Man Held Captive by Stepmom for Twenty-plus Years

[plague311]

Her criminal history.

Of keeping someone locked in her basement for 20+ years? Was that the flex you thought it was going to be? "I'm going off of the fact that she's only been committing crimes for the last 20 years, bro".

Her criminal history.

You mean the one where she habitually committed crimes for over 20 years? Again, cool flex, bro.

Neither of those are typical bond conditions.

People don't typically hold adults captive for 20+ years. Sometimes ◊◊◊◊ isn't typical. Glad I got to help you learn something.

You're taking a wildly contrarian approach to the judge's ruling.

Why would I possibly give a ◊◊◊◊? I think the judge is wrong, I should be taking a contrarian approach. That's on purpose. You should know by now, it's your entire personality.

 

[autumn1971]

Were you arraigned during that week? Did you have a bond hearing that week?

It's disingenuous to say you were held without bond, if what actually happened was you were sitting in jail waiting for a preliminary hearing.

Either way, it sucks, and if you really were denied bond when you finally got in front of the judge, I think that was probably unfair. At least based on the details you've offered so far.

To be clear: I absolutely reject the idea that this judge in this case owed you a duty of fairness to deny bond to this woman. For all I know, you weren't even in the same jurisdiction, and this judge wasn't even on the bench, when you had your experience.

First appearance denied bond. Less than 12hours after my arrest.
I’m lucky. I’m poor as ◊◊◊◊, but my mom isn’t, and hired a lawyer as soon as I was able to communicate with anyone outside the jail, (the phone system is really messed up,) and a week in the lawyer got a hearing to ask for bond.
Then it was only three more days that my brother kept showing up with a certified check for the entire $25000 until the court bothered to tell the jail that I had been allowed bail.

She is a Flight risk. If I was denied bond for a non-violent crime how can one justify her being released on her own recognizance?

 

[theprestige]

First appearance denied bond. Less than 12hours after my arrest.
I’m lucky. I’m poor as ◊◊◊◊, but my mom isn’t, and hired a lawyer as soon as I was able to communicate with anyone outside the jail, (the phone system is really messed up,) and a week in the lawyer got a hearing to ask for bond.
Then it was only three more days that my brother kept showing up with a certified check for the entire $25000 until the court bothered to tell the jail that I had been allowed bail.

She is a Flight risk. If I was denied bond for a non-violent crime how can one justify her being released on her own recognizance?

You were treated unfairly. How is that supposed to influence other judges in other jurisdictions? Does the entire US criminal justice system owe it to you to treat every defendant unfairly, as some sort of moral reparations for how you were treated.

 

[autumn1971]

'Fair' probably isn't the right word, but a death threat is kind of actively imminent to the threatened, whereas this lady couldn't abuse the son anymore. She wasn't threatening a near-future murder.

Eta: here in scenic NJ, the K word is also taken very seriously. The assumption is you literally mean to do so, even though it's often just venting rage.

I understand, but he had twice threatened to “◊◊◊◊ you up real bad” and I prefaced my threat by explaining that I am old and tiny and he was a large young man.

I know people ROR’ed after a third DUI.

 

[autumn1971]

You were treated unfairly. How is that supposed to influence other judges in other jurisdictions? Does the entire US criminal justice system owe it to you to treat every defendant unfairly, as some sort of moral reparations for how you were treated.

Jesus, no.
It means that judges should use actual judgement. This woman can cross a state or even county line, and even if pulled over would be on her way.
She is a flight risk.

 

[Thermal]

I understand, but he had twice threatened to “◊◊◊◊ you up real bad” and I prefaced my threat by explaining that I am old and tiny and he was a large young man.

I get that. But you know how we roll in the States- even the large and young are no match for a 9mm, and that's how a whole lot of killings are completed.

Buddy of mine got locked up for terroristic threats because he said he would 'lay out' another guy. Pretty vague, and the cops knew the other guy was a lying weasel, but they have protocol when dealing with a reported threat of bodily harm.

I know people ROR’ed after a third DUI.

Which is ridiculously ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up. My sympathies to you, man. Seems like the cops can never manage to do the right thing, but go for the easiest.

 

[plague311]

Jesus, no.
It means that judges should use actual judgement. This woman can cross a state or even county line, and even if pulled over would be on her way.
She is a flight risk.

Pretty much, yeah. She has no real ties to the community anymore if her husband is dead.

If it helps man, I've had some ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up interactions with the courts and the police myself.

 

[theprestige]

Pretty much, yeah. She has no real ties to the community anymore if her husband is dead.

Because a woman's ties to the community begin and end with whatever man she's hitched to. /s

If it helps man, I've had some ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up interactions with the courts and the police myself.

This helps a lot.

 

[plague311]

Because a woman's ties to the community begin and end with whatever man she's hitched to. /s

I'm doing what you're doing. Just making assumptions about ◊◊◊◊ with nothing to back it up. Don't you remember? It's literally all you've done.

This helps a lot.

Then it's done more than you.

 

[theprestige]

I'm doing what you're doing. Just making assumptions about ◊◊◊◊ with nothing to back it up. Don't you remember? It's literally all you've done.

The difference is I'm not trying to paint it as some grand crime against reason and justice.

Then it's done more than you.

I can't help people who don't want help.

 

[autumn1971]

The difference is I'm not trying to paint it as some grand crime against reason and justice.

I can't help people who don't want help.

I’m only saying that she is an extreme flight risk

 

[plague311]

The difference is I'm not trying to paint it as some grand crime against reason and justice.

I don't even know what this means. Paint what? All I'm saying is I think she should be monitored while she's out because a) she's a flight risk and b) decades of torture on a human shows a depraved indifference to humans. You're the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ one trying to paint that as some huge invasion of rights.

I can't help people who don't want help.

You aren't\weren't helping anyone anyway. Not even sure what you think you were doing to help.

 

[theprestige]

I’m only saying

No. You're also saying a lot about your own experience, as if it should inform our understanding of this ruling.

that she is an extreme flight risk

Like she's about to burn a safe house and disappear behind a scrim of shell companies.

What resources do you imagine a middle aged American amateur kidnapper has on hand?

 

[plague311]

What resources do you imagine a middle aged American amateur kidnapper has on hand?

Apparently at least $30k for bail and another $300k to secure it. Any other easily answered questions?

 

[theprestige]

I don't even know what this means. Paint what? All I'm saying is I think she should be monitored while she's out because a) she's a flight risk and b) decades of torture on a human shows a depraved indifference to humans. You're the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ one trying to paint that as some huge invasion of rights.

It is a huge invasion of rights. Mainly because your (b) is the accusation the state must prove, to justify state sanctions.

I might change my mind if your "depraved indifference to humans" had evidence extending beyond this one special (and horrific) circumstance.

How many other humans has she shown criminal indifference towards?

 

[plague311]

It is a huge invasion of rights. Mainly because your (b) is the accusation the state must prove, to justify state sanctions.

Again, I'm not going round and round with you. It happens all the time, you've said you don't like it, I don't care. Lets just agree to move on.

I might change my mind if your "depraved indifference to humans" had evidence extending beyond this one special (and horrific) circumstance.

Lol

How many other humans has she shown criminal indifference towards?

Torturing one person for 20 years isn't enough? Cool. I have a weekend to enjoy that doesn't involve you in it. Later

 

[theprestige]

Again, I'm not going round and round with you.

You keep saying that.

It happens all the time, you've said you don't like it, I don't care. Lets just agree to move on.

Feel free to move on any time.

Lol


Torturing one person for 20 years isn't enough?

Allegedly. What is your problem with due process?

Cool. I have a weekend to enjoy that doesn't involve you in it. Later

Later? What happened to your never again?

 

[novaphile]

I legit don't get what this is supposed to be saying.

Just responding to your comment about the legal knowledge of sheep dogs.

A wolf wouldn't get much hope of a fair trial with a jury of sheep dogs.

 

[Thermal]

Allegedly. What is your problem with due process?

Firefighters arrived to find the guy in a hidden room, locked from the outside with no one but Mommie Dearest living there. He already had the school reporting that he was eating out of the dumpsters before she pulled him out and he disappeared. There ain't much room for 'allegedly' here. She doesn't warrant the deference that it might all be a big misunderstanding. She needs to be treated like a stone cold psycho that every indication supports her being. She should be on a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 5150 lockdown, not free to go shopping.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Modern ankle monitors can be hidden quite easily, no stigma. IMHO all people on bail should wear one if it is affordable.

ETA: Especially if they have a restraining order!

 

[Thermal]

Modern ankle monitors can be hidden quite easily, no stigma. IMHO all people on bail should wear one if it is affordable.

ETA: Especially if they have a restraining order!

They run a few hundred each, and there is an initial setup fee of $100-200 per unique user. Then there is a $5-40 per day monitoring fee. The suspect is usually required to pay for this. So... not particularly cheap?

Also, I was reading a little while back about people on ankle monitors selling drugs out of their home with the monitor on, and something in the hundreds of rapes reported by a rapist wearing a monitor (you can apparently go about 150 feet in any direction away from your house without setting it off). Kinda horrific.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I think she should be monitored while she's out because a) she's a flight risk and b) decades of torture on a human shows a depraved indifference to humans...

A local TV station, ABC affiliate WFSB in Hartford, Conn., interviewed someone who worked with Kimberly Sullivan at the WestFarms Mall in West Hartford in 2019-2021. West Hartford is about fifteen miles from Waterbury.

“She wasn’t well liked, she was constantly lying, argumentative with other people,” said Lee Wassell, former co-worker of Kimberly Sullivan. He says she didn’t get along with most of her co-workers. She also complained to them about being in debt and having to take care of her husband. “Her husband was handicapped, he was in a wheelchair. She hated when her shift was over how she had to go home to take care of him,” Wassell said. Wassell says she did talk positively about her two daughters, but she never talked about her stepson. “Never mentioned him at all...never mentioned him,” Wassell said. WFSB article link

Wassel last saw Sullivan about a month ago. She gave him a hug and said she was working in another store.

 

[Thermal]

I'm .starting to wonder about her late husband's cause of death if he was under this witch's care.

 

[newyorkguy]

"She was complaining to them about being in debt..."

This was only a couple years ago. Wonder how she was able to make bail? Maybe family helped.

 

[theprestige]

Firefighters arrived to find the guy in a hidden room, locked from the outside with no one but Mommie Dearest living there. He already had the school reporting that he was eating out of the dumpsters before she pulled him out and he disappeared. There ain't much room for 'allegedly' here. She doesn't warrant the deference that it might all be a big misunderstanding. She needs to be treated like a stone cold psycho that every indication supports her being. She should be on a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 5150 lockdown, not free to go shopping.

Again this idea of imposing a sentence before having a trial.

All the information you allude to cannot be considered by the court until it is discovered by both parties, and entered into evidence following reasonable time for each party to prepare their arguments.

A fair trial isn't accomplished by the judge reading about the allegations in the newspaper, and making a ruling of guilt.

If you want the judge to put this woman on "a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 5150 lockdown", you have to get your ducks in line, follow due process, and show up in court with your evidence and arguments ready to go. This woman is entitled to her day in court. That's a cornerstone of our system of justice. Stop trying to bypass it.

 

[Thermal]

Again this idea of imposing a sentence before having a trial.

Negative. The woman appears to be sadistically cruel, and has real incentive to get out of dodge. I wouldn't want her punished just yet, but definitely not running around free.

All the information you allude to cannot be considered by the court until it is discovered by both parties, and entered into evidence following reasonable time for each party to prepare their arguments.

A fair trial isn't accomplished by the judge reading about the allegations in the newspaper, and making a ruling of guilt.

Ya I think the judge has emergency personnel first-hand recounting the conditions the guy was found in. The court need not rely on the media in its decision making process of how harmless this woman is. She appears entirely willing and able to be sadistically cruel, daily, for decades on end.

If you want the judge to put this woman on "a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 5150 lockdown", you have to get your ducks in line, follow due process, and show up in court with your evidence and arguments ready to go. This woman is entitled to her day in court. That's a cornerstone of our system of justice. Stop trying to bypass it.

Of course she is entitled to due process, and no pretrial punishment. What in the world are you reading? We are talking about what appears to be an inexplicably lenient bail treatment. She should, at a minimum, be on an ankle monitor or otherwise be discouraged from a vanishing act.

 

[newyorkguy]

The night of the fire was February 17th. Apparently Kimberly Sullivan was not arrested right away. Police or the prosecutor didn't secure an arrest warrant until March 11th or 12th. In order to get the warrant police would have had to convince a judge that a crime had been committed and it was "reasonable" to suspect Kimberly Sullivan was the person who committed it. If the judge agrees -- and they don't always -- the warrant would be issued. Police apparently arrested Sullivan and brought her to Waterbury Superior Court on March 12th. This was for her arraignment, where she would be formally charged, the charges explained to her and she would be asked to enter a plea. Sullivan pleaded Not Guilty. She was apparently held overnight, then had a bail hearing the following day, March 13th. The photo below on the left is Sullivan being arraigned. On the right at the bail hearing the next day. Notice the difference in clothing? That indicates to me she was jailed overnight.



Her attorney would have argued for her to be released or for a low bail. The prosecutor would have been present and they may have argued -- this isn't clear from the news reports I've been able to find -- for no bail or a high bail. The judge set bail at $300,000. In setting bail, according to legal blogs, a judge has to consider 1) the likelihood of the defendant returning to court and 2) the danger to public safety of allowing them to be out on bail.

As example, a defendant like Luigi Mangione was ordered held without bail. A judge obviously saw that there was a very credible chance that Mangione might flee if released on bail and/or if Mangione was released from custody to await trial he could very well be considered a threat to public safety.

Apparently the judge in the Sullivan case was convinced that 1) Sullivan was unlikely to flee -- she owns property in Waterbury and has family there including two daughters -- and 2) that with her stepson safely housed in a medical facility Sullivan did not pose any threat to public safety. I would think the fact Sullivan had apparently never been convicted of any crime, or even arrested, would have worked in her favor.

 

[Thermal]

...She was apparently held overnight, then had a bail hearing the following day, March 13th. The photo below on the left is Sullivan being arraigned. On the right at the bail hearing the next day. Notice the difference in clothing? That indicates to me she was jailed overnight.

View attachment 59609

Ok this has me totally confused. You go to lengths here to show that you believe she was held overnight... because she is wearing different clothes the following day? If she was *not* held overnight, would you expect that... she would be wearing the same clothes as the day before?

Why in the name of all that's holy would a person wearing different clothes on consecutive days indicate... anything... except that you had access to more than one outfit? Wouldn't wearing the same outfit be more indicative of being incarcerated overnight and not having normal access to your wardrobe?

 

[theprestige]

Ok this has me totally confused. You go to lengths here to show that you believe she was held overnight... because she is wearing different clothes the following day? If she was *not* held overnight, would you expect that... she would be wearing the same clothes as the day before?

Why in the name of all that's holy would a person wearing different clothes on consecutive days indicate... anything... except that you had access to more than one outfit? Wouldn't wearing the same outfit be more indicative of being incarcerated overnight and not having normal access to your wardrobe?

For me it's the fact that it's a bail hearing. She would have been held until bail was set. If she were wearing the same clothes for both the arraignment and the bail hearing, I would assume both hearings happened on the same day.

Since it doesn't make sense to release her without bail, I assume someone brought her a change of clothes between the arraignment and the bail hearing.

Thus, I infer the proceedings lasted at least two days.

