Lawsuit Re: Sex Abuse Allegations Against Daughter of Pres. Nelson and Her Husband

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

With all respect to Tacenda, the grey faction is an initiative of the Satanic Temple.

 

https://greyfaction.org/

They are, so we may want to discount any commentary they've added.  However, consideration should be given to the quotes from primary sources kllindley has quoted above. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

It looks like she died a few years back, but bizarre to use a private investigator with a shady back ground.  

Almost as weird as a therapist with rage issues 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

"Profita raises eyebrows even in the Hadfield camp. Brad Rich, Hadfield's defense attorney, said Profita has never worked on the Hadfield case. He also said he'd like to know who Profita really is."

 

So unlikely a relative of Hadfield or he would have known who she was. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

With all respect to Tacenda, the grey faction is an initiative of the Satanic Temple.

 

https://greyfaction.org/

While I'm obviously not sympathetic to them on a spiritual level, considering the hysteria of the times and the baseless accusations that were made against people in the name of "Satanism", I'm not surprised people who consider themselves "Satanist" took an interest in what was really going on.  It's not exactly good PR.

Regardless, all of their claims about Snow are backed up by the court records and actions of the Division of Occupational Licensing:

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=%2Fnews%2Fci_5051155

 

On another point, after watching that documentary about Hadfield in Lehi, it just seems so incredible that 40 people in one community were accused by kids after they counseled with Snow.  And yet after Hadfield was tried, the other 39 accusations just kind of disappeared.

If someone really believed there were 39 other Satanic child abusers out there at that time, then I have they same question I raise with the Miles. 

Did they just stop doing it? 

If you recall, here were some of the accusations made about the goings on in Lehi:

Quote

The activities described by the children involved satanic ritual, costumes and masks, photography equipment, men dressing in women's clothing, and frequent episodes of playing with and consuming human excrement. A specific instance of abuse related to Dr. Snow by W. and described by her at trial, for example, involved defendant's removing feces from W.'s rectum with a spoon and forcing him to play with it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1990/880234.html

Did those people keep doing this?  Or did they just decide to quit while they were ahead and put away the robes, run the spoon under some hot water, and go on with their lives and never speak of it again? 

Think about what this would mean.  We have dozens of Satanists all over Utah who have disgusting ceremonies involving the abuse of dozens of kids, and they have perfected their brainwashing and mind control techniques to such a degree that none of the kids are ever able to tell their parents or another adult what is going on, until one person gets put on the case. 

Barbara Snow, an unassuming child therapist.  She alone has the skill and training to perceive the deeper scars, and only through repeated counseling with Dr. Snow can the brainwashing be unwashed, and the truth come to light.  After years (and possibly decades and centuries) of getting away with it, these dozens of Satanic conspirators are foiled.  One of their own, Allan Hadfield, is put on trial and convicted!  Their dark plans are brought to light! 

But even though they get away with it, they can't match Snow's prowess for uncovering their dark deeds, so they must admit defeat and throw in the towel.  It must end, and they will never speak of it again.

Or, they could just kill Dr. Snow and keep going, since she's apparently the only one in Utah that can crack their code (and the police are unable to find any of their carefully hidden evidence).   But no, they decide to call it quits instead.

This is a key question for those who believe the accusations, and no one ever wants to answer it.

Edited November 6, 2018 by cinepro

[kllindley]

49 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

"Profita raises eyebrows even in the Hadfield camp. Brad Rich, Hadfield's defense attorney, said Profita has never worked on the Hadfield case. He also said he'd like to know who Profita really is."

 

"

Said Rich: "How can you use an investigator who would be impeached on the first question: What is your name?"

Profita acknowledged she used the aliases, but said it was only because she was recently married. (Rikki, she said, is a nickname.) As for the two Social Security numbers, she said she may have inadvertently given her son's number when she applied for one of the licenses.

She said the shoplifting conviction is irrelevant to her credentials as private investigator. She also said she is innocent of the charges, but decided to plead guilty at the advice of her attorney so she could avoid the stress of going to trial. In fact, she said she brought it up herself during conversations with an investigator in the attorney general's office to illustrate how people can be intimidated by the judicial system.

She said prosecutors are bringing up the shoplifting because they don't like what she's saying. "So they're shooting the bringer of bad news."

As for the charges that she isn't qualified to evaluate the situation, Profita acknowledges that she doesn't have as much experience as state detectives. She also concedes she does not have the expertise to determine just where therapists cross the line into coercion in child abuse cases.

"You're asking me (questions in) an area I have no expertise," she said. "All I can say is it doesn't appear to be working . . . . There is something wrong and there has to be some more definitive way to get at this. There has to be better evidence."

Hmmm, so a history of a shoplifting conviction or using a pseudonym is enough to discount a person's claims?  Any person or just someone who disagrees with your opinion?

48 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

With all respect to Tacenda, the grey faction is an initiative of the Satanic Temple.

