Elisa Baker - Life Before Adam

[FaerieB]

Very interesting twist. AY finds out he was free all along and AB learns he'll have to divorce her after-all...

Hmm any possibility that EB was aware that her marriage to AY wasn't legal when she married AB? I'd think so. What a calculating <<interesting person>>.

Personally, I don't know what to believe in regards to EB's many marriages. I think they're going to need a forensic audit to figure it all out. After all, maybe the marriage before AY was invalid, so AY was valid, and AB is not...and goodness knows how many other permutations. But I do agree with your assessment...EB is definitely an <unusual person>.

 

[Dr. Know?]

After looking up NC's statutes on spousal privileges, I found these two links. That's if their marriage is legit if AY's wasn't. I don't see how how either AY's or AB's was legit.

NC statute

§ 8&#8209;57.1. Husband&#8209;wife privilege waived in child abuse.

Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 8&#8209;56 and G.S. 8&#8209;57, the husband&#8209;wife privilege shall not be ground for excluding evidence regarding the abuse or neglect of a child under the age of 16 years or regarding an illness of or injuries to such child or the cause thereof in any judicial proceeding related to a report pursuant to the Child Abuse Reporting Law, Article 3 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes of North Carolina. (1971, c. 710, s. 3; 1998&#8209;202, s. 13(d).)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_8/GS_8-57.1.html

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws

Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. The CAPTA definition of "child abuse and neglect," at a minimum, refers to:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm

 

[westsidefox64]

It sounds to me like the bigamy charges dont matter on the spousal privilage, considering the crime was against a child.

Id say the charges were more to assure EB doesnt see daylight. I dont see her getting out on bond but with the way this case has hit the press, I wouldnt be suprised if she has followers who might try to put up bail. JMO

 

[Aedrys]

Personally, I don't know what to believe in regards to EB's many marriages. I think they're going to need a forensic audit to figure it all out. After all, maybe the marriage before AY was invalid, so AY was valid, and AB is not...and goodness knows how many other permutations. But I do agree with your assessment...EB is definitely an <unusual person>.

No kidding. Apparently her definition of divorce was marry the next guy and don't tell the previous one about it. Sheesh. Was she that afraid of being alone, or just didn't want to go through any legal battles, so she thought just not saying anything was better? What a tangled life EB has woven for herself.

 

[Makara]

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Sound like anyone we know?

 

[Carolina Girl]

Oh, What tangled webs we weave...

 

[Carolina Girl]

HOW if her marriage to Ay was legal? Was her marriage to AB NOT?
Help? Where did Bigamy start?

 

[FaerieB]

HOW if her marriage to Ay was legal? Was her marriage to AB NOT?
Help? Where did Bigamy start?

There's a suggestion now that her marriage before AY (is that P?..someone help?) was not disolved until the year after she married AY. But apparently there's overlapping relationships prior to that, as well.

From Part 2 of the video:

AY: Me and her got married in August of '98 and was married for ten years. She left for Australia in May of 2009. Is that right?

JM: 2008

AY: Yeah, 2008. May of 2008. And she had told me that Adam was taking care of our divorce but I never got anything in the mail or never had to sign nothing. So, that's why I didn't believe it. So I filed on my own up here. So I would know that it was legal.

JM: And, umm, our sources are saying that she was married when she married you. Have you heard that also? Are you under that impression?

AY: Uhh, yeah. I just, I seen that on the internet 'bout three or four weeks ago, that she was married to the guy. And their divorce, I think, went final in '99 and we got married in '98 so ... I'm not really sure on that one.

ETA: This is so confusing, I may have misinterpreted what you were asking. Essentially, if her marriage to AY *was* legal, then she was still legally married to AY when she married AB. That would make her marriage to AB null and void. But it's all still a big if....at least in my mind.

 

[Flakes]

Sooo-at what point should AB have contacted the Australian Consulate or Mom and said "Help-I've been flim-flammed, bamboozled, hoodwinked, deceived, double-crossed, betrayed, duped, tricked, misled and f'd over by this woman!! Get me and my daughter outta here!!"
And why didn't he?

It's a shame that Z couldn't be saved that way. AB had lost contact with his mother so it might have been hard for him to suck it up, take it on the chin and reconcile with her. As for the consulate, IMO he should have as soon as he learned of the bigamy and the lie from EB and AY as life seemed to get a whole lot worse once he learned he had been flim-flammed etc

I'm not sure how much credence can be paid to this, however AY did state that he knew AB was in the process of leaving EB in his discussion here on the forum:

Originally Posted by SherlockHomey
1) Do you know if AB was planning on leaving EB and maybe getting his ducks in a row.

Answered by Railbugfreak
1) From what I have heard AB was trying to leave EB.

 

[netsleuther]

After looking up NC's statutes on spousal privileges, I found these two links. That's if their marriage is legit if AY's wasn't. I don't see how how either AY's or AB's was legit.

NC statute

§ 8&#8209;57.1. Husband&#8209;wife privilege waived in child abuse.

Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 8&#8209;56 and G.S. 8&#8209;57, the husband&#8209;wife privilege shall not be ground for excluding evidence regarding the abuse or neglect of a child under the age of 16 years or regarding an illness of or injuries to such child or the cause thereof in any judicial proceeding related to a report pursuant to the Child Abuse Reporting Law, Article 3 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes of North Carolina. (1971, c. 710, s. 3; 1998&#8209;202, s. 13(d).)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_8/GS_8-57.1.html

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws

Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. The CAPTA definition of "child abuse and neglect," at a minimum, refers to:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm

I can't see an ex-husband or a husband of hers wanting to avoid testifying against her (EB). AY has been pretty vocal in regards to saying he wouldn't trust EB even though he pretended to be her brother but who knows what EB is capable of doing and how much control could she gain over people. KB has said the truth will come out. We will have to wait and see if AB testifies which I would expect him to want to do just that. AF has already testified against her mother in the bond hearing.

