IN - Couple charged with abandonment of adopted child after legally changing her age, Sept 2019 #2 *not guilty*

[AgeofAquaruis]

Michael and Kristine Barnett Court Appearances

51 images from the various hearings.

Quite a difference from the October hearing.

They look like they've seen a ghost.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Michael and Kristine Barnett Court Appearances

51 images from the various hearings.

Quite a difference from the October hearing.

They look like they've seen a ghost.

I don't know why he was looking so bloody confident in October. What a dim bulb. Did he think they'd never find her unedited medical records? Did he think doctors who saw her wouldn't recognize her from the news and contact the police? Did he think, like Kristine did, that the DePauls would actually side with them? Maybe it was all Kristine and she lied to him about what the doctors and dentists had said.

Is there a reason why his trial would be set for a month before Kristine's or is that just random? Can the second trial reference the first or would that be prejudicial. I assume they would be two separate juries...

Maybe because he's the weak link. He told the police they knew Natalia was a child (per the affidavit)before the age change. Kristine so far seems to think that she's untouchable, Godly,above it all.
I wonder if they'll stick to their 'story's or throw each other under the bus now.
The latest pics showing them leaving court looks like reality is hitting them like a Karma freight train.
MOO

 

[Meloni88]

The trial(s) being pushed to June/July means they waived their right to a speedy trial, yes?

 

[Medstudies]

In that article, MB's attorney, Kinnard, says "“We’re still just as confident. But we think it’s just unduly burdensome for our clients to even worry about those additional charges.”"

What about the additional burdens your client put on this child? What about the way she is 'burdened' for life due to the medical neglect by your client?

Talk about additional burdens, his suit jacket button was really burdened today. It sure fit better in October.


and yep, it’s the child who is the victim here.

 

[jjenny]

Poor Natalia, as I was afraid of from the start, she needed multiple surgeries and hasn't gotten them. And now they will be much more complicated than if she has gotten them in time. The drastic change in her posture is obvious from the photos taken some years ago and what she looks like now.

 

[Meloni88]

In that article, MB's attorney, Kinnard, says "“We’re still just as confident. But we think it’s just unduly burdensome for our clients to even worry about those additional charges.”"

What about the additional burdens your client put on this child? What about the way she is 'burdened' for life due to the medical neglect by your client?

Right and then he says they'll have to find medical witnesses to dispute lol. Good luck with that. What doctor is going to testify that not getting her surgery at a young age was good for her? /facepalm

 

[Meloni88]

I don't understand why it's going to be two separate trials when the bulk of the alleged crimes were committed when they were a married couple, living together, and joint parents of the individual who the charges are about?

It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for all those experts to have to appear twice, all the evidence to have to be presented twice to two separate juries, etc.

I suppose it sort of makes sense if the defense teams want to work separately, so they can each have their own cross-examinations of witnesses and experts without confusing the jury or risking prejudice in the jury.

And I suppose KB might change her mind about a trial if she sees how hard it is for MB to fight the charges against him when her charges are probably stronger than his if she was the one taking N to most of her medical appointments and things like that?

This explains some of the reasons a judge might decide to separate the defendants cases... Joint Trials for Criminal Co-Defendants | Justia

I find this part interesting "sometimes the prosecution will submit certain evidence against only one defendant, which is not relevant to the other defendant. If this evidence would be prejudicial to the other defendant because it would inflame the emotions of the jury, a judge may decide to sever the trial."

@gitana1 what do you think the likely reasoning is?

 

[Amonet]

Right and then he says they'll have to find medical witnesses to dispute lol. Good luck with that. What doctor is going to testify that not getting her surgery at a young age was good for her? /facepalm

I think the attorneys will have to stick to fighting that on the basis that if the Barnetts truly believed N was over 18 then it wasn't their duty to foresee how missing the surgeries would affect her?

But I believe the prosecution will do a good job of proving to the jury that N was under 18, and that the Barnetts did not have reason to truly believe otherwise, and therefore the onus would be on them to ensure she didn't suffer as a consequence of their decisions as her parents. Maybe the defense will try to say it's not the fault of the Barnetts but the fault of the judge who made the age change ruling, and try and wriggle out of the further charge in that way?

 

[Meloni88]

That's not gonna fly, one or both of them strategically concealed medical records to get the desired result. They knew the judge was going off incomplete information. The content of the petition gives their assertion that they "believed" her to be older less credence not more. And of course he would never have signed off on it if they hadnt requested it, hidden evidence and pretended it was all for her welfare so it's 90% on them.

