Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #25

[momto3kids]

And of course there is a certain % of the public who are not able to use higher brain functions to see through transparent smokescreens, so they will eat this stuff up. Defense attorneys know this. It's probably in their foundational study book, "The Big Dummies 101 Guide to Defense."

The thing is they only need ONE who just fell off the turnip truck on the jury to let this xxxx walk. Sad, but true.

 

[jumpstreet]

I have to ask, "what does going after JA have to do with BC custody case?"

Under normal "custody case" circumstances, JA would presumably have nothing to do with the custody case. However, the custody judge herself stated that this particular custody case is now about the murder case. That's significant, and would seem to change everything (it suddenly becomes "not your average custody case"...)

The door is open for the defense to provide any and all evidence they may have which would support the notion that BC didn't commit the crime. If the defense believes that JA may have played some role (indirect or otherwise) in the murder, or, they think some of her actions may provide for lack of a preponderance of evidence against BC, then it seems reasonable for them to include her in the scope of the defense as they prepare for the "custody" case.

 

[momto3kids]

Under normal "custody case" circumstances, JA would presumably have nothing to do with the custody case. However, the custody judge herself stated that this particular custody case is now about the murder case. That's significant, and would seem to change everything (it suddenly becomes "not your average custody case"...)

The door is open for the defense to provide any and all evidence they may have which would support the notion that BC didn't commit the crime. If the defense thinks that JA may have played some role (indirect or otherwise) in the murder, or, they think some of her actions may provide for lack of a preponderance of evidence against BC, then it seems reasonable for them to include her in the scope of the defense as they prepare for the "custody" case.

There has also got to be a cut off point, because the real case is custody. Where is it going to be? Yes, it is going to be an unusual case, no doubt, but there are going to have to be guidelines set up or this will be a free for all.

I guess JS..time to put the hip boots back in the garage and find someone with a jacked up 4-wheel drive to get thru this chit. Oh, don't forget the goggles so you can see it coming. :crazy:

 

[Roy23]

Under normal "custody case" circumstances, JA would presumably have nothing to do with the custody case. However, the custody judge herself stated that this particular custody case is now about the murder case. That's significant, and would seem to change everything (it suddenly becomes "not your average custody case"...)

The door is open for the defense to provide any and all evidence they may have which would support the notion that BC didn't commit the crime. If the defense believes that JA may have played some role (indirect or otherwise) in the murder, or, they think some of her actions may provide for lack of a preponderance of evidence against BC, then it seems reasonable for them to include her in the scope of the defense as they prepare for the "custody" case.

That complicates this a little doesn't it. Good post.

 

[SleuthyGal]

This is of course assuming that the defense continues this quest for custody now, instead of folding like a house of cards and negotiating a(nother) temp custody deal like they did on 7/25.

 

[RaleighNC]

I predict they (BC and K&B) will fold again and work out a deal so that BC can avoid being put under the microscope of the Judge. His attorneys will continue to post thing that will provide the spin, all the while their client won't face a court.

Although I would be thrilled if charges were brought forward before the custody case....

 

[jumpstreet]

This is of course assuming that the defense continues this quest for custody now, instead of folding like a house of cards and negotiating a(nother) temp custody deal like they did on 7/25.

Except for the order to have the additional psyche study done (assuming there isn't enough time to have it completed before the custody hearing date), I'm not sure why the defense would move for a further continuance (and temporary arrangement).

Even if it is "continued", it would seem to just postpone the crossroads (assuming no arrest is made between now and any subsequent custody date... if an arrest is made the custody (presumably) becomes a moot point)).

The custody judge definitely opened the door when she stated she would need to decide whether he committed the murder before she could decide who she should grant custody to. [ It makes logical sense of course, but sure does change the dynamic of the custody case, the evidence that will be brought, the testimony's that will be asked, etc ]

Thinking about it now, the defense may opt for a continuance to have more time to prepare a "criminal" defense in the custody hearing (though it kinda looks like they saw this one coming some time ago, and have been getting prepared for it to play out like this from the get go...)

 

[momto3kids]

This is of course assuming that the defense continues this quest for custody now, instead of folding like a house of cards and negotiating a(nother) temp custody deal like they did on 7/25.

This is a wonderful place for BC to be in. A rock and a hard place.
If he opens his mouth at the custody hearing it can be used against him in criminal court.
If the judge rules he had a part in NC death this will be revealed in the criminal case.

Maybe, just maybe he can get charged before this hearing to save everyone the time and trouble.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm not sure why the defense would move for a further continuance (and temporary arrangement).

RC answered this pretty clearly last night...why the defense will likely not proceed with the hearing when push comes to shove.

 

[momto3kids]

I predict they (BC and K&B) will fold again and work out a deal so that BC can avoid being put under the microscope of the Judge. His attorneys will continue to post thing that will provide the spin, all the while their client won't face a court.

Although I would be thrilled if charges were brought forward before the custody case....

I couldn't agree more with your post!

 

[SleuthyGal]

If he opens his mouth at the custody hearing it can be used against him in criminal court.
If the judge rules he had a part in NC death this will be revealed in the criminal case.

And if he refuses to answer questions in the civil matter then the judge can infer that in a negative way and he could be seen as having been involved in the murder and therefore lose custody.

 

[jumpstreet]

RC answered this pretty clearly last night...why the defense will likely not proceed with the hearing when push comes to shove.

Thanks SG - found one from RC from this morning - I assume this is the one you meant:

No brainer in that he should just make a temp arrangement that can be revisited based on LE clearing him. No way he can win this fight, even with 20 lawyers. No way he is going to take the stand or be deposed either - in civil court, he must, even if he says nothing, he must. If he fails to respond the judge is allowed to make their own conclusion with respect to the possible answer, to include a negative.

If he's worried about taking the stand, and responding to the judge's queries, and/or the defense doesn't think they are fully ready to provide their "preponderance of the evidence" that he didn't commit it, then I can see the defense agreeing to a temporary arrangement.

If he's not worried though about responding to the judge's queries, and his attorneys feel they are prepared to show their side of the defense evidence (and seems they are getting prepared along those lines)... then who knows, things might just proceed.

If it does proceed, I assume the plaintiffs would be required to show (via a preponderance of the evidence) that BC committed the crime. (ie, it wouldn't merely be enough for LE to say they cannot yet categorically "clear" him for the judge to conclude he's "guilty enough" to not get custody).

If a preponderance of the evidence isn't produced that shows he committed the crime, then the judge would take him as innocent (I assume), and deal with the custody accordingly (ie, then answer the question regarding "fitness as a father, etc")

I guess we'll see.

 

[christine2448]

Continue here


FYI..posted on first post in new thread:

NOTE: notice has been removed after discussions with Admins/Mods and Tricia will clarify as soon as she can. I am sincerely sorry for causing confusion. Please carry on as you were before I posted the notice. :blowkiss: