69 South
Podcast 69 South is about mystery, true crime, attempting to find the truth in a world full of chaos. We dig deep in to current and past true crime incidents. Reporting what we find to our listeners. We want to become your reliable source for all things relevant, while we live in a society that is truly lost.
69 South
Brian and Sonja Stafford Probable Cause Affidavit: Justice for the forgotten Children Part 4
What if the family dynamics you thought you knew were far from reality? This episode of the 69 South Podcast peels back the layers of the Stafford family saga, where allegations against Sonia and Brian Stafford take center stage. With their children defending them and Brian's brother Brad painting a darker picture, we explore contrasting perspectives that raise eyebrows and question what truly went on behind closed doors. Adding to this narrative, Nikki, the biological mother of the adopted children, opens up about her heart-wrenching journey to reclaim her kids, offering a poignant glimpse into the battles she faced against a flawed system.
As we venture into the financial and property enigmas of the Stafford household, unsettling revelations come to light. From the distress experienced by foster care children to Department of Child Services reports painting a troubling picture of Brian and Sonia's actions, these disclosures challenge the façade of a typical family. Our investigation into the Staffords’ financial habits uncovers inconsistencies in their spending on child-rearing, pitting their expenditures against USDA benchmarks and revealing a web of subsidies and property developments that complicate their narrative further.
The legal storm surrounding the Staffords intensifies with looming charges and community safety concerns at the forefront of the arrest warrant and bond hearing. We navigate the legal intricacies and the strategic moves by the state to ensure the Staffords are brought to justice. Through Nikki's courageous testimony, we spotlight the systemic failures she faced with the Department of Child Services, shedding light on the relentless obstacles that tested her resolve. This episode promises a riveting exploration of the truths and lies entangled in the Stafford family saga, leaving listeners with much to ponder until our next installment.
Send Us a Text- We can only reply on our Facebook Page if you would like to DM
Scented JewelsWe’ve got the coolest wax melts ever. Dive into a world of many aromas at shopscentedjewels.com
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Disclaimer: All defendants are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. All facts are alleged until a conviction!
69 South 69 South 69. South 69 South 69. South.
Speaker 2:Welcome everyone to Podcast 69 South, where we discuss and discuss true crime, cold cases, current events and hot topics, along with our state of society today. This is your trigger warning. Our podcast content is produced for adult listeners, 18 years of age and older. We discuss situations that may be offensive and triggering to some listeners. Sit back, relax and enjoy. Welcome back everybody to 69 South Podcast. I am Chop and I'm going to be your host today, as always, and with me always is my beautiful co-host, julie. Hello, we hope you had a good time since the last time. We are finally going to get through this probable cause affidavit, thank the Lord.
Speaker 4:Amen.
Speaker 2:So, without further delay, we're going to jump right into it, and then, after we get through the probable cause affidavit, we have an interview.
Speaker 4:Yes, we do. We have an interview with Nikki. She is the mother of the first group of children from Indiana that was adopted to the Staffords.
Speaker 2:She wanted us to get her story out there just so. I mean, she basically wants to set the record straight on why her children were even there and the fight she went through to try to get them back.
Speaker 4:Yep.
Speaker 2:So let's get right back into the questioning.
Speaker 4:Okay, so did she basically just deny all of the allegations against her parents?
Speaker 2:She did.
Speaker 4:And in fact did she specifically say that the grooming allegations were bullshit? Yes, she did. Did she tell you that she was raised by the best people on the planet? Yes, she did. And did she also say that she has adopted some of Sonia's parenting practices, such as writing sentences and things like that? Yes, she did. Did she say that she's made any changes?
Speaker 2:She had. No, she had said they were. She was essentially using the sentencing as kind of a punishment and stuff with her own kids.
Speaker 4:Did Kay mention that her parents were getting a divorce when you interviewed her? She did. And did she also mention that Sonia had a new boyfriend and that Brian had a new girlfriend? She did. Was her description of Brian's new girlfriend something along the lines of it's a don't ask, don't tell kind of situation. Yes. Did you tell her that you knew who Brian's girlfriend was? Yes, I did. What was her, I guess, explanation or her reaction to Brian and Victim 11 being together?
Speaker 2:She was kind of caught off guard that I even knew about it, but pretty much said that the situation was that it was hush-hush, that people weren't supposed to know about it and again was in shock that I knew about it and brought it up.
Speaker 4:Did you also interview M. Yes, I did. Did he also deny all the allegations against his parents? Yes, he did. And did he say that he was blessed and had a great childhood? Yes. Okay. Did you learn during your investigation that M has a child with victim six, who is one of the adopted kids? Yes, I did. Okay, after interviewing the biological children, did you also interview Brian's brother, brad Stafford? Yes. And what did he share in his interview that was relevant to your investigation?
Speaker 2:Brad had talked about that he had lived at the home with Brian and Sonia periodically when some of the kids were in the home. He had talked about an incident which was consistent with victim eight, with having the pillow taken away. He had talked about how he thought that Sonia was very harsh with the kids and then he also talked about something that was consistent with the other disclosures on how the kids, when they reached a certain age, it was almost like they aged out and they were kicked out. He described it as being kicked down the road because they didn't go along with the scheme with Sonia. He did also talk about the incident with victim aid around Thanksgiving. He said after the incident that he wasn't invited back to the property. He said after Sonia got upset and kind of questioned on her parenting skills and methods that slowly, more and more the family was kind of being forced to be distant and weren't allowed to come back to the property.
Speaker 4:The incident at Thanksgiving that you talked about is that the incident that victim two disclosed. That victim eight had gone up to a family member and they said why are you going to bed so late or so early in the night? Yes, and they said why are you going to bed so late or so early in the night. Yes, okay. Was there other incidences that had been observed that were relevant to your investigation?
Speaker 2:He did. He talked about an evening that they were in a Mexican restaurant for dinner. He had talked about he believed it was victim four, Victim four or victim two wasn't able to order food. Everyone had ordered food and gotten food, except for her. He had asked you know where's your food? And her response was she wasn't allowed to have anything. She wasn't allowed to get anything. So that was another incident that kind of stuck out to me when I was speaking with Brad.
Speaker 4:Did you use the phrase when you were interviewing him that he witnessed Sonia kind of manhandle the kids periodically throughout the years? Yes. Did he describe it as almost like someone that Sonia could not control it and didn't care who was around? Yes. What did he, or what were his thoughts about observing that and his concerns about what was going on behind the scenes?
Speaker 2:He was concerned. If she was doing that in front of people, what was going on when there weren't people around?
