custody given to nancy's family

[SleuthyGal]

I think the question is, "what does the DA consider "strong evidence?" Because it's not up to LE to decide when to arrest, unless the person is caught in the middle of committing a crime, is resisting arrest, or any immediate danger. For a murder charge it's up to the DA when there's 'enough' to move forward...not the sheriff and not the PD.

 

[justthinking2008]

As for knowing so much about the case when I don't live there? Sorry, my sources are confidential.

JMHO
fran

If your confidential informants have this much strong evidence, may I humbly suggest you contact LE and give them this information so we may arrest the perp. I do not know if BC is guilty or not, believing testimony from eyewitness who claims to have seen NC that morning running, it would make it almost impossible to believe he committed the crime. If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

Actually the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

[boxy]

I think the question is, "what does the DA consider "strong evidence?" Because it's not up to LE to decide when to arrest, unless the person is caught in the middle of committing a crime, is resisting arrest, or any immediate danger. For a murder charge it's up to the DA when there's 'enough' to move forward...not the sheriff and not the PD.

I don't think that's entirely correct for North Carolina. LE can arrest someone for murder without involvement of the DA. The arrested person then would have a probable cause hearing to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support charging them. LE doesn't have to catch them in the act.

Alternatively, the DA (or maybe LE as well) can take the case to a grand jury. If a true bill of indictment is returned by the GJ, then a warrant is issued for arrest. In this case, no probable cause hearing is held. I would expect this would be the route that will be followed in the criminal aspect of this case.

 

[garner_nc]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

Taking of a child would fall under the Due process clause of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. It says "no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.". One could contend that BC did not receive a fair Judge in that she had her mind made up prior to the court proceedings since according to many on this site - evidence of a unfit father was not presented. Of course we do not know all the details.

This also falls under the "Presumption of innocence" which is based on Coffin v. United States. Innocent until proven guilty which follows the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? Refresh of history - Salem witch trials, Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay -Terror Suspects - All examples of where people were "presumed guilty". This is what the Constitution protects, our Freedoms.

Unfortunately, many people are willing to toss aside those Freedoms without really thinking about the consequences.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I think in this case (the Cooper murder case) it's up to the DA to decide when he feels there's 'enough' evidence to go to the GJ. LE is not just going to decide to arrest BC one day and go off on their own and do it without the approval of Willoughby.

 

[boxy]

Actually the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

There are different standards that must be met for the criminal murder and civil custody cases. In the former, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. For the civil custody case, the standard appears to be by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher burden than preponderance of the evidence used in most civil matters. It is conceivable there is enough evidence to meet the clear and convincing evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I didn't hear evidence that I thought was clear and convincing in the custody case. It could be there is other evidence but if the judge is privy to that but not the defense, that would seem to be a violation of due process. Or perhaps there is other evidence we've not seem but K&B didn't access that other evidence (like the full 911 tape) or didn't want to look at it.

 

[fran]

If your confidential informants have this much strong evidence, may I humbly suggest you contact LE and give them this information so we may arrest the perp. I do not know if BC is guilty or not, believing testimony from eyewitness who claims to have seen NC that morning running, it would make it almost impossible to believe he committed the crime. If he is to be arrested it must be proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that NC never left the house that morning, and I think that is going to be tough.

FWIW, I have NOT been in contact with 'confidential informants' regarding this case that can give 'material information' to LE. Whatever I've heard or seen is nothing that hasn't been said or seen here on Websleuths. Oh, maybe different source than in the media, but nothing that can be used in court. I just choose not to discuss it further.

I've seen enough of these cases in the past few years to form my opinion that Brad Cooper murdered his wife Nancy Cooper. Heck, I could be wrong. But then, I'm not on the jury, so it doesn't really mean much.

I'm not quite sure what 'beyond shadow of a doubt' would be, but using 'reason,' I think Brad murdered Nancy. Whether LE will be able to prove it to a jury, I dunno. Time will tell.

JMHO
fran

PS....I can think of a couple of different 'hooks' which might grab a juror to 'guilty.' I just don't know if LE has any of them.

 

[ncsu95]

IMHO, it was a hypothetical question which I gave a hypothetical answer. Of course we can't do this in a blanket sort of way, as it would be against the Constitution.

OTOH, when are these murders and disappearances of wives/mothers going to stop?

This is an opinion forum and it is MY opinion Brad Cooper murdered his wife. Time will tell if LE can prove it.

As for knowing so much about the case when I don't live there? Sorry, my sources are confidential.

JMHO
fran

PS.....I also believe Jason killed Michelle Young and Raven killed Janet Abaroa and Scott killed (still missing) Kelly Morris and .....................well,..........you get the point. NO, I don't think ALL husbands and SOs killed the murdered or missing wife or g/f,...............but MANY unsolved cases it is MOST likely. I'm not on a jury so I can THINK they did it BEFORE a trial....fran

They will never stop. Just like wars, rapes, stealing, speeding, suicides, etc.

 

[ncsu95]

Taking of a child would fall under the Due process clause of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. It says "no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.". One could contend that BC did not receive a fair Judge in that she had her mind made up prior to the court proceedings since according to many on this site - evidence of a unfit father was not presented. Of course we do not know all the details.

This also falls under the "Presumption of innocence" which is based on Coffin v. United States. Innocent until proven guilty which follows the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? Refresh of history - Salem witch trials, Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay -Terror Suspects - All examples of where people were "presumed guilty". This is what the Constitution protects, our Freedoms.

Unfortunately, many people are willing to toss aside those Freedoms without really thinking about the consequences.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[gritguy]

I don't know that this is how it will work in this case, but frequently the winning party writes a draft order for the judge to sign.

