Wednesday, May 13, 2009

"Not a lot of evidence has been presented," Walther said. "There have been a lot of speeches this morning."

Wait, how is it that you give evidence of no evidence? Is "Athaliah" Walther asking that FLDS attorneys prove the negative? She's signaling her ruling here, in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence, namely, the overwhelming lack of evidence that there was a girl in distress at the ranch.
The San Angelo Standard Times - "The calls from Sarah are now believed to be a hoax, likely perpetrated by a 33-year-old Colorado Springs woman arrested on charges of making similar but unrelated calls in Colorado.

(Gerry) Goldstein said the person who made the call said she had been taken to a hospital, but it was later revealed no such person was admitted at the local hospital. The caller also initially refused to give a name or address, he said.

The caller also couldn't give the first name of the alleged husband until she was presented with several FLDS members' names, Goldstein said.

'The caller was given a multiple choice exam to her husband's first name,' Goldstein said.

Long was the only witness called so far, but it was early in the hearing and he was asked whether defendant Frederick Merril Jessop lived on the ranch and if he was considered the ranch leader. The defendants signed affidavits stating they reside on the ranch and follow the church's teachings.
This is why Rozita, who in my estimation has the IQ of a rock, sounded so convincing, she was given a script.

The ruling clearly will be for the inclusion of the evidence. "Athaliah" is already making speeches. Probably some of those very words will be used in the appeal to show she had her mind made up and was playing diva to the press.


Sphere: Related Content

3 comments:

TxBluesMan said...

Not that it is relevant, but Carolyn Jessop just sued Merril for Child Support...and the attorney representing her is Natalie Malonis...

ztgstmv said...

I think another independent laywer previously was quoted in the San Angelo Times as saying it would come down to the anonymity of the caller, i.e. is it proper to raid multiple households based on an anonymous phone call? How much verification needs to be done before probable cause is established through an anonymous call?

The Pharisee said...

Blues, what a shock. You. Natalie Malonis. I had that nailed from the moment you mentioned it elsewhere.