Saturday, November 07, 2009

CSPD Internal Affairs concludes it's investigation.

It lacks specifics and I have never been given the "receipt number" for the investigation:
November 2, 2009



Hugh McBryde
P.O. Box ****
Montpelier, VT 05601

Dear Mr. McBryde

This letter is in response to the suspicions you raised in your complaint on 09-24-09 regarding employees of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

A thorough inquiry was conducted which included a review of Department records and reports, interviews with involved employees and review of Department policies. The investigation disclosed there was no violation of Department policy nor was there any indication of inappropriate behavior by our employees.

Sincerely,


Lt. K. D. Wilson
Internal Affairs Division
Colorado Springs Police Department
The letter came in an envelope postmarked November 3rd, 2009, as Raymond Jessop's trial was winding down, and right before Rozita's starts in Colorado Springs. I got it today.

Right way I note it is fairly vague. What is "inappropriate behavior" on the part of their employees? What is department policy? Where's my receipt number?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 06, 2009

Walther Tries to Sentence Raymond Jessop on the sly

Except for a tip, no one would have known.
The Plural Life - "Surprise, surprise. The court decided to hold a hearing today after all. I got there in the nick of time, thanks to a certain unnamed tipster. Thank you!

Last night when we left, Judge Barbara Walther told everyone court would resume at 10 a.m. on Monday. That was the word from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, too.

But Walther changed her mind. Had things gone more quickly today, I think she was prepared to go ahead with sentencing. The jury was at the court, sequestered in the waiting room. She finally sent them home about 2:30."
Brooke Adams scores again. She is apparently responsible for getting Juror 12 86'd, though in retrospect I think I would have preferred that she remained, and now she scores with nosing out another Walther Friday Surprise.

I don't know if the defense consented to this or not. I personally don't know the workings of the court, but I know that Walther would trample them if she could, and probably has IMHO.

On the surface, this seems to stink.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Heard on the Radio, Reflections on the Verdict

With the Fort Hood tragedy dominating the news, the Raymond Jessop verdict sorta slid beneath the waves.
I was on my way to the bank this morning, and overheard on the news, as the last story (paraphrased of course) was this:
"Raymond Jessop is facing 20 years in jail as a result of being convicted yesterday in Texas for sex with a teenage girl. The conviction was a result of a raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch last year, in which over 400 children were put into foster care."
There are probably less than 2000 people outside the FLDS and Texas Law Enforcement that know what really happened and this is how public opinion is shaped. The story didn't include the fact that the children were all returned. Most people don't know the big issues that were in play at YFZ for all of us, and are still fuzzy on what happened afterward. I think Brooke Adams spoke for herself as well as others about the result of the trial when she had an anonymous man who accosted her outside the courtroom respond to the verdict with one word.

"Good."

Most people who did know about the details of YFZ were concerned with the children. When they all went back (a perception not reinforced by the above referenced news story) that was the end of their outrage. By hook or by crook a molester or 12 had been apprehended and that was good enough. Compromise tends to rule the day when truth is at stake and it seemed a fair result to most that at the end of an illegal raid, FLDS members got half their stuff back. You YFZ'ers keep your kids, we'll jail the dirty old men for the next 20 years. Nothing can ever make a wrong right, but the least you can do is try to reset things to the way they were. Such moral compromises always encourage the despot and the thief.

You want 100%? Just steal twice as much as you need. Compromise. Meet your opponent half way. How is it good that I walked through the door with $100.00, got beat up, had to dust myself off, shake hands with my assailant and walk out the door missing a tooth and only having $50.00 and him getting credit for giving it back to me? I want my $100.00 thank you.
The Washington Times - "Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.

That's right. Orchids."
Everything is criminalized now. From food, to sex to drugs to marriage, it's all regulated overmuch by the Government and you're doing something wrong, I promise you. Have we forgotten the Manna Storehouse? In a completely criminalized society, where you cannot hope to stay violation free, you're only hope is a valid search warrant standing in between you, and imprisonment. Anyone who has bothered to follow the few facts accumulated about Rozita Swinton's call to the Newbridge shelter knows that she guessed at a lot of details and out of several jurisdictions she called, only Texas eventually chose to believe her tall tales. We all laugh in theaters and watching TV at the pretense used by police to gain entry to places they cannot go. We cheer them on because they are the monolithic "Good Guys" and the script demonized "Bad Guys" have been getting away with too much anyway. Time to win one for the team.

If you combine too much regulation, too many personal swat teams and too little in the way of barriers to home invasion on the part of Law Enforcement, you end up with the purest form of tyranny. The laws cannot all be enforced. Many of the agencies still don't have their personal swat teams and their laws just lay there, on the books, no one enforcing them. You can TRY to get them enforced but good luck with that. Angry police officers and detectives will inform you of rules and regs they know about pertaining to harassing a police officer and threaten to come get you if you don't quit bothering them. And they can. This then becomes the selective use of law to keep you in line, not to make for a law abiding society. I have personal experience with that. A 2am obscene phone caller from out of state. I should have known when the whole YFZ thing started that nothing would happen with the prank caller. I had personal experience with a misdemeanor offense committed against me. It ended with a Gallatin County Sheriff's department detective threatening me to enforce a law against me if I didn't stop bothering him about it. It didn't stop them from sending a cruiser to my door in the middle of the night to shut up my persistent out of state harasser, that they could not shut up.

How odd that this in many ways fits the pattern exactly of the YFZ affair. Wanting to be cooperative I invited the Deputy into my home. It is only now that I remember his eyes roaming the room for an "exigent circumstance." There was none, whatever unknown misdeed I was committing, he either did not see, or didn't know about himself. I suppose if my daughter had been up downloading copyrighted music, he could have cuffed me right there.

We are all in that sort of peril. We are all at the mercy of Law Enforcement trying to make their day go easier and shut up pests, many of them from out of state, be it pranksters from Colorado, or Malcontents from Utah and Arizona or regulators from Washington DC wanting to eliminate the illegal orchid trade, or food Nazis in Ohio.

My only natural son has proved an interesting lesson for me in many ways with his various and continuing scrapes with the law. One of the most vital lessons was how LE seeks to gain control over people. At the end of one of his scrapes I had managed to guide him through the court system, getting him cleared of an undeserved felony and winding up with a correct charge that was a misdemeanor and accompanying probation to go with it.

Then I got my education. The probation officer as much as told me that he wasn't interested in managing my son's probation to keep him out of trouble, instead, he wanted to manage it so that he could catch him in another felony. Why? Because he could then control him better, if he was a felon. A felon goes back to prison, a misdemeanant does not. Alcohol consumption may be legal, pot a minor crime and having hand lotion (allegedly for the purposes of self gratification) are not that big a deal for you or I, but as terms of probation for a felon, can send them to jail for things they seemingly can't resist. Control.

In this same way police don't want to give up the small controls they have in our lives. It works to their advantage if they can just go anywhere they want, anytime and in the currently over regulated environment, if all it takes is Pinky (or Sarah) calling while watching TV to spark a raid, LE doesn't worry about what they'll find when they get inside. They know they'll find something.
"Jerry Lee Lewis had already gone through two marriages by 1957; he'd married Jane Mitcham, his second, 23 days before his divorce from his first wife, Dorothy Barton, was final. On December 12, 1957, Jerry married his third cousin, Myra Gale Brown. A lot of ink has been spilled about his close blood relationship with Myra, and the fact that she was only thirteen and still believed in Santa Claus when the pair were married. For a man from his time and place, however, marrying at thirteen and marrying one's third cousin (twice removed) were both fairly commonplace occurrences, although Lewis further complicated matters by again marrying before the divorce from his second wife was final.

Lewis didn't seem to realize that this was offensive to most urban markets (and to other countries): in fact, Sun Records' Jud Phillips (brother of producer Sam) had warned him against taking Myra with him to England on his first European tour. Jerry Lee, never one to change his mind, took her anyway. When they stepped off the plane on May 22, 1958, Lewis obligingly told the British press that Myra was his wife (although he gave her age as 15 and moved up the date of their actual wedding). His bride, for her part, told the gathering that fifteen wasn't too young to marry back home: 'You can marry at 10 if you can find a husband.' "
1957. It wasn't that long ago, I was three years old. Jerry Lee Lewis is now considered to be a bit of a rascal, a country singer, and his daughter by his union with Myra, manages his career. Now there's a pedophile for you. We too quickly forget. What is now a 20 year jail term was once commonplace and I promise you that a look back at your recent ancestry is liable to produce a similar union. Without them, we would not be here.

Now like prohibition crazies gone wild again, we have found a new vice to be shocked about. Sex with "children." On the surface it seems like a righteous cause and it's perfect because both the left and the right hate their newfound sinners, so they have no friends. The left tears at the LDS and other religions regularly and popularize their failings. The right whines about molesters and homos and wants to pull the dust from everyone else's eye while ignoring the lumber yard in their own.

What do they find? A small fundamentalist group of Latter Day Saints who have been doing what they've been doing since the religion was founded. The Right hates them. The mainstream LDS religion hates them, the Left hates them. Once you're isolated like that, you have little hope. After a year and a half of demonizing the FLDS and trying the case in the press with outright lies, Raymond Jessop, who they can't even prove committed a crime in Texas, is convicted by a jury in time to get home for dinner. Raymond's wives will not see him now for perhaps the rest of his life. His children may even be barred from seeing him. They will become doubtless members of the welfare roles. Not a single participant in the "crime" (both adults now) testified in the case. Raymond's "victim" didn't even complain.

Is all well?



More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 05, 2009

That didn't take long.

Guilty, but you probably know that already.
Lone Star Texas News - "Raymond Jessop has been found guilty of sexual assault of a child in connection with charges he married an underage girl. Jessop was a member of the FLDS Church and live on the compound near Eldorado that was raided by the state last year.

Attorney General Greg Abbott says 'the jury in State v. Raymond Merril Jessop has rendered a guilty verdict. The sentencing phase of the trial will begin Monday morning. Because trial proceedings are still ongoing, we cannot comment further at this time.'

This was the first trial stemming from that state raid."
The way the trial was going, it really didn't figure that the verdict was going to take long. The way I see it their minds were made up before they even heard the first word uttered in trial.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Possible Terrorist Attack at Fort Hood? (UPDATE Shooter Muslim?)

The fog of war definitely clouds early reporting in these matters,
but Fox News is reporting that three different shooters have been firing on people at Fort Hood, from three different locations. That smells coordinated, and that smells like terrorism. The dead captured shooter is 39-40 year old Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a convert to Islam.

There are 7 12 confirmed dead, and 20 31 wounded.

UPDATE: There now appears to only be the one shooter, Major Hasan acting on his own. He is also a life long Muslim. The Jawa Report is stating that he has made supportive statements of Suicide bombers, yet the Army did not investigate him.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Stevens moves for an "Instructed Verdict"

Denied of course:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "One document, a marriage record, showed Jessop married the then 16-year-old on Aug. 12, 2004, for 'time and eternity,' at Jeffs' home at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, where about 600 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reside.

Jeffs performed the ceremony, while counselors Wendell Nielsen and Fred M. Jessop were witnesses.

A dictation dated Oct. 19, 2004, said that a 'fourth home was to be built' at the ranch for Jessop, its foundation to be completed by Nov. 5 of that year.

A list dated Oct. 7, 2005, of 'Babies Born at R-17' showed names of Jessop and his alleged victim and a check mark under a column labeled 'girls.'

Hanna also read from a 'List of Nursing and Expectant Mothers,' which under Jessop's name show the alleged victim as a nursing mother in October 2005. As required by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, names of two pregnant women and two other nursing mothers associated with Jessop were blacked out.

None of the documents were dated from November 2004, when the state alleges the alleged victim became pregnant.

Defense Attorney Mark Stevens focused on that when he asked Walther to give the jury an 'instructed verdict' that the state hadn't proved jurisdiction. Walther denied that motion
."
This would seem to say that the defense is conceding that Raymond is the child's father. That really doesn't surprise me. It also may be that the defense will point to the fact that other possible candidates that were close relatives were not tested, and we don't know what those tests would have shown. If I made that argument in Mark Stevens' shoes, I would point out that we can't know what likelihood of paternity exists in another person not tested, that the state assumed too much and didn't do it's job.

In the final analysis though, it seems that he is going to hang his hat on the idea that Texas is trying a case it can't know it has jurisdiction over, that Raymond and his "Bride" could have been anywhere in the world, and it certainly hasn't been shown that Raymond was on the ranch when the child was conceived.

The Associated Press seems to concur that it is an essential element.
WRAL - "(Raymond) Jessop's attorney, Mark Stevens, has argued that prosecutors failed to show that any assault happened in Texas - a necessary element in demonstrating the court's jurisdiction.

'There is no way one can draw a reasonable inference ... that this alleged event must have occurred on that ranch,' he said."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

What's the Message here?

Judge Walther has made this trial an unpleasant experience for all, keeping long hours and holding jurors into the night. Now she tells them they can't go home until they give her a verdict:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Texas Judge Barbara) Walther told the seven-man, five-woman jury Wednesday evening that she expected they’d be hearing closing arguments about midday Thursday. She also told jurors to pack suitcases, and her bailiff reserved rooms for them. Once jurors begin deliberating on a verdict, Walther has decided not to allow them to separate."
So they shouldn't communicate during the trial (but could) and now until the reach a verdict, they're going to jail.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Trial to go to Jury this afternoon

They said Stalin (at least) made the trains run on time.
The Deseret News - "Texas District Judge Barbara Walther told jurors in the trial of 38-year-old Raymond Jessop that attorneys hoped to offer closing arguments by midday.
And Judge Walther apparently read his book.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

And you've been buying Fords, because they "Didn't Go Bankrupt"

I'm sure every industry insider grates at the simplistic views the "outsiders" have of their industries. Ford made a billion this last quarter, but that's just as easily reversed.
June 1st, 2009 - "The UAW lynch mob is at (Ford's) gates having successfully pulled a revolt at GM and Chrysler, elbowing their way into the board room, they now have Ford right where they want them in terms of bargaining power. Ford may not have needed to go bankrupt and may complain until doomsday that they had the right to survive as the sole American Automaker, but that ship has sailed. Now they are saddled with unattractive Union commitments and costs that the other two of the big three have shed. Ford either goes slowly under the waves, or signs onto some version of what the other two have been forced to accept.

In the end, with behavioral precedents now firmly set, when the Government comes knocking, Ford execs will likely get up, dust their chairs, pack their knick knacks in boxes and head for the doors, just like Chrysler and GM because disturbing perceived realities are now governing." (Who said that?)
I've had people come up to me on the street, at work and in Church and loudly proclaim how great Ford was because they "didn't take Government money" and get visibly agitated in some cases when I point out that Ford would go down some similar path. Not wanting to be too odious face to face, I eventually said the following:
September 19, 2009 - "I'm not prepared to argue with anyone (without wanting to explode at the same time) how it got that way. Let's just say there is blame to go around and it doesn't all settle on Auto Industry Fat Cats, the convenient location both those on the right and left like to place most of the blame. We have a new Little Three left over, and Ford's problems are the same as those of GM's and Chrysler's prior to both going bankrupt. All were losing money. 67% of the US auto industry going down the tubes with one remaining almost assures that the next time we're having this discussion (and there will be a next time), 100% of the Auto Industry (Ford) would be on the chopping block."
Now, "the Blog Prof" says:
"Someone explain to me how this is right. GM is owned by majority shareholder the UAW. The UAW negotiates a labor contract with GM competitor Ford, refuses to make the same concessions it basically gave itself at GM, shoots down the Ford contact that would have put it on a level playing field with UAW-owned GM, and won't renegotiate. Uh - am I missing something? This coverage over at MLive seems to miss the whole conflict of interest angle in its entirety: Ron Gettelfinger: UAW membership has spoken loudly, won't renegotiate with Ford."
And he points to this article:
United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger says members spoke loudly last week and the union will not renegotiate with Ford at this time.

Members resoundingly rejected a new contract with Ford last week, as 70 percent of production workers and 75 percent of skilled workers voted against concessions that would have made their contracts competitive with workers at General Motors and Chrysler.

'We have a political process. It's called ratification,' Gettelfinger told Paul W. Smith this morning on WJR AM-760. "We all are disappointed, but the membership has spoken.'

...Gettelfinger acknowledged Ford did not enjoy some of the benefits its domestic competition gained by going through bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler, he said, were able to reduce debt, cut dealers, walk away from liability claims and rework supplier contracts during their bankruptcies."
Found at "Michigan Live."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Shurtleff Suspends Senate Campaign

The official reason is to deal with his daughter's mental health issues. He has my sympathies and support, even if this is just a cover story for quitting.
Fox13 - "(Mark) Shurtleff said he would suspend the campaign, to spend more time caring for his daughter, who has struggled with mental illness issues for some time. Shurtleff has been challenging incumbent senator Bob Bennett."
Everybody has something to do other than what they're doing. If this paid well for instance (that means I do make money blogging), I might quit my job to pursue this full time. I might "quit my job to go help my son" if I had the time and money as well. Usually politicians who are supremely ambitious, quit because they aren't getting anywhere.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Ben Winslow Reports on Warren's appeal

  More →

Sphere: Related Content

Two Critical Trial Observations, from Yesterday

There is some obscurity in the statute from before 2005. Granted, the law was changed, but before it was changed, the state may have to deem the "Victim" to be "married."
The Plural Life - "Judge Barbara Walther observed that that would also show that the alleged victim could not legally have married Raymond Jessop since she was married to someone else — a comment that seemed to make defense attorney Mark Stevens freeze up."
That may very well be the case since it seemed possible for persons to become less formally married, but married nonetheless in Texas before Harvey Hildebran's bill changed law effective 2005. My friend "Toes" wrote me and also blogged on this:
"Judge Walther is willing to recognize the previous marital status of the 'child' 'victim'.

