Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[SleuthyGal]

I can't imagine that all the evidence the judge needs to make a determination is available. The psych evaluation/report? Don't those take some time to complete? That's a big piece needed.

 

[momto3kids]

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.

If I hear the question I will be sure to let you know. I will be taking notes on who testifies or what is said. I know the media will hit the highlights of the case, but I believe there will be some interesting statements and questions.

This is all IF it is not settled behind closed doors.

 

[jumpstreet]

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".

Ah... but that would be not answering the question!

Unlike in a presser (and/or presidential debate [sorry, couldn't resist ]), when you can respond in whatever way you want (sensibly or otherwise); when you're on the witness stand, I think you're compelled to answer the question asked. Otherwise, why not just spout jibberish then to any question you're asked that you don't want to answer straightforwardly... [a la Michael Scott in Jan v Dunder Miflin, circa 2008 ]

If he's asked "has BC been named a suspect or POI", then it's fine to respond that way ("no, he hasn't").

However, if he's asked "In your expert opinion, is BC considered or being treated by CPD as if he is a suspect/POI", then responding "he has not been named a suspect/POI" wouldn't make any sense. Presumably the judge (if the question is allowed), would direct the witness to answer the question as asked.

 

[jumpstreet]

I can't imagine that all the evidence the judge needs to make a determination is available. The psych evaluation/report? Don't those take some time to complete? That's a big piece needed.

Even BC, in his depo, said that the final report from the eval he had done wasn't completed yet. No doubt the one he was ordered to complete recently isn't complete yet either.

Hey... just remembering, we have the doctor's private mobile phone number from the depo... we can just call him and ask him. Anyone want to check? Any wagers on how fast that num got changed?

 

[SleuthyGal]

However, if he's asked "In your expert opinion, is BC considered or being treated by CPD as if he is a suspect/POI", then responding "he has not been named a suspect/POI" wouldn't make any sense. Presumably the judge (if the question is allowed), would direct the witness to answer the question as asked.

He can respond that such a determination is not up to him (which might be true) and that the DA and his superiors in LE have not labeled BC as a POI/suspect. That would be a valid response.

 

[raisincharlie]

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'...

Why does everyone ask me if I am kidding or serious ?

I never said the plaintiff's lawyer would be allowed to ask the question, I simply stated it is the relevant question for the judge.

I believe that TS will be limited to questioning related to specifically what was stated in his affidavit. Said affidavit does not contain anything about suspects or persons of interest so why should Brad's lawyers be allowed to ask it ? A line of questioning about inconsistencies is perfectly well in line with what the detective has sworn too. Don't know about you but I don't think that is an area that Brad's lawyers really want to pursue.

 

[jumpstreet]

He can respond that such a determination is not up to him (which might be true) and that the DA and his superiors in LE have not labeled BC as a POI/suspect. That would be a valid response.

K&B: "In your expert opinion, is BC being treated by CPD as a suspect or person-of-interest"
Detective: "That determination is not up to me"

K&B: "Uhhh... judge, a little help with the witness here..."

 

[Anderson]

???? hmroo?

Just joking, based on the posts I read earlier. I hope that one of you will go. But, I'm sure that you will be responsible and go to work.

 

[jumpstreet]

Why does everyone ask me if I am kidding or serious ?

I never said the plaintiff's lawyer would be allowed to ask the question, I simply stated it is the relevant question for the judge.

I believe that TS will be limited to questioning related to specifically what was stated in his affidavit. Said affidavit does not contain anything about suspects or persons of interest so why should Brad's lawyers be allowed to ask it ? A line of questioning about inconsistencies is perfectly well in line with what the detective has sworn too. Don't know about you but I don't think that is an area that Brad's lawyers really want to pursue.

Yeah, I agree it's a reasonable question for them.

I thought (correct if I'm wrong) though, that once someone makes a statement, that the defense has the option then to ask a line of questioning that may be related to that statement.

If the detective states that they haven't cleared BC... then to me, his sworn statements to the court are now broader than "there are inconsistencies".

It therefore, should open the door for K&B to ask a follow-on question: "In your expert opinion, is CPD treating him like a suspect/POI"?.

To me, if the judge asks, or allows the first question (your question), and the detective responds with a "no, he has not been cleared", then it is a reasonable and fair follow-up. If a judge says otherwise, I'd be crying foul pretty quickly.

To your point about whether or not they would want to ask this question, who knows... but it seems to me that this one, (and others that may be related) would be fair game... if the detective is allowed to respond to the question you pose. Bottom line, I don't think this is a "one simple question, then let's all go home" type of situation, but we'll see.

[ As to the kidding/serious part... don't worry, I get that a lot too on this board... ]

 

[SleuthyGal]

Why does everyone ask me if I am kidding or serious ?

I don't know! But, for some reason your asking made me laugh. And no, I'm not kidding. :wink: :bang:

Seriously, if anyone is really interested in learning legal procedures, etc. spend some time watching CourtTV or I guess it's now called truTV. Follow a trial or two. After watching a few cases start to finish you'll learn a lot. The first case I followed in-depth was the O.J. murder case, and later the O.J. civil case (which was not televised but the daily court reporter's transcription was available). I read everything, followed every motion, every piece of evidence. I also followed start-to-finish the David Westerfield murder case, the Laci Peterson murder case and there might have been another one or two after that one as well. Much better than the law course I took in college many years ago, which was required and which I did not enjoy.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yeah, I agree it's a reasonable question for them.

