[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 58°F  
Flash Flood Watch
Thursday, Nov. 26, 2015

Prosecution files affidavit detailing Clay Waller's reported confession to killing

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Clay Waller walks into the Cape Girardeau Common Pleas Courthouse before a custody hearing on Tuesday, June 7 2011.
(Kristin Eberts)
When Clay Waller tearfully admitted to his father that he killed his estranged wife Jacque, he made a motion with his arms that suggested he broke her neck, according to an FBI supplemental affidavit admitted into evidence in federal court Monday.

The one-paragraph supplement, prepared by FBI Special Agent Brian Ritter, says that Waller spoke to his father, James Clay Waller Sr., just a few days after Jacque Waller disappeared on June 1. According to the affidavit, Clay Waller confessed to his father that the hole had already been dug and that he buried Jacque with a shovel.

The new information came to light Monday during Waller's detention hearing in U.S. District Court in Cape Girardeau. The affidavit, notarized Monday and signed by Ritter, is said to be based on interviews between two police officers and Clay's father. Documents do not say when the interviews took place.

Waller is facing a federal charge of making a threat on the Internet against Jacque's sister, and federal prosecutor Larry Ferrell is asking that he be held without bond. If convicted, Waller faces five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

Ferrell said last week the Jacque Waller case is relevant to this one because it suggests that Waller threatened Jacque before he killed her and he might do the same to the sister, Cheryl Brenneke.

But Waller's federal public defender, Scott Tilsen, said during Monday's detention hearing that the information from the confession is unreliable, calling the father's mental state into question. Clay Waller Sr. is 71 and resides in an assisted living facility.

"He has irrational periods where he does not speak rationally," Tilsen told the judge. "I think that affects the reliability of the content of those comments."

That was a point that Ferrell denied, saying that it is "absolutely false" and that Clay Waller Sr. has no problem recalling and presenting information.

Tilsen also said that the information from Waller's father is unreliable because Waller was abandoned by his father as a child and the two only became reacquainted as adults.

Magistrate judge Lewis Blanton ruled that the supplemental affidavit would be admitted into evidence and advised that hearsay evidence is admissible in a detention hearing. Judges typically rule within 48 hours in detention hearings. Pretrial motions are scheduled to be heard at 11 a.m. Sept. 29.

The supplemental affidavit also claims that Clay Waller Sr. told police that his son was crying and emotional when he confessed to his father about killing and burying Jacque. The father said he told his son to turn himself in to the authorities or seek psychiatric treatment, the affidavit says.

Nothing in the court records indicate whether Clay Waller Sr. told police if his son said where he allegedly buried Jacque Waller.

That's likely all of the information that will come from Clay Waller's father in the detention case. After researching the issue, Ferrell said in court Monday he was not convinced that he could ask for a deposition of the confession for a detention hearing. Federal procedure rules say that such a deposition can be given to preserve testimony for a trial, Ferrell said, but he wasn't sure the same is true at this stage, so he withdrew his motion that the father be deposed.

But Ferrell did note to the judge that he reserved the right to obtain a deposition from Clay Waller's father for trial purposes.

Several members of Waller's family -- his sister, brother and his teenage son J.C. -- appeared in court, but they declined to speak to the media. Waller also faces state charges of stealing and harassment, which kept him incarcerated since July 29. Waller posted bond after a reduction hearing last month but was taken into the custody of U.S. marshals when word of the federal charges surfaced. He has been held in solitary confinement at the Pemiscot County Jail since then.

A preliminary hearing in the state case against Clay Waller is scheduled for 2 p.m. Sept. 27, though that hearing may be delayed until the disposition of the federal case.

Waller was the last known person to see his wife and has been called a suspect by a state prosecutor. Other evidence that came to light last week at the detention hearing involved blood evidence found at his Jackson home that is a DNA match for Jacque Waller.



Pertinent address:

555 Independence St., Cape Girardeau, MO

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

"assisted living facility where Waller's father"

is waller's pop on any medication? that should be cause to reject the hearsay confession

-- Posted by hello7777 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:37 PM

How did Mr. Ferrell get word that Waller had confessed to his dad? Did his dad tell someone?

-- Posted by wow1000 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:54 PM


odds are the elderly dad was intergated aka badgered into saying what he said

-- Posted by hello7777 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 12:57 PM

Please quit calling it hearsay, it is NOT hearsay when it comes from a person who committed or witnessed the crime. If the father told someone else and THEY went to the police, that would be hearsay...

-- Posted by yellowfever01 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 2:03 PM


did it ever occur to you that the father did the right thing and contacted the authorities.

-- Posted by mystery9 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 2:09 PM

mystery9, he contacted the authorities 3 months after he was told. He must have not been to concerned about it.

-- Posted by livesound1 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 2:19 PM

yellowfever01 Can you read? "hearsay evidence is admissible in a detention hearing."

-- Posted by hello7777 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 2:26 PM

Wow after being reminded about the events of 9/11 I really thought I would see more compassion from people. The thoughts right now should be about those poor children who will no longer have a mom that is living and a father who took that mom away from them at a very young age. I am grateful that the family and friends now have some closure even though the closure is so sad. I am sure it was very difficult for Waller's father to advise the authorities of what his son did but it was the right thing to do and I am sure in some ways he is relieved that he is no longer carrying this awful information with him everyday. Although I did not know Jacque personally it is quite evident that she was a loving mom who protected her children until she took her last breath.....RIP Jacque

-- Posted by Purple14 on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 2:41 PM

This scenario is a great example of prosecution by the media. It will be very difficult for Clay Waller to get a fair trial with the information being published. Many people want closure to this sad situation. Many have already convicted him without the accused getting his day in court. Let's not taint it for everyone involve.

-- Posted by jadip4me on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 3:14 PM

Geez Purple14, if you had to be "reminded" of the events of 9/11 your credibility would certainly also be in question! It seems you like many, have already found him guilty, well ahead of any charges or verdict.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 3:17 PM

Hey GREYWOLF...I think he's guilty. So do a lot of people. So what? He's got a lawyer. The facts will be coming down like a rain of truth before long....

-- Posted by rooroo on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 3:48 PM

I want there to be answers for both families but this "confession" with the dad is very strange...something is not right there...it seems someone jumped the gun on this...seems the authorities don't know as much as they want us to think they do. They should have had more facts about this before it was ever put out.

-- Posted by Agnes on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 4:00 PM

i am disappointed with the prosecution. i thought they were out this weekend getting a deposition from waller senior. thats why the hearing was continued to today. now they are saying he may never be deposed. what??? get that deposition NOW!

-- Posted by valleypeach on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 4:44 PM

The prosecutor said - that the police said - that the father said - that Clay said -

Doesn't get much more "hearsay" than that! And where's the closure? No one has, verifiably, admitted or proven or closed anything. At this point, there has only been speculation on possible scenarios. I don't know anyone involved in this case and the man may be as guilty as sin. But, I certainly haven't seen anything even close to proof that he caused his wife's disappearance. As inconvenient as it may be, some of us are hardheaded enough we'll just have to wait until there is some actual charges filed and evidence presented before we make up our mind.

-- Posted by malan on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 5:18 PM

Sad. Reads like law enforcement have twisted hearsay out of an old, possibly medicated man who is living in a nursing home.

No valid evidence has been presented to the public that a reasonable person would view as "Waller is guilt".

Law enforcement have shared what little evidence they have with the wrong people and way too soon.

They are trying too hard to make the federal harassment charge stick and keep Waller behind bars. Given this turn of events, surely makes one wonder how accurate the avadavit information shared with the public was.

-- Posted by pigskin on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 5:35 PM

It's always quite amusing to me how some people never fail to comprehend the fact that someone is capable of murder. It's also quite amusing to see how many of the same people get on here and try to say what an outstanding citizen Mr. Waller is or was. When in fact, if you had any sense and knew Mr. Waller, you'd really understand what he was capable of. Just here to keep reminding you all of that fact. Carry on....

-- Posted by Hot Dog on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 6:15 PM

What happened to Scott Reynolds? I thought he was Waller's lawyer?

-- Posted by johnlaw484c on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 8:18 PM

Wheather they allow the confession to be admitted as evidence wouldn't make any difference in proving guilt here IMO! Other evidence is more than enough to get a conviction if nothing else is admitted past this point. Cutting up the bloody carpet and hiding it in the crawl space, the defendents story or lack of one, his failure to help authorities in proving his innocence and the list goes on of other facts not theories or hearsay evidence that would be more than enough for any jury anywhere to come to only one conclusion. The truths coming out a little at a time much to the dismay of some. The defense can only hope they can get 12 jurors seated that don't speak english!

It's great that some here are waiting till all the facts are in before making up their minds. Sure wish I could be a impartial as those folks!!

-- Posted by Over The River on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 8:46 PM

The facts are the facts. That being said any of you that have weighed in with an OPINION of the case SHOULD automatically disqualify themselves if called to serve in a jury pool. Will you? or will you lie and get on the jury just so your idea of justice can endure. The idea that if enough people post on forums like these, facebook, etc. that you should take those opinions over actual legal facts. Should you vote to convict even if the state doesn't present the case to the point of reasonable doubt? It appears that "this jury" is in. No need for due process, no need for judicial system, no need for civil rights. I think in our history we have heard of something similar, I think it happened in a place called Salem, I am not sure, help me out here. Didn't they do something like if your were thought to be something, then you had to prove you were not, like if you were to drown during "testing" then you were innocent, you were dead, but you died innocent. Yeah those were the good ole days, I am glad to see how much we have learned from history. Just think the idea of due process, how much that costs us, we should just hang 'em high and let God sort them out, yeah that's the ticket. It surprises me how easily that people will give away some one eases rights, but hold theirs so close. Of course I am being sarcastic, but I am not being a hypocrite. I refuse to post an opinion of guilt or innocence, that is just irresponsible. I am a voter, and I might be called to serve on a jury. If I am to make up my mind due to these comments, I would be a lemming. I believe if the person is guilty, the judicial system will work. If you have no confidence in the judicial system, why are you wasting your time here, do something about it instead of mindless chatter or an internet chat forum. I believe in judicial system and do not see a better alternative in the near future, I am going to stick with it. Oh yeah, there was another "Idiot" that proclaimed that it better for x number of guilty to go free the one innocent man be held. Don't know, like I said, he probably wasn't very educated and didn't know much about society or government. Yeah, this forum is the best way to try the case.

-- Posted by wrayman on Mon, Sep 12, 2011, at 11:48 PM

Well said Wrayman! Thank you!

-- Posted by Spinning on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 7:33 AM

johnlaw, He needs a lawyer that practices Federal law now since he is being charged with a Fed crime.

Slick Clay is too smart to have confessed to anyone. That's why I don't believe he admitted it to anyone.


-- Posted by grandma73 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 7:43 AM


you a member of the investigation team? you know for a FACT that he provided them this information 3 months later? Just because the media is just now finding out and now reporting it does not mean the police just found it out. It may have only been one piece of the puzzle and they had to get the rest of the pieces to be able to release this information.

-- Posted by mystery9 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 8:20 AM

Well..this is still just a message board. It's not a court of law. My post is not suggesting that it should or will have any bearing on the facts when or if it goes to court. I really see this case as maybe ending up as a plea bargain in the future depending on certain happenings. I'm all for the defendent getting a far an impartial trial. I trust he will. I have no vested interest in the case but also won't sit on my hands and listen to the same people trying to discredit any information that is released to the public. Thats my decision. There's probably an admendment somewhere to give me said right. I'm sure those that spend many hours everyday on the message boards could tell me which one.

As far a posting on a mesage board being compared to the salem witch hunt I think that might be a bit of a stretch. I don't think they had internet back then anyways.

On to the judicial system...ours is probably as good as any out there. I have NOT done any research into the subject. I will say this though..here goes another of those IMO deals..that so much of our law is based on case history that a past conclusion might not have been just conclusion to start with. Also jury of my peers scares me to death anyway! Still the decision is a part of case law. If someone made a bad decision 10 or 20 years ago someone can now go back and base another decision on the previous. The original sets a precedence. The longer our judicial system operates the harder it is for actual justice to be served. Once again...IMO!!!

-- Posted by Over The River on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 10:10 AM

For everyone who is positive that there are enough facts to convict this man, remember that is what we thought about Casey Anthony as well. Look how that trial turned out. I think he is guilty too, but I have no faith in our judicial system. Also, to those who think this man will be tried here, think again. This case will be moved far away from here. There has been too much shared by our great local media for this man to get a fair trial. Way to go media for once again scrweing up.

-- Posted by Miller21 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 10:10 AM

The neck breaking thing leaves me with more questions then answers. Where did all the blood come from? Did he beat her up then break her neck? In any case he's guilty IMO. Justice will come out but it feels like it's taking an eternity. I'd gladly stick a needle in his arm and deal with God when I got there. J4J

-- Posted by artofwar on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 11:33 AM

The neck breaking thing leaves me with more questions then answers. Where did all the blood come from? Did he beat her up then break her neck? In any case he's guilty IMO. Justice will come out but it feels like it's taking an eternity. I'd gladly stick a needle in his arm and deal with God when I got there. J4J

-- Posted by artofwar on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 11:33 AM


Yes, I know which one, is seems strange you are willing to spout your "rights" to do whatever, but profess that you aren't worried about being called for jury duty (assuming you are a registered voter in either the county that be may be charged in or the Eastern District jurisdiction of the Federal Court) because you KNOW it will be a plea bargain. Are there any other rights that be violated with professing the guilt of another? Oh well, thank you for helping me make my point, your view of the justice system is indeed a fresh reminder of why we need due process. Not only have you made up your mind of the facts of the case, you also have predisposed opinion that are justice system is a failure. I am hopeful that during voir dire you disclose your beliefs so that any body that is relying on your impartiality will not have to suffer your wrath. You don't have a right to choose not to disclose this, it is against the law to commit perjury during voir dire. And as your looking up what those words mean, remember, you would have known if you have ever served on a jury.

-- Posted by wrayman on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:23 PM

Okay wrayman, settle down....

-- Posted by rooroo on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:31 PM

Over The River, Did you READ the article? "he[Ferrell] withdrew his motion that the father be deposed" Thus, there was NO deposition. And one can only speculate as to why he chose to withdraw the motion to depose.

"at least charged this monster with Murder" Common sense suggest, there is NOT enough credible evidence to charge him with murder or the prosecuters would have. That is why the prosecution is pushing the federal harassment charge so hard, attempting to keep Waller behind bars and releasing what little evidence they have.

"Of course he murdered her..." Those publishing that claim, better hope he is convicted or confesses to the murder charge. Otherwise, Waller and his attorney(s) will end up a very rich from some those who are unfamilar with tort law.

"admendment" Did you mean amendment? Wonder if the person felt the same when they posted the alleged internet threat that has since been charged as a federal crime?

artofwar, Finally, you too have acknowledged that some of the so called evidence is not adding up.

-- Posted by hello7777 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:36 PM

Please I beg some of you making comments to stop and think about what your saying! Put yourself in this familys shoes for one minute. Please before making a comment be sure you know the facts of the case. What if was your sister, mother,daughter or friend. How would you feel. The Rawsons are wonderful kind people. We will never fully know the pain they are going through. And they do read these comments and some are very hurtful. Its like we are in grade school, If you have nothing nice to say please dont say anything at all!!

-- Posted by whatiswrongwithpeopletoday on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:48 PM

Geez...life was so much more friendly when folk's just pointed and whispered or kept their opinion's to themselves...carry on.

-- Posted by EZ Rider on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:52 PM


I have read nothing posted on this article (or any other for that matter) that should upset the Rawsons. Hopefully, the Rawsons and Jacque's friends want the appropriate person convicted, IF indeed there has been a crime or crimes have been committed.

In addition, one should keep in mind, the Rawson's have thrown themselves in the lime-light at every opportunity, including some bold comments on national TV and in the local media. IF they can not handle others holding differing perspectives, they need to stay out of the media and stop reading interactive forums.

-- Posted by hello7777 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM

To you this may be idle chatter but to them its their loved one.

-- Posted by whatiswrongwithpeopletoday on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 1:10 PM

The only use of this info is to taint the jury pool. It's inadmissable and even if they somehow get it admitted, it will be easily discredited.