That order should contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings should be supported by evidence properly in the record, and the conclusions should flow from that evidence. The losing party can appeal that order. Whoever is drafting it, winning party or the judge herself, will try to make the thing as bulletproof as possible against appeal. The losing party, if they want to appeal, will look for the wrongly considered evidence or the leap of logic not supported by statute or caselaw.

The idea that the judge has secret information seems baseless to me. If she does, and she can't put it in the order, she'll have to support the order with whatever facts were in the record. On appeal, there's no way those judges are being briefed on any secret evidence.

On the surface, it seems like an aggressive order, given the general bias (properly) in favor of parents maintaining custody. However, the law has a soft spot for children. I wasn't there and I didn't read the evidence so I have no real clue. The order will lay it out though.

 

[Maja]

Actually the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And a "reasonable person", in this case the Judge, believes "more likely than not" the children's welfare is more secure in Canada. I think that's the beauty of civil matters...evidence matters however, patterns of behavior and red flags can be used as weighty.

 

[MCDRAW]

Taking of a child would fall under the Due process clause of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. It says "no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.". One could contend that BC did not receive a fair Judge in that she had her mind made up prior to the court proceedings since according to many on this site - evidence of a unfit father was not presented. Of course we do not know all the details.

This also falls under the "Presumption of innocence" which is based on Coffin v. United States. Innocent until proven guilty which follows the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment.

What does this have to do with the Constitution? Refresh of history - Salem witch trials, Japanese American internment, Guantanamo Bay -Terror Suspects - All examples of where people were "presumed guilty". This is what the Constitution protects, our Freedoms.

Unfortunately, many people are willing to toss aside those Freedoms without really thinking about the consequences.

I agree. I think people are willing to toss aside other peoples freedoms without really thinking about the consequeces. The problem with that is one day the loss of freedom becomes everyones. Today it's a suspected murderer...tomorrow someone can provide a "better" life. To me this has been a scary ruling.

 

[SleuthyGal]

When I was referring to "beyond a reasonable doubt" I was talking only of a criminal case. I know it's a different standard in civil cases and things run differently in family court. I was addressing JustThinking's comment of "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which is a standard lots of people incorrectly think applies to criminal court cases.

 

[gritguy]

I agree. I think people are willing to toss aside other peoples freedoms without really thinking about the consequeces. The problem with that is one day the loss of freedom becomes everyones. Today it's a suspected murderer...tomorrow someone can provide a "better" life. To me this has been a scary ruling.

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.

Now, I don't know what the basis for the decision is, and the reluctance to take children away from natural parents should be high (due to the presumption that living with natural parents or a parent is usually in the best interest of the child and also the rights of the parent), but I think it is too early to say the judge made a mistake.

The girls' constitutional rights and welfare are at stake, and some evidence convinced the judge that removal outweighed the ordinary and real benefit of a child living with the natural parent. What that evidence is will be known soon.

 

[boxy]

And a "reasonable person", in this case the Judge, believes "more likely than not" the children's welfare is more secure in Canada. I think that's the beauty of civil matters...evidence matters however, patterns of behavior and red flags can be used as weighty.

Wrong. The preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) standard is not the standard for this custody case. The standard is clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard. The plaintiff has to show through clear and convincing evidence that BC either abused, neglected, or abandoned his children. Abuse might be shown if there is a substantial risk to their safety.

I didn't see evidence to convince me of this. I'm waiting to read what the judge found to be clear and convincing.

 

[tarheellvr]

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.

Now, I don't know what the basis for the decision is, and the reluctance to take children away from natural parents should be high (due to the presumption that living with natural parents or a parent is usually in the best interest of the child and also the rights of the parent), but I think it is too early to say the judge made a mistake.

The girls' constitutional rights and welfare are at stake, and some evidence convinced the judge that removal outweighed the ordinary and real benefit of a child living with the natural parent. What that evidence is will be known soon.

Very well said. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[boxy]

Those points you and others are making are powerful. But don't forget that the custody case is not decided only on the rights of the parents or grandparents in this case, but also the constitutional rights of the girls. In this case, the judge evaluates the trinity of interests, and they should flow in this priority 1) best interests of the children 2) parent 3) grandparents.

Where does this come from? This is not how I read state statutes or decisions of the NC Supreme Court. Someone (usually the state through DSS) has to prove abuse, neglect, or abandonment with clear and convincing evidence. Only after such a finding is adjudicated does the court consider the best interests of the children in the dispositional phase, which may be to remain with the parent(s) despite abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Woe to all parents if the state can start deciding what is best for children without first proving an unfit parent.

 

[justthinking2008]

Please forgive me for my semantical error, I realize it is beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think it is going to be hard to prove she did not leave the house. The ME's in this case have a very hard job, the burden of many proofs will lay on them. I understand the body was in awful condition and that makes it difficult to determine if there were any struggles or bruises that were indicative of a struggle of some sort. I am not convinced of BC's innocence, the opposite in fact, but I do wholly believe that if he did it, he did not act alone, someone helped him, IMHO.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Until we can read the ruling from the judge we're not going to know or understand how how she decided. She has a basis for making her decision--we don't yet know what that basis was and what all went into it. I understand that many people believe she made an incorrect and biased decision; I don't know that to be true. I need to see the ruling. I thought it could have gone either way when I left the courtroom. There was a lot of corroborating evidence from the affiants, witnesses, and there were inconsistencies made by the defendant. If he was caught in any lie, no matter how small or insignificant, his credibility would be greatly compromised. The judge would notice it and it would not impress her! A videotape depo is not the time to make inconsistent statements; there's a good chance of being caught.