NY NY - Patrick Alford, 7, Brooklyn, 22 Jan 2010 - #1

[kbl8201]

god help them find him then.

 

[CHICANA]

I just wanted to let you all know that 2 detectives just left my home. They were looking for Patrick, as they have been doing since the first night. They did a "search" with my permission and just left.

Are they searching all homes in the area or were you targeted for some reason ?

 

[ladymay]

Just bumping my post to remind ladymay to contact Tricia and let her know that she knows people involved with this case.

Thanks ladymay. It is a painless process. Tricia will ask a few questions and then let us know the scoop. We really do appreciate your participation.

Salem

hi salem and thank you for your greetings...i know you guys said that should i begin to share more information that my identity may be leaked...im willing to share what i know as i have been told that the mother IS staying with this relative...however i am risking a big loss if anyone finds out...and not even with this relative...but with someone who means much more...i want to help bring the baby home at any cost...

 

[Texas Mist]

I got a tweet late last nite from the NY Daily News - basically it was a "where's Patrick, have you seen him?" & link to info on him.

So glad at least one news outlet is keeping his name out there!!

 

[Salem]

hi salem and thank you for your greetings...i know you guys said that should i begin to share more information that my identity may be leaked...im willing to share what i know as i have been told that the mother IS staying with this relative...however i am risking a big loss if anyone finds out...and not even with this relative...but with someone who means much more...i want to help bring the baby home at any cost...

Ladymay - I must have typed something wrong. Your identify WILL NOT be leaked. You will stay anonymous. It is against the rules for any Websleuther to try to find out who you are - we will NOT do that. We respect your privacy.

Tricia is the forum owner. She will email with you.

But - if you are uncomfortable getting in touch with Tricia, you may still post what you know, only you must state that "it is your opinion" and/or all just "rumor" so that other posters understand. All other information must be backed up with a link to the media or LE source from which you are getting your information.

Does that help clear things up a bit? Let me know if there are additional questions.

Salem

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Missing-boy reward at 12G

Police have added $10,000 to the reward for helping find those responsible for the disappearance of a 7-year-old East New York boy from his foster family home.

The money comes in addition to the $2,000 Crime Stoppers was offering in the case of Patrick Alford, who vanished Jan. 22 from his home in Starrett City.

The boy's 23-year-old biological mother, Jennifer Rodriguez, was initially eyed for taking him, and was jailed for a week for contempt. She later passed a lie-detector test confirming she wasn't withholding information, and was released.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/missing_boy_reward_at_aIBHEw7F50DXcW1FmoZf7H

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

NYPD Increases Reward For Information On Missing Boy

Police are hoping more reward money will help them find a missing foster child from Brooklyn.

The New York City Police Department is offering $10,000 for anyone with information that leads to an arrest and conviction of the person responsible. That's in addition to the $2,000 reward being offered by Crime Stoppers.

More: http://www.ny1.com/7-brooklyn-news-...creases-reward-for-information-on-missing-boy

Video at link

 

[kbl8201]

just my impressions but the fact they seem to be changing focus with house to house searches and rewards tells me that they think somethingelse beyond the mom or foster mom is going on here.

 

[OceanEyes]

bump..

 

[Salem]

~Respectfully snipped and bbm ~

Missing-boy reward at 12G

The boy's 23-year-old biological mother, Jennifer Rodriguez, was initially eyed for taking him, and was jailed for a week for contempt. She later passed a lie-detector test confirming she wasn't withholding information, and was released.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/missing_boy_reward_at_aIBHEw7F50DXcW1FmoZf7H

I think this statement is huge! It says, to me, that JR not only does not know where Patrick is, but that she was not involved in his disappearance. I know there was some discussion that she might have been involved, but honestly doesn't know where he is NOW and that is why she passed the test. But this info says that LE was aware of the possibility and asked appropriate questions and do not think she is trying to "pass the test" so to speak. Am I making sense?

Prayers to you Patrick - I hope they find you soon sweetie and you get to come home!

Salem

 

[webrocket]

~Respectfully snipped and bbm ~

I think this statement is huge! It says, to me, that JR not only does not know where Patrick is, but that she was not involved in his disappearance. I know there was some discussion that she might have been involved, but honestly doesn't know where he is NOW and that is why she passed the test. But this info says that LE was aware of the possibility and asked appropriate questions and do not think she is trying to "pass the test" so to speak. Am I making sense?

Prayers to you Patrick - I hope they find you soon sweetie and you get to come home!

