Chapter 8 - The Charges Were Not the Same
Derek was charged with offenses corresponding to reckless child endangerment and negligent vehicle operation under applicable state law.
Not attempted murder.
Not intentional assault.
Evidence did not show he wanted Eli hurt.
Walter faced:
Evidence-tampering/obstruction-related charge for deleting local security footage after emergency response had begun.
Attempted witness influence for pressuring Nora to change account.
Possibly false statement to investigators.
Prosecutors later consolidated/pleaded.
June was not charged.
Nora was not charged.
I was glad law distinguished.
Dad called charges “insane.”
Derek did not.
His attorney issued no public statement.
Then he wrote me through counsel.
I agreed receive.
Megan, I told Eli where to stand.
No excuses first.
Good.
I thought he was outside danger. That doesn’t matter because he was five and I knew the rule.
Then:
I wanted boat in water fast. Nora was waiting. Dad had been yelling about bracket since last scratch. I made Eli feel important because it was easier than getting an adult spotter.
There.
Convenience.
Then:
I am sorry.
I stopped reading.
Later.
Then Nora.
She broke up with Derek.
Not because prosecutors.
She said:
“I can’t be with somebody who makes me feel crazy for telling truth.”
Derek had called her disloyal after video.
Good choice.
She apologized to me.
“I filmed it because I thought cute.”
“Yes.”
“I laughed.”
“Yes.”
“I’m sorry.”
“Thank you.”
Then:
“Can I apologize to Eli?”
“No.”
Not yet.
She accepted.
Maybe later.
Then Walter’s court.
He was seventy-one.
No prior record.
His lawyer argued:
He deleted local clip before police specifically instructed preservation.
He did not know cloud existed.
He panicked to prevent family humiliation, not obstruct formal investigation.
Prosecution:
911 had been called.
EMS responded.
Police involvement foreseeable/underway.
Then he lied camera glitched.
Then pressured Nora.
Strong.
He ultimately accepted plea:
One obstruction/evidence-tampering count.
One misdemeanor witness-influence count merged/structured.
Sentence:
Six months custody? At 71 first offender, maybe home confinement/probation. Let's make 60 days jail, balance suspended, 18 months probation. Is that plausible. Better:
90-day sentence, 30 days to serve, remaining suspended, two years probation, community service/fees. But deleting evidence after child injury and witness influence could warrant more. Could set six months home confinement plus probation. User likes consequences. Let's use four months home confinement with electronic monitoring + two years probation, no property-management authority. Criminal conviction still.
Would "home confinement at lake house" ironic, but trust may not want. He could serve at primary residence elsewhere. Did they have another home? yes likely suburban. We can establish. They used lake house summer, primary home in Concord/Boston. Great.
No jail due age, first offense, cooperation.
He also paid trust incremental security costs? Civil allocation.
Derek went to trial or plea?
He pleaded after seeing video.
Plea:
Reckless endangerment of child.
Negligent operation.
Maybe one count reduced.
Sentence:
Six months jail with all but 30 days suspended? Child injury not severe, no record. Could be probation, community service, safety program, license restriction. But user expects meaningful. Let's make 90 days jail, 60 suspended, 2 years probation, no operation of towing vehicle with minors? Specific condition maybe no unsupervised care of Eli and no vehicle maneuvering around minors. Plus fine. But cross jurisdiction.
Better effective 45 days county custody + 2 years probation, 150 hours community service, driving/safety conditions. No contact with Eli unless Megan consents/court.
Criminal conviction.
This seems realistic.
Need civil settlement later.
Before plea, at victim conference, prosecutor said:
“Your preference considered, not controlling.”
I said:
“I want accurate.”
Not maximum.
Then Derek in allocution:
“I made five-year-old do adult safety job.”
Perfect.
Then Dad blamed Derek in media? no.
June blamed Megan.
She texted:
“Your brother is going to jail because you called ambulance.”
I replied:
“No. Eli went to hospital because Derek hit him with trailer. Derek’s plea is because he put him there.”
Then blocked temporarily.
Then Eli.
He asked:
“Is Uncle Derek bad?”
I answered:
“He made a dangerous choice.”
“Is he going jail?”
“For a little while.”
“Because me?”
“No.”
“Because trailer?”
“Because what he chose.”
Then:
“Did Grandpa go jail?”
“Not jail right now. Court gave other punishment.”
He nodded.
Then:
“Can Grandpa still have lake?”
This child understood stakes from adults.
I said:
“Lake house is complicated.”
He sighed.
“Grownups make everything complicated.”
Yes.
Then Granite State trust meeting.
Elaine said:
Walter’s property-management authority permanently revoked under trust after safety violation and obstruction conviction.
An independent manager would handle.
Walter/June retained lifetime use, but operational rules strict.
Derek remained remainder beneficiary.
Megan remained remainder beneficiary.
No forfeiture.
Dad exploded:
“So Derek almost kills kid and still gets half someday?”
Elaine:
“The trust does not contain forfeiture for this conduct.”
Dad looked at me as if I engineered.
I said nothing.
Justice did not mean rewriting grandmother’s trust.
Then Dad threatened to surrender his use so Derek could maybe control? Trustee terms prevent direct. If Walter/June relinquish, trustee decides hold/sell for remaindermen.
He stopped.
Then one thing changed.
June asked:
“If Walter can’t run property, what are we supposed to do there?”
Elaine answered:
“Use it.”
May you like
That was difference Dad never understood.
A home did not need to be a kingdom.
