9 year old Indiana girl's body found/Neighbor arrested

[jen0610]

Now people are writing fanfic?

Yeah, what possible reason would a kid have to be outside in the morning? Kids never go outside! Especially when they don't have to be at school. Unheard of. No normal situation ANY of us can think of would result in a 9-year-old going outside. Nope.

He dumped her body in the Marathon Station (convience store in the papers) at 6 a.m.. It's already been comfirmed that is when he was up at the site of the body dump.

So, for him to have dumped her at 6 a.m., that means he would have had to killed her much earlier in the a.m.. And according to HIS statement, he attacked her with the brick outside the house.

Unless the child was running away from a situation that she was afraid of, she would have had no reason to be outside of the trailer in the wee hours of the morning.

And unless the child was running away from him, MP would have had no reason for going outside to attack her.

So I don't know about you, but I can tell you that outta all the kids I know - with two teens, it's a lot - there isn't a single kid that would get up and walk outside in the butt crack of dawn, on a school vacation just for the hell of it.

 

[cornflake]

He dumped her body in the Marathon Station (convience store in the papers) at 6 a.m.. It's already been comfirmed that is when he was up at the site of the body dump.

So, for him to have dumped her at 6 a.m., that means he would have had to killed her much earlier in the a.m.. And according to HIS statement, he attacked her with the brick outside the house.

Unless the child was running away from a situation that she was afraid of, she would have had no reason to be outside of the trailer in the wee hours of the morning.

And unless the child was running away from him, MP would have had no reason for going outside to attack her.

So I don't know about you, but I can tell you that outta all the kids I know - with two teens, it's a lot - there isn't a single kid that would get up and walk outside in the butt crack of dawn, on a school vacation just for the hell of it.

He used a hacksaw and sorted trophies. Much earlier. Like possibly the previous day earlier. Though I dunno, as I didn't read it, if that's the time he was confirmed to be at the dump site by specific means, like a camera, and if it is, if that was the first time he was there, as no particular reason to think he only went once, or that he went soon after he killed her, or that he dismembered her soon after he killed her. If that level of forensic detail has been released, I haven't seen it.

Teens are a bit different from 9-year-olds, regardless, especially in regards to what interests them and their schedules.

 

[luvsJack]

I meant to say necessarily. Yeah, in some states you can, in some you cannot. A previous poster stated that you can look up anyone's specific offenses as if it's a universal.

I said that because when I go to familywatchdog I can click on places where a rso pops up and it tells me the offense and the age they were when convicted. Its on every one. Maybe they were all convicted in this state?

Personally, I would be glad that my state does tell the offense. If someone I knew was registered because of something done as an older teen with a younger teen, it would tell people that.

 

[The_Alice]

He used a hacksaw and sorted trophies. Much earlier. Like possibly the previous day earlier. Though I dunno, as I didn't read it, if that's the time he was confirmed to be at the dump site by specific means, like a camera, and if it is, if that was the first time he was there, as no particular reason to think he only went once, or that he went soon after he killed her, or that he dismembered her soon after he killed her. If that level of forensic detail has been released, I haven't seen it.

Teens are a bit different from 9-year-olds, regardless, especially in regards to what interests them and their schedules.

I have an 8 and a 7 year old, I don't think you would catch them outside in the freezing cold (Yes, Indiana is cold in the winter) in the middle of the night unless they were scared of something inside.

I'm curious what you think would interest a 9 year old enough to go outside at that time of night under those conditions?

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

To me that makes sense, I wouldn't want reminders of her, It would be way to painful

Seriously?

If my child died, I'd have a terrible time, at any point, parting with their things. Eventually, I'd have to do it, but days later??

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I said that because when I go to familywatchdog I can click on places where a rso pops up and it tells me the offense and the age they were when convicted. Its on every one. Maybe they were all convicted in this state?

Personally, I would be glad that my state does tell the offense. If someone I knew was registered because of something done as an older teen with a younger teen, it would tell people that.

No...It's not on every one of them. I was just searching my old neighborhood in FL and some came up with "No information Available"(or something like that) for a few.

 

[luvsJack]

I have an 8 and a 7 year old, I don't think you would catch them outside in the freezing cold (Yes, Indiana is cold in the winter) in the middle of the night unless they were scared of something inside.

