Confused..... Lets start with a few FACTS... First off Wilcox has never been told, by CPS or any Law Enforcement Agency he could not nor should not be around children.(He was told by ex-inlaws that they did not want him near or around their children... with reason mind you). Wilcox has been investigated on several issues.. violated even more. You may want to ask the investigating parties why he was not charged with any of these crimes...

Alittle misleading fact... Wilcox never stated "It would be a very long time before you see me again" It has been a rather common occurance for Wilcox to drop his son off with me and then for whatever reason without a word check his son out of school and be on his merry way to whichever new state he was going to work in , at the time.

Now I do not know who any of you may be, save for two of you that had the guts to post their real name...if you know my child , me or any of our family members. Then you should know that everyone mainly speaking , my son has been though enough.

Forgive me for coming across as a bitch...(Maybe it is the grooming I have had by all the people...CPS, Law Enforcement, Attorneys..etc that have told me over and over that my child is safe and there is no grounds for removing him from his father's custody) But I ask that those of you that need to express themselves, do so without a mention of my son and any other member of out family. Seems we don't have much choice on what is or is not being oisted on the internet, some of which is frankly utter nonsense.

The Ex.
LaDonna

LaDonna,

I don't always catch everything, but I do moderate the comments as best I can. I try to allow people to speak freely, while at the same time protecting the privacy of the children where possible. If anyone has mentioned your son's name, let me know where and I will edit or delete the comment. If people choose to use their own names, as you have, that is their option and privilege. If something or someone is mentioned in the press, they will probably be discussed here --although I may not allow the names of minors to be published as freely as the mainstream media. I have removed the names of minors (and collateral parties) and any other directly identifying information as I felt it necessary and will continue to do so in the future. I will not, however, impose a gag order on what press articles and topics can be discussed. If the subject matter is public information, it will be discussed here as freely and openly as possible.

Chris

I am confused. I read on one site that Kenneth's ex knew that these kids were with him when he dropped his son off. She also knew it was "uncharacteristic" that he dropped off his birth certificate and other personal items with his son. Not sure why that was so "uncharacteristic" of him or why he had custody of son if he was not supposed to be around little children. Regardless, anyone would think it would be kind of odd if he did say "you won't see me for a long time". If you put all of that together, I don't understand why she was not concerned enough to contact officials immediately. Or did she ask him what he meant when he said she would not see him for a long time. Did he have an excuse as to why? I am curious to know why she didn't notify someone. I mean, if Kenneth is not supposed to be around little children, I would think that someone with authority had told him that. Just anyone can't tell someone they shouldn't be around little kids. I saw in document released that he has been investigated by FBI for a previous kidnapping and CPS for a sexual abuse case and police for violating a protective order. I can only assume that one of these agencies probably told him he was not to be around kids (probably CPS or FBI if either case involved children). I mean, being his ex and having a child together, I kind of get the idea that his ex may have been aware of all of these investigations. She had to have known who said he is not to e around kids. Even if she didn't feel it was appropriate to contact Lubbock police when he left Friday with these 3 kids, why would she not contact whoever it is that originally said he is not be around kids. I am just really confused. Look, I am definitely not trying to place blame on anyone other than Kenneth but we have not heard anything from his ex and I feel like she could probably explain some of the stuff people are speculating about.

tasha Where do I start????
First, I am a very close aquaintance with Michael Wilcox, his son,his ex wife
and another child that was a victom of his sick obbsesion.
First, he was investigated in our town for his behavier with said child, Local authorites that were charged with protecting this child, after the first of several investigation, told this child's family that any alligations were unfounded and that the family needed no protecive order because this man was not a blood relative. In fairness they did "off the record" suggest that the child should not be left alone with him, but would not assist in a protecive order for this child that he was "grooming". They did eventially tell him, after some time and without a protective order, that he could not be around these children. This incent in Lubbock could have been prevented along with anything that may have happened to this child between the first investigation and the time they told him to stay away.
Now, you might ask why the family of this child allowed him around and alone with these chilldren and the one specificaly.
Michael was good at what he did , which is grooming the children and their family. He finds families with single stuggling parents, mostly ones that are gone long hours for work or other reasons. He showers these families with gifts, money and attention and convinces them that he is just there to help. Once they figure out what is going on it is very hard to get rid of him and for whatever reason, it was difficult to get much help.
Next to the mother of this monsters son. When he dropped this boy off, she knew that he had 3 children in the car, she knew that "something was going on" when he left birth certificates and others things and said it would be a long time before they see him or whatever, I also feel she knew there was a good chance he was coming to this town for the girl mentioned above, I'm sure she didn't know for sure, but she had a very good idea. Why
would she not have been on the phone to preferably authorities, but at least the family of this girl to warn them of the possibility that this innocent girl was in danger? I can't think of one possible reason for not doing this,
Maybe she couldn't let herself believe that she had once been married to a monster like this, and I truly understand that feeling, but here's the bottom line, but for the grace of god and wonderful work by Lubock and McCuratin County authorities and coopertation by many other people that had information on this monster, this whole situation could turned ouy gravely for the girl he was found with and the girl mentioned above.I would have a hard time living with that myself!!!
Lastly, I am a religous person and I try to live my life right, but I truly hope that this animal is treated as bad physicall y and emotionlly that he can be. I would wish death to him, but that's too good. I just thank god this is over for these children and any past or future children that may have beeen his victims.

he is no friend of mine never has been...sorry for the misunderstanding. will not be writing again but thanks for understanding what i meant by way of where they were found...yes he is touched, but i was trying to keep this clean.

I just wonder why ppl defend this guy! to those that defend him....can you honestly say that you would allow your own daughter (or son for that matter) to go out of town (or state) with this monster? answer honestly now! If it was up to you and you had an option, would you sleep comfortable each night knowing he was sleeping in the same bed with your beautiful child? a child that is starting to mature and is so innocent and doesn't know any better? and I think how you answer that question really goes to show what kind of parent you really are. we all know that Michael has (at LEAST on one occasion) layed in bed naked next to a young girl. But I guess that's perfectly normal! Sure, we should all let our little girl be around someone like that! We also know that when he was allowed to go places with a young girl, on at LEAST one occasion, he did not go where he told her mom he was going. Instead he took said girl to Beavers Bend. This we did not find out until very recently and I believe that is because this child was scared or brainwashed or threatened or something. I'm not saying anything happened either time because I dont know but regardless, it WAS WRONG for him to tell the adult of that child he was going one place and go somewhere completely different. Why would he have to lie about that? I'll tell you why...because if he told adult that he was taking her daughter to a wooded area to camp or whatever, she would have said no, therefore ruining his plans. Michael is very conniving. He is very good at talking a good game and lying and acting like he really can't see what the harm is in what he's doing. I know for a fact that after what happened with this "girl" CPS specifically told him that it was wrong for him to take any young girls out of town overnight and that it could not be proven but they felt as though something had happened and they weren't the only ones to tell him that. All i'm saying is that Michael is gonna sit back and act stupid like he honestly believes nothing wrong happened over this past weekend. He will probably blame the parents for bad parenting and say he was just trying to do something nice for these kids. This couldn't be further from the truth (I BELIEVE)!!!!

Where is the shame? People that stand up for perverts must not have any shame. What kind of person befriends or stands up for perverts? I can not believe that anyone would take the side of a pervert.

