I talked to Patrick Crimmins again today. It now appears that the "Final Report" on the FLDS children and the 37 still under suit won't be until the end of the month. I suppose this could change, since the "Two Weeks" scenario has changed and it doesn't appear now that we'll have a report in that time frame.
Patrick was curious about the interest which now seems to be coming from several quarters on the 37 children and why everyone seemed to care about any of them being pregnant now. CPS of course is not prosecuting any criminal cases but I explained to Mr. Crimmins that while we out here in the rest of the world couldn't be absolutely sure, it would make sense that if there were any "children with children (of their own)" or "pregnant underage girls" at the time of the raid that were seen at YFZ, then it made a lot of sense to us that CPS wouldn't nonsuit those children. This was something he did not contest. If view of that I said, information about the composition of those remaining 37 children was of interest.
I also allowed that since the number was now "manageably low," it was something everyone could get their minds around. Some examples of telling evidence would be that there were no girls left in the 37 children. Combining that with the belief that CPS would keep underage pregnant girls or girls that were mothers under suit, we would know that there were no "children with children (of their own)" or "pregnant underage girls" at YFZ that day. Following a little further with this line of thought, no one could see what wasn't there, unless of course they were psychotic. Since we'll assume that no officers of Texas law or CPS workers are or were psychotic that day, we can just settle on the reality that they saw nothing.
Another curious offering by Mr. Crimmins was his insistance that two girls gave birth while in custody prior to be released by CPS. That means several things. One, there were only TWO pregnant underage teen "candidates." There has been much talk of a third girl who may have been pregnant but was so underdeveloped, so few months along, that only a test could determine her pregnancy. This now seems to be a complete myth, there was no such girl at all, at any stage of pregnancy. So Crimmins either offered me the information cynically, thinking I didn't know the two were later declared to be "of age," or he simply didn't know, himself. That, if true, would represent an amazing sort of bunker mentality where CPS is not even communicating enough internally to know the facts relevant to the decisions they were making.
I think it's safe to say Patrick knows it's a question now as it has been offered to him by others, and by myself. It won't be responsible of him going forward to offer that there were any pregnant underage girls to any member of the press, because we now know he knows there weren't any. Another safe conclusion is that of the remaining children, only the "children with children (of their own)" remains on the table, and that, only technically.
I would speculate now, based on past behavior that when they got down to 37, someone somewhere in Texas called a halt to the nonsuits. I speculate also that this is the reason for the sudden tight-lipped exodus of Charles Childress. If I hadn't asked the question, someone else would have. With only Merrianne Jessop in custody, having been placed their again by CPS and clearly NOT pregnant and clearly NOT having children of her own, someone would have asked about the second warrant. Some of the dimmest members of the press would have had a light go on and say "what exactly DID you see at YFZ then?" Childress leaves under this scenario because he is a bit like Pilate, declaring he could find no fault, Texas simply couldn't have that. I strongly suspect that few if any suits will be terminated prior to the last meeting of the Grand Jury. The decision to keep the children under suit is being made outside CPS and has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the children, or the facts of their cases.
I would like to observe that in our two conversations, Mr. Crimmins has been as forthcoming as his position allows him to be with the possible exception of the "two girls" remarks he made. He's been very generous with his time as well. I'm not a member of the Main Stream Media so his courtesy and devotion of time to my questions represents a laudable transparency. I just wish Jerry Strickland would behave the same way.
I was able to leave a specific message for Mr. Strickland with one of his associates regarding the questions I have outlined above, concerning "pregnant underage teens," "children with children (of their own)," and the connection with the second warrant. We'll see if I get an answer.
Sphere: Related Content
Confessing to the Error of Biden’s Ways
-
The bureaucracy loses this control on inauguration day. This time there
should be a commitment to follow up, immediately, recognizing this best
chance for ...
21 minutes ago
16 comments:
Would be nice to read a transcript of that interview you had with Crimmins. I think that's outrageous that he apparently believes the people are so gullible that he can pull the wool over their eyes, gloss over the facts, and feign legitimacy by tossing out numbers, misleading numbers, such as "two girls gave birth while in custody" without elaborating on the fact that those girls had proof of age that they chose to ignore and forced them to give birth under stressful conditions and gave them a dirty room to sleep in as if they were prisoners, which they were in every sense of the word.
This point needs to be driven home that the CPS did not see any pregnant teens, and they flat out lied that they did. They LIED! Get them to admit that in one way or another and the warrant is toast.
Patrick maintains the two adult pregnant women refused to identify themselves.
That's hogwash. Pamela identified herself: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.mother/
Louisa:
"She says she's 22 and has presented authorities with a driver's license and birth certificate to prove it. But CPS spokesman Chris Van Deusen told NBC that the department has classified her as a "disputed minor," "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24604291/
You and I both know he's lying.
Hugh, did you record the interview?
Well YEAH, WE know that,
What is fantastic is this makes Crimmins either a Kool-Aid dispenser, or a drinker. The latter is rather fantastic considering where he is employed.
The other possibility is that Crimmins simply thinks "they all look alike." He said that FLDS girls all looked the same. Essentially he's saying 14-40, no difference.
Them is HOT women, if they look 14 when they is 40. I'm goin' to Colorado City man, they's got some crazy little women there and I'm gonna, get me one......