Salem

It is well known that truthful people and pathological liars pass polygraph tests, hence the reason why they are not admissible in court.

IIRC, the judge who held her in contempt thought she was hiding information. While the quality of judges vary greatly, I would trust the instinct of a judge over LE any day in terms of gauging truthfulness. LE wants to trip someone up with their questioning. Judges sit there every day listening to people tell their version of facts and observe all the nuances like evasiveness, hemming and hawing, looking away when answering, fidgeting, contradicting themselves, making outlandish statements, etc.

I am not saying that the bio mom is lying or telling the truth. But I doubt a judge would send someone to Riker's Island for a week if he really did not think (in this case) the person was lying about the whereabouts of the child.

 

[chrissybk]

Are they searching all homes in the area or were you targeted for some reason ?

They are going door to door in certain buildings.

 

[chrissybk]

just my impressions but the fact they seem to be changing focus with house to house searches and rewards tells me that they think somethingelse beyond the mom or foster mom is going on here.

I agree completely!

 

[CHICANA]

It is well known that truthful people and pathological liars pass polygraph tests, hence the reason why they are not admissible in court.

IIRC, the judge who held her in contempt thought she was hiding information. While the quality of judges vary greatly, I would trust the instinct of a judge over LE any day in terms of gauging truthfulness. LE wants to trip someone up with their questioning. Judges sit there every day listening to people tell their version of facts and observe all the nuances like evasiveness, hemming and hawing, looking away when answering, fidgeting, contradicting themselves, making outlandish statements, etc.

I am not saying that the bio mom is lying or telling the truth. But I doubt a judge would send someone to Riker's Island for a week if he really did not think (in this case) the person was lying about the whereabouts of the child.

Judge's aren't supposed to make decisions based on their hunches or feelings, but on the facts presented to them. I trust LE more, because they're trained in investigations.
A person isn't supposed to be incarcerated indefinitely without charges being filed. It's called due process and it's guaranteed under the constitution. The fact that this judge IMO, violated the mother's constitutional rights under the guise of child protection, taints his credibility for me.
I'm a big fan of our constitution and the guys who wrote it.

 

[webrocket]

Judge's aren't supposed to make decisions based on their hunches or feelings, but on the facts presented to them. I trust LE more, because they're trained in investigations.
A person isn't supposed to be incarcerated indefinitely without charges being filed. It's called due process and it's guaranteed under the constitution. The fact that this judge IMO, violated the mother's constitutional rights under the guise of child protection, taints his credibility for me.
I'm a big fan of our constitution and the guys who wrote it.

It is called contempt and it is perfectly constitutional. There were a few postings on the subject earlier in the thread. You might want to check them out.

If you trust cops more than judges, well I guess you are entitled to your opinions. Judges, at times, are there to protect the citizens from the heavy handed actions of the police. It is called the Fourth Amendement.

 

[CHICANA]

It is called contempt and it is perfectly constitutional. There were a few postings on the subject earlier in the thread. You might want to check them out.

If you trust cops more than judges, well I guess you are entitled to your opinions. Judges, at times, are there to protect the citizens from the heavy handed actions of the police. It is called the Fourth Amendement.

I read them and a judge still has to base orders on factual evidence, not hearsay or 'hunches'.
IMO, she was arrested for contempt of an unconstitutional order. IMO this judge was wrong.
An order has to be based on something.

If any one of us were ordered to produce Patrick, could we do it ?
If the answer is no, by this judge's logic we could be thrown in jail for contempt.
Could he do it ? Yes. Would it be legal ? How ? It's not even ethical.

The 4th amendment covers illegal searches & seizures, which unfortunately are practiced routinely in child protection cases where social workers threaten to take children if not allowed to come in and search everything from the refrigerator to the closet.

IMO, this judge violated JR's 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendment rights.

5th ; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.
--Due process would be she's investigated, there's evidence based on facts, she's arrested, bond is set, she's tried by a jury of her peers.

6th Rights to a fair and speedy public trial, to notice of accusations, to confront the accuser, to subpoenas, to counsel
--Nope, didn't happen here.
7th Right to trial by jury in civil cases
-- Nope, no trial
8th No excessive bail and fines or cruel & unusual punishment
-- NO BAIL, not knowing when or if you're going to be 'free' while your child is missing and you don't know if he's dead or alive is, IMO cruel and unusual.

9th Unenumerated rights --sometimes referred to as natural or fundamental rights that include your right to be free and to raise your children without undue government interference.

