Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Aren't professionals evaluating her? She can't "run out the clock" -- she's not in charge. I seriously doubt anyone could pretend to be so ill they convince a professional they are not competent to stand trial when they are actually normal. I'm sure the people evaluating her know what to look for.

There are many shades of gray between clinically insane and unable to stand trial and normal.

My point is, I'm sure whoever is evaluating her knows what they are doing.

Lol. So naive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Clearly you do not live in reality.


Yes, she killed them. Yes, the rest of the family all the "adults" failed those kids. She had no business being alone with them none. Grandpa knew that and he let her take the little girl. Then no one checks on that story?? Where was dad? He knew she was unfit.

Where is the evidence? So far the evidence has been, she's unfit. She was left alone with them. She took them out one by one. She took them out youngest to oldest. Dad came home and didn't check the beds. Etc.

Who knows what she did. Where is the evidence that she killed them?

There is evidence. It has not been disclosed to the public. Not sure why you keep defending her when you know nothing about the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Clearly you do not live in reality.


Yes, she killed them. Yes, the rest of the family all the "adults" failed those kids. She had no business being alone with them none. Grandpa knew that and he let her take the little girl. Then no one checks on that story?? Where was dad? He knew she was unfit.

Where is the evidence? So far the evidence has been, she's unfit. She was left alone with them. She took them out one by one. She took them out youngest to oldest. Dad came home and didn't check the beds. Etc.

Who knows what she did. Where is the evidence that she killed them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Clearly you do not live in reality.


Yes, she killed them. Yes, the rest of the family all the "adults" failed those kids. She had no business being alone with them none. Grandpa knew that and he let her take the little girl. Then no one checks on that story?? Where was dad? He knew she was unfit.

Where is the evidence? So far the evidence has been, she's unfit. She was left alone with them. She took them out one by one. She took them out youngest to oldest. Dad came home and didn't check the beds. Etc.

Who knows what she did. Where is the evidence that she killed them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Clearly you do not live in reality.


Yes, she killed them. Yes, the rest of the family all the "adults" failed those kids. She had no business being alone with them none. Grandpa knew that and he let her take the little girl. Then no one checks on that story?? Where was dad? He knew she was unfit.

Where is the evidence? So far the evidence has been, she's unfit. She was left alone with them. She took them out one by one. She took them out youngest to oldest. Dad came home and didn't check the beds. Etc.

Who knows what she did. Where is the evidence that she killed them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Human trafficking ?

No.

She dumped them in Darnestown, Poolesville, or Frederick County. Or even under her own house. It's not like her parents were not complicet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Clearly you do not live in reality.


Yes, she killed them. Yes, the rest of the family all the "adults" failed those kids. She had no business being alone with them none. Grandpa knew that and he let her take the little girl. Then no one checks on that story?? Where was dad? He knew she was unfit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what evidence there is that she killed them? I can' think of a few other scenarios. Why assume the worst? What **actual** evidence is there?

Correction to the other post.

She was ordered to never be alone with the children. Her father let he be alone with them. He should be charged.

She killed them each in a separate events hours apart and dumped them in dumpsters. Their bodies will essentially never be found in the dump. She admitted the murder to a coworker but can’t be proved.

She’s intelligent. If she is competent to stand trial she will be found guilty. If she continues to pretend to be incompetent to stand trial she will remain in a mental facility.

She will remain in a mental facility.

Supposedly he dropped her and the kids off with her mother that afternoon before he went to work.

No. Wrong.

I saw him state that in an interview.

PP, what makes you think he's lying. And pretty sure even if he did leave her alone that's not illegal. If she was perceived as a danger to herself or others, she would have been placed on a psych hold not allowed some loose-goosey "care plan" right?

He’s lying.

She was under court order supervision by her family. The h had to work and the father watched her during the day. He is a loon and left her alone with the kids.

Catherine's father left her alone?

Yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, there is no evidence she killed those kids. None.

Really? Why couldn't she account for their whereabouts then? Why did she change her story a dozen times?

She's ill? Anyway, that's not evidence that she killed them. She could have left them somewhere. She could have given them away. I don't understand why they have spent all these years trying to get her to be on trial for murder when there is no evidence at all that she killed them.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone link to a comprehensive timeline with facts? Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what evidence there is that she killed them? I can' think of a few other scenarios. Why assume the worst? What **actual** evidence is there?

Correction to the other post.

She was ordered to never be alone with the children. Her father let he be alone with them. He should be charged.

She killed them each in a separate events hours apart and dumped them in dumpsters. Their bodies will essentially never be found in the dump. She admitted the murder to a coworker but can’t be proved.

She’s intelligent. If she is competent to stand trial she will be found guilty. If she continues to pretend to be incompetent to stand trial she will remain in a mental facility.

She will remain in a mental facility.

Supposedly he dropped her and the kids off with her mother that afternoon before he went to work.

No. Wrong.

I saw him state that in an interview.

PP, what makes you think he's lying. And pretty sure even if he did leave her alone that's not illegal. If she was perceived as a danger to herself or others, she would have been placed on a psych hold not allowed some loose-goosey "care plan" right?

He’s lying.

She was under court order supervision by her family. The h had to work and the father watched her during the day. He is a loon and left her alone with the kids.

Catherine's father left her alone?

