Dorothy Lee Barnett & Savanna Paid for the Television Interview?

We are now hearing that Savanna was paid for her interview on Today Tonight’s Channel 7. If that were so, then it is even more important for U.S. Federal Prosecutors seek for the immediate extradition of Dorothy Lee Barnett. There were be nothing worse if Dorothy Lee Barnett were to take money from the Media and to once again go into hiding. Additionally, if Criminals were allowed to indirectly profit from their criminal act, then this would certainly not deter this crime. Here is a quote from News.com.au.

“News that she had been found sparked a television bidding war with Australia’s 60 Minutes, US network CBS’s flagship investigative program 48 Hours and ABC’s Good Morning America all scrambling for the story which airs tonight exclusively on Today Tonight on Channel Seven.”

We are still hoping that Savanna doesn’t unconditionally back her mother on the parental kidnapping and passport charges. We are hoping she has a higher level of maturity.

Advertisements

7 Responses to Dorothy Lee Barnett & Savanna Paid for the Television Interview?

  1. Mary says:

    Watched the Today Tonight program. http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/latest/article/-/21121486/savanna-todd-tells-her-story/

    It was a typical Today Tonight program where a one-sided story was presented vilifying a father to maximise public outrage and support for a mother’s illegal conduct.

    All the testimonials were trotted out in support, as expected – a bit like at a wake or the closing ceremony at the Olympic Games.

    The program was full of all the good loaded language to influence the viewing public, typical of those current affairs programs. A few mum pearlers from some old video footage before bolting: “I will never allow anyone to harm her again.” “A very, very evil man.” “It is corrupt. It is incestual and nobody cares.”

    At this point in the program, dad is starting to sound like the epitome of pure evil.

    My understanding from my readings is that it was an exclusive interview which, to me, suggests it was on a fee-for-service basis. Other than fee-for-service, as well as to make the dad out to be some sort of evil monster, what was the purpose of the interview?.

    What I do understand in this matter is this:

    * Dad was awarded custody. Mum was awarded visitation rights.
    * Mum kidnapped daughter instead of looking for legal channels to challenge the outcome.
    * Mum managed to acquire fake names and passports for herself and daughter, living in several countries and even changing her daughter’s citizenship.
    * Second husband apparently took the secret to his grave.
    * Mum apparently blew her cover through her own loose lips.
    * FBI and AFP worked together for two years in building case.
    * FBI requested mum’s extradition to US to face criminal charges.
    * Mum held on remand.
    * Extradition application hearing 3/2/2014.
    * Mum had 20 years to legally challenge the outcome, but did not.
    * On the eve of extradition application hearing, all the emotional blackmail is trotted out in the hope that: ?a custody decision from 20 years ago in another country will be overturned; or ?the magistrate will deliberate that mum really had no other choice but to break the law several times; or ?the magistrate will dismiss the US’s extradition request because mum is now settled and enjoying life in another country.

    Hmmm! Might be time for this mum to take responsibility for her actions.

    • Claire says:

      Shame on you Mary for your scathing assessment of someone you don’t even know, the media has told the Father’s side of the story for 20 years, what you finally got to see was hers, rather than passing judgement on her actions perhaps you should question what drove a Mother to do what she did. The woman I know is strong and principled and has always put her children first and would never have made this decision lightly. She would also never have written such an uninformed assessment of someone she doesn’t even know.

      IF her daughter did in fact get paid for the interview, then so what! It doesn’t in anyway trivialise the impact this has had on her life. She is fighting for her Mum, someone who was silenced by injustice 20 years ago – that is to be admired not scathingly ridiculed!

      • underwatch says:

        “the media has told the Father’s side of the story for 20 years”

        Claire.

        Savanna has been told only her mother’s side of the story for the past 20 years. There are many of us who call this “parental alienation” and others that may call it “Stockhom Syndrome” or “Capture-Bonding, a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

        In any regard, Dorothy Lee Barnett was not silenced, she was the only one speaking for the past 20 years. Now it’s time that the legal systems in Australia and the United States do the talking.

        The Editor

      • Mary says:

        Claire, do enlighten. Would you also admire a father not awarded custody who chose illegal flight instead of looking for legal pathways to contest a not-desired outcome?

        “IF her daughter did in fact get paid for the interview, then so what!” – It may in no way lessen the impact her mother’s actions have had on her life, but it may bruise if it is not declared as assessable income to the relevant entities.

        My understanding in this matter was gleaned from my readings and my observations from a one-sided current affairs program. I do not live in an environment where only a small percentage of the population can read or write and the rest believe in snake oil stories.

        Claire, it is understandable that you may still be in shock, denial and anger that your friend/relative/acquaintance (or it may simply be that another female) has run out of places to hide, and is now required to give a legal “please explain” on a few matters. I am not emotionally involved, so my readings, observations, thinking and understanding are not clouded. If you felt my opinion was scathing, that was your interpretation, not reality. I do not have to blindly agree that a woman always puts her children first, and the like. I will admire whoever I like.

  2. Neha says:

    GO, Dorothy!! You are a true mom!! Lets hope Australian judicial system is not as dumb as the US’s!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: