Day 2: Jurors hear from father of the Lakeville girls who were missing for 2 years

Here is coverage of the Sandra Rucki Trial from the Star Tribune

Sandra Rucki’s former spouse, the state’s first witness, spent less than an hour on the stand.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki drove her two oldest daughters to a western Minnesota horse ranch, promising to see them in a few days, but instead left them there for more than two years while the girls’ father frantically searched for them, prosecutors said in opening statements in the widely watched custody case.

[Read More]

Source: (07-19-2016)

Family Abduction Watch Editor’s Note: In these protective parent/family court critic movement trials, the protective mom uses the “Affirmative Defense” as her excuse for kidnapping her children. In this case, Sandra Rucki’s position is that she reasonably believed the action was necessary to protect her daughters from substantial emotional harm.

It was earlier reported that Sandra Rucki’s so called “silver bullet” was a recorded voicemail message that contained six gun shots allegedly by the father. However, it was subsequently reported that police detectives found that this recording came from Sandra Rucki’s boyfriend, Michael Rhedin’s computer. We have since found that posts of this incident by Emily Court of the Red Herring Report have been removed from that site. Here’s a copy of it.  Yesterday, Sandra Rucki’s defense attorney told the court that Michael Rhedin would not be called as a defense witness.

Although this incident may not find its way into the courtroom testimony, it is a clear example of the tenets of the Family Court Critic Movement. For some reason, they believe they have a license to engage in civil disobedience which in this case includes fabricating evidence against their former spouse in their protest against our Nation’s court system.

As the facts of this case begin to unfold in the courtroom, it will be up to the jury to determine if Sandra Rucki’s belief was “reasonable” or just a simple belief due to her anger and revenge toward her former spouse.



6 Responses to Day 2: Jurors hear from father of the Lakeville girls who were missing for 2 years

  1. Margo/Mom says:

    Apparently Mom’s team has been adamant that they will subpoena the oldest daughter to testify. Dad’s team does not plan to call her. My gut recoils at the possibility of a child being called upon to give testimony for or against a parent.

    • underwatch says:

      This would be really horrible if the daughter has to testify. The Assistant District Attorney is apparently sensitive to the now adult-victim testifying and will no doubt try and prevent it. In other Family Abduction Trials, I don’t recollect one where the child had to testify. The Defense Attorney will no doubt be saying that it is Sandra’s 6th Amendment Right to confront her accuser. If the child were forced to testify, hopefully the court would close the court room to the public. Shame on Sandra Rucki and her attorney.

      Although just because the girls are on a witness list doesn’t mean that the defense attorney will call them. Again, what proclaimed “protective parent” would allow their child to testify in a criminal court hearing? They should want to protect them from situations like this.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        More to come, according to Brodkorb’s twitter. It would appear as through both of the girls have been subpeonaed.

  2. Margo/Mom says:

    And, apparently the Judge ruled that both daughters must testify.

    • underwatch says:

      Margo, it’s too bad the daughters will have to testify. I was surprised that the younger daughter didn’t have a GAL that wouldn’t be able to quash the subpoena. There isn’t much of a precedence for these criminal trials. I would expect the defense attorney to ask the teenagers some very ambiguous questions either to disparage the father or to make the jury think Sandra Rucki’s belief to protect the children was reasonable. Although it is difficult to imagine the daughter’s testimony would explain the 2 years of not speaking to their mom (or maybe she did). For any parent on the jury, the thought of leaving your kids with complete strangers for 2 years while you frolicked with a boyfriend at a resort is egregious. I am hopeful the judge will close the courtroom to both the public and the media during the girls’ testimony.

      • Margo/Mom says:

        I did see later that there was a change and only the older daughter (over 18) would have to testify.

        It is my hope that the Judge keep a tight rein on anything that goes beyond the immediate issues at hand (abduction) into the realm of re-litigating previously settled issues like the divorce or prior claims of abuse that are long past having been investigated.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: