CONVICTION OVERTURNED TX - Mineola Swinger's Club Child Sex Ring, 2008

Sorry about the confusion guys - I was off-topic.

But, back on topic, I saw an article today that said a third person was being prosecuted for this crime also. Somebody with the last name of Kelly or Kelley. I'll see if I can find the link.

Salem

Found it: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5852572.html
 
Sorry about the confusion guys - I was off-topic.

But, back on topic, I saw an article today that said a third person was being prosecuted for this crime also. Somebody with the last name of Kelly or Kelley. I'll see if I can find the link.

Salem

Found it: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5852572.html

You never have to be sorry, Salem.:)

Oh thank you for this information. Yes, that Kelley guy is a creep of the utmost caliber. How about how now his turn in court comes up just when the new foster father gets arrested.

Hopefully that Kelley guy will get life.
 
Thanks Filly!:)

Thanks barb for the article. 3 members from the same family. The Pittmans. Sounds like the 48 yo mom, the 33 yo son and either his wife or sister. I would say this family is seriously dsyfunctional. My gosh!

If one of my family members did such a thing, I would be the first one to turn their azzes in and I would hope that they would do the same for me. Sick, Sick, Sick.

Salem
 
Mineola swinger's convictions could be overturned

So far three juries have sent three people to prison for life for sexually exploiting children for profit, starting with the first trial two years ago. All three are appealing their convictions, and attorneys for two actually argued their case for the 14th Court of Appeals.

The Mineola Swinger's Club convictions could be overturned. Jamie Pittman, Shauntel Mayo and Patrick Kelly were convicted of sexually exploiting children for profit. All three are serving life sentences for their role in the Mineola Swinger's Club. CBS 19's Amanda Kost spoke exclusively with Patrick Kelly's family.

Patrick Kelly's mother, Linda, still claims her son is innocent, so she wasn't shocked that a court of appeals is considering overturning his conviction. "Well everybody seemed to care when my son was being persecuted. He never went to Mineola. He lived at my place. His truck was there every night when he was ((allegedly)) in Mineola," said Linda Kelly.

Linda sat in on her son's appeal where attorneys argued that Patrick Kelly and Jamie Pittman deserve another trial because they claim evidence was hidden and rules were changed. "Allegations in the case are that the DA's office withheld some incredibly powerful evidence that pointed to the actual innocence of these people, and at the same time the judge, allegations in the briefs are that the judge changed the rules to favor the prosecutors," said Kelly's attorney Wes Volberding.
............................
The third defendant, Shauntel Mayo's, appeal is still pending. After hearing the oral arguments it's all up to the three Justices for the 14th Court of Appeals. They could overturn the convictions and order new trials, or they could say there's not enough to overturn these convictions.

Their decision in regards to Jamie Pittman and Patrick Kelly's life sentences could take 60-90 days.


more here

http://www.cbs19.tv/global/story.asp?s=12193015

I've never really known what to think of the charges & trials for the Mineola Swinger's club.....I think that something horrible happened to the kids, & LE - including the TX Rangers - and the legal system messed up royally with any signs of impropriety tainting opinions....I don't understand why there had to be 'rule bending' in a case like this -- with those kids telling what happened to them.

Too bad we'll likely never know the truth about what really happened as far as the allegations against the DA, Judge & LE.....

I hope someone has been there for the kids thru the years....how does anybody ever get over something like this?

ETA:

another link w/ backstory (**warning -- graphic**)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/080308dnmetmineola.4109607.html
 
they got life sentences?

so why do baby killers and other molsters get slaps on the wrist? :(
 
Has anyone here been keeping up with this? It came to my attention this morning and I've been researching it since lunch. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think these people have most likely been wrongfully convicted. All 3 defendants have been sentenced to life, but two of them have already been overturned.

This article tells the whole story:Across The Line, from The Texas Monthly. You have to register to read the entire article, but you don't have to verify your email or anything. It's 6 long pages and the author did quite a bit of research, so it's very worth it.

I would love to hear Websleuther's opinions and to have a discussion on this case. Please understand that I am all about truth and justice, and I am very worried about the safety of these children, who are most definitely victims whatever the truth turns out to be. And I feel certain that any and all children need to be removed from Margie & John Cantrell's care. Promptly.

Thoughts anyone?
 
Spacegirl--I've read the article and it certainly does raise a lot of questions. I've known about this case for several years and have to admit that some mistakes were probably made in questioning the children. It doesn't appear (if the TM article is to be believed) that proper protocol was followed.

Sadly, I think something did happen to these children. I'm just not certain what and by whom. I think it's wise to keep a close eye on this case. I'm very hopeful that the children are getting appropriate therapy and support. I would like to believe that if anything ever changes in their disclosures that that would be immediately be brought to the authorities attention.
 
Well, something horrible happened to the kids - if they were masturbating in public and defecating in their pants after being removed from their 'homes'. I'm not sure if it could be traced anywhere else but to the family members they lived with and who were responsible for their protection. Either way, they should've been removed from those trailers years earlier. There were more than three defendants originally - what happened to the others?
 
Thanks, guys. I am so very disturbed by this whole situation. These cases have been handled wrong, and they're not really getting the attention they deserve either. It's terrible. I cannot stop thinking about it now.

LadyL, that's just it. What if something awful did happen to these kids? Has foster mama ruined it? At this point, I think maybe the first child, S (that's what MH is calling her) was molested by her bio mom's bf JP. And I say that because his 17 year old former step-daughter recently testified that he raped her at ten or eleven years of age, although she denied sexual abuse the first several times she was asked about it.

The problem here is, foster mama Margie is not trustworthy (to say the least) and she is the driving force behind everything. Just hours after S FINALLY tells someone other than Margie about the sex abuse (and she tells them unprompted, after denying it many times before when directly asked), Margie just so happens to take the children to view the Swinger's Club property because she was looking to buy it, when the children started to recognize the building. She immediately went to the police, who took it very seriously but in the end, felt the accusations weren't true and closed the case. Margie later lies under oath and says, "No, no, no" she never took the kids to the property. What is she doing now when questioned under oath? She is pleading the fifth. So is her husband. Why is she worried about incriminating herself? Recently, 130 questions were asked of her, she pled the fifth to each and every one.

Margie now has permanent stewardship over 3 of the children, and though the prosecutor claims that all children told the same story from the beginning, this is incorrect. Not only that, but it's known that S and the child known as J (who isn't in the C home, thank god) speak on the phone 3 times a week. Now 11, J has now recanted some of her story. She says she remembers in her mind now that the sex kindergarten did not happen, but that she has "no clue" about dancing. She states she may have worn "something sexy or something."


I read in another article on a local news website (I'll find the link) that J said she did not want to talk about it, but that she did not want it to go away either because people will get away with what they do and they deserve prison. Also, at one point, she told the attorney "get to your point."

One of the children (C I believe, who is in the C's care) claims they flew around in the air on brooms, and casted spells from books. Sometimes under oath she confirms this. Sometimes she denies it. Sometimes both. I imagine if a child is told to tell people the Swinger's who made them dance were witches, these are the kinds of details the child might add on.

There are no Swinger's Club witnesses that place ANY one of the accused at the Swinger's Club. Ever. Some of the accused know each other, some have never met. And though one child claims to have danced there some 60 times and worn approximately 20 costumes, and been videotaped, not one witness ever saw any child near the establishment despite the fact that it's located next door to the newspaper, next door to the former hospital, and across the street from a nursing home. If even some of this were true, you'd think there would be atleast one shred of evidence, one witness, something...

And in case you missed it... M & J C had just moved to Texas from California because they were no longer able to have foster children in that state. At the same time Margie made her initial allegations (forgive me, as I'm unclear if it was right before, or directly after) Husband John was accused of molesting 2 of their first foster children back in 1991. Many of the former foster children say Margie is a brainwashing, abusive, puppet master. Who was often hoarse from yelling, and could make you believe anything. 3 of them recall a time when she punched a child in the eye, and had everyone believing that she ran into a door knob, even the one that witnessed it, even the one with the black eye. Why? fear.

Two of John's biological children say that Margie has a volatile temper and does not need to be trusted with children.

Something isn't right here. Many things aren't right here.

At least two of the accused are drug addicted, terrible parents, who neglected and did god knows what else. I don't know very much about the mother-in-law who stands accused, etc. Booger Redd thinks he was named just because the children knew his name. I think he might be right about that. My opinion. But none of them seem to have been involved in a Swinger's Club or Child Sex Ring. And that's what this is about.

You know, I think of myself. Could this happen to me? In my neck of the woods, I am the weirdo. I have no criminal history or anything, but I have wild curly hair, I will not attend the church right up the street like the rest of my neighbors (no matter how much they invite me), an outgoing personality, and sometimes I leave out at 11:00 at night (but for legitimate reasons). I also have 5 cats and sometimes foster more, which many people seem to think is weird. One neighbor asked me recently who I would choose between my husband and my cats, and I said my cats without hesitation. I laughed. Not sure if it's true, but it might be. Point is, I think I'm a memorable person who is probably considered crazy to some, and kids love and remember me. I love them too. If I get a hold of one to play Yahtzee with, it's usually the kid that gets tired of it first. I have many neices, and I'm considered Aunt Brooke by many of my friends kids. If one of them somehow ended up in someone's care like Margie Cantrell and they had to come up with 5, 6, 7 names to go along with some fantasy story, would they name me? Could I be railroaded by the DA? Could I be sentenced to life and forgotten about? I couldn't last in prison. No, really. I'd end up taking up for some underdog or something equally stupid, and killed within the first year. I'd be dead before my case could be overturned!

I don't blame the kids here. One thing I know about kids, is that they have a deep need to please. And they're finally getting some attention, prob have a nice place to live, bows to wear in their hair, maybe some nice clothes... But what is Margie up to here? What is her husband up to?
 
It's been reported that Margie & John received $110,000. in the first year alone for those three kids. WOW.

I got almost all of this information from The Texas Monthly. Here is the latest article by Michael Hall, Trial and Error.

Here is part of the article:

The next day, Skeen struck another huge blow to the defense when he allowed Margie—the foster mother of three of the children, the interviewer of four of them, the person whose passion had driven the cases for more than five years—to invoke her right to refuse to testify on the grounds that she might incriminate herself, even though she had already testified in the first two trials. Cassel was able to question her but only after the jury had left the courtroom. The lawyer asked Margie more than 130 questions in thirty minutes. He asked her about the California decertification, about her habit of suggesting answers to the children, about her former career as an acting coach (“And you know how to teach [children] to remember lines?”). To each question, Margie answered, “I decline to answer based on my constitutional rights.” She slumped in her chair, staring down or into the middle distance, occasionally rolling her eyes and sighing loudly.

Skeen had forced Cassel to jettison much of the case he had planned to put before the jury. When Margie was finished, the defense rested.

The next morning both sides gave closing statements. Bingham concentrated on emotion: “This is the children’s day,” he said. “This is their day for justice.” Cassel stuck with logic. He asked the jury to think about “a child sex club across the street from the Mineola newspaper at a busy, busy intersection and a nursing home in a residential neighborhood off Highway 80 with . . . the police patrolling the parking lot, people installing cable, strangers able to gain entry by knocking on the door. Does it make sense?”

The jury was sent off to deliberate. Given the history of these cases and the conservative makeup of Smith County juries, virtually everyone in the courtroom believed the verdict was a foregone conclusion. (“I suspect those jurors made up their minds during jury selection,” one defense attorney had told me on the first day of the trial.) When, only ninety minutes later, jurors notified Skeen that they had reached a verdict, it was obvious these observers were correct. “Guilty,” read Skeen. He sent the jurors off to deliberate on the punishment, and when they returned, twenty minutes later, Margie and her eight foster children had filed into the courtroom to hear the sentence. Several times I had seen Margie, John, and the kids walking around the courthouse square during lunch breaks; they walked in an orderly, purposeful fashion, usually in single file. They entered now with the same determination. H sat to Margie’s right and held her hand, their fingers laced tightly together. S sat on Margie’s left and did the same. C sat in front of them. She wore a black bow in her blond hair.

