DCF Shelter and Custody Hearings #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SurfieTX said:
I believe you are spot on with this theory. Good noodlin'! :)
Click to expand...

I know MS & CWW are held in different facilities...... is JRR in yet a 3rd facility or in the same as CWW only separated?
 
mikeinmo said:
The last I could track down is MS and CWW are held in Lee County facilities and JRR is in Collier County jails
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/31927898...people-need-to-know-hes-innocent#.V1RCxpFOm00
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I had them in wrong jails.

I thought it was the reverse, when I read on one of thr threads way way back. CWW was in one facility. JRR and MS were in another. The reason I thought, was CWW was arrested first and they moved him out because after JRR was arrested, there was a lawyer conflict (both being represented by same defense office). LE wanted the guys separated. Then along comes MS arrest, since he had a private lawyer at the time, they kept him in the same jail as JRR.

This case can get confusing at times. Again thanks for the info.
 
Dmacky said:
How did we miss this?
Sievers pled the 5th to the question "Who killed Teresa Sievers"
Most our answers are here :wink:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32117342...rder-question-at-custody-hearing#.V1RTaI-cFY_
Click to expand...

Mummert plans to question Wright about his accusations that Mark Sievers played a role in his wife's murder, and a judge said the process can continue -- but only after Wright's attorney is contacted, meaning the trial will stand in recess for two weeks.

Good find Dmacky! Sound like a mini trial!
 
Paulas88 said:
Mummert plans to question Wright about his accusations that Mark Sievers played a role in his wife's murder, and a judge said the process can continue -- but only after Wright's attorney is contacted, meaning the trial will stand in recess for two weeks.

Good find Dmacky! Sound like a mini trial!
Click to expand...

Is this just a scheming plan on the part of MS and his defense to find out what CWW' has against MS? But, they must already know, right? I just don't get this, how is questioning CWW on MS' involvement going to benifit MS? When MOST LIKELY, CWW
is going to say "YES, MS hired me to kill TS". I'm baffled....
 
Paulas88 said:
Is this just a scheming plan on the part of MS and his defense to find out what CWW' has against MS? But, they must already know, right? I just don't get this, how is questioning CWW on MS' involvement going to benifit MS? When MOST LIKELY, CWW
is going to say "YES, MS hired me to kill TS". I'm baffled....
Click to expand...

Hey-Hey, Paulas88.... I have the same ?s as to how much ALL defense is privy to... AZ probably knows the general info they may get that still isn't public? IDK, I think what's released as public is what all Attnys have but then SAO would have all the good stuff that later at trial time has to be given to the defense of a given trial and likewise what the defense "digs up" has to be given to the prosecutor. I'm still fuzzy on the parameters of The Plea Deal although the way AZ stated an answer to my "deal" question, it sounded like he couldn't do anything to violate it WHICH doesn't make sense to me OTHER THAN the only way to make the "deal" invalid would be for CWW to just simply change his mind & back out---which may be.

I was looking at the 'plea deal' sort of like a 'confidentiality agreement'.... as what exactly is considered "crossing the line".
('confidentiality' was in the actual events movie The Insider, scary dealing with big biz along with surveillance they did)

Plea Deal..... when do you cross the line OR is there no line other than CWW backing out?
 
Paulas88 said:
Is this just a scheming plan on the part of MS and his defense to find out what CWW' has against MS? But, they must already know, right? I just don't get this, how is questioning CWW on MS' involvement going to benifit MS? When MOST LIKELY, CWW
is going to say "YES, MS hired me to kill TS". I'm baffled....
Click to expand...
This is absolutely crazy to me as well Paula!
Marks attorney M. Mummet's argument to judge:
"My client should be afforded the opportunity to present witnesses, to IMPEACH and DISPROVE Ms. Allain's "theory" of the case."

Sievers attorney plans to question Wright about his "accusations" against Mark Sievers in the death of Teresa. HUH???

I should have bolded the whole damn thing. Last time I looked, this was a child custody placement hearing. How can Mummet and Sievers demand info that is intended to be used in the criminal part of the investigation/plea deal/trial? Can lawyers cross reference two completely different cases?

I am completely befuddled by MS's attorney's statements. We really need AZlawyer's knowledge here.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32117342...rder-question-at-custody-hearing#.V1SFr4-cFY_
 
GREAT find Dmacky! And yes, we need AZLaywer for our questions :thinking:

So, basically, they want MS' trial before MS' big trial. How is this legal? Has this been done before - bringing in the key witness to a parent's guilt in murder and that trial is nowhere near beginning?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but you all will understand what I mean: Isn't there a way to protect CWW :puke: from having to testify here? I say that for a couple of reasons. Nobody wants to see the case agains MS be jeopardized any any shenanigans MS has in mind. MS knows all kinds of dirty stuff on CWW and all he has to do is have his lawyer ask certain questions that would get the information either on the record, or more importantly, out to the public and potential jury pool. Those questions that get asked by lawyers knowing they'll be objected to and sustained, but we've all heard the words. Shenanigans and Dirty Tricks. Watching MS in these short clips gives me the impression that yes, he is calling the shots and is anxious to get CWW in person to testify.

My concern:

IF MS is found to be uninvolved in the murder of the children's mother in the DCF hearing, he gets released to be a parent. That's the sole concern of this hearing - custody of the children - not his guilt or innocence.

He's now free, but facing the murder charge and *hopefully* the trial. That information can be brought in as his defense; the man who confessed to the murder got MS released in the DCF hearing.

Defense to the jury: "He was found innocent there, how can you convict him here?"

The only reason I see for calling anyone to testify in a child custody case is to testify as to fitness of potential guardian. Fine, I see that. But, how deep or far afield can the questioning go?

This is just kind of worrisome if allowed to happen.

My question still stands because I don't see any answer in any video or news article: was CWW there at that hearing? Going by what I did hear, it was asked that he be stricken from the list for that day's hearing, so I assume he was there and ready to testify to something because I can't imagine they hadn't sent for him already. I'm sorry for my really awkward wording in this post - I'm just confusing myself the more I try to verbalize these things. :/

Am I understanding that correctly?
 
I took this business of wanting CWW as a witness in the DCF hearing to actually have nothing to do with the children's custody but to be an attempt on the part of the defense to gain information that could be of benefit to MS in his murder trial. To find out what kind of a witness CWW makes on the stand, to try to get as much info as possible without actually hurting MS's defense.

The defense team already knows that CWW has turned on MS in order to get a favorable plea deal for himself. Finding out how badly he has turned could help the defense in determining their trial strategy. Remember that "Wayne would do anything for Mark" statement. I would not be at all surprised to see the defense put forth the premise that CWW thought up and proceeded with the murder of TS all on his own with MS denying any knowledge of the plan.

It would be really good if JRR also took some sort of a plea deal - which, who knows, could be being negotiated right now in regard to keeping the death penalty off the table.
 
Okay, I'm thinking out loud here. Could CWW's attorney fight Seivers attorney re: calling CWW as a witness in the child custody hearing due to relevance? I just do not get what CWW could bring to the table that would be relevant to the children's placement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk
 
FelicityLemon said:
GREAT find Dmacky! And yes, we need AZLaywer for our questions :thinking:

So, basically, they want MS' trial before MS' big trial. How is this legal? Has this been done before - bringing in the key witness to a parent's guilt in murder and that trial is nowhere near beginning?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but you all will understand what I mean: Isn't there a way to protect CWW :puke: from having to testify here? I say that for a couple of reasons. Nobody wants to see the case agains MS be jeopardized any any shenanigans MS has in mind. MS knows all kinds of dirty stuff on CWW and all he has to do is have his lawyer ask certain questions that would get the information either on the record, or more importantly, out to the public and potential jury pool. Those questions that get asked by lawyers knowing they'll be objected to and sustained, but we've all heard the words. Shenanigans and Dirty Tricks. Watching MS in these short clips gives me the impression that yes, he is calling the shots and is anxious to get CWW in person to testify.

My concern:

IF MS is found to be uninvolved in the murder of the children's mother in the DCF hearing, he gets released to be a parent. That's the sole concern of this hearing - custody of the children - not his guilt or innocence.

He's now free, but facing the murder charge and *hopefully* the trial. That information can be brought in as his defense; the man who confessed to the murder got MS released in the DCF hearing.

Defense to the jury: "He was found innocent there, how can you convict him here?"

The only reason I see for calling anyone to testify in a child custody case is to testify as to fitness of potential guardian. Fine, I see that. But, how deep or far afield can the questioning go?

This is just kind of worrisome if allowed to happen.

My question still stands because I don't see any answer in any video or news article: was CWW there at that hearing? Going by what I did hear, it was asked that he be stricken from the list for that day's hearing, so I assume he was there and ready to testify to something because I can't imagine they hadn't sent for him already. I'm sorry for my really awkward wording in this post - I'm just confusing myself the more I try to verbalize these things. :/

Am I understanding that correctly?
Click to expand...

