The photo
Just when you think this whole saga can not get any ''curiousier'' there is another twist in the rabbit hole.
A day after a knocked-down appeals court ruling, state attorneys went for broke and offered as evidence damning photos of FLDS sect leader Warren S. Jeffs during a 14-day hearing Friday afternoon for Richard Daniel Jessop, born 10 days ago to Louisa and Dan Jessop.
The worst of the photos shows Jeffs kissing a pint-size girl. The girl is Dan's sister -- and the daughter of YFZ Ranch overseer Merrill Jessop. She is so small that Jeffs has to cradle her in his arms to kiss her on the lips. The state gave her date of birth as July 1994, and described her as 13 when the photo was taken.
Based on a handwritten note on the photograph, which said it was taken on July 27, 2006, she would have been 12 -- assuming the state has the date of birth properly matched up to the right person.
The state also produced two other sets of photos but did not make much ado about the girls' ages. Louisa, who is 22, said one of them is older than she is.
The FLDS bar physical contact between men and women until they are married. That means no hugs, hand-holding, kisses or anything else. Jeffs has taught that, until their marriages, girls are to treat boys like snakes.
So there is no doubt what this photograph means: Warren Jeffs is sealed -- married -- to this little girl. If any one out there has a different explanation, offer it up.
The photograph was taken almost exactly a month before Jeffs was arrested in 2006 on an empty stretch of freeway north of Las Vegas.
I heard rumblings about this information about a year ago but nothing substantial enough to know whether it was true or not.
I tried to ask CPS attorney Ellen Griffith where the photos came from but she would not comment. There was no comment from CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner about the photographs, either.
It is unclear how it surfaced here. Was it found at the ranch or did it come from some other helpful source?
The photographs sure seem to give the state's case a timely boost. Which raises another question: Why didn't the state use the photographs at the 14-day hearing?
Here, in living color, is the epitome of what it says is the problem at the YFZ Ranch.
So we have a photo, but what is the context? Is there any possible explanation for what we see other than the worst possible conclusion? What happened next?
In the best light, I found a discussion on the Web site of FAIRon the multiple purposes of polygamous marriages in the past. Some were dynastic, aimed not at procreation but at tieing ''faithful families together.''
The debate about whether Joseph Smith consummated all his marriages or simply entered into some marriages to create family ties has divided scholars into two camps, said fundamentalist expert John Walsh.
But it is more clear that many of the women who joined Brigham Young's family after Smith's death were wives in name only.
Carolyn Jessop offers another reason for marriages to the prophet: Honor and glory in the afterlife.
Carolyn, as most of my readers now, is a former plural wife of Merrill Jessop. I would not be surprised if she is called as a witness. She already is advising Texas Child Protective Services about how to treat and interact with the FLDS.
Carolyn left the sect in 2003 and wrote about her experiences in a book called ''Escape.''
In the book, Carolyn talks about several women who were married to former FLDS prophet Rulon T. Jeffs, Warren's father, whose marriages were never consummated.
The belief was that in the afterlife, Rulon would be young again and able to raise families with the women.
One of those women was Tammy, according to Carolyn. Tammy was married for a decade but remained a virgin.
After Rulon died, Tammy was sealed to Merrill Jessop. Carolyn describes the frustration that Tammy experienced when Merrill put off consummating their marriage. Tammy wanted children.
Now back to this picture. The photo is what it is and it looks disturbing: A A 50-year-old man kissing a 12-year-old, a man Louisa told the court is ''perfect to me.''
I was told there was a sealing, a kiss and then nothing. To be specific, the marriage was never consummated. The girl in the photograph is in state custody.
Now, what does the photo mean for Louisa, Dan and their three children?
There is no indication where the photo was taken and the date on it is handwritten. Both Louisa and Dan said they did not know whether the girls in the photos were married to Warren. They did not know about the photographs, they said.
What, Dan Jessop asked, does the photograph have to do with the care he and Louisa are able to give their infant son -- or their other two children?
The state wants to implicate them in its ''one household'' theory because they lived in the same building as Merrill, a man who apparently allowed his prepubescent daughter to marry Jeffs. Also in the home, as the state pointed out, is Barbara Jessop.
Carolyn Jessop went on at length about Barbara Jessop in her book, making unsubstantiated claims Barbara had physically abused children.
Randol Stout, the ad litem for the couple's infant, had no trouble articulating what the photograph means to him: A home where there are underage brides is no place for children. When Louisa said she did not know whether Jeffs and the girl were married, Stout offered a hypothetical: ''If it did happen, it would be a direct failure to act [to protect your children], wouldn't it?'' he asked her.
A day after a knocked-down appeals court ruling, state attorneys went for broke and offered as evidence damning photos of FLDS sect leader Warren S. Jeffs during a 14-day hearing Friday afternoon for Richard Daniel Jessop, born 10 days ago to Louisa and Dan Jessop.
The worst of the photos shows Jeffs kissing a pint-size girl. The girl is Dan's sister -- and the daughter of YFZ Ranch overseer Merrill Jessop. She is so small that Jeffs has to cradle her in his arms to kiss her on the lips. The state gave her date of birth as July 1994, and described her as 13 when the photo was taken.
Based on a handwritten note on the photograph, which said it was taken on July 27, 2006, she would have been 12 -- assuming the state has the date of birth properly matched up to the right person.
The state also produced two other sets of photos but did not make much ado about the girls' ages. Louisa, who is 22, said one of them is older than she is.
The FLDS bar physical contact between men and women until they are married. That means no hugs, hand-holding, kisses or anything else. Jeffs has taught that, until their marriages, girls are to treat boys like snakes.
So there is no doubt what this photograph means: Warren Jeffs is sealed -- married -- to this little girl. If any one out there has a different explanation, offer it up.
The photograph was taken almost exactly a month before Jeffs was arrested in 2006 on an empty stretch of freeway north of Las Vegas.
I heard rumblings about this information about a year ago but nothing substantial enough to know whether it was true or not.
I tried to ask CPS attorney Ellen Griffith where the photos came from but she would not comment. There was no comment from CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner about the photographs, either.
It is unclear how it surfaced here. Was it found at the ranch or did it come from some other helpful source?
The photographs sure seem to give the state's case a timely boost. Which raises another question: Why didn't the state use the photographs at the 14-day hearing?
Here, in living color, is the epitome of what it says is the problem at the YFZ Ranch.
So we have a photo, but what is the context? Is there any possible explanation for what we see other than the worst possible conclusion? What happened next?
In the best light, I found a discussion on the Web site of FAIRon the multiple purposes of polygamous marriages in the past. Some were dynastic, aimed not at procreation but at tieing ''faithful families together.''
The debate about whether Joseph Smith consummated all his marriages or simply entered into some marriages to create family ties has divided scholars into two camps, said fundamentalist expert John Walsh.
But it is more clear that many of the women who joined Brigham Young's family after Smith's death were wives in name only.
Carolyn Jessop offers another reason for marriages to the prophet: Honor and glory in the afterlife.
Carolyn, as most of my readers now, is a former plural wife of Merrill Jessop. I would not be surprised if she is called as a witness. She already is advising Texas Child Protective Services about how to treat and interact with the FLDS.
Carolyn left the sect in 2003 and wrote about her experiences in a book called ''Escape.''
In the book, Carolyn talks about several women who were married to former FLDS prophet Rulon T. Jeffs, Warren's father, whose marriages were never consummated.
The belief was that in the afterlife, Rulon would be young again and able to raise families with the women.
One of those women was Tammy, according to Carolyn. Tammy was married for a decade but remained a virgin.
After Rulon died, Tammy was sealed to Merrill Jessop. Carolyn describes the frustration that Tammy experienced when Merrill put off consummating their marriage. Tammy wanted children.
Now back to this picture. The photo is what it is and it looks disturbing: A A 50-year-old man kissing a 12-year-old, a man Louisa told the court is ''perfect to me.''
I was told there was a sealing, a kiss and then nothing. To be specific, the marriage was never consummated. The girl in the photograph is in state custody.
Now, what does the photo mean for Louisa, Dan and their three children?
There is no indication where the photo was taken and the date on it is handwritten. Both Louisa and Dan said they did not know whether the girls in the photos were married to Warren. They did not know about the photographs, they said.
What, Dan Jessop asked, does the photograph have to do with the care he and Louisa are able to give their infant son -- or their other two children?
The state wants to implicate them in its ''one household'' theory because they lived in the same building as Merrill, a man who apparently allowed his prepubescent daughter to marry Jeffs. Also in the home, as the state pointed out, is Barbara Jessop.
Carolyn Jessop went on at length about Barbara Jessop in her book, making unsubstantiated claims Barbara had physically abused children.
Randol Stout, the ad litem for the couple's infant, had no trouble articulating what the photograph means to him: A home where there are underage brides is no place for children. When Louisa said she did not know whether Jeffs and the girl were married, Stout offered a hypothetical: ''If it did happen, it would be a direct failure to act [to protect your children], wouldn't it?'' he asked her.
43 Comments:
Some scepticism is due here. The CPS has consistently lied throughout this whole ordeal. They said he kissed her in a manner like a wife. It would have been greatly to their advantage to come out and said he was his wife. And yet they didnt say that. Plus it seems likely that the Bishop's record was silent on this point.
Another biased piece of editorializing. What kind of a newspaper allows reporters, who are charged with objectivity, to daily editorialize and carry the weight of a major story?
You are a shame to the profession, Brooke Adams.
If your point is that Jeffs may not have consummated the marriage to the little girl, everything in Jeff's past behavior would seem to contradict that fact. At any rate, it doesn't matter. A 12-year-old has been bound as slave or sex slave to a much older man, whose mere kiss constitutes statutory rape in any state in this union.
For real reporting and not political apologist garbage, see
http://www.gosanangelo.com/
I'm not certain the very young girl standing in front of him in one picture is the same girl/young woman as the one he is kissing in the other. Could they be two different girls?
