IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE
The allegations against Kyle are senseless. The charges are made without logic.Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn B. O'Neall simplified the reasoning by which it was determined that Kyle had done something wrong. She expressed it when addressing the jury with "I WANT IT!'. AND I WANT IT NOW!" (The bold and all capitals are to indicate that she literally yelled these words to the jury.)
But that just doesn't make sense.
Judge McGraw summed it up when he said "What is happening is a child is spending her inheritance before her mother's death. That's what's occurring. It would be my personal opinion that is exactly what's occurred." (page 82, line 9, August 13, 2002 transcriopts)
That is so illogical as to be ridiculous.
Jiggs Kobek and Janet Bahlor, Kyle's aunt and cousin, respectively, were running around town Chicken Little-like saying that Kyle was stealing her mother's money.
Now it's going from the ridiculous to the absurd. Especially when a piece of furniture that Jiggs was claiming Kyle stole was (and probably still is) sitting on Janet Bahlor's porch.
Take a look at the whole situation logically.
First, make the assumption that Kyle is a person with a lot of integrity, high moral values -- a very ethical person; a very good person. If that is true, then all the allegations must be false because a person of such character would never do any of the things Kyle has been accused of doing.
Next, make the assumption that Kyle is a liar and a thief. That is how she's been described and if she is truly guilty of the things she's been charged with then she is indeed a liar and a thief and an all round not too nice a person. However, this scenario is what is so totally illogical, for if Kyle were indeed a liar and a thief out to steal her mother's money because she "wants it (her inheritance) now" we have to look at some other facts:
The Dolton House
- Kyle was on the title as half owner of the family house in Dolton, Illinois. At the hearing on August 13, 2002 Attorney James Lakin asked Kyle a question about contributing to the Dolton house as opposed to it being titled with her name on the deed because she was the daughter. When Kyle said it was her parents choice to title it the way they did, Judge McGraw interupted saying "That wasn't his question. Did you contribute anything to the purchase of the home?" (page 65 of the August 13, 2002 transcripts)
- Kyle did not have to contribute to the purchase of the house to have ownership rights. The ownership rights were very clear on the title.
- Kyle's father made it very clear to her before he died that the house and other documents (CDs, annuities) which were also in her name were her inheritance FROM HIM. This may have been clarified in her father's Will, however, it was never found and Jiggs told Kyle that they didn't need to file the Will anyhow.
- Kyle's father also passed several notes along to Kyle warning her to "watch her back" and to especially look out for Jiggs because she'd "try to get her hands on the money."
- Kyle took $5,000 from the sale of the house. She had every right to do so. Her remaining share was $36,000 which went into Martha's condo in Rensselaer. Kyle was supposed to be on the title for the condo, however, Jiggs made sure that did not happen.
- Now if Kyle really was a liar and a thief, why didn't she take all of her money out of the Dolton house. That would be the logical thing for her to do if she "wanted it now." If she were that person, she would have held up the closing on the Dolton house until she had legal documents in place to protect her $36,000.
- When her husband made a suggestion regarding such legal documents, Kyle said that they wouldn't be necessary, that this was "a family matter."