-- Posted by uberfan20 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 1:14 PM

Fair71 you are correct the post was not in this article but another. I have followed this story from day one. I do know the family and I guess while reading from here and other places today, I just wanted to make a point. A few things said here or there to me seemed hurtful. And yes they have put them selves out there but not for any reason other then keeping this story out there. I admire their strength and determination. Thank you and have a blessed day

-- Posted by whatiswrongwithpeopletoday on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 1:55 PM

Once again Wrayman I have to agree with you. You have spoken my mind. Thank you!

-- Posted by Spinning on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 2:45 PM

Adidas, There is no way you can speak truthfully for all those individuals.

-- Posted by contagious on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 4:19 PM

I think we can all agree with Fair71 and the like, and if two people walk into a house and one walks out and the other is dead, that is not enough proof to convict anyone.. Who's with me?? LoL, yeah, Your probably right, it would be totally unfair for anyone to think he killed his wife.. Just a case of really bad luck... go away people

-- Posted by yellowfever01 on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM

So Mr. Wayman since I've read the newspaper and posted a comment here I wouldn't be picked for jury duty in this case. It looks to me that you've done precisely the same thing. The 20 other people or so who have also made comments here plus most all who have prior knowledge through the news media would be dismissed as well. Your posts are opinions just as mine are. It's not like I made something up and posted it here. This is a discussion about the article above. I must be missing something whereby you can post something here but my posts are not allowed or are hurting the case. Since I don't live in your state I think the odds are slim of me tainting the jury pool. I don't know if I can say the same for you. What will you tell em' if selected to be interviewed...you didn't inhale. BTW..I didn't say I KNEW there would be a plea bargain. I do know what amendment free speach is (hope I spelled that right) always great to have a spell checker on board! Thanks Fair71. It's good to see your posse follows you everywhere you go. Have a pleasant day.

-- Posted by Over The River on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 5:03 PM

What I have I said to give you the impression that I couldn't be impartial. Of course I have read the "news", but I can differentiate between "news" and fact. Just because it is "news" doesn't mean it is factual. I guess because I don't agree with the lynch mob mentality that is overwhelmingly expressed here, that disqualifies me to be impartial. Or is it I just don't see it your way that makes me an unlikely candidate for jury selection. By the way I have actually served on a capitol murder case, I have seen the process, I can tell you how it was. I can also tell you that there were people that were in the pool that professed opinions before final jury selection, and fortunately they were found out. This was over twenty years ago, before this type of communication was available. My concern is that since I know what people said during that jury selection, I wonder if I were called to serve again if people would be honest when asked. That is my concern. If you think that anyone should be tried with a jury of 12 that have already made up their mind, well then you and I will have to agree to disagree, because that is simply unacceptable in my opinion. You are entitled to yours, and free to express whatever you choose. But I only ask that you respect my privilege to do the same. If you don't agree, there is no reason to be angry. I don't know that I am right or wrong, I am only expressing my opinion. I feel that I have a firm grasp on the difference between opinion and fact, I am able to separate the two. My main point is that I hope, for my sense of justice, that others do as well. Disagreement is a fundamental element of a free and open society. I may disagree with you, but I do respect your opinion. I am not trying to be an instigator of anything. If that is how my comments are viewed, then all I can add is that I feel they have been misinterpreted. I don't dislike or hate anyone that doesn't agree with me (probably not have any friends if I did), I view everyone here as equals, no less, no more. Posting emotional responses that are not on point only serves to divide, when for several reasons we all need to just "chill" a little and realize that others may have some valid points.

Peace to all.

-- Posted by wrayman on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 6:18 PM

Wow. Do they have a body with a broken neck. The reason they didn't want to post a deposition is probably because, without a body, there is no way they can be sure her neck in broken and a deposition has the possiblity of making them look extremely bad.

-- Posted by InReply on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 9:59 PM

Mr. Wrayman agreeing to disagree will work for me. It seems you're indicating that I might be something other than to be fair and impartial were I to sit through this trial, should there be one, and if I were to listen to the evidence presented at that time. That's just not the case. The bottom line is still to see justice served and I feel it will be. I'm just saying that at some point in time there has to be some plausable examination of the information presented and so far all the information points the same direction. No hard feelings here.

-- Posted by Over The River on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 11:33 PM

Producer1, When comments step over the line (several times)... like those you mentioned often do, I report them. Moderator will remove them if enough find them offensive.

