Mistaken ID overcome
Greegor
right one.
The right Annette Bryant/Pinkard/Pinkerton is now in custody.
So is Sylvia Nunn/Wilson-Hardman
http://www.focus-news.com/front1.shtml
Defendants waive extradition, will face charges of kidnapping and child
stealing in Los Angeles
Photo caption:
Annette Bryant and Sylvia Wilson-Hardman consult with attorneys Scottie
Allen and Heath Harris after being denied a bond reduction. Bond
remains at $500,000 for each of the defendants. They have waived
extradition and will be extradited to California to face charges of
kidnapping and child stealing.
Editor, Joanna Cattanach - WAXAHACHIE- Despite testimonies from friends
and business colleagues, Judge Gene Knize let the $500,000 bond stand
for Annette Bryant and Silvia Wilson-Hardman, two women charged with
kidnapping a 6-week-old infant in Los Angeles on May 22.
After Judge Knize heard arguments from defense attorneys Scottie Allen
and Heath Harris of Dallas, he said extradition was imminent. He also
stated the State of California had made no changes in their charges or
bond recommendations.
Shortly afterward, both defendants signed agreements effectively
waiving extradition. They will now face charges of kidnapping and child
stealing in California. If convicted, they face up to 13 years in state
prison.
During last week's arraignment the two women refused to waive
extradition.
Bryant, 47, and Wilson-Hardman, 53, are charged with kidnapping
6-week-old Devon Calloway from his mother, 17-year-old Dominique
Calloway in Los Angeles.
Calloway told reporters the women first approached her outside a
99-cent store Saturday, May 20. Calloway said one of the women told her
she wanted to buy Devon for $6,000. She also said one of the women told
her they couldn't have children.
Calloway says she never agreed to sell Devon to the two women. When
Bryant and Wilson-Hardman stopped by her home Monday, May 22, she says
she showed Devon the two women and handed Devon to one of them.
Calloway claims the two women then took off with Devon, in a sport
utility vehicle, while she clung to the side. Bruised and frightened,
Calloway reported her baby missing shortly afterward.
Authorities released information on the make and model of the vehicle
as well as a description of both Bryant and Wilson-Hardman. The two
women were believed to be headed to Midlothian, where Bryant, her
husband and 15-year-old daughter live.
Aware that they were wanted as suspects in a kidnapping, the women
contacted Dallas attorney Scottie Allen. Allen arranged the safe return
of Devon to authorities. Devon was picked up at Allen's Dallas office
and turned over to authorities healthy and unharmed.
Bryant and Wilson-Hardman were arrested in Bryant's Midlothian home
the same day.
The case against Bryant includes bizarre allegations of faked
pregnancies and a criminal history of forgery, which Bryant served two
years in jail and five years probation for, according to statements
made in court Monday, June 5.
Bryant has also been known as Annette Pinkard and Annette Pinkerton.
At the bond reduction hearing, Ellis County District Attorney Don
Maxfield repeatedly asked Bryant's character witnesses, many of whom
were business colleagues, if they'd known about her multiple forgery
convictions.
Most were unaware she'd been convicted on forgery charges. Maxfield
further asked many of her business associates whether they thought it
was a good idea to do business with a person convicted of forgery.
Bryant is a mortgage loan processor for Processing Daily in Cedar Hill.
She and her husband own the company.
Bryant's co-defendant and cousin Wilson-Hardman, has been charged
with possession of a controlled substance multiple times, auto theft,
forgery and disorderly conduct, according to statements made by Phillip
Martin, Chief Investigator for the Ellis County District Attorney's
office.
Defense attorney Harris pointed out the names she has used including
"Rambo Nunn," were names she has used while married and the name
Cynthia Nunn is her sister's name.
Wilson-Hardman has been known as Sylvia Nunn, Sylvia Robinson, Sylvia
Wilson and Sylvia Marie Wilson-Hardman, the name she goes by now.
Any records of conviction under Cynthia Nunn refers to her sister,
Harris pointed out.
Wilson-Hardman has also been married before and used the last name
Robinson. Wilson was her maiden name and Nunn was her stepfather's
name.
