quote:

---

Originally posted by Clay A.:

To the hard working folks in West Texas, thanks.

---

I share in your gratitude, Clay!

But you still choose to ignore the simply fact that one anonymous phone call does not translate into probable cause.

Is anyone here prepared to argue otherwise?

Take the religious issue out of it and take the 400+ kids out of it and change it to Joe the Crackhead.

Could you go raid Joe's house on the basis of one anonymous phone call saying that there are drugs in the house?????

For the benefit of any law enforcement officers who may frequent this web site, please understand the preceding post does not represent the opinion of TDCAA or prosecutors in general. The poster's identity is anonymous but, based on his previous postings, is likely not a prosecutor or even someone involved in law enforcement.

He probably sees no irony in the rather cowardly way he has stated an unsupported conclusion (i.e., that law enforcement somehow failed in their initial duty to investigate) and left his identity a secret to avoid being mocked and identified publicly as a silly finger-pointer who hates law enforcement for no better reason than it makes him feel better about himself.

For a more appropriate statement from the State about the significance of removing the children, read this link.

My suggestion is that you ignore the post and don't take the provocative bait set before you. Show your respect for law enforcement by allowing them the time and work needed to deal with a complex issue without the distraction of uneducated blogging.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RTC:
Law enforcement should NOT be used as a tool for people to settle their personal grudges and get back at one another.

It seems here that the police made no attempts to verifiy the legitimacy of this girl's claim before barging in with guns drawn into people's homes and lives.

I do not know anything about the FLDS "church" or their practices (other than what has been reported in the media, and we here all know how accurate they can be!). My beef is with what appears to be shoddy investigating and the taking away of children from their families all because of a cruel lie and a hoax perpetrated by someone hundreds of miles away.

---

I find it astounding that the first two paragraphs can exist in the same mind as the third paragraph and yet they don't communicate with each other. (Yes, I used mind loosely.)

Because it is a pending investigation, I bet the media doesn't have the whole story. They're reporting bits and pieces based on conversations with those people that talk to them. Those who talk to the media will never be those who are in possession of all the facts that led to each decision.

What you didn't point out was that while there was a raid, the investigation didn't stop. The Rangers kept looking through things because they wanted to make sure that they got it right. The harm of the raid is far outweighed by the intent to get things right and the need to protect children with a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

RTC, your opinions are conclusions beased on summaries of inarticulate and incomplete information. Frankly, for someone who professes to be a thinker, that's dramatically immature.

Dust . . . Wind . . . Dude.

The alleged informant's phone call reportedly came from a cellphone. Apparently investigators utterly failed to easily verify the authenticity of this call.

Why did investigators utterly fail to simply get a court order to request the HLR (Home Location Register) records from the cellular carrier of the caller's phone number?

This would have effectively pinpointed the caller's location (E911) as either being at the YFZ ranch--or far, far away (i.e., an obvious hoax.)

Investigators who failed to exercise due diligence in this case, and who essentially fabricated probable cause with unverified info, should be held accountable for the disruption of hundreds of peoples' lives.

Unfortunately, law-enforcement personnel are rarely held accountable for the tragic consequences of their failures. I hope they are in this case, but I have no confidence they ever will be.

Watch to see if they hide behind a specious "good faith" argument to justify their actions. The big story in this case is the sloppy or intentional corner-cutting by government investigators, leading to the violation of hundreds of peoples' constitutional rights.

-Ed

Hindsight is 20/20

Law enforcement may have already been on hightened alert regarding this particular church because the elders were famously convicted of accessory to child rape.

For a good many of the 30-plus years I've been in law enforcement (for which I do not apologize to you 3 who have tread here among the posters), I have had occasions to respond to and investigate bomb threats against public schools.

I recall that, no matter who the caller was or was not, we had a duty to evacuate and climb in, around, under and through the various possible hiding places for explosive devices. I admit that sometimes, we didn't believe there would be a device, but we looked and evacuated anyway. Because, there could have been that one time when the threat was real. We didn't have the luxury of reading websites and user forums before responding to calls for service. Now none of that means much to anybody, I realize. But I recall many kids, from kindergarten to 12th grade, and some of them in their 3rd or 4th year of 12th grade, being made to stand out on a campus, in the sun, wind, durm or drang - for their safety.

