Monday, October 5, 2015

Rainn Peterson: Child of Neglect

Negligence has serious consequences.

"Look how mature she is!" the mother boasts, as my stomach cringes and I leap to my feet to intervene.

The mother was boasting on how her 2 year old made her own breakfast.

It was an oft-repeated scenario.

When Brandi Peterson told the news that her daughter would go with anyone, including strangers, it signaled acute neglect, as the child did not have the loving bod that creates an element of natural and protective stranger anxiety, and likely had been passed around a great deal in her young life.

Now we learn that she has been found alive, about a mile from her great parents home, of whom had custody of her.

Why didn't the mother have custody?
Why didn't the father?
Why didn't the maternal grandparents have custody?
Why didn't the paternal grandparents have custody?

What caused custody to go all the way to great grandparents?  How much energy would a great grandparent have, to keep up with a toddler?

We have a lot of unanswered questions in this story but the common theme beneath it is neglect.



From News 21:


What seemed like a happy ending to the disappearance of a Trumbull County toddler hasn't been so happy for the child's mother.
Brandi Peterson told 21 News Reporter Lindsay McCoy on Monday that she has not been allowed to see
 her daughter Rainn since she was found in a field Sunday evening

A lone member of the search party on a four-wheeler found the the two-year-old alive but cold, about a mile from
her great grandparents home where she had last been seen nearly 48 hours earlier.

Since then, Rainn Peterson has been in St. Joseph Hospital in Warren where she is being treated for cuts, scrapes, dehydration and low body temperature.

Her mom says she has yet to see her daughter in the hospital

But Brandi Peterson says she has heard from Trumbull County Children's Services.
MOTHER STATEMENT

"They are taking custody of my daughter until the investigation is over. That's very frustrating. It's very upsetting because
she was at my grandparents house when she went missing,"said the mom. "I was not there. I passed my polygraph test.
 I cooperated with the police a hundred percent."

 The mom says that since she keeps hearing that there are no signs of foul play. “Then why can't I see her?” asked Peterson

Brandi Peterson says investigators search her home Sunday night, but took nothing from the house.

21 News contacted Trumbull County Children's Services who told Lindsay that they are attempting to arrange a meeting between mother and daughter.
Lindsay McCoy will have more on this story tonight on 21 News 6 p.m.
--- Mother statement interview reporter Baby missing- she sharing / what happened:  https://youtu.be/Ax06dIR4h3c

242 comments:

1 – 200 of 242   Newer›   Newest»
Juliet said...

I just posted a long interview with the mom on the earlier Rainn thread - it would be good if anyone wants to post it on this thread, I don't have time now - will do it later if no-one else has by then.

Anonymous said...

New Statements said by Brandi Peterson

-Authorities are preventing her
from seeing Rainn, she Brandii who does not say
her daughters name, she does use her name as if she
is an Object. She mother, her empowering
herself. She now is coming forward.

A portion of her quoted: Me myself and My

"It's like when you're little and you play telephone. You know, by the time it gets to the last person, it's all messed up. It's all out of whack."

"Me and my boyfriend were here at my residence...the lady from the FBI showed up and said they had found her and she was in rough shape. I jumped up and I grabbed the FBI lady and I held her and I just started crying and she started crying."

"(She's) still at the hospital. (They) wanted her to stay at least one night, trying get her temperature back up."

"I can see my two boys at (my) grandparents house now. Rainn's brother from (the) same father ordered (them) to stay at my grandparents' house."

Read more all about Brandii

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/ohio/2015/10/05/rainns-mom-they-wont-let-me-see-my-daughter/73390198/

Sus said...

This reminded me of a long-forgotten thing that happened to my mother. She was a birth to three teacher, which means she went into homes where a child would need assistance before school. Mostly she worked showing parents how they could aid their child in learning.

So she was running through the checklist with a new client. She asked the mother if her son could climb steps...remember birth to three. The mother answered, "Why, sure he can. John, get out there and show the lady how you run those stairs!"

As they were in a second floor apartment, Mom said, the kid ran out the door and down and up the steepest set of stairs she's seen...while she about had a heart attack.

Had to share.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Only a self-absorbed, clueless idiot would actually think that "I was nowhere near and didn't even realize she had gone missing" is an even slightly acceptable defense from the mother (not "mom" by any stretch) of an injured toddler.

Anonymous said...

She makes references toward "her" house though she doesn't have custody. Also, and foremost, knowledge of which doors are typically locked,including laundry room.

They will quiz the toddler on her adventure.

JenB said...

Ugh. I would be frantic if my missing toddler had been found but was being kept from me, because I'd be worried about how scared and upset she must be without her mother and in a strange and scary place after such an awful ordeal. I don't hear any of that fear or concern from Brandi. Also she says she had custody of both her children - I thought she had 3. she even refers to Rainn's brother with the same father, which makes me think Rainn has another brother with a different father. It has never occurred to me to specify that my children have the same father, when talking about them. Right?

I also would still be freaking out with worry that she might die from being so dehydrated, etc. I don't think wild horses could keep me from one of my kids if they were hurt like this.

Juliet said...

Interview: Rainn's Mom - they won't let me see my daughter

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/ohio/2015/10/05/rainns-mom-they-wont-let-me-see-my-daughter/73390198/

What Brandi Peterson had to say raises some other questions that have yet to be answered.

"I'm very, very upset right now. I do really want to thank everyone who volunteered and the police officers," Brandi Peterson said.

"It was a huge search and rescue and thank God because I don't think they would be able to find her without the people who did."

"I'm upset because I feel like, ever since this incident started, I was a suspect, from strangers to family members to friends. And they all tried to accuse me. That was very frustrating."

"I lost my child. I didn't know where she was. Very, very frustrating and aggravating to have people believe that I had something to do with it."

"I was the one who brought up the polygraph test and volunteered to take the polygraph test to prove that I had nothing to do with the disappearance of my daughter."

"They took her to the emergency room last night. They said that she had minor lacerations from pricker bushes. She was very, very dehydrated and she was hallucinating from being so dehydrated, upset and exhausted. She was so exhausted they had to sedate her, trying to get her temperature up."

"(They) gave her bottles of Pedialite. She drank four bottles in a row because she was so thirsty and dehydrated. They put IVs in her to get the things she lost back into her."

"And I have not been able to see her yet. They called me last night around 8:30-9, children's services did. They told me that they are taking custody of Rainn -- my daughter -- until the investigation is over. That's very frustrating. That's very upsetting because she was at my grandparents' house when she went missing. I was not there. I passed my polygraph test. I cooperated with police 100 percent and I want to see her. I want to bring her home with me and now I can't even see her."

"It's very frustrating. It's aggravating. It's upsetting. It's not fair. It's just not fair. This has really taught about knowing who your real friends and family are. This whole thing has been a giant mess."

"To have children's services tell me they're taking custody of my daughter when there's no sign of foul play. It's very frustrating and it's aggravating."

"So many people were saying false accusations -- 'Oh, the mother must have done it, she's changed her story three times.'"

"The worst feeling in the world was me not knowing where she was. Not knowing if she was safe. Not even knowing if she was alive. And I have people standing around blaming me for this. Accusing me of this."

"It's like when you're little and you play telephone. You know, by the time it gets to the last person, it's all messed up. It's all out of whack."

"Me and my boyfriend were here at my residence...the lady from the FBI showed up and said they had found her and she was in rough shape. I jumped up and I grabbed the FBI lady and I held her and I just started crying and she started crying."

Juliet said...

Continued

"(She's) still at the hospital. (They) wanted her to stay at least one night, trying get her temperature back up."

"I can see my two boys at (my) grandparents house now. Rainn's brother from (the) same father ordered (them) to stay at my grandparents' house."



Brandi Peterson reiterates that she had nothing to do with Rainn going missing.

"I wasn't there and I didn't do this and to tell me that you're going to take custody of my daughter, and to put her in foster care until this is over is absolutely outrageous and it just absolutely kills me because I've just gone two days with my daughter missing not knowing if she was alive not knowing where she was not knowing if someone took her not knowing what happened and I can't even bring her home when they found her and I haven't even seen her yet."

"This is my baby. I'm the mother. I have custody. It's frustrating. It's aggravating. It's upsetting and I just can't stress enough things are."

"I have full custody of both of my children. I was granted full custody a couple months ago in court. Children's services says they're retaining custody of her as of last night. (They) won't let any family there. She is there with children's services and hospital staff."

"It's not fair, something needs to be done. This is why I'm going public. Before my daughter went missing, children's services came to my home. They made sure that there were no hazards to my children. They made sure everyone would be fine and they told me they'd send papers in the mail in just a few days and possibly get my kids and bring them here. They are saying that it's not them, that it's the police officers asking."

"If I wasn't there when my daughter was gone, why can't I have her back? That's all I want. I want her safe with me. Obviously, she wasn't safe and she wasn't with me."


Juliet said...

Continued


Why Brandi Peterson took a polygraph test

"I felt like it was the only way I was going to get the police officers, the FBI agents and everyone to believe what I had to say because they didn't believe me. They acted like they didn't believe me. They've said things to family members that absolutely astonished me would come from police officers."

"I was putting up posters of my daughter on mailboxes, on telephone poles, in stores. We really thought that someone had taken her or that she had gotten out and seen her and picked her up. We just had no idea. There were no leads. There was no trace of her. No shoes found. No clothing. No toys. No nothing."

"I was really, really pleased with the search. I think thy did a wonderful, terrific job trying to find my daughter and they found her. I am so thankful for everyone. Firemen. Police officers. Volunteers."

"Words cannot describe how thankful I am because we would have never found her if we didn't have all those people looking. The person who really did find her, the actual person who found her, I want to say thank you so much because you're my hero. They are my heroes. They are all heroes."

"They found her. They brought her -- I'd like to say -- home. They brought her back and that's what I asked everybody to do and they did bring her home. Well, they brought her back and I'm deeply grateful and there's nothing I can do to show them how thankful we all are -- me and my family -- for finding her and bringing her back alive because I don't think she would have lasted much longer out there."

----
(Also, video of some of this interview is at the website in the same page)

Anonymous said...

Sus is right on another post on the other missing Rainn Peterson thread. It is not easy to find a missing person in a heavily wooded area, particularly one who is not moving about and is silent, including areas that have already been searched.

Look how long it took to find Chandra Levy's body in the park where she was known to have gone jogging frequently, including the day she went missing, much later found by accident; and Hailey Dunn in the ugly fields very near the Adkins family property where Shawn Adkins was suspected all along to have placed her, but only found later when Point Hunter was out looking for points for his hobby collection; little Caylee's ravaged body under the tree near the Anthony residence where Casey played as a child and buried her family pet once; accidentally found by a utility worker who went into the area to relieve himself.

Many of these missing ones are never found. It is just a miracle little Rainn was found when she was. I doubt she would have made it through another night. ABB

Juliet said...

Anon at 4.44 - she has her own place, with her boyfriend. She was hoping the children would be moving in with her shortly. Child protective services had checked it out to ensure it was not a hazardous environment. She was waiting on paperwork, and hoping the children would be brought to her by CPS. Sounds as though family relations were not good if the children would need to be brought to her by social workers rather than grandparents, and if she was not anticipating picking them up herself

Seems to me it would be helpful to her cause if it could be demonstrated that the baby was not safe with the greatngrandparents - well, she says it, more or less.

Anonymous said...

...exit 32...that1/4 mile you've been waiting for all day...built by someone that really likes to drive

played 3 times while the 911 rescue recording was aired by digital19Clevland

WEIRD!

Juliet said...

Jen b - the custody thing seems confused. It sounds as if she has been granted custody of the boys, but maybe there is a custody dispute relating to Rainn, most likely with the great-grandma, though obviously now also with cps. I'm going on what I think she is saying - she says she has full custody of her children, maybe she is waiting on paperwork to confirm that - I don't know how that works, or how many children she means by that - she says she has custody, but doesn't say specifically that she had been granted custody of Rainn.

Juliet said...

http://www.wfmj.com/story/30191506/exclusive-volunteer-hailed-as-hero-says-he-was-fortunate-to-find-rainn-peterson

NORTH BLOOMFIELD, Ohio -
The man who found Rainn Peterson alive in the middle of a field, says he's no hero, just fortunate enough to be the person to rescue her to safety.

"I'm just a guy that saw her, there were hundreds of great people just as caring just as capable as I was," Victor Sutton said.
Sutton says he searched an open field where others weren't looking Sunday night.

"All I kept thinking going through those woods is that she's waiting for somebody like me to get her, I always promised my kids I'd get them and I wanted to get her if I could," Sutton said.

He eventually noticed a patch of purple in the distance and jumped off his ATV.

"I look over at her and I could see her hair, so I knew it was a baby," he said.

At first he thought the worst, but continued to call out her name and that's when he noticed the first sign that she was alive.

"I yelled 'Rainn' real abruptly and she twitched, she lifted her head, turned to me and opened her eyes," he said.

Sutton says the 2-year-old was crying, cold, covered in flies, but says she wasn't "horribly wet". He stayed with her and called 911 for help.

"She was shaken and you could tell she had been through a bad experience," he said.

He believes she was sleeping in that spot in the field for some time less than half a mile from the home of her great grandparents.

Sutton believes she was given a second chance in life for a reason. He says the ending to this search illustrates the message to never give up.

Anonymous said...

Mon now has limited visitation with Rainn:

"They won't let me have custody, and I can only have short supervised visits," Brandi Peterson said. "It is not fair."
Authorities said when the girl was found, she had one shoe on and one shoe off.
She says her daughter was dehydrated and had a bad infection.

http://fox8.com/2015/10/05/investigation-continues-after-missing-trumbull-county-toddler-is-found-in-field/

Juliet said...

Well, they need to ensure, inasmuch as they are able, that the baby has not been hidden away and deprived of food and water for any period, by anyone, before she was found in the field. She didn't look as if she had been exposed to the elements for two nights and two days, and through rainfall. As she was dehydrated, and as it sounds as if she was also hypothermic, she had been cold and thirsty for hours, at least - but for how many hours? Ifmans some suspect, she was put into the field on the day she was found, then she has been mistreated during the missing hours, not only by being taken from her home. It's possible she had been deprived of water, for her to be quite so dehydrated, at least, maybe also food - in which case someone would be responsible, parent, boyfriend, relative, stranger - so I can't see why the mother doesn't see that - just common sense they want to rule out that anyone, including a potential abductor, might have done that, before allowing anyone who might be a possible suspect, to see the baby. It's great she is was found in a relatively good condition, but it has to raise the questions as to how that came to be, too.

