text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46435574388923471482018-05-28T22:54:42.014-07:00Four Lives LostThis blog is dedicated to the pursuit of justice; achieving freedom and clearing the names of four Texas women wrongfully convicted of a crime that never occurred.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-25273311765275063402009-05-30T20:12:00.000-07:002009-05-30T21:35:26.831-07:00Very Squishy KnowledgePhysics and mathematics are known as the pure sciences. The accepted "facts" of these disciplines can usually be verified by mathematical proof. If 2+2=4 then 4-2=2. It doesn't leave a lot of room for argument. The late Harvard University Paleontologist Steven Jay Gould referred to Biology and the Social Sciences as the "squishy" sciences. These disciplines do not provide clear mathematical proofs, but rely primarily on statistical probabilities to support their theories.

In courtroom trials of the "he said-she said" variety, there is often a complete lack of any meaningful physical or corroborating evidence. The jury must make a decision based primarily by weighing the perceived credibility of one person's word against another, and of course, the pomp and theatrical abilities of their respective lawyers. In child sexual abuse trials this is often the case. But the reality is that most juries find child witnesses to be highly credible, in spite of the fact that it has now been shown that children often lie on the witness stand, for a variety of reasons. Juries also convict not because there is innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, but because there is the possibility that the accused person might be guilty, and they don't want the responsibility of setting them free to abuse another child. This is a manifestation of the child sexual abuse hysteria that has become an integral part of our culture over the last quarter century. By reaching verdicts based on these fears, juries have sent untold innocents to prison for decades, or life.

In reviewing the sparse and often circumstantial evidence in these cases, one can never be absolutely certain of whether or not the alleged assault actually occurred. Anytime any adult is alone with a child there is the possibility that a sexual assault could have occurred. Eventually you have to come down on the side of guilt or innocence of the accused. That decision is based on epistemological knowledge. After reviewing all of the evidence we ask ourselves the question - does this accusation seem plausible and reasonable? That is as much an intuitive decision as it is a logical one. And therefore, it is a decision subject to the pitfalls of human fallibility, fear and ignorance.

Very squishy knowledge indeed!Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-31762886790935105262009-04-04T10:36:00.000-07:002009-04-04T11:10:40.972-07:00Media Attention!!After a year-and-a-half of banging the drum we finally got some media attention.

I would like to extend kudos to Michael Hall and Elaine Smith at Texas Monthly for taking the time to review the evidence in this case, recognizing a serious travesty of justice had occurred, and giving us some space on their webmagazine.

Michael investigated and wrote a feature piece for the April 2009 magazine on the controversial Mineola Swinger's Club case. On the TM webmagazine Gary Cartwright revisited the horrible case of Dan and Fran Keller who were convicted in an Austin satanic-abuse case in 1992, and remain in prison to this day. Also, Michael wrote a short summary/background piece entitled Hysteria, that linked to a short piece called Behind Bars he had asked me to write about my involvement in the case.

The media adage that "ink begets ink" must hold sway here, as less than week later the Austin Chronicle published a set of investigative articles by Jordan Smith, Michael King and Jena Birchum on the Keller case.

In the last few days I have been contacted by several Texas journalists who have expressed interest about investigating and writing about the Four Lives Lost case. Hopefully this is the leading edge of a groundswell of media interest in the few remaining cases of MPMV convictions, where innocent people continue to languish in prison.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-3689895621107771642009-03-10T14:01:00.000-07:002009-03-10T14:41:49.196-07:00Journalistic ApathyGood journalists wear their skepticism like a badge of honor. However, as the recent rash of DNA exonerations has shown, when the media fail to be objective in their reporting of questionable criminal cases, a layer of protection for innocent citizens is bypassed.

Coverage of this case by the Texas media was scant. San Antonio Express-News wrote one article on Elizabeth Ramirez' conviction, and three short pieces during the trial of Anna Vasquez, Cassandra Rivera and Kristie Mayhugh. While the newspaper reports are primary "just the facts" reporting, what struck me after reading them was the absolute lack of skepticism. This was a multi-perpetrator, multi-victim assault carried out by 4 young women with no criminal records or history of drug abuse. A woman sexually assaulting pre-pubertal children is a very rare occurrence. A gang of women doing so is rare as a herd of unicorns. Yet the reporters treated this highly unusual case with seeming apathy and nonchalance. There should have been a huge outcry and followup with secondary investigation into the facts of the case. But it never happened. If the women had been heterosexual would the case have been reported differently?

The articles fail to address discrepancies in testimony between the two trials. Notably who held the gun following the alleged assaults. There was no acknowledgment of the fact that there was at least one previous unfounded allegation made by the girls, or that Prosecutor Kazen would not allow the statements of the other three women to be brought into evidence at Elizabeth's trial. The newspaper articles say there was medical evidence brought by Dr. Nancy Kellogg, but fail to mention this evidence was never challenged by defense witnesses. There was no investigation into the accusers or their family background. The evidence was very one-sided and for the most part parroted the prosecutions case. Perhaps court reporters are leery about questioning evidence in trials involving crimes against children. The prosecutor is seen as protecting children and questioning evidence might be seen as protecting child sexual abusers.

The Texas media completely failed these four women in terms of questioning the charges brought against them. When the media have too much faith in the system, and fail to exercise a healthy level of skepticism, innocent people are convicted. Investigative journalism needs to take place pre-conviction to prevent this from happening.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-86264864414331315652008-12-21T11:12:00.000-08:002009-01-15T09:34:53.282-08:00Texas Pilgrimage 2008On December 11, 2008 I flew out of Whitehorse and started my second (annual?) pilgrimage to Texas. I had been looking forward to visiting with Elizabeth and the others, as well as their families, and making other contacts in the State while I was there. Maintaining contact with the four women is important for a number of reasons. For Elizabeth, with another 25 years on her sentence, losing herself in the Texas prison system and her connections with the "free world" is a very real threat with disastrous consequences. Because of the distance I travel I am able to get a "special visit" consisting of two four-hour sessions on Saturday and Sunday. Normally visits are for two hours once per weekend. Since I am a non-family member visits are made with a sheet of plate glass between us talking through a telephone receiver. Having this face-to-face communication is important. Virtually all of my contact with the four women has been through letters sent in the mail. Because of the distance between Marlin, Texas and Whitehorse, Yukon that entails up to 3 weeks for a set of letters, and any questions and answers, to be exchanged. Clarity of communication becomes paramount in that situation. After the patience required of snail mail, instant communication feels like a luxury almost too good to be true. Inmate telephones are scheduled to be installed in Texas prisons in 2009, but there are questions whether or not they will be able to call into Canada.

This year I only got to visit with Elizabeth and Kristie. Texas inmates are only allowed to make a change to their visitor's list every six months. Unfortunately Cassie had just made a change to her list back in September when I first informed her I was coming. I went to Mountain View on Saturday morning on the chance they might let me in anyways. To his credit the officer at the gate did his job, stuck to the rules, and refused the visit. Anna and Elizabeth are both at the Hobby Unit near Marlin, Texas. For some reason I was under the impression that it was against the rules to visit two people on the same Unit. Because of that I didn't send Anna my information so she could put me on her list. I was later informed that it is permissible to visit two people on the same Unit, but it was too late to get me on the list. Felt bad about that because I really would have liked to have met Anna, and Cassie as well. It was poor planning on my part and next year I will have this all sorted out.

It has been almost 3 years since Elizabeth and I started exchanging letters. Finding her letter in my mailbox every Tuesday or Wednesday night when I get home from work has become an important part of my life. Through those letters we have developed an incredible ease and depth of communication. The strange thing that happened is that on the first day of the visit there was this sense of disconnect, and I found my self trying to reconcile that the person in front of me was the same person behind the words on those pieces of paper in my mailbox. I was frustrated and found the conversation remaining more superficial than I had imagined or wanted. On Saturday night I was able to work that through in my mind, and on Sunday we had a much more substantive chat. How 4 hours could possibly go by so quickly I will never know.

I knew from my experience last year that the absolute worst part of the entire trip comes on Sunday evening when visitation ends, and I start my journey back to San Antonio. The elation and month of anticipation leading up to getting to talk to Elizabeth in person is followed by a cruel and sudden jarring back to reality. Having to leave them behind in that awful place, knowing full well they are completely innocent of those crimes fills me with gut-wrenching sadness and outrage. The knot in my stomach didn't start to ease until I was south of Austin. At the same time the emotional impact is what renews my energy and commitment to help them uncover the truth and find the justice they so deserve

The good news I was able to give to the women was the the National Center for Reason and Justice (NCRJ) Board of Directors had voted unanimously on their innocence and a commitment to sponsor their case. We had submitted an application back for sponsorship in August and they spent almost four months vetting the information we supplied them. Having NCRJ onside is a definite step forward for the case, and will hopefully open some doors for them in their pursuit of truth and justice. This was very important because there had been no forward momentum for nearly a decade. Psychologically this will give everyone hope and something to believe in once again.

Spent my last three days in San Antonio and did the tourist thing visiting the Alamo and downtown San Antonio. Maria Vasquez, Anna's mother, very kindly put me up at the La Quinta hotel in the center of downtown SA. From my 14th floor room I had a great view of downtown San Antonio. On my last day in SA Mrs. Vasquez took me and Anna's friend, Melody, out to dinner at an old Mexican restaurant. It was great food and a really Mariachi band that walked around playing. A side benefit of my advocacy is that I have been able to explore and discover Tex-Mex or Tejano culture. It is all very new and interesting to me.

It was sad to get on the plane to come home on Thursday morning but I was glad to have made the trip. It definitely renews my commitment to the case. My plane was held up on the tarmac in SA and I missed my connection in Phoenix. I got rerouted on a flight to Salt Lake City full of overly-polite Mormons, and finally got into Vancouver at 11 p.m. I had missed the last flight to Whitehorse so I had to overnight and get the first flight out Friday morning. I grabbed a cab downtown and was able to get a hotel and catch the last set at the Yale. Ironically it was a Stevie Ray Vaughan cover band called "Texas Flood". I don't get to see a lot of live music living up here, so maybe it wasn't such a bad day after all.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-63035159272196416162008-12-12T17:59:00.001-08:002010-12-18T13:48:45.559-08:00Harmless ErrorThe controversial term "harmless error" is often used by Texas appellate judges in their opinion response to criminal trial appeals. In Elizabeth Ramirez' appeal to the COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTH DISTRICT, SAN ANTONIO Justice Alma L. Lopez describes comments made by prosecutor Phillip A. Kazen during his cross-examination of Elizabeth as "harmless error".

From the text of the appeal response:

In her fourth issue, Ramirez argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial because of an improper comment by the prosecutor. Ramirez is referring to a remark that the prosecutor made in response [*7] to her testimony denying culpability. After Ramirez testified that she loved V.L. and that she would not hurt V.L in any way, the prosecutor remarked: "So says O.J., Ma'am." Ramirez's attorney then asked for a mistrial and the trial court denied the request.

In front of the jury, Kazen made a comment that made a direct comparison between Elizabeth's relationship with V.L. and that of O.J. Simpson with his murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson.

Later in the appeal response, Lopez describes the evidence against Elizabeth as being "overwhelming". This statement directly contradicts Prosecutor Kazen who tells the court that the crux of the evidence presented at trial consists of Elizabeth's word against her niece, V.L. There was no physical evidence or corroborating adult witness to the girls claim, only her statement and testimony.

Elizabeth's trial took place in February 1997, less than two years after O.J. Simpson's highly publicized murder trial and subsequent acquittal. The stark and powerful image of Nicole Brown Simpson's body lying on her doorstep with her throat slashed, spattered with blood, contrasted with her former husband's smug, self-assured attitude at a trial where he was defended by the best lawyers in America. These images had been repeatedly broadcast in both print and television media shortly before Elizabeth's trial. Those images had, and continue to have, a profound emotional effect on the general public. The belief that O.J. Simpson "got away with murder" was widespread.

For appeals justice Lopez to call Prosecutor Kazen's direct comparison of Elizabeth Ramirez with O.J. Simpson "harmless error" is colossal error. That Kazen's statement was, in fact error at all, is questionable. The magnitude of the visceral response that comparison and its associated images elicited in the general public, and therefore the jury, would have been tremendous. Taking into account Elizabeth's only defense was the credibility of her testimony before the jury, this statement becomes more than enough to inflame their minds, and grossly prejudice the verdict. In Elizabeth's cross-examination, Kazen's primary goal was to destroy her credibility. It seems unlikely he made this statement in error. Considering how quickly he responded to Elizabeth's claim that she loved V.L., it is seems more likely to have been premeditated and intentional. A more likely scenario is that Kazen had been waiting for Elizabeth to express her feelings for V.L., and had preplanned his response.

That statement in caused tremendous harm, and appears unlikely to have been made in error.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-60200445193812529072008-07-07T19:05:00.000-07:002010-12-18T13:51:09.513-08:00Portraying Liz as a Liar
Elizabeth's defense lawyer Freddie Ruiz decided to put her on the stand as part of her defense. In fact she was the only witness for the defense. This meant that prosecutor Kazen was able to cross-examine her. Since the only real evidence the prosecution had was the testimony of V.L. the trial would come down to her word against her aunt Elizabeth's. Kazen's goal was to destroy Elizabeth's credibility by portraying her as a liar. He used several points from her sworn statement to attempt to do this in front of the jury. However, Kazen has no solid evidence of mendacity on Elizabeth's part, his arguments are taken out of context, to intentionally achieve his goal. The fact of the matter is that Elizabeth's statements are very consistent and credible; her alibis are supported by her work schedule.

The charges laid against the four women were ambiguous with respect to time, and stated that the sexual assault occurred "on or about July 24...." During the initial police interviews, the crimes were alleged to have occurred in the evening. During the initial interview of Elizabeth Ramirez, Detective Matjeka asked her for her whereabouts during the evenings when there was a possibility for all of the alleged perpetrators as well as the "victims" to have been present in the apartment. Elizabeth was able to provide a work alibi for those times. Matjeka then changed the time that the assault was to have happened to daytime, or as prosecutor Kazen states, "when he found out that it happened during the day, you changed your statement"(Vol. III p. 428). Because she worked as a floating manager at Arby's restaurants, Liz also happened to be working days at the newly alleged times. During cross-examination prosecutor Kazen used this ambiguous information to infer that Liz had lied to Matjeka in her statement by first saying she worked nights, and then saying she worked days. It was in fact not Elizabeth, but rather Matjeka, who had changed his story to attempt to get the time and date to coincide with a possible time for the assault to have occurred. Liz says that during question "(Matjeka) kept telling me different stories". The reality is that Liz only answered the questions she was asked. The assault was also alleged to have occurred on July 24, but Liz had medical records showing that she was in hospital that day. The investigators weren't even sure what week the alleged assaults were supposed to have happened at the outset, and that is why they used the "on or about" language in the formal charges.

When Liz had a solid alibi for the crime, Matjeka simply picked a different day.
 <o:p></o:p>

Both Elizabeth and Cassandra claimed that Detective Matjeka repeatedly told them that he would have their children taken away from them by Child Protection Services if they did not fully cooperate with him in the investigation Although Elizabeth had no children, she was 4 months pregnant at the time the investigation began, and she says that Matjeka repeatedly threatened to have her child taken away the day it was born if she didn't admit to the crimes. Matjeka denied these allegations during the trial. During Elizabeth's trial prosecutor Kazen makes a point of asking why this threat of taking her child away was not included in the statement and calls Liz a liar because it is not there. The reality is that it was Matjeka writing down the statement, and no police officer would ever include any evidence of the psychological pressures they put on a suspect to get them to "confess" to be put in a sworn statement.

These "inconsistencies" would not have been available to prosecutors if the women had known to exercise their constitutional right, and said the 7 magic words - "I want to speak to a lawyer." When a suspect being questioned exercises this right police will say "why, do you have something to hide?" But if the police are operating above board, they should have no concerns about the presence of a lawyer during interrogations.
 <o:p></o:p>
Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-31640451779923514932008-06-16T18:01:00.000-07:002010-12-18T13:58:02.660-08:00A History of Unfounded Allegations
In addition to the claim of sexual assault made against Elizabeth Ramirez and her friends there are a number of other similar claims made by Javier Limon the girl's father, and Serafina Limon, the girls paternal grandmother. These other claims all bear a number of similarities to the description of the assault Elizabeth and her co-defendants have been convicted of, and all these claims of sexual assault lack any physical or corroborating evidence, whatsoever. In every one of these instances there is evidence of a family dispute or custody battle.

 The first unsubstantiated claim occurred in Denver, Colorado and involved allegations against a 10-year-old boy the girls claim their mother left them with while she went out with her boyfriend. In the course that event they claimed that the boy took them into the bedroom and that he and the younger girl, S.L., were naked from the waist down and that the boy had been "sticking his thing" into S.L. The girl's father, Javier Limon, claims that shortly after bringing them back to San Antonio from Denver in 1992, his daughters were caught acting out sexually with dolls, which led to their disclosing these events to him. Mr. Limon took his daughters to the Children's Advocacy Center where they underwent a physical examination for evidence of sexual assault. This was some time after the alleged events and the results of the examination were that there was no evidence of sexual assault. <o:p></o:p>

 <o:p></o:p>

Although the medical report from this examination were in the possession of the District Attorney's office, they were never introduced at Elizabeth Ramirez' trial. Elizabeth's defense attorney, Freddie Ruiz, claims the report was not among the discovery materials. Prosecutor Philip A. Kazen Jr. claims the report was in the file but that "Freddie missed it".<o:p></o:p>

 <o:p></o:p>

The second unsubstantiated allegation of sexual assault was made against a man named Oscar Aguirre Sr. in Denver, Colorado. Javier Limon and Rosemary Camarillo, the girl's mother, had been involved in a long-term common-law relationship, which ended in 1991. At the time of the breakup Rosemary and the girls had been living with the Aguirre family in Colorado. Rosemary and Javier had known the Aguirre family from San Antonio and had gone to school with some of their children. After Javier took the girls back to San Antonio Rosemary ended up marrying Oscar Aguirre Jr. and returned to San Antonio to be closer to her girls. This occurred sometime in 1993. When Javier found out that Rosemary had married Mr. Aguirre, he was very upset and made accusations that his father, Oscar Aguirre Sr. had been sexually assaulting S.L. and V.L. According to Rosemary there was a heated confrontation between Javier and Mr. Aguirre's family members regarding these allegations. The family made it clear that there would be serious consequences if Javier did not have substantial evidence to support his claims against their father. After this confrontation no more was heard from Javier with respect to these allegations against Mr. Aguirre. Shortly after this event Rosemary and Mr. Aguirre Jr. had their home raided by police an Mr. Aguirre was charged and convicted of selling marijuana and received a 10 year prison sentence. Rosemary believes that Javier Limon had been part of this police raid. Once Mr. Aguirre Jr. was in prison Javier became very attentive to Rosemary with offers of money. Rosemary refused these offers and eventually moved back to Colorado to evade constant harassment by Javier Limon. I have an email from Rosemary Camarillo giving a general outline of these events. She has stated that she would be willing to sign an affidavit if requested to do so. <o:p></o:p>

