Billionaire heiress abducted during her Friday morning run in Memphis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here’s a story about the victim of the perp’s initial kidnapping back in the early 2000s

https://www.lewisthomason.com/remembering-kemper-durand-2/

Wow is right!

"Both men were tried and found guilty. At the sentencing hearing for one of the two men, a well-known lawyer appeared in the courtroom. It was Kemper. He told the judge he wanted to testify. Kemper took the stand, and testified that the man who was about to be sentenced was not the man who accosted him at gun point on that fateful evening. Yes, the man had been there and could certainly be considered an accomplice, but as Kemper saw it, the man was at the wrong place with the wrong person at the wrong time. Kemper then further described how during those hours he spent in the trunk of his car, he heard the two men talking. The man who was now about to be sentenced had pleaded with his friend to “stop the car, let this man out, give him his keys, and go!”

Forever the effective criminal defense lawyer, Kemper portrayed the man before the judge as an unwilling accomplice. He asked that the judge give him the most lenient sentence possible. The judge agreed."

Wonder if one of the "innocent accomplices" from then is the guy they arrested on this case!

https://yale1961.org/kemper-b-durand/

https://lawyers.findlaw.com/profile/view/1709216_1

No, the perpetrator of the current kidnapping served quite a bit of time but not nearly enough. Violent criminals should be kept incarcerated. This woman has paid a huge price for her kidnapper's freedom.

I’m not blaming the authorities on this one. The law and sentencing guidelines stipulate that he can get paroled after he serves 85% of his sentence if he maintains good behavior while in prison. He served his 85% and was paroled. If he posed a demonstrated danger, he would not have been paroled.

The is just a sociopath.

Then the original sentence should have been longer. He should not have been free to hurt or kill again.

He got 25 years for a kidnapping the first time around. That’s appropriate, imho. He was paroled after serving 85% of a 25 year sentence.

The law is the law.

Should have been life without parole. What in the hell do you think these monsters were going to do with the lawyer after they got his money? Same thing it sounds like they did to this woman. You can't reform demons like this. Shame on that late Ivy League lawyer for helping him get a weaker sentence.

I understand that this is a natural reaction, but it's not realistic and I don't think we give life without parole except in cases of murder. Our prisons are also ostensibly supposed to be about rehabilitation, which is presumably why the guy was paroled.

Ummm...rehabilitation and release shouldn't be the goal for violent offenders. Why should innocent victims pay the price?

Ummm...that's a lovely opinion, but that's all it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks getting irritated at the husband "letting" her run at 4am in one of the most lawless towns in the U.S. is interesting. Is it okay for your husband to go have beers for an hour after work and drive home? Is it okay for him to skydive every weekend? Or maybe take up bullriding? Of course not. You'd push back on all of that because you're his wife, he's the father of your children. Just as this "man" should have pushed back on her nutty 4am running routine. At the very least, he's clearly no southern gentleman, that's for sure.

What a fool.

Of course he should have supported her in her effort to prepare for running marathons and wear whatever she wanted to wear and then had some heart-to-heart discussions with her on what would be most reasonable for their family. Folks are inarticulately in saying that what a husband worth his salt should have done was not "allow" or "let" her run alone during those early morning hours was that he should have helped her figure out how to accommodate her desire to have long runs within their family's schedule and in a safe and prudent way. If that meant discussing hiring a baby sitter for when she got off of work or hiring a cook to prepare dinner, or hiring a baby sitter for the evening hours so that he could drive along her running route, then that is what one does to keep a loved one safe.

It’s Memphis in the summer. It’s hot as hell and even more humid. Early morning is by far the coolest time to run. “When she got off work” it would be blazing, and it barely cools down at all in the “evenings” until late at night. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, I didn't realize that the fact that my husband's tattoos make him a criminal!! Thank you DCUM for letting me know!!!

DCUM hates tattoos. Not “classy.”

It's not just the tattoos and it's not like he has just one inconspicuous tattoo. He has very sketchy sleeve tattoos, tattoos on his knee and calve, on his chest, even on his hands. And he's an admitted substance abuser. And he looks disheveled.

DP. I don’t have any tattoos. Not into them at all. But I rarely see people under the age of 35 who don’t have them these days. Like all over their bodies. In no way is this an indication of propensity for crime.

B.S. Note she has none or at least none visible. I assure you there were plenty of eligible bachelor's at whatever country club she grew up in, private school, Baylor, Belmont, and in her church and marathon orbits who also didn't have their bodies covered in sketchy tattoos.

But clearly, she, unlike you, was not a snob and didn’t care about his tattoos, so not sure why you continue to perseverate about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, I didn't realize that the fact that my husband's tattoos make him a criminal!! Thank you DCUM for letting me know!!!

DCUM hates tattoos. Not “classy.”

It almost always teases out poor judgment, low impulse control, and risky behavior ex. drug addict.