There is no way "cc314" can speak to what the Rawson's know, unless he/she is a member of the family. Which in that case, it is not a good choice to admit in a public that law enforcement has shared inappropriate information with the family.

-- Posted by Stooges on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM

iconoclastic- I was merely quoting "all those people" from the exact quotes printed in this newspaper, on other media outlets,and also in interviews on KFVS12. Funny how my comments consistentally get removed.

So here it goes again and see how long it stays up this time:

I stated that it is awful funny that Clay's teenage son has been quoted as saying that his grandpa is of sound mind, Clay's father says Clay confessed to the murder, Clay's in-laws all have been quoted as saying they believe he did it, Clay's exmistress has been quoted as saying she believes he is guilty.... all these people who have close personal relationship with Clay Waller have said they think he is guilty (as quoted in this paper and KFVS12)... and not one person who has been equally as close in a personal relationship with Clay says otherwise.... get the hint people!

And as far as the Casey Anthony case- BIG difference. Casey's parents believed she was innocent (as least at first.) Clay's father says he confessed to the murder. His family don't seem to standing on the streets screaming he is innocent!

-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 12:46 PM

I pray for Jacque's return to her family every day. I pray for her children and her family every day.If you have a passing interest in this, please take a few moments to do the same. Then go on and feel free to discuss/ decimate/ speculate/ criticize .........

-- Posted by rooroo on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 12:52 PM

I am not related at all to anyone involved in this situation, just an outsider. I know there's been a lot over Mrs. Waller's computer diary. My question is, if she was so afraid for her life then why did she meet him at various places over time. Women who are so afraid stay far away from what they are afraid of. It just doesn't add up. If I were on the jury I'd discount the computer diary completely. Now, I know it's been all over the media about Mr Waller's girlfriend/ex girlfriend. But do I remember correctly in reading somewhere, maybe in Mrs. Waller's own computer diary or elsewhere, that she had a boyfriend? If the media wants to show what a horrible man/adulterer Mr. Waller is, then maybe they need to at least acknowledge that Mrs. Waller too was an adulterer if that indeed was the case. Now I remember where I read that, it was in the FBI document/statement attached to something that was filed in court. Do I think he did it, probably. But I hold judgement on that until all the facts come out. I feel really bad for all the kids involved though. They didn't choose to be involved in any of this. They've lost their Mother and now probably their Dad as well to prison. I hope the relatives of Mrs. Waller realize they need to shelter those children from all the bad media about their Dad and it serves them no good to be given details about their Mom/Dad situation at this young age.

-- Posted by mymymy on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 8:16 PM

There seem to be many people posting on this forum who need to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. Please reflect on how your tone comes across before hitting that "Save comment" button.

-- Posted by eileen113 on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 9:26 AM

cc314, I have to wonder why Jacque in all those abusive moments you mention, never once sought help from the authorities. No record of abuse other than hearsay from Family and friends.

There is no doubt if ever there is a trial it will NOT be held in this, or any adjoining Counties. My guess, and that's all it is, is that Mr. Waller is probably guilty. However, there have been many cases lately around the Country where someone has smelled like a duck and walked like a duck but DNA evidence has since found them innocent. Therefore that argument holds very little water. I suggest we all sit back and wait for law enforcement to do its job or, Clay confesses. There is that possibility that this terrible event may never be completely solved.

It is also my opinion that these Federal charges may not hold water either.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM


To answer your first question, you might want to do some research on Battered Woman/Person Syndrome. Not reporting threatening behavior and/or violence is unfortunately, very common.

-- Posted by eileen113 on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 4:11 PM

Yes it is very common for the abused not to tell, so Greywolf I think you should take eileen113 advise and look up battered woman. Unless you have ever been in a situation or walked a day in their shoes. Please don't assume you know how one would react. She feared for her life and her childrens life as well as Clay's. She believed she could handle him, keep him calm. A womans journal is her true thoughts feelings and secrets, why do you think they come with a key!! Its easy enough for you to say.... why not go to the police. No one can say what they would do if put in this position, unless put in this situation!!

-- Posted by whatiswrongwithpeopletoday on Wed, Sep 21, 2011, at 3:05 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Map of pertinent addresses
Related subjects