Found Safe TX - Lili Griffith, 14, & Lulu Bandera-Magret, 7, Round Rock, 30 Dec 2017

[Jennifer17]

From 06/28/08 hearing (Case GARVS800064).....it's difficult to tell exactly who is being accused when you go through all the minutes, but TM is the only individual the court (eventually) tells her that the child CANNOT be around (i.e., her own father). And I find this first thing odd................

COURT ORDERS MOTHER IS ALLOWED OVER NIGHT VISITATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NEITHER

PARTY IS TO IS TO TAKE PICTURES OF ANY REDNESS AND/OR BRUISES OF MINORS GENITAL AREA.

-

COURT ORDERS PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO INITIATE A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR THE MINOR. THE JOURNAL SHALL

BE COMPLETED BY THE GUARDIANS AND MINORS MOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE MINORS MEDICAL ISSUES ONLY.

THE JOURNAL SHALL FOLLOW THE MINOR WHEREVER SHE GOES AND SHALL BE KEPT UPDATED.

-

COURT ORDERS IF MOTHER NEEDS TO TAKE MINOR TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR ANY REASON SHE IS TO NOTIFY

THE GUARDIANS IMMEDIATELY. http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/civil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&casenumber=VS800064&casetype=GAR&dsn=&actionseq=2&actiondate=20080620&actiontime=8%2E3&department=V12G&actioncode=HRG&action=%3Cfont+color%3D%27%23000000%27%3EHEARING+RE%3A+MOTHERS+SUPERVISED+VISITATION+%3C%2Ffont%3E

Because some people are stupid. She probably accused the father of sexually abusing the daughter and posted pics on social media.

 

[Beth11311]

From 06/28/08 hearing (Case GARVS800064).....it's difficult to tell exactly who is being accused when you go through all the minutes, but TM is the only individual the court (eventually) tells her that the child CANNOT be around (i.e., her own father). And I find this first thing odd................

COURT ORDERS MOTHER IS ALLOWED OVER NIGHT VISITATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NEITHER

PARTY IS TO IS TO TAKE PICTURES OF ANY REDNESS AND/OR BRUISES OF MINORS GENITAL AREA.

-

COURT ORDERS PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO INITIATE A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR THE MINOR. THE JOURNAL SHALL

BE COMPLETED BY THE GUARDIANS AND MINORS MOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE MINORS MEDICAL ISSUES ONLY.

THE JOURNAL SHALL FOLLOW THE MINOR WHEREVER SHE GOES AND SHALL BE KEPT UPDATED.

-

COURT ORDERS IF MOTHER NEEDS TO TAKE MINOR TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR ANY REASON SHE IS TO NOTIFY

THE GUARDIANS IMMEDIATELY. http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/civil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&casenumber=VS800064&casetype=GAR&dsn=&actionseq=2&actiondate=20080620&actiontime=8%2E3&department=V12G&actioncode=HRG&action=%3Cfont+color%3D%27%23000000%27%3EHEARING+RE%3A+MOTHERS+SUPERVISED+VISITATION+%3C%2Ffont%3E

Oh my. It sounds like perhaps he was even abusing his own daughter...I’ve never seen something like the above, before. Good digging!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kkdj]

Holy crap on a cracker, that guy should have been locked up a long time ago. What’s with all the charges being dismissed? Who didn’t figure out this was a trend with this guy? The child is particularly disturbing. Now I’m more worried about sex trafficking. I thought maybe they were hostages but I wonder if he set this up while their mom was in NYC? I really hope the girls were with their dad when all this went down and when she was in NYC.

Yup. Pretty scary to think about. But he and the girls are so recognizable now I don't know who would be willing to participate with this.

 

[Aqua01]

From 02/04/09 hearing (the name removed is not TH, but is a male):

THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE MINOR CHILD SHALL SLEEP IN HER OWN BED AND NOT IN THE BED WITH MOTHER AND

xxxxxx.

-

THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE MINOR CHILD IS NOT TO BE LEFT ALONE WITH OTHER CHILDREN.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

So, based on meager info I was able to find and A LOT of speculation on my part. The attemp murder charged in 2012 was dismissed because his ex-wife died at home. My speculation on that, based on the info I was able to find is that it was likely an OD. According to the link provided by JoreLock he was a POI of interest in a murder case in 2014 but the grand jury failed to indict. That news organization fails to say WHY they failed to indict but a cursory search for the victim's name shows that her niece was arrested and charged with her murder, also in 2014.

On a separate note, Mr Miles is not a nice man.

ETA: I wonder why so many charges against him were dropped. I mean, if these were low-level crimes I could understand but if that list is correct, those are some serious charges, esp the involving juveniles.

I'm confused because in the article it says he's still their POI, and I can't find where the niece was ever convicted.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Beth11311]

Yup. Pretty scary to think about. But he and the girls are so recognizable now I don't know who would be willing to participate with this.

I hope enough people are paying attention though? Look at how few of us there are on this thread! I would normally expect a whole lot more people on a child abduction case of this magnitude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kkdj]

From 06/28/08 hearing (Case GARVS800064).....it's difficult to tell exactly who is being accused when you go through all the minutes, but TM is the only individual the court (eventually) tells her that the child CANNOT be around (i.e., her own father). And I find this first thing odd................

COURT ORDERS MOTHER IS ALLOWED OVER NIGHT VISITATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NEITHER

PARTY IS TO IS TO TAKE PICTURES OF ANY REDNESS AND/OR BRUISES OF MINORS GENITAL AREA.

-

COURT ORDERS PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO INITIATE A MEDICAL JOURNAL FOR THE MINOR. THE JOURNAL SHALL

BE COMPLETED BY THE GUARDIANS AND MINORS MOTHER WITH REGARD TO THE MINORS MEDICAL ISSUES ONLY.

THE JOURNAL SHALL FOLLOW THE MINOR WHEREVER SHE GOES AND SHALL BE KEPT UPDATED.

-

COURT ORDERS IF MOTHER NEEDS TO TAKE MINOR TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR ANY REASON SHE IS TO NOTIFY

THE GUARDIANS IMMEDIATELY. http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenAccess/civil/civilminutes.asp?courtcode=X&casenumber=VS800064&casetype=GAR&dsn=&actionseq=2&actiondate=20080620&actiontime=8%2E3&department=V12G&actioncode=HRG&action=%3Cfont+color%3D%27%23000000%27%3EHEARING+RE%3A+MOTHERS+SUPERVISED+VISITATION+%3C%2Ffont%3E

Her parents took guardianship of the little girl when the mom already had a permanent DVRO against TM. What's up with that? And then in '08 stated neither party can take pics of her genital area? Would that be the guardians and the mother? And the father? What the heck went on for a judge to order that? That in itself is a crime! I don't even know how this particular part even relates to TM as there was already a permanent RO in place. Again, I'm confused.

 

[DAnthrplgst]

I'm confused because in the article it says he's still their POI, and I can't find where the niece was ever convicted.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Since it was 2014 I would venture she either hasn't gone to trial yet (from what I understand Louisiana courts are horribly back logged) or she accepted a plea deal and didn't go to trial.

 

[gitana1]

Whoa y'all! Here is the latest on him and it is very disturbing http://kxan.com/2018/01/02/what-we-know-about-terry-miles-man-accused-of-abducting-round-rock-girls/

My God. I heard myself gasping reading that in thinking of the girls.

 

[lonetraveler]

Whoa y'all! Here is the latest on him and it is very disturbing http://kxan.com/2018/01/02/what-we-know-about-terry-miles-man-accused-of-abducting-round-rock-girls/

This information is so horrifying.

 

[Tricia]

I hope enough people are paying attention though? Look at how few of us there are on this thread! I would normally expect a whole lot more people on a child abduction case of this magnitude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Beth,

I understand your concern. I think a lot of people are reading this thread but don't post because there is nothing new.

That is what worries me about this case. Until there is something new the discussions may stall somewhat.

Thanks to everyone who is participating in the thread.

Tricia

 

[gitana1]

So, based on meager info I was able to find and A LOT of speculation on my part. The attemp murder charged in 2012 was dismissed because his ex-wife died at home. My speculation on that, based on the info I was able to find is that it was likely an OD. According to the link provided by JoreLock he was a POI of interest in a murder case in 2014 but the grand jury failed to indict. That news organization fails to say WHY they failed to indict but a cursory search for the victim's name shows that her niece was arrested and charged with her murder, also in 2014.

On a separate note, Mr Miles is not a nice man.

ETA: I wonder why so many charges against him were dropped. I mean, if these were low-level crimes I could understand but if that list is correct, those are some serious charges, esp the involving juveniles.

It costs and it's always a gamble to go through trial. So there are
tons of plea bargains. My guess is that he was jailed for related probation violations instead. That usually how it works. But I'm not seeing probation violation convictions. So I don't know.

