Reality Check

King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff, V. Malcolm Fraser, Defendant Cause No. 12-1-01886-0 Knt was in truth and fact King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff V. Sound Doctrine Church of Enumclaw Washington. Washington State Prosecutors abuse legal activities and an impossible crime to destroy and drive out of the City of Enumclaw Timothy Williams or Sound Doctrine Church. The accused, Malcolm Fraser, was abusively used by King County Prosecutors and Enumclaw Police to proxy-prosecute Timothy Williams.

Prosecutor Jason Simmons Real Prosecution

Proof: Though Malcolm Fraser was charged with a horrendous crime, the number one priority of King County Prosecutor Mark Larson and Jason Simmons was Timothy Williams or Sound Doctrine Church.

"1. A detailed inventory of any and all materials and documents by or related to Sound Doctrine Church…Such materials and documents may include but are not limited to: books, tracts, or sermons by Timothy Williams." – Enumclaw Police Department Request From Jason Simmons.

Judge Lori K. Smith and King County Prosecutors used an innocent man who was accused without any evidence by the scripting efforts of Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall to go after Sound Doctrine Church, aka, Timothy Williams. It is no exaggeration to state that both acted not only in an illegal manner but using absurd twisting of logic to literally lawlynch Christianity. See post legal Rule 403.

Such would only apply when McCall is brought up on charges! Gesh!

Prosecutor Simmons is absurd to suggest that Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall can script out accusations and that it is up to the jury to make a "judgement call" in this case. Such a statement would only apply when McCall is brought up on charges – which he should have long been charged with crimes! Gesh!

King County Prosecutors and Judge Lori K. Smith were so impure⁴ they confounded the courtroom by making, but by no means the only 4 things the jury was being manipulated to judge. 1: City of Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall’s guilt. 2: The conspiracy of the on going hate crime. 3: Timothy Williams’ doctrines, teachings and obedience. 4: And least we forget, the charges toward the Accused. etc. etc.

Judge Lori K. Smith and Prosecutors used false allegations against an innocent man to bring down, destroy and slander Christian Sound Doctrine Church. The evidence is clear and solid on this point.

The anti-Christian bias of Washington State is so self-evident it is hardly worth writing this sentence to state the obvious.

[su_note note_color=”#ead6fe” text_color=”#000000″ radius=”9″]Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. (Matthew 5:11)[/su_note]

Trial Video, Part 1

You will hear how with the Accuser’s own testimony the crime could not have taken place.

Also, King County Prosecutors of Seattle WA. encourage detectives to script out accusations – especially since they can befundle a dumbed-down jury.

Listen in on The Consider Podcast as we will be discussing in much greater detail the facts, evidence, injustice and lawlessness of the Washington State Legal system.

Prosecutor Mark Larson’s Team of King County Prosecutors, located in Washington State, Seattle were specifically assigned to take down Sound Doctrine Church, aka, Timothy Williams.

"Send me over everything you got on Sound Doctrine Church, Timothy Williams,…" -King County Prosecutors prosecuting Malcolm Fraser

Watch actual trial footage as Prosecutor Jason Simmons uses false allegations created by Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall and his main co-conspirators to destroy a church they both despised.

The video is rather long but only scratches the surface of the court corruptions and lawlessness of the Washington State justice system. Judge Lori K. Smith’s wild-west-lawless courtroom sent an innocent man to prison while encouraging a hatecrime for the State of Washington.

[su_divider top=”no” divider_color=”#c62525″]

[su_qrcode data=”https://consider.info/wqyr” title=”Part 1 Wa. State .V Sound Doctrine Church” link=”https://consider.info/wqyr”]

Other Videos This Series

 

[su_divider top=”no” divider_color=”#228869″]

Wa. Court Corruption

More Information

[chc-content] Basic Information
Judge and Police Corruption
King County Court Ideology Prosecutions

Seattle Washington
City of Enumclaw Police
King County Prosecutors
Roughly 2010 Frame Up

Enumclaw Police
Chief Judge Beth M. Andrus
Chief Judge Lori K. Smith
Detective Grant McCall
King County Prosecutors
Short List Below

Judge Beth Andrews whitewashed the crimes of Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall, setting into motion the whitewashing of the City of Enumclaw’s criminal activities.

Judge Lori K. Smith purposely created a "family court" in a criminal trial. In other words, Judge Lori K. Smith, because of her prejudicial mindset, threw out the concept of evidence and rights of the accused.

Judge Smith, being raised to her position by prosecutors and as reflected on her website, is so narrowly focused on her agenda that aspects of criminal law are undermined.

Judge Beth Andrews and Judge Lori K. Smith created the lawlessness inherent in the Family Court with a criminal trial. Combined with Seattle’s police prosecutor corruption, the ideology-driven trial of Detective McCall’s foolish religious beliefs and police power abuse was steamrolled ahead.

Thus, prosecutors were enabled to rid the jury pool of anyone who believed in evidence. Literally, King County Prosecutors asked potential jurors if anyone thought that evidence was necessary for a criminal trial. Such were sent packing.

The city of Enumclaw Police backed Baptist "Detective" Grant McCall’s contradictory, self-righteous religious beliefs with abusive police tactics to support Mr. McCall’s criminal hate crime activities.

The City of Enumclaw Police was thus able to frame an innocent man with zero evidence because Detective McCall was creating a crime that did not and was impossible to commit.

Fact is, had any authority done their job the criminal activity of Grant McCall would have been quickly revealed.

More information is located at:
enumclaw.com
consider.info

Transcript

Washington State v Sound Doctrine Church Part 1
[ AKA: King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff, V. Malcolm Fraser, Defendant Cause No. 12-1-01886-0 Knt was in truth and fact King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff V. Sound Doctrine Church of Enumclaw Washington. ]

Detective: Defense claims that, well, the detective interview poisoned this young girl, so all this is fabricated. Again, whether or not it was a fabricated, made-up story that was planted by a detective, or whether she actually experienced the abuse at the hands of Nathan Fraser, it’s a credibility call. A credibility call that our system requires the jury to determine.

Thomas: It was a normal day like any other at Winepress Publishing. A man pulled into the parking lot, driving a bright red Chevy Tahoe, followed by an Enumclaw Police squad car. The man enters the building dressed in a flannel shirt and jeans, followed by a police officer. His name was Grant McCall, and he was the lone detective at Enumclaw Police Department. After entering, he addresses the receptionist behind the front desk and asks for Malcolm Fraser. Upon contacting him, he was informed he was under arrest for charges related to child molestation. Fraser refuses to answer any questions and only stated that he wanted his lawyer. McCall, in an effort to prod a response, stated that he felt it was odd he didn’t ask who the person alleging the crime was. Fraser only responded that he didn’t think that McCall would tell him. Without reading him his Miranda rights, he handcuffed him and transported him to the police station.

At the police station, he continued to prod him to speak with him after finally reading him his Miranda rights. Throughout this process, he continued to insist on speaking with his attorney, after which he was sent down to the jail. Thus marked the beginning of a series of events that would lead to a trial few know about and even fewer could think possible. Around the time of the arrest, the case was forwarded on by Grant McCall to the King County Prosecutor’s Office. This office was headed by an individual by the name of Dan Satterberg.

Dan Satterberg: Since 1980 we have invested significant amount of public money into the criminal justice system. Building more prisons and more jails, more courtrooms, more prosecutors, more public defenders, more police. So, it was an investment that needed to be made. So, that’s why I get worried when I see the legislature wanting to let people out of prison. Because we have carefully and intelligently used that scarce and expensive resource of a prison cell in a very specific and calculated way.

Thomas: Upon receiving McCall’s investigation, the prosecution’s office curiously did not request any evidence specific to the allegations themselves, but instead all information about Sound Doctrine Church. Sound Doctrine Church was a small non-denominational church based out of Enumclaw, Washington, and Malcolm Fraser was an assistant pastor there. Prior to going to trial, however, a hearing was required regarding McCall’s investigation in this case. During that hearing, the judge found McCall was guilty of misconduct for deleting emails related to the case, costing the city of Enumclaw tens of thousands of dollars. After facing no consequences, something McCall was very accustomed to, the state decided to move forward with McCall’s charges. There were a number of prosecutors assigned to the case, however, the primary trial lawyer was Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jason Simmons. While in law school, Simmons originally planned on becoming a public defender.

During this time, Simmons attended a student association free pizza event put on by the state where he ended up meeting a man by the name of Nelson Lee. Nelson Lee at that time operated as a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for King County. Lee later went on to become a judge in the King County Superior Court. As a result of their meeting at the government-funded pizza party, Simmons decided to intern for the prosecutor’s office his first year out of law school. “I thought I would be a public defender,” Jason said. “Then I met some people from the prosecutor’s office who really impressed me, so I decided to intern at the prosecutor’s office after my first year out of law school.” This would lead Simmons to becoming a prosecutor himself under the elected King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg. You might be wondering why I said this case is against Sound Doctrine Church and not against the person who is listed as the defendant, Malcolm Fraser.

