Found Safe TN - MCET, 15, Abducted by Teacher, in Maury County, 13 March 2017 #18 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bently said:
I think this was touched upon upthread re that parents are responsible for minors, and therefore they can give permission. But no one else can "take" that responsibility away from the parents (unless court ordered) and make decisions for the minor. That then is criminal.

When it was explained, it made perfect sense to me. :cow: :moo:

Bad wording in lay terms, but the best I can do to show differentiation. Perhaps someone else can explain better than I can.
Click to expand...

No problem. I understand that but the law is still an *advertiser censored* in that regard IMO. There are also "arranged marriages" by parents in some circumstances that are less than favorable for the girl concerned, but that is another topic.
 
Karinna said:
I find it bizarre that as long as a very young teenager gets parental permission it's okay to get married to whoever from what you state the laws are in that regard, yet a minor is still a minor and a crime without parental permission. Makes no sense to me.
And i wasn't really talking about TC in my post but the laws pertaining to those circumstances being criminal or not. Looks like it depends on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between marrying unusually young with parental permission and a 50-year-old married man grooming and taking someone's young teen without her parent's permission. It makes perfect sense to me. A popular couple in my high school married when both were 17. She was pregnant, hence the parental permission. (Her parents were NOT thrilled.)

But I digress. Is there anyone who thinks it's OK for a 50-year-old married man to take a 15-year-old across several states without her parents' permission?
 
So TC has yet another victim. What a piece of work he is. :(
 
J4cknsal1y said:
https://www.facebook.com/burt.staggs/posts/10158761652925038

Bombshell:
Tad and Jill Cummins did NOT own Nissan Rogue used in Scandalous Amber Alert #TnAmberAlert


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"A credible source has confirmed to WCN that in fact that vehicle belonged to another member of the Cummins family. The source also confirmed that family member is currently financial responsible for that vehicle"


:thinking:

Who is this guy that has all this "inside" information that is a program manager for a radio station.


http://lmgcorporate.com/wsmv/documents/CumminsFederalCharges.pdf is the federal charges... that states...

"12. On that same morning, Cummins borrowed his wife's 2015 Nissan Rogue vehicle. "
 
stormymama said:
From what I understand, the family spoke on her appearance in an effort to stress how immature she is. Then the attorney mentioned how unkempt she looked when she was found (weight loss/dirty.)

Neither instance seemed to advocate for TC. There is a lot of advocating for TC going on elsewhere in MSM and SM. I've seen so many comments they are making my head spin.
Click to expand...

Agree--the family is, in conjunction with the lawyer, stressing how young and immature she is. This is (I believe) in an effort to stress and remind public opinion that she is a victim in this case, and to counteract the picture of them running away together, believing themselves to be in a "relationship." When LE comments, however briefly, that they had the appearance of being in a relationship when they were found, that TC was 'consoling her' at his arrest, that scenario presents new challenges to the prosecution. So, to counteract that--as well as to counteract all the advocating for TC locally or in SM, IMO the lawyer is employing a professional tactic to portray in more black and white terms that TC is "bad."

Sure, ET was disheveled and she'd probably lost weight if she had food allergies and they were at the end of their money. So, (in lawyerly thinking), he'll emphasize that. (They did years ago with the Patti Hearst trial, too.) While he's at it, he might then expound...she looks "tiny," she looks "younger than twelve," she is just a "little child!" The family lawyer said all those things...and, in my opinion may have overstated things to the point where his tactics are now appearing too obvious--because what he says is clashing with facts a thinking public can discern with their own eyes (eg. pre-abduction photos, her birthdate).

We know that lawyers rarely expound publicly prior to trial (and generally encourage victims and/or family members also not to comment beyond the "thankful" statement) - UNLESS it will benefit their case. There are no casual, off-the-cuff comments--it's a strategic profession. So it's a bit eyebrow-raising when the family lawyer does expound the day after a victim's recovery, and when that is also followed by intrusive media depictions of the victim's bedroom with stuffed animals and security blanket, accompanied by extremely personal family statements. (We have to know if that was allowed to air, it was with the family lawyer's assent, if not blessing.) We also know (rightly or wrongly) that there is generally more outrage and negative public opinion towards pedophiles than an older man running off with a teen...and lawyers are keenly aware of the subtle workings of shaping public opinion to try to correct the odds in their favor in an attempt to extract justice for their client. The working of that subtle shaping tactic is obvious even in these threads, where some posters are referring to TC as a pedophile, speculating that he IS one simply because the family lawyer has said *he* thought ET looked younger than twelve after she returned to TN. At the most, that's his opinion, and he knows that while stating it...but if a lawyer makes an emphatic statement to the press about an inflammatory opinion, he also knows that some will interpret his opinion as fact simply because he's someone important in the case, a hero because he's advocating for a victim, and the media reported it in a press conference.

I'm trying hard not to portray a value judgment on any of this...it's just the way the system works. I'll admit to feeling sad that so much of ET's privacy is being sacrificed IMO in an ardent attempt to influence public sentiment. And I think it's important, if people are looking for answers and truth, that they read with discernment, weighing fact vs. opinion and keeping a mind open as to what might also be going on strategically when studying public information about a case.

JMO, sorry so wordy.
 
Bently said:
"A credible source has confirmed to WCN that in fact that vehicle belonged to another member of the Cummins family. The source also confirmed that family member is currently financial responsible for that vehicle"


:thinking:

Who is this guy that has all this "inside" information that is a program manager for a radio station.


http://lmgcorporate.com/wsmv/documents/CumminsFederalCharges.pdf is the federal charges... that states...

