GUILTY FL - Shannon Dedrick, 7 mo., Chipley, 31 Oct 2009 #5

Particularly Dave he is one of the most awesome investigators I have ever met and he will snatch on this case like a pit bull w/a steak. They will spend a long time in jail.
IMO Dawn

I'm not at all convinced TM needs to spend any time in prison at all, unless there are some very important details we don't know. Seems to me she needs to be declared mentally incompetent, and have a legal guardian appointed for her -- preferably her mother -- and hopefully then have TM and Shannon live together with TM's legal guardian. TM is obviously not competent to have unsupervised custody of a child, but it's not clear at all that she had any ill intent towards Shannon.

SB may have been telling all sorts of lies to manipulate her -- like that she'd better give Shannon to SB, otherwise the state would take Shannon away and give her to a stranger and TM would never see her again -- "just give her to me and tell police she disappeared, and then I'll take good care of her and let you see her whenever you want". Then after SB got the baby, she may have warned TM not to tell police anything about the arrangement no matter what, because then "they'll put you in jail and you'll never get to see Shannon again". Remember, we have good reason to believe that TM is not capable of understanding legal complexities, and may well have trusted to SB's explanations of how things would work out. And we also have no reason to believe that TM had any knowledge of SB's criminal child abuse history and/or that she remained the prime suspect in the unsolved disappearance of another child.
 
I don't want to offend anyone but here is my opinion......I don't think mentally challanged people should have children.This girl I read somewhere had the mind of a 13yo
13 year olds get bored with things very easily like a new video game or whatever but this is a baby , not a toy. And she certaintly should not have been living with a mentally challanged man without some daily supervision.IMO

What you wrote is wise, IMO. But I think it should be on a case by case basis. My autistic son has challenges with things like depth perception, but I think he would make an excellent father. He's also doing well in a university, whereas other autistic people wouldn't succeed in that way either. Another plus is that he has a great support team who helps him with his lack in social abilities. If he were the kind who rejected the assistance, he would be in worse shape. But he trusts his family and our help and tries to better himself in the areas he lacks.

So, I think it depends on the person's challenges and how they face them. According to Chanii, Tina rejects assistance and that concerned me from the get-go.
 
I am just sick to think of what SB could of told momTm..... MomTM no doubt is confused.. SB could of told her so many bad stories to get momTM to go along with her.. I am not saying momTM is not wrong in what she did but really.. I hope she gets a little time maybe 80 days and then gets help from her family to put her in some kind of medical treatment to help her.. I don't feel this would of happened at all if not for SB.,.....

But , I don't think momTM has any business with a child ever again tho.. NEVER....

ITA. I was unable to access the net yesterday, and there is just NO WAY I can catch up on all these posts I missed. But I have a lot of ground I want to cover. So forgive me in advance if I am rehashing anything, etc.

First and most importantly, I want to say I am so extremely grateful that baby Shannon was found alive and well. May she find a loving home and never remember what she's been through.

OK, to respond to the above quote. I am not in any way condoning TM's part in this, nor do I think charges should be dropped. I DO however, agree that I think SB has manipulated TM in this situation. Reguardless, any mother who could give her child up like that, especially without doing it legally so that the person taking the child can be checked out as safe, doesn't deserve to be a mother. Whether it is because of her mental issues or not, it doesn't matter. It takes a strong woman to be a mother, and if you can't cut it, you shouldn't have a child that has to suffer because of it. Sorry if my view on that seems harsh.

Next, does anyone else have a bit of an issue with how long it took LE to get to baby Shannon??? Like many of you, I feel the LE couldn't possibly have NOT known about SB before WS found out and made calls. If they were doing their job, they should/would have known long before we did. But if they did, WHY did it take them SOOO long to get to Shannon? I voiced this to my fiance, and he reminded me of a conversation we had about the Cleveland killer. He was wondering why they kept putting off ripping out the walls. I told him that it was basically "red tape" and that was confirmed on news reports. They said they had to get a different warrant that allowed demolition of the house. So my fiance said it was basically the same thing, "red tape" in Shannon's case. I feel that it should be different because in Shannon's case, she may have been (and WAS) still alive. And I also reminded my fiance that SB was convicted of child abuse, and was the main suspect in the disappearance of her 3 year old step-son. If LE even suspected she was there, wouldn't it have been best to get to her as soon as possible???
How does everyone else feel about this? Thoughts? Agree with my feelings? Disagree?

Lastly, my prayers are going out for Shannon and those who love her and have been scared for her this last week. This little angel has a chance at a good life. I hope she gets it.
 
59.gif
 
NewMommy, I agree with what you said about LE taking 5 days to respond when we are looking at it on the surface. However, we do not know what went on behind the scenes. If they weren't allowed to go there by law, I want to know what law prevented them from going because it needs to be changed. Shannon could have died in that box during that time and that is NOT acceptable!
 
Back to the bumpers in the box (I know, old news) I just thought of something. They tell you not to use bumpers in cribs because of the risk of SIDS and/or suffocation. It makes me wonder if putting Shannon into a tiny box like that with bumpers, if SB was hoping that the baby would smother herself on the bumpers, especially with having so little room to move.

Also both my kids were bald as can be at 7 months. I think that's the age when they actually had the least amount of hair. Shannon looks a lot like her mom IMO, just much cuter.

What is used in cribs these days if not bumper pads? Been a while since I had a crib.
 
Good to know that there is someone who is worth their salt working the case (at a higher up level).
I think reasonable effort has been proven in this case. I fully anticipate reading with great joy that her rights to Shannon have been terminated.

If it is proven that Tina was never psychologically fit to care for a baby, I certainly won't get any joy out of it.
 
I don't want to offend anyone but here is my opinion......I don't think mentally challanged people should have children.This girl I read somewhere had the mind of a 13yo
13 year olds get bored with things very easily like a new video game or whatever but this is a baby , not a toy. And she certaintly should not have been living with a mentally challanged man without some daily supervision.IMO

I agree with you, and I was wondering why this baby's grandmother didn't live close enough to the mom to help supervise her care of the baby.
Baby Shannon is adorable, but I am concerned that she does not seem to smile or show normal expressions like a child that age does. Her eyes look almost dead... like her emotions are almost non-existent. I fear that little angel has endured some pain in her life, that is so sad to me!
I used to work with mentally challenged persons for several years. They do need supervision on a regular basis, but the states do not have the right to decide which ones are capable of raising children, and they cannot forcefully sterilize them. In fact, things have progressed over the years... they now have the same rights as anyone else. But with those rights, they have to be taught responsibility.
And then there are the "normal" people to consider... the ones who still don't protect their children or the ones who abuse their children, even kill them. So if we are going to say that mentally challenged people shouldn't have them... wouldn't that same rule need to be applied to the ones who have them and abuse and murder them?
Just my opinions.
 
Next, does anyone else have a bit of an issue with how long it took LE to get to baby Shannon??? Like many of you, I feel the LE couldn't possibly have NOT known about SB before WS found out and made calls.

I'm sure they knew, but there are so many factors. One, *because* they knew her past, they also knew *she* would know she'd be high on the suspect list, and may have figured the last place she'd have hidden Shannon (dead or alive) was in her own house, since it was so likely to be searched (and I don't think we know for sure that Shannon *was* in that house the whole time she was missing). Also, with Shannon alive, there wasn't a whole lot search dogs could determine re the house, because it was known that Shannon regularly spent time there with her "babysitter", including very recently, so her scent would have been all over the house, even if she wasn't there at the time the dogs were sniffing around.

They may have figured (and possibly correctly, at first) that if SB had Shannon, dead or alive, she had her hidden somewhere else, and were hoping that by leaving SB more or less alone, she'd be more likely to lead them to her. I'm sure they had her under very heavy covert surveillance. At some point, they may have been tipped off that Shannon was alive and in the house, by observing the purchase and transport of baby food or diapers to the house, or, as I suggested on a previous thread, they may have gotten a listening device into or very near the house, and picked up sounds consistent with Shannon periodically being brought out of hiding for feeding and diaper changes. If they had any reasonably solid reason to believe Shannon was in the house, alive, *and* being cared for, given SB's history of violent child abuse and probable role in the unsolved disappearance/presumed murder of another child, they had to be very, very careful not to do anything that would tip off SB that they were on their way to search the house, until they could get themselves physically between SB and Shannon. SB could have *very* quickly killed Shannon (to shut her up and make her easier to keep hidden during a search), and from what we know (and LE knew) of her history, probably wouldn't have hesitated to do that, if she thought it improved her chances of not getting caught.

I'm confused by the delay of approximately 12 hours from the time they got SB and JB to the police station, and the time they went into the house to start doing a thorough search, but I think there must have been a reason. I can't see a judge refusing a search warrant for that long, and they ultimately got permission from SB and JB to search the house (and got a warrant too, but only needed that in order to remove what they found). Maybe they still thought it was likely SB had hidden Shannon somewhere else, and wanted to keep her cooperative and believing that they were still thinking someone else might have been responsible for Shannon's disappearance. Remember they knew that another child who had been in SB's care had disappeared and *never* been found, dead or alive, and that may have been something they were really trying to avoid repeating.