Hopefully the long weekend will give Judge Walther the opportunity to recover her judicial temperment, and to apply some better sense to what does or does not meet a standard for evidence to be used in the cases she is hearing. Warren Jeffs is in prison, perhaps for life. He can't hurt those children except under a theory of the case which has been trounced by the 3rd court of appeals. Walther knows that. While there is no expectation that she will vacate her orders pending the action of the Texas Supreme Court, it is improper for her to advance cases on a theory which has been rejected by the higher court. Those pictures should not have seen the light of day in that hearing. I hope the parents attorney made a good objection on that.
They got those pictures out so that they could be splashed in newspapers and on TV over the long weekend and get the public worked up and back on their side
Lots and lots of comments on the photo story in the MSM section of the papers including your story. Then here, an attack, on you. You are not only the best qualified of any reporter on this story, but your reporting has of the highest standard, careful and balanced, and your personal blog here is a most helpful location to get some insight into what it's been like to be in the trenches since this unending saga began so long ago. You have a large fan club in the audience of those who have followed this closely and without your reporting and many sleepless nights large aspects of this would never have come to attention. Thank you, and hang in there. Mike in Dallas.
Brooke,
In the story of Mary and Joseph, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but had not yet "known" her. This was customary. She becomes pregnant with a child Joseph knows he could not have fathered. Why? Because he had not BEEN with Mary.
The simple answer as to whether or not this was abuse is to see if the girl and her parents will consent to any examination to determine virginity. If she consents and she demonstrably is virginal, no abuse has ever occurred as a result of being married. Otherwise she could be asked, and if she says no relations ever occurred, well we'll have to go with that testimony as well. If she chooses to say nothing, we have nothing.
The FLDS in many ways are very traditional Biblically. I am sure marriages are arranged as they were in Biblical times and quite often before those marriages could be consummated.
In any case, from the state's point of view, Warren isn't there and thus isn't an immediate threat to anybody and if he ever gets out, this girl will be "of age."
I dont think its the picture that is so worriesome. Its the mothers reaction to. She conceded that it was inappropiate, that the girl was too young, and that she would not allow her children to get married so early. But she goes on to say Warren Jeffs was unjustly tried and found guilty, and that he was and is "perfect to her"
That is what is worrisome, so if he is perfect and aranges a marriage for her own daughte, at a too young age. She would stand up to their leader, their prophet, and say no. I dont think so. Uhm sure
Also there is her testimony, answers to questions, "I dont know, I cant remember"? In this tight knit community, are they really trying to make us believe they all dont know exactly what is going on in everyones homes? Geez i live in a small town and everyone knows everything about everyone. In a community that is so tightly knitted together that they have to untangle DNA because they are so closely linked, one would think someone could give a definite yes or no. It goes along with some of the womens taped interviews. "Have you seen underage girls married" ...."Not that I have seen" come on, either ita going on...or its not, these oh so vague answers are irritating. Also her husband, when asked if his little sister was married to Jessop....his response was that he didnt know. For a community that "loves their children, and protects their children" you would think the question on whether ones 12 year old sister was married or not would warrent a difinitive answer.
Brooke mentions Carolyn Jessop book and sites that even Carolyn says some spiritual marriages are not consumated. Funny how easy it is to twist statements out of context, Carolyns book stated the marriage was not consumated because Rulon Jeffs was in his seventies when they were married. Brooke mentions she was desperate to have children when she was remarried. Brooke fails to continue and say why the book says she was desperate and she also uses the statement when she was remarried. Not when she was given to a man that had 4 other wives and was 20 yrs her senior. Carolyn says the reason for the desperation is because if you dont have children in that community then you are looked down on. Also the status as a wife is higher the more children you have. The wife with the most children "rules" the house, her children are treated better, she has more privleges, etc....
Isnt it funny how Carolyn Jessop is a bitter liar and in her book are all lies about those poor peaceful FLDS. But Brooke can pick and choose what pieces af information are true and which arent if it will defend child molestation and the FLDS. Ridicoulous!!! Shame on you!
So no one knows where the photo came from?
Shouldn't there be an affadavit to go with the photo before it can be introduced into evidence?
Anyone with a little "Photoshop" training can create just about anything they want, as we all know just looking at "Enquirer" headlines at the checkout counter.
Brooke, more work needs to be done in verifying the history of the Photo. Who found it? Where was it found? What was found with it etc,. etc,. It is possible that this could be a doctored image . . .
hugh mcbryde,
Something along those lines were my immediate thoughts as well. Especially considering Mr. Jeffs was on the run, and about to be caught, at the time the picture was allegedly taken. As he was on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list, I guess it could reasonably be assumed he would likely be gone for a long time; and this was the last chance anyone had to be sealed to him in the heavens, or some such.
That so few in the community seem to be aware of the context surrounding this, is also likely due to the secrecy and discretion necessary when dealing with someone who at the time was one of the nation’s most wanted fugitive criminals.
I’m assuming the picture is not doctored, of course. Incompetent as CPS decision makers have proven to be, I doubt even they would attempt something as stupid as that. Only exception would be if they were shown the picture so recently they had no time to conduct a proper verification, and at the same time were getting very desparate.
