Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[stillblv]

Well, if this were the PURPOSE of naming someone a POI, wouldn't they do that with anyone they are investigating?

Doesn't make sense that they didn't name BC a POI if that is the purpose.

I'm sure it depends on each situation - what the possible POI is like, whether the investigators like to use this type of tactic or whether they even think it will effect some sort of response. It's not a science.

 

[rwesafe]

But aren't they more guarded when they know they are being looked at?

If LE just investigated without naming them anything, the person might not even know they were being scrutinized, and might be caught doing something more easily...

I dunno. I guess if there is any way we could find this out it would help.

I'm pretty sure that he is bright enough to realize that he is being scruitinized, looked at...so on and so forth...call him a biscuit or a POI, doesn't matter, I'm pretty sure his being looked at is no mystery to him at this point or even prior to this point...

 

[boxy]

What would you have done if you were the loving husband?

Well for starters, I would not have had an affair with my spouse's friend in our bedroom while watching our children.

People show love in different ways. Some men (and women too) shy away from any overt expression of affection, especially in public. A loving husband may well have reacted exactly as BC

 

[jmflu]

I'm pretty sure that he is bright enough to realize that he is being scruitinized, looked at...so on and so forth...call him a biscuit or a POI, doesn't matter, I'm pretty sure his being looked at is no mystery to him at this point or even prior to this point...

So doesn't that bring us around to our original point of, people keep saying he hasn't even been "named" a POI, so this that and the other... when it doesn't really matter whether he has been named one or not. People are using that argument to try to convince others that it is even less probable he is guilty because he has not been named anything.

 

[jmflu]

Well for starters, I would not have had an affair with my spouse's friend in our bedroom while watching our children.

People show love in different ways. Some men (and women too) shy away from any overt expression of affection, especially in public. A loving husband may well have reacted exactly as BC

Well, the irony is right there in your post. How can we call him loving?

 

[rwesafe]

So doesn't that bring us around to our original point of, people keep saying he hasn't even been "named" a POI, so this that and the other... when it doesn't really matter whether he has been named one or not. People are using that argument to try to convince others that it is even less probable he is guilty because he has not been named anything.

No, my original point is...you better damn well call him a POI, Suspect, or Arrest his butt and if you can't-GIVE HIM BACK HIS KIDS!

 

[rwesafe]

Well, the irony is right there in your post. How can we call him loving?

I guess the same way we called her loving....

 

[boxy]

If someone says someone had an "affair," to me, that means they had "sex."
And normally, it means more than once.

What is it if it only happens once? Or are you saying that most affairs involve multiple sexual acts?

 

[jmflu]

No, my original point is...you better damn well call him a POI, Suspect, or Arrest his butt and if you can't-GIVE HIM BACK HIS KIDS!

So, even though it's obvious he is a suspect, or at least a POI, even though they are not saying so, and calling him a biscuit is the same as calling him a POI in your eyes... as long as they go ahead and officially call him something, keeping the kids feels more justifiable?

 

[jmflu]

What is it if it only happens once? Or are you saying that most affairs involve multiple sexual acts?

Yes. I have always been under the impression that an affair means you have had multiple encounters with a person.

Although it is not an official definition, I do not see many instances where "an affair" is used in the place of "a one-night stand."

 

[jmflu]

Hey RC... do you have any idea how we will find out that the judge has made her decision? Will she call the attorneys and bring them back to court?

 

[rwesafe]

So, even though it's obvious he is a suspect, or at least a POI, even though they are not saying so, and calling him a biscuit is the same as calling him a POI in your eyes... as long as they go ahead and officially call him something, keeping the kids feels more justifiable?

No, my point was that you don't have to call him anything for him to realize that he is being looked at or scrutinized...

Yes, it would seem more justifiable to me. Because I would suspect that you would have to have something a bit more than "well her friends said that she said..." crap to call him any of the above. And I don't believe they have anything more than that....

 

[boxy]

I disagree. I think they have FOUND stability. Did you read everything about how they are living now?

How could they have been stable, here with BC?? None of the neighbors want anything to do with him, and even if they were to look beyond their suspicions for the sake of the girls, he probably would not let them because of the affidavits. He is living under a microscope. They go to school, other children will say things to them, cruel things, about what they have heard. They come home, they are raised by he and his mother.

Good God.

They were taken from their home, their school, their friends, their activities. They could be returned to BC next week. How is that stability?

I doubt four and two year old children would say anything, especially in a private pre-school.

 

[boxy]

Well, the irony is right there in your post. How can we call him loving?

Define loving.

 

[jmflu]

They were taken from their home, their school, their friends, their activities. They could be returned to BC next week. How is that stability?

Back and forth, I agree that is not stable. But where they are now, it seems they are getting more love and attention than they were in the environment of bickering, fighting, and stress with their parents, and with only one parent who is now being looked at as responsible for the other's death...

 

[raisincharlie]

So was it JA testimony that BC said her phone was locked? Once again it poses the question - If the phone was locked then how did HE make the 6:40 call to himself from her phone?

I wanted to come back to this garner. On the blackberry there are various locks. One can choose from the home screen or applications list to lock the keypad function so the phone does not respond if inadvertent entries happen.. This can be unlocked with a menu /star entry so that access to the keypad is available. Another lock function is to lock the other functions unrelated to phone options. Again one simply has to touch the home screen or applications list to initiate this lock. If this is locked no one can gain access to phone lists, email lists etc but one can still use the phone function. To unlock this, one must have the password. There is also a lock for how many password attempts can be made. Hope that helps.

 

[raisincharlie]

Hey RC... do you have any idea how we will find out that the judge has made her decision? Will she call the attorneys and bring them back to court?

Dunno for sure really. I would think notifying the attorneys and going into the courtroom might be in order so that the clerk can record the proceedings and verify who is present and notifed offically but that's just a guess.

 

[boxy]

Back and forth, I agree that is not stable. But where they are now, it seems they are getting more love and attention than they were in the environment of bickering, fighting, and stress with their parents, and with only one parent who is now being looked at as responsible for the other's death...

There isn't any bickering or fighting between the parents now, so that is of no substance to the current custody decision. Besides, if that was a legal standard to remove children from their parents, the orphanages would be overflowing. What you are really saying is that BC is being looked as for the murder of NC. That elephant didn't get proven by the preponderance of the evidence at the hearing based on what has been reported.

 

[jmflu]

There isn't any bickering or fighting between the parents now, so that is of no substance to the current custody decision. Besides, if that was a legal standard to remove children from their parents, the orphanages would be overflowing. What you are really saying is that BC is being looked as for the murder of NC. That elephant didn't get proven by the preponderance of the evidence at the hearing based on what has been reported.

Are you saying it didn't get proven that they are looking at BC for the murder?

 

[rwesafe]

There isn't any bickering or fighting between the parents now, so that is of no substance to the current custody decision. Besides, if that was a legal standard to remove children from their parents, the orphanages would be overflowing. What you are really saying is that BC is being looked as for the murder of NC. That elephant didn't get proven by the preponderance of the evidence at the hearing based on what has been reported.

:clap: