Thursday, November 29, 2012

The Truth vs. Presley's Reality, Two Bitter Foes by O Reader

Ok, so it annoys me when these little facebook dumbasses completely misuse statistics. Somebody actually called Presley out on her stats, but rather than back the stats up, she and her gang resorted to calling the guy an abuser. First of all, the stats weren’t just wrong based on the data, they were glaringly wrong on the surface. She reported 4.8% when the real number was 48%. She also concluded that there were approximately 7 false claims of abuse out of 9000. The 9000 number simply referred to the number of divorce cases in the study. The 7 “false” claims of abuse were actually out of 180 abuse claims. These are just the superficial problems wrong with her calculations. They are actually even more misrepresented.
I wanted to see if there was any validity to what she reported, and see if there was any source for the numbers. BINGO. Yes, there is an actual study that she is bastardising the numbers of:
Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 151-163.

It’s not the newest study, but it’s still one of the most widely sourced.   Thoennes & Tjaden are well respected in their field and have even presented data on abuse against women for the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and the CDC. And just as a side note, Thoennes & Tjaden are both women. So are you wondering just how wrong Presley got the numbers? Let me give you a brief summary of the numbers applicable to Presley’s assertions.

1.Presley : “A study commissioned by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts of 9000 divorces in 12 states found that sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2% or 180 of the cases.”

Reality: Thoennes & Tjaden actually worked for the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Research Unit in Denver. Funding was actually provided by the National Center on Child Abuse & Neglect.  9000 divorces. 12 jurisdictions. Allegations made in 169 cases, 1.9%.  In this case Presley’s source rounded the numbers when the actual numbers look better in her favor.

2.Presley: “4.8% or 86 of those cases contained allegations that were made by mothers, which means the majority were made by fathers.”

Reality: Mothers accused biological fathers in 48% of the cases
Mothers accused stepfathers in 6% of the cases
Mothers accused a third party in 13% of the cases
Fathers accused mothers in 6% of the cases
Fathers accused stepfathers or a third party in 16% of the cases
Third parties accused fathers, mothers, and others in 11%
The majority were made by fathers??? No, quite the contrary. Try 67% made by the mothers.

3.Presley: “ And 5-8% of those turned out to be intentionally false. “

Reality: 129 of the 169 cases were actually addressed by the courts. (one would assume the remaining 40 were deemed not credible enough to warrant investigation) Of those 129, 50% of cases were likely, 33% were unlikely, and 17% were uncertain. They also attempted to discern the motivation for unlikely reports and found 58 cases in which the case material addressed that issue. In 8 cases (14% of those 58), the allegations were thought to be maliciously made. Factors associated with cases being classified as unlikely or uncertain were younger age of the child, a single incident alleged, non-intrusive sexual behavior, a single report, a report less than two years since the filing for divorce, and animosity between the parents.

4.Presley: “That means if you take the 8%, only 7 out of the 9000 cases were found to be intentionally false allegations. Show me any other area of law that has a lesser rate of intentionally false allegations!”

Reality: This was an actual study. There are real numbers. 8 cases out of the (out of 129 investigated of the 169 abuse claims in the) 9000 divorces studied were found to be considered maliciously made allegations.  Those 8 cases are part of the 33% that were considered unlikely. There were also an additional 17% deemed uncertain. And, that’s just the 129 investigated. There are still 40 out of 169 claims that weren’t addressed by the courts.

5.Presley: “Tell me again how mothers always make up false allegations to gain custody!”

Reality: 67% of the claims of sexual abuse made during divorce proceedings were made by the mothers. Mothers allegations against fathers: 49% likely, 33% unlikely, 18% uncertain. Fathers allegations against mothers: 42% likely, 41% unlikely, 17% uncertain. But remember,  fathers only accuse mothers in 6% of the cases as opposed to mothers accused biological fathers 48% of the time.

6. In conclusion, Presley, I don’t know where you got your statistics by they are GROSSLY incorrect, and your conclusions are JUST PLAIN WRONG. I got my number straight from the study published by the researchers. I’ve include the information regarding the publication. Feel free to see for yourself. If you had any integrity, you’d take that post down because it is MORALLY WRONG TO SPREAD LIES AND DISINFORMATION!


  1. Excellent report Oreader. Thank you. I've seen Connie and her groupies spew out anything that is bias towards the fathers, no matter if its fact or not. Then they tossed around insane $$ numbers on how foster parents MAKE big bucks and the number went from $300 to $30,000.00 per month. If someone adds a zero, they didn't care to check if it were fact. It served their psychotic delusional purpose at the moment.

    According to the 2010 HHS child maltreatment research, biological mothers ARE the primary child abuser two-fifths of the time 37%+. While the bio father is the perpetrator one-fifth of the time 19%+.

    These women / extremist mothers organizations scoff at those stats as well. They don't want anything out there that makes them look bad. I see how often they place news clips where men killed a child but not once do I see them post when a mother kills their child. They gained control long ago within the courts and are raging because the fathers have finally in the past decade started to make some progress in getting that pendulum swung back to their parental rights favor.

    I agree with SC on the other page, Presley is the perfect example of parental alienation if there ever was one. The sad thing is, she's unable / incapable to realize how badly she was alienated from her father because her memory is forever tainted. Once that occurs, its exceedingly rare the false memory syndrome children overcome what they've experienced. It's sad to see how these radical women use whatever necessary including resorting to making up stats.

    AND when someone doesn't believe them, then they are labeled an abuser or a pedophile or they're part of the 'corrupt' system. How dare anyone call them out on their crap.

    1. A PDF, yappy? But my 19th century Peedeeffer prolly won't work with your stuff. I better grab my buggy or mosey on down to the mercantile and see if Mr. Oleson has somethin' newer. Actually, I am going to read that link when I get a chance today.

      I'm still furious that Presley would post something so stupid. She probably cut and paste the numbers from somewhere, but she chooses to be blind and ignore the obvious inconsistencies. I just can't believe she is soo stupid that she can't look at her "facts" and see that something looks wrong about them. Presley destoys her credibility by posting such nonsense. As Presley says, the truth stands. There are statistics and findings in this very same research actually make some points that she'd probably like to argue. Like the 1.9% . . .if somebody says that allegations of abuse always come up in divorces, she can point to this research and say that out of the 9000 divorce cases studied (which all involved custody disputes), less than 2% involved any allegations of abuse. So there you go, the vast majority of people arguing over custody don't throw the abuse card. Next, the findings on validity of claims were not statistically different from abuse claims investigated by CPS outside of divorces. So, the likelihood that the mother is lying about the abuse doesn't go up just because it's a divorce. Instead of grabbing on to those legitimate findings, she's asserted that men make the vast majority of claims & women only make 4.8%. She just couldn't have gotten it more wrong.

      I guess my anger is more for the researchers. These two women have spent over thirty years of their lives building their reputation through education, hard work, and valid research methods. They've worked specifically with the courts regarding violences against women and family violence. There isn't anybody else doing the level of work they do that is any more applicable to Presley's fight than this. What she claims has & is happening to her & her sister is exactly what they've spent more than her lifetime researching. And the little bitch that she is grabs their work, throws it through a shredder, grabs some random pieces, and presents it as fact. Oh and then her little gang of bullies publically rails somebody who dare ask to see where the stats came from.

      Women don't falsely accuse Presley? Well I saw all of you jump on a man you didn't know and accuse him of being an abuser because he didn't blindly believe what you were peddling. You've got a battle to fight? You say you are on the right side & telling the truth? Well the truth will never stand if it's built on a foundation of lies. You have ZERO credibility when you don't fact check. You have less than zero credibility when you can't admit a mistake & continue to stand behind lies.

    2. Don't blame me for the pdf. The only other option was an xls download and I'mma Mac girl. Oops I mean guy. hehe
      So I couldn't download. It's the GOVERNMENT WHO won't get with the modernization of our system!
      Jerks. Lazy jerks. <<< sarcasm for those who need a little help

    3. Sorry, you can find my stat on page 42.

    4. Presley and Joey are simply children playing adult in a real world. They only use information they want, they have zero accountability or credibility. This blog could just as easily be presleyisalittlekid but Joey is more interesting.

  2. NothingbettertodotodayNovember 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM

    Sorry, this is off topic. Just checking in to protect WWJD's tweety bird arse from this alligator mouth. I'm taking my horses to a 3 day to a natural horsemanship clinic, so I will be "off the grid" until Monday.

    Please, don't behave while I'm gone.....

  3. Tell Brannon...uh I mean, maybe Brannon can tell Whatwould Jokeydo.

  4. O Reader, excellent work on the statistics and the report from which they were taken. But I don't know why you would think that anyone who has spread lies for years would care about what is morally right or wrong. Disinformation is the name of the game.

    Curious Bystander (I've got to create a profile somewhere, someday)

    1. You don't have to create a profile Curious, you simply click the select profile "Name/Url" just above anonymous and you can put whatever you want in that spot.