I'm curious what you think would interest a 9 year old enough to go outside at that time of night under those conditions?

I agree, someone is just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. Kids that age are usually asleep in their beds at that time of night.

 

[luvsJack]

No...It's not on every one of them. I was just searching my old neighborhood in FL and some came up with "No information Available"(or something like that) for a few.

Like I said, maybe all the ones here were convicted here. Not sure, but all of them in my area tell me their convictions.

Regardless, the fact that they are on there is enough for me to think I should keep my kid away from them.

 

[cornflake]

Also your use of the word "bonkers" etc. is very illuminating to how seriously you take RSOs.

You edited after I posted. I don't know what it'd mean to take sex offender registries seriously? I think they're a well-intentioned idea that has wrought FAR more problems and harm than any good.

They're legally a mess, they're a mess for several other reasons (there's no parity whatsoever, across several areas, there's little public education, which leads to mess, etc., etc.) and I think some states were very reactionary with creating them (which is what I meant by going bonkers) - which is why many states have pulled back and some have shut them down completely.

As to how seriously I take offenders - that depends entirely on their offenses. All offenders are not the same, which is what I've been saying. There are offenders I know statistically would be a grave danger to adults, some who'd pose a grave danger to children, some who could go either way w/re recidivism, some whose offenses were not violent or dangerous to begin with, and some who, statistically, are not likely to reoffend at all. It depends. Just being a registered sex offender is not informative.

 

[lillygator]

As to how seriously I take offenders - that depends entirely on their offenses. All offenders are not the same, which is what I've been saying. There are offenders I know statistically would be a grave danger to adults, some who'd pose a grave danger to children, some who could go either way w/re recidivism, some whose offenses were not violent or dangerous to begin with, and some who, statistically, are not likely to reoffend at all. It depends. Just being a registered sex offender is not informative.

and you seem so flippant about all of them.

 

[cindy_belle]

Cornflake

Just curious. What is your "skin in the game" in this?

Why are you so determined to let this woman off the hook?

Why, after all the evidence that has been presented, are you still willing to make excuses for her bad parenting choices. No she did not kill her daughter but she sure as heck paved the path for the guy who did it to.

Also, why are you protesting on behalf of sex offenders so much. The majority are not young naive teenagers that just so happened to have sex with their teenage partner. The vast majority of those cases are not prosecuted at all. The majority of sex offenders have really offended and deserve to be punished. Sex offenses have some of the highest recidivism rates out there. Very few are actually rehabilitated and can be trusted in the future. There is a reason that most people in society do not trust sex offenders and that there are "rules" put into place as to where they can live, work, have contact with. If you feel differently then you must have a different viewpoint than most of society and most professionals that work with these offenders ( Psychiatrists, judges, and police).

Again " what is your skin in the game?" Do you work with sex offenders? Are you related to a sex offender? What? Because your stance on this issue is at odds with most everything that professionals have to say about them.

This is why so many posters are confounded with your position on this. It would go a long way if you would explain your reasoning for your position because right now it seems you are swinging in the breeze without a branch to grab onto.

You also say that this has nothing to do with him because he was not a sex offender. Maybe, maybe not, we don't know yet. Time will tell. Not all sex offenders out there have been caught and sentenced. I do know this though, people who are not sex offenders and who are not related to said sex offender do not usually take kindly to others that are not, especially if that sex offender has molested a child. It is one of those few taboos that cross all lines in society. This applies across the board whether you are an upstanding citizen or a felon. It doesn't matter. That fact that this man did not should tell you something. It does me.

However, he does have a record of being a violent felon, very different from your comparison of him to Martha Stewart. What parent ( because the stepfather is also culpable ) would knowingly put her child in the care of a violent felon regardless of his status as a sex offender while that violent offender is surrounded by sex offenders. I know I wouldn't.

There is more information that I am sure will come out in this case that will clarify this situation more clearly. We can only surmise based upon what has been released so far in the news. I do believe that the right decision was made to remove the other little girls from the custody of the mother until the situation is crystal clear. That, in itself, should make very clear that the police also believe that this mother was culpable with regards to her decisions as a parent in putting her children in harms way.

I can almost guarantee that when all evidence comes out we will fond out that the mother also had a very tumultuous, troubled childhood and lacks the very skills she needs to be an effective parent. In that case I can feel very sorry for her but in no way could I in good conscious return the remaining children back to her.

Oh and BTW, I have 3 children who have been left in the custody of their uncle, cousins, grandfathers and even they boy next door who loved to babysit. I trust all men who do not send my warning bells off as most responsible mothers do. However, my primary responsibility is the safety of my children so if there is any suspicion, however small, that the situation might not be safe then I will err on the side of caution even if it offends said person. Not my concern if the person is offended, is my concern if my children aren't safe.

 

[The_Alice]

You edited after I posted. I don't know what it'd mean to take sex offender registries seriously? I think they're a well-intentioned idea that has wrought FAR more problems and harm than any good.

They're legally a mess, they're a mess for several other reasons (there's no parity whatsoever, across several areas, there's little public education, which leads to mess, etc., etc.) and I think some states were very reactionary with creating them (which is what I meant by going bonkers) - which is why many states have pulled back and some have shut them down completely.

As to how seriously I take offenders - that depends entirely on their offenses. All offenders are not the same, which is what I've been saying. There are offenders I know statistically would be a grave danger to adults, some who'd pose a grave danger to children, some who could go either way w/re recidivism, some whose offenses were not violent or dangerous to begin with, and some who, statistically, are not likely to reoffend at all. It depends. Just being a registered sex offender is not informative.

If a person has inflicted sexual harm on another living being they are not someone I want to have my family around. Period. Regardless of their classification on a list. If someone is vile enough and with so much evil in their heart they can do the items listed on the registry then no I have no pity for their troubles integrating back into society. If that means they have to continually register and their face is plastered on the internet and people know what they did, so be it. If it saves another child, another family, another person I am all for it.

Have you ever perused a RSO list? Have you read the crimes they are charged with when they are outlined and detailed? It will sicken the most hardened heart imagining the pain, the damage done emotionally and physically.

Rape, molestation, etc. have no place in society at all. Whether it's done to an adult or a child. These people should be given wide berth for the remainder of their days on this planet and I honestly think states should treat these offenses more seriously. 3-4 years, with time off for good behavior is not the message we need to be sending to those who would violate a child, or rape an adult. Sure, life is a gray area where black and white rarely exist. But in my mind on this particular issue it does. If you are willing to take that chance that's on you. I would rather not be saying, "If only..."

 

[marie1203]

This whole thing is messed up. Seriously the debate in this board is so out of hand I don't even have kids but if I did there is no way I would leave them with a register sex offender regardless of the crime. And honestly who would? I always check around our area especially when DH is deployed thankfully my neighbor is a police officer and she was able to look into the crimes the only sex offender in the neighborhood was with and teenager and he has just turn 18 the parents call the police because they didn't want them their daughter dating him. I would never leave my dogs let alone my kids with someone I don't know and trust 100%. We have lived around here for 4 years and had the same neighbors that whole time and I still wouldn't leave my kids with them because I don't feel I know them enough.

 

[mercydisney]

In the world we live in today I believe no child is safe. Do I trust my brother? Yes. Do I trust his friend who I never met? I would like to think that I can;deep in my heart I would have to say no. But I have given my child the tools that they need to know if their is something wrong. When they were little it is what body parts should not be touched, never go to a stranger if your lost but a a cashier, and so on and so on. Now that they are older the rules are still the same but now they have to look for different sceneros such as don't ever take a drink from a friend that you did not see them poor in a glass, always call me if yr friend is drinking and I wil pick you up no questions asked, so on and so on.

I teach my kids their are very few bad people out their but it only takes one of them to hurt you. Always trust your instincts.


I feel sorry for the little girl, she obviously was very smart and had enough sense to know right from wrong. The world lost an outstanding citizan.

The mother is guilty laziness and not having enough common sense to realize she was putting her kids in danger.

 

[cornflake]

If a person has inflicted sexual harm on another living being they are not someone I want to have my family around. Period. Regardless of their classification on a list. If someone is vile enough and with so much evil in their heart they can do the items listed on the registry then no I have no pity for their troubles integrating back into society. If that means they have to continually register and their face is plastered on the internet and people know what they did, so be it. If it saves another child, another family, another person I am all for it.