LE had some very scary choices to make, and I'm sure they had to make a lot of tough calls where they weren't sure if they were making the right call. But I really don't think they did anything stupid.
 
What I don't get is we know nothing about the extent of Tina's disability and yet she is already being protected. At this point, we have no verification that there is anything at all wrong with her.
We also know, if her statement to the neighbor was true, that she has verbal skills and can make herself understood. She has the ability to question her surroundings. she has the ability to question events.

So, if she has these abilities, she has the ability to understand that she was perpetrating a massive lie. Even very young children can understand that if you have to lie about it, you shouldn't be doing it. Which means that she could understand that what she was doing was wrong. This makes her culpable in my mind.

Mother was party to this. All of it. For 5 days, she perpetrated a lie which could have resulted in Shannon's death. She may be less guilty of the abuse itself, but she is still guilty, IMO.

I really am interested in hearing why others think that Shannon should not be permanently removed from her mother's care. I don't want to argue with anybody, I just don't understand the viewpoint, and if someone can explain it, I'm all ears.

ETA: This post has been edited since the information about Tina's bipolar disorder cannot be verified at this time.
 
http://www.newsherald.com/news/little-78847-alive-shannon.html
Storyline says updated 12 minutes ago.
"...The two-bedroom Baker home, apparently empty Thursday except for some pets, was surrounded by weeds creeping over rusted metal, bird cages, a swing set and two sheds. Two baby strollers were tossed in an outdoor trash can..
"...Baker twice spoke at length with The News Herald on Tuesday, eventually claiming to know nothing of Shannon’s disappearance and suggesting investigators should pin Mercer to the wall and beat the child’s location out of her..."
There's more.

Well maybe LE should pin Susan to the wall and beat the "why did you do that" out of her!
 
I hope the mom isn't let off easy. She knew enough to keep up the scam.
 
I am just sick to think of what SB could of told momTm..... MomTM no doubt is confused.. SB could of told her so many bad stories to get momTM to go along with her.. I am not saying momTM is not wrong in what she did but really.. I hope she gets a little time maybe 80 days and then gets help from her family to put her in some kind of medical treatment to help her.. I don't feel this would of happened at all if not for SB.,.....

But , I don't think momTM has any business with a child ever again tho.. NEVER....

Agreed. TM, was very vulnerable especially when it came to being manipulated by a pro, SB. I only hope LE can see through SB's smoke and mirrors.
 
ITA. I was unable to access the net yesterday, and there is just NO WAY I can catch up on all these posts I missed. But I have a lot of ground I want to cover. So forgive me in advance if I am rehashing anything, etc.

First and most importantly, I want to say I am so extremely grateful that baby Shannon was found alive and well. May she find a loving home and never remember what she's been through.

OK, to respond to the above quote. I am not in any way condoning TM's part in this, nor do I think charges should be dropped. I DO however, agree that I think SB has manipulated TM in this situation. Reguardless, any mother who could give her child up like that, especially without doing it legally so that the person taking the child can be checked out as safe, doesn't deserve to be a mother. Whether it is because of her mental issues or not, it doesn't matter. It takes a strong woman to be a mother, and if you can't cut it, you shouldn't have a child that has to suffer because of it. Sorry if my view on that seems harsh.

Next, does anyone else have a bit of an issue with how long it took LE to get to baby Shannon??? Like many of you, I feel the LE couldn't possibly have NOT known about SB before WS found out and made calls. If they were doing their job, they should/would have known long before we did. But if they did, WHY did it take them SOOO long to get to Shannon? I voiced this to my fiance, and he reminded me of a conversation we had about the Cleveland killer. He was wondering why they kept putting off ripping out the walls. I told him that it was basically "red tape" and that was confirmed on news reports. They said they had to get a different warrant that allowed demolition of the house. So my fiance said it was basically the same thing, "red tape" in Shannon's case. I feel that it should be different because in Shannon's case, she may have been (and WAS) still alive. And I also reminded my fiance that SB was convicted of child abuse, and was the main suspect in the disappearance of her 3 year old step-son. If LE even suspected she was there, wouldn't it have been best to get to her as soon as possible???
How does everyone else feel about this? Thoughts? Agree with my feelings? Disagree?

Lastly, my prayers are going out for Shannon and those who love her and have been scared for her this last week. This little angel has a chance at a good life. I hope she gets it.

First of all, I agree with you and your fiance is correct. To obtain a search warrant, they have to have probable cause to present to a judge. They had already talked to SB several times, and I assume they had suspicions, but maybe that was not enough to go in and do a full search. There is a lot of red tape involved, and it is ultimately up to a judge to issue a warrant.

I do want to congratulate the posters here who contacted the sheriff's office and informed them of SB's record, because whether they already knew about her or not, it does not hurt to call in tips and help in any way we can. Doesn't matter if one person does it or a thousand, if it helps them to find a missing child, that is one life saved.

I recall the sheriff stating that they did not believe Shannon was left in that box continually, that SB would put her in there to hide her whenever she thought they were coming to talk to her.

Marc Klass said on NG last night that his organization was instrumental in finding the baby, so he should be congratulated as well. I think it was their dogs that were brought in and led them to the box under the bed.

Whoever had a hand in this rescue... thank you from all of us here! This child hopefully will have a better chance to grow up healthy and happy!
 
I hope the mom isn't let off easy. She knew enough to keep up the scam.

What we don't know, but hope to know is how SB manipulated TM and what was TM told if she didn't "keep up the scam". TM seems to be very vulnerable and SB a master manipulator, liar, child abuser.
 
I'm sure they knew, but there are so many factors. One, *because* they knew her past, they also knew *she* would know she'd be high on the suspect list, and may have figured the last place she'd have hidden Shannon (dead or alive) was in her own house, since it was so likely to be searched (and I don't think we know for sure that Shannon *was* in that house the whole time she was missing). Also, with Shannon alive, there wasn't a whole lot search dogs could determine re the house, because it was known that Shannon regularly spent time there with her "babysitter", including very recently, so her scent would have been all over the house, even if she wasn't there at the time the dogs were sniffing around.

They may have figured (and possibly correctly, at first) that if SB had Shannon, dead or alive, she had her hidden somewhere else, and were hoping that by leaving SB more or less alone, she'd be more likely to lead them to her. I'm sure they had her under very heavy covert surveillance. At some point, they may have been tipped off that Shannon was alive and in the house, by observing the purchase and transport of baby food or diapers to the house, or, as I suggested on a previous thread, they may have gotten a listening device into or very near the house, and picked up sounds consistent with Shannon periodically being brought out of hiding for feeding and diaper changes. If they had any reasonably solid reason to believe Shannon was in the house, alive, *and* being cared for, given SB's history of violent child abuse and probably rold in the unsolved disappearance/presumed murder of another child, they had to be very, very careful not to do anything that would tip off SB that they were on their way to search the house, until they could get themselves physically between SB and Shannon. SB could have *very* quickly killed Shannon (to shut her up and make her easier to keep hidden during a search), and from what we know (and LE knew) of her history, probably wouldn't have hesitated to do that, if she thought it improved her chances of not getting caught.

I'm confused by the delay of approximately 12 hours from the time they got SB and JB to the police station, and the time they went into the house to start doing a thorough search, but I think there must have been a reason. I can't see a judge refusing a search warrant for that long, and they ultimately got permission from SB and JB to search the house (and got a warrant too, but only needed that in order to remove what they found). Maybe they still thought it was likely SB had hidden Shannon somewhere else, and wanted to keep her cooperative and believing that were still thinking someone else might have been responsible for Shannon's disappearance. Remember they knew that another child who had been in SB's care had disappeared and *never* been found, dead or alive, and that may have been something they were really trying to avoid repeating.

LE had some very scary choices to make, and I'm sure they had to make a lot of tough calls where they weren't sure if they were making the right call. But I really don't think they did anything stupid.
Thank you so much for sharing your train of thought on this with me. That makes a lot of sense.
Also, thanks to Kimster for her response. I agree that if there was a law that prevented Shannon's earlier recovery, that we need to work to change that law.

CarrieBean,
You are not supposed to put anything in the crib at all, no bumpers, no blankets, no stuffed animals. Only the mattress and a tight fitting crib sheet, with the baby. Another reason for warnings about the bumpers, is that once babies are able to sit up or pull up, they can use the bumpers as a bit of a booster to help them climb out, possibly toppling out of the crib. I believe the theory is that it would be better for the child to possibly get a bruise by bumping their head on the crib slats, then to suffocate or get hurt worse by falling out of the crib.

And to add to the discussion about baby baldness. I posted this way back on the first thread for Shannon but wanted to repost. Some babies don't grow hair for the first year of their life, sometimes longer. Also, many babies are born with hair or grow hair early, but it falls out and comes back in later, sometimes even a different color.
 
