All language subtitles for Staged Deadly Deception - S01E09 - Shot Asleep.eng

We don't know what prompted him to
do this act when he did it.

This minor is
going to sleep with his dad,

but he's going to shoot his dad, too?

And then he's going
to shoot himself?

It just didn't sit right.

Now we're looking
at a double homicide.

Well, double homicide? There's only
three people in the house.

Who's our most logical suspect?

Once the news was reported,

things in the community
were pretty wild.

The brother at the time had said

that he said goodbye to him
and then shot himself.

One of the things I want to know
is whether

or not he has the ABILITY
to do this.

Does he have the capability to load
or point the .45-calibre pistol?

And to get the results
from the coroner,

who says the wounds
are inconsistent with suicide.

They're inconsistent
with self-infliction.

This is beginning to look
more like a reactive

kind of staging
than a PROACTIVE one.

If this autistic minor had shot
his dad, would have been rare.

If this autistic minor had shot
HIMSELF, would have been rare.

If he shot his dad
and then shot himself,

would have been REALLY rare.

The Fresno County
and Central Valley

is essentially
the centre of California.

Fresno is a city of over 500,000
people itself,

and it's very agriculturally based.

Fruits, vegetables.

It's pretty much a breadbasket
place for the entire world.

We kind of have a small-town feel,

but we have big-city issues.

Gradually, over time, it's
built up a reputation as a place

that there could be a more violent
nature to the city itself.

Brian lived in a trailer park home
with his brother, Robert,

and his father, Patrick.

Brian was autistic,
and he required a lot of care,

but he was at a point where
he was really coming into his own.

He was really skilled
on the computer.

He was really fascinated by films,

and, you know,
he was having a good life.

Brian and his dad, Patrick,
would walk around the trailer park.

They knew their neighbours.

They were really enmeshed
in the community.

They loved to talk to each
other on walkie talkies.

So, you know, everyone knew them
as this just, like,

close, you know, pals.

The family had just lost
their mother, not long before. So,

Patrick was now raising the boys
as a single dad. And so of course,

that was very difficult for him AND
the boys. So it was something that,

you know, clearly everyone knew they
were going through a difficult time.

You know,

because it was such a tight knit
place, no one was really expecting

something super out
of the ordinary to take place.

Tonight,

a 15 year old is in critical
condition after police say he shot

and killed his father
before turning the gun on himself.

The father has been identified
as 61-year-old Patrick Cotter.

Authorities were called to a mobile
home park near McKinley

and Marx avenues in Fresno
around eight o'clock this morning.

I came in in the morning.

I did my normal routine,
which is maybe have some coffee,

go through my emails,

and then I was assigned this case,

and I called the officer.

They gave me initial information.
I knew I had to respond.

We get to the scene,

and I remember an officer briefing
me about the circumstances,

and we had a man, an adult male,

who was in bed, and he was shot,
they believe, multiple times,

and that there was another person

who sustained a gunshot wound
who was transferred to the hospital.

And at that time, they were advised
from the person that was there,

the witness, that it was a boy who
had shot his dad

and then shot himself,

and then 911 was called, and then
he was transferred to the hospital.

The 15 year old has been in
critical condition

all day here at CRMC.

He lived in the mobile home
park with his father,

and 18-year-old brother,
who was actually the one

that made the call to 911
this morning.

It's very important
that detectives

and first responders don't start
making assumptions right away.

It's what we call
threshold diagnosis.

"I know it's going on here" or
"I know what that behaviour means."

When they do that,

they've closed down the possibility
of real investigation.

We need anyone involved in a scene
like this to stay open,

not interpret too quickly

but look for things that might
need a deeper investigation.

I would automatically
be suspicious of the 911 caller.

At the scene, does his behaviour
match the expected behaviour

of someone who's just found
their brother and father dead?

Responding to the scene,

the detectives are first trying
to determine,

what are the basic facts?

They have a 911 call,
so they know what was reported.

Now they're going to go back
in to determine

how much they can corroborate

or refute based on that comment.

As far as the scene, I wanted
to find out where it took place.

How much blood was there?

Was there any type
of strike marks to the home?

What's the distance between the
rounds that were fired

to the subject that was hit?

Was there casing?

What type of gun was it?

These are things
that are going on in my head.

First thing we see is the father
that's been murdered in the bed.

That corroborates what
was on the 911 call.

It should have been
reasonably clear

to the crime scene investigators
in this case

that they were dealing
with a homicide.

The father had been shot twice
in his bed.

One of the wounds
was in his head.

Oh, and one of the wounds
was in his back.

What I could see
is that he looked like

he was still in a sleeping position,
the dad,

and that the rounds
that were fired were consistent.

There was other strike marks
in the wall.

Everything seemed to be consistent

with what's being told to us
at the time.

So the next step is now
to take a look at the suicide.

I'm always alert anytime
I'm responding to a suicide,

because I know suicides
are one of the top four themes

that are used to stage a murder.
So if I was called to the scene,

my senses would already be alert.

Initially,
the homicide case of the father,

in this particular case,
the individual died right away.

We were involved
with doing the autopsy.

The person that was
under the umbrella

of what was considered
a suicide case,

he ended up going to the hospital,

and he was at the hospital
for a number of days.

So there was a separation
in the case itself.

There is a lot of variation
in how people react,

depending on their age
and their circumstance.

But an 18-year-old boy who's in a
confined space with two people

who are dead is going
to react in some way.

He's just lost his brother
AND his father,

and his brother has
done this horrific thing

that seemed to come
from out of the blue.

If Robert is truly
the standby witness,

they need to make sure they start
questioning him right away,

because his witness is
part of the crime scene.

And the fresher it is for them,

the better for their story.

But they'll also really want to have
him isolated away from the scene

and ask again and maybe again to
make sure the story holds together.

Brian survived.

And once the police showed up,
he was still alive

and so everyone was questioning,
you know, what really happened?

Hoping to get questions answered
and that he would come around

and shed some light
on what really took place.

One of the things that they had
advised me of is that

the boy was autistic,

and I still remember to this day.
When they told me that,

I wrote it in my notes,
and I underlined it

cos I just felt that
was a bit unusual

for an autistic kid to shoot himself

and also shoot his dad.

If this is a staged scene, Robert
will be invested in Brian dying,

and he'll be worried that
Brian might survive.

Tonight, a 15 year old
is in critical condition

after police say he shot
and killed his father

before turning the good
on himself.

The father has been identified
as 61-year-old Patrick Cotter.

Authorities were called to a
mobile home park near McKinley

and Marks avenues in Fresno
around eight o'clock this morning.

With Brian still in the hospital
and not yet conscious

and not even clear
that he'll make it,

investigators have to kind of wait
to see, what will his story be?

We have not received any more
information of his son's condition,

but we will release that information
as soon as it becomes available.

The 15 year old
lived in the home with his father

and 18-year-old brother,
who made the call.

Clearly, we want to talk to him
as rapidly as possible.

So there will be a detective down at
the hospital almost 24 hours a day.

In the off chance that he's awoke,

we can talk to him
to find out exactly what happened.

Does even know how to handle
the weapon that was used?

Was the weapon
in the appropriate place

for somebody who has
just tried to shoot themselves?

I was really curious to know what
his autistic spectrum stage was.

And could he, one, handle a gun?

Could he fire a gun?

And also,
what was the relationship like?

Like, who is also the person
in the home with?

We have to understand
that Robert should be concerned

about his 15-year-old brother.
Is he going to make it?

If he doesn't seem concerned,
that would be pretty important.

And if he doesn't seem concerned

about the fact that he just lost his
father, that would be important.

If he starts to distract himself
with things

like getting on his phone
or doing something like that,

that would indicate maybe there is
more to the story here,

but they can't really start
interpreting any of that behaviour

until they get a fuller context.

So they're going to need to know
a lot more

about the family relationships.

Does the brother who's fighting
for his life...

Does he have any background
of aggression

or have there been disputes?

Have the police been called
here before for any reason?

Does Robert have any issues
in HIS life?

So they have to start unpacking
all of that before they can

really make anything of odd
behaviour or inconsistencies.

There was nothing at the crime
scene to suggest to the police

that there was another version
of events.

There was no intruder involved.

The blood spatter that was
connected with the deceased person

entirely fitted
with the account given by Robert

and nothing to undermine this story.

The brother at the time had
said that the minor autistic child

was standing at the doorway,

fired the weapon,
and the dad was struck.

He said goodbye to him
and then shot himself.

The first autopsy was
relatively straightforward.

I looked at the gunshot wounds.
I looked at the story.

Everything seemed
to fall into place that

this individual
was shot by someone else.

So at that particular time,

I signed a death certificate
on the case as a homicide.

You're going to have
physical evidence.

You're going to have fingerprints.

You're going to have DNA on the gun.

So the most important thing to do
is to preserve the crime scene.

Don't let anyone else touch it.
Don't let anything contaminate it

so that the physical evidence that
it's there can be properly tested.

Investigators can tell if a gun has
been recently wiped

or cleaned and without fingerprints,

it's very difficult to prove

or disprove the version of events
of the suspect.

Of course, we want to talk
to the surviving son, Robert.

We want to know exactly what
happened that particular night.

What did he see? What did he here?

But also, this is our one
chance to talk to a family member

about the mental abilities
of his brother.

And we're going to be
dependent upon that initially

because he's intimately
part of the family.

He lives there,
so he knows all these things.

Some inconsistencies will be
understandable

because he's in shock and he doesn't
really know what's going on

and why it happened. But if he
starts to deliver a story

that remains stable but it
contradicts things at the scene,

then that's going
to raise red flags.

Because Brian was autistic
and did need a lot of care,

neighbours were really questioning,
like,

was he capable of doing
something like this?

Was he capable of hurting his own
father and then doing it to himself?

It really did raise
a lot of questions.

It's the father who is the actual
caregiver for the son,

and they have
a real good relationship.

Well, the behaviour doesn't match
what we're being told,

so something's wrong.

The suspected minor who shot
his dad

because of his autism
slept with his dad in the same bed.

So one of my first instincts
is like,

well, this minor is going to sleep
with his dad,

but he's going to shoot his dad too?

And then he's going
to shoot himself?

It just didn't sit right.

What I was finding is that if this
autistic minor had shot his dad,

would have been rare.

If this autistic minor had shot
himself, would have been rare.

If he did both of these,

shot his dad and then shot himself,
would have been REALLY rare.

Robert's account was that Brian
then went on to shoot himself,

but his injuries weren't fatal.

This outcome leaves the police
investigation in a kind of limbo,

because they have a perpetrator who
has attempted to commit suicide,

but they are still alive,

so they can't really progress
this investigation

until Brian actually recovers.

One of the things I want to know
is whether or not

he has the ABILITY to do this.

Does he have the capability to load
or point the .45-calibre pistol?

You're in suspense.
You're kind of in a limbo.

You're waiting to see.
And for our office,

the biggest clue is going
to come from the minor

who was suspected had shot his dad

and then shot himself because now
he's in the hospital

in critical condition,

and we don't know
what his wounds look like.

So along with our findings
and our concerns

about was he able to do this,

we don't know.
We're kind of in limbo at that time.

I was taking a wait-and-see type
of approach to it,

that the way I can tell
is looking at the gunshot wound.

If it's what we call a distant
gunshot wound

and what you have no evidence
of gunpowder,

muzzle imprint
or what we call stippling...

Stippling is when you have powder
that comes out of the gun

and strikes the surface
of the body at a distance

anywhere from six inches
up to almost three feet.

So I felt that the best way

I can look at the gunshot wound
itself

and determine it
from the pathology perspective,

that's something
that I have to wait and see.

First thing I would say
to a detective

is watch Robert's behaviour.

Because if this is a staged scene,

Robert will be invested
in Brian dying,

and he'll be worried
that Brian might survive.

The 15-year-old has been in
critical condition here at CRMC.

After Brian officially
passed away,

it was a devastating blow
to the family.

Not only did they lose Brian
and Patrick,

they had also lost their mother
soon before that,

so it was just a horrible tragedy
for them.

When Brian finally
succumbs to his injuries,

there would be a routine postmortem
examination

by a forensic pathologist.

Once the son passes away,

now we can finally get those answers
that we've been searching for.

What type of wound does
the suicide victim have?

Is it a hard contact?
Is it a close contact or whatever?

Cos that'll tell us whether
it's consistent

or inconsistent
with a self-inflicted wound.

Any situation,
such as a gunshot wound to the head,

whether it's a suicide
or a homicide,

there is a request
at that time to the family.

"Would you be willing to donate
organs and tissues?"

And that took place,
in this particular case,

on the 15-year-old son,

is that there was another day
in between

when he was pronounced dead

and when he finally arrived
at the corner's office.

Medical examiner has to determine
three things:

cause, manner and mechanism.

The cause of the death, which is
either going to be homicide,

suicide or accident or unknown.

The manner of death,
which is, what killed this person?

How was this person killed?

And the mechanism of death.
What weapon was used?

A gunshot wound
that's inflicted close up,

which is what you would
expect as a murder-suicide.

The bullet's entry point
is going to look different

than a shot from a few feet away.

There is no gunpowder found
in the skin around the wound.

There is no muzzle imprint
of the skin itself around the wound.

Which then leads me to say

we're not dealing with a suicide
in this particular case.

It's something different.

We learned that he passed away,

and then we brought him into our
office because we wanted

to look at that wound,
to see if it was consistent

with either someone
shooting himself, like,

is it possible where he could
have had a distance

of where it was something
that he could have done,

like, the placement
of the barrel to the head?

Is everything consistent
with someone he did it himself?

And if not, then
we were going to have two homicides

instead of a homicide and a suicide.

It's not until the postmodern
findings that the police realise

that they now have a DIFFERENT
kind of case on their hands...

...and that Robert would become key
person of interest

because he was present when
both of the crimes were committed.

And his account does not square
with the medical evidence.

The autopsy showed that Brian
could not have shot himself,

and that, ultimately,
is what led to Robert's arrest.

As Robert begins to realise
he's now a suspect,

he will start to worry. He's a kid.

He's not sophisticated
about crime scene staging.

He believes he's gotten away
with this, and suddenly he hasn't.

We wanna now look at motive.

Why would Robert kill his brother
and his father

and pin it on his brother?

So something has happened

to make Robert do something
so extreme.

Is he angry at his brother
and his father?

In this household,
we had both parents,

a 15-year-old brother
with severe autism and Robert.

And he looked to his mother.

She was probably his best friend

and the place he could go
to get away from his father.

And once she had died, it would have
changed the entire dynamics.

Especially
if the father did not know

how to deal
with the autistic brother.

He might have looked to Robert to be
the primary caretaker of this boy,

and Robert would have resented
that kind of responsibility.

So if he already had a conflicted
relationship with his father

and now the mother is removed
as a buffer to that,

it's raw.
And he's annoyed at his brother,

and he concocts a plan to get
rid of the father

and brother and blame the brother.

And it would be an easy
way to be rid of both of them

and be home scot-free.

You want to get some
background on Robert.

How did he get along with everybody?

Was there any expected reward
if both of them passed away?

In the early stages
of the investigation,

there is no reason
for Robert to believe

that he hasn't fooled the police.

It's just an example of how most
people are naive about the intensity

and scrutiny
that they might come under

during the course
of an investigation.

The police would be
looking into all their relationships

and their behaviour
and their movements.

Once Robert becomes a suspect,

they will confiscate his computer,
his phone,

any other digital devices so
that they can look at HIS history.

What kinds of things did he look up?
Did he look up suicides?

Did he look up how to use
these kinds of weapons?

Did he look up
how to stage anything?

So they're going to be looking for
any indication

that this plan is his

and he's the one
that carried this out

and then pinned it on his brother.

And they're going to be looking for
what was his relationship

with his brother
that he would do such a thing.

