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

[strawberry]

http://6abc.com/live/23387/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Okay, it's the mama bear in me, but I could NEVER imagine letting my 3 year old sleep unattended in the living room over night. What if he woke up and started wandering around in the kitchen and getting into things that weren't child proofed, or elsewhere. Or....got out! I would give him my bed and I would sleep on the couch before I would let him sleep on the couch in the living room alone. That is just....odd.

What's the difference of a 3 year old sleeping in his room and getting up and wandering around vs sleeping on the couch? My kids could open doors at 3. Most of the time if I put them to bed in their room they ended up on the couch anyway lol.

 

[tlcya]

[FONT=&quot]A jury was selected Wednesday in the case of a Haddon Township father [/FONT]charged with killing his 3-year-old son[FONT=&quot], and opening arguments will begin Thursday.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/brendan-creato-haddon-township-jersey.html[/FONT]

Updated 46 mins ago
HADDON TWP., N.J. (WPVI) -- The jury has been selected and opening statements are set to begin in the trial of the Camden County father accused of killing his three-year-old son.

http://6abc.com/news/david-creato-jr-murder-trial-begins-in-camden-court/1887259/

[h=1]CREATO CASE: Watch trial coverage[/h]

 

[dyannaON]

In case anyone cant watch live.

Here is opening statements
https://youtu.be/x3In_WoHqYA

Here is part 1.

https://youtu.be/eEf7DDcUjZQ

Both are on YouTube via Lady Justice.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dyannaON]

Part 2 via Lady Justice.

https://youtu.be/IRMBAsZ8Jww


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sloane7777]

What's the difference of a 3 year old sleeping in his room and getting up and wandering around vs sleeping on the couch? My kids could open doors at 3. Most of the time if I put them to bed in their room they ended up on the couch anyway lol.

The first thing that comes to me is home invasion , break in , wandering into the kitchen (knives , glass , fire) besides you can hear the bedroom door open and know they are wandering ....I'm proudly paranoid though and I had an alarm that beeps if they left the bedroom ...its still there

 

[Vail]

Key bits in Part 1 of the trial:

1. The 911 call at the beginning - there is a female voice calling for Brendan in the background close to DJ.
2. Brendan's mom and DJ's parents were at the scene outside.
3. A K9 found Brendan.
4. The responding officer got DJ's permission to search the truck. The photos shown during his testimony are of the apartment as it was searched later by detectives, not as he saw it on arrival.
5. DJ gave the detective written permission (consent to search warrant) to search the apartment.
6. DJ had his keys and used them to let the detectives into the building (security door) and his apartment.
7. DJ had his bedroom door shut with Brendan on the couch alone in the living room. He told the detective it was so that Brendan wouldn't come get into bed with him
8. DJ was calm on the 911 call and calm when his apartment was being searched.
9. The "couch" Brendan slept on is more like a sofa chair.

From part 2:

1. Brendan's mother Sam is 23 and was with DJ since she was 13 and currently lives with a boyfriend.
2. She lived with DJ at his parents house from during pregnancy until shortly after they broke up when Brendan was 2. Their custody arrangements were unofficial and the breakup seems to involve DJ taking off for California for 3 months that summer. DJ would later ask her to get back together and move out there.
3. Brendan slept in a converted walkin closet at Sam's parent's house.
4. Brendan was afraid of the dark and would need the door open with the lamp on.
5. Brendan was in full time pre-school
6. Brendan wore a pull up at night
7. Sam confirms Brendan knew how to unlock doors.
8. Sam says as far as she knew, Brendan was sleeping on a pull out bed.
9. DJ picked Brendan up Sunday night(technically Monday morning) and was to drop him at school Tuesday morning where Sam would pick him up. Monday was a holiday.
10. Sam took DJ's paycheck to go cash at her bank to pay for daycare/preschool (cost $187) on Monday
11. When Sam dropped off the money to DJ, he was with a friend at the apartment
12. Her boyfriend was with her when she did this
13. DJ called Sam at 6am the next morning (Tuesday) to tell her Brendan was missing
10. During the phone call DJ told Sam maybe the spirits told Brendan to walk down to the woods.
11. There was no official agreement. If DJ didn't want to watch Brendan he could have left him with his mother or sister.
12. DJ occasionally would talk about seeing spirits (what the defense calls an "odd spirituality")
13. Brendan had some behavioral issues.(pushed a kid off a tricycle, hit a kid, refused to listen)
14. Brendan had behavioral therapy 3-4 times a week starting a few weeks before his death
15. Sam's boyfriend Matt has a criminal history
16. There was an incident between Brendan and a pet rat. Prosecutor did not elaborate.

