When A Cop Kills Your Child

[TruthBrigade]

Listen Now!
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-11887/TS-192583.mp3
Part 1 http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-11887/TS-195911.mp3
Part 2 http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-11887/TS-195555.mp3

http://TruthBrigade.com/radio/02-19-09_WhenACopKillsYourChild_TS-192583-32Kb_Pt-1.mp3
http://TruthBrigade.com/radio/02-19-09_WhenACopKillsYourChild_TS-192583-32Kb_Pt-2.mp3

Show Chat Log
http://TruthBrigade.com/chat/02-19-09_WhenACopKillsYourChild_TS-192583.htm
(Chat Log to large to capture an image, text(htm) only for this show)


After our "Ask Granny" segment in the first hour...

When A Cop Kills Your Child

This is the heartbreaking story of what happens in a corrupt small town in middle America when a child dies at the hands of a connected man.

Christy Weatherford Cole was charged and convicted of murder of her own son even though it was her cop friend who "accidentally" dropped him.
He took an insanity plea and has been institutionalized ever since, but Christy was then charged with murder although she had nothing to do with it.  Of course CPS had to come in and steal the rest of her children and put them in the home of a repeat, dangerous abuser whom she had ran from because previously.
They have gone through 9 judges in this case...

http://www.mobar.org/mobarforms/courtsDetail.aspx?item=984

Lesser included offense instruction required for endangering in the second degree. State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Christy Weatherford Cole, Defendant-Appellant, No. 28175 (Mo. App. S.D., January 24, 2008), Parrish, J.
  Defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree and felony murder in the second degree. Defendant's child died as a result of abuse by a man living in her house. She was convicted of knowingly acting in a manner that created a substantial risk to the life, body and health of the child by placing him in direct contact with the man, whom she had previously seen abuse the child. Defendant requested a second degree endangering instruction, which would ask the jury to find instead that she was criminally negligent in her actions, rather than acting knowingly.

  Held: Reversed and remanded. There was evidence from which the jury could find that defendant did not act knowingly in a manner that created a substantial risk to the child by placing him in direct contact with the abuser; i.e., that she was not aware that her conduct would be practically certain to have that result, but that she may have been negligent in that regard. Therefore, a lesser included instruction should have been given.

http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/ltc_4/archive/2008/03/20/the-technicality.aspx
http://www.ozarkcountytimes.com/exec/view.cgi?archive=73&num=5243

Scheduled Time:

http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/11887
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009
Time: 08:00 PM EST

How to participate:

Call in:

   1. Dial: (724) 444-7444
   2. Enter: 11887 # (Call ID)
   3. Enter: 1 # or your PIN

[TruthBrigade]

Legal Speak

The Technicality

Published March 20, 2008 1:17 PM by Tony DeWitt
http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/ltc_4/archive/2008/03/20/the-technicality.aspx

"I just don't understand how someone can be a murderer, and a court can just let them out of jail on a technicality."

My friend who made that statement had seen media reports about a young woman whose murder conviction was overturned "on a technicality."

Like medical shows that demonstrate patients converting from asystole to sinus rhythm after defibrillation, the television media is often more interested in telling a story than understanding the legal basis for appellate action. Because it is important to understand the process, I thought I might devote this post to explaining "technicalities." Frequently when a state or federal appellate court overturns a conviction on appeal, the media says that the conviction was "overturned on a technicality."

The inference is that some hyper-technical application of law resulted in an injustice and allowed a guilty person to walk free. In most cases, when an appellate court overturns a conviction, it normally means only that the government will have to try its case a second time. It usually does not result in the release from confinement of the person who appealed.  In many instances, in order to avoid the expense of a new trial, and in recognition of the exceptionally long times it takes to get an appellate opinion, state's attorneys will simply enter into an agreement with the offender to allow them to plead guilty to a lesser offense and get out of jail with "time served."  Often when the media report these events they characterize them as a miscarriage of justice. But a study of appellate opinions would suggest that in most cases they are anything but.

