S'Morton Alan Smith charged with incest, rape, child molestation

[fundiefan]

2 hours ago, JMO said:

I'm wondering about the low amount of money asked for. I'm guessing they want enough to get through the next couple of months until they can sell the house? Someone posted on here that they have 2 and one is for sale. I'm betting she ends up taking over her parents' house and selling they two they owned.  She'd be near her brothers and their families and could live for a while off of the money from the houses. 

This two house thing has been confusing me. I know Capt'n Bret & Jacqueline have two houses, but Alan & Katie do too?  Making 4 houses among them?

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, Newtothis said:

Right, but I know someone that is close friends with the Lanes and they're a perfectly normal family. Yes, they were friends with the Smiths(and have basically cut ties with the main smith family) and oldest married one, but they're not like them at all

 

1 hour ago, Newtothis said:

Yes, but I'll also say. The father doesn't speak for the whole family. His daughters are quite independent, two are married and doing really well. Not fundie at all. All I'm saying is that y'all don't know all of the facts and could be assuming that they don't change.  

 

1 hour ago, Newtothis said:

No money is going for Alan's defense, he's in jail because they want him in there and he needs to be. (informed info)

 

22 minutes ago, Newtothis said:

I'm just going to say that y'all should give the Morton family a little more respect. They're doing what is right. 

Aren't their facebooks private? 

It is always difficult when someone suddenly pops up in a thread claiming vague insider knowledge and telling us we should be more respectful.   With the best will in the world, I'm sorry but we have no reason to believe or trust you.  We also have no basis to assume quickly that these families will do what is "right."

My views of what is right have differed from the views of these specific Patriarch(s) in the past, and I haven't seen many indicators of many of the younger generation radically breaking away from that mindset of subjugating women.  

And that goes for Lanes, Smiths, and Mortons alike, although I'd love to see solid evidence of them separating themselves from the teachings of their respective Daddies.  A GoFundMe account admitting the reason for Bret Alan Smith's arrest is a mere step in the right direction but hardly indicative of change.

I certainly hope that they are doing what is right.  I'm afraid that to me "what is right" here would include, but not be limited to, the Mortons and Smiths (and sundry other in-laws) to:

- cooperate fully with the authorities; 

- be honest and cooperative witnesses during the trial; 

- call out evil (sexual abuse and incest) openly and distance themselves from the (alleged) criminal's behaviors;

-  support Katie and the children (yes, I consider them all to be victims) wholeheartedly and without shaming them both emotionally and financially (as far as possible);  

- encourage Katie and the children to participate in professional counseling - Christian professional counseling exists - but not rely on some pseudo-psychological Bible-based clap trap.

- encourage Katie to take full advantage of government benefits and educational opportunities to help her support her family in the future.  In the long run she, and the children, can't depend on family and church members to support them fully; and

- take a long hard look at the beliefs and teachings that brought Katie and her children to this terrible situation and revise them accordingly.

[AmazonGrace]

Are the houses, however many there are, in her name? If they belong to Alan on paper, the money for the sale might be going towards his defense.

[fundiefan]

 

57 minutes ago, Newtothis said:

I'm just going to say that y'all should give the Morton family a little more respect. They're doing what is right. 

Aren't their facebooks private? 

While I respect your opinion, their online footprint for well over a decade precludes them from my respect.

I am glad to know the family is supporting Katie because that is the right thing to do and what any family should do; however, as I said, for more than a decade they have done shit and proclaimed shit, and still do shit(Papa Smurf's Morton's FB is a mine of bigoted rhetoric cloaked in their religion) - enough so that I can't really find a lot of respect for them.

Papa Smurf Morton takes pride in his daughter never having made a decision, so he went to commune with nature so god could tell him directly that she should marry Alan...even before things turned out as they have, that was some fucked up shit right there. Now, she has to make decisions about her marriage (maybe daddy should go commune with nature again and get god's directive on this, since this is god's doing, having sent a direct message to Papa Smurf Morton ten years ago; he has some explaining to do).

Katie's parents pretty much put her in exactly the position she is in; I doubt intentionally, but their views of life, marriage, wives, god, babies for jesus, etc... She would not be here if it weren't for her father. End. Of. Story.

So, don't tell me I need to give them respect. Who I do and don't respect is not up to you, it's up to me and based on my values and morals. This one act of family supporting their daughter in a hellish situation is what families should do - not a game changer. Not entirely expected from them, given their very known and public history; but we are all glad to see it. That alone does not make them worthy of respect.

Thankyouverymuch.

[AmazonGrace]

43 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

- take a long hard look at the beliefs and teachings that brought Katie and her children to this terrible situation and revise them accordingly.

Yeah it may be too early for that kind of soul  searching but it would go a long way towards doing the right thing if there was some kind of an announcement that they may have been mistaken in their belief that naive, emotionally stunted kids should marry strangers they hardly know at all as long as the price is right, and that even though God doesn't come down and tell the fathers "no don't allow marriage to this person", the bastard may still  be totally and completely fucked up,  and if you watched any of our previous videos and bought the bullshit, proceed at your own risk.  

 

If you feel like you could give a wedding speech about how your child never made any independent decisions and how she was so well sheltered throughout her life that she wasn't even able to decide whether she should say yes or not without significant mental pressure from you, this is a warning sign. It is not a cause for pride, it is not justification for bragging. Rather it is a  sign that your child is not mature enough to marry and you need to back off and let them grow. Maybe they will marry the guy you want them to, maybe they won't. But at least it will be when they're ready to do so.

Marriage should only happen between consenting adults but a youngster who is not capable of making an independent decision without daddy deciding it for her  is not a proper consenting adult. There should be some opportunity to practice decision making skills before being faced with something that huge.

[Sydney Fox]

51 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Yeah it may be too early for that kind of soul  searching but it would go a long way towards doing the right thing if there was some kind of an announcement that they may have been mistaken in their belief that naive, emotionally stunted kids should marry strangers they hardly know at all as long as the price is right, and that even though God doesn't come down and tell the fathers "no don't allow marriage to this person", the bastard may still  be totally and completely fucked up,  and if you watched any of our previous videos and bought the bullshit, proceed at your own risk.  

 

If you feel like you could give a wedding speech about how your child never made any independent decisions and how she was so well sheltered throughout her life that she wasn't even able to decide whether she should say yes or not without significant mental pressure from you, this is a warning sign. It is not a cause for pride, it is not justification for bragging. Rather it is a  sign that your child is not mature enough to marry and you need to back off and let them grow. Maybe they will marry the guy you want them to, maybe they won't. But at least it will be when they're ready to do so.

Marriage should only happen between consenting adults but a youngster who is not capable of making an independent decision without daddy deciding it for her  is not a proper consenting adult. There should be some opportunity to practice decision making skills before being faced with something that huge.

This is why I feel so badly for Katie. She never even chose the jerk and she has spent the last ten years pregnant. She's been in survival mode all this time because constantly having little babies to care for means she doesn't have time to think of anything else. I've got three kids and the youngest is six. It's only been in the last year or so that I've been able to really start thinking about what I want to do because little kids are so demanding. I can't imagine having eight little ones. 

Keeping a woman constantly pregnant is a form of abuse. It takes away any power a woman has in a relationship because it is so hard to leave a bad situation when you have small children depending on you for survival. Add to this the fact that Katie doesn't have an education or career to fall back on and it truly is abuse and control. 

[Black Aliss]

4 hours ago, JMO said:

I'm wondering about the low amount of money asked for. I'm guessing they want enough to get through the next couple of months until they can sell the house? Someone posted on here that they have 2 and one is for sale. I'm betting she ends up taking over her parents' house and selling they two they owned.  She'd be near her brothers and their families and could live for a while off of the money from the houses. 

That, and possibly Katie has no way to access any of their liquid assets, so she can't even buy groceries or pay bills. It's hard for me to imagine a capital P Patriarch like Smith having a joint checking account.

[JMO]

I'd definitely assume that none of the assets are in her name.  However, they could probably get Alan to sign them over while he is incarcerated.  