I thought (correct if I'm wrong) though, that once someone makes a statement, that the defense has the option then to ask a line of questioning that may be related to that statement.

If the detective states that they haven't cleared BC... then to me, his sworn statements to the court are now broader than "there are inconsistencies".

It therefore, should open the door for K&B to ask a follow-on question: "In your expert opinion, is CPD treating him like a suspect/POI"?.

To me, if the judge asks, or allows the first question (your question), and the detective responds with a "no, he has not been cleared", then it is a reasonable and fair follow-up. If a judge says otherwise, I'd be crying foul pretty quickly.

To your point about whether or not they would want to ask this question, who knows... but it seems to me that this one, (and others that may be related) would be fair game... if the detective is allowed to respond to the question you pose. Bottom line, I don't think this is a "one simple question, then let's all go home" type of situation, but we'll see.

[ As to the kidding/serious part... don't worry, I get that a lot too on this board... ]

You are still not following my thought. The question is rhetorical for the judge alone to ask and answer. To reach that answer she needs only to listen to the questions put to the detective and his answers to determine if LE is or is not able to clear Brad. Be those questions from TS or Brad's lawyers. No one has to ask this question out loud, the judge must answer it for herself - if she reaches a no conclusion as to whether LE can rule Brad out then she can conclude his possible involvement. If she reaches a conclusion that LE has ruled him out, again based on questions and answers, she can conclude Brad has no involvement.

 

[raisincharlie]

I don't know! But, for some reason your asking made me laugh. And no, I'm not kidding. :wink: :bang:

Well we could certainly use some levity tonight. Glad you got a chuckle out of it I'm not kidding.

 

[raisincharlie]

That is true. People do ask you that question quite often. :crazy:

I think that the reality of legal practices are stunning to many of us! Thanks for sharing your expertise with us, RC.

No expertise involved Anderson, just simple logic. I am simple, no rocket scientist, and I am not kidding

 

[SleuthyGal]

Well we could certainly use some levity tonight. Glad you got a chuckle out of it I'm not kidding.

I always know when you are and aren't. <insert Mr. Ed laugh>

 

[raisincharlie]

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

It always seems like it's just a game.

I think we just see this differently. I don't see this as being about Brad's welfare. I see it as being about the welfare of two little girls who have lost their mother and have been thrown into an argument. To me, their welfare is the most important issue in this custody case, as it should be.

I do however find lawyers to be great game players and excellent actors.

 

[jumpstreet]

I do however find lawyers to be great game players and excellent actors.

Sometimes, we even find excellent actors who play lawyers.
Denny Crane!

 

[jumpstreet]

You are still not following my thought. The question is rhetorical for the judge alone to ask and answer. To reach that answer she needs only to listen to the questions put to the detective and his answers to determine if LE is or is not able to clear Brad. Be those questions from TS or Brad's lawyers. No one has to ask this question out loud, the judge must answer it for herself - if she reaches a no conclusion as to whether LE can rule Brad out then she can conclude his possible involvement. If she reaches a conclusion that LE has ruled him out, again based on questions and answers, she can conclude Brad has no involvement.

Yeah, in your original post on the subject, I definitely missed the notion that this wasn't an actual question that might be explicitly asked the witness.

Let me confirm this though at least: If the plaintiffs were allowed to explicitly ask the witness your question ("have you excluded BC yet"), and the witness responds with a 'no', then would a reasonable follow-up question (from the defense side or wherever) be "Is Mr. Cooper being treated like a suspect/POI, in your opinion"?

 

[tippytoes]

I,for one, would like for the prosecution to decide whether or not to name BC a POI. The title gives him certain rights (to be read the miranda warning). It's put-up-or-shut-up time.

If they decide to go forward, I will feel more confident that they have a case. If not, it's time to stop dangling the charge and face the fact that he will have custody until such time as charges are filed.

 

[jumpstreet]

I,for one, would like for the prosecution to decide whether or not to name BC a POI. The title gives him certain rights (to be read the miranda warning). It's put-up-or-shut-up time.

If they decide to go forward, I will feel more confident that they have a case. If not, it's time to stop dangling the charge and face the fact that he will have custody until such time as charges are filed.

Agreed! If they take away his kids, on some contrived or derived basis by the custody judge that he may have been responsible... and yet, he still isn't named a suspect, or POI, that will fly in the face of reason.

Heck... even JY at least got the courtesy of being named a POI... and he had no children taken away from him!

 

[tippytoes]

Agreed! If they take away his kids, on some contrived or derived basis by the custody judge that he may have been responsible... and yet, he still isn't named a suspect, or POI, that will fly in the face of reason.

Heck... even JY at least got the courtesy of being named a POI... and he had no children taken away from him!

That's where the "elephant in the room" cuts both ways. If the prosecution has something on him, then they need to show their cards.

BC has never been accused of being bad to his children and if there isn't a murder "suspicion" being investigated by LE, he should have custody of his children. I feel for NC's family, but they don't have custodial rights at this time and IMO, they shouldn't have gotten custody.

I hope today we will learn more. IF they have the goods, BC shouldn't get his kids. The back and forth and back again is chaotic for the girls. If not, turn the girls over and build the case (oh, and interview witnesses!)