gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Besides that he went camping with the kids in the cold, do you consider "circumstantial evidence"?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
AFTER midnight, with 2 kids under the age of 5 (4?). His unwillingness to cooperate with investigators, post-fact. His unwillingness to allow the children to even MENTION their mother. His odd behavior/characterizations of himself in interviews post-fact. The fact she left with NOTHING. Not her cell, not a WALLET. NO CASH, NO NOTHING. And most importantly, if she were leaving to be with another man (for which there is ZERO supporting even gossip to that effect other than what JOSH says), she left WITHOUT HER KIDS who were the do-all end-all of her life by all accounts.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"His unwillingness to cooperate with investigators, post-fact."
Interesting, it is the COPS, who cannot find ANY evidence, that are saying he is unwilling to be cooperative. Short of saying, "I did it." what more do they want?
"His unwillingness to allow the children to even MENTION their mother."
This is something his inlaws CLAIMED, NEVER proven. Sure, THEY aren't biased, are they?
"His odd behavior/characterizations of himself in interviews post-fact."
Odd based on WHAT? YOUR belief in what is "normal"?
"The fact she left with NOTHING. Not her cell, not a WALLET. NO CASH, NO NOTHING. And most importantly, if she were leaving to be with another man (for which there is ZERO supporting even gossip to that effect other than what JOSH says), she left WITHOUT HER KIDS who were the do-all end-all of her life by all accounts."
So lets see, HER failure to take the kids means HE did it, HIS unwillingness to do WITHOUT his kids means he did it. Seems like you are bound and determined that EVERY fact points to him doing it, both in the "circumstantial" evidence, which is NOTHING more than what a NORMAL person does, and the LACK of physical evidence.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8834
|
|
I am arguing strictly known facts.
Living with a child p0rn maker is grounds to take your kids.
Finding out that yo also enjoy watching animation of child-rape by a relative - is grounds to keep them from you until it can be determined whether you are truly aroused by that.
How/why/when things come to light is not really significant, but I will say that Utah had different priorities. They wanted this guy for murder and until he was charged - did not have to share jack squat of what they found. They were protecting their murder case, though in the end gave it up to keep the kids from being returned. None of that has any bearing on the CPS case. They acted appropriately based on information they HAD.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"Living with a child p0rn maker is grounds to take your kids."
Living with a KNOWN child p0rn maker is grounds. Ceasing all contact and finding another place to stay after the fact that your Dad was into kiddie p0rn is not. There is NO evidence that he was aware that his Dad was into that, and he did EVERYTHING he could to cease all contact after it became known.
Are you saying that if the police showed up at your door and someone in your home was show to have kiddie p0rn, as they were hauling them out of the house in hand cuffs, you would have NO problem with them taking your children as well?
"Finding out that yo also enjoy watching animation of child-rape by a relative - is grounds to keep them from you until it can be determined whether you are truly aroused by that."
Actually, no, it is not. A pedophile that has not ACTED on his or her desires, and is not in possession of illegal material has JUST as much a right to keep their kids as anyone else.
But lets say that it IS a reason. How about a HEARING on it? How about giving a person a right to DEFEND themselves, you know, DUE PROCESS, before we automatically begin the penalty phase (continued denial of custodial rights and court ordered counseling and testing)?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Well, I'd stake my life you are wrong and I'm right. That's how confident I am. Granted, that's cocky but my gut SCREAMS in this case and it's very very rare my gut is wrong.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8834
|
|
If I was living with a child p0rn producer? Yep. Take them. Or allow me to make safe arrangements with a family member as was done here.
"Actually, no, it is not. A pedophile that has not ACTED on his or her desires, and is not in possession of illegal material has JUST as much a right to keep their kids as anyone else." --> we will just have to agree to disagree here.
While I agree that separation from ones children is punishment - you and I both know that under the law it is not. This was legally a temporary situation. And he had a hearing. The results being that after an investigation there was no proof he or his father had molested the kids, that there was no evidence he knew of what his father was doing (but also none that he DIDN'T know), but new information came to light that he enjoyed animated kiddie p0rn. So an eval was ordered. Because as anyone with a brain knows - it can take years for kids to have the courage to tell. Sounds like everything working the way it should to make sure he was a safe person.
Now - was there a distinct pleasure in taking his kids away because he was suspected of murder, by oh, everyone? Yeppers. But that doesn't make it illegal. Just damn convenient.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"Yep. Take them. Or allow me to make safe arrangements with a family member as was done here."
They "allowed" him to make arrangements? Nope, they TOOK the kids and gave them to the maternal grandparents. I am SURE that since he was FIGHTING them for custody, and they were CONVINCED he killed their daughter, they would NOT have been his FIRST choice for custody.
Oh, and would you have been willing to agree to four months PLUS of SUPERVISED visits, even though it was NOT you who was guilty of the kiddie p0rn?
"--> we will just have to agree to disagree here."
Nope, you are WRONG, and I am RIGHT. You CANNOT be arrested for your "desires", only ACTING on those desires, should they be illegal.
"Sounds like everything working the way it should to make sure he was a safe person."
So there was NO evidence that he did something wrong, yet he had to prove he was a safe person. When did you have to prove YOU were a safe person before you took your kids home?
"Now - was there a distinct pleasure in taking his kids away because he was suspected of murder, by oh, everyone?"
And WHY was he suspected? Oh yeah, because there was ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that he did it, after THREE YEARS.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
You're funny.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
As are you. What is funny about it?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