And they would look in detail
at their digital devices.

And of course,
most people don't realise

that even
when you delete evidence

that the police can still find that
evidence on these devices.

What they found when they
examined his computer

was that he had repeatedly searched
how the police investigate suicide,

and how might someone
go about staging a suicide.

In this instance, Robert
didn't even delete the evidence.

It would have been found
very quickly.

The internet searches that they
found were things like

"how to fire a Colt 1911"...

...which is directly connected
to the crime

because that's the weapon
that was used.

He's so unsophisticated

that he doesn't even realise they're
going to be able to find this.

If you're going to do these
kinds of searches, go to a library,

do something else.

He clearly is naive.

This is beginning to look more like
a REACTIVE kind of staging

than a PROACTIVE one.

I think the people questioning him,
the detectives,

are going to start seeing signals
that he's distressed,

that things
have gone completely off the rails,

and he doesn't have a way to fix it.

When a suspect is interrogated,

it's a very planned-out procedure,

everything down to the temperature
in the interrogation room,

the positioning of the chairs,
the positioning of the questioners.

It's all down to a science.

And the purpose is to have the
suspect so uncomfortable

and set them at such
a cognitive dissonance

that they will finally confess.

In America,
we try to get a confession

because we consider a confession the
best evidence that there is because

somebody is giving a statement
against their own self-interest.

That's our best evidence,

and all of our courts has
recognised

that that is the
strongest evidence that there is.

This is an example of
when you're just laying out

all the evidence that you have,
and the suspect realises that

there's no other place
for him to go.

They have you. So what does he do?

He tries to confess
because he thinks that confession

is the best thing that's
going to help him down the road.

Once he's confessed

and considering the evidence
that they already have,

I believe prosecutors
would charge him

with the crime immediately
at that point.

We have to make sure that the
evidence is compelling enough

to say that, yes, this person
is the one who did it.

Because that is enough

for a reasonable jury
to find that he's guilty.

I do remember in this case,

we had a forensic tech
whose son was autistic,

and he's one of the ones
who came to me and was like,

"Imron,
I know if this kid is autistic,

there's no way he could have done
this. There's no way."

When Robert changed his plea
to no contest, essentially saying,

"You got me. I mean, you have the
evidence and I recognise it."

Now I think grief would come into
the picture,

much more so than before.

He's already grieving
a recent death of his mother.

Now he's realising he has done
this horrible thing to his brother.

He probably did love his father
and brother to some extent,

and now he's lost them both.
And he did it.

The staging of the scene
shows premeditation.

It shows consciousness of guilt,

and it shows
that he was willing to lie

and blame his autistic brother.

Those actions can elevate a charge
from manslaughter to murder.

If he were to testify
that he snapped,

went into the room
and shot both of them,

that would make a lot more sense.

And he could have been able
to argue,

"Because of my terrible childhood,
this is manslaughter.

I just snapped.
I didn't mean to do it."

Staging the scene does
the absolute opposite.

It makes him look far more guilty,

and it makes a crime look
much more premeditated.

Once the news came out that Robert
was actually the one

who had perpetrated this crime
and it wasn't a murder-suicide,

it was an even bigger question
mark of what really happened here.

He took enough time to plan,
Google search

and then stage the crime.

So it makes him and the crime
appear to be very cold,

calculated, cruel, planned.

Now the prosecutor
has to determine,

what's the best course of action?

Does he want to accept a plea
or go ahead and go to court?

Many times it revolves around money.

It costs money
to have a homicide trial.

Costs a lot of money.

Whereas a guilty plea
doesn't take that much at all.

And if the guy
is going to take a guilty plea,

if he can get a good sentence,

that's normally the accepted course.

Ninety-eight per cent
of cases do not go to trial.

They're resolved by a plea bargain.

In this case, I would suspect

that Mr Cotter pled guilty
to everything

in order to avoid the death penalty
or life without parole.

What would have been uncovered
in the examining

of Robert's personal history
was that

he seemed to have a very
traumatic childhood, and in fact,

he tried to use this as part
of his defence during the trial.