According to DFPS legal definitions the 'victim' would then be an Emancipated Minor, according the DFPS definitions :

Emancipated Minor - A person under age 18 who has the power and capacity of an adult. This includes . . . a minor who, with or without parental consent, has been married.


Texas Family Code, Chapter 5, Sec. 101.003 defines a child:

CHILD OR MINOR; ADULT. (a) 'Child' or 'minor'" means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.


If the Judge (State) recognizes the previous marriage performed under the auspices of the FLDS church in a religious ceremony, the Judge (State) must also recognize the termination of that marriage under the auspices of the FLDS church and the subsequent remarriage under the auspices of the FLDS church to the Defendant.

The law regarding sexual assault of a child: Texas Statutes, Penal Code 22.011,

(c)(1) 'Child' means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor[perpetrator].
(2) 'Spouse' means a person who is legally married to another.

This throws the whole case out the window, as 1) the 'victim' was not a child by legal definition; and 2) the 'victim' was a spouse of the accused."


If she was married, the state has no case. If that's ignored on the trial level and a conviction handed down, it will eventually be reversed. Period. I've seen the prior statute and it did seem to say you could purport to be married and go through certain motions and be recognized as married and the state can't have it both ways. If they're going to try Raymond on bigamy for purporting to be married, well then, his "victim" was married. That, we'll have to wait and see to know.
"DNA shows Jessop is the father and photographs and other documents put the alleged victim and Jessop at the ranch, though not yet during the critical time period."
This is also critical, and I believe the jury to be stacked, and they will ignore this as well. With some judges and some trials there might be a directed verdict at the point where the state fails to "connect the dots." I don't think this will happen with Walther.


More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Texas Clearly accepts that Jurisdiction is a valid defense

The state of Texas is not arguing a fine point of law or a gross mutilation and misunderstanding of it, as blogging scoffers tried to palm off on us during the last year and a half.
Clearly Texas thinks if they cannot get the jury to accept that the crime occurred in Texas, there was no crime:
From Brooke's "Twitter" page - "Defense says most documents or photos about Raymond and other women/children are irrelevant to crime charge and prejudicial."
To which the prosecution replied:
"(Texas) says such documents help make jurisdiction argument and thus are relevant."
And there you have it. If Texas argues it must admit evidence for the sole reason that it establishes where Raymond Jessop was when his "Bride" (now an adult) became pregnant, then Texas is clearly saying if it can't establish in at least general terms, the location of both parents in Texas (assuming as I do that Raymond is the father), then the whole trial is moot.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke continues to provide good coverage

Since I can't be there, and she is there, and she is providing the coverage,
it's really best to hear it from her. I think that unless Walther is instructing the jury that the prosecution is pushing the limits on procedures, apparently agreed to by both side, then Mark Stevens call for a mistrial is justified.

From other reports I was getting the impression that Stevens was essentially saying he was being maneuvered into looking like the bad guy before the jury, which is subtly prejudicial, and that of course, was what he was complaining about. I hope to have something to say on this later, but the trial is moving fast enough, that my observations may be dated.

It does look like (for now) that the variance in DNA odds that Raymond fathered the child in question would not be very large even if there was a far smaller "initial" chance used for his paternity. This is a point Ron took me to task on earlier. It appears for now, he is right. Sorry Ron, I just don't take your word for it until it's verified. I could have done the math myself ( a matter of time and lack of interruption ) or I could wait to see how it worked out in court. You seem to be right. That is, unless the defense brings in a witness later that credibly torques the odds in a different direction.

The next observation is that venue is a big deal and as of yet, I don't see how it is going to be proved that Raymond was on the ranch. I have no reason to believe Mark Stevens is an incompetent defense attorney and the prosecution is supposed to supply him with witness lists and evidence it is using against Raymond Jessop. If that's the case and the prosecution can prove Raymond was on the ranch, Mark Stevens should know that. He has argued that it can't be proved, and so far the state has done little to show that it can place him on the ranch. They seem to be centering their effort on proving he "resided" there.

If Raymond traveled in his line of gainful employment, and stayed away for extended periods of time, then it isn't going to matter a hill of beans if he resided there or not. He has to be shown to have been there at the time of conception of the child. Let us say there is a two week window for conception, and the prosecution can't place Jessop's bride or him there during that entire period of time, then even if it is proved he is the father (and he probably is) it can't be proved he committed a crime in Texas.

The venue question is important. A lot of noise has been made by FLDS haters over the last year and a half that it wasn't important. The state seems to think it is. Venue has been said not to matter because what happened was as crime in Texas. Since the state is trying to prove Raymond's location, it would seem venue is important, and if it can't be shown to have happened in Texas, or perhaps merely not to have happened in Eldorado, it should be game over.

I think the judge is biased, and the jury tilted and the playing field, not level, so it won't surprise me if a guilty verdict comes out of this jury. But, perhaps there is an honest soul among them.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 02, 2009

Da Nuge!

I never tire of this man though I often tire of his music.


Hat tip to a "Facebook" friend, Sally Robb McGirk.

And yes, there are some Nuge Tunes, that I do like.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Raymond Jessop's probability of Paternity.

I smell yet another basis for appeal, again, assuming there is a conviction. And Brooke? Bravo again.
From the Plural Life:
"Prior probability assigns a 50 percent likelihood to the calculation. Hudson argued that biased the outcome, because there was an assumption from the get-go that there was a one in two chance that Jessop was the father and that violates the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial.

'Before you ever did the testing the alleged father was predicted to be the father,' he said to Smuts.

'Hypothetically,' she said.

He asked Smuts to explain the scientific theory that supports use of that 50 percent probability and she said: 'It is factored into the equation.'

And then: 'It is assuming the alleged father, the tested man, is either the biological father or he is not the biological father.'

Hudson argued that if a different probability — a lower probability — was used, the outcome might look quite different. He even handed Smuts Jerry Goldstein’s IPhone so she could use its built-in calculator to try it.

But Tanner objected and Walther agreed, shutting down the experiment."
The trial is proving to be intellectually entertaining. I don't mean in a non serious way, perhaps I should say instead of entertaining, it is thought provoking or stimulating.

If I understand it correctly the assumption of the state in claiming 99.99998 paternity certainty for Raymond Jessop is based on a 50/50 chance to start with, that he was the father. Frankly I would have guessed something higher, but the defense is entirely correct to say "we don't know" and in not knowing a different starting number should be used to determine Raymond Jessop's paternity. I'm sure Walther knows this, but she shut down the attempt to graphically prove the fallacy of Amy Smuts' number.

How this works. As a criminal proceeding goes, we must agree on a number of possible consorts "Mrs" Jessop had. If you assume all the fertile males she came in contact with around about the time of conception, just limited to FLDS men on the ranch or frequenting the ranch on or around the date of her child's conception, the number might be 1% or 1/10th of 1% to start with. This would assume between 100-1000 available males, with which to consort. Not knowing the entire equation I can't reliably say what that does to the outcome, but perhaps it makes Raymond Jessop a 10% probable father, as opposed to his neighbor, who would be a 1% probable father. The state is already claiming Raymond's wife was "reassigned" so it may very well be a given that she has had more than one sex partner. Has she had more? Personally I doubt it and I am not trying to besmirch her, but the state has to assume that someone who has not been sexually exclusive might continue to be "non exclusive" so on the face of it, the child's father is probably "non hispanic," "non African," "non Asian." You get the picture.

Raymond's paternity is not certainty. Not even if the manipulated formula came up with a 49.9999% probability would it be certainty or even 74.9999% and this is what the defense and the prosecution are arguing, and Walther did not just "side" with the prosecution in terms of allowing the testimony, Walther sided with the prosecution in a partisan way. She didn't Amy to use the calculator, even when the jury was not present.

There is a reason for this. You don't allow that testimony because you know what the outcome will be. Amy's number would drop precipitously and her "certainty" would become a "best guess." The Jury went HOME over the weekend. Don't kid yourself, this biased blow by blow description of Amy's credibility will get into the jury pool. They are not sequestered. Walter did not allow Amy to use the calculator precisely because it's a "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" moment.

Instead Walther has chosen to make it a contest in court. That allows what may very well be a stacked jury to decide they "believe" one "expert" more than another and it becomes a contest of "personalities" as opposed to facts.

Face it, a Raymond Jessop that the PROSECUTION acknowledges to have a 50% probability of paternity, shouldn't have even been brought to trial. I'd like to see what those adjusted numbers turn out to be.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

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.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Never Mind on Bigamy

Callahan County Attorney Shane Deel boldly went where Texas fears to tread, or where other prosecutors feared to tread. Now it's just too much money, supposedly:
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram - "Two significant factors contributed to the decision to dismiss the bigamy charges, Deel said.

'First, the change of venue made the case financially impractical to try. Second, there were some substantial issues with the case and the statute of limitations,' Deel said.

'While we literally have a mountain of evidence against Yisrayl Hawkins in relation to these cases, most of it dates back to before 2005. At that time bigamy was a Class A misdemeanor with only a two-year limitations period,' he said. 'While I can make an argument about the continuing nature of the conduct, it is simply not worth the county's resources to pursue the case in Parker County with the necessary expenses that that will entail when the outcome is as uncertain as it is.' "
Blah, blah, blah.

Yisrayl Hawkins will serve 15 months probabtion after pleading "nolo" to violations of child labor laws along with paying a $2000.00 fine.

Your Modern Pharisee is no fan of Yisrayl, but after all of that noise, a $2000.00 fine and 15 months probation?
The Abilene Reporter-News - "John Young, one of Yisrayl Hawkins’ attorneys, said, 'Mr. Hawkins is relieved to have this over with. The outcome was not only fair, it was prudent. My client accepts responsibility for violating child labor laws, but we feel that under the circumstances, there was no factual basis in which a felony charges were appropriate.'

The Sweetwater attorney said the plea agreement saved taxpayers 'tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars.'

'Mr. Hawkins' role with the church, and his role as a pastor will not be affected in any way as a result of the plea agreement,' Young said."
Hat tip to Christian or Biblical Polygamy. What does this portend for eventual bigamy prosecutions in the FLDS cases? They will probably be dropped as well. They're just window dressing.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Flu Stops Trial?

I'm not saying it's never happened before, but I've never heard of it happening before.
The Salt Lake Tribune - "Fifty-first District Judge Barbara Walther stopped proceedings around 2:45 p.m. and told the courtroom that the juror's child, who is under the age of five, is running a high fever and 'may have swine flu.'

'We are in recess at least until the child is well,' the judge said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people infected with the H1N1 flu are contagious from one day before getting sick to five to seven days after -- and the infectious period can be even longer in children. The CDC recommends that those who become sick with the flu stay home for at least 24 hours after the fever breaks.

Walther said court will reconvene Friday at 10 a.m. without the jury that is hearing the case against Jessop, 38, who faces one second-degree count of sexually assaulting a child."
What's happening? Perhaps just the flu but couldn't Judge Walther, who seems to have committed to getting it done it two weeks just plug in an alternate and go on? That is what alternates are for, aren't they? Is one or both of the alternates a juror that doesn't fit the prosecution's plans?

Since I am inclined to believe that Walther does all with a plan, and is very efficient executing those plans, this doesn't fit unless it serves a purpose. The fact that court reconvenes at 10am tomorrow without a jury tells me this is being used perhaps as a break, to discuss something important that has just come up. Juror 12 maybe?

That would fit with not wanting to boot the flu juror since if she is not juror 12, and if juror 12 is an issue, that's both alternates soaked up right away. I have heard of trials going forward with reduced slates of jurors.

It just seems a bit fishy to me, as if something came up, and a juror's kid had the flu and it represented a great time to stop down and talk things over, with the pig flu, for cover. We may never know.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Juror 12

Kudos to Brooke Adams.
The Plural Life/Brooke Adams - "Juror No. 12, Deborah Ballew.

She is the wife of Ray Ballew, who was the foreman of the grand jury that indicted (Raymond) Jessop. I confirmed her identify through a photograph I found online, several stories linking her and Ray and with one of my contacts in the community."
This is not against the law. Neither is it against the law though, for FLDS members to serve on the Jury but all were excluded. Somehow though, Deborah Ballew, who is the most intimate partner on earth, to the man who indicted Raymond Jessop, is a fit juror.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS "Real Estate" defense

Location, Location, Location.
The Houston Chronicle - "In opening statements Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Eric Nichols said DNA, witnesses and boxes of documents will prove Jessop had sex with the girl in 2004 because a child born the following year is his biological daughter.

However, the case requires prosecutors to prove a sexual assault occurred in Texas, a point Jessop's San Antonio defense team did not waste time making during Wednesday's opening statements.

'The prosecutor is not going to be able to prove by circumstantial evidence (or) direct evidence ... because there is no evidence that Raymond Jessop assaulted (the girl) on or about Nov. 14, 2009 in Schleicher County, Texas,' defense lawyer Mark Stevens said."
So, you prove Raymond is the Father. Who's to say the "assault" wasn't an assault because both families happened to be vacationing in Mexico? The "crime" does require some form of "premeditation" for it to be a "Mann Act" violation. If I meet (as I have) a girl from near my home at a convention in Atlanta, did I transport her across state lines to perform an illegal act? Not if she went there on her own, I would suppose. What if I "discovered" here there? In any case, it is not a crime in the state we both came from. It would be a different sort of crime at best.

By the way, this girl that I met in reality, was not a sex partner, I just met her out of state and she was from where I was as well. What we did there, if it had been a violation of the law, would not have been part of a "conspiracy" to leave the state to perform an illegal act.

Put another way, let us suppose you are both Mexican, and you have sex in Mexico, she gets pregnant, and she is 12. 12 is the age of consent in Mexico. You both move to Texas when she is 4 weeks pregnant. Are you guilty of sexual abuse of a child?

The shortest form of this discussion is, how does the state of Texas prove that Raymond Jessop had sex with anyone, below the age of consent, in Texas?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sam Zell, on Newspapers

There won't be any.


I am certain there will be exceptions, but the role of the newspaper is now set to change and there will be a lot less of them.

Unless there is a major depression, so severe that our infrastructure crumbles, this, right here, is how you will get your news. On a video screen.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Walther Brooms all FLDS members from Jury (UPDATED)

Can you say appeal? "Patterico" apparently can:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "The jury in the trial, being held before 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, includes seven women and seven men; five are Latino; none is a member of the FLDS sect."
Statistically that is nearly impossible, unless of course, you are after a particular group of people.

From most counts nearly one in three surviving juror candidates late yesterday were FLDS, none made it to the jury.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Professor Arnold Loewy, a Texas Tech University law professor, said dismissing the FLDS members out of hand from the pool of prospective jurors might raise questions of religious freedom and of whether Raymond Jessop is getting a fair trial from a jury of his peers, but prosecutor Eric Nichols will likely strive to purge the FLDS sect members from the jury pool."
Of course, no motives are assigned to Walther.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jury? Trial starts at 3:30pm (UPDATED)

There may has been an announcement soon.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Judge Barbara Walther this morning dismissed another 44 prospective jurors.

A crowd of prospective jurors who had been summoned for a 10:30 a.m. appearance today at the Memorial Building in Eldorado were told to come back at noon.

Walther said further announcements will be made by noon, fueling speculation that she may be ready to seat a jury."


UPDATE (2:25PM EDT) - SAN ANGELO, Texas — ELDORADO — "A jury has been seated in the trial of polygamous sect member Raymond Merril Jessop.

Judge Barbara Walther announced that a jury had been chosen out of the original 300-member jury pool after two and a half days of selection.

The trial will begin with opening arguments by the prosecution and defense this afternoon at 3:30 p.m. The trial will take place in the Memorial Building in Eldorado, the same location where jury selection occurred. Two weeks has been set aside for the trial."
I'm quite cynical about this, and figure she found a way to broom all the FLDS jurors. We'll see though.

I always supply a motivation or two to Walther, one of which is that she is part of the prosecution, the other being she figures a guilty child molester's conviction will be a prickly thing to overturn, regardless of how it was arrived at.

Brooke Adams "Twittered" the following:
"Seven men and seven women on jury in Raymond Jessop trial. Five are Hispanic."
That's 12 and 2 alternates. No word on whether or not the 14 contain FLDS members, or whether they are alternates or regular jurors.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Meanwhile, back in Colorado....

Here's a first. Rozita's pre-trial conference is NOT on the "Call off" list for today in Colorado Springs.
There is nothing to say that it might not appear later, or that at the pre-trial conference, more delays are in the offing, but she's not on the list today, which may mean she's actually there. You can look yourself, but only until about 9am tomorrow when it's updated to show Thursday's "Call Offs." If you recall, her trial is set for November 10th.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Slogging it out in Jury Selection

It's a safe bet that potential juror #76 was not FLDS.
The Houston Chronicle - "(J)ury interviews plodded along at a drowsy pace for as long as 20 minutes as attorneys carefully explained how they would have to set aside what they knew about the case, which prompted by a unprecedented removal of 439 FLDS children by Texas Child Protective Services that gained nationwide attention, and consider only the facts introduced by attorneys.

Still other jurors, including the last juror of Tuesday night, No. 76, made quick work of their interview, after telling the judge her mind was already made up about the case and she could not be impartial."
This feature continues to disturb and seems out of character with Texas law, to put it mildly:
"The jury interviews, conducted for two days in a hushed huddle before Walther, were out of earshot for court spectators who were confined to the back of the courtroom."
With those that do not want to "Get involved" and those that want to but will be shunned by the prosecution (FLDS Members) it seems rather difficult to believe at this point that there will be 12 jurors and 2 alternates. Never fear, Walther as noted above, and in past behavior is unafraid of bending the law autocratically.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

It's really not a secret, it's jury stacking (or venue shopping)

What's going on here?
The Salt Lake Tribune - "The second day began as the first ended: With pool members being brought one at a time to the bench of 51st District Judge Barbara Walther where discussions are held with prosecutors and defense attorneys. None of those exchanges can be heard at the back of the courtroom, where other prospective jurors and media are seated.

Under Texas law, voir dire of potential jurors must take place in open court."
The prosecution is trying to prevent FLDS members, from sitting on the Jury. That has to be done so as to not look discriminatory, but that's what's being done. Texas pretty much knows that if 3 FLDS members make it to a jury, the jig is up and the best they can hope for is a hung jury. Pretty much one juror from the FLDS will do the trick, but if the judge can sit only one, she can replace that juror later for "misconduct" with an alternate.

From where I sit, I don't see how there is a "right" of the state to have a fair and open chance to gain a conviction. The state, has no rights. The defendant does. They can seat juries easily for all of the upcoming trials in one morning. Simply don't object to FLDS members on the jury, that's all.

This comes from not recognizing the lost right of "jury nullification."
"Nullification has a mixed history in the United States. Jury nullification appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act because jurors felt the laws to be unjust. During the 20th century, especially in the civil rights movement era, some all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks. During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time due to disagreements with the justice of the law. This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition."

"(In) Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that juries have an absolute right to judge both the law and the facts of a case: And the Court thus established a precedent for the basic right to jury nullification."
Texas does not have a right to enforce it's laws, essentially, on a community that simply doesn't accept them. A defendant can elect to a trial by his/her peers, and if those peers don't see the law being applied as just, they can just sleep through the trial, and vote not guilty. By trying to NOT seat a jury, Texas tries to violate a basic right of each individual in the community, and that of the defendant.

All of this is window dressing for claiming on appeal, "why no, I did not discriminate against FLDS members," so the prosecution is looking for every legal fig leaf they can find. 12 men and women will happily come forward, but in reality, Texas wants a change of venue.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 26, 2009

Jury Selection in the Trial of Raymond Jessop (UPDATED AGAIN)

Brooke Adams (with whom I have a massive approach/avoidance issue) is someone I continue to regard as a great writer/reporter and also someone who conceals a severe bias, but she does make the great critical observation from time to time, and here is one.
The Plural Life - "There are about 2,100 residents of the county who are 18 or older."
This is the basic jury pool from which persons begin to be disqualified right away.
"The big question, of course, is whether there are 14 people — 12 jurors and 2 alternates — in Schleicher County that do not already have an opinion about the FLDS."
And this is what makes me wonder. The O.J. Simpson trial for his supposed murder of his wife and another was held close to home in what had to be a massively tainted jury pool. O.J. was IMHO opinion, guilty. There were some disturbing questions that schooled around the O.J. trial, some of which place me on the side of his conviction (which did not occur) and some of which did not. I tend to think it is an excellent example of a foundational right in this country, of "jury nullification." One that is so seldom discussed that we are about to lose it altogether, as a right.

I confess to finding O.J. acquittal supporters infuriatingly political, there was one interview of onlookers at the time, black onlookers in the Los Angeles area, where it was asked "Do you think he will/should be acquitted?" and the answer was an emphatic YES, and then an astoundingly insightful follow up question by the reporter who then asked the same person if they though O.J. was guilty. The answer was an equally quick and sincere YES. Essentially the onlooker (and I think ultimately the jury) said "I don't care if he's guilty, I'm not going to convict him."

My interpretation of that, and it was the view of many at the time, is black Americans saw themselves as a separate group within the country, and a severely oppressed one. It was a chance to strike back and declare they as a group felt railroaded all too many times and the Simpson trial was a way to say that.

Consider yourselves heard.

On balance, what further threat did O.J. represent to society? He was successfully sued in a second trial to recover the proceeds of his book speculating on "What if" he did do it. While adamant that he should have been convicted, I was equally adamant that if he was pronounced "Not Guilty" then no one should be able to use the assumption of his guilt to recover money from him. I was disappointed with O.J. now on two fronts, but he did not recover any money from the whole business it would seem, he did not kill again, and eventually he did a massively stupid thing in Nevada and will probably die in jail for it.

This illustrates the threat to society of a lone criminal, or even a group of criminals. What threat are they on balance to me? None. If I have met a Mafioso I haven't known it. The closest I came to meeting one was Jimmy Hoffa's book keeper who is probably now passed away. It led to my personal but largely unsubstantiated (but plausible) theory of what happened to Mr. Hoffa. If true, he will never be found. I digress. The point? I have not been visibly harmed to a great degree by the presence of organized crime (I certainly disapprove) and I was not shot by O.J. The fact that criminals do go free and do what they do again, or that organized crime kills and steals and harms us all is not lost on me. The question is of comparative threat.

Back to Raymond and his various compatriots on trial in Schleicher County. Is it a right of Government to have an assurance, constitutionally, of having a fair shot and convicting any particular defendant. I have to say no. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial (by a jury of your peers) are those of the defendant(s), not of the prosecution. It has been suggested that the trial may be moved because a jury cannot be seated in Schleicher County. If the trial is massively unfair in favor of the defendant, what precisely is the harm? I submit, as framed by our founders, none.

This "right" though, to "get 'em if they are guilty," now seems embedded in the public consciousness and it would seem that a change of venue might be asked for by the prosecution. I don't even know if that's possible, but I suspect it may be so. It shouldn't be. If Raymond Jessop wants to be tried in Eldorado, he should be tried in Eldorado. If they can only find 14 jurors (2 alternates and 12 regulars) then that's all they can find, and the trial should proceed. If the defense deems those jurors too tainted to try their client, it is Raymond's right to change venue, or it should be. Again, IMHO.
"The names of some residents who’ve been called as potential jurors are trickling out. Michelle Roberts of The Associated Press quoted Success editor Randy Mankin as saying he, his mother and his son (a photographer for the newspaper) are in the pool. Mike Kelly over at the San Angelo Standard-Times reports a court clerk got a summons."
Those folks? Probably going home. Who else?
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The trial will be a strain for Williams’ office: It will be closed Monday because she and her deputy will be in court, and her only remaining deputy was summonsed for jury selection."
Back to Brooke's blog:
"Here are the seven sure-fire, automatic ways to get out of serving on this jury:

1. Over the age of 70. (According to Williams, this is the No. 1 reason for dismissals so far.)

2. Legal custody of a child or children under 15 and services would leave them without adequate supervision.

3. You are a student at a public or private high school.

4. You are enrolled and in actual attendance at an institution of higher education.

5. You are an officer or employee of the Texas Senate, House of Representatives, or any department, commission, board or office or other agency in the legislative branch of state government.

6. You are a primary caretaker of a person who is an invalid, unable to care for her or himself (does not apply to health care workers).

7. You are a member of the U.S. military forces serving on active duty and are deployed to a location away from your home station and out of your county of residence."
There are 12 men to try, and here is the initial call:
"Court Clerk Peggy Williams told (Brooke) a couple weeks ago that of the 300 people sent jury summons, about half are likely to show up. The no-shows either have moved out of the county or qualify for an automatic jury exemption."
After challenges, which Judge Walther must be sure are fair (I'm not sure she can manage that, it's not her nature) there may have to be a second call. In all Schleicher will plow through 1/7th of their available jurors in this first trial, and there are 11 trials to go. That 1/7th number may go substantially higher. It's conceivable that a full third of the jury pool may be spent on this first trial.

So what if they cannot find 12 men (or women) good and true to seat as a jury that is not perhaps, biased in favor of acquittal? Is this not their own fault, the prosecution? Should the presumed innocent be forced to pay for the peeing in the jury pool that Texas has already done? Shouldn't it be that if you can only find persons prejudiced for acquittal, that they should be seated and the trials go on?

If you don't want to try the trial before the trial, don't. If you do and it forces you to select jurors predisposed to acquit, then it's O.J. all over again, and I think I'm alright with that.

The comparative threat by a lawless government, is much greater.

UPDATE! - Brooke is "Twittering" that there are 12 FLDS members, that she has been able to count, so far, in the jury pool. That's close to 10% of the available jurors.

UPDATE 2 - Brooke twitters again: 153 prospective jurors showed up. So far 19 have been released after privately pleading case at bench with judge and attorneys. I wish she would tell us if any of that first flight out included FLDS members. It does sound like the first 19 were making their excuses though.

UPDATE 3, again referring to Brooke. the 19 included the obvious like Randy Mankin of the Eldorado Success. 153 jurors, 19 excused, maybe more later. That's now 134 jurors out of which 10% can be figured to be FLDS since Brooke was able to "eyeball" identify at least 12 she knew, all of whom appear eager to do jury duty.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 23, 2009

Commando Coffee

And if you look through my second story window at 6am, past the plants, with a telescope, I daresay the view might be even more shocking.
The Telegraph - "Eric Williamson, from Springfield, Virginia, was brewing coffee in his kitchen when a woman and a seven-year-old boy walked past the window and saw him.

The woman complained to police who arrested Williamson shortly after the incident on Monday morning.

Williamson, 29, insisted he did nothing wrong and that any exposure of his private parts were accidental.

'Yes I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me,' he said."
My goodness Eric, pull the drapes or move the kitchen to the second floor and put some plants in the window. And to the woman who reported him? Laugh, and don't look again. Sheesh.

This reminds me of neighbors in Texas. When they couldn't get a good look, they flew over and took pictures. When they still couldn't see anything, they went in with a swat team.

And yes, I often don't wear a thing from the time I hit the sack until the coffee is started. No one is lining up to look and I'm sure no one wants to.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Stewie prostitutes self with shameless plug

I had such faith in him too.

It's sad when your heros fall.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Canada May Legalize Polygamy

When charges against Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler were dropped, many of us thought the great polygamy challenge we hoped for in Canada, was done for the foreseeable future. Wrongo.
FoxNews - "Attorney General Mike de Jong said he believes polygamy is against the law and should remain so, but he said the justice system needs clarity about whether Canada's law barring multiple marriages is constitutional.

Two Canadian laws stand in contradiction: Polygamy is banned, and religious freedoms are firmly protected.

The move comes a month after a judge quashed polygamy charges against two leaders of a polygamous community in western Canada. The judge ruled the province did not have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to consider the cases of Winston Blackmore and James Oler after previous prosecutors recommended against charges.

The government has decided to seek the British Columbia Supreme Court opinion rather than appeal that court ruling. De Jong said the case may ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada."
Hip Hip Hooray for Mike de Jong then. The only benefit to pro polygyny advocates of polygyny persecutions is that one day prosecuters will maneuver themselves into a court challenge that strikes down anti polygamy laws.

Thanks Mike. Bravo. Let's have our day in court.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Charming, I vote death by "Swirlie"

When you're a drunk, you use whatever weapon is at hand.
WPTZ-Burlington, VT - "Nazeih Hammouri, 53, of Vershire, faces a first-degree assault charge in connection with the Monday morning stabbing.

Vermont State Police said they were called to Hammouri's home on Parker Road just after midnight and their investigation revealed Hammouri had stabbed his 19-year-old son in the stomach after an argument over a clogged toilet."
Death by Swirlie! Or, maybe just a swirlie. In the same toilet. Once a day for the next 10 years.
"Police said Hammouri was drinking. He is being held on $15,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in Orange County Court Monday afternoon."
At least he doesn't drink the cheap stuff, it had a cork you know. Maybe he should be sentenced to drink only that with a screw on cap. The weapon was a corkscrew. Vershire, only 34 miles, from my house.
More →

Sphere: Related Content