• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Man Held Captive by Stepmom for Twenty-plus Years

You know TV/Streaming movie about this in almost certainly already in the works as we speak.
 
Yesterday was the scheduled pre-trial hearing in Waterbury Superior Court. Kimberly Sullivan was not present.
Sullivan’s attorney Ioannis Kaloidis said not much happened. “The case was continued. Today was kind of a lot of administrative, some housekeeping stuff. Nothing has been ruled upon or decided at this time,” Kaloidis said. WTNH ABC affiliate in New Haven Conn. article link. Also includes 10 minute video of interviews immediately after hearing
Click to expand...

The interviews in the linked video were done outside the courthouse. Tracy Vallerand, the stepson's biological mom, is one of the people interviewed. She mentions that her son is making good progress in his recovery from years of severe abuse.

1745459920188.png
......Tracy Vallerand being interviewed.
 
:bump2


Last week Connecticut Superior Court in Waterbury scheduled a pretrial hearing for Kimberly Sullivan but it was postponed until early October..
The court appearance for Kimberly Sullivan, the Waterbury stepmother accused of imprisoning and starving her stepson for over two decades, has been postponed to October 3, 2025. Sullivan’s legal team has filed two motions seeking to modify restrictions placed on her during the ongoing case.

One motion requests permission for Sullivan to return to her home on Blake Street home to retrieve her personal belongings, arguing the the current protective order is too broad. The other motion asks to end her GPS bracelet monitoring, citing no violations or flight risk and claiming the condition stigmatizing. WFSB (CBS affiliate in Hartford Conn,) article link
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
Ok, what's the argument and why is it better than I give it credit for? I'm open to learning for sure.
Click to expand...
Because they are arguing "to end her GPS bracelet monitoring, citing no violations or flight risk and claiming the condition stigmatizing" but you don't know the counterfactual. That's like arguing to be let out of jail early because you didn't try to escape. A risk assessment was made at the start of the process and I don't see how anything has changed.
 
Puppycow said:
Because they are arguing "to end her GPS bracelet monitoring, citing no violations or flight risk and claiming the condition stigmatizing" but you don't know the counterfactual. That's like arguing to be let out of jail early because you didn't try to escape. A risk assessment was made at the start of the process and I don't see how anything has changed.
Click to expand...

My entire premise has been that she doesn't deserve the freedom at all. It's something she robbed from someone else and has shown 20+ years of depraved indifference to the life of someone else. ◊◊◊◊ the stigmatization. A ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ankle bracelet giving her a bad appearance. She's an absolute piece of dog ◊◊◊◊, so my statement about hindsight is that yeah, it's worked so far. That doesn't mean she deserves anything less and, in my opinion, deserves significant more.

Again, "After stealing 20+ years of someone else's life away she's managed not to do it to someone else" isn't really a convincing argument to me, and I absolutely believe her to be a threat to the community. That she hasn't been so far means nothing.
 
plague311 said:
My entire premise has been that she doesn't deserve the freedom at all. It's something she robbed from someone else and has shown 20+ years of depraved indifference to the life of someone else. ◊◊◊◊ the stigmatization. A ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ankle bracelet giving her a bad appearance. She's an absolute piece of dog ◊◊◊◊, so my statement about hindsight is that yeah, it's worked so far. That doesn't mean she deserves anything less and, in my opinion, deserves significant more.

Again, "After stealing 20+ years of someone else's life away she's managed not to do it to someone else" isn't really a convincing argument to me, and I absolutely believe her to be a threat to the community. That she hasn't been so far means nothing.
Click to expand...
Oooh, sorry, I misunderstood. I actually thought you were arguing for the exact opposite.
In my defense, the thread had been inactive for months. I was just reacting to "Awesome work, Captain Hindsight"
 
Puppycow said:
Oooh, sorry, I misunderstood. I actually thought you were arguing for the exact opposite.
In my defense, the thread had been inactive for months. I was just reacting to "Awesome work, Captain Hindsight"
Click to expand...

