~ by FLDS TEXAS on February 8, 2010.
Posted in The Evidence
this is good, yes!!!
ProudTexan said this on February 8, 2010 at 10:28 PM
So now they’ve taken away the game pieces and it’s time to get down to business.
LaughingPanfish said this on February 8, 2010 at 11:02 PM
looking forward to seeing this case move forward…
catwhisperer said this on February 9, 2010 at 6:32 AM
It will be great to get this AZ thing over so WJ can face the music in Texas. 40 years to life in Texas?? May it be so.
ale wife said this on February 9, 2010 at 7:31 AM
Betty said this on February 9, 2010 at 7:32 AM
Could Ron or TBM comment on the Arizona stipulation ?
catwhisperer said this on February 9, 2010 at 7:32 AM
I’m thinking his “bad acts” statement might be kind of long. Hard to summarize.
Sorry about that, Pic.
Try another fishing hole.
TexasTwist said this on February 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM
The whole AZ stipulation is a bit absurd. From the best I can see about the only possible impact would be a slight potential for Piccaretta to get some sort of mistrial.
If Piccarretta could make some link between something a witness says and the excluded Texas evidence he could ask for a mistrial.
Otherwise, it’s simply absurd. Matt Smith has been saying forever now he’s not going to use that evidence. He even filed a written stipulation agreeing not to use the evidence. Other than the (probably very slight) mistrial possibility, I don’t see how a stipulation that the evidence is suppressed does anything.
The evidence of Warren Jeffs guilt did not change because the raid happened.
Ron in Houston said this on February 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Agreed – yet somehow Grits thinks it majically makes him the grand pubah of law – as if this ruling meant diddly squat.
In the big scheme of things, I see this as a loss for Pic, as it moves the case forward.
No doubt Pic will try another Holy Cow or two – but will just make his case more foolish. I saw a poster on Bill say “What about a speedy trial?” ha ha ask Pic about that. He doesnt want one.
A question I have, is that I see some posers say that Warren has served time already for any conviction, I’m not sure though. He is serving time for his other convictions, not on a no-bail hold, so I’m not sure that counts toward any sentence, and regardless, I’m not convinced “two years is the maximum he would get anyway in Arizona” either.
Stamp said this on February 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Picurnose is the one who said that a “speedy trial” didn’t come into play in this case because warren was serving time in utah already and so no matter what the outcome of the arizona trial is, he’s got time to serve in utah before he could be released.
and there’s a couple of indictments in texas waiting for him. to the best of my knowledge he hasn’t made an appearance in schliecher county to respond to his indictments there.
Proud Texan said this on February 9, 2010 at 10:34 AM
I read that the pebcaks believe that Arizona decided Texas’ issues, if there were any, with any warrants … pretty amusing ain’t it that they imagine that Texans go blind for their convenience.
GrannyToad said this on February 9, 2010 at 10:46 AM
picurnose is an idiot, kinda like parker. they’ll say whatever is necessary as long as they are getting paid. can’t wait until the money dries up, i’ll bet they’ll be singing a different tune then.
ProudTexan said this on February 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Matt Smith has been saying forever that he’s not using the evidence found in Texas. Which begs the question: What took him over a year to put it in writing?
Alinusara10 said this on February 10, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Just curious, could you answer a question for me ?
As a Baptist, are you in the pedo-Baptist faction, or the credo-Baptist faction ?
catwhisperer said this on February 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Are you there ?
catwhisperer said this on February 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Matt Smith over the past two years was preparing his case and left his options open should any hard evidence or information come to his attention to make his case against Warren S. Jeffs’ any more sound. Matt Smith has repeatedly stated that he didn’t see a need to use any YFZ Ranch material, more than likely because he felt he had a sound case and using information from the YFZ Ranch must not add enough new evidence to his case. Matt Smith didn’t rule out the possibility that new evidence could be forthcoming and merely awaited events while the preparations to trial elapsed. He obviously, doesn’t feel that the YFZ Ranch evidence is needed/of value to win his case, so reducing it to writing to clear another obstacle to go to trial was taken. Warren is charged in both cases as being an accomplice and both cases have a convicted sexual offender, so just how tough of a case do you think he has to prove anyway. Wait for the trial and then judge if Matt Smith should not have stipulated to not use the YFZ Ranch evidence.
cajIM said this on February 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Comments are closed.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.