We have a picture which may indicate Merrill Jessup's daughter, from his household, was given into a underage marriage.
The CPS is evidently trying to show that household approved of that marriage.
The attorney ad litem for the baby tried to show that was the mindset of the mother.
I think you'd have to determine if there were crimes committed, and if there had been, would they justify placing all children from that household into state custody.
I do not see imminent danger here, or any crime that is listed in the codes that would allow the state to take custody.
................
"Randol Stout, the ad litem for the couple's infant... [asked] ''If it did happen, it would be a direct failure to act [to protect your children], wouldn't it?''
Appears more to be a move to make her a co-conspirator than a negligent mother. If the child of another couple within the same household (if they were in the same) is given into a marriage that will exist outside of that household, I see nothing in the way of a problem greater than the fact she may follow that belief.
Maybe when any daughter is >11 YO they need to plug in the Minority Report. Imagine what they could do with it for tax evasion!
---------------
Thanks again Brooke, and always consider the source when you read comments from critics.
If you read Carolyn Jessop's book, you will see that taking those children from the compound was the best thing that could have been done. It is a complete shame that they are going to be returned. 13 year old girls do NOT need to "be married" to middle-aged men. This is someone from the Midwest talking who can see this from the outside. The issue is NOT religious freedome but freeing individuals from a cult!
Karen, on what do you base this need to remove the children? There needs to be some crime. So far, there is no crime.
I read GoSanangeles for news of this mess, as well as the SLTrib. They uncritically accepted and passed on the story of one of the Baptist volunteers that the FLDS don't know how to use crayons and believe the color red is of the devil, and they were also very slow to pass on the information that the 26 disputed minors were largely adults. Unbiased? I don't think so.
And considering the source- I still find myself deeply disturbed at how womankine looked at that haunting picture of the forlorn and misery laden child on the bus and interpreted it as a child looking 'happy,' and looked at pictures of grief-stricken mothers and said there were no real tears. There's something truly flawed and deeply troubling about the lenses through which she looks at the world, and I find it frightening that somebody so out of touch has any sort of say over other people's children.
To call that child on the bus a picture of a happy child is so alien to the child's actual expression that it's truly a disability akin to autism. For somebody with this level of disconnect from reality to have any sort of say over other people's children is dangerous. It's like putting a colorblind person in charge of electrical wiring.
Karen, how many young girls are married to middle aged men? How old are those young girls?
How many children under five are there? Do you have any idea how damaging removing children under five from their parents is to their development?
Removing these youngest children from their mothers to save them from something you think might happen to them ten years from now (the girls) or from something you think they might do forty years from now (the boys) is akin to cutting off their hands now because you think their parents might break them in ten to fifty years.
I see a handful of under-aged brides, most married to young men less than ten years older than themselves. I see that there were better remedies to this situation than the blunt instrument CPS has used, and I see that it's a horribly dangerous thing to give CPS this much power over other people's lives and religions.
And you know what? I am also from the midwest looking on from the outside.
womankine is a bigot. it is sad that she is here polluting the page.
This photo was released not for it's legal value, which is nil. It was released for PR purposes. CPS, masters of disinformation and lies, has done this for one reason...to attempt to get public opinion back on their side.
Why? Their credibility is in the toilet. They lied, lied and then lied again.
Until the girl in this photo is examined and the truths are determined, then it is nothing but sensationalist conjecture as to what this photo really shows. So, investigate the people in the photo and try to determine the facts.
If the CPS refuses to pursue the facts, as they have done from the beginning, then we know that this photo falls in the pile of the other CPS lies.
If the CPS allegations are UNEQUIVOCALLY TRUE, well aside from it being a FIRST, it would be damaging to this parent's case.
IT STILL DOES NOT WARRANT IGNORING PARENT RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS. IT STILL WOULD NOT WARRANT REMOVING ALL THE CHILDREN.
womankine a blog is not a news report.
If you are looking for favorable blogs go read a baptist blog.
You might even find some CPS writers there.
And STILL the members of this blog defend child sexual abuse and abusers. I haven't heard one FLDS supporter condemn the actions in this picture.
And therein lies the problem. The Jessop parents, on the stand, did not condemn and make it clear that they would never allow their children to endure sexual abuse, of the kind represented in the picture.
Neither is there a power structure in place where they CAN reject the creepy attentions of a convicted sexual offender. Warren Jeffs is their "God on Earth". He may be a child molesting, child rape promoting "God on Earth", but there is absolutely no indication that they will challenge him in his wrongdoing.
I am aware that this is a blog. I am also aware that Ms. Adams' postings are blatantly opinionated. With most opinions supporting the FLDS. It is simply unethical for someone who continually makes her personal opinions known, to then be assigned as the primary reporter on this case. Reporters, at least in legitimate news agencies, are charged with objectivity. That means that, guess what?, Nancy Grace and her ilk are not real reporters and would never be treated as same. They are commentators.
Brooke Adams is merely the Nancy Grace FOR the FLDS. She shouldn't be given the responsibility of legitimate reporting.
Incidentally, if I am a bigot, ramblings of a plural man, then you should take a moment to consider what you are, since your postings and activities serve to indiscriminately defend, an entire group that clearly has some level of undisputed child abuse and another level of disputed child abuse.
Womankine, it's time for you to change your username to womanswine. It's more relevant for you in that you prefer to splash crap around wherever you go.
If I remember correctly, Dan Jessop was asked on the stand if he knew of any underage marriages. He more or less said no. The state then produced the photographs of his sister with Warren Jeffs and asked something like "What about this."
There is no doubt the photographs have an impact beyond that line of questioning. But, it looks like to me that they were introduced to show that Dan Jessop "might be" shading the truth.
I did not have Carolyn's book in front of me and when I first wrote the blog and an error in the post has been pointed out to me. Tammy was married to LeRoy Johnson and then married to Merrill. Same concept, though.
Yes, Tammy was much older than the girl we see in the photo with Warren, which makes all the difference.
Tammy was 18 and the first marriage, 28 at the second.
A lot of commenters have wondered if the photo was doctored. There is no reason to believe so, no evidence of that.
The Bishop's Record was used to put an age to the girl, not to confirm her marriage to Jeffs.
But there is no other explanation than a marriage for the behavior seen in the photograph, given FLDS practice.
The state entered at least two sets of photographs of Jeffs with different young women. The montages are the same, showing him posed with the girls and then giving them a full mouth kiss. On photo set includes a printed inscription: First Anniversary, January 2005. That sequence of photos shows the couple with a backdrop of a log-cabin wall.
I read through these posts and get ballistic....
The abject stupidity is overwhelming.....
Example...
Large, urban, all African American, public housing project...
Take a poor, working, single mother, living there, raising her children to the best of her ability;
She has no money to move.
All of her extended family are nearby...
As long as she pays her rent and utilities, no one is going to throw her out...her housing is pretty much guaranteed....
Now tell me she can control who else lives in that same housing project.
Tell me she can control the behavior of anyone else living in that housing project.
Someone calls the local child-welfare hotline and reports child abuse in the apartment next door. Child-welfare workers do a little home work and find that there is a high incidence of underage pregnancy in communities of African Americans living in 'the projects'. They find there is a higher than the national norm incidence of child abuse in 'the projects'. They also find a lot of other 'statistical' areas of interest...
So they call up the national guard and go in and take every child out of those 'projects'...including our single working mom's kids...
Her kids, by the way, are all in great physical shape....all honor roll students....all go to church every Sunday....but they are "at risk".....
Hmmmm...now Dallas, or Chicago, or N.Y.C. has to feed, clothe, house, and provide mental health services for a thousand or so "at risk" children.....
But what the hell, why not....they are at risk.....and they all 'look alike'....and they dress funny....those damn baggy pants are a dead giveaway to their thinking.....
HaHaHaHa.......
I would like to ASSUME a few things. First that the picture of Jeffs with the girl is real. That she was 12 and he was over 50. I would ask these questions. Could this man have hugged and kissed a 12 year old were they not married? Are they related as true uncle/neice or even grandfather granddaughter?? Can such relatives show such affections? Does this kiss indicate that they have had sex? Is it holy or even acceptable for a man to have sex with a woman for any other reason than to procreate? Can the women have sex while pregnant? Are any marriages in FLDS society to cement family bonds and loyalties? could these marriages go UNCONSUMATED? Do the FLDS believe that being "married to the prophet" assures them the highest heavenly reward? Would allowing a daughter to marry the prophet in a non sexual union establish her father in the mind of that prophet as some sort of successor? (like royalty forming alliances in european countries) Is the girl in the picture still among the children seized by CPS? Is she or has she been pregnant? (I would imagine she is now about 14...) Does being "sealed" to the prophet require SEX? Are there marriages which have no such sexual component? Do women of these men undertake sexual relations after menopause? How privy to the sex lives of OTHERS are the various wives...How privy to the sex lives of those OUTSIDE their husbands family are other families? Is sex discussed and children educated about "the birds and the bees" in typical american fashion?(very poorly) ARE marriages among the FLDS common knowledge or are the various men and the number of wifes kept secret?" Is the list siezed by CPS PUBLISHED among the flock, or is it not talked about? When a man is GIVEN another mans wife and family by the prophet, and she is too old to have children is this relationship sexual or is it just a religious action to assure their heavenly reward? If I knew the answers to these questions I would better be able to know whether a picture like this MIGHT indicate abuse..
Hugh
Karen looks to have based her decision / comment to take custody of ALL the children on her having "read Carolyn Jessop's book".
I did not see any mention of the evidence required by the Family Codes.
******
Womankine said... "And STILL the members of this blog defend child sexual abuse and abusers."
Besides being a liar when she does tell of what she evidently believes are facts in her head, no where but in her own head has the topic been to defend "child sexual abuse and abusers".
It's the absence of evidence to date that those crimes exist. If the evidence was there, the 3rd would not have gave the opinion telling that all it did not exist.