Is there a clause for a child testifying against their parent or anything else that could make EB think she can walk away from this easily?

Oh there is also a news video clip where the reports said that EB thought she was being railroaded !

 

[Dr. Know?]

I was thinking more about her unmarried by law ex's having to testify against Elisa, not married, no protection from the law. No spousal privilages, and yes when was her last marriage legit? (been doing stuff, sorry I missed this)

My apologies if this has been answered already. A point in the right direction would be appreciated. I can't see any marriage that overlaps as legitimate by law if not ended before a new marriage occurs. Just guessing though. TIA xoxoxo

 

[netsleuther]

When people marry in the USA are there any customary procedures where the bride and groom are asked if they are already married or if they have settled a previous marriage by way of legal divorce?

Can EB use ignorance as a defense?

 

[Hickory Born]

When people marry in the USA are there any customary procedures where the bride and groom are asked if they are already married or if they have settled a previous marriage by way of legal divorce?

Can EB use ignorance as a defense?

I think your answer would be applied to STATE law. Different States, different laws. I think that is why she married so many times in South Carolina, laws not as stringent as North Carolina.

 

[Allusonz]

I am going to stick with LE on this one, as I have tried to figure out whether she was or was not legally married since this surfaced and after throwing my pen through my monitor i came to this conclusion

If you believe you are married(which is what must of been her thinking thus the ruse with AY being her brother) there is merit for a charge MOO lol

 

[Mountain_Kat]

married JW 85-86 (legal, annulled)
married DP 87-92 (legal)
married AH 91-95 (not legal, since it overlaps marriage to Proctor)
married WP 94-99 (legal, since marriage to Harris was not valid)
married JA 97-2000 (not legal, since marriage to Putnam was still vaild)
married AY 98-09 (not legal, since marriage to Putnam was still valid)
married Adam Baker in 2008 (legal, since she was legally divorced from Putnam in 99, and the marriages to Allred and Young were never valid.)

So, to summarize: her only legal marriages appear to be to Winkler, Proctor, Putnam and Baker.

 

[westsidefox64]

married JW 85-86 (legal, annulled)
married DP 87-92 (legal)
married AH 91-95 (not legal, since it overlaps marriage to Proctor)
married WP 94-99 (legal, since marriage to Harris was not valid)
married JA 97-2000 (not legal, since marriage to Putnam was still vaild)
married AY 98-09 (not legal, since marriage to Putnam was still valid)
married Adam Baker in 2008 (legal, since she was legally divorced from Putnam in 99, and the marriages to Allred and Young were never valid.)

So, to summarize: her only legal marriages appear to be to Winkler, Proctor, Putnam and Baker.

Do you happen to have where each marriage and divorce took place? Im having a hard time figuring out why NC and SC didnt catch the facts she was still married when issuing the marrage certificates.

Is there a waiting period between filing for the license and actually getting it?

does common law enter into the marriage factor here? I thought I read somewhere that NC does have it but not SC or vise versa, not sure which.

If her marriage to AY wasnt legal why didnt NC tell him this at the time he filed for divorce? Seems like there should be some sort of data base for this. JMO

 

[Hickory Born]

Do you happen to have where each marriage and divorce took place? Im having a hard time figuring out why NC and SC didnt catch the facts she was still married when issuing the marrage certificates.

Is there a waiting period between filing for the license and actually getting it?

does common law enter into the marriage factor here? I thought I read somewhere that NC does have it but not SC or vise versa, not sure which.

If her marriage to AY wasnt legal why didnt NC tell him this at the time he filed for divorce? Seems like there should be some sort of data base for this. JMO

What a mess!

North Carolina has never had common law marriage. South Carolina does recognize it. To the best of my knowledge, North Carolina will recognize comon law marriages when people move from a state where it is legal.

The waiting period in South Carolina (where she married AY) is determined by the county, not the state. Easy to get married in South Carolina without documentation of divorce.

Personally, I hope the marriage to AY is invalid...that way she will not be able to collect on his Social Security or disability when she reaches 62...considering she is out of prison at that age!

 

[tlcya]

Given the dates of marriages and "divorces" as outlined by MK above, do we know if EB could face additional charges of bigamy on previous "marriages" that weren't afterall, legal?

 

[diphi]

married JW 85-86 (legal, annulled)
married DP 87-92 (legal)
married AH 91-95 (not legal, since it overlaps marriage to Proctor)
married WP 94-99 (legal, since marriage to Harris was not valid)
married JA 97-2000 (not legal, since marriage to Putnam was still vaild)
married AY 98-09 (not legal, since marriage to Putnam was still valid)
married Adam Baker in 2008 (legal, since she was legally divorced from Putnam in 99, and the marriages to Allred and Young were never valid.)

So, to summarize: her only legal marriages appear to be to Winkler, Proctor, Putnam and Baker.

So, then, the spousal privilege does apply to EB and AB? I was thinking EB and AB weren't legally married so the privilege didn't apply. Of course, I didn't track all the marriages the way you did.

Good grief - just my experience with one husband (and a decent one at that) has taught me to think long and hard about having another - much less 6 others. Wow...

IMO and all that.

 

[tlcya]

The spousal testimonial privilege (or spousal immunity) can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. In federal court as a matter of common law, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse, not to the defendant; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his or her spouse from testifying against the defndant.

This privilege does not survive the marriage; that is, after divorce, there is no right to refuse to testify against a defendant ex-spouse. This privilege may be restricted to testimony about events that occurred during the marriage, although in some jurisdictions it may apply to testimony about events occurring prior to the marriage.

http://www.mobar.org/journal/1999/sepoct/rold.htm