 

[newyorkguy]

Sullivan is wearing a fairly fashionable dress at her arraignment. The following day a nondescript wrinkled maroon sweatshirt. If she was jailed even just overnight, in addition to being searched, think she would have had to 'lose' the dress. I found an item in a local newspaper -- CT Insider -- reporting:

Sullivan was arrested Wednesday on charges that include second-degree kidnapping and intentional cruelty to a person. After spending one night in jail, Sullivan was freed Thursday on $300,000 bond.

She was held overnight.

 

[Thermal]

For me it's the fact that it's a bail hearing. She would have been held until bail was set. If she were wearing the same clothes for both the arraignment and the bail hearing, I would assume both hearings happened on the same day.

Since it doesn't make sense to release her without bail, I assume someone brought her a change of clothes between the arraignment and the bail hearing.

Thus, I infer the proceedings lasted at least two days.

Right, and I would infer that the bail hearing happened the next business day almost automatically. Google tells me that is the norm in Connecticut. What I'm saying is that being held overnight would be more strongly indicated by wearing the same clothes, not having opportunity for a wardrobe change. Wearing a rumpled sweatshirt indicates to me she spilled coffee on her blouse or something and needed a quick repacement to be presentable in court, rather than some unknown person thought "this would look better".

Basically, wearing the same clothes or different clothes carry similar weight for the proceedings going overnight, which should be assumed anyway so I don't know where the wardrobe sleuthing was going.

 

[Thermal]

Sullivan is wearing a fairly fashionable dress at her arraignment. The following day a nondescript wrinkled maroon sweatshirt. If she was jailed even just overnight, in addition to being searched, think she would have had to 'lose' the dress. I found an item in a local newspaper -- CT Insider -- reporting:


She was held overnight.

Well, you apparently botched the link in the OP article because it went 404, but going to that same source, the first reporting contains this article, which spelled out that she was arraigned on a Wednesday and had bail hearing on Thursday, so I still don't get what all the wardrobe sleuthing was about when you could have just read your own citation.

Police twice visited Waterbury home in 2005 where man was held in ‘worst treatment of humanity’

Kimberly Sullivan, the woman accused of holding her stepson captive in a locked room for more than two decades, was freed on bond Thursday.

www.ctinsider.com

 

[Thermal]

I do have to admire her attorney's chutzpah at the bail hearing, though. He said the evidence against her only amounted to "the testimony of one person".

Seems that the son was allowed out of the locked room for a while while the father was still alive. After his passing in 2024, not so much. I guess that's when it passed the tolerance threshold for the son.

I wonder if she was collecting money off him somehow? Like, for tax purposes, was he alive or dead or just missing?

 

[Chanakya]

Every so often you see one of these stories, a deranged, sadistic parent or stepparent, holding a child captive inside a house for years. Once the child grows to be an adult the abuse continues. In this case, Waterbury Conn. police say, Kimberly Sullivan and her husband -- the boy's biological father who passed away two years ago -- held their 32 year-old son/stepson captive inside their home for over twenty years. The boy was removed from fourth grade after teachers apparently noticed he seemed neglected -- he was caught several times stealing other kid's lunches and eating out of cafeteria garbage cans -- and notified Connecticut's Department of Children and Families. To avoid scrutiny, his father and stepmother kept him home.
From a local Connecticut news source:


View attachment 59557
Kimberly Sullivan being arraigned.

About a week ago the stepson -- not identified -- used a lighter, hand sanitizer and paper to set fire to his area of the house, hoping to be rescued by firefighters. When they arrived, he was suffering smoke inhalation, he told them he wanted "freedom." He was taken to a hospital -- he weighs 68 lbs. -- and his stepmom was arrested. She's since been charged with second degree kidnapping and intentional cruelty. She professes to not know what any of this is about. Her attorney calls the allegations against her "outlandish."

A bizarre story to put it mildly.

That's a winner, right there, for the Parent of the Year thread.


eta: Speed read through the thread, apologies if this has been addressed already, but: I'm curious, do we know why? She went to a great deal of trouble over her hobby, didn't she? So why, for what reason? Religion? Sex? Or simply crazy?