First of all, I agree with you and your fiance is correct. To obtain a search warrant, they have to have probable cause to present to a judge. They had already talked to SB several times, and I assume they had suspicions, but maybe that was not enough to go in and do a full search. There is a lot of red tape involved, and it is ultimately up to a judge to issue a warrant.

I do want to congratulate the posters here who contacted the sheriff's office and informed them of SB's record, because whether they already knew about her or not, it does not hurt to call in tips and help in any way we can. Doesn't matter if one person does it or a thousand, if it helps them to find a missing child, that is one life saved.

I recall the sheriff stating that they did not believe Shannon was left in that box continually, that SB would put her in there to hide her whenever she thought they were coming to talk to her.

Marc Klass said on NG last night that his organization was instrumental in finding the baby, so he should be congratulated as well. I think it was their dogs that were brought in and led them to the box under the bed.

Whoever had a hand in this rescue... thank you from all of us here! This child hopefully will have a better chance to grow up healthy and happy!

ITA with everything you posted. Particulary the Thanks and Congratulations going out to the people that had a hand in finding this child safely.
Just wondering here....does anyone think or know if the tips being called in were able to help get the needed warrant for the search???
Whether LE knew/suspected Shannon was there, or even just that SB was involved, wouldn't multiple tips coming in be enough justifiable suspicion to help get the documentation going?
ETA: I guess what I am asking is, if WSers and possibly others had not started calling in about the connection with SB, could it possibly have taken longer to cut through all the "red tape"?
 
What I don't get is we know nothing about the extent of Tina's disability and yet she is already being protected. The only thing that we know for sure she has is bipolar disorder.
We also know, if her statement to the neighbor was true, that she has verbal skills and can make herself understood. She has the ability to question her surroundings. she has the ability to question events.

So, if she has these abilities, she has the ability to understand that she was perpetrating a massive lie. Even very young children can understand that if you have to lie about it, you shouldn't be doing it. Which means that she could understand that what she was doing was wrong. This makes her culpable in my mind.

Mother was party to this. All of it. For 5 days, she perpetrated a lie which could have resulted in Shannon's death. She may be less guilty of the abuse itself, but she is still guilty, IMO.

I really am interested in hearing why others think that Shannon should not be permanently removed from her mother's care. I don't want to argue with anybody, I just don't understand the viewpoint, and if someone can explain it, I'm all ears.

I can't speak for anyone else, but raising a child who is developmentally delayed I know that his cognitive ability can appear to vary depending on the situation/subject. I also know that he can be easily manipulated (which scares the hell out of me). Because he walks fine (but hemiparetic) and speaks clearly, people automatically assume he should comprehend like a 15 year and it's just not possible for him.
 
Agreed. TM, was very vulnerable especially when it came to being manipulated by a pro, SB. I only hope LE can see through SB's smoke and mirrors.

I'm willing to bet SB is completely transparent to LE.
 
What I don't get is we know nothing about the extent of Tina's disability and yet she is already being protected. The only thing that we know for sure she has is bipolar disorder.
We also know, if her statement to the neighbor was true, that she has verbal skills and can make herself understood. She has the ability to question her surroundings. she has the ability to question events.

So, if she has these abilities, she has the ability to understand that she was perpetrating a massive lie. Even very young children can understand that if you have to lie about it, you shouldn't be doing it. Which means that she could understand that what she was doing was wrong. This makes her culpable in my mind.

Mother was party to this. All of it. For 5 days, she perpetrated a lie which could have resulted in Shannon's death. She may be less guilty of the abuse itself, but she is still guilty, IMO.

I really am interested in hearing why others think that Shannon should not be permanently removed from her mother's care. I don't want to argue with anybody, I just don't understand the viewpoint, and if someone can explain it, I'm all ears.

I DON'T think that Shannon should be returned to her mother's care. But I would like to see the whole story come out and whether or not she was manipulated. My opinion is that reguardless of WHY, this mother did things that were NOT in the best interest of her child, she knowingly filed a false police report, and she put her child in jeopardy, as well as taking up valuable police and search resources/time/money that could have been used in other cases that greatly need them. Even if, best case scenario, she WAS manipulated, she has no business being this child's care taker any longer. But I think it's important to know all of the details leading up to this child being taken. If for no other reason, to hopefully find a way to stop something like this from happening in the future.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
3,489
Total visitors
3,652

Forum statistics

Threads
592,270
Messages
17,966,479
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top