Oh MS aint gettin out, no matter what happens here. He doesn't have bond money. This trial is only for Bonnie to get custody (per MS's wishes) instead of MAG. MS doesn't want MAG to have the girls, that's the whole reason for this little maneuvering trick by MS. Taking it to trial :rolleyes: Still trying to call the shots.

How will his daughters ever remember to brush their teeth before they go to bed, without Daddy telling them? < Things like that, that only can happen if his mommy has custody.

Great insight about the questioning of CWW's dirty past that MS's can have his attorney ask. I had not considered that. :thinking:
 
am not going to quote any of the above parts of the thread but.............. we really need to know what is allowed in a custody case and not allowed. Any speculation of other cases and results of the custody case is not the intention of this thread i believe JMO
 
mikeinmo said:
am not going to quote any of the above parts of the thread but.............. we really need to know what is allowed in a custody case and not allowed. Any speculation of other cases and results of the custody case is not the intention of this thread i believe JMO
Click to expand...
I wonder if Mummert thinks that the DCF attorney "opened the door" to question CWW in the custody trial because DCF cited CWW'S testimony as one of the reasons MAG should have permanent custody. The upcoming hearing is sbout MAG having permanent custody, right?

I am hoping that CWW attorney Parker is wise to any manipulation from MS and will do what ever she can to protect and preserve her clients rights.

I can't provide the link but see Amazon Rains opinion in post #580 Batch 6 thread re: MS wanting to look CWW on the eye in an effort to manipulate and intimidate him. I tend to agree with this as the main reason to subpoena CWW to the custody trial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Dmacky said:
Oh MS aint gettin out, no matter what happens here. He doesn't have bond money. This trial is only for Bonnie to get custody (per MS's wishes) instead of MAG. MS doesn't want MAG to have the girls, that's the whole reason for this little maneuvering trick by MS. Taking it to trial :rolleyes: Still trying to call the shots.

How will his daughters ever remember to brush their teeth before they go to bed, without Daddy telling them? < Things like that, that only can happen if his mommy has custody.

Great insight about the questioning of CWW's dirty past that MS's can have his attorney ask. I had not considered that. :thinking:
Click to expand...

LOL! I just had another thought, CWW's lawyer can argue that if they really want CWW to testify in this DCF hearing, "wait until after MS' murder trial, and then he can testify for the DCF hearing."

Yep, MS only wants to get to CWW for a reason having nothing to do with child custody.

Once again - Mark Sievers is using his children as tools for his own self-serving reasons

There's another tick in that CON column... getting' pretty heavy there.
 
Take a deep breath folks.

We are all here because we are concerned about the girls. Stay focused on that.
 
Alice253 said:
Okay, I'm thinking out loud here. Could CWW's attorney fight Seivers attorney re: calling CWW as a witness in the child custody hearing due to relevance? I just do not get what CWW could bring to the table that would be relevant to the children's placement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I would think Parker would object and /or ensure her client's best interest.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
I was thinkin.... Was the smile MS shot to is his mother .... because he knew the hearing would be postponed? I mean, what does MS have to smile about? Especially on the heals of his repulsive calander and texts out for all to gag!
 
tlcya said:
Take a deep breath folks.

We are all here because we are concerned about the girls. Stay focused on that.
Click to expand...
Sure thing TICYA...But a DCF hearing where someone just invoked the 5th and now wants the person who is cooperating with the prosecution to be a witness?? I am thinking this has nothing to do about the girls (and yes, I am taking a deep breath....many in fact). I think it has to do with getting access to a man who is in protective custody, on an going criminal case.
I'm kind of a movie buff, so I'll just relate a 30 second scene that says it all. "MS (the holder of all secrets) and CWW exchange a silent and knowing glance before the hearing. CWW realizes his predicament and recants all earlier statements, about MS, to the courts." (It helps if the theme to The Godfather movie is playing in the background.) I think MS's is getting more and more desperate as his options diminish. For the sake of these children, I hope the judge sees through this charade.
 
I think, like all psychopaths, MS feels he will be free. Hi$ eye$ are $hining thinking of all of that ca$h.

He think$ that he can make CWW'$ te$timony go away. He can tell the lawyer what he want$ done. The lawyer can tell him it is a ridiculou$ idea, but M$ ha$ ultimate faith in hi$ own charm and brain$.

I think that i$ what it i$ all about. M$'$ delu$ion$.

I think mo$t of us believe he led a fanta$y life with him a$ the $tar. I think thi$ hearing i$ another fanta$y
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 1,659 (members: 192, guests: 1,467)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
1,467
Total visitors
1,659
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,764
Messages
18,191,704
Members
233,523
Latest member
Mr. Clean
Back
Top