Found Deceased NC - Maddox Ritch, 6 w/Autism, Gastonia, 22 Sept 2018 #3

[heartgoesout]

“Regarding people in the park. They don't say they did not see Maddox. They say they don't remember seeing Maddox.”

Above Snipped for shortness.

I’m not trying to beat a dead horse but who is they? They who?
My point I’ve been trying to make is we’ve heard nothing either way except for one women (church lady) and one man (park employee) who have conflicting memories. No one else.

 

[Gardener1850]

Sure. But again, to date, only 1 person that we know of says she saw Maddox at the park. Out of hundreds. Hundreds!

In a world of look at me social media mania, with everything out there and nothing off limits, hundreds of people except 1 didn’t post anything or talk to friends who post or coworkers who post? No one?

We can go back and around on reasons why, this or that, some people, not everyone, I would, I wouldn’t etc...
But 1 person, in a highly publicized missing child case has come forward. For whatever reason.
I find that strikenly odd. JMO

Actually, three people. Only the 1 woman spoke to the press but her mother and her daughter were with her and also saw him and her mother tried to speak to him. Unless you are saying she is lying or all 3 of the women were mistaken as to it being Maddox, I'm not sure of your point... Why is it such a big deal that only one witness spoke to the press? Those 3 women would have given separate accounts to LE, plus the accounts of the girlfriend and dad and any other witnesses who talked to LE but did not speak to the press. LE most likely has a better idea of the child's direction of travel. LE have stated they have a timeline and they have stated repeatedly that there is evidence he was in the park. Just because we, the public, have not been informed of something doesn't mean there is something suspicious going on here. JMO.

 

[heartgoesout]

I’m really struggling to understand why it is people are trying to explain away why only one person (edited to agree two women) says she saw this precious child.
To me it is what it is, no one else saw this child there including the jogger, bench guy, three people blocking dads view, kayak guy and the hundreds of other people there that day.
Do I know what that means? No.

 

[Charlot123]

“Regarding people in the park. They don't say they did not see Maddox. They say they don't remember seeing Maddox.”

Above Snipped for shortness.

I’m not trying to beat a dead horse but who is they? They who?
My point I’ve been trying to make is we’ve heard nothing either way except for one women (church lady) and one man (park employee) who have conflicting memories. No one else.

True.

What I am trying to explain is how our memory and attention work.

The LE asks anyone who saw the boy answering Maddox's decription to come forward.

Imagine the situation was exactly like the dad explained, Maddox took off and there was the jogger ahead of them.

Now, if they find this jogger and ask him how many miles he made that day in the park, or what his time was, I bet, he'll tell! If we ask if he saw a person matching the description of Maddox and he says, no, it does not mean Maddox was not there. It just means the jogger was very much interested in own results and could not have cared less about young kids running around.

Who pays attention to young kids? Women who want to have kids, women who are pregnant, and elderly people. Ironically, women with own kids are poor witnesses.

If you ask guys who were at the park about the cars parked in front,be sure they would mention all Bentleys, all old cars and all Lexuses. If you ask women the same question, they'd name way fewer cars.

It would be interesting to see what the kayak guy remembered. I bet - other kayaks and some technology.

Guys are very poor witnesses when it comes to young kids. But they (both men and women) tend to pay much more attention to kids when they are going through fertility treatment. Then they suddenly start noticing kids around, but I bet, their attention is better for kids of own ethnic group, for example.

In short, we notice what interests us or what we perceive as "ourselves". Unless something is strikingly different. A 6'7" man, for example. Or a T-shirt with something outrageous on it.

And to add to it that half of the people in that park were probably checking their social medias...

 

[LietKynes]

Medical examiner confirms boy found dead in creek was Maddox Ritch

In this article, it says "they were trying to obtain a security camera footage" meaning there was one

That's good to know for certain there was a security cam. at that park ! Thanks.

My question for LE would be :

Why are you still wanting people to come forward ?
Even after Maddox was found and the autopsy was complete (hence the upcoming funeral for this little boy ) ; you still want anyone who was at Rankin Park on that day to come and talk with you or show what evidence they might have.

You (LE) know Maddox was there.
You know the dad and gf were there; but not what time Maddox was possibly left unattended by them ?
You do not know if the gf tried to catch up to Maddox and if not, why ?
What are you looking for at this point ?

It makes little sense. What does LE still want ?
All of their questions should be answered by now.
Why haven't they closed this case, and just said "... it was an unfortunate accident that could not have been prevented ..." ?
I have faith in LE .

 

[Alethea]

I’m really struggling to understand why it is people are trying to explain away why only one person (edited to agree two women) says she saw this precious child.
To me it is what it is, no one else saw this child there including the jogger, bench guy, three people blocking dads view, kayak guy and the hundreds of other people there that day.
Do I know what that means? No.

If I thought I saw a missing child at a park, I would talk to LE but certainly wouldn't post it on social media or give an interview to the press. Why would I want to insert myself so people online could pick apart my life and everything I've ever done? I guess I don't understand why it would be weird to not make a public statement if you were one of the people in the park?

There were allegedly hundreds of people at the park. But if Maddox's family was only there for 10 minutes before he ran off, there were only a small fraction of those 100 people who could have even possibly seen him - the people who were in that vicinity of the park during the time Maddox was in the park. LE asking to speak to anyone who was at the park does not mean LE believes everyone who was at the park would have seen Maddox. I think they would also want to speak to everyone to see if they saw anything unusual at the park (i.e. possible predator). If 20 people reported seeing a person that made them feel uncomfortable, LE would want to track down that person.

LE is not going to release information about the people they spoke to for just that reason. If LE does not give innocent witnesses privacy, it would discourage anyone from talking to LE in the first place.

 

[heartgoesout]

Actually, three people. Only the 1 woman spoke to the press but her mother and her daughter were with her and also saw him and her mother tried to speak to him. Unless you are saying she is lying or all 3 of the women were mistaken as to it being Maddox, I'm not sure of your point... Why is it such a big deal that only one witness spoke to the press? Those 3 women would have given separate accounts to LE, plus the accounts of the girlfriend and dad and any other witnesses who talked to LE but did not speak to the press. LE most likely has a better idea of the child's direction of travel. LE have stated they have a timeline and they have stated repeatedly that there is evidence he was in the park. Just because we, the public, have not been informed of something doesn't mean there is something suspicious going on here. JMO.

Why is it a big deal? It’s not. But this case remains a mystery and this said respectfully is a sleuthing website.

 

[Miamama]

Is it possible that LE has asked those witnesses who have come forward not to discuss what they saw, especially on social media, so as not to discourage others from coming forward? If they believe this was NOT an accident, they may be wanting to keep the illusion alive that it could have been, even most likely was, an accident. Maybe lull people into letting their guards down.

 

[MsMarple]

If I thought I saw a missing child at a park, I would talk to LE but certainly wouldn't post it on social media or give an interview to the press. Why would I want to insert myself so people online could pick apart my life and everything I've ever done? I guess I don't understand why it would be weird to not make a public statement if you were one of the people in the park?

There were allegedly hundreds of people at the park. But if Maddox's family was only there for 10 minutes before he ran off, there were only a small fraction of those 100 people who could have even possibly seen him - the people who were in that vicinity of the park during the time Maddox was in the park. LE asking to speak to anyone who was at the park does not mean LE believes everyone who was at the park would have seen Maddox. I think they would also want to speak to everyone to see if they saw anything unusual at the park (i.e. possible predator). If 20 people reported seeing a person that made them feel uncomfortable, LE would want to track down that person.

LE is not going to release information about the people they spoke to for just that reason. If LE does not give innocent witnesses privacy, it would discourage anyone from talking to LE in the first place.

Yes, exactly. No one is obligated to speak to msm - I wouldn't. Still, people will continue to speculate until LE releases something more tangible that clarifies what they're investigating. It's just my own opinion but I feel like some of the vague statements from LE and the FBI created uncertainty and suspicion and even a small update that doesn't impact the investigation might put the community at ease.

