MA - Bella Bond, 2, found dead, Deer Island, Boston Harbor, June 2015 - #7

[tlcya]

But it does suggest he was well aware that DCFS was not already involved and he did not want them involved, despite his attorney's allegation that MM thought at that time that Bella was already in DCFS custody.

 

[Amonet]

Fascinating...could go both ways, couldn't it?He could have been concerned that if DCF got involved they'd work out that Bella was 'nowhere' and connect her to Baby Doe.But, on the other hand it sounds as if Bond wanted to use Bella to try to get a stay on the eviction, so MM could just be saying that it's best for DCF to not find out that she's been evicted if she wants to get her daughter back from DCF?Either way it sounds just as bad for RB in that she wanted to use her dead daughter to try and keep her apartment.

Evidence released.........have given the woman’s attorney a trove of materials they may use at her Dec. 1 trial, including two underwater photographs and a photograph of a weight.......Prosecutors also have turned over to Bond’s lawyer results of forensic exams of cellphones belonging to the defendants, as well as Boston Housing Court records from July 16, 2015. ........McCarthy allegedly sent Bond a text warning her ahead of an eviction proceeding: “Definitely don’t bring up the fact that you have a daughter to take care of because then they might want to get (the Department of Children and Families) involved.”http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/02/evidence_released_in_bella_slaying

 

[heartgoesout]

Interesting take Ticya, I interpreted the text as he could be saying don't mention in the eviction hearing that she has a daughter and bring DCF in unnecessarily. It's an eviction hearing not custody hearing. We know now DCF wasn't really all that involved with Bella so why shine a spotlight on themselves that they were awful caregivers and drug addicts. Things were going pretty well with DCF not breathing down their throats. He seemingly deemed DCF as an annoyance. He probably didn't care if Bella came back or stayed with DCF, he just doesn't want to deal with them. This was my initial interpretation. Even more so below...

**He uses the present terms "have" and "take care of", which indicates a present situation.** Not dead.

“Definitely don’t bring up the fact that you have a daughter to take care of because then they might want to get (the Department of Children and Families) involved.”

My immediate interpretation I guess came from his use of the present tense. If he had said, don't mention Bella, or don't bring up anything about Bella, or don't mention you had a daughter...I might be more opt to believe he knew she was dead, but he didn't say it that way. Just my thoughts.

I had to reread it several times to get your interpretation. But the light bulb did go off. lol lol
Yes, for sure it can also be interpreted that he wants to keep DCF out of the picture because he knows Bella is dead.

But I keep going back to that present tense. I'm intrigued by the two interpretations. : )

 

[Steleheart]

Man Suspected of Killing Bella Bond Due in Court

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Man-Suspected-of-Killing-Bella-Bond-Court-371364491.html

 

[BUF]

I thought he already had his arraignment. This must be a pre-trial hearing that didn't happen last month.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Man-Suspected-of-Killing-Bella-Bond-Court-371364491.html

Michael McCarthy will be arraigned on an indictment charging him with first-degree murder for the death of Bella Bond.

 

[Inthedetails]

Interesting take Ticya, I interpreted the text as he could be saying don't mention in the eviction hearing that she has a daughter and bring DCF in unnecessarily. It's an eviction hearing not custody hearing. We know now DCF wasn't really all that involved with Bella so why shine a spotlight on themselves that they were awful caregivers and drug addicts. Things were going pretty well with DCF not breathing down their throats. He seemingly deemed DCF as an annoyance. He probably didn't care if Bella came back or stayed with DCF, he just doesn't want to deal with them. This was my initial interpretation. Even more so below...

**He uses the present terms "have" and "take care of", which indicates a present situation.** Not dead.

“Definitely don’t bring up the fact that you have a daughter to take care of because then they might want to get (the Department of Children and Families) involved.”

My immediate interpretation I guess came from his use of the present tense. If he had said, don't mention Bella, or don't bring up anything about Bella, or don't mention you had a daughter...I might be more opt to believe he knew she was dead, but he didn't say it that way. Just my thoughts.

I had to reread it several times to get your interpretation. But the light bulb did go off. lol lol
Yes, for sure it can also be interpreted that he wants to keep DCF out of the picture because he knows Bella is dead.

But I keep going back to that present tense. I'm intrigued by the two interpretations. : )

I don't think he would use the past tense even though he knew the baby was dead. He's telling her not to reveal in housing court that she has a baby - she might otherwise have said she has a child for some sympathy. He is warning her not to mention Bella because it might alert some authorities to contact DCF, with the implication being that DCF would want to see the child.

The verb is in the present tense because it was a lie about the present. He's telling her not to tell the lie.

JMO.

 

[tlcya]

exactly, that was my take Inthedetails you just expressed it better than I could. He knows she will be tempted to use the I have a kid and therefore need an extension on this eviction. I think his text was his way of saying - Don't go there or they might want to see the kid or DCFS may get involved to be helpful and find you and your child housing and we don't need them sniffing around.

I take that to mean he knew full well Bella was not in DCFS custody.

 

[Inthedetails]

exactly, that was my take Inthedetails you just expressed it better than I could. He knows she will be tempted to use the I have a kid and therefore need an extension on this eviction. I think his text was his way of saying - Don't go there or they might want to see the kid or DCFS may get involved to be helpful and find you and your child housing and we don't need them sniffing around.

I take that to mean he knew full well Bella was not in DCFS custody.

Bingo.

 

[heartgoesout]

Totally respect your opinions. For me, I'm not so sure. Only because my initial take when I read it was the one I stated earlier. And I don't believe he was the one who actually killed her...so that probably is why my interpretation went there first.

Inthedetails and Ticya, does that mean you agree with the current charges that he was the sole killer?

 

[tlcya]

I hold both of them accountable for her murder, but I tend to lean towards RB's crime was that of inaction and failure to protect. Although sometimes I wonder if she also participated directly in the killing.

I do believe that MM is most likely the one who physically killed the child.

Otherwise I would think he would point the finger right back at her if she was the one that physically killed little Bella. Instead we have this "I thought DCFS had her" explanation.

Honestly, every time I climb off that :fence: and think I know how things went down, something comes along and makes me climb right back up. :shrug:

 

[Inthedetails]

I hold both of them accountable for her murder, but I tend to lean towards RB's crime was that of inaction and failure to protect. Although sometimes I wonder if she also participated directly in the killing.

I do believe that MM is most likely the one who physically killed the child.

Otherwise I would think he would point the finger right back at her if she was the one that physically killed little Bella. Instead we have this "I thought DCFS had her" explanation.

Honestly, every time I climb off that :fence: and think I know how things went down, something comes along and makes me climb right back up. :shrug:

I agree with ticya on these points, and also think that RB had a long-standing habit of putting Bella in a closet or other confinement as a "babysitter." This atmosphere of confining and probably silencing the child made it possible for MM to harm the child. Both the adults allowed the other adult to neglect and harm Bella. I don't know which one of them issued the injury that was the direct cause of death, but RB set the precedent that Bella would be treated badly by people in that home. IMO, both the adults are somehow responsible, and at the moment I think the "cause of death" was administered by MM.

And, they both knew she was in the refrigerator.

Whether MM knew that RS put Bella in the water, I don't remember if that has been addressed.

 

[heartgoesout]

Nothing has been addressed from MMs camp. The only statement I remember is that he thought she was with DFS.

 

[BUF]

I haven't found anything on MM being in court today. Has anyone heard anything?

 

[Steleheart]

They both treated Bella badly. They both put her in the closet. Most of the news stories implicate both parents in the closet story. I have always been of the opinion that she did the killing, but given the evidence (her word is not evidence) I am still of the opinion that both should be charged the same.
Because they are not both charged with murder it becomes a he said she said and that could result in no convictions.


MOO

 

[Vedder]

They both treated Bella badly. They both put her in the closet. Most of the news stories implicate both parents in the closet story. I have always been of the opinion that she did the killing, but given the evidence (her word is not evidence) I am still of the opinion that both should be charged the same.
Because they are not both charged with murder it becomes a he said she said and that could result in no convictions.


MOO

Agreed! Her word means NOTHING.

 

[heartgoesout]

Her word means nothing, I 100% agree. Why then is the prosecution listening?

 

[cvaldez1975]

if YOU don't treat your kid well, others see it and follow suit.

 

[BUF]

Her word means nothing, I 100% agree. Why then is the prosecution listening?

Good question...since we have been pretty much shut off from any new information. Wondering just what they have on MM other than RB's lies.

I think that NECN article of him appearing in court this week was just a past article about him appearing at his arraignment that got bumped up on the Internet.

So disappointed on the lack of coverage.

 

[Bootsctr]

They want to prosecute MM, but the evidence is not there. Too much against Bond already out there. You can't trust her as far as you could throw her! In my opinion, Bond should be totally responsible for Bella's welfare. In cases such as Bella's where either party could be guilty, responsibility should revert back to the custodial parent - Bond. Unfortunately, (or, fortunately, if you are Bond) she got a good lawyer - working pro bono I am sure! MM has a good lawyer. Wouldn't surprise me if the two weren't in cahoots together to sue the state for Bella's death (not really, but this case makes me not like defense lawyers)?

Ideally, I would like for both of them to get life. Realistically, I don't think we are going to see what any of us would define as justice for Bella here.

Anybody remember what sentence we were looking at initially - 6 to 7 years?

Poor Bella!

 

[BUF]

At the very least, RB is the one who put her child in these circumstances and I agree she should be held responsible. She has a history of lying, manipulation and abuse against her two other children which lead to her parental rights being terminated. Then her third child Bella was murdered.

Here are the charges and possible sentences as they stand now:

MM charged with murder...life sentence

RB charged with accessory after the fact...up to 7 yrs
RB charged with larceny...up to 5 yrs