Yes, I see that part. But that was just the allegation in the pleading AND it doesn't say anything about the restriction being that mother has to be present? At least not that I see.
GUILTY MA - Colleen Ritzer, 24, brutally murdered, Danvers, 22 Oct 2013 #1
- Thread starter doubt
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I see that part. But that was just the allegation in the pleading AND it doesn't say anything about the restriction being that mother has to be present? At least not that I see.
Curious as to where PC was heading when located by LE?
https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...8FtMG89UxpA&oq=+Topsfield,+MA&mra=ls&t=m&z=14
Danvers, MA>Topsfield, MA> Due North 6 Miles..
https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...8FtMG89UxpA&oq=+Topsfield,+MA&mra=ls&t=m&z=14
Danvers, MA>Topsfield, MA> Due North 6 Miles..
Copy of documents: In the documents it's stated that any visitation rights held by SC would be under the mother's supervision.
Philip Chism:
Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/10/philip-chism-family-dianna-stacy-chism-colleen-ritzer/
Got it. Thanks. Looks like alcohol abuse was a factor, as well.
BeginnersLuck, I agree that PC's actions were very erratic. However, PC did attempt to cover his tracks in many other ways; covering her body with leaves, bringing a change of clothes, and then discarding his bloody clothes, as well as smashing his and her cell phones.
Smashing his cell phone and being located 6 miles away in Topsfield, MA, would indicate that was leaving town and didn't want to be tracked. Removing the battery would have accomplished the same results.. Just doesn't make sense...the numb3rs don't equate...imo..
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/10/ph...olleen-ritzer/
The scribd .pdf's in above link show the ct doc's filed by PC's mother.
Ct. doc's filed in March 2001
Complaint for Legal Separation is first doc in scribd.
Despite several MSM articles (all I've read) about the 2001 divorce petition,
his mother's sought a legal separation, child support, spousal support, and other financial awards, not a divorce.
<modsnip>
Permanent Parenting Plan document (look for form 20a, starting at page 5 and running for 7 pages) appears to bear the father's signature.
Section 2.8. Residential Time Restrictions
A box is checked re time restriction of father's visitation because of "physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a pattern of emotional abuse." BBM.
Section 2.9. Transportation Arrangements
Father's parenting is to take place at mother's home and under her supervision.
Section 4. Other Provisions
"Due to prior physical and emotional abuse and alcohol abuse, the Father's parenting time will be supervised by the Mother, pending further court orders."
The above sentence is free-form, not a pre-printed section; there's no sexual abuse reference as in Section 2.8.
As to father's time being restricted and at mother's apt. and supervised by her, even though the doc bears his purported signature, those abuse allegations were not findings of fact by the court, which made no ruling on them at all.
It appears he did not have his own counsel for the legal separation, so I wonder (if it is his siggy) whether he even read the 7 pages before signing.
As others have mentioned, sometimes ct-filed doc's have little or no basis in truth.
At this point I don't have enough info for an opinion one way or another re abuse.
Order of Reconciliation, dated June 12, 2001
The ct states both parties made a joint motion to suspend legal sep proceeding in an attempt to reconcile, and the court orders it.
The doc is signed by judge (chancellor) and both parties.
So, never any findings of abuse.
The scribd .pdf's in above link show the ct doc's filed by PC's mother.
Ct. doc's filed in March 2001
Complaint for Legal Separation is first doc in scribd.
Despite several MSM articles (all I've read) about the 2001 divorce petition,
his mother's sought a legal separation, child support, spousal support, and other financial awards, not a divorce.
<modsnip>
Permanent Parenting Plan document (look for form 20a, starting at page 5 and running for 7 pages) appears to bear the father's signature.
Section 2.8. Residential Time Restrictions
A box is checked re time restriction of father's visitation because of "physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a pattern of emotional abuse." BBM.
Section 2.9. Transportation Arrangements
Father's parenting is to take place at mother's home and under her supervision.
Section 4. Other Provisions
"Due to prior physical and emotional abuse and alcohol abuse, the Father's parenting time will be supervised by the Mother, pending further court orders."
