Dec. 15 -

[Kat4Eagles]

So have I but was argued with incessantly that the child was safe with Jason, that just because he murdered his wife doesn't mean he'd murder his child, blah, blah, blah.

Hi Kat!

Hi Anna.:seeya:

It is something we have talked about a lot, there didn't even need to be any allegations in the custody suit, if these 3 things could be proven.

1) Jason killed Michelle
2) Jason left C alone with Michelle
or
3) Jason tried to drug C..

That would be all that is necessary.....

:shrug:

Its like telling us where the car keys were, when no one even asked.


Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

Guess they wanted a "slam dunk" in the custody case. The "Slayer" judgement is just that.

Can't you see the light yet? :wink:


Nothing about this case is a slam dunk.

Or imminent, either.
:)

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that there's more to it than you know, rather than to continually criticize the timing of this investigation, and its consequences?



Being concerned or worried about a child who could have potentially witnessed this murder is not criticism.

Where was the protection for her from the start?

Kat

[Wyn]

Nothing about this case is a slam dunk.

Or imminent, either.
:)

Kat

I wouldn't be too sure.

So what's your brillant legal stategy that you think the Fishers could have used in the past two years to take Cassidy away from Jason? Did you post it and I missed it? You seem so sure it was possible that you must know how it could have been done.

[Kat4Eagles]

Won't the 'best interest of the child' doctrine kick in?

Hi AE..

You would think so, or maybe it will take so long to get an arrest, that it will no longer matter.

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

I wouldn't be too sure.

So what's your brillant legal stategy that you think the Fishers could have used in the past two years to take Cassidy away from Jason? Did you post it and I missed it? You seem so sure it was possible that you must know how it could have been done.

After 25 months, I am sure.
:)

Kat

[Wyn]

After 25 months, I am sure.
:)

Kat

So you're wrong again.

Still waiting for you to compose your double spaced brillant legal stategy that you think the Fishers could have used to gain custody of Cassidy before now. Guess I'll have to keep waiting? Because you don't have one, do you? :biggrin:

[luna24]

I don't know the answers, but all I can say after reading the list of charges that LF and MF are bringing against Jason now, is a question about the timing.

They knew that their chances of seeing C after filing the wds would be almost impossible........


They hardly had the chance to see her before the WDS. The only way they got the recent visit was through heavy lawyer involvement and the Young's probably only went along with it because they knew that LF would have to file the WDS suit soon before the statute of limitations ran out.

I don't understand how you can question the timing...LF was probably waiting to see if they would have an indictment against JY before filing the WDS and subsequently for custody. She waited until the last moment, looked at what the police had gathered thus far, and moved forward and there was enough evidence for him to be declared a slayer.

They also know that Jason has not been charged with any crime..
apparently, while some of these charges are in extreme bad taste, he did not break any laws.

Unless ring swallowing is now a felony.

Looking back at things after someone was murdered , things always look different.

Things that might have seemed funny, now may look strange, or weird.

I don't know, I wasn't there, and to relay stories out of context also does not give us the full story or the right to judge.

Who says someone has to commit a felony to lose custody of their child? Do you really think it's just about the ring swallowing incident? How about the naked incident? How about the "p@nis tricks". How about having your mistress sleeping in your house as an overnight guest when you're married? yeah, but it's all about the ring swallowing incident...


Because, if you do, then you have to judge Michelle too. :no:

Judge her decison to marry Jason, judge her decision to stay married to Jason, and judge her decision to have Jason's children.......
.
Michelle. from what we know, was not one you were going to be able to get by with anything...

She would have called Jason on every one of those allegations.

I can not see Michelle putting up with any of that stuff, especially the part where Jason supposedly had a g.f living with them...

You really think she would allow that??
:no:

Kat

I can't even believe what I'm reading! No, you DO NOT need to judge Michelle. I doubt she knew he was sleeping with that girl or MM. She was busy working and caring for her child and pregnant with another. Michelle did seek help from a therapist before she died - -maybe she was learning of some disturbing behaviors and was trying to figure out what to do.

I'm appalled that you even typed that Michelle should be judged for those things. I think I'm going to throw up. :cursing:

[achristie]

[QUOTE=Kat4Eagles;12569110]Being concerned or worried about a child who could have potentially witnessed this murder is not criticism.

Where was the protection for her from the start?

Kat[/QUOTE

:confused: Now you are worried about her being with her father? Didn't you espouse from the start that JY was her protector? What made you change your mind?:confused:

With all due respect, if I recall, you never espoused that she witnessed the crime? What has made you change your mind?

You never thought she was drugged, either.

I'm thinking things are closing in. Are you? And I'm also patient. Hope you can be , too.

MOO Aggie


There is something wrong with the quote button. It's all jumbled up. No clue how to fix it. Maybe CW can straighten out when she cruises by.

[achristie]

There is no mention of it in the complaint. It doen't take a rocket scientist to recognize a lie. I take it you aren't into rocket science?

why Fisher needed to tell a different court in her request they order a psych examination of the child's father in a bid for custody? Gee, could it be because it's an act of extremely cruely? depraved indifference that endangered the child? child abuse? :rolleyes:

What lie? Are you saying Mrs. Fisher lied because she didn't request a psychological evaluation for the WDS? You've completely lost me. As for your additional claims, I'm hesitant to respond as I'm having difficulty interpreting. Extremely cruely ? Did you mean extreme cruelty? If so, extreme cruelty committed by whom? Like I said, you have managed to confuse me.

[MerriMent]

Yet we're still waiting for you to post your link that Linda Fisher appears to be a "powder keg" as you put it. We apparently missed that media interview, so a link would certainly be helpful so we don't have to think you're just making things up. Again.

I just posted the link to Fisher's claim. It's public record.

[MerriMent]

And goes on to say he exposed, not manipulated, his genitals.

I guess they're hoping the judge reads here rather than the claim submitted to the court.