This is interesting. Texas Rangers busted into the FLDS Church Vault looking for a PERSON. Hadn't we discussed this two years ago? What "hat" was being worn by Texas Rangers?
Something tells me this might be important. If Law Enforcement was treating the ranch as "one residence," clearly the temple is not a "residence" and clearly a "gun safe" or cabinet inside a vault inside a church is not a home. At what point to you stop looking? Can I go into the White House looking for a murder suspect in Washington DC and come out with evidence of the "Cornhusker Kickback?" Can you go into a church on a warrant based on a residence? Can you go in their vault because someone might be in there? Do you open shoeboxes looking for body parts? Ranger Williams says he goes into the vault looking for a person, but that's not what they come out with. It seems rather clear that Rangers wanted anything belonging to any member of the FLDS or the church, so that they could audit them for evidence of crimes. Is this the case Brandon Hudson is building?
If I were the Ranger, and I thought I might NEED the pistol once inside the valut, I'm not going in that way. It's a death sentence. I might pump some tear gas in there first, but no way I'm crawling headfirst with a pistol and a flashlight into a dark hole, particularly when there's only one way out.
To this day I do not know why the FLDS don't call Rozita as a witness.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - " 'Would you say the men and women were distrustful?' (Defense Attorney Brandon) Hudson said.Back to the Standard-Times, April 10th, 2008:
Williams said they were.
Williams said the locksmith took hours to open the vault door.
Hudson pointed out the damage done to the framing around the side of the vault.
'Were there attempts to enter without having to break the locks?' Wes Mau, one of the prosecuting attorneys, asked.
'Yes sir,' Williams said, and he said the residents were not cooperative with opening the safe. 'I thought it was very possible someone might be in that vault.' "
"In one exchange, (Judge Barbara) Walther questioned (Gerry) Goldstein on why he claimed Lyle Jeffs had standing to challenge the search warrant based on the removal of his two children.I'd say at this point they didn't know. Later, when sorting out details in the aftermath, it seems clear that Rangers retroactively threw a hat into the narrative, based on what it was they'd need, to cover their actions. In the case of the Vault, they're not in a residence looking for anyone, they're in the temple. These records are obtained looking for "Sarah," who we now know to be Rozita Swinton. Not that Texas dares ever ask that question, of Rozita.
'The removal of the children had nothing to do with the search warrant,' Walther said. 'That's a civil matter.'
'I'm not sure they knew what hat they were wearing' when officials removed the children, Goldstein replied."
Something tells me this might be important. If Law Enforcement was treating the ranch as "one residence," clearly the temple is not a "residence" and clearly a "gun safe" or cabinet inside a vault inside a church is not a home. At what point to you stop looking? Can I go into the White House looking for a murder suspect in Washington DC and come out with evidence of the "Cornhusker Kickback?" Can you go into a church on a warrant based on a residence? Can you go in their vault because someone might be in there? Do you open shoeboxes looking for body parts? Ranger Williams says he goes into the vault looking for a person, but that's not what they come out with. It seems rather clear that Rangers wanted anything belonging to any member of the FLDS or the church, so that they could audit them for evidence of crimes. Is this the case Brandon Hudson is building?
"Hudson noted that the person they were searching for was never found, and the call that led to the April 2008 raid on the ranch was determined to be a hoax call from a woman who claimed to have been abused and living on the ranch."The "hoax" call remark seems to have gone unchallenged by the defense. I'm sure the prosecution had to let that stand, since if they did not, the issue of it being a hoax could have spilled out into open court. So it's official. Texas regards the call as a hoax.
"Another Texas Ranger, Jesse Valdez, testified about having entered a vault in another building called the temple annex.What did this "Drama Queen" expect to find in a vault? Why didn't he wait? Was there a sense of "urgency" that perhaps at any moment the search might be called off and they didn't have all their "loot" yet? What does he expect to find in the dark that he needs a pistol for? I don't know about you, but if I was planning to used deadly force against a Ranger entering a vault with no clothes, a flashlight leading the way and a pistol, the pistol isn't going to do him any good.
A picture showed the jury an open vault door with a small hole less than three feet wide breaching a concrete wall several inches thick.
'I removed all my outer clothing and entered with a flash light and a pistol, unsure of what I would encounter,' Valdez said.
Inside the vault, law enforcement personnel found many cabinets full of boxes of personal and church records."
If I were the Ranger, and I thought I might NEED the pistol once inside the valut, I'm not going in that way. It's a death sentence. I might pump some tear gas in there first, but no way I'm crawling headfirst with a pistol and a flashlight into a dark hole, particularly when there's only one way out.
To this day I do not know why the FLDS don't call Rozita as a witness.
Sphere: Related Content
5 comments:
"To this day I do not know why the FLDS don't call Rozita as a witness."
It's my opinion her testimony would open doors.
It's also my opinion the attorneys are concentrating on topics for appeal they are certain of, while what Rozita would say does not fall into that category!
What doors? I'm tired of hearing this, even from friends. Rozita has zero connection to the FLDS other than the possibility that she might hate them.
There are no doors that her testimony opens unless really bone headed questions are asked.
What doors does "Did you call the Newbridge Center posing as someone on the Ranch" open?
What doors does "Did someone encourage you to make the calls" open?
If Rozita had been on the ranch and had been abused, I guess a door is opened.
She's told a wild and almost logistically impossible tale at one point of being kidnapped and driven across Texas to California and kept in the trunk of a car and abused, but the FLDS wasn't even in Texas at the time of that story, and there was no YFZ.
EVEN IF some member of the FLDS kidnapped and abused her at some point in the past (it would have to be the VERY distant past), the statute of limitations has almost certainly run out and the crime was never reported.
There's NO DOOR that opens.
Deposing Rozita and asking her the questions doesn't hurt. What's the WORST that could happen? You ask her if she was put up to the call and she convincingly answers no.
End of investigation. Phenomenally little was invested.
This is one of those vein poppers for me. I honestly think people believe, YOU included, that I've lied about calling Lt. Santos, Lt. Wilson, Lt Mandel and FBI Agent Steve Smith and that what I asked and what I heard I didn't ask and/or I didn't hear.
Well, I did ask, and I did hear, and if no on follows up, they're missing a huge bet and the trail is growing colder by the minute.
If MY house was invaded and it was shown that the caller had a close relationship with the police force, and my attorney didn't ask the questions, I'd get a new attorney.
"If MY house was invaded and it was shown that the caller had a close relationship with the police force, and my attorney didn't ask the questions, I'd get a new attorney."
I'm with you here. I really can't believe the FLDS have not gone on the offensive, and tried to force her to appear, if not testify. My only thought is that perhaps Walther has somehow managed to interfere with them calling her as a witness.
Fight Bigotry!
439-0!
You wrote in the post;
"To this day I do not know why the FLDS don't call Rozita as a witness", and that post was about what had been revealed in the present trial.
Now you mention and discuss a deposition. I had assumed you meant a "witness" in Jessop's trial.
The "doors" I mentioned are related to her admissions that would incriminate her. I also feel WHO she knows and had communicated with prior to her fist call may be of importance. There are a couple other small matters she might helo with, associated with how she was investigated and questioned, but nobody has a clue what she would say so I wouldn't call her to the stand in Jessop's trial.
As for what I believe or disbelieve, I uncertain why you think I have any reason not to believe what you told me or posted here. I've never noticed anything you wrote I did not believe, not that I recall anyway.
You sound a bit angry about something unrelated to my post which has come across as somewhat being directed at me in your response. If I'm correct, I wish you the best of luck addressing whatever that may be which is/was bothering you.
I do get a little testy about this subjection from time to time. First you quoted me saying:
"To this day I do not know why the FLDS don't call Rozita as a witness."
And you observed:
"It's my opinion her testimony would open doors."
That's what gets me hung up, because I keep hearing this reason regularly repeated. In context the FLDS calling Rozita as a "witness," either in a deposition or in trial doesn't open any doors. I would assume she would be called first in a deposition and long before trial it would be known if any relevant information would be found. She's a terrible liar in person, she reveals a lot. She breaks down easily and quickly.
So I ask, "WHAT DOORS?" I didn't claim she would open doors, you did, and you said it in the context of the FLDS asking questions of Rozita. So, what doors might those be?
Most of the speculations I have heard about her testimony opening doors pertain to what was actually going on at the Ranch but it could quickly and easily be established that she wasn't at the ranch. Ever. That she was NEVER FLDS, ever. That she has no personal familiarity with the group.
You also say:
"It's also my opinion the attorneys are concentrating on topics for appeal they are certain of, while what Rozita would say does not fall into that category!"
I am certain that the former is true, and I am not speculating. The latter has a nightmare quality to it. I know what I know and I've spoken to those whom I claim to have spoken and they have really said what I said they have said, either that or I am a raving psychotic which is why I say it has a nightmare quality to it.
I can see an Elephant in the room and everyone keeps complaining about where the giant piles of poo are coming from. It continues to be my suggestion that we move the Elephant and see if the problem resolves itself.
I'm not angry about an unrelated matter, I don't understand what you're talking about when you refer to "opening doors." It is as if you think Rozita was really Sarah and really at YFZ. Only if that was the case would the FLDS questioning her "open doors." If there is another way that is accomplished, I'd love to hear it.
Post a Comment