On May 2nd Needham’s attorney, Randal Fish, filed for a preliminary examination to determine if Needham should be held pending an indictment. The hearing was set for yesterday.
According to the Times account, the courtroom was changed 5 minutes before the hearing at the request of the prosecutor in order to accommodate his schedule. When a Times reporter and Needham’s family went to the other courtroom, they say they were turned away by a plainclothes BCPD officer. The Times account also says that a receptionist in the DA’s office said the hearing was closed.
The judge, however, did not close the hearing, and the Bailiffs in the courtroom say that there was no order to close the hearing.
I do think it is curious that they would move the hearing to a different courtroom. How did this save the prosecutor any time? Could he not have presented his evidence in the courtroom that was currently being used?
It would seem to be a simple thing to get answers by asking the BCPD officer, or someone with BCPD, on whose authority the officer was turning people away from the hearing, a job that is the function of the sheriff. Who instructed the officer to do that?
Second, ask the receptionist in the DA’s office who instructed her that it was a closed hearing.
If the DA wanted a closed hearing because he was afraid of disruption from Needham’s family he could have just asked the judge to close the hearing.
Was this a case of bad communication? Did the BCPD officer actually block the reporter and the family from entering the courtroom, or did he just convey to them that it was a closed hearing. Is it possible that he had that impression and was just passing information to them, however incorrect, and not acting in an official capacity. If someone in the DA’s office said the hearing was closed, could the officer have gotten the information from that source?
This is all conjecture, I have no idea what happened. I am hoping for a simple explanation.
The Times also has an editorial this morning about the incident.
The first thing I would ask is if all this information is coming from the Needham family. They are not the most credible people in the world, Especially his mother. They Breyer close the courtroom because they will make a spectacle of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure by doing so they will say Bossier Parish is racist or hiding things and I'm sure the The Times will run with it.
For Schyler Marvin's sake, he just better hopes he gets a conviction.
I am so tired of people beating up on BPSO and BCPD. I read the article in the Times and it is so irritating.
ReplyDeleteall i can say is "i really feel sorry for copperhead's family that they missed seeing him" - COMPLETE BS - the times is about as worthless a rag as exists - they sent a reporter there who did not know her A-- from the ground - she got with copperheads family and roamed around lost at the courthouse and blamed it on "the man" - seems like a pattern there
ReplyDeleteAnon3:33
ReplyDeleteI think you are right. It is possible that this could be a circus rather than court. Someone will probably be accused of being a racist.
If it was BCPD, what was he doing operating outside his jurisdiction? BCPD does not provide security for Bossier Parish Courthouse in Benton.
ReplyDelete@Andy Fan,
ReplyDeleteIt's not "beating up on" for someone to ask legitimate questions of the behavior of law enforcement officers or agencies.
To do otherwise would be to shirk your responsibility as a citizen.
@NotAndyFan, I don't know who you are but I was referring to the article in the Times. Did you write it? And, what's your problem with Andy?
ReplyDeleteThe Times is a job, its a rag. They love to beat up on the police, I am sure that they will call one of them cops a racist before its all said and done. Sounds to me like somebody made a mistake, but I am sure that it will be spun to where there is a big conspiracy. Who gives a flip about Copperhead and his feelings, not me. Why dont the times do an article about how the families of his victims are coping since their loss. I stopped my subscription to the Shreveport Times 7 years ago and would suggest everybody else to do the same.
ReplyDeleteSorry meant to say that the Times was a joke not a job, my mistake
ReplyDeleteI think you folks are absolutely right about the times. They suck. They are against cops, public education, and for any tax increase. They are a typical liberal rag.
ReplyDeleteThey will probably try to make this punk (Copperhead) and his family look like victims of a system that mistreated them and led to his life of crime.
This is typical reporting from The Times. They never do their homework and I know that anytime I have ever had direct knowledge on an incident that they have reported on, it is never true to the facts. The Times rarley gets it right, either in writing an article or endorsing a candidate for political office.
ReplyDeleteI would be willing to bet that the DA's office is making certain that this case will be handled with kids gloves so that their will be no legal grounds for the case against Copperhead to be damaged in any way.
Even though people may not like Copperhead, his family, or the crime, a first degree murder hearing should be open to the public. If a Bossier City officer closed the courtroom someone has exceeded authority.
ReplyDeleteTrue
ReplyDelete@AndyFan
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with Andy. I have no problem with you. I just distinguished myself as "Not" you.
A cop doing something which is obviously questionable is a worthy line of questioning. The Times is a rag, but opinion and fact are two very different things.
Why did Mark Natale not return phone calls? Why was a BCPD Detective guarding the door outside his jurisdiction? Why was the hearing moved at the last minute? Is any of this mre or less probable when Schuyler Marvin's name is connected?
The courtroom was open. I walked in, I was never asked who i was - I'm a private citizen - I didn't know the people in the hallway, and no one ever asked me any questions. I sat down in the courtroom, I listened to about 30 minutes of testimony and left. The courtroom was not closed. Any story to the contrary is false.
ReplyDeleteWell..."NotAndyFan," I am certainly glad to know that you have nothing against me. I mean, personally. I mean, I believe in peace, love, and good relations with all peoples.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read in the worthless article, and the comments here I'd have to judge that Marvin probably did the right thing, and that The Slimes did its usual top notch jarb of editorial oversight.
The police officer was not put at the doorway to prevent entry to the proceedings, Marvin said, but instead was one of the court's three sequestered witnesses.
ReplyDelete"He was under the assumption that it may have been closed," Natale said. "The officer said he told (them), they could go inside but (they) probably would be asked out because it was supposed to be closed."
--------------------------
Why was a "sequestered witness" even talking to anyone entering the courtroom?
If any of you knew the person that is alleged to have blocked the door you would know that he would do nothing illegal or wrong. He is a honest, straight forward guy.
ReplyDeleteThey probably blocked Matt Sciba dressed in drag as Copperhead's mother and Springer dressed in a bull-dike costume as her attorney.
ReplyDeleteAnon May 20, 2011@7:22 AM
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is questioning his honesty or character but only his actions, which Natale confirmed were talking with the accused persons family. And the last thing a "sequestered witness" for the prosecution should be doing is talking, in any fashion or form, to the family of the person he is about to testify against.
Hey, look on the bright side. The family got to make the other 33 felony arrest court appearances of Copperhead.
ReplyDeleteI don't know exactly how many times he has been to court before but do know he has been a lot. What does that say about how our justice ststem treats career criminals.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about this but I could care less about the family of a triple murderer having their rights trampled on
ReplyDeleteyeah, I agree with that. I dont even see what all the fuss is about. he killed three people. why is anyone worried about his family. what about the families of the victims?
ReplyDeleteAnon @May 20, 2011 11:34 AM
ReplyDeleteLike him or hate him the problem is these small "technicalities" are brought up during the appeal, which there will be one whether he's found guilty or not guilty. His family and all citizens have the Constitutional right to witness this hearing. These type things are why the appeals court rule for a new trial and then we start all over again. Your tax dollars paying for a second trial all over again.
I disagree. Weren't his lawyers present?? were they given the right to call witnesses? this case will not be appealled on that issue just because some 'aunt" wasn't allowed in the courtroom. im just sayin.
ReplyDeleteit's not aunt. it's auntie...
ReplyDelete