Mark Mitchell Case Forwarded to Yavapai County Attorney, Likely Because Bill Montgomery's a Michael Monti Fan

Categories: Election 2012
mark-mitchell.JPG
Mark Mitchell
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery -- who's publicly endorsed Tempe mayoral candidate Michael Monti -- transferred the case involving allegations against Monti's opponent, Tempe Councilman Mark Mitchell, to Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

The case, as we wrote about yesterday, involves a woman claims Mitchell engaged in some sexual activities with her when she was a kid, and Mitchell was 13 or 14 years old.

The woman contends these incidents occurred in 1983, and she just recently brought this up to the cops.

According to the police report, the woman "expressed that this has been eating at her for years and it has gotten worse lately due to the public exposure of Mitchell at this time as he is a current Tempe City Councilman who is a mayoral candidate for the City of Tempe."

Mitchell, on the other hand, thinks this is a really awful campaign move carried out by Monti supporters.

Mitchell very much denied the allegations, and said it reached "a new low in Tempe politics."

"My opponent started his campaign months ago by smearing me, and he is going to end with what may be the most repulsive last-minute attack in Arizona history," Mitchell said.

On Monday, Mitchell's lawyers from the Phoenix-based Perkins Coie law firm wrote to Montgomery, letting him know it probably wouldn't be the brightest idea for him to handle the case if it was handed over to him, since the county attorney has given his endorsement of Monti.

Some time between then and yesterday, Mitchell's lawyers discovered the case was indeed handed over to the Yavapai County Attorney, and wrote a letter to Polk detailing why they believe the allegations against Mitchell are garbage.

"We urge your Office to decline further action on these allegations, all of which are false and the release of which appears to be a transparent attempt on the part of Mr. Mitchell's political enemies to deprive the voters of Tempe of a fair, honest mayoral election," the letter penned by attorneys Jean-Jacques Cabou and Lee Stein says.

Indeed, it does seem pretty transparent. Mitchell's continuously accused Monti of dirty campaign tactics -- including the release of a police report detailing Mitchell's 1993 run-in with the cops on Mill Avenue -- although Monti and his PR man Jason Rose deny having anything to do with this one.

This started as an anonymous email to some City of Tempe employees, including council members and police, saying that Mitchell was being investigated.

The right-wing Sonoran Alliance blog teased the issue for a while, before it acquired the report and posted it.

The lawyers also point out numerous apparent discrepancies in the woman's story, claiming her accounts "lack the ring of truth," even with "due respect for faded memories."

"Simply put, neither the abuse nor the confrontation ever happened," the letter to Polk says, as the lawyers ask her to close the investigation as "unfounded."

The probability of Mitchell being charged with anything seems unlikely at this point, but even if the case is thrown in the garbage, it's already been politicized.

"We have graduated from merely trying to damage someone's reputation to actively trying to ruin their life.," Mitchell said. "I trust that voters will see through it."

My Voice Nation Help
63 comments
Look4theq
Look4theq

Staying you don't trust someone because of their name is one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I happen to agree with you that this whole thing stinks, that is what I said from the beginning. It did not need to be public knowledge, It should be a private matter and it probably was leaked by Monti's people. I aknowledge and agree with all of that. Is her situation being used to swear Mitchell's name? It would appear so. None of that was her decision or wish. Most people will forget all about this by next week and if they do remember it will only be remembered as a campaign smear tactic. The one and only reason I posted anything was in defense of my friend, that is going thru a rough time and she needed to know that someone out there does believe  her and could cae less about the political aspects of it all. You can reply in any way you wish, i have said my piece. Have a nice politically motivated
 life.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your story reinforces for us just what a sleazeball Monti is: his blind pursuit of a crappy mayoral election has forever prejudiced your friend's accusations.

Monti and the AZGOP dogged and demanded not only that a police report be released, but also that it be written.

Imagine, coordinating with PHX republicans to pressure the police to do their political bidding.  What's worse - that Shane Wikfors knew about the investigation enough that he teased the story weeks in advance of the report being written, or the fact that the police did as the AZGOP demanded and rushed the report out in time for the election.

