ME ME - Ayla Reynolds, 20 mnths, Waterville, 17 December 2011 - # 6

[Caligram]

Who took Ayla? What happened to Ayla? When did Ayla disappear? Where is Ayla?
Why hasn't Ayla been found?

My thoughts: Back to the subject of "who" discovered that Ayla was "missing". I really believe that ED refused to bear the burden of discovering Ayla "missing". So then the whole dramatic accounting had to change again to CR was the one who discovered Ayla was "missing, and she "hurried?" back down the stairs to see if Ayla was downstairs. But, as someone else commented, CR had already been downstairs with JD so she knew Ayla wasn't with JD.
Now it comes to who wants to stand up in court and testify that they saw Ayla on the night of December 16th and found she was "missing" the next morning. PD removed herself from that particular time period, so that gets her off the hook as she was not there. Then we have ED, the sister of JD, who says she had put her fussing child in the room with her and that is where her child remained, so she could not be the one who discovered Ayla was "missing".
I am going back to what I have previously stated was my take on this - It is quite possible that Ayla wasn't even there the night of December 16th. She was not taken to the bone specialist the day of December 16th, as she was possibly "gone" by then. A situation had to be “created” to explain why Ayla was “missing”.
JD has been unwilling to discuss this openly, in front of a camera, with people holding microphones. He prefers to edit his words before they appear in print. He prefers to have others "concoct" tales depicting him as a devoted loving daddy to Ayla.

MOO

 

[ThoughtFox]

I watched that website off and on all day yesterday, and late into the night last night. I wish someone had been sitting at that website, hitting Reload and taking screen shots of all the changes. It changed numerous times. I went to bed about 4 am and it has changed since I got up.

That is what happens though when you are trying to invent a story that didn't happen instead of telling the truth. We are not even attorneys and spotted it right off. Just think what position she would have been in, if she was questioned by an attorney on a witness stand.

Lies just call for more lies.

I saw this same blog post that you posted at some time yesterday, and apparently it was edited after I saw it, because the paragraph explaining away the rushed part wasn't there then. I wonder how many edits were made that weren't caught?

I kept an original copy of "Ayla's Story" as a Word Document.

And actually, the original was quoted almost word for word in this MSM article:
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/new-website-offers-fresh-details-on-ayla_2012-01-20.html

If it keeps morphing we can compare with the original side by side.

It really doesn't make sense to me that someone who is trying to help the family would bungle the story to this extent, getting people mixed up, talking about rushing up or down stairs, and mention Justin "breaking a gate" that had never been mentioned in public before.

She can blame readers for her problems, but it's not really our fault, is it? She supposedly got the story straight from her long-time friend JP.

 

[Caligram]

daddy dearest? JD has never claimed that he paid any child support for Ayla, and if he had that would have been one of the first sentences he uttered, ego, you know. Perhaps he remained unemployed and that may have excluded him. There was no mention of previous employment, and it was stated that he roomed with three friends in Portland. Would three male buddies allow JD to stay with them as a non-paying roommate. Or, could those three "friends" actually be his gf CR, her child, and her sister who possessed drugs. Perhaps TR was aware of these living arrangements and that is why JD had to move in with mommy when he got Ayla. TR may have felt it would be dangerous for Ayla if she openly discussed those drug ties.

As it turned out, Ayla was not in a safer environment after all. Ayla is "missing". Nobody outside of that home comes forward to talk about seeing JD with Ayla at fun places suitable for children.

 

[naturallyme]

MSM seems to be way behind....hope they catch up soon.

I have said it before and I will say it again, some good investigative reporting can help break this case. Pressure, and more pressure to make someone talk, and allow LE to listen to all the chatter. JMO

 

[HiHater]

daddy dearest? JD has never claimed that he paid any child support for Ayla, and if he had that would have been one of the first sentences he uttered, ego, you know. Perhaps he remained unemployed and that may have excluded him. There was no mention of previous employment, and it was stated that he roomed with three friends in Portland. Would three male buddies allow JD to stay with them as a non-paying roommate. Or, could those three "friends" actually be his gf CR, her child, and her sister who possessed drugs. Perhaps TR was aware of these living arrangements and that is why JD had to move in with mommy when he got Ayla. TR may have felt it would be dangerous for Ayla if she openly discussed those drug ties.

As it turned out, Ayla was not in a safer environment after all. Ayla is "missing". Nobody outside of that home comes forward to talk about seeing JD with Ayla at fun places suitable for children.

I'm not sure why you think he would have talked about paying child support...he never discussed any of the custody issues really, except to say that Ayla was in his sole custody when she disappeared (which is generally true). He could have gone into detail and made TR look really bad about the circumstances surrounding her rehab. It has been painted as an agreement between the two of them, but in all likelihood that was not the case.

Ayla was obviously not in a safe environment either way it went, she was removed by the state from one place, and removed by an unknown person from the second place.

 

[HiHater]

MSM seems to be way behind....hope they catch up soon.

I have said it before and I will say it again, some good investigative reporting can help break this case. Pressure, and more pressure to make someone talk, and allow LE to listen to all the chatter. JMO

I agree with this. I hope the reporting (or lack thereof) in this case does not set precedence for other missing persons/children cases. Seems like almost everything is sourced only to family members, with no outside verification at all. At this point, I believe almost nothing that comes solely from TR or JD...

 

[cluciano63]

Not only can't TR or JD be trusted to tell the truth, neither can JD's mom, which is not a good thing.

The only thing LE has really said is that NO ONE has been ruled out and that "foul play" was determined by "evidence." To me, that means that LE does not believe this was a kidnapping by a stranger, since no one in the house was ruled out, nor has any other relative been ruled out by LE. Probably, there is no sign of a stranger, and perhaps, they determined with all of their window exams, that no one came or went that-a-way.

The only source worth listening to is LE and they are pretty silent.

 

[naturallyme]

I agree with this. I hope the reporting (or lack thereof) in this case does not set precedence for other missing persons/children cases. Seems like almost everything is sourced only to family members, with no outside verification at all. At this point, I believe almost nothing that comes solely from TR or JD...

BBM

But as long as they are talking, then LE can separate the wheat from the chaff. It was the not talking that was bothering me. MSM and the public can help to break the silence, by examining every little detail and pointing out inaccuracies. When people start talking is when someone messes up.

 

[NFYIAMY]

>>>removed by ME since someone pointed out it had been posted prior and removed by mods<<<

 

[cluciano63]

I am more interested in the timeline between the evening of December 16th and the morning of December 17, JMO.

 

[stilettos]

Just FYI, this was posted last night and removed---so it may not be allowed. Not sure though, and my PMs have not been answered yet!

That is a very interesting timeline of events and it does have bearing on this case.

 

[cluciano63]

That is a very interesting timeline of events and it does have bearing on this case.

To me it doesn't, because they both have motive, so they kind of cancel each other out. What happened that night is the only time of interest for me. JMO

 

[naturallyme]

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/new-website-offers-fresh-details-on-ayla_2012-01-20.html

This has been posted before, I think, but there are some very interesting comments there. Justin's blogger is posting, also others.

 

[ynotdivein]

:seeya: Folks, please bear with us for the time being and stick to these guidelines:

- Pointing fellow sleuthers in the right direction to find information on social media is ok, particularly if a link is provided in MSM
- Paraphrasing info from said sites is ok
- Discussing info from said sites is also ok
- Copying and pasting whole posts or comments from these sites is NOT ok

As many of you know from other cases, it's hard to come up with a single hard and fast set of rules for social media that are appropriate for every case we follow. We're working on a good solution for our Ayla supporters in this thread and will keep you posted if any of the above changes. Thank you for your patience, and for your excellent sleuthing!

 

[naturallyme]

To me it doesn't, because they both have motive, so they kind of cancel each other out. What happened that night is the only time of interest for me. JMO

All of the timeline is important to me. Should this case turn out that someone in that house was involved, it appears there may be another investigation involving DHHS, if certain allegations that have been made turn out to be true.
That is why the entire timeline is important to me.

