the notion that 31 girls 17 or under have children or re pregnant is completely unraveling (one of those <17 girls is, in fact, 28)...it's looking more like maybe 3 or 4 or 5, and whether these were teens being teens or victims of child abuse is another question...this is a pretty good example of why one must follow a story like a hawk to have any real understanding....
what the cps said then...
Quote:
Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were living on the ranch in Eldorado. Of that group, 31 already have children or are pregnant.
....
CPS says there was a pattern of underage girls forced into so-called "spiritual marriages" with much older men at the ranch.
|
What the cps says now....
Quote:
CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins denied any suggestion that the agency's massive undertaking may be on the verge of collapse, adding: "The numbers aren't important to us."
He said CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families, which made establishing ages nearly impossible. He added that his agency never intentionally misled anyone when it said it believed it had more than two dozen females who were being sexually abused as minors.
|
a) bullshit the cps "never intentionally misled anyone"....at the same time they were touting the 31 of 50 as evidence of a pervasive pattern forced underaged married, they were also touting to the press that they were investigating sexual abuse of little boys (bullshit) and they were touting that 41 out of 400+ kids had broken bones at one point or another (for the record, 100% of my parents' children had broken bones, and it wasn't abuse).
The CPS was intentionally misleading people.
b) as to the notion that the "CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families", recall earlier where I said:
Quote:
|
at some point in the distant or not too distant future, some or many of these women will change their story and say that they are, in fact, over the age of 18. some noxious people will then cite their dishonesty in their dealings with the state as further evidence of their guilt, as if undeniably a mother should exhibit more loyalty to her state than to her own children
|
some of the conflicting and false information given by the families to the CPS is absolutely justifiable, IMHO.......it's not an indication that they have something greater to hide, but rather that they're trying to protect their children.
---------------------
also....
"He [CPS spokesman] said CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families, which made establishing ages nearly impossible."
Let's not forget that another part of what "stymied" the CPS was their unwillingness to accept things like driver's licenses and birth certificates as evidence of age.