It's ironic that the result of such lies is it leads to motivating many to dig up more facts and links to share with others, exposing how baseless the comments are, while helping all readers to see the truth involved.
Makes me almost want to thank Womankine, but I hold off wasting it on her.
My thanks to Brooke and all others that work to share the FACTS!
The actions in the photo are completely disgusting, as is any defense for them or standing by in a household that is allowing them.
Womankine, this is dishonest:And STILL the members of this blog defend child sexual abuse and abusers. I haven't heard one FLDS supporter condemn the actions in this picture.
I have, in more than one place. I know others have. Maybe you don't listen to what doesn't support your preconceived ideas.
The Jessop parents, on the stand, did not condemn and make it clear that they would never allow their children to endure sexual abuse, of the kind represented in the picture.
She said it was inappropriate, and he said it was against everything he stood for and believed. In fact, he considers it so disturbing that he doesn't even believe it's real.
I assume it's real, and I hope it gets used in Jeffs' next trial. But it doesn't have much to do with this case, which is one where the state, knowing full well that Louisa Jessop was 22 years old (they correctly had her name and proper birth year on documents as evidence in the first 14 day hearing), held her in custody against her will until she had her child, when they then dishonestly took custody of him as the 'minor child of a minor child.'
The state has no basis for keeping this newborn. It lied to get him.
I find it very disturbing that womankine never condemns that high level of corruption and dishonesty in the state's actions.
“The Photo” in itself can be anything, real, fake, out of context, but defiantly there is something strange about it. “Girls gone wild” is a recent expression but the actual practice is as old as Lots daughters. In Genesis 19 verses 30 to 38, the story describes how Lot's two daughters got their father drunk on wine, and engaged in sexual intercourse with him.
The Photo can also be similar to one I saw framed in a teen girl’s bedroom showing her, kissing Clint Eastwood (I believe it was at Kennedy airport)
We can not possibly know.
Legally speaking, the use of the photo at the unrelated hearing, had one value: to prove that the CPS agents were acting “in good faith”
They don’t have to document the real origin of the photo, only that they “saw” it. Remember the original Swington, phone call? It didn’t have to be real or substantial. But it was good enough to necessitate the raid “in good faith”
This post has been removed by the author.
THE PHOTO in itself can be anything, real, fake, out of context, but defiantly there is something strange about it. Girls gone wild is a recent expression but the actual practice is as old as Lots daughters. In Genesis 19 verses 30 to 38, the story describes how Lot's two daughters got their father drunk on wine, and engaged in sexual intercourse with him.
The Photo can also be similar to one I saw framed in a teen girl’s bedroom showing her, kissing Clint Eastwood (I believe it was at Kennedy airport)
We can not possibly know.
Legally speaking, the use of the photo at the unrelated hearing, had one value: to prove that the CPS agents were acting in good faith
They don’t have to document the real origin of the photo, only that they saw it. Remember the original Swington, phone call? It didn’t have to be real or substantial. But it was good enough to necessitate the raid in good faith
womankine
All groups of any size will have some undisputed and some disputed child abuse. As well as some disputed and some undisputed pretty much anything. That’s why civilized jurisprudence focuses on individuals and not groups, and why most of us see no problem in defending America, despite her being home to both undisputed and disputed sexual abusers.
With regards to ‘the actions in this picture’, most of us here simply don’t have enough context to know what to make of it. All it shows is Warren Jeffs kissing an allegedly 13 year old girl. Not having sex with, not raping, not beating and not abusing. Just one kiss. Unusual, perhaps, in mainstream culture, but not in and of itself proof of sexual abuse. As Mr. Jeffs at the time was about to be locked up for a long time, perhaps for life, it could well be this ‘marriage’, if it even is that, was never intended to be consummated except for in the heavens. Unless you happen to know something about the surrounding context the rest of us don’t, why so quick to demand condemning people you know so little about, who has likely never done a thing to cause you harm.
And again, how does this picture justify taking away the rights hundreds of children not in this picture have to be with their parents who are not in this picture, either. Most of these children may well be adults by the time Mr. Jeffs gets out, and even if they’re not, he is certainly in no position to pose an imminent threat to any of them right now. Mr. Jeffs holds an entirely unique position within the FLDS. And this picture was taken at an entirely unique point in time for him and the church, as he was about to be taken away for a very long time. As such, even if the picture should be found to indicate some form of wrongdoing, you cannot generalize to assume it depicts common practice amongst regular FLDS parishioners under less unusual circumstances.
Furthermore, due to the fact that Mr. Jeffs, solely due to having been an accessory to a rapist less rape, was amongst the nation’s most wanted criminals at the time, dealings with him likely had to be of an unusually clandestine nature. Combined with the high numbers of half brothers and sisters some FLDS members have, it is entirely possible Dan Jessop was unaware of his sister’s participation in this supposed marriage ceremony.