No worries. This case gets my blood to boil. This one and the one in Philadelphia where the cops gave up the investigation after they claimed the bride stabbed herself in the back of the neck
 
The latest, though a couple weeks late. First, Kimberly Sullivan's stepson has a new legal name and is apparently out of the hospital and living on his own. The defense had argued successfully that his new name, address and copies of his medical records be given to them under the rights granted under the discovery rules. The state agreed to provide them with the information -- the stepson's new name and address and his medical records -- but on the condition they not share them with their client. The lawyers argued that this created a "barrier" between themselves and their client and they felt that was wrong. To this the judge agreed. The defense also filed a motion to have Sullivan's GPS bracelet removed. The judge turned that down. Below are quotes from an NBC News Connecticut report:

Sullivan’s stepson, who has been known publicly as “S,” has a new name and the state filed a motion requesting that his new name, address, and medical records be concealed. The defense argued that the state's position violates Sullivan's right to confront her accuser and the accuser's rights do not trump Sullivan’s constitutional rights. They also said that Sullivan has complied with a no-contact and protective order and there's no factual basis to treat her differently. The judge ruled in favor of the defense in releasing S's new name and address to Sullivan and her defense attorney, but only for court purposes. The new name cannot be leaked to the public. If Sullivan were to make the name public, she would be held in contempt, according to the judge.

Sullivan has been wearing a GPS monitor since her arrest in March. Her attorney filed a motion to have it removed, but the judge denied that request. NBC News article link
Click to expand...

1762890592932.png
Kimberly Sullivan leaving court, October 31st.

Both sides are preparing for a trial but no date has been set.
 
Last edited:
Surely, this is a criminal matter? It's not a civil thing, the man is a witness for the prosecution and not 'her accuser'. It should be The People vs Sullivan.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Does a person's right to face their accuser normally include being told where they live?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems rather sketchy. They seem to do just fine in sexual assault cases just calling people "Jane Doe" or something similar. Either way, he can change it again after the trial.

I'm assuming the son will sue the mother for every mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing she is worth, and I hope he gets it all. I hope she has to pay him every penny she gets until the day she dies, and then he gets everything left from that too.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Surely, this is a criminal matter? It's not a civil thing, the man is a witness for the prosecution and not 'her accuser'. It should be The People vs Sullivan.
Click to expand...
I think this interpretation violates the spirit of the right to face your accuser.

I've seen a lot of court proceedings that refer to a "complaining witness" - i.e., the person that witnessed the alleged crime and is testifying to that effect. In general, I don't think society would benefit by hiding this accuser's identity from the accused.
 
How does society benefit by giving the accusers identity to the person who held him captive for most of his life? Genuinely curious.
 
plague311 said:
How does society benefit by giving the accusers identity to the person who held him captive for most of his life? Genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I did say "in general", in response to a general-rule interpretation that I disagreed with.

In general, I think society benefits from recognizing a right to know who's making criminal accusations against you. Anonymous allegations aren't generally a good thing. In this case, everyone knows who the complaining witness is, so I'm not sure what's gained by providing his new name, and especially his new address. But that doesn't change my reply to SGM about their interpretation of the general rule.

Do you think society benefits by prohibiting anonymous criminal allegations in general? Genuinely curious.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not sure. I did say "in general", in response to a general-rule interpretation that I disagreed with.

In general, I think society benefits from recognizing a right to know who's making criminal accusations against you.
Click to expand...

In general, I think unless the victim's name is relevant or required to further the case then the victim shouldn't be named. I think it's one of the dumbest things we do in the US, or anywhere else that does it.

If there's a rape case and the rapist's DNA is found inside\on the victim then I can see the value of giving the name of the victim. The defendant has to know the name of the person that is saying they were raped, but if the victim changes their name post-rape then the defendant has no need, or right, to know that name. It's not relevant because it wasn't the situation at the time.
theprestige said:
Anonymous allegations aren't generally a good thing.
Click to expand...

Sure they are. There are entire hotlines setup for them and it's actually one of the ways crimes get solved.
theprestige said:
Do you think society benefits by prohibiting anonymous criminal allegations in general? Genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't argue vague generalities in threads about a specific topic, but I already addressed this. Unless the victim's name needs to be known, for some reason, then I think the victim should always be protected at all costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom