GUILTY FL - Boy in a Box abuse trial - Parents, Timothy & Tracy Ferriter Arrested, Jupiter, Feb 2022

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Swirlz said:
This video is a fraud. The interviewer is an admitted child abuser who asked a series of very leading questions to get the little girl to answer the way he wants. The interview takes place at a facility a child named Candace Newmaker was killed in. It's called The Evergreen Center For Attachment.

There is more to the Ferriter case than just the parents being a couple of whack-jobs. They obviously got involved in a cult called Attachment Therapy and in particular a so-called 'therapeutic foster parent' and child abuse promoter named Nancy Thomas. Nancy Thomas worked at the facility Candace Newmaker was killed in. Thomas also appears briefly in the full Child Of Rage documentary. The peanut butter sandwich diet in particular comes STRAIGHT from Nancy Thomas.

"RAD-mom" Keri Williams spoke on behalf of the defense at Ferriter's sentencing hearing. She runs a "RAD-mom" Facebook group and writes op-ed pieces about her experiences as a "RAD-mom". She called R.F.'s statement forgiving Tim, "manipulative". I saw it in her group. Anyone who disagrees is banned and blocked.

@cocomod This has been used before in other cases of abuse of adopted children. The killers of Candace Newmaker got off with the minimum sentence for manslaughter because the child supposedly had Reactive Attachment Disorder.

The child in the Ferriter case, an adoptee from Vietnam was demonized and victim-blamed while extended family and many in the community remained loyal to, rallied around and defended the abuser.

For more info about Attachment Therapy and in particular Nancy Thomas, check out: AT Proponent — Nancy Thomas

There's also a Facebook group called Attachment Therapy Is Wrong.
Click to expand...

That link is shocking. More than just this "Thomas’s parenting methods are based on isolation, deprivation, humiliation, and being non-communicative with the child" is the excerpts at the end. The excerpts at the end are eerily reminiscent of the abuses we heard in the trial. So when the Ferriters claim they got "help" is this the type of "help" and "guidance" they sought out?

"The dividing line between whether a child will stay in a family or going to have to go into residential care is if they will go to their room [when ordered]"

"In the beginning, your child should learn to ask for everything. They must ask to go to the bathroom, to get a drink of water, EVERYTHING. When it starts to feel like they must ask to breathe, you are on the right track."

"They do not eat with the family. They do not eat my food. They eat peanut butter and jelly. … and they get them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But if I’m out of bread, they get oatmeal. You want to be sure they get a balanced diet, and peanut butter and jelly on whole wheat bread with a huge glass of fresh milk is very balanced."

"In the beginning, rewards and bonuses should be food, clothing or necessities."

I have no words. I only have o_Oo_Oo_O

I don't know what happened here but something seemed to change in the period between verdict and sentencing. I certainly hope the judge did not see something like that video without seeing something like your link that counters it.

jmo
 
Last edited:
Swirlz said:
This video is a fraud. The interviewer is an admitted child abuser who asked a series of very leading questions to get the little girl to answer the way he wants. The interview takes place at a facility a child named Candace Newmaker was killed in. It's called The Evergreen Center For Attachment.

There is more to the Ferriter case than just the parents being a couple of whack-jobs. They obviously got involved in a cult called Attachment Therapy and in particular a so-called 'therapeutic foster parent' and child abuse promoter named Nancy Thomas. Nancy Thomas worked at the facility Candace Newmaker was killed in. Thomas also appears briefly in the full Child Of Rage documentary. The peanut butter sandwich diet in particular comes STRAIGHT from Nancy Thomas.

"RAD-mom" Keri Williams spoke on behalf of the defense at Ferriter's sentencing hearing. She runs a "RAD-mom" Facebook group and writes op-ed pieces about her experiences as a "RAD-mom". She called R.F.'s statement forgiving Tim, "manipulative". I saw it in her group. Anyone who disagrees is banned and blocked.

@cocomod This has been used before in other cases of abuse of adopted children. The killers of Candace Newmaker got off with the minimum sentence for manslaughter because the child supposedly had Reactive Attachment Disorder.

The child in the Ferriter case, an adoptee from Vietnam was demonized and victim-blamed while extended family and many in the community remained loyal to, rallied around and defended the abuser.

For more info about Attachment Therapy and in particular Nancy Thomas, check out: AT Proponent — Nancy Thomas

There's also a Facebook group called Attachment Therapy Is Wrong.
Click to expand...
Skyler Wilson is another victim of this form of child abuse.

This stuff KILLS kids and lionises abusers.

MOO
 
Melrose said:
Maybe reactive attachment disorder like this little girl?
Click to expand...
There was evidence that if RF even had RAD, the parents did EXACTLY the wrong thing. They also never sought legitimate treatment. You can hear from the sister he didn’t cause trouble at school.

Whatever RAD there was, was only for these two parents, IMO. The sisters also responded to the abuse going on in the home, but their adaptations were different.
 
For anyone listening to the live stream on CourtTV with the horrible audio issues where we were missing every third word, L&C has posted a clip of the sentencing with very clear audio. I'm re-listening to it now and wanted to share before I got through it all. For the first 10 minutes everything seems right on track. As we know it completely falls off a cliff from there when he took it upon himself to have defense counsel ask for consideration under the "catch all" downward departure (during the hearing) because this is what he had in mind to utilize all the time. This is what he prepared for. I wonder if on reflection he has been rethinking this. Well, too late now. jmo


jmo
 
PayrollNerd said:
50-2022-CF-001136-BXXX-MB
FERRITER, TIMOTHY
DOB: 04/17/1975


View attachment 461600
View attachment 461601
View attachment 461602
View attachment 461603

Click to expand...

This is opinion only. I don't think the sentence was enough to start, but then he qualified it further making it worse imo. The jury found him guilty on all 3 counts and he arguably disregarded the significance of their guilty verdict on count one. TF will be incarcerated for only 2 of 3 the guilty verdicts, less credit he earns to cut that down. And the judge didn't even order the sentences to be served consecutively. He has them running concurrently. On the 1st guilty count he removed him from physical prison incarceration altogether, providing 5 years probation sentence instead, the first 2 years of which will be home confinement.

Here's the full hearing. I can hear BC much better in this one and I think she's right at 2:31:49 when she says she doesn't think the language in the 4th DCA opinion (Montanez linked again below) that he's relying on is a correct interpretation of that case. In fact, the court in that case reversed. The "catch-all" he's latching onto is that portion where the appellate court states well, if it's not an enumerated statutory ground, the court would still have power to consider if the decision is supported by the evidence. ["[w]hile no case has permitted a downward departure sentence based on the trial court's reason here, such a reason is not otherwise prohibited by case law or the plain language of the statute"]. Judge here is saying he thinks it is supported, while nearly everyone else who heard the evidence and watched the trial, including the jury, is of the belief in one fashion or another that grounds for a downward departure is not supported.

The dissent wasn't happy that the majority's opinion tacitly affirmed the trial courts use of this "catch-all" even though the court ended up reversing, and the dissent called out the problem they would create by having done that. They saw the problems this would bring. And, seems they were spot-on when you consider what we all just witnessed.

The dissent stated " I also recognize that “the trial court can impose a downward departure sentence for reasons not delineated in section 921.0026(2), so long as the reason given is supported by competent, substantial evidence and is not otherwise prohibited.” ... However, affirming the trial court's recognition of this extremely vague and low standard for a downward departure sentence opens the door to a countless number of similar requests, almost as if the statutorily-enumerated grounds for a downward departure sentence did not exist." I can't believe I'm still looking at this 2 days later. I suppose this goes to demonstrate how much this case and this sentencing bothered me.

jmo

 
Last edited:
Jurisprudence said:
This is opinion only. I don't think the sentence was enough to start, but then he qualified it further making it worse imo. The jury found him guilty on all 3 counts and he arguably disregarded the significance of their guilty verdict on count one. TF will be incarcerated for only 2 of 3 the guilty verdicts, less credit he earns to cut that down. And the judge didn't even order the sentences to be served consecutively. He has them running concurrently. On the 1st guilty count he removed him from physical prison incarceration altogether, providing 5 years probation sentence instead, the first 2 years of which will be home confinement.

