Friday, October 17, 2008

Ms (Name Redacted), FLDS Complainant against Warren Jeffs

This makes a great deal of sense if the complainant is a minor.

The Deseret News - "Ms. (name redacted) has refused the defendant's request to be interviewed," Jeffs' attorneys Richard Wright and Michael Piccarreta wrote in court papers. "However, Ms. (name redacted) has no right to refuse an interview even though she is the complaining witness against the defendant in a separate criminal case."

Is it Warrens Spiritual Wife Merrianne Jessop, or his daughter, Teresa Jeffs? The following makes it sound more like Teresa than Merrianne;

"Indeed, Ms. (name redacted) lived in the same household with Ms. (name redacted) during relevant time periods and was a close friend. She possesses potentially helpful information based on her law enforcement report. Accordingly, she has been listed as a potential defense witness," Wright and Piccarreta wrote.

Ms. Redacted could be a third party. It sounds as if by using "close friend" that it's not his daughter. Texas plays games though, would Arizona be doing so also? It almost certainly is a minor which is why I pick Merrianne or Teresa. A complainant that refuses to meet with attorneys is probably a complainant against her will. Her will is being supplied in all likelyhood by a guardian ad litem or an attorney ad litem, or both. This sounds a lot like the battle going on between Teresa Jeffs and Natalie Malonis.

It's hard to pick, if I had to call it right now, I'd say it's Merrianne. Count on the party in question being WILLING to meet with Warrens attorneys, but refusing through her court appointed proxies.

Sphere: Related Content


ztgstmv said...

I think this goes back several years as it's related to Ms. Wall's case, since Wall is involved. I think the girl is ex FLDS. It's not related to any Texas cases.

Will this be another case where the girl faces a crisis of conscience on the witness stand at refuses to testify as in the Shapley incident?

I know it's hard to lie on the witness stand, or dishonestly accuse the defendent face to face if you're basically a good person, and haven't been thoroughly corrupted by schemers. We know that rules out Carolyn, Flora, and Ellissa Wall, who sacrificed honor and family for money.

The Pharisee said...

I'm figuring it has to be someone who is a minor. Otherwise, her name would be out there. That doesn't leave many candidates.

The name is being "redacted" to protect someone. I agree it can't be or at least SHOULDN'T be Elissa Wall, since she's given her name already.

Structurally this would most likely be someone who has "complained" against Warren by virtue of the fact that her will is being legally drawn from a different source other than her own. We've seen that in Teresa Jeffs case, where she was made to look as if she wanted protection, when she did not.

kbp said...

Go to read the Motion and Response. I have not had a chance yet, will do so after the kids sports events are done today.

The Pharisee said...

The last name of the Complainant is four or five letters long.

Pliggy said...

Actually the name is "redacted" because she likely WAS a minor, not that she "is". Elissa was 20 during the Warren Jeffs trial, and neither her name or faces were revealed until she started having press conferences.

The Pharisee said...

If it is Elissa, then this is the deception scenario, where Arizona (and Texas) cross out a name to make it look like something more is going on that actually is, or to protect someone no longer needing legal protection, because they favor that side of the argument.

Pliggy said...

I am not saying it is Elissa, I am saying that they are using "redacted" the same way as they did Elissa; that she "was" a minor so her identity would be hidden.

I think it is one of Elissa's friends, or (doubtfully) it could be her sister Teresa, who along with Becky was a prosecuting witness against Warren Jeffs.

The Pharisee said...

We should do some sleuthing. The answer is there in the motions. Partly because the cross outs are so bad.

IMHO said...

I understood the article as saying that she refused to meet with the defense attorneys, and that she is a complainant in a separate case against Warren Jeffs, so she doesn't want to meet with his attorneys.

Consider that one of the AZ charges is about one girl who once lived in the same family as Elissa, as a step-sister....

I think it is she who is refusing to speak to Warren's attorneys.

The Pharisee said...

I see several possibilities. The only things I am certain of at this point is that the "Complainant" that defense attorneys wish to interview is female and has a relatively short first name, and has a four or five letter last name. This I draw from the length the space in the manually typed pages of the PDF replicas of the motion.

The "Complainant" is female.

The "Complainant" refuses to meet with defense attorneys.

"Wall" and "Jeffs" fit for a last name. Anyone who knows another female that lived with Warren Jeffs family that has a similarly short last name is welcome to offer that name. It would be instructive.

If the "Complainant" is not a minor, then she did indeed of her own free will refuse to meet with defense attorneys. That should be a narrow list of women.

If the "Complainant" is having her volition legally substituted for her own by an "ad litem," then it could be Teresa Jeffs. In that formulation, Teresa would willingly meet with defense attorneys, and is a "Complainant" only because the "ad litem" decided she did not want to. The court would then represent that as her wishes. Her name would be "redacted" because she is a minor.

I honestly don't know. I can't see why the name of an adult would be redacted for good cause. In situations like this, it's very clear that I'm not a lawyer.

Pliggy said...

From the DesNews article:

“…even though she is the complaining witness against the defendant in a separate criminal case”

That rules out any FLDS member.

“Indeed, Ms (name redacted) lived in the same household with Ms (name redacted) during relevant time periods and was a close friend”

The second “redacted” we know is Elissa, because there are only two cases and Elissa is one of them. The defense attorneys want to ask questions about Elissa’s case with the first “redacted”.

The “household” that they lived in is likely during the time that Elissa was meeting with attorneys to sue, and then press charges against Warren Jeffs.

Maybe this IS Elissa who refuses to speak with defense attorneys about the OTHER case, that is possible as well.

Where do you find the court filing to look at the “eraser” mark?

It will be interesting to see how seared Elissa’s conscience really is when she has to be the one to convict Allen Steed, she told the press that she considers him a “victim” as well. She walked out of the courtroom when he was testifying in the Warren Jeffs trial because she "couldn't handle it".

The Pharisee said...

The erasure is shown in the links provided by kbp's post.