    2. Thanks, Yappy. But I must be doing something wrong.


    Oh PUULEAZZE. Undisclosed location my ass. He was pigging out at home in Georgia for Thanksgiving folks. Noting to see, move on.

    IF BILLY REALLLLY didn't want to be located, he would INCLUDE NOT USING FACEBOOK to trace him. Utter bullshit and his minions believe him. lmao talk about gullible. What a dork. Isn't it funny how the gov't wants to kill him around the holidays but can't seem to find a way to FAKE a car accident in his 80,000 free hotel n pie eating trip across the USA?

    HOW Stupid are people??? Really, how dumb are these people?

  6. yappy can&#39;t spellDecember 2, 2012 at 12:40 AM

    ugg, no auto-correct. Nothing to see... and his 80,000 mile hotel trip. whatever I'm sure y'all get the point which truly is pointless.

    BTW IF BILLY ever reads here, tell our good ole boy I checked with the SUNDANCE FILM festival. They do not have any submissions by this joker and yet he claims IT WILL be shown there? Okeeedokieee

    AND CNN has NOT nominated the scammer as hero yet his minions want everyone to 'vote' for him. Which of course, started with Billy's request to get everyone to 'nominate' him.

    HOW very humble isn't it :P. He's good for a laugh,if nothing else.

  7. A three-year-old child that has physical proof of molestation can tell everyone who did it, what they did, where they were, what they were wearing, what they said, but cannot give the date and time is considered an "unreliable witness". The pedophile made sure there were no other adult witnesses. The court then claims this is a "false allegation" and the child is not protected and the mother is then the accused even with the testimony of psychological "experts". There are plenty of "experts" who make their living from the situation claiming for or against the person who pays them the most regardless of the truth or the "best interest" of the child. Remember this too is what is included in the "stastics" you wish to quote! Unless you have been a part of the nighmare, you have no idea what you are spouting off about. Perhaps you should also read up on "the fatherhood initiative" which began with Nixon. But of course, you have your mindset and anyone who tries to reason with you will also become your target ....

    1. what is the physical proof? Yes, the court system acts on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. So just because you are accused of something you are not considered guilty of that until proven.

      Do you realize you just used psychological experts as evidence to support your claim but then in the next immediate sentence you say that they are mercenaries simply out to do the bidding of those that pay them?

    2. "Do you realize you just used psychological experts as evidence to support your claim but then in the next immediate sentence you say that they are mercenaries simply out to do the bidding of those that pay them?"

      Yes, and do YOU realize that both can be true? Just as many men are kind and gentle with children, and others see them as sex objects - some psychologists are genuine and have the best interest of the children at heart. One of those experts spent months with the child, the other only a few hours but was "court ordered" and the court can rely only on them. There is an "industry" of experts some refer to as "court whores", who make their living off the misery of others and will say anything they are paid to say. In fact, if you look at ads in the back of "Texas Lawyer" magazine, you can find their ads for just this kind of "expert testimony". It is testimony that they specialize in, NOT therapy. These "therapists" "best interest" is in their own income, not the child. I know of one case where the mother was wise enough to stand outside the door and record the "court ordered" psychologist as he threatened her child until the child wet her pants and the therapist then refused to allow the child to go to the bathroom, or change her soiled clothes. Of course, the court found this outrageous and would not allow the tapes into evidence.

      The "physical proof" you asked about was vaginal tearing as well as bruises. The examining doctor was "too busy" to be called to court and without him his records were not allowed as evidence. This is very, very typical. The mother's legal fees topped $50,000.

      I am not talking about Presley's case, but another that is a prime example of what can and does happen and is more often than not included in the "statistics" of false or "real" allegations.

      Yes, you can and should be "innocent until proven guilty", but that does not change the reality of a situation. Innocent people can be found guilty, and guilty people often walk free, and statistics can match the agenda of the person who writes them.

    3. I dont disagree with your hypothetical’s, just your conclusions. Of course there is an industry of professionals who are paid to investigate and give their opinion in court. The term "court whores" obviously comes from those who didn't like their opinion in court. And while I'm sure there are a few that are corrupt, just to make the leap from paid to offer your opinion to it being corrupt has not been established.