Skeen asked Pittman to rise while the sentence was read. He stood up, twelve feet from the children who had accused him. Margie closed her eyes tightly, as if in prayer. Skeen read the sentence: life in prison, plus a $10,000 fine.

Before Skeen dismissed the jury, he thanked them, launching into a four-minute soliloquy on the wonder of the American justice system. “There has been a real, a very deep price paid for us to be in this courtroom,” he said in his deep East Texas drawl, “by a lot of men and women over a lot of years that have paid the price for us to have this type of system.” His voice cracked, and he had difficulty getting some of the words out. “It’s one that we always want to keep, and it’s provided by people like you who pull the heavy wagon, share the burden, and make the tough decisions.” He finished with an explanation that the flag that hangs in his courtroom formerly flew at ground zero, where the Twin Towers once stood.

------------

And from CBS 19, Reaction To Overturned Conviction

Here's what one juror, who served in Booger Redd's trial and finds the decision surprising, has to say:

"It seemed very fair to us...I'm fairly confident many of us made the decision before Mr. Murphy [the district attorney] opened his mouth."

Yeah, that sounds REAL fair....
 
The C family (I'm not so sure that it's a good thing to use the family name even if it is in print) has long had issues with child welfare. I do know that they have a long history of accepting very challenging children. Our paths have crossed over the years due to my history with adoption advocacy work in Northern California ifrom 1993 to 2005. I have never advocated for any of the children in the family, however, and thus can speak relatively objectively about them.

One must remember that some families can easily get overwhelmed and take in far more than they are capable of handling. Families often lose objectivity. Here's where DHS has a responsibility to increase supervision and support or stop calling and offering children. I can personally attest to the fact that we've been offered highly challenged children while we had just accepted others. If you "prove" your abilities with DHS, you can get swamped. It can be very very hard to say no when you so desperately want to help "just one more". But it is never best practice to "crowd" children.

I've seen many large adoptive/foster families (I think the C family does both) start out with the best of intentions and then have everything fall apart. It seems to me with what I personally know and what the article in TM (which by all accounts is extremely biased against the family) that it would be nearly impossible to pick through the "ruins" and determine what is and what isn't true at this point. I have to say that I've yet to read a reasonable account of the issues at hand by the family or their attorneys.

This case interests me as I've known of this family for quite some time and it seems that everything that went "right" in our case was handled incorrectly in this one. I've posted before that when our children disclosed, we were instructed to write everything down, date it, and the police came to pick it up within hours. The children were then transported to the Children's Advocacy Center and videotaped and interviewed without my husband or me present. None of us had heard the disclosures until they were played in court. My husband and I knew what was said to us privately but the children just gave us the basic facts. Trained detectives took the disclosures and the children were physically examined within that very first week after disclosures. We were then literally ordered NOT to speak of the case as a family for the entire 11 months it took to come to trial. We stepped back into our role as parents and allowed the DA's and police to do their work.

Many might not believe that silence was possible but we pulled it off. I took an oath and attested to that fact on the witness stand. When a child brought up the rapes during that horrid year, they were immediately (but gently) taken to a private place to speak. It took blood, sweat and tears but we did NOT discuss the case openly. We even had to place intercoms in the children's rooms and outside in the play areas and on the porches so that we could monitor all conversations. Sleeping arrangements had to be changed. The no talking order followed them to school. It was absolutely brutal as our family's healing was completely put on hold.

When the convictions were read in court--and there were 12--our children literally fell into each other arms sobbing. They could finally speak about their horrible experiences. It was amazing how siblings who had long term conflicts with each other now sought solace from each other as what they suspected or had seen glimpses of, was now confirmed. Their secrets were out and we could come together as a family.