 

[LaborDayRN]

The wellness checks conducted by LE are a bit confusing to me. I'm curious if the officers ever spoke to her at all. They reported that they saw nothing suspicious. Following the second wellness check, LE once again reported that they saw nothing suspicious but added that the car was not there and no one came to the door. I'm not sure how they could decide that nothing was suspicious if they never even spoke to anyone in the home.

http://kxan.com/2018/01/02/timeline-of-round-rock-girls-disappearance-and-their-mothers-death/
Saturday, Dec. 30, 2017, at 8:30 p.m.: Bates’ boyfriend called the Round Rock Police Department worried because Bates’ wasn’t responding and neither were her two daughters. Officers went back to the home and once again didn’t find anything of suspicious nature. RRPD said there wasn’t a vehicle at the house and no one opened the door to the home.

I agree. Having officers go to the home and knock on the door is nothing more that the boyfriend did. Actually the boyfriend did more. He tried calling her.

 

[DAnthrplgst]

Her parents took guardianship of the little girl when the mom already had a permanent DVRO against TM. What's up with that? And then in '08 stated neither party can take pics of her genital area? Would that be the guardians and the mother? And the father? What the heck went on for a judge to order that? That in itself is a crime! I don't even know how this particular part even relates to TM as there was already a permanent RO in place. Again, I'm confused.

If I'm following the line of information being presented correctly: TH was ordered no contact with his children/child. Mom had sole custody. Then the grandparents petitioned for guardianship of the child/ren. Since the above mentioned court order mentions a person named Chris I'm going to guess that he was the current boyfriend.

Now, going completely out on a limb, it sounds like maybe mom and the grandparents were accusing each other of sexual abuse of the child and they were both taking photos of the child's "injuries" and, presumably, at least one of them (the mom I'm gonna guess) posted them to the internet.

 

[kirkassoc]

From 02/04/09 hearing (the name removed is not TH, but is a male):

THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE MINOR CHILD SHALL SLEEP IN HER OWN BED AND NOT IN THE BED WITH MOTHER AND

CHRIS.

-

THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE MINOR CHILD IS NOT TO BE LEFT ALONE WITH OTHER CHILDREN.

Sometimes, I wish I could "unread" some of these details :sick: . There are a lot of little wounded souls walking around in this world and growing up with horrific memories. May God bless them. Praying these little ones are returned safely and this monster is brought down.

 

[Aqua01]

Thanks for bearing with me, and all that to build up to what I find really interesting: in March 2009 it was done and the grandparents got guardianship. Three months later there is a petition for additional orders in the 07/07/09 hearing:

THE COURT ORDERS THE MINOR IS NOT TO BE AROUND TERRY MILES AT ANY TIME.

After a permanent DVRO and TM is stripped of not only any form of conservatorship of his child, but also all visitation rights (agree with the attorney - not that he/she needs my validation - but major red flag here.....this mom was on meth and shacking up with someone and still got to see her child)...... Anyway,after the DVRO and loss of his conservator and visitation rights: WHY does the court need to specifically order mom not to have the child around him at any time years after the fact?

 

[Jax49]

Headline News is covering this case. Hope they can be found soon.

 

[Aqua01]

If I'm following the line of information being presented correctly: TH was ordered no contact with his children/child. Mom had sole custody. Then the grandparents petitioned for guardianship of the child/ren. Since the above mentioned court order mentions a person named Chris I'm going to guess that he was the current boyfriend.

Now, going completely out on a limb, it sounds like maybe mom and the grandparents were accusing each other of sexual abuse of the child and they were both taking photos of the child's "injuries" and, presumably, at least one of them (the mom I'm gonna guess) posted them to the internet.

I can't tell if the new beau, old beau (TM), or her dad were being accused - or maybe mom or granny - who knows......but allusions certainly seem to be made. All I know is that to kkdj's point: why does TM keep coming up throughout the trial, and even though mom already got a DVRO the court has to amend the March '09 orders specifying not to have the child around TM?

 

[kkdj]

To give an idea of the area TM is from, along with his children and ex, the area the court cases we are referring to re DVRO and custody issues, it is the same general area the McStays were buried and their killer lived. Hope this helps give an impression. It's known for a lot of meth in the area, lots of criminal activity. Don't get me wrong, there's some very nice homes and very nice people there too, but it's all blended together, the good and the bad. Lots of open space, dirt roads, vacant buildings, etc.

 

[Russian Blue]

This is just a thought regarding why no one looked into his past before there was a problem. A lot of times you have good intentions to do just that and before you have a chance you meet them and are charmed, seduced, or conned, however you want to put it, and you just forget about it. Its the love is blind. Not saying this was a love relationship. Just that after we are made to feel comfortable and are "hooked" so to speak we ignore our best intentions.
I have done it.