person is better. They don't have to care how well you or I can hear it but sending a tweet to @courtchatter couldn't hurt.
 
wswallace1 said:
According to media reports, the ex-girlfriend, Julie Stensky, will be called to testify tomorrow in the prosecution's case. It also appears that she may plead the fifth, unless offered immunity. It sounds like that issue will be resolved via the judge away from the jury and before the trial resumes.

I am expecting the prosecution to offer her immunity, since she is not who they are going after and has a solid alibi for the overnight hours Brendan went missing. If she is offered immunity, she will have to testify. The fifth amendment is based on fear of future prosecution, which obviously will no longer be a concern if she gets immunity from prosecution. A hostile Julie on the stand will be fascinating testimony!

But, if she does not get immunity and pleads the fifth, that alone could be damaging to DJ's case. People often mistakenly think that witnesses only plead the fifth because they are guilty of something that they do not want to reveal. In this case the jury could think that Julie pleading the fifth means she knows something about Brendan's murder that she isn't letting on -- like she either helped plot it or helped cover it up after the fact. If the jury makes that assumption based on Julie's fifth amendment plea, DJ is sunk.

But innocent people do have reason to plead the fifth. You are allowed to plead it if you have a reasonable belief that your testimony could be used by a prosecutor against you, even if the prosecutor would be erroneous to do so. In other words, based on how the prosecution has already vilified her as being DJ's motive to kill his son, it is reasonable, IMO, for Julie to think that testifying about her dislike of kids, and Brendan in particular, could be used as evidence that she was an accessory to murder -- even if it is 100% true that she had absolutely no knowledge of a crime against Brendan either before or after it allegedly happened. For this reason, if Julie does plead the fifth, the judge will likely instruct the jury that they should not make any negative inference from that. I am somewhat skeptical, however, that this instruction is very effective.

It should be an interesting morning!
Click to expand...

If she is given immunity, does it prevent her from ever being charged? That would enrage me if we find out she so much as hinted at making Brendan disappear.
 
Vail said:
Many of the audio/video recordin0gs are poor quality period and were also hard for the jury. They receive transcripts so have clearer access to the information. The recordings still must be played in court for the record, bad or not. I imagine once the trial is over the media will get those transcripts and can report on them more clearly. I am still quite impressed by some of the details the reporters caught that I couldn't, even rewatching some parts, so I think being there in person is better. They don't have to care how well you or I can hear it but sending a tweet to @courtchatter couldn't hurt.
Click to expand...

Court Chatter website
DJ Creato stream Court Chatter

Court Chatter Twitter

Vail said:
If she is given immunity, does it prevent her from ever being charged? That would enrage me if we find out she so much as hinted at making Brendan disappear.
Click to expand...

Being given immunity means just that, she can't be charged. Article below talks about what's at stake, very hard to copy so little to keep within TOS.

Ex-girlfriend, who resented son, set to testify Tuesday in Creato murder trial - A hearing, likely about Julie Stensky's possible assertion of the 5th Amendment, expected first - May 01, 2017 - By Kevin C. Shelly - PhillyVoice Staff

But at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Julia “Julie“ Stensky is expected to first appear before Camden County Superior Court Judge John T. Kelley for a hearing alluded to by Assistant Prosecutor Christine Shah at the end of the first week of testimony. The judge is likely to consider if Stensky has a right to forgo testifying by asserting her 5th Amendment privilege which protects against self-incrimination.
Click to expand...

No details of her statement have been revealed, though a long inflammatory social media post she made was read into evidence by a Camden County homicide detective last week.
Click to expand...

J.C. Lore, a former defense attorney and a law professor at Rutgers University-Camden, said the simplest way to address Stensky’s legal position is to offer her immunity.

Generally, he said, persons might be concerned about testifying if their stories had changed since originally speaking with police or if they had any involvement in either a crime or a cover-up.

In most cases, Lore said, an attorney would be allowed to represent a client in such a hearing.

And even if there was an overall agreement reached for her to testify, Stensky's lawyer would still be free to raise her 5th Amendment rights for a specific line of questioning, added Lore.

Failing to testify, having been given immunity, would result in a contempt of court charge.
Click to expand...
 