LOL. Mmmkay, MeeMaw. “Teases out.” You’re hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman running in Memphis, no matter the time of day, should be carrying a tiny pistol with no safety. But really, you shouldn’t be running in Memphis at all. No husband worth a damn lets his wife run solo in such a God forsaken town.

Lets? If he stopped her by force, he’d be abusive. If he stopped her with words, he’d be manipulative and controlling. “And he was known to be controlling—he wouldn’t ‘let’ her exercise! Look at all the warning signs, and she still didn’t leave him…”

Marriages are full of compromising. Running in Memphis at 4am is not sane or rational. If she forced the issue, he could run with her, follow in an SUV, get her a pistol, get her a trained German Shepard to run with. They could afford a body guard to follow in an SUV. All sorts of ways for an actually loving and caring husband to avoid this tragedy.

You think someone who works FT for 50k will spend a good chunk of that on a bodyguard.

They lived in a $600k+ house and drove at least one $100k new SUV. They had access to far more money than her $50k teaching income and whatever the sketchy husband made at some ATV dealership. But I wouldn’t expect her to handle something involving the university. I would expect a caring husband to ask the in-laws to handle it.

LOL is a 600k house supposed to be expensive? My home is 3.5 million and I an no heiress.

Do…do you not understand what “housing markets” are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this remind anyone else of the movie Fargo? Down to the nitwit husband being an unscrupulous salesman. If the billionaire in-laws thought he was worth a damn he wouldn’t be wasting his working prime at boat dealership. They’d groom him for corporate life, like the Woody Allen movie Match Point.

What are you talking about? The granddaughter was not involved in the business. So why would her husband be given a job? You have to stop watching so much tv. It’s a hardware business that is family owned. The business had 3 billion in revenues. Operating margin at Home Depot are 15%. The grandfather co-ran the business with other people. This means there are other family members, the business is not liquid and the grandfather is not a billionaire. He may be worth a few million. She is not an heiress.

I’m just bumping this smart post about the money angle.

It’s actually pretty inaccurate. If someone has 50% of a business w/ those revs and the small amount of debt it has, they are not worth just a few million unless they have been giving away millions annually and not investing anything.

+1. Wildly inaccurate. $3bn revenue plus exponential growth makes the company worth tens of billions of dollars. They are bonafide billionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, I didn't realize that the fact that my husband's tattoos make him a criminal!! Thank you DCUM for letting me know!!!

DCUM hates tattoos. Not “classy.”

It's not just the tattoos and it's not like he has just one inconspicuous tattoo. He has very sketchy sleeve tattoos, tattoos on his knee and calve, on his chest, even on his hands. And he's an admitted substance abuser. And he looks disheveled.

DP. I don’t have any tattoos. Not into them at all. But I rarely see people under the age of 35 who don’t have them these days. Like all over their bodies. In no way is this an indication of propensity for crime.

B.S. Note she has none or at least none visible. I assure you there were plenty of eligible bachelor's at whatever country club she grew up in, private school, Baylor, Belmont, and in her church and marathon orbits who also didn't have their bodies covered in sketchy tattoos.

But clearly, she, unlike you, was not a snob and didn’t care about his tattoos, so not sure why you continue to perseverate about it.

Yes, she clearly had poor judgment. Maybe she should have. Because a husband with a spec of class and IQ wouldn’t let his wife run around that hellish town at 4AM.

“There have been at least 100 incidents classified as kidnapping in Memphis this year, according to public safety data posted on the city's website."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Within Tennessee, more than 100% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Memphis. In fact, after researching dangerous places to live, NeighborhoodScout found Memphis to be one of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S.A.

My oldest son works in logistics and they advise truckers not to stop in Memphis. It’s THAT bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, I didn't realize that the fact that my husband's tattoos make him a criminal!! Thank you DCUM for letting me know!!!

DCUM hates tattoos. Not “classy.”

It's not just the tattoos and it's not like he has just one inconspicuous tattoo. He has very sketchy sleeve tattoos, tattoos on his knee and calve, on his chest, even on his hands. And he's an admitted substance abuser. And he looks disheveled.

DP. I don’t have any tattoos. Not into them at all. But I rarely see people under the age of 35 who don’t have them these days. Like all over their bodies. In no way is this an indication of propensity for crime.

B.S. Note she has none or at least none visible. I assure you there were plenty of eligible bachelor's at whatever country club she grew up in, private school, Baylor, Belmont, and in her church and marathon orbits who also didn't have their bodies covered in sketchy tattoos.

But clearly, she, unlike you, was not a snob and didn’t care about his tattoos, so not sure why you continue to perseverate about it.

Yes, she clearly had poor judgment. Maybe she should have. Because a husband with a spec of class and IQ wouldn’t let his wife run around that hellish town at 4AM.

“There have been at least 100 incidents classified as kidnapping in Memphis this year, according to public safety data posted on the city's website."

maybe she should have cared*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks getting irritated at the husband "letting" her run at 4am in one of the most lawless towns in the U.S. is interesting. Is it okay for your husband to go have beers for an hour after work and drive home? Is it okay for him to skydive every weekend? Or maybe take up bullriding? Of course not. You'd push back on all of that because you're his wife, he's the father of your children. Just as this "man" should have pushed back on her nutty 4am running routine. At the very least, he's clearly no southern gentleman, that's for sure.

What a fool.

Of course he should have supported her in her effort to prepare for running marathons and wear whatever she wanted to wear and then had some heart-to-heart discussions with her on what would be most reasonable for their family. Folks are inarticulately in saying that what a husband worth his salt should have done was not "allow" or "let" her run alone during those early morning hours was that he should have helped her figure out how to accommodate her desire to have long runs within their family's schedule and in a safe and prudent way. If that meant discussing hiring a baby sitter for when she got off of work or hiring a cook to prepare dinner, or hiring a baby sitter for the evening hours so that he could drive along her running route, then that is what one does to keep a loved one safe.

It’s Memphis in the summer. It’s hot as hell and even more humid. Early morning is by far the coolest time to run. “When she got off work” it would be blazing, and it barely cools down at all in the “evenings” until late at night. Just stop.

If only she could afford a treadmill or an athletic club membership with an indoor track. You’re right, she HAD to run around by herself at 4am in the most dangerous and unpredictable town in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weird to work at a preschool and have a nanny for your own kids. Like why avoid spending time with your own kids.

God, you are such terrible people. Unreal.

[Anonymous]

TIL I’m supposed to chain my wife inside to keep her from going on her pre-dawn runs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, I didn't realize that the fact that my husband's tattoos make him a criminal!! Thank you DCUM for letting me know!!!

DCUM hates tattoos. Not “classy.”

It's not just the tattoos and it's not like he has just one inconspicuous tattoo. He has very sketchy sleeve tattoos, tattoos on his knee and calve, on his chest, even on his hands. And he's an admitted substance abuser. And he looks disheveled.

DP. I don’t have any tattoos. Not into them at all. But I rarely see people under the age of 35 who don’t have them these days. Like all over their bodies. In no way is this an indication of propensity for crime.

B.S. Note she has none or at least none visible. I assure you there were plenty of eligible bachelor's at whatever country club she grew up in, private school, Baylor, Belmont, and in her church and marathon orbits who also didn't have their bodies covered in sketchy tattoos.

You all are nuts today. Maybe her husband did it, maybe he didn’t. His tattoos have nothing to do with it - how about skin color, would be having this conversation about him if he was black? Judging him for that?

You're right, they don't suggest he's low class. And letting his solo pretty young wife and mother to two young children jog around a dangerous drug-infested hellhole at 4am also does not suggest he's low class. Whatever you say.

LETTING his wife go running? So from your POV, he should have control over when she goes running?!

It’s like the other posters up thread saying her rich family shouldn’t have “allowed” her to marry him. WT actual F?!

Does a wife let a mid-life crisis husband buy a two door sports car or quit his career to become a UFC fighter? Same difference.

It’s not even remotely the “same difference.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, I didn't realize that the fact that my husband's tattoos make him a criminal!! Thank you DCUM for letting me know!!!

DCUM hates tattoos. Not “classy.”

It's not just the tattoos and it's not like he has just one inconspicuous tattoo. He has very sketchy sleeve tattoos, tattoos on his knee and calve, on his chest, even on his hands. And he's an admitted substance abuser. And he looks disheveled.

DP. I don’t have any tattoos. Not into them at all. But I rarely see people under the age of 35 who don’t have them these days. Like all over their bodies. In no way is this an indication of propensity for crime.

B.S. Note she has none or at least none visible. I assure you there were plenty of eligible bachelor's at whatever country club she grew up in, private school, Baylor, Belmont, and in her church and marathon orbits who also didn't have their bodies covered in sketchy tattoos.

But clearly, she, unlike you, was not a snob and didn’t care about his tattoos, so not sure why you continue to perseverate about it.

Yes, she clearly had poor judgment. Maybe she should have. Because a husband with a spec of class and IQ wouldn’t let his wife run around that hellish town at 4AM.

“There have been at least 100 incidents classified as kidnapping in Memphis this year, according to public safety data posted on the city's website."

Yet we are only reading about this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is going on? Sounds like a nasty POS criminal is responsible for this. Does it matter if the husband had tattoos, was or wasn’t employed, or even was or wasn’t an addict. Seems he had nothing to do with this so let’s not tear apart the poor man dealing with an awful situation.

Watch this 60 clip with the sound off.

What is the inference regarding his body language? Yes, he touches his face 6 or 7 times in 60 seconds. Does that infer a guilty conscience or just that he might be on drugs?

I’m not saying he did it (have no idea), but in forensic psychology terms, it’s often an indicator of guilt.