Here's the full hearing. I can hear BC much better in this one and I think she's right at 2:31:49 when she says she doesn't think the language in the 4th DCA opinion (Montanez linked again below) that he's relying on is a correct interpretation of that case. In fact, the court in that case reversed. The "catch-all" he's latching onto is that portion where the appellate court states well, if it's not an enumerated statutory ground, the court would still have power to consider if the decision is supported by the evidence. ["[w]hile no case has permitted a downward departure sentence based on the trial court's reason here, such a reason is not otherwise prohibited by case law or the plain language of the statute"]. Judge here is saying he thinks it is supported, while nearly everyone else who heard the evidence and watched the trial, including the jury, is of the belief in one fashion or another that grounds for a downward departure is not supported.

The dissent wasn't happy that the majority's opinion tacitly affirmed the trial courts use of this "catch-all" even though the court ended up reversing, and the dissent called out the problem they would create by having done that. They saw the problems this would bring. And, seems they were spot-on when you consider what we all just witnessed.

The dissent stated " I also recognize that “the trial court can impose a downward departure sentence for reasons not delineated in section 921.0026(2), so long as the reason given is supported by competent, substantial evidence and is not otherwise prohibited.” ... However, affirming the trial court's recognition of this extremely vague and low standard for a downward departure sentence opens the door to a countless number of similar requests, almost as if the statutorily-enumerated grounds for a downward departure sentence did not exist." I can't believe I'm still looking at this 2 days later. I suppose this goes to demonstrate how much this case and this sentencing bothered me.

jmo

Click to expand...
It’s very clear to me from the judge’s own words that the defendant’s military background, upper middle class status/family and friend support played a huge role. I also think the victim’s forgiveness and saying “I’m still a Ferriter” and “I know you did your best” etc played a role. The sisters statement read by the prosecutor didn’t have the same impact as it would have if they both came to court to read their statements and cried in front of the judge. By his own words the judge confirmed that there is no basis for the downward departure. I seriously doubt Coakley thought the judge would be this lenient or she may have insisted the sisters be there in person and beefed up her argument. I hope she appeals and gets this defendant re-sentenced in front of another judge. The only thing that’s giving me pause is the fact that the state offered him 2 years. JMO
 
Weki said:
It’s very clear to me from the judge’s own words that the defendant’s military background, upper middle class status/family and friend support played a huge role. I also think the victim’s forgiveness and saying “I’m still a Ferriter” and “I know you did your best” etc played a role. The sisters statement read by the prosecutor didn’t have the same impact as it would have if they both came to court to read their statements and cried in front of the judge.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even in the courtroom and those statements affected me. I think she did the right thing by not subjecting his minor daughters to have to face him if they weren't required to, especially since they expressed being afraid of him. Might their statements have changed if they were forced to look at him (and their mother who was there supporting him)? It's a risk imo and they seemed to have been traumatized enough even though they were not the direct subject of that level of his abuse. And the defense counsel arguing so vigorously that they aren't victims in the true sense of the law, and therefore, their opinions should be discounted to some degree accordingly was a very bad look. She did not need to go there. But, she definitely fought for her client. You have to give her that I suppose.
Weki said:
By his own words the judge confirmed that there is no basis for the downward departure.
Click to expand...
No basis via the statute, but he "found" one in caselaw (from a court that actually overturned the court's use of that very principle to depart) and made it fit the facts. That was disappointing. jmo
Weki said:
I seriously doubt Coakley thought the judge would be this lenient or she may have insisted the sisters be there in person and beefed up her argument.
Click to expand...
I think that overall she did a good job. I wish she would have drilled home and brought full-circle the repeated instances of consciousness of guilt (making sure the neighbors did not see, lying to the contractors in two separate states (and then Tracy also lying to LE) about what that room really was) to really hammer home to the jury that he knew what he was doing was criminal. The judge acknowledged this consciousness of guilt, and then in the next moment dismissed it. How can he think he's made his sentencing decision square with his remarks on the evidence? jmo
Weki said:
I hope she appeals and gets this defendant re-sentenced in front of another judge. The only thing that’s giving me pause is the fact that the state offered him 2 years. JMO
Click to expand...
Me too, and the second part, that should (hopefully) not be subject to consideration (Fla. Stat. § 90.410) though the questionable part of that is that TF didn't accept the plea and later withdraw it. Also whether it's limited to being inadmissible only for use to his detriment. In this case they would try to use it (if they even can) to his benefit. To try to argue "Hey, even the prosecution thought this was not that big of a deal". That 2-year plea bargain was so ill-advised. I'm so glad he was too arrogant to accept it.

jmo
 
What’s the message here: lock up minor in a 8x8 structure with no AC, no toilet and provide limited food. Install a camera so you can spy on them.