The story's a little convoluted but sounds like the family did the best they could in a horrible situation. Catherine and the kids often stayed at her mother's house while the husband Troy worked. The mother wasn't home that day but Catherine's father (the ex) had agreed to come over to stay with them. Catherine said she was going to get pizza and Jacob wanted to go. They left, she came back without Jacob claiming he was at a sleepover with a friend. Everyone went to bed. The next morning the father left early, Catherine disappeared with the daughter, and the husband then realized the three were missing. More details here:

https://www.cnhinews.com/news/article_8abe57a6-69aa-11e4-9e0c-2bc85ebd6450.html

Catherine’s father let her take the son alone. She killed him and dumped his body.

They thought she was doing better. It's very sad.

No they didn’t. The father broke the law.

There is absolutely no mention of any custody agreement - there is nothing legal about it. She was married to her husband and they were all taking care of the kids. She was receiving treatment in an outpatient program. The family had gotten her a psychiatric eval and inpatient treatment but she was discharged quickly. This is how it works. There is little you can do. So they developed a plan as a family even though she was doing better, to try to provide as much supervision as possible and have another adult there. This is complex and it isn’t on the father. Don’t be cruel. Have you had a family member with severe and persistent mental illness? It’s truly one of the worst uphill battles.

It's a bit more complex than that.

Troy, the children's father and Catherine's former partner, was separated from Catherine but they were living together. They never married but had been together off and on for a long time.

The whole family knew Catherine's mental health was a significant danger. But, as many have mentioned here, it's extremely challenging to navigate. If you all are referring to Catherine's father being at fault, that's another matter. I think both of her parents displayed horrible decision making skills that day. They're both at least partially at fault, in my opinion. And I don't believe her mental health exists in a vacuum. I believe her parents are both despicable and created the monster that is Catherine.

May those babies RIP.

The mother wasn’t even there that day. It’s all in the dad.

She fooled him, and he believed she could safely run a short errand. But did he explain why he drove to PA the next day?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish the MD legislature would hop to and eliminate the 5-year-lapse rule in the case of capital crimes. The kids' father thinks she's canny and deliberately waiting out the clock.

Aren't professionals evaluating her? She can't "run out the clock" -- she's not in charge. I seriously doubt anyone could pretend to be so ill they convince a professional they are not competent to stand trial when they are actually normal. I'm sure the people evaluating her know what to look for.

There are many shades of gray between clinically insane and unable to stand trial and normal.

My point is, I'm sure whoever is evaluating her knows what they are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain what evidence there is that she killed them? I can' think of a few other scenarios. Why assume the worst? What **actual** evidence is there?

Correction to the other post.

She was ordered to never be alone with the children. Her father let he be alone with them. He should be charged.

She killed them each in a separate events hours apart and dumped them in dumpsters. Their bodies will essentially never be found in the dump. She admitted the murder to a coworker but can’t be proved.

She’s intelligent. If she is competent to stand trial she will be found guilty. If she continues to pretend to be incompetent to stand trial she will remain in a mental facility.

She will remain in a mental facility.

Supposedly he dropped her and the kids off with her mother that afternoon before he went to work.

No. Wrong.

I saw him state that in an interview.

PP, what makes you think he's lying. And pretty sure even if he did leave her alone that's not illegal. If she was perceived as a danger to herself or others, she would have been placed on a psych hold not allowed some loose-goosey "care plan" right?

He’s lying.

She was under court order supervision by her family. The h had to work and the father watched her during the day. He is a loon and left her alone with the kids.

Catherine's father left her alone?

The story's a little convoluted but sounds like the family did the best they could in a horrible situation. Catherine and the kids often stayed at her mother's house while the husband Troy worked. The mother wasn't home that day but Catherine's father (the ex) had agreed to come over to stay with them. Catherine said she was going to get pizza and Jacob wanted to go. They left, she came back without Jacob claiming he was at a sleepover with a friend. Everyone went to bed. The next morning the father left early, Catherine disappeared with the daughter, and the husband then realized the three were missing. More details here:

https://www.cnhinews.com/news/article_8abe57a6-69aa-11e4-9e0c-2bc85ebd6450.html

Catherine’s father let her take the son alone. She killed him and dumped his body.

They thought she was doing better. It's very sad.

No they didn’t. The father broke the law.

There is absolutely no mention of any custody agreement - there is nothing legal about it. She was married to her husband and they were all taking care of the kids. She was receiving treatment in an outpatient program. The family had gotten her a psychiatric eval and inpatient treatment but she was discharged quickly. This is how it works. There is little you can do. So they developed a plan as a family even though she was doing better, to try to provide as much supervision as possible and have another adult there. This is complex and it isn’t on the father. Don’t be cruel. Have you had a family member with severe and persistent mental illness? It’s truly one of the worst uphill battles.

It's a bit more complex than that.

Troy, the children's father and Catherine's former partner, was separated from Catherine but they were living together. They never married but had been together off and on for a long time.

The whole family knew Catherine's mental health was a significant danger. But, as many have mentioned here, it's extremely challenging to navigate. If you all are referring to Catherine's father being at fault, that's another matter. I think both of her parents displayed horrible decision making skills that day. They're both at least partially at fault, in my opinion. And I don't believe her mental health exists in a vacuum. I believe her parents are both despicable and created the monster that is Catherine.

May those babies RIP.

The mother wasn’t even there that day. It’s all in the dad.