 <o:p></o:p>

In 2005 S.L. had been living with her aunt Christina in Colorado. S.L. had been in the care of CPS due to severe behavioral problems and Christina had threatened to put her out of the house because of her actions. S.L. then returned to San Antonio and moved in with her mother for a year. Some time after arriving at her mother's house S.L. told her mother that Christina's boyfriend had repeatedly raped her during the day while Christina was at work. There were no witnesses or corroborating evidence of these assaults, and although S.L. was 17 at the time she sought no medical attention, nor did she file a police report. When Rosemary confronted her that this was another false claim initiated as retaliation because Christina had asked her to leave, there was a heated argument between Rosemary and S.L. After approximately one year Rosemary asked S.L. to move out of the house. The primary reason for give for this by Rosemary is that S.L. is a liar and very manipulative. <o:p></o:p>

 <o:p></o:p>

The other claim of sexual assault was the one that S.L. and V.L. made against their aunt Elizabeth and her friends. These allegations followed directly on the heels of Elizabeth refusing to marry their father Javier Limon. During her testimony at the second trial V.L. acknowledged that she was aware of her aunt Elizabeth's bisexuality and that her father strongly disapproved of this. She was also aware that Javier had asked Elizabeth to marry him and she had refused his offer.<o:p></o:p>

 <o:p></o:p>

All of these reported sexual assaults seem to be associated with a family dispute where claims of sexual assault closely follow a custody dispute, divorce or other family disagreement. There are never any witnesses, corroborating or physical evidence. Only the claims of the "victims".<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-87228380836330280302008-03-07T19:42:00.000-08:002008-03-07T20:02:58.014-08:00East End of a West-bound Dog

I have been remiss in my blogging lately. Unfortunately all of my spare time that I usually devote to researching and writing about this case is being consumed trying to get my dog team whipped into reasonable physical condition to take them racing at the end of this month.

We have been doing 80km.(50 mile) runs in weather that is really too warm but they all come home with their tails wagging, so I am encouraged by that.

I have a race 220 mile that starts in Dawson and runs to Eagle, Alaska and back on March 27, and after that we immediately pack up and drive over to Denali Park in Alaska for a 300-miler that starts on April 1. After that is over I can get back to working on the case. I have electronic copies of all of Liz' transcripts now which will allow me to pursue some new leads. Believe it or not, for the last 12 years she has never had a full set of transcripts to use for her appeals!!

Meanwhile I spend much of my time staring at the east-end of west-bound dog team, or the west end of an east-bound dog team.

Can you tell the difference?

It takes many years of experience..... look closely at the pictures.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-49305405842858578252008-02-09T10:30:00.000-08:002010-12-18T14:04:45.826-08:00Expert Testimony

"I'm going to show you what comes out of Nancy Kellogg, prosecution witness, testifies for them repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. I'm going to show you that she can turn anything -- anything into sexual abuse. God, if you have a C grade and you drop from an A to a C .... that could be child abuse. That's how ridiculous. I'll show you through vicious cross-examination of her what this case is about."

Freddie Ruiz - Elizabeth's Defense Lawyer

At Elizabeth Ramirez' trial, and the trial of the other three women, no expert witnesses were called to testify for the defense. The only expert witness called by the prosecution was Dr. Nancy Kellogg, a pediatrician who had examined the girls on September 28, 1994, approximately 8 weeks after the alleged incidents. As Freddie Ruiz pointed out in his opening statement at Liz' trial Dr. Kellogg testifies as a prosecution witness on a regular basis. She was the medical director of the Alamo Children's Advocacy Center. Dr. Kellogg is what is referred to in legal circles as a "child saver", for whom the business of providing favorable expert testimony for the prosecution is a lucrative source of income. Questions have been raised in other trials regarding the quality and objectivity of Dr. Kellogg's testimony.

At Elizabeth's trial Dr. Kellogg was fully prepared to testify this was a case of cult-related or Satanic-related sexual abuse as she concluded in her written report. It was only a written objection to the Judge that prevented her testifying as such in front of the jury.

Dr. Kellogg took a "history" from the two girls that was in fact nothing more than their story of the alleged incident. The version they told Dr. Kellogg differed on several key factors from what they had told the outcry witness, their father, in the police report and at the trials. Based on their demeanor, which Dr. Kellogg described as "guileless", she accepted their story at face value and testified to the jury that she found them very believable. Although Dr. Kellogg specifically names Elizabeth and the other women in her report, she made absolutely no effort to contact them to verify this information. By doing so she has in fact made a diagnosis on someone she has never seen.

The point of contention focused on during cross-examination by Freddie Ruiz was Dr. Kellogg's claim of finding a "scar" that was 2-3 millimeters in length at the 3 o'clock position on V.L.'s hymen. Kellogg claimed this was evidence of penetration, although she could not date the time that the alleged scar was formed, or the object that might have created it. Outside of those with scientific training or some aspects of the military, most Americans are completely unfamiliar with the metric system. Describing a scar as being 2 to 3 millimeters would have little or no meaning. To give that description a frame of reference using everyday objects; a quarter has a thickness of 2mm. and a pencil lead 3mm. This was a very small scar Kellogg claimed to have seen.

What no one bothered to question was whether the scar in fact actually existed. Dr. Kellogg claimed she took photos of the examination using a colposcope, but when requested, failed to produce copies of those photos for a defense' medical expert to verify her findings. It is not uncommon for medical professionals to disagree over a diagnosis such as this one. There have also been serious disagreements with respect to exactly what constitutes normal anatomy in prepubertal children, and what is indicative of sexual abuse. There are also questions as to whether a pediatrician is the most appropriately trained medical professional to make this type of diagnosis. A pathologist would be considered better trained for this type of analysis. Yet Liz' defense lawyer did not bother to hire a medical expert of any description to contest Dr. Kellogg's testimony. Dr. Kellogg herself must have had some doubts about the "scar" she claims to have seen, as during the actual examination she describes it as an "irregular white area" and only on the final page of her report does this finding morph into a "hymenal scar, consistent with vaginal penetration".

Another aspect of Dr. Kellogg's medical testimony that was not revealed at Liz' trial was the fact that Javier Limon, the girls father, had brought them to the Alamo Children's Advocacy Centre several years previously, claiming that they had been sexually molested by a 10-year-old boy while living with their mother in Colorado. He demanded that the girls be examined by a doctor for physical evidence. The doctor who examined the girls found no evidence of sexual abuse. Javier had previously claimed that another member of the boy's family had sexually abused the girls while trying to get custody of them from their mother. He backed down on that claim when vigorously challenged by family members to provide evidence for those claims.

The prosecution had a copy of the medical report from the first examination of the girls, but this was never introduced at Liz' trial. This evidence could have established several things. First, that the girls knew what sexual abuse was, and that they may have been sexually abused previously. Secondly, it could have established to the jury that the girl's father had a history of making unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse against his daughter's when he had a dispute with someone. Prosecutor Phillip A. Kazen Jr. claimed that the report of the first claim of sexual abuse was in the file of discovery materials, but that "Freddie missed it". Defense lawyer Ruiz claims the report was not in the file. Regardless, this was information that could have discredited Dr. Kellogg's testimony, and had a significant impact on the outcome of Elizabeth's trial. Had the case been properly investigated, and had the appropriate expert witnesses testified on Liz' behalf as part of a vigorous defense, she may well have been found not guilty. Instead of providing these resources Freddie Ruiz told Liz' not to worry because the onus was on the prosecution to prove that she was guilty, and he relied on his ability to effectively discredit witnesses through cross-examination - despite the fact he had no experience in criminal trials.

It is profoundly sad to think that Liz may be spending 37 and-a-half years in prison because the cost of hiring expert witnesses and an investigator cut into someone's profit margin.

Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-57267331482871164232008-02-04T05:53:00.000-08:002008-02-04T06:14:17.277-08:00A Huge Liability
Elizabeth Ramirez was convicted in February of 1997, and sentenced to 37 and a half years. She becomes parole eligible in 2015 - the halfway point of her sentence. The other three women were convicted on Valentine's Day 1998, and sentenced to 15 years incarceration, but remained out on appeal until the summer of 2000. Those three recently passed the halfway point of their sentences, and became parole-eligible. All three have come before the Parole Board over the last while (Cassandra Rivera in November and Kristie Mayhugh just last month). As from the day the accusations first surfaced in 1994, all three maintained their claims of innocence at their respective parole hearings. They are fully aware that in the eyes of Texas Pardons and Parole a claim of innocence is considered failure to accept responsibility for their crimes, that they will not be granted parole, and will serve their full sentences. They effectively now hold the keys to their prison cells, all they would have to do is "confess" to the crimes and go through a sex offender treatment program and they would likely be granted parole. They will be forced to register as sex offenders regardless of whether they parole or serve their full sentences. At this point in time maintaining a claim of innocence has absolutely no strategic advantage - in fact it becomes a huge liability. The fact that they are willing to spend another 7-plus years in prison when they could be home with their families and children makes their claims of innocence that much more compelling. They are not willing to compromise Truth one iota. The truth is, those who are wrongfully convicted and maintain their innocence are doubly punished relative to the guilty.

All four of these women have maintained their innocence from the outset. They all passed a lie detector test and none had any drug or alcohol problems, or criminal record. Women who sexually assault young children are very rare, and tend to be seriously mentally ill or have a host of other problems. An extensive search failed to find another verified instance of a group sexual assault by adult females on children. The fact that they were lesbians and therefore predisposed to sexually assaulting little girls, although categorically false, was blatantly promoted to the juries at their respective trials. The simple fact is, there are holes in this case you could drive a truck through, and as claims of innocence go, theirs is very believable. There have been significant doubts about this case from the beginning, and the credibility of their claims only increase with the passage of time.

Elizabeth Ramirez also maintains her innocence of these crimes and will do so at her parole hearing in 2015. She is fully prepared to serve her full sentence which expires in 2034 rather than compromise the truth.

Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-11171301326507799262008-01-28T22:40:00.001-08:002008-01-30T15:28:29.862-08:00Disproving a Negative

"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once."

Charles Lamb

The criminal justice system holds that the burden of proof during a trial lies with the prosecution, and the onus falls on them to provide sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the alleged crime. Also, the accused is given the presumption of innocence until they have been proven guilty in a fair trial. Although that is the "theory" of criminal proceedings, there are two circumstances which are clearly exceptions to those rules - instances where no crime has in fact occurred. The first is being found with a large sum of cash in ones possession. The assumption is that the cash was accumulated through illegal means, and it is up to the owner to prove otherwise, or forfeit the money to the government. The second exception to these rules occurs in the case of false allegations of child abuse/sexual assault, where there is no physical or corroborating evidence - only the testimony of the alleged victim. Although the theory of the trial states that the prosecution must prove the accused parties guilty, the reality of these cases is that the defendant is placed in the position of being presumed guilty and having to prove their innocence - that no crime has occurred. This is a very difficult, if not impossible situation; exactly how does one go about producing evidence that will refute an imaginary crime? Disproving a negative is a logical impossibility, but it is also the blunt reality of the accused person's predicament.

In an interesting study by Neil Vidmar, a social psychologist at Duke University Law School (1997), a sample of over 800 potential jurors were questioned regarding their ability to maintain a presumption of innocence in cases of child sexual abuse. A full 36% openly admitted that they would be unable to do so for a variety of reasons, often related to personal beliefs or experience. That 36% was calculated before jurors had heard specific details of the alleged crime. Judges with extensive experience in child sex abuse cases believe it is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to assemble a jury that is able to maintain the presumption of innocence and provide a fair trial for those on trial for child abuse.

In the case of Elizabeth Ramirez and her co-defendants, this difficulty in assembling a non-prejudicial jury was compounded by the fact that the prosecutors at both trials openly attempted to present the women as having a strong proclivity toward sexually abusing little girls because they were lesbians, in spite of the fact that there is no scientifically-based evidence to support that theory. Prosecutorial conduct specifically intended to erode any presumption of innocence of the accused on the part the jury not based in evidence, but rather homophobic fear-mongering, is irresponsible to say the least. It would have been difficult for the four women to get a fair trial under the best of circumstances. There seemed to be little interest in letting justice run it's course, and the prosecutors primary goal seemed to be to demonize the defendants in front of the jury to win the case.

Another factor leading to Elizabeth's conviction was the attitude of her lawyer, Freddie Ruiz, who had never before represented a client in a criminal trial of any description, let alone on the notoriously difficult charges of aggravated sexual assault on a child. Liz was upset that her lawyer failed to produce any defense witnesses. Ruiz told her not to worry because it was up to the prosecution to prove her guilty. Lawyers who have experience representing clients on charges of child sexual abuse are only too aware of the problems of presumption of guilt on the part of the jury members, and agree that the only successful strategy is an extremely aggressive defense, that includes expert witnesses capable of a convincing rebuttal of the prosecution's evidence. Based on experience, defense lawyers usually advise clients, including innocent ones, against going to trial even with a strong case and under favorable circumstances.

The effect of prejudice and ignorance amongst jurors is well documented in criminal trials. Black men accused of raping white women have traditionally been virtually assured of a conviction, even when there was considerable evidence supporting their innocence. This was a central theme in Harper Lee's classic novel "To Kill a Mockingbird". A common racist belief amongst many white Americans has been that black men are unable to control their sexual urges and when a white woman claimed she had been sexually assaulted a jury would almost invariably return a guilty verdict regardless of how questionable her claims might have been, or how strong the defense. Ignorance and preconception on the part of the jury meant that there was a presumption of guilt under those circumstances. The recent rash of convictions overturned by DNA evidence has clearly shown these prejudices against black men wrongfully convicted of violent sexual assaults on white women still persist in the criminal justice system

Texas has the highest rate of DNA exonerations of any State in America. Dallas County alone has now had more cases overturned by DNA than any State, except Illinois and New York. It is obvious that Texas has a very serious problem with wrongful convictions sending innocent people to prison or execution. Outside of the small percentage of cases supported by DNA evidence, there seems to be little will within the Texas criminal justice system to acknowledge the full scope of the problem and take measures to deal with it.

In the case of Elizabeth Ramirez and her co-defendants; in addition to Texas' unacceptably high rate of wrongful convictions, the problems involved in obtaining an impartial jury in child sex abuse cases, prosecutor's intimating to the jury that these women should be presumed guilty of sexual assault on two little girls simply because of their sexual orientation, lawyers who did not bother to provide expert witnesses for their defense, and it becomes obvious that they did not get anything remotely close to a fair trial.

For prosecutor's it was an easy victory, and an opportunity for political grandstanding as they were able to play to the fears and ignorance of a homophobic electorate, all under the noble guise of protecting children.

References:

Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic Prejudice and the Presumption of Guilt in Sex Abuse Trials. Law and Human Behavior. 21(1)Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-61058160423675269532008-01-27T18:30:00.000-08:002008-01-30T15:29:38.378-08:00How Rare?According to the FBI, and a roundup other resources on the subject (Lanning, 1992), outside of the category of female sex offender known as "male-coerced", one of the salient features of women who molest children is that they are always single perpetrators. After enlisting the help of several professional researchers, and reviewing the contents of every database we could access from Lexus Nexus to Google and more, we were unable to identify a single case, outside of this one, where a group of women cooperated in the sexual molestation of a child. Sexual assaults on pre-pubertal children by women are rare occurrences to begin with. If you can provide evidence of a verified case of a "gang" sexual assault against a child by adult women please let us know. We would be very interested.

When the realities of criminal profiles and demographics are brought into argument at a sexual assault trial, lawyers will rebut by saying that "anyone can be a sex offender". In the strictest terms, that is true. An eighty year old woman is physically capable of walking into a bank with a sawed-off shotgun and yelling "stick-em-up"; but it doesn't happen, and common sense tells us it doesn't happen. Bank robbers are almost invariably young men with some distinct personality traits. That is why law enforcement agencies such as the FBI spend so much time and energy developing criminal profiles. Behaviors and personality traits of those who carry out various types of crimes are predictable. A group of well-adjusted and intelligent women are physically capable of getting together and cooperatively molesting a child - but it doesn't happen. Women who molest pre-pubertal children display a distinct set of characteristics. They are seriously mentally ill and/or of limited intelligence and/or have social and interpersonal problems. Also, probably because they are such a rarity, they act alone.

Why was the Texas Justice System and mainstream media willing to accept without question that 4 lesbians would participate in the sexual assault two little girls? The case had more to do with fear-mongering, ignorance and opportunities for political grandstanding, than trying to hold the realities of the situation up to the light of reason. And there was little attempt to do so.

A multi-perpetrator sexual assault by adult women on two little girls is someone's sick sexual fantasy, and not an accurate reflection of reality.

References:

Lanning, K. V. (1992) Investigators Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Abuse. Behavioral Sciences Unit. FBI Academy. Quantico, Virginia 22135.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-50712486947555730352008-01-10T10:12:00.001-08:002008-01-29T20:44:34.051-08:00Nice People
"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to sit idly by and do nothing."

Martin Luther King Jr.

I disagree with that statement. Not primarily because it has become politically incorrect over the course of the last 4 decades. But rather because good people, by definition, are those who refuse to do nothing, and take action against "evil". It is nice people who stand idly by and do nothing, that are the problem.

There are far too many nice people in the world, and not enough good people. When you talk to nice people they will generally agree with your opinions, and right on cue harp on about the injustices in society and piss and moan about the government and have all the "right" insights and arguments. But if you ask them "What are you going to do about it?" they stop, and give you a look of total bewilderment. They have no intention of "doing" anything about it - rocking the boat- because, well, that just wouldn't be nice. Nice people are vapid mental masturbators oblivious to their own moral impotence.

As kids we are told "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". Apparently it is important not to offend, or hurt people's feelings. But what about when we are faced with those who distort truth and manipulate or harm others for their personal gain? Do we continue to smile politely because we are nice people and don't want to offend? Are their feelings more important than the truth? The blunt reality is there are people in this world who are so devoid of personal ethics that they will continue to serve their own purposes at the expense of others until they are faced with serious consequences for their behaviors. They will persist until we take the initiative to stop them.