Be kind outside of your home, and when you get behind closed doors you can be an abuser… it's possibly to get only five years? Make sure to get great letters of recommendation of character for support.

No, it's not supposed to be that way!


Witness (child w/RAD) claims to have watched some of the trial. Can’t imagine why you would be a witness if you watched some of the trial. Curious if this witness was paid?



Defense asked for a “downward departure”
State his (TF) actions were intentional, cruel and malicious on a vulnerable child


Unbelievable an attorney interrupting a victim impact statement!


Defense was going for Downward departure: self-defense

The judge helped her with the “catch-all” defense

Legal basis for downward departure is a "catch-all"

Coates acknowledged no remorse no apology from TF to RF
Defense will look for the piece of paper which will show an apology.


His "greatest interest is the “catch-all," said Coates.

Did he help the defense w/their case...

Unfortunately, the defense came through in this one. Defense intends to file a motion seeking TF's release on bond pending his appeal.







 
arielilane said:
@Jurisprudence, thank you so much for taking the time to provide us with your expertise. It's greatly appreciated!

I too (though as an amateur) is trying to figure out what had happened. It's beyond my understanding. moo
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" though. I'm just a person trained to read and digest the information in a different way. The case makes me sad.
 
The defense intends to file a motion seeking TF's release on bond pending his appeal.

Sounded like the judge would not rule on this until after the thanksgiving holiday.

11/16/2023ORDER GRANTING ON MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN THE CUSTODY OF PBSO UNTIL A HEARING ON APPELLATE BONDON MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN THE CUSTODY OF PBSO UNTIL A HEARING ON APPELLATE BOND

Courts | Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, Palm Beach County
 
Both daughters wrote letters expressing fear of their father and defended RF as a sweet, gentle, and loving sibling.

“Consider what it is like to have lived in a house where you can hear the screams of your younger brother,” FF wrote. “Screams of frustration, hurt, anger, fear, helplessness, and despair where you can hear your father yell profanities at him, where I could hear my father beat him to the point where my brother was no longer screaming but crying out in pain and barely able to answer questions.”

A psychologist who is treating the three eldest Ferriters said the girls felt betrayed and traumatized by the defendant’s treatment of their brother.

In deciding to impose a more lenient sentence the judge said he was moved by the numerous letters of support and testimony of Ferriter’s character. He was persuaded that while the defendant “did a very, of very bad thing, he was not innately evil.”

'I'm very sorry': Timothy Ferriter sentenced to jail at emotional hearing
 
Additional info from the same article posted above.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Court TV) — Judge Howard Coates Jr. sentenced Tim Ferriter to five years in prison and five years probation, less than the minimum under Florida’s sentencing guidelines, while expressing doubt that the defendant regretted locking his son in a cell-like room in his garage for extended periods.

“I heard him apologize and say he was sorry to his children for putting them in this position, but I don’t think I heard one single time him saying he was sorry for how he treated RF,” said Judge Howard Coates. “If he did, he must have glossed over it because I didn’t receive it as such.”

Defense Prya Murad insisted her client was remorseful and pleaded for leniency by departing from the sentencing guidelines, which exposed Ferriter to a range of 6.25 to 40 years in prison for his convictions of Aggravated Child Abuse, False Imprisonment and Child Neglect last month.

While Ferriter elected not to testify at his trial, he addressed the court on Thursday, sharing details about his faith and upbringing but directed most of his statement to the family that he lost.

'I'm very sorry': Timothy Ferriter sentenced to jail at emotional hearing

He also ordered Ferriter to complete 40 hours of anger management counseling; 40 hours of a parenting class, undergo a mental health evaluation, and have only supervised visits with his youngest son.

