GUILTY VA - Noah Thomas, 5, Pulaski County, 22 March 2015 #6

[courtneyb]

Sweetness, when did your relative know them? By that I mean what time frame was it that she had direct, first person knowledge of what their home life was like?

I ask because I believe, from all accounts, that they were indeed good parents early on. In my opinion, something changed that led to a change in their home life and parenting. I have my opinion on what that is.

Also, I just disagree with your statement that the parents were selective about whom Noah played with. I know you are just repeating what you were told, but sadly that is just not true. Noah played with my cousin's children for months, supervised only by my cousin. Ashley never once introduced herself to my cousin or her fiancée; Angel only ever laid eyes upon her once. And she never even saw the dad. Ashley never even checked to see if Angel and Mark were ok with Noah being over there playing, much less introduced herself to get a feel for whether they were murderers or not.

I appreciate your insight and you sharing. It's great to hear from others and find out what their thoughts are. Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wishbone]

You don't think they would still want a tox report?

I didn't say they wouldn't want a tox report, but if he drowned the cause of death would be evident

 

[Steleheart]

I do want to say this about poor decisions. I hear it too frequently in criminal cases. It seems to be used interchangeably with making a mistake. It's an excuse and a cop-out.

A poor decision would be a situation where given certain factors a person is unaware of or does not give effective consideration to all factors involved. If I take the advice of a financial advisor without getting more information and I end up losing, this would be a poor decision. If I intend to add a string of numbers and hit the wrong key, this is a mistake.

If I know right from wrong and purposely choose wrong this is neither a poor decision nor is it a mistake. It is at best an irresponsible willful act. At worst it is a dangerous criminal act.

The difference between a crime and a poor decision in this case is the knowledge and awareness that this purposeful act would compromise the safety of 2 vulnerable, dependent, and helpless innocent children. It resulted in death.

MOO

 

[SStarr33]

I didn't say they wouldn't want a tox report, but if he drowned the cause of death would be evident

Sorry, I didn't know they said the cause of death was not evident.

 

[courtneyb]

I do want to say this about poor decisions. I hear it too frequently in criminal cases. It seems to be used interchangeably with making a mistake. It's an excuse and a cop-out.

A poor decision would be a situation where given certain factors a person does not give effective consideration to all factors involved. If I take the advice of a financial advisor without getting more information and I end up losing, this would be a poor decision. If I intend to add a string of numbers and hit the wrong key, this is a mistake.

If I know right from wrong and purposely choose wrong this is neither a poor decision nor is it a mistake. It is at best an irresponsible willful act. At worst it is a dangerous criminal act.

The difference between a crime and a poor decision in this case is the knowledge and awareness that this purposeful act would compromise the safety of 2 vulnerable, dependent, and helpless innocent children. It resulted in death.

MOO

Great, great post!

 

[Mollyandme]

Sweetness, when did your relative know them? By that I mean what time frame was it that she had direct, first person knowledge of what their home life was like?

I ask because I believe, from all accounts, that they were indeed good parents early on. In my opinion, something changed that led to a change in their home life and parenting. I have my opinion on what that is.

Also, I just disagree with your statement that the parents were selective about whom Noah played with. I know you are just repeating what you were told, but sadly that is just not true. Noah played with my cousin's children for months, supervised only by my cousin. Ashley never once introduced herself to my cousin or her fiancée; Angel only ever laid eyes upon her once. And she never even saw the dad. Ashley never even checked to see if Angel and Mark were ok with Noah being over there playing, much less introduced herself to get a feel for whether they were murderers or not.

I appreciate your insight and you sharing. It's great to hear from others and find out what their thoughts are. Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree one million percent

 

[Steleheart]

Am thinking that if LE is awaiting tox results they have ruled out drowning by septic tank and Noah was placed in that cesspit after death.

I disagree. If the lung shows that he fell in and drowned I would still want to know if anything else was a contributing factor. Since I can't ask Noah what he was thinking I need to ask his tissues and fluids. Was he disoriented? Was he dizzy? Many, many possibilities IMO .

 

[SweetnessFollows]

Sweetness, when did your relative know them? By that I mean what time frame was it that she had direct, first person knowledge of what their home life was like?

I ask because I believe, from all accounts, that they were indeed good parents early on. In my opinion, something changed that led to a change in their home life and parenting. I have my opinion on what that is.

Also, I just disagree with your statement that the parents were selective about whom Noah played with. I know you are just repeating what you were told, but sadly that is just not true. Noah played with my cousin's children for months, supervised only by my cousin. Ashley never once introduced herself to my cousin or her fiancée; Angel only ever laid eyes upon her once. And she never even saw the dad. Ashley never even checked to see if Angel and Mark were ok with Noah being over there playing, much less introduced herself to get a feel for whether they were murderers or not.