 

[katydid23]

The first thing that comes to me is home invasion , break in , wandering into the kitchen (knives , glass , fire) besides you can hear the bedroom door open and know they are wandering ....I'm proudly paranoid though and I had an alarm that beeps if they left the bedroom ...its still there

I had a 'christmas bell' hanging on the outside of my son's bedroom door. He used to sleep walk as a child. So we could hear the bell ringing when he opened the door at night. One of us would get up and herd him back to bed...fftobed:

 

[tlcya]

CAMDEN, N.J. -- A man authorities say killed his 3-year-old son because he had become an impediment to his relationship with a teenage girlfriend spoke about “a spirit” drawing the son to woods where he was found dead, a prosecutor suggested Thursday. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dad-acc...-was-heard-in-odd-secret-recording-testimony/

Denoto said she recorded Creato at the request of criminal investigators.


"We talked about what else could have happened to him. He had told me that maybe the spirits told him to walk down to the woods which is completely odd and unexplainable," she said. http://6abc.com/news/prosecutor-nj-man-charged-in-sons-death-spoke-of-a-spirit/1887259/

Shah also claimed Creato had a special affection for the woods where Brendan's body was found.


"The defendant walked out there all the time,” Shah told the jury. “He said he spent a lot of time in those woods, that it’s his favorite place in Haddon Township.


“He refers to it as a spiritual place,” she told the jury. http://www.courierpostonline.com/st...david-brendan-creator-murder-trial/100684050/


Thanks for those youtube links to the opening statements etc. I as not able to watch so today I am catching up.

 

[wswallace1]

I'm new to this thread but I finally caught up this afternoon. There has been some great analysis and insight so far, so hats off to this group.

First off, my heart aches for Brendan and my thoughts are with his family.

JMO, but from what I understand so far the evidence seems pretty damning against the father. No physical evidence or motive for an intruder theory. As for the "wondering off" theory, I have a three year old boy. They don't get up in the middle of the night and walk a half mile in pitch darkness to a park, and then walk down a secluded path to a creek to drown themselves in a few inches of water. And then there's the clean socks, the fact that the boy happened to die at his father's "spiritual place," the father's texts with his girlfriend that in the "future" the child might not be a roadblock to their relationship, the father lying about when he went to bed, the father starting the 911 call by establishing his alibi before even mentioning his son, his (to my mind) terrible acting at the police station upon being told of his son's death . . . etc. etc.

I think the defense is going to focus on there being no conclusive proof of the exact cause of death. But legally speaking the jury should be instructed that they only need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy was intentionally killed -- not how he was intentionally killed. That is not a legal element of the crime. It would be nice to know, but isn't required.

I also do not understand the defense argument from opening statements that the dad could not have done it because the police found no flashlight. What is the point? That the father couldn't have gotten to the creek without a flashlight but the boy could have on his own? That makes no sense. Also, if the father was going to the creek to secretly stash his victim under the cover of darkness of course he wouldn't use a flashlight that could alert neighbors. It also doesn't sound like he would have needed one because he was very familiar with the park as one of his favorite spots.

This is all JMO based on the opening statements and media reports, so we shall see . . .

Justice for Brendan.

 

[dyannaON]

Lady Justice and Court Chatter haven't uploaded anymore videos yet. I wonder if they are only covering parts? Or maybe there wasn't any court today? I haven't been unable to watch yet.

 

[Jewels53]

Lady Justice and Court Chatter haven't uploaded anymore videos yet. I wonder if they are only covering parts? Or maybe there wasn't any court today? I haven't been unable to watch yet.

I don't think there was court today! Thanks for posting the other links!

 

[Vail]

tlcya's news link indicates court will resume Tuesday. I am not sure if the delay was because the jury went to visit the scene or if that happens next week.

 

[dyannaON]

Thanks guys. I was stalking YouTube for the updates lol. I have a interview Tuesday so when I get home I can post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MayMay1123]

tlcya's news link indicates court will resume Tuesday. I am not sure if the delay was because the jury went to visit the scene or if that happens next week.

the judge says something at the end of the second video about 'tuesdays wednesdays and thursdays'...i couldn't quite hear it or understand it.
when samantha said that dj told her about the spirits, was that later? she was taping his phone calls, i think, a month after Brendan died, is that when he made those remarks?

 

[wswallace1]

the judge says something at the end of the second video about 'tuesdays wednesdays and thursdays'...i couldn't quite hear it or understand it.
when samantha said that dj told her about the spirits, was that later? she was taping his phone calls, i think, a month after Brendan died, is that when he made those remarks?

It wouldn't be unusual for a trial to only be certain days of the week. The judge still has others cases he must attend to and this trial is supposed to last well into May.

Yes, the "spirit" comment to his ex was about a month after their son's death.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jewels53]

I finally caught up reading the thread. What a sad case that could have been avoided if DJ would have given Brendan up.

I also hope the Prosecution has good evidence because it sounds like there might have been some errors in evidence collecting.

I watched on Thursday and I wasn't impressed with Brendan's mother at all. She didn't seem upset at losing her little boy and in fact gave DJ a very positive personality. I guess I will have to watch the rest of trial to see what unfolds.

 

[LadyL]

just now learning of this case

lots to catch up on

another beautiful child betrayed by those who should love him the most

 

[wswallace1]

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.

 

[katydid23]

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.

I agree with you about potential problems for the State. Maybe they should have made a video, in the dark, at same time the baby went missing, and showed how scary and difficult the walk would have been.