Speaker 4:Did he also make the comment that his brother, brian, would have turned a blind eye to what Sonia was doing? He did. At some point, and the reason that Brad was interviewed. Did we learn that when Victim 11 was kicked out after Brian and Victim 11's relationship became public in 2023, that Victim 11 went to live with Brad at the time in Monroe County? Yes. Okay, and did he tell you about the situation, how it came to be?
Speaker 2:He did he talked about initially. He said that Brian had reached out to him telling that things weren't going well at the farm. He asked Brad if he needed a place to stay, if he would be able to come stay with him, and Brad said you know, you're my brother. Of course I've got a room for you. If you need it, just let me know.
Speaker 2:He said it was a period later that Brian had reached out again and said hey, you know, things are still kind of bad. I may still need to come stay with you. And he said you know, you're more than welcome. You know how to get here, things like that. He said there was another conversation shortly after that. He had reached out again and said hey, I've got to take you up on that. I've got to come stay with you, but I'm going to have somebody else with me. And Brad was kind of taken back and it was like okay, and asked who it was. And Brian told him that it was going to be Victim 11, that him and Victim 11 would be coming to stay with him in Monroe County.
Speaker 4:And did that eventually end up happening, that Victim 11 went to live with Brad in Monroe County? Yes. And did he in his interview talk about Brian would be there periodically and kind of visit Victim 11? Yes. Did in his interview did he paint it as somewhat innocent in the relationship that it was something that was more about feelings than a sexual relationship? Yes, he did. Okay than a sexual relationship. Yes, he did. Okay, did Brad talk about Brian losing his job as a result of what was going on with Victim 11? Yes, he did.
Speaker 4:And at this point did you kind of figure out where Brian worked or what he did for a living? Yes. What was his employment?
Speaker 2:He was a contractor with an electric company that subcontracted with Eli Lilly. He had talked about that. The higher-ed with Eli Lilly he had talked about that, the higher-ups with Eli Lilly had caught wind of the investigation. At some point he essentially told Brian or gave him the ultimatum either you can retire and you can leave on your own, or we're going to dismiss you.
Speaker 4:Did he talk about Cody's suicide and Sonia's treatment of Cody in comparison to the other kids? Yes. Did he describe it, her treatment of Cody as psychological retaliation against the child? Yes. Did he use that as a way to describe how Sonia treated other kids in the home too?
Speaker 2:That was specifically Cody.
Speaker 4:Okay, was there a time where Sonia had told Brad something about DCS and missing DCS on a certain occasion and that they were out at the farm? Yes. What was that comment about? Essentially, that DCS had learned had been out there and Sonia kind of just essentially blew it off. Did she end up making the comment of something along the lines of well, it was lucky they weren't out here the other day because this kid had a bruise or something along the lines?
Speaker 2:Yes, she did. She did make a comment about that.
Speaker 4:Okay, so after interviewing Brad Stafford, did you interview VF, who is now the adopted mother of victim two, three and four? Yes, vf, who is now the adopted mother of victim two three and four. Yes, and the girls were placed with VF in May of 2024, the day they were removed, correct?
Speaker 2:That's correct.
Speaker 4:Since she has been placement for them? Did she give you an idea in her interview about how the girls have adjusted since?
Speaker 2:leaving the farm. She did. She said it has been quite of an adjustment period. She said that initially the girls would be fearful because they were afraid that V was going to act like Sonia did towards them. So V said she kind of had to nurture the girls and kind of explain that you know you're in a safe place now. Those things aren't going to happen to you anymore. You know you can do things you necessarily weren't allowed to do when you were living with Brian and Sonia and kind of had a kind of nature them and it kind of reassure things that are different now.
Speaker 4:Did she talk about whether the girls were kind of hesitant to wear certain clothes or makeup or nail polish if they were to go out because they were worried about seeing members of the family and getting in trouble? Yes. Did she also talk about having a birthday party for victim four and how the girls responded to a birthday cake? Yes, what was their response?
Speaker 2:They didn't know what to do with it because they'd never had one before.
Speaker 4:Did she describe it as almost being foreign to them? Yes, she did. Did she also talk about family pictures and wanting to do family pictures with the girls, since they are now in her family? Yes. And is that kind of a point like a triggering point for them?
Speaker 2:It was. They initially didn't want to do the family photos with V and her family. They had talked about how it wasn't good experience for them before because Sonia would always yell at them or things would happen during the pictures before. So they associated with that with negative from the farm. So V again had to reassure and nurture and kind of say you know this, you're in a different environment. Now those things aren't going to happen. You know, we want you to be in these pictures. You're part of our family. Now those things aren't going to happen, you know we want you to be in these pictures.
Speaker 4:You're part of our family now so has V. In her interview did she talk about noticing any change of the girls eating habits since they've been with her? Yes, she did. And what did she notice?
Speaker 2:She said, they tend to eat way more because they have no concept of being full, so they just continue to eat and eat.
Speaker 4:And does she, in the time that she has had them, did she go and take them to the doctor for checkup and things like that? Yes, she has. Has she also been monitoring any growth, any weight gain, anything like that, while they've been with her? Yes. And did she also tell you about the girls kind of experiencing some things, needing to clip their fingernails and toenails, having thicker and healthier hair since they've been eating more? Yes.
Speaker 4:And so, in that time that the girls have been with V, what are some of the weight gains that they have had? Well, let's actually break that down. Victim four what was her starting weight when she first was in the care with V?
Speaker 2:Her weight was 86.4.
Speaker 4:And the last time that she was weighed by V? When was that?
Speaker 2:It was last month, November, the last month or this year.
Speaker 4:And how much did she weigh at that point?
Speaker 2:98.8 pounds.
Speaker 4:And so that would be 12.4 pounds she had gained in a period of time. Yes. And did she grow any?
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 4:How much did she grow?
Speaker 2:She grew about three inches.
Speaker 4:And so for her starting height, where she was on June 7th, her starting height would have been what?
Speaker 2:Four foot six and a half inches.
Speaker 4:And then on the 21st of November.
Speaker 2:Four foot nine and a half inches.
Speaker 4:And then for victim two what was the starting weight on June 7th?
Speaker 2:116.8 pounds.
Speaker 4:And what was her weight as of November 21st?
Speaker 2:137.2 pounds.
Speaker 4:And so she gained about 20.4 pounds. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:That's correct.
Speaker 4:And then, what was her starting weight on June 7th?
Speaker 2:5 foot 1 inch.