But a traumatised childhood
would not be a defence.

It would perhaps be mitigation,

but he still shot his father
and his brother.

He still murdered them.
He knew he was murdering them,

so the trauma would perhaps be
relevant to his sentence

but not relevant to his conviction.

Mitigation is anything that could
either explain why the person did it

or anything that can get them a
lower sentence.

So we look at things like family
history, personal history,

and if your judge is
convinced that there are reasons,

not excuses but explanations
for why a crime was committed

and that there are reasons why your
client is not like everyone else,

that can go a long way
in reducing a potential sentence.

But it is going to be
a lot about who the judge is,

cos some are more compassionate
than others.

They're going to be
looking at the fact that he's 18.

The adolescent brain research that
we have these days

where adolescents, especially boys,

don't really think that far into the
consequences of their actions.

They're more impulsive.

So whatever sentence
they bestow

is going to be qualified
by some of this research.

There is no room for error because
the stakes are so incredibly high,

with a potential for life without
parole

or the death penalty,
which is still active.

We don't want false convictions.

He receives life
without the chance of parole.

He will die in prison.

The extra 50 years on top of those
two life sentences

is what we call enhancement.

So if you use a gun in commission
of a crime and someone dies,

that adds 25 years to the sentence.

That's a way to ensure that he
would never get out of prison.

Because if at some time

life in prison
were declared unconstitutional

or parole was brought back,

he would not be eligible for parole,
because before he COULD be paroled,

he'd have to serve
those extra 50 years.

This is one of these cases

that you have to take everything
into account.

Not only was it meticulously
planned, carefully planned...

...but it also involved
the murder of your own family.

This would have a tremendous
impact on the jury

as well as the community.

The judge said something like,

"I can understand maybe killing your
father over abuse

in your background, but you
grabbed your brother by the collar

and yanked him back and shot him.

That is so brutal and unnecessary.

And then you wanted to pin it
on him."

And I think that was the deciding
factor, is the brutality of that.

You don't really know it's staged

unless there's something really,
really apparent.

The way is reported to law
enforcement was really consistent

with what I saw. One of the things
that we're looking for,

if we're looking at staging
and trying to see, is, like, timing.

Let's say if these events happened
hours prior to being called 911,

I could say,
"Well, this doesn't make sense

because this person is super cold.

He's been passed away for some
time,"

but for this case,
everything was fairly consistent.

The gun was there.
The casings were there.

The person who did it was there.

There wasn't anything real elaborate
or anything.

It just appeared to be
really straightforward.

I mean, there was an effort
being put forth

to make it look like what it was,
and it was done well

except for the part where
we have this other evidence.

I think the only thing that was
really out of the ordinary for me

was just saying that it was a minor,
autistic kid who did all of this.

If it wasn't for that, I don't think
I would have been so intrigued.

Or you know, the red flags
wouldn't have really come up.

To me one of the more frustrating
things within this case is,

what was the motive? What was the
rationale? What was the reason?

There's been some alleged

but nothing really positive
that said

this is the reason why,
on this particular date,

he killed his dad
and then his brother.

That's the most frustrating thing
because that resolves everything.

Now I feel like I'm
working on behalf of that community,

that autistic community.

When it all kind of comes to light

that this was not the one
who did it,

you feel some
great satisfaction knowing

that I was a part
of it in some way.

His family doesn't think of him
as an evil person.

They think of him as somebody who
had a moment

that is really unexplainable,

and I think that will sit with them
forever.

They'll always try to understand
what came over him that day.

Because they were so young,
both Brian and Robert,

when this took place,

it was just such a horrible tragedy
and lives lost.

Both of them would never
get to live out their futures.

They would never get to continue
being part of that community

that they were so involved in,

and it's a loss for everyone
around them.

When something like this
happens in such a small community,

it's something that will
stay with them forever.

These were people that were
enmeshed in their lives every day.

They were people... They were
children that they saw grow up.

And to see them
ripped apart like this,

one of them,
the rest of their life in prison,

it's something that they will
never forget.

Subtitles by Sky Access Services