[AmazonGrace]

Can you declare yourself indigent and get a public defender if you gave your money to the family during your incarceration?

[acheronbeach]

Where I work it's based on household income.  So yeah, signing over his $$$ to his wife that he was living with when he was arrested would not work.  

[SparkleMomma]

Long time reader, first time commenter. This whole situation is just so awful. My heart is with Katie and her children and all the victims (directly or indirectly) right now. As far as Katie moving herself and her children to Paraguay, would she legally  be able to with the ongoing court case/ cps involvement? I would assume her and possibly some of her children could be testifying against Alan. I'm glad to see the GFM for her and that it's doing very well at the moment. I hope she and all her children are getting good counseling. Also does anyone know how likely CPS is to stay involved with her and the children? I hope that they are providing her with lots of resources! 

[AmazonGrace]

Of course it might be completely academic. I can't imagine that they managed to save  lots of money with so many kids and whatever assets they got would probably pay for about fifteen minutes of criminal  defense

[Lurky]

21 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Can you declare yourself indigent and get a public defender if you gave your money to the family during your incarceration?

The thing one can do to save money above all in this situation is plead guilty - that way it doesn't have to go to court, and it's so much better for the victims, as it's less publicity for them.  Of course, that relies on the accused being and knowing that they are guilty, and not trying to wiggle out of it. 

Right now investigations are still ongoing, in this and possibly other jurisdictions, and if it is going to be fought in court, I wouldn't expect to see more in-depth public statements from the family, about how they got things wrong etc, in case it could be seen as trying to interfere with investigations, and/or influencing the court case (though I'm basing things on the UK) - and of course, going against the "innocent 'til proven guilty" etc.  In the USA, does that kind of thing wait until after a guilty plea, or after sentencing? I'd expect that to happen here, from a 'normal' case like this.

 

[AmazonGrace]

One wouldn't necessarily have to address the case at all to remove certain videos that promote selling your daughters to near-strangers as the godly option and perhaps post something that says beware, don't believe all the crap you see on the internet.

[Granwych]

8 minutes ago, SparkleMomma said:

I would assume her and possibly some of her children could be testifying against Alan

Even if Katie and co weren't fundie, I don't think she could be made to testify against Alan.  I forget the legal term, something like spousal privilege.   And with being fundie, she could no more testify against the good lord Jeebus himself, nor could she even conceive of doing that. 

I feel really, really bad about everyone involved except the perp  May he get his just reward in the penitentiary.

[waspchick]

Long time reader/lurker here. The S'Mortons were my gateway fundies and I have followed them for years. I once looked up "courtship," which somehow led me to one of Cap'n Bret's videos (yikes!) and then to you good people. So hello!

I think Katie's situation is pretty grim. For one, it doesn't even look like they own a home, at least not in Moultrie, Ashburn, or Griffin. Property record searches in all three counties show no property in either of their names. The homes in Griffin (the 320 Birdie Rd. address referenced in the Moultrie Observer) and Ashburn are owned by the Cap'n and Jacqueline Smith. 

From reading the various blogs over the years, I always got the feeling that Katie and Alan were living on the edge financially and were sort of moving around from place to place and from job to job for him.

 

[AmazonGrace]

It seems to me that victims and other interests parties have more freedom to make public statements in the USA than in the UK. Occasionally the defense may ask for a change of venue if there is such excessive publicity as to make it difficult to find an impartial jury. But this does not seem one of those cases if there's still only that one news article.

5 minutes ago, Granwych said:

Even if Katie and co weren't fundie, I don't think she could be made to testify against Alan.  I forget the legal term, something like spousal privilege.   And with being fundie, she could no more testify against the good lord Jeebus himself, nor could she even conceive of doing that. 

I feel really, really bad about everyone involved except the perp  May he get his just reward in the penitentiary.

I think the spousal privilege rule may be suspended if it is a crime against a child. 

[Lurky]

1 minute ago, AmazonGrace said:

One wouldn't necessarily have to address the case at all to remove certain videos that promote selling your daughters to near-strangers as the godly option and perhaps post something that says beware, don't believe all the crap you see on the internet.

The hubris of Cap'n Smith is so strong that I'm not expecting anything other than SATAN DID IT!!! from the Captain - it's notable we've seen the fundraiser etc from the Morton side, while someone upthread said Mrs Smith closed her facebook.  But even if there was a "least awful case scenario", and this did cause the Smiths to re-think - I would still expect that to take time, and be the result of reflection.  And honestly, I'd judge them very harshly for having a social media cull, removing videos from 5-10 years ago etc,  to try to rehabilitate their image, at this awful time for the whole family, rather than focusing every energy on supporting the direct and indirect victims.

 

2 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

It seems to me that victims and other interests parties have more freedom to make public statements in the USA than in the UK. Occasionally the defense may ask for a change of venue if there is such excessive publicity as to make it difficult to find an impartial jury. But this does not seem one of those cases if there's still only that one news article.

Oh, of course people CAN make public statements at this stage over here, but it tends more to be along the lines of "He's definitely not guilty, we're being persecuted!" types who feel their relative is not guilty (Duggar style re the Danica case, eg) - otherwise it's usually things like "the family is helping the police with their enquiries" - but that would be a response, not a proactive statement.

Is it common in the USA for families to make public statements while  investigations are still ongoing? I am not an expert, so if there's  someone with proper knowledge, what's the best thing to do in a case of child abuse, where investigations might be happening in a wider community?  I know in cases of adults and sexual assault, publicity can encourage other victims to step forward, but I don't know what happens in circumstances one is wanting to interview a large number of children (apart from the parents making it clear the kids aren't in trouble, and shouldn't hide things etc)

[AmazonGrace]

2 minutes ago, Lurky said:

The hubris of Cap'n Smith is so strong that I'm not expecting anything other than SATAN DID IT!!! from the Captain - it's notable we've seen the fundraiser etc from the Morton side, while someone upthread said Mrs Smith closed her facebook.  But even if there was a "least awful case scenario", and this did cause the Smiths to re-think - I would still expect that to take time, and be the result of reflection.  And honestly, I'd judge them very harshly for having a social media cull, removing videos from 5-10 years ago etc,  to try to rehabilitate their image, at this awful time for the whole family, rather than focusing every energy on supporting the direct and indirect victims.

 

Oh, of course people CAN make public statements at this stage over here, but it tends more to be along the lines of "He's definitely not guilty, we're being persecuted!" types who feel their relative is not guilty (Duggar style re the Danica case, eg) - otherwise it's usually things like "the family is helping the police with their enquiries" - but that would be a response, not a proactive statement.

Is it common in the USA for families to make public statements while  investigations are still ongoing? I am not an expert, so if there's  someone with proper knowledge, what's the best thing to do in a case of child abuse, where investigations might be happening in a wider community?  I know in cases of adults and sexual assault, publicity can encourage other victims to step forward, but I don't know what happens in circumstances one is wanting to interview a large number of children (apart from the parents making it clear the kids aren't in trouble, and shouldn't hide things etc)

Honestly I don't necessarily expect the Captain to learn much of this either but I would see the removal of videos as a good thing. No doubt the police have already saved whichever videos they need for evidence for the trial, and removing the videos would accomplish two things: perhaps some future family who would otherwise fall for this crap would seek wiser advice somewhere else. 

And otherwise it would protect the innocent victims.  While it is very interesting to watch them  in a horrified trainwreck kind of way, I am pretty sure it might be easier for Katie and the kids if someone saved what's left of their privacy.

[acheronbeach]

Most modern countries have gotten rid of spousal privilege for crimes against their own families.  Some places, like Canada, have gotten rid of it completely.  

[AmazonGrace]

I think in child sexual abuse  cases the parent may be wiser to stay silent because the child needs his or her privacy to heal.

 

But  it would be a tad irresponsible IMO to continue to promote the same bullshit.

Of course I think it was irresponsible to begin with... Even if Alan had turned out to be Mr Wonderful. 

[Palimpsest]

29 minutes ago, SparkleMomma said:

Long time reader, first time commenter. This whole situation is just so awful. My heart is with Katie and her children and all the victims (directly or indirectly) right now. As far as Katie moving herself and her children to Paraguay, would she legally  be able to with the ongoing court case/ cps involvement? I would assume her and possibly some of her children could be testifying against Alan. I'm glad to see the GFM for her and that it's doing very well at the moment. I hope she and all her children are getting good counseling. Also does anyone know how likely CPS is to stay involved with her and the children? I hope that they are providing her with lots of resources! 

CPS (like APS, which is my area of experience) is crisis intervention only.   The goal is to get in there, investigate, substantiate, turn over to LE as needed, set up as many resources and contacts with other human services as possible, and then get out.  CPS is overwhelmed with new cases pretty much everywhere and budget cuts don't help.   

The time CPS is actively involved depends on the jurisdiction, and on the complexity of the case (sometimes extensions are necessary) but around here that is usually within 6 months =/-.  Then you have the revolving door cases where people fail to comply or use all the resources made available - and the case comes back with new reports of abuse.  That happens depressingly often with some families.

17 minutes ago, Granwych said:

Even if Katie and co weren't fundie, I don't think she could be made to testify against Alan.  I forget the legal term, something like spousal privilege.   And with being fundie, she could no more testify against the good lord Jeebus himself, nor could she even conceive of doing that. 

I feel really, really bad about everyone involved except the perp  May he get his just reward in the penitentiary.

What @acheronbeach said, but spousal privilege means that you can't be forced to testify against your will against your spouse.  You absolutely can testify voluntarily and people do.  How on earth otherwise can spousal abuse be prosecuted?

2 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

I think in child sexual abuse  cases the parent may be wiser to stay silent because the child needs his or her privacy to heal.

 

Unfortunately the child's evidence (if the child is of an age to provide it) is needed in these cases and any witnesses, which may well include the spouse's evidence.  Luckily, courts are a lot more understanding of the dynamics and trauma of these cases these days.  Most judges will allow video testimony of child victims and victims of domestic abuse do not have to face the perpetrator in court.

I also hope Kate and the family have good victims advocates available to them.

[AmazonGrace]

Yeah I was talking about the parent giving statements in the press. Hopefully everyone is well enough to give relevant testimony in court and the child's identity is properly protected when the trial, if any, is reported. Sometimes I've seen news stories in which the child wasn't identified but everyone who knows them could probably work it out.

The jury needs to know all, the public doesn't

[Palimpsest]

2 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Yeah I was talking about the parent giving statements in the press. Hopefully everyone is well enough to give relevant testimony in court and the child's identity is properly protected when the trial, if any, is reported. Sometimes I've seen news stories in which the child wasn't identified but everyone who knows them could probably work it out.

The jury needs to know all, the public doesn't

Ah, got you!  Sorry.  Yes, the laws in the US are nothing like the laws in the UK about what people can say publicly in criminal cases.  I sort of waiver on what is better being UK born.  Here in the US people are often tried in the court of public opinion prior to cases going to trial.  It sometimes means that, even will a change of venue, it is very hard to find decent intelligent jurors who can honestly claim not to have been prejudiced by news coverage.  Cases in point, the Casey Anthony jurors and OJ jurors were complete dumb-fucks who lived under rocks.  (My opinion only, of course!)

[AmazonGrace]

12 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Ah, got you!  Sorry.  Yes, the laws in the US are nothing like the laws in the UK about what people can say publicly in criminal cases.  I sort of waiver on what is better being UK born.  Here in the US people are often tried in the court of public opinion prior to cases going to trial.  It sometimes means that, even will a change of venue, it is very hard to find decent intelligent jurors who can honestly claim not to have been prejudiced by news coverage.  Cases in point, the Casey Anthony jurors and OJ jurors were complete dumb-fucks who lived under rocks.  (My opinion only, of course!)

Yeah... if it is a very prominent case that is everywhere for months or more and impossible to avoid the jurors who can say they didn't hear anything about it would probably tend on the uninformed and proud of it side in other respects too...