As will become increasingly clear throughout the length of this trial, this case had little to do with the crime alleged. Following McCall’s misconduct hearing and as the defense attorney Ann Carey continued to build her case, she acquired the services of an expert by the name of John Ewell. We’ll discuss Ewell in more detail later, however, suffice it to say, he’s a 50-year expert in interviewing witnesses. This included considering the credibility of a witness’s statements. As a part of this investigation into the case, he was able to listen to an audio version of the interview conducted by Detective McCall. He was shocked to discover that throughout the interview, McCall asserted to the accuser what the details of the allegations were. At no point was she free to say what she was alleging. Instead, McCall invented and suggested disgusting graphic details to which she either agreed or in rare instances, disagreed with. You would later testify, disgusted that all of the allegations came from the detective.

Judge: I mean, this entire interview is not acceptable. Every single act, alleged act, is suggested first by the officer and um…

Man: Every act?

Judge: Yes, every act.

Man: Okay.

Thomas: Couple this with the fact that this very detective referred to the church in question as evil and twisted in an official police email, and even more red flags began emerging that they were dealing with a false allegation. Curiously, however, the state had no interest in what this expert witness brought to light. Far from hiring this expert to determine the credibility of the allegations, a service which Dr. Ewell said he provided to either the state or the defense, Simmons, Satterberg, and the other prosecutors decided to ignore this expert and push forward with their case. As the state continued building their case, however, they did nothing in the way of uncovering any evidence that the allegations were true. Curiously, they never visited the house in which these alleged crimes took place, and they put forth no effort to obtain any physical evidence of the crime.

Before we go further, however, it may be helpful to know what the allegations actually were. We’ve talked broadly about them being abuse allegations, and that many of them were gruesome details that were introduced by Detective McCall, but what is the timeline? For reference, I will be referring to the accuser in this case as “MC”, or the “Complaining Witness”. One thing I would recommend, however, especially if you’re somebody who pays attention to true crime or similar stories, is throughout the process of this case, to put yourself in the place of the jury. Pay close attention to the testimony and the details, nearly all of which was before an actual jury. The only difference here is that you’ll be provided insight into some of the arguments made by the prosecutor and judge behind the scenes.

With that, let’s move on to the timeline. As a younger child herself, MC spent a decent amount of her childhood in Sound Doctrine Church. Her mother, Jessica, and stepfather, Greg, were both members. MC was described as shy, quiet and reserved, but overall, a happy child during her time within the church. Much of her time would be spent homeschooled during the week and going to Sunday school on the weekends. Her homeschool group also took a number of trips to various places. MC’s mother, however, had an increasingly overbearing and exacting presence within the life of her kids. Other parents within the church expressed their concern, as she would often criticize or reprimand their kids for trivial matters or often in situations where they were just kids being kids.

As the oldest of her siblings, however, MC received the brunt of her mother’s exacting, needlessly high standards. Some mothers witnessed occasions when MC was outside the presence of her mother and she cracked jokes, made people laugh, and was fun being around. Once her mother entered the picture, however, she reverted to the shy, quiet, reserved 12-year-old. Like any kid, MC was desperate for her mother’s approval. However, it was always something that seemed impossible to obtain. This only increased after MC’s mother and stepfather decided to leave Sound Doctrine Church. As a result of their departure, Jessica became increasingly embittered towards the church and her mood and behavior only worsened as a result. Because of her mother’s overbearing behavior, MC began to withdraw from her family and spend an increasing amount of time alone.

When MC was around the age of 17 or so, a woman she had known previously from Sound Doctrine Church re-entered her life. This woman’s name was Athena Dean. Athena, someone we have also referred to as Jezebel, left Sound Doctrine Church and was on a mission to spread as much slander and false information about Sound Doctrine Church as possible. As a part of her campaign of hatred, she began to recruit as many former members of the church as she could to help her in her crusade. Among those she recruited was MC’s mother, Jessica. As such, Athena began spending a significant amount of time with Jessica, Greg, and their family, including MC. In fact, Athena would visit with MC specifically on numerous occasions. One Facebook message between MC and Athena showcased that Athena was attempting to visit MC at work outside the presence of her mother.

