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.
actually this can make it worse if the address on the warrent is wrong for the person who is named in the warrent.
it is all snafued and ANY first year lawyer would be all over this first class mistake.
The fact the girls are pregnant creats and independent chain of discovery which can and should be immediatly independently supported.
ANY prosecutor trying to argue “good faith execution of a deffective warrant” is starting at a deficit even in front of the most pro-prosecutor judges. No arrest means no foul is not going to fly.
It is no different when the police do a no knock warrant execution with the wrong address on the paper or it is the address on the warrant but not the place it was SUPPOSED to be written.
The police now will have to document independent paths to this evidence if it is surpressed. More work for no good reason.
I wonder if this is true:
“From birth, she said, children are indoctrinated in the principal of “perfect obedience,” not only to God, but to the “prophet,” and their elders. Infants are trained not to cry, she said, by slapping their faces or holding their heads under water. By the age of six months, she said, their only means of communicating their hurt, their fear, is suppressed, and as they grow the learn to keep all other emotions in check as well.”
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy290.html
I wonder if this is true:
“From birth, she said, children are indoctrinated in the principal of “perfect obedience,” not only to God, but to the “prophet,” and their elders. Infants are trained not to cry, she said, by slapping their faces or holding their heads under water. By the age of six months, she said, their only means of communicating their hurt, their fear, is suppressed, and as they grow the learn to keep all other emotions in check as well.”
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy290.html
Second time, read the thread. I was responding to a poster who was responding to post 8. It went like this:
Domandred: So it’s okay to throw out the 4th Amendment when children are being raped?
1035rep: God I hope so.
Me: What other amendments should we suspend then?
I never asserted that any amendment was violated. My comment was TO 1035rep and it was about his assertion that he hoped, to God no less, that the 4th would be suspended in the case of child rape.
Class dismissed.
You would have more credibility if you knew how to spell the word, “your.”
As I said I do not agree with these people but then again some bleating hearts want to give Muslim terrorists and illegal aliens equal rights so why did not the state of Texas extend the same courtesy to these people who are citizens.
I may be wrong but do not all United States citizens have the right to confront their accusers.
I fear we are starting to walk a line that will eventually take us to where we lose many of the rights our forefathers fought and died for founding and protecting this great nation.
That was addressed to me, and I clearly understood the posters intent.
What’s this?
Goldstein said the men are no longer seeking to quash two state search warrants used so far by officials, conceding the point is moot because a federal search warrant has been issued.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8866661
She is supposed to be pregnant again so xray is not a good idea but they could do pregnancy tests on them.
I'm sure you did. Just as we all do when there is a misspelling or grammatical error.
I was just pointing out an error made someone who is busy pointing out spelling errors.
IMO we should lay off the state right now. If they abused their authority we can deal with that later.
Good point. She may not trust that she won’t get sent back.
Are some of you just ticked off because you aren’t getting minute by minute details?
hello? are you reading what you are typing?
If the police KNEW it was the wrong person that makes it even WORSE and more likely to damage the case somehow.
WE do have poor reporting here.
We don’t know what was on the warrent OR what evidence was actually collected.
However the police executing a warrant they KNOW is deffective is first year law school BAD FAITH! The goal here is to preserve the case DESPITE the bad warrant.
As to the girls, I want to know if texas has a mandatory reporting or pregnant minors law. Then, since it is a matter of mandatory reporting, the issue leaves the warrent domain. (just because a girl has a fat belly does not always mean she is pregnant)
If the girls visited a doctor then the doctor was required to notify authorities. You have broken the bad faith link.
Then linkage can be established independent of the warrant.
This is a good thing.
You are confusing the two issues. If the cops had not screwed this up. If the FLDS opponents had not screwed this up. we would be discussing how this case is proceeding not how this case is going to be rescued from a blunder.
Keep in mind, this is fodder for appeal. The state may LOWER the charges in a plea offer to rescue the case. Again, as a result of this screw up and to minimize the chances of it comming back on appeal.
practicalities to deal with.
I'm nauseaous about a bed inside a temple as in the article I linked above.
What bed?
From the link I posted above.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8866661
The affidavit was from Texas Ranger Leslie Brooks Long, who reported being at the ranch and observing a bed inside the temple with disturbed linens and a long hair, apparently from a female.
Ok. I found it. I think the Federal warrant is because this is going to be a multiple state issue.
Then I guess the wrong man named in the State of Texas warrant is a moot point.
Isn’t that what their lawyer said?
Not likely. When police get a warrant, as long as they didn't act with reckless disregard for the truth, the evidence found is admissible. The exclusionary rule exists only to deter police misconduct, not to compensate for a technically illegal search.
In other words, if the police obtained the warrant in good faith, the fruits of the search are admissible in most jurisdictions. (I.e., not New York.)
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.