Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Texas KNEW all along. The FBI continues to Stonewall on Swinton investigation.

Mark D. White of the Dallas office of the FBI continues to have my calls verbally screened. Today though, the message changed.
Instead of saying that he doesn't have the time, or that he has nothing for me, he's now changed to saying he can't talk to me.

That'll do I guess. I am forced to interpret this as YES, The FBI DID open a case on the Texas side of the inquiry into Rozita Swinton. I am also forced to interpret this as being they are sensitive on the date.

What this means, until I am supplied information to disabuse me of this notion is, that if revealed, the date of inquiry into Rozita's phone numbers would substantially alter the public perception of the case. It's TOXIC in other words.

Mark of course could ask me to print a retraction of this, but in doing so, he would have to tell us when it was that the FBI requested the information. He knows my number. From now on out, I will cite this conversation with the Dallas office of the FBI as proof that Texas or the Texas FBI knew about Rozita Swinton, prior to executing their search warrants.

I will be HAPPY to issue an immediate retraction, but to do so, I would have to have the acknowledgment that a case was opened, when it was opened, and who requested it.


Sphere: Related Content

21 comments:

cheese said...

Where's blues with his "the gastapo does no wrong" psycho-babble?

TxBluesMan said...

Let me get this straight.

You are getting no information from the FBI, so you are going to make something up? As in imagination?

Did anyone of any authority in the FBI or U.S. Attorney's Office tell you that there was an investigation? Or is it that you would like to believe there is an investigation, so you make one up?

You speak about the FBI needing to "disabuse me of this notion" - why? It is not their job to do so, nor to repeatedly answer your questions.

There is no need for White to ask you to print a retraction - you have clearly stated that you have no evidence of an investigation, nor of any complicity in a cover-up of any sort, right here on your blog.

Hugh, this is getting close to a malicious disregard for the facts. I would encourage you, in a friendly manner, to re-think this, before you proceed further and publish something that could be actionable by one of the officers involved...

The Pharisee said...

Malicious disregard for the facts? Well, I have to admit, you oughta be a good judge of that Blues.

ztgstmv said...

Ha! Blues, the facts are all we want! Pharisee asks for answers, and he gets none. He asked whether a case was open (presumably so that he can put in a FOI request), and he gets stonewalled. Why no answer to such a simple question?

The silence (absence of satisfactory details and timelines) on the part of LE of all stripes and their goaders is deafening. And that to me just screams conspiracy.

TxBluesMan said...

Ziggy,

If a case were open, that in and of itself bars a FOIA request from being successful. One of the reasons that he may not be getting an answer is because there is, in fact, an on-going investigation.

If that is the case, the FBI is not going to comment on it, and in many instances will not even confirm the existence of the investigation. It is called Exemption 7 (Law Enforcement) of the FOIA, and authorizes the agency to refuse to confirm (or to even deny existence of) any records or investigations.

It does not indicate a conspiracy (unless you believe that investigating Federal felonies is a conspiracy), merely that the FBI isn't going to talk to Hugh.

Hugh believes that if he doesn't get the information that he wants, that, in and of itself, means that he is free to manufacture any conclusion that he wants - which would be no different than me claiming to be the sole and rightful heir to the Kingdom of Scotland.

All it means is that they won't talk to him.

Anything else is speculation, and worth nothing as far as proof.

The Pharisee said...

It's the series of answers blues. It may not prove something in a court of law but it's simple.

First, I am told that a comment cannot be made with regard to an ongoing case. After I was told a case should have been opened for such activity.

Then I am told that I COULD be told that there was a case.

Then I am extensively avoided, as I was intitially.

Then I am told by Mark that he has "nothing for me."

Then I am told he is "very busy."

Then my calls begin to be screened.

Then the call screeners pass messages to me from Mark but Mark won't speak to me.

Then I am told that he CAN'T Speak to me.

TxBluesMan said...

Hugh,

I believe what you have related as to the sequence of events, the dodging of the calls, refusing to talk to you, etc.

What I have an issue with is you taking those limited facts and expanding that to state that this was "proof that Texas or the Texas FBI knew about Rozita Swinton, prior to executing their search warrants."

You have no proof, just supposition. This would be no different than me making an allegation that the picture of Warren Jeffs kissing an underage girl is unequivocal proof that he also had sexual intercourse with her.

The Pharisee said...

Ah, but you do make such accusations blues.

TxBluesMan said...

I believe that I indicated it was likely, not that it was 'proof.'

There is a considerable difference between the two...

Likely means that is probably happened, proof means that it did happen.

You cited it as 'proof.'

I cited the photo as a indication that sexual activity was 'likely.'

Big difference.

The Pharisee said...

Blues, you constantly cite conviction, as proof. In TEXAS no less, where conviction is only proof of conviction.

I've asked you this in another part of my blog. Perhaps you will answer here.

What does it mean for instance, if Allen Steed is acquitted or never tried? Does that affect your view of Warren Jeffs legal guilt or innocence? Would his conviction then be "doubtful" in your mind as an indication of his real guilt?

TxBluesMan said...

Legally, it makes no difference.

Utah, like Texas, does not distinguish between principle and accessory (or accomplice).

There is nothing to doubt on his guilt - he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers, and barring a successful appeal that overturns the conviction, he is, both de jure and de facto, guilty.

The Pharisee said...

In this particular case however Blues, if there is no principle, there can be no accessory.

Warren wasn't waiting in a getaway car as accomplice to a man who chickened out of the crime.

This is a unique circumstance, either Allen Steed raped Elissa Wall or the crime wasn't even contemplated. By anyone.

TxBluesMan said...

You do not have to convict, or even try the principle in order to convict the accessory.

Legally the trial, or lack thereof has no bearing on the conviction of Jeffs.

The Pharisee said...

Blues,

Typically, you don't deal with the issue. Legally, or otherwise, this is a unique fact set.

There can be no accomplice to rape if Allen is not a rapist. I realize what the law says, that's NEVER been lost on me, you didn't need to tell me, for me to know that.

Once again, this is a UNIQUE situation. Should a jury vote to acquit Allen Steed, they are in effect saying that no rape took place at all. Because the sex act is acknowledged by both parties, there is only one thing to determine. Was the sex consensual or can it be determined to NOT be consensual.

A vote to acquit says that no determination can be made to say the sex was NOT consensual.

It's not that they got the wrong man, Allen says he had sexual relations with Elissa Wall. Elissa Wall also stipulates to those same sexual encounters.

In this case, and probably no other in the history of this country and probably no other in it's future, if Allen is exonerated, it has to be said that functionally, so is Warren.

Legally? Different issue of course, but the legal design of such laws never envisioned this situation, which is in fact a distortion of all the intent of all the laws creators.

TxBluesMan said...

An acquittal means that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not that Steed was innocent or that the rape never occurred...

A criminal jury has only that charge - to determine if the offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing in the jury's finding will indicate if the thought that it was likely that she was raped, or if a preponderance of the evidence showed she was raped.

One jury has already made that determination.

Jeffs is a registered sex offender and convicted felon.

Period.

The Pharisee said...

Blues, either answer the comparison to DNA exoneration, or there's nothing more that you have to contribute in this discussion.

cheese said...

Hugh, blues is hoping for a "position" in Obama's new police state!

Stuki said...

Blues, if you're still reading this thread;

not being a lawyer I'm a bit confused by this:

Assume it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Steed raped Wall.

This would, by simple negation, establish there exists reasonable doubt that Steed raped Wall.

Now, how can Jeffs be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been accessory to this rape, the same one that there is, in fact, reasonable doubt took place at all?


I mean, can I be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have killed someone, who there exists reasonable doubt is even dead?

The Pharisee said...

What blues will not deal with are the unique aspects of Warren's case, and conviction.

One is that there was no premeditation on his part. Warren creates a mindset, and others, acting on the mindset he promotes go and perform specific acts. In this case, Allen Steed. Elissa wall for her part is more compliant, or devoid of hope.

For Warren to remain convicted, when Allen is acquitted, the circumstance of rape evaporates, and their being no premeditation of the specific crime, the accomplice part evaporates. Warren and Allen do not plan on such and such a date, to do violence to Elissa Wall.

What Blues also proposes is that once a conviction is in place, is that truth is established. He equivocates. The set of actual truth intersects with legal convictions in criminal matters, and our fervent hope is that the two sets become nearly identical, but they are not.

To extend Blues equivocation, he would have us believe no conviction is ever reversed on matters of fact. This is indeed rare, but it does happen. This is why I mention DNA, which is often a fact that reverses a conviction.

If Allen is not convicted, then an unplanned specific act is shown to have never occurred. Allen and Warren did not actively or specifically plot Elissa's rape.

It is not as if there are any other candidates for Elissa's rapist. Allen is the only possible candidate, you can consider that the two of them lived in a locked room together.

Warren did not go to another man and encourage him to rape Elissa Wall. He is the only candidate for primary for which Warren acts as an accomplice.

It thus boils down to, "Did Warren's teaching actually cause Allen to Rape Elissa?" and if the answer is no, then Warren is only a felon in technical fact. He is a felon awaiting the voiding of his conviction just as a man on death row for the murder/rape of a woman he is then shown not to have raped, or even have been present for the event.

He will be set free if there is justice, just as Warren would be if Allen is not convicted.

As I continue to point out, Warren is not waiting in the getaway car, and is arrested, only to find out that Allen chickened out. In that case he WOULD still be guilty.

Stuki said...

"What Blues also proposes is that once a conviction is in place, is that truth is established."

That's where I'm a bit vague on how the legal system works.

Does a later ruling, that one of the facts that a previous ruling depended on being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, can in fact not be proven to such a standard, automatically force a reconsideration of the previous ruling?

Or is each decision presumed to exist in a vacuum, with no automatic decision body rebalancing and back propagation required?

And, if the latter, can a defendant appeal to a higher court to have the inconsistency resolved, presumably, to protect the defendant in the latter case from double jeopardy, in his favor?

The Pharisee said...

Once an underlying fact is undermined, the defense usually tries for a new trial, the prosecution then declines to prosecute. Sometimes charges are dismissed after a new trial is granted, with extreme prejudice, stating essentially, that the prosecution no longer believes the charges to have been meritorious in the first place.