I read the article "The Victim's Victims" [by Steve McVicker, October 17], and I am appalled that Bob Carreiro would victimize the Wiley family by suing them and State Farm, claiming their 14-year-old son Jeremy could have prevented the murder of Kristin and Kynara. I agree with Kip Wiley -- had Jeremy been home or walked in on the murder, he, too, would have been found dead. To be victimized -- again -- by Bob Carreiro is atrocious. Kristin and Kynara's suffering is over, but Jeremy's pain continues and will throughout his life. The trauma he endured after finding the bodies of his beloved sister and her best friend is a horrible thing most of us could not even begin to imagine, and Jeremy has to live with this vision daily. I realize Bob Carreiro is a victim in this murder, too, but why victimize the other victims? As I recall, Kynara's mother, Diane Taylor, was home that day, just down the street. Perhaps Carreiro should consider suing Diane Taylor too for allowing Kynara to go to the Wiley home. Had Diane kept Kynara and Kristin home, they would not have been murdered. (Carreiro's logic, not mine.)
The person who committed and is responsible for this heinous crime is Rex Mays. Mr. Carreiro, how in the hell can you do this to the Wiley family? The killer is on death row. Why not let the girls rest in peace? Jeremy is still alive -- don't destroy him for monetary gain.
Cheryl Rumsey Spaugh
Bob Carreiro Speaks
I have had to sit back, be slandered and have assertions made that were inaccurate, all the while not saying anything because of my pending lawsuit. Now it is my turn.
First, the original suit was thought of prior to the confession of Rex Mays. Its purpose was to start another investigation. Anything discovered in a civil proceeding can be used in a criminal investigation. Since the investigation seemed to be lagging, I felt it imperative to add another aspect to keep the pressure on. Second, since Mays is the murderer, it was assurance that he would not be able to benefit from this tragedy (i.e., movies, books, etc.).
You cannot just file a lawsuit; you need a basis of negligence. The most glaring was the fact that the girls were left alone unsupervised. Kip Wiley knew of this suit at the time it was filed. He told me an insurance investigator had come to his home and asked him questions. Mr. Wiley said his response was, "Look, the man's daughter was killed in my home. Cut him a check."
Mr. Wiley tries to portray me as a "moneygrubber," yet he certainly joined in my lawsuit as a plaintiff so he could be compensated for his daughter's murder. His claim against his civic association was negligence. He accused them of failing to provide adequate security and failing to let him know a murderer lived next door.
Also, the amounts stated in the Press are inaccurate. When I spoke with Mr. Wiley he knew I was not after any of his assets. The suit would not cost him anything. It was for the limits of his insurance policy -- $300,000. These multimillion-dollar figures are untrue. The only mention of any such figure was in connection with a written demand on State Farm, the Wileys' homeowners insurance carrier, sent by my lawyer. In this letter State Farm was asked to tender the sum of $2.5 million or the policy limits of the Wileys' insurance coverage, whichever was less.
All through the investigation, the search party for the murder weapon and many other functions related to the case, people asked, "Where are the Wileys?" I was always kind and told them that people handle things differently. Mr. Wiley has been very critical of me, while he sat praying for an end. I believe in prayer. I also know you have to get off your butt and do something, which I did! I will be the first to admit that at times I was a hindrance, but I did something and kept the pressure on until this monster who murdered our children was behind bars.
In the rag the Houston Press, Mr. Wiley says, "Don't paint me the same color as Bob Carreiro." I certainly hope you do not. There is a more appropriate color for a man who sits back during the investigation of his daughter's murder and claims everything is hunky-dory (when it obviously is not) and then tries to gain monetarily afterward.
I am also very surprised that Mr. McVicker in his article did not use the term "reliable sources" when it came to the comments made about me by the Sheriff's Department. Who were these people, and why not quote them directly? Mr. McVicker is guilty of pitiful journalism and poor fact checking.