I would like to say to EVERYONE that I do agree with ckiilett to a point. some of the facts about this case are getting mixed up as far as who's saying what and where the children were all found. Michael had never been CONVICTED of anything sexual with certain people but to anyone who knows the situation and honestly thinks there was never anything wrong with what went on was absolutely CRAZY! I myself know what was told to Lubbock police regarding Michael's past and never once was mentioned that he had been been convicted of anything. It was reported to them what was ALLEGED by not only family members but CPS and certain DETECTIVES here in Texarkana. Just because someone may be clever enough not to leave evidence or even take it that far to start with, doesn't mean nothing wrong happened. For a grown man to single out a young girl and fixate on that one girl the way this monster did IS wrong. and the way that monster acted and behaved when he was told he could have no further contact with said girl, is absurd to think that is perfectly normal. And so I say to you, before you go calling people pathological liars, you should do your research first and know what someone said. The fact of this case is he took those children and was supposed to take them (AND HIS OWN CHILD) to Six Flags. As soon as he left with those kids he threw that idea out the window and proceeded with what he had planned. He dropped his own child off (WHY?) and went to wherever before he ended up in Mccurtain County. Why was he in Mccurtain County to start with? Furthermore, why leave 2 children at a house which they did not know and take a CHILD (who in my opinion looks alot like a girl i know) and stay at an abandoned house or in the car or whatever. If he had no bad intentions, why did he have to be alone with that child (in freezing weather when there's obviously a house they can go to). Can you answer this ckillett? I know that does not prove that he did anything or had intentions or doing anything but I believe that Michael has been doing this type of stuff for sometime and however he does it, he gets these kids trust. And just to note, I never did think he Physically molested (HER). I have always said (and will continue to say) that he got off sexually by looking at her or laying next to her in the same bed (NORMAL RIGHT???). Honestly I think he was probably pleasing himself while he was with her but never actually touched her because then there would be evidence. I mean, I"ve always thought he's off in the head but he's obviously not Stupid!

Cindy,

When most of the above story was written, events were still unfolding. The man and child were found elsewhere, but the two kids were recovered Idabel according to reports. There are no" lies" in my post. I have edited the text to reflect that the children were not located in the Wal-Mart. However the store was indeed placed under lockdown, and at the time of writing, that is where the child and her abductor were believed to be. Regardless of the fine points of the investigation, the most ignorant comments on this page were made by you. You should really accept that your friend is a pervert and deal with it.

Chris

I did not dispute the fact that he he charged with the kidnapping of the children just that the facts are not straight as to where the children were found if you were to look up www.ksla.com or www.kcbd.com you would actually know that the children were found at a residence not at a walmart and then at an old abandoned house in oklahoma was not disputing the other. so read all of that and then let me know what you think. thanks

as someone who truly knows this person he was never ever convicted or tried as a molester (sex offender) and more to the point he does not have a step sister or a daughter to have molested. and to anyone one who is truly paying attention to all of this they really need to get their facts straight before they start showing their ignorance, there was no wal mart involved and michael turned the child over without incident. his ex wife told no one anything of any sort that just came from a really pathetic pathological liar about michael. but remember people there is still family members out there that is trying to figure this all out themselves but lets do so without all of the lies.

As a person who truly knows this young man he was never ever convicted or tried of being a molester nor did he ever have a step sister or daughter to molest. And to who ever writes up these web sites might need to make sure that they get their facts straight before showing their ignorance and maybe just maybe pay really close attention to the news for one, they were not in a walmart nor was walmart ever on lock down michael turned the child over without incident and the person who told people that he was a molester is just a pathological liar it was not his exwife and that is not the reason she left him but do remember people that there is other family members out there who might be trying to figure this out but lets do so with out all of the lies.

Wow! You seem to know a whole lot more than the police and the media. Perhaps you should contact them so they can get their story straight. When they make their corrections, so will I. Until then, it appears that this guy kidnapped three kids so he could be with a little girl.

This man if that is what you want to call him is a life long molester of children he was my step brother and did it to me 25 years ago when I was 8 and he was 16 no one helped me then now look he has carried this on god only knows how many children have went through this horror
When a child tells an adult the adult should report it
MY heart broke when I seen his face on the tv not for him but those poor kids.......if someone would have listened 25 years Ago