 

https://greyfaction.org/

Help me understand what this comment means.  Are you suggesting that because they are an initiative of an unpopular minority religious organization, that their efforts to obtain public records and expose unethical practices are untrustworthy?  Are you claiming that the sources they quoted are not authentic?  Are you just trying to poison the well because you don't like the allegations they raise?   

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

You are wrong,  but neither am I assuming innocence. This is a complicated case.

I hope you never serve on a jury in a common-law country, then.  (Didn't you say, at one point, that you'd done so?  Should we contact the defense attorney who represented the accused in that case and warn him or her that the jury which rendered a verdict against that client may not have been impartial?)

[Calm]

Documents with info can be seen here. 

https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2018/06/06/GRAMA_records_reply_-_Evan_Anderson_-_Muckrock.com_May_2018.pdf

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I hope you never serve on a jury in a common-law country, then.  (Didn't you say, at one point, that you'd done so?  Should we contact the defense attorney who represented the accused in that case and warn him or her that the jury which rendered a verdict against that client may not have been impartial?)

What a judgmental comment (and a personal insult).  Without more details, you absolutely have no way of knowing this accusation is true.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/4/2018 at 9:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

A fascinating article! I hadn't known that about Janet Reno.

My biggest worry at this point is not that Kavanaugh will not be appointed (I think he will be). What I worry about most is the consequences that will arise from the mass hysteria that has seized the nation once his appointment is confirmed.

 

Here is an example of the consequences of the mass hysteria I worry about:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/

Yes, I recognize this false allegation was made before the confirmation occurred, but it shows the mass hysteria was already kicking in. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

What a judgmental comment (and a personal insult).  Without more details, you absolutely have no way of knowing this accusation is true.  

It’s a fair question. In the American judicial system failure to presume innocence disqualifies one as a juror. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s a fair question. In the American judicial system failure to presume innocence disqualifies one as a juror. 

Possibly, if it had been asked as a general question just as a part of the discussion.  But that's not how it was asked.  The post is personal and insulting.  It insinuates that Abulafia would have been willing to convict someone who was innocent of something as serious as child abuse and that she may have been unable to be impartial on the jury she served on ("Should we contact the defense attorney who represented the accused in that case and warn him or her that the jury which rendered a verdict against that client may not have been impartial?")

The same thing could be asked regarding those on here who have consistently argued for the other side of this discussion (could they be impartial?).  That would be a fair question to ask, if it was not made into something personal.

I have to believe that everyone in this discussion would weigh all the evidence if they were serving on a jury for a trial involving convicting someone of child abuse.  To imply that Abulafia could not be fair (and was not able to be impartial on the jury that she did serve on) is getting too personal, IMO.

Edited November 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s a fair question. In the American judicial system failure to presume innocence disqualifies one as a juror. 

Oh please Scott. A jury goes in knowing nothing of a case and promises not to go googling for details on the alleged abuser.  It makes a judgement on the basis of the evidence presented, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Kengo was being nasty and you know It.  Luckily for me, I care what Calm thinks. I take little notice of Kengo and his silly comments and eyerolls.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly, if it had been asked as a general question just as a part of the discussion.  But that's not how it was asked.  The post is personal and insulting.  It insinuates that Abulafia would have been willing to convict someone who was innocent of something as serious as child abuse and that she may have been unable to be impartial on the jury she served on ("Should we contact the defense attorney who represented the accused in that case and warn him or her that the jury which rendered a verdict against that client may not have been impartial?")

The same thing could be asked regarding those on here who have consistently argued for the other side of this discussion (could they be impartial?).  That would be a fair question to ask, if it was not made into something personal.

I have to believe that everyone in this discussion would weigh all the evidence if they were serving on a jury for a trial involving convicting someone of child abuse.  To imply that Abulafia could not be fair (and was not able to be impartial on the jury that she did serve on) is getting too personal, IMO.

One weighs all the evidence with the default presumption that the accused is not guilty. That’s how it’s supposed to work. One who cannot muster an initial presumption of innocence is not qualified to be a juror. It’s that simple. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Oh please Scott. A jury goes in knowing nothing of a case and promises not to go googling for details on the alleged abuser.  It makes a judgement on the basis of the evidence presented, beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury makes a judgment as to whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof in overcoming, "beyond reasonable doubt," the presumption of innocence and the likelihood that the defendant committed the crime(s) charged.

So the jury doesn't operate from the scales of justice being "balanced."  The scales are, from the outset, tipped in favor of the defendant's innocence.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has published model jury instructions which include a description that may be useful here (emphases added):

Quote

 (1) As you know, the defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment is not any evidence at all of guilt. It is just the formal way that the government tells the defendant what crime he is accused of committing. It does not even raise any suspicion of guilt.

