Found Deceased AZ - Isabella Grogan-Cannella, 8, Bullhead City, 2 September 2014 - #4

[ChuckMaureen]

absolutely -- have felt that from day 2....(day one was too weird).With the ever changing stories as per interviews w/victim's mom, I just got dizzy listening. Whether it was for her own preservation or whether she has some neurological issues that interfere with her short term memory ((??)) TG does not appear to be a 'reliable' witness (JMHO). Each one of her ''accounts of events'' created 'reasonable doubt' which is very scary.

What TG says outside a courtroom is fair game for use by the defense but once she is on the stand the defense might have a difficult time using any of her statements if she continues to contradict what has gone past. IMO, the prosecution really does not need TG except maybe to establish a reason why JJR was at the home and that she did not see him as they left for Wal-Mart.

 

[news.talk]

bbm



Exactly. That is the crux of this specific case. The "high-risk lifestyle" is a separate issue from the abduction / murder of Isabella.

Not necessarily... Her lifestyle allowed for violent felons and serious drug addicts to have unfettered access to her children.

I can GUARANTEE that my child has never been around such people, whether alone or in my presence. When I choose someone to watch my child (which is rarely) they have been FULLY vetted.

I wouldn't let any one of those people that were listed to babysit my goldfish, never mind my child.

Just because TG is close to these people and considers them family, does not absolve her duties as a PARENT which include making sure that anyone around a child does not have a background that includes drug use or violent crimes. It was her job and she failed.

 

[news.talk]

What TG says outside a courtroom is fair game for use by the defense but once she is on the stand the defense might have a difficult time using any of her statements if she continues to contradict what has gone past. IMO, the prosecution really does not need TG except maybe to establish a reason why JJR was at the home and that she did not see him as they left for Wal-Mart.

The Prosecution may not need her but IMO, she is setting herself up to be a star witness for the defence. At the very least, she is casting a dark shadow that can be used as reasonable doubt, that the suspect committed the crime. IMO, she is giving them an alternate perpetrator.

 

[Ontario Mom]

bbm



Exactly. That is the crux of this specific case. The "high-risk lifestyle" is a separate issue from the abduction / murder of Isabella.

Except for the fact that a member OF that high risk lifestyle has in fact been charged with the abduction and murder of Bella. So no, there is no separation. She smiled and eagerly and willingly opened the door and Death walked in and took that little girl. Nope, no separate issue whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Not necessarily... Her lifestyle allowed for violent felons and serious drug addicts to have unfettered access to her children.

I can GUARANTEE that my child has never been around such people, whether alone or in my presence. When I choose someone to watch my child (which is rarely) they have been FULLY vetted.

I wouldn't let any one of those people that were listed to babysit my goldfish, never mind my child.

Just because TG is close to these people and considers them family, does not absolve her duties as a PARENT which include making sure that anyone around a child does not have a background that includes drug use or violent crimes. It was her job and she failed.

The abduction, (assumed) rape and murder of Isabella have nothing to do with the lifestyle. It is a separate issue.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

The Prosecution may not need her but IMO, she is setting herself up to be a star witness for the defence. At the very least, she is casting a dark shadow that can be used as reasonable doubt, that the suspect committed the crime. IMO, she is giving them an alternate perpetrator.

Based on what evidence?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Except for the fact that a member OF that high risk lifestyle has in fact been charged with the abduction and murder of Bella. So no, there is no separation. She smiled and eagerly and willingly opened the door and Death walked in and took that little girl. Nope, no separate issue whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

JJR's crime is not inherent in those who choose the lifestyle attributed to the individuals related to this case. Everyone simply wants to condemn TG and company because they are druggies, burglars, etc.

The LIFESTYLE in which TG and friends engage has nothing to do with the crime committed by JJR.

 

[news.talk]

JJR's crime is not inherent in those who choose the lifestyle attributed to the individuals related to this case. Everyone simply wants to condemn TG and company because they are druggies, burglars, etc.

The LIFESTYLE in which TG and friends engage has nothing to do with the crime committed by JJR.

Bella would not have even had contact with JJR had the parent's not lived in a drug/crime lifestyle! If the parents associate with the underbelly of society and bring it into their home, there is a VERY good chance that lifestyle will impact the children.

 

[news.talk]

Based on what evidence?

She has effectively created reasonable doubt by handing them an alternate suspect - her. Had she been forthright from the beginning and stayed away from the media as LE requested, she wouldn't be a suspect. Unfortunately, she has made herself appear unreliable and possibly culpable.

Reasonable doubt does not require evidence other than a plausible alternative theory to the crime. She has provided several at last count.

It is not up to the defence to provide evidence - the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

 

[news.talk]

The abduction, (assumed) rape and murder of Isabella have nothing to do with the lifestyle. It is a separate issue.

