CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #10

[gitana1]

It would certainly be easier for me to have someone go get them gitana1 - I live in Germany!

What exactly are you looking for?

 

[zwiebel]

That's what I'd like to know really. I have lawyers in my own family, and whenever I've asked them about Tusts, they've said they need to consult a lawyer. But it seems this particular family trust may be very important in this case and that, although not usually available to the public it (or elements of it) may be available in documents filed between FH and Bob's daughters/trustees?
believe09 knows much more than me, but I know I'd really like to see them here on WS!

 

[zwiebel]

The court docs as you bumped do NOT say a Declaration of Trust is there.

As well, to repeat <mod snip>:

Wills can be public; Trusts are not.

But please, prove me wrong and setup a paypal acct (as suggested upthreadS) or ask the member who posted she has seen the docs to upload them.

Fair enough?

<mod snip>

~jmo~

Okay, gitana1, bumping Shana's post from earlier and, whatever it is that Shana is saying is unseeable, I would like to see.....no disrespect, Shana, but you do keep blinding me with science!

 

[believe09]

I am quite certain the trust documents are in the files. No question. If this case comes to a trial, criminal or civil, the documents will be front and center.

I cant follow gitana's magnificent post with anything trite-we have an amazing group of posters whose marching orders come from their own moral compasses. It would be a lot easier for the people who are adverse to finding Bob to believe that there is a mass conspiracy. Isnt that interesting? There seems to be some paranoia there, but frankly I dont care.

 

[believe09]

:seeya:

The guest count is growing-please come and help us sort out this mess of a timeline!

 

[gitana1]

Okay, gitana1, bumping Shana's post from earlier and, whatever it is that Shana is saying is unseeable, I would like to see.....no disrespect, Shana, but you do keep blinding me with science!

So, you want to know if the trust documents are in the case files? Like, as an attachment? I will look. I have both cases. And I will let you know.

 

[zwiebel]

Thank you so much, gitana1!

 

[GrainneDhu]

Not even close.

The house is part of the trust. This means the home is the legally owned property of the trust.

Respectfully, how is it "not even close"?

As I understand it, Fontelle is living in a house that is owned by an entity other than herself. That seems to me to be little different from living in a house that is owned by Acme Property Development Inc.

Acme Property Development Inc's tenants have rights under the law. APDI owns the property but cannot, for instance, install CCTV cams throughout the house to spy on the tenant.

Case law is quite clear that APDI's tenants can waive their fourth amendment rights pertaining to search and seizure, should they so desire. The tenants do not have to get permission from APDI in order to give consent for a search.

So, for instance, lovely little Jenny Public who lives next door disappears on her way home from school. Law enforcement comes to the door of the APDI tenant and requests permission to search the premises for Jenny. The tenant does not have to get permission from APDI in order to say "yes, please come in, I haven't seen little Jenny since yesterday but you're welcome to look."

 

[GrainneDhu]

Yes which begs the question of what exactly her real intentions were.

She has stated that she knew Bob, depending on which MSM article you believe 1 - 2 years prior to their engagement in January of 1950.

This would mean that she was 12 or 13 when they met and 14 years old when they supposedly became engaged. This as well puts Bob into his 20's.

All this information can be found in the MSM links which have been previously provided.

Given the times, that was not looked on as an abnormal relationship. Times have changed and it would be considered abnormal but it's not possible to go back and apply the standards that are the norm now to what was normal back then.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Really?

Yet on thread after thread it is repeatedly stated how inaccurate reporting on cases has been. I guess the majority of us that have seen the MSM issues must all be wrong.

I said nothing about the accuracy of MSM reporting. I did refer to the best practice of allowing someone cited or quoted in an article to correct a mistake in the published report but in no way did I allege the frequency of the practice. All I said was that the practice exists.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Under California law, Fontelle has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that home, has a legal right to be there, and can give her consent. Her consent would be enough, in a court of law, to support the inclusion of any evidence found as a result of her consent alone, in my professional opinion.

I have no doubt, however, that as soon as LE realized the home was likely a crime scene, they obtained a warrant. So it is likely that by the time Fontelle got there, her consent was no longer necessary.

Please note that, IIRC, it was the beneficiaries of the trust who gave LE access to the home, initially. Fontelle was not there yet when Mr. Harrod went missing.

Thank you, Gitana.

I am just a layperson with a layperson's understanding of constitutional issues. You are definitely the expert here!

 

[zwiebel]

I agree about gitana1. And don't you think it makes perfect sense, GrainneDhu? That tenants can give consent for searches? Otherwise, imagine in a city like New York, with all those rented apartments. LE would never be able to do their job.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Ted Kaczynski's brother did the right thing by reporting his concerns to LE.
So did the mother of Austin Siggs.
A mother and a brother, we know it could not have been easy for either of them.
Who will do the right thing by Bob in this case?

David Kaczynski bought himself and his family a world of hurting when he identified his brother as a possible source of the manifesto. Even knowing what happened, he maintains he did the right thing. He was (and is) caught in a very bad place between his brother and his brother's victims. David Kaczynski has done all he can to make amends for his brother's victims.

David and Ted had drifted apart over the years due to Ted's mental illness but it still hurt terribly to turn his brother in. Before the manifesto was published, it seemed like the distance between them was Ted's choice and there was always the hope that Ted would someday choose to welcome the occasional overtures David and his mother made. Turning Ted meant that there was no hope for a reconciliation.

To most people, knowing Ted only as the Unabomber, that may not seem like much of a loss. But to someone who knew him when he was a small boy, grew up in awe of his older brother's abilities and then saw him spiral into the darkness of mental illness, it has been a terrible ongoing loss.

