AL AL - Brittney Wood, 19, Mobile, 31 May 2012 - # 1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does that mean that there has to be other evidence or witnesses, that the word of the victim is not enough?
 
Amysmom...not sure what you are saying


(b) A person shall not be convicted of incest or of an attempt to commit incest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the person with whom the offense is alleged to have been committed.

What does this say to you? I want to be sure I have it right cos if not I'll look like a major idiot :)
 
Nothing's really moot regarding the 3 uncles, IMO. I'll be hard to convince they're not related to BW's disappearance.

It may be a while before more details come out regarding the 2 arrested. I think LE has to handle this delicately to try to get as much info as possible from them. I hope they know what they're doing.

While I do have some inside information, there are still gaps in what I know. I just thought the situation was bad until the most recent bomb dropped day before yesterday. Now everything we thought we knew becomes suspect if it was at all related to the 3 uncles and/or the wives.

But from what I do know, it's unlikely the minor victim had the opportunity to bring new information since DH's death. Based on the family dynamic, it just doesn't seem possible unless there is a victim I don't know about. However, the investigation into BW's disappearance may have provided evidence that was needed in order to arrest the 2 uncles.
 
uncorroborated [ˌʌnkəˈrɒbəˌreɪtɪd]
adj
(of evidence, a statement, etc.) lacking confirmation or evidence
 
Does that mean that there has to be other evidence or witnesses, that the word of the victim is not enough?

That's how it looks to me but that's not only completely unfair but crazy too! :maddening:
 
Does that mean that there has to be other evidence or witnesses, that the word of the victim is not enough?

It does. However, I don't think they would have made the arrest if they didn't think they already had "more." I read somewhere that one of the men confessed and implicated the other man. So a complaining victim plus a confession or a complaining victim plus the testimony of an accomplice is probably enough, MOO.
 
also, on WWH FB she stated she took the BOYS(son) to the styx river house not the daughter.

She has now wiped everything off her FB dating back to April 2012
 
Actually, Donnie's wife (WWH) posted that this info came from Donnie..She claimed he told her about BW wanting to come to the Lake House & then what he said to her..This was Weds night (not Thursday) & she said Donnie was the one that told BW he would not be there but if she got a ride she was welcome.

I'm not sure if Chessie knew about Donnie's 'troubles'?..It's been reported she did not & is "shocked" about it..I'm assuming this includes her bro Scott & BIL Justin Kent also?

Thanks amysmom. I was hoping you'd chime in with a timeline as I know you've been pretty good piecing the events together.
 
Does that mean that there has to be other evidence or witnesses, that the word of the victim is not enough?

I read it as being put in there as protecting someone from a false accusation. I guess they can always poly the alleged perp if he denies...esp if there is no physical evidence.

That is why it can take a while for charges to be made. In cases I've been familiar with, LE usually does a thorough investigation and gets their ducks in a row before bringing forth charges. jmoo
 
Could these items have contained DNA?

I don't hold out much hope for any evidence that was found outside. About June 9th the area had major flooding with over 2 ft of rain. The searches didn't begin until at least a week later.
 
Nothing's really moot regarding the 3 uncles, IMO. I'll be hard to convince they're not related to BW's disappearance.

It may be a while before more details come out regarding the 2 arrested. I think LE has to handle this delicately to try to get as much info as possible from them. I hope they know what they're doing.

While I do have some inside information, there are still gaps in what I know. I just thought the situation was bad until the most recent bomb dropped day before yesterday. Now everything we thought we knew becomes suspect if it was at all related to the 3 uncles and/or the wives.

But from what I do know, it's unlikely the minor victim had the opportunity to bring new information since DH's death. Based on the family dynamic, it just doesn't seem possible unless there is a victim I don't know about. However, the investigation into BW's disappearance may have provided evidence that was needed in order to arrest the 2 uncles.


I think these two were being looked at 4 months ago just like uncle Donnie!
jmo
 
I'm not sure how SW and DK became suspects in the child molestation. It may have been months. So far, the info has been coming from LE, so they are only disclosing limited info.

If there is only one victim they're being charged for, and if it's the victim I think it is, then I doubt the victim came forward since DH's death. I am not sure yet if there's only one victim and if it's the same one DH was being investigated for molesting.[/QUOTE

So was it common knowledge around there that this was gonna happen? :what:
 
Gonna have to disagree with this vehemently... not 1, not 2... but THREE of BW's uncles were implicated/arrested/under investigation for MAJOR sexual crimes against children.

I'm certain the most recent witness to come forward is NOT the only child that has been victimized in this circle. I pray their families will allow those children to speak up instead of keeping them quiet.

Can you imagine??? It is difficult enough for a victim of any age to gather the strength to speak up when something this horrible happens to them...

Consider what these children would have running through their tortured minds... "look what happened to BW - do you want to end up like her if you talk?"

Oh no, I completely agree with you! I am so grieved for the children in this family circle. What I'm trying to say is that all the "what did he say to so and so on that date that made blah blah do yada?". I think when cases take a gossipy turn it's time to draw up the reins and refocus on the victims. I hope I was clear enough. MOO
 
I personally think the same "grooming" behavior occurred here too. I am not in any way invalidating any one of the men's actions, but I have a feeling that there was most likely an instigator. A truly, evil, sick individual who slowly, bit by bit, indoctrinated the others involved. It may have started years ago as "harmless", locker-room-men talk. Things like, "oh, she's hot, but jail-bait." From there, it may have escalated into photos being taken from afar of unwitting women, and shown as trophies to the instigator. Etc, etc. Until eventually the men were involved in activities that they may have fantasized about, but never would have had the "courage" to act out on their own. This is not to say that ANY of those involved were normal to begin with, or had normal sexual lives. But, evil tends to seek out, and find, evil. Also, women in the same family, who perhaps suffered abuse themselves at a young age, may gravitate toward abusers themselves when they reach adulthood. Thus, sisters marrying two different offenders... I think this family most likely has generations of abuse and dysfunction that created a magnet for evil and the perfect storm of misfortune for poor Brittney.

All jmo...

I agree with your opinion.

I think the molestation probably goes back generations. After so long the lines between right and wrong get blurred. They learn to look the other way and make excuses - Men will be men. I also think these men think it's just a little harmless fun. Daddy did it, Uncle does it, the girls all turned out fine. It almost reminds me of the Texas communes where the young girls are encouraged/groomed by their mothers.

I hope these arrests expose the whole lot. These little girls need to know it's not right for Uncle Daddy to molest them and there are laws that protect them.
 
(b) A person shall not be convicted of incest or of an attempt to commit incest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the person with whom the offense is alleged to have been committed.

What does this say to you? I want to be sure I have it right cos if not I'll look like a major idiot :)

Seems it's to protect innocent people from being convicted of something where there is no proof.....:twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
2,146
Total visitors
2,228

Forum statistics

Threads
601,794
Messages
18,129,983
Members
231,145
Latest member
alicat3
Back
Top