I appreciate your insight and you sharing. It's great to hear from others and find out what their thoughts are. Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since Noah was born, there was contact, however, I don't know how frequent it was more recently. I am certainly not challenging Angel's account in any way. It very may well have been that they were less selective as time progressed and that the original perception of my relative was maintained simply because they had been that way in the past. While my relative had regular contact, I don't know how frequent it was.

I hope that it's clear that I am just expressing the opinion of someone else based upon that person's observations in that particular dynamic. I have seen very shared little about PT & AW by people that knew them and/or Noah and it is my understanding that they aren't the monsters so many people (that do NOT know them) have portrayed them to be. I never met either one of them so I don't have an opinion of my own to share. I grew up* with AW's older sister and I only knew a couple of PT's older siblings in passing as they are also older than I am. I think I may have been in choir (which was combined with students of different years) with his sister, if I remember correctly.

* by "grew up" with I mean the same grade in school, sharing classes together at times -- then reconnected later after we had become mothers

 

[bessie]

know you are just repeating what you were told

And you are doing the same, no?

There seem to be quite a few assumptions being made on the basis of hearsay in this case. So, I'd like to remind everyone once again that there are NO verified insiders posting in this case.

 

[courtneyb]

And you are doing the same, no?

There seem to be quite a few assumptions being made on the basis of hearsay in this case. So, I'd like to remind everyone once again that there are NO verified insiders posting in this case.

Yes. Absolutely. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Other than what I repeated, everything else is only my opinion. Thank you for pointing this out, in case anyone was not clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bessie]

Posting first hand knowledge that cannot be supported by appropriate sources is limited to VI's.

 

[Schmaley]

Welcome aboard! Are you talking first assumptions when Noah went missing or after LE charged them with felony abuse and neglect which led to Noah's death?

To be clear, there is no rhetoric in the charges that says it lead to the death of their son.

 

[ANonyMs]

I recall reading or seeing in the LE press releases that LE HAD, in fact "checked" the septic tank early on in the initial search. While very little information has been released by LE, if the tank WAS, in fact, covered by sod, I can't imagine that it wouldn't have been announced early on.

I have seen this question asked several times and I am asking the same: how could they have NOT thoroughly searched there in the beginning, especially considering that they even announced that the search was operating under both assumptions of accidental and criminal?
I have a feeling that this very question will become a crucial part of the trial.

First, WELCOME!!!!!!

I reposted this I think in thread 5 and will try to go find it again. I don't believe they specifically said they checked the septic. I think they said they checked the "area".

There was a news article too that I can't find, about the contents of the septic tank being collected from the truck tank for analysis. IIRC it was right after the interview with the septic tech who did the actual pumping. Does anybody remember where that was? Would that be considered a standard procedure?

I recall that as well. It was in a couple of MSM's that the contents of the tank had been collected. Here is one. (This also talks about LE not stating whether or not they checked the tank previously)
EDITED TO ADD: I don't know if it is standard procedure but I think it completely makes sense. They could have been looking for evidence of how he got in the tank, if anything else was in there with him, God forbid if his body was not intact in whole. Heck, they could have been looking for the Pokemon cards.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/sanitation-technician-describes-discovery-of-noah-thomas/32052894

Different LE's have different philosophies. Some are very forthcoming - this one is exceptionally tight-lipped. .

{snipped for brevity} I agree completely. I think a lot of what we haven't heard from LE is b/c they either need to play it close to the vest to protect the integrity of the case, especially if they think they may bring new charges and/or because, frankly, I don't think the Sheriff feels he owes the general public any answers to our questions beyond what they deem is 'need to know'. JMO.

Am thinking that if LE is awaiting tox results they have ruled out drowning by septic tank and Noah was placed in that cesspit after death.

You don't think they would still want a tox report?

I didn't say they wouldn't want a tox report, but if he drowned the cause of death would be evident

I disagree. If the lung shows that he fell in and drowned I would still want to know if anything else was a contributing factor. Since I can't ask Noah what he was thinking I need to ask his tissues and fluids. Was he disoriented? Was he dizzy? Many, many possibilities IMO .

I think it would be irresponsible for LE and the CA to proceed before the final autopsy report is ready. They most certainly have their theories, but I don't think they can responsibly rule anything out until they get the COD and MOD. On one hand, they say AW & PT were cooperative but on the other hand, we know that AW & PT lied to LE about leaving the kids alone. LE doesn't have any reason to go by faith and faith alone at this point.