 

[webrocket]

I read them and a judge still has to base orders on factual evidence, not hearsay or 'hunches'.
IMO, she was arrested for contempt of an unconstitutional order. IMO this judge was wrong.
An order has to be based on something.

If any one of us were ordered to produce Patrick, could we do it ?
If the answer is no, by this judge's logic we could be thrown in jail for contempt.
Could he do it ? Yes. Would it be legal ? How ? It's not even ethical.

The 4th amendment covers illegal searches & seizures, which unfortunately are practiced routinely in child protection cases where social workers threaten to take children if not allowed to come in and search everything from the refrigerator to the closet.

IMO, this judge violated JR's 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendment rights.

5th ; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.
--Due process would be she's investigated, there's evidence based on facts, she's arrested, bond is set, she's tried by a jury of her peers.

6th Rights to a fair and speedy public trial, to notice of accusations, to confront the accuser, to subpoenas, to counsel
--Nope, didn't happen here.
7th Right to trial by jury in civil cases
-- Nope, no trial
8th No excessive bail and fines or cruel & unusual punishment
-- NO BAIL, not knowing when or if you're going to be 'free' while your child is missing and you don't know if he's dead or alive is, IMO cruel and unusual.

9th Unenumerated rights --sometimes referred to as natural or fundamental rights that include your right to be free and to raise your children without undue government interference.

I'm sure the bio mom can find a jailhouse lawyer to argue these for her.

 

[songline]

I read them and a judge still has to base orders on factual evidence, not hearsay or 'hunches'.
IMO, she was arrested for contempt of an unconstitutional order. IMO this judge was wrong.
An order has to be based on something.

If any one of us were ordered to produce Patrick, could we do it ?
If the answer is no, by this judge's logic we could be thrown in jail for contempt.
Could he do it ? Yes. Would it be legal ? How ? It's not even ethical.

The 4th amendment covers illegal searches & seizures, which unfortunately are practiced routinely in child protection cases where social workers threaten to take children if not allowed to come in and search everything from the refrigerator to the closet.

IMO, this judge violated JR's 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendment rights.

5th ; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.
--Due process would be she's investigated, there's evidence based on facts, she's arrested, bond is set, she's tried by a jury of her peers.

6th Rights to a fair and speedy public trial, to notice of accusations, to confront the accuser, to subpoenas, to counsel
--Nope, didn't happen here.
7th Right to trial by jury in civil cases
-- Nope, no trial
8th No excessive bail and fines or cruel & unusual punishment
-- NO BAIL, not knowing when or if you're going to be 'free' while your child is missing and you don't know if he's dead or alive is, IMO cruel and unusual.

9th Unenumerated rights --sometimes referred to as natural or fundamental rights that include your right to be free and to raise your children without undue government interference.

She may have had a record - so based on that he thought to scare her, but I agree with you.

Who said the judicial system is always right? Who said that judges are always honorable?
If you read here long enough you will be more afraid of the judicial system then the freaks.

 

[CHICANA]

I'm sure the bio mom can find a jailhouse lawyer to argue these for her.

She's not in jail.
We have a thread about a dead baby that was forced to have unsupervised visits with his dad.
The judge based his decision on his SUSPICION that mom was lying IN SPITE of the significant evidence that was presented to him.

http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2010/02/08/news/doc4b6d247ecb7a5449445741.txt

Tagle’s mother, sister and ex-husband claimed the judge appeared not to have reviewed the evidence, including “Necessary Evil,” a story Garcia apparently sent to Tagle describing how he would kill their son and himself.

Also among Tagle’s exhibits: text messages and e-mails Garcia had sent to Tagle and her family members referring to the story’s fatal ending, as well as the emergency restraining order a Morongo Basin sheriff’s deputy had obtained for her and Wyatt the day before.

She provided the court with an e-mail in which Garcia admitted to hitting her, and sheriff’s reports made after he pushed her down during a custody exchange and threatened to kill her.

While the hearing transcripts, obtained from the court reporter Thursday, do not indicate whether Lemkau had reviewed the evidence, he does almost immediately theorize that Tagle is lying. It is not clear why.

Ten days later, in the early-morning hours of Jan. 31, Stephen Garcia allegedly shot his son before turning his pistol on himself on a road in the snowy mountains of Twin Peaks.

Contacted several times via e-mail, Lemkau has not responded to requests to comment on the case.

 

[kbl8201]

ok now that we rehashed bio moms prison stay, is there any new info tonight?