Friday, October 30, 2009

Flu Schmu

It really was an excuse to vet a witness. If the witness is for the prosecution, what will Walther do?
The Salt Lake Tribune - "Amy Smuts, a forensic analyst with the University of North Texas Health Science Center, testified without the jury present so 51st District Judge Barbara Walther could rule whether she was a relevant and reliable state witness.

The judge made that finding after Smuts' 2 1/2 hour turn on the witness stand."
So Walther does rule the witness is reliable. The defense protested that Smuts had used a different set of probabilities earlier. Yet another possible basis for appeal, should Raymond be convicted.

What did I tell you?
"Walther has not yet said whether the jury will be called back (today) to hear more testimony in the case against Jessop, who faces a second-degree charge of sexual assault of a minor."
There is no concern regarding the possible swine flu infection of a juror or her child. We just needed a minute or two alone, away from the jury.


Sphere: Related Content

25 comments:

Jam Inn said...

There was a 'Motion to Suppress' the DNA, it's been ruled as valid and now it can be presented as evidence. Seems like a fairly routine process, other than the Defense went to the extent of trying to quash the DNA experts testimony, science and method. Monday trial resumes and DNA evidence will be presented.

The Pharisee said...

Thank you Captain Obvious.

The point is that the "flu" story was used to cover for the fact that a struggle was going on.

Walther is not going to deny a single prosecution wish.

Walther is not going to uphold a single defense motion.

This is not because the FLDS case is thin, it's because Walther is part of the prosecution.

The flu story was an attempt to minimize press attention to the DNA business.

I figure the DNA evidence DOES belong in the trial if you assume the evidence was taken lawfully at the ranch, which Walther has done.

The state's DNA expert is probably a good one. I have little doubt that it will be established that Raymong Jessop is a strong favorite for father of the child.

What we do not know at this point is; how close a relative are other men at the ranch?

Does it matter since I see nothing in the offing that places either the mother of the child at the ranch or the father of the child at the ranch at the moment of conception. It's going to be rather hard to pin down that exact moment anyway.

Always there is the question of that "Mexican Vacation."

What if Mrs. Jessop takes the stand and says "I was in Utah...." or "I was visiting Bountiful?"

Stamp said...

"Always there is the question of that "Mexican Vacation."

What if Mrs. Jessop takes the stand and says "I was in Utah...." or "I was visiting Bountiful?""

hmmmm

Got a diary? Pictures? Cell phone records? Witnesses? Plane ticket stubbs?

Or do you actually think the jury would just take her word for it?

Regardless, they were married there and everyone knows what you do on your wedding night.

The excuse they dont have sex until its legal wont wash - there was a baby - oh yeah wait, that turkey baster defense!

The Pharisee said...

Stamp,

Thanks for the illustration of your legal mind. It more goes along the lines of "Boo-yah, that won't work, GO TEAM."

I realize entirely that it might not work, but the fact is, it should. Unless Raymond Jessop is called to the stand, or his "bride" is as well, there will be no testimony to that effect and Walther SHOULD specifically instruct the jury that absent proof he WAS at the ranch, or in Texas, the jury can't ASSUME he was.

Walther won't do that, so it comes down to what the jury will do.

As a matter of Law Raymond Jessop shouldn't have to say ANYTHING. Unless he is placed in Texas during the specific window of time for conception, the ENTIRE time, or unless similarly his bride is, or unless some combination of facts the prosecution presents ONLY has them being together when in Texas, he cannot be held to have broken Texas law.

Ask ME what I was doing on that particular October and where I was when that child was conceived. Heck, ask me what I was doing and where I was when my first son was conceived.

I can tell you by implication where I was and what I was doing but I can't pin down the specific day and time.

I'm thinking Raymond "Can't Recall" either and that's hardly incriminating.

karateka said...

"Regardless, they were married there and everyone knows what you do on your wedding night."

Actually, different cultures do different things on their wedding night There is ample evidence that what the FLDS do on their wedding night in arranged marriages is not what most of the world does both before and after the wedding night. I supposed you missed it a year ago when the state was asked how they were going to show that someone was sexually asulted when the state's own exam showed them to be a virgin.