IMO their earlier comments about not speculating openly on social media, calling the case unusual and the nonstop request for people to come forward caused a lot of the rumors in the first place. Of the four campaigns the one for funeral expenses was shut down while the other three are specifically earmarked for Maddox' mother. To me that's telling as far as what the public is thinking. Again, IMO LE could have quashed much of the speculation.

I do understand that the investigation is ongoing and I also get that LE isn't going to clear anyone or declare Maddox' death accidental until they have all the facts. But that may take weeks, which casts an unsettling cloud over the case.

For the people in Gastonia this is a case that affects their community; for us not so much. IMO LE needs to keep that community updated. If more people have come forward then what's the harm in letting them know? IOW there's no need for msm interviews - it's no one's business other than theirs and LE - but if that's the case then let people know. MOO.

 

[Gardener1850]

Why is it a big deal? It’s not. But this case remains a mystery and this said respectfully is a sleuthing website.

But what are you trying to sleuth? I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
I guess I'll just sit on my hands...

 

[heartgoesout]

<modsnipped quoted post>
I do not suspect the father harmed Maddox. I don’t think any of my posts have said that. I do think that the story told is not exactly how that day played out. My post are simply pointing out inconsistencies and contiplating why that could be. I’m sorting through the info and critically thinking to make sense of it all.

 

[Charlot123]

<modsnipped quoted post>

I would probably follow him as well, but it is clear in hindsight.

One thing she did not know was that he was autistic.

The second thing she did not know was that he was nonverbal. She had no way of telling it.

So when she asked him "hi buddy are you tired?" and received no answer, she had no way of knowing that he could not answer and likely, did not even understand her. One of the explanations could be, parents forbade him to talk to strangers. Again, what you see (a lost autistic nonverbal kid) and what you think you see (a kid running to the office where his parents are probably waiting) are two different things.

 

[Charlot123]

I do not suspect the father harmed Maddox. I don’t think any of my posts have said that. I do think that the story told is not exactly how that day played out. My post are simply pointing out inconsistencies and contiplating why that could be. I’m sorting through the info and critically thinking to make sense of it all.

Sorry for misinterpreting your posts, @heartgoesout.

There are lot of inconsistencies, I agree. And even more blank spots.

I have my working hypothesis, which does not exonerate the father (he and GF were distracted by being together, later could not tell the exact moment when he ran away, and hoped to find him before his mom could even get to know about it because, as I can imagine, the first thing mom would do would petition for full custody, and who would blame her?). I believe that this is where dad's culpability ends. Maybe I am putting too much into it and he was merely a bad runner.

 

[heartgoesout]

Sorry for misinterpreting your posts, @heartgoesout.

There are lot of inconsistencies, I agree. And even more blank spots.

I have my working hypothesis, which does not exonerate the father (he and GF were distracted by being together, later could not tell the exact moment when he ran away, and hoped to find him before his mom could even get to know about it because, as I can imagine, the first thing mom would do would petition for full custody, and who would blame her?). I believe that this is where dad's culpability ends. Maybe I am putting too much into it and he was merely a bad runner.

We're on the same page.

 

[Charlot123]

We're on the same page.

 

[Beagle]

I would probably follow him as well, but it is clear in hindsight.

One thing she did not know was that he was autistic.

The second thing she did not know was that he was nonverbal. She had no way of telling it.

So when she asked him "hi buddy are you tired?" and received no answer, she had no way of knowing that he could not answer and likely, did not even understand her. One of the explanations could be, parents forbade him to talk to strangers. Again, what you see (a lost autistic nonverbal kid) and what you think you see (a kid running to the office where his parents are probably waiting) are two different things.

I agree she did not know that or anything about Maddox, my point is that I would never leave a child that age alone. I also find a strange question to ask "hi buddy are you tired?" I would be asking him where his parent's were and with no answer, I would still remain with him and look out for the parent's. If he ran off again I would follow JMO

It is unusual for child to be out running around the park on their own.

 

[msteach]

<modsnip - not victim friendly>

On a totally unrelated note, I'm guessing that the same cause of death will apply with this horrible limo crash in NY. I cannot tell you how many times I have been a passenger in a shuttle or a paid car for hire of some sort -- from shuttle to airport limo -- where the driver has pulled out a cell phone and started looking at messages. I am vocal enough that I speak up and I tell them that I am paying to arrive safely, so they need to put the phone away and drive -- or let me out at the next point. I have actually had other passengers in the same shuttle vans thank me for doing this. Mark my words -- the car was doing 60 and blew through a stop sign into a crowded parking lot. It wasn't mechanical. It was a texting driver. I'm willing to lay money on it.

 

[yrmfp]

Yes, exactly. No one is obligated to speak to msm - I wouldn't. Still, people will continue to speculate until LE releases something more tangible that clarifies what they're investigating. It's just my own opinion but I feel like some of the vague statements from LE and the FBI created uncertainty and suspicion and even a small update that doesn't impact the investigation might put the community at ease.

IMO their earlier comments about not speculating openly on social media, calling the case unusual and the nonstop request for people to come forward caused a lot of the rumors in the first place. Of the four campaigns the one for funeral expenses was shut down while the other three are specifically earmarked for Maddox' mother. To me that's telling as far as what the public is thinking. Again, IMO LE could have quashed much of the speculation.

I do understand that the investigation is ongoing and I also get that LE isn't going to clear anyone or declare Maddox' death accidental until they have all the facts. But that may take weeks, which casts an unsettling cloud over the case.

For the people in Gastonia this is a case that affects their community; for us not so much. IMO LE needs to keep that community updated. If more people have come forward then what's the harm in letting them know? IOW there's no need for msm interviews - it's no one's business other than theirs and LE - but if that's the case then let people know. MOO.

You are correct. Not only do us in this community want answers and justice for Maddox; we are nervous. We still do not know if this was a tragic accident ( I'll sit on my hands as opposed to finishing the rest of that thought) or if this child was murdered, abducted, assaulted, etc...... We could have a child killer living among us and not even know. Add in social media rumors ( which at this point are just that..rumor) but people are scared. ...and MANY are angry. By now there is absolutely no way that they do not know if this was an accidental drowning or if he was murdered... Even without disclosing details to jeapordize a potential criminal case, they could at lease ease minds or encourage people to be extra cautious. I am not the type to question law enforcement ( and I do believe this is more FBI decision as our local LE would take the communities fears and concerns seriously and address it).

I've had to REALLY avoid from posting after watching MSM video of the viewing, funeral etc....... Something stinks in Gastonia. The park reopened as well. I've visited that park so many times but I can never bring myself to do so again.

 

[LietKynes]

You are correct. Not only do us in this community want answers and justice for Maddox; we are nervous. We still do not know if this was a tragic accident ( I'll sit on my hands as opposed to finishing the rest of that thought) or if this child was murdered, abducted, assaulted, etc...... We could have a child killer living among us and not even know. Add in social media rumors ( which at this point are just that..rumor) but people are scared. ...and MANY are angry. By now there is absolutely no way that they do not know if this was an accidental drowning or if he was murdered... Even without disclosing details to jeapordize a potential criminal case, they could at lease ease minds or encourage people to be extra cautious. I am not the type to question law enforcement ( and I do believe this is more FBI decision as our local LE would take the communities fears and concerns seriously and address it).

I've had to REALLY avoid from posting after watching MSM video of the viewing, funeral etc....... Something stinks in Gastonia. The park reopened as well. I've visited that park so many times but I can never bring myself to do so again.

Thanks for your post.
I don't blame anyone there for being nervous.
It'd be better if the fbi could at least let people know to be extra cautious. That certainly wouldn't be harming an investigation ?

 

[MsFacetious]

Thanks for your post.
I don't blame anyone there for being nervous.
It'd be better if the fbi could at least let people know to be extra cautious. That certainly wouldn't be harming an investigation ?

I think the FBI coming out and telling people to be extra cautious would only panic people. Then they would believe that there IS a crazed child killer lurking in the shadows. I honestly think it would make the situation even worse.

If people are scared and nervous anyway, aren't they being extra cautious already? I don't think they need to be told that. Even with an accidental death, people are extra cautious because it reminds them of what can happen.

After a few toddler drownings this summer that occurred in SECONDS with very vigilant and safety conscious parents, we skipped a family reunion at a pool and one at a lake. Just too scary.