I hate to be so graphic, but I think there are a number of possible scenarios where they may be able to see one thing immediately upon the physical autopsy but need supporting toxicology information or other lab tests. A person could drown in a bath tub and then be placed in a septic tank. That would show drowning but they would need to run tests to prove where the drowning occurred. A person may be passed out in a deep sleep and then be placed in a septic where drowning occurred. I believe a drowning involving struggle, screaming open mouthed for help, etc, would look differently than a silent, drowning while unconscious. They may be forming their own opinions based on the physical autopsy but they cannot confirm their assumptions until the reports come back. I think the possibilities are too broad to guess at what they surely must have seen in the physical autopsy alone. And, IMO, LE certainly is not going to reveal any of THAT to the public before they are ready to bring or modify charges. I think at best we would hear about that in an official presser announcing charges and more likely not until trial.

 

[Schmaley]

My feelings on this have swayed back and forth and it is dizzying. I want to believe they weren't drug addicts. I think small town rumors start and they are hard to control. They spiral and are told with assuring confidence that is undeniably convincing.

And I want to believe they are on drugs because selfishly it makes me more scared to think an accident so tragic could happen so easily. But I think if someone took a picture of me after not sleeping for days because my child was missing then found deceased and my other child was taken from me then I think I would look like a junkie too. I have bags under my eyes until I put my morning makeup on and my hair is a mess until I blow it out (my daughter said I look like shrek in the morning-so sweet!) So I can just imagine what I would look like in a mugshot after noahs funeral. And if she had looked nice then there would be speculation that she looked too well put together-a narcissist perhaps. So I will withhold judgment of narc use based on rumors and mugshots.

But I still don't know why they are waiting and emphasizing their wait for tox screen results? Is that because of rumors of drug use? I have not heard it emphasized so much before.

I think public opinion does sway police and judges with trials and arrests but that is why our jury system is around.

 

[Schmaley]

Also, welcome sweetness!! Glad to hear your opinions. Hope you stick around!

 

[Schmaley]

AnonyMs answered my fox screen conundrum. Many thanks

 

[Schmaley]

Tox not fox.

4 posts in a row. Welcome to the Schmaley show. Standing room only for this one.

 

[ANonyMs]

To be clear, there is no rhetoric in the charges that says it lead to the death of their son.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/crime/p...cle_16355b8b-6e9d-5408-b5f5-52697738366e.html

White, 30, was charged under two different subsections of the law. One charge, like Thomas’, relates to “reckless disregard for human life” and carries with it the same punishment. However, she is also being charged under a more serious subsection that is a Class 4 felony and is punishable by no less than two years and no more than 10 years.
That subsection involves “serious injuries” to a child that were received under an adult’s care. Those injuries, as defined by state code, include “disfigurement, a fracture, a severe burn or laceration, mutilation, maiming, forced ingestion of dangerous substances, or life threatening internal injuries.”
In court Wednesday, Fleenor said that White is charged with that section because “it is the commonwealth’s theory that neglect resulted in the death of a child.”
“We know unfortunately that Noah Thomas is deceased,” Fleenor said during White’s hearing. “He is deceased and is the subject of one of these warrants,” referring to the more serious charge.

(BBM)

Did I misunderstand your post? Were referring to the actual charges as laid out in the Viginia code?

 

[Schmaley]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/crime/p...cle_16355b8b-6e9d-5408-b5f5-52697738366e.html

White, 30, was charged under two different subsections of the law. One charge, like Thomas’, relates to “reckless disregard for human life” and carries with it the same punishment. However, she is also being charged under a more serious subsection that is a Class 4 felony and is punishable by no less than two years and no more than 10 years.
That subsection involves “serious injuries” to a child that were received under an adult’s care. Those injuries, as defined by state code, include “disfigurement, a fracture, a severe burn or laceration, mutilation, maiming, forced ingestion of dangerous substances, or life threatening internal injuries.”
In court Wednesday, Fleenor said that White is charged with that section because “it is the commonwealth’s theory that neglect resulted in the death of a child.”
“We know unfortunately that Noah Thomas is deceased,” Fleenor said during White’s hearing. “He is deceased and is the subject of one of these warrants,” referring to the more serious charge.

(BBM)

Did I misunderstand your post? Were referring to the actual charges as laid out in the Viginia code?

Actual charges

 

[ANonyMs]

But I still don't know why they are waiting and emphasizing their wait for tox screen results? Is that because of rumors of drug use? I have not heard it emphasized so much before.

I think public opinion does sway police and judges with trials and arrests but that is why our jury system is around.

I don't think it is *just* about the potential for illegal drugs. They could be looking for accidental ingestion of Rx meds, household chemicals. I don't know but imagine they may be able to tell how many days he was in the tank based on deterioration of tissue, by build up of certain bacterias. I think it is a lot more than just looking for drugs. JMO (and my sincere hope that science prevails and helps us learn the truth!)