Speaker 4:And then her height as of November 21st 5 foot 3 inches. And then victim three. What was her starting weight on June 7th?
Speaker 2:112 pounds.
Speaker 4:And then her weight as of November 21st 138.4 pounds. And so she's gained about 26.4 pounds, correct, that's correct. And then has she also grown during that time period.
Speaker 2:Yes, she's grown about an inch.
Speaker 4:Okay, and so, as part of your investigation, did V provide recent photos of the girls? She did. And did you also have photos from the girls from the night of their removal?
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 4:Okay, so I'm going to show you what's been marked as States Exhibit 3, 4, and 5. And what's Exhibit 3?
Speaker 2:This is a picture before the night of the removal of Victim 4 and the most recent picture.
Speaker 4:Okay, and then the States Exhibit four who is that one? And then the state's exhibit five. Okay, and they are side-by-side comparisons of the girls, right? Yes. Okay, and has there been any contact with Brian or Sonia since the girls have been in V's care?
Speaker 2:There's not been physical contact with them. No.
Speaker 4:What sort of contact have they had if not physical contact?
Speaker 2:V has reported throughout the investigation that Brian, sonia and her boyfriend Stephen and victim 11 would drive by and even stop at the end of the road where they live on or end of the driveway or end of the driveway. V, in most recent conversation with her, also talked about that, after they had had their family photos done, that she had shared them on social media, which was something that she hadn't done before since the girls hadn't been formally adopted, and that Brian had found the pictures on her social media and had only reacted to just the photos of the girls themselves.
Speaker 4:So, in addition to all of the interviews you conducted, did you receive 310s, 311s from the Department of Child Services related to this family? Yes, I did. And what year did those reports begin?
Speaker 2:They started in 2015.
Speaker 4:And did these reports that you were able now to review corroborate what you learned from the kids throughout your investigation? Yes, they did. Did Victim 7 make any reports or reports to an adult that were then reported to DCS? You found in the 310s and 311s. Yes. What about M? Yes. Okay, was there a report relating to Victim 1 that was consistent or that stood out to you that kind of aligned with a lot of what we learned in our investigation?
Speaker 2:Yes, that stood out to you that kind of aligned with a lot of what we learned in our investigation. Yes, there was two in 2020 that were consistent with the disclosures that we learned in the investigation.
Speaker 4:Okay, and was there a report in 2022 about Victimate? Yes. And was that consistent with your investigation as Victimate was told to lie to DCS? That's correct. Okay, that was in the 310 and 311 that was reviewed. Yes. Were there multiple reports about victim eight.
Speaker 2:Yes, there were.
Speaker 4:How many were made?
Speaker 2:There's at least three reports made specifically with victim eight.
Speaker 4:Was there a report that was made in 2023 about victim eight staying with the neighbors? Yes, there was 23 about victim eight staying with the neighbors. Yes, there was, and in that report is it mentioned that he had gained 35 pounds since living with them? Yes, was there also a report that he had been kicked out by Sonia on a specific day? I think it was in 2022 or 2023 that showed up in the three tens? Yes, there was.
Speaker 4:Okay Now you said that there was some body cam footage from the night that the girls were removed on May 22, 2024. We've talked about who was on the scene. Were there any statements that Brian Stafford made to deputies or to the family case manager that you reviewed on body cam?
Speaker 2:Yes, brian acknowledged that the girls had been paddled, talked about one of them having a mark from it and then one of the scratches on her face. He also mentioned that he brought up almost the molest allegations by himself, without being prompted. He made a comment that Sonia was just trying to use it all against him.
Speaker 4:At some point does Sonia arrive on the scene and start talking to the family case manager, with deputies present. Yes. Does Sonia admit that the girls are on this food schedule that the girls disclosed? Yes, she did. And did she make the comment? I get to eat T-bone steak. They have to eat ravioli and ramen noodles. Yes she did? Was Sonia intoxicated the night that she showed up? Yes. Okay. Did she also admit that the girls were getting spanked by a paddle and that they had a point system? Yes, she did.
Speaker 4:Did she also make the comment that she kind of just found all of this very humorous? She did. Did she bring up victim 11 being pregnant? Yes, she did. And did she also make the comment to the family case manager that this, referring to the situation with Brian, had been going on for so long? Yes. And did she also admit that the girls had disclosed to her numerous times about Brian exposing himself? Yes, she did.
Speaker 4:Throughout your investigation. We've talked about the devices that you had obtained and were processed later. Are those sort of still being processed for additional things? Yes, they are. Okay, did you find anything relevant in your investigation? That's of note for the court in this hearing.
Speaker 2:Yes, there were messages about DCS being at the residence on the 22nd, which was the night that they went out with the deputies. There was also images on Brian's phone that kind of confirmed the pregnancy there was the background photo was Brian and it had a positive pregnancy test on it Numerous communications between her and Brian confirming their relationship. And then there was one incident that really stuck out to me that Brian had inquired about coming coming down or coming in and ask what to do with the girls, and Sonia said to put them in their rooms, make sure that their alarms were set and give them a bucket or something or have them use the restroom before they go in.
Speaker 4:Did you also, on Sonia's device, find any videos of the girls from inside the house that seemed to have been taken from cameras that you located in the execution of the search warrant? Yes. Was there anything that cooperates with the girls have disclosed in the review of those videos?
Speaker 2:There was. There was videos of the girls in their bedrooms or, I'm sorry, there was pictures of the girls in their bedrooms consistent with what they had disclosed. There was also videos of them writing out their sentences. One of them was very emotional and crying during that process, but these were videos believed to be from the camera system in the house that were stored on her device.
Speaker 4:And so at some point in the investigation did you learn that Brian and Sonia have sold their house on Herbiemont Road. Yes. And do you know when that sale took place?
Speaker 2:October of this year.
Speaker 4:And so at some point you learned that Kay, the bio daughter, had made comments to M Grandma about Brian buying a house in Newcastle. Were you able to confirm that? Yes, I was, and so did he take anyone with him when he went to Newcastle.
Speaker 2:He did. He took victim 11.
Speaker 4:And were you contacted by a realtor that handled that sort of sale? And he did. He took victim 11.
Speaker 2:I was.
Speaker 4:And what was the reason they contacted you?
