Found Safe TN - SLP, 14, Madisonville, Monroe County, 13 Jan 2019 #5 *ARRESTS*

[Deleted member 158085]

Madison man heads to trial for production of child in missing Tennessee girl case
This article says the US attorney was present at the exam and learned from the nurse that there had been sexual activity and it couldn't be the father. I can't understand why an Assistant US Attorney would have been there and would not have just waited for the written report.

Present at the exam sounds to me like “in the room,” possibly outside a curtain, but... Or not? This makes me uncomfortable for the victim.

 

[gitana1]

You make me really, really wish that somehow SLP had found you to reach out to. She needs such a strong advocate desperately.

That is so sweet! I'm hoping she gets some good psych professionals helping her like ET had.

But a child advocate on her side in an dependency court hearings and if she has to testify in the criminal cases, would be great. She does need someone on her side to help her navigate the legal system.

Hopefully there will be victim's assistance in both cases.

Poor lamb.

 

[margarita25]

BBM - Did you guys miss this part?

Madison man heads to trial for production of child in missing Tennessee girl case
A Madison man is set to go to trial after a federal judge said Tuesday there is probable cause to charge him with production of child in connection to a missing Tennessee girl who was found in Wisconsin. The judge also ruled to detain the defendant until trial.

In court Tuesday, assistant U.S. attorney Julie Pfluger said this proves what the charges allege: Rogers asked the girl to make a video, and the video was transported across state lines. Pfluger also said she was present for a sexual assault exam in Madison, where the nurse said there was recent sexual activity and it was "not possible these are from the father."

However, Rogers’ attorney said the “intent is highly relevant.”

(Just seeing this as I catch up. I knew that was coming. Nothing good to say right now. Very angry.)

 

[Deleted member 158085]

That does seem strange. Maybe since she was a woman and she had spoken with the victim and was given consent by the patient she was there for support? I don't know.

Maybe SP could see it as supportive. In her shoes, I’d find it intrusive.

I sure hope that in their zeal to nail all the men involved (I still believe there is a female who ought to be held accountable as well) they aren’t making poor decisions and taking actions that are not in SP’s best interests.

 

[gitana1]

Madison man heads to trial for production of child in missing Tennessee girl case
This article says the US attorney was present at the exam and learned from the nurse that there had been sexual activity and it couldn't be the father. I can't understand why an Assistant US Attorney would have been there and would not have just waited for the written report.

Here's what I think- she wasn't inside the actual room. But rape exams are evidence gathering. It's not just an exam for the teen's welfare. So it's like an autopsy almost. The attorneys are very intent on getting access to the evidence. I believe the attorney was nearby so she could get the report without delay.

My feeling is the US attorneys were disgusted with this man and immediately knew what he was up to and wanted to know if the evidence proved them right.

I'm certain SP also has had her health taken care of and exams to ensure she's ok. But this specifically was about gathering evidence.

It's sad and disturbing that the human body is a legal discovery vessel for the attorneys to a case. Usually those bodies are of deceased victims. But disconcerting when they're not.

 

[gitana1]

That's the only way I can see it happening, assuming the reporting is accurate. I've been a rape crisis counselor, and random people aren't allowed to stand around during an exam, even U.S. attorneys. How the information became public is another question.

Agree she wasn't in the room. The info is evidence and was given to the court during the bail hearing.

 

[gitana1]

I wonder if it is because they were already gathering evidence that 'something' had happened while she was in BR's 'care'. Maybe because of all the attention this was sure to get?

Yes! And they knew they had a bail hearing coming up and wanted crucial evidence to prevent bail.

It worked.

 

[Rosiebones]

Yes! And they knew they had a bail hearing coming up and wanted crucial evidence to prevent bail.

It worked.

Could the information received from the nurse about a more recent SA have been presented in some other way than verbally in open court to be picked up by MSM? Did it have to be done that way?

 

[Teche]

@gitana1 , I just want to bake you a pie or something.
Thank you for being awesome.

I’m always in awe of Gitana’s clarity and insight. I’ve learned so much from her.

 

[Jo in Calif]

Oh wow. I wonder if it would have been the same had it been a man.
I would think only medical staff would be present.
Unless they mean she was present when they were examining the test results, and not in the actual room during the exam. Imo

This is a little bit of what Julie does and might be why she was there for the exam.

Julie Pfluger a federal prosecutor in the Western District of Wisconsin, specializing in prosecuting Project Safe Childhood cases, which include human trafficking cases.

https://www.eventscribe.com/2018/CA...SFJTRkg0NTg5&PresenterID=434041&rnd=0.2277816

 

[Deleted member 158085]

The more I think about it, the more I believe she was in fact present for the exam. If she wasn’t, this information would have been conveyed quite differently.

I’m obviously not a fan of this.

 

[gitana1]

Could the information received from the nurse about a more recent SA have been presented in some other way than verbally in open court to be picked up by MSM? Did it have to be done that way?

Some states (CO) are more liberal about sealing cases but generally it's pretty difficult because we have constitutional protections against secret trials.

And look. That horse has left the barn a while ago in SP's case. Everyone knows what happened to her with her "father". This is just more of the same.

"The Supreme Court has cited many civic and process-related purposes served by open trials: they help to ensure the criminal defendant a fair and accurate adjudication of guilt or innocence; they provide a public demonstration of fairness; they discourage perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret bias or partiality. Open trials educate the public about the criminal justice system, give legitimacy to it, and have the prophylactic effect of enabling the public to see justice done.40 Though the Sixth Amendment expressly grants the accused a right to a public trial,41 the Court has found the right to be so fundamental to the fairness of the adversary system that it is independently protected against state deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.42 The First Amendment right of public access to court proceedings also weighs in favor of openness.43"

The Court has borrowed from First Amendment cases in protecting the right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment. Closure of trials or pretrial proceedings over the objection of the accused may be justified only if the state can show “an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”44"

Public Trial

More at link.

 

[gitana1]

The more I think about it, the more I believe she was in fact present for the exam. If she wasn’t, this information would have been conveyed quite differently.

I’m obviously not a fan of this.

But present doesn't necessarily mean directly in the room.

 

[gitana1]

I’m always in awe of Gitana’s clarity and insight. I’ve learned so much from her.

That's really nice of you to say. Nice to hear. Sometimes I rub people the wrong way because I'm blunt and often write quickly (so I don't use as much softening language).

 

[oviedo]

Yes! And they knew they had a bail hearing coming up and wanted crucial evidence to prevent bail.

It worked.

This and someone has to be responsible for the chain of evidence if I understand this correctly JMO

 

[Julia966]

This is a little bit of what Julie does and might be why she was there for the exam.

Julie Pfluger a federal prosecutor in the Western District of Wisconsin, specializing in prosecuting Project Safe Childhood cases, which include human trafficking cases.

https://www.eventscribe.com/2018/CA...SFJTRkg0NTg5&PresenterID=434041&rnd=0.2277816

Thanks for that! I feel a little better somehow.

 

[oviedo]

But present doesn't necessarily mean directly in the room.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250384.pdf
I did not read the whole document but there are protocols for this - from what I did read it seems there is an emphasis on the victim and having advocates IMO
ETA added 2013 SAFER Act

 

[Julia966]

Deleting mistaken and incorrect information.

 

[Jim_M]

That's really nice of you to say. Nice to hear. Sometimes I rub people the wrong way because I'm blunt and often write quickly (so I don't use as much softening language).

I appreciate blunt! Sometimes you (well, not you specifically ) need to smack the sense into me (us) to SEE what is in front of me (us). If that makes sense? And IMO most posters in the forums really do deserve some pies, or wine, or... and our ever vigilant mods definitely deserve respect in handling the mess of us. Okay, not mess as in messy but just so many people posting and trying to make sense of this crazy world

 

[Deleted member 158085]

But present doesn't necessarily mean directly in the room.

I really think it does. I may take my mom to the doc, but I’m not “present for her exam” unless I’m actually present for her exam. Words matter. She’s an attorney. I have no reason to believe an attorney would not use exact language.