 

[HiHater]

To me it doesn't, because they both have motive, so they kind of cancel each other out. What happened that night is the only time of interest for me. JMO

I tend to think that what happened on that night could have been influenced by or a culmination of events reported on the timeline...

Another reason the timeline is important is because it highlights the fact that both sides have been less than honest in the media.

JMO, though.

 

[cluciano63]

I do agree that the history between the two matters...but on that Friday night, this baby was in a tiny home with her father, and a number of of other people, NOT with her mother or anyone related to her mother. I find it outlandish to believe that one of Trista's relatives, or Trista herself, managed to get in and out of this little house unseen and unheard. I don't know if Ayla was harmed, but I find it far more credible to believe that if she has been "hidden", it was done by those in physical possession of Ayla. JMO

 

[HiHater]

http://www.mainekids-kin.org/LegalGuideChapterOne.html#chapterone

Just information re: JD getting Ayla from the grandma and aunt...(an informal placement?)

Biological or adoptive parents have full legal authority unless a Court terminates (ends) or amends (changes) their rights.

In most situations only the children’s parents have the authority to ask friends or relatives to temporarily care for their children. But on occasion, neither parent makes a stated choice; another person just becomes the child’s day-to-day caregiver. In these situations, the parents still retain full parental rights and responsibilities.

If the parent wants to take the child back into his or her care, the parent has a right to do this.

Furthermore:

Sometimes DHHS will develop a safety plan requiring the parents to place the children with a relative and DHHS will not take custody of the children...Other times, DHHS will petition the Maine District Court for custody of the children. The goal of DHHS is to find a permanent home (called permanency) for the child. First they will try to safely reunify the child with parent(s). This is called reunification.

From reading this, it seems as though TR and family think that DHHS did something wrong, but that may not be the case. Just because TR wanted her family to care for Ayla in her absence doesn't mean JD had to agree to it---he still had parental rights and chose to exercise them. Seems like the "connection" between PD and a caseworker may not really matter...JMO

 

[katydid23]

I do agree that the history between the two matters...but on that Friday night, this baby was in a tiny home with her father, and a number of of other people, NOT with her mother or anyone related to her mother. I find it outlandish to believe that one of Trista's relatives, or Trista herself, managed to get in and out of this little house unseen and unheard. I don't know if Ayla was harmed, but I find it far more credible to believe that if she has been "hidden", it was done by those in physical possession of Ayla. JMO

But now that I know that JD and his gf were asleep in the basement, and his sister was the only adult upstairs, it makes it more possible that an intruder could enter the home. I bet the sister would tune out any footsteps because she would assume it was her brother or his gf, using the bathroom or kitchen.

I don't think the family had a dog. I bet it was possible to sneak around that house if need be. Someone who was used to doing such things could probably pull it off. imo

 

[naturallyme]

http://www.mainekids-kin.org/LegalGuideChapterOne.html#chapterone

Just information re: JD getting Ayla from the grandma and aunt...(an informal placement?)



Furthermore:



From reading this, it seems as though TR and family think that DHHS did something wrong, but that may not be the case. Just because TR wanted her family to care for Ayla in her absence doesn't mean JD had to agree to it---he still had parental rights and chose to exercise them. Seems like the "connection" between PD and a caseworker may not really matter...JMO

Sorry, but I don't know how to get the inside quotes to show here. To understand what I am saying you might have to read Hi Hater's post above.

If I am reading this correctly then DHHS may not have acted outside the law. It may be that the law is just poorly written and needs to be changed. If I am understanding this correctly....it is saying that a parent who has not seen their child for say 10 years, and is 10 years behind on child support could waltz in while the other parent was in the hospital and take a child who was being cared for by a responsible care giver. They can do this just because they were the parent (egg donor---sperm donor)???? Am I understanding this law right? Please tell me this is not what it means!