3 DAYS OF GRANDSTANDING INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING IF THE BABY IS HIS.

All the clowns have to do is to ask him straight up if he acknowledges his little girl with Janet, and he will teel them the same thing he’s said from day one; “Yes, she is my daughter.”

Instead, they just have to play their stupid game out and spend tens of thousands of dollars to establish something everybody knew and admitted to all along.

Raymond has never denied his wife, nor has he ever denied his children.

We already knew that the DNA testing all turned into garbage, if it didn’t, then they would not have had to scare the child out of her diaper 3 times. I’m sure they got a kick out of doing that, but what it told anyone but a moron was that test number one and test number two didn’t agree with each other, so they went for test number three. I expect the defense to find out what the results were that sparked this marathon voyeurism of the little girl. I wouldn’t be surprised if the test showed that barbie and davey were the parents of the baby. (That’s IF davey can still get it up).

I found barbie’s ruling that where the smut got her figure of 9999999999.8 was “Irrelavent”, I guess if she took it out of a cracker jack box, barbie would have thought that was just fine and dandy. My prayer is that barbie keeps coming up with gems like these, the Appeal will be a regular slaughter.

As for johnnie and his SW for Raymonds blood, I really want to see what he based his request on. Did he find “Sarah” and she told him to look in that direction, or did he become privy to some material that he stumbled on while “Guarding” the CPS dykes from the FLDS?

Since May of 2008, the cost of the “Party” has been frozen by the State at 14 million. It’s good to know that Texas hasn’t spent a dime in the past 18 month’s, and that this trial is all being put on free of charge.

On the positive side, look at all those poor children with all those broken bones you’ve saved. Now you can make all your money back by adopting them out to the highest bidders. If not for you, those children would never have learned to color with crayons, would never have been educated, would never know the attributes of becoming obese, and most importantly, would never have known the true nature of CPS, CASA and the local policeman.

Now that they are “Safe”, spending all that money was worth every single penny, right?

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 31, 2009 at 7:58 pm and filed under Abuses of the State, CPS, CPS Abuse, Children, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, FLDS, Police State, Texas. 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 3 DAYS OF GRANDSTANDING INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING IF THE BABY IS HIS. to digg.

Post 3 DAYS OF GRANDSTANDING INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING IF THE BABY IS HIS. to Reddit

41 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

I like older men, personally!

1. blondie on November 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Cupcake: I was speaking in broad general terms about human psychology. There are, no doubt, millions and millions of women who do not fear losing their husbands, and my point wasn’t really about women fearing losing their husbands, but rather it was about the natural human reaction to getting older. We all–male or female– understand that we were better looking, stronger, had more energy, etc. when we were young, and we all know that, just as with all living things, that’s the way of nature, and we know that we can’t turn back the clock. The resentment some feel is often a subtle and subconscious thing and it can be manipulated to the disadvantage of the defendant in this case. That was my point.

2. Bob on November 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Bob,

I agree with about the Catch 22.

About older women being afraid of losing their men to younger women…

It depends upon how secure a woman feels about herself and about her marriage. I am a grandmother, but I never worry about losing my husband to another woman. Never. My husband knows he is lucky to have me.

I believe that jealousy stems from insecurity. Insecure women might be afraid of losing their husbands to younger women. Basically, the antipolygamy crowd plays on other womens’ fears and insecurities by suggesting that their husbands might want to bring other women into their marriages if polygamy becomes legal.

3. Cupcake on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Some wonder why the bigamy charge is being put off to later. The answer is probably because the prosecution sees a Catch 22 possiblity.

You see, if the state went first with bigamy and claimed that the two were married, but that the defendant was also married to others at the same time, then the state has admitted a marriage. And, sex in marriage with a wife of 16 is legal (and if she was younger than 16, the jury might still focus on the fact that they were married and not convict for statutory rape).

Also, it is likely, that if the prosecution proved bigamy, that the jury would nullify the bigamy law, or on appeal the Texas law on bigamy would be ruled unconstitutional.

So, what the prosecution is now trying to do is provoke a visceral reaction (most often found in female jurors) about a “much older man taking advantage” of a much younger and prettier woman.

Honestly,folks, we have to get into human psychology here to understand what is going on. Aren’t most of us aware that as some women (say, on the jury) get older, that they fear losing their men to younger women and that they often resent men (in general) for that?

Isn’t our literature full of references to “dirty old men,”and “old goats” and “lecherous old men”? That literature reflects a certain psychological attitude in our society concerning age differences in marriages, that the prosecution wants to use to its advantage.

4. Bob on November 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
It’s good that the defense is making the prosecution prove every single element of their case. That’s just good lawyering.

Hopefully, the defense will call some real experts on DNA who can tell a non-expert jury that DNA research is in its infancy.

DNA was only discovered in 1953, and there are many questions about it that still remain. The general and popular information about DNA can mislead non-experts and experts alike.

For example, if a juror understands that all human beings are about 99% the same genetically, then what is he or she to think about probabilities of a man being a father when the results come back as a 99% probability. Even when a probability is 99.88888%, this would cover hundreds of thousands or even millions of men on the planet. Perhaps some doubt would enter the mind of the juror?

Also, and this is something that needs more scientific investigation, but have you noticed how we’re constantly reading about this or that rapist who has been released from prision because the rapist’s DNA, taken from the victim, NOW shows that he’s not the rapist?

Frankly, this is happening so much, that a reasonable person might wonder about minute, perhaps spontaneous, changes in the DNA samples that happen while they’re being stored. The fact is that the DNA in our bodies is changing all the time.

So, if the DNA does change in some way, does it then change such that it may indicate another man is the rapist when, in fact, the original suspect who was jailed really is the rapist?

And, what of the DNA of a distinct people that is even closer than the DNA found in 99% of humanity? Clearly, the DNA of the FLDS people is much closer to that of each other than it is to others who are not part of the FLDS society. There is very little “new” DNA entering the FLDS society.

So, who is the father? The prosecution has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this or that man is the father.

5. Bob on November 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Hopefully, the SLT will soon crack the whip too so that reading the newspaper will be enjoyable to everyone.

6. Cupcake on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 am
Well, Cupcake, you must understand that now that Brooke has cracked the whip over at her blog, the KSers now have to find real jobs since they can only post once per blog entry & all replies are screened. Having your major income stream interrupted like that has got to hurt.

7. Riki on November 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
GB, is a good man!

8. pins on November 1st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Well, Rikki, the K.S. are always trying to infiltrate Bill’s blog. Remember when they were coming over here pretending to be Diesel and me? That was funny because they didn’t realize that we were onto them. And they said stuff that I would never say! LOL.

Because this is one blog that they can’t control, it drives them crazy. They can’t say anything negative about the FLDS here. They can’t attack the people who post here. That is why they are viciously attacking Bill now. I hate to break them, but Bill has friends who like and respect him. Personally, I couldn’t care less what the K.S. say about him.

I don’t know if TBM has a drinking problem or not. But if he does, I hope he joins A.A. Too many Indians have died of alcoholism and/or drug addiction.

9. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Sorry bout that, I meant to say

Justsayin we aren’t interested in you digging the files of WSJ! Plz respect other ppls privacy!
Have we forgotten this is American!!! That we can have freedom of reglion! And not…..have some noisy beast down your neck checkin your DNA. Or to see if you even have one

10. pins on November 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Justsaying, we aren’t interested ng you hugging up files from WSJ,

11. pins on November 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Don’t you just love how the KS rotters love to violate the privacy of others, so long as they can do so anonymously?

12. Riki on November 1st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Justsayin:

Bill has indicated that he does not want you to post here. This is his blog, and you should respect his decision.

This site is for people who want to follow the trial, but do not want to be bothered by the KS or like-minded people. If you want to continue to post, post on another blog or site.

Thank you,
Cupcake

13. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Since much of the prosecution’s case is dependent upon DNA evidence, I think the defense wants to establish that the DNA evidence presented may not be reliable.

14. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Ron:
” …The problem you run into is from a trial strategy standpoint.
…fight …to say that the kid can’t be proven to be yours…”

I do not see it that way. I see it as a strategy to show the extremes Texas has gone to in fabricating evidence and, more so, for appeal.

Why would the defense prepare the state’s expert for testimony, by letting them know what direction the questions are heading? I say they would not. It looked more like a move to see just how qualified this “expert” was, to better prepare themselves for how they could discredit the work.

I’d pay more attention to the topics that should come up in relationship to “inbreeding coefficient” the expert said they blew off.

15. kent on November 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
If the State of Texas or the C.S. are waiting for Janet to turn on Raymond, I’m hoping they hold their breath until she does.

I recall the dykes claiming that a bunch of FLDS women were seeking “Refuge” in a San Angelo battered woman’s shelter right after the buses took the children into captivity.

The moment the women found out they were being bullshitted about seeing their children again, they went back to where they would be safe.

What doomed the dykes plan to “Rescue” the women was their never ending lying and double dealing. They have never learned that if they treated people like human beings instead of their toys, people would respond a little better.

The women of the Ranch don’t hate them for what they did, they pity them for being so empty and shallow.

16. Bill on November 1st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I don’t see Janet turning on Raymond either. It is wishful thinking on the part of the K.S..

What is the greater insult? The defense attorney’s questioning the reliability of the DNA tests or the state’s implication that a 21 year old woman is too stupid to realize that she was “raped?”

17. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Bob is on the right track. This case is holding a mirror up to our society & those who deny that mainstream society has worse problems than the FLDS is in serious denial. For all the hand-wringing & wailing & weeping over “poor little FLDS girls,” not too many are doing the same over girls in mainstream society, where girls are sexualized from a very early age. And if you don’t believe me, check out the clothes they are selling to little girls (not teens, unless you want to have a heart attack)–mini skirts, bare midriffs, etc. Miley Cyrus, whose Vanity Fair spread came out the week of the adversary hearing, yet not one of the CASAs or CPS workers or KSer spoke out about her nude photos & incredibly suggestive photo with her DAD. Not one CASA or CPS worker or KSer has said anything about Britney Spears’ teen age sister who was knocked up by an adult male, nor have they done anything about the 14 or 15 year old girl from Dallas who won the First Baby derby there this year.

No, it’s much easier to lambaste the FLDS & make them out to be demons, so we can ease our consciences over ignoring the problems in our own society.

18. Riki on November 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Riki,

If you were one of the donut eaters, would you rather go riding around in your tank chasing down children and going after seat belt scofflaws, or taking chances of somebody firing back at you and guard the border fence or chase down drug dealers?

Besides, if the FLDS get all the little girls, what’s left for them? They’ve already taken care of the Middle and High school girls, so if this keeps up, they’re down to the 4 and 5th graders.

19. Bill on November 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I don’t see Janet turning on Raymond, anytime soon or in future! She isn’t that type,

20. pins on November 1st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I think Riki’s comment # 1 above really puts this in perspective.

The FLDS folks are being demonized to high heaven and they haven’t and aren’t doing anything that doesn’t go in the larger society every day.

Pregnant teens? Big deal. In fact, girls of 16 would have been considered old maids in olden days.

Men living with more than one woman? Big deal. It goes on all the time either just like the FLDS is doing it or in serial relationships where one man will have children with many women. We even have people in Congress (or recently in Congress) who have fathered many children this way. Do you see them being demonized and taken to court? Of course not.

This whole thing is about religious persecution of the FLDS.

21. Bob on November 1st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Still haven’t heard why I should get all bent out of shape over a few pregnant girls in their late teens at the Ranch when no one loses their minds about the many more pregnant teenagers in their local middle & high schools.

22. Riki on November 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I still think the defense attorney was just doing his job. The prosecution will contend that DNA evidence is foolproof; the defense will argue that it is not. It probably that happens in a lot of court cases.

I also think the K.S. want Janet to think she has been insulted because they are hoping that it will provoke a reaction from her. If she gets angry at Raymond, she might decide that she really was a victim and turn on Raymond and the FLDS.

23. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Which is precisely why he has NEVER denied paternity.

It was well within the realm of possiblities that he could have voluntarily admitted paternity, but since the trial and everything since May 2008 has cost nothing for the State, why bother?

I think it’s admirable the way the State has handled this entire thing financially, once it’s over, we’ll have to congratulate all these people for doing all this pro bono. I have to admit, I never would have thought that State workers would forego their paychecks, but we live and learn now don’t we?

24. Bill on November 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“Justsayin” has proven herself to be a C.S. mole.

Their only intention is to spew their BS, not to discuss the issue’s or to make LE, CPS, CASA and barbie more humane (If possible. I don’t particularly think any of them have any redeeming social value and need to spend some time in the ovens.)

She posts purely to piss you off, so ignore her until I fumigate the site and get the stink out.

25. Bill on November 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
There is nothing wrong with putting the State to their proof of all elements of a crime. The problem you run into is from a trial strategy standpoint.

If you fight like hell in the guilty-innocence phase trying to say that the kid can’t be proven to be yours, then you look more than a little disingenuous if you try to argue on punishment that you were morally following the dictates of your religion.

Admitting the kid is yours and fighting proof of where the crime occurred is much more consistent with that punishment stage argument.

26. Ron in Houston on November 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
justsayin,

That does NOT paint Raymond into a corner.

Either the state or fed’s have to prove it. I’m not seeing Raymond having to prove either as a defense for the other.

Still waiting for “a link (& page #) for that information”, if it exists.

27. kbp on November 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
kbp: In humor, since I do not know this person, imagine the state trying to argue voodoo science AND having an expert witness for the topic that is named “Smut”. What an unfortunate name to hold in this situation.

—
You’d think when you’re saddled with a name like Smuts–no doubt fine in South Africa, but disastrous in a place like Texas–that you’d want to change it as soon as you got married. But she didn’t, so you have to give her credit for fortitude, if nothing else. Still, if she’s going to sound like Sarah Palin in court, then she richly deserves to get reamed out and ridiculed.

Her job title requires that she be able to testify in civil and criminal proceedings, but obviously she is unable to justify the funny business that Texas is up to. Which is not surprising, for few on the state’s side, all the way back to the beginning, have been able to put two logical thoughts together. Certainly this is true here. Looking at one of her scientific papers, it’s evident that she is very low level, and it should be a snap to Katie-Couric her on the stand.

28. Julie on November 1st, 2009 at 7:37 am
justsayin,

It was 9 hours from the end of my wedding to the time I hit the honeymoon bed. How far is Mexico from the YFZ ranch?

29. Brent Hartman on November 1st, 2009 at 12:55 am
Personally, I think that DNA evidence has been very useful in criminal trials.

For example, the murder of Mia Zapata would never have been solved without DNA evidence. Mia Zapata was a young rock star who was abducted, beaten, raped and strangled in Seattle in 1993. Mia’s body was left in the middle of a deserted street. Defense attorneys argued that the DNA evidence was not reliable in Mia’s case. They argued that the fact that the defendant’s DNA was found on Mia’s breast did not prove that the defendant had raped or killed Mia. In spite of the defense’s arguments, the defendant was convicted of Mia’s murder.

Because defense attorneys often argue about DNA evidence in criminal trials, I do not think we should assume that Raymond or the FLDS are insulting Janet. Raymond’s attorney is just doing his job.

30. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am
justsayin,

That could look like just a pinch of in-compassionate behavior by Raymond IF he might have ONLY taken Janet to Utah to possibly conceive a child.

Does Texas have a crime for all of those possibilities?

Do you have a link (& page #) for that information?

32. kbp on November 1st, 2009 at 12:24 am
Justsayin:

Are you saying that Janet was married to Ernest before he was excommunicated?

33. Cupcake on November 1st, 2009 at 12:13 am
Just to show my opinion, I do not believe Raymond will tell or has told the state anything of value since he hired legal representation. That opinion ASLO addresses Ron’s comment. He is not obligated to, so the state can only try to ANTICIPATE what he will testify to, if he does.

*******

Christmas,
You are right on in stating “It is simply not reliable …in a circumstance like this…”

*******

In humor, since I do not know this person, imagine the state trying to argue voodoo science AND having an expert witness for the topic that is named “Smut”. What an unfortunate name to hold in this situation. Is it, as defined, an “obscene comment” or a “speck of dirt”? The state has to get past the name before they can even salvage the BS to be presented!

*******

I have no source that has let me know for certain that Raymond told the state the child was his, but IF he did, wouldn’t it be a barrel of laughs IF the state worked so much harder with this “SMUT” to prove what Raymond had already admitted? Doesn’t that sound like something the Texas crew would do in this case?

34. kbp on October 31st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Bill: The baby was conceived in 2004. She was born in August, 2005.

—

I’d thought the woman was Janet Jeffs, but from what you’re saying, it’s someone else?

35. Julie on October 31st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Its silly they didn’t take his word for it. Noramally 99.9999998% of time children look like their parents!

36. pins on October 31st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Its pretty silly they don’t take his word for it. Children normally look like their parents 99.9999998% of the time!

37. pins on October 31st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
They have never said the child was not his, they are saying the tests were screwed up and are not accurate.

Obviously Texas agrees with them which is why they had to go back to the well 3 times before they obtained figures they liked.

Texas is telling the jury that they would have to sift through 10 million men before they found another match. The real figure is a fraction of that amount, and they know it. That’s why barbie came up with the irrelevant decision regarding smut.

As the State knows all too well, paternity is not going to decide the issue, jurisdiction is. The baby was conceived in 2004. She was born in August, 2005.

Raymond and Janet weren’t at the Ranch yet, his work was elsewhere.

Now of course if Texas is going to be prosecuting all teenage pregnancies around the Nation as well as the tens of thousands that occur in Texas every year, I guess they can convict him. When did Texas gain that authority?

38. Bill on October 31st, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I think his defense team is simply pointing out exactly what they said they are - that paternity testing with all its “assumptions” was never meant to be used as criminal evidence. It is simply not reliable enough - especially in a circumstance like this is.

39. Christmas Jacobs on October 31st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Well, Ron, you’re a lawyer. You know how defense attorneys operate. If they want to win a criminal case, they must establish reasonable doubt.

40. Cupcake on October 31st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Well, apparently Raymond’s lawyers disagree with you. They appear to be making a case that the kid is not his.

Besides, the state can’t ask him. 5th Amendment - remember?

41. Ron in Houston on October 31st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Its like one person once said… Texas is always known
for its BIGness,
Now it’s hit history,
with its BIG HUGH mistake!
This one will be remember like. forever, like the 53raid.
Texas, wow!!! you jus made a hell of a great name for yourself!
……so did Barbie!

42. pins on October 31st, 2009 at 8:28 pm

One Trackback

By 3 DAYS OF GRANDSTANDING INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING IF THE BABY IS HIS – Polygamy Links on November 1, 2009 at 12:25 am

[…] […]

Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society