The mom still seems very concerned about herself, but after the earlier interview, that's not a surprise.

Anonymous said...

"The worst feeling in the world was me not knowing where she was. Not knowing if she was safe. Not even knowing if she was alive. And I have people standing around blaming me for this. Accusing me of this."

It's all about her. She says over and over how "it's not fair!" Yes, Brandii, it's not fair, not fair at all that sweet little Rainn was out in the rain and cold all by herself, covered in flies, and scared! It's not fair at all!!

Amber

Anonymous said...

It is possible in my opinion that Rainn did innocently escape on her own from the house, getting lost as she toddled around in the dark, wet, cold night. Possible, but not likely.

I still think that it is possible that Brandi was directly or indirectly involved. The GGM had custody of all three of the children, Brandi was fighting to get custody of them back. She was moving into a new place, she likely needed the $$$ that she would get from being the children's primary caregiver. We have seen this scenario 1,000 times. For whatever reason, she became fearful that custody would be given to GGM (that is what is also being reported in social media, that GGM was going to get full custody). So Brandi needed to show that GGM was unfit. I know it sounds outrageous but if you have ever dealt with hard-core addicts you would know that something like this is very possible.

I saw some very disturbing posts earlier on FB that support my thoughts. I don't want them to be true, I hope I am wrong. An EMT that claims he was at the scene helping search had this to say:

"[Brandii didn't help search] Because she was too high on heroin to to even take the polygraph. And way to high to even want to help us look"

"the mother took the child out of the home when grandparent's were upstairs cooking. The other 2 kids even stated that "Mom was here" mom was seen Sunday via trail cam from local hunter dropping her child off at dawn on Sunday morning in the field. She was there until Sunday evening"

"Baby left in a pull up and was found in an actual diaper"

"Facts...straight from close family"

"I wouldn't let you see her either.. Talk about a trash mom... What parent would abandon their kid in a field from Dawn until dusk... That is what really happened. She was so freaking high on heroin so high she couldn't take a polygraph until the next day.. I had it my way you would and should rot"

His name is Ben Moisio, according to his FB page he is an EMT. He absolutely could be making it all up, or the "close family" could be making it all up as well. But Ben posted all of this publicly, as a professional I would think he would be careful of what he posts, I would imagine he is being truthful. But we don't know for sure so take it all with a grain of salt, I thought I would post just in case anyone was interested. Link to where he posted all of this:

https://www.facebook.com/WKYC.Channel3/posts/10153772904879274?comment_id=10153773456419274&offset=0&total_comments=416&notif_t=share_comment

Anne

Atlchanel said...

If you want to read some interesting comments go to WKYC Channel 3 Facebook. It involves picking up something or someone on a hunter's trail camera.

Juliet said...

"It's not fair.'

Really. It seems fair enough to me - they'll be clocking how parent interacts with child, and also the baby's reaction. Why is that not fair? A missing child is not somehow simply lost property, is she?

Atlchanel said...

Anne beat me to it. Lol!

Anonymous said...

"And I have people standing around blaming me for this. Accusing me of this."

SA says "this" is close and "that" is distant. Wouldn't she want to distance herself from blame? Yet she says "this." I would expect something like "I wouldn't do that to my daughter."

Amber

Jen Ow said...

The mother is a liar, and not a very good one. She contradicts herself repeatedly.

Some very telling quotes:

"This is my baby. I'm the mother. I have custody. It's frustrating. It's aggravating. It's upsetting and I just can't stress enough things are."

"I have full custody of both of my children. I was granted full custody a couple months ago in court. Children's services says they're retaining custody of her as of last night. (They) won't let any family there. She is there with children's services and hospital staff."

"I can see my two boys at (my) grandparents house now. Rainn's brother from (the) same father ordered (them) to stay at my grandparents' house."

"Before my daughter went missing, children's services came to my home. They made sure that there were no hazards to my children. They made sure everyone would be fine and they told me they'd send papers in the mail in just a few days and POSSIBLY get my kids and bring them here. They are saying that it's not them, that it's the police officers asking."

- Alright, in case your having trouble following, (like I did) she repeatedly states that she has custody, and even 'full custody', but she reveals in the rest of her story that is not true.

If she had 'full custody', then the father of 'both kids with the same father', wouldn't have ANY say in whether or not she could see the kids at her grandparents home, or the ability to "order" the kids to stay there. The father doesn't "order" things, ever...but he could make the decision to leave them in the GGP's care if he has custody, or joint custody.

She says she was granted 'full custody' in court, then goes on to detail that a CPS home inspection was conducted "before she went missing", and claims she was told she would receive paperwork and POSSIBLY get her kids brought back.

When she says she has custody of BOTH her kids, she is excluding one of them. Wonder who?

Putting all of the pieces together, this is my take on their entire circus, (some of it told in 'Mom's' own words):

"If I wasn't there when my daughter was gone, why can't I have her back? That's all I want. I want her safe with me. Obviously, she wasn't safe and she wasn't with me."

-She wanted custody. Full custody means $$, and the fact that children's services was involved, and currently accessing whether her home was a safe and suitable place for kids, doesn't speak well for her. Nor does the fact that SHE states that her own family accused her of being responsible for Rainn's disappearance from the start.

She may have thought that if one of the children went 'missing' from their current home, it could bolster her chances of regaining custody.

Jen Ow said...

Even more interestingly, in this statement she allows for the possibility that she was THERE when her daughter "was gone"!

"If I wasn't there when my daughter was gone, why can't I have her back? That's all I want. I want her safe with me. Obviously, she wasn't safe and she wasn't with me."

She frames this statement as a question, "If I wasn't there...", rather than a declaration, "I wasn't there when my daughter went missing".

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow you basically repeated exactly what I said at 8:04 regarding my theory of what happened.

Anne

Jen Ow said...

Cool! I'll check it out...

Jen Ow said...

Hey Anne, where did you read on social MEDIA that the GGP's were expected to get custody? Same thread as the Ben Moisio comments, or elsewhere?

I want to believe the 'Ben' guy, but he talks about how 'she was too high to help us search', and then says he got the info from a "close family member". Seems like if he was actually part of the searching, he wouldn't have to get info second hand from family?

Either way, there is more to this story than a toddler simply wandering away. Mom introduces the idea of a 'safe environment' when talking about the inspection of her home, then draws the parallel that her daughter obviously wasn't in a safe environment. It seems like the she is eluding to the thought process that hatched this lame brained scheme.

Juliet said...

Ah, that's enlightening, Jen. Bare faced, as lies go - weird.

I wondered if maybe things had changed in relation to her (claimed) custodianship of the other two children as a result of Rainn's unexplained disappearance - maybe there had been some emergency appeal for custody by the father, or something - I don't know how all that works over there, or if matters like that take a while to be resolved. It makes more sense that she just is lying - but, well, weird much.


I don't think it needs to be a bad sign that her home was being checked out for suitability - I think that's pretty standard child welfare/health and safety where CPS are involved with moving kids from one residence to another, it's the same here (UK). Though I have read, all too often, that once the kids are out of sight, or 'settled',they and their living conditions might not be checked again, or hardly ever, and that even very young children get 'lost' in the care system, sometimes never to be traced - I don't think that happens here, though older children regularly go missing.

i agree she had motive - both financial, and in order to make her own case for custody stronger. Well, if it turns out she did that, I hope she will not be allowed further access to her children, ever. That poor baby - hard to imagine a other doing something like that, but if she did place the baby there at dawn, as claimed by Bob the Firefighter, I wonder how long she might have been willing to leave her there. Too much speculation, though it does seem very likely that she was involved.

Angelica said...

"I was not there. I passed my polygraph test.
I cooperated with the police a hundred percent."

Not the same as saying "I did not take my daughter and then drop her off in the elements in a field."

Juliet said...

Ah - the miserable publicity photo, if it was supplied by mom, would fit with her wanting to give the impression that her daughter was not safe or happy in her current environment. Pointless speculation, not knowing who chose or put out the first photo. I bet it was grandparents who put the second photo out there - well, via the Sheriff.

John mcgowan said...

Thanks, Juliet

There is a lot of information in your posts. @October 5, 2015 at 6:40 PM, on wards.

criticalthinker said...

Great to see Jen Ow back and her ability to break things down concisely and to apply sharp logic when thinking through these cases. It's very refreshing.

On a different note, as, yes it seems very likely this pathological liar mother took Rainne from the house, I'm curious about these words uttered by the man who found Rainee while riding on his 4-wheeler:

All I kept thinking going through those woods is that she's waiting for somebody like me to get her, I always promised my kids I'd get them and I wanted to get her if I could," Sutton said.

What does he mean when he says "I always promised my kids I'd get them..." (?)

Also, this statement strikes me as ODD:

""I look over at her and I could see her hair, so I knew it was a baby," he said.

"I look over at her"

*"look" is present tense
* one "looks over at" something or someone when they already know that that someone or something is there

"and I could see her hair"

"so I knew it was a baby"
*"knew" is past tense changed from the present tense of "look"
The word "SO" needs to be highlighted by SCAN making the portion of the statement before it sensitive. The portion of the statement would be "I look over at her and I could see her hair."

Something doesn't hit me quite right about his recollection of how he "realized" she was a baby. How can you "look over at her" if you don't already know she is there?

Anonymous said...

She and the family need a lawyer. It's easy to tell that bullsh!t is fluently being used to milk this tragedy out at everyone's expense. Using a lense to see inside the ggp's home was too much! Raiding the neighbor's homes, too.

The sheriff said they were just on Chapter 2. (WTF)


Nope. Not buying alot of it.

What EMT from that area would make such a claim when his career would depend on the truth? Can he prove it? Has anyone seen the trail cams?

Juliet said...

Mom sees Rainn - grandmother seeks custody

http://www.wfmj.com/story/30192263/mom-sees-rainn-peterson-great-grandparents-seek-custody

criticalthinker said...

What's on the trail cams?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Yes, you probably would be freaking out, but you also would have been out looking when dozens of complete strangers were still hard at work!

Jen Ow said...

Hey Juliet,

My issue is with her claiming to have been awarded 'full custody in court', when by her own words she is still under CPS investigation.

No judge is going to award her full custody, and then send CPS as an afterthought to determine if she actually has a suitable home for these kids to live in.

Also, if she was awarded full custody, her grandparents keeping the brother(s) by 'order' would be impossible. She would be in full control of their custody/guardianship/decisions about where they live, etc. It seems like she is trying to use the family court 'buzzwords' to make herself seem credible, but the details she reveals in the rest of her story expose the truth.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, do people here know how to READ????

Criticalthinker, while I'm sure that Jen Ow is a great asset to this blog, all she really did thus far is repeat a combination of what Juiet and I already posted.

As to your question re: the trail cams, once again, it was already posted earlier by me, upthread.

Also, the EMT did not give sworn testimony, he merely shared his thoughts on the case on Facebook. That is all. I thought I made that clear in my post. Perhaps I should no longer share any info I find outside of MSM if people can't comprehend that.

Anne

John mcgowan said...

What fascinates me about SA, is, as far as i'm aware (correct me if i'm wrong) there has been no deception in the language employed by her mum, Grandma and so on. Sensitivities, yes.
But, we have to decode (for want of a better phrase) why there are sensitivities, in certain portions of some statements.
Sensitivity maybe a myriad of things. From guilt to neglect etc. I think this is were the "personal, subjective internal dictionary" comes into play.

Juliet said...

John - you're welcome - thought to post some of it as it might be edited or gone by tomorrow - you never know. :)

Jen Ow - yes,I got what you were saying.:)

The neighbours chip in,- also a view of the field where Rainn was found:

http://wkbn.com/2015/10/05/neighbors-react-to-2-year-old-rainn-petersons-disappearance/

Jen Ow said...

Thank you for your kind welcome back!

I've been wanting to get back to participating with you guys for days/weeks, but I started a remodeling project, that has turned into a much bigger project than I anticipated. I'm still not done, but I need a break!

I've enjoyed catching up the last few days, reading the excellent analysis, and comments from everyone!

John mcgowan said...

It's nice to see you back, Jen :)

Jen Ow said...

Good to see you!

Jen Ow said...

I wonder if Mom isn't cunningly referencing that the court allowed her to 'maintain her parental rights', which is separate from physical custody?

I'm not sure how they term it in other areas, but locally a parent can maintain their parental rights, even while their children are placed in another party's physical custody.

I'm interested to see how this all shakes out.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why people continue to spread lies,defamation,and innuendos knowing this child will start school in 3 years. These ADULTS know their words will live forever on the WEB. These lovers of children KNOW what bullies will teach her classmates.

WHY DO IT?

Sus said...

Thank you, John!!!! Yes, sensitivities may be related to guilt, they may not. Even if they are related to guilt, the guilt is not necessarily related to a crime.

Second point: that emt should be fired. If it is a volunteer job, he should be let go. Even if it turns out what he is saying is true, he should be fired.

elf said...

The mom comes off as being very center-egoed (sp) . Its probably been 'me,me,me' all her life. I think the sensitivity in her statements may stem from the fact that she wasn't there (I don't think she was. Whatever she was doing when Rainn went missing was something she wasn't supposed to be doing or she had told her grandparents that she was one place, like work, but she was really at the tattoo parlor) and now it seems she almost might feel vindicated because this accident didn't happen on.her watch therefore she now feels justified in.having at least Rainn back with her despite what the state previously decided. At least that's how I'm getting it.
Despite what others might think I do think this has a happy ending... no decade long search for answers, no tiny body discarded in a river or lake or stuffed in a garbage bag and tossed. Little Rainn was found alive. Maybe this will inspire her mother to be better for her kids.

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Sus

I feel guilt every day. My Dad is 85 and i do what i can for him. he is looked after and cared for, yet, i still feel guilt. Because i'm always asking myself, can i do more? Over and over again i ask myself this. Now, although i know, i'm doing everything to help and care for him, i still feel guilt, and that may show up as sensitivity. That's exactly what is, sensitive, to me, because i want to do more for him, even knowing that i'm doing all i can. Indicators of sensitivity in a statement, is just that, sensitive. It maybe as above, or it maybe nefarious. As you have said, Sus, guilt is not necessarily related to a crime.

Calvin said...

"A piece of me is missing and I don't know where IT is"

criticalthinker said...


Anne,

I apologize for missing the info about the trail cam you posted.

I also see you posted that one of her friends said she was high on heroin, which I think a poster on the other thread had also felt she was on heroin.