The defense intends to file a motion seeking his release on bond pending his appeal.
 
arielilane said:
The defense intends to file a motion seeking TF's release on bond pending his appeal.

Sounded like the judge would not rule on this until after the thanksgiving holiday.

11/16/2023ORDER GRANTING ON MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN THE CUSTODY OF PBSO UNTIL A HEARING ON APPELLATE BONDON MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN THE CUSTODY OF PBSO UNTIL A HEARING ON APPELLATE BOND

Courts | Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, Palm Beach County
Click to expand...

He's lucky imo. He's catching quite a few breaks.
 
arielilane said:
Additional info from the same article posted above.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Court TV) — Judge Howard Coates Jr. sentenced Tim Ferriter to five years in prison and five years probation, less than the minimum under Florida’s sentencing guidelines, while expressing doubt that the defendant regretted locking his son in a cell-like room in his garage for extended periods.

“I heard him apologize and say he was sorry to his children for putting them in this position, but I don’t think I heard one single time him saying he was sorry for how he treated RF,” said Judge Howard Coates. “If he did, he must have glossed over it because I didn’t receive it as such.”

Defense Prya Murad insisted her client was remorseful and pleaded for leniency by departing from the sentencing guidelines, which exposed Ferriter to a range of 6.25 to 40 years in prison for his convictions of Aggravated Child Abuse, False Imprisonment and Child Neglect last month.

While Ferriter elected not to testify at his trial, he addressed the court on Thursday, sharing details about his faith and upbringing but directed most of his statement to the family that he lost.

'I'm very sorry': Timothy Ferriter sentenced to jail at emotional hearing

He also ordered Ferriter to complete 40 hours of anger management counseling; 40 hours of a parenting class, undergo a mental health evaluation, and have only supervised visits with his youngest son.

The defense intends to file a motion seeking his release on bond pending his appeal.
Click to expand...

I LOVE that the media not only wrote this, but made it the opening paragraph because the message being sent is that his sentencing does not square with his own words directly acknowledging that there has been no showing of remorse to his victim:

"Judge Howard Coates Jr. sentenced Tim Ferriter to five years in prison and five years probation, less than the minimum under Florida’s sentencing guidelines, while expressing doubt that the defendant regretted locking his son in a cell-like room in his garage for extended periods."


jmo
 
Jurisprudence said:
......

I think that overall she did a good job. I wish she would have drilled home and brought full-circle the repeated instances of consciousness of guilt (making sure the neighbors did not see, lying to the contractors in two separate states (and then Tracy also lying to LE) about what that room really was) to really hammer home to the jury that he knew what he was doing was criminal. The judge acknowledged this consciousness of guilt, and then in the next moment dismissed it. How can he think he's made his sentencing decision square with his remarks on the evidence? jmo

Me too, and the second part, that should (hopefully) not be subject to consideration (Fla. Stat. § 90.410) though the questionable part of that is that TF didn't accept the plea and later withdraw it. Also whether it's limited to being inadmissible only for use to his detriment. In this case they would try to use it (if they even can) to his benefit. To try to argue "Hey, even the prosecution thought this was not that big of a deal". That 2-year plea bargain was so ill-advised. I'm so glad he was too arrogant to accept it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Jurisprudence.
I'm 99% certain that it was brought up in one of the motions that the youngest child was adopted by Tracy's mother. So that person who was arguing in court, and facilitating the 3 way calls between Tracy, Tim and the youngest child that they're not supposed to be having contact with would be Grandma. Was there some sort of legal reason they weren't allowed to say that?

They clearly have no hesitation to skirt the law, and break the rules. And the Judge was correct. Tim did not say he was sorry, certainly not to RF - probably because he's not sorry.

He seems as if he's still very angry, and feels like it's the fault of "trouble-making Ronan". In my opinion, they want to keep the youngest child because it's their biological child. There was not a single word for Ronan, Phoebe, or Nola from the "loving family man" Tim portrayed him self to be.
The whole thing is very sad, and I feel terrible for those children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 114 more.
Total: 2,908 (members: 115, guests: 2,793)

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,793
Total visitors
2,908
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,290
Messages
18,138,385
Members
231,310
Latest member
Sazy3
Back
Top