Speaker 2:They found the whole situation kind of concerning. So they actually reached out. It was a former IMPD officer that works sex crimes. He had reached out to Zach Dodson, who is a corporal for the investigations unit, who she was familiar with, and kind of said essentially, I want to explain this kind of situation I have with you because I find it odd or concerning. I want to explain this kind of situation I have with you because I find it odd or concerning, so kind of starting running through the situation with them selling the house and Brian was wanting to purchase a home and do a dual closing for him and victim 11. And Zach was obviously familiar with the investigation because he'd been a part of this as well and immediately knew who she was talking about and said is his name Brian? And her response was well, how do you know that? And that was when Zach forwarded me her information and said I'm going to put you in contact with the detective that's investigating that.
Speaker 4:At some point did we ever confirm that victim 11 was in fact pregnant? Yes. Has. She had her baby. Yes, she has.
Speaker 4:And that finishes up Detective Williams' testimony and we're going to go on to Investigator Bays, who is also another investigator who worked on this, and we're going to jump right into that. So let's talk a little bit with the court about your involvement with this investigation. Were you present yesterday when we did the three-hour hearing with Detective Williams as he testified about his involvement in the Staffords? Can you explain for the court how you became involved with this investigation?
Speaker 2:Absolutely. I was initially asked to help track down some adoption placement records from out of state that included Florida, Oregon, as well as some here in Indiana. As the investigation evolved, it became pretty clear that there was a financial component that needed some exploration. My background is in financial crimes On my last assignment as the FBI Financial Crimes Task Force in Indianapolis, so I was asked to participate.
Speaker 4:Financial Crimes Task Force in Indianapolis. So I was asked to participate and as a result of your involvement, did you obtain financial records associated with Brian and Sonia Stafford to assist in this investigation? I did. And can you explain for the court how or by what means you obtained those records?
Speaker 2:So we did get the adoption records and it was pretty clear that there was quite a bit of subsidy that were transferred to the Staffords over a period of time. Most, if not all, of those subsidies were sent to a citizen's bank account. I requested and received an order, served that order to Citizens Bank and I went and reviewed the records. I was able to open a much larger window into the Staffords' financial spending behavior.
Speaker 4:And so let's talk about the property that the Stafford's owned at 56 Herbymont Road in Martinsville, Indiana. Are you aware of when that piece of property was purchased by the Stafford's?
Speaker 2:I believe it was in 1996, at least in around that time period.
Speaker 4:And can you explain for the court if you were able to, through public information kind of review, what the property looked like back when it was purchased, up to 2024?
Speaker 2:Yes, so there's an overhead satellite imagery of the property goes so far back as 1996. And then there's intermediate images that were taken between 96 and 2021. Images that were taken between 96 and 2021.
Speaker 4:So if you're able to get a good sense of how the property looked and then how it evolved, over that time period and as an aid for your testimony did you prepare a few slides that were labeled here in Exhibit 6 as sort of a progression of what the property looked like throughout the years.
Speaker 4:Yes, I did sort of a progression of what the property looked like throughout the years? Yes, I did, and would that be helpful for the court in your testimony to have to look at States Exhibit 6 while you're testifying about this property. Yes, If you could just walk the court through the first slide that you have on States Exhibit 6,. What is it that we're looking at?
Speaker 2:So this is just an overview of what the property is. It's actually three parcels. However, for tax assessment purposes, you'll see, the parcels in the south are bound. So even though they are three, they're two separate parcels from a tax assessment purpose and for valuing, those have been assessed together. And then you see the property or the partial to the north which is priced, I should say valued separately, and that basically makes 56 Herbemont Road as we're going to talk about it today.
Speaker 4:And going to the next page of the state's exhibit six, can you explain for the court what we are looking at here?
Speaker 2:So, in understanding what the property looked like when the Staffords occupied it, this is a good example. You're seeing an overhead satellite image from 1998, and what you see? There are two structures that are photographed, and these photographs are certainly much more modern than 1998. But those are the two structures that existed on the property. You have the primary residence, which is represented on the bottom left, and then a large pole-style barn, which is represented in the picture in the upper left. I do believe that pole-style barn has been upgraded over time, but it's kind of unclear what exactly when.
Speaker 4:So there's three pictures on the second page of States, exhibit 6, and it looks like one of them is an aerial view that you had mentioned, with some yellow rectangles. Can you explain for the court what that is and how that's going to help you kind of get through your testimony?
Speaker 2:Sure, it's kind of a baseline for what there was there in 1998. Sure, it's kind of a baseline for what there was there in 1998.
Speaker 4:Those particular squares are where these two structures that you're seeing on the left side of the slide are located, and so, as we go through this, if there's additional squares, that's additional things that are added to the property. Would that be fair to say?
Speaker 2:That's correct, okay, so let's go to the next page and explain for the court what we have here. So this was the first structure that was added after the Stafford's bought the property in 2002. It is a large kind of traditional red barn and that structure still exists there today and that structure was built in 2002.
Speaker 4:And you were present for Detective Williams' testimony and through your assistance in the investigation. Is 2015 a year that would have been after or around the time that all three groups of kids the Staffords adopted would have already been in the home?
Speaker 2:That's correct.
Speaker 4:Okay, so let's look at the next page. Can you explain for the court what we're looking at here?
Speaker 2:So this is a pad, or a concrete pad. It's listed as a basketball court In any of the pictures contemporaneous to the removal of the kids. There's no basketball equipment or goals or anything but that ad did arrive in 2018. And what we're looking at is an image of it in 2018, and what we're looking at is an image of it. Its presence there is consistent with that development in 2018, meaning it wasn't there before and then the following page.
Speaker 2:And this is. There's two items there that I want to highlight. The first is this freestanding patio I believe it's referred to this patio on the back of the house and then there's the second structure, which is a small garage-type barn that was built in 2020.
Speaker 4:And so in your review of looking at this property during the investigation, is there any sort of, I guess progressive value of the property since the time that the Staffords bought it?
Speaker 2:Yes, there's two ways we can look at the value of the property. There's a ways we can look at the value of the property. There's a tax assessment, which is public record, on the product of a government assessor in 2001, which is as far back as we have good records it was valued at $72,800. Today that same property is valued at $349,700. Then there's also a sale value which we all know is dramatically different. We do have to look as far back as 2014. So that property collectively was valued potentially at sale at $185,300 in 2014. That property was sold, house structures and all in October of 2024 for $625,000.
Speaker 4:I believe I'm jumping around a bit In States Exhibit 6,. Are there additional pages that would be helpful for the court, during your testimony, to be able to review?
Speaker 2:Yeah, based off what I was just discussing, you'll see some graphs and charts in the back that just demonstrate the value.
Speaker 4:And that's the last page of States Exhibit 6. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:That's correct.
