GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - # 6

[Tallula.Belle]

wow- please let it go--- NJ is not a criminal to be questioned..

This was nothing rude to NJ and she knows that. I am agreeing with her. And I have never questioned her quite the opposite. Not sure why that was directed to me.

 

[Tallula.Belle]

What an idiot!!! Does he not realize that could be a way to potentially get out of this situation?? Not that I care though, he belongs in prison anyway.

He must be playing a game. Why file your plea based on insanity and then refuse to be tested. He probably knows they will see right through him.

 

[jstkiddn]

wow- please let it go--- NJ is not a criminal to be questioned..

I actually think she was backing up what NJ has been saying. Unless I'm confused, which is entirely possible.

 

[KayKay.85]

https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=
I think the court records are updated.

 

[TTF14]

wow- please let it go--- NJ is not a criminal to be questioned..

She was actually sticking up for NJ.....

 

[TTF14]

What will the February court date be for?

 

[jstkiddn]

He must be playing a game. Why file your plea based on insanity and then refuse to be tested. He probably knows they will see right through him.

I think this entire thing is just one big game to him and he's enjoying every second of it. That's probably why he looks so much better/healthier now than when he was arrested. He's thriving.

Same doesn't appear to be true for CL. She does not appear to be thriving. Quite the opposite....she looks very stressed, which is the normal reaction one would expect from someone in her situation.

 

[hagger]

This was nothing rude to NJ and she knows that. I am agreeing with her. And I have never questioned her quite the opposite. Not sure why that was directed to me.

My apologies - the part about being questioned repeatedly struck me wrong....

 

[Tallula.Belle]

I actually think she was backing up what NJ has been saying. Unless I'm confused, which is entirely possible.

Yes I was. Thanks for seeing that.

 

[Tallula.Belle]

As much as I like seeing what they might say during their walk that is ridiculous. I can't believe the courts allowed those cameras to be that close, tight and congested. That is an accident waiting to happen.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I am not questioning the 4 day follicle test. I am not going strictly off of docket dates. It really doesn't mean diddle, but I am going by what is in the court orders, signed as fact by the judge. My comment orig was CL didn't get in a hurry about getting an attorney it appears, until she was served with the Ex Parte Order (which was pursuant to conditions detrimental to welfare of a minor. This is why CL wasn't informed and the child was picked up at school.)

If you read the ORDER that Judge Kilgore signed and is electronically filed on the Oct 31, it clearly states that ON THIS 17th Day of October came the Defendants petition for Change of Custody and the court finds:... It states CL testified under oath that she didn't do illegal drugs. They were fixing to give her custody back, but they drug tested her and she failed the urine test. THEN goes on to award TL temp custody (which he already had been awarded on the prev day OCT 16, so there was no reason to make another order) further on it states IF CL goes to have the follicle test done the court will grant her an expedited hearing.... She already had a hearing set for the 21st. IF they were in court ON the 21st it state if the hearing is more than 2 weeks past the 21st then it recommends the ad litem from before. Final Hearing was set for Nov 13. Also it goes into that visitation was not addressed but that phone visitations would be appropriate.

Another thing I just noticed: on the orig Ex Parte it doesn't list an Attny other that TL (understandable) The one that states On Oct 17th, and filed Oct 31 it lists at bottom typed in Richard Holiman. But Holiman didn't sign. On the Nov 7th order in the space it says/signed Richard E Holiman, attorney for the Crystal Lowery. All are signed as approved by TL attorney. All are signed by Judge Kilgore.

IF TL and CL were in court on Oct 21st... there is a lot more messed up than court docket data entry. I not trying to beat a dead horse. Kids are where they need to be at this time.

LOL another thing, I would assume CL was released on some sort of bond when she was arrested on Sept 29th (TL confirms she was arrested Sept 29 in his Affidavit) and he also states she drove to Kansas. I would think driving to Kansas would be against some of the rules on bond, unless she got permission from whomever was the bond person. Possible she was O/R.

Ok I done

 

[jstkiddn]

I thought that one lady reporter was actually going to block the entire hallway for a minute! They had to ask her to move aside. I know it's their job, but talk about pushy!

 

[hagger]

Yes I was. Thanks for seeing that.

Yes you were- I failed to read the quote- just reading your sentence came across as snippy... I am so sorry and heading to my corner for a time out

Not sure why the custody is so important other than the child is where she needs to be ( this comment is NOT aimed at you)

 

[Tallula.Belle]

I am not questioning the 4 day follicle test. I am not going strictly off of docket dates. It really doesn't mean diddle, but I am going by what is in the court orders, signed as fact by the judge. My comment orig was CL didn't get in a hurry about getting an attorney it appears, until she was served with the Ex Parte Order (which was pursuant to conditions detrimental to welfare of a minor. This is why CL wasn't informed and the child was picked up at school.)

If you read the ORDER that Judge Kilgore signed and is electronically filed on the Oct 31, it clearly states that ON THIS 17th Day of October came the Defendants petition for Change of Custody and the court finds:... It states CL testified under oath that she didn't do illegal drugs. They were fixing to give her custody back, but they drug tested her and she failed the urine test. THEN goes on to award TL temp custody (which he already had been awarded on the prev day OCT 16, so there was no reason to make another order) further on it states IF CL goes to have the follicle test done the court will grant her an expedited hearing.... She already had a hearing set for the 21st. IF they were in court ON the 21st it state if the hearing is more than 2 weeks past the 21st then it recommends the ad litem from before. Final Hearing was set for Nov 13. Also it goes into that visitation was not addressed but that phone visitations would be appropriate.

Another thing I just noticed: on the orig Ex Parte it doesn't list an Attny other that TL (understandable) The one that states On Oct 17th, and filed Oct 31 it lists at bottom typed in Richard Holiman. But Holiman didn't sign. On the Nov 7th order in the space it says/signed Richard E Holiman, attorney for the Crystal Lowery. All are signed as approved by TL attorney. All are signed by Judge Kilgore.

IF TL and CL were in court on Oct 21st... there is a lot more messed up than court docket data entry. I not trying to beat a dead horse. Kids are where they need to be at this time.

LOL another thing, I would assume CL was released on some sort of bond when she was arrested on Sept 29th (TL confirms she was arrested Sept 29 in his Affidavit) and he also states she drove to Kansas. I would think driving to Kansas would be against some of the rules on bond, unless she got permission from whomever was the bond person. Possible she was O/R.

Ok I done

I am sure she didn't get an attorney because she had no way to pay for one. A friend of mine is dealing with custody issues and every attorney she spoke with requested a $5,000 retainer.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Not supposed to be allowed written contact with any others incarcerated. That is standard. Wonder what he wants to say.

ETA at least not in the states that I know of. AR could be different but I didn't think co defendants were ever allowed. JMHO

Makes sense rule against incarcerated writing incarcerated. And especially co defendants. I don't know abt AR law on that, but every letter they send or receive someone at the jail/prison reads them. So I would be shocked it the Pros says anything as in telling him he cant send them. No telling what the goofball AL will say. And after watching a few trials, I have seen where they bring in some of those letters. Lol I bet Pros are like write on buddy, need a few sheets of paper

 

[Fifth Avenue]

Sry wrong thread

 

[Tallula.Belle]

Yes you were- I failed to read the quote- just reading your sentence came across as snippy... I am so sorry and heading to my corner for a time out

Not sure why the custody is so important other than the child is where she needs to be ( this comment is NOT aimed at you)

No problem. She is where she needs to be and I hope she doesn't somehow see the coverage of her mom. That would be my undoing seeing my mom like CL was today. So sad for HL.

 

[Tallula.Belle]

Makes sense rule against incarcerated writing incarcerated. And especially co defendants. I don't know abt AR law on that, but every letter they send or receive someone at the jail/prison reads them. So I would be shocked it the Pros says anything as in telling him he cant send them. No telling what the goofball AL will say. And after watching a few trials, I have seen where they bring in some of those letters. Lol I bet Pros are like write on buddy, need a few sheets of paper

In the Casey Anthony trial they got letters she wrote friends in her pod even.

 

[Butler321]

I am not questioning the 4 day follicle test. I am not going strictly off of docket dates. It really doesn't mean diddle, but I am going by what is in the court orders, signed as fact by the judge. My comment orig was CL didn't get in a hurry about getting an attorney it appears, until she was served with the Ex Parte Order (which was pursuant to conditions detrimental to welfare of a minor. This is why CL wasn't informed and the child was picked up at school.)

If you read the ORDER that Judge Kilgore signed and is electronically filed on the Oct 31, it clearly states that ON THIS 17th Day of October came the Defendants petition for Change of Custody and the court finds:... It states CL testified under oath that she didn't do illegal drugs. They were fixing to give her custody back, but they drug tested her and she failed the urine test. THEN goes on to award TL temp custody (which he already had been awarded on the prev day OCT 16, so there was no reason to make another order) further on it states IF CL goes to have the follicle test done the court will grant her an expedited hearing.... She already had a hearing set for the 21st. IF they were in court ON the 21st it state if the hearing is more than 2 weeks past the 21st then it recommends the ad litem from before. Final Hearing was set for Nov 13. Also it goes into that visitation was not addressed but that phone visitations would be appropriate.

Another thing I just noticed: on the orig Ex Parte it doesn't list an Attny other that TL (understandable) The one that states On Oct 17th, and filed Oct 31 it lists at bottom typed in Richard Holiman. But Holiman didn't sign. On the Nov 7th order in the space it says/signed Richard E Holiman, attorney for the Crystal Lowery. All are signed as approved by TL attorney. All are signed by Judge Kilgore.

IF TL and CL were in court on Oct 21st... there is a lot more messed up than court docket data entry. I not trying to beat a dead horse. Kids are where they need to be at this time.

LOL another thing, I would assume CL was released on some sort of bond when she was arrested on Sept 29th (TL confirms she was arrested Sept 29 in his Affidavit) and he also states she drove to Kansas. I would think driving to Kansas would be against some of the rules on bond, unless she got permission from whomever was the bond person. Possible she was O/R.

Ok I done

My understanding is that the charge of thieft by receiving (under a certain dollar amount) is a misdamenor. CL was given a ticket and that's it...she walked out.

 

[nojusticenusa]

My understanding is that the charge of thieft by receiving (under a certain dollar amount) is a misdamenor. CL was given a ticket and that's it...she walked out.

You are 100% correct Butler321