A deposition that NO ONE on the defense side of the FLDS equation, knew about.
Well, they do now.
Thanks to a poster on the other side (everyone's good for something you know), It dawned on me. I've been saying that Rozita's relationship with Maggie Santos and her "partner," wasn't on the record.
Well, actually it was, in this "deposition."
As soon as the trial starts, don't those things come out? In the process of defending his client, David Foley would point out the relationship of Maggie Santos and Rozita Swinton (and Maggie's partner) and who knows who else.
So the trial is delayed, and delayed, and delayed, and delayed.
I'd say that's pretty plausible, because once the trial starts, it's now on the record, for everyone. That's why the FLDS trials in Texas have to start, before Rozita is tried. Sounds plausible. Doesn't it?
If the plausible is the actual, there are a lot more people involved in covering this up because you don't delay trials for the reasons given about, without someone's participation and/or appreciation and/or request and/or a quid pro quo.
Sorry Rozita, if I'm right, I just took away a trump card. I hope you have others. Like maybe someone asked you to call.
If all of the above is TRUE. Texas probably knows about the deposition, and has withheld that knowledge, from the defense.
Well, they do now.
Thanks to a poster on the other side (everyone's good for something you know), It dawned on me. I've been saying that Rozita's relationship with Maggie Santos and her "partner," wasn't on the record.
Well, actually it was, in this "deposition."
As soon as the trial starts, don't those things come out? In the process of defending his client, David Foley would point out the relationship of Maggie Santos and Rozita Swinton (and Maggie's partner) and who knows who else.
So the trial is delayed, and delayed, and delayed, and delayed.
I'd say that's pretty plausible, because once the trial starts, it's now on the record, for everyone. That's why the FLDS trials in Texas have to start, before Rozita is tried. Sounds plausible. Doesn't it?
If the plausible is the actual, there are a lot more people involved in covering this up because you don't delay trials for the reasons given about, without someone's participation and/or appreciation and/or request and/or a quid pro quo.
Sorry Rozita, if I'm right, I just took away a trump card. I hope you have others. Like maybe someone asked you to call.
If all of the above is TRUE. Texas probably knows about the deposition, and has withheld that knowledge, from the defense.
Sphere: Related Content
9 comments:
I just wanted to let you know to be sure you run spy ware program on TXB site- a warning came up when I went to her site.
Most people have a hard time believing cops can be corrupt - they have seen too many tv shows with wonderful caring cops- not the reality. I grew up knowing how it really works.
You have to realize cops are professionals - they understand the natural consequences of their actions. A cops who work in ICAC would know the outcome of a hoax call.
Which is the very scary and sad part - because then you realize the cops knew a hoax call like that could certainly result in another Waco raid - they would also know it would almost guarantee children who be subjected to needless invasive exams (which in my opinion is child rape by proxy). So *if* it turns out they knew or were involved it either means they wanted children killed and have non medically necessary invasions of children’s bodies or they didn’t care if it happened.
The sad, sad part is these cops are supposed to PROTECT children.
If they were involved in the hoax call - they could have put a stop to the cruelty at any point - they didn’t care when the toddlers were ripped from their mother’s arms or when a child cried so hard it hydrated.
These are the cops/FBI agents who are protecting children.
Cops would know this “prank” call would be much more than a prank call if they were involved.
I’m worried now though, *if* this department was involved they are certainly a group of sociopaths and they certainly have at least the protection (or knowing they will look the other way) of the FBI. It’s one thing to beat a suspect when your emotions run high - it’s entirely another thing to plan a hoax which would hurt children.
If they are willing to do all of this to children - I worry about what they would do to someone who would try to expose them. After all, *if* they were involved one more hoax wouldn’t make a difference to them.
This is all *if* they were involved.
IHB,
If there is a virus or malware on or in Blues site (I like that "her" business) then it is in all "blogger" sites.
TxBluesMan runs a standard google "blogger" site. It's free to anyone who wishes to sign up, but it's probably less liable to carry malware, than the pentagon's site.
One small problem Pharisee the evidence right now against Rozita, is all mostly circumstantial and that is after a search warrant of her apartment didn't produce definitive evidence, so incurring the cost of trial if a mediation is possible instead has caused the delays. Guess you need to find that escape-goat to keep your legalization of polygamy campaign alive in Vermont. Ransacking Rozita's apartment and even removing her computer to Texas for forensic technical analysis has not produced enough 'ironclad' evidence to convict, sort of says something in favor of the "Towering Idiot", doesn't it?
No use squandering public resources at trial over a misdemeanor with only circumstantial evidence better give the two sides time to reach an amicable accord the Court can endorse and approve.
Jam,
I'm only publishing this post of yours as an illustration.
Either state that you DO know Rozita, or that you do not.
If you do, I will continue to entertain the possibility of posting such claims. You speak as if you know her personally and know "something" and know she has been treated unjustly.
If that however is merely your opinion, I will ask you to serve up your opinion with facts, as I have.
I am all ears if Rozita was "Set up." I will also be all over myself in apologetic remorse. Simply making wild conspiracy theory claims is nothing. Your story could fit the facts, but your story has no facts, so your story is a guess, a "hypothesis."
Mine is a full blown "theory," namely it is a guess based on circumstances, like your hypothesis, but I have done the ground work of finding supportive facts for my hypothesis, which then makes it a THEORY.
Both of us could be wrong, but you're engaged in conspiracy speculation or "conspiracy theory" (that means your guess involves an unproved or unprovable explanation) and I am engaged in research and reporting, which might find a "conspiracy."
Conspiracies and conspiracy theory are very different things.
Pharisee my storyline stands the test of time. You don't have facts to back up any claims about Becky Hoerth, Rozita Swinton or Terry Thormston are lesbians other than they all know Lt. Maggie Santos, do you count this as a fact of sexual preference? You have posted the assertion, did I miss your disclaimer? Any facts on Rozita being a NARC informant or 'Go-to- person' for fake search warrant victim(s) or professional child-voice poser?
These items are encased in your 'theory' but have no facts to position them into the theory other than your fertile innuendos.
Right now you have a babysitter job done by Rozita Swinton back in 1995-97 time frame for a few months. Lt. Kirk Wilson affirmed that Lt. Santos knew Rozita in there past but maybe not that she had babysat for a few months for her. You claim the relationship was for years, that they kept the relationship possibly up to current events, that there is some sexual lesbian triste at play and Lt. Maggie Santos or her significant other played some interference in Rozita's investigation for crank calls to abuse shelters. These baseless points have no facts yet you hang them in and upon your 'Theory'.
This sure waddles like a conspiracy theory, quacks like a conspiracy theory and none of it needed to be placed into post until you had substantiated it far more than you have already. As the recent movie "Doubt" discusses rumors are like feathers emptied from a torn pillow they float about and aren't so easily gathered back once the wind takes hold of them.
You have drug Rozita Swinton's reputation across your Field of Theory, haven't you any shame? How mush harm are you willing to subject her to and later merely proffer your heartfelt apology, my God man your an insufferable blowhard.
Jam,
The fact that Maggie was still interacting with Rozita is documented in her April arrest warrant last year. I can't help it if you don't go read it and see the name "Magdalena Santos (980D)."
The fact that this interaction also accompanied a contemporary relationship is evidenced by the fact that Lt. Kirk Wilson of Internal affairs says that Rozita's uncharacterized relationship with Maggie was "common knowledge" around the department.
People don't commonly know who your babysitter was in 1997. Heck, I work with people that don't even notice I wear a beard.
Thus I have evidence that Maggie knew Rozita back then per Maggie, and I have evidence that Maggie knew Rozita last year, to the degree that it was "common knowledge."
Maggie lied it would seem.
I find the lesbian factor interesting. They are EVERYWHERE I go in this story. That's HIGHLY unusual.
Of the homosexual community, last time I checked, male homosexuals comprise the bulk of the homosexual population. No matter how you slice it, homosexuals are and probably always will be a minority. It's the breeding thing.
To find so many of them concentrated around one case, and in addition, so may of the variety that some might call a "bull dyke" is a bit eyebrow raising.
I live in Montpelier VT. ANYTHING goes there. I don't know that many Lesbians nor do I see that many Lesbians there, but in this case? Wall to Wall Lesbians. I want to know why that is because such an over-representation of any minority around one seemingly non connected case is a fact of interest. It speaks to an AGENDA, and if there is one, I want to know what it is.
PS
I would point out that I regularly contract what might be called "lesbian life partners" who buy merchandise jointly as two halves of a "civil union."
What I see in the mindsets and physical types of persons who come in to my office on a regular basis, as lesbians, is NOT represented by what I see in the case surrounding the FLDS.
I'm just telling you. I deal with open homosexuals in homosexual unions all the time. This, is different.
Pharisee the "Arrest Warrant" for Rozita recounts that Lt. Magdalena Santos took a phone call from a Jenna Hamilton from Cocoon House, Washington concerning a caller "April" from 719-719-7329 & 447-7981, she shared that she had also called Rampart H.S. Councilor Catherine DiNuzzo. This is all duly recorded in the Exhibit "A", how would that infer any wrong doing by Lt. M. Santos? Does the crank call numbers match Rozita's numbers or known alias? The later numbers associated for 'Sarah' are 719-339-8249/243-2866, so alias don't match and numbers don't match and Lt. Santos was supposed to make a connection? In fact there is a "Karen", "Dana"(Rozita's actual given alias on the "Arrest Warrant") and "Ericka" that adds to the calls into the CSPD blotter in/around the same time. Some similarities and numbers match-up but not "April" to "Sarah"?
You're leaving out the fact that this call occurred in February of 2007.
Post a Comment