I think the mother took her from the house and put her in the field. I think there are a few more twists to this tale, for example, who was hiding Rainne for the 2 days? From the picture of Rainne after she was found, her hair seemed freshly brushed.

I think it is quite serendipitous that the man on the RV found her so promptly after she was dropped off in the field by the mother.

""I yelled 'Rainn' real abruptly and she twitched, she lifted her head, turned to me and opened her eyes," he said.

I literally feel like I am reading from a novel when I read the above line. It is not natural speech. Whether that indicates any deception or not, I don't know, however, it is odd the individual has stylized their speech when sharing their discovery.

Lemon said...

Good to see you Jen Ow :)
~ waves~

Anonymous said...

https://gma.yahoo.com/oregon-umpqua-shooting-survivor-recalls-terrifying-moments-inside-152551030--abc-news-topstories.html#

does this woman's story sound real to you? I see so many things I've learned on this blog popping up to show deception. starting with "the shooter asked us to move to the center of the room" asked should be told - if it was real, right?

Anonymous said...

Anne, re your post @10:31; try not to let it rattle you. It's happened to me several times where some other poster either isn't correctly reading what I said, or is ignoring what I said, or is deliberately trying to discredit me; even to the point of critiquing and calling me a liar or blatantly implying that I am not being truthful.

It does start to make one feel defensive, even angry, particularly when you see some have formed little buddy groups that have bonded together and deliberately side-stepped you; it also speaks loud and clear how little they actually know about statement analysis while they agree and pat each other on the back. Then the popularity contest is off and running while you get trampled on. It just isn't worth it.

These are some of the reasons I don't think I can ever really be a part of this thread. Another reason is that it really disturbs me to think that I might mis accuse someone falsely of committing a crime they did not commit. It is so easy to twist words and actions around to make one appear to be guilty when they aren't.

Just the misapplication of one or two words, or implications, can quickly twist someone into looking suspicious when perhaps they aren't. I've seen this happen here more than once among some of the posters who have no empathy whatsoever for those they are crucifying with their cruel words that have no basis in fact. I take falsely accusing another very seriously.

While I am interested in the practice of statement analysis and the truthfulness of many of its' concepts, as well as its' advantages, I can also see where it can go terribly wrong in the hands of some who do not recognize the seriousness of what they are doing, and in the misapplication of some of their 'analysis' they can and do cause great harm to others who may not be as guilty as they are accusing them of being.

I frequently drop out, but keep coming back determined to give it another try since I do see statement analysis as having a lot of merit, with Peter Hyatt being an extremely gifted, brilliant and learned instructor; however, for my own personal use, and as it is being practiced by some of the posters here, I see it as a lost cause for the very reasons you outlined above as well as my own. I wish you well and hope that you are better at handling it than I am. ABB

foodiefoodnerd said...

You feel like you just read an exerpt from a novel because you did. That speech couldn't be more scripted, and that need to flower it up is a bit creepy.

Also, if you suddenly spotted a missing toddler girl who has been lost in the elements for days, terrified and completely alone, would your first instinct be to "yell abruptly" at her?

Jen Ow said...

Yeah, I'm sure K4 aged kids are going to hop on this SA blog looking for ammunition to bully her with.

*(After they teach themselves to read, that is!)

Jen Ow said...

Hey Lemons!

Juliet said...

It keeps going round in my head, the question of whether she was deliberately deprived of food and water, maybe just given a bare minimum, to make it appear she had been missing and alone all that time, before she was taken to the field. If what Ben the Firefighter says is true, and the baby went missing in a pull-up but was found in a diaper, then someone must have had her. I suppose they would look for fingerprints or DNA on the diaper - hope so. It's the sort of detail anyone might forget though - at least if they use both pull-ups and diapers. Pull-ups are easier at that age, especially if the baby is being potty-trained - but they might use both, in which case the recall could be mistaken. I wonder if either would have stayed on her for that length of time, too - if she wouldn't have pulled off a full heavy diaper by the time she was found. Mostly though, how could she even be alive - so I think she may not have been out in the open during all that time, and that she may have found her own shelter, but altogether, it seems more likely someone had her. She would have cried, how would searchers not have heard her, the dogs not have picked up and followed her scent from the house as she was so close by? Mom said the rain might have destroyed the scent. It's just as possible there was no scent leading from the house to where the child was found. There was a scent further down the road - she might have been carried from the house, placed briefly on the ground at the spot down the road, where a car was possibly parked or waiting, and then driven away, that could make sense of there being a random spot down the road where her scent was found. Or maybe that's where the guardian angel set her down for a moment while he adjusted his wings. :)

Juliet said...

Yes, Victor is enjoying being the hero - he always told his kids he would get them - I wonder if he ever had the opportunity, or if getting little Rainn is the fulfilment of a lifelong ambition to be a rescuing hero. Good for him -I think he's embroidering his story, adding a few sequins to make it sound a bit more interesting, as people like to do. He's had a couple of days to rehearse for the cameras and maybe he's a fan of badly written novels. :) He was maybe dreaming literally, of being the one to find her. I can believe he yelled, was likely stopping at intervals to yell out her name, and when actually she sat up and was there, he regretted that he'd been yelling quite so loudly and 'abruptly' - his voice woke and maybe frightened the baby, but really, he wasn't to know she was there? They said there were a lot of purple flowers round the area. He can tell it however he likes, seeing as he found her. IMO. Presumably 'get' serves for 'find' - though I should not presume.

Juliet said...

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/10/happy_that_missing_trumbull_county_toddler_rainn_peterson_is_found_police_say_many_unanswered_questions_exist.html

(Excerpt from linked report - it's long)

On Friday night, Altiere said, Richard Peterson began doing some work in the basement, while his wife was in another part of the split-level home. Altiere said he believes the child went out through an attached garage and through the backyard into adjacent farm fields.

She was gone for a half hour before family members realized it, the sheriff estimated.

Rainn eventually wandered about a half-mile from her great-grandparents' home, much of it over rough terrain. She wore a purple sweatshirt, gray pants and tennis shoes.

Bristol emergency workers transported the child to the hospital. Fire Chief Tom Dempsey said she was awake, alert and crying on the trip.

"We finished chapter 1. Now, we are moving to chapter 2,’’ said Trumbull County Sheriff Thomas Altiere.
Had she gone out the front door, Rainn would have faced a rural highway where drivers routinely hit speeds of 65 mph.

Sutton, like several volunteers, rode through the fields in a four-wheeler. He found the child not far from an oil well.

"As soon as she was found, you could hear people cheering in all of these houses,'' said Perry Turner, who lives near where the child was found. "It's a miracle that she's alive. But it just doesn't add up. You or I couldn't have survived that, and I've hunted all my life. It was cold, and it was wet. She had no shelter. It may be possible, but it's highly improbable.''

Turner spent last weekend on his four-wheeler, searching his 176 acres and looking for the child. He noticed men on horseback searching, as well.

"It raises a lot of questions,'' Turner said. "But I don't give a crap about the questions. I'm just happy that she is alive. Let someone else deal with that.''

A lot of people are. A dozen cars belonging to investigators lined the tiny path that led to the oil well Monday morning, and authorities searched all of the possible routes the child could have taken from her great-grandparents' home.

Ashley King and Jesse Prater of Hartsgrove, in nearby Ashtabula County, spent eight hours searching for the child. King looked through fields, hoping to find a shoe or a diaper.

"Anything,'' she said. "For such a small child to go that long without food or water is amazing,'' King said.

When neighbors began to ask whether a 2-year-old child could walk that far in that weather, King stopped them. "Absolutely,'' she said.

Anonymous said...

I read a book about the mindset of survival and it stated that something like 6 and under are the most likely to survive in the wild while preteen and teens are the most likely to die. The reason being is the young ones just do what is natural to survive, but the other group starts to critically think, but it is not developed so they fail. Just food for thought.

lynda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lynda said...

Transcribed another little blip of mom speaking, so the following are the only video transcriptions of her speech as opposed to newspaper writing what she said.

Mom:
"The worst feeling in the world was me not knowing where she was , not knowing if she was safe, not even knowing if she was alive, and I have people standing around, blaming me for this, accusing me for this and its, ..the things that people said, ah, ah, argh, as I said before, friends, family members even, my own family, things that people said, its just not right, eh,eh, and, MOST OF IT was, was, false accusations and people just thought that they knew, y’know everybody is, it, its like when you’re little and ya, and ya, play telephone, ya know by the time it gets to the last person it’s, y’know, it’s all messed up, everythings outta whack."

"I feel like ever since this incident started, I was a suspect, from strangers, to family members, to, ya’know, friends and they all tried to accuse me um, that was very frustrating, when ya know a mother’s…I lost my child, I didn’t know where she was, um very, very frustrating and aggravating"

Sus said...

From wkbn.com

"Investigators confirmed they gave polygraph tests to the family members and no red flags were raised."

This is a custody issue as it was before Rainn went missing. It is obvious the grandparents raised suspicion to LE and other searchers that the mother took Rainn. LE looked into it, found that actually Rainn wandered away on her own, and called for volunteer searchers.

As Peter says, there is neglect here. The mother is or was drug addicted. Social services is involved to make sure she provides a safe home for her children. The great grandparents are in their seventies. No matter how you cut it, that's tough raising children.

I cannot even deal with the fact that some here (and on other sites) are accusing Victor Sutton of nefarious actions. He saved Rainn's life by finding her when he did.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Lynda,

Thank you for taking the time to type up all these transcriptions, and posting them!

Juliet said...

The baby could not have got out through the front door. it seems. The Sheriff is saying only the garage door was unlocked - the garage leads to the back of the house and to the fields where Rainn was found. (A neighbour described how often the children would play in the back garden -it would presumably be well secured, then, against a toddler wandering out into the fields). The mom said the front door was not locked. Obviously an adult could open it, at least from the inside, but could Rainn? If she had done so, it is unlikely she would have closed it behind her - house security doesn't figure for toddlers. The dogs picked up the scent on the road which runs in front of the house, so it seems either she went out, or was carried out through the front. No scent at the back, and yet she was found in one of the fields behind the house. So, I agree with those who think a likely scenario is that someone entered the house through the garage, picked up the child, and exited through the unlocked front door - the person then carried the child to a waiting car which was a bit further down the road, out of view from the house.

Anon at 8.55 - she was wearing thin clothing, it was cold and it had rained heavily. She was out for two days and two nights without food, water, comfort or company. Somehow she is found asleep, not horribly wet, in an open field - so how did she get there, in the extremely dehydrated and hypothermic condition in which she must have already been, if she was not there before? If she was there before, anywhere around there in the open but not discovered, she would at least have been unconscious, but more probably dead. The photo is not clear, but little Rainn looked in unexpectedly good condition, alert, crying, sitting up by herself. Her face should have been red and chafed from exposure, the rest of her would also be chafed from movement in wet clothing - mostly I can't comprehend that she could not have succumbed to the elements. It's possible, if she maybe crawled under a bush and found a bed of leaves, sheltered from the wind and rain. I wonder what happened to the dog grandma let out - if it could get out of the garden maybe it went and found the baby and kept her warm (but the baby could not get out to the fields by herself, so no). We would have heard about that, at least that the dog hadn't returned, or whatever. Well, if it is a dog who roams, he could have gone back and forth between the baby and the house - but he would probably have tried to alert the grandparents, so no - but then, he might be a dim dog and that would be like a game to him. Okay, unlikely much, but just trying to think how she really might have been able to survive out there for so long. and sensibly, the family dog could have found her, if he was let out further than the garden, but not necessarily stayed with her the whole time.

Juliet said...

Sus - I hope you're not including me in that, re Victor. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Plus she framed her confession-
"I lost my child. I didn't know where she was. Very, very frustrating and aggravating to have people believe that I had something to do with it."

Vicki

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more, Sus. It is too cruel for words making catty comments and insults against the one who saved this child's life. It is sickening reading it.

What a mean-spirited hateful individual(s) who is slinging mud at Victor Sutton or even making insinuations against his intentions. He FOUND the child and saved her life no matter how loudly he might have called her name! Pray tell, why wouldn't he call for her loudly; trying to find her, trying to get a response, trying to arouse her if she were sleeping or barely conscious. Thank God he did! Had she been laying out there much longer she would have been found dead, IF EVER.

For those who don't know; re the custody issue in accordance with my own personal knowledge, the great grandparents had to be approved by DCFS for temporary emergency custody before the children were even placed in their home temporarily and could be in the process of being approved permanently upon request.

It would be up to their mother, even if she had already been given full custody previously, or anyone else to challenge the placement of the great grandparents appeal for permanent custody while their application is in progress under the Family Court jurisdiction.

Child Services agencies do not remove children from their mothers' custody for no good reason and without evidence. It is up to her (or whoever) to prove themselves worthy after the children have been removed and this can take many steps and many months. There is a lot more involved in getting ones' children back than just moving in with ones' boyfriend; who could, in fact, be asked to leave the premises before she would even be considered for regaining custody. ABB

Juliet said...

Someone would've thought the dog was behaving strangely if it was going back and forth from the house a lot, and they would've decided to follow it - but if they weren't allowed to join in the search, or go into the search areas, maybe not - maybe would not even notice the dog acting unusually in the midst of all that stress. But I think the baby could not have got to the fields at the back, and her scent was only picked up at the front. So fairytale dog story is probably a no starter. :-/ if really she was lost, though, a dog could have helped keep her alive, even if it wasn't there the whole time, so it's worth a thought, but only when I can keep the mom out of my mind. Though as John and others have said, the guilt may not be due to knowledge of where the child had been.

Juliet said...

Oh, give over, ABB - Victor may have felt a bit bad if he had been yelling loudly and startled the child, that's all - that would be natural, and is maybe why he used the word 'abruptly' - an observation rather than a judgement or insinuation. I think he's like a great uncle who's just been on a fishing trip, relating with pride and also with a bit of narrative license, how he finally caught the one which didn't get away.

Jen Ow said...

I both agree, and disagree Sus!

Her neglect and detachment from Rainn are evident. The GGP'S having to raise these babies in their 70's, should leave their 'mother' absolutely ashamed.

I also agree that it's a custody issue, which the mother repeatedly bold faced lied about!

The Sheriff confirmed that she did/does not have custody, and that the G-Grandparents did. She boldly, and repeatedly lied to the public about having custody, and 'full custody'. She dedicated several of her statements to the topic of custody, while knowing that she was telling an easily discounted lie. Her focus on the topic shows sensitivity, and suggests her agenda.

What else is she lying about? (At least a few more things, considering she gave 3 different alibi's about where she was when Rainn "was gone", (work, moving w/ boyfriend, tattoo shop, etc).

Also, consider how the injuries/symptoms she reported Rainn was experiencing evolved. First she said she had dehydration, and scratches from pricker bushes. Then she changed it to severe dehydration, hallucinations, cuts, and a bad infection. Is she trying to pre-explain the possibility that Rainn could implicate her? (Now she can just say Rainn was hallucinating?)

The Sheriff also confirms the investigation is ongoing, or has he put it, entering "Chapter 2". They are still looking into how this took place, and I feel like there are enough red flags in the mother's language to continue questioning her involvement in some way.

That said, I also know that addiction and lying go hand in hand, so it's always possible she is just a chronic liar, and needlessly lied about things, despite not actually being guilty of causing Rainn's disappearance.

Juliet said...

Lynda -

Mom: 'The worst feeling in the world was ME...'

It is all about her first. I think she finds it very frustrating and aggravating that it hasn't played out to her advantage, whether she was responsible for it, or not. From her point of view, she wasn't there, it wasn't her fault, somebody else lost her child (supposedly,though she also has said 'I lost my child') so she should be getting sympathy rather than blame - so it's all out of whack. There wasn't even time for a gofundme page - or maybe that should be a gofindme page. :-/.

Anonymous said...

Was I speaking directly to YOU, Juliet; you with your snake eyes and glib accusatory tongue? Don't think so.

You who can make predictions into the lives of others, make up fairy tales, tell others how they should think and feel, and read minds so well:

"If the shoe fits.............."

ABB

Anonymous said...

Will the real ABB please stand up, please stand up.....

foodiefoodnerd said...

Imbedded confession among her thousand I and me statements: "I lost MY child..."

And among her self-absorbed rambling, absolutely no tendency to drop pronouns to avoid saying the same word multiple times in a sentence, her one dropped self-reference pronoun is how "aggravating" and "frustrating" to be accused by virtually everyone -- family, friends and strangers.

Not hurt, not angry that the focus on her could be delaying finding Rainn, just pissy and annoyed it's not the type of attention she had planned.

Even if everyone were 100 percent wrong about her, the fact that it literally IS everyone should be a huge wakeup call that she needs to fix herself in some big ways.

Anonymous said...

no shoe fits better than a worn one used by the same team, eh? Leapin' lizards! Now they will learn to validate their fantasies.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Calling this speculation mean-spirited and catty implies a bunch of middle school mean girls converging on the flat chested new girl in the showers after gym class, or a group of employees snickering at the boss's barely legal sixth wife.

This is a site specifically about statement analysis, where the featured subjects frequently are proven master manipulators and liars. And the guilty party is too often the one who should most have protected helpless little children in their care; the more cruel and gruesome the abuse, the more elaborate the scripts, staged performances and blatant lies.

To not expect some skeptism and cynical speculation is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

QUOTE: "Juliet said...
Jen b - the custody thing seems confused. It sounds as if she has been granted custody of the boys, but maybe there is a custody dispute relating to Rainn, most likely with the great-grandma, though obviously now also with cps. I'm going on what I think she is saying - she says she has full custody of her children, maybe she is waiting on paperwork to confirm that - I don't know how that works, or how many children she means by that - she says she has custody, but doesn't say specifically that she had been granted custody of Rainn" QUOTE

I believe the mothers statements cover a period of time. I think she may have been given custody when she and the bio dad split up (he said they were together 2 1/2 years) and he moved away.

Then, because of her drug use or neglet issues the children were placed with the great grandparents. They may have guardianship of the children (many people will interchange guardianship and custody).

She tries to get the children back and that is when CPS was involved in checking her house and sending a letter and maybe bringing the kids back to her (per the mom).

The mom runs all those events together, but I think they probably happened over a period of time.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to sign for the anon 1:25 post ...RRH

Bethany said...

I read that too, Anne.
Thank you for your post.
If mom set this whole thing up just to prove the grandparents or great grandparents unfit that is insane.
I can't even.
But it makes sense.
I'm wondering if they really have her on trail cam video. And when LE will release it and arrest her if they do. Wow.

Bethany said...

Agreed.

Bethany said...

Agree here too.
I don't think Victor Sutton has done anything but be a hero in this case.
He's choked up on the 911 call.
Thank God he decided to check where he did- or this might not have had a happy ending.

Bethany said...

My little guy can climb stairs at 2 1/2, but I'm right behind him- he does the but slide down though!
(These are inside the house stairs to the second floor bedrooms)
I can't imagine letting him run down a set of steep outside steps, all it takes is one twist and they can fall!!
One story is a long fall!
Omg!

Bethany said...

Agreed here too, ABB.
I didn't think about Chandra Levy.
How awful for all of these families that go without finding their loved ones or finding them years later. Tim Miller always says the waiting for news and not knowing was the hardest part. I can't imagine.

Bethany said...

"Investigators aren't sure what happened to Rainn Peterson, who is currently being treated at a local hospital for an infection stemming from severe diaper rash and is expected to remain there for at least one more day, during that time."

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2015/10/05/questions-surround-2-year-olds-disappearance/73406946/

Severe diaper rash with infection- that poor baby!!! Ugh how awful and painful!!
Glad she is still in the hospital where they can take care of her- I hope she gets all better soon. Breaks my heart.

lynda said...

I'm anxious to hear a detailed statement either from LE or Rainn's medical team about her condition when brought in and treatment received. That will tell oodles about what really went on depending on how thorough.

I do not believe a word the mom says. Addicts are LIARS and THIEVES and nothing is more important to them then THEM, AND their next hit...always. Have never known one not to be. She is pathological as evidenced by blatantly lying about her whereabouts, her custody status, Rainn's status and probably more that I didn't address.

The polygraph having no red flags doesn't surprise me at all. I think the mom is so pathological that she could pass one with flying colors, particularly if it was just standard questioning and an in-depth interview did not cover her "brain vocab" like Peter says.Also, if they didn't drug test her first I would hazard a guess she had drugs in her system.

We all I think can agree she has no real attachment and there is neglect. She said Rainn's name ONCE in 5 days now and when she did she had to qualify it with "Rainn, my daughter". Yes, we know Rainn is your daughter, we know her name, apparently you did not for 5 days.

She admits thru "leakage" that some things being said about her are true by her statement, "MOST of what people are saying are false allegations" So Brandi, what WASN't false?

I believe at this point thru her language and just how events went down that she went into the house, snatched up Rainn by the laundry room door on the steps and took her. She did this because she is in a custody battle with her GGrandparents. She HAS to make them look more unfit than she is and she drives that home with the repeated statement, "I wasn't even there" implying that it was the GG that were neglectful. I think she dropped her in that field sometime Sunday morning/early afternoon and that would explain some dehydration and scratches and perhaps a bit of exposure. It was in the 50 and lo 60's that day and had some sun but she was still without a coat or hat.

It's not out of line to assume that she lost custody when she was busted for drugs. The child neglect could have come from her having drugs in her presence or some people have said that she left her kids in car while she went to try to find drugs. Whatever, the kids were more than likely with her, sent to child services as mom was arrested, no one else stepped up to take kids, so GG filed for emergency custody which they were awarded. No matter there age, I think most judges would rather see kids kept together and with family as opposed to being split up in the foster care system. Brandi's estranged husband does not have the authority to "order" that the boys stay with grandparents. They are still in the home because it has been brought to the attention of SS that the grandparents were NOT negligent (even tho Rainn went missing from their house.)

It's like Peter says, Liars lie, and when they get caught they continue to lie and then Attack. So far, she's textbook. I am hoping and praying that a trail cam picked her up or her vehicle. Then they can throw away the key.

Bethany said...

Very interesting post Lynda-

I am thinking they must have some kind of evidence on those trail cams for LE to make this comment:

"On Monday, the sheriff's office also followed up on leads they did not have time for Sunday, while looking into things such as what and when Rainn ate.
"I don't want a defense attorney to come up and say, 'Well you didn't do this or you didn't do that,' " said Sheriff Altiere. "So when we get in a defense mode, we cover every base we can."
Rainn's mother said the girl can only say a few words and is not a talker."

If they weren't going to pursue a criminal case, no one would need a defense attorney- so the line about the attorney is very telling IMO.

And the little girl is not a talker.
Or maybe she just doesn't talk around Mom.
I am hoping that she (Rainn) can help out in solving this mess, to say that Mom in fact did take her.

If she did that to make her GGP lose custody that is just insane to me but boy does it make sense if she was trying to get her back for monetary reasons. How could you leave your baby in a field and walk away not knowing what could happen???
Losing faith in the human race.

John mcgowan said...

Rainn Peterson’s mother speaks out to FOX 8: ‘They won’t let me have custody

NORTH BLOOMFIELD, Ohio -- Brandi Peterson, the mother of Rainn Peterson, tells Fox 8's Peggy Gallek she feels like a suspect.

"They won't let me have custody, and I can only have short supervised visits," Brandi Peterson said. "It is not fair."

She said she took a polygraph and passed. She also said she now has to go to court for a custody hearing.

She says her daughter was dehydrated and had a bad infection.

"I just want her home with me," Peterson said.

Authorities are continuing to investigate how her 2-year-old daughter, Rainn, got out of her great-grandparents' home before being found in a field less than a mile away nearly 48 hours later.

Authorities met Monday morning to discuss their next steps in the case.

The Trumbull County Sheriff's Office is involved in the case, authorities say.

Monday, several unmarked cars were at the scene where the child was found.

"We just want to piece everything together," said Trumbull County Sheriff Tom Altiere. "We have interviews...we haven't done yet. We want to make sure there was no foul play."

Rainn Peterson was found safe about 48 hours after she was reported missing from the state Route 45 home in North Bloomfield. She was taken to a local hospital for evaluation.

Authorities said when the girl was found, she had one shoe on and one shoe off. She also had some scratches.

A volunteer riding through the field on a four-wheeler found the girl.


Peterson was last seen at 6:30 p.m. Friday. Family members say they were downstairs in the home when Rainn went missing and that the only unlocked door at the time was the door to the garage.

Family members were questioned on Friday night and Saturday as authorities worked to piece together her disappearance.

Multiple agencies were involved in the search, including BCI (Bureau of Criminal Investigation), the Trumbull County sheriff's office, the FBI, the Marshal's office as well as representatives from the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Not in the written article but on the vt. Sheriffs are going over the search grids to determine if they have already searched the area.

This will be interesting to see how this pans out.

http://fox8.com/2015/10/05/investigation-continues-after-missing-trumbull-county-toddler-is-found-in-field/

Juliet said...

Anon @ 1.25 re custody - thanks, that makes good sense. :)

Juliet said...

Rainn may not be much of a talker now but she will soon be able to talk, and may not quickly forget what happened to her. Also, she can probably understand what is said to her, and will be able to communicate somewhat by other means, with someone.

criticalthinker said...

The ATV rescuer said

""I look over at her and I could see her hair, so I knew it was a baby," he said.

The more I look at this line, the more linguistic evidence I find that Victor had "seen" Rainne before, and most likely, in person, and may have been aware that she was in the field.

"I look over at her"

One "looks over at" someone or something which they already know is there.

"I could see her hair"

(It is interesting that "hair" is what he "sees" or makes note of FIRST, considering many have commented that her hair looked clean and freshly brushed.)

Please note something very important: He does not say "I could see hair" or "I saw hair", "so I knew it was a baby", he says he saw "HER hair" which reveals familiarity with the appearance of her hair, that he knew what "her hair" looked like. And regardless of if he had seen pictures of her, linguistically, differentiating "hair" from the other purple flowers in field should have been stated "I saw hair".

"so I knew it was a baby".

It is odd that he does not present any uncertainty, such as saying "At first I wasn't sure it was her, but then I saw hair" rather his statement is sensitive because of the word "SO", it is a statement where he expresses to the reader how he was sure it was her, rather than presenting uncertainty followed by certainty.

Just something to think about while we dissect the heroin addict mother's language which is going to be full of lies to cover up what she was "really" doing at the time which was heroin.

Sus said...

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2015/10/06/man-who-found-missing-baby-rainn-peterson-speaks-out/73432788/

He saw a flash of purple. It was the color Rainn was last seen wearing.
The sight gave Sutton pause.
"I stopped and then I looked and I could see her hair and obviously she was just laying there, and I initially thought the worst."

Critical thinking, you are leaving out parts of the quote. I know yours is a different one, but he did say he saw purple first in that quote.

Juliet said...

Criticalthinker - 'I look over at her' - present tense - I thought that sounded as if he was just spinning it a bit as he went along. I think he maybe didn't see her laying in the grass, he thought the purple top was flowers - he didn't know she was there, or see her hair, until he startled her by yelling and she sat up and cried. Then he felt a bit bad because - he didn't see her, he didn't know it was a baby, at first. He was stopping at intervals to call out her name, luckily (talk about being lucky - he said something like that) he made her cry. Maybe he was guilt tripping himself because he almost ran her over, or because he could easily have missed finding her if he hadn't stopped where and when he did to call out. I think he's just telling it more or less how it was, spinning it a bit.

lynda said...

Bethany..

"I don't want a defense attorney to come up and say, 'Well you didn't do this or you didn't do that,' " said Sheriff Altiere. "So when we get in a defense mode, we cover every base we can."
Rainn's mother said the girl can only say a few words and is not a talker.

I too, find that interesting that Sheriff said those particular words. To me, it almost screams, "We're preparing for a court case here so we're not going to let some defense atty say that we didn't check for food in her system or whatnot." I like this Sheriff.

That's pretty convenient for Rainn's mom, isn't it? That she's not much of a talker. Most kids that are neglected usually don't have the vocab that other toddlers do at the same age. That's why mom took HER. She's counting on the fact that Rainn won't be able to verbalize anything and if she does, mom will just come up with a lie that police coached her or something. Smart of sheriff to cut her off at the pass by not allowing her to see her unsupervised.

lynda said...

WARREN, Ohio-- Two-year-old Rainn Peterson will remain with her great-grandparents, following a custody battle.

That decision came down Tuesday afternoon as the mother of the toddler who was missing for two days was in court battling for custody. Brandi Peterson said she hasn't been allowed to see her daughter for more than a half hour or alone since the toddler was rescued. She said Children Services wants to give custody to her grandparents.

When asked if she was going to be asking for custody she said, "Yes." Two-year-old Rainn Peterson was found in a field off Peck Leach Road Sunday night-- about 1,000 feet from where she wandered off Friday from her grandparents' home.

The grandparents said the grandmother, Dora Mae Peterson, spent the night with Rainn who is doing better. Dora Mae did want to thank all the searchers, but did not want to discuss the custody issue.

(Photo Credit: Trumbull County Sheriff via WKBN)
(Photo Credit: Trumbull County Sheriff via WKBN)
The toddler is being treated at St. Joseph's Hospital for dehydration, cuts, poison ivy and severe diaper rash. The Trumbull County sheriff has said family members are not suspects at this time, but Brandi believes she is being treated like a suspect.

The father of Rainn, Nicholas Martin, of Cleveland, also appeared at Trumbull County Family Court on Tuesday. He would not say if he would be fighting for custody, but said he wanted to thank everyone who searched for his daughter.

Sheriff Tom Altiere said they are still trying to sort out exactly how the toddler got out of the home.

criticalthinker said...

Hi Sus,

I was working with this quote:

"All I kept thinking going through those woods is that she's waiting for somebody like me to get her, I always promised my kids I'd get them and I wanted to get her if I could," Sutton said.

He eventually noticed a patch of purple in the distance and jumped off his ATV.

"I look over at her and I could see her hair, so I knew it was a baby," he said.

At first he thought the worst, but continued to call out her name and that's when he noticed the first sign that she was alive.

"I yelled 'Rainn' real abruptly and she twitched, she lifted her head, turned to me and opened her eyes," he said.

I went to the link you posted, and it seems it is a different quote, different interview. I also listened to the 911 call on the link you posted.

2 things in the 911 call jump out at me is being odd.

1) His overconfidence that she is not hurt. I ask myself if I had found her, I would need to be reassured she wasn't hurt rather than assuring the 911 operator and Rainne that she is "fine". I feel I would have said "Hurry send someone, I don't know if she is hurt, she appears OK but I just got here and she is covered in flies."

2) His hesitance to pick Rainne up. This would seem to be instinctual to pick her up since she was in distress, had been out in the freezing cold, etc. Human instinct would tell a person to pick her up. Victor says that 'he knew better'...I believe he meant because he did not want to disturb the "evidence" at the scene or pick her up and end up getting a piece of his hair on her, etc. Well, I think that is odd. It may mean nothing but I think that an individual would just automatically pick up a distressed crying little girl who had been unfed, had not drank and was out in the bitter cold for 2 nights alone in the dark lost in the woods. However, Victor did not have this instinct, and in fact had to be told by the 911 operator to put his jacket around her several minutes into the phone call.


Anonymous said...

Oh leave it out already! I mean seriously, this whole thing with insinuating nefarious actions/intentions on the part of Victor Sutton is getting old. How many times has this blog discussed the idea of "sensitivity" vs "deception" vs "guilt"? Plenty of what he says may indicate sensitivity, but not deception or guilt over Rainn's disappearance. I think *I* would be elated at finding the girl but also astonished that it was me, and I might not know exactly how to act or what to say. In my excitement, I might say she was fine since she wasn't you know, DEAD. Even broken bones or hypothermia (once a missing person is found and can be treated) are "fine" when compared with "dead". She wasn't lying in a bloody heap. She wasn't unconscious. It's not unreasonable for him to say she was "fine" in the moment. Imagine the relief of finding Rainn alive, responsive, and without any significant visible injuries. Also, I think *I* would also be ecstatic to share the story of finding her, seeing as how just reading that she was found alive filled me with relief and happiness. I don't even know her! I think a lot of people would get a big kick out of being in the limelight regarding such a joyful occasion as finding a missing toddler. So if his remarks sound scripted, it may be because he has told the story over and over, and points have been refined based on reactions he gets from people or how telling things made him feel. I think we get so used to reading stories in which the SA indicates sensitivity and deception on the part of really bad people who HAVE committed horrible acts, that we assign guilt where there is none.

Cathy

Juliet said...

Victor may have hesitated to pick the baby up without being told he could, especially if he knew that moving her might cause arrhythmia or cardiac arrest in hypothermia, and that the chances of her not being at least mildly or moderately hypothermic would have been around nil. It could be in that sense which 'he knew better' - though he still picked her up, and didn't think immediately to wrap her in his jacket, if he had one - I don't recall.

Juliet said...

Cathy - agreed, mostly we are looking at the language of guilty parties or people who have some reason to be deceptive - what might be 'sensitive' or a 'need to persuade' in a guilty person is simple emphasis or strong feeling in other people's language. . :)

Juliet said...

Lynda - thanks for the update - hopefully the great grandparents will be given extra help/support in caring for the children after all this - it can't be easy at their age.


---

I am not a robot and someone really needs to sort out the doughnuts from the bagels.

Juliet said...

Ps to Cathy post and response - I was agreeing with your closing sentence, not the leave it alone bit. This is the SA blog, after all - trying to close down comments on uncomfortable topics because you don't agree with what people are saying is not statement analysis, and Victor is interesting, and so far as I can see, conversation is around his words. I think he's spinning, and he can tell it how he likes as he found her, and the outcome is good - other people's views are still interesting.

criticalthinker said...

Cathy,

I can only reiterate what Juliet said: this is an SA blog.
Generally, I will look at the words of anyone close to a case.
I think, in a sense, it is foolish not to.

Especially in cases of missing children, it is not just the crazy, heroin-addict Mom you want to look at (particularly since she was not initially in the house with Rainne), what is MORE important is the last person who saw Rainne before she went missing, and unfortunately, we don't know who that is, and probably never will, since Rainne allegedly "vanished into thin air" after playing with her brothers downstairs. Also, Rainne is preverbal, therfore Rainne cannot tell us what happened to her.

Regarding this case, on this blog I see most pointing at the mother. What of the new evidence that she was at least made to look as if she was "in the wilderness" for 2 days (unchanged diaper, dehydrated)?. So, why not answer the question, 1) did Rainne actually wander away from the house by herself and remain unspotted by searchers and keep her hair perfectly brushed 2) or was Rainne taken by someone and someone actually did not change her diaper for 2 days, did not give her liquids, and if so what type of person is most likely to do this? The mother or a stranger? Someone with organized or disorganized thinking? Someone addicted or nonaddicted? Someone calculating or someone non-calculating? Someone patient or impatient?

I look at things from all angles.
Another thing that is worth looking at is the fact that this man on an ATV could have put Rainne where she was found by him, and this, in fact, would help explain the "slow, meaningful" search he embarked on, to perhaps leave her there for enough time so she could get dirty, attract flies, become very upset, etc.

As I said, I do not know who did this crime, but I always look at all parties if people are putting up quotes on here.

Ali said...

I wonder why Victor chose to use the indefinite article "a " baby rather than the definite article " the" baby.



Ali said...

"A". This is used when the noun that we wish to refer to is unknown to our listener/reader or is not part of the common ground that we share. It is most often used to introduce new information.

"The" By using the, we are signalling to our listener that s/he is very likely to know what we are referring to and that the context of our conversation should help them to identify this.

elf said...

I got to thinking earlier about the question, could a toddler/young child survive for roughly 48 hours in severe weather (cold, wet) and I Googled it. Turns out there have been a few. One poor little girl was trapped in a wrecked car with only her dead mommy and a few crackers and survived three days! Truly a miracle.
This has also made me remember what I read in an ex boyfriends fire fighting textbook. In an extremely dangerous situation (like a fire) children sometimes hide, even from a rescuer. A scary situation could be infinitely more terrorizing when your that small and in the cold rainy darkness. Poor little rainn probably hid the first and second nights when she hears the searchers yelling for her :(
I saw an interview with the man who found rainn and he seems pretty genuine.

Anonymous said...

Yes, yes. I agree that it's interesting to hear many opinions. I am not really trying (or expecting) to shut down the line of conversation. I'm just expressing my annoyance that the guy has been accused by some.

Cathy

Juliet said...

NORTH BLOOMFIELD, Ohio - Victor Sutton, the man who found baby Rainn Peterson, doesn’t want to be called a hero.

"I'm just the guy who found her, could have been anyone. I'm probably the least qualified to find her, but I just happened to find her,” Sutton said Monday afternoon.


The 51-year-old father of two had joined hundreds of volunteers in the search to find the missing 2-year-old Trumbull County girl for two days.

"I knew if I had her, nothing could happen to that kid, because I would protect her,” Sutton said.

Four hours into his search on Sunday, around 6:30 p.m., Sutton said he saw a patch of purple in the tall grass — the last outfit Rainn had been seen wearing.

"She was so beautiful when she lifted her head,” Sutton said. “She was obviously tired. She had been there for a while, she was fatigued, she was sad, she was desperate for somebody. But as far as her condition goes, it's hard to say. I thought she was beautiful, that's all I could really say on her condition."

Sutton said he focused his search on places a baby would be found alive, because his driving force was hope.

“I thought if I was wrong, all I’ve lost is time. If I was right, you have a chance to save her life,” he said.

And save her life he did. In an emotional 911 call, Sutton can be heard telling the dispatcher simply, “I found baby Rainn and she’s alive.”

The call came nearly 48 hours after the child was reported missing.

Sutton said he comforted her while authorities came to them, telling her she was pretty as she cried. The location is described as less than half a mile from her great-grandparent’s home where she went missing Friday at 7:30 p.m.

Rainn was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital in Warren to be treated for dehydration and scratches Sunday night. A condition was not available Monday evening. Trumbull County Children's Services has assumed custody while the investigation continues.

---
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/baby-rainns-rescuer-doesnt-want-to-be-called-a-hero-if-i-was-wrong-all-ive-lost-is-time

Video there, too.

Bethany said...

Yes to this whole post!

Bethany said...

Agreed.

Juliet said...

Long video interview with Victor:


http://www.fox5vegas.com/Clip/11898484/raw-volunteer-victor-sutton-talks-about-finding-2-year-old-rainn-peterson

Sus said...

I'm not afraid to say it. You're not using SA, or at least not correctly. There is nothing what-so-ever sensitive, guilty, nefarious, "spinning a bit", on and on and on... about Victor Sutton's words. He simply found a missing girl because he heeded the call for volunteers.

After this I'm not answering to ridiculous accusations again. I do not agree that because this is a SA blog it gives everyone free rein to attack innocents without cause. Now begin the attacks on me. I can take it.

Anonymous said...

Statement analysis can be practised on any statement. Nobody is "attacking innocents". Calm down. In fact, analysing an " innocent's" statement might be valuable in determining reasons for apparent sensitivity in a statement. Inviting attacks on yourself because you " can take it" seems disingenuous.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Victor

Before someone accuses me of attacking Victor, I'm not. I'm thankful he found her and if he had anything to do with this, I trust LE's got it under control. ;)

I *think* that some people may be bothered by Victor's use of the word "get", as in...
1. "She's waiting for somebody like me to get her."
2. "I always promised my kids that I'd get them and I wanted to get her if I could."

For me, at least, in the case of a missing person, I expect to hear the word "find". "Get" and "find" are not the same. Find implies searching; get implies an expectation of success/achievement. I get milk at the store- I don't find it because I know it's there. I get my mail- I don't find it because I know where it will be if I have any.

I have a slight issue with "She's waiting for somebody like me to get her." because she[is] waiting is present tense and the actual find is later in time. He doesn't seem to mix tenses throughout the rest of his statement. I'm also sure Rainn wasn't waiting for someone like him to get her. She wasn't "waiting" for anyone. Rainn didn't know that searchers were looking for her, locked in a frantic race against time, hoping to find her. She was a terrified 2yr old needing her grandparents, brothers, and maybe even her mommy.

"I always promised my kids that I'd get them..."- Why would you need to promise your kids you would "get" them? Or even "find" them (if you want to argue that he meant find)? The wording here reminds me of parents when a child doesn't want to be left and they're crying hysterically; the parent usually "promises" to come "get" them when the activity/class is over.

"I wanted to get her if I could."- Again, the expected is "find".

Again, I am not accusing Victor of anything. I am analyzing his statements, per Statement Analysis principles taught by Peter- the subject's actual words (not an interpretation) and the expected vs. the unexpected. I find the phrasing odd, but perhaps Victor often or regularly confuses words. Perhaps his children often got lost on his property and he had to go "get" them.

P.S. The parent in me would want to immediately descend on Rainn, scoop her up, hug her, talk softly to her, and reassure her. My Red Cross CPR/First Aid Instructor mother would be screaming in my head "Don't move her! She may have internal/spinal/brain injuries! Call 911 and talk softly to her, reassure her,apply pressure if she's bleeding,cover her and keep her warm- you don't want her to go into shock." Seriously. LOL

Bethany said...

Thank you, Sus.

Juliet said...


OT

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2015/10/06/new-developments-in-missing-2-year-old-deorr-kunz-jr-case/73483858/

DeOrr update

Bethany said...

Forgot to include:
Well said.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Oops, I also forgot to add (per Red Cross Mom track in my head)- "Try to keep her still and quiet."

Bless Mom, it came in handy when an elderly neighbor with a history of strokes fell and whacked the back of her head on her coffee table and was bleeding. It was a good thing too, as I also remembered she was on blood thinners. Thanks, Mom!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Just an aside:

I really don't like when someone is missing and the family member,spouse,significant other,friend etc. says, "I cooperated with the police...". What is their definition of cooperate? To answer all questions truthfully or to just answer their questions? Telling the whole truth or just what you absolutely have to to get by,deflect suspicion, or derail an investigation?

When they start quoting percentages, it's sensitive because the only reason to quote percentages is to bolster and attempt to persuade just how cooperative they've been. The truth doesn't need to be propped up or qualified. There's no need to prove how truthful you've been when no one is even accusing you...unless you're expecting to be accused because you know you've been deceptive in some way.

Juliet said...

Altiere told First News that FBI agents came to the hospital hoping to get information about what happened from Rainn, who was listed in good condition on Monday. They were also back on the scene — near Peck Leach Road where Rainn was found — to try to tie up some loose ends in the case.

Altiere said Rainn is too young to be of any help, and there is no indication of foul play at this time.

“She was wet, extremely tired,” he said. “She was missing one shoe that was found very close to where she was at, but for a little girl, if she was out there for 48 hours, she was in tremendous shape.”

---

Altiere said investigators are trying to determine if the girl was out in the field during the entirety of the search.

“We’re looking at that, we’re looking at all aspects of it. Like I said, we have a ton of work to do,” he said.


More:
http://wkbn.com/2015/10/05/trumbull-children-services-investigating-case-of-toddler-found-after-2-day-search/

Juliet said...

"I knew if I had her, nothing could happen to that kid, because I would protect her,” Sutton said.

Juliet said...

Victor knows the great- grandparents, the mon he doesn't really know.

Juliet said...