I can tell already she is being a little bratish! moo

I will be leaving in a few minutes, enjoy this show peeps!
 
Vail said:
If she is given immunity, does it prevent her from ever being charged? That would enrage me if we find out she so much as hinted at making Brendan disappear.
Click to expand...
If she just hinted at making him disappear, that in itself isn't actually a crime is it?
 
Not that it's not abhorrent, just not prosecutable... Sorry if I upset anyone I didn't intend to
 
I've read the summary of this morning's testimony but haven't had a chance to listen to it. It doesn't sound like Julie's testimony was too damning for DJ. Apparently she said he was immature and jealous, but if that alone makes him a murderer than A LOT of teenagers and young adults would be serving life sentences right now! On the positive side for DJ, Julie also apparently testified that he seemed to be trying to be a good dad to Brendan and DJ told her on multiple occasions that, despite Julie's wishes, Brendan would always be a part of his life.

But to me, I just haven't heard of a plausible scenario for Brendan's death other than DJ. Even DJ, according to his lawyer, does not believe that Brendan walked to the creek on his own. That means DJ thinks his son was murdered. But what plausible scenario is there for a killer other than DJ? The large majority of child murders are committed by somebody the child knows. Julie was in New York, and no motive has been suggested for any family member other than DJ.

As for a stranger (statistically unlikely to begin with), there is no sign of forced entry or of a robbery, or a motive for a robber to steal Brendan from his sofabed, let alone kill him. The likelihood that Brendan wandered off in the middle of the night, while afraid of the dark, and happened to come across some random child killer coincidentally out for a stroll is wildly far-fetched. That the killer happened to have a stroller with him on the off chance that he might come across a small child wandering alone in the dark sounds ridiculous, and of course the stroller that DJ's lawyer likes to mention didn't even have any of Brendan's DNA on it. And finally, what would the random child killer's motive be? We know Brendan was not sexually abused. If the man killed just for kicks (very rare in and of itself), the odds that he has not committed another similar crime before or since is even more remote. And of course there is no forensic evidence of a stranger having taken Brendan, either in the apartment, at the creek, or on Brendan's body. (There were cigarette butts by the creek, but we know the creek was popular enough to have an actual path run down to it, so that doesn't tell us very much).

We'll have to see what the defense has to say in its case, but in the meantime I'm open to hearing any alternative theories.

All JMO
 
flourish said:
If she just hinted at making him disappear, that in itself isn't actually a crime is it?
Click to expand...

It is a good moral question. I feel if we can convict a girl for urging her boyfriend to commit suicide, or a man for paying someone else to kill his wife, then Julia would be just as responsible for urging DJ to kill his son. I am not sure what the appropriate charge would be, but I don't think a spanking has ever helped her.
 
Vail said:
It is a good moral question. I feel if we can convict a girl for urging her boyfriend to commit suicide, or a man for paying someone else to kill his wife, then Julia would be just as responsible for urging DJ to kill his son. I am not sure what the appropriate charge would be, but I don't think a spanking has ever helped her.
Click to expand...

It's called accomplice liability. If you encourage someone else to commit a crime, and they do, you can face the same punishment as if you did the crime yourself. An important requirement for accomplice liability is that you specifically intended your encouragement to cause your friend to commit the crime. So here, if Julie harangued DJ into killing Brendan, then yes she would be both morally culpable and probably guilty of the murder as an accomplice. However, if she mentioned Brendan dying in a joking or off-hand way and didn't really mean it literally, then that would be morally reprehensible but probably not rise to the level of accomplice murder.
 
Oh, see up thread it said "hinted" at disappearing Brendan. That's different than encouraging, IMO. Like "it sure would be great if we could go out whenever we wanted and not have to worry about a babysitter," is hinting. "You should drown your child in the creek," is encouraging.

Fine lines, I suppose... And for the record, that one young person hasn't been convicted of encouraging the boyfriend's suicide... Yet... She's still on trial unless I missed something... Which is entirely possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 198 more.
Total: 749 (members: 199, guests: 550)

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
550
Total visitors
749
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,435
Messages
18,239,415
Members
234,369
Latest member
Anasazi6
Back
Top