So, in sum, we have a picture that MAY indicate that something inappropriate could possibly later have taken place; a picture taken in an entirely unique situation with little or no obvious carryover to any of the FLDS children currently being deprived of their parents; and a picture of a ceremony that, for security reasons, was less than likely to be widely known. Based on this, all members of the FLDS are supposed to be child abusing liars whom ‘we’, guns drawn, should be entitled to prevent from raising any children at all.
As someone that has followed the the YFZ story with a lot of interest, have visited multiple sights, read alot of printed articles along side the articles available online, had dialouge with many FLDS apologists, and as many more Texas/CPS apologists, find Ms. Adams reporting to be more responsible when presenting the facts, than most of her other "colleages".
If one takes the time to do some investigating, I think they would agree with me.
It is always refreshing to read an article that has been written by a reporter that has done thier homework and doesn't "plagerize" everyone elses articles in hopes of borrowing credibility.
To Brooke,
Thank you for correcting the piece about "Tammy" and keep up the good work.
Goshute
For anyone who might be interested, this is a link to a radio interview with someone named "Sam" who is a non-FLDS person who is very knowledgable of the group.....it's an interesting interview for a number of reasons...particularly for those who are interested in putting this in historical context as well as get a 'flavor' of the local sentiments....
http://www.theedgeam.com/political/main.htm
it's several days old....perhaps it was monday or tues, I don't remember...but it has lots of useful info....
womankine, no one is defending the FLDS on this photo, but then you KNOW that.
Bigotry and the constitution are the real issues here. Your bigotry and everyone else's defending the constitution against the onslaught of the power mad and unmanaged CPS.
Perhaps womanswine is not the right nickname. Ever thought of womanswhine?
stuki your comments, like Brooke Adams, are well written. However, with womankine you are dealing with a bigot who probably cannot be helped.
I feel it is good that you try but if you see her judgemental and assuming posts, you will see that the facts are something she is not really interested unless they fit her 'cookie cutter' view of life.
It takes a brain to overcome bigotry.
ramblings,
Despite appearances, I was not so much responding to womankine, as writing for others who might be reading these posts. There are likely many times more readers than commenters here, and, at least according to rericson, who seem to have experience with cases like this, we may even have audience members with some level of direct influence over things. More recent readers may not have read enough of womakine’s posts to know her as well as we do.
If so, they might have missed her ranting about how poor FLDS education is; before going on to repeatedly misinterpret elementary statistics, accusing South Korea of totalitarianism, comparing a small dessert town in Northern Arizona to East Berlin, taking a woman returning home after a trip to Wal-Mart as evidence she has an abusive husband, and asserting the FLDS operates secret burial grounds and mental facilities in remote and hidden places. And then, on the basis of this, go on to bombastically proclaim no FLDS member should be allowed to raise children at all, as well as accusing a disagreeing poster’s grandmother of being Joseph Smith’s sex slave.
I feared that some such new readers might instinctively be turned against all FLDS members based on her comment and this photo alone. If all a reader knew beforehand was what he gleaned from main stream media reports, he might see this photo and lazily assume CPS had it right all along, despite CPS’s documented history of being proven dead wrong on pretty much every aspect of this case dealing with factual information.
So, I just wanted to point out how little this photo tells us about actual abuse risks faced by the children currently deprived of their parents, and how it is just one more, in a long line of ugly slurs and innuendos, the CPS keeps falling back on as they’re beaten back with facts.
You've misrepresented my writing, stuki. I urge anyone interested to go back and read the exact quotes and dialogue. Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal, let me just deal with one in re-posting what I wrote.
"The perpetual support and "explaining away" of child sexual abuse by FLDS and supporters is clear evidence that there is a problem that must be addressed by the responsible and caring members of society.
Abuse is the teaching/conditioning of children that there are no sexual boundaries between a child and an adult. It's the foundation for molestation.
CPS is absolutely right that this community should not be allowed to raise children. Whether or not there is legal substantiation to protect the children, is another matter. It remains to be adjudicated. I am convinced that there should be a means and that people who genuinely care about the welfare of children must fight for whatever legal changes are needed, to make it possible."
Now. If individual FLDS and supporters want to come out with a tough stance and battle-plans to fight child sexual abuse and to reject Warren Jeffs' activities, including accomplice to rape, the child-kissing, and probable marriage in this pic; I will certainly reconsider that there may be sect members able to adequately protect children against child abuse. However, this hasn't yet been demonstrated in words or actions. Witness the child sexual abuse apologists on this blog and the lack of condemnation for a pic that stands alone as child abuse. Jeffs' behavior in the pics of the TWO girls, is simply illegal, irregardless of the context.
Bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with working to stop law breakers and it has nothing to do with working to stop those who would abuse children.
While fairly minor in the vast scheme of things, this one is my favorite of Womankine's inaccuracies:
as well as accusing a disagreeing poster’s grandmother of being Joseph Smith’s sex slave.
It's my favorite because I was that poster, and, while I think all the LDS people I know are lovely people, I do not believe LDS is a Christian religion and so far as I know, I have no LDS ancestors.
We have to add in there the fact that she insisted the forlorn little girl on a bus looks 'happy.' I have shown that one to people with no background knowledge of the FLDS case or the connection, and every single I tell them a professional looked at that picture and saw a 'happy' child, their jaws drop in disbelief.
One person asked me if the professional who thought she was looking at a happy child has some sort of disability such as Asperger's Autism that makes it impossible for her to accurately interpret facial expressions.
"State officials faced culture of lies, religious experts say"
http://tinyurl.com/4tgel4
That's a pretty funny posting, Head/Zoo. Thanks. I needed the laugh this evening.
Hugh said:
Karen, on what do you base this need to remove the children? There needs to be some crime. So far, there is no crime.
Not according to the Family Code...
Certain crimes may be used to show abuse and/or neglect, but it is not required that a crime be charged, nor that evidence of a crime be shown to prove abuse.
txbluesman....
I don't know how much time you spend playing in the CPS sandbox, but I've spent alot of time in that one....
And I know full well you have to have a whole lot more than a phoney phone call allegation to remove kids....
I was one of the first to believe that when they went in they saw clear evidence of abuse...widespread...cause that's what they said....
And I wanted to then push for a reasonable corrective plan.....
But I may not be a Rhodes Scholar...I may even be a few fries short of a happy meal...but I have eyes...and ears...and a little common sense....
and I know, concretely, from years of experience in this sandbox that they didn't have didley squat for removal...they may have some rationale in a very few families for a finding of "at risk"...or whatever Texas language is...but NOT removal....service plans....sure...reasonable and culturally competent....you bet your bippy!!!!!
In the meantime, I've come to learn that by and large these are very nice people, who have made a couragous choice to leave behind all the comforts we expect and raise their children in a wholesome, healthy way.....
I'm just hoping, that despite the likes of you and other folks on these blogs who are so damn nasty...they realize that therre are also folks who want to learn from, and interact with them....that they don't have to fear everyone....
As for the person who posted that the LDS and FLDS aren't Christian....well I suggest you read a bit about their belief system...and take a long hard look at the decorum and dignity and kindness they have behaved with in the face of this horrific mess.....
"Do unto others..."
"Turn the other cheek..."
"Forgive those that harm you...."
And so on...these are the phrases at the foundation of Christian belief and behavior...and if they don't exemplify that, I don't know who does.....
Now I'm really going to quit this blogging and go outside for a bit....
R. I was the one who said I don't believe the DLS or FLDS is a Christian religion, and I want to make my point clearer- I did not say that to debate theology and certainly not to 'slam' their ethics and behavior- the contrary.
My points were two-fold- one, given my own theological beliefs, it was doubly wrongheaded of womankine to assume that I object to their treatment at the hands of CPS because my great-grandmother was Joseph Smith's sex slave. I mention my theological differences with Mormonism in all its forms to indicate just how far off base her assumptions are.
"Christian" is a theological term for me referring to more than a code of ethics, and, again, I did not mention my theological disagreements with Mormonism to debate theology, but to demonstrate that one can be far, far removed from agreeing with their theology and STILL see that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs by the State, and this is dangerous and wrong and unacceptable.
I disagree with their theology, quite strongly- but I totally stand firm on their right to practice it, on their right to be treated as individuals innocent until proven guilty, on their rights to love and cherish their children, as they obviously do, without having their lives disrupted by some CPS agents and a judge with an agenda.
As I read around various blogs and message boards on this topic, it's been obvious to me that a good many people supporting CPS and state actions against the FLDS do so *because* they disagree with their religious beliefs, and many people (like womankine, for instance, in referring to my mythical mormon grandmama) are assuming that the only reason anybody would support their right to have their children back, and to have CPS stand up with some genuine evidence or back off, is because that person is either secretly a polygamist (or something vile) or conflicted about their own LDS background.
Untrue. My point is simply, one needn't share their theology at all to feel great anguish for the way their lives have been disrupted and to be outraged at the behaviour of CPS and law enforcement towards them.
Polygamy is a social construct, not a sexual behavior, but when people criticize the FLDS beliefs they concentrate on sex because our entire society is barely afloat in a sea of sexual images, thoughts, and perversions. The preoccupation with sex skews the way people think. In this situation they are so enthralled with stories of teenage brides and the sexual habits of the elderly that they forget that over 450 children have been severely damaged by being taken from their mothers.
For example, someone posted a picture of fourteen year-old Elissa Wall being fitted for a wedding dress, purportedly showing that she had been crying "for three days" because she didn't want to marry nineteen year-old Alan.
But how many pictures would we be able to stomach of crying children being ripped away from their helpless mothers? How would these critics of the Jeffs photo react to seeing pictures of the nursing baby who was left by the CPS in a stroller for twenty-four hours in the Coliseum after he was taken from his mother? The baby became so dehydrated that he became lethargic, went into shock and had to be hospitalized. Or how would we react to the picture of terror in the four year-old, left behind, utterly alone in an empty Coliseum, overnight, only to be found by cleaning crews the next day? Or pictures of the Keate children when they discovered that their parents were only visiting the foster home, and were not there to rescue them?
There are no pictures, but we all should be able to picture these things.
Post a Comment
<< Home