 

[Thermal]

That's a winner, right there, for the Parent of the Year thread.


eta: Speed read through the thread, apologies if this has been addressed already, but: I'm curious, do we know why? She went to a great deal of trouble over her hobby, didn't she? So why, for what reason? Religion? Sex? Or simply crazy?

Ya I'm going with cuckoo as a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clock, but we'll see. She has two daughters of her own (the guy is son of her deceased husband by another woman) who must surely have known about this? I'm thinking conspiracy after the fact at one level or another

Eta: the kid was pulled from school 20+ years ago at age 11, and had been eating out of the trash at school back then. So this woman's daughters were presumably kids then, living there, with their step bro locked in a room like an animal? And dad was evidently okay with this? After the daughters reached adulthood, do they have any excuse for not blowing the whistle? Unless maybe they ran away from home or something and were estranged from the crazy mom and knew nothing about all this?

 

[Thermal]

Jesus, this one just gets weirder.

The guy's biological mom is still around, and says she gave him up after splitting with the husband in 1994. She apparently has not tried to get in contact, even though he has been an adult for well over a decade.

https://www.ctinsider.com/waterbury...-man-held-captive-biological-mom-20226532.php

Also (maybe just coincidental and maybe not), crazy stepmom was out drinking as a teen with a friend, took her purse and drove off, abandoning the drunk friend in a public park, and the friend disappeared, found raped and murdered months later. Crazy stepmother wouldn't even return the purse for months.

Waterbury woman accused of holding stepson captive was among last to see 1986 murder victim alive

Kimberly Sullivan, accused of holding her stepson captive in their Waterbury home, was among last to see Laura Melio alive before her 1986 murder in Watertown.

www.thehour.com

Eta: and there's yet another story about the guy's sister who the bio mom also gave up for adoption, who has been looking for the brother for decades, who she only met once when he was three. She says she is not much in contact with the bio mom either.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That's a winner, right there, for the Parent of the Year thread.

Nominated a week before this thread dropped.

 

[newyorkguy]

Ioannis Kaloidis, Kimberly Sullivan's attorney, apparently has a legal strategy of 'it never happened.' The police have it all wrong, Kaloidis says.

“It’s like someone is watching two different movies,” Kaloidis said. “Two completely different stories.” A slide lock was found on the door to the back closet that the victim claims to be locked in. He says that he was left in there with little food or water and police say he was completely emaciated when found. “It was present, but it was not used, she did not use that lock, she did not attempt to restrain him, she did not lock him in that room,” Kaloidis said about the lock...“His father dictated his care, there was talk about him being removed from school, interactions with DCF, we have yet to see those records,” Kaloidis said. WTNH, ABC affiliate in New Haven article link

What seems to me to be the major hurdle for the defense is going to be answering:
"Mrs. Sullivan, your stepson stopped going to school in 4th grade, he has never had a job, no friends, no social life. Physically he is described as emaciated, he is in critical need of dental care. Did you see any of this as a problem? Did you consider getting professional help for your stepson?"

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'm wondering what his chances are for a successful integration back into society. Is he intelligent enough to be brought up to a grade 8 education or better? Will he be able to hold down a job? Will he be able to learn the life skills needed to live on his own or find a partner who will help him?

Or will he end up in a group home or long term care, his remaining life wasted thanks to a very bad start?

 

[Thermal]

I'm wondering what his chances are for a successful integration back into society. Is he intelligent enough to be brought up to a grade 8 education or better? Will he be able to hold down a job? Will he be able to learn the life skills needed to live on his own or find a partner who will help him?

Or will he end up in a group home or long term care, his remaining life wasted thanks to a very bad start?

While we obviously don't know nearly enough to even speculate, one thing I feel confident of: he's got some fight in him and wanted, according to the firemen, "freedom", and was willing to risk his life to get it. Sounds to me like he's got a real fighting chance, but I dunno about interpersonal relationships. Sounds like he'd have some irreconcilable trust issues.