calgary123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 0
It is driven largely by a prejudice against Brad more than concern over the children. I believe, without doubt, that the family loves the children and will do anything to protect them. However, their conviction that Brad is responsible for the death of their daughter/sister is impacting their determination to shield the children from him.
The family didn't "tear" the children away. They were presented with a set of circumstances where these two girls' mother was murdered. They already heard and lived the stories they were told by Nancy about how Brad treated her. They believed their daughter when she told them that Brad had been suicidal, and now their daughter was dead under circumstances which naturally suggest the husband is at least a suspect.
What are they to do? Wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Even if they didn't then know if Brad did it, they certainly knew it was a possibility he did, and not a slight one. Protecting the girls by getting them away was the right thing to do, even if Brad was factually innocent. In the case of vulnerable children, situations like this demand extreme caution.
Ironically, Brad submitting to a video deposition in the custody aspect of the case resulted in one of the stronger pieces of evidence against him. From a pure point of view of avoiding a conviction, he should have not done that. I think this is where his lawyers made their biggest mistake.