GUILTY IL - Willow Long, 7, Watson, 8 Sept 2013 - #4

[westsidefox64]

Would I be wrong in assuming that since the DCFS presented the case against CD and JD on Tue after it was known Willows body had been found that all charges has to stem from abuse and neglect of Willows brother? I dont think by law DCFS would have anything to do with the Willow case at this point in time, before her death yes after I dont think so. MOO

 

[NC Analyzer]

But, the call was made on Sunday. Willow wasn't found until Monday evening. I think somebody had a suspicion that something was going on in the home and when they heard Willow was missing, they reported it.

Why would LE make an anonymous call to DCFS?

ALL calls are anonymous. Even if they aren't. That is all the public will ever be told.

The brother was removed because his sister was missing. Credible risk for him until the circumstances show otherwise.

 

[scadder21]

The CPS Investigation will look at the totality of evidence and the role the mother may or may not have played. They will also examine the safety, well being and risk factor for the little brother if he were to be returned to the mother's custody.
And yes, essentially anything that happens to your child is ultimately going to put you under the microscope. You may or may not be held responsible depending on whether a reasonable person "should have known" the possibility of whatever happened.

Let me be clear though. CPS does not remove unless there is eminent risk of harm, or potential harm, to a child.

I don't know what the eminent risk would be because the murderer is now in jail? Unless it was based on Sunday when Justin hadn't yet confessed but wouldn't the eminent risk change when the person who did it went into police custody?

 

[scadder21]

ALL calls are anonymous. Even if they aren't. That is all the public will ever be told.

The brother was removed because his sister was missing. Credible risk for him until the circumstances show otherwise.

Yes I get that but wouldn't the risk no longer be credible now that the person who did it is gone?

So essentially did they see an eminent risk on Sunday before Justin was arrested but wouldn't that eminent risk be no longer valid by Monday night?

 

[NC Analyzer]

Yes I get that but wouldn't the risk no longer be credible now that the person who did it is gone?

So essentially did they see an eminent risk on Sunday before Justin was arrested but wouldn't that eminent risk be no longer valid by Monday night?

No. Nothing has been proven by any means. You have no idea what this mother was doing. If she is doing drugs, alcohol abuse, domestic violence in the home, sexual abuse in the home, improper care, improper supervision...the list is endless.
One child being murdered, with a suspect in jail doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the second child is "safe".

The eminent risk to remove was a missing child. The ongoing risk is a murdered child. The investigation hasn't even begun to look at any other contributing factors.

 

[flourish]

IMO, the child neglect charge is due to leaving the children with inadequate supervision. JD has admitted he played video games online with friends in his bedroom till 10:30 p.m. and then was in the bathroom for approximately 30 minutes. Who was watching the children?

People use the bathroom. They have to. If he was having a bowel movement for thirty minutes would that be neglect? It was pretty late, no? Do we know if the toddler was even awake? Supervising doesn't have to be within sight, within sound can be fine depending on the child(ren) & their ages and the size and soundproofing of the home.

Yes we know in this situation the unthinkable occurred, but is it really reasonable to expect parents and caregivers to not use the bathroom or engage in a hobby or activity?

Eta: not that I'd appreciate my babysitter to play video games all night but unless he was behind a closed door and couldn't hear or see the children and didn't check on them, then it's not a neglectful situation based on just video games and a long bathroom visit. IMO.

Sent from my Event using Tapatalk 4

 

[scadder21]

No. Nothing has been proven by any means. You have no idea what this mother was doing. If she is doing drugs, alcohol abuse, domestic violence in the home, sexual abuse in the home, improper care, improper supervision...the list is endless.
One child being murdered, with a suspect in jail doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the second child is "safe".

The eminent risk to remove was a missing child. The ongoing risk is a murdered child. The investigation hasn't even begun to look at any other contributing factors.

I get it now I think. Even with the eminent risk no longer being valid and the ongoing risk seemingly no longer valid with JD's confession they still take keep the child away? Why doesn't the father get the child during the investigation?

 

[NZkirsty]

Woke up this sunday morning thinking of Willow.

I've been thinking of reason's why JD would of killed her. Someone mentioned possibly of him sexually abusing her. My question is how would he get away with it? if the abuse was long term, with the mother and grand parents all living in the same house, who claimed to love her dearly, how would it be down under their noses? I cant imagine a 7 year old keeping quiet about this.

How about JD sexually abusing N and Willow walked in on it? and her lashing out at him to stop.

moo

 

[NC Analyzer]

I get it now I think. Even with the eminent risk no longer being valid and the ongoing risk seemingly no longer valid with JD's confession they still take keep the child away? Why doesn't the father get the child during the investigation?

Perhaps it was determined he is not a sufficient caretaker. You have to understand, CPS does NOT turn over an at risk child simply due to biology. The father would be checked out before he could take custody. Criminal history, living conditions, people he lived with, ability to support the child, ability to provide care, supervision, the child's relationship with him, (was he an involved parent, or just some stranger to this child?) All of these things factor in when CPS becomes involved.

 

[nao]

the family is in shock and stressed, they have so much to deal with -jmo -
it is best the child is removed at this time-too many emotions amongst the adults for the little one to handle. Once life stabiizes, i hope he gets to go home. jmo

 

[NZkirsty]

Whose to say the 3yo saw something anyway? at that time of night he would (should) of been asleep, it would be much easier to just leave him sleeping than to wake him up to put him in the car to remove the body of his sister. Do we know is he a verbal child? children tend to ask a lot of questions.

 

[Curious Me]

It's very interesting and somewhat disturbing to me that the State's Attorney is putting the murder between the time of 10:30-11pm which is the exact same time frame as JD claiming to have been in the bathroom watching *advertiser censored* and masterbating.

