VIDEOPosted on 09/22/2005 8:06:43 AM PDT by newgeezer
| VIDEO |
(Cedar Rapids – KCRG) --Investigators still have not named any suspects in the murder of Evelyn Miller.
The five year-old-disappeared from her Floyd County home July 1st.
A kayaker found her body six days later in the Cedar River.
In the past few weeks, investigators once again searched the apartment complex where she lived but they won't say what they found.
Evelyn's father Andy Christie has spent the past few months grieving for his daughter.
He has not spoken to a television station since her murder.
Wednesday, Christie and his wife, Lindsey broke their silence.
The last time the Christies saw Evelyn was on their wedding day back in June. Then, the day they were supposed to pick-up Evelyn from her Floyd apartment, she disappeared.
Days later, police told the couple Evelyn was dead.
"As soon as he told us, I was mad. Mad as hell. I wanted to get up to Charles City to find out anything I could. I couldn't get up there fast enough."
Since that moment, Andy Christie and his wife Lindsey have spent most of their time thinking about Evelyn.
"You just really feel that something is definitely missing."
Investigators haven't released much information about the case but that doesn't bother them.
"I have the utmost faith in the abilities of the investigators from the DCI to the Floyd County Sheriff to the County Attorney Marilyn Dettmer. I believe they're doing the best they can do."
But Evelyn's mother, Noel Miller has always said she does not think investigators are doing a good enough job.
Andy says he hasn't had a good relationship with Noel for years. He hasn't spoken to her since Evelyn's memorial service.
"For her, it was just her daughter. It was her way or the highway. We couldn't see eye to eye on a lot of things. We called DHS on them and DHS never believed anything we said. They always believed everything Noel said.
"It's their job to protect kids and remove them out of homes that are neglectful. I don't understand why they get a paycheck if they're not doing their job."
The Christies say they filed those DHS reports after Evelyn said some unusual things.
"Evelyn had known things about drugs that no five-year-old should know.
"She came over one day and we were watching Comedy Central. They had a water pipe on there, and she said, 'I know what that is. That's for smoking weed.'"
Even though the Christies did not like Evelyn's life at this Floyd apartment, they still hope Noel and Casey are innocent.
"I pray that Noel and Casey have nothing to do with it. I hope they're cooperating with the authorities as much as they can."
While investigators search for answers, the Christies cling to memories of their daughter.
Evelyn's room is just the way she left it.
The little girl always wanted to be a princess but she never realized that she already was.
"Every day, I wake up, and I pray that I'm in a bad dream.
"The thing that makes me the saddest is all the things that she's missing out on. Just her not being able to grow up and experience life."
The Christies have asked DHS to give them all the reports filed about Evelyn, but they still have to fill out more paperwork.
The couple says they believe investigators will solve this case, so Evelyn can finally rest in peace.
Last week, Noel Miller and her boyfriend, Casey Frederiksen, told us people in the Charles City area are treating them poorly. The couple say they did not do anything wrong, and they do not understand why anyone would be mean to them.
Miller and Frederiksen also said they hope investigators find Evelyn's killer soon.
A memorial fund in Evelyn's name is at the First Security Bank in Charles City. A third party is managing the fund. The money will be used for a college scholarship fund.
Copyright CRTV Company
Previous articles are found by clicking EVELYNMILLER in the KEYWORDS list above.
Almost as sad as her death is the life this poor child had. I wouldn't recognize a "bong" if there was one on my coffee table!
Evelyn was born when her mother was 16. Her father has a lot to answer for, to his own conscience if not to the law. And both sets of grandparents should have been more responsible regarding the behavior of their minor children, as well.
Tragedies like this are preventable; it's so frustrating!
If you wish to be removed from or added to this ping list, click here to drop me a note.
But ... but ... but she was a single mom! The moms are ALWAYS honest, they ALWAYS have the best interests of their children at heart, they are ALWAYS the victims of thoughtless, irresponsible deadbeat dads, even ones who pay their child support! NATURALLY the DHS believed Noel and not the dad!
*sigh* You know, everytime I read something about a divorced dad going off his rocker and kidnapping his kids and killing himself and them, all I can think is: why is anyone surprised, except that it doesn't happen more often?
Our society has disenfranchised men completely from the role of fatherhood except at the mercy off the mother of the child. No wonder teenage boys are so angry and hostile against females. And no wonder so many youngsters -- whether they're children like Evelyn or adolescent gang-bangers -- die violent deaths.
We talk about terrorism and Katrina and a bad educational system, but in my mind, this is the single most dangerous threat to America today -- the legal disenfranchising of fatherhood through the family law courts and child care services that nearly always enable a single mom to regard the kids as her kids, to operate supposedly "shared" custody as "her way or the highway," and to enjoy exclusively the trust of DHS, while the father of her kids is unbelieved. It's disgusting how many children and men suffer broken hearts because of a screwed up system that lets women flaunt the worst of feminine nature, such as this mother of Evelyn, who takes a live-in boyfriend while raising a child. In my book, that alone should have had DHS hustling to get the little girl to her real dad.
In my opinion, it starts way before that. Our society has worked very hard to remove the stigma which used to be attached to teen promiscuity. Anymore, it seems as if it's practically encouraged.
Agreed.
I agree with you. Or, depending on the father's circumstances, to a permanent, adoptive, married-couple family.
If a child survives to birth, the most dangerous person to that child is the live-in boyfriend of the unwed mother.
You know, everytime I read something about a divorced dad going off his rocker and kidnapping his kids and killing himself and them, all I can think is: why is anyone surprised, except that it doesn't happen more often?
There are no valid excuses for anyone to commit such a horrendous crime.
Btw, the situations that I know of are quite different. I am related to a father who received full custody of his son after he divorced his wife for cheating on him.
I also know a woman whose husband left her for another woman when she was seriously ill and pregnant with their second child, and that father was given joint custody. As a result, he drags her into court for everything, has left her penniless, as she struggles between paying medical bills and courts costs fighting him off. He doesn't even spend time with the kids when he has them - he has other people watch them for him - it's all about control to him.
So things are not so cut and dry. I do think a mother should be given primary custody, only to be taken away if she alone is the one who dissolved the marriage or if she presents a danger to the kids.
Excellent point. The answer seems to be "no":
Andrew and Noel met in high school. When Noel gave birth to Evelyn, at age 16, the couple had already split.
Yep, DBBF (Death By Boyfriend) AKA Tomcat Syndrome. Some men can't handle living proof that they weren't the first and only.
Thanks for the info.
It seems there are a lot of different children and different fathers and mothers between both young couples.
I wrote:
"You know, everytime I read something about a divorced dad going off his rocker and kidnapping his kids and killing himself and them, all I can think is: why is anyone surprised, except that it doesn't happen more often?"
T of T replied:
There are no valid excuses for anyone to commit such a horrendous crime.
I didn't say there were. What I AM saying is that it's no wonder these guys go nuts and flip their lids. Understanding it is not the same as excusing it.
As for the situations you've experienced ... they're not representative of the bias, IMO and experience. It's not fifty-fifty badness. Moms are OVERWHELMINGLY favored in family law courts; women OVERWHELMINGLY are the ones that file for divorce (one book I have says it's something like 80 percent), and frivolous reasons like "irreconileable differences" (i.e., no cheating, physical or verbal abuse, or drug abuse involved) are most often cited.
In other words, if a married women with children gets bored with her husband or is unhappy with their circumstances, she can divorce him just like that, get custody of the kids, probably remain any home that they've purchased while pop has to move out, be entitled to a good portion of the father's income for child support, and never have to prove to the court or father that the money is used for the actual support of the children.
Although in print the parents have "joint custody," it is the parent who has been granted physical custody -- OVERWHELMINGLY the mother -- who calls the shots in schools, medical care, schedules, and discipline. Visitation for Dad is typcially four to eight days A MONTH, plus some vacations.
If for some reason the kid isn't available for visitation -- in other words, if the mother "frustrates" the kids' visitation with dad (which I and one of my brothers experieced OFTEN often often often often), the dad has no recourse except to hire a lawyer and take it to court -- most of the time, dad can't afford to do that. ON THE OTHER HAND, if there are any problems with Dad delivering child support, Mom pays no lawyer -- the DHS takes care of it for her.
It is VERY lopsided in favor of the mom, in other words. As for the father who doesn't spend time with the kids even when he has them ... if I hadn't opted to work at home, my husband would NEVER have been able to have any valuable visitation with his kids at all, because .... guess what .. he worked! In part to be able to pay enough child support to enable the ex-wife who left him, taking their two very young children with her, to be able to afford to work part-time so she could raise "her" (that's certainly what she called them) kids.
That's not to say there aren't lousy fathers/husbands out there who do dirt on the mothers of their kids. There are, and I know personally of a few. Yet I would BET MONEY that if you were able to get the real figures, women would outnumber men on that score about three to one, and it's been higher than that in my personal experience/observation. Our society enables it -- it not only refrains from any kind of chastizing of women who choose arbitrarily to divorce the fathers of their children or to get child support for kids they willingly had out of wedlock (why is it it's only MEN who are held morally responsible for that?), but our society today actually deifies single motherhood as some kind of marvelous accomplishment.
So, yeah, I think things pretty much are cut and dried most of the time: the men get screwed because the system is lopsided in favor of women.
One wonders if mandatory adoption would save some lives.
Ask the judges why custody decisions are (and have always been) that way. I'd be curious to know what they say.
In part because I have no experience or knowledge in these matters, I could only begin to guess what might be their answers.
Because, the reality is, we have to carry the child to term. We can't have men having fun knocking-up women and then walking away scot-free, moving on to the next woman and taking the child with them.
Again, I will clarify, a mother should lose her custody rights if she is the one to break up the marriage or if she is the one who presents a danger to the child(ren). So, you'd get no argument from me there. But, when all things are equal, yes, she should be given primary custody. I don't think either of us will change the other's mind on that one, so we can just agree to disagree there.
What I AM saying is that it's no wonder these guys go nuts and flip their lids. Understanding it is not the same as excusing it.
I can understand a parent "kidnapping" (if that's what we're going to call it) their kids. But not taking their lives. That's all about control there. Whenever a parent does such a thing, that's an indication that the parent SHOULD NOT HAVE been given custody. To me, that just proves the reason he/she was denied custody in the first place. There's nothing understandable about it.
Maybe you just misworded that line in your post.
women OVERWHELMINGLY are the ones that file for divorce (one book I have says it's something like 80 percent), and frivolous reasons like "irreconileable differences" (i.e., no cheating, physical or verbal abuse, or drug abuse involved) are most often cited.
If you're asserting that too many couples today divorce for frivolous reasons, you'll get no argument from me. But, people usually file under "irreconcilable differences" just to make the divorce proceed more quickly. It does not necessarily mean that one or both wasn't/weren't cheating or doing something very wrong.
Although in print the parents have "joint custody," it is the parent who has been granted physical custody -- OVERWHELMINGLY the mother -- who calls the shots in schools, medical care, schedules, and discipline.
If only that were so... continuing below...
As for the father who doesn't spend time with the kids even when he has them ... if I hadn't opted to work at home, my husband would NEVER have been able to have any valuable visitation with his kids at all,
Read my last post again. I don't think you'd want to compare your husband with the father I was talking about. Again, that man left his wife for another woman when she was both seriously ill and pregnant with their second child! HE was the one cheating. Unfortunately, the woman was advised by her lawyer to "make it easier" by accepting "joint custody," so since then the father has brought her to court for everything, through the courts he has taken practically all the decisionmaking away from her, and she doesn't have the money to fight him. (I should also mention that he is wealthier and has connections in the community). He's not working when he has the kids on the weekends.
but our society today actually deifies single motherhood as some kind of marvelous accomplishment.
Btw, I agree with you there. I'm a bit sick of it myself.
I would BET MONEY that if you were able to get the real figures, women would outnumber men on that score about three to one, and it's been higher than that in my personal experience/observation.
In my experience, witnessing the break up of families I know and am related to, the majority were the opposite. There were a few exceptions, but the vast majority were men cheating on or beating up their wives. So, yes, there are rotten mothers out there and, yes, in those cases they should lose custody. But they're nowhere near to "a score of three to one," not from where I sit. I could buy that it's more like 50/50, though, despite my own experience.
Back to Evelyn: There are so many what ifs. What if the mother and father had married, albeit young, and stayed married to each other? Things might've worked out a bit differently.
Or, what if Evelyn's maternal grandparents had adopted her (practially, if not legally)? When it's an option, I've seen it work out VERY well in my wife's extended family.
Agreed. I know of many grandparents who raised grandchildren successfully. Two-grandparent households - and somehow widowed grandmothers, too - were able to do so very well somehow. ;-)
The "tender mercies" rule changed that I think around the late 1800s, early 1900s, giving preference to the mother in deciding physical custody of young children. Around the 1960s or 1970s -- I think that's when it was -- the policy was changed so as to prohibit judges from conferring preference to mothers and instead to balance it evenly between mothers and fathers -- in theory. In practice, judges continued to respect the "tender mercies" kind of favoritism shown toward mothers no matter their behavior or circumstances.
Some things are beginning to change in favor of the fathers. A mom who wants to pick up the kids and move out-of-state and far away from the ex, can no longer do so without consequences handed down from the court, like forfeiting physical custody of the kids or having to pay visitation travel expenses. Also, it's not as rare as it used to be to see fathers get physical custody of kids, although it's a long way from being 50 percent of the cases.
But we can have women having fun being knocked-up and then have the scot-free "right" to be financially supported by the source-o-fun for the rearing of that child for the next 18 years? Women have as much a responsibility to avoid children out of wedlock as do men. Period.