Speaker 4:So you mentioned early in your testimony that there was we learned through the investigation the Staffords were receiving a subsidy for each child they adopted. Can you tell the court, through your involvement, how much you learned that the staffers received per child?
Speaker 2:I was able to get comprehensive documentation from both Indiana and in Florida for the children that had been placed and adopted from there. The amounts varied in Indiana, maybe having to do with when the kids were adopted or whatever agreements existed, but generally speaking, in Indiana they received $300 to $350 a month per child in their care per month, and then the children from Florida they received $417 per child per month.
Speaker 4:And so how much money did the Staffords make in placement benefits as a total number?
Speaker 2:So if we look at their bank documents and money that we know factually that they received and what form they received it in, we can look back as far as December 2016 up until July, which is the time collectively or in the aggregate from Florida and Indiana. I would add, though, that there were children placed in the house from 2009 up until 2016 as well. 2016 as well. We have records from Florida that indicate how much they were providing them during that time period, and it's an additional $110,000. But that source from Florida, and we don't have bank records that confirm they received all of that. We have no reason to think that they didn't, though.
Speaker 4:And so, in reviewing what we've received on the Staffords in terms of their financial life, did you learn that this was a single income household? I did. And was that income provided by Brian Stafford?
Speaker 2:That's correct.
Speaker 4:And so, as sort of a review in the case, were you able to look at between the years of 2021 and 2024, what their total cleared income was between that time period? Yes. And can you explain for the court? When we use the term total cleared income, what are we talking about?
Speaker 2:I'm referring to money that was deposited into their account that had already been subjected to withholding. It had already been subjected to taxation. So this is money that was deposited into their account as liquid funds, into their operating accounts.
Speaker 4:And so what was the total cleared income for the Staffords between 2021 and 2024?
Speaker 2:So a quick note on the 2021 and 2024, we chose that window and we'll talk about it a little more, but we're going to discuss September 1st 2021 through May 31st 2024. And the reason that is is we have the most overlap in spending records, just because that's what was made available, so we're going to get our best assessment from that time period. So when we talk about September 1st 2021 through December 31st 2021, they brought in collectively $27,881.72. In 2022, over the course of the year, they brought in $86,8996. And then the last part, I'd say the first half of 2024, this is January 1st through May 31st, when, when which the children were removed, they brought in $35,173, all post-tax, all post-withholding.
Speaker 4:To provide yourself with sort of some context and perhaps the core. During your investigation, did you try to find some sort of, I guess, agreed number on how much it costs per year to raise a child?
Speaker 2:Yes, we wanted to establish a, a baseline, so we had something to compare that, to see if these what expenditures were being made on behalf of the kids. So in doing that, I borrowed from the 2017 United States Department of Agriculture study on how much it costs to raise a child and how those costs are broken down. The study was published in 2017, and in 2017, that estimate was $233,610 over the 18-year span of a child. Of that $233,000, it is important in our discussion today 18% of that is allotted or earmarketed for food. Those totals are expected to rise with inflation, so the estimate 2.2 percent over the course over each year. So that left us in 2021 with approximately a $254,000 for the 18-year lifespan of a child. With the inflation that would raise it to $260,000 in 2022 and to about $265,000 in 2023, all with those inflation costs built in. If you figure 18% of that estimate applies to food, we landed at about $211 to $226 per month per child for food allowance between 2021 and 2024.
Speaker 4:And that is what our investigation and your part of the investigation has been focused on what they have been spending, or what we can measure. They spent in food for the children. Yes. And so how did you, in looking at all of their financial records, how did you assess how much they spent on food for the children in their home?
Speaker 2:So I had to start by understanding how, by what means, they're spending their money.
Speaker 2:In doing that, I'd taken that citizen's account that we already discussed and looked at it with the other credit card accounts and anything else people use for day-to-day spending.
Speaker 2:I identified a Chase credit card and a Discover credit card, kind of associated or built into their financials, however, it is that citizen's account to which the subsidies from Florida and Indiana were being deposited that appear very much so to their operating account records for their household cost. So I was able, in viewing all of those records, to determine a handful of places where they'd regularly spent their money, and that was Walmart, costco, aldi's, sam's Club and Amazon. I obtained transaction details, that is, line items, for what they spent, so receipts the list exactly what they bought and when. And then I coded all of those purchases into six different categories. That included food, hygiene, school and home items, clothes and toys. When I coded them, I collated that by date and by type. Then that's where I got that September 1st 2021 through May 31st 2024, because we have a good record overlap for that time period, which again will give us our most accurate assessment.
Speaker 4:And so can you explain for the court how much did the Stafford spend in 2022 on food for the children in their care?
Speaker 2:I will, and I'd like to add one note. I want to note that a study like this it's not exhaustive and it's not comprehensive. I will always lack a certain amount of insight because I don't live in the house with them, but we will definitely see examples of off purchases or cash purchases that there's really no way to track. What I've done here is follow the patterns, and what I can say is that this is very much depicts where the Staffords were regularly spending their money on food and groceries. With that said, they spent approximately $10,475 in groceries in 2022. That breaks down to an average of $872 a month, and if we compare the estimated expense, we can see they spent $5,076 less than the USDA estimates that they should have A note for that, then, that is. This is going to be true for 2022, 2023, and 2024. I'm talking about household spending. I'm not talking about just what they spent. When you talk about what household spending, they spent $5,000 less than what the USD said they should have spent, only on the children.
Speaker 4:And for, I guess, kind of to bring it back to the testimony from yesterday, we know that at least in 2022, there were three children at the very least that were in the Stafford's home. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:In 2022, at the very least, there was more like five to six.
Speaker 4:Okay, and so what about 2023?
Speaker 2:In 2023,. For the entire year, they spent about $9,763, breaks down to $813 per month. Compared to that same USD average. They spent $2,116 less than they should have or would have been expected to, which is about 24 to 25% less. And again the same deal household spending, not just spending that was assessed against the child, the needs of the children, and what about 2024?
Speaker 2:This would have been just between January 1st to May 31st, and they spent about $2,111. That breaks down to a monthly average of $422, and they spent $1,258 less, which is more than 50% what the USDA would have said. Based on the number of children they had in their house, they should have spent at that time.
Speaker 4:And so I want to jump back just for a moment. We talked about the subsidies the staffers were receiving. When we got some of the records back from Florida and from Indiana, did you learn that the staffers were still receiving payments for victim eight after we had learned he was no longer in the home? I did. Okay. So, looking at what you've gone through their history of spending, were you able to find any purchases that were consistent with what the children disclosed about the food regimen they were required to follow?