Please explain how inviting violent drug addicts in her home did not drastically increase the risk of harm to any person in the household, especially allowing said felons to *babysit* children.

 

[newone]

JR had an order of protection from minors ((due to physical violence))....that would be a huge red flag against being left alone with minor children (MOO)

A reasonable person would not take that risk.

Based on that ..... a witness who does not display that basic level of reasoning may have their credibility questioned. May seem like a small point but in a courtroom -- wow.
TG is going to need some serious legal coaching to get her story straight in the courtroom if she is going to be a witness. She will need to account for her statements.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Abduction - Homicide Study

http://www.pollyklaas.org/media/pdf/Abduction-Homicide-Study.pdf

The Isabella Grogan case is for the most part 'typical' as compared to statistics presented in the study.

"The average age of killers of abducted children is
around 27 years old. They are predominantly
unmarried (85%) and half of them (51%) either live
alone (17%) or with their parents (34%). Half of them
are unemployed, and those that are employed work in
unskilled or semi-skilled labor occupations. Therefore,
the killers can generally be characterized as "social
marginals."

Almost two-thirds of the killers (61%) had prior arrests
for violent crimes, with slightly more than half of the
killers' prior crimes (53%) committed against children.
The most frequent prior crimes against children were
rape (31% of killers) and other sexual assault (45% of
killers). Sixty-seven percent of the child abduction
murderers' prior crimes were similar in M.O. to the
murder that was committed by the same killer."


JJR loosely fits the 'profile'. Do we know if he has a history of committing crimes against children?

 

[news.talk]

Abduction - Homicide Study

http://www.pollyklaas.org/media/pdf/Abduction-Homicide-Study.pdf

The Isabella Grogan case is 'typical' as compared to statistics presented in the study.

"The average age of killers of abducted children isaround 27 years old. They are predominantly
unmarried (85%) and half of them (51%) either live
alone (17%) or with their parents (34%). Half of them
are unemployed, and those that are employed work in
unskilled or semi-skilled labor occupations. Therefore,
the killers can generally be characterized as "social
marginals."


Almost two-thirds of the killers (61%) had prior arrests
for violent crimes, with slightly more than half of the
killers' prior crimes (53%) committed against children.
The most frequent prior crimes against children were
rape (31% of killers) and other sexual assault (45% of
killers). Sixty-seven percent of the child abduction
murderers' prior crimes were similar in M.O. to the
murder that was committed by the same killer."


JJR loosely fits the 'profile'. Do we know if he has a history of committing crimes against children?

He absolutely fits the profile. There is a restraining order against him prohibiting from seeing his OWN children stemming from an assault.

 

[newone]

Abduction - Homicide Study

http://www.pollyklaas.org/media/pdf/Abduction-Homicide-Study.pdf

The Isabella Grogan case is 'typical' as compared to statistics presented in the study.

"The average age of killers of abducted children isaround 27 years old. They are predominantly
unmarried (85%) and half of them (51%) either live
alone (17%) or with their parents (34%). Half of them
are unemployed, and those that are employed work in
unskilled or semi-skilled labor occupations. Therefore,
the killers can generally be characterized as "social
marginals."


Almost two-thirds of the killers (61%) had prior arrests
for violent crimes, with slightly more than half of the
killers' prior crimes (53%) committed against children.
The most frequent prior crimes against children were
rape (31% of killers) and other sexual assault (45% of
killers). Sixty-seven percent of the child abduction
murderers' prior crimes were similar in M.O. to the
murder that was committed by the same killer."


JJR loosely fits the 'profile'. Do we know if he has a history of committing crimes against children?

the order of protection from three minors for physical violence -- would qualify for that I believe

 

[news.talk]

[/B]


the order of protection from three minors for physical violence -- would qualify for that I believe

JINX! [emoji39]

 

[Hippiemomof5]

He absolutely fits the profile. There is a restraining order against him prohibiting from seeing his OWN children stemming from an assault.

Has that actually been verified? Last I thought we knew was a 39 year filed a restraining order against JJR for a 10 year old and twin 7 year olds, iirc. We don't know that they're his children or what was done for that order of protection to be put in place either.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Please explain how inviting violent drug addicts in her home did not drastically increase the risk of harm to any person in the household, especially allowing said felons to *babysit* children.

I never made such a claim. The point is introducing such an element does not increases the SPECIFIC risk of abduction / (assumed rape) / murder, the crimes committed in this case.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

He absolutely fits the profile. There is a restraining order against him prohibiting from seeing his OWN children stemming from an assault.

Was the assault against the children or against the mother of the children?

 

[newone]

Was the assault against the children or against the mother of the children?

the children -- sad to say

 

[newone]

Has that actually been verified? Last I thought we knew was a 39 year filed a restraining order against JJR for a 10 year old and twin 7 year olds, iirc. We don't know that they're his children or what was done for that order of protection to be put in place either.

it comes up on his record .....