Have you ever perused a RSO list? Have you read the crimes they are charged with when they are outlined and detailed? It will sicken the most hardened heart imagining the pain, the damage done emotionally and physically.

Rape, molestation, etc. have no place in society at all. Whether it's done to an adult or a child. These people should be given wide berth for the remainder of their days on this planet and I honestly think states should treat these offenses more seriously. 3-4 years, with time off for good behavior is not the message we need to be sending to those who would violate a child, or rape an adult. Sure, life is a gray area where black and white rarely exist. But in my mind on this particular issue it does. If you are willing to take that chance that's on you. I would rather not be saying, "If only..."

Yes, I have.

And... really? You're ok with not knowing a murderer lives next door. Or someone who eighteen times attacked and bludgeoned people in fits of anger, but someone who has done anything that will get anyone tagged with a sex offense, that should be plastered everywhere?

As for 'if it saves another child, person, etc...' no sex offender registry has ever been known to save anyone from anything.

Treating some of these offenses more seriously? Sure, I'm with you. If we can treat other offenses more seriously too. Can we not let drunk drivers walk free without taking away their licenses and throwing them behind bars for a year?

Can we not let murderers out after four years?

Cindy -

There are plenty of posts in this thread saying that this was entirely the mother's fault for moving into an area with sex offenders. The girl was not murdered by a sex offender. If people can't see that that's illogical I don't know what to say.

I'm not "letting her off the hook" I don't know what hook she's on. Does the sending the kids off for a week because she had the flu seem odd? Yeah, it does. Would I send the kids to hang around with a violent felon? No. However there are people criticizing the media for referring to him as a trusted family friend when... they apparently knew him for years and he watched the kids, apparently (as far as we know at the moment) without incident, for that time which would, yes, make him a trusted family friend.

It all smacks of distancing - 'I'd never move near sex offenders (except as some people have noted, many people do live near plenty of sex offenders), so that would never happen to my kid!!' - which... is a normal human impulse that seems to have spun quite nasty among some here, who seem not to notice some of the salient points or gloss right over them repeatedly in an effort to make this all the woman's fault that a lunatic murdered her daughter because he, who was not a registered sex offender, lived in proximity to them, so obviously, she should have known he'd probably murder her kid. Just... what?

I don't get the hysterical, illogical weirdness and it bugs. I also am, in general, bugged by the general inspecificity and ill-informed hysteria surrounding certain crimes and classes of crimes, very specifically because it makes it actually harder to identify the actually dangerous and harder to make good laws that can keep them locked up and tracked. When people want to label everyone the same, regardless of level or offense or etc., and want them all treated the same way, it becomes utterly impossible to separate out, identify, deal with, contain and legislate against the ones who really need to be dealt with and removed from society.

We need to deal with people who pose a serious, ongoing danger, better. As a country, we are *terrible* at it. We fail miserably and sex offender registries are doing the opposite of helping, as demonstrated by this thread, because people cannot separate things out. If they can't be separated or understood to have any sort of levels at all, there's no possibility to research, to write legislation, etc., to work to contain the people who need containment. This kind of thing is harming, not helping.

 

[okeydokey]

And we don't know that she wasn't molested by him as well. Which could provide the motive for her murder.

Just because someone isn't on the RSO list doesn't mean they haven't molested a child. It could mean he simply hadn't been caught yet. This excessive violence towards a child, the trophy keeping, the living around other sexual offenders and violent offenders is indicative of this being a behavior he had refined over time. I am sure more details will come out in the weeks and months ahead about his past.

Absolutely correct. I feel pretty strongly that it will come out that this girl was sexually abused in the days before her murder, along with others who were his victims. In all the predator awareness training I have taken we are told that most predators have abused dozens of times before they are caught the first time.

I wonder if then, those that say that this girl was not murdered by a sex offender will come back to this thread and say they were wrong on this one.