Maybe you just misworded that line in your post.
Maybe you just misread its meaning. In fact, you DID! OF COURSE a guy who kills himself and his own kids is nuts -- nobody's arguing or excusing it! Sheesh! And of course it's proof that he didn't deserve custody -- DUH!!!
If you misread the following, don't put it on me: In an environment that pushes people to the edge, it's necessary to UNDERSTAND without excusing the weak ones that go over the edge. Take anorexia -- perfect example. We live in a society where extreme thinness is considered the hallmark of a good feminine figure. NO WONDER some girls become anorexic. I think anorexic girls and women are despicably weak, self-centered, selfish and stupid and I have very little sympathy for them. I don't make excuses for them. But I UNDERSTAND how they partly got that way, just like I understand how these nutty homicidal/suicidal ex-dads got that way. If you want to misread that and then think I'm the one who has "misworded" something, that's your problem.
Your argument that women should be given primary custody "all things being equal" has certainly been the policy of our family law courts for about 100 years, and studies show that boys raised without fathers are more likely to end up in jail, do poorly in school, and become addicted to drugs. I think the idea that moms are more valuable than dads is demonstrably proven BUNK. Kids need both, and the courts should respect this truth.
Sorry, your example of the woman with the horrible ex husband who is making her life miserable is not typical. I can think of about a dozen cases of people I know personally, including six involving relatives, and out of those six, in only ONE was the female more or less the victim and the one who behaved with the most regard for honor and the emotional welfare of the child. I can tick off on the fingers of both hands and still not be finished with the divorces among couples I've known personally in my 48 years, and very, very few of them didn't show the mother to be pretty selfish, petty, mean, and downright cruel to both her ex and, in the long run, to her kids. The dads weren't perfect, but theres NO WAY it was 50-50 regarding abuse or cheating. Not even close.
I stand by my estimate that women outdo men three to one easily, and there's a reason they do -- they're allowed (wrongly) to do so with no societal or peer consequences, and men (rightly) are mightily chastized and judged harshly by society when they do the same. Erego, more women do it.
Hands down, with people I know personally and others I interviewed at random for a story I wrote about divorce and child custody about 16 years ago, the person with physical custody CALLS THE SHOTS (and still does) most of the time with regard to schools, medical care, scheduling, and discipline. My educated guess is that your friend is experiencing difficulty for two reaons: she has a lousy lawyer and her ex-husband can afford to go to court with the meanest dog in town. She is the exception, not the rule -- most non-custodial parents, which are men, are too busy paying child support to be able to pay a lawyer to take the ex to court to quibble over questions like schools, scheduling, visitation, and discipline. The parent who has physical custody has far more to say than the one who doesn't. That's the reality, and it's the reason for a lot of the hostility that young males have for women. Treat men like crap for 35 years, and there's bound to be a payback.
Here is what you typed in the first post:
You know, everytime I read something about a divorced dad going off his rocker and kidnapping his kids and killing himself and them, all I can think is: why is anyone surprised, except that it doesn't happen more often?
Then you talked about men being "disenfranchised". (Pardon me while I pause to laugh). ;-)
Here's what you typed in the next post:
In an environment that pushes people to the edge, it's necessary to UNDERSTAND without excusing the weak ones that go over the edge.
Then you compared men going over the edge, kidnapping their children, and becoming suicidal/homicidal to women with anorexia. While I "understand" how a woman might become anorexic, just as I "understand" how a man might "kidnap" his own children, or even how a depressed person might become suicidal, the only thing there is to "understand" about someone committing murder is that he/she was a POS to begin with.
That's why I tried to give you an out - by saying that maybe you misworded that line. But I guess you really meant it. Do you "understand" carjackers and rapists and burglars, too? Come on, now, you have to admit that part of your statement was over the top. All you have to do is take that part back! Everyone types something in a moment of passion here and there, and there's no harm in correcting your statement.
As for your experiences and observations, they are FAR different from my own. There's nothing more to discuss about that. We each view things through our own experiences and observations.
As I already stated again and again, a woman who breaks up a marriage should NOT be given primary custody. Primary custody should be given to the parent who did NOT cheat or abuse the other parent. Otherwise, primary custody SHOULD GO to the mother. If the parents never marry in the first place, the mother should be given primary custody. You're not going to change MY mind.
But we can have women having fun being knocked-up and then have the scot-free "right" to be financially supported by the source-o-fun for the rearing of that child for the next 18 years?
Have you ever carried a pregnancy and given birth? While it's a beautiful and wondrous experience, a memory that I will always treasure, "fun" is not what I'd call it. But, hey, maybe that's just me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.