Once again, the anti-FLDS are jumping to conclusions without any understanding. They profess outrage at polygamy, while they like to ignore the bigamy of Texas Oil icon H. L. Hunt.

439-0!

Jam Inn said...

Pharisee you always are such a champion of truth seeking?

The Pharisee said...

I don't care what the truth is Jam, I'd just like to know what it is in this case.

If you go on some dumb tirade again about how "you can't prove Rozita called," or "you think Rozita is a lesbian" then I submit to you that you want to believe the 99.9998% paternity probability number.

You believe what you want to believe, you could care less about the truth.

In addition, I've said plenty of times that I think Raymond Jessop is the father and that the men are guilty of what they have been charged with but that doesn't seem to register. I say this realizing there may be no proof the "crime" occurred in Texas, in which case, I'm wrong, and they aren't guilty even with the evidence being valid.

I object strenuously by which method the evidence was brought forward. I think the search was illegal, and all fruits of that tree should be swept aside.

Stamp said...

Hugh

Its all recorded they moved and were married there.

The thought they would be out and about for conception as you suggest is disingenuous - if that defense is your "legal mind", that just because she was kept on a gated fenced compound its possible she conceived elsewhere - while providing no proof what so ever that she was ever allowed off the ranch - well it is a pretty sorry thing to have to use as a defense -

Do ya really, honestly, think they could get away with it?

Stevens seems confident, I think thats false Bravado. I tend to go with how Blues predicts it.

JMHO

The Pharisee said...

Stamp,

I am in regular contact with several FLDS men. They move about in connection with their chosen trades.

They also move about by design just in case something like this does occur. That is one of the reasons for instance, that Hildale and Colorado City (Short Creek) were chosen by the FLDS. They prefer border areas because of the legal confusion it causes. Bountiful for instance, is right across the US/Canadian border.

The only reason I know where my children were conceived is that I didn't go on any trips out of state with my wife during the rough time frame of that event.

You can concede everything in this case except one fact. Raymond can give it up that he is a bigamist, he can give it up that he is the father. He can forsake the "turkey baster" defense, he can give up all of it. If he insists that he was not in Texas when he cohabited with his "bride," Texas must show that he was.

There has been a lot of talk on your side of the fence that location doesn't matter. That would be true if location didn't make a thing no crime at all. I could have a house built on a border with the bedroom split right down the middle by a state line and if the furniture was rearranged, I would be a felon, and if not, I'd just be a "sly old dog."

So location, does matter.

Last Stamp, I don't think any of you "ANTI" FLDS posters get it. I honestly think the men are guilty.

At no point have I hoped they would "Get away with it."

If Texas had come in to YFZ to search for bigamists with a warrant describing that act as cause, I think we wouldn't be arguing this point at all. What we would be doing is waiting for a SCOTUS decision at some point in the future on the validity of anti bigamy laws. You did read about Buffalo Bill didn't you?

Texas wanted the children, and the convictions. They now desperately need a conviction to justify their actions. They also seem to be participating in a "destroy the FLDS" scheme. They searched illegally. The warrant was bogus. To this day none of you can tell me what they "Saw" that was the exigent circumstance that led to their continued presence and search.

That's my beef Stamp. I haven't heard one of you name one specific individual seen by one specific member of LE that was doing something they could determine, was illegal.

Jam Inn said...

Pharisee dumb is laying acussations or theoties that you later can't prove not that they're valid just that you go off hald-cocked. Rozita is innocent until proven guilty. She's not even charged with the YFZ Affair. Where's your "NannyGate"? Guess your one man Judge/Jury trial can't deliver, again. I don't agree that the "Dirty Dozen are guilty until convicted but you seem to think your judging in advance of the proof or evidence makes you a big authority. Your brand of freedom being diminished is only concerned with the power applied by the State and a fanatical church sect can run amuck and that's OK with you.

Good Luck on your legalized Vermont polygamy lobby because it isn't going to happen anytime soon if the FLDS Church actions end up with a series of felony convictions. Polygamy is not what the vast majority of Americans want to see legalized in our free society, just an extreme minority that will be dealt with legally. Too bad amongst your precious freedoms you fail to give 'innocent until proven guilty' a fairer weight of importance.

The Pharisee said...

Jam,

The IA investigation has not yet concluded. Either that or it just did and they haven't notified me as of yet. Trust me, "Nanny Gate" as you term it, is not over, yet. I'm in a poor position in Vermont to pursue it, but it is being pursued. There may be a story to that effect you can access this week.

Or not.

I am unable to control the actions of others.

I also fail to understand how a series of felony convictions, for acts that are entirely similar to legal acts, harm my case with regard to polygamy.

The ONLY reason that what Raymond Jessop almost certainly did is a felony is that he CAN'T register his marriage legally.

If Raymond Jessop had no other wives save the young woman who is the evidence in this case, he could have legally married her, in Texas. Texas has been marrying off 13, 14 and 15 year olds throughout this entire debacle. To men with no other wives.

Jam Inn said...

The state decides licensing and has passed bigamy laws instead of legalizing polygamy. Do you see the will of the people within there anywhere. Bigamy laws are meant to bolster and support the monogamy system every State in our Union has adopted. There was no argument on this issue during our American Revolution and polygamy traces it's roots to early Mormonism which formed in the 1830s and not in 1776. Your Biblical arguments find no basis in American civil law and claiming it falls within US Constitutional grounds finds no precedence or rulings with the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court passed on hearing Holm vs. Utah is the most recent proof that Reynolds vs. United States will continue to limit religious freedom. The majority of America will never endorse a broadened religious freedom to simply embrace polygamy as some desired/needed freedom, it's not.

Stamp said...

Hugh

Perhaps it was Warrens FBI fugitive status and consequent conviction that clued Texas in, that the rumors were true.

I am thankful that you recognize that the men appear guilty.

Playing hopscotch as they have seems to have cost them in many ways - they are so sneaky the entire religion is falling apart on them.

OK maybe I was being mean by calling Warren and his posse sneaky - or perhaps I was giving him too much credit.

Regardless, look at the fine mess he got them into.

And yes, I think continued cases like this, Alamo, Travesser, and Hawkins, bring the legalized polygamy effort nothing but poison.

Kind of like what NAMBLA has done for the gay rights movement.

The Pharisee said...

Jam,

Gotta ask you. The will of the majority was such that "separate but equal" laws were allowed in the United States.

Do you find this the correct way of doing things or do you find the protection of minority rights to be the correct method?

Rights, as framed in our constitution, apply to the less powerful (the powerful merely take what they want in the absence of law and rights) and the minority (because majorities form power and defraud the minority).

Going on and on about the "State did this" or the "State did that" isn't the final answer in our country. We are NOT a democracy, we are a Federal republic with a constitution, and rights.

Furthermore, attaching Polygamy to the faith of the Later Day Saints is wrong. Worldwide the greater part of the practitioners of Polygyny (the most frequent form of Polygamy) are not LDS. There are and have been all along, Jewish practitioners. You should look up Yemenite Jews.

Though less common, there have always been Christian Polygynists. Research Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne.

You offer proofs of legal precedent as proofs of correctness and as truth. They are neither though the certainly govern until overturned.

The Pharisee said...

Stamp,

Texas officials did not base any of their warrants on the actions of Warren Jeffs, who was, by the way, in jail at the time.

I have always believed that the 12 men are guilty. This is a technical point. They must not JUST be guilty, the must be apprehended in a manner in accordance with the law. They must be tried then, in legal fashion, and found guilty. It continues to amaze me that you simply allow any behavior on the part of the police, because in the end, they "caught" someone. Too many things are illegal in this country. If someone calls in a "rumor" on you, and if your sock drawers are turned inside out and all your records are sequestered and poured over for over a year, do you think you might be found to have broken a law? Does finding such a broken law justify the search? I don't think you really believe this. It applies to the FLDS or it doesn't apply to you and you should fear that greatly. The state with effective unlimited power to search and prosecute on what amounts to a grudge or a whim is the personification of tyranny. Better to let the FLDS go.

As far as their religion falling apart, did you check that assumption? Their numbers are growing.

I agree that their rather devious ways have caused attention to fall upon them in in that way, they got what they were asking for. In this country, once again, you don't ever ask for illegal search an seizure.

I reject entirely the notion that Polygamy is equated with NAMBLA in any more than the way such things are conducted as long as they are not legal, and in the way which they might become legalized. If find "Gay marriage" to be an oxymoron and an affront to God, but it doesn't change the fact that a court case in Vermont that challenges the law that allows gay marriage as it now stands, passed by a VETO OVERRIDE in Vermont, may very well make polygamy legal here.

Stamp said...

"As far as their religion falling apart, did you check that assumption? Their numbers are growing".

>> No, their religion isnt growing, they recruit no one, and have exed hundreds over the last few years - the only growth has been child birth

-----------------------
"I reject entirely the notion that Polygamy is equated with NAMBLA"

>> I didnt say they were, only that gay rights have perhaps suffered because of it, and use it as a comparison, as bad polygamy abuse news is bad for legalizing Polygamy.

--------------------

"I have always believed that the 12 men are guilty. This is a technical point. They must not JUST be guilty, the must be apprehended in a manner in accordance with the law"

>> IMHO they were. It sucks for them, but then, it sucks for them.

If you have a big MJ farm and the animal cops go there looking for an abused dog, guess what. You are busted.

Thats what happened. The best defense is "Keep it legal"...

The Pharisee said...

Stamp,

That particular word that you used, is one for which I have a strong aversion. Do not use it again, here. I regard it to be an ugly and profound obscenity.

Stinks to be you is fine.

You still fail to tell me, as all on your side have failed to tell me, what it is that was seen, who was seen, and who saw it at the ranch that day.

Sure, you can name WHAT you think was seen, but if it was, you can tell me who was seen and who saw it.

The fact is nothing was seen and for that reason, no one saw it. Therefore, failing to find Sarah, Texas had to pack up and leave, but they did not.

Jam Inn said...

Can't you just table that Islam is the worlds biggest practitioner of polygamy? Why tippy-toe around by mentioning Yemenite Jews or reference Charlemagne. My point was in American history there is no founding or US Constitution argument that concerned polygamy, unless Muslims, Jews and polygyny Christian fought in the American Revolution. Do you honestly believe that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' clause is endorsed or manifest in the FLDS Church congregation? The FLDS Church preaches outright ownership in men women and children by their Prophet and Priesthood. Doesn't this offend some rights contained wthin the US Constitution. I know you state that is their choice but I submit is it really? Does our US Constitution provide for anyone, beyond the Government, to diminish or deny parts of anyone's rights at any time? Of course NOT. The FLDS Church practices tenets and doctrines that place direct constraints upon granted rights, there is no lawful right of slavery to be practiced nor protecting pedophilia as a religious freedom. You choose to be blind to the sedition and fanatical tenets under some misguided libertarian values. The FLDS Church looks to the emergence of their hoped for Theocracy and not our 'Gentile' governance. Religious fundamentalists and libertarians make for a very odd couple. The bigger picture is that you truly don't align with the FLDS Church either Constitutionally or religiously but your stuck in defending the Bill of Rights with a subversive group that doesn't even fully endorse the US Constitution but rather espouse their tenets and doctrines as 'separate and superior'.

The YFZ Ranch search warrants and subsequent charges were based originally upon observations and appearances which are valid enough for Law Enforcement authorities to act upon, there is no requirement to witness an actual crime and very rarely occurs that way before arrest/charges are made. Rape doesn't have to be witnessed in order to bring charges or make arrests.

The Pharisee said...

I am well aware that Muslims are one of the largest groups practicing polygyny in the present day, Jews however, have a several thousand year head start on them, and while it is only a minority of them, they haven't ever ceased practicing polygyny. Tertullian was still griping at Jewish (but converted) polygynists in the early church in the 2nd century after Christ. Charlemagne was a polygynist and Holy Roman Emperor, the practice has never died out in Christianity's precursor religion, and though flickering, has never been fully absent from Christianity. A great hymn writer of the reformation was polygynist. Luther wrote in grudging acceptance of it, Augustine, more positively.

Shall we discuss Jefferson's concubinage if we are going to discuss the American Revolution or the writers of it's constitution?

The FLDS are free to believe what they believe about "ownership." They may not enforce that beyond the disciplining of the church, which is to be "cast out." From all outward appearances they seem to stick to that. They are, like it or not, free to do that. A right you do not take full advantage of that you have in the constitution does not offend the constitution, a right trampled on by the state, destroys the constitution.

I have Jam, always maintained that the FLDS submit to all laws, and if they wish to have young girls have sex with older men, there are legal ways to do that. One of them is to make sure the older man legally marries her. This is done, can be done, and is legal, even in Texas. My gripe about the whole country is that in outlawing polygyny they make what a single man does legally (marrying and having sex with an "underage" girl), illegal.

You said:

"The YFZ Ranch search warrants and subsequent charges were based originally upon observations and appearances which are valid enough for Law Enforcement authorities to act upon, there is no requirement to witness an actual crime and very rarely occurs that way before arrest/charges are made."

As I have always maintained. You cannot say WHO saw WHAT happening to WHOM or WHAT evidence of a crime that happened at YFZ that was the "exigent circumstance" justifying the continued search. If it was just suspicion, then the warrants should have named those suspicions, and why they thought they were correct. They didn't.

You can only say what was found when the search continued, and continued and continued.

A pregnant teenager is not Prima Facie evidence of a crime being committed.

No one on your side can say WHAT was seen, by WHOM. That's because they peeked at the answers in the back of the book. That's what I'm requiring of you that you are unable to give. You have the answer, I agree that the answer was correct, illegal acts of the variety described in the charges for which the men are being tried DID OCCUR.

Just as in algebra class though, you need to show your work, if you can't, you flunk.

Stamp said...

Who is flunking is the FLDS.

Bigamy is illegal in Texas, they entered the ranch and saw hundreds of bigamists milling about.

Done deal, dude!

You may not agree with the law, but that doesnt mean you dont have to abide by it.

The Pharisee said...

None of you can show your work, you get an "F."

Sorry Stamp, cheerleading is NOT an argument. Please refrain from doing so here.

"Done Deal" is the same thing a mafioso says when he caps someone, and it is true, it's done.

We're discussing what's right and you still cannot tell me:

WHO WAS IT?

WHAT DID THEY SEE (evidence of a Crime)?

And since that crime was almost certainly evidence in a person, which person did they see that was that evidence?

We already know that the Rangers couldn't figure out what age the girls were, and besides that, as I have repeated stated, and as other have as well, a pregnant teen is evidence of nothing else other than the fact she is pregnant.

Jam Inn said...

I know pharisee that you don't agree that the search warrants were lawful, but seeing that your not the judge, search warrants were issued. The warrants gave permission to search and seize evidence that was ,also, a reason for the search. The specific individuals are named or protected because of the victims age. Nine charges of sexual assault are filed, illegal bigamy marriages and tampering with evidence. The indictments are brought, the victims are known and the trials are scheduled. The specific information you proclaim isn't known is being held in evidence awaiting trial and some protections are in place to protect minors/victims. Sorry, not having all of the investigation information displayed before trial would be trying the cases in the Press and set off another of your false accusations that something illicit has transpired. Can't have victims rights protected and all specific details of evidence on display prior to trial. The trial, is the algebraic equation, and the Jury is tasked with it's calculation not me. You can continue to float your theories and await events that usually points out your errors in thinking. For your information, you failures to date are accumulating and your the student in risk of failure.

The Pharisee said...

Jam, you seem concerned about the FLDS "Getting away with" things, how about the Judge? Walther has been reverse over 400 times, cumulatively, in these cases already. Do you suppose she will not be reversed again? She may not have to wait until her cases are appealed, the undermining of her decision may start in Arizona. I am NOT the Judge, and perhaps that is the problem.

It is not the case that they saw "Nine Pregnant Girls" at the Ranch, and subsequently filed charges. To my knowledge, nameless or not, Texas has yet to say "I saw 'Girl X' that was pregnant" and named which person saw that "Girl X." There has been so far, no connecting of the dots. That is necessary for the continuing action to be justified IMHO. Additionally, the fine points of law cannot be so fine and so obscure as to make them unknowable by you or I.