The above sentence is free-form, not a pre-printed section; there's no sexual abuse reference as in Section 2.8.
As to father's time being restricted and at mother's apt. and supervised by her, even though the doc bears his purported signature, those abuse allegations were not findings of fact by the court, which made no ruling on them at all.
It appears he did not have his own counsel for the legal separation, so I wonder (if it is his siggy) whether he even read the 7 pages before signing.
As others have mentioned, sometimes ct-filed doc's have little or no basis in truth.
At this point I don't have enough info for an opinion one way or another re abuse.
Order of Reconciliation, dated June 12, 2001
The ct states both parties made a joint motion to suspend legal sep proceeding in an attempt to reconcile, and the court orders it.
The doc is signed by judge (chancellor) and both parties.
So, never any findings of abuse.
Yes, and it appears to have been by consent. So it may be that it was true to whatver extent, or that he just didn't care to fight it for whatever reason.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 184
So I am still reading but am bothered by the " he is only 14" thinking..
Whatever his age, his crime is brutal. Still have not gotten to the details of her death but so far it looks like it was brutal. Poor girl.
Back to reading...
Whatever his age, his crime is brutal. Still have not gotten to the details of her death but so far it looks like it was brutal. Poor girl.
Back to reading...
Looks more like semi-planned to me. With a touch of 'giving up' in the end. IMO he would have gotten her in the first bathroom if it hadn't been locked. Seems like he was ready for the initial confrontation/attack.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 184
So far what I understand is that he allegedly followed her into a bathroom and then brutally killed her.
Then he came out bloody and did not seem to care about getting noticed. I mean yes no one was really around but the one article says he was caught on camera bloody.
I wonder why... I have to think it was more than just snapping. To much seems premeditated and then him using her credit card and going to the movies... That is just so bizarre.
I wonder if he had ever been in trouble before? This is not a normal teen that could do something this brutal. IT almost seems as if he wanted to be caught. That he made it so they would find him asap.
Then he came out bloody and did not seem to care about getting noticed. I mean yes no one was really around but the one article says he was caught on camera bloody.
I wonder why... I have to think it was more than just snapping. To much seems premeditated and then him using her credit card and going to the movies... That is just so bizarre.
I wonder if he had ever been in trouble before? This is not a normal teen that could do something this brutal. IT almost seems as if he wanted to be caught. That he made it so they would find him asap.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,275
- Reaction score
- 49,931
There are aspects of this that look like spur of the moment and some things that look like pre-planned. I havent decided yet. I would tend to say it was spur of the moment, except for the way he acted after. I don't know, its so crazy. Also very hard to tell when we dont have the advantage of seeing the video and the witness statements, etc.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,275
- Reaction score
- 49,931
But he removed the body in the recyle container. So if he wanted to get caught, why do that? Nothing makes sense here. He had to know the cameras were all around, I assume. But then again, people commit crimes in front of cameras or witnesses all the time. Clearly, whether this was preplanned or heat of the moment, him common sense had switched off.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 184
TO buy time. I think he wanted to get some time which is why he also smashed the phones.. But that using her card he knew he would get caught.. there must have been something he wanted to do before he was arrested.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,275
- Reaction score
- 49,931
The phones have interested me. I long suspected he smashed them because he thought there was evidence on them, ie texts etc. It would be interesting to see the records for those phones. Were there any messages or calls exchanged between them leading up to the killing? Were there any calls/texts from or to either phone AFTER the killing.
CherryLane
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2013
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe he thought that if he used the CCs at the movies and Wendy's, that the police would think that Colleen had actually gone there? Like to make it seem that she was still alive with CC activity? Obviously there's cameras everywhere though, so I have no idea really. Just trying to make some sense of why he might have possibly done that.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,275
- Reaction score
- 49,931
That might explain why he went to the movie that he did. Maybe he asked to go with him?
I have never heard if her car was still in the school parking lot. I assume it was.
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 140
- Guests online
- 1,457
- Total visitors
- 1,597