JOHNNIE HANNA, EXPERT ON “DISPUTED MINORS” AGES, USES SAME INFO TO DECLARE AGE OF RAYMOND AND JANET.

The State put on Johnnie Hanna of the Texas Rangers to pin down the ages of Raymond and Janet this morning.

This is the same Ranger who has kept the “Chain of custody” of all the material that he’s been pimping out un-redacted info to Natalie and any other anti-FLDS maggot he could find over the past 20 month’s.

We all remember those 31 “Disputed minors” that the State was so confused about. Last year, johnnie couldn’t tell a 12 year old from a 37 year old. Today, he’s an expert at being able to read people’s birth certificates and drivers licenses.

What I would like to know is exactly where those documents have been in the last 20 months, and whose hands he put them in to change or alter, just a little.

I would also like to know exactly WHEN those documents came into his sweaty little hands.

I DO KNOW one thing, the Bishop’s Records became his latest sexual fantasy a good week BEFORE barbie authorized their official taking, so I guess he was just getting ahead of himself in the Search Warrant department.

How many other documents was johnnie drooling over immediately after the raid? I guess we’ll have to await the Official Evidence Room File to learn that, along with his signature and mechanical time-stamp to prove it Huh johnnie.

By the way johhnie, when did you turn over the video tape of barbie at the front gate of the Ranch during the raid to the Defense? You wouldn’t be taking any lessons from Philip the swinger on that score would you pal?

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Money Making Options

Monetise your blog with text ads

Post meta

This entry was written by Bill and posted on October 29, 2009 at 2:20 pm and filed under Abuses of the State, Baptists, Barbara Walther, Brooke's Long, CASA, CPS, CPS Abuse, Children, Constitutional Rights, David Doran, Due Process, FLDS, Johnnie Hanna, PERJURY, PURJURY, Philip Kemp, Police State, Texas, barbieland. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

Post JOHNNIE HANNA, EXPERT ON “DISPUTED MINORS” AGES, USES SAME INFO TO DECLARE AGE OF RAYMOND AND JANET. to digg.

Post JOHNNIE HANNA, EXPERT ON “DISPUTED MINORS” AGES, USES SAME INFO TO DECLARE AGE OF RAYMOND AND JANET. to Reddit

114 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

The story about the little Mormon girl being raped by her father on a holiday might be an urban legend. I first heard the story in California 19 years ago. In that version, the 12 year old girl was LDS, the man was her stepfather and the rape happened on Thanksgiving. In Flora’s version, the 12 year old girl was FLDS, the man was her father and the rape happened on the fourth of July.

1. Cupcake on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Brent said:

As a Mormon, with fundamentalist beliefs, I’d say that I fear the Church way more than the vocal idiots like Flora and her cult. I’ll take enemies like Flora any day. It’s an organization that has true political power, and many “servants” in the F.B.I. that gives me the creeps.

==============================================

I agree 100%. Flora was probably abused by her father when she was young. This resulted in her developing borderline personality disorder. She is a very disturbed person - one who probably needs a lot of help. It’s probably easier for her to blame polygamy for her abuse than her family. What’s sad is she needs to realize her father would have abused her whether he married two women or not. She needs to deal with the pain and grief of what her father did instead of transferring her anger to polygamists.

Who I blame are the Rangers and FBI agents. These are professionals who should know how to assess people like Flora.

Shame on the LDS church for turning their backs on the FLDS.

2. * on November 1st, 2009 at 12:29 am
Chritmas Jacobs,
” So I think they made a pretty big assumption by starting with White European as a DNA starting point.”

The only source I have seen that stated such was Ron. I assumed he was just using that as an example, to which I pointed out how even that example does not solve the “inbreeding” problem. I am not aware of any database that could supply data on that select group, but I would not be surprised if it is available.

Sorry if my comment was misleading there, and I’d appreciate it if it would be shared with me should anyone see a source that actually said something like this happened.

3. kbp on October 31st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I like that one; SITTING BULLSHIT!
(but illl be nice)TBM: how’s the weather in Barbie land?

4. pins on October 31st, 2009 at 8:39 pm
In today’s atmoshere, and given the history, asking questions of the FLDS is akin to asking Jewish people questions.

None are ashamed of themselves or their religion, but history taught them that answering questions usually got them beat up, dead, or run out of town.

The greater majority of the FLDS who came into contact with the general public in Texas when their children were still in captivity, were met by friendly faces, and even people who offered them help.

There were also those who were downright nasty and vicious, even to the little children.

They have been treated like dirt in many cases, and it’s going to take one hell of a lot for them to be open among strangers, that has always led to problems for them in the past. Now, we have an entire new generation of FLDS that will not forget the “Hospitality” of Texas anytime soon, so if they seem distant or overly protective of themselves, there is very good reason behind it.

5. Bill on October 31st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
So back to the paternity testing.

My FLDS coworker is cordial but certainly not chatty. Occasionally I have a chance to ask her questions. I find that if I try to pin her down to individual circumstances she “doesn’t really know”, but often she’ll answer more general questions.

So I asked her, “Are most FLDS of European descent?”

Her reply. “Well, that with a strong thread of Native American Indian running thru most of the families. She noted that both the Jeffs families and Merril Jessops children are “more recently mingled with Indian blood than european” and that some of Merril’s children look very black haired and indian looking”.

So I think they made a pretty big assumption by starting with White European as a DNA starting point.

Yep! Janet’s little girl in that picture in NY Times does look like a little black braided maid. Come to think of it - Ray looks a little Indian himself. And I haven’t seen Janet - but it would be interesting to see if she has Native American features as well.

An assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption of guilt.

6. Christmas Jacobs on October 31st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I know that it is extremely difficult to avoid the scum on the SLT that spout this garage, but it is counterproductive to repeat it for them on other sites.

They are merely low life white trash verbalizing their own sexual fantasies, and don’t have the balls to make these claims under their own name.

If you must go to these sites, than notify the owners that you consider them both slanderous and cowardly and they are actively contributing to it.

Those with the lowest morals are about to be brought out into the open, and they can produce their
evidence to a Court of Law when they are forced to defend their libel.

7. Bill on October 31st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I just wanted to comment on the conversation between Bob and Cupcake. From my perspective, as a fundamentalist who still has close ties with the LDS church (my children still go to primary every Sunday, and my dad is in the Bishopric of our Ward), I agree completely with Bob. Gordon B. Hinckley clearly stated that plural marriage is “not doctrinal”, and “it is now against the law of God”. Those are actual quotes.

Some of the old-timers in the Church still hold plural marriage as being doctrinal, but that number dwindles every day.

As a Mormon, with fundamentalist beliefs, I’d say that I fear the Church way more than the vocal idiots like Flora and her cult. I’ll take enemies like Flora any day. It’s an organization that has true political power, and many “servants” in the F.B.I. that gives me the creeps.

Does anyone really think Jeffs would have made it to the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted list if the L.D.S. church wasn’t involved? He performed a marriage ceremony on a minor. That happens everyday in this country. Can anyone point to a lessor crime that’s ever made that list?

8. Brent Hartman on October 31st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
And she claims to be Jewish, not Catholic or LDS.

9. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
She says she was voted “most likely to become a spy or mercenary” in high school. She certainly is a mercenary in this war against polygamy. Who’s paying her? My guess is Dan Fischer.

10. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
She is an ex LDS that quit the Church and is now taking out her own failings on the FLDS and all Mormon’s.
K-Dee Ignatia is her name, and she’s about as relevant as Sitting Bullshit and Natalie.

11. Bill on October 31st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
The funny thing about Magdalena/Betty/Boots or whatever she calls herself now is that she claims to be a Catholic.

My husband is an ex-Catholic. He refused to permit me to talk our children to the Catholic church because he read too many news articles stating that some Catholic priests are pedophiles. According to these news articles, the Catholic church KNEW that some of their priests were pedophiles. Instead of defrocking the pedophile priests, the Catholic church transerred them to other parishes, where they molested more children.

I think it is ironic that Magdalena/Betty/Boots or whatever she calls herself now insists upon attacking Mormons and Mormon Fundamentalists when her own church has a problem with pedophile priests. I think a Catholic should be more concerned about cleaning up her own church instead of attacking other churches.

12. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
k.Dee Ignatin is a bitter ex-trophy wife who is the director of the AAAP, which is two or three people, as far as I can tell. She posts dozens of attacks on the FLDS every day under a variety of names.

13. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Cupcake, once again….and as usual, They’re judging after their own hearts. If the rest of their anonymity were gone, it wouldn’t surprise any of us to find out not only who — but WHAT the majority of them are.

14. Xorph on October 31st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Julie says K. Dee is one of Flora’s friends.

I think K. Dee posts as Magdalena (and sometimes as Betty) on the SLT site. I think she posts as Boots on the TexasFLDS website.

15. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Who is K.Dee? If Janet was with another man it was only if she was married to him.

16. JustMe on October 31st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
About the antipolygamy crowd’s claim that Raymond and the FLDS accusing Janet of sleeping with hundreds of men…

I think the KS are confused because yesterday we discussed the merits of DNA evidence, not attacking the members of the FLDS, including the girls and women.

17. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Where are the KS getting this (mis)information?

—-
They make it up. No doubt Flora and K.Dee are the big thinkers of this group, coming up with an endless stream of mental caca. K.Dee has a marketing background, so she certainly knows how to lie.

18. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Some of the antipolygamy crowd are posting at the SLT that Raymond and the FLDS claim Janet had sex with hundreds of men.

I do not believe that any of us have said anything remotely like that. I do not believe that Raymond or the FLDS have said anything like that either.

Where are the KS getting this (mis)information? Don’t you just love the way the antipolygamy crowd twists the truth to suit their own purposes?

19. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I was born and raised Catholic in New England. It was a time when there were few Mormons there. However, my father would always tune into the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on the radio, and that was how, as a very young child, I first learned about Mormons. Later on, when I moved west, I came to have many friends who are Mormon. I’ve always had great respect for them and the Church; and have studied the faith extensively. I’m sad to say, however, that in my opinion, if Joseph Smith were alive today, he’d call for an immediate reformation of the Church. Too many errors have crept in and the true faith has veered off the right course, set by Smith and the other early leaders of the Church. Also, in my opinion, the true Mormon Church today is the FLDS (and similar groups) that have not compromised the original teachings to be trendy and be loved.

I generally follow a practice of “if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything,” but I have to tell you that the way the Salt Lake City Mormons have been treating the FLDS and similar groups disgusts me and the way that group is changing things to be trendy also disgusts me. Who speaks for Joseph Smith? It’s not the crowd in Salt Lake City, that’s for sure. If Joseph showed up in Temple Square, he’d be arrested by that good Mormon Utah Atty General Mark Shurleff, and the leadership in Salt Lake City would just be issuing negative press releases about the FLDS. Disgusted!

20. Bob on October 31st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Bob,

I attended LDS seminary in California back in the 70’s. When our seminary teacher taught us Mormon history, the polygamists were the good guys and the bad guys were the mob. Our heroes were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Calhoun, just as those men are heroes to the FLDS. It was very confusing when the LDS church abruptly changed sides.

But we were never permitted to discuss modern polygamy.

Once, one of my classmates got brave and asked our teacher if there were still polygamists in Utah. Our teacher said yes, but refused to answer any other questions about the subject.

I remember thinking, “The polygamists in Utah must be very, very old. And their wives must be very old too.”

21. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
And they keep harping on “sexual assault of a child,” so the jury thinks the “victim” is a child instead of an adult woman who doesn’t think she’s a rape victim.

22. Riki on October 31st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Ron:
” Your second statement is simply full of nonsense. I simply quoted the two easiest markers of FLDS members. They are white and of European descent. Both of those are highly relevant markers and define characteristics of FLDS members. Someone skilled in demographics or genetics could probably find many other markers which would create an FLDS database. So, to say, “no database exists” is simply not credible. “

First, when I say “marker”, I use it to address the distinct variance of any allele, when compared to another, found in the testing. It appears you used it to identify a select group of traits that some database may be available for.

A “DATABASE” is the records produced from DNA testing of others, which was compiled by the source of whatever database the lab used in this case.

You seem to interchange “marker” and “database” in your response, so I am not 100% sure of what you are saying, but I’ll try to respond to it.

As a note of interest, they could have compared the variance of the limit of markers obtained in all the tests ran on the ranch residents and compared them to the variance of some other database to see what the results indicated. This would strengthen the validity of their claim to whatever probability they wish to report. Maybe they did do that and wish to NOT share it. It would not have been that difficult for either side to do it, considering there was prolly less than 600 or so from the ranch that gave samples. Maybe the defense will have an expert explain to the jury what those results reveal.

Smut said they considered using an “inbreeding coefficient”, but did not. The database they could base that coefficient on would produce an estimate of probability with a large margin for error, as there is no database for the FLDS. Even if we were to accept that “coefficient” as verifiable or accurate, it would have created a number (or factor) that is placed at the front of the formula they use when multiplying probability within the database used. That factor would have to reduce the probability, by reducing the factor obtained from the database in that equation.

The last time I researched any on databases was 5 years ago. I have no doubt there are many more available, that those existing have a greater number of individual traits included now, and anyone using them can be much more selective in picking one or more groups to inter-mingle numbers that give a more accurate estimate for calculating probability. In this response I’ll just assume that there are databases available for “white” and “European descent”.

If we do accept that there database(s) and/or “coefficients” available as you mention, it would look like the lab calculated the probability by;

Using a “white” database because the “white” should be more accurate here; and then

Refined the factor by limiting it to “European descent”, because somebody somehow determined that is where most descended from; and then

Added in that “50 percent likelihood to the calculation”.

I see the assumptions that the “white” database holds sufficient data to identify the probability of how many within the FLDS will NOT have the same markers they found existed in both the child and Raymond, the same for “European descent”, and then that a “50 percent likelihood” is needed in the calculation to accurately reveal the conclusion of the compounded equation; or better yet…

As Brooke tells us how Defense Attorney Brandon T. Hudson put it, “It’s an assumption that builds on an assumption that builds on an assumption.”

In another point Brooke told us of, Smut stated “a match for 15 genetic markers, such as happened in Jessop’s case, occurs only with a “true biological father”" (paraphrased by Brooke).

I have never seen parentage testing go for so many markers, usually it will only involve 6-8, while testing for crimes often must be >12 to be acceptable when NOT excluding a defendant. I’d wager dollars to donuts the initial tests showed WHY consideration of the “inbreeding coefficient” was on the table and it took a visit back to the lab to start digging deeper into the samples of genes!

This larger number of markers is to the state’s advantage. I have to wonder if they went for that many markers in all the testing completed on ranch residents. They might have avoided such to NOT know if such would be more evidence of a problem with the factors used from the database(s). This could become quite interesting, if the state is avoiding data like that!

I do hope the state introduces Smut and her numbers, which I am certain she will be coached on and better prepared to explain - though such can’t eliminate the problem. The outcome will provide one example for the jury of just how far over the line the state has gone to convict a ranch resident.

Then we’ll hear how they can prove he was in Texas when the child was conceived.

23. kbp on October 31st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Bob,

I am a member of the LDS church. Have been for 35 years.

I’ve never heard the LDS missionaries say they don’t “believe” that any more. I’ve heard them say, “We don’t DO that any more.” There is a difference in the context of the words.

Also, I attended seminary in California when I was a kid. When my seminary classmates and I asked why the LDS don’t practice polygamy any more, our seminary teacher simply said, “Because it is illegal.”

24. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I think that if Raymond Jessop is acquitted during this trial, the state will prosecute him for the bigamy charge. Judge Walthers, CPS and LE are determined to find a way to send Raymond to prison.

25. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Don’t we all know what this show trial is really about? It’s about people daring to follow peaceful religious views that are not favored by people of other religions, and especially not favored by some born again types who hate all Mormons including the gang in Salt Lake City that is trying to run away from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young at light speed and prove that they are just nice little Christians like the people who hate them. The gang from Salt Lake City wants members of its branch of Mormonism to deemphasize traditional Mormon teachings and emphasize Jesus in the Church’s name. They just want to be loved and Joseph Smith’s ideas about needing to reform the church? Psssshaw. “Why we don’t believe that anymore.”

26. Bob on October 31st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The State knows this case is going to appeal - they are afraid it will back fire like it did in Lawrence. The bigamy charges will NEVER go to trial.

27. * on October 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Many of the DNA results taken werr returned as unable to determined. They also returned more than several with false results for the parents. Indeed, the parents the DNA results claimed were the parents were ridiculously far off - But, as was pointed out, the defense does NOT have to prove anything. That burden is on the prosecution. I’m with Kent, I think this trial (even if hey lose in Walther’s court) will be the biggest liability the state has when all this “expert” tstimony is put together. They will never be able to prove RJs guilt, but they are going to have irrefutable proof that the state has acted with malice and the presumption of guilt from start to finish. Ahh yes, get them “experts” up there! I can hardly wait!

28. Christmas Jacobs on October 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Cupcake: I really don’t like the idea of the state prosecuting the bigamy charge at a later date. To me, the state is saying that if the state can’t convict him of sexual assault of a child, they will get him for bigamy.

—
Looks to me that Texas has decided not to charge polygamists with bigamy (ie, dropping the charges on Yisrayl Hawkins), and they were afraid that given one easy charge and a difficult one, that the jury might convict Raymond only on bigamy. Anyone can see, the way things are going, that the polygamy laws are history, and sooner rather than later, thanks to the triple AP and their ilk. So high fives, K.Dee and Flora! Good work!

29. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 6:45 am
Cupcake: If the defense can prove that conception occurred outside of Texas (in a place where the age of consent is younger), then the DNA evidence won’t matter.

—
The prosecution has to do the proving, right? Here they have a case they normally wouldn’t prosecute, and they’re doing their usual incompetent job, putting a ranger on the stand who promptly undercuts the one household theory, and then a DNA expert who is apparently no more than a technician plugging numbers into an FBI formula she only dimly understands, and who makes a claim that now hangs like a fat pinata, ready to be exploded. All in two days. Even so, the KS are doing their high fives and kissing each other on the lips, either through ignorance, or because they put their trust in Walther and her poisoned jury pool. And because this trial, as Blues would have them believe (because he’s in law enforcement and knows such things), is a mere formality.

30. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 6:33 am
I really don’t like the idea of the state prosecuting the bigamy charge at a later date. To me, the state is saying that if the state can’t convict him of sexual assault of a child, they will get him for bigamy. I don’t think that is right. The state is stacking cards against the defendant in the state’s favor. It makes the state look dishonest.

In most of the criminal trials I’ve watched, the prosecution presents all the evidence in one trial. Then the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of first degree murder or of a lesser charge. If the state can’t convict the defendant of murder, the state can’t go back and later charge him/her of manslaughter.

That is why I don’t believe the FLDS can get a fair trial in Texas. No minority group can.

31. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 5:07 am
In Raymond Jessop’s case, I don’t think the DNA evidence is as important as proving where the child was conceived. If the defense can prove that conception occurred outside of Texas (in a place where the age of consent is younger), then the DNA evidence won’t matter.

32. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 4:43 am
I watched the OJ case on tv from start to finish. When Marcia Clark presented the evidence, I believed OJ was guilty.

But when the defense proved that Mark Fuhrman lied under oath, I knew the jury would not convict OJ because the defense established reasonable doubt. My thoughts were, “Well, if the police lied about one thing, they might lie about something else too.”

Something like that could happen in this case too. That’s why I try to keep an open mind until ALL the evidence is presented.

33. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 4:29 am
The end result is still that the state tried to fabricate evidence through science, if they present that “expert”.

Meanwhile, the DATABASE of “whites” or “of European descent” has ZERO to do with the markers testing would produce in the FLDS, when a DATABASE is needed for math involved.

Kent-

I won’t argue whether they tried to fabricate evidence or not. It’s clear to me that they are putting forth a number as “fact” that can be shot full of holes.

Your second statement is simply full of nonsense. I simply quoted the two easiest markers of FLDS members. They are white and of European descent. Both of those are highly relevant markers and define characteristics of FLDS members. Someone skilled in demographics or genetics could probably find many other markers which would create an FLDS database. So, to say, “no database exists” is simply not credible.

34. Ron in Houston on October 31st, 2009 at 12:33 am
Let’s not forget OJ had 99% DNA too.

The average person doesn’t understand complex statistics - no way. The State will try to explain complex stats and the defense will try to explain complex facts - the jury will believe what they emotionally want the evidence to be.

Regardless of the complex stats here some basic facts they need to convince the jury:

*The cops were honest in their collection
*The lab couldn’t have made a mistake

If this is a juror who had a prior bad experience with cops, they might be more likely to believe the Rangers might not be so honest.

35. * on October 31st, 2009 at 12:24 am
“It doesn’t matter that no “database” exists for FLDS members. There are numerous data points for “whites” or “of European descent” or numerous other markers that define Raymond Jessop.”

The end result is still that the state tried to fabricate evidence through science, if they present that “expert”.

Meanwhile, the DATABASE of “whites” or “of European descent” has ZERO to do with the markers testing would produce in the FLDS, when a DATABASE is needed for math involved.

It’s like trying to say what the probability of a person in the entire world being named a “Jessup” would be. The true DATABASE needed addresses the question of “what the probability of a person [within the FLDS] being named a “Jessup” would be”.

36. kent on October 31st, 2009 at 12:18 am
Kent said:

That “”99.99998 percent” probability he fathered the child” is a claim that will backfire and make the prosecution look like they are trying to fabricate evidence

Kent - I don’t disagree with that. The prosecution is trying to put forth a number that can be easily shot full of holes.

What I’m saying is that the kid is his. From a juror perspective the trying to make it look like it’s not his is no worse than the trying to prove that 99.99998 percent is a correct number. Let’s concede all the FLDS points and say that it’s only a 99.99% chance. Do you really think that the jury is going to say, “it’s not his kid?”

It doesn’t matter that no “database” exists for FLDS members. There are numerous data points for “whites” or “of European descent” or numerous other markers that define Raymond Jessop.

37. Ron in Houston on October 31st, 2009 at 12:04 am
Ron:
” I’m sorry but you guys are engaging in variations of what’s called the “defendant’s fallacy.” See, if you say that out of the “white male Mormon descendant” population that there .01 percent chance that this person is not the father, that doesn’t mean that there is a 1 in 100 chance that he’s not the father”

I’m sure you’ve read where I have posted 100+ times that a DATABASE of FLDS to use for calculating the probability does NOT exist. The numbers they wish to present are not verifiable in science.

That “”99.99998 percent” probability he fathered the child” is a claim that will backfire and make the prosecution look like they are trying to fabricate evidence (wait, they are, with a 50% margin for error in this case!!!).

You can’t even determine if the probability he is excluded is a “.01 percent chance” because…

…the DATABASE needed does NOT exist.

That probability might be much greater.

Contact Brian Meehan, the DNA “expert” of the Duke Lacrosse case, and ask him what a few bloggers did to his reputation. Now that also was a pattern of what you called the “defendant’s fallacy”, until he had to crawl under a rock.

I recall telling the FLDS to have testing done on members, privately, to determine how bad the problem is. Could that be evidence withheld for rebuttal?

I’m actually glad to see that walther will allow the testimony of that “expert” (cough, cough).

38. kent on October 30th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
And naturally, that is IF the tests were done correctly.

If the listing of children to mothers put out by CPS and the Court is an example of the accuracy of the way this particular DNA testing was done, then the State is in VERY BIG trouble.

Even I, with my limited knowledge of who was who on the Ranch at the time, KNEW that at least 4 of the families they had put together was wrong.

Once again, Enee, Menee, Minee, Moe just ain’t good enough when picking paternity issue’s and yet that is exactly what this Lab did with that list.

Take a good hard look at that list again now that you are familiar with which child is in which family.

Then they put on an “Expert” who cannot tell you how she arrived at the figure?

How fast would it take you to make her out the fool she is Ron?

39. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
What would be a good test is to give the dna experts the unnamed samples of 30 men and the unnamed samples of 100 children in the FLDS and tell them to match them up.

Duane - you’d get the same results you’re getting in this case.

The beauty of DNA testing is that it rules out guys with 100% likelihood. There is no .0000001% chance you are the father. There is either a 0% chance you are the father or (depending on the statistics a 99.999 to 99.99998 chance you are.)

40. Ron in Houston on October 30th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
The last two comments from “Cupcake” is cupcake2

Thomas, “Inbreeding coefficient” is a pejorative sounding term, but in this case, it benefits the FLDS.

DNA testing is almost useless in their case, unless they tell you who the parents are, there are too many combination’s to exclude, and they CANNOT prove a given person is the father.

41. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Here’s another tidbit about DNA evidence that I learned from my science teacher in high school.

Many years ago, a woman claimed that Chad Everett, the actor who played Dr. Gannon in the t.v. show called “Medical Center,” was the father of her child. She sued him for child support.

Even though DNA evidence showed that the likelihood that Chad Everett was 99.9998% accurate, the jury voted in Chad Everett’s favor. The woman lost her case.

Being liked and admired by a jury is more important than DNA evidence.

42. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
RIKI; YOU have insuklted me. I am emphatically not a KSERS. Inbreeding did render the prvious tests unreilable and that same imbredding render these tests unreliable in this case.

43. THOMAS on October 30th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Both Riki and Ron are correct, but as they both know, you play the game regardless.

I’m sure if the STate asked Raymond’s lawyer if he would conceded that the baby is his, they would.

However, rather than go the simple route, The State wants to show the jury how “Thorough” they have been.

Since they are presenting the DNA as fact, (Like they produced DNA from the Houston and Dallas Labs that are now the joke of the Nation) then showing the jury that the DNA is useless as tested is merely playing by their rules for now.

As I said before Ron, where did Johnnie get the idea that Raymond was the father of Janets children 5 days after the start of the attack?

The fact is, they want to beat their chest’s in front of the jury. Their beating something, but it isn’t their chests.

44. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Oh not this garbage again: Inbreeding among the FLDS rendered these tests unreliable.

Jeez, can’t you KSers be a bit more original? The “need” for DNA testing was bogus, since it wasn’t done by the time the children were returned to their parents & the children were picked up by the same people who claimed to be their parents. CPS knew which mother went with each child/ren from the beginning. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have allowed the parents the very limited visitation that they got.

45. Riki on October 30th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I would produce 1/2 a dozen possibilities just to make fools out of their DNA evidence.

I have never heard any member of the FLDS EVER deny that Raymond and Janet are married, and that the baby is one of theirs.

Obviously, Johnnie was told that Raymond was the father, which is why he took the blood sample in the jail on the 9th of April, long before the DNA tests came back.

Who mommy and daddy are is not the question to be answered in this case, but WHERE they became a mommy and daddy. In this case, the State says that the baby was conceived “Blocks” from the Courthouse.
Unless johnnie, brooksie and davey were under their bed at the time, that’s going to be a neat thing to prove. The house they live in wasn’t even built yet!

The value of challenging the DNA testing is in other cases that are pending.

If the quality of the rest of the “Investigation” is on a par with the DNA evidence, the jury just might have to acquit.

46. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
About the man whose rape conviction was overturned, but he later committed another rape.

I think the lady judge was subtly implying that she did not believe the DNA evidence used to overturn his conviction was correct.

47. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I’m sorry but you guys are engaging in variations of what’s called the “defendant’s fallacy.” See, if you say that out of the “white male Mormon descendant” population that there .01 percent chance that this person is not the father, that doesn’t mean that there is a 1 in 100 chance that he’s not the father.

There is other corroborating evidence that points to him being the father. So, unless you’re saying that FLDS women are women of loose morals who might have procreated with other random folks of the “white male Mormon descendant” population, the odds that this guy is the father would me vastly greater.

Sorry guys, he’s the father, beyond a reasonable doubt.

48. Ron in Houston on October 30th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Angie Voss wanted the DNA tests in order to match mother and child. Inbreeding among the FLDS rendered these tests unreliable. Why should the tests in this case be any more reliable?

49. THOMAS on October 30th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
What would be a good test is to give the dna experts the unnamed samples of 30 men and the unnamed samples of 100 children in the FLDS and tell them to match them up. Then compare their results and see how they match up against the actual parents or see if they match with authenticated birth certificates.

50. duane on October 30th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Ahhh. So this was why Walther didn’t want the jurors there. DNA is supposed to be practicallt irrefutable,yet the more they learn about it - the more they discover not only the results but the procedures and techs must be cross examined if they are to be valid. Grits had a post just recently where he showed pictures of outdated chemicals, uncalibrated testing instruments and a box fan blowing over genetic samples and crosscontaminating everything. This is happening in Dallas right now. The lab fired the worker there who cussed ‘em about their filthy lab for being “insubordinate”. So he’s suing them.

And we all know what A despicable scandal the Houston Crime Lab is. DNA, technique, tech workers and analysts are all incredibly subject to human error and psychological insinuation by LE. and the fact that they simply refuse to question or allow anyone else to question whether there are any other possible fathers in a community that interrelated displays an incredible amount of prejudement - but all’s normal in Walthers courtroom.

If this jury refuses to acquit Raymond they desereve to be oppressed by these officials. It will be their own fault and they will have the same corruption still.

51. Christmas Jacobs on October 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Now the fact that the State mixed and matched mothers and children begins to make sense.

At first, I thought they were just incompetent. I didn’t know they were trying to BS the Jury into thinking that Raymond was the only match in Dodge.

In this case, mathematically, the chances of excluding other males in the FLDS is more probably 1/1,250, depending upon the lineage of the parents grand parents.

So much for 2/2,000,000,000

52. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I’ll just bet they didn’t want anything to do with an inbreeding coefficient.

The F factor, when factored into the equation by a defense DNA test of the sample the Prosecutors Lab used will tell the real story.

Gee, I wonder if the State knew that the defense was going to demand a sample that the State is presenting and do their own Allele analysis?

The smartest way to deal with the problem is to send half a dozen DNA samples to the Lab and do the tests the right way. Walking into Court with half a dozen daddies who are the father should give the jury some minor “Reasonable doubt”

One would have thought, with all the neat little stories the book sellers were feeding Texas, they would have been smart enough to run the full tests, and not try to pull a fast one on the Jury. I guess Abbott figured the Country bumpkins would never know what an inbreeding coefficient was.

53. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Brooke: A forensic analyst said Friday that DNA samples from Raymond Merril Jessop, his alleged victim and her child showed there is a “99.99998 percent” probability he fathered the child.

—
Yet Smuts couldn’t say how she got that amazing number–two chances in ten million, wow!–and I had to laugh when Hudson handed her an iPhone so she could recalculate it. Worse for the state’s case, her admission that they brushed off using an “inbreeding coefficient” could be disastrous. The state will be lucky if she doesn’t get creamed in front of the jury.

54. Julie on October 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
You have nothing to fear from the Mann Act Mandy. NOBODY wants to take you across anything to have sex with.

Try Natalie.

55. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
None of the Alamo children were permanently removed from the parents care, the Judge knew that if he took them away because the parents would not give up their religion, he would be overturned.

There was no particular reason for the parents to show, the only thing it would have accomplished was for CPS to take their newborn into custody.

They have no intentions of allowing that to happen, and the new born is safely tucked away beyond the Judges clutches.

As for his brothers and sisters, their case is now on hold until the investigation into the abuse of the 3 girls in foster care is resolved. CPS and CASA are going to have to explain to the Judge why the girls are no longer intact.

It really doesn’t matter anymore, the Federal Judge will be doing the deciding now that Arkansas is as careful with it’s foster children as Texas is.

56. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The parents were busy with Alamo ministries work.

The children should not have been taken, and they have more important things to do than answer the state!

57. diesel on October 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
More of my 2 cents:

What blows my mind about the Raymond Jessop trial is the huge amount of effort the state is making to try to prove he committed an act that in most states, is not a crime. PA, RI, Ohio, NC, New Jersey, NH, Nevada, South Dakota, to name a few…sex with a 16 year old is pefectly legal no matter what the age of the older partner is. Not only that, if he simply obtained a license from the the county clerk-the act is not a crime. I can’t get it in my head how this woman is ruined for life and a “victim” if she had sex in Eldorado Texas, but if she had sex with Raymond in Pringle South Dakota, this alleged act with Raymond won’t leave her damaged and “victimized” and she will turn out perfectly normal.
So I ask, are most states “behind the times” when it comes to age of consent laws?
I’m not against AOC laws, they could be very useful in cases where an older dude knocks up a 16-17 year old and skips out on her and refuses to pay child support, which was part of the orginal basis for these laws. But obviously that is not the case with fundy Mormons.

This is why venue is important. The alleged crime Raymond Jessop is being tried for is for an act that in the vast majority of North America is a non-issue.

So I’m sorry, Despite what the law says, I just don’t see a crime in this case, 16 year olds having sex doesn’t give me a visceral reaction, and absolutely no evidence Janet was forcibly raped.

This is nothing but an attack on an unpopular religion.

PS:

Bill and Bluesy, you guys should cool it with the vicious personal attacks against each other. It seems to be getting out of hand. We don’t want to see a shootout on the streets of Eldorado or San Angelo.

58. duane on October 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
KS roach infestations are extremely difficult to eliminate.

59. Julie on October 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“The same man raped ANOTHER woman.”

Which OTHER woman was that?

I guess the guy figured if he did the time, he just might as well do the crime.

Maybe the first sentence was a “Pre-emptive conviction”?

Is he going to get credit for time served the first time around? Why not?

60. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Here is another interesting tidbit I learned about DNA.

A few weeks ago, I saw a lady judge on t.v. (No, I don’t think it was Judge Walthers.) The lady judge complained because the courts had to overturn a rapist’s conviction because DNA evidence proved that he was not the actual rapist. The lady judge said that, a few weeks after his conviction was overturned, the same man raped another woman.

61. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
This is off topic, but I hope Bill will keep it up because I think it is interesting.

In 1993, a young female grunge rock star named Mia Zapata lived in Seattle. She and her group, the Gits, had released two albums.

After they came back from a tour, Mia told people she didn’t want to be in Seattle because she was having “bad feelings” about being there.

Mia also wrote a prophetic song that someone was going to kill her and “they won’t be able to find him.”

Shortly thereafter, she was abducted, raped, and killed.

The police were only able to get a minute sample of the killer’s DNA from her body. The sample was so small they couldn’t identify the killer.

The same year Mia was killed, a scientist won the Nobel prize for developing a technique to determine DNA from minute samples.

For about 10 years, Mia’s case was cold. The police had to wait until technology was available to identify DNA from minute samples. Mia’s killer was convicted and sent to prison for 36 years.

I live in Washington State, and grunge music is still popular here. May Mia Zapata rest in peace.

62. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Getting back to the hanging:

The last thing the jury heard was how scientifically the DNA sample’s were treated, and how accurate they are.

I had to chuckle at that, knowing that when the list came out in the papers regarding whose children belonged to what mother’s according to the DNA results, even I had to call the Ranch and ask them what the hell was going on.

I do not know exactly who every single child’s mother is, but I do know that more than a few of them who were CLAIMED to be related were NOT.

I guess it’s the rule in Texas that coming close to an identity is OK, or that being right a percentage of the time is enough to convict concerning DNA evidence, but an Enee, Meenie, Minee, Moe attitude won’t fly in the real world of Law.

63. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“Rattle says that the juror with the sick child was an alternate.”

—
And how does Rattle know anything? In any case, the solution is the same for any juror or alternate, dismiss them and continue.

64. Julie on October 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I was advised to leave it up in case he claims he did not send it.

It will be the last I leave up from him.

65. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Just ignore TBM. He and the KS want to fight. That’s why they are posting derogatory posts. They are baiting you.

I don’t want to fight with them. I want to read about and discuss the trial.

Just ignore them. Let them fight among themselves.

66. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Rattle says that the juror with the sick child was an alternate. That’s why the court went into recess. She says that alternates have to hear all the evidence. I think she is right.

67. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Bill,

I thought you told us that TBM is permanently banned. Why are you permitting him to still post here?

TBM, you have been been banned. Please go back to your own blog and leave us alone.

68. Cupcake on October 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I’m not getting my hopes up.

What you generally find once you dig is not this big strapping All American hero type who is the town favorite.

Guys like him always turn into Michael Jackson types with a big mouth and little girls underpants on.

He spends his time, at a distance, jock sniffing LE and fantasizing what it must be like to be a real man.

Psychologically, he uses the keyboard to validate himself and his life, but once the power goes off, he’s just one more pathetic loser with no one to tell him how clever and knowledgeable he is.

You can probably get away with bullying Alexis, Yvonne and Mary Lynn, but if I were you, I would be a little careful about playing footsie with Eli, Andrew or Teddy, they’ll knock your fucking block off, asshole.

69. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Oh my, open containers, kissing babies, email addresses! Ole Blues is really pulling out the stops now. Though I’m beginning to think he’s not a man after all, or even a native American. She’s probably just another Dan Fischer rabble-rouser. Another triple AP type.

70. Julie on October 30th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I have sent your e mail to my imaginary lawyers in Dallas.

Thank you for the opportunity.

71. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Some of the KS are posting on the SLT that Judge Barbie showed compassion toward the FLDS kids. What a joke!
============================
As intimate observers of said “compassion” the children of the Flds and the few adults locked up with them are the only ones who can judge. Louise Jessop stated they treated them like animals and she can never trust them again. Pretty sorry way to treat a “victim” if you ask me.

72. Alinusara10 on October 30th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Hey Bile,

Since y’all are talking about compassion and the like, I thought I would give you a chance to explain things before I post things like Eli’s, Lexi’s, and ML’s e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

Like for example, what’s with your citation for having an open container? I’ve never had one of those, which, given your contention that I’m a “drunk” breed is pretty amazing….

Or should we talk about Andrew’s arrest? Or Yvonne’s? Or we could just look at miscellaneous infractions…

Just curious, since you seem open to posting home addresses, phone numbers and the like of those you disagree with…

73. Texas Bluesman on October 30th, 2009 at 9:58 am
The boys looking serious for Hanna.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/photos/galleries/2009/oct/29/flds-trial-under-way/5276/

But then Willie and Raymond show up:
http://www.gosanangelo.com/photos/galleries/2009/oct/29/flds-trial-under-way/5273/

74. Julie on October 30th, 2009 at 9:48 am
We can automatically eliminate any hint of “Compassion” in barbie’s decision to stop the trial, she never once showed an ounce of compassion to the children or the mothers of the Mormon’s, we can only suppose the juror has been seated in her courtroom on jury’s before, and has always voted to convict. (That history is available to her).

What she is doing is bringing her witnesses back under control.

Having Johhnie telling folks he entered a “Residense” BEFORE she gave them permission to ransack the place on a Pfhishing Expedition does nothing to bolster her claims against the Motion to Suppress.

Having Johnnie sit there and describe the Ranch as “Just like any other Community” will be a tough hurdle, she has to rehabilitate the place now back into a single residence to fit the SW.

She’s going to have to coach everyone there to get back on the official script: They were all teary eyed and ultra concerned for “Sarah” and she was their only concern going in, not gathering up every scrap of paper and picture on the place to sift through later.

It is good to know that if one of Raymond’s children comes down with a fever, Barbie will be stopping the trial again, so the child can be with her parents.

That’s so nice of her, let’s have a golf clap for her shall we folks?

75. Bill on October 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am
If the child has swine flu, it is very likely the mother has already been exposed, and possibly many that went through the jury selection. It is carried for days before any signs are shown (before you get sick).

That could mean a delay in the trial much longer than just a day or two.

76. kent on October 30th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Is this full on the lips? And how many times have you done this? Even more importantly, have grainy xeroxes been published?

Julie - touche - quite funny.

If anybody says they have one - it’s a fraud! I never had a sister. (That’s actually true.)

77. Ron in Houston on October 30th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I appreciated Willie’s statement that he was glad that the mother could be with her ill child.

What a difference between that statement and those of the FLDS haters who were glad for the pain, trauma, and suffering of the mothers and children.

Remind me again…Who are the Christians?

It’s certainly not those who didn’t want to spare the children the high level of pain they forced upon them. Pain and trauma that resulted in hospitalization and lingering insecurity for some of them.

78. Chai Tea on October 30th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Well, who ever was the swine flu juror must have, really, really, wanted to be one the jury.

Anyone with a small kid could have easily got excused for child care.

Justsaying said it was a mother? I haven’t heard that before?

I’m guessing it was juror 12!

79. * on October 30th, 2009 at 1:10 am
“What a joke!”

—
It does appear that the KS has one brain cell between them. And they’re smoking it.

80. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Chai Tea:

Some of the KS are posting on the SLT that Judge Barbie showed compassion toward the FLDS kids. What a joke!

81. Cupcake on October 29th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Ron: Getting a mistrial or a new trial is sort of like kissing your sister…

—
Is this full on the lips? And how many times have you done this? Even more importantly, have grainy xeroxes been published?

82. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I think you guys are right about a mistrial, but remember it impacts everybody.

Would you really want all the stress and anticipation of a trial and then have to face that all over again?

Getting a mistrial or a new trial is sort of like kissing your sister, yeah, you didn’t lose, but it’s certainly not pleasant either.

83. Ron in Houston on October 29th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Ah yes, justsayin, she’s concerned about others. How touching.

84. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Walther is afraid of a mistrial. She only has two alternates, and we may see a few jurors dismissed before this phony trial is over.

—
My guess is that they’d like a mistrial a lot more than a hung jury. They have far more to lose than gain if they don’t get a guilty verdict, and they probably now see that the decision to drop the bigamy charges was not a good one. Not to mention the mistakes the witnesses are making, like the first witness saying the ranch was a community like many others. So is this concern about the juror’s child real, or is it to give the state time to regroup?

85. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Walther is afraid of a mistrial. She only has two alternates, and we may see a few jurors dismissed before this phony trial is over.

86. Bob on October 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Heh! Txbluesman so sick of losing arguments he put me on notice that I’m now being moderated. I’m pretty happy with this jury.

“Why doesn’t she replace the juror with an alternate? ”
===============================================
This early in the trial and only having 2 alternatives; don’t want to use them up already.

87. Alinusara10 on October 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“Hmm, must be a juror she knows she’s got in the can. Otherwise, it would be “buh-bye” & one of the alternates would be seated.”

That’s my thought, too, Riki.

88. Chai Tea on October 29th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Too bad that Walther was not as ‘good and kindhearted’ toward the FLDS children she tore from their homes and their mothers’ arms - to the point where some children had to be hospitalized. “Good and kindhearted” CPS/Walther even refused a DOCTOR’S request that a mother be reunited with her deathly ill child.

Sorry…the words “good and kindhearted” don’t wash when you’re speaking of Walther and CPS/CASA. Not in a million years.

89. Chai Tea on October 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Hmm, must be a juror she knows she’s got in the can. Otherwise, it would be “buh-bye” & one of the alternates would be seated.

90. Riki on October 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Julie:

I agree with you. The judge should have dismissed the juror with a sick child and appointed an alternate to take his/her place.

I suspect this was a ploy for Judge Walther to show how “good and kind-hearted” she is.

Well, if she is “good and kind-hearted,” she would have allowed the trial to proceed instead of prolonging it for days.

91. Cupcake on October 29th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
To Linda Lamb:

Please don’t take this offensively because I don’t mean it to be.

I object to the state’s using Baptist church buses to transport the FLDS children from the YFR. I feel that the state should have chartered private, secular buses to do the job. Because the Baptists permitted the state to use their church buses to do the state’s dirty work, the Baptists left themselves wide open to criticism.

I don’t believe the argument that secular buses were not available. You see, I lived in Texas for 8 years. When my daughters were in high school, the school district chartered private, secular buses to transport the band and/or choir students from Texas to Orlando, Florida every year so that the band/choir students could go to DisneyWorld.

If a school district in Texas could charter private, secular buses, Judge Walthers could have too.

92. Cupcake on October 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Maybe it’s juror 12’s child -

93. Chai Tea on October 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Walther: “We are in recess at least until the child is well.”

—
I’ve never heard of such a thing. Why doesn’t she replace the juror with an alternate? How can this particular juror be that important?

94. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I don’t know about the house numbers. Seems like I saw a picture where someone had painted a number on the road in front of a building. In any case, how many “residences” do you know that have “5 buildings” and count as “one home.” Give me a break!

95. Chai Tea on October 29th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Chai Tea,

I noticed and copied it in my notes. That and him saying “April, 4, 2008 when he entered Building 5″.

Does that conflict with one of the reasons walther said she would not suppress the evidence from the ranch;

” The court finds that there were no numbers or names on the buildings…”,

or did Texas assign the numbers?

96. kent on October 29th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I hope the lawyers caught that Hanna called the Ranch a “community” at the beginning of the raid per the Gosanangelo article. Here’s the quote.

“Hanna was on the YFZ Ranch investigating and gathering evidence with other law-enforcement officers from April 3, 2008, through April 9, 2008, he testified. He saw a medical clinic, homes and a schoolhouse — “just the type structures that you might find in any community.”

Sounds like Hanna considered it more than a single residence early on in the raid.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/oct/29/texas-ranger-says-dna-evidence-collected-in-flds/

97. Chai Tea on October 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Check out my posts on bluesey’s latest thread, they think kissing toddlers is “child molestation” and i’m exposed myself as perv for posting that I’ve kissed my 18 month old niece.
They are absolutely nuts!!

98. duane on October 29th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Well,

I guess I;m just being an ungrateful S.O.B. for not appreciating my fan mail from drunken half breeds.

99. Bill on October 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Julie,

Im sorry if I falsely accused you. I shouldnt have lumped your comment along with Bill’s Baptist Bashing.

Bill,

I dont believe those accusations against the Baptists. It is a gross exaggeration and unfair generalization and you know it. I know you have been passionate in your support of the FLDS, but your defensive comments are more and more offensive and hateful and vulgar. That is so opposite of the type of reactions the FLDS people themselves have displayed. Anyway, you got my dander up today!

100. Linda Lamb on October 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Linda,

In no way shape or form do I hate all Baptist’s.

The Baptist’s I have problems with are the Baptist’s who were ready to sell the children on their adoption block. They came from San Angelo.

These are the exact same Baptist’s that had no problem whatsoever when CPS and CASA wheeled in the gynecological equipment into the Church and proceeded to “Examine” the children.

Please note that these very same Baptist’s then tried to claim that they “Gave” donations of food and supplies to the children and mothers and then turned around and were paid by a Catholic Bishop who gave them $90,000.00 in CASH.

The County received, AND PAID for the transportation of the children in Church vehicles.

I put the Baptist’s of Eldorado and San Angelo in the same sewer I put the local “Mormon’s” who were appalled at the idea of being asked to pray with the children.

These kinds of “Good Christians” I have no stomach for.

101. Bill on October 29th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Linda Lamb, I didn’t blast anyone except the state.

102. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Julie,

Why the sarcasm against the Baptists? I know Bill hates us, too. I thought the Baptists tried to help the mothers and children when they were taken. I dont believe for one minute that they were out to steal those children. I cannot understand the need to blast those who have tried to extend kindness. It is hard to know what to believe in a time of crisis, even if that crisis is unclear and based on a fraudulent call.

103. Linda Lamb on October 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
My wife still kisses our 18 year old son. My mom kissed me from the time I was born till she passed away well into my adulthood.
Why is that such a big deal?

104. duane on October 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
According to Brooke, barbie is going to run the trial tomorrow without the jury present.

That will be a real neat trick to get past a real court of law!

Barbie doesn’t need that pesky old jury anyway, they just get in the way. Right gimpy?

105. Bill on October 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
If the child is under the age of 15 and there isn’t any other supervision, then the woman didn’t have to serve on the jury. As is, stopping the trial for sick child (most likely Baptist) is another slap in the face of all those Mormon children the state mistreated, especially the two that almost died.

106. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Correction, she was referring to a juror’s child

107. duane on October 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Brooke twittered that the child is under the age of 5, wouldn’t that put her at 17?

108. duane on October 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
HERE WE GO!

Johnnie testified he took Raymond to the jail on the 9th of April and took a blood sample from him.

This was before they knew that “Sarah” was a hoax.

Was he looking for Sarah in Raymonds blood?

If he was trying to establish some kind of paternity, did sarah tell him to look there, or did he not bother to wait for barbie’s SW for the documents?

Who gave him those documents? What for, after all, this was not a criminal investigation, the goons were just there to help CPS look for Sarah were they not?

Was he looking for criminal evidence, or working for the local blood drive? Did he tell Raymond he was investigating a possible criminal action on Raymonds part? Did barbie sign an Order to produce his blood sample?

109. Bill on October 29th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Blues is indeed a scumbag.

110. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Certain bull shit accusations just can’t go un answered, so I opened a page on Christopher Hunter, my 12 year old “lover”.

If anyone thinks that my version is in-acurate, give me a name and address and I’ll send you the Court Transcripts.

111. Bill on October 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I wonder why Texas authorities keep presenting themselves to the world as country bumkins? Let alone what happened before we now have court authorities who try to keep a man out of court without a court order. A judge who has to be reminded that the press has a legitimate right to be there during jury selection. And now. Legal documents that was ignored while declaring adults as minors yet amazingly is now good enough to hold up in court and declare a crime has occurred.

113. Alinusara10 on October 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Julie,

You gave the explanation of the “Official” version of how a Grand Jury is picked in Texas.

There’s an “Official” way the mayor of Albany, NY is chosen, they claim he is “Elected”.

In truth, and as everybody in Albany knows, the head of the Albany County Democratic Party picks the mayor, and it’s rubber stamped on Election Day.

This isn’t unique to NY, it’s the real way things are all over this Country.

114. Bill on October 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
By the way johhnie, when did you turn over the video tape of barbie at the front gate of the Ranch during the raid to the Defense?

–
Ha! I always though Barbie might have been there, packing a pistol, ready to bag her limit of polygamists.

115. Julie on October 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

One Trackback

By JOHNNIE HANNA, EXPERT ON “DISPUTED MINORS” AGES, USES SAME INFO TO DECLARE AGE OF RAYMOND AND JANET – Polygamy Links on October 29, 2009 at 2:56 pm

[…] […]

Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society