Speaker 2:Yes, I received the statements, both in terms of their interviews as well as what Detective Williams had built into his probable cause affidavit, and I wanted to see if the purchases that we had information on for that same time period bear out against what these young people said and were being fed, and I was able to find quite a few consistencies. Specifically, there was references to peanut butter, sardines, soup specifically ravioli, romaine and yogurt. When I looked at these items in particular, for the time period 9-1-2021 through 5-31-2024, there were only 29 40-ounce peanut butter items bought. That bears out, or I should say that equals 1,160 servings. They bought 228 cans of ravioli, 105 cans of beans, 636 packages of Roman, 98 cans of sardines, 51 cans of tuna or packages of tuna and 124 items of yogurt.
Speaker 4:Is there anything else of relevance to the court for the determination of the probable cause that would be important for her to know about in your review of the records and things we've gone over during this investigation?
Speaker 2:I don't think I would have anything that I would add, at least at this stage, to what we have talked about so far. Certainly, that analysis is going on. There's a lot we're going to use these tools for, but on the food stuff, it was pretty clear that there are a huge deficit when you compare the expectations of what they should be spending.
Speaker 4:I suppose I should simplify by asking and looking at their financial records Does it appear consistent with what the children's statements, that those are the foods they were required to eat and there was some level of not being provided anything else?
Speaker 2:Yes, that is absolutely the case, and I would add this it is not as though there were not plenty of money that was incoming and that it is through that there were other food items being purchased. You know, if you look at 2021, 8,155 is what they cleared between subsidies and income for that month alone, from September 1st to September 31st. The following month almost 6,000. The following month almost 6,000. The following month almost 7,000.
Speaker 4:And I guess to also provide the court with some idea. You mentioned that there were other purchases. Was there organic produce, a variety of other foods that Sonia Stafford and Brian Stafford were purchasing for their household when their children were there? Yes. So it would appear that there was an abundance or a variety of other things that the girls and other kids could have eaten.
Speaker 2:Without question.
Speaker 4:I suppose this may be a little bit unorthodox.
Speaker 4:I've never done a hearing like this before. It seems a bit strange, but I've already provided to the court reporter arrest warrants for both Brian and Sonia Stafford, as well as orders for finding a probable cause. I began yesterday's hearing and I know that there was a lot of kind of thrown at you, judge, but I began yesterday's hearing by saying that there were a number, a high number of counts we would be charging each of them with. Were a number, a high number of counts, we would be charging each of them with. And that has that has turned out to be true, judge, for at least brian stafford, we are looking at 59 counts, I believe, for him, and what includes a variety of different things, as is listed on the warrant. We are intending to charge both of them with the promotion of labor trafficking, and that is based on the evidence we have presented today. Your Honor, that has come through the investigation Detective Williams, as well as our investigator Bays, has participated in. So we're asking for an arrest warrant to be granted for both Brian and Sonia Stafford and we would ask for a finding of probable cause on the variety of different counts when we file the case. There will be different timelines that are in the charging information. But essentially, judge, we have multiple counts of neglect, multiple counts of child molest and a variety of different things that you have heard yesterday, your Honor, and we would ask.
Speaker 4:On the warrant, we would ask for a significant upward departure from the bail schedule, as Investigator Bates has testified. There's some financial availability, I suppose, of both of them. But more than anything else, the state is significantly concerned about flight risk, particularly for Sonia Stafford. We've learned that throughout the investigation she has ties to California as well as Florida. This is, we anticipate, going to be a reputation-ending case for her. So we are concerned that there may be some flight risk with her. But additionally, judge, these children have finally spoken out after a decade or more of being told to be silent. There will be a target on their backs and so we are concerned greatly about retaliation, particularly from Sonia, as it relates to Brian.
Speaker 4:Yesterday the court heard testimony that Brian and victim 11 now have a child together. There is another potential victim that is out there now that Brian has created on his own. So we do have concern about public and community safety with him in addition to Sonia. Retaliation, I think may be possible from Brian, but I think it would come in a different form as it just seems to be his mo. So we would ask for an upward departure from the bond schedule.
Speaker 4:I know for a level four felony judge I don't have off the top of my head what it is, but I think it would be appropriate to set their bonds at potentially two hundred thousand dollar property slash surety and, I think a higher cash portion, maybe even even $80,000 for both of them. I think would be appropriate just in the light of nature of the circumstances of this case. And additionally, judge, they are facing substantial amount of time, assuming that the state proceeds to trial and gets a conviction on just one of the level four felonies. When you start stacking them together, I believe that that also leads to a potential flight risk.
Speaker 2:Then the judge says, okay, you have not filed the actual cases yet.
Speaker 4:We have not Judge. So procedurally we were waiting to get the arrest warrant. As Detective Williams started off yesterday. He explained that his probable cause affidavit is 100 pages. We thought that this would be the easiest way to present all of this to the court and have it digested. Also, we're a bit concerned about what's going to happen if we were to file the case and they got notice of it. We were worried about what would take place. So we've not formally filed everything. It is prepared and ready to go. But the goal was to be able to give detective williams the arrest warrant for both of them and then, once they're in custody, we plan to file. Okay, and I will be filing a written motion once we formally file the case to remove them from the matrix. I will assume that they probably qualify for CR-26 and will obviously be objecting to that, but that we have not filed it yet. So I haven't done that.
Speaker 2:So I, looking at the proposed finding and orders for probable cause, I certainly, based on what I have heard, believe there is probable cause to issue arrest warrants for both individuals. But I want to look through all of the charges, all of the charges you have here to determine. You said the highest is going to be a level four. Is that what you said?
Speaker 4:A level four for Sonia. We will be charging the level one felony child molest for Brian Stafford, and this is for, as Detective Williams testified yesterday, that was for the child molest, the digital penetration of the victim that took place.
Speaker 2:Okay, you're going to be filing no contact orders for both cases as well.
Speaker 4:That is correct, your Honor, yes.
Speaker 2:So, okay, I understand you only filed the MC. I was thinking you were going to file the case first. So what's the plan when I issue the warrants? Are you waiting for service on those before you file the cases?
Speaker 4:Yes, the plan was to have them in custody and then we would formally file the case.
Speaker 2:Okay, Then relate somehow with your case filings that, hey, probable cause has been found for this already. Warrant was already issued.
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 2:So that we don't have double.
Speaker 4:Yes, Judge.
Speaker 2:Because at that point you're going to direct them. I don't care, direct them to my court, or are you putting them in a blind filing?