      So when you say that the professionals that render an opinion that supports your side are the legit ones while the ones that give one that is contrary to your side are the "court whores", it leaves most non-biased observers with the same conclusion. This is precisely why these "movements" like Lawless America will never amount to anything more than a bunch of angry pissed off people who lost in court complaining that they lost. If you ever wanted to really gain us masses to your cause you would have to quiet being intellectually lazy with the conspiracy crap and spend more time presenting un-biased, unfiltered facts to support your claims. Less emotion and name calling, and more facts and maybe then you really would have something.

    4. So let me get this straight, Presley presents her evidence in the form of a few statistics. These are hailed as indisputible evidence for her cause. So much so that some random guy that dares to ask where the numbers came from is publically called an abuser. Then, when I do the actual leg work and find the EXACT STUDY to which Presley was referring, take the time to actually read it, and present correct research findings, the stastics are now suddenly wrong because they don't support what you wish them to support? It just doesn't work that way. You can't grab on to one set of statistics (especially ones that are completely fictional) and say "see I was right, the statistics support me!" and then when you find what the real statistics are take the position that the statistics are wrong. You can't have it both ways.

      In the real world, things are measured and quantifiable. I wasn't setting out to prove Presley wrong. I knew some of her numbers didn't add up because I can actually do math. When I took my time to find the actual study, I found out just how manipulated and outright wrong her numbers and conclusions were. However, if you read what I wrote, you'd see that I did point to a couple of statistics that Presley should have been able to legitimately use. Like the majority of custody disputes don't involve allegations of abuse. And even further, about half of those allegations are found to be likely cases of actual abuse. Oh, and even more, the numbers of false/unlikely allegations during a divorce aren't inflated from general allegations of abuse outside of custody battles. All of those are valid arguments should someone say "women always pull the abuse card during contested custody battles."

      Regarding the "court whores" comments, how many people do you know go to college, get a graduate level degree, spend time in the field counseling long enough to earn enough experience and respect to become "experts" in their field so that they can just sell their opinions in court? Is the psychology field really something people regularly go into for those motivations? Really? There are a lot better ways to make money. Do you really think that somebody that has spent years helping people is going to throw that all away to put a child in danger? In your theory, whomever has the cash is going to get the expert opinion in their favor. So no women have any money? No mothers have family with money? You arguments don't hindge on any reality. All experts are driven by money, except when they are helping women. All statistics are wrong unless they support your beliefs. Even wrong statistics are right if they support you. You'll believe any "victim" as long as they are telling your story. How about you do some actual work instead of whining. Maybe you could engage your brain and actually filter some of the "information" thrown your way. You can't decide what is wrong or right just based on your preconceived notions. Here, you can start with this: look up the term "self fulfilling prophecy." That's a term that most likely accurately descibes how you are currently filtering your information intake. While we're in psychology 101, you can also look up cognitive dissonance. Maybe read up on research method also.

    5. Lastly, regarding you becoming a "target." My target is reality. There is truth. Presley or anybody like her shouldn't be able to blindly spout out about truth and then support it with lies. My aim was to make sure other people didn't blindly believe something that was written just because it has some numbers. The actual study in question is based upon facts and actual research. People spent months accumulating documents, reviewing evidence, and travelling to conduct interviews. They aren't just some numbers pulled out of thin air and written on a photo. The women who conducted this study aren't somehow motivated to take away mothers' children. You'll notice, that unlike Presley & friends, I haven't called you any names. I'm not out to tear anybody down. But if somebody presents fiction as fact, you'd better bet I'm going to call them out on that. If it were yappy, or ginger, or curious, or nothingbettertodotoday, I'd call them out too.

      Good Day.

    6. The woman in this Sisterhood (woman that don't like how their family court cases turned out + Anthony) all start off their testimony with "I didn't use to believe that the family court system was corrupt until I saw it for my own eyes". And they usually break down, once they can't win their arguments on facts or evidence, to saying "well you just can't understand because it didn't happen to you". What they dont realize is that they are automatically disqualifying themselves as credible to the general public. They are biased, extremely so and if they want people to take them seriously they will need to back up their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence, not just hyperbole.

      And this matters because the ultimate goal for you in the Sisterhood is to win over the general public and therefore the elected officials to make the changes you desire. You have devoted yourself to a public campaign to winning over the hearts and minds of other individuals and without credible facts or evidence to back up your quest, you will just continue to be what you are: a roving, ineffective band of angry woman.

  8. That "Sisterhood" act like a young child that closes their eyes and repeats "I'm not listening...blah...blah..blah...I'm not listening" when it comes to fact that a child can be alienated by one parent against another. They constantly claim that because it is not listed in the DSM-5, it is "junk science" or a tool to be used by abusers.

    They purposely ignore it exists because in my opinion, they are guilty of the same type of behavior. When case law is presented that the courts do consider the behavior of one parent in undermining the relationship of the other parent with the child, they try to deflect the argument that the system is corrupt, the judges are biased against them, the other parent must be sleeping with the judge, the district attorney(s), the police or all of the above.

    As time passes and the courts still do not rule in their favor, they get desperate and seek out others to say "See, they are just like is corruption!" As time goes on, they still are refusing to accept the facts that they are their own worst enemy they come across these Pied Pipers that claim to be their savior who will solve all their problems. Several thousand miles later and 200 pieces of pie, they get YouTube videos that will fix EVERYTHING. This Pied Piper convinces them that he has connections and is going to make changes to help everyone as he seeks their accolades and pie recipes. They will then spend more money and waste more time in neglecting to try and really work on their own issues and blame everyone. If they keep finding new people to blame then they can continue to never be responsible.

    1. It's laughable they would label anything "junk science." Those girls are always posting junk news articles & junk medical articles about fruits that will change my life (nevermind those same fruits are also potentially poisonous). I've seen several things posted by Connie with the heading "the mainstream media will never report this . . " The funny thing is, I've already seen most of the articles days before she posted. Where do I get my news? Mainstream media. Presley will use stats if they benefit her argument, but when presented with numbers that don't benefit the argument, they'll say stats don't show the whole picture.

      Just because parental alienation is not yet recognized does not mean that it doesn't exist. The DSM is always evolving, especially with the disorders where outside stressors play a central role in the causes. Look at PTSD. PTSD didn't even "exist" prior to 1980. Is PTSD quack science? Perhaps PAS isn't distinct enough from other disorders like PTSD. Or perhaps it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a "syndrome." Parental alienation exists none the less. I've seen it with my own eyes. No, I haven't seen the extremity of the cases we're talking about, but I've definately seen kids indoctrinated to hate another parent. I've seen them parrot things that a child would never say on their own. It's just not fair on any level.


      Interesting article by the one that they despise the most. It wouldn't matter if I ever heard of hot, it exists because I have first-hand experience in dealing with it.

      "The PAS and DSM-IV

      There are some, especially adversaries in child-custody disputes, who claim that there is no such entity as the PAS. This position is especially likely to be taken by legal and mental health professionals who are supporting the position of someone who is clearly a PAS programmer. The main argument given to justify this position is that the PAS does not appear in DSM-IV. To say that PAS does not exist because it is not listed in DSM-IV is like saying in 1980 that AIDS (Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome) did not exist because it was not then listed in standard diagnostic medical textbooks. "

    3. "heard of it or not"

  9. Presley! What part don't you get about the REALITY of the courts and how we all must live in a civilized society that follows the law?

    Connie gave Loryn Ryder all kinds of 'wonderful' advice on how to behave and act in the courtroom. Connie rants on how all you women are untouchable. Expose, expose, expose, the courts CANT do anything if you keep exposing (the lies out of your mouths about their ex's of course). Slander, libel, hurt your children, exploit your children, refuse to comply with court orders and that's what happens. Loryn Ryder is heading to jail.

    Yesterday Connie Bedwell telling Ryder exactly what to do in court. I assume Ryder 'obeyed' her leader. Yet another mother behind bars with advice from a woman who is actually uses bible codes as a way to make good decisions in life, is medically confirmed delusional schizophrenic and is unable to ever see her kid again. (well unless lightning kills everyone she knows of course).

    Can you SEE the insanity Presely? Can you? Obeying iBedwell will end in disaster. I have yet to see a happy ending with that woman's advice. But keep on doing what you're doing ladies, it seems to work very well. YOU get tossed in jail AND you get to add more proof the courts are conspiring to destroy mothers.

    The fact is most MOTHERS not fathers still have full or primary custody in this country. This is simply yet another example where the courts handed down a consequence to the mothers who refuse to obey LEGALLY BINDING court orders.

    If you crazies would decide to work with the system and follow through all the courts require for the sake of childrens well-being, then this wouldn't be happening. IT IS NOT rocket science. Wow


    1. Poor ole David Webb, all his new facebook friends are either in jail now, or have an upcoming court date to be thrown in jail.

      And to answer you question: "Can you SEE the insanity Presely?"
      the answer is most certainly no as did you see her comment at the bottom of the page. She is now a lost cause, simply to stupid to be brought back to reality.

  10. So we have Bedwell giving sound legal advice to Loryn and the next day she is in jail. I wonder if she told her "Just giggle, open a button on your blouse and you'll be out of there in no time."