We live in a democracy. If we fail to participate actively in the democratic process there are those who will hijack and use political machinery for personal and professional gain. Democracy only works when the government is afraid of the people. But there is no reason to be afraid of nice people, they will continue to eat shit endlessly. Our governments are increasinngly no longer afraid of us. Over the course of the last four decades they have become extremely proficient at managing us, and seem do so with little or no impunity. Nice people complain, but do nothing, and eventually many even stop complaining.

Nice people do have their merits. In daily life they lubricate social interactions and make our days more pleasant - nobody wants to interact with the abrasive and the obnoxious. But when their days are numbered and they leave this world what have nice people accomplished? They leave no legacy and have changed bugger all, because they lack the courage to fight to raise or maintain the moral integrity of their society. They disconnect from the community and sit hypnotized in front of their big screen televisions, overeating and expecting someone else to do something about society's problems. They are pathetic and apathetic.

The criminal justice system has increasingly become a refuge for scoundrels. Police and prosecutorial misconduct have become far more commonplace than most people imagine. While there are many honest and ethical people working in the justice system, there are those whose career and political ambitions supercede their desire to seek justice. They have appear to have no qualms about convicting and imprisoning their fellow citizens wrongfully. Their only goal seems to be to win cases and improve arrest and conviction records to further professional aspirations and bolster their egos.

In the past there was widespread denial regarding the number of citizens wrongfully convicted. The ever accumulating numbers of DNA-driven exonerations has fully exposed the extent of this horrible problem. But wrongfully convicted people who are able to prove their innocence through DNA represent a very small minority of the total number of wrongfully convicted in prison or on death row today. They are merely the tip of the iceberg.

The question now is, how will society address this problem? What will we do knowing full well that a substantial number of the claims of innocence being put forward due to wrongful convictions are legitimate? Innocent fellow citizens have been illegally deprived of their freedom or their lives. To protect personal interests, the immoral or "evil" in the system will continue to deny the existence of wrongful convictions through nonsense rationalizations. The nice will gripe about the injustice but do little or nothing, and effectively allow the problem to persist.

Evil people may be the enemy, but nice people are the problem. We need to stop raising our children to be nice people and start raising them to be good people if we are to address these problems and improve the quality of our society.

Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-35725171250954172152008-01-04T03:49:00.000-08:002008-01-22T06:58:55.904-08:00Lesbian Pedophiles

"...I want to cover something and I'm not going to mention it again. The alternative lifestyle. The only significance that has in this case is to show why we would have female abusers and female victims".

Mary Kay Delavan -prosecutor at second trial.

The above statement implies a direct link between lesbianism and the sexual abuse of girls.

That idea is patently and categorically false.

During the 1980's the media regularly reported that boy's were being sexually molested by "gay priests". The notion being that Catholic priests who molested (usually adolescent) boys were homosexuals. By definition a homosexual is an adult whose sexual interest is adults of their own gender. These priests were not homosexuals but rather pedophiles, as their only sexual interest was in children, and they had never had any sexual interest in either male or female adults. The tabloid media gave extensive coverage to these cases involving "gay priests" and the connection had been made in the minds of a large portion of the public.

Those who are morally opposed to homosexuality have long asserted a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. That belief has had many effects including the Boy Scouts of America barring gay men from scouting, and attempts to bar gay men from positions as school teachers. A 1970 survey showed 70% of Americans believed homosexuals were inclined toward sexual abuse of youth and should not be allowed to work with them. That percentage has decreased steadily, and by 1999 the numbers of people still holding that belief had dropped into the mid-teens with respect to gays, and approximately 7% for lesbians.(Herek, G. 2008)

There have been published reports claiming to show a positive correlation between homosexuality and child molestation. Peer-review of these articles shows a common flaw in research methodology. In these studies when a male perpetrator assaults a boy it is considered to be "homosexual" molestation and when a girl is abused, "heterosexual" molestation. In fact the majority of these assaults are carried out by pedophiles who tend to offend against a specific age group of children, and in many, if not most instances have no gender preference. What is critical to recognize is that most of these pedophiles have no sexual orientation and are therefore categorized as "fixated" child molesters. Another group of child molesters categorized as "regressed" have previously shown a capacity to form adult sexual relationships, but have returned to an earlier developmental stage in terms of their sexual interests. This regression is often associated with extreme levels of stress.

An important investigation in this area was conducted in Massachusetts by Groth and Birnbaum (1978). They studied 175 adult males convicted of child molestation. Interestingly, none were classified as homosexuals. 47% were classified as "fixated"pedophiles, 40% as "regressed" heterosexuals, and 13% as regressed bisexuals. Other researchers conducting similar studies have found very low rates (less than 1%) of child molestation by homosexuals, and no positive correlation in terms of sexual interest in boys. (Jenny et. al., 1994; Freund et. al. 1989)

Today, professionals and academics working in the child abuse field no longer believe homosexuals pose an elevated risk to the sexual abuse of children relative to heterosexuals. Regarding the relationship between lesbianism and child molestation, verified cases are so rare valid statistical inferences cannot be made.

In both Elizabeth Ramirez' trial, and the trial of the other 3 women, prosecutors inferred that their lesbianism predisposed them toward molesting girls. Sexual assault on pre-pubertal girls by adult women is a rare event. As lesbians represent a small subsample of all adult women and show no disposition toward child molestation, their involvement in these types of assaults can only be described as extremely rare. Women who assault younger children are usually seriously mentally ill and/or have very limited social skills and other problems. The four women convicted in this case are all well-adjusted and high functioning. All had shown the ability to form and maintain adult sexual relationships. Another salient characteristic of women who sexually assault prepubescent girls is that they always act alone.

While it is possible, all research findings indicate the odds of a multi-perpetrator sexual assault on prepubertal girls by four high functioning lesbians is, at best, extremely remote. Several searches have failed to find reference to another verified case. Because of this, the question arises: "Why didn't this case raise red flags, and draw significant media attention?"

Lesbian pedophiles is a myth - a figment of a homophobic imagination, and not based in reality.

References:

Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.

Herek, Gregory. Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html. Retrieved Jan. 6, 2008.

Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-66663691264367082462007-12-13T21:53:00.000-08:002007-12-13T22:31:17.568-08:00The Cruelest CutFor Elizabeth and Cassie the cruelest aspect of this entire ordeal has been the loss of contact with their children, and the inability to be a mother to their children. Liz lost custody of her son to his father when she went to prison in 1997, shortly before the boy's second birthday. The father is the same man who demanded Liz have an abortion when she first found out she was pregnant, and left her when she refused. The father has not allowed Liz' son to have any contact with his mother since she has been incarcerated. Liz continues to send letters, birthday and Christmas cards but gets no response, and has no idea if her son, who is now 12 actually receives her correspondence. Having her son think that she is a monster has been the most difficult thing for Liz to deal with through all of this.

Cassie has two children - Michael, and his sister Ashley who is a year younger. They were 8 and 7 when Cassie first went to prison. Because of the nature of the offenses she was convicted of, Cassie is not allowed physical contact with anyone under the age of 16. Due to an administrative error her children were inadvertently given a contact visit shortly after she arrived at Mountain View. Cassie sent me a photograph taken during that visit. Since that time, all visits with her children have taken place behind plate glass while talking through a telephone receiver monitored by prison staff.

Last month Michael turned 16 and on December 1st was able to have a contact visit with his mother for the first time in 8 years . It was something Cassie had talked about and looked forward to for a long time. She wrote me a letter the next day describing the visit.

"...I wanted to write you to let you know that after so many years I had my visit with my son. I was able to touch him and look into his eyes, and held his hand. For two hours I felt like I was complete. Life - I had so much life. It was emotional. I cried because I was happy and I cried because I was sad, I even cried because I was angry. I could see the pain in my boy's eyes when we talked about my chances of not making my first parole, and it hurt me so deeply and the pain he holds due to those lies made me so mad. He struggles cuz' he wants me home...." Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-82344400136010053282007-11-26T19:27:00.000-08:002008-01-03T22:21:41.950-08:00Who the Hell are You?When I originally put together the Four Lives Lost website I had drafted a page that explained in (far too much) detail exactly how I came to be involved in this case. When I finally uploaded the site I decided not to include that page because at the time it felt a little too self-indulgent or something, and I wanted to focus on the women and their plight rather than myself.

The single most common feedback response I get from people who make a critical review of the website is that it should have included some explanation of who I am, and how I came to end up advocating for four women in a Texas prison. That story has much to do with the internet and its incredible ability to establish close connections between people who are geographically quite distant. The page explaining my involvement has already undergone one stiff edit and after I do one more I will relink the page.

Meanwhile, here is the short answer to the first question.

I live a semi-reclusive, self-sufficient lifestyle in the Yukon Territory wilderness in Northern Canada, and teach half-time at Yukon College in Whitehorse to pay the bills. What I really like to do is read and research, but most of all, to think and live in the world of ideas. Living here gives me the freedom and time to do precisely that. I have found that I do my very best thinking standing on the runners of a dog sled moving through the wilderness. So after loading my brain a whole pile of new information I will hook up a team and bugger off into the mountains for the day, to process it all. I maintain a kennel of about two dozen dogs primarily for that purpose. People tend to be leary of anyone who isolates themselves from the "pack". I am well aware of what the locals call me because of my reclusive lifestyle - Grinch.... Unamusher.... they just don't have the cojones to say it to my face.

