"Toddler Jane Doe" - 4 yo/ Accused: John Shorez - Fenton MI

TomTerrific0420 wrote:

One more question/concern: Don't you
guys ever worry that the "new" posters who supposedly have inside info
are fakers?

---Yes, we do. As we do permit all non-slanderous
or non-vulgar comments from all registered members I do carefully
remind the readers occasionally that these are "opinions" and "personal
observations" that may or may not be based in fact. We certainly have
had our share of "vendettas" that have been witnessed on the site. We,
as moderators, have the ability to determine the sources of these posts.
Kind of like, tracing a call. We can also shut off access to anyone who
appears to be abusing our good faith and trust.
Thanks for your question.

ChildPsych101 wrote:

twinkletoes wrote:Any new thoughts now that he has pleaded guilty?

He pled no contest, which is not a guilty plea. There are other mitigating factors that were not released to the media in this case, especially those involving the family dynamic. You can't always believe what is reported by the media.

I used this case (as well as four other child neglect/abuse cases) as an argument in my dissertation for my Ph.D. because of the skewed point of view portrayed by the media, the pitbull tactics used by law enforcement and FIA, and lack of social services available to the families involved prior to the incident.

ChildPsych101 wrote:

babyjustice wrote:

ChildPsych101 wrote:

twinkletoes wrote:Any new thoughts now that he has pleaded guilty?

He pled no contest, which is not a guilty plea. There are other mitigating factors that were not released to the media in this case, especially those involving the family dynamic. You can't always believe what is reported by the media.

I used this case (as well as four other child neglect/abuse cases) as an argument in my dissertation for my Ph.D. because of the skewed point of view portrayed by the media, the pitbull tactics used by law enforcement and FIA, and lack of social services available to the families involved prior to the incident. I wish I had found this forum to include in my thesis, as it supports my argument of how quickly people are to judge when there is alleged child abuse involved.

First of all if he wasn't guilty why didn't he plead NOT GUILTY? Secondly, why don't you share the information you obtained about this case to show us how the media skewed the horrible abuse that this poor child went through? I'm sure others here would be interested in reading it as well. I realize that the media doesn't always include all the information on cases, but when you read about torture and abuse against children, there is just no excuse anyone can come up with to justify hurting or killing a defenseless baby.

Google what a no contest plea means in regards to guilty/not guilty pleas. I live and work in the area that this event occurred in and some of the information not released is a matter of medical record, therefore confidential. As I said, there are details of the family dynamic that contributed to extenuating circumstances that took the slam dunk away from the prosecutors, lending the opportunity for a no contest plea.

You want answers about the "horrible abuse" this child endured; everyone wants answers. What is known: FIA received a phoned-in "tip" and showed up three days after the alleged abuse and she was treated and released from the ER the same day. The "numerous bruises covering her body" were caused by being a four-year old with anemia (which was noted in the FIA report.) The rest is open for interpretation and media spin. You want to talk about horrible abuse, look up the case of four-year old Dominick Calhoun in Michigan who died on April 8, 2010 from his injuries. The four days of torture that child had to endure was horrible, not to mention his older brother bore witness to it all. That case prompted Dominick's Law to be passed on June 26, 2012, which will enforce harsher penalties in first-degree and second-degree child abuse cases and there are other states that are looking to follow Michigan's lead.

If you want the particulars of the court case, it's public record. Other than that, you can continue to crucify this man wherever your imagination takes you. On a side note: this case and the Dominick Calhoun case were both tried in Genesee County, and it took them two years to prosecute Dominick's abuser and his mother, but only a couple of months to prosecute this man. Genesee County was using this case to make up for all of the missteps made in Dominick's cases. As I said in my earlier post, I wish I had found this forum for my dissertation because it proves my theory that where children are concerned, many people put on the blinders and are ready to hang the accused before finding out more details. One point I agree with you on is there is no justification in harming or killing a defenseless child. I have been awarded my Ph.D. in clinical child psychology and plan to make it my goal to find out as much as I can about my young patients before I dismiss something that could potentially cause them harm in the end. After pouring 8 months of my life into my dissertation, this post piqued my interest.