If your friend had a real claim, Monti and the AZGOP destroyed it -- all in a failed effort to gain some political ground.

I'm not a Mitchell fan at all.  I just want my GOP returned to the good conservatives who built this state, and taken back from the carpetbagging teabaggers from the radical right.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

As for my personal issue with the name suzy, I tried to get over it, it's just not happening.

As for my political motivation.....my motivation is to expose the corruption in politics and law enforcement. Most people appreciate it and then there are people like you who are clueless about the extreme existence of corruption in both entities.

You have a nice day and if you are truly this woman's friend do her a favor and stop exlpoiting her for whatever your personal reasons are. If she wants defense for herself she should take it on herself.

wherewasi
wherewasi

Well, Suzyq - let's just say that if you think we're going to believe some anonymous posting from someone with an odd name who suddenly appears on the defense on a big political turmoil, expect that any thing you say will be taken with several grains of salt.

If your concern was about your friend and keeping her out of a political storm, you should have advised her to wait until after the election to talk to police and then make sure her story stayed under wraps.

The fact that someone in Monti camp knew that this report was "pending" several weeks before it was written smells like a rat.  Who was "your friend" talking to who might have "leaked" this?

Look4theq
Look4theq

As a close friend to the VICTIM I can attest that this is not politically motivated. She has held
 this secret all these years because as a child no one believed her so she tried to forget. She has a hard time with relationships because she can't trust, This situation came to light now because she broke down in front of a wonderful police officer who cared enough to find out why she was upset when the police officer was discussing another matter with her. She could care less about the election. I think it is dispiciable that anyone would think it was ok for a teenager to engage in any type of sexual activity with a ten year old. For all of you saying its just kids will be kids, what if it were your 10 year old daughter? Would you still feel the same way. She doesn't want or care if you believe her she just wants some type of closure and for someone to finally tell her it's wasn't her fault. He did admit it happened. Now if he would just man up and apologize she can get on with her life.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

As a close friend..... prove it!!! 

Anybody can come on here and say that and use an anonymous moniker.

Look4theq
Look4theq

The q stands for Suzyq. Suzann Lawson

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

There are many things I don't trust in life and unfortunately for you the number one thing I don't trust are women named  suzyq.......especially when they use z.........

As for putting your name out there it is meaningless.....this thing was tainted from the start because somebody made a choice to politicize it. That is called corruption in LE in Arizona.........if this was strictly a police matter it would not have been teased prior to the report and the story coming out.

wherewasi
wherewasi

Interesting name, by the way.

Look For the Q

Would that be the Q in CQ - as in Constantin Querard?

I'm guessing there are a lot of people that are looking at that Q.  It has his flair for slime and dishonesty ALL OVER IT.

Look4theq
Look4theq

Q is actually my nickname. I dont even know who or what you are talking about.

wherewasi
wherewasi

Perhaps I just find it interesting that 2 new posters appear on THIS blog about THIS topic, both with the letter Q in their names.  And, I would not find it at all surprising to find out the he is behind this, at least stirring the pot and trying to speed things up...

We'll see what happens Tuesday.

MaxQ
MaxQ

Apparently "wherewasi", thinks that anyone who uses a "Q" in their name on here must be Constantine Querard, who is a notorious Republican political operative. 

In my case MaxQ is an aerodynamic term.

Look4theq
Look4theq

Since I am not politiaclly motivated either the gibberish you just spewed at me means mothing at all. My friend had no control over if or when this came out. She wishes that no one but the parties involved were actually the only one's involved. Unfortunetly that is not the case. Maybe someone in Monti's group did leak the story (probably) but that was not my friends decision. You can hash out your politics all you want. I just want people to know that behind all the callous and hurtful remarks that there is an actual person, not harden by political backstabbing, that just wanted closure.

Look4theq
Look4theq

I dont care if I credible in the eyes of those who believe politics come before humanity.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

you dont care if you are credible, then why bother with your bullshit?

You are claiming to be a close friend of this person and you don't care if you're credible.......

Then nobody should believe anything you say if you yourself don't care if what you type is credble.

Look4theq
Look4theq

She had no control over the other issue she was suddenly faced with that brought all the memories flooding back. And by the way I dont care if I am credible to you. I'm not running for office.

wherewasi
wherewasi

Your "friend" had "no control" over if or when this came out?  Seriously?  She was being held captive for 30 years with no ability to speak?

You lose more credibility with every sentence you type.

wherewasi
wherewasi

Apparently this "traumatized victim" agreed to secretly record this "emotional conversation" with her "abuser".  And according to this secretly recorded "airing of 30 years of emotional pain" he did acknowledge that "something" happened and he DID apologize.

Apparently, as a child, her mother DID step in.  If she has experienced such dramatic personal emotional turmoil since then, she has been very irresponsible to not seek help sooner.  Like 20 years sooner.  She's 40 now.  She should have grown up and gotten a back bone years ago.

Now, I'm sorry if I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for this "traumatized victim".  I also don't believe that you are a "close friend", nor do I believe that this is not politically motivated.  She did not hold anything "secret" for all these years.  She told her mother back in 1983.  And, I'm sorry, but YES, kids do this kind of thing.  I had lots of friends with older brothers when I was a kid, and by your assessment, they should all be registered as sex offenders and wearing ankle bracelets.  Not the case.  You and Monti and your poor "victim" are not doing a very good job of making this appear like a tragic coincidence.  As I've said before, this is as well-camouflaged as Oliva Cortes' "independent" run for the Senate during the Pearce recall election.  

In other words, I smell a rat.  A really big, stinky rat.  With fleas.

Look4theq
Look4theq

I'm sorry you feel this way is not an apology. I'm sorry for what I did to you is an apology!!!

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

Are you the judge of apologies now and not just a close friend?

wherewasi
wherewasi

A browse over at Sonoran Alliance suggests that Mr. Monti's camp has a blogger who enlisted Shane's assistance in allowing rumor and innuendo to flow unchecked, as is typical for the site.  On May 8th, Shane states that he had allowed a blogger to use Sonoran Alliance as a forum to demand the release of this police report "for several weeks".  However, that police report was not written until April 30th, one week before Shane's boast about his site being a forum for this to be exposed.  A week before that, there is an article that references an email sent by an "anonymous victim" to the entire Tempe City Council.  And a new character named Buster Hafeen suddenly had an active interest in the blogs about Mitchell and Stanton.  I wonder who Tom Ryff supports?  Monti or Mitchell?

This seems to be as well camouflaged as the Oliva Cortes Sentate run.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

Since Ryff and Hallman are best of buddies you can be sure that he supports Monti along with his other friend Onnie.

wherewasi
wherewasi

So who do you think "Buster Hafeen" is - Cobbs or McHood?

Conservative American
Conservative American

Shane has never been known for having an original thought.  Indeed, even his derivative thoughts lack any showing of creativity.

It seems likely that Shane copied the antics of his hero, Apraio, who slimed his opponent last election with similar nonsense. Somehow this crossed his desk as the Communication Director at the AZGOP and his walnut-sized brain probably said ... go for it.

Shane needs to explain what he knew and when he knew it.

What is he hiding and why won't he come clean?

wherewasi
wherewasi

ConAm - I have confronted Shane both on the board and via email about the many slimy things that are brewed in the Tea Party.  He hems and haws, and says he is "working on an article" to explain that, or he needs to "find out more before commenting", etc.  Never does he directly answer to a direct question when it has to do with political policy.  I made a post about Bungaard's wife leaving him, under police escort, on their honeymoon and said I'd love to know the story behind that.  He answered immediately with an explanation of Scott's poor choice in women and how this new bride was a certified nut case, etc...  But I also asked him point blank about his opinion as to whether or not Pearce was connected to Oliva Cortes' run for the Senate.  His response was to post some deflecting babble about how the battle between Pearce and Lewis was viewed by the Mormon church.

No, he won't come clean.

Conservative American
Conservative American

It's an important question: how did Shane Wilkfors, the communications director for the AZGOP, tease for weeks a report that was only written on April 30 and released on May 8?

As I understand it, by his own admission he was teasing a story that still had not been written up.

WTF?

Is there no shame left in the AZGOP? Have the wingnuts so completely taken over that traditional conservative values have been replaced by the radical right?

Those of you who truly think this is a real case, and that the political stunts by Shane are a sideshow to a real case, then you REALLY need to be pissed at him.

His ham-fisted behavior has irreparably ruined the accusation's credibility.

SunDevilRick75
SunDevilRick75

Michael Monti has turned Tempe politics into a smear campaign that turns my stomach. He doesn't think he can win on his own merit and thus has to do these kind of shady things. 

Did something happen with Mitchell and the woman 30 years ago? Maybe.  Even her recollection is full of holes

Were they kids? Yes. Mitchell was 12 or 13 she was 10. Kids do stupid things. It is not like he was an adult and she was a kid.
 
Is it fishy that she has come forward now? Yes. She says it is because he has been in the spotlight but as a Tempe resident I can honestly say that Mr. Mitchell has been in the spotlight ever since he was elected to city council.

 Did Mitchel give a knee jerk apology on tape? Yes. He apologize to an old childhood friend for what she thinks he did. A lawyer would have told him not to say anything or to talk to her. 

This campaign is dirtier than a booth at Monti's and it is all Michael Mont's fault. This kind of last minute politicking, when in reality most Tempe residents have already mailed in their ballots, is sickening. If Mr. Monti wins Tempe will be worse off for it. Just look at how he runs his restaurant! No self respecting Arizona resident under the age of 60 would eat there without an out of towner begging to be taken there. The food is awful and the decor is run down.  I have not stepped foot in the place in two years, and even then I was afraid to eat there, but now I will never go in there again.

Wanumba
Wanumba

As the AZ Rep reports, just as soon as it "received" that wonderfully timed "anonymous letter" the scum at the AZGOP and Team-Monti slithered to a new low.

--------------------------------------What is equally clear is that Team Monti -- which, by the way, denies having a hand in the woman coming forward -- was pushing hard to get the story out. Monti spokesman Jason Rose's cellphone must've been in meltdown mode, so many reporters did he call once anonymous e-mails started flying all over town. Sonoran Alliance, a GOP blog, was churning out rumor and innuendo.Even Tempe City Manager Charlie Meyer got into the act, asking Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos on Monday when the report would be out. Meyer is tight with Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman, who has endorsed Monti.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizo... 

vinceclortho1
vinceclortho1

On the upside, I am encouraged that our new Maricopa County Attorney transferred the case to Sheila Polk promptly and without fanfare.  Seems like a change from the old MCAO.

Anon
Anon

.. we see at as a continuation of the same ole, same ole. Damage done. Wash our hands.

MaxQ
MaxQ

This is now the third article where Matthew Hendly fails to mention the following key statement from the report:

"DURING AN INTERVIEW REGARDING AN UNRELATED INVESTIGATION, VICTIM [NAME REDACTED] DISCLOSED TO ME THAT SHE HAD BEEN THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE AS A 10 YEAR OLD CHILD AT THE HANDS OF HER BABYSITTER, IS MARK MITCHELL."If the accusations made in this report were part of a deliberate "smear" organized somehow by the "the anti-Mitchell crowd", Jason Rose, or some other similar group of people, one would have to believe that the supposed organizers of the "smear" not only encouraged someone to make the allegations against Mark Mitchell but that they also found someone who was already part of a totally unrelated police investigation into something else. That would be a pretty convoluted, complex, and unlikely way to plant a "smear".

wherewasi
wherewasi

MaxQ -

Yes, this is Maximum Querard, no question about that.  His signature slime and dishonesty all over it.

MaxQ
MaxQ

That is amusing given the fact that I dislike Constantine Querard.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Let's see.  One week before the election AG Horne, a supporter of Monti, announces the "investigation" in press conference before turning it over to Yavapai County.

No, no politics there ...