 (2) Instead, the defendant starts the trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against him, and the law presumes that he is innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with him unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

 (3) This means that the defendant has no obligation to present any evidence at all, or to prove to you in any way that he is innocent. It is up to the government to prove that he is guilty, and this burden stays on the government from start to finish. You must find the defendant not guilty unless the government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

 (4) The government must prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. Possible doubts or doubts based purely on speculation are not reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It may arise from the evidence, the lack of evidence, or the nature of the evidence.

 (5) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rely and act on it in making the most important decisions in your own lives. If you are convinced that the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so by returning a guilty verdict. If you are not convinced, say so by returning a not guilty verdict.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 6, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One weighs all the evidence with the default presumption that the accused is not guilty. That’s how it’s supposed to work. One who cannot muster an initial presumption of innocence is not qualified to be a juror. It’s that simple. 

Do you know the facts regarding the case where Abulafia was a member of the jury?  That's the case that Kenngo was referencing with his comments and questions.  How on earth would you or he know if Abulafia had any prior opinion regarding the accused or knew anything about the case prior to being a member of that jury?

He asked:

Quote

Should we contact the defense attorney who represented the accused in that case and warn him or her that the jury which rendered a verdict against that client may not have been impartial?

 

Also....I've not seen her claim that she should be allowed to be on the jury of the case being discussed in this thread if it goes to trial, have you?

 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The jury makes a judgment as to whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof in overcoming, "beyond reasonable doubt," the presumption of innocence and the likelihood that the defendant committed the crime(s) charged.

So the jury doesn't operate from the scales of justice being "balanced."  The scales are, from the outset, tipped in favor of the defendant's innocence.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has published model jury instructions which include a description that may be useful here (emphases added):

Thanks,

-Smac

Once again, what Kenngo was being personally insulting about (with his inferences and questions) was another case, not this one being discussed.  Abulafia hasn't claimed that she should be on the jury if this case goes to trial or claimed that she's completely impartial regarding it.  She's been very upfront and honest about that from what I've seen.

But there are several on this thread who are not impartial if they're being honest (and I wouldn't want them on the jury either....).

Edited November 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Documents with info can be seen here. 

https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2018/06/06/GRAMA_records_reply_-_Evan_Anderson_-_Muckrock.com_May_2018.pdf

Just a point of interest, Evan Anderson is a member of the Satanic Temple.  

[Abulafia]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One weighs all the evidence with the default presumption that the accused is not guilty. That’s how it’s supposed to work. One who cannot muster an initial presumption of innocence is not qualified to be a juror. It’s that simple. 

But this case is being tried in the court of public opinion and in a very real sense,  it was the Miles lawyers who made a strategic decision to go public with this.  Craig Vernon did not make the names public. 

I have never said the Miles are guilty. Bill Carstensen I believe was guilty. For the Carstensens, as David Eccles Hardy has highlighted by his clarifications, we do not have access to all the specifics. I don't know.

[Abulafia]

What this does highlight,  and maybe a lawyer can comment, is how likely it would be that a jury could be found in Utah that didn't have prior knowledge of the case that could prejudice their judgements either way.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, what Kenngo was being personally insulting about (with his inferences and questions) was another case, not this one being discussed.  Abulafia hasn't claimed that she should be on the jury if this case goes to trial or claimed that she's completely impartial regarding it.  She's been very upfront and honest about that from what I've seen.

But there are several on this thread who are not impartial if they're being honest (and I wouldn't want them on the jury either....).

I'm not referencing Abulafia or Kenngo.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not referencing Abulafia or Kenngo.  

Ok....it appeared you were adding to that discussion.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

[Abulafia]

Just now, ALarson said:

Ok....it appeared you were adding to that discussion.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

Thanks for your input. He quoted me, so I am guessing he was clarifying the legal position of a juror.

This is all rather silly as it goes without saying that a juror assumes innocence. Jurors do a lot of listening..to the defence, the prosecution and to the judge...  

Kengo and Scott are being personally insulting towards me.  I am not nor would I want to be a juror on this case. I'm just a person interested in the whole thing and have a deep interest in trying to make sense of it all, thus the chronological timeline.  

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

So unlikely a relative of Hadfield or he would have known who she was. 

Just to clarify that it was the Hadfield camp (his attorneys) that disapproved of Profita, not Hadfield himself. He had a lot of supporters so any family members, friends, could have employed her. 

[cinepro]

37 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Just a point of interest, Evan Anderson is a member of the Satanic Temple.  

Just so I'm clear, has Evan Anderson ever tried to convince any of his relatives that they were being abused when in fact they weren't, and then smashed said relatives' home office up with a baseball bat before turning the bat on the relatives themselves?

Because I'm still not seeing Evan as the bad guy in all this.

[Abulafia]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, has Evan Anderson ever tried to convince any of his relatives that they were being abused when in fact they weren't, and then smashed said relatives' home office up with a baseball bat before turning the bat on the relatives themselves?

Because I'm still not seeing Evan as the bad guy in all this.

So where's the presumption of innocence when it comes to Barbara Snow, Cinepro?