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

[LaneGirl]

Those cases didn't involve strict liability crimes though.

Someone may refresh my memory but there was a similar case to this one and the guy got a slap on the wrist because the girl wouldn't testify. He took her over state lines as well. I'm looking for it.

So my question is because I'm curious...are you are saying this is a slam dunk? TC won't get a slap on the wrist?

hahahaha I'm asking for a glimmer of hope.

 

[Jennifer17]

You have to feel so sorry for that poor little girl, whose family damaged her, then this monster comes along and takes advantage of her when really, she was only looking for someone to care about her. He could have been a good influence in her life, but his own gratification got in the way of that.

I don't think that she will get over this any time soon. It will follow her all her life.

 

[Jennifer17]

Someone may refresh my memory but there was a similar case to this one and the guy got a slap on the wrist because the girl wouldn't testify. He took her over state lines as well. I'm looking for it.

So my question is because I'm curious...are you are saying this is a slam dunk? TC won't get a slap on the wrist?

hahahaha I'm asking for a glimmer of hope.

Did the case you are thinking of, take the victim away and keep her away?

 

[LaneGirl]

Did the case you are thinking of, take the victim away and keep her away?

It was mentioned awhile back on this thread. I didn't follow the case but others were comparing it to this case and how the girl said she went willingly and refused to testify so he got a slap on the wrist. The circumstances maybe different I just can't recall all the details.

I can't for the life of me find it. uggg

 

[MsJosie]

In an earlier thread, it was stated that in a FEDERAL trial, ET would not have to testify. Evidence and other people's testimonies would be used. In the STATE trial, ET would have to testify.

If that is the case, that is one reason the Federal Trial is going first....victim does not have to testify so the case would not be in jeopardy by ET siding with him. Then depending on the outcome a decision would be made if a State Trial should go forth.

Yes, I can see him going for a plea deal if ET is not going to testify....he is toast..

Any lawyer chiming in on ET not having to testify in a Federal Trial? Thanks

 

[Irishboy]

In an earlier thread, it was stated that in a FEDERAL trial, ET would not have to testify. Evidence and other people's testimonies would be used. In the STATE trial, ET would have to testify.

If that is the case, that is one reason the Federal Trial is going first....victim does not have to testify so the case would not be in jeopardy by ET siding with him. Then depending on the outcome a decision would be made if a State Trial should go forth.

Yes, I can see him going for a plea deal if ET is not going to testify....he is toast..

Any lawyer chiming in on ET not having to testify in a Federal Trial? Thanks

IMO there is enough publicly and I'll bet not released to convict, enough for him to take it against Pros pushing for a harsher sentence. Other than that I don't think Feds or State want her in a courtroom.

 

[Irishboy]

Jurors receive a detailed set of jury instructions that outline each element of the crimes charged and ask for their verdict on each one. They aren't asked generally if they think the person is guilty or not. In this case, there are crimes without an intent requirement- it wouldn't matter what the defense came up with if the prosecution established the facts of the act. Statutory rape, for example- the charge is a person over the age of 18 engaging in sexual acts with a minor (some states drill down on the age of the minor). There's no consent defense.

Unrelated, but based on the article that was just posted about Tad's cell phone, I bet they are putting together child *advertiser censored* charges too. That's another charge where there is no consent defense.

I've been thinking this since day one and the fact that ET and TC refused to turn over their devices when confronted by LE and AT in the investigation prior to disapperance
.(the IG post from from Walmart "Send Nudes")

 

[gitana1]

JerseyGirl, you can either go to your browser settings and choose to "clear cookies" or open your browser in "Private" or "Incognito" mode. Either of those things will erase your free visits so you can start over.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great tip! Thanks.

Am I the only one that feels that his sister and daughters standing behind him is like condoning what he has done?

Also, I am very much afraid that the sale of the house is to help with TC's legal fees.

As for ET not wanting to leave TC, if it's true, I fear a LeTourneau situation happening again IF JC divorces TC.

I am still worried about the father not knowing about the abuse the children endured while he was still in the house. I am just not comfortable with him. The mother was out of the house for a year and ET was with her father in their house, yet she still wanted to run. Just a gut feeling........

IMHO only

The Letoruneau situation was vastly different. In that case, the law protected the predator. It was lenient. Here, there are federal charges with mandatory minimums.

In the other case, the predator made herself linked for life with her victim by getting pregnant twice.

In addition, her victim is Samoan and as that culture is a matriarchy, bonds with the mother of his children is vitally important.

Further, his mother seemed annoyed but not outraged and bent on justice for her child. I think ET's father isn't going to condone more contact or any kind of relationship with the predator.

Finally, in the other case, the kid did not receive the intervention and professional assistance that ET is receiving. He was a sixth grader and yet able to be unmonitored enough that his predator got pregnant after charges were issued against her.

That is not the case here.

I think that case was and is disgustingly unique.

 

[Alethea]

Someone may refresh my memory but there was a similar case to this one and the guy got a slap on the wrist because the girl wouldn't testify. He took her over state lines as well. I'm looking for it.

So my question is because I'm curious...are you are saying this is a slam dunk? TC won't get a slap on the wrist?

hahahaha I'm asking for a glimmer of hope.

I'd never call anything a slam dunk, but the evidence released so far seems to prove the elements of the crime at least for statutory rape. TC admitted to his wife on the phone that he had sex with ET. Also I remember the people from the CA commune saying they heard TC and ET. I think even without a testifying witness you'd have solid physical and first-person testimonial evidence to prove some of the charges.

It's definitely possible that he manages to plead the charges down to something that no one is happy with. I don't want to get anyone's hopes up even if I strongly believe the facts meet the elements.

 

[Pamela_Brewer]

I think that mixed DNA from both will be plenty. Her testimony is not needed.
Remeber toilet paper from outside was collected from the cabin where they stayed. It was listed on the items taken from the SW.

MOO

 

[Lori_belle]

Eww.

On another note, that home does not look lived in form the few photos I saw. Nothing in there really.




Holy cow you're not kidding. Homes in my neighborhood are in the upper 600's.



Where is Loribelle? (Probably getting more work done than I). TN is not a community property state. It looks like various factyors are considered in order to determine what an "equitable: (fair) division would be:

http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-36/chapter-4/36-4-121

I'm interested in:

[FONT=&amp](2) [/FONT][FONT=&amp]The age, physical and mental health, vocational skills, employability, earning capacity, estate, financial liabilities and financial needs of each of the parties;

[/FONT][FONT=&amp](8) [/FONT][FONT=&amp]The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective;

[/FONT][FONT=&amp](11) [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Such other factors as are necessary to consider the equities between the parties.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Emphasis by me.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]ETA: Never mind. It looks like property division isn't affected by fault -[/FONT]http://memphisdivorce.com/property-division-faq/

I have been absolutely buried in work. It is INSANE this time of year, every year.

Property division is not affected by fault. But a court could probably grant him half the value of the house, and in the same breath order him to pay his one-half interest to her as alimony necessary for her support. Fault can be considered in alimony. It's also true that he's not going to need any property for a long a long while, and he has dissipated the marital estate via a title loan and via Jill's car becoming evidence of a crime, plus running off with whatever cash they might have had. An equitable division doesn't have to be 50/50, but it can't be motivated by a desire to punish bad spousal behavior. That said, a good judge or chancellor could probably find a way to give almost everything to Jill, whether as her share of the marital estate or a spouse transitional alimony or alimony in solido.

 

[Lori_belle]

Can TC waive all of his financial rights to property?

He could, yes, if he weren't a raging narcissistic jerk.

 

[Lori_belle]

The house is probably a painful reminder of what kind of person she was married to/what a sham her marriage was. Maybe she wants a new beginning

Or maybe she can't afford to pay the mortgage on one income.

 

[Kapua]

Someone may refresh my memory but there was a similar case to this one and the guy got a slap on the wrist because the girl wouldn't testify. He took her over state lines as well. I'm looking for it.

So my question is because I'm curious...are you are saying this is a slam dunk? TC won't get a slap on the wrist?

hahahaha I'm asking for a glimmer of hope.

Ah, that's the AW/"Max Kozak" case. There were extenuating circumstances in addition to the girl not testifying. "Max" was using an alias. His real name is Maciej Ignaciuk. I believe that a plea deal was made in exchange for Max divulging his real name and pleading no contest.

http://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/man-who-used-alias-pleads-no-contest-to-sex-charges
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/bre...cle_84aba3bf-b9a1-538d-bb13-851d1d1aeca0.html

 

[white rabbit]

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/lo...for-tad-cummins-linked-to-phone-call-evidence

read the entire article, answers a lot of questions from the past three pages. sorry if already posted, I didn't see it.

(kapua, "denial" lmao :giggle

 

[Milenalee]

Exactly, O. J. Simpson, Oregon standoff trial, etc. etc. etc. and those cases where a thousand times stronger than the case against TC. This case doesn't even have a cooperative victim.

This case doesn't need a cooperative victim. And it's only proving things that obviously happened. Not like a murder where anyone could have done it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Milenalee]

Though this is about kid victims of all ages you can see that the Toad's moves were classic.
https://www.modernmom.com/30e557ba-48c3-11e3-87f1-bc764e04a41e.html



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[4SAM]

This case is going to be one that goes down in history

 

[SeesSeas]

Ah, that's the AW/"Max Kozak" case. There were extenuating circumstances in addition to the girl not testifying. "Max" was using an alias. His real name is Maciej Ignaciuk. I believe that a plea deal was made in exchange for Max divulging his real name and pleading no contest.

http://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/man-who-used-alias-pleads-no-contest-to-sex-charges
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/bre...cle_84aba3bf-b9a1-538d-bb13-851d1d1aeca0.html

Good case comparison. I think I recall this case mentioned in a previous ET thread.
There are many similarities in ages and circumstances.
Tad certainly could get a light prison sentence, regardless of there being no consent defense to sex with a minor.

http://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/man-who-used-alias-pleads-no-contest-to-sex-charges
47-year-old man.
16-year-old Wofford Heights girl.
Ignaciuk knew the girl and her family.

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/bre...cle_84aba3bf-b9a1-538d-bb13-851d1d1aeca0.html
. . . search across county and state lines – California to Texas.
. . . running off with an underage Wofford Heights girl.
pleaded no contest to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. Prosecutors dismissed 11 other felonies.
sentenced to two years and eight months in prison.

 

[Kapua]

Good case comparison. I think I recall this case mentioned in a previous ET thread.
There are many similarities in ages and circumstances.
Tad certainly could get a light prison sentence, regardless of there being no consent defense to sex with a minor.

http://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/man-who-used-alias-pleads-no-contest-to-sex-charges
47-year-old man.
16-year-old Wofford Heights girl.
Ignaciuk knew the girl and her family.

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/bre...cle_84aba3bf-b9a1-538d-bb13-851d1d1aeca0.html
. . . search across county and state lines – California to Texas.
. . . running off with an underage Wofford Heights girl.
pleaded no contest to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. Prosecutors dismissed 11 other felonies.
sentenced to two years and eight months in prison.

This represents the worst case scenario. I don't think the sentence will be similar in TC's case, but we will see which charges are applied (added), and which ultimately stick.