If the TM article is to be believed, this is not the way the scenario played out for the C family. I read that the mother was present for some of the disclosures and that she prompted and corrected the children. I would have been eaten alive if I'd have opened my mouth. I was allowed to be at two of my daughters' physical exams but was warned that I'd be removed from the room immediately if I did anything but smile encouragingly at the child while the process went on. No crying, gasping, or sobbing was allowed. I excused myself after those exams and fell apart in the restroom. My husband repeated that process with our boys. I'd been trained long before our disclosures in how to respond to one. I had a good working knowledge of how not to question, to lead, to probe--to just let a child talk. I actually let the child sit near me and talk as I was supposedly "working" on the computer. I was, however, taking notes and writing some things down word for word but they didn't know that. I would occasionally say things like "that must have hurt" or "and then what happened" or "and where was this again?" I was dying inside as I wanted to hold them and comfort them and I was certain that I came across as not caring enough. In those moments, I was not the children's mother, I was taking a disclosure. It was one of the most difficult things I've ever done and the defense never fully believed that I'd done it but I did it. I attest to that fact. I don't think that's what happened in this case, sadly.

However, all that said, does that mean that the children were not abused? No, it does not. That's where the conundrum lies for me. We want abused children to be rescued from their abuse and to receive treatment. We want abusers punished. But we have to make certain that every detail holds up and every disclosure is an honest description of what the child actually experienced--no embellishments whatsoever. That's why we promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING but the truth. I hold those words sacred.

As an aside, the funding that the family received is totally irrelevant IMO, and is private per federal law. My expertise in in post adoption subsidies and services. Adoption assistance levels are set through negotiation and are an entitlement for the child as set forth in the Child Welfare Act of 1980. Children are entitled to receive adoption assistance subsidies (AAP) up to but no more than the appropriate level of foster care they would receive if they were placed in foster care. Adoption assistance actually costs the US taxpayer one seventh of the cost of the same level of foster care. If you have any questions about that issue, I would be glad to provide links to the law. The C family had a long history of accepting children with multiple diagnoses and thus would have been eligible for the higher rates of adoption assistance.

Bringing this back to the children. My true hope is that they can find balance and peace in their life and move forward in their healing. I also pray that true justice has been carried out and that no one has been falsely accused in any manner.
 
Why would this woman suddenly start pleading the 5th? I find that extremely suspect. Why would she plead the 5th if she didn't have anything to hide? Missizzy, do you have some idea about this?
 
Wow! Thanks, Missizzy! I so appreciate your sharing your story with us. I had read about your story in some of your other posts, and was very much hoping that you would.

I will also edit out the part where I listed the funding they recieved, but am I crazy or has the edit option disappeared? If necessary, I'll change the family's names to abbreviations.

Honestly, a HUGE, HUGE part of this, for me, IS about the children. If they are being used, and if they are currently in the home of a child abuser, they need to be removed. As I just wrote to you in PM, if what I think is going on, is actually going on, I imagine these kids are going to have a lot of anger, bitterness and confusion to deal with as they grow up.

And yes, the article is biased. No doubt about Michael Hall's personal opinion, but he did include some of the other "side" of the story as well. Such as, positive statements of atleast one former foster child of theirs, as well as their bio son's, and that he actually found Margie charming when she did actually agree to give an interview.

If everything in this article is true though, we've got a major problem. I'm currently researching all over the net and reading from several sources. So far, it's not looking good.
 
Spacegirl, please do let us know what you discover. This is a very bizarre situation and I am very concerned for the safety and wellbeing of these children. Irregardless of the slant of the article, something just seems very wrong here. I truly hope innocent people aren't sitting in jail, but there is so much confusion in this story I don't think there is ever going to be a way to decipher what really happened.
 
Spacegirl, please do let us know what you discover. This is a very bizarre situation and I am very concerned for the safety and wellbeing of these children. Irregardless of the slant of the article, something just seems very wrong here. I truly hope innocent people aren't sitting in jail, but there is so much confusion in this story I don't think there is ever going to be a way to decipher what really happened.

Thanks, Belinda. I will. I hope that one day we will all know the truth. I think it may take years and years, but I really think eventually everything will come out.

I want to make a time line soon. I think that will make things less confusing for us all, and maybe shed at least a little bit of light.

Sometimes all you have is the word of a child. What about the words the children first told though? They mean something, too. When the children are grown and they look back, they might say, "I tried to tell them."

