Willis Family including rape charges

[realist51]

14 hours ago, Nikedagain? said:

This might have been answered upthread and I am sorry if it has! I just saw this show maybe once and the dad triggered my skeeve radar. And at the time, my righteous indignation was better served on the Duggars. I mean, there's only so much to spare... (Can I get a witness?!!)

 

I also watched this show once, and I couldn't watch any more; it was so obvious that something was wrong. While the dad didn't necessarily trigger my "skeeve radar," he did seem dark and controlling. What DID trigger me was that the mom and the older kids were so obviously fake happy, fake engaged, fake interested in what they were talking about. Even the way they all used their hands to emphasize what they were saying seemed forced and fake to me. I found my response especially interesting because I NEVER got triggered by any of the Duggars. My complaint with them is with the limited options the daughters have and with how generally monotonous they are in thought and action. So, I was beginning to mistrust my own sleeve-dar. But the Willis family--it was like a loud siren blaring in my ears.

[JesusCampSongs]

5 hours ago, Blup said:

I've also a back-up of the first version of this article. It is as of now still in Google's cache. They don't claim to have the court papers and I believe they copy/pasted and introduced errors -- that is journalism these days -- from what seems to be the original source. They claim to have the Tennessee court paperwork. That restricts the victims age to 9-12 years old relative  and also that it started in 2002 (14 years ago) while the crime investigated is from 2004 (12 years ago).

My question -- I'm from Europe so your ways are sometimes confusing -- are those court papers publicly accessible?  They seem to have a lot of information. Or do they have it illegally? Either way if the paperwork is really in there possession they practically narrowed the victim to a few persons. I assume that relative is broader (cousins?) but includes family? English is not my native language and in cases like this you have to be careful at what they mean locally. It could also explain the error above.

In general, yes, court papers are a matter of public record. However, judges have the ability to seal certain types of records and suppress information, particularly when it comes to crimes against minors and/or sex crimes, in order to protect the anonymity and privacy of the victim(s). This can happen at just about any point in the investigation or trial, so information that may have been okay to put in a press release last week could be placed under a gag order or sealed altogether this week. 

Sadly, the American press has a nasty tendency to do whatever they can to identify the victims of sexual violence and tear them and their stories apart, ostensibly to "show both sides," but they're really just after ratings. Given how (relatively) high-profile this family is, I imagine the judges and attorneys involved will need to be very proactive to prevent identifying information from being leaked. 

[MorningMist]

I'm following this topic and whenever I log on and get post notifications for it, I get so nervous that things have gotten much worse...

[Tiny Bubbles]

40 minutes ago, MorningMist said:

I'm following this topic and whenever I log on and get post notifications for it, I get so nervous that things have gotten much worse...

I'm the same! I don't know what a best-case scenario would look like here, but I'm hoping for it anyway.  

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, JesusCampSongs said:

Sadly, the American press has a nasty tendency to do whatever they can to identify the victims of sexual violence and tear them and their stories apart, ostensibly to "show both sides," but they're really just after ratings. Given how (relatively) high-profile this family is, I imagine the judges and attorneys involved will need to be very proactive to prevent identifying information from being leaked. 

Court records, warrants, police reports, 911 calls, extradition records etc will all be public record.  We need to be VERY cautious, though, because journalists are shockingly lazy and dont bother to do actual legal research.  Its VERY common for a reporter to see a warrant, which may or may not have the right code section on it, and report on it without any corroboration.  We are assuming a lot of facts based on whats out there in the media, and when the indictment is filed it may be something completely different.  When you're dealing with multiple jurisdictions things get easily confused.

If he's back in TN I'd expect a court appearance sometime this week so info should start trickling out.

[Blup]

1 hour ago, Buzzard said:

If he's back in TN I'd expect a court appearance sometime this week so info should start trickling out.

He is already back. But even yesterday I saw news articles still claiming he was in Greensville. As said in an earlier post journalism today is copy/paste and introducing errors in the process. There are a few exceptions but those articles are overwhelmed with the copy/paste ones. That's why it is important to correct all errors with pointers to good sources. This article is an example of not knowing that he is already moved, but has information about the show after there fathers arrest earlier that day.

His first court appearance in Tennessee is September 20 according to this source. They claim to have court paperwork from Tennessee. That was the reason I was asking if this is public information so we can check facts from fiction. Another source says that the first court appearance is a day later. Again conflicting information and I don't know how to check court information in the USA.

[Buzzard]

3 hours ago, Blup said:

His first court appearance in Tennessee is September 20 according to this source. They claim to have court paperwork from Tennessee. That was the reason I was asking if this is public information so we can check facts from fiction. Another source says that the first court appearance is a day later. Again conflicting information and I don't know how to check court information in the USA.

Court information will be public, to the extent that it is filed.   Generally a person must be brought before a magistrate within 72 hours of arrest to determine if the paperwork to hold them is in order (probable cause to arrest) or they are automatically entitled to a bond.  He may actually have several dates for that reason - one to determine the extradition paperwork and another to hear bond related matters.

I wouldnt expect to see any real documents until after there is an indictment.  Someone may have some paperwork, but its likely a warrant with little info or extradition/bond paperwork.

I expect that he will be denied bond and held subject to a preliminary hearing.

[justwatching]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 10:51 AM, Snarkle Motion said:

I agree that TLC most likely could not have unearthed this with a background check but the fact that this is like their fourth instance of child sex abuse says something. Like maybe you shouldn't have kids on reality shows or you need extra protections/resources for these kids. And that anyone willing to exploit their children for fame and money likely already has some major problems. 

This is it for me.  I get so frustrated when people sell their dignity for the sake of attention/fame, society fuels it, and then everyone is devastated when it turns sour.  People worshiping people will never end well.

[Blup]

9 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I wouldnt expect to see any real documents until after there is an indictment.  Someone may have some paperwork, but its likely a warrant with little info or extradition/bond paperwork.

The arrest warant is published and doesn't contain much information. The arresting officer claims that he -- I presume Bill is he -- doesn't know anything about the case. The other source claims to have Tennessee court paperwork. I can't believe that they would make all those details up. It seems a reliable source. Are details about age victim and if it is a relative be part of extradition/bond paperwork?

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, Blup said:

The arrest warant is published and doesn't contain much information. The arresting officer claims that he -- I presume Bill is he -- doesn't know anything about the case. The other source claims to have Tennessee court paperwork. I can't believe that they would make all those details up. It seems a reliable source. Are details about age victim and if it is a relative be part of extradition/bond paperwork?

From my quick look, the arrest warrant in the first source was for a "fugitive from justice" fleeing Tennessee.  The arresting officer in Kentucky picked Toby Willis up on that charge and wouldn't know, or need to know,  the details of the specific charges in TN.  

The second source (ABC is a major "reputable" news network) has some paperwork related to asking for info from anyone who picked Toby Willis when her was hitchhiking out of TN to KY.  They mention the overall charges, that is all.

Toby Willis waived extradition procedures and agreed to be returned to TN to face the charges there.  He is awaiting a hearing.

As @Buzzard says, court records are public record, but court filings are not always that informative to the general public.  The meat of the case will be in the indictment.  Chances are that the victim will not be publicly identified (unless he/she wants to go public) but speculation will be rife in the press.  Disgustingly so.  It is very hard to keep the identity of victims of abuse completely confidential - although they should be kept private, in my opinion.

Gentle reminder:  We don't allow speculation about the identify of victim(s) on FJ.  

[Buzzard]

I'll be very curious if this goes to a preliminary hearing.  If he has half a brain he will waive that because the media will be all over it, but defendants dont always use the correct half of their brains.

They will be unable to keep the victim's name out of the public - media interest is not grounds to seal an indictment.  Its going to have to be something SIGNIFICANT beyond that.  I do not expect the DA to file discovery in a manner that we can get our hands on.  If it were my case, I'd file a certificate of service and hand it to the defense.  Its the least I can do to protect my victim.

So, in the end, we will likely get a name from the indictment in 90 days or so but reports and actual facts will come from hearings, which will be open to the public.  This is assuming, of course, that they have enough to indict.  Its very possible the they were not ready to arrest and his little thumb action forced their hands.

[DaisyD]

7 hours ago, realist51 said:

Ha, ha, I have a rule of thumb about couples that I call, ironically, the BABE rule. It is that, when a couple starts calling each other BABE, the relationship will be over within the year. It has never failed.

Mr. D and I have been calling each other babe for over 15 years. However, we barely even communicate on fb, except to tag each other on stuff. If we have something to say to each other, we just say it to each other...

[refugee]

On 9/17/2016 at 6:42 AM, livinginthelight said:

Second scenario, similar to the first: He was being interviewed by the police and decided to risk everything in an attempt to "get the story straight" with the family, in case any of them were asked to testify.

I know it's pure speculation, but this scenario makes sense to me.

[Fascinated]

@Buzzard, can a judge order that the victim's name be withheld from public record?  Does the age of a victim come to bear at all in such matters?

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, Fascinated said:

@Buzzard, can a judge order that the victim's name be withheld from public record?  Does the age of a victim come to bear at all in such matters?

I dont know TN law, but generally no.  The right of the public to have access to the courts and hold the courts accountable generally trumps the rights of the victim.  The State can try but its highly unlikely.  I would expect any such attempt to be met by motions from "media" demanding access to the records.  The defendant himself has a right to a PUBLIC trial.  No one really seems to care about the victim's rights.

I'm going to slink off into my corner and mumble about why juvenile defendants are treated with more respect than juvenile victims of crimes...

[Four is Enough]

Juvenile cases are kept from the press, unless the juvenile is charged as an adult.

A case as sensitive as this might be held in a closed courtroom. I once had to testify in a similar case, and only the accused, the accused's family, and the attorneys were there. I believe the victim's family was there, but the victim's name was never read out in open court. NO other people or spectators unrelated to that case were permitted in the courtroom, as in, if your name wasn't on the State's List, you couldn't stay.

AFA the "Babe" rule: talk about skeeved out. It's not for me. I once had a boyfriend who called me "babe". He didn't last. Whenever we argued, (daily, We were teenagers after all) he'd say "but babe" until my sister and her friends just started callign him "But Babe"... instead of his name.

[Palimpsest]

28 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I'm going to slink off into my corner and mumble about why juvenile defendants are treated with more respect than juvenile victims of crimes...

Don't mumble.  RAGE!

 

[Fascinated]

A 'babe' story:

We were in Vegas a couple of years ago and Mr. F was playing blackjack. A guy at his table was doing really well and winning many hands. That is, until his 'babe' showed up.  I guess the appropriate term for her would be 'a cooler'. The poor guy's luck changed at the moment of her arrival. His comments were priceless.

'Babe, you're fucking up my mojo!'

'Jesus, babe!'

'What the fuck, babe?'  

And, finally, in desperation, as his dreams of wealth and home ownership began to fade,

'Fuck off, babe.'

[Whipple]

There are enough cases now of abuse (Kayhate + 8, Duggars, Roloffs, and now Willis) to warrant investigation as to how pimping out your kids are part of circus freak show and putting them on TV or other media is damaging and that  the people narcissistic  enough to do this  warrant a closer look. I think that if a family wants to put their kids on TV, they cannot make over XX amount of dollars per year. Surpassing that amount, a court-appointed surrogate should be involved to represent the minor child's best interests in light of their social-emotional, financial, and academic needs. And it should be the law of the land across 50 states. Children are not chattel.

This era will go down in history as the time period in which children were exploited to no end in the name of fame. I know that people love the Little Couple but I am not even on board with that to be honest. 

[SilverBeach]

I am a Little Couple leghumper. I have indeed learned so much from their wonderful show. Remember, they had a show before the children came, and the children have never been the sole focus of the show.

Unfortunately, exploitation of children has been a long standing practice in the entertainment industry

 

[StepMonsterInLA]

47 minutes ago, Whipple said:

There are enough cases now of abuse (Kayhate + 8, Duggars, Roloffs, and now Willis)...

When were Kate/Jon and Matt/Amy convicted of abuse?  

I watched both shows and read People magazine. I do not recall. 

I wouldn't go out of my way to defend either family/show, but as a falsely accused parent, complaint does not prove to abuse.

Further, I would not like to have my worst parenting moments recorded. As, I expect, y'all would agree. But then again I am not on TV. 

[Nikedagain?]

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

Juvenile cases are kept from the press, unless the juvenile is charged as an adult.

A case as sensitive as this might be held in a closed courtroom. I once had to testify in a similar case, and only the accused, the accused's family, and the attorneys were there. I believe the victim's family was there, but the victim's name was never read out in open court. NO other people or spectators unrelated to that case were permitted in the courtroom, as in, if your name wasn't on the State's List, you couldn't stay.

AFA the "Babe" rule: talk about skeeved out. It's not for me. I once had a boyfriend who called me "babe". He didn't last. Whenever we argued, (daily, We were teenagers after all) he'd say "but babe" until my sister and her friends just started callign him "But Babe"... instead of his name.

The ultimate Babes. 

(a little Michael Scott to lighten the mood?)

 

Spoiler

 

[2manyKidzzz]

2 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

I am a Little Couple leghumper. I have indeed learned so much from their wonderful show. Remember, they had a show before the children came, and the children have never been the sole focus of the show.

Unfortunately, exploitation of children has been a long standing practice in the entertainment industry

 

She in particular is amazing. 3'2" tall, a doctor, and she went through the cancer with such an amazing attitude and strength. She is an inspiration to anyone who knows about her. Amazing. Wonderful. Guess I am a leghumper here too for them. 

[MyMilkshake]

I loved watching the Little Couple! 
I also watched the show with the Hayes family in it (was it called Table For 12? ).  The family seemed normal and I thought it was a decent enough show.

 

[Front Hugging Fiend]

4 hours ago, StepMonsterInLA said:

When were Kate/Jon and Matt/Amy convicted of abuse?  

I watched both shows and read People magazine. I do not recall. 

I wouldn't go out of my way to defend either family/show, but as a falsely accused parent, complaint does not prove to abuse.

Further, I would not like to have my worst parenting moments recorded. As, I expect, y'all would agree. But then again I am not on TV. 

Kate/Jon are just problematic, Matt/Amy have fundie-ish beliefs particularly pertaining to sex before marriage, gender roles, and LGBTQIA etc. rights.