Originally Posted by Glow
I agree. I just hope that everyone understands EXACTLY what we are turning these children over to. As per my previous link the state of Texas is not prepared to handle this. Abuse is simply abuse. If it takes place in a home the well meaning government put you in OR it takes place in your familiar home surroundings.
As far as abuse, there is no evidence of abuse of young children at YFZ.
I have asked Glow about that but she seems to have missed my post.
As far as I have read, the case is under a gag order. Which means that no one outside of the investigation is to be told what evidence and witness statements they have or don't have.
Glow does speak with a lot of assurance on the question of what evidence is available. And she has spoken of her expertise and vested interest. Since no evidence is supposed to be released to anyone outside the investigation, I have asked Glow if she is involved in the investigation in some way?
Mysteri, I think everyone here speaks with a lot of assurance, don't you? We all have been able to read the same things. The link I read is the one in the San Angelo paper. When Angie Voss was asked
Can you identify any households in which a child was caused serious injury or death?
she replied "Yes"
she also said
"There were some suspected broken bones"
If we break this down logically, her answers are interesting. The first question asks about serious injury OR death. She answers "yes" There has been absolutely no one who has come forward saying there have been any deaths. So that leaves us with the other part of the question. As to her answer about "serious injury", if Angie Voss feels she is looking at evidence of child rape then she can logically answer that question yes. Which she did.
Her only requirement under law is that she has to have reason to suspect. Not proof....just a "reason". That reason could be a lot of things. It could be the blond hair found on the bed in the temple area. It could be a pregnant girl she saw in the compound. It could be practically anything. The only point is she HAD to say something made her decide to move the children and that is what she did. Her careful wording was evident once again when she was asked if any of the children had broken bones, injuries or malnutrition that showed up in medical examinations.
We know that when Dr's at Fort Concho examined the children they said the children were healthy, Dr. Smith in fact went so far as to say they were
exceptionally healthy they had no injuries or malnutrition so she could not say yes to that part of the question so she answers "There were some suspected broken bones."
That was a good political answer. I could suspect my next door neighbor is from Mars but that has absolutely no validity and neither does her answer. As a matter of fact everything everyone BUT her has said about the children is exactly the opposite. Later when she is asked what the danger is to having the
younger children returned she doesn't mention the "serious abuse" OR the "suspected" broken bones. Instead she says her concern is "a global pattern that underage marriage and children having children is permitted."
So she never does come right out and say there was ANY witnessed abuse of the
younger children in any way. She is concerned about "future" abuse. That's it.
In any "juicy" trial or hearing there are ALWAYS leaks. That is just life. If there was any physical abuse noted with the
young children we would have heard rumors flying like mad and we haven't. Instead we have been told by medical experts (which Ms Voss is not) that they are instead, exceptionally healthy. That is why I said above that there is no abuse of the young children at YFZ.