Aside from my opinion that they may be in danger where they're at right now and everything else. If this is all untrue, look what is being done to these kids. Being put on the stand again and again, sometimes for hours at a time. I think one was on the stand for something like 9 hours. I can't imagine. No, I don't take this lightly at all.

I want the truth.

If it's proven that the charges are bogus and the children one day say that MC coached them, she better be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Also... Jamie Pittman & Shauntel Mayo were, in all likelihood, crack smokers. Her children were supposedly taken away because of this. Someone had tipped off CPS that they were inside smoking crack while the kids were outside. She had hot checks out, etc. I mean, if it wasn't crack, it was something else. I don't know, coke? Meth? Bottom line, pretty safe to say they were on drugs, neglecting those kids. Yet, Shauntel was supposedly dancing with the kids in all these costumes at the Swinger's Club. I mean, it's possible, but I doubt it.

What's even less possible though, in my mind, is her being admitted inside the Swinger's Club. No offense, but I'm sure swingers are pickier than that.

Those last two bits are just opinions, obviously.

I'm sure those two are awful people though, don't get me wrong. And I'm really surprised to find myself in this position. Something just stinks to high heaven here.
 
Here is an unbiased article from newsweek that's pretty good.

MC insists her husband is innocent of the unrelated molestation charges, which she sees as retribution for their outcry against the swingers, and says her husband plans to enter a not guilty plea. They were so wary as career foster parents of false accusations they removed the closet doors in their former home and put glass doors on their bedroom, she says. "I'm fighting with my life and J's life for these babies," she said, sobbing. "It's huge. There are so many other people involved that haven't been found. So they want us to shut our mouths," she told NEWSWEEK.

Also, I guess Patrick (Booger Redd) really did pass a polygraph. And if you didn't know, the charges were dropped against JC due to the statute of limitations.
 
There is just something off about this woman. Maybe it is the over-dramatizing attitude. I could be way off base. I don't know what to think. I just know that this woman makes my hinky meter go through the roof.
 
Spacegirl--Thanks for mentioning the "edit" button. I was afraid I was imagining things, LOL. I think it changed a few weeks ago. We don't have nearly the same amount of time to make changes. Just alert your post and ask that that line be deleted. The mods are great about this. Are we all certain that the children's names used in the article are pseudonyms? If so, they are fine but if not, I'd ask that those be changed to initials. My heart breaks for these kids as they'll be well known for a long time. Their parents' names are well known and they live in a small town. I know all too well about that issue.

Belinda, I agree, much seems off. I have no idea why the mother would plead the fifth unless the attorneys are encouraging her to do so. I can't imagine doing it but maybe there's a detail we don't know. I've always really enjoyed Texas Monthly and think they do a great job with investigative reporting. It's clear, though, that this reporter is casting a lot of doubt on this mother. Maybe she deserves it, maybe not. As a person who's lived through a trial like this, I can say that there's much the public does not know. We can guess and form opinions but really only the judge and the attorneys were privy to all the facts presented. The real truth lies within the children's memories. I definitely believe that children can have their memories tainted.

FWIW, I've done some research to see if many children recant abuse allegations when they are adults. Few seem to. I've also been surprised that I haven't found much about cases which were deemed false allegations where the victim steps forward as an adult and states clearly that they were NOT false. My guess here is that people want to move on. They compartmentalize and "let sleeping dogs lie". Just my observation as I do wish we could hear from children as they age in cases like this. We have much to learn. And if the "sleeping dogs" are men and women who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted, that is not right and must be remedied through appeal.

I also really want to remind everyone that just because someone has a "difficult" personality does not mean that the entire case is skewed. I agree that the mother is surely not comporting herself the way I would but investigators should have been controlling these interviews. IIRC, there was quite a bit of disconnect and confusion as two separate counties are involved. I also have to wonder, very respectfully, if this mother has not become ill due to the stress of these events.

I certainly didn't emerge unscathed from our ordeal, after all.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
1,196
Total visitors
1,412

Forum statistics

Threads
594,469
Messages
18,006,329
Members
229,411
Latest member
MJ1690
Back
Top