Take the case of Christy Weatherford Cole, a young woman from southern Missouri who was convicted of second degree murder under what lawyers call the "felony murder rule." Under the rule, a conviction for a felony that leads to the death of another is all it takes to lock the offender up for life, even if the offender had nothing to do with the death other than being involved with some other crime. The rule was meant to encompass the situation where two burglars enter a residence to steal, are surprised by the owner, and the owner is shot by one of the offenders.  The offender who shot the owner will face charges for murder in the first degree. The other offender is charged with the owner's murder (second degree) under the felony murder rule. In this situation but for the criminal act of the two conspirators, there would be no death. It seems fair to charge murder under these circumstances.

Unfortunately the application of the rule is often extended well beyond its original intent, and often with palpable injustice. Certainly this is the case in Ms. Cole's case where the felony was child endangerment, and the murder was committed by the woman's abusive boyfriend. The Court described the events on the day at issue as follows:

In March 2003, [boyfriend] was living with defendant and her three young sons. Defendant's three-year-old son, William, argued with his mother about having a drink of soda pop before eating his meal. Defendant did not want William to consume liquids before eating. She was concerned that he would not eat if he consumed liquid before his meal. [Boyfriend] was angry about William arguing with defendant. William was stomping his feet. This aggravated [Boyfriend] more. He told defendant to send William to him. [Boyfriend] undertook to discipline William by picking him up and laying him across his lap on his back. [Boyfriend] had his hands around William's neck. The back of William's head was pushed against a table next to the chair where [Boyfriend] was sitting. [Boyfriend] threw William across the room. William went limp. Defendant put clothes on William and she and [Boyfriend] took William to the ambulance shed in Gainesville, Missouri. William was then taken to the Gainesville Clinic where he was examined by medical personnel. Following examination, William was transported by helicopter to a Springfield, Missouri, hospital where he was diagnosed as severely neurologically depressed. A CT scan revealed retinal bleeding and subdural and subarachoid bleeding consistent with blunt force trauma. On April 1, 2003, William's injuries were determined to be irreparable. Care was terminated that day. William was pronounced dead late that afternoon.

State of Missouri v. Christy Weatherford Cole  (the boyfriends name has been redacted)

Ms. Cole was a single mother with a boyfriend. Like many such relationships in families with altered family dynamics, the boyfriend was easily irritated by children, and frequently violent in disciplining the children. Cole appears to have been easily manipulated by the boyfriend.  Although there was no evidence that the boyfriend ever previously caused serious injury to children, in this case he threw a small child across the room resulting in the child's death. He then prevailed on Cole to help him cover up his wrongful acts.

Cole was charged with the felony of endangering a child by placing him in contact with the boyfriend. The state charged a felony charge which required them to prove that Cole placed the child in danger "knowingly." The second count of the indictment charged felony murder based on the charge of child endangerment. In other words, by convicting the woman of child endangerment, the jury was also convicting her of murder.

The big issue at trial was whether Cole placed the child in danger knowingly, or whether she was merely criminally negligent. If she was acting with knowledge that exposing the child to the boyfriend would result in the child's injury or death, she could be convicted of the felony. If she was merely criminally negligent, she could only be convicted of a misdemeanor which would not invoke the felony murder rule. The evidence at trial was equivocal on a variety of issues, but certainly on the issue of whether the young woman acted with knowing intent reasonable jurors could have disagreed.

Cole asked for a "lesser included offense" instruction which would have let the jury consider the lesser misdemeanor charge rather than the felony charge. The trial judge refused to instruct, and the jury convicted the young woman.

This young woman was in an abusive relationship, and had been told by the boyfriend to lie to authorities when explaining what happened to the child. There was no prior evidence of abuse.  There was very little from which a jury could conclude that Cole acted with anything other than negligence. In reversing, the Missouri Court of Appeals said:

Although there was evidence that [boyfriend] had struck William on past occasions in an effort at discipline, there was other evidence that it was not defendant's practice to place William in direct contact with [boyfriend] for discipline. Whether defendant's act of placing William in a position to be in direct contact with [boyfriend] demonstrated an actual risk as opposed to a potential risk to the child is a fact question the jury should have been permitted to decide. Had the jury been instructed on endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree as a lesser included offense, it could have determined whether defendant's actions knowingly subjected William to an actual risk of serious harm or whether her actions were criminally negligent so as to present a potential risk to William. Manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice occurred by the jury not having the opportunity to analyze the evidence in that regard. Point III is granted. The conviction of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree is reversed. Because defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree pursuant to Section 565.021.1(1) is dependent on a supporting conviction of a felony, that conviction is reversed.