Speaker 4:I think the preference from our chief deputy has to put in a blind filing. I think the preference from our chief deputy has been to put in a blind filing. I do not think that there is some involvement peripherally from some other judges who think that there may be conflicts and so we thought maybe it may end up in your court.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 4:But I'm not sure.
Speaker 2:All right. So I think we'll need to do is at least I want to at least give the magistrate a heads up.
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 2:Because they typically get all of those initials. So just let them know that this is coming through. I am not sure where it's going to end up yet, but I have found probable cause and a warrant already Because I want to make sure if these cases trail in any way, if they are not able to post whatever bond that somehow gets transferred or related to other cases.
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 2:Okay, all right. So your proposal on both of them is at least 200,000 property class surety plus 80,000 cash. Is that what I've heard?
Speaker 4:Yes, judge, I think that it is a substantial upward departure from our bail schedule, but I do think it's warranted given the circumstances.
Speaker 2:And which one is so the 1722,? Does that one relate to Brian, stafford or Sonia, or does it?
Speaker 4:1722, the case number.
Speaker 2:Yes, so your proposed orders? They were not filed on the case. They were just given to us, or were not filed on the case. They were just given to us, or were they filed?
Speaker 4:on a case Well Judge. I don't believe they were filed on the MCs.
Speaker 2:Okay, so they were just sent to the court as proposed orders.
Speaker 4:Yes, your Honor.
Speaker 2:Okay, any preferences on who I associate which case with then? I suppose, because I'll have to put one case 722 with Brian Stafford and 723 with Sonia.
Speaker 4:I don't have a preference Judge.
Speaker 2:Okay, I want to make sure that our paperwork stays straight. So just for the record, then Brian Stafford will be associated with the 2412-MC-1722, and Sonia Stafford will be associated with the 1723 cause. So it looks like really the counts that are different would just be the molestation addition to Brian's cases.
Speaker 4:Yes, your Honor. So we do have sexual abuse elements for Brian. We charged him with a number of performance before a minor that is harmful, that's, for exposing himself, the masturbation that the court heard about. And then we have the promotion of labor trafficking that we have charged him with. We also charged both of them with neglect, and the theory was that Sonia what she was doing Brian knew about, and vice versa. There are a handful of batteries and strangulations that we only charged Sonia with, as the court heard testimony about yesterday, but there are a lot of mirrored charges between them.
Speaker 2:Is that the lowest level on each and I'm sorry if you've said this already there are many, many misdemeanors. Or is it all just?
Speaker 4:I think the lowest level for each of them should be a level six felony. There is a misdemeanor for Sonia, okay, so I think we did charge her with some misdemeanor domestic batteries your honor but I don't think that there are any. And, judge, I know that this is a lot for you to review, but I do want to again reiterate for the record that this the goal was to be able for whatever these kids disclose have a count that if there was a criminal action that it would be charged, that they were able to come forward the way that they did. We wanted to at least be able to do some sort of justice way that they did. We wanted to at least be able to do some sort of justice. So it's not an effort to throw the book at them, but just the size and the investigation has turned out this way.
Speaker 2:So most of the doubles are doubles because you're relating it to different children, different neglects of a dependent for a different child.
Speaker 4:Yes, your Honor.
Speaker 2:Counts for a different child could potentially be neglect in a different way.
Speaker 4:Yes, your Honor yes.
Speaker 2:Judge. Okay, and that kind of sums up the probable cause affidavit. I want to apologize that it kind of sounded a little jumbled up. We basically wanted to bring it to you raw and, as you can tell by the way it was read, you can tell that the judge and the prosecutor was kind of shook up. The judge was shook up about what she had heard and I don't blame them. She was probably in shock, everybody was in shock. But at this point it seems like the court was really going after him and trying to charge him with each act of neglect and battery, as they should have for each child. It's a separate crime every time they did something to each child. So I mean, I agree with them on that point.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and I was surprised that their bond was not higher than what it was. Both of them bonded out on a surety bond of $60,000 and a cash bond of $4,000. I thought that was a little bit minimal for all the charges that they had.
Speaker 2:The prosecutor was asking for $80,000 cash on each one.
Speaker 4:And $200,000 surety, and the only thing I can probably think of is why it wasn't so high is because they didn't have previous criminal charges or a record and everybody gets due process.
Speaker 2:So I agree with that, but it seemed like the prosecutor had a pretty big case that she was presenting about flight risk from Sonia and I don't blame her because these people are at an age this, this many charges, it's going to be a life sentence. I mean if they get 20 years, which is only on a handful of 50 charges, that's a life sentence for either one of them.
Speaker 4:Yeah, that's the rest of it, and so now I wanted to get into the story or not the story, but the interview that I did with a lady named nikki. She is the mother of the first group of children from indiana. Now, in september of 2010, nikki's life took a dramatic turn when her mother and her grandmother reported her to dcs, concerned that she was using drugs, specifically marijuana. At the time, nikki was just 24 years old and had been enduring a mentally abusive relationship, which contributed to her struggles with depression. This situation escalated when police had arrived at her workplace to question her. This was a new experience for Nikki, who had never been in trouble before. She was also drug tested and, although she had openly admitted to using marijuana, the test confirmed her use. At that time, she was staying with her brother and his family after leaving the father of her youngest child to escape a domestic situation.
Speaker 4:Despite her struggles, nikki was determined to keep her family together and she declined her parents' suggestion to split up her children. Unfortunately, the involvement of DCS created tension. Her brother was uncomfortable with the situation and asked her to leave With nowhere else to go. Nikki returned to her youngest child's father's home. Just two nights later, dcs and the police had arrived to take her children. The confrontation was intense. Her father, who was living with her, had a heated exchange with the police, who threatened him with a taser. Although they left without the children initially, they did return later that day and removed her four youngest children. Nikki's oldest daughter, who was 10 at the time, was not taken as DCS deemed her old enough to care for herself. Fearing for her daughter's safety, nikki voluntarily signed her over to her grandparents, and she just signed temporary guardianship over to the grandparents.
Speaker 2:And I have to say I got to listen to this interview and I'm pretty skeptic about people and I'm a pretty good reader on people and this poor girl I say girl, I mean she's-.
Speaker 4:She was young. She was young I mean to me on the interview.
Speaker 2:She sounded really young. Yeah, she seemed very genuine. I mean, you got to realize, folks. She was in her 20s with five children. I don't believe she was getting much, if any, help at all. I could be wrong about that, but man, she really seemed like all of that was a huge struggle in her life. And then she gets through that struggle. She now has some relationship with some of her older children, but then this comes out and then it's just broke her heart.
