The mother continuously corrects Jack about the facts and time frames of events that supposedly occurred, of which she was not present, and that she testified to in court as having never happened.
Her coaching on these phone calls parallel the coaching identified by the children’s therapist.

In regards to the alleged abuse by his father, Detective Northcutt always asked Jack in what appears to be a leading manner. This might not be the best process to ascertain the truth from a 7-year-old, assuming that obtaining the truth is the objective.

Detective Northcutt appears to enlist the mother in helping to create a timeline to add more charges against the father.

Is a phone call with a 7-year-old and an ex-wife, obviously coaching the child, considered a comprehensive investigation? Is CPS writing up a report without any investigation enough to rely on to make an arrest? This was an incident with an adult witness that debunked the accusation and no marks or bruises exist on the child. This arrest actually ruined an innocent man’s life in which he lost funding for his business and his home went into foreclosure.


CPS and the District Attorneys office reviewed the evidence, spoke with parties, and after viewing all of the contradictions and obvious coaching they were in agreement as to the father’s innocence.

CPS declared the accusations as unsubstantiated and the DA’s office immediately dropped all charges against the father.