Harris says the information presented by Martin was taken from a crime
database, not by using finger prints. He said Cynthia Nunn has been
known to use Sylvia's name.
In a phone interview, Harris said he was "disappointed" with the
bond reduction hearing. His client, Wilson-Hardman, is on disability,
receives around $700 a month and suffers from multiple health problems.
This case is about "credibility" Harris said. He would have liked
to see the bond reduced so the jury and the media could see his client
as a citizen not as a criminal in chains.
Witnesses for Bryant stated the family could raise as much as $20,000
but nothing else beyond that, though the upper-middle class
neighborhood Bryant lives in has homes that average $300,000 and more.
Bryant's home is one of the largest on the block
At last week's arraignment, Allen told reporters the two women had,
"No intention of kidnapping this child." Allen also said
documentation would reveal Bryant intended to adopt the child.
But the Los Angeles Times reported at least two other people told
police Bryant and Wilson-Hardman tried to persuade them to sell their
babies. The FBI in Los Angeles confirmed investigations into those
allegations were continuing.
Harris says that's not true. The women intended to help Calloway,
also a mother of a 2-year-old girl. He said Calloway was under
investigation by Child Protective Services and had been in the foster
care system herself.
Harris says the two women were trying to prevent young Devon from being
put into the foster care system.
While investigating Devon's disappearance, Calloway's 2-year-old
daughter was taken by Los Angeles Child Protective Services after
social workers determined her home was not fit for children, according
to The Times.
Allen indicated to reporters last week, documentation would reveal the
women were trying to help Calloway and legally adopt Devon.
Harris confirmed today he and Allen would continue to represent both
women in court in California and that, "all that information" would
be revealed in court.
District Attorney Maxwell said representation may be difficult for the
two Dallas lawyers. Certain restrictions may prevent the attorneys from
acting as lead counsel.
When Allen was asked about the allegations last week, that the women
tried to buy other children, he dismissed the reports and said,
"that's not going to be valid."
Bryant and Wilson-Hardman are awaiting extradition in the Ellis County
Jail.
0:->
Friends of yours then, Greg? Real crusaders?
>
> While investigating Devon's disappearance, Calloway's 2-year-old
> daughter was taken by Los Angeles Child Protective Services after
> social workers determined her home was not fit for children, according
> to The Times.
But of course you have proof this isn't true, right, and that instead of
outside kidnappers, CPS was reserving this child for their own
kidnapping efforts? 0;->
> Allen indicated to reporters last week, documentation would reveal the
> women were trying to help Calloway and legally adopt Devon.
Oh, then they WERE friends of yours, trying to save a child from CPS.
> Harris confirmed today he and Allen would continue to represent both
> women in court in California and that, "all that information" would
> be revealed in court.
I can hardly wait.
> District Attorney Maxwell said representation may be difficult for the
> two Dallas lawyers. Certain restrictions may prevent the attorneys from
> acting as lead counsel.
>
> When Allen was asked about the allegations last week, that the women
> tried to buy other children, he dismissed the reports and said,
> "that's not going to be valid."
Of course. It's the courts doing to them the same it's done to you, right?
>
> Bryant and Wilson-Hardman are awaiting extradition in the Ellis County
> Jail.
0:->
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
Greegor
Were they a Lesbian couple?
0:->
> They allegedly told the mother they couldn't have kids.
> Were they a Lesbian couple?
Why ask questions where no answer has been tendered?
And why that particular question?
Do Lesbian couples routinely set out to kidnap babies?
Could you list a few cases for us, if that's what you meant.
And if it's not, would you mind telling us what you did mean? Then
actually telling us, instead of this odd insinuations?
Greegor
Since they were two women it implied they were a
Lesbian couble.
0:->
Why?
I knew many women throughout my lifetime that chose to live with another
women for no more reason than convenience, economy, companionship, and
no interest in marriage.
No one knew if they were lesbians or not, or if they were that they had
a sexual relationship.
You presume so much, Greg. Why is that?
Are all instances of two men living together proof they are gay? Or if
they are gay that they are hot for each other's bodies?
See where your mind is all the time? Insinuation, innuendo, and mounds
of your own bullshit hangups.