With Athena back in the picture, she arranged numerous gatherings featuring former members of Sound Doctrine Church where, in MC’s presence, everybody whined and complained about how much they hated Sound Doctrine Church and everybody in it. Ignited with newfound bitterness and hatred, Jessica even noticed Mr. Fraser walking down the street during this time, where she rolled down her car window and called him an a**hole before driving off. MC was very observant of these things. Throughout her lifetime, she obtained the nickname Radar Ears because of how often she would try to listen in on other people’s conversation, regardless of whether it was meant for her.

Lady 1: People told me I was nosy all the time. They called me Nosy Rosie.

Lady 2: Nosy Rosie?

Lady 1: Yeah.

Lady 2: Okay. Did you also get called Radar Ears?

Lady 1: Yes. My stepdad still to this day calls me Radar Ears.

Lady 2: What does that mean? What was he trying to express to you by giving you that nickname? What did you do?

Lady 1: Well, I mean, I always wanted to, like, kind of know what was going on and everything like that. So, I always tried to pick up on information that the adults were talking about.

Lady 2: So, you pay attention, don’t you?

Lady 1: I try to when I can, yeah.

Thomas: During that time, MC described the hatred of Sound Doctrine Church as consuming her household. You might even say that it created a particular environment. While the flame of hatred was at its hottest, MC was supposedly having a conversation with her older half or stepsister, Justine, in the car. During this long and wide-ranging conversation, Justine revealed to MC for the first time that she had been abused as a child. It was in response to this that MC for the first time said, “Me too”, without providing any details. About one week later, while in a meeting with her counselor Kathleen Moore, MC informed her that she was abused by a pastor who lived with her family for a time. She again provided little to no details, instead asserting a general allegation of abuse.

The counselor, as a mandatory reporter, took these allegations and reported them to CPS, (Child Protective Services), who provided them to the Enumclaw Police Department, which made its way to the desk of Grant McCall. According to the early reports, the allegations were vague and yet oddly similar to those that were made by her half-sister, a general claim of molestation that happened sometime in the past. Once the allegations reached McCall, however, he promptly scheduled an interview with MC. During this initial interview, Jessica arrived with MC to speak with McCall. However, oddly enough, Athena Dean joined them for the interview as well. While in the presence of McCall, MC was deeply distressed, crying, and did not want to discuss what she had told her counselor. As a result, Jessica, Athena, and MC left the police station with the plan to reschedule for another day and time.

During this time, Jessica had a conversation with her daughter, however, but her response was in stark contrast with what you would expect for someone who was just discovering something horrific had happened to her daughter. She made it very clear that she didn’t want any of the details of what took place and said that whether or not she moved forward with reporting the allegations was her decision and no matter what her choice was, she would support her 100%.

Detective McCall: Now during that week time period, did you talk to about what was going on?

Lady: I talked to her I mean of course, I talked to her about what was going on because this was all new knowledge to me. I mean, it was very new, it was very raw, it was very emotional, it was very painful. So yes, we talked about it. But in terms of her and regarding her statement, I just told her this is her, she told me this is her decision and whatever decision she comes up with, I will fully support.

Thomas: Which is an incredible thing to say. If these allegations were in fact true, what mother in her right mind would say to her daughter whether or not she decides to report the crime is her decision? Any mother with even an ounce of care would get any and every detail she could out of her daughter so she could get the guy who did this put in prison. This wasn’t her reaction, however. She instead put the full weight of the responsibility on her daughter alone, making it all the more clear that everyone involved knew the allegations were false. Nevertheless, MC had a once in a lifetime opportunity to win favor with her mother, who’s always held her to exacting standards up to including doing pushups for not doing what she told her to do. And what better way to win her mother’s favor than to hold in her hands the power to destroy a man and even a church she knew well her mother despised with every fiber of her being. And with that, MC decided to move forward with discussing the allegations with Detective Grant McCall.

Preceding the second interview attempt with MC, however, McCall had even further opportunity to prepare. Part of this preparation would typically include finding a person better experienced or more suited than himself to conduct the interview. This is particularly important because McCall was the same gender, relative age, and size of the man against whom these allegations were being made. Because of McCall’s lack of experience and training in conducting interviews with minors, he would typically refer them to one of two people. One of them would be an Enumclaw police officer by the name of Nona Zillbauer, an individual with whom McCall was well acquainted with. She would regularly conduct witness interviews as she had the proper training to do so.

Another individual on whom McCall relied almost exclusively on for interviews with minors was a woman by the name of Carolyn Webster, who had exclusive training in this area and who also worked for the King County Prosecutor’s Office. Despite having two options for qualified individuals to conduct the interview of MC, a third reached out to him to let him know that she was willing to help conduct the interview as well. This was Black Diamond Police Chief Jamie Kiplinger, a woman who also had experience conducting similar interviews. Despite having each of these women willing and able to conduct the interview, McCall decided to do the interview with MC himself. When he was asked why, despite the fact that he knew he wasn’t qualified, he simply said that none of these three individuals were available to conduct the interview, despite one of them specifically offering to do it for him.

Lady: Well, let me ask you this, why was she not available?

Detective: I don’t remember.

Lady: So, Detective McCall, you decided to go forward with the interview yourself?

Detective McCall: Yes, I did.

Thomas: He was also asked if he had control over the date and time of the interview so that he could fit it within the schedule of any of these women, and he agreed that he did. Nevertheless, he chose to conduct it himself. Before we go on to discuss the interview itself, it’s important to understand the extreme sensitivity required to conduct a witness interview, especially when its content has the ability to place a man in prison. Dr. John Ewell, the aforementioned 50-year expert in conducting such interviews, referred to a study wherein he and his associates were able to convince a significant number of students that a life event which had never occurred was in fact reality.

Lady: Can memory be altered as a result of leading or suggestive questions?

Judge: Yes.

Lady: How is it altered?

Judge: As I mentioned, memory is reconstructive in nature, and we are influenced by a variety of sources of information, a d there is very clear evidence, research evidence, that you can change your memory by asking leading or suggestive questions.

Lady: Can you describe your research to the jury, please?

Judge: For example, a study we did some years ago, we took a group of young adults. These were second-year, typically, undergraduate students. And with their permission, we contacted their parents. We were interested in memories for childhood trauma, things such as a vicious dog attack requiring emergency medical treatment, automobile accident resulting in injury, breaking of a limb, the kinds of things that sometimes happen to children that are of a traumatic nature. We ended up with 72 young people, all of whom had had one of these events happen to them, according to their parents. We then brought them into our lab, that is, the young volunteers, one at a time, and we sat them down and we said to them, “You know, we’ve talked to your parents, and we’ve listed in front of you two traumatic events that occurred, according to them, when you were a child. One of these was, in fact, an event that the parents said had occurred. One was an event that the parent was adamant had not occurred to their son or daughter.”

So, this was a study to see whether or not we could suggest a childhood traumatic event that had never happened to someone. And we asked them to think about this every day, and we brought them back a week later and reminded them again, and then a week later, the same. 50% of these young people said they remembered the event that never happened. Of much greater interest, I think, is that a quarter of them not only said they remembered it, but told us about it. That is, they created a memory which they believed to be true of an event that had, in fact, not occurred.

Thomas: Keeping in mind how easy it was to suggest and plant false memories in someone, especially a minor, and especially when done by a person in a position of authority, next was the interview conducted by Detective McCall. On the day of the interview, MC’s mother, Jessica, decided not to stay for the interview. As such, she dropped MC off in order for McCall to conduct the interview with her alone. The main conference room was taken, and so McCall decided to conduct the interview in the sergeant’s office, which he described as small. In addition to not having one of the aforementioned women conduct the interview, McCall also elected not to have another person or officer in the room with him, and this included Nona Zillbauer, who worked at the same PD. Nevertheless, after he had secured an office in which to be alone with the minor, McCall activated a small digital audio recorder and began the interview.

After he got some of the preliminary questions out of the way, instead of asking her to tell him her version of events, he simply informed her what the charges were, as listed in the CPS report, which amounted to child molestation in the first degree. Part of why it’s so vital not to start out an interview by providing information, even if that information was ascertained from the witness herself, is because part of an interviewer’s role is to determine the credibility of the claims themselves. The basic idea here as an investigator is to see if what they’re saying now matches up with what they were saying when they originally made the report. By simply telling the interviewee the charge, he’s confirming its validity without doing anything to determine if, in fact, it is a credible claim.