The great grandparents are both in their seventies, btw.

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous Ali said...

I wonder why Victor chose to use the indefinite article "a " baby rather than the definite article " the" baby.


October 6, 2015 at 11:13 PM

Anonymous Ali said...

"A". This is used when the noun that we wish to refer to is unknown to our listener/reader or is not part of the common ground that we share. It is most often used to introduce new information.

"The" By using the, we are signalling to our listener that s/he is very likely to know what we are referring to and that the context of our conversation should help them to identify this.


October 6, 2015 at 11:19 PM


Hi

If you listen to the call it begins...

911: Where is your emergency?

Caller: It sounds like he says ok, first? He the goes on to say "Iv'e found baby Rainn and she's alive"

http://fox8.com/2015/10/04/listen-mans-moving-911-call-when-he-finds-missing-toddler-i-found-baby-rainn/

He identifies her by name because he is a volunteer searcher and knows what she looks like. Where did you read or hear him say this. If he used the definite article "The" or indefinite article "a" the operator would not know whom he is talking about. If you have read it somewhere, it has been reported wrong.

Anonymous said...

Okay. To hell with mincing words. I'll take this a step further and say that anyone who would make something out of Victor Sutton's words upon finding this child, either before, during or after finding her, whether accused of spinning his words or otherwise, is sick in the f'kn head. He FOUND the child; he went to GET her and he GOT her. If you don't like THAT, shove it. You are defaming an innocent man's character. You are a danger to others and need to be committed.

My former husband, A psychologist, psychiatrist, professor and highly acclaimed and well published man; a highly educated man, AND brilliant, who also spoke six languages fluently, would not have even recommended you for treatment at his half-way house that he owned and operated for the treatment of mentally deficit substance abusers, who were not ALL substance abusers. He was ALSO the director of the Goodwill Industries substance abuse treatment program. Bet you didn't even know they had one, 'eh? Well they did.

I don't give a shyt what you THINK certain misconstrued words mean, you are one sicko, likely beyond help. Believe me, you would not have been welcome in his facility for fear you would screw with the head of those who were making progress. While I, of higher education that you know, in a pinch and burning the midnight oil with him, would have been the one he would have asked to type your stupid interview remarks that would have been stuck in the back of your file and you DISMISSED with the diagnosis of unteachable for fit purposes. ABB

Anonymous said...

John, it wasn't in the 911 call.

It was in an interview

"I look over at her and I could see her hair, so I knew it was a baby," he said.

No big deal.

Dacea said...

I disagree. Get is a strong action word, find is much more passive. Get indicates action and bringing her home.

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous said...

John, it wasn't in the 911 call.

It was in an interview

"I look over at her and I could see her hair, so I knew it was a baby," he said.

No big deal.


My apologies

John mcgowan said...

Is his full transcript available?

Juliet said...

ABB - I think it's lovely that Victor Rainmaker Sutton found Rain, and be honest, it's not me who your late husband would have found sick in the head.

Anonymous said...

See what I mean? You are unteachable with a mindset that is fixed. In your genes from birth? Let's NOT rule out this possibility. It DOES happen.

BTW, you guess wrongly about my late husband. My husband admired my intelligence, in his own words... quote: "the smartest and most intelligent woman I've ever known and there have been many." "Smart enough to marry me."

F'kn freak of nature. I rarely even read your posts through to the end since most of them start to gag me. Yikes! ABB

Anonymous said...

if you look at Google images and use street view, you can "walk" from Rainn's home on State Rd 55 to Peck Leach Rd at the approximate area she was found and it is clear that most of the area is open fields. The images were taken in 2011, but if you look at the MSM news coverage you can see that it is pretty much the same now as it was back then. That being said, you can also see that the terrain would be quite rough for a 2-year-old to navigate, especially in the dark, though not impossible. Regardless, the topography would have been ideal for searchers using Thermal Imaging, which I remember reading in MSM that they DID use Thermal Imaging. So.....WHY did they not find her, less than half a mile away from her home??? That is what baffles me. If she was in those fields she should have been found....if not that Friday night, then most definitely Saturday. Someone would have heard her crying, or thermal imaging would have detected her. Not to mention the dogs!

I still think that it is very possible that mom is directly or indirectly involved, and obviously GGM and LE suspects that as well. She had a lot of motive to make Rainn temporarily disappear. I am so glad that the GGParents have custody....Brandi really really needs help, I hope she gets it.

BTW, Rainn's daddy has been quite active on FB the past day or two. According to his posts, he cannot file for custody because "I have a pertection order on the kids and brandii for a domestic violence 2012 but im doing classes and it is getting droped soon". He is a recovering addict, claims he is clean right now. So yeah. That's what these poor kids are dealing with for parents. Hopefully he is sincere and keeps clean for the sake of his children. It's not clear to me if all three kids are his, I thought that Brandii's oldest son was with another father and the two youngest are Nick's but that could be wrong.

I noticed that MSM is now mentioning the possible diaper discrepancy that Ben (the EMT) mentioned.

Anne

Anonymous said...

Applause to Dacea. You got it right. ABB

Juliet said...

Hmm, well, I'm picky about my teachers - no-one responds well to cursing and bullying. . A bit slow at getting things sometimes, but not entirely unteachable, I don't think.

Well, like you say, he was a psychologist - they know what people need to hear, and how to make their own lives easier. :)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update Anne, and for the earth search of the immediate area. It IS a mystery why Rainn hadn't been found during all the time the search was in progress throughout that area. It does leave unanswered questions that could lead to all kinds of speculation and a lengthy investigation.

It is conceivable that the ground searchers could have overlooked her, just a tiny little pile of a person lying in grass and weeds, tired, hungry and dehydrated, in pain, scared and too weak to cry, possibly sleeping on and off, or so scared she was too frightened to make a noise when they came near.

More particularly, I don't understand why the search dogs hadn't found her if they were used in the specific area where she was found.

Having said that, I do know that miracles DO exist; I've seen them in my own life, mysteries that go entirely unexplained by the human mind that could have happened no other way than by a divine superior being. And that's a fact. Even the medical profession who has witnessed 'strange, how-did-this-happen happenings' acknowledges these mystery miracles as being authentic. Let's not rule out this possibility just yet. ABB

Juliet said...

It does sound unusual just because one more typically uses 'get' for getting something or someone from a known place - school, shop, middle drawer, pocket' as someone has already noted. The more expected word would be 'find' - he also explains his use of 'the word 'get'. He always told his children he would get them...she would be waiting for someone like him to get her...well, not really, she's two years old, if she was waiting for anyone to 'get' her, it would be her primary caretaker, because that's the person who comes to her when she cries, gets her up, does everything she knows about - the baby only knows what's in her world, no concept of 'someone like him' . It's possible Rainn knows, or has seen Victor, as he knows the grandparents, whom he describes as 'woven into the fabric of the community', or similar - paraphrase. His choice of words is interesting, but doesn't need to be significant because we don't know what 'get' means in his internal subjective dictionary - though he does seem to try to explain that?

Anonymous said...

Oh fer cryin' out loud! Obviously the man had previously tried to encourage his own kids that if they ever went missing, not to worry, that he would "get" them. What in hell is so strange about THAT!

With no depth; you sit there trying to analyze every little word and every little action, perceived and otherwise, making it up as you go; that you have no knowledge of and are not trained to do, nor are you competent to do.

You need to come down to the level of people who are not in your world, or not as educated, or have your own experiences in whatever category you are; nor do they use the same lingo, and learn how to speak on their OWN level. It might take years of practice, but it IS possible. Basic psychology 101. FIRST learn how to speak to and about others of lesser means, education, or whatever, on THEIR level.

It is NOT about statement analysis, per'se. It becomes your way of life in being able to communicate with understanding of those of a different lifestyle than your own. ABB

Juliet said...

As I said, ABB, we don't know Victor's internal subjective dictionary - I'd imagine from his Facebook that he's not short on brain cells or vocabulary. How he might normally apply it in every day speech, and if he normally uses 'get' where others would use 'find' ,that we don't know.

Sus said...

I'm saying it again. It is beyond difficult to find a small child or animal in the woods and fields. I believe Rainn was there the full 48 hours.

Dogs are a helpful tool, but not perfect. Thermal imaging can only go so far. It can be blocked by overhead limbs. I also understand Rainn's body temp had dropped.

I know from searching for separated lambs and calves it takes eyes on the ground...walking every row of the corn or bean field, in every gully, back and forth in the tall grasses. Woods are especially difficult, as a lamb or calf tend to curl up against fallen logs.

I appreciate LE's efforts to bring Rainn and other missing children home. But notice it's strength in numbers that often find the missing.

Once the dogs found a scent and the mother insisted on a polygraph, family was cleared, the volunteers could be brought in and actually find Rainn.

Juliet said...

Hmm - do you mean that if I cuss and fling vulgar insults at you, we'd maybe get along better? Well, that's not happening; some of us have standards. :)

John mcgowan said...

@Abb

Maybe you should start using SA yourself in topics and posts, for once, instead of vilifying and jumping down peoples throats. Yes, indeed, we do post possible scenarios of what may have happened in certain cases. That is not to say we are right. It does seem though, that, (correct me if i'm wrong) it is you and only you whom starts (or try's to) confrontation. Your diatribes, at times, do not warrant this blog.
Having opinions is all well and good. Arguing is something that is not needed here, whether we disagree or not.

It's ok to be wrong, i have been many times. This is how i learn. Accepting being wrong is nothing to be ashamed about.

John

Juliet said...

Sus - there's a link in my post at 4.01 am to a video interview in which the Sheriff seems to express doubts as to whether she was out there for 48 hours - they are still trying to figure that out because, he says, she was in 'extremely good shape', if that was the case. With thin clothing and the cold, even if she avoided the rain, one would expect them to be saying 'hypothermia' - but they are not, and have not. They have said that she was cold, that her body temperature had dropped - they are not saying it was so low as to be willing/able to describe her condition as hypothermic - at least they haven't done so to date. Anything's possible, but it does seem unlikely she could be in such good shape, alert, crying, sitting up by herself.

Anonymous said...

ABB's posts are an almost perfectly contained example of the psychological condition known as "Projection" EVERY time she goes after someone. It's so Classic it's almost cartoonish.

She's either one hell of a troll or.......

Sus said...

Juliet,
I said "low body temp." That is what is being reported. Thermal imaging registers normal body temperature.

Of course, the sheriff and other agencies are investigating what happened to Rainn. They would be remiss not to. As they and the social services describe it, they are allowing safe close family members near her as the investigation clears them.

The article below states that the great-grandparents have now been cleared of wrong doing. They will receive temporary custody so that Rainn can go home to who and the home she is accustomed to. All parties agreed to this. Notice that the mother had custody and was working to being the younger two to her home. I'm sure she has to be cleared in this investigation now.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/oct/07/temporary-custo/

Sus said...

I'm seconding John's post. I'm wrong all the time. That's why I commented that other posters can attack now. I usually get attacked for my comments.

As a teacher I found fear of failure was the one most important thing that stopped my students' success. I always had to make sure students entering the program, with years of failure behind them, knew they were emotionally safe, that they could make mistakes.

With that said, I forgot myself, and my own beliefs. Wow. I guess I was shocked anyone would question the guy who saved Rainn. If you're using SA, I shouldn't have.

Off my soapbox. Thanks for reading.

lynda said...

I third Johns post.

Sus said...

Back to SA.
Context. Context. Context. I hope Peter uses this case as a teaching post.

The mother showed sensitivity in her first statements, even guilt. We find that she is guilty...of drug charges, of child endangerment. Very probably not criminal activity in disappearing Rainn.

The mother's statements showed sensitivity about custody and "my daughter." She is in the midst of a custody battle.

The mother shows detachment from her daughter. Like all drug dependent parents, she is neglectful to her daughter's needs.

Last, I firmly believe this sheriff did what LE should do with a missing child. He called on all available resources immediately. I wish this had happened with Little Deorr. But in the end, it was a volunteer on a four-wheeler looking along areas he figured no one had looked. The sheriff (and the FBI) now MAY want to prove they didn't miss a little girl in the woods, and that she couldn't possibly have survived 48 hours.

Juliet said...

Sus -

'Thermal imagers can help locate victims, help evaluate the extent of hypothermia, or even help find amputated body parts.'

http://www.cahabavalleyfire.org/thermal_imaging.htm

The mom herself said her family and friends suspected she had taken the child - the custody dispute may have led them to think that, with or without good reason - time will tell. She has been granted visitation rights, which may or may not be supervised - it hasn't been specified. Apparently, the children have always lived with and been at least partly raised by the great grandparents, since birth. I believe the mom also lived there - it's quite likely that when she decided to get a place with her boyfriend, and intended to take the children, the grandparents objected and decided to apply for custody.

Peter Hyatt said...

John mcgowan said...
@Abb

Maybe you should start using SA yourself in topics and posts, for once, instead of vilifying and jumping down peoples throats. Yes, indeed, we do post possible scenarios of what may have happened in certain cases. That is not to say we are right. It does seem though, that, (correct me if i'm wrong) it is you and only you whom starts (or try's to) confrontation. Your diatribes, at times, do not warrant this blog.
Having opinions is all well and good. Arguing is something that is not needed here, whether we disagree or not.

It's ok to be wrong, i have been many times. This is how i learn. Accepting being wrong is nothing to be ashamed about.

John



It is why John is a trusted member of this blog.

Anonymous said...

Sus,

Rainn was found less than 1/2 mile from her home. According to LE, she was only missing for a half hour before GGM noticed her missing, and LE was called immediately. She would have been scared, hungry, and cold...but ALIVE, so it's not like they were looking for a body that could not respond...she would have been crying, at least the first night and probably the next day. This is not a densely wooded area, she was found in an open field, there were not a lot of branches or other structures that would have been in the way of thermal imaging. Regardless, it is possible for thermal imaging to detect despite trees, shrubs, etc, depending how dense.

Also, it is not correct that thermal imaging only detects "normal body temperature". Here is a snip that explains how thermal imaging works:

"How do thermal imaging cameras work?

Thermal imaging cameras, also called infrared cameras, detect the heat given off by an object or person. Thermal imaging cameras have lenses, just like visible light cameras. But in this case the lens focuses waves from the infrared energy present in all objects onto an infrared sensor array. Thousands of sensors on the array convert the infrared energy into electrical signals, which create a video image. The infrared camera measures and displays a “thermal profile” of objects in relation to the temperature of surrounding objects. So a person, warmer than the surrounding air, appears “white” while the cooler surrounding air or buildings will appear in varying shades of gray."

This link is to the website that I took the above from, it has a lot of good information on thermal imaging:
https://pr-infrared.com/about-thermal-imaging/thermal-imaging-facts-vs-fiction/

To put it into perspective, the normal body temperature is 98.6 F / 37 C. Mild hypothermia in a child of Rainn's age starts at the temperature of 95 F / 35 C. Severe hypothermia starts at the temperature of 82.4 F / 28 C. The temperature in North Bloomfield during the time she was missing ranged in the low 40's at its coldest, and I believe mid 60's at its highest on Sunday. So even if Rainn was severely hypothermic, her temperature would still have been high enough to contrast with the much colder atmosphere surrounding her.

Regardless, I respect your differing opinion. And I agree that it is not impossible that Rainn escaped the home on her own and toddled to the field where she was eventually found, surviving those days and nights in the cold and rain. But if that is really all that happened, it would certainly cause LE to question the competence of the elderly GGParents as to whether they can provide a safe environment for the children to live. I thought it strange that the other two children were not removed from the home after Rainn went missing, at least until Rainn was found. That is routine around here, I live about 75 miles from North Bloomfield, but I am in Pennsylvania. That was the first thing that made me thing that there was more to the story than just a toddler wandering out of the home. Now, seeing that the GGParents were awarded custody of all three of those children, I believe more than ever that LE strongly believes that Rainn didn't leave the home on her own, and likely wasn't out in the fields the entire time. If not, there would be no need for a "Chapter 2", no?

Anne

John mcgowan said...

The locked (or should i say "pad locked actual laundry room") For me, is sensitive. Why it is sensitive is yet to be known. As myself and others have commented, there maybe a myriad of reasons?

Sus said...

Anne,
I understood she was under the tree line. You know how grass can still grow tall at the edge. I could be wrong. Looking at the pic of her on the four wheeler gives an idea of the terrain. Victor Sutton said he was driving where he didn't see tracks along the edge of the woods.

Yeah, I know nothing about thermal imaging. I assumed wrongly it wouldn't pick up low body temp.

lynda said...

John

I agree about the laundry room and padlock. Mom stumbles over it several times and the use of the word "padlock" I believe, is unexpected. Locked, fine. Padlocked? That takes some effort to padlock a door. A few posters feel it is just because of items stored and it is normal to do so but I am curious to know why it is sensitive to mom.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "get"....
I grew up saying "take" a shower. My whole family "takes" showers and "takes" baths. My friend, whose family is from another part of the country, says "get" a shower. Her whole family "gets" showers and baths. What do you guys say? Generally, unless we are going camping and "taking" a portable shower with us, we don't "take" showers anywhere. We stand under the water and clean ourselves. But in my family, we "take" showers. Unless my friend goes to the store to "get" a portable shower for camping, she generally doesn't actually "get" a shower. Like us, she stands under the water and washes herself. Some people just "shower". For them, "shower" is a verb, not a noun, in that instance. My point is that we DO all have different internal dictionaries.
Cathy

Anonymous said...

re: the dad.... He seems sincere, even if he doesn't have a great history as a parent(ie addiction, domestic violence). But, on his FB, he was the one with post after post about Rainn. Also, someone asked him if he'd gotten to see her yet. He said no, he was being pushed aside but that "the important thing is that she's fine". The mom's laments have all been about herself. I'm not saying that the dad will do any good for Rainn. I knew a person who wasn't violent so long as he lived a sober lifestyle. Problem was, he could never maintain a sober lifestyle. So, while his intentions re: Rainn may be more sincere, he may not be capable of parenting her, due to his life choices. Mom - dig through Facebook and ugh - she comes off as being very self-centered (based on her pics, selfies, memes, and comments). She has seemingly found her dream man in a married guy who apparently left his wife for her. The picture she paints of herself is rather ugly.
Cathy

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Lynda

I mentioned that there could be chemicals in the "actual laundry room" in an earlier post. It is the need to tell us it is "still padlocked" that i find unexpected. If, she followed up this statement and explained why it was "padlocked", (chemicals etc) maybe be understandable. However, she would then employ the reason why, (because, so, therefor etc) making it double sensitive.

What was, or is, still in there?
Has something occurred in there that she doesn't want anyone to know about, and she leaked a marble?

Jen Ow said...

OMG, YES!!!

Thank you!!!

Sus said...

I agree that the laundry room door is unexpected. This is the quote, " There's an actual laundry room door, but it was locked with a padlock on it. It was still locked when my daughter...after she went missing."

I think it's important to back up and see she begins this entire part with "yes." She is answering an unknown question. It is obviously about doors, though. So to being up the laundry room door isn't unexepected.

She is focused on the door, not the laundry room. She then uses "but." Anything after "but" negates the previous. Never mind it is a door. It is locked...with a padlock. To add how it is locked means this is important to her. That is expected as she is telling reporters doors Rainn could have gotten out, and a padlock would restrict that.

Sus said...

Cont.
"It was still locked when my daughter....after she went missing."

For me it's the STILL LOCKED WHEN and self-correcting to AFTER that catches my attention. What is her reason for changing from when to after? One is during the time Rainn left. One would be discovered later.

I note also, that during the time Rainn disappeared she is MY DAUGHTER. After SHE. Maybe Rainn was "my daughter" and safe in the great grandparent's home.

Anonymous said...

Padlocked laundry rooms - I have only seen one.

There were no toddlers in that home, yet one day, the door had been "popped open"...

Alcohol was stolen by their teenage son.

John mcgowan said...

Sus said..

"I think it's important to back up and see she begins this entire part with "yes." She is answering an unknown question. It is obviously about doors, though. So to being up the laundry room door isn't unexepected."

Hi

The door is attached to the laundry room. We don't know if the question was about doors or the laundry room. Isn't that an assumption?

"She is answering an unknown question. It is obviously about doors, though."

If it is an "unknown question" how can it be obvious it's about doors? Am i missing something? lol :/


Anonymous said...

The doors bring up the idea of sexual abuse.

John mcgowan said...

On the back of that we have this.

"It was still locked when my daughter...after she went missing."

A broken sentence, missing information. Why did she stop herself? What was she going to say?

Anonymous said...

"The doors bring up the idea of sexual abuse."

laundry room => water & hygiene

Sus said...

No, I didn't give her full quote. She began it with "yes." Then told about doors in the house...the laundry room door, the front door, the garage door. I made the assumption from that she was asked about open doors. That's just an assumption. You know what they say. :-)

Anonymous said...

And a 'padlocked' door at that, making it far more sensitive in the sexual abuse context.

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Sus

This is the beauty of this blog. We all come together :) Group analysis, is worth it's weight in gold :)

Sus said...

John and anyone else interested,
Look under the post "Rainn Peterson Missing" Lynda's subscription at 11:15 PM and see what you think. Was she asked about doors, or ways Rainn got out? I think she was. That's why I find nothing she says strange except that self correction. Why the "when to after"? Even mentioning the padlock can be explained because she can be explaining Rainn couldn't get out that way. But why say "when"? That makes it sound like she was there. Then quickly switch to "after."

Bethany said...

Oh wow.
Never saw that I have to read again.

Anonymous said...

Exactly Sus!

"It was still locked when..." sounds like Brandii was there or how could she know?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Dacea said...
I disagree. Get is a strong action word, find is much more passive. Get indicates action and bringing her home.

October 7, 2015 at 8:44 AM

Really? Maybe Finding Nemo should have been called Getting Nemo. What do you think?

Sus said...

But I can't put words in her mouth. Maybe she was there earlier. Maybe she saw it padlocked and left the garage door "popped" open. There could be other reasons. She says "still locked when...". The "still" could signify seeing it earlier. But it comes back to that "when."

Anonymous said...

"...the house door was shut like always but it was not locked, the garage door was um, was found popped open when my grandmother went to let my dog out after my daughter had been missing.”

"after my daughter HAD BEEN missing". At this stage, little Rainne was still missing. The words "had been" are unexpected.

.


Anonymous said...

I find it odd that all the doors leading outside weren't checked as soon as Rainn went missing and it was not until GGM went to let Brandii's dog out that the "popped" door was discovered.

It is surprising that the dog, if it wanted to get out, would not go out the same way Rainne did.

Poor GGM, having to look after Brandii's dog, too.

Sus said...

I found that odd, also. And I thought the same thing about caring for her three great grandchildren and her granddaughter's dog.

Anonymous said...

LE said that the area in which Victor found Rainn, had already been searched, TWICE. Yet Victor said he went there because there was no visible evidence of the area having been searched. Tyre marks etc.

Doesn't SAR mark areas that have already been searched? (Twice)?

Anonymous said...

Leave ABB alone!

I'm your No. 1 fan, ABB. Don't go changing.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Leave ABB alone!

I'm your No. 1 fan, ABB. Don't go changing.

October 7, 2015 at 8:26 PM

---

Is that you Annie Wilkes?

Anonymous said...

LOL, Anon at 8:42pm. If only. Sadly, probably just another of ABB's personalities.

criticalthinker said...

Juliet wrote

"I knew if I had her, nothing could happen to that kid, because I would protect her.' Victor Sutton

What would he need to protect her from during that two minutes - and what, realistically, was likely to happen to her - what harm could possibly befall her AFTER she had been found, and when he knew the ambulance would be there straight away?

Good question.
I believe Victor took her, because Victor wanted to be seen as a hero when Victor "rescued" her.
I watched the video interview with Victor you posted, which convinced me further that Victor may be responsible. One thing I found very telling was when Victor describes the "authoritative" voice he used when he called Rainne, and Victor further comments that the reporter can ask his kids (ages 18 and 21) what that "authoritative" voice sounds like.
I believe this is, in the truest sense, a marble Victor is leaking. "Authoritative" is the way Victor wants to be seen, and many times that is the underlying motivation (I'm not going into the underlying psychopathology here) for people to play these types of games is that they get some sort of satisfaction out of fooling the other authorities, and making themselves the real "authority". (Also, in this case, he hoped to fool doctors, whom he may not be fooling as he had hoped since they are commenting they are extremely surprised Rainne did not have hypothermia. In this case, the other authorities Victor fooled would be the police as well as the other searchers, about whom Victor goes into some detail describing that many of the searchers were great "woodsmen" and "woodswomen" who know how to track and follow trails, yet Victor was the "lucky" one who just happened to find her due to his own ingenuity.

Anonymous said...

If Victor were guilty, why would he ask permission to pick up Rainn? It seems like he asked this question for one of two reasons:

A. He was concerned that picking her up had the potential to injure her or harm her in some way. That would be a lot of concern for the well-being of a baby he left in a field long enough to become that cold.

B. He was concerned about contaminating the evidence if Rainn had been kidnapped. This would be the perfect opportunity to provide an excuse for any physical evidence they might find. If investigators found fingerprints or hair, it would be easily explained by the fact that he picked her up. Instead, he asks permission.

I also find his request for permission to disagree with the idea that he wants to be seen as authoritative. If that were Victor's main concern, I would expect him to pick her up and wrap his jacket around her without waiting for permission from the 911 operator. He did not carry her triumphantly into the police station as someone chasing a hero status might be want to do; he waited with her in the field for the authorities to arrive. He asked for permission to hold her, he asked whether or not he should stay where he was.

If there is any sensitivity in Victor's words (and I don't believe there is), it may be traced back to the trauma of the situation: when he first saw her, lying in the grass and covered with flies, he thought that she was dead. He even says that at first he thought the worst.

When he called out to Rainn, her movement was the first confirmation he received that she was alive.

If the reason that Victor did not want to pick up Rainn without permission relates to the potential contamination of evidence, I think it is not surprising that he called to her in an authoritative voice. He wanted her to respond.

If she did not respond, perhaps he would have called 911 before approaching her so as to avoid contamination of a possible crime scene. This would be a responsible thing to do.

K.M.

criticalthinker said...

K.M.

Good points.

But what of the other bizarre things in the video interview? Like Victor saying that his 18 and 21 year old kids are still his "babies" and that is what he always told them 'to wait and (he) will come and get them'. What does that mean?

Also, why, after he says that Rainne looked "beautiful" he says "I think all these kids are beautiful" (seemingly referring to the kids in the neighborhood).

Also, I find it very odd at the end that Victor talks about how he hopes that Rainne will realize she has been "given a second chance at life" since she is "special" and most people would not have survived what she went through and that Victor hopes she will do something to help other people???
This seems very strange to me that he is projecting this far into Rainne's future or "burdening" her, in a sense, to have some kind of "revelation" about her survivial when she is only 2 years old. You would really think that as someone who "saved" her he would be hoping only for her to be well and to return to doing normal kid stuff, playing with stuffed animals, being carefree, using her imagination, kid stuff. It is odd he projects so far into the future and expects Rainne to read some kind of meaning into her survival and then act on it to help others as she is only 2 years old at this time.
I think his narrative of the rescue is quite odd, when being asked to describe her condition he seems to want to change the subject imo by saying she just looked "beautiful". He should be able to answer the question of what kind of condition he perceived her to be in when he found her. I find it odd that he does not give any specific details that made him think "thank God she seems to be OK!" Anything, like she was crying and then she stood up so I thought thank God, she's gonna be OK!

lynda said...

John said..(Hi John)

I mentioned that there could be chemicals in the "actual laundry room" in an earlier post. It is the need to tell us it is "still padlocked" that i find unexpected. If, she followed up this statement and explained why it was "padlocked", (chemicals etc) maybe be understandable. However, she would then employ the reason why, (because, so, therefor etc) making it double sensitive.

What was, or is, still in there?
Has something occurred in there that she doesn't want anyone to know about, and she leaked a marble?

EXACTLY. I know we cannot put words into their mouths but Mom IMO, almost blew it here. She almost told something that she wants to keep secret. I hyperfocus on the broken sentence and have stated before that I believe this is when something "happened" that Mom is deceitful about. Is it just guilty knowledge of something done in laundry room or is there the leakage you mentioned?

I also (please correct me anyone if I am wrong) think that leakage happened when Mom states that "MOST" of what people are saying about me is untrue (paraphrasing the last few words as I can't remember exactly.) I interpret her saying "MOST" instead of "ALL" accusations leakage as that means there ARE things being said about her that are true. Which things are true? That she's an addict? That she set this up? That she's neglectful?

