With the almost complete lack of truthfulness on the part of Texas, it's hard to know what's going on, but early on in the "investigation" there were "Three Pregnant Underage Girls," according to CPS.
As has been beaten into the ground by this blogger and others, two turned out to be "of age" and fell out of the category of "Pregnant Underage Girls." A third girl whose name we have not learned (exactly) seemed to be a girl that initially refused a pregnancy test, which also would seem to place her out of "Obviously Pregnant Underage Girls."
The Deseret News - "A CPS spokesman could not elaborate, citing the ongoing child welfare investigation.
Nathan Jessop is believed to be about 40 years old, according to another search warrant affidavit that authorities used in the raid. His wife is now 17 and was due to give birth in June, when she was still 16."
Since it is now September, 5 months AFTER the raid, and since supposedly the second warrant, which can be the only warrant with a possibility of validity, is based on seeing "Pregnant Underage Girls," something that had to be "obvious" for it to have any chance of validity, is Texas now admitting that it fudged the supposed due date of the third "Pregnant Underage Girl" who now can only have been 4 months pregnant at the time of the raid? Maybe even less?
I could be having a brain spasm but I was doing the math early on when we were down to one pregnant girl, whose impending maternity depended on taking a test, making that supposed pregnancy not so obvious.
To review, a pregnant underage girl is simply not prima facie evidence of a crime in the first place as the circumstances under which she became pregnant could be entirely legal. Need I point out that Texas still marries legally girls under the age of 16? To this day?
Texas proposes that it not only SAW the age of the girls involved (something clearly disproved by the track record of getting at least two out of the three ages wrong) but that it also "saw" the age of the fathers involved, and "saw" the location on our planet where conception occurred and also saw the legal marital status of the girl. Let's not forget that a 14 year old can have sex with a man in Texas and not be married to that man.
How? She could be legally married or divorced in which case the sex could be consensual. In all cases. I can have sex with a 13 year old girl, if she verbally consents, and is or has been married.
Sphere: Related Content
5 comments:
I've wondered about the mystery of where all those pregnant girls or teenage mothers went to.
We had it narrowed down to only 4 left, minus 1 being that "Sarah" they never found (2 mothers and 1 pregnant from Brooke's data).
As for the affidavits, I suspect there are some we do not have access to.
It could be possible that they only released affidavits asked for, those specific affidavits used to request the warrants 4/3 & 6.
We know the 4/3 affidavit mentions 2 other affidavits from the New Bridge Shelter employees that I have not been able to find.
Having not seen those 2 affidavits, one could conclude there may be more not released yet. Maybe sealed for "continuing investigation". It looks like Ben may have or has seen them.
Where you note a list of data that includes the age of the girl; status as pregnant; age of the father in a pregnancy; location of conception; and possible age or circumstances that allow consent, it starts to mix reasonable suspicion and a defense to charges all together.
I believe they could justify a warrant with a combination of only the first 3 of those, if they had any evidence that the marriage was bigamy.
That evidence of bigamy is still something I can't find for Sarah in the 4/3 warrant.
I'll go back and insert links to previous posts as time allows, but they were down to three girls who were pregnant. One refused to take a pregnancy test, and I can only assume now that this girl, who was being held out as "due in June" is the "wife" of Nathan Jessop.
At the time I had read an article saying she was "due in June," didn't quote it and couldn't find it later when that bit of information became important. Now we have that issue referenced again in this article in the Deseret News.
To my knowledge, no other girls have given birth from YFZ since two of the three gave birth and turned out to be "of age."
"Mrs. Nathan Jessop" as it were, is the only candidate left for the "due in June" minor who "refused a pregnancy test."
This brings us to the issues that they cannot tell what number of other brides an individual pregnant girls could be sharing her husband with.
They cannot know the age of that husband (or paramoure) by looking at her.
They also cannot know her legal marital status by looking at her.
They cannot know where the act took place by observation.
They cannot say a girl who was 4 months pregnant was "obviously so." I know several women with naturally protruding abdomens who have NEVER had children and who are NOT overweight. I have shown a picture of several such girls in "Prairie Dress" garb that are FLDS and are certainly not pregnant. Or are they?
Now Texas is claiming that between 40-50% of the men at YFZ were engaged in "underage marriages." It sounds as if they inflated they number of months Nathan Jessop's "wife" was pregnant, and the number of men engaged in "underage marriage."
First, I do not dispute the numbers we were told (your old posts on it...).
On the "40-50% of the men at YFZ were engaged in "underage marriages", I assumed that included any from older, legal marriages and all the may have participated as parents, witnesses...
I am not certain Ben has affidavits we do not. Information from the 4/6 affidavit on underage wives and mothers (includes Nathan):
Tina Martinez says:
- Suzanne Johnson is 16, pregnant and has a child.
- Lee Ann Nelson Jessop looks 16, directed by Lee Roy Jessop to say "18", has 10 month baby, is 4th wife.
- Pamela Jessop, born 12/9/89, son born 8/1/06, Jackson Jessop is 36 YO.
- Janet Jeffs Jessop, born 9/16/88, daughters born 8/19/05 & 8/12/04.
Ruby Gutierreez says:
- Told secondhand by "child" that Sarah Johnson is 16 & married to 40 YO Joseph Jeffs.
Rebecca Baxter says:
- Teresa Steed Jessop is 16, pregnant, married to Nathan Jessop, whose 1st wife is 40 YO.
- Arta Jessop Barlow "looks 16", has 2 YO and is pregnant and 8 YO Viola Barlow tells her Arta is under 16 w/4 children.
My concern centers around what Texas "saw." At one point they had it down to three girls.
No matter who turns out to have had children, and who turns out to be pregnant now, supposedly Texas "saw" pregnant underage teens while at YFZ.
Teresa Steed Jessop (Nathan's "wife") seems to be the only girl actually underage in that group of three. She is almost certainly in that group and she is almost certainly the girl that refused a pregnancy test.
In that it is now SEPTEMBER, there could not be any girl "obviously pregnant" and at the same time "underage."
This knocks the struts out from under the argument Texas made for it's second warrant unless of course there are new facts that we don't know. To my knowledge, as I have said, there have been no births among those "underage" since the two women "of age" gave birth. Teresa Steed Jessop could have been NO MORE than 4 months pregnant at the time of the raid. I'm sorry, that's simply not obviously pregnant and it's becoming even more laughable to suggest that was the case every day.
The two legs of the stool holding up the second warrant are based on seeing a criminal origin for a pregnancy, which is silly on the face of it and sillier now that we know they saw no such girls, Teresa Steed Jessop being 4 months pregnant, or less. Any other "underage girl" pregnant is also less that 4 months pregnant.
The last leg of the stool holding up Texas' case is that of the "Children with Children" premise. An interesting parallel would be that of Sarah Palin's daughters, one of whom was rumored to be "Trig's" mom even though she herself is pregnant with yet another child conceived prior to the birth of "Trig." This illustrates completely the "lunatic fringe" mentality it takes to suppose that a child walking around with a child or caring for a child represents a mother with a child. By that token Sarah Palin's youngest daughter, who cared tenderly for "Trig" during the convention, would have to be supposed to be the mother.
Can you believe anything CPS says or saw? Angie Voss recently said %48 of the men were involved in underage marriages, but they acknowledge they only know of 10 "supposed" underage marriages. There were over 100 men on the ranch. Now do the math. There could only be 10 men involved, and that is only %10. Out of that 10 supposed underage marriages, many of them came from other states, and went back over 10 years ago, before the ranch in Texas was built, and before the FLDS pointed law was passed.
Nothing adds up except CPS wants to portray a much bigger problem than actually exists.
Post a Comment