    Bedwell was the one that introduced Farris to Jokey because she had influence and power in fighting corruption. So Dauben's family listens to Farris and doesn't try to help him get a court-appointed attorney because she was going to bring in some big shot to get Joey off the hook. Bedwell herself gives advice to all these mothers on how to "win in court" while she herself has no legal standing at all in relation to the custody of her daughter. Yes, that sounds like the precise way to handle it.

    Isn't Loryn a stripper? Now apparently she was a knocked-up stripper.

    Hey Daddy Dauben, I bet you can get Bedwell out here to help Joey on January 7th. she is a must have on any lawyer "dream team". Honestly save the counties money that you seem so worried about and bring her in to help, a few giggles and Jokey will be sent packing.

    1. Here is Loryn's explanation:
      Loryn Ryder
      Matthew filed a motion to enforce my jail sentence less than 10 hours after I gave birth to my daughter. I was sentenced to jail over a year ago and Judge Browne never sent me there for some reason. Matthew waited for the perfect opportunity to do this to me otherwise why would he wait so long? This was premeditated and done on purpose. If this isn't abuse I don't know what is. I also tried to log into this fan page and the email address has been removed so I'm posting this from another account.

      Anyone else catch that? "This was premeditated and done on purpose." Classic line from the Sisterhood.

    2. Andddd what does she do? Connie has called up their new Savior Lawless begging him to go "interview those corrupt jerks". Instead of seeing how her own advice to Loryn probably caused today's decision, she whines corruption. But nooo these women are not insane.

      Exactly. wow wow wow

      BTW I have no idea about the stripper thing, I've read that in a few places and I think Loryn said her career has no bearing on her ability to mother morally. She too posts scripture when it suits her purpose.

      The only evidence I've ever read about Ryder is her handful of odd brief 'voice' recordings of her daughter saying generic things. Things that could have come directly from a disney book and she clicks the record button to catch the 'phrase'. That and a couple of photos that prove nothing. The pictures she's taken are in playgrounds and malls or her truck. 1 shows a seatbelt mark on the kids neck but she screams the father did it? Or a series of fading handprints is another set of photos she displays. Tell me how fading handprints prove it was the father? The more she posted, the more I started to worry she was the one abusing her child for attention. Then she would never once follow up with doctors visits or anything. Her FB posts hours later were a calm, happy Loryn oblivious to know to continue her lies. Or of course she pulls a connie with an 'exchange' video where the child is crying, not wanting to go with daddy. Well at age 3 if my mommy took me to malls all day long and fun places I TOO would be very unhappy to stop doing it. SO exchange videos can be incredibly manipulated to make it appear something it really is not at all.

      She claimed some psychologist proved her child was being sexually abused. Well actually what the psychologists 1 sentence said is that Ryders child displayed several traits that are shown in abused children. That too is not conclusive proof. Furthermore, some believe Bella was abused but quite likely in the environment that Loryn resided / resides. I guess she couch hops a lot (sounds like Ibedwell, no stable home environment). I also found 2 civil suits where different apartments were evicting her for non-payment.

      She wonders why she's not believed?! None of them get it, apparently never will.

    3. well, I saw Special Ed in his morph suit at WalMart, so at least someone is doing something about the situation.

    4. That will scare any judge or scar him or both. Forever.
      Picture please!!!

    5. Connie Bedwell-Tuma Hey Bill when do you go to Alaska? Will you go see my dad please?

      Yes Bill. Please come out of hiding. I know the big ole gov't is trying to take you down for eating their share of those pies n all but hey, it's worth the risk, right? Oh and while you're at it (rescuing mothers with mental issues) head to Alaska to visit one of the most prolific child rapists Alaska has ever had in their midst. (alleged of course). aka Connie's daddy. He's innocent, the bible codes say so. He's being falsely accused (err wait, can't use that excuse because then it proves OTHERS falsely accuse people of raping children). Well, please go see him anyway, these crazy storms in Sacramento haven't produced the lighting my Gods keep promising me in my dreams. Thanks Bill, you're the best.

    6. Sorry I'm being lazy.

  11. Media ignores Connie for the past 4 years because they discovered her case was a fraud. Wait. Connie's lifes problems will be resolved through Joey. No, he was arrested. Barbara Farris will rescue Connie. No wait, she turned out to be a scam. Bill Windsor becomes the new answer to her life's problems.

    No pattern? This woman hasn't a clue how to get her shit together.