 

[lillygator]

It all smacks of distancing - 'I'd never move near sex offenders (except as some people have noted, many people do live near plenty of sex offenders), so that would never happen to my kid!!' - which... is a normal human impulse that seems to have spun quite nasty among some here, who seem not to notice some of the salient points or gloss right over them repeatedly in an effort to make this all the woman's fault that a lunatic murdered her daughter because he, who was not a registered sex offender, lived in proximity to them, so obviously, she should have known he'd probably murder her kid. Just... what?

these are sex offenders within arms reach of others - and what you don't seem to get is this guy was ok living with and among them - does that not say anything about him to you at all - really? we get that he wasn't an rso (well that is still debateable at this point - haven't got all the reports back) - but he such has no problem plooping down with them.

and yes, the mother should share in this monsters blame as well.

 

[cindy_belle]

Cornflake

Are you a lawyer who deals with these kind of cases? Where does your authority on this subject come from or is it all your opinion. Just curious as it would give me a perspective with which to process your opinions.

From what I am reading from your postings you would not have left any child of yours in this situation yourself yet you are loathe to condemn the mother who did. Am I correct?

You seem to be saying that all sex offenses are not equal. that raping and murdering your victim is much worse than say, having consensual sex with a minor. I think most would agree with that. But where is that line drawn? Is it at date rape, fondling a child, where? I know my line is when anyone touches sexually any other person against their will. That would include fondling. You seem to have that line a little further over it seems. Where is your line?

you also talk about whether we are more upset about a sex offender living in our neighborhood or a murderer/felon. Personally if a person is that violent shouldn't they be locked up for life. There should no need for a registry for murder. They should not be out in society. However, if we are going to parse crimes, yeah,There should be a registry for anyone who sexually assaults, murders, who has a history of violent assault ( like the guy in question), who has a history of armed robbery etc.

if a person has committed a crime like that then the rest of society has a right to know and take appropriate action to protect themselves. the person who has committed the crime have given up the right to privacy the second they inflicted themselves on another person.

 

[okeydokey]

How do we know it was her playing games on FB and not her hubby? Even if it was her, I play games on FB when I'm sick.

When I take my kids to spend the week with families I don't call every day to check on them

You don't call to check in on your kids every day when they are staying with family? Wow, I find that strange.

I also find it strange that you think it's OK for her to be well enough to play video games but not to have her 9 year old in the house.

 

[DisneyLoverUSA]

It just baffles me....Seriously.

I wonder about the father of her kids...HE is probably okay to watch/care for them(fathers are not babysitters IMO). I wonder why or IF that is different.

None of us would leave our children with a stranger...Male or female...So that can't be the issue...IDK....I was raised by a WONDERUL single father and as I mentioned before...My two main babysitters were my father's best friends....And one is Hell's Angel! So maybe I am a little biased.

Do you know how many posts I see on these boards for ppl who are going to Disney and plan on getting an in room sitter so mom and dad can go have "some adult time"? Every day ppl are on here telling how they plan on going on vacation and leaving their children alone in a hotel room with a STRANGER!! Surely no child molesters work for Disney, the biggest source for children in America! That still shocks me to tell you the truth. Ppl who are so adamant that they would never leave their kid with a stranger but will go to Disney and do it multiple times.

SO YES ppl do leave their kids with strangers.

I am not defending the mom...I think this is just as much her fault as anybody's fault that it happened. She wanted to lay up in bed with her husband and sit around playing on the computer while her daughter was getting her brains bashed in because "she had the flu" There is no excuse for this mom's behavior or how she did NOT take care of her own kids.
And I am real curious of what the 2 circumstances were when the dead girl was previously abused by two other men. Maybe mom was leaving the kids with other men prior to this. Seems like she will dump her kids for any reason with anybody.

The only person, MALE I would leave my kids alone with would be my husband or their own dad. Nobody else. It's a fact that almost ALL molesters are MALE so I am not ever going to put myself in a situation to say OH GAWD I DIDN'T KNOW, HE SEEMED SO NICE, I NEVER SUSPECTED...Not going to happen to my kids, I guarantee you. Unless someone walks into my kid's school and molests them in the middle of class, you won't ever hear of my kids being abused. Because I am vigilant about them, and I take care of them myself. I have never used a sitter, male or female, for any of my kids. I take care of my own kids.