So what is the State's Attorney trying to tell us?

Meanwhile, Effingham County officials are waiting for final autopsy results to find out the exact time of Long's death. "It's sometime between 10:30 and 11 [p.m.] Saturday," said Effingham County State's Attorney Bryan Kibler.

See more at: http://effinghamdailynews.com/local...stody-after-abuse-report#sthash.kfygChMw.dpuf

The fact that the perp mentions 10:30 pm in his statement makes that time important IMO. The computer *advertiser censored* viewing may also match up in a computer check too.

:seeya:

IMO, the child neglect charge is due to leaving the children with inadequate supervision. JD has admitted he played video games online with friends in his bedroom till 10:30 p.m. and then was in the bathroom for approximately 30 minutes. Who was watching the children?

hmm, true that. I still don't believe it was LE though...someone in that town knows something was up, and even if the call was placed on Sunday, I still think they knew she didn't "run off with a frog". That and I was looking around FB a lot in the early stages (as I'm sure many were) and that's partially why I am saying what I'm saying.

Thanks for the reminder about the timeline. I've been on this thread since the beginning but with so many fabrications going on and stories being told...it's hard (for me) to keep the timeline straight.

I was shocked at the time of death. It was only a few hours into his babysitting job, and he is watching *advertiser censored* instead of the children. It makes me wonder if he had this in mind from the moment he supposedly "offered" to babysit. Did he make his move early because he didn't know when Willow's Mom would arrive home?

Sadly, it does seem sexually motivated, but that is MOO. It disturbs me though that he didn't seem to struggle with himself for what he was about to do to this little girl that probably looked up to him as an Uncle. I don't know if he intended to take her life, but it sounds like he sure made some kind of move on her 2-3 hrs. into babysitting. It's despicable.

This is just my opinion as I try to understand what lead up to Willow being harmed at the hands of her uncle while he was babysitting. He will be tried in a court of Law.


despicable - so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation.

 

[Ladylub]

Yes I get that but wouldn't the risk no longer be credible now that the person who did it is gone?

So essentially did they see an eminent risk on Sunday before Justin was arrested but wouldn't that eminent risk be no longer valid by Monday night?

You also have to think about mom not being so truthful in the beginning with the whole breakfast / movie thing. Her child was missing and her first reaction is to lie. That does not look good at all. They would need to make sure she was not involved and that the little buddy would be okay in her care.

 

[Isabelle]

The little brother was removed because his sister died in the home. Nothing more, nothing less at this point. That child is at risk until or unless otherwise proven.

ETA: He was REMOVED from the home because his sister was missing. He remains out of the home because his sister was murdered. Sorry.

DCFS must have a very very good reason for not leaving the little brother in the care of his mother.

 

[blefuscu]

Still wonder if the mom was not home at all until 10.30 am. Brother says he killed Willow on the Saturday night, autopsy result says she was killed on Saturday night. Why initially did CD say she had seen Willow on Sunday? Maybe she didn't get home until long after JD had gone to work, and little N was left all alone. Would explain why N was upset and why CPS took child into care.

 

[graush26]

I was shocked at the time of death. It was only a few hours into his babysitting job, and he is watching *advertiser censored* instead of the children. It makes me wonder if he had this in mind from the moment he supposedly "offered" to babysit. Did he make his move early because he didn't know when Willow's Mom would arrive home?

Sadly, it does seem sexually motivated, but that is MOO. It disturbs me though that he didn't seem to struggle with himself for what he was about to do to this little girl that probably looked up to him as an Uncle. I don't know if he intended to take her life, but it sounds like he sure made some kind of move on her 2-3 hrs. into babysitting. It's despicable.


despicable - so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation.

As far as JD molesting Willow, I say why wouldn't he. He murdered her, so anything is possible.

 

[Isabelle]

Another thought, DCFS may have been called by the parent of one of Willow's friends.

 

[scadder21]

You also have to think about mom not being so truthful in the beginning with the whole breakfast / movie thing. Her child was missing and her first reaction is to lie. That does not look good at all. They would need to make sure she was not involved and that the little buddy would be okay in her care.

I agree it was a very dumb thing but I don't think that alone should cause someone to lose their child.

It seems based on the time of death so soon after CD left there may be some legs to the thought that he offered to watch them. Seems he had planned something. Grandparents out of town, agreeing to babysit for his sister. Especially because we don't know how early or late the grandparents left Saturday.

 

[graush26]

Woke up this sunday morning thinking of Willow.

I've been thinking of reason's why JD would of killed her. Someone mentioned possibly of him sexually abusing her. My question is how would he get away with it? if the abuse was long term, with the mother and grand parents all living in the same house, who claimed to love her dearly, how would it be down under their noses? I cant imagine a 7 year old keeping quiet about this.

How about JD sexually abusing N and Willow walked in on it? and her lashing out at him to stop.

moo

It's Saturday where I am

 

[Lava]

Perhaps it was determined he is not a sufficient caretaker. You have to understand, CPS does NOT turn over an at risk child simply due to biology. The father would be checked out before he could take custody. Criminal history, living conditions, people he lived with, ability to support the child, ability to provide care, supervision, the child's relationship with him, (was he an involved parent, or just some stranger to this child?) All of these things factor in when CPS becomes involved.

We also have to remember that we don't know what type of custody arrangement CD and the father had. CPS can't just take a child away and give it to another guardian without first placing the child in their legal custody. The child could still be with the father, but still under DCFS's legal custody.

I have seen situations in which a child wanders away from the home, DCF (Florida) is called and doesn't like whatever they see and opens an investigation, even when the parent isn't the one responsible for the child wandering away. We just don't know what they found at the house.

The only thing I think is odd is the abuse claim against JD. I think people knew early on that she did not wander away.