I strongly suspect that what ended Bob's life was fear, the fear of poverty. And I feel so sad for those who were so afraid of losing their source of income that they allowed it to drive them to taking such a terrible action or to turning their head away from that action.

Sadly, it is impossible to develop courage from imagining it. It seems to me that humans have to actually go through the experiences that frighten them in order to develop courage.

 

[Opie]

The posters here who have labored for so long to obtain justice for Mr. & Mrs. Harrod have my utmost admiration. I read all the posts and follow along, though I have nothing to add except my prayers for a just conclusion.

 

[zwiebel]

Totally agree, Opie. It's what finally made me join WS, after watching them for so long.

 

[zwiebel]

At the risk of turning this into a book club (we already have GrainneDhu's 'American Way of Death'), there is one out there that is a great, pain-free way of learning how trusts can work, the type of amounts trustees can gain, and what can be revealed when families start filing against
each other. Given we are talking about the late 70s, the amounts are breathtaking.

'The moment their father died J. Paul Getty 11 and his brother Gordon, became millionaires overnight as each of them was immediately entitled to a third of the trust's income - about 11 million dollars a year.......
One immediate effect of Getty's death was to release a of money from the Sarah C.Getty Trust to the next generation.'

'Other Gettys......were busy filing suits........Gordon Getty petitioned San Francisco Superior Court, claiming his father had improperly removed him as a trustee.'

'Ronald's suit attracted the attention of the US Internal Revenue Service, which....slapped in a bill for $628,631,523 and 81 cents.'

'There was a certain amount of drawing in of breath in Los Angeles Superior Court when the extent of the imbalance between them was revealed. While Paul and Gordon were each receiving in excess of eleven million dollars a year from the trust, Ronald's share, it was pointed out, was fixed at three thousand dollars a year.'

The book's called House of Getty, by Russell Miller. Don't know if it's still in print but it's certainly worth reading if you can get hold of a copy.

 

[Cubby]

David Kaczynski bought himself and his family a world of hurting when he identified his brother as a possible source of the manifesto. Even knowing what happened, he maintains he did the right thing. He was (and is) caught in a very bad place between his brother and his brother's victims. David Kaczynski has done all he can to make amends for his brother's victims.

David and Ted had drifted apart over the years due to Ted's mental illness but it still hurt terribly to turn his brother in. Before the manifesto was published, it seemed like the distance between them was Ted's choice and there was always the hope that Ted would someday choose to welcome the occasional overtures David and his mother made. Turning Ted meant that there was no hope for a reconciliation.

To most people, knowing Ted only as the Unabomber, that may not seem like much of a loss. But to someone who knew him when he was a small boy, grew up in awe of his older brother's abilities and then saw him spiral into the darkness of mental illness, it has been a terrible ongoing loss.

I strongly suspect that what ended Bob's life was fear, the fear of poverty. And I feel so sad for those who were so afraid of losing their source of income that they allowed it to drive them to taking such a terrible action or to turning their head away from that action.

Sadly, it is impossible to develop courage from imagining it. It seems to me that humans have to actually go through the experiences that frighten them in order to develop courage.

I don't necessarily know that it was fear of poverty that led to Mr. Harrod's disappearance. What I do know is that if mental illness exists in this family, as it did in the Kaczynski family (if it did, I am unaware if TK was ever dx'd mentally ill), it doesn't extend to each member of the family.

Someone knows.
Someone suspects.
Someone is running from their suspicions being confirmed.
Thing with running from a problem it doesn't go away and it often escalates, mole hill into a mountain thing.
Someone should listen to that nagging feeling to come forward they have been trying to ignore, minimize and make exuses to push aside. It will be the best thing for everyone in the end, even though it might not look that way now.

Call an attorney, make a deal for oneself, perhaps even immunity by coming forward and laying that heavy burden down, thus bringing closure to Bob's disappearance. Saving your own intergrity as well as the tremendous amount of pain your family is suffering.

 

[zwiebel]

I still think JuM's comment on the interview you posted says it all, Cubby.
'We're thinking Noon? One?'
That's the day after her father disappeared, when her husband had returned to her house the evening before, having been the last person to see him. And she only thinks? If she's just repeating what her husband told her, wouldn't you think she'd have asked him to think a little harder? Tried to work out an exact time with him, find any clues in Bob's behaviour or what he might have said, done?

 

[suzyq211]

I still think JuM's comment on the interview you posted says it all, Cubby.
'We're thinking Noon? One?'
That's the day after her father disappeared, when her husband had returned to her house the evening before, having been the last person to see him. And she only thinks? If she's just repeating what her husband told her, wouldn't you think she'd have asked him to think a little harder? Tried to work out an exact time with him, find any clues in Bob's behaviour or what he might have said, done?

BBM

One would think so, right??

 

[shana]

GrainneDhu, I should have said urgent rather than immediate, but thanks for all of your posts on Ted, etc.

Obviously, the situation when Mr Harrod went missing did not need authorization for LE to investigate the house as a possible crime scene. It was urgent.

My point remains: IF LE, 3 plus yrs later, wants to do another inspection of the house, it would wisely serve the owner to grant access. As a courtesy only, it might ask the resident (IF there) to OK the time for such.

Despite what has been declared upthread, the "owner" of the Carnation Dr residence is NOT Bob Harrod, nor has it been since the family trust was originated. The residence is "owned" by the Harrod Family Trust. It is part of the Trust Estate.

And in the end, LE would get its warrant served on the Owner for certain, and not anyone who happens to be in-residence at the time. LE is smart like that, you bet.