It's simple in my view, and should be. The police must have probable cause, something you know many of us don't think existed.

Discounting that belief and stating as they knew the facts, Texas DID have probable cause, then the next problem arises. Who did they see, that was pregnant? I can tell you that NONE of the girls seen "pregnant" on the ranch that day, if they were seen, are minors now. They could be identified. If not, a case number of pseudonym, like Subject "X" pregnant with "Baby Doe."

The simple fact of the matter is that none of you have supplied this series of sightings and events necessary to make the barest of cases that Texas SAW something that day.

To progress to sequestered interviews with children, to collecting evidence, to issuing another warrant (though not necessarily in that order) they had to see something and they did not or you could identify that incident for me.

You additionally have either special knowledge or a faith that Texas will produce these things, and they have not, as of yet. That will NOT be argued in court, since the evidence has been ruled admissible. That can only now be argued on appeal.

Furthermore, your "Victims" who you say have "special rights," as I have noted before, are all now adults, and they have been universally hostile to the prosecution. They now must legally be construed to have volition and the right to exercise it. The classification of them as "victims" is technical and legal, not actual. You equivocate between these two things, and you should not. They do not regard themselves as victims. They want Texas to Go Away and not take the fathers of their children away and not separate them from their husbands.

Jam Inn said...

Pharisee the legal term victim is in these charges means the recipient to a perpetrators act(s) that results in a condition or circumstance not under the control of said victim. There's no equivocation these 'Child Brides' lost their innocence and several where impregnated. Certainly, you don't suggest calling the adult perpetrator the 'victim'? Janet was only 14 years of age and a mother at 15 years. The sexual assault laws don't make allowances for victims to file discalimers or drop charges, though I suspect she will appear at Raymond's sentencing hearing, if we go that far. I think stating that a child being unlawfully wed and bearing a child at 15 years of age to an adult male twice her age is a crime.
Special CPS Investigator Barbara Cochran today testified that Janet and daughter were living on the YFZ Ranch on April 4, 2008 and swore to a picture, DNA and an interview conducted, this specific information hasn't been revealed before today.

The Pharisee said...

Yes, it's the "legal term" but I think you have to realize the "victim" is an adult NOW and her adult decisions and opinions must be given weight. If you're going to say a date on a calender makes her an unthinking cow, you have to submit to the notion that another date on the calender makes her a self determining Einstein. She's an adult now and her evaluation of the events of the last 5 years is that she is NOT a "Victim."

You are interchanging the technical term "victim" for her legal status in the past but not her status today. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to get graphic. IF a 50 year old man's penis does damage to a 15 year olds mind and vagina as a polygynist "unofficial" bride, it does damage to a 15 year old vagina if the sanction of the state is present and there is no other bride. The state sanctions this sort of activity so they re grossly hypocritical if they say damage only occurs when there is no state license in place.

Furthermore, it suggests a sort of "conditioning" is necessary for the 15 year old vagina to accept a 50 year old penis, then everything is OK. The vagina is told it's "ok" and an official blessing is given, and a piece of paper alleviates the psychological trauma.

I see no difference in a religious community teaching a greater percentage of 15 year old vaginas that they are OK in terms of the damage done or not done. Clearly the state accepts that it can be done without damage, they just want to be players if it happens.

Having said all that, it is still the law that older humans having sex with younger humans can only be legal if there is a real marriage in LEGAL terms, in place. That's all we're talking about, we're not really talking about REAL victims (unless the state victimizes) or REAL pedophiles. Swapping the terms around as if they represent a psychological reality is what your side trades in. Again I emphasize that the law be followed all the time where it is possible to do so. I think the best way to do this is give up on the persecution of religious polygynists and let them teach what they believe, and live the way they live.

I also bridle severely at the idea that I graduate to pervert because I am older. I do not think I am sick because what attracted me as a 15 year old and a 20 year old are still attractive to me. I don't think nature care (if you believe in evolution) and clearly if the Judeo Christian God reigns, he did not care EITHER.

I don't care by the way, where anyone was living on April 4th of 2008. That would only apply to a 17 year old or younger girl who gave birth in October or September, and that would have not been showing at the time of the raid.