"12. On that same morning, Cummins borrowed his wife's 2015 Nissan Rogue vehicle. "
Click to expand...

I wonder who really owns that car - his sister? parents? one of his daughters? Whoever is was appears to have allowed Jill to use it regularly...

I was wondering if they had a bank loan out on the car, and now we find out that, no, a family member owned it. Obviously, the Cummins' were not credit-worthy enough to purchase a second vehicle on their own.

I also wonder if he'll be charged with fraud for securing that $4500 loan with a car that wasn't his?

:cow:
 
Karinna said:
I find it bizarre that as long as a very young teenager gets parental permission it's okay to get married to whoever from what you state the laws are in that regard, yet a minor is still a minor and a crime without parental permission. Makes no sense to me.
And i wasn't really talking about TC in my post but the laws pertaining to those circumstances being criminal or not. Looks like it depends on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Karinna said:
I was making a point of this type of thing being a crime or not? And from what has been said it depends on the situation. In some cases yes a 50 yr. old can marry a 16 yr. old if she has parental permission.
And i'm not talking about ET & TC in this legal aspect of what the law permits.
Click to expand...

Some states just have very outdated laws that make literally no sense in modern times. Unless we put pressure on state officials to change the laws, things will never change. I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should really be getting married and especially not if they're marrying someone far older, perhaps laws need to be changed to stop this stuff from happening.
 
Bently said:
http://www.crimeonline.com/podcast/

Poirotry,I assume you are referring to the April 25 Nancy Grace podcast. Where the family lawyer, Jason Whately, at 3:17 starts the conversation going in that direction, where the lawyer says "she is a little child, I don't know if she is stunted or her growth is stunted etc"... and then Nancy asks Francie .. "she didn't even look like she had developed as a woman.. I don't think she would even need a bra...." ... and then Nancy repeated the bra comment a few seconds later.

:facepalm: leave it to Nancy
Click to expand...

That's a prime example of what I'm referring to with regards to the lawyer. Not sure if it was his first statement about ET's appearance, but it was definitely one of the most elaborative ones.

I can't watch NG, personally...the yellow journalism (and her voice) drive me far, far away.
 
PoirotryInMotion said:
RSBM

I'm trying hard not to portray a value judgment on any of this...it's just the way the system works. I'll admit to feeling sad that so much of ET's privacy is being sacrificed IMO in an ardent attempt to influence public sentiment. And I think it's important, if people are looking for answers and truth, that they read with discernment, weighing fact vs. opinion and keeping a mind open as to what might also be going on strategically when studying public information about a case.

JMO, sorry so wordy.
Click to expand...

^^^This.
 
Kapua said:
I wonder who really owns that car - his sister? parents? one of his daughters? Whoever is was appears to have allowed Jill to use it regularly...

I was wondering if they had a bank loan out on the car, and now we find out that, no, a family member owned it. Obviously, the Cummins' were not credit-worthy enough to purchase a second vehicle on their own.

I also wonder if he'll be charged with fraud for securing that $4500 loan with a car that wasn't his?

:cow:
Click to expand...

Couldn't he also have a civil suit on his hands from whomever allowed his wife to borrow the vehicle?
 
Kapua said:
There's a big difference between marrying unusually young with parental permission and a 50-year-old married man grooming and taking someone's young teen without her parent's permission. It makes perfect sense to me. A popular couple in my high school married when both were 17. She was pregnant, hence the parental permission. (Her parents were NOT thrilled.)

But I digress. Is there anyone who thinks it's OK for a 50-year-old married man to take a 15-year-old across several states without her parents' permission?
Click to expand...

BBM, I don't think anyone here has stated they agree with that.
 
white rabbit said:
holy crap.

whose car is it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, just a guess. Maybe because of the bankruptcy, TC/JC's credit was bAd enough that they could not get financing for the vehicle. Maybe someone else (a parent or possibly one of the daughters), took out the loan and TC/JC paid that person the payments. It did say that TC lied about assets when obtaining the title loan, which would make sense if technically, on paper, he did not own the vehicle. They could have been reporting that it is JC vehicle because it is the vehicle she drives everyday regardless of who actually took out the loan to finance it. All jmo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jessarox said:
Couldn't he also have a civil suit on his hands from whomever allowed his wife to borrow the vehicle?
Click to expand...
Why wasn't it stated during the AA that the vehicle was lent to the Cummins ? The tag # was given, but wouldn't come back as TC if LE ran it


MOO
 
jessarox said:
Some states just have very outdated laws that make literally no sense in modern times. Unless we put pressure on state officials to change the laws, things will never change. I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should really be getting married and especially not if they're marrying someone far older, perhaps laws need to be changed to stop this stuff from happening.
Click to expand...

Yes definitely. That's why i said the law is an *advertiser censored*, IMO.
 
Mom24 said:
We're 18 pages in and while the majority support JC as a victim, only a small number of us support ET as a victim. We're a fairly random sampling, and we're all here because we support victims and I've been stunned at how many are still not getting it.
Click to expand...

RSBM

I respectfully disagree with the snipped part of your post. I don't see any indication that only a small number of us, on these threads, support ET as a victim. I see it as the opposite.

I am one of the posters who supports JC as a victim, but that certainly in no way makes me unsupportive of ET as a victim. They're not mutually exclusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 2,073 (members: 153, guests: 1,920)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,920
Total visitors
2,073
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,352
Messages
18,139,545
Members
231,361
Latest member
Curious38
Back
Top