ChildPsych101 wrote:

babyjustice wrote:

ChildPsych101 wrote:

babyjustice wrote:

ChildPsych101 wrote:

twinkletoes wrote:Any new thoughts now that he has pleaded guilty?

He pled no contest, which is not a guilty plea. There are other mitigating factors that were not released to the media in this case, especially those involving the family dynamic. You can't always believe what is reported by the media.

I used this case (as well as four other child neglect/abuse cases) as an argument in my dissertation for my Ph.D. because of the skewed point of view portrayed by the media, the pitbull tactics used by law enforcement and FIA, and lack of social services available to the families involved prior to the incident. I wish I had found this forum to include in my thesis, as it supports my argument of how quickly people are to judge when there is alleged child abuse involved.

First of all if he wasn't guilty why didn't he plead NOT GUILTY? Secondly, why don't you share the information you obtained about this case to show us how the media skewed the horrible abuse that this poor child went through? I'm sure others here would be interested in reading it as well. I realize that the media doesn't always include all the information on cases, but when you read about torture and abuse against children, there is just no excuse anyone can come up with to justify hurting or killing a defenseless baby.

Google what a no contest plea means in regards to guilty/not guilty pleas. I live and work in the area that this event occurred in and some of the information not released is a matter of medical record, therefore confidential. As I said, there are details of the family dynamic that contributed to extenuating circumstances that took the slam dunk away from the prosecutors, lending the opportunity for a no contest plea.

You want answers about the "horrible abuse" this child endured; everyone wants answers. What is known: FIA received a phoned-in "tip" and showed up three days after the alleged abuse and she was treated and released from the ER the same day. The "numerous bruises covering her body" were caused by being a four-year old with anemia (which was noted in the FIA report.) The rest is open for interpretation and media spin. You want to talk about horrible abuse, look up the case of four-year old Dominick Calhoun in Michigan who died on April 8, 2010 from his injuries. The four days of torture that child had to endure was horrible, not to mention his older brother bore witness to it all. That case prompted Dominick's Law to be passed on June 26, 2012, which will enforce harsher penalties in first-degree and second-degree child abuse cases and there are other states that are looking to follow Michigan's lead.

If you want the particulars of the court case, it's public record. Other than that, you can continue to crucify this man wherever your imagination takes you. On a side note: this case and the Dominick Calhoun case were both tried in Genesee County, and it took them two years to prosecute Dominick's abuser and his mother, but only a couple of months to prosecute this man. Genesee County was using this case to make up for all of the missteps made in Dominick's cases. As I said in my earlier post, I wish I had found this forum for my dissertation because it proves my theory that where children are concerned, many people put on the blinders and are ready to hang the accused before finding out more details. One point I agree with you on is there is no justification in harming or killing a defenseless child. I have been awarded my Ph.D. in clinical child psychology and plan to make it my goal to find out as much as I can about my young patients before I dismiss something that could potentially cause them harm in the end. After pouring 8 months of my life into my dissertation, this post piqued my interest.

I did look up no contest and know what it means. My point is if the guy was not guilty, then that's what he should have plead. I am also well aware of that horrific case about poor Dominick and I'm glad to hear that your county is finally getting tough with child abusers. I'm sorry but this baby had burns on the bottom of her feet, bruises and a black eye. The abuser was mad cause this child hurt his and he retaliated in anger. I find it very odd that a CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST would come on here and defend the abuser expecially one who didn't even plead not guitly. Why aren't you supporting the child?

Lastly are you the same person as Zamyia or related to her/him? You sure sound the same as that person did when they posted.

I do not reside in Genesee County but in neighboring Oakland County, and have been in this area my entire life. I was a avid supporter in getting Dominick's Law passed. To insinuate that I don't care about this child's welfare is premature and unwarranted. In my insomnia, I stumbled across this forum on the case. Even prior to my pursuit of my doctorate, I have always been interested in both sides of the story, thriving to put the child's interests first. In this case, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, there is more to the family dynamic that has been made public and therefore puts a lot of holes in many theories. And I can say that honestly and unequivocally since I did have some outside involvement. Beyond that, I can't and won't say anything more; I do stand by my morals and professional code of ethics. And no, I am not Zamyia nor do I know who they are.

One thing I do find offensive is challenging my profession. I spent six years as a social worker for CPS, two years as an ER counselor in domestic abuse cases and have seen things that I still can't wrap my head around. And to date, I volunteer at a shelter for abused women in domestic situations. I work with children primarily, but also do family counseling in situations where there are accusations coming from the child. Everyone seems to think that young kids could never dream up such outrageous lies. I've been told those outrageous lies by three, four, five year old children that could have caused legal repercussions for the targets of their lies. As much as ALL OF US want to protect the innocence of children, fact of the matter is not all children are innocent and have malicious intent a lot sooner that many would think.

Truth be told, I have no reason to defend myself to anyone. I am not looking for a ticker tape parade or to be "welcomed with open arms" as I am not seeking attention. It is an open forum where people are allowed to voice their opinions in a respectful manner, which I have done. I was not singling anyone out with my broad observations but apparently they hit a raw nerve or two.

Question me as much as you'd like; I have nothing to prove nor do I owe any explanations for my opinions and observations. Like I said, I stumbled here during a bout of insomnia and was interested because of my dissertation. But now the borderline rude interrogation is getting tiresome. One thing I'm not is a zealot; I'll leave that to other more impassioned members that post with much aplomb and "zeal".

ChildPsych101 wrote:

flash0115 wrote:ur accusations of this child is appalling. please do not respond to my posts anymore. u missed class or wasnt listening when ethics was taught. also, we have followd dominkck's case quist closely if u bother to check.

I have not accused this child of anything. Your interrogation of my opinion and facts of the case that I can offer has been rude and offensive. And given my involvement in getting Dominick's Law passed for the ENTIRE STATE OF MICHIGAN, I would likely be appalled at many of the opinions of others, just as I am with your opinion of this case.

Do not interrogate me any further. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

ChildPsych101 wrote:

flash0115 wrote:ur accusations of this child is appalling. please do not respond to my posts anymore. u missed class or wasnt listening when ethics was taught. also, we have followd dominkck's case quist closely if u bother to check.

I have not accused this child of anything. Your interrogation of my opinion and facts of the case that I can offer has been rude and offensive. And given my involvement in getting Dominick's Law passed for the ENTIRE STATE OF MICHIGAN, I would likely be appalled at many of the opinions of others, just as I am with your opinion of this case.

Do not interrogate me any further. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

Gingernlw wrote:I just wanted to add my .02... not that it's really worth that much... I have seen a 4 year old, who was coached, tell a horrendous lie that landed her mom in supervised visitation. It was several weeks before the truth came out and during that time I saw that 4 year old and she was obviously not herself. It took great strain to tell that lie over and over again. Ultimate she told the truth to the social worker during one of her mom's visits. She was then evaluated by child psychologists at CHKD in Norfolk. They were never able to determine who coached her. All she ever came out with was some stranger in the grocerie store told her to say it. Obviously, logically, it was her dad or paternal grandfather, but they could never get evidence. To this day, she is now almost 10, she has not told the truth there. That lie was to protect someone she loved so I guess it's easier to live with than the one that hurt someone she loved.
Anyway, my point is, 4 year olds can tell lies... hell my 2 year old is capable of lying. IMO, big lies take a toll on such small people but maybe it depends on the kid.
In this case, without any more real information, I'm inclined to believe this man abused the kid.

flash0115 wrote:this response is not anyone, its just an explanation of sorts. imo a 4 yr can b easily manipulated by continuous questioning. after awhile their story will change because they think that they have given the "wrong" answer or why else would these adults keep asking them the same question. i have seen it too many times to ignore. i do realize the need to get the same story more than once, but no matter the intelligence of the child, they dont have the maturity and thought process to give details when telling a lie. as anyone here can vouch for, there r times when a child shouldve been listened to in the beginning. some of them are now dead, because it was just easier to take the word of an adult. u couldnt pay me to plead no contest to anything i didnt do. this is just my opinion, but i will side with a child first.