Evidence File F-052

The "Lie Letter" - Tara Walsh Recants Death Threat Allegation (November 2020)

Summary

On November 23, 2020, Tara Walsh sent a letter to the Chappaqua Police Department in which she formally recanted the core allegation that formed the basis of the emergency custody orders entered against Stephen Russell in Westchester Family Court. She admitted that she had lied about Stephen Russell threatening to kill her and their daughter with a firearm. This letter is now referred to as the "Lie Letter" in the Motion to Vacate because it is Tara Walsh's own written admission that her foundational allegation was false.

THE SOLE BASIS FOR EMERGENCY JURISDICTION WAS FALSE

The emergency jurisdiction that allowed Westchester Family Court to seize custody of Evie was predicated entirely on an allegation that Stephen Russell threatened to kill Tara Walsh and Evie with a firearm. In November 2020, Tara Walsh admitted in writing that this allegation was not true. An emergency jurisdiction predicate that the alleging party admits was fabricated cannot support permanent orders.

The Text of the Lie Letter

In her letter to the Chappaqua Police Department, Tara Walsh wrote:

"Mr. Stephen Russell never made a threat to kill myself or our daughter… statements to the contrary were not true."

This statement is unambiguous. She explicitly stated that:

Corroboration from Text Messages

The "Lie Letter" is corroborated by Tara Walsh's own text message to Stephen Russell from May 17, 2018:

Text Message (May 17, 2018): "I seriously dont think Steve ever had a gun it was all on my head I made up the whole thing… no of it is real."

This earlier text message shows that Tara Walsh knew at the time the orders were entered that she had fabricated the firearm threat. Nearly two years later, she admitted this formally to police.

Additional Contradicting Evidence

The alleged death threat was further contradicted by:

Every objective piece of evidence contradicted the death threat allegation from the beginning. Tara Walsh's "Lie Letter" simply made explicit what the evidence had shown all along.

How the Order Was Obtained

Based on this false allegation, Westchester Family Court issued:

  • An Order to Show Cause and Temporary Order of Protection
  • Custody orders giving Tara Walsh sole custody of Evie
  • Restraining orders prohibiting Stephen Russell from contacting or visiting Evie
  • A gag order prohibiting Russell from discussing the case publicly

All of these orders were justified as emergency measures based on the death threat allegation. When that allegation was false, the entire jurisdictional foundation collapsed.

The UCCJEA Problem

Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), emergency jurisdiction is permissible only when:

  • A child's safety is at risk
  • There is no time for full proceedings in the home state
  • The emergency is genuine and serious

UCCJEA does not contemplate using emergency jurisdiction to enter permanent, long-term custody orders. Yet the death threat—the sole basis for emergency jurisdiction—was false. This means:

  • There was no genuine emergency
  • The jurisdictional predicate for taking the case was nonexistent
  • The permanent orders entered under emergency jurisdiction are arguably void

The Paradox: Why No Hearing to Reconsider?

Despite Tara Walsh's written recantation of the sole factual basis for the orders, no full hearing has been held to reassess custody and access. The orders remain in effect as if the allegation were still credible. According to the Motion to Vacate:

To my knowledge, there has never been a full hearing in this Court to reassess custody and access in light of that recantation and the subsequent California judgment.

This creates a situation where:

  • Tara Walsh admits lying about the core allegation
  • The San Francisco judgment finds her liable for battery (abuse)
  • Yet the orders restricting Stephen Russell's access to his daughter remain in effect
  • The person making the false allegation (Tara Walsh) has custody
  • The abuser (Tara Walsh, per San Francisco judgment) controls access to the child

Strategic Significance in Motion to Vacate

The Motion to Vacate identifies the "Lie Letter" as one of two critical anchors:

Those two anchors—an adjudicated finding of abuse by Respondent, and Respondent's own admission that her core danger allegation was false—fundamentally change the posture of this case.

The combination of:

  • San Francisco judgment finding Tara Walsh liable for battery
  • Tara Walsh's written recantation of the death threat

...means that the entire procedural and factual basis for the Westchester orders has collapsed. The court can no longer rely on the emergency allegation or treat Tara Walsh as a credible source of information about danger.

Timeline of the False Allegation

  • 2018: Tara Walsh makes death threat allegation to Westchester Family Court
  • May 17, 2018: Text message: Tara Walsh admits to Stephen Russell she made it up
  • 2018-2019: Emergency orders entered based on false allegation
  • 2019: San Francisco proceedings establish Tara Walsh's history of deception
  • March 2022: San Francisco jury finds Tara Walsh liable for battery
  • November 23, 2020: Tara Walsh formally recants to police (Letter)
  • 2024: California appellate court affirms battery judgment
  • December 2025: Motion to Vacate filed citing the false allegation as jurisdictional ground
Evidential Consistency Score (ECS): 9.6/10

This is Tara Walsh's own written admission to law enforcement, corroborated by her earlier text messages and contradicted by objective evidence (NYPD search, building logs, 911 records, lack of criminal charges). This is the highest level of admissible evidence against her. It directly undermines the jurisdictional basis of the orders and establishes that she knowingly made a false allegation to obtain custody of her daughter.

Source Attribution

Letter from Tara Walsh to Chappaqua Police Department (November 23, 2020) Text Messages - Tara Walsh to Stephen Russell (May 17, 2018 and others) Motion to Vacate All Prior Orders (December 2025) - Exhibit E Master Evidence Archive