TOO DANGEROUS to Leave Jail — Prosecutor’s Filing Reveals Something Worse”

  Elizabeth Siders, the mother of 16 children accused of hiding her children and causing them serious harm, wants  out of jail. But, the prosecutor says Elizabeth should stay put. I’ll tell you all of the reasons why. I’m Angela Lacey.  Elizabeth Siders has been sitting in a county jail cell for nearly 2 months.

 16 children, one mother, and a prosecutor who just told a judge in writing that she needs to stay exactly where she is. If you’ve been following this case, you already know it’s strange. But, what the prosecutor just filed takes it somewhere darker. Let’s get into it. Elizabeth Siders was booked into jail on June 30th, accused of hiding her children from the outside world and causing them serious harm.

 Her husband, Gary Siders Jr., and her mother-in-law, Christina Siders, were arrested alongside her.  Elizabeth Siders has been in jail since June 30th, going on 2 months now, and she wants out. Who wouldn’t? Elizabeth’s attorney has asked the judge to modify her bail, but the prosecutor has now responded in writing, and William Archer is essentially saying, “Not so fast, judge. Keep her in.

” And his reasons for that are interesting, to say the very least. I’m going to go through all of this for you. Elizabeth’s husband, Gary Siders Jr., and her mother-in-law,  been held since that day. The children, 16 of them, ranging from toddlers to teenagers, were pulled out of the home and placed into therapeutic foster care, the kind reserved for kids who’ve been through something severe enough to need specialized psychological support just to function day-to-day.

 Elizabeth’s defense attorney has now asked the court to modify her bail. Her argument is simply she has no money, she can’t post it, so let her out on an ankle monitor instead. It’s a request judges grant all the time. But, this time the prosecutor’s office didn’t just object. They filed a memorandum laying out point by point why Elizabeth Siders is more dangerous outside a jail cell than most people would assume.

 Before we get to that memo, you need the context, because this case has a wrinkle almost nobody expected. In the booking footage from June 30th, Elizabeth is the only adult in the family who isn’t handcuffed. Watch her posture next to her husband and mother-in-law, and the difference is obvious.

 Shoulders rounded, practically folding into herself.  In the booking video of Elizabeth from June 30th, she was noticeably the only Siders family member who wasn’t handcuffed. Just looking at her, her body language appeared to be much different from her husband’s and her in-laws. She cowered. Her shoulders were rounded and she was practically hunched over. She seemed scared.

 She doesn’t look like a defendant. She looks like someone who’s been told to be afraid her whole life. That combined with the fact that she had 16 children over roughly 18 years has people asking the obvious question. Is Elizabeth Siders a perpetrator here or is she a victim who’s been swept up in her husband’s charges?  This coupled with how Elizabeth appeared in court and in her booking photo and the fact that she had 18 children over about 18 years made people wonder and question whether Elizabeth was the

victim of something nefarious.  Her own attorney won’t fully answer that. When a local reporter asked directly, he said Elizabeth doesn’t consider herself a victim, but he’s still looking into whether she is one. That’s a lawyer leaving the door open. And prosecutor William Archer was asked the same question back in July.

 His answer was just as careful. According to her attorney, she’s not a victim, so he’ll let the attorney decide how to frame his own client. Translation, the state isn’t ruling anything out and it isn’t ruling anything in either.  When asked by a local TV station whether Elizabeth Siders was a victim, her lawyer Tommy Stolly said Elizabeth didn’t consider herself a victim, but he was still looking into that possibility.

Here’s what prosecutor William Archer said when asked whether Elizabeth was a victim at a press conference back on July 8th.  According to her attorney, she’s not a victim. So, we’ll let him decide how he wants to address his representation of her.  So, it doesn’t appear at this point that  Here’s where it gets serious.

 Archer just filed a formal objection to any bail modification for Elizabeth and he gave the court three reasons.  Elizabeth’s bond, as it stands right now. Archer wrote in a memorandum opposing the request for bail modification. This court should deny the bond modification for several reasons. First, the defendant is facing multiple serious pending charges, multiple F2s involving serious physical harm to her children, and thus is a flight risk and a potential risk to the victims in this case. Second, the defendant has filed a

competency motion. Consequently, she is at personal risk until her competency is known. Third, the defendant has new serious felony charges that will be considered by the grand jury. Did you catch that last part? William Archer wrote that Elizabeth Siders has new serious felony charges that will be considered by the grand jury.

 That sounds like those charges  First, she’s facing multiple second-degree felonies for causing serious physical harm to children, charges that carry up to eight years each, which makes her, in the state’s eyes, both a flight risk and a threat to the alleged victims. Second, her own defense team filed a competency motion, which means a judge has already ordered a psychological evaluation to determine whether Elizabeth is fit to stand trial, and whether she may qualify for a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.

Until that evaluation is complete, the prosecutor argues she’s a risk to herself.  Judge Rogers has already ordered a competency evaluation for Elizabeth Siders at the request of her lawyer. The evaluation will also include an evaluation to determine whether Elizabeth Siders has a mental illness that would make her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tommy Solly had said previously that Elizabeth Siders wants to be released from jail so she can be reunited with her children, but that seems highly unlikely.  reason that should stop you in your tracks. Archer wrote that Elizabeth Siders has new serious felony charges that will be presented to a grand jury.

Not the 16 child endangering counts she’s already facing, new ones. Nobody has said what they are. Nobody has said how many. The prosecutor just quietly told the court, and by extension the public, that what we know right now is not the full picture.  There’s also um another little tidbit of information here, very interesting and very important bit of information regarding Elizabeth Seiders.

 Uh the prosecutor says that she’s already facing these 16 charges of a child endangering, and these are F2s, and that includes causing, you know, basically serious harm to a child. You know, it’s neglect, not providing a safe environment, causing serious physical harm, things of that nature. But he’s saying, “When this goes to grand jury, he’s going to ask the grand jurors to indict her on new charges.

” So, that makes me think this is in addition to those 16 child endangering charges. What does that say to you? Because I I don’t know what other charges I My mind is spinning. What other charges could Elizabeth Seiders face aside from child endangering?  Well, that was the most striking thing in the memo that the state filed opposing reduction in  I brought in Ron O’Brien, the former prosecutor of Franklin County, Ohio, to help make sense of this filing.

 First, I want to bring in Ron O’Brien. He is the former prosecutor of Franklin County, Ohio. Uh that’s in Columbus, Ohio, to the north of Vinton County. Ron, thanks so much for coming back on.  Oh, very glad to see you again.  Yeah, good  There’s a lot buried in the legal language that deserves unpacking.

 On the competency issue, O’Brien explained that psychological evaluators strongly prefer a controlled setting, meaning the county jail. Because if Elizabeth were released, there’s no guarantee she’d show up for testing at the time and place required. Courts generally defer to that preference.  Yeah, good to see you.

 I’m really interested in your thoughts on this prosecutor, William Archer, coming out after all of these weeks, weeks and weeks after these requests for bail modifications were filed, and saying, “We oppose any bail modification for these three reasons.” And the first reason being, you know, one of the one of the three reasons he gave for Elizabeth Siders at least, was the fact that her the issue of her competency has been raised.

 What do you make of that?  Well, I think first in order to do a competency exam, the psychologist like to control the location and have it in a controlled setting. And she was released on bond, too. There’s no assurance that she would meet the examiner at the time and place identified. So, examiners like to interview the suspect and give them any tests psychological or otherwise while they’re in the county jail.

 If they’re going to be released on bond later, that’s up to the court, but I think they prefer that controlled atmosphere.  On the flight risk argument, O’Brien raised something worth sitting on.  Taken from the house on June 30th, we know that they you know, the three of the adults remain in jail. The children are in therapeutic foster care.

This prosecutor knows a whole heck of a lot more than we do. He knows the inner workings of the investigation, what brought them there in the first place. He is calling Elizabeth a flight risk. Her attorney on the other hand has said that she doesn’t have any money, she can’t post bail, so you should just let her out and put her in GP.

 Elizabeth’s attorney says she has no money and no resources, which on its face sounds like an argument for release, not against it. But O’Brien pointed out the flip side, someone facing potentially decades in prison with little to lose and possibly outside support prosecutors know about that we don’t, has every incentive to run.

 And prosecutors don’t listen to jail calls between a defendant and their lawyer, but they absolutely listen to everything else. If Archer is calling Elizabeth a flight risk this specifically, it’s worth asking what he’s hearing on those recorded calls to family and friends.  Well, I’m quite sure he’s listening to any jail calls by her as well as the others.

They’re permitted to do that and have a big sign next to the jail telephone that the calls are monitored. Typically, they don’t list listen to phone calls between the defendant and their own lawyer. But he’s on there talking to family or friends, they are picking that up. Interesting that he also uh identified her as a flight risk and I don’t know what they would know that we don’t know.

 They obviously are aware of some investigative information, but she doesn’t have any money. She doesn’t have, I don’t think, I a bunch of outside support. I’m not sure where she would go either. The crime scene itself, there’s a whole lot of reasons where she doesn’t have stability. Should she be released? But on top of that, you know, she’s looking at multiple up to 16 second-degree felonies that have maximum penalties of eight years.

 So, she’s looking at decades in prison and that’s enough motive to flee or at least for the state to argue.  to victim claim which seems almost contradictory on its surface. William Archer also said that Elizabeth is a potential risk to the victims in these this case. Now, these potential victims, the 16 children ranging in age from age 18 to 1 and 1/2, they’re all in therapeutic foster care.

 So, they’re you know, you would hope that you know, she’s not going to be able to learn their location since she is accused of endangering the children. But this is interesting to me that the the um the prosecutor thinks she’s a potential risk to their safety after her lawyer Tommy Stalley has said publicly like she wants to be reunited with her children.

Uh you know, she loves her children. She’s getting care packages at the jail and she’s asking, “Can I give this stuff to my kids?” Uh so, it sounds to me  Elizabeth’s attorney says she wants to be released so she can reunite with her children. She’s been sending care packages to the jail asking if she can pass them along.

 That doesn’t sound like someone the state needs to worry about. But O’Brien’s writ was blunt the fact that she wants reunification is exactly why the state doesn’t want her to know where those children are placed. An ankle monitor doesn’t stop a phone call. An ankle monitors, O’Brien noted from direct experience, get cut off constantly and the alert doesn’t come in real time.

 Someone can cut a monitor and be gone for a full day before anyone notices.  Stadio.  Well, I think just by virtue of the fact that she is suggesting she wants reunited with the children, uh that uh should she be released, that she might make a effort to have contact with them. Obviously, the um placements uh for the children would not be known, but given the whole very bizarre circumstances surrounding this case, uh they probably have a concern that she might try and find out where the children are.

 Obviously, a uh proposed ankle monitor, we all know ankle monitors are fairly regularly get at least I have had defendants cut them off their ankle and they’re no longer subject to monitoring, which would fit into their uh argument regarding flight as well as uh attempt uh to contact the children.  Here’s the detail that changes how you should be reading this entire case.

 The county isn’t asking for temporary custody of these 16 children, the normal first step while an investigation plays out. They went straight to permanent custody. O’Brien was clear about what that signals prosecutors and child services. Do not skip the temporary step unless they already believe, based on evidence we haven’t seen, that reunification will never be safe.

 Not eventually, not after treatment, never.  There’s not going to be any reunification. If if the county is saying to the courts, we’re seeking permanent custody of these children. I think that is signaling that this is incredibly serious and reunification is unlikely.  I think you’re exactly correct.

 This case ordinarily this kind of case, even though this is a case of its own, exclusive kind, a case like this starts with a request for temporary custody to children’s disease either on an emergency basis or otherwise and then you do an investigation, you see what you have and then you look at the family unit and look at relatives or others that the child might be placed at.

 But here they’re starting off right from the get-go seeking permanent custody, which again, as you say, says to everyone concerned that we don’t think reunification with the parents of these children, the way they’ve been treated, is ever going to be in the best interest of those children.  Christina Siders, the grandmother, filed a similar bail request, but Archer’s opposition to her release only lists two reasons, not three.

 No competency motion, no mention of new charges coming from the grand jury. O’Brien’s interpretation is telling that omission suggests Elizabeth and her husband are the primary offenders in this case. While the grandparents may have been present but passive, aware of what was happening in that house and failing to stop it, rather than actively causing the harm themselves.

 So grandma, Christina, William Archer says we we have not three reasons with a like we do with Elizabeth to oppose a bail modification for her, but we have two reasons. And the first is a similar reason. It says she’s facing multiple serious pending charges, the F2s for child endangering involving serious physical harm uh to the grandchildren and thus is a flight risk.

 So, he he’s saying uh grandma is also a potential flight risk and a potential risk to the victims in this case.  And at least it seems to me that uh the same rules apply to all of them except perhaps maybe the grandfather who seems to have sufficient mental health issues that he may not uh share the same kind of either flight risk or uh threat of harm to the uh victims or witnesses, but it um it seems to me that all of them are facing decades uh as a potential prison sentence and they’re also on notice that the state is going to seek permanent custody of the

children. So, when you ask uh yourself what reason do they have to stick around looking at decades in prison, there’s uh very few reasons that they have to stick around.  He does not say uh in here that grandma is going to face serious new charges as he did with Elizabeth. So, is it possible that she only faces those 16 child endangering charges? So, he he obviously left that out of the opposition to her bail modification.

What does that say to you?  Well, it says that um mom and uh likely uh dad are the primary offenders here and grandma and grandpa were in the house and maybe didn’t take control, uh maybe didn’t uh uh prevent them from causing the atmosphere that existed, but it sounds to me like they’re more passive participants than uh active participants.

 So, where does this go next? Under Ohio’s rules, prosecutors generally have 60 days from the moment a case is bound over to present it to a grand jury. That clock is already deep into its run. O’Brien expects the case, and whatever those new felony charges turn out to be, to reach the grand jury before Labor Day.

 Ron, you read my mind because that was going to be my next question to you. When do you see this case going to grand jury? Because it’s been quite a bit of time now. Is this a case where maybe they only want to go once? They don’t want to have to go back to the grand jury you know, on a continuing basis?  I think that’s exactly right.

 I think they want to have what they are going to proceed on included in the single indictment against all defendants and include all counts against each individual defendant. And they have a clock, at least under the rules of superintendence, of 60 days from the time a case is bound over from municipal court to common pleas court.

 And in this case, that is they’re probably close to 40 anyhow. Um and or more. And so, at this point in time, I would think that it should go to the grand jury probably before Labor Day.  Elizabeth’s bail currently sits at $300,000, money her own attorney admits she doesn’t have.  Elizabeth’s bail is currently set at $300,000.

 If she’s able to post it, which her attorney has already said she cannot, she will have to wear a GPS  does eventually walk out on a monitor, she does so as a woman a sitting prosecutor has formally told the court he does not trust to stay away from 16 children the state has already decided she will likely never get back.

 We don’t know yet whether Elizabeth Setters is the architect of what happened in that house or one more person trapped inside it, but the state just made clear on the record that it isn’t taking any chances until it knows for sure. We’ll be tracking this all the way to the grand jury. Subscribe and turn on notifications so you don’t miss what comes next.