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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Is it the full walk though? I thought they were just being shown the spot his body was found, more to solidify how impossible it is that the bottom of his socks were clean.
 
It annoys me that Sarah carried Brendan in his pajamas to DJ's apartment so he could what...sleep in the familiar comfort of his sofa chair? If DJ needed a weekend off, just give it to him. Why did he feel so threatened by child support that he couldn't see any other out? I'm not excusing him, but the adults in this situation aren't the greatest, even if DJ is the worst.
 
wswallace1 said:
I think the decision to have the jury walk the route from DJ's house to the creek is very interesting.

The prosecution has called this walk "pivotal" to show the jury how unlikely it would be for a 3 year old to walk the length of the half mile route and to find the secluded path into the woods all by himself. I can see why the defense opposed it, and to my mind it is somewhat problematic legally. First, we do not know the exact route Brendan (alone or with a killer) would have taken, so the jury walk could be misleading if the jury unwittingly walks the wrong route. Second, we don't even know that Brendan got there by foot -- if a killer carried him or took him there by some other means, then the jury walk as an exercise to put themselves "in Brendan's shoes" would again be misleading. The visceral nature of "recreating" the walk could cement a scenario in the jury's minds that simply never happened.

But the jury walk is not without pitfalls for the prosecution either. I have to assume that the walk will take place during daylight hours, not in darkness like it would have been for Brendan. Walking the route in the daylight might make it seem to the jury more navigable and less scary for a small child than it really would have been. Also, the jury of fully grown adults will walk the route using fully adult strides, adult cognition and adult balance/coordination -- not those of a small child. This dichotomy might also give a false impression to the jury that the walk was more manageable for Brendan than it really would have been.

Just my thoughts for today -- all JMO.
Click to expand...

Running behind (again), obviously, but I wanted to thank you for a thought-provoking and excellent post.

Good points -- adults are not, and really can't imitate, a 3 y/o walking through the woods, IMO. Their heads are about 3 -- 4 feet above where his head would have been; day is not night, as you said; and Brendan, if he indeed made the walk by himself (very, very doubtful, IMO), was not being led and/or following someone.
-----------------------------------
​

Also, a BIG :welcome: to our new :cheer:Websleuthers! :cheer:We're glad you're here!
 
SCHMAE said:
Poor baby. How can he get justice without a COD. They need to appeal to the nation and get some more qualified ME to have a look at this.
Click to expand...

Agree with your post 100%.

Damm - never seen this before -- 3 autopsies???

Couldn't the perpetrator have pinched his little nose closed and covered his mouth to suffocate him? Or held a pillow over his face (please, please excuse the graphic words) to suffocate him? Asphyxiation can occur by means other than strangulation.

What a mess. This looks weak, very weak. SMH. What could the jurors be thinking about this?

Certainly "not a natural death" says a lot, but....
 
cattlekate said:
Fuschino asserts DJ wasn't advised of his rights or hired legal representation. Fuschino is trying to get the phone evidence thrown out. But when was Fuschino hired? Was it the day Brendan was found and DJ was at the station speaking to investigators? I assume that first day was also when DJ allowed investigators to look at his phone. If this is true, then then DJ's statements and phone evidence should be thrown out.

Otherwise, if Fuschino wasn't yet retained and DJ was answering questions, showed police his phone, and could leave at anytime, then he didn't have to be notified of Miranda rights.

I guess we'll find out shortly if the phone is in or out. The dumping ground photo, texts and calls to the gf, and snapchat access are the basis for charges of premeditation and motive. But if the phone evidence is disallowed, there doesn't seem to be much of a case.
Click to expand...

This is one big, fat mess. Were these people in a big hurry or what?

Here's a discussion of Miranda that I find helpful. I have only quoted some of it:

[h=3]When The Police Must Read Your Rights
[/h] It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody. Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given at that time. Their vigilance to this rule means less chance of a case being overturned in court due to poor procedure on their part.
If public safety is an issue, questions may be asked without the defendant being Mirandized, and any evidence obtained may be used against the suspect under these circumstances. The Miranda Warning is all about questioning and being protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, not being arrested.
The person arrested must still answer questions asked about their name, age, address, etc. They can be searched in order to protect the police officer. Also, a confession given before a suspect has been read the Miranda Warning may find that confession entered as evidence in court.
Click to expand...

http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
 
I've only gotten through DJ's mom's testimony so far, but I thought it was pretty effective for the prosecution in challenging the theory that he could have walked to the woods on his own: (1) Brendan wouldn't even want to walk the few blocks from his grandma's apartment to DJ's -- they would give him a piggy-back ride or use a wagon -- let alone him deciding to walk a half mile to the woods; (2) Brendan was cold on the short trip over to DJ's the night before he was found missing, suggesting it would have been too cold for him to decide to walk outside later that night in just pajamas and socks; (3) she never saw him leave DJ's house on his own before (only at her house sometimes to play in the backyard, and never at night).

I also felt sorry for her. She looked haunted. She's lost her grandson and her son is facing a lifetime behind bars. She clearly cared for Brendan and whatever faults she may have, she certainly doesn't deserve this.
 
my son and daughter-in-law lived in the downstairs apartment, they are one of the ones that moved out when the new owner bought the building. he (i'm not remembering his name, sorry) mentioned yesterday in his testimony two apartments becoming vacant, theirs was one. the memorial was in front of their former front door. i asked my daughter in law yesterday if she thought that Brendan could have walked to where he was found, and she said "I highly doubt that boy could've walked that distance in that neighborhood by himself without someone noticing." so even though it was dark/night, she thought that someone would have seen him. so how did dj get him to the riverbank without being seen? was there typically no traffic at all? wdyt? moo
 
Is anyone listening to the girlfriends letter or whatever? She seems really evil!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said that while he could not define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." I thought of that line in watching DJ's police interview the day Brendan died, and in particular in watching DJ's reaction to the news. To me it seems like he was acting. I fully accept that everybody reacts to sudden terrible news differently and that there are multiple legitimate ways a person might react in that circumstance. I also fully accept that I am lucky enough not to have experienced or witnessed hearing sudden tragic news in my personal life. But I believe that I -- and most people -- have an intuition about whether someone's reaction to grievous news is genuine or not. It either feels right or it feels wrong -- in other words, like Justice Stewart and obscenity, "I know it when I see it." And I didn't see it in DJ during the police interview.

There is one concrete reason I can describe, which is DJ's failure to react upon being told by the police that they "found" Brendan. I feel like if I was told my missing child was "found," I would immediately -- as in instantaneously -- ask where he is and demand to see him. DJ didn't give any reaction until the police officer, a few seconds later, added the news that Brendan had been found deceased. I think DJ's failure to react until hearing the additional news is because he already knew his son was dead, and was waiting to be told that by police so that he could act out the shocked reaction that he had pre-planned in his mind.

All JMO, of course.
 
strawberry said:
Is anyone listening to the girlfriends letter or whatever? She seems really evil!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

She sounded very self-centered, given the fact that a small child was found dead. There's not one mention of poor Brendan -- only the impact of his death on HER. Very immature, even for a 17 year old. JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 219 (members: 75, guests: 144)

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
144
Total visitors
219
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,637
Messages
18,242,745
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top