Realize this thread is old and not current but a few questions if anybody familiar reads this. I clicked through the name on this thread because a person had mentioned it in another thread about a body that was never found.
Are the following correct?
1) The general impression from news accounts is that the woman spent 4 years in prison for 'child abuse'. The implication is that she beat her children.
2) The reality doesn't seem to be spelled out anywhere, but it seems to be that the father of the missing girl sexually abused another child and this woman was involved in some way, probably by not reporting the crime, and that was what she went to prison for? This isn't clear but it seems to be what the evidence is.
3) The mother herself actually has no history of abusing her children beyond spanking.
a) A child of hers gave details of Jhessye being held in a closet but also gave a significant indication that account might have been questionable. The child threatened some member of the prosecution with derailing the prosecution by admitting it was a lie, according to a comment by the defense lawyer as I understand it.
b) There is some indication the investigators put pressure on the children to produce a certain narrative e.g.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/04/03/daughter-lashes-hunter-trial/70872444/
c) The police did put pretty ridiculous psychological pressure on the mother, ostensibly to gather evidence but perhaps more likely to make her appear unstable, i.e., to 'stress her out' etc. For example following her around and "Hunter's attorney said that surveillance includes putting GPS tracking devices on people's cars who are helping Hunter get around". That would not serve to gather evidence in this case, it seems more like simply putting pressure on her so that guilty or innocent she would act in such a way that would make her easier to prosecute.
d) The teachers in the school said they never saw any evidence of abuse. Teachers are strongly encouraged to notice signs of abuse so this is fairly significant.
e) There are many references to 'one' incident that child protective services was involved with regarding the child. All of the news articles portray this fact as significant... but researching ... it appears there are several problems with this accusation being used to discredit the mother /
1) The accusation is not actually of 'abuse', but of something from a more minor category, possibly that the mother was 'homeless' though not sure
2) That complaint, in fact every complaint that appears anywhere, appears to originate with a relative who had custody of the child while the mother was in prison. Some of the complaints sound unlikely, such as the child appearing to have had all her teeth punched out, if I recall. Could the mother punch out all her kids teeth and not have raised any red flags for child abuse in the past aside from having a husband or boyfriend who was severely twisted?
4) The 'strongest' evidence in the case actually seems pretty empty. One article claims to explain how the police suddenly 'knew' she was guilty, and it involved a person they had previously interviewed coming back several weeks after the child had disappeared and claiming that a few weeks before the child disappeared the mother had asked for a ride to put a large suitcase, perhaps containing a body, in a dumpster somewhere. The police then spent hundreds of thousands of dollars poking through that dump and did not find a body. They said they did find some things though including, astonishingly, a bag of clothes that were purple, and they said this was important because the child's favorite color was purple?
5) The polygraph information is ambiguous. She said she asked to take a polygraph at the start, later on when they asked her to take a polygraph she responded that she was willing to do that but wanted her lawyer present? The police claim she refused a polygraph.
This is an old case obviously, not of interest perhaps to too many people, but it does have some interesting elements. At the very least, the conflict between the former guardian of the child and the mother raises the possibility of an eventual finding of the child alive. Did the former guardian, who obviously wanted custody of the child, do some machination to take the child? Based on the evidence that seems at least as likely as the accepted course of events.
add
I'm not trying to defend anybody or disagree with anybody, just trying to find out if the items I listed above are accurate.