I digress.
The point is if Crimmins sincerely thinks that 14-40, they all look alike, and that should excuse law enforcement, I can hardly begin to know where to go with that.
One question is, "Why not 40 Patrick?"
Cheese, no, I didn't record it. If I did that, I'd have to tell him I was in all likelyhood and I could be getting myself into trouble if I did that. Telling him I was recording probably would have made him clam up too. Crimmins has been decent to me so far, I want to keep it that way.
I did that once before to Governor Marc Racicot in Montana. It was in a grey area as to whether or not it was against the law. In actual fact it WAS against the law but the grey area was that Marc was both a public figure and politician, the Governor of Montana. Other precidents kinda made it hard to prosecute that law when it involved a politician.
I don't know the law in Texas, or here where I am, or the implications rising out of an interstate phone call. Patrick is not a public figure or at least one easily said to be, and he is not a politician and I certainly am not familiar enough with the laws in between here and there to go out on that limb and as I said, I didn't want to tell him I was recording and freeze him up. So I didn't tell him, and I didn't do it.
Since they've admitted the error (yeah, right!) on the disputed teenagers, one could assume those are the individuals the 2nd warrant was based on.
Skipping past how the 1st warrant could create problems here, this would not alter any probable cause created by the pregnant / kid with kids identified in the affidavit for that 2nd warrant.
I sense this helps us to conclude there prolly was not any in that condition that were actually between the ages of 14 and 17, but I'm not sure what else we'd get from it.
It's a lie most likely, but the error on the disputed teens looks to me as if admitting it sort of covers this problem (37 YO looks 17...).
There are no "kids with kids of their own" either kbp, and of course, we know that. What we're looking for is a clear admission that there are none. They we advance to asking the question of what the second warrant could now be based on, since of course, there are no instances of the things Texas claimed to see.
I think the question that should be asked next is "how many kids among the 37, are children of other kids among the 37?" Kinda turn it around a bit if you can see what I mean.
Did you catch Crimmins saying "they all look alike." Imagine ultimately if he were to use that as justification for the raid in court. Use that quote in court and Crimmins and co. could be sued to high heavens. As it stands, the CPS officials should be looking at false imprisonment charges for imprisoning Pamela and Louisa without cause, having evidence they were adults, which they chose to ignore. That was unjustified, and shows pure bigotry on the part of CPS.
Pharisee, regardless of whether it was one or two, (we know Le Ann 17 has a kid, and Pamela 18 has a kid), the question then becomes, how on earth do you conclude that based on two alleged instances of underage marriage (again as the appeals court ruled, there's no proof where these marriages took pace or the circumstances), granted that these two were the ones they will claim they saw with children, that this is enough probable cause to start a house-to-house search for underage marriage.
The idea is ludicrous, even if they were to assume the entire place was one household/family. Of course, if they can admit (which they have according to the appeals court ruling) that the authorities on the grounds recognized they were dealing with multiple households, then it's all over for the state. You can't do blanket searches. Blanket warrants are illegal. Period.
Pretty much, he said "you can't tell them apart," when referring to the fact that the dress the same and the age issue.
He's still hanging onto the belief, it would seem, that the FLDS girls and women were intentionally deceiving them, which is kinda weird and paranoid.
To expand a little on the previous remark, since NO underage teens that were pregnant were found, and it seems none of the girls had kids of their own, there was no need to deceive, because none of the girls qualified as a target.
He's in la-la land and someone needs to wake him up.
We're also arguing fact here. Proposition. "There are pregnant girls of young age and girls of young age with children."
Counter. Proof by absolute fact, there are no such girls.
Present this fact and then ask them on the stand "How could you be so misled." And then wait and watch them stammer. "They were misleading us." "It was dark." "I was scared."
Doesn't sound very professional. I'm sure a good cross examiner could ultimately get Voss and the others who made the claim that produced the cause for the second warrant, that what they were working on was a figment of their imagination and the product of preconceived notions and prejudices. Doesn't sound like good faith to me.
It doesn't sound to me z, that a judge or a jury under normal circumstances would give ear to such nonsense.
Judging from the election results it's going to be hard to pick a jury or a Judge (Ok, we know the Judge will have an agenda) that will look at the evidence and say, "Hey, you don't have any evidence."
If it were some guy that strolled into a store and got shot and they said it was because he had a gun on him, and later there was no gun, I'm sure he'd be in the drivers seat, provided he lived through the experience.
What we have here is someone shouting "GUN!" and there is no gun.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the previously discussed legal technicalities, I apologize sincerely in advance, and I ask:
How can we "assume that no officers of Texas law or CPS workers are or were psychotic" on that day, or continue to be so today?
Medicine.net offers a definition:
"Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. These illnesses alter a person's ability to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality and behave appropriately."
Sounds very much like the behavior presented by authorities at the time.
Note the addtional definition of schizophrenia includes delusions and hallucinations, so I offer the possibility that some may have been operating under the delusions of self-aggrandizement and omnipotence, and some may have hallucinated the images of pregnant teenagers.
On the other hand, Ms. Voss may well have been gifted with extra-sensory perceptions, and yes, been truly psychic.
Post a Comment