BTW: the police used the woman's married name when they asked him if he knew her ... and of course he did not know her by that name 30-years-ago.

I'm sure you knew that, but just lacked the integrity to say as much when making your demonstratively false claims about Mitchell.

Anon
Anon

Deja Vu. ... Sounds like shades of what was done to Dan Saban by MCSO Sheriff's campaign. 

Conservative American
Conservative American

Doesn't sound convoluted to me ... what is the Communications Director for the AZGOP hiding?  What did he know and when did he know it?  What role did he play in bringing this forward?  How did he know about the allegation before the police report was public?

Wanamba
Wanamba

Forget asking how did he know about the accusation before the police report was public, it seems now that the AZGOP knew about the report even before it was written.

WTF

Seriously, WTF is wrong with the AZGOP!

Noone T Blame
Noone T Blame

Read the report. 
http://politics.kfyi.com/cc-co... 

Please explain how anyone can get the Phoenix Police Department to do an investigation and recommend 5 felony counts as a political strategy. Go ahead. Explain it. 

Why haven't you reported that the woman wore a wire and taped Mitchell admitting to the abuse? Read the report. 

Mitchell is running away from confronting the accuser. Read the report.

Mitchell's first response is to blame others. Read the report. Mark Mitchell is a whiner and a blamer. He owns this all on his own. Face the music and stop blaming others. Or at least produce some evidence that someone put the police or the accuser up to this. I'm listening, but all I hear is whining....

Read the report.

Conservative American
Conservative American

You're lying.

The police did not recommend any charges.  They police did what they always do: they listed the possible charges should the prosecutors determine the accusations credible and a charge winnable.

Mitchell says no confrontation happened. There should be proof that will settle this ... why are you so quick to instantly believe the tape exists?

Of course ... because Mitchell is your political enemy, so you'll stoop to anything to win.

You have no proof it happened, but you want to have happened, so you pretend that you do.

You're scum.

MaxQ
MaxQ

"Mitchell says no confrontation happened."

According to the Arizona Republic, Police say that it did happen:

"Investigators with the department's Conspiracy Unit put Mitchell under surveillance on April 5 after persuading the woman to confront him while wearing a wire and to subsequently call him for a secretly recorded conversation. According to police reports, Mitchell said during the phone conversation that  'they were young and experimenting and that he never meant to hurt her and he apologized.' "
 http://www.azcentral.com/commu...

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Paragraph 3 counselor.

Your argument seems to be that the only time police long form a complaint is whenever they lack the probable cause to initiate an arrest. Based on that alone, your argument is flawed and incorrect. Are there times when a long form complaint is used to 'place the burden on the county attorneys office? Yes. Does it include every long form complaint (as you would try and have everyone believe) no.

Your credibility as an adult is shot when you revert to juvenile acronyms.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Uhm, you do realize that nothing in the page to which you link states that the police recommend what charges are to be filed, don't you?  What, you thought no one would bother to read your link?

My position remains uncontroverted.  When the police lack probable cause to make an arrest they can send the report up the chain with a list of possible charges ... but that are not "recommended charges."

ESPECIALLY WHEN THE POLICE SPECIFICALLY STATE THEY DO NOT THINK CHARGES ARE APPROPRIATE DUE TO TIME AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

Seriously, under your bias-driven logic the police are complete idiots.  You have them stating that they aren't bringing charges, but that they think someone should?

ROTFLMAO

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Because you are a pompous ass and you have difficulty with reason comprehension due to predisposition I will send you to the law offices of David Cantor (a professional ambulance chaser like yourself) to show the readership you are full of shit.

http://dmcantor.com/precharge-...
Long form complaints are simply one avenue a law enforcement officer can move a case forward to the County Attorney. You are right in that the CA has no obligation to pursue the "recommended charges" filed by the law enforcement officer, however they are required to provide an explanation should they deny prosecution.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Huh?  You're completely off your nut. Police do not need probably cause to write a report, nor do they need probable cause to send it the CA. They need probable cause, or a warrant, to arrest.

Here, the police did not arrest, which they could if they had probable cause.

Again, the police do not recommend charges.  They list charges they think might apply and then back off to see what the CA does. If the CA declines to charge, they aren't rejecting the police's recommendation.

This is very basic ...

Conservative American
Conservative American

Lots of excuses and lots of "because I know, that's why."

Everything you point to, all the leaks and anonymous letters reinforce the assertion that this just more slimey AZGOP political shenanigans. Real victims of crimes don't start whisper campaigns.You also dodge the central truth that Shane approves every "article" that runs on HIS blog, aka Sonoran Alliance.Shane was running the story before the police report was even written ... but yea, there's no way he had anything to do with it ...It's an important question that needs to be asked.  If you're not Shane, then all you are doing is guessing and hoping to help Monti get elected. Let Shane speak for himself and quit trying to pretend you know more than you do.  You're not fooling anyone.If you're not guessing about what Shane knew and did, then you know more about this report than your letting on ... 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Once again you are wrong. Whether a person is 'arrested' (booked) or their case is long formed to the County Attorney makes no difference. In either case, probable cause must exist. There are innumerable reasons a law enforcement officer chooses to long form charges. If the case lacks probable cause, it's not filed.

You are an exceptional wordsmith and seem to Lack any intellectual honesty, whatsoever. There is no doubt you are a criminal defense attorney...is this Eric Crocker?

MaxQ
MaxQ

The issue that I responded to was that you stated that "no confrontation" happened. The police report, the Arizona Republic, and other news outlets report otherwise.

As for what redacted in the report, I think anyone with a brain can tell the generalities of what was being alleged through the context of the rest of the report. Obviously the Phoenix Police wrote the report not anyone else.

I don't know how the writer on the Sonoran Alliance who went by the pen name of "The Phoenix" (who is not Shane Wikfors) knew about the investigation. But I do know that rumors of a police investigation being under way were widespread before the report was released. The Arizona Republic reported that it knew about the investigation before the report was released. The Tempe City Council reportedly knew about the investigation before the report was released. At least one of the television stations reportedly talked to Mark Mitchell about it before he was even contacted by the police. And Mark Mitchell obviously knew about the investigation before the report was released. So it wasn't a secret that some sort of investigation was taking  place before the police report was released. Somebody reporting in a blog that there are rumors that a police investigation of Mark Mitchell was underway a couple of weeks after the entities I just mentioned already knew about the investigation is hardly evidence of collusion or political trickery.

Conservative American
Conservative American

How do you know what is alledged in the report?  The acts are redacted out.

Perhaps you help write it?

The question remains - how did the AZGOP know enough about this police report to demand it be made public "a few weeks" before it was even written?

What did the AZGOP Communication Director, who runs the right-wing blog that teased this story for weeks, know and when did he know it?

Why won't he respond?

What is he hiding?

TruConserv
TruConserv

Gee, the AZ Rep got it wrong.

Police don't recommend charges.  If they feel they have probable cause, they make an arrest.  If they don't, they refer the matter to the prosecution and simply list the charges possible.

The only question we have is whether you are a liar or a fool?  I'm guessing it's a bit of both.

MaxQ
MaxQ

The Arizona Republic stated in its article on this matter:

"Police referred their findings to prosecutors with recommended felony charges but said they made no arrest due to the youth of those involved and the amount of time that has elapsed."
  http://www.azcentral.com/commu..."

TruConserv
TruConserv

No, it is not.

One, in basic English, "request" and "recommend" are not even remotely the same word. The lie you keep pimping is that the police recommended that Mitchell be charged, even when the police report explicitly states the police where declining to charge him or to arrest him for anything.

Two, in Criminal Justice a "charging request" is just a listing of the charges the police feel might apply.  The CA has no obligation to follow them and there is no insult to the police of the CA does not charge or charges on different grounds.

Nice spin on your part, but ultimately, that's all it is. 

MaxQ
MaxQ

The section detailing the charges is a "Charging Request". It even states that on the report. A "Charging Request" is a formal request by the police to prosecutors that the charge the subject of the investigation with the charges listed in the request. So both the police report and Arizona Republic article are accurate and consistent. The police requested that list of charges be filed.