Do you share this in common with a lot of people? Yes, you do. Most
people are assholes about such subjects. Their own lives so poor and
empty of anything interesting...remind you of OOM?...that they have to
fantasize about other's sex lives.
Instead of having one of their own.
You are pitiful.
dragonsgirl
How are the rest of us supposed to believe that?
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150199395....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Greegor
> That 'implication' would not hold up in a court of law.
> How are the rest of us supposed to believe that?
You're not supposed to BELIEVE an implication.
It's a question as yet not resolved, a possibility.
I wasn't asserting they were Lesbians, I was asking.
When two women travel around together with
the intent of obtaining a baby, saying they
(collectively) can't have kids, it's not exactly
an "evil question".
Both women also used a variety of aliases,
a certain sign of honesty and integrity... :)
Perhaps they intended to resell the baby for profit?
Another possibility given facts so far, right?
0:->
> dragonsgirl wrote:
>> That 'implication' would not hold up in a court of law.
>> How are the rest of us supposed to believe that?
>
> You're not supposed to BELIEVE an implication.
> It's a question as yet not resolved, a possibility.
Yet your posts are replete with 'implication.' Questions not resolved,
and highly suspect in fact.
> I wasn't asserting they were Lesbians, I was asking.
You asked as a rhetorical question and there the little bit you miss, as
All fucking bigots do.
What difference is made by them being lesbians or not?
> When two women travel around together with
> the intent of obtaining a baby, saying they
> (collectively) can't have kids, it's not exactly
> an "evil question".
Yes it is. Because their crime is completely disconnected from sexual
orientation, stupid.
> Both women also used a variety of aliases,
> a certain sign of honesty and integrity... :)
This has to do with your question on their being lesbians how, exactly?
> Perhaps they intended to resell the baby for profit?
> Another possibility given facts so far, right?
Something more likely for lesbians or straight women?
Please explain the purpose of your question.
Why would it make a difference if they were lesbians?
Most bigots are stupid. You take the cake for lack of awareness of your
own sicknesses.
Take the cake.
Greegor
The perpetrators state of mind..
0:->
> Goes to MOTIVE your honor!
> The perpetrators state of mind..
Lesbians are more motivated by a state of mind to kidnap children?
You have some evidence of this, or is it your logic?
Lesbians actually have no more problem becoming pregnant and delivering
a live birth than any other women.
It's a whole lot easier to AI than to steal a baby.
Homemade methods work and are inexpensive. 0:->
I'd think most lesbians know that.
You seem to believe otherwise.
Why is that? I wonder.
Why don't you quite babbling your ignorance and grow up?
And I mean that as a real question. Don't you think it's time you tried
finding out why you are a hapless loser?
Greegor
Goes to motive and state of mind your honor.
0:->
> Why are you objecting to questions?
Why are you not answering them?
> Goes to motive and state of mind your honor.
That would be the most appropriate answer. Thanks.
Greegor
whether these women are Lesbians is
in fact an appropriate question in court.
Or was that knee jerk making it hard
to pretend you're a conservative?
0:->
> I'm glad you finally see that the question about
> whether these women are Lesbians is
> in fact an appropriate question in court.
No, I don't see that.
Just how would it be appropriate in court?
> Or was that knee jerk making it hard
> to pretend you're a conservative?
I had no knee jerk. Are you having one wherein you believe that all
conservatives are anti homosexual?
0:->
Greegor
> I'm glad you finally see that the question about
> whether these women are Lesbians is
> in fact an appropriate question in court.
Kane wrote
> No, I don't see that.
Please explain how this question would
not be appropriate in court.
As I said it goes to motive and state of mind.
I'm anxious to see your logic.
OOps I just wet my self.
Off to take a COLD SHOWER!!
0:->
> Greegor wrote:
>> I'm glad you finally see that the question about
>> whether these women are Lesbians is
>> in fact an appropriate question in court.
>
> Kane wrote
>> No, I don't see that.
>
> Please explain how this question would
> not be appropriate in court.
It would not be appropriate because Lesbians are nor predisposed to
steal children ... since a female can still have a child without a male
for other than a sperm donor. In fact she can buy insemination if she
wishes.
> As I said it goes to motive and state of mind.
And I asked you to explain how.
All you have done is re-frame your original argument.
> I'm anxious to see your logic.
I'm more anxious to see yours since YOU were the person that brought up
the possibility they were a lesbian couple with no proof whatsoever.
Both men and women hang out with members of their own sex for all kinds
of activities, including kidnapping without them being homosexual.
Are you suggesting homosexuality is a symptom or motive for various
crimes, and this one in particular? For all we know they were partners
in, and I suspect it is true, a commercial kidnapping enterprise. They
wished to sell the baby, not keep it.
> OOps I just wet my self.
Yes, I believe that.
> Off to take a COLD SHOWER!!
Why would you do that?
Do you think it would make you aversive to peeing yourself again?
Greegor
> It would not be appropriate because Lesbians are nor predisposed to
> steal children ... since a female can still have a child without a male
> for other than a sperm donor. In fact she can buy insemination if she
> wishes.
Greg wrote
> As I said it goes to motive and state of mind.
Kane wrote
> And I asked you to explain how.
> All you have done is re-frame your original argument.
That's because your response is not logical but emotional.
You missed the mark when you played for pathos rather than logic.
0:->
I "played" for nothing but logic. Point out where I am using "Pathos"
in my request to clarify your statement, " As I said it goes to motive
and state of mind?"
How are lesbians more predisposed to kidnap children by they're being
lesbians?
Simple, no appeal to emotions, nothing but a question asking for you to
support your statement with something OTHER THAN PATHOS, stupid.
Not going to, are you, Greg. As usual.
Greegor
0:->
> You peed down your own leg, Kane.
...and in your embarrassment for me, and out of kindliness and concern
for my feelings you snipped the following from this reply of yours.
How nice:
"Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> It would not be appropriate because Lesbians are nor predisposed to
>> steal children ... since a female can still have a child without a male
>> for other than a sperm donor. In fact she can buy insemination if she
>> wishes.
>
> Greg wrote
>> As I said it goes to motive and state of mind.
>
> Kane wrote
>> And I asked you to explain how.
>> All you have done is re-frame your original argument.
>
> That's because your response is not logical but emotional.
> You missed the mark when you played for pathos rather than logic.
I "played" for nothing but logic. Point out where I am using "Pathos"
in my request to clarify your statement, " As I said it goes to motive
and state of mind?"
How are lesbians more predisposed to kidnap children by they're being
lesbians?
Simple, no appeal to emotions, nothing but a question asking for you to
support your statement with something OTHER THAN PATHOS, stupid.
Not going to, are you, Greg. As usual.
0:->
"
The question "How are lesbians more predisposed to kidnap children by
they're being lesbians?" hasn't produced any wet spots on my pants,
Greg. But your non-answer dodge has put a flood in your shoe.
Greegor
> You peed down your own leg, Kane.
Kane wrote
> ...and in your embarrassment for me, and out of kindliness and concern
> for my feelings you snipped the following from this reply of yours.
<snip!>
You sure seem very obsessed with gay and lesbian issues,
sorta unlikely for a conservative who isn't gay... ?
Kane?
Did your ""wife"" once have a penis?
Were your kids adopted?
0:->
> Greegor wrote:
>> You peed down your own leg, Kane.
>
> Kane wrote
>> ...and in your embarrassment for me, and out of kindliness and concern
>> for my feelings you snipped the following from this reply of yours.
>
> <snip!>
>
> You sure seem very obsessed with gay and lesbian issues,
> sorta unlikely for a conservative who isn't gay... ?
My interest is in YOUR obsession. Could I be obsessive about that?
Could be. But it seems to be instigated by you, not I.
I only respond to what YOU bring up, and your unwillingness to answer
for your comments and their meaning.
Notice you are still avoiding my questions?
Do you believe, since YOU are the one that opened the argument about
Lesbians and child kidnapping, that they are more prone to it than
'breeders?'
> Kane?
Yes.
> Did your ""wife"" once have a penis?
I'll ask. But not when I met her, that's for sure.
> Were your kids adopted?
Nope. Not one of the four.
Do you think it fair to have me answer your questions while you refuse
to answer mine?
Or just clever of you?
Or does it say something about our honestly, relatively?