 

[Dawn Day]

I don't understand why it's going to be two separate trials when the bulk of the alleged crimes were committed when they were a married couple, living together, and joint parents of the individual who the charges are about?

It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for all those experts to have to appear twice, all the evidence to have to be presented twice to two separate juries, etc.

I suppose it sort of makes sense if the defense teams want to work separately, so they can each have their own cross-examinations of witnesses and experts without confusing the jury or risking prejudice in the jury.

And I suppose KB might change her mind about a trial if she sees how hard it is for MB to fight the charges against him when her charges are probably stronger than his if she was the one taking N to most of her medical appointments and things like that?

Maybe I’m too hopeful, but to me this signifies that Michael might be getting a plea agreement that includes testifying against Kristine. They will get his plea out of the way, then nail Kristine to the wall. It’s was obvious that most of the allegations they made against NB supposedly occurred while she was with Kristine and Kristine relayed the [false] account to Michael.

 

[Amonet]

Maybe I’m too hopeful, but to me this signifies that Michael might be getting a plea agreement that includes testifying against Kristine. They will get his plea out of the way, then nail Kristine to the wall. It’s was obvious that most of the allegations they made against NB supposedly occurred while she was with Kristine and Kristine relayed the [false] account to Michael.

I didn't think of that. Yes, that makes sense for MB's trial date to be first in case he does decide to turn state's witness in return for testimony against KB.

Even though I don't think it's a good thing for N to have to endure separate trials for them, I still sort of hope that there will be a trial so that all the evidence for her age can be made public and clear up all the misconceptions that have been created by the media stories coming from the Barnetts against N.

 

[gitana1]

"Kinnard argued in a motion to quash that Herd Strategies is working with him on this case. Hence, Herd Strategies is covered under the attorney/client privilege, which means any communication Herd Strategies had with Kinnard or Michael Barnett is confidential, according to Kinnard's filing."

Hearing to determine if new neglect charges will be allowed in Barnetts' cases

Ah. That’s how they did it. Anyone who works for me is likewise bound.

 

[gitana1]

I found a few posts from Kristine dated June 2013 regarding Jacob being accepted to the Perimeter Institute. Looks like the family was in Canada in May 2013 as part of the book tour/book signing and they took Jacob to that institute to check things out.

Jacob Barnett
Kristine Barnett on Twitter
College in Canada is next step for Westfield boy genius Jacob Barnett, family

Their emergency petition was 6-12-12.

 

[gitana1]

Seems like to get her true age back she would have to get a ruling reversed in the original court, and that's already been tried and refused. So I have no clue how she would get her age back legally.

I cited the way to do it previously, somewhere on here. I will try to find it.

You can set aside a civil judgment based on fraud on the court at any time. (Not fraud against the other side. That’s a one year limit). But looking at that it seems super hard. There is also a catch-all opportunity for a judge to set aside a judgment based on equitable principles.

Let me try to find my post.

 

[JENSPAL]

Their emergency petition was 6-12-12.

Yes, but if you look at the timeline, in 2011, they were in the news media because of their son, Jacob. No mention of their adopted daughter. I suspect the newfound attention they were getting is what made them regret adopting a child with special needs and they needed to figure out a way to get out of it without it affecting their public persona. I think that's when they were tucking her away in mental institutions while they traveled around giving interviews. I can't find a single photo of N from 2011 and only 1 photo in 2012 after they changed her age. I think they exhausted the mental institution route and had to come up with another way to ditch her without getting into trouble themselves so they changed her age, dumped her in an apartment and moved to Canada a few weeks later. It's possible N's care givers in those institutions finally caught on and realized the Barnett's were nuts and threatened to get CPS involved. In Kristine's head, that would be the end of everything for her. She thrives on the publicity her smart kid was getting her. So they came up with the age change idea. Below is just a sample of the things I was able to find.