Speaker 4:Well, nikki's four children were placed in different homes Her son and youngest daughter with her mother and her stepfather, and then her two other daughters went with her grandmother and her grandmother's husband. Other daughters went with her grandmother and her grandmother's husband. Now, while not navigating the DCS requirements, which include parenting classes, therapy, drug screening, supervised visits and financial education, nikki was determined to regain custody of her children. Despite completing all the necessary services, every time she made progress, her family case manager, teresa, would add more requirements to her list.
Speaker 4:In an effort to rebuild her life, nikki moved to Illinois, securing a job in fast food and living with a roommate who had foster parent experience. However, the Indiana DCS rejected this arrangement, insisting that she must reside in Indiana to have her children returned. Arrangement insisting that she must reside in Indiana to have her children returned. Faced with limited options, nikki moved back in with her mother and stepfather, continuing her job requirements and fulfilling DCS requirements. Initially, this arrangement was approved, but when her stepfather fell ill with leukemia, the caseworker decided it was better to place her children in a foster home.
Speaker 2:So it was one thing after another for her.
Speaker 4:It sure was, and I believe her.
Speaker 2:I do too. We've talked to a lot of people that have been through the DCS process and we get a lot of the same thing. Back in this same time era, it was just like, class after class after class, nothing's good enough, nothing's good enough. You know what I mean, and it was. We've even heard several accounts of false drug test accusations. I mean it's the DCS case in this era was really, really needed to be investigated a lot more than what it was.
Speaker 4:It sure did. It sure did alcohol after having a few drinks while mourning her grandfather's passing. Now, despite a CASA recommendation, or like a guardian at Lytton, they had suggested that her children could be placed with their biological father. Dcs ultimately decided against it due to his prior criminal history I guess he had a breaking and entering charge when he was like 18 years old, and they wouldn't even give him custody of his children, which is crazy to me. So, as a result, her children remained with the Staffords, changing the course of Nikki's journey.
Speaker 4:When Nikki's children were placed with the Stafford family, her son was just seven years old. He recalls being told he was going to Disneyland by the family caseworker with promises that mommy would meet them there later. The next thing he remembers is walking into a building and seeing his grandparents, who informed him they would see their mom later. Now Nikki felt immense pressure from DCS to sign away her parental rights. She was led to believe that if she didn't agree to an open adoption, her children would be separated and they would be moved from foster home to foster home, potentially causing more trauma.
Speaker 2:Basically what she was saying was DCS told her if you don't let them go to the Staffords, we're going to take you to court, prove you unfit and we're going to split your kids up. So they were forcing her to sign this.
Speaker 4:Yeah, but they were already at the Staffords because they were like fostered for a little bit before they were adopted.
Speaker 2:Okay, but I know that she did put some emphasis on that. That. I mean they lied to her basically about signing the yes, they did. They threatened her with splitting her children up, which you know, and it scared her to death. Scared her to death.
Speaker 4:Yes, so Nikki was convinced that she was doing what was best for them at the time. Her journey as a mother began when she was just 15 years old. She had a total of five children by the time she was 24. However, the stress and trauma from losing her kids eventually led her to turn to harder drugs as she struggled with guilt and the lack of support. After the adoption, she checked herself into a mental hospital three times to cope with her depression, anxiety and PTSD. Under the agreement of the open adoption, nikki was supposed to see her children twice a year, receive monthly letters and have a couple of phone calls each month. These visits began in June of 2012. Each time she saw her children, she would ask them if they were happy, safe and okay. They always assured her that they were fine, but Nikki did notice a significant weight loss during her first visit.
Speaker 2:And that right there goes along with you know, the probable cause affidavit and what the other kids were saying. And these staffers were telling everybody oh, they're just working hard on the farm and we're feeding them all health food, it's a healthy regimen, they're just fine.
Speaker 4:No, because you're starving them is what you're doing.
Speaker 2:And Nikki also said that she wouldn't let none of the parents be alone and then, when she would leave, the staffers would interrogate the kids. Yes. What did your parents ask? You. What did you tell them? Did you tell them this? Did you tell them?
Speaker 4:that. Now, as Nikki worked hard to rebuild her life, she eventually got clean. However, troubling information did come to light. Two of her children reported that Sonia and the DCS worker were friends with the Staffords and they would even visit them outside of work, even attending parties where there was alcohol and maybe other substances were present. Now, additionally, sonia's biological son was dating the woman who supervised Nikki's visits. In 2014, sonia abruptly stopped all the visits, allowing only Nikki's grandparents to see the children.
Speaker 4:By 2019, sonia's family began to unravel even further. One of her daughters was returned, so Sonia had sent one of the children she adopted back to the original family. This daughter revealed to her grandmother that she had experienced abuse, prompting them to call DCS, that she had experienced abuse, prompting them to call DCS. Alarmingly, dcs informed Nikki's mother that there had been previous sexual abuse allegations at the Stafford farm, and this was in 2019. Nikki thought that the biological children were aware of the troubling dynamic involving Brian and Victim 11. The visitation with her grandparents ceased two to three years before May of 2024. Now, currently, nikki has a minor may hear it.
Speaker 2:We're going to play that clip for you. I just do want to add one thing real quick. When I was listening to this interview, that literally jerked a tear from my eye.
Speaker 4:It was heart wrenching.
Speaker 2:Here's that clip from my eye. It was heart-wrenching.
Speaker 4:Here's that clip. Well, is there anything like any specific message you want me to put out or something? Because I want to tell your story, but I want it to be 100% right and I want, whatever you, what's most important to you, for you, for me, to get out there. You know what I mean yeah, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1:I just want her to know that I never stopped loving her or thinking about her in her whole life and I'm so sorry that all of this happened to her and all of her siblings and I just hope that, where she is in now, that she is happy and that she is being treated right, and I hope that one day I'll be able to see her again.
Speaker 2:Man, that's tough, I tell you. That was hard to hear, but she genuinely meant that from the heart man.
Speaker 4:She sure did. And oh, that was a tearjerker and I'm glad this PCA is over with.
Speaker 2:I have a good sense for people that don't give a shit, and I did not get that sense from her at all. I have to tell you we have so much more to get to. I want to thank everybody for listening and thank you, jesus, for getting us through that probable cause affidavit. I know that was rough to hear folks, but we've got to get out of here for the day. We folks, but we've got to get out of here for the day. We'll join us next week and we'll get right back into it.
Speaker 4:Yeah, we'll be back next Monday.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, I'm ready for it. No-transcript.
