Rozita's case was "vacated" for tomorrow. The individual answering the phone could not tell me if that meant her case was dismissed, or if the probation revocation hearing had been reset for another time.
Sphere: Related Content
Note to Readers: X(Twitter) and Facebook Feeds Are Now Back
-
Note to Religion Clause Readers: You can once again access Religion Clause
posts on X(Twitter) [@religionclause] and Facebook [Religion Clause].
Technica...
24 minutes ago
14 comments:
Dismissed.
I'm going to ask you how you know that Jam. In addition, you don't get a charge dismissed when you've already pled guilty to it. You get your record cleaned.
She had probation, and deferred sentencing, she entered a guilty plea to the charge in case C018-2005M-001552 in June of 2007.
In my experience, that's not "dropped" or "dismissed." If you have inside information Jam, that paints you in a whole new light.
Now you guys got me curious. I'm dying to know the resolution of all the contradictory public statements by those DA's.
Ron, I've linked previously to the documentation of her Guilty plea. I think it's even in the Newsweek Article. It's not a fact in doubt, it's a fact in evidence.
Now, as to what has happened in the last week, I'm inclined to think David Foley has told us functionally what would be happening, which is that effectively speaking, the matter would be dropped.
It's possible that Rozita, through Mr. Foley "threw herself on the 'mercy of the court,' " stating that she broke her probation prior to appearing in court tomorrow afternoon and we'll get the announcement of what was decidedd soon.
Also, last week, Rozita's case in Colorado Springs was "called off," and I confirmed that it was not happening with District Attorney's office personnel the night before, but it still went down as scheduled with her sneaking in the side door.
That's another thing, why are they giving celebrity treatment to an whack job nobody as if she were a Kennedy or something? She's been able to do this more than once with El Paso county misleading the press and sneaking her around. She's just a prank caller. They should be treating her like dirt since she ties up the PD chasing her all over kingdom come.
So, who knows, she could still be showing tomorrow, or they're putting off the hearing until after her probation runs out and then pretending that she didn't do anything before they had a hearing or some other such nonsense.
I would be curious Ron, they're treating her like a celebrity, or a wealthy heiress or a prominent politician. Better than some prominent politicians actually.
Even a celebrity will have their cases correctly listed with the clerk.
Who is the clerk to decide her case shouldn't be correctly listed?
It couldn't be an accident since it happened twice.
If they felt she needed protection, then there should have been additional LE around her.
If the date was listed incorrectly on purpose, I would think that would be some type of crime, right? After all court dates are public records and when they are purposely misstated, wouldn't that be a felony?
I would be curious Ron, they're treating her like a celebrity, or a wealthy heiress or a prominent politician. Better than some prominent politicians actually.
My guess is that she presents more as a psychologically troubled person than anything else.
It doesn't look good to pile on the psychologically disabled.
Like I said Ron, Newsweek went so far as to say that her actions weren't those of a person with dissociative disorder.
"(T)here's a highly rational and calculating aspect to Swinton's alleged deeds. In the past few years, she has used at least nine cell-phone numbers—many of them prepaid, avoiding the need to register them—to orchestrate her ruses, according to police. And rather than slipping uncontrollably into one character or another, she has seemed to switch between them at will.
Psychiatrists interviewed by NEWSWEEK say that although they wouldn't rule out multiple-personality disorder—a controversial diagnosis technically known as dissociative identity disorder (DID)—Swinton's behavior doesn't match the usual profile (none of them has personally examined her). "People with DID typically have intense stories of their own abuse" and don't "run around reporting on other people's abuse," says David Spiegel, associate chair of psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine. Richard Kluft, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Temple University School of Medicine, says it's possible that Swinton suffers from other conditions, like factitious disorder, in which people have a need to be seen as ill and deliberately create symptoms to prove it."
"Factitious disorder" is the updated name for "Münchausen syndrome." This is fascinating and dangerous as well, particularly since (as you well know) I am in possession of recent pictures of Rozita with small children. She seems to be in deep need of caring for other people's children. Remember, she went out west, to be a "nanny?"
"People with (Factitious disorder/Münchausen syndrome) might be motivated to perpetrate (these) disorders either as a patient or by proxy as a caregiver to gain any variety of benefits including attention, nurturance, sympathy, and leniency that are unobtainable any other way."
