Found Deceased IL - Andrew Freund, 5, Crystal Lake, 17 April 2019 *Arrests* - #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlinkOfAnI said:
Just a note about bond and it's purpose. Bond is not meant as a punishment for those charged but not found guilty yet. It is more of a collateral to ensure a defendant appears in court and fulfill any further court requirements. It does take the safety of the community into consideration but if a defendant isn't thought to be a danger to others then bond is usually granted with the amount based on risk factors.
Click to expand...

Trying to follow the thought process of the legal system... So, since the crime was domestic, it would be safe to say the parents are not a threat to society, just the living child. As long as child is in protective custody, parents would not be a threat. Am I thinking correctly?

My only issue with this is JC is pregnant. Would, following this line of thinking, it not be assumed both AF and JC would be a threat to the unborn child? Should she not be denied bond until she has given birth and this child is in protective custody?

Just thinking out loud. MOO JMO
 
BetteDavisEyes said:
Speaking of the bond hearing, I have not read anywhere that the alleged perps were asked to surrender passports. If they are able to post bond, would the ankle monitor suffice in making certain that these two don't leave the country?
Click to expand...

In IL this is a bond condition. So, IF they are able to post bail (pretty doubtful) then the court would impose bond conditions, and usually it's that they can't leave the state of IL without court approval. They may not have said it in the hearing (unfortunately I didn't watch if there was a stream) but they are informed of it prior to being released. If they did, that's an additional criminal charge in IL.
 
A cousin of the Crystal Lake man charged with killing his 5-year-old son and hiding the body said Wednesday that Andrew Freund Sr. is not the person she grew up with, and that he had isolated himself from his relatives, some of whom lived nearby and would have wanted to help their family.

"The last there was a family reunion was in like 2006, but I ran into Drew at the Jewel-Osco and he was with Joann and she was pregnant with AJ and that’s probably the last time I ran into him," Kopsell said.

Freund Sr. "just kept to himself," Kopsell said, adding, "This isn’t the person I grew up with."

Kopsell said the Freund Sr. she knew was a "well-behaved, polite, young man that came from a very good family and probably never had a hand laid on him."

"I saw his picture and I thought, 'Oh my God, he looks like a Freund' and you know, like Drew did when he was younger," Kopsell said. "It was just, we’re just blown away."

Kopsell said she had her suspicions - but couldn't wrap her mind around the allegation that Freund Sr. had killed his son.

Family of Crystal Lake Boy 'Couldn't Believe' Murder Charges
 
"I thought maybe something had happened to AJ, like accidentally and they were worried about maybe being charged with neglect and losing [their other son]," she said. "But when I heard the news conference today, I just... I just couldn’t believe it. Could not believe it."

She added that in talking to other members of their family, they all felt the same way - and that she had no plans of, or any interest in, reaching out to Freund Sr.

Family of Crystal Lake Boy 'Couldn't Believe' Murder Charges
 
Scrapper18 said:
Trying to follow the thought process of the legal system... So, since the crime was domestic, it would be safe to say the parents are not a threat to society, just the living child. As long as child is in protective custody, parents would not be a threat. Am I thinking correctly?

My only issue with this is JC is pregnant. Would, following this line of thinking, it not be assumed both AF and JC would be a threat to the unborn child? Should she not be denied bond until she has given birth and this child is in protective custody?

Just thinking out loud. MOO JMO
Click to expand...
Yes on your 1st question. Your 2nd question gets into a huge ethical/rights debate but I have seen many pregnant women released on bond where there was reason to worry about drug use harming the baby. There is usually a stipulation of bond saying no drug or alcohol use and random testing across the board. If they test dirty they go back to jail.
 
Henry2326 said:
Blood is on this person's hands....
Click to expand...

You do know that no Child Welfare Caseworker has the ability to enter someone's home if the parent refuses access. If the law enforcement officers that found the deplorable home didn't immediately remove the children from an unsanitary condition because they had no legal grounds to do so how was a Caseworker armed with only a badge supposed to do it?

The only recourse for child welfare caseworkers is to file for a court hearing which might or might not get approved by the ADA based on the limited first hand knowledge and if approved then a Judge would have to order the parents to grant the caseworker access. If the parents still refuse access the caseworker would have to file again and go back before the Judge to have the parents held in contempt of court which I have never seen in my 12 years working for my state's child welfare system.

In my state - Literally if a parent says you can't interview the child then you are not allowed to talk to the child without a court order. If a parent says you can't enter the home then you are not allowed to enter the home. Most caseworkers work copious amounts of overtime trying to do the best they can for the kids they get assigned - unfortunately the legal system ties their hands in my cases. To say that this child's death is on that caseworker's hands is just a devastating blow to a caseworker who is probably already trying to deal with the grief and guilt they feel because somehow the broken system they work for couldn't save this kid. They bear that responsibility and blame themselves for the wording in their affidavit not being strong enough or their voice cracking on the stand under pressure from the defense attorney or not pushing harder to get in that house the first time they saw the family, etc. No one becomes a caseworker because they want to sit by and watch children die while barely making enough to keep their own family afloat.

This child died because his parents were too drugged up to not physically abuse him and dump him in a shallow grave. The child welfare caseworker did not murder this child.
 
Cubby said:
Wouldn't that depend on what type of law he practiced? We only know he practiced family law as he represented JC for her divorce.
Click to expand...
All attorneys have the same education and learn the same thing. It is later they decide the area they want to practice. It wouldn't be hard to brush up on an area if needed.
 
BlinkOfAnI said:
All attorneys have the same education and learn the same thing. It is later they decide the area they want to practice. It wouldn't be hard to brush up on an area if needed.
Click to expand...

Very true! Although when I was a prosecutor and a family law attorney showed up, I knew I was in for a painful conversation (the majority never bothered to even try to learn).
 
Cryptic said:
Based on what my state CPS told me, CPS agents nearly always need to physically see the evidence themselves to take action (special emergency removals maybe an exception).

In other words, complaints by doctors, teachers, neighbors can serve as a line of inquiry, but they usually cant be grounds for removal. This is due to second hand information / possibility of exaggeration. Then factor in complaints motivated by grudges, personal dislike or differences in parenting lifestyles.

Because the CPS worker must physically see before acting, parents get a chance to clean up their act. For example, consider this possible CPS report:

"The neighbors complained of feces. When I finally got access to the home, there were no feces present. While the home was still very messy and not going to win any invites from the "Parade of Homes", I could not prove to a legally sufficient level that the home was inherently unsafe. Mother received a warning... . "
Click to expand...


Yes, CPS must have proof. The grandparents had photos when they petitioned and won custody of the older son.

The 64,000 question is WHY did LE NOT turn on their video cameras. They were in the home, they met her at a convenience store to report a lost phone and medication. That's when they saw the home. They were front and center!!!!

LE video could have provided proof of: (if they had just turn on their body cam)
  • The mothers physical and mental condition
  • The condition of the home..the dog poo/pee,the cluttered walkways-clearly a fire hazard
  • The physical condition of the kids
It seems like they never quite executed the proof they needed. Just a lot a lot of he/LE and the neighbors said...and the mother knowing what lies to tell, cleaning house before CPS showed up, etc. AJs father was an attorney, the parents knew how to get around the CPS system.

Everything failed for poor AJ.

Just one video...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 186 more.
Total: 3,273 (members: 187, guests: 3,086)

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
3,086
Total visitors
3,273
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,208
Messages
17,965,162
Members
228,719
Latest member
CourtandSims4
Back
Top