Conservative American
Conservative American

Very selective reading on your part. You like the police report when it supports your theory, but prefer the AZ Republic when it conflicts with the police report.

The police did what they always do: list the possible charges. They most certainly did not recommend anything, and indeed they could have arrested him if they thought probable cause was present. They did not recommend anything.

They didn't.

Know what else they didn't do: they didn't arrest him or refer him for obstruction of justice. Cops will tell you: if you lie to the police you will be arrested, even if you have done nothing else wrong.

Very telling, don't you think?  (Sorry, MaxQ, your posts prove you don't actually think ...)

ExpertShot
ExpertShot

 So, now, every a citizen of this country makes out with a girl when they are young teenagers they have to have their partner sign a consent agreement?  Oh what the tea party has wrought!

Look4theq
Look4theq

He did not "make out" with a girl!!! He molested a 10 year old little girl who spent the rest of her childhood and most of he adult life thinking she was to blame. Now as an adult she must look at his name posted all over her neighborhood on posters. She knows he has girls the same age as she was then. How would he feel if a 14 year old male just "made out" with his daughters and effectively made them spend years trying to figure out why and how they could have stopped him.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

The timing certainly clouds the believability of the 'victim.'. It doesn't help that the "victim's" family doesn't even support her rendition of events.

wherewasi
wherewasi

If this anonymous woman was SO TRAUMATIZED over what occurred 30 years ago, why didn't she do something about it sooner?  Her mother apparently stepped in back in 1983 and if there was anything truly serious that happened, why did she not contact authorities?  I'm sorry - I had some traumatic things growing up as well.  The thing is, I grew up.  This woman has to be 40 years old now.  Time to become an adult.

Sonoran Alliance has a post on 5/8/12 that they had been providing a forum for "several weeks" to "demand" a copy of the police report.  Though why any blogger on S/A thinks they have the right to demand this (just before the election) is beyond me.  And on top of it, the police report was not written until 4/30/12, only 1 week before Sonoran Alliance boasts of providing this forum for "several weeks".  In other words, someone connected to Sonoran Alliance spent weeks calling for a report to be made PERIOD, not calling for it to be made public.  What motivation was behind that?  It was just as well-camouflaged as Oliva Cortes' "independent" run for the Senate in the recall election.

In other words, "I smell a RAT".

MaxQ
MaxQ

Teenagers "making out" is not the same thing as a 13 - 14 year old babysitter allegedly engaging in sex acts with a 10 year old that he is babysitting. But you already knew that...

Conservative American
Conservative American

How do you know what is alledged in the report?  The acts are redacted out.
Perhaps you help write it?
The question remains - how did the AZGOP know enough about this police report to demand it be made public "a few weeks" before it was even written?
What did the AZGOP Communication Director, who runs the right-wing blog that teased this story for weeks, know and when did he know it?
Why won't he respond?
What is he hiding?

w. Olson
w. Olson

 This entire matter stinks.  It again makes Arizona look like a Third World police state.  This alleged matter took place 30 years ago!  Arizona has a quaint and probably unconstitutional law which starts the clock on the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS when the "alleged" offense is discovered.  The statute of limitations in AZ except for murder is 7 years!  Guess what?  Some great citizen seems to have tried to start the clock by having a lady wearing a wire call up Mitchell while trying to trick him into some sort of confession.   No county attorney worth is weight in dead cats would countenance such a thing unless he was completely lacking in common sense and discretion.   The latter should disqualify anyone from the office pf prosecutor.  Even if all of this is even remotely true--both the alleged victim and the violator were children under Arizona law.  Where o' where has common sense gone?  At the very most this a "he said/she said" situation with absolutely no evidence except a stupid prosecutor.  Religious fanatics and the nuts of the Tea Party might be a good place to start looking for the problems of Arizona today.

Anon
Anon

Lest we forget .... a 13-14 year old is a "child" in Arizona. Can't have it both ways.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...