Tennessee Apples and California Oranges...

 Missing California City Boys Orrin and Orson West also known as Classic and Cinsere

UPDATE:

Adoptive parents of Cal City boys plead not guilty to murder charges

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/adoptive-parents-of-cal-city-boys-plead-not-guilty-to-murder-charges/article_c648791e-9b16-11ec-84d9-6b68e27aff0a.html

By ISHANI DESAI idesai@bakersfield.com

After more than a year of speculation about the whereabouts of two California City brothers who were reported as missing, attorneys for the boys’ adoptive parents entered not guilty pleas on their clients’ behalf Thursday to second-degree murder charges in their deaths.

Kern County Superior Court Judge Chad A. Louie called defendants Trezell, 35, and Jacqueline West, 32, a significant risk to the public in ordering the parents held without bail. Neither showed any reaction during Thursday’s proceedings.

Each is charged with two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of willful cruelty to children and a single misdemeanor count of falsely reporting an emergency in the deaths of Orrin, 4, and Orson West, 3.

Kern County Deputy District Attorney Eric Smith requested the court impose a gag order and seal the transcripts of the grand jury’s indictment, matters set to be discussed at a hearing Tuesday.

Louie granted Smith’s request to seal the offense reports for this case, which detail the Bakersfield Police Department’s investigation.

Attorneys with the Kern County Indigent Defense Program represented the Wests in court; Alekxia Torres-Stallings represented Jacqueline West. Mai Shawwa represented Trezell West, though she was standing in for attorney Tim Hennessy.

A trial could begin May 23, Louie said. Both parents face 30 years to life in prison if convicted of the charges, Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer said at a news conference Wednesday.

The bodies of the two boys remain missing, Zimmer said, although through “direct and circumstantial evidence,” the grand jury believed the boys are dead and indicted the adoptive parents.

Trezell and Jacqueline West “induced others to participate in the commission of the crime” or “occupied a position of leadership … in its commission,” according to the indictment. The indictment added the adoptive parents committed “a crime that involved great violence … other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness.”

Furthermore, the indictment claims the defendants induced “a minor to commit or assist in the commission of the crime.” Other allegations include “threatening witnesses,” and preventing or dissuading these witnesses from testifying.

Zimmer said Wednesday she cannot comment on specifics of the case.

A group of people gathered at the courthouse Thursday morning to show their support for the West brothers. They all said they seek justice and have followed the case since the boys were reported missing in December 2020.

Rosanna Wills, a cousin of the brothers, said it provides comfort to know the parents are in jail. She said she seeks accountability for their actions.

“How can you all hurt these babies?” Wills said. “It’s just sad.”

Wills was also grateful the judge set no bail for the defendants because she doesn’t want them to flee prosecution.

“If something happens to (the adoptive parents), we are not going to ever get closure,” Wills said. “We need the bodies.”

Charles Pettus, the biological father of the brothers, told The Californian he wants justice. He also thanked the community for searching for his sons.

“I appreciate everything that everybody is doing,” Pettus said Thursday. “We just want to see how it will play out … We’ll have closure of everything that we’ve been going through (when) looking for our boys.”

On Sept. 29, Pettus filed a complaint against Kern County alleging Kern County Child Protective Services and others negligently released the children into the care of the West parents.

Jana Slagle, the spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services, said in an email Wednesday she cannot comment on the lawsuit because of privacy laws.

Antonio Castillo, the lawyer representing Pettus, said Thursday the lawsuit is in the “pleading phase,” or the very early stages. The attorney filed a claim against Kern County in late January, and added he is in contact with county counsel.

Castillo said the original complaint might be amended to include the new facts. This civil case also could be postponed until after the criminal trial is over, Castillo added.

“Charles (Pettus) wants to see that nothing like that ever happens again,” Castillo added. “But we need to expose the deficiencies within … (Child Protective Services) and how it is they essentially take children away.”

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — With the adoptive parents of young Orrin and Orson West now accused of their murder, another set of parents whose children were put in the care of the same people are asking  — what about their sons?

Madgenia Williams says she has not seen her sons, Gullermo, 8, and Eleuctero Parra, 10, for five years – and at some point, she said, they were placed in the foster care of Trezell and Jacqueline West–the couple charged Wednesday in the alleged murders of Orrin, 4, and Orson, 3, after more than a year of investigation.

By that time, though Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer said Orrin and Orson had already been dead for three months. Which leaves Madgenia Williams in anguish. Where are her boys? She and Israel Munoz, the boys’ stepfather, said Kern County Child Protective Services isn’t giving them any answers. 

“We don’t know where they are,” said Williams.

“We have no idea if they’re alive or not,” said Munoz.

“I’m asking for proof of life,” Williams added.

Proof of life is usually a phrase associated with kidnapping. Williams said a court official told her, in confidence, that her sons’ initial foster care placement was with Trezell and Jacqueline West, which she said scares her.

“They’re been there six years now,” Williams said. “They were adopted out in 2018 to the Wests and then from there I’ve seen and heard nothing from them.”

Kern County Human Services told 17 News it can’t comment on any aspect of Williams’ story.

Munoz said the whole system is unfair.

“It’s breathtaking but that’s how CPS does things,” he said. “CPS will come in your house, they break up families that don’t need to be broken up and then they give your kids away like they’re puppies. I mean, where’s our constitutional rights?”

MORE: CPS talks with 17 News at Sunrise

Williams said the situation is part of a bigger issue: Helplessness born of multi-generational incarceration. She said she was raised as a ward of the Los Angeles County court system from age 2. She has been to prison herself, and now one of her sons, raised largely in foster care, has developmental issues that she fears will impact his life. And the chain continues.

“My father and my mother went to jail, to prison, for murder,” she said. “And I’ve lived with my grandma. Being that I am a ward of the court, every child that I have by law they have the right to take because I am a state baby and this is the flaw we should fix today. Because just because we are victims and we have no mothers, that should not be held above our heads.”

Gullermo and Eleuctero Parra, where are you? It’s a simple question their birth mother would like an answer to. 

The Department of Human Services told 17 News, however, that the children of wards of the court or those who were once court-supervised minors are not subject to removal from their homes without additional cause.

West indictment alleges minor induced to commit crime

“If a dependent child of the court has a baby while in foster care, that baby does not absolutely also become a dependent child of the court,” DHS spokeswoman Jana Slagle wrote in an email. “There are many factors that would be addressed in that type of situation.

“Once a dependent child of the court turns 18 or 21 depending on their desire to remain in care — under AB12 children in California may remain in foster care until their 21 with certain stipulations. – they are no longer considered a dependent of the court and are no longer under the jurisdiction of the court,” Slagle wrote.

the charges / indictments

2022 California Rules of Court

Rule 4.421. Circumstances in aggravation

Circumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant.

(a) Factors relating to the crime

Factors relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements include that:

(1)  The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness;

(2)  The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;

(3)  The victim was particularly vulnerable;

(4)  The defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission;

(5)  The defendant induced a minor to commit or assist in the commission of the crime;

(6)  The defendant threatened witnesses, unlawfully prevented or dissuaded witnesses from testifying, suborned perjury, or in any other way illegally interfered with the judicial process;

(7)  The defendant was convicted of other crimes for which consecutive sentences could have been imposed but for which concurrent sentences are being imposed;

(8)  The manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism;

(9)  The crime involved an attempted or actual taking or damage of great monetary value;

(10)  The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and

(11)  The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense.

(12)  The crime constitutes a hate crime under section 422.55 and:

(A)  No hate crime enhancements under section 422.75 are imposed; and

(B)  The crime is not subject to sentencing under section 1170.8.

(Subd (a) amended effective May 23, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 1991, and January 1, 2007.)

(b) Factors relating to the defendant

Factors relating to the defendant include that:

(1)  The defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society;

(2)  The defendant's prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness;

(3)  The defendant has served a prior term in prison or county jail under section 1170(h);

(4)  The defendant was on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed; and

(5)  The defendant's prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2017; previously amended effective January 1, 1991, January 1, 2007, and May 23, 2007.)

(c) Other factors

Any other factors statutorily declared to be circumstances in aggravation or that reasonably relate to the defendant or the circumstances under which the crime was committed.

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2018; adopted effective January 1, 1991; previously amended effective January 1, 2007, and May 23, 2007.)

Rule 4.421 amended effective January 1, 2018; adopted as rule 421 effective July 1, 1977; previously renumbered effective January 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 1991, January 1, 2007, May 23, 2007, and January 1, 2017.

Advisory Committee Comment

Circumstances in aggravation may justify imposition of the middle or upper of three possible terms of imprisonment. (Section 1170(b).)

The list of circumstances in aggravation includes some facts that, if charged and found, may be used to enhance the sentence. This rule does not deal with the dual use of the facts; the statutory prohibition against dual use is included, in part, in the comment to rule 4.420.

Conversely, such facts as infliction of bodily harm, being armed with or using a weapon, and a taking or loss of great value may be circumstances in aggravation even if not meeting the statutory definitions for enhancements or charged as an enhancement.

Facts concerning the defendant's prior record and personal history may be considered. By providing that the defendant's prior record and simultaneous convictions of other offenses may not be used both for enhancement and in aggravation, section 1170(b) indicates that these and other facts extrinsic to the commission of the crime may be considered in aggravation in appropriate cases.

Refusal to consider the personal characteristics of the defendant in imposing sentence may raise serious constitutional questions. The California Supreme Court has held that sentencing decisions must take into account "the nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society." (In re Rodriguez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 639, 654, quoting In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 425.) In Rodriguez the court released petitioner from further incarceration because "it appears that neither the circumstances of his offense nor his personal characteristics establish a danger to society sufficient to justify such a prolonged period of imprisonment." (Id. at p. 655, fn. omitted, italics added.) "For the determination of sentences, justice generally requires . . . that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender." (Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe (1937) 302 U.S. 51, 55, quoted with approval in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153, 189.)

Former subdivision (a)(4), concerning multiple victims, was deleted to avoid confusion. Some of the cases that had relied on that circumstance in aggravation were reversed on appeal because there was only a single victim in a particular count.

Old age or youth of the victim may be circumstances in aggravation; see section 1170.85(b). Other statutory circumstances in aggravation are listed, for example, in sections 422.76, 1170.7, 1170.71, 1170.8, and 1170.85.

I've been holding to the belief, based on circumstances and logic, that the boys had not been around since Sept. This was why I never thought they were killed, because the other boys would have said something, or someone like grandma would have asked about them. long before the boys were actually reported missing. To me it seemed that there was definitely some triangulation going on between the "parents", "grandparents", "uncle", older children.

 They would have been required to have Dr visits because they were considered special needs, based on the trauma of the oldest, and the premie status of the baby who probably needed some sort of ongoing care, and then they got extra points for adopting the boys together. The boys were adopted in April of 2019

According to one of Jamal's last statements, to a youtuber, the last time he visited Bakersfield was in Feb 2020, he did not say he saw the boys then, but that was actually what he was asked about. He said it very defensively like "I haven't been to CA since Feb." Thanksgiving 2019 the photo of Little Classic in a high chair at a restaurant, Jamal's comment about the trip and family etc, the original photo on the original alerts posters...and then photos from Thanksgiving in a restaurant pictures from Christmas (in a play room the boys look older by more than 1 month) the photos were definitely not from 2020 Christmas IMO
The 2 adopted boys, Classic and Cincere, disappeared with no trace at all, and the parents blatantly did not tell the truth, the 4 other children were taken immediately according to uncle Jamal within 18 hours they made the difficult decision to give the boys over to CPS for their own protection.... the evidence made public that night was that the dogs did not detect a scent beyond the interior of the house, the trail stopped at the door, they were allegedly playing on the back patio when they disappeared while the father turned his back for "just a minute"...."they couldn't have gone that far?". Well there were also no footprints, or tire tracks in the desert sand, not even your own, from frantically looking for the boys taking all the corners, and talking to a guy "over there" while your wife stayed in the house and you actually looked in your van for about 6 minutes and returned from the same direction you left. The parents have never been charged with anything, but the other 4 boys are still in foster care or state care (2 of them were also adopted and probably went back to being wards of the state ) and it's possible they could lose custody of their own 2 biological boys completely because it's been a year now.

Anyway, it says plenty that the Wells' boys were not taken by child protective services after Summer went missing, no one felt they were in immediate danger. I have never seen any proof that CPS was on the way June 16 or 15, just rumors. The alleged proof presented by a youtuber, was debunked because it was not vetted and didn't come from a reliable source.

The truth is if it was indeed leaked to a youtuber, whom ever leaked is in trouble because there are rules about disclosing personal information about children and families who are under any kind of investigation by the state.

However playing devil's advocate and recently thinking that through...If they had been reported to CPS previously as the rumors say, one person said 7 times, it means CPS had things pretty well under control, because the kids were still there, that's a lot of home visits. If the CPS involvement had anything to do with the issue they had in October 2020, then they were behaving themselves, probably being tested at the visits. Not saying that is what was happening, NO proof of CPS. but if...then...You're not likely to get CPS called on you seven times by "several people" and still have custody of your kids. And I don't want to list all of the alleged accusations for which they were allegedly called to the Wells' house, because they are ridiculously horrible, and any one of them would have had those kids in foster care for a while. CPS will give you up to a year in most states to get yourself together and get your kids back, after a year they can make the decision to make the child a ward of the state and allow them to be adopted, and relinquish all parental rights permanently.

Some of those cruel accusations though, included non drinkable water, and no food, scabies and abuse. There was also real talk about the reason Summer was in the basement was because they had to separate her sleeping space from the older boys Re: CPS directive, so they had to give her and the youngest boy part of the basement, so apparently they had been working on the house to comply with CPS. Summer had gone to the dentist, and had her vaccinations for school, she was registered for school, she had school clothes for the coming school year.

So according to the illogical crowd of pitchfork and torch carriers, a possible motive for Don and Candus Wells to "get rid' of Summer was because CPS was coming the next day and????????????????? What???? Getting away with murder or falsely reporting a missing child is easier than having to explain to CPS about the dirty floors? the bump on the forehead, Or a fatal accident, or some sort of abuse that was bound to be discovered on that particular day. So they decided as a family to just get rid of Summer.

Apples and Oranges

I've been saying the case of the West Boys is a lot like Summer's case. If you know the intricate details and not just the surface because that's where the truth is buried. The boys disappeared with out a trace, from their back yard (allegedly)(not really though) dogs hit the scent inside the house ONLY, stopped at the interior of the doors leading outside. The boys were never outside, no foot prints leading out the gate, no tire tracks(in desert sand) in the lot next to the house no other cars seen on any door ring cams or security cameras.

It would have been less likely that someone "snuck up and grabbed them" than in Summer's case. The adopted father and mother never searched before LE arrived or after. There were ring cams proving they were totally lying about it all, LE admitted the boys were probably never there at the house and they weren't sure there were ever any of their children living there.. The boys had only been adopted for a few months before they went missing. No one can be pinned down with an actual day they were last seen.

why they were adopted...

The older boy was allegedly taken into CPS care because he had a broken femur, which happened while the bio mother was at work and it was determined to be not her fault, but he was taken and her other kids were not. The younger boy was taken a few weeks after birth (I think) allegedly because the mother tested positive for Marijuana (legal in California). She was doing all the things she was supposed to do to get the boys back, visiting them at the visitation appointments. The last time she was allowed to see them was before Christmas 1 year earlier (2019?) , she wanted to give them Christmas presents and was denied. She was cut off, she had no idea they were being adopted, or where they were until they were reported missing. Last photos of the boys were taken by their uncle who BTW is a Washington official and who adored them apparently. My personal theory is they were 1st set up for an illegal adoption, someone fell in love with them while they were being fostered for the year previous to adoption, and then they were re-/"homed"adopted even less legally. LE in California says it is so much bigger than they could have imagined, and every time a door is opened there are 10 more doors to go through and still no answers. No one has ever been charged, the parents have only done 1 public interview, tons of searches, lot's of evidence collected, nothing to go on. Also the adoptive parents had 2 boys of their own(2 oldest) and 2 other boys adopted previously, and then the two babies that disappeared. The 4 remaining boys were taken into custody immediately that night, Amber alert and Card employed immediately also. Parents never helped searches, and never attended any prayer vigils. Remember Chris M asking Don W about the underground RR for children.... Uncle "West"/ Watkins had direct connection to such a thing due to his work in the NAACP. If you are going to do a comparison good luck getting all the details straight, because there was almost the same amount of drama and some of the same YTube players already in the games.

That was my original theory and I still kind of sit with it , until I remember the paperwork and the arrest of the parents, and their charges.