GUILTY MI - Carnel Chamberlain, 4, Mount Pleasant, 21 June 2012 #2

[Cubby]

As for the using drugs and/or alcohol. There is an obvious difference between an addict and the occasional or recreational user.

With regards to this case, I think we can safely assume both JC and AB have substance abuse problems which likely fall under the addict category. AB due to the repeated failed urine analysis while on probation. Let's face it, an addict in recovery would not have failed drops, someone who is not an addict, would not have failed drops while on probation. Mom, likely due to what we've seen in MSM with regards to having her son removed from her care which included problems with substance abuse and repeated involvement with usage upon completing whatever was required by the courts to regain custody.

A non addict could put the drugs and alcohol away for the sake of their child, especially after having a history of problems leading to civil and criminal court involvement.

The fact that both JC and AB were still using after a history of civil and criminal court involvement leads me to believe they are both addicts. Because for a non addict, after civil and criminal court, they wouldn't risk additional involvement in either civil or criminal court numerous times following previous involvement.... Both risked further involvement in this case.

 

[Mimiof8]

Just to clarify my earlier question...

I wasnt suggesting anyone interviewed the neighbor children without a parent present. :what:

My question was did the parents see Carnel too or was it only the children that saw him on Thursday.

I stated that I wish there was a way for us to ask if the parents if they too saw Carnel.

 

[Cubby]

Just to clarify my earlier question...

I wasnt suggesting anyone interviewed the neighbor children without a parent present. :what:

My question was did the parents see Carnel too or was it only the children that saw him on Thursday.

I stated that I wish there was a way for us to ask if the parents if they too saw Carnel.

I knew that is what you meant. Hopefully if MSM or LE is reading here, someone will clarify if it was just the children who saw Carnel, or if it was the children and parents who saw Carnel playing on the trampoline Thursday afternoon.

Personally, I read it to mean both the children AND their parents saw Carnel, but I can understand others wanting more specific clarifying information.

 

[Cubby]

FWIW, imo, if it were only the neighbor children who saw Carnel playing outside, I'd think that info would be presented in a manner which indicated LE was still in the process of trying to confirm that sighting.

The fact that MSM/LE does not appear to be presenting that sighting in a manner in which they are still trying to confirm, such as that when Sky Metalwala's sister claims to have seen her brother in the car the morning of his disappearance, I tend to believe LE is confident with the accuracy of the Thursday afternoon sighting of Carnel playing on the trampoline.

 

[Cubby]

Anyone besides me curious about when an arrest might be made for Carnels murder versus just the abuse? Any idea's on what might be causing a delay? Other than possible waiting on official id in order for the coroner to issue a death certificate?


IIRC, the perp in Antinette Keller's case was arrested prior to the ME/Coroner having confirmation via DNA the remains found were hers.

So not sure what is happening here. Wondering when an arrest for Carnels murder might happen and wondering when an 'official' according to the law in order to issue a death certificate ID may occur. I honestly thought both would have occured last week regardless of the holiday.

 

[Mimiof8]

Anyone besides me curious about when an arrest might be made for Carnels murder versus just the abuse? Any idea's on what might be causing a delay? Other than possible waiting on official id in order for the coroner to issue a death certificate?


IIRC, the perp in Antinette Keller's case was arrested prior to the ME/Coroner having confirmation via DNA the remains found were hers.

So not sure what is happening here. Wondering when an arrest for Carnels murder might happen and wondering when an 'official' according to the law in order to issue a death certificate ID may occur. I honestly thought both would have occured last week regardless of the holiday.

I'm curious as well, I think the delay could be caused by dna id. If Carnel was burned as badly as reported dna id may be difficult. I also think cod will be difficult if not impossible to determine. I hope murder charges will be brought soon but idk when that might be.

 

[Knox]

I know no one asked me but y'all need just to agree to disagree. We all have to take a break sometimes because we get so emotionally involved.

We are all here for Carnel. :chillout:

Thanks kseal for the reminder, as a whole, we're a very compassionate, caring bunch of posters. What I love about WS ...

I'm not an "expert" in DV, CPS protocols or drug addiction. Just a general observer of people I have seen over the years. But I like that we have the benefit of various posters who are experts in their field. They offer specific knowledge which I always find interesting and informative.

But, and I hope you all take what I am expressing with a good heart; too much of that, can hurt a case which does not have its own forum, with specific topics. I hate it when we just go round and round over the same thing, instead of just agreeing to disagree and moving on.

Great people in this thread, posting for Carnel eace:

 

[laniefi]

Bennett is scheduled to appear in court on Friday for a preliminary examination in the case.

http://www.ourmidland.com/police_and_courts/article_5452d122-c9bd-11e1-b5a9-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[Knox]

Imo, it does matter if it was before or after she left for work. Because she tells us that he was laying on her bed, watching cartoons when she went to work. So I have to wonder, was he already hurt? Did she witness another violent incident right before she left?

That has been my thought Katy. But I keep discounting it because of the two poly's she took. I guess she could just state she passed, but I think it's more likely someone else told her that.

