Posts
Raymond Merril Jessop (now 38) was polygamously wed to 16 year old girl in 2004 (she is now 21). She gave birth to a daughter in August of 2005. DNA evidence indicates Raymond is the father of the pre-schooler, and records found at the ranch gave the details of the marriage (and others, although oddly, the state chose not to take polygamy charges to court here).
The jury found him guilty.
This is one of the handful of FLDS cases (12, and that includes Warren Jeffs, who had already been imprisoned for performing a wedding ceremony, and a man indicted for failure to report abuse) I have long been certain was probably going to result in a jury finding of guilty. He was 32 or 33, she was 16, that's illegal in Texas (unless, apparently, the girl goes to public school and lives in the community). I'm sure he's guilty of breaking the law in Texas (although the state made no attempt to prove the crime was committed in Texas, neither did Jessop make any attempt I am aware of to prove it wasn't).
But there's more going here than the immediate details of this particular case.
The problem here remains that Law enforcement and social services went to the ranch on a hoax call, collected private ranch papers and gathered up the mothers and children on flimsy (and sometimes false) evidence- and, while social services claimed this was necessary because once they got to the ranch they saw signs of abuse, this case is not an example of it, and, in fact, I don't know that we have seen anything to back up the state's claim here.
The girl was a minor in 2004. But at the time of the raid she was an adult woman, and nothing that Law Enforcement or Social Services saw here was indication of abuse. They keep saying that once they got there, they saw evidence of abuse, but so far we've not seen an instance where this was true (and, indeed, The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state had failed to present any supporting evidence).
And another problem is that, though the state keeps insisting this isn't about religion, it's about breaking the law; in fact, the state keeps putting the religion on trial and the judge lets the state's attorneys do that. Brooke reports:
The state used Musser, who was married at age 19 to former FLDS prophet Rulon T. Jeffs when he was 83,to explain the importance of family records in the FLDS faith and how the prophet is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of those records.
But, of course, she talked about much more. Defense attorney Mark Stevens objected to much of Musser had to say as irrelevant to the state’s case against Jessop, but was overruled.
Musser, 33, told the jury about her parents — Lloyd and Sharon Wall (who are no longer married). She spoke about attending Alta Academy, the private FLDS school once operated in Salt Lake County, and then becoming a teacher there while Warren Jeffs was principal.
She described the school’s curriculum as “the basics” of math, English, reading, spelling and writing “but primarily a lot of focus was given on religious training.”
Prosecutor Eric Nichols started to ask Musser to explain “priesthood history training” when Steven asked to halt the hearing so he could question the witness.
When the jury returned the state again asked her to testify about the Priesthood training, and she talked about how the priest dictated every detail of their lives, including clothing and hairstyle. This may be repugnant to you, but it is not illegal, and it has little to do with proving whether or not Jessop impregnated a 16 year old girl. The DNA evidence proved that conclusively, making this other rabbit trail stand out as clearly being about putting religious views on trial as much as law-breaking.
There was an odd bit of information- the judge and the state agreed that the girl could not have been legally married to Raymond, because she'd been married to somebody else the year before (if she'd been legally married, it would have been okay for Ray to father a child with her):
"Judge Barbara Walther observed that that would also show that the alleged victim could not legally have married Raymond Jessop since she was married to someone else — a comment that seemed to make defense attorney Mark Stevens freeze up."
Apparently, Judge Walther is willing to recognize the previous marital status of the "child" "victim".
Okay. But, as Sore Toes points out, if the judge is recognizing that previous FLDS marriage as a valid and legal marriage which 'proves' the girls wasn't legally married to Raymond, then why would they not recognize the FLDS 'divorce' and subsequent remarriage to Raymond as also valid? Toes lays out her case in the comments:
This is the point:
The victim was married first, in a religious ceremony not sanctioned by the government of whatever state she lived in at the time.
The court and prosecution are now saying that they regard that marriage to be a real, i.e. "legal" marriage. They are calling her a "spouse" of that first marriage.
Therefore, they must then recognize that her first marriage ended, by a religious action that was not sanctioned by the government of whatever state she lived in at the time. She was at that point, a divorce'.
Therefore, they must also then recognize her subsequent re-marriage, by religious ceremony not sanctioned by the government of whatever state she lived in at the time.
It is pure logic.
They can't identify her in open court as a married woman under one circumstance, and not married to the defendant under the exact same circumstance.
Then again, it's Texas.
There will be more:
Jessop was one of 12 men indicted by the grand jury. Walther has scheduled their trials one after another over the next year. Allen E. Keate is scheduled to stand trial beginning Dec. 7 on the same charge Jessop faced -- sexual assault of a child.
And it's expected that any of the men found guilty will be pursuing appeals further up, mostly about the questions over whether or not the search warrants were legally obtained and legally served.
