Posted on 04/09/2008 9:33:38 AM PDT by Domandred
Texas authorities named the wrong man in search and arrest warrants used to enter the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado and begin questioning FLDS children, two opponents of the sect said Tuesday.
The warrant issued Thursday evening named 50-year-old Dale Barlow, alleging he had married and impregnated a 16-year-old girl. Officials, who later sought a second search warrant, have removed 419 children.
But Joni Holm, who has helped children leave the FLDS, said the teenager who called officials on March 29 and 30 and claimed she was abused is married to a different, younger man. The girl's husband is in his late 30s, is related to Dale Barlow, shares his surname and has a similar sounding first name, Holm said.
"I know they're looking into the wrong one," Holm said.
Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, on Tuesday said police were continuing to serve warrants and attempt to locate "the person that we are looking for."
When asked if that person was still Dale Barlow, she said, "As far as I know."
But Flora Jessop, who left the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at age 16 and now helps others do the same, also said the wrong man was named in the initial warrants.
Texas authorities have made no effort to apprehend Dale Barlow at his address in Colorado City, Ariz. He reported to his Arizona probation officer on Friday - less than 24 hours after the raid began to tell the officer he was under investigation.
His probation officer has said Dale Barlow claimed to not know the teenager making the abuse accusations. Later Friday, Arizona authorities questioned him and searched his home.
The Salt Lake Tribune, which generally does not name alleged victims of sexual abuse, and other media outlets have not published the girl's name.
But Holm said the girl's identity, and the correct identity of her husband, is "common knowledge" in Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah, where the sect has traditionally been based.
The Tribune is not naming the man identified by Holm as the girl's husband because he has not been named as a suspect or in court filings.
Holm, who is married to a former FLDS member, said she has spoken with people who know the teenager. She thinks Texas officials confused the two Barlows.
She believes it is possible the teenager did not know her husband's correct age and told authorities he is about 50. Also, she noted, Dale Barlow has a 2007 conviction in Arizona for criminal charges related to marrying and impregnating a different 16-year-old girl, which may have contributed to confusion.
The first warrant identified Dale Barlow by name and his birth date. The copy on file in court does not list the name of the investigator who petitioned for it.
A second and more expanded warrant, signed Sunday night, was based on observations and evidence found by law enforcement and child services workers inside the compound, according to court documents.
The fourth amendment. But you knew that.
it is really easy.
law school criminal procedure 1.
The police now need to scramble to create seperate paths to the same evidence.
The dna tests of the girls’ pregnancies. If they get aboritons, the order the fetus preserved as evidence. GET A NEW COURT ORDER, to take DNA samples of the men.
This was a STUPID mistake that has to be fixed, not excused.
You would have more credibility if you knew how to spell the word, “warrant.”
Is that you Janet Reno?
John Smith was arrested for a warrent issued in the name of Jack Doe.
that is a year 1775 mistake.
...and who is on probation in Arizona and who reported to his Probation Officer who interviewed the guy and sent him home, declining the request of Texas DPS to arrest him. Why? Because even though some judge wrote out a warrant that does not excuse the Arizona cops from using some common sense to realize that none of the stuff in the Texas warrant applies to the man BECAUSE HE LIVES IN FLIPPIN' ARIZONA AND HE'S ON PROBATION AND HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE TOWN!!!
Geezus, I'm sure I can find a sex offender somewhere whose name is similar to yours. Would that be a justification to arrest you, put your kids into foster care, and seize your property?
fortunatly they taught us to use spell check in law school...
(personally I blame the new FR Beta version)
No offense, but you’re in law school and you don’t know how to spell the word “warrant’?
Judges don’t write warrants, they sign them.
Please, by all means, read the thread. Start with the post I replied to.
Second time, please cite them specifically.
What amendment did they suspend? Has this search and seizure been determined unreasonable?
Emphasis mine.
Who swore the supporting oath or affirmation?
The description in the warrant of the person to be seized was wrong.
nope, law school is a distant memory, now I have my secretary enter all my posts for me as I sit back suing people...
When I said that the cops had screwed the pooch on this he suggested that I go help represent the defendants, then pouted, then said he was going to stop responding to me.
Second time, what evidence will be suppressed?
Especially considering you have many minors with buns in the oven.
All evidence stemming from the illegal search. DNA, the observation that the girls are even pregnant, the doctor's reports, all of it.
Especially considering you have many minors with buns in the oven.
Which the jury will never hear about because the search which turned up those facts was illegal.
“And you can be sure that the only reason she even had a phone number for that hotline was that a hospital staffer slipped it to her when she was being treated for the ribs her husband broke, and couldn’t be persuaded on the spot to accuse him and avoid going back for more abuse (probably because her baby was being held hostage and she feared never seeing the child again).”
A logical, brilliant deduction!
The minor girls and their babies are a seperate and distinct chain of evidence independent of the warrent. (at least that is what I would be arguing)
I would suggest the evidence incident tot he arrest of the wrong person. Typically this is evinced derrived from his residence, surroundings, on his person. Think. They arrested this “wrong person”. Did they then go to this wrong person’s home? Did they collect pictures? papers? material? all at this wrong person’s home.
They should have been evidence gathering at the residence of the person named in the warrent.
I can’t be more detailed since the DBM generally does not publish evidence collected sheets. They just screw up legal reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.