While my research in graduate school was on the impacts of exogenous sex steroid hormones on embryonic development in salmon, I am interested in a (far too) wide variety of subject areas ranging from environmental toxicology to solar houses to criminal and social justice issues.
I originally trained as a research scientist and had planned a career in the biotechnology field. But a couple of things got in the way. First, I had some serious ethical problems related to the cavalier attitude of industry
toward the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting "off the farm" and interacting with wild species. The final cut to my career plans occurred when I was sent up here to run a one week experiment in June of 1992. It was light all day and night, there was what appeared to be endless open space, and everybody drove a beat up pickup truck. It felt like heaven to me. By the end of the third day I knew I could never live in a city again, and was going to stay. There is no high tech research occurring in the Yukon, and there probably won't be for a long time, which meant I had to find other ways to earn a living.

So now I live way to hell and gone out here in the sticks, and chuck the bulk of my pay cheques into a furry pit, just so that I can enjoy the pleasure of hours of uninterrupted thinking while staring at the east end of a dozen westbound dogs - or some variation thereof.

As I mentioned above I am very interested in criminal justice related issues, and in February 2006 was doing some research on the internet when I first came across, and became interested in Elizabeth Ramirez' and her co-defendants case. But I will leave the details of exactly how I got involved to the next post.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-43417817230641078692007-11-26T19:02:00.000-08:002007-11-27T07:09:17.138-08:00How I got InvolvedContinuing from the previous post as to exactly how I came advocate for Elizabeth and her friends.......

In February 2006 I had been doing some research on female sex offenders. More specifically, I was interested in women who offend against young children. Actually I use the word "interested" in the broader sense of the term, as what I really wanted to know is what went on the mind of any woman who would or could, do that to a child. Perhaps it had to do with my preconceptions about women, but regardless, I just couldn't make any sense of it. While there are, as of yet, no clear established profile of female child molesters, there are some general characteristics that are fairly reliable predictors or indicators. In a nutshell, women who offend sexually against pre-pubertal children have major league mental health issues, and social adjustment problems. Also, they almost always act alone, and confess readily when caught and confronted. That information comes from a variety of sources, but the main one I used was a report from the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

In the course of my research on specific cases, I came across a woman in Texas named Elizabeth Ramirez. I found some information about her case on the internet. What was really unusual about this case was that it was a multi-perpetrator and multi-victim assault, as well as having other components all of which ran completely counter-current to what the existing research stated about women who offend against children. When I had exhausted what I could find out about the case on the internet, I wrote her a letter. I wanted to get a sense of who Elizabeth was to make sense of the situation. Her response simply increased my confusion, as she seemed to be happy and well-adjusted, and by no means exhibited any of the characteristics that should have been present. She also told me she was innocent of the charges.

Through my contact with Liz I was able to do more research into the case. As the information accumulated it became increasingly obvious that Liz and her co-defendants had a very strong case for their claims of innocence. What I found most disturbing was that the Texas media had completely ignored them. They were convicted on flimsiest of evidence, primarily because they are gay, and it was like they disappeared off the face of the earth once they entered prison.

Because I truly believed they were innocent, and it was obvious that nobody else gave a damn if they rotted in prison, I felt an ethical obligation to do what I could to help them. So I have established the website and this blog, and am advocating on other fronts to earn them the freedom and exonerations they so richly deserve.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-88062470669922963162007-11-25T22:33:00.001-08:002007-11-25T22:37:47.106-08:00I Hate It In Here

Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-73600820977506123312007-11-22T19:48:00.000-08:002007-11-23T08:10:22.338-08:00One More Twist to the StoryThere are many aspects of this case that have caused me to shake my head in complete disbelief. When I first heard the stories of what had taken place during the investigation phase and trials of these women I was amazed, and at times thought they were exaggerating the situation. Now that I have source documents supporting much of what I was told, I am finding that they in fact often understated the reality of the situation.

Here is the latest twist to the story. Karen Clos was the social worker from the Alamo Children's Advocacy center who initially interviewed, and helped the girls with their story to prepare them for their testimony in court. During the trials Ms. Clos was allowed to sit in plain view of the girls while they were on the witness stand. While everyone in the courtroom watched, the social worker made eye contact with the witnesses and would nod yes, or shake her head no when the defense attorney was questioning the girls. When the defense objected to this and asked that she be removed from the court the judge overruled the objection. The court seemed to think that coaching the girls through their testimony was an acceptable practice.

If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-25397597893465766492007-11-21T22:31:00.000-08:002007-11-22T07:39:06.920-08:00Another ExplanationAt this point I have read through over a thousand pages of documentation, and spent several hundred hours researching, and talking to those involved in this case. I think I am starting to get a clear idea of exactly what went on.

The most common belief of everyone involved in this case is that Javier Limon coached his daughters into making allegations of sexual abuse against Elizabeth and her friends as retaliation because she refused his offer of marriage. Based on Javier's character and history that scenario is easy enough to believe. He certainly had motive and he also had a history of making false allegations of sexual abuse against his daughters as a method of intimidation. He had earlier accused Rosa's new boyfriend of molesting the girls when he wanted to get custody and take them back to San Antonio. However, in spite of all that he still deserves the presumption of innocence until there is direct evidence of his having actually done the things people are accusing him of. Just because he is capable of doing something doesn't make him guilty.

The possibility that has not been considered in any depth is that the girls spontaneously made up the story. As I continue to learn more about this case that option becomes increasingly plausible. Remember that they had previously been sexually assaulted by a 10-year-old boy who was babysitting them, several years previously in Colorado. These girls were by no means naive about details of what sexual assault entailed. Also, while in Colorado they had seen their father threaten their mother by holding a gun to her head. The two major elements of their allegations against Elizabeth and her friends, the sexual assault and being threatened with a gun, had been part of their life experience. When their grandmother caught them acting out sexually with their dolls she scolded them for their behavior. In her statement the grandmother says the first thing she asked the girls was "Did something happen to you at Aunt Liz' house?" That was certainly a leading question, and is probably homophobically motivated and related to the fact that most of the family did not approve of Elizabeth's friends or her "lifestyle". As a guilt response to their behavior the girls could well have responded to their grandmother's leading question by making up a story about being sexually assaulted by Elizabeth and her friends. Despite their innocent appearance, these two little girls were street-wise and grew up in a very dysfunctional home with a father who was a chronic liar. According to their mother both girls were persistent and accomplished liars for their age.

This certainly wouldn't be the first time that children have made up stories about being assaulted. Oftentimes in follow-up interviews children are "helped" with the details of their fabricated story by well-meaning interviewers, until the child can no longer distinguish the truth from the story. It is now standard procedure in these cases to videotape initial interviews with children to ensure that no leading questions are asked. Unfortunately in this case the initial interviews were conducted by the San Antonio Police who stated at Elizabeth's trial that videotaping interviews was not their policy. So we may never know what happened in that crucial first interview.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-48930413347650202922007-11-17T04:51:00.000-08:002010-12-18T14:02:26.889-08:00The Best SolutionAttempting to gain exoneration for these four wrongfully convicted women through the legal system is a daunting task to say the least. Post-conviction relief is time-consuming and expensive, and often there is great effort with no result. The system is designed to keep people in prison once they have been convicted, and does not like to acknowledge or deal with it's own shortcomings, even, as in recent years with the rash of convictions overturned by DNA evidence, when it is painfully obvious.

For Elizabeth and her co-defendants, and in fact for everyone involved in this case, the best solution would be for V.L. and S.L. to come forward with the truth and acknowledge in a signed affidavit that the assaults were a fabrication and never occurred. Since becoming legal adults both girls have admitted at different times, and to different family members that nothing happened at the apartment during their stay. But they will not go to the police or make those statements official. In a 2005 phone call to Dan Martinez, Anna Vasquez uncle, V.L.'s fiancee stated that he was aware of the situation and was looking out for V.L.'s best interests because she was "scared to death" they would come after her if she recanted her testimony. He would not elaborate exactly on who "they" were.

We can only speculate on exactly who the girls are so afraid of. For those involved in the case who know the characters of everyone involved, the most obvious guess is that "they" is the girl's father and grandmother. The most likely scenario is that the father, and possibly the grandmother as well, coached the girls into a story and told them to keep their mouth shut or there would be serious consequences. Remember that as small children the girls witnessed acts of violence by their father against their mother, including the time he came to Colorado to collect his daughters and with them watching, held a .22 calibre pistol to their mother's head and told her he would kill her if she ever came back to San Antonio.

One great irony is that the laws surrounding the reporting of child abuse have been constructed to encourage reporting and there are no criminal charges that can be laid for making false allegations. This was done so that those who "suspected" a child was being abused would not be reluctant to come forward with that information. Unfortunately what happened is that people who lacked ethics discovered they could make malicious false accusations of child abuse as a vendetta against a former spouse, family member or others, and do so with total impunity.
So the irony in this case is that whoever coached these girls into the story cannot suffer legal consequences for doing so.

There is also the possibility that V.L. and S.L. fear retaliation from the women who went to prison because of their testimony. That fear however is totally unfounded. While the convicted women are angry about what has happened, they also possess enough maturity to realize that the girls were children when they gave their testimony, that they were raised in an extremely dysfunctional home, and didn't recognize the consequences of what was happening.

A third possibility is that the children were coached by prosecutors or someone at the Children's Advocacy Center, although there is no direct evidence of that occurring at this time.

The one scenario that is entirely plausible but no one seems to have thought about is that the girls made the story up on their own. All the elements of what they claimed happened had been part of their experience growing up. They had previously been molested by a 10-year-old boy, and they had seen their father threaten their mother with a gun. These two girls had not led a sheltered life, and were very much street-wise and familiar with the things they testified about at the trials.

The best solution for everyone involved in this case is for one or both of the girls to come forward with the truth in a signed affidavit. What we need is someone who can facilitate that process - to talk with them and discover exactly who or what they are so afraid of that they will not come forward, and find a constructive way to alleviate those fears.

Enough people have been hurt by what has happened in this case, and the best solution is one consisting of recantation and reconciliation for everyone involved.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-48629395744621571512007-11-15T06:11:00.000-08:002007-11-15T07:13:53.951-08:00Marlin's Other ProblemBefore I move away from the whole Texas theme altogether there is one other problem in the Marlin area that should be mentioned. This little problem is much less visible than the effects of the Free Trade-driven economic downturn and easier to deny.

Although now banned, Atrazine is a broad-leaf pesticide that was used extensively throughout the Southern US on sorghum and a variety of other crops. Atrazine is also one of a number of chemicals classified as Xenoestrogens (pronounce the x as z). For reasons not completely understood these compounds mimic the effect of female sex hormones. Fish are extremely sensitive to sex hormone impacts and that is where much of our early knowledge of the effects of xenoestrogens came from. Some fish populations in the Great Lakes were found to be over 70% female but testing showed that these populations started out at the normal 50:50 male:female ratio but up to 30% of the males had been "feminized" to the point where they were functionally female. They had developed ovaries, and no longer produced sperm but eggs instead (I did a Master's degree in this area).

These feminizing effects also occur in human beings although to a lesser extent. Men who grow up in environments where there is chronic exposure to even extremely low dosages of xenoestrogens show feminization, which manifests in adulthood as loss of muscle mass, decreased penis size and low sperm counts, sometimes to the point of infertility. Chronic exposure to xenoestrogens in women produces a number of health problems and long term effects include increased risk of breast and reproductive tract cancers.

Once Atrazine enters the water table as runoff from agriculture it is incredibly persistent. It has been a problem in the water in the Marlin area for many years. While there are constant reassurances that the levels in the drinking water are now safe, many of the women in the Hobby Unit prison have no option but to drink the water. The Unit rules allow the inmates to purchase only one half litre of bottled water per day, if they can afford it. In central Texas where temperatures regularly exceed 35C lots of good quality drinking water is a necessity. This means that many of the women serving long sentences are forced to drink large quantities of this questionable water daily for decades. There are legitimate questions surrounding the long term health effects of this. Currently there are numerous health problems occurring amongst women on the Unit that are blamed on the water.

But nobody seems to care or is ready to do much about it.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-79930209743614873212007-11-14T03:33:00.000-08:002007-11-17T16:39:28.980-08:00San AntonioOn Monday I met up with Dan Martinez who is Anna Vasquez uncle. He is involved in local politics here in the city and has followed this case closely, and tried to help Anna from the outset. Dan had two bins full of documents related to the case complete with an index. We took the majority of that paperwork to a copy place and began the arduous process of pulling staples, photocopying and re-stapling so that everything remained in order. I have a very impressive file accumulated already, and still don't have the transcripts for the second trial. My goal at this point is to start writing a report on the accusations and the trials that is fully documented. I certainly have enough information to sort through that will keep me busy for a while, but eventually I will need the second transcript. Also there is some stuff missing. That may need to be collected from the Bexar County courthouse at some point. Nevertheless it is good that we are able to prove all of the claims we have been making. In some cases some of the statements made at the trials were even more outlandish than I had been told. I sat and read Liz' trial transcript yesterday where Dr. Nancy Kellogg claimed that Satanic-related sexual abuse was a medical diagnosis supported by research reported in journal articles. How the hell this woman obtained or maintains a license to practice medicine defies imagination.

On Tuesday I met with Anna's mom Maria Vasquez, and Cassie's mom Margaret Rivera and Cassie's brother Robert and her son Michael. We went out for dinner and later went back to Margaret's house and talked about the case and our plans for the near future. I think meeting them was very useful as it gives them a sense of who I am, and also helps to establish some basic trust. Hopefully in the future we can build on that. I was unable to contact Liz' mom or any of her family members while I was here.

Well it is 5:30 on Wednesday morning and I need to get it together to catch a flight in 2 hours. It will be good to get back home to Canada and sleep in my own bed, but it is also going to be a long day as I don't get home until after midnight. I'm sure the mutts will be glad to see me again and to get out and run again.Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-68803619005502938382007-11-13T11:02:00.001-08:002007-11-13T18:19:34.139-08:00Images of Marlin, TexasThese are photos of Marlin, Texas taken on Sunday November 11, 2007. On the main street most of the commercial buildings are occupied, but once you leave there things get pretty grim. Marlin is a classic example of a rural southern US town financially gutted by Free Trade.

And when you turn onto FM 712 the road to the Hobby Unit women's prison
there is a sign. Someone has decorated it with birdshot.

State of Texas waffles. What will they think of next.

Darrell Ottohttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-4643557438892347148.post-17061564139676162362007-11-12T20:19:00.000-08:002007-11-19T10:07:07.866-08:00Texas Day 2

Gatesville was an interesting place. Bigger and more prosperous-looking than Marlin, but definitely another Texas prison town. There are something like 6 major Units here. One is a men's Prison (Hughes) but the rest are women's prisons. Maximum security Mountain View is here, that is where Cassie is, and also where the female death row inmates are housed. Woodman Unit is a State Jail for women serving shorter sentences, and when I drove by at night it was completely lit up with pastel-yellow sodium lamps. Kind of a strange sight on the outskirts of a sleepy little town. The lady at the hotel desk told me there are 16,000 people living in Gatesville and over half are in prison. I tried to take pictures but the batteries died in the camera and the replacements I bought were also dead, right in the package. Then I bought a UHB stick to put all my photos on and promptly lost it.

I would tell you that I woke up early Sunday morning, but the fact is that I didn't sleep much at all. I was sick as can be. One side of my throat was and still is badly swollen, and I am feverish. I tossed and turned and poured sweat all night. I was worried I wouldn't be able to talk but thanks to modern medicine I was able to solve the problem pharmaceutically. I drove through Marlin again and took some pictures of the town. I got some funny looks but nobody shot at me. Then back to Hobby Unit to visit Liz. There is a field where horses graze in front of the institution. They also keep a kennel of tracking hounds to be used in case of escapes. The horses are used by the guards who sit on them while they oversee the "hoe squad" working the fields. Just like in the movies inmates refer to the mounted guards as "Boss" and the mounted guards all carry shotguns across their lap.

The gate guards recognized me this time, but they absolutely tore the vehicle in front of me apart. The had the seats and carpets pulled out and were doing a thorough search. The visit went much better this time but it took almost 45 minutes for them to bring Liz down from her dorm to the visiting room. The inmates are strip searched on the way in and out of the visiting area. It is all clothes off, and sometimes they do a cavity search as well. On the way back in the inmates have to sit in a special metal detecting chair. Apparently they have had recent problems with the women slipping contraband into the Unit - namely jewelery. The other restriction that has been made in Texas prisons of late is that colored stationary has now become contraband. Do you know why? The inmates dress all in white, all the time. Those damned women were taking their colored writing paper and soaking it in the sink to remove the ink, and then dyed their underwear in the water.

Liz was much more relaxed the second day and the only incident that occurred was me getting ripped of by a vending machine. You are allowed to bring up to 20 dollars in coins into the visiting area but not cash. Then you go to the vending machines and make your purchase and you have a guard pass it off to the inmate. We had a second 4 hour "special" visit because I came from such a long distance. Normally people coming from within the State are only allowed a two hour visit for one day on a weekend. The four hours went by quickly and Liz talked more about how she had changed since she first came to prison, and had to learn how to survive. There are 1350 inmates in the Hobby Unit and she is the smallest one, so it makes it tougher. Believe it or not some of those women are genuinely bad. The "close custody" inmates are handcuffed and shackled and led to and from their units by a corrections officer. Liz says those are the really bad ones. Her current classification is G3 but she can't move higher to Trusty status because she was convicted of an aggravated offence.

When our visit was over we waved goodbye and I made my way out and headed back to San Antonio. I started nodding off just north of Austin and had to pull over for an hour of sleep. From Austin to SA it was bumper to bumper and 75 miles an hour, but I made it back alive. I had another night of sweating and tossing and turning. But I didn't have to be anywhere too early this morning. My next task is to gather together documentation for the case.Darrell Ottohttp://email@example.com


text:
EDIT: They've filled the sample, but they have a coupon available now.
I've never seen Target give away freebies directly, but I guess there's a first time for everything, which means I should be able to fly while jumping off my roof at least once. They're giving away free Suave Professionals shampoo and conditioner, so maybe they'll give Walmart a run for their money when it comes to freebies. If I know how the free market works, and I certainly don't, more competition means more freebies for us!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Every semester I hear a lot of the same questions from students. It gets a bit tiresome answering the same questions all the time, so I thought I would use this venue to write out the answers and forward them along to my classes.
Q1. Will this material be on the exam?
Excellent question! Actually, I like nothing better than standing in front of you and blathering on about my own personal ideological concepts, with little to no relation to the course material. Did you wonder why we are taking a class period next week to discuss my tax return? Now you know. Feel free to ignore all this lecture material I've spent a few years refining, it's all fluff.
Q2. Do I need to buy the book for the class?
It turns out that I get an enormous kick back from publishers for requiring you to buy the paperback version of a three-year-old book that I also sent you a cheaper ebook link for. The book isn't at all helpful for clarifying concepts discussed in class or studying, I just want all the kick back dough.
Q3. Is coming to class important?
No no, see Q1 for details. It's not like most of my lectures are images that I talk through or anything. I'm just spewing whatever comes into my head.
Q4. Is it okay if I hand that assignment in late?
Hey, whenever you want sport. All that text in the syllabus about points deducted each late day was just me pandering to the Admin request that we take a tough stance on late work. I'm not going to read it anyway!
Q5. Why is the classroom always locked
Its not. What appears to be conceptually difficult is that the door handle does not turn. However, the minor application of force on said door opens it rather easily. Although it is a fascinating psychological experiment to watch a class of students stymied by their concept of how a door should work, I can assure that I have no magical powers and you watch me just push the door open everyday.
Any other questions, class?


text: Verkäufer: kmaremarketing (4,154) 98.7%, Artikelstandort: Du Bois, Pennsylvania, Versand nach: US, Artikelnummer: 382633691505 FDA FORM The sale of this item may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state and local regulatory agencies. If so, do not bid on this item unless you are an authorized purchaser. If the item is subject to FDA regulation, I will verify your status as an authorized purchaser of this item before shipping of the item.TRANSACTION WILL BE CANCELED AND A REFUND WILL BE ISSUED IF THE FORM IS NOT COMPLETED CORRECTLY AND RETURNED WITHIN THE 5-DAY TIME FRAME. BIS-711 FORM PRIOR TO BIDDING, PLEASE REQUEST A BIS-711 FORM, WHICH NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL ITEMS BEING SHIPPED INTERNATIONALLY. KMA Remarketing CorporationA world-leading company in the purchase, sale, service, appraisal, liquidation, and reconditioning of pre-owned medical equipment.Governor's Entrepreneur Impact Award - 2013DuBois Area Chamber of Commerce Member Condition: Pre-Owned, As-Is, Powers On. (see below for condition terminology) Condition TerminologyPRE-OWNED, AS-IS: Equipment is being sold "AS IS." No warranty expressed or implied. No guarantee of functionality.PRE-OWNED, AS-IS POWERS ON: Equipment is being sold "AS IS Powers On." No warranty expressed or implied other than the equipment is guaranteed to power on. The equipment has not been calibrated or tested for proper functionality.PRE-OWNED, PATIENT-READY: Equipment is being sold as having been tested, calibrated, and bio-medically certified. No cosmetic work done to the unit. No warranty unless noted in the above description. Will include copy of Biomedical Report.PRE-OWNED, RECONDITIONED, PATIENT-READY: Equipment is being sold as having been tested, calibrated, and bio-medically certified. Cosmetic work has been done to the unit. No warranty unless noted in the above description. Will include copy of Biomedical Report.PRE-OWNED, UNUSED: Equipment was never used or put into service. Equipment will be in "like new" condition. The item has been cleaned and handled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. It is the responsibility of the buyer to ensure that all equipment is thoroughly inspected and calibrated by qualified technicians before placing into patient use. Policies/Tax InformationKMA Remarketing must collect sales tax in the following states: CT, PA, OH, NY, NJ, IL, IN, KS, MI, NC, and KY. Please note: If you live in Ohio, New York, or Kansas, these states calculate sales tax either by county, municipality, or city. The seller must calculate your sales tax before the transaction can be finalized. Additionally, both Pittsburgh, PA, and Philadelphia, PA, have up to 8% sales tax depending on exact delivery zip code. If you have any questions, please contact me anytime. I will be glad to assist you. Domestic ShippingWe use a flat rate for all UPS Ground shipments less then 50 pounds. This excludes Alaska, Hawaii, and the Dominican Republic. These locations must contact KMA Remarketing for a valid shipping quote. There is a $15.00 per box handling fee added to all ground shipments. This also includes items being shipped on a customer's account. Domestic FreightAll items over 50 pounds, irregularly shaped or over sized must be shipped via a freight carrier. There is a $50.00 handling fee that will be applied to all freight shipments. Please be sure to supply us with the following information for all freight shipping: Is the item going to a business or a residence?Does this location have a loading dock?Will you need inside delivery?Will you need notification of the shipment?After this information is collected, we will then get quotes from (3) three different carriers and pass on the best-priced quote to you. Please do not wait until the last minute to request a quote. It does take time for the carriers to get back to us with shipping quotes. International Buyers We do ship worldwide. For smaller items, we will ship via USPS Express Mail International. The buyer is responsible for all tariffs, taxes, duties, etc., that are necessary for proper entry into your country. USPS requires that we have a phone number for all packages. Please be sure to supply your phone number to us at the time of purchase. We cannot ship your item without your phone number. Your order will be put on hold until all of the proper information is gathered for the shipping documents. We will also ship freight items worldwide; we only ship from door to port. When requesting a shipping quote, please supply us with the port where you would like to pick up your item. Please do not wait unit the last minute to request a shipping quote; it does take a few days to get a response from carriers on these quotes. PLEASE DO NOT BID ON THIS ITEM UNTIL YOU HAVE A VALID SHIPPING QUOTE FROM KMA REMARKETING. Click the logo below to track your shipment. Click the logo below to track your shipment. FDA RegulationsThe sale of this item may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state and local regulatory agencies. If so, do not bid on this item unless you are an authorized purchaser. If the item is subject to FDA regulation, I will verify your status as an authorized purchaser of this item before shipping of the item. Ken AllshouseKMA Remarketing Corporation222 South Jared StreetDuBois, PA 15801(814) 371-5242 (office)(814) 590-9261 (cell)(814) 371-2153 (fax) Powered by SixBit's eCommerce Solution Condition: Used, Condition: New in bag, Brand: Ferno Washington Inc, Model: FERNOTRAC, MPN: 194904


text:
The most famous long-distance call of all
To say that Steven Spielberg has made a major impact on science-fiction filmmaking is a bit of an understatement. The man who brought us classics such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jurassic Park, and Minority Report has long had a fascination with telling stories about society through the lens of science-fiction storytelling.
But arguably his most famous work, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, first burst upon theaters 35 years ago. And the original 1982 classic has been remastered and is returning to the big screen to transport audiences back to a time when we first learned that aliens, instead of being frightening monsters, could actually be both lovable and able to touch our hearts.
Legendary critic Leonard Maltin believes that E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial is "one of the great American films", and we are certainly not going to disagree with him.
At heart, it's a simple story of a lost alien who teams up with a group of kids, led by Henry Thomas as Elliot and an unbelievably precocious Drew Barrymore as Gertie, the titular extraterrestrial battled faceless government agents and won the hearts of audiences worldwide.
And with a worldwide gross of nearly $800 million (and counting) off of an estimated $10.5 million budget, it also ranks as one of the most profitable films Spielberg has ever made.
Come see the magic again, and discover why "phoning home" is still as important now as it was in 1982.
E.T. The Extraterrestrial
Sunday, 2 p.m.
East Ridge 18
5080 South Terrace
(423) 855-9652
Sunday, 2 & 7 p.m.
Hamilton Place 8
2000 Hamilton Pl. Blvd.
(844) 462-7342


text:
After losing our dynamic Godmother of Soul, Miss Sharon Jones, last November to pancreatic cancer, Toronto's soul outfit YUKA decided to pay tribute to one of their heroes while raising money to help others fighting the same battle. Sharon Jones touched many lives and gave her electrifying voice and shimmering presence so selflessly across stages all over the world, even while undergoing chemotherapy treatments. She believed that sharing her gift on stage with the world was an important part of her story and kept singing and bearing her soul until the very end.
On Thursday February 16th at 3030, the fundraiser will celebrate the music of Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings with a 13-piece band (Yuka and friends), plus DJ Misty spinning some of the best funk/soul cuts to keep everyone on their feet. There will be a 50/50 raffle and some special surprises along the way so please join us for our Charity Soul Party!
All proceeds from ticket sales, raffles, and donations will go directly to memorial funds in Sharon's name at both Pancreatic Cancer Canada and Wellspring Cancer Support Network.
Tickets will be $15 in advance and $20 at the door.
Advance tickets can be purchased through Eventbrite and you may also make donations on the Eventbrite page by clicking on the "Buy Ticket" option. If you cannot attend the event but would still like to contribute to the cause, memorial pages will be set up on the Pancreatic Cancer Canada website, as well as Wellspring Cancer Support Network website after February 16th.
Please contact us through our Facebook page (www.facebook.com/yukafunk) or email us at email@example.com if you have any questions or would like more information on how to donate.
Thank you for your support!


text:
A joint executive committee 2016-2017 was held on 23/09/2017 at MGOCSM student center kottayam. The president of MGOCSM H G Zachariah Mar Aprem presided over the meeting. The General Secretary Rev. Fr Philen took the session of Bible. H G welcomed the new executive members and appreciated the previous executive committee members.
MGOCSM strongly protested against the assault action faced by Varikoli St. Mary\'s Orthodox Church Vicar and vice president of MGOCSM Kandanadu East Diocese Fr. Viju Elias. The meeting also demanded that the accused should be arrested immediately and that the law enforcement agencies should act to prevent such acts which are not in the value of Christian values. Executive Committee member Sujit Paul presented a protest resolution at the meeting presided over by MGOCSM president Dr.Sakarios Mar Aprem Metropolitan