Comments on: Patrick Kelly, Jamie Pittman and Shauntel Mayo

By: tweedyO

tweedyO — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:02:03 +0000

ONCE AGAIN…….. WHO THE HELL VOTED “NO” to HELL in this case? NAME and Address please ………… why would you vote NO? is it because you enjoy this type of thing yourself? PICK ON SOMEONE your own SIZE. Pick me… I have alot of hostility to take out on some NO voting adult.

By: LoulaCherry

LoulaCherry — Sun, 31 May 2009 16:30:51 +0000

I haven’t really got anything else to add that hasn’t already been said on this matter, however i did find some interesting info on web site which i think is called AZU, it stands for absolute zero united or something like that and is an anti- paedophile/anti- child porn on the net site… You’ll find some sick fuckers detailed there believe me, home addresses, nick names, phone numbers both home and mobile… These bastards need monitoring folks, i’m not saying it’ll cure the problem but if we know more about these sickos maybe there will be less opportunities for them… ;(

By: tina

tina — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:01:51 +0000

max, john was in the middle of a trial in calif. not related to this case and his attorney wouldn’t let him tesify he would have gladly sent him away for what booger red did to johns daughters and son. John does not know that croud that hurt the kids.

By: tina

tina — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:58:32 +0000

diana the cantrells took the children in after the abuse at the club, they have the children, they are the ones that went against the police that closed the case and started working with the texas rangers the cantrells are the heros that saved these kids lives.

By: Lewbell

Lewbell — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:02:04 +0000

I threw up a little bit when reading this. Little children should not know what sex is let alone what it feels like. I dread just having the talk about sex with my son. I am sorry Becky but I do not see how you mistakenly get accused of child rape. He knew what was going on and you are just as culpable if you pretend to stick your head in the stand and say he did nothing. Tell me, would you leave him alone with your children?

By: Max The Cat

Max The Cat — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:38:31 +0000

No, the statute of limitations had expired in the 1990 California case. in order to prosecute those charges, the victim’s statement needed to be corroborated. Her sister’s statement was supposed to back up the victim, but the judge found it completely unbelievable.

He may be completely innocent, who knows. It seems just as likely he got off on a technicality, since when asked to testify against Patrick Kelly, John Cantrell took the 5th. My opinion is he was too close to all these slimeballs to not have gotten slimed a bit himself.

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:07:13 +0000

Sure your sure…..

By: becky

becky — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:40:11 +0000

Let’s make one thing crytal clear here. If there were any video tapes made of these children it was done PRIOR to the children being placed with the Cantrell family. If you have read anything else, it is erroneous information. John Cantrell in no way was or is associated with the other people mentioned in this article. The charges were dropped against John Cantrell and the judge could have extended the statute. However, the judge found that the alleged victim was not credible. So, the charges were not just dropped because of the statute. It was because there was more information available to him than has been presented on the internet and he saw through the lies and contradictions I’m sure.