2011
⦁ March 26, 2011 - 12 year old Jacob Barnett is featured in Time Magazine 12-Year-Old Genius Expands Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Thinks He Can Prove It Wrong | TIME.com
⦁ March 30, 2011 - 12 year old Jacob Barnett is featured on Ripley's Believe It Or Not This 12 Year Old Is Probably Way Smarter Than You - Ripley's Believe It or Not!
⦁ March 30, 2011 - Jacob Barnett is featured in a ParentDish article http://www.tedmontgomery.com/remarks/11.1-6/Asperger/JacobBarnett.html
⦁ April 2011 - Kristine Barnett's website for Jacob's Place is created. http://myjacobsplace.com myjacobsplace.com
⦁ April 6, 2011 - Jacob Barnett sets a world record for being the youngest astrophysics researcher. Youngest astrophysics researcher: Jacob Barnett sets world record (Video)
⦁ April 11, 2011 - Jacob Barnett is featured in Discover Magazine A (very) smart kid and a solid theory
⦁ May 2011 - Kristine Barnett and her 3 sons go to the U.K. and Venice. Where is Natalia?
⦁ August 5, 2011 - Jacob Barnett, the oldest son of the Barnetts', publishes his research paper in a physics journal. Origin of maximal symmetry breaking in even PT-symmetric lattices The family receives public attention for their child prodigy son. Phys. Rev. A 84, 024103 (2011) - Origin of maximal symmetry breaking in even $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric lattices
⦁ August 14, 2011 - Kristine and Jacob Barnett appear on the Glenn Beck show.

⦁ October 2011 - Kristine and her 3 sons go to the pumpkin patch. Where is Natalia? Jacob Barnett
⦁ December 15, 2011 - Warner Bros. buys the rights to Kristine Barnett's memoir Warners buys rights to autism memoir

 

[Dawn Day]

It's possible N's care givers in those institutions finally caught on and realized the Barnett's were nuts and threatened to get CPS involved.

According to the attorney for the Mans, for their guardianship case, CPS was alerted and tried to get involved. Apparently, at that time, the state felt they could not prove NB was under 18 yrs old. The case was dismissed May 2013. This may be what precipitated the Barnetts to move NB out of that county and away from those CPS agents who must have been convinced NB was under 18. Each county has their own CPS offices and , incredibly, counties Do Not Share Databanks. Less than 2 months later, NB is in Tippecanoe Co at the LaFayette apartment where No One had any back story on her. https://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/crime/father-claims-adopted-daughter-was-really-an-adult-with-dwarfism-who-tried-to-kill-his-family

 

[Meloni88]

That move to Tippecanoe county proves they were trying to hide what they'd done IMO. Why put her in a different county otherwise? There are apartments just as cheap in Marion County. People were on to them. Letting friends who called about Natalia believe that she was in Canada with them as well, ugh.

I'm not buying that it would have been that hard for the state to demonstrate she was under age. They were being lazy. She had an extensive paper trail they could have followed.

 

[JENSPAL]

According to the attorney for the Mans, for their guardianship case, CPS was alerted and tried to get involved. Apparently, at that time, the state felt they could not prove NB was under 18 yrs old. The case was dismissed May 2013. This may be what precipitated the Barnetts to move NB out of that county and away from those CPS agents who must have been convinced NB was under 18. Each county has their own CPS offices and , incredibly, counties Do Not Share Databanks. Less than 2 months later, NB is in Tippecanoe Co at the LaFayette apartment where No One had any back story on her. Father claims adopted daughter was really adult who tried to kill them

I don't think it was the Mans attorney who said that. The way I'm reading the article, it was Michael Barnett's attorney who made that statement in his motion to dismiss.

Quote: Michael's lawyers have filed a "motion to dismiss" the case based on inaccurate information.
The filing states the first count should be dismissed "with prejudice" because the charges fall out of the statute of limitations in the state of Indiana. He says the second count should be dismissed because the information provided in the charge is inaccurate. The state would then have the option to refile with "sufficient specificity."
The motion also claims a "law enforcement agent," who was believed to have been with the Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Office, was present and provided sworn testimony at the hearing in 2012 where a judge ruled that the adopted girl's age and birthday would be legally changed to reflect her adult status. He also claims the state attempted to open a "Child in Need of Services" case in May 2013, but the state ruled that they could not "meet its burden of demonstrating that (the girl) is a child under the age of 18..." and the case was dismissed.

 

[Dawn Day]

I don't think it was the Mans attorney who said that. The way I'm reading the article, it was Michael Barnett's attorney

YES, You are correct. That was Kinnard. Oops. I accidentally conflated another article I was reading, that did quote Troemel (Mans pro bono attorney for guardianship). Here’s a correct screenshot of what Troemel actually said.

 

[Meloni88]

I forgot Westfield was in Hamilton county. So they lived in Hamilton county but got her age changed in Marion county and then ditched her in Tippecanoe county.