State of Missouri v. Christy Weatherford Cole

While it may sound somewhat technical to distinguish between an intent of "knowing" and an intent of criminal negligence, that is exactly the purpose of appellate courts, and the Court here reached the right result. The loss of a child is a tragedy that transcends mere bereavement.  This woman not only lost her child, she lost her freedom when the evidence established at most that she made a bad decision on a bad day.  She may have been guilty of bad taste in boyfriends, but she surely never meant for harm to come to her child.

Appellate courts are in place to prevent the justice system from acting out of emotion and a desire for retribution. When trial courts make mistakes, the appellate courts correct them, not by setting the offender free, but rather, by making the courts give the state another chance to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under terms that are fair.  An appellate court requiring the state to prove its case under fair terms, and give the accused the benefit of the presumption of innocence is not a technicality. It is a safeguard built into the system to protect innocent persons.

That's one technicality we should all remember.

[TruthBrigade]

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=371081729

 May 3, 2008 - Saturday
   
A Cop Kills My Wife’s Son And She Is Jailed For It!!!!
Current mood:  argumentative
Category: News and Politics
..TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"> ..TABLE>
5:21 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
4 Kudos

            Exactly how long should an innocent woman be held against her will in jail? This question has yet to be answered. On the night of March 23rd, 2003, My wife's four year old son William was thrown across a room causing severe head trauma, which later killed him. The assailant, Mike Griffin, a Theodosia Police officer, was at the time living with my wife Christy Cole. {This was before our marriage of course.} Mike had actually been a good guy through his career, he was a trusted cop who had done a lot of good things for peole. But he had found out that he was dying from an advanced form of diabetes. There was operation after operation where tissue had to be removed. His failing health was the cause of his whole personality taking a change for the worse. And his health was the reason Christy allowed him to live with her, so she could help him out, as he had protected her in the past.

               Christy was charged with first degree child endangerment, for allowing Mike to live in her home, as he was the one who killed William, and second degree murder because William later died of his injuries. How can this be? How could she possibly know Mike was going to do this? Criminal negligence you say? Prove it! Christy and I have been together two years, and was more beneficial to my two sons lives than there natural Mother. (Sorry Deena, no offense, but it's true.) If you look at the boys' school records, you can see a positive spike in their behavior and academics, and unfortunately a terrible drop in both after Christy was taken from us. Christy and I don't drink or do drugs, and she hadn't at the time of William's death.

           Christy's case was reviewed by the appellate court in the southern district of Missouri, and found there was manifest injustice in her trial, but the prosecutor filed for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court where it was rejected once again and Christy's guilty verdicts were reversed and remanded. So why is she still being held? Good question! The prosecutor Tom Cline filed for the judge to remove himself from the case. It was brought to a second judge who refused to hear the case as well. So there Christy sits, in jail still, innocent and waiting for a judge to hear her case, and have her released to await trial.

            Mike has still not yet gone to trial for killing William, as his lawyer entered a plea for "Incompetent to stand trial." Please! You know as well as I do the only reason this was allowed because he was a cop! The prosecutor and Mike have been good friends for years as well! Tom Cline's name is on the very mortgage for Christy's parents house as well. The same house that was put up for her bail in the original trial. Yep, he handled the legal litigation for the bank. You say this has nothing to do with prosecuting her? Than why is he demanding the house be used again as the colateral for her new bond? There are other accusations that Mike and Tom had there fingers in many illegal activities, but my wife refuses to say anything about what Mike has told her because she is in fear for her life, and refuses to talk until she is safe in the protective custody of either the state Police or the F.B.I. Please Pray for Christy and I, and if you have any ideas, please let me know! Look for my updated blogs where I will keep you guys up to date with what is happening!

[TruthBrigade]

Really BAD news........

I just found out she was finally tried for the 3rd time again and they convicted her of murder even though everyone knows that the cop killed her son, and admitted to it!!!

This is insane...guess I don't have much to look forward to in this corrupt county.

She made the mistake of dating the wrong guy who she was not allowed to leave without paying with her life.