I noticed that in the video of Mom going to court she had the free time and whim to color her hair much lighter. Just a comment

I am also glad to see that it is in media now where a doctor is saying that he feels surprised that Rainn made it out alive. Yes, finally! They are not coming right out and saying there is NO way this child was in the elements on those 2 days and nights and is not in bad shape or deceased, so this means that she was not out there 2 days and nights, but they're coming close. It's either a miracle of God, or somebody plunked her out there on Sunday. I believe in God, but the most likely is the latter. This sheriff is like a dog with a bone (Yay!) and I do believe there will be resolution as to what really happened in this case.

Anonymous said...

"But what of the other bizarre things in the video interview? Like Victor saying that his 18 and 21 year old kids are still his "babies" and that is what he always told them 'to wait and (he) will come and get them'. What does that mean?"

I think what Victor is referring to here is something that many parents say to their children and, in fact, my parents said to me when I was a kid:

If you get lost, just stay where you are and I will find you. Don't keep moving and get more lost. If you are moving and I am moving, we might miss each other, and you might get further away from me. But if you stay still, I will search the whole area and I will find you.

So as a responsible parent, he might believe that someone has said this to Rainn. He might believe that Rainn's parents or grandparents had told her to stay still if she got lost, and she was waiting for someone to find her.

I don't think it's abnormal that he referred to his children as his babies, even though they are grown. Many parents do this, and it is perhaps derived from his empathy as a parent for the plight of a lost baby. I think it is not unreasonable to expect that a parent would be concerned and empathetic about a missing child in his own neighborhood, and that this close-to-home situation led him to thoughts about his own children and "what-ifs."

I don't think it is abnormal that he said she looked "beautiful," and I don't think he was avoiding questions about her condition. Even on the 911 call, you can hear him telling her she is pretty and calling her beautiful. His narrative is accurate in describing his thoughts at the time, thoughts that are expressed on the 911 call. He did describe her condition as he could see it, but he is not a doctor. He couldn't tell us her body temperature, or that she was dehydrated or that she had a diaper rash. He likely calls her beautiful because seeing that she is alive (after spotting her lying down and covered with flies) was a beautiful sight. She is also two years old, and it is not uncommon for people to call babies beautiful.

I think the "thank God she seems to be OK" is in contrast to his original thought: that she was dead. She was moving, she responded to her own name, and he didn't see visible injuries. She is OK in the context that she will be OK and her condition is not serious, it does not mean perfectly comfortable and happy.

As to Rainn's future, I think he perhaps thinks it was divine intervention that made him search that particular place. He probably is grateful that he chose to search that certain area, and recalls considering different areas to search. Perhaps he almost didn't check there, and like he said, he was "lucky." I don't believe he is trying to burden her, I think he feels that God or a higher power intervened to save her, and he is just predicting that she has a great purpose in this context.

K.M.

lynda said...

Interesting

Brandi Peterson has lived on and off with Richard and Dora Peterson, and her mother in Southington. She also has lived in the Cleveland area, where she pleaded guilty to misdemeanor attempted drug possession in August 2014, according to Cuyahoga County court records.

She and Martin have been named in several Trumbull County police reports in recent years relating to domestic violence between them.

Martin was convicted of aggravated menacing involving Brandi Peterson in 2013, and two other police reports contain allegations of Martin’s making threats to Brandi Peterson and others.

Deputies also were called to Quinn’s Market in North Bloomfield on June 23, 2015, by Brandi Peterson’s mother, Tammy Ogletree of Southington, who reported that Brandi had left Richard and Dora Peterson’s house on Route 45 and texted several people indicating she was going to harm herself.

When a deputy found Brandi on Norton Lane, she indicated she was upset about an argument with her grandmother.

The deputy drove her to Quinn’s to meet up with her mother, but she threw up and became delusional and slurred her words, a deputy said. She was taken to an area hospital for evaluation.

NORTON Rd again..........Baby's scent was found there remember?

- See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/oct/0....7qYXtF2U.dpuf

Anonymous said...

Juliet, poor old Rainmaker Victor does say some odd things. It is likely that he really is some kind of guardian angel, authoritative and abrupt voice notwithstanding.

Inquiring minds do want to know why he was searching an area (because it looked like it hadn't been searched) that had, in fact, been searched more than once. SM, FWIW, suggests he was not a registered volunteer.

Also, in his interview he made much of all the townsfolk, the community, the experienced woodsmen, the number of people...and yet, he was alone when he found her.

Maybe Brandii dropped Rainn in a nearby field expecting her to be found in the morning, and when she wasn't found, as expected, she enlisted the help of Rainmaker.

The thought police are treating me quite harshly, too.

It's strange to say, but if people hadn't so vehemently defended Vincent, I would not have considered the possibility of him being involved.



Anonymous said...

Very interesting Lynda... Norton Rd runs parallel to Peck Leach Rd to the north. Just curious, do we know what Victor's address is?

Anonymous said...

Never mind, Victor lives on Creaser Rd, a considerable distance from the Peterson property and where Rainn was found. For some reason I was thinking that Victor found her on his property, but I was wrong... come to think of it, I wonder whose property she was actually found on?

Bethany said...

Um what does the "Victor Rainmaker" (October 7th, 9:20am)
And "Rainmaker Victor" (October 8th, 12:30am)
Mean Juliet and Anon?
Does he have a nickname on MSM or something?
I might be exhausted so I am not seeing the nickname connection!!

TIA!!!

criticalthinker said...

Juliet,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this. I agree with everything you said! To answer some of your questions, at first I thought it was Brandii working with Rainmaker (I did not even notice the weird name coincidence until you pointed it out!), but now I am leaning more towards thinking he went into the house and took her. For 2 reasons 1) Brandii's pattern of lying strikes me as nothing more than the lying of an addict (who is used to lying mostly to other addicts as it is sloppy lying), it is very unusual to see this type of crime committed and the person does not at least attempt to stick to one story with minor flaws/details/times not quite adding up. Here we have a heroin addict who gave 3 different places she supposedly was at the time Rainne was taken. I believe that is because Brandii was doing heroin at the time. Additionally, no addicted person is going to have the type of organized and calculated thinking nevermind the patience to listen to a kid cry because they are thirsty from withholding liquids and not changing their diaper.
I believe the culprit is someone with far deeper psychological problems who probably had a fixation on Rainne, perhaps because he was having a crisis that his own children were now grown up but also something deeper and far more troublesome had to be going on. Something in his psyche may have needed to feel that he was a "hero"! Perhaps he wanted to steal Rainne but knew he really couldn't permanently steal her so just kidnapped her for a short time. Perhaps unconsciously he feels he is now her parent now that he saved her and gave her a "second chance" at life, almost like he had now given birth to her, like she has been "born again".
Very good point you made about how he made so much of the skilled searchers yet was alone.
My guess is that he had some type of fixation on Rainne and some deep narcissistic need to be seen as a hero, the guy who "saved" her when noone else could.

Anonymous said...

Bethany, try Victor Rainmaker Sutton on Facebook. Weird coincidence?

Bethany said...

Juliet
That is REALLY weird!!!
How about that for a coinkeydink is right!
I never looked on fb, thank you for the info!!

I figured maybe they were calling him that for finding Rainn or something.

Sus said...

Burning questions:
Will we break 300 today?
When will Sybil awake?

Anonymous said...

K.M.-
Well said! You disagreed with the Victor accusations so much more diplomatically and eloquently than I did. I basically lashed out in annoyance (forgiveness begged for this infraction, please). I think I reacted with emotion. I equated him with the discovery of Rainn alive an basically ok. As a mother, hearing about missing/abused/neglected/murdered/accidentally-killed children/teens breaks my heart. My kids probably think I'm weird because I will suddenly hug and/or kiss them extra after reading these stories. I take it to heart. When I see the pictures of these kids, I see my own children and shudder to think, "what if?". So, I apologize to all for reacting emotionally. However, I do agree with K.M.'s assessment. IF Victor is complicit, I will eat crow. Or maybe Ramen, since it's just as gross but more easily obtained. But I still don't see guilt on the part of Victor based on his words. Odd, yes. Sensitive, yes. But this was an unusual circumstance. Most of us don't search for or find missing children with any regularity.
Cathy

Sus said...

Cathy,
I don't even see anything odd or sensitive. Victor Sutton was specifically looking for a missing child from his neighborhood. He didn't just stumble upon someone. He shows empathy in his statements. Maybe that's a foreign concept to some.

Anonymous said...

As far as the two vehicles go, Victor was specifically asked to describe his involvement in the search. I do not believe this is sensitive; he chose to use the ATV on the second day to access more remote areas. I suspect that when he was in his vehicle on the first day, he saw areas he wanted to search and wished that he had his ATV.

Switching vehicles was a choice that he made, and he is likely glad that he made that decision. Knowing how lucky he was to find Rainn, he has probably been mentally running through all of the decisions he made: to take the ATV instead of the other vehicle, which areas to search, etc. I think Victor correctly realizes that if he had made one different choice, Rainn may not have been found alive. He is grateful that he made the correct choices.

I do not think it is unusual that Victor makes much of the community involvement. This is a small town where he knows many people. He knows how much effort his fellow citizens put into finding Rainn, some perhaps even more than him. He may feel slightly guilty that he is getting all of the attention for finding her, and he wants to share the credit with the community who worked so hard on this search. This is nothing more than generous consideration for the time and effort of his friends and fellow residents, and also speaks against a motivation to be seen as a hero. Furthermore, his discussion of this topic is prompted by the reporter, who asks him "And you wanted to thank the other volunteers?" (paraphrasing).

Also, in this interview Victor does make it clear that the reason he called out authoritatively to Rainn is to try and get her to respond.

He expressly says that he thought she was beautiful because she was alive.

He also does not avoid describing her condition in any way. He tells us that she was dirty, that she had flies on her and that she was tired and upset. He specifically says that he doesn't know how to describe her condition further from the circumstances, and how could he? Would we expect to hear that she had diaper rash, or was hypothermic, or that she was dehydrated? How would he know any of these things?

(continued)...

Anonymous said...

To explore a difference between "get" and "find," you should post the quotes where he uses each word. Are there other reasons for a change in language? Does he use one before she was found and one after? Is he using "get" in the context of knowing that once he was holding her, he knew he could protect her, like he said? Does one appear when describing times when he thought she might be dead, either before locating her or spotting her lying in the field? I don't see that there is anything intrinsically strange about his choice of word. If we want to discuss why he used "get" at one point and "find" at another, we need to examine the context of these quotes and determine if a change of language does, in fact, exist. If there is a change of language, we need to explore other explanations for this change (i.e., a car becomes a vehicle when it no longer moves).

I do not think there is anything strange about Victor's statements. Victor is a parent, and I think parents naturally have a stronger response to situations where children are in danger. This would be further exacerbated by the fact that a child disappeared from his own community.

I have no children, and although I am saddened when a child goes missing, I believe that people who are parents are experiencing a feeling that I am not. There is an acuteness to the sentiments expressed by people who are parents, "thank God!" and "I am so relieved!" I can't be sure, but I strongly suspect that there is a combination of empathy and terror that I do not experience because I am not a mother. I believe this parental feeling influences Victor's emotions.

I find it easy to feel empathy and sadness for the parents in missing children's cases, because I have parents. I do feel concern for the children, but I think it is not as strong as people who have children of their own, like Victor.

K.M.

Anonymous said...

BTW,
Someone in this thread suggested that the mom would not likely be capable of setting a "disappearance" up due to unclear thinking, drugs, and sloppy lying. My ex-husband is an alcoholic and drug addict. (This is WHY he's my EX.) I was in the Air Force, and drug use was not something that was a part of my life. I didn't know about his heroin use until the end. I blamed his behavior and our troubles on his alcohol use. That man could LIE like nobody's business. He schemed and sneaked with ease to get what he wanted. He was very charming, charismatic, and manipulative. Don't underestimate a manipulative person simply because he/she is also an addict.

I don't know that the mother is involved with Rainn's disappearance. I'm just saying don't write that idea off just because she's an addict. She's at the very least guilty of being a bad parent. Rainn's father shared a story about the great grandparents getting custody and said: " im just glad wy wife didnt get her and she's ok Thats whats matters".

Brandii may not have engineered the disappearance, but - that bit about the laundry room door still being padlocked.. "...an actual laundry room door but it was locked with the padlock n it, it was still locked when my daughter..after she went missing um,..after she went missing um..." The way she cut herself off and changed the trajectory of the sentence.....that is seriously suspicious. Why did she change what she was saying? It's possible that she stumbled over it for a reason unrelated to the disappearance, but it definitely catches my attention.

Cathy

criticalthinker said...

Cathy,

I didn't mean to imply that at all that since Brandii is a heroin addict that she would be incapable of lying or scheming. My sister worked with heroin addicts to try to rehabilitate them in a court ordered program and she would tell me about how they as employees would actually have to take seminars on how stunningly manipulative addicts are, and, she told me that even having been trained to not be manipulated by them, the heroin addicts were still easily able to manipulate the employees, because they were such good liars.. She said that they are the best liars out there. I said something kind of subtle though in saying that her lying is quite sloppy, maybe because she is young, and I said that I felt she may be used to lying to mostly other drug addicts. I did not find her smooth or conniving in her lies. I did not find her to be calculated. It may be because she is young, relatively new to her addiction, and, quite frankly, some people are better liars than others.
I would put absolutely no stock in what her ex says, because if you really want to meet a good liar, talk to a domestic abuser. Those guys are typically very smooth, charming, manipulative, and operate out of a complex and deeply entrenched system of lies and deception. I would literally believe nothing he says or consider any of his opinions valid. He is a convicted domestic abuser which means he was violent, and probably around the children. These guys do not change whether they sober up or not. Any man who is violent to any of his family members I regard as being beneath any addict. They are the scum of the earth, and they do not change, regardless of what comes out of their mouth or what kind of new leaf they turn over.
As far as what happened to Rainn, I do believe that an addict would have difficulty in carrying out this plan, they would not have the patience to withhold liquids and listen to the baby cry. They would not have the strategy to do what she did, I don't think, considering, she would be attempting to fool an entire community as well as law enforcement, and I believe the motive of whoever did this stems from deep psychopathology, not merely being angry someone else has custody.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Anne October 7 1:02 p.m.

Thanks for posting the mini tutorial on the thermal imaging (i.e."heat-seeking") equipment! It was my understanding, based on government cases involving thermal imaging to find suspect survivalists/suspected cult group leaders, that the equipment basically detected the heat signature difference between an object and its surroundings. I appreciated your taking the time to post more information.

That's one of the things I like about this site, you never know what you'll learn by the end of the day! I may come primarily for Statement Analysis, but I often learn so much more.

Juliet said...

light work upon - light upon (Stupid iPad - I did not write that)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 242   Newer› Newest»