YesThat would still qualify as assault, wouldn't it?
YesThat would still qualify as assault, wouldn't it?
Good luck to TA to use a “contentious custody battle” as justification for premeditated murder & kidnapping of 2 women. I’d sure hate to represent any single one of them.I think we are seeing TA's defense take shape in that interview. TA certainly has tried to set up a poisonous case against VB.
I assume Stephen Jones will not be TA's defense attorney.
Why does the obituary for the late Jilian Kelley refer to the date she left to be with the heavenly father as April 14 ?Jilian Delores (Dalbey) Kelley Obituary 2024 - Robson Funeral Home
View Jilian Delores (Dalbey) Kelley's obituary, send flowers, find service dates, and sign the guestbook.www.robsonfuneralhome.com
Also, it was sufficiently specific and believable that it was passed on to the immediate family of the victims, one of whom inappropriately leaked on her FB that TA had confessed and both women were dead.
This was the day of the arrests, remains had not yet been found.
JMO
With the tracking of the burner phones and the DNA evidence that takes longer for results, I respectfully disagree that they need an eyewitnessI sure hope so.
LE needs better evidence than Cora's daughter's account of a conversation with her mother.
They need real eyewitness / participant testimony, preferably from more than 1 of them.
Because that's when her body was found. It's the normal procedure for indicating date of death on the death certificate.Why does the obituary for the late Jilian Kelley refer to the date she left to be with the heavenly father as April 14 ?
Wonderful wrap up! Thank you.@otto -- a couple of corrections on the timing here:
First, the Appellate brief by WR was filed May 2021, not August 2022, and this wasn't a sworn custody affidavit but IMO, a hit piece against VB drafted by team WR in an attempt to gain sole custody of the children.
VB was time barred from responding to the brief by WR, and even though the Court made its decision (August 5, 2022) on WR's brief only, the Court was not swayed by the allegations contained in the brief to remove the children from VB or place any restrictions on VB's custody but instead ruled the parents should share custody of the children. Previously, the trial court awarded the Mother sole, legal custody and the Father, standard visitation (May 2019).
We also know that even after the trial Court ruled on standard visitation for the Father, the parents were essentially enjoying shared physical custody of the children every other week from summer 2019 until VR and the children were evicted from property owned by the paternal grandmother-- causing VB to begin moving around.
IMO, I think this period of instability with housing and work by VB was all part of the grand plan by the puppet master (i.e., TA) where WR would have a basis to appeal the trial courts decision-- all in the hope that WR would obtain sole legal custody of the children.
What's also clear is this action to appeal the trial court's decision was contrary to WR's testimony during the 2019 custody trial where WR testified that in the best interest of his children, he would be agreeable to shared custody 50/50.
View attachment 498129
Emergency Orders by WR for physical custody came at the end of 2022 following allegations against VB's minor age family member. However, these court Motions, exchanges, and subsequent intervention Motions by TA can't be discussed since this period remains under seal.
Similar to the acknowledgement by the Appellate Court, I think the parents were young, immature, and struggled but were both finding their way to be fit, loving, and devoted parents to their children.
IMO, I don't think it was was ever WR's idea to remove the children from VB. I also don't think he ever wanted to be a fulltime custodial parent. I think WR was a pawn used by TA. What's his was hers, and this was not negotiable.
<modsnip: sleuthing someone not named a POI>
Appellate Custody Records
Weren't two of the phones found buried with the victims ?Having a burner phone does not mean you committed a murder. It can mean the phone was in one place, but it doesn't mean that the person with the phone directly caused the death(s). All 3 phones could have been in a shopping bag in a vehicle or even were passed around from one defendant to the next.
The DNA evidence may be limited, and it appears there won't be ballistic evidence from the bodies.
<Snipped for focus>I assume Stephen Jones will not be TA's defense attorney.
Mine have both.I assume burner phones do not have audio or camera capacity, correct?
They absolutely can and usually do have both. IMO.I assume burner phones do not have audio or camera capacity, correct?
With the tracking of the burner phones and the DNA evidence that takes longer for results, I respectfully disagree that they need an eyewitness
My suspicion is that the forensic evidence present at the site will provide a wealth of information.With the tracking of the burner phones and the DNA evidence that takes longer for results, I respectfully disagree that they need an eyewitness
Everything else she said was proved to be true. I don't think she misunderstood anything.YES... This is exactly what I have been thinking......
She had the dialogues with her mother, but her own recollections mixed with fear and dread could have easily misunderstood so of the "facts"
Maybe or maybe CW was right about Grice being placed at the scene of the murders, just like she was right about everything else.If I’m PG, and if there’s some reason something was different about my relationship to this case (either because I had a change of heart and went to authorities, or because I was actually involved in another, more important project, or because I really wasn’t involved at all, or honestly who knows what), and I *if* saw what happened on this project that appears to have gone extremely sideways, it’s possible (being a nice guy and a dad and all) that my first thought would have been about the minors at home. Could he have gone back to their house to check on them? True. CW’s testimony doesn’t mention it, but I don’t think these sorts of accounts are always necessarily complete. If a question isn’t asked, it’s quite likely not to be answered. Also, are all the mentions of PG so far solely from CW’s testimony? I think so. So it’s all sort of secondary souce material … or really more like tertiary material, since my recollection is that it’s not just “CW said ….” But mostly rather “CW said that Cora said …”
So maybe it’s true that Cora said all this, and that what she said was true. Or, maybe it’s true that Cora said this, but that she was either lying or incorrect. Maybe Cora never said this at all, or not in exactly this way, and that CW was remembering incorrectly or filling in the blanks. Maybe PG was being set up to be the fall guy, but that didn’t work out properly either? So many possibilities. But there’s definitely no real primary material to go on as far as this aspect of the case goes, as far as I can tell …