Ron, the woman is phenomenally dangerous and they're letting her go to do it again.
Correctly listing the court date isn't picking on the mentally ill.
People, which includes the press, have a right to view court cases.
The public has a right to know court cases are being handled properly.
The way it looks now, someone in Colorado seemed to want to take away that right.
Look at what they did to the "victims" during the YFZ grand jury proceedings.
They kept them on a park bench so the press could snap away.
Well, does it really matter if she's got a disassociative disorder or Munchausens? What I'm saying is that I bet she presents as someone a few fries short of a happy meal. That's why they're handling the case the way they are.
And yeah, she should not be a caregiver for children.
Just my idle speculation.
Ron,
It does matter, Münchausen syndrome is more or less an intentional pattern of behavior. Dissociative Identity, more towards the disease end of the spectrum. Münchausen requires the elimination of "malingering" as an evaluation to arrive at Münchausen/factitious as a diagnosis.
In other words Rozita may simply be an attention starved person who uses an elaborate form of malingering to obtain benefit and attention.
The intentional aspect of her behaviors, reporting the abuse of others is key. I've also compared her to an arsonist. Often arsonists burn buildings and stand around in the crowd to watch their handiwork. Twice Rozita has been caught cruising the scene of her false reporting, running away from a High School teacher in one case, and caught in her car on her cell phone in the other (the recent El Paso county case).
When frustrated and well known on the local front, Rozita began to branch out and called Florda, Washington State, Arizona and Utah and from my point of view at least seemed to be starting a dust up that she could watch on TV.
Was that her motivation? It's surely constructed that way. When she can't stand in the shadows watching her handiwork in person, the next successful bit of tomfoolery occurred on National Television. Next best thing, I guess.
This woman is DANGEROUS. She is NOT going to quit. Completely apart from my speculation that she may have been may have been put up to the deed, there is this need to gain attention and then whimper while cowering in front of police questioning to see how long she can get away with denials until she finally "fesses up."
She has pled guilty EACH and EVERY time she has been charged, and she starts out clasping her knees and arms closely to her, bowing her head, whimpering softly in a little girl voice, incredulous that anyone would suggest she did it.
Then later, in court, whimpering again, "Yes I did it."
And she likes to be around KIDS, little kids.
How long before she harms one to gain attention? Münchausen by proxy?
First, Yates was also 100% crazy - you don't see people letting her out to hurt again. It's between one of two options, keep her locked up in a hospital or in jail.
Those should have been the two choices available here. BTW: Who paid for stay?
Regardless, I'm not too sure she is really ill. Perhaps there was a motivation other than a psychological disorder? I would love to know if her other hoaxes just happened to help police.
Until then she may very well be a person who has decided to help her police buddies solve crimes.
Yeah, I get what you're saying about intent and have to pretty much agree.
I also agree her behavior creates a certain level of danger, but at this point its still a misdemeanor.
Society can either lock her away or try to reach some deal where she limits her phones and has to list them with the authorities. I don't know which is best, but for whatever reason the authorities chose the latter.
Any news on whether Jam Inn was correct or not?
I'm working on Jam's claim Ron. I don't doubt the charge is going away in some practical sense, we pretty much knew that last week and really, before that.
Texas could charge her with something in the realm of a felony, but they'd have to acknowledge then in bold type that they knew the call was a hoax, right now they're just winking at the reality, not embracing it.
I continue to think Texas and Colorado are talking to each other and have been right along.
I'm astounded that they have pretty clear evidence she is on the internet all the time, yet they only sought to limit her cell and land line access. I have one picture of her surrounded by children in Burley Idaho, sitting on a couch while riveted to her laptop computer screen from November/December of 2008. Frankly, that's pretty chilling and pretty dang stupid on the part of the children's parents.
In this day and age, there are a million and one ways to communicate - text, e-mail, skype.
Not to mention the old fashion in person (yelling fire in a crowd) and pay phone hoax. In fact, I think she did use a pay phone. What about phones in other's names or lost phones.
Clearly, they should know this - so why in the world would they risk the public's safety?
Post a Comment