Jaimee seemed pretty forthcoming from the beginning. Anthony was not, he clammed up immediately. IMO, he would not cover for Jaimee. What's the benefit in that for him? True love? NOT!

The time frame of 3:45 to 9:30 is nearly six hours. IMO if something happened right after Jaimee left, this is plenty of time to do what he did.

 

[Woodland]

Imo, LE has discounted or is ignoring the sighting by the family next door as possibly unreliable. It isn't evidence - it's a statement, that would have to be repeated a number of times in an exact or very similar way.

If I, as an adult, could confirm to LE a specific sighting of a missing child, I would not then minimize that by going to the press, family in tow, and sit for a photo to be distributed for all to see. If my 5 and 6 year-old children saw the missing child on a regular basis in a particular spot, I would doubt their ability, after the fact, to be correct about a sighting on a particular day, unless and maybe, they could relate something else relevant about that sighting.

 

[Cubby]

Imo, LE has discounted or is ignoring the sighting by the family next door as possibly unreliable. It isn't evidence - it's a statement, that would have to be repeated a number of times in an exact or very similar way.

If I, as an adult, could confirm to LE a specific sighting of a missing child, I would not then minimize that by going to the press, family in tow, and sit for a photo to be distributed for all to see. If my 5 and 6 year-old children saw the missing child on a regular basis in a particular spot, I would doubt their ability, after the fact, to be correct about a sighting on a particular day, unless and maybe, they could relate something else relevant about that sighting.

In reality, LE has said nothing about the Thursday sighting by neighbors either way. Like they/LE have not said much about anything other than that the mother was cooperating.

LE has never even come out and stated that Carnel's remains were found, that too came from the family.

In fact, we could probably go back and seperate info that has come from LE, as a direct quote from LE, and it would be very very little.

I think we just have to wait as the confirmed facts come out by LE/ME or via court a little at a time. Each of us is going to have our own interpretation based on personal experience as well as other cases followed with regards to how to interpret what is presented in the media. A photo of the family on their deck means nothing to me one way or the other. To each their own...... Anything regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of that sighting is speculative opinion until confirmed or discounted by LE. thus far, they ain't saying either way.

 

[Knox]

Imo, LE has discounted or is ignoring the sighting by the family next door as possibly unreliable. It isn't evidence - it's a statement, that would have to be repeated a number of times in an exact or very similar way.

If I, as an adult, could confirm to LE a specific sighting of a missing child, I would not then minimize that by going to the press, family in tow, and sit for a photo to be distributed for all to see. If my 5 and 6 year-old children saw the missing child on a regular basis in a particular spot, I would doubt their ability, after the fact, to be correct about a sighting on a particular day, unless and maybe, they could relate something else relevant about that sighting.

Witness statements can be erroneous. I'm with you Woodland, until I see something from LE, which verifies or mentions the sighting. I won't rely on it.

The kids could have seen him outside prior to Jaimee leaving for work. Personally, I don't think Carnel ever came out of that house (alive) after Jaimee left that afternoon.

Hopefully we will learn more after the hearing on Friday.

 

[Cubby]

Witness statements can be erroneous. I'm with you Woodland, until I see something from LE, which verifies or mentions the sighting. I won't rely on it.

The kids could have seen him outside prior to Jaimee leaving for work. Personally, I don't think Carnel ever came out of that house (alive) after Jaimee left that afternoon.

Hopefully we will learn more after the hearing on Friday.

BBM. I agree, but the speculation regarding the Thursday sighting is with regards to the time of death, speculating Carnel was deceased on Wednesday and there is nothing to indicate he was not alive on Thursday and the date of death was Thursday.

 

[tlcya]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Carnels-Hope-For-Tomorrow/459362990740569

One of Carnel's nicknames was "cooter" (a down southism that means turtle)

Carnel was into Mario and Super Mario games

 

[Knox]

BBM. I agree, but the speculation regarding the Thursday sighting is with regards to the time of death, speculating Carnel was deceased on Wednesday and there is nothing to indicate he was not alive on Thursday and the date of death was Thursday.

Little blurry from too many late nights gabbing with my sister's, who were visiting over the holiday week.

A few thoughts on why I don't think Carnel was deceased on Wednesday. AB would have implicated her. I know he has not been charged with murder yet, but he has been charged with abuse. If Jaimee were a part of that and also knew that he was not alive on Wednesday. I don't think she would have passed a poly. They were administered before Carnel was found.

 

[Cubby]

Little blurry from too many late nights gabbing with my sister's, who were visiting over the holiday week.

A few thoughts on why I don't think Carnel was deceased on Wednesday. AB would have implicated her. I know he has not been charged with murder yet, but he has been charged with abuse. If Jaimee were a part of that and also knew that he was not alive on Wednesday. I don't think she would have passed a poly. They were administered before Carnel was found.

Excellent points. I understand the late nights, I suffer from insomnia and it's awful.

But you're right. If JC had any involvement, AB would have thrown her under the bus already, and he has not. AB throwing JC under the bus would definately be media worthy, if it had occured.

 

[Woodland]

When Carnel died and how is all speculation at this point, imo. With no definitive direction for the public from LE to this point, no one knows who might be correct and who might be incorrect. All actions by those close to Carnel for Wednesday and Thursday need to be put into perspective by LE.

Also imo, AB will most certainly try to take Jamie down with him should he be charged with Carnel's murder - which has not happened yet, if it will at all.

 

[Knox]

When Carnel died and how is all speculation at this point, imo. With no definitive direction for the public from LE to this point, no one knows who might be correct and who might be incorrect. All actions by those close to Carnel for Wednesday and Thursday need to be put into perspective by LE.

Also imo, AB will most certainly try to take Jamie down with him should he be charged with Carnel's murder - which has not happened yet, if it will at all.

All you state in your first paragraph is true, but I stand by my own opinions of why I feel he was alive on Thursday.

I agree, I think AB will say many interesting things when he is charged. Pointing the finger at Jaimee is the only defense he will have.

IMO, the circumstantial evidence (barring no possibility of a definitive COD or TOD from ME) will be enough to charge him. Who knows, he may even cop a plea deal.

 

[southernnana]

hwow: hwow:


Just a smattering of agreeing to disagree ...

I do not believe LE would state neighbors saw Carnel on Thursday afternoon, if they were not sure or that was not confirmed. They talked to him through the fence and saw him thursday, imo, means when they talked they talked through the fence - Often as would be any time neighbors with a fence talked to each other.
There is no information from MSM or LE indicating the timeline of someone other than mom and AB seeing Carnel alive Thursday afternoon is inaccurate. Thursday is Thursday. it was Thursday.

I posted this on the last thread, given that a huge argument was heard on the day before...ITA, I think he died Weds. and was disposed of Thurs. and then reported missing. JMO Obviously "mom" was willing to cover stuff up.
I don't believe a word she says about when Carnel was seen by her...JMO

I remember reading someplace that the constructions workers did not see Carnel at all on Thursday. They had seen him everyday they had been working. They thought that was odd especially after the fight they heard on Wednesday. SORRY I DON'T HAVE THE LINK

I do believe that Carnel was dead before his mother left for work. How long before she left for work? I don't know but I think that there was more time involved than her work shift.

The neighbors saw Carnel playing outside on Thursday. So we have an independent time last seen by someone other than mom and AB indicating Carnel was in fact alive Thursday afternoon.
Carnel Chamberlain's neighbors saw him jumping on a trampoline in his backyard Thursday afternoon.

If LE returned to verify the accuracy of the neighbor's report as to Wed or Thur, they probably will not let it be known to the public as it is important evidence. Just wish we knew.

Exactly, about the kids being the last to see Carnel on the trampoline... which makes me think they saw him another time.
If that is true, Jaimee is complicit.

It matters in regards to the speculation he was deceased on Wednesday. That is what I responded to.
There is wild speculation, with little fact to go on, with regards to the mother having knowledge of his being deceased or being in a condition requiring immediate medical attention ....

Fact:
LE has stated all along the mother was fully cooperative.
Mother stated she passed two polygraphs's, that matches the above info from LE and LE did not DENY she passed.
Neighbors saw Carnel Thursday afternoon playing outside.

I have no reason to believe LE or the neighbors are putting deceitful inaccurate info out to the media.

<posts have been snipped and BBM>


First of all let me say ... if a poster states their opinion on a topic that I don't agree with ... or if they are wildly speculating, I consider it just that ... their opinion. One of the reasons we joined WS was to enjoy expressing our thoughts and sharing our knowledge, and experience. We have mods to make decisions on posts that are not appropriate ... let's let them do their job, with our assistance on occasion when needed ... and let's the rest of us get back to enjoying being a WS member.

Second, the news in the link concerning the neighbors reported "Their daughters would talk with the boy over the fence and saw him in his backyard Thursday afternoon." IMO, this statement is referring to when the children were in their backyards they would talk to one another over the fence ... not saying they did so on Thursday.

I do not recall any post indicating that LE and/or the neighbors are putting deceitful inaccurate information out to the media. The scenerio that I see as a possibility is that in the process of the continuing investigation, LE may have or will deem it necessary to verify again from the neighbors as to "who saw what on which day." And, as I stated previously, they are under no obligation to share evidence with the public at this point.

If anyone has information reporting that LE has stated that the mother has cooperated all along, please share it ... as the only sources of information that have been reported to MSM are from the Tribal Public Affairs, the mother herself and her mother.

If anyone has information reporting confirmation from LE that the mother passed two polygraphs, please share it.

Thank you for your patience in reading this post.


http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2012/06/neighbors_searched_until_4_am.html

 

[Cubby]

Carnel Chamberlain's neighbors saw him jumping on a trampoline in his backyard Thursday afternoon.

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2012/06/neighbors_searched_until_4_am.html

It doesn't get much clearer for me than that. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. Pointing out erroneous information with a LINK to back up why information being corrected is in no way a violation of TOS.

The rules are, really, unless one is quoting TOS, with a link to that TOS, we should not be interfering with the mods job. If a post is questionable, please use the alert button, triangle in the upper right corner to alert mods to a possible violation of TOS. In the mean time, we are not to tell others how to post, or not to post.