Friday, November 21, 2008

Marlo. A conclusion about the "Third Girl"

Let's just say I am now convinced that there was an underage girl or girls that were seen and were pregnant during the raid of YFZ. The chronology of disclosures in press accounts and by CPS contain errors and those errors masked the true chronology and made it seem as if certain "possibilities" were eliminated. I stand by my previous remarks that this is still not evidence of a crime. It's just not. Any honest observer knows this.

I was asking questions about the "Third Girl" in June that was said to be on the verge of giving birth. It appears that this did happen, that there was such a girl. I shall refer to her as the "Third Girl", or "That Girl" or "Marlo" from now on out. ("That Girl" - "Marlo," get it?)

I of course cannot know what people said to various law enforcement officers that day at YFZ. That will wait until someone gets into court and puts the facts into evidence. If some child said "This is my mommy and he's my daddy" with one of the underage teens, that would be pretty damning for instance.

My remaining concerns are the much harder to prove "conspiracy" to enter YFZ in the first place. Much of the evidence points to at least an informal one. I've pointed out before that even if there is no firm basis legally for the second warrant, the facts are beginning to resemble a firm legal basis and there will be enough people who will line up and say "that's good enough" and ignore the real issues. I am instructed by the overwhelming wins of the principles involved in the last election. Where are we going to find people who will be willing to be fair and say that seeing a pregnant teen in a community of people "known" to practice underage marriage is not cause?

Sphere: Related Content

6 comments:

ztgstmv said...

I think you yourself are convinced that the ranch was one household. It was not. The warrant was too broad. End of story. They didn't even know the identities of the families, whose belongings they were rummaging through for christ's sakes. At least ten of those families were monogamous, of age, and completely innocent. That one warrant covered those families? I think not. It will be thrown out.
These kind of righteous crusades might work in Iraq, but not right here in America; as long as people speak out against it.

The Pharisee said...

All of this I know. I'm just fairly convinced at this point that convictions are going to occur and appeals will have to be made before anyone ultimately notices that in a way that counts.

They're going to be tried by the people that reelected David Doran, Barbara Walther, Harvey Hildebran and those that publish the Eldorado Success.

"Marlo" does not represent a crime. But they turned the ranch inside out and upside down for something they could have seen on the presidential campaign trail this year, and that ticket got 48% of the vote.

kbp said...

1. "Where are we going to find people who will be willing to be fair and say that seeing a pregnant teen in a community of people "known" to practice underage marriage is not cause? "


2. ""Marlo" does not represent a crime."

Number 1 is "probable cause", though it in itself does not suffice to overcome all the other SW problems.

"Marlo" is evidence that creates suspicion of a crime.

I do not recall "Marlo" being identified in the 2nd SW (hard to tell really). McFadden did well at making general claims that could include "Marlo" in her 4/6 affidavit.

The Pharisee said...

I have every reason to believe that "Marlo" is real. This is the girl mentioned as giving birth on June 14th, and due in Walther's court Tuesday, the 25th. She is refusing. I know Marlo's real name, I'm not going to say it because of how I came across it.

Everything I now "know" says Marlo was seen that day at the ranch in a condition that Texas could discern as pregnant.

I agree with you that certain things don't follow from that sighting, not the least of which is that it represents evidence of a crime. Also based on what I have learned, it is truly very possible that Marlo was not impregnated in the state of Texas. This wouldn't be the dodge of the defense but very likely.

It also does not follow that you can go busting down every door at the Ranch even if Marlo does qualify as evidence of a crime just as you have observed.

What I believe about human nature at this point is that hand will go in they air, start waving around and eyes will start averting and claims will be made that you can't be understood on that point and it's "too complex" and "everybody knows" and "I don't want to talk about that."

Based on that deliberate misunderstanding and claims of nuance and complexity, judges, lawyers and juries will go on to declare the evidence is acceptable and prosecutions will proceed. and convictions will be obtained. It will then be the province of appeal to see if a new trial without such evidence can be obtained.

I fear Warren will die in Jail while all of this gets worked out. I have no love for the man, but I intensely dislike the injustice. I think where Warren goes in this mess, and the indicted men as well, should scare all religious leaders for good reason, none of which have to do with having sex with young girls.

ztgstmv said...

kbp says "Number 1 is "probable cause", though it in itself does not suffice to overcome all the other SW problems.

------

I think this question is a lot more complicated than it seems and it goes back to whether group prosecution is condoned and what kind of crimes can be "group crimes" and what ones are individual. If we conclude that statutory rape is an individual crime, than this third girl would be a fact supporting probable cause that her rapist alone was guilty.

The problem then is the identity of the rapist. If the government doesn't know his identity are they justified in razing every home within a five mile diameter to the ground searching for him? I think Constitutionally, the answer would be no, without exception.

On the other hand, if the girl did tell the authorities the identity of her husband (alleged rapist), and state to them that they did not have marriage license signed by a clerk, then the probable cause is necessarily restricted to her home for search purposes and specifically to her "husband" as a suspect. The probable cause ends there, now that the suspect has been identified. It does not extend to her monogamous neighbor.

Then the question becomes did the authorities have the right to interrogate her in the first place? That's when gritty justice kicks in, when you have counter suits and settlements.

The Pharisee said...

The "Third Girl" does not support the idea of "pervasive pattern," as if they had landed in a baby factory populated by brainwashed (unwilling) teens being systematically knocked up by older men.

She does not support the idea that her "husband" was older or even that she wasn't legally married. We all know such girls were married in the latest calender year data available from Texas. Texas was still marrying 14 year olds.

The only thing the visual evidence of her pregnancy supports was that she was pregnant. Nothing illegal is implied by her pregnancy. The category of all underage girls statutorily raped by older men and pregnant is a subset of all pregnant underage girls. Since there can easily be girls in one set, and not the other, Texas was not free to assume the girl in question was representative of an illegal act. She could simply be, pregnant.

What we do not know is if she opened her mouth and said something. She could have answered questions. "Are you married?" "Yes." "How old are you?" "16." "Did you get married in Texas?" "Yes." "Did a judge approve your marriage?" "No." "When did you marry?" "2007." "How old is your husband?" "42." "Is your husband the father of your child?" "Yes." "Are you married to another man, or have you been?" "No."

I somehow doubt those questions were even asked, much less answered in that way.

Even still that only justifies the arrest of one man, the search of one man's residence.

She must have also answered those questions freely. I suspect she also would have to have been advised of her rights as some aspect of what she did may be regarded as against the law. Law enforcement should also have asked for identification. As a minor, her parents were probably available, and should have been present. I think we can be sure these qualifying conditions were not met.

I still think that judges and juries both are ready to ignore these issues, for now.