I wonder -- how harsh and abusive and cruel and thoughtless and jump-the-gun-ish and bad faith and poor faith is it to respond to a possible threat, evacuate the possible and potential victims and move them to places where there is genuine concern, care, provision, compassion, medical help, food, TV, music, American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, Rachael Ray shows, air conditioning, hot and cold running water, people clamoring to befriend and support -- I could go one, but I spare you -- those potential and possible victims, while hearings on their behalfs are conducted by trained and learned professionals climbing all over each other to be the one who helps?

Where is the harm - and, I'll bet my Mastertone that if nobody did anything and one little girl came up injured, maimed, killed or forced into marriage with a 50-something year old pervert, you 3 would be the first to blame the cops for not doing anything.

Exit only.

Since when does "heightened alert" (whatever that means) constitute exigent circumstances?

Investigators in the YFZ case had ample time to get a same-day court order for the cellphone carrier's location records for the caller's phone.

But they apparently chose to raid the ranch after evading their due diligence requirements, and had hundreds of children forcibly taken from their parents without probable cause to believe the caller was being abused.

Shouldn't an anonymous phone call have some corroborative evidence to indicate its veracity before using it as probable cause? In this case, investigators could've easily and quickly done this determine the caller's location, but they apparently chose not to.

I hope they're held accountable, but that probably won't happen. It rarely does. Too often, law-enforcement officials seem to believe they *are* the law, rather than follow it themselves.

-ed

Why do people keep saying it was an anonymous call when it wasn't? From all accounts, law enforcement knew this caller's name, or at least they believed they knew her name. The name given was Sarah Jeffs or Jessop or one of the 2 or 3 last names in that cult. Now, it may actually end up being that woman prank caller, but law enforcement believed at the time that it was a real girl and they had a name. If I call police and give my name or a fake name it's not an anonymous call. What we should all be ashamed of as a community is that we allowed this cult to live in our state knowing that they are breaking laws (bigamy, child sexual assault) and no one did anything until now because apparently no one wanted to rock the boat. You can't rape children, throw away young boys and trample on women's rights and hide behind religion to do it.

It would be helpful for public oversight if investigators released the recording of the informant's call, and the cellular carrier's location record for the caller's phone. My guess is they chose not to because it could be embarrasing.

A.P. Merillat's post equating this call to a bomb threat is specious. A bomb threat needn't be called in from the location of the bomb to be legitimate. But when a caller says she's in the compound where the alleged crime occurred, investigators can quickly and easily verify that--but they chose not to.

*Days* passed between the time of the call and the raid, so any excuses that there was no time to verify this key info prior to the raid is nonsense.

Let's hear the audio recording, and let's see the cellular carrier's location records for the number of the caller's cellphone. Officail delays in releasing this info only fuels reasonable assumptions that Texas investigators screwed up big time and are trying to avoid further embarrassment.

-ed

The reporter probably wrote "anomalous call" since there was just the one.

I'll say it again. I'm so proud of our law enforcement, prosecutors and cps workers who are involved in this investigation.

Normally, I would think we wouldn't let cults do such bad things in our State, but we must have been too busy "evading our due diligence."

Keeps us very busy.

I miss Kansas.

Dust . . . Wind . . . Dude.

Thanks, ed, but like the rest of the Heartland, I'm only clinging to my vocabulary out of bitterness.

The fact that people are debating the merits of a search without having read a copy of the actual search/arrest warrant makes this whole discussion moot.

To David Newell: There has got to be a better song (I will accept rap even though that is not music) than Kansas' "Dust In The Wind" to explain your position.

I see "Dust in the Wind" as a calming message of resignation. A "this too shall pass" type of song.

And really, why fight? As Shannon points out we don't have the necessary information to engage in an in-depth discussion. We won't change their minds. And responding to the bait with a lengthy jeremiad only convinces them that they are "doing something right." Ultimately, it was just a silly, nonsensical response because that's all the thought I feel the bait deserves.

Besides, "Exit Only" is already taken.

[This message was edited by David Newell on 04-22-08 at .]

Is "jeremiad" a slam at banjo players? And, David, I will suspend my trademark for a brief moment if you'd like to use it. Like the rest of the Heartland, I'm only clinging to that phrase out of bitterness.