McCall went on to conduct the bulk of the interview. Without going into every specific detail of the interview, the general flow was McCall suggesting a gruesome detail, and MC either confirming it, denying it, or expounding on something that McCall had suggested. It was as though two were working together to write a novel, careful to stick to what they, mostly McCall, wanted the series of events to be. Something that is particularly noteworthy about this interview isn’t just the fact that McCall provides the bulk of the accusations, but the extreme specificity with which his suggestions came. It wasn’t as though he was creating vague ideas for her to accept, but instead gruesome acts that came down to details as specific as which finger was being used, and she just confirmed them. That being said, we are left with two options. Either one, McCall is a mind reader, or number two, he is a deranged, evil person who is planting gross acts of violence in the mind of a minor.

McCall made it clear as well that MC was not at all comfortable around him, and the fact that he was an authority no doubt made her all the more willing to accept his suggestions of what had happened as fact. During the interview, however, McCall stated that they had to take a break on two occasions because of MC crying and how uncomfortable she was with McCall as he conducted the interview. During these breaks, however, McCall elected to turn off the audio recorder, despite still being in the presence of MC. As a result, there was no record of what was being said during these breaks. He was also asked later about this and claimed it is completely acceptable to pick and choose what is being recorded.

Lady: Detective McCall, forensic interviewers should not turn off an audio or video recording during reporting, right?

Detective McCall: No, not that I’m aware of. I assume it’s okay to turn it off.

Lady: So, it’s your opinion that an audio or video recording should be turned off during a break?

Detective McCall: Yes.

Lady: And in fact, in this case, you took two breaks and you turned off the audio recording each time.

Detective McCall: Yes, that’s correct.

Thomas: As if this were not enough to raise some questions as to the validity of these allegations, this was only the tip of the iceberg in comparison with what came out throughout the trial. Nevertheless, this was all information to which Jason Simmons, Dan Satterberg, and the King County Prosecutor’s Office had access. So, if the story itself lacked any believable details within it, what were they going to talk about within the trial? For them, the answer to that question was simple. The religious beliefs and practices of Sound Doctrine Church.

When it finally came time for the trial to begin, it was accompanied by the opening statements of both Jason Simmons, the prosecutor, and Ann Carey, the defense attorney. Beyond the contents of the two opening statements, there was a stark contrast in approach. Simmons used no presentations, aides, or evidence of any kind, and instead chose to dramatically repeat numerous times the graphic details of the allegations. He repeated specific details that were prompted by McCall and others that McCall had invented in their entirety. By contrast, the defense provided timelines, a floor map of the house, charts of the various individuals involved, and other visual aids.

Something you’ll often hear if you listen to a number of opening statements made by prosecutors is the phrase, “The evidence will show.” This is because it’s the prosecutor’s job to present compelling evidence that proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, however, the prosecutor, Jason Simmons, curiously never used the phrase, “The evidence will show.” In fact, Simmons rarely, if ever, used the word “evidence” at all throughout the trial.” And as things progress, you will begin to see why. Opening statements aside, it was time for the state to begin calling witnesses. Jason Simmons first called the accuser’s stepfather, Greg.

Now in a case like this, you might imagine the prosecution used the accuser’s stepfather’s testimony to provide evidence of the crime. However, Jason Simmons asked only a handful of questions that were in any way relevant to the alleged crime. The same went for the accuser’s mother. Only a few questions relevant to the alleged abuse. After hours and hours of testimony, here is the entirety of the questions and testimony the prosecutor, Jason Simmons, asked, which were even close to being relevant to the alleged crime.

Man: And when you built the bedroom, what did you physically do to create the bedroom? When for example if you were downstairs in in the living room, for example, would you generally be able to hear the kids upstairs? What about um back in room if you were downstairs, would you be able here? Your home back in Franklin Street. Do you remember where we talked about the room? You saw a photo where the door’s not up yet, but you said something inside there. Where did the two other girls? If you could just, do you recognize what one of mine is?

Lady: Yeah.

Man: And what does that appear to be?

Lady: It looks like a lost man of art mentioned street.

Man: And where, if you could get up and just use the pointer, where was it that yourself and Greg stayed? And where was it that the girls slept?

Thomas: You might be thinking that I have done some cherry picking here. However, I have not. After watching through all of their testimony from beginning to end, that was all of the testimony that was relevant to the alleged crime. So, you might be wondering if King County prosecutors only spent a few minutes on anything relevant to the charges, what did they spend all the time on? The answer is the pastor’s church and specifically their religious beliefs and practices. Before we get to showcasing some of these questions, however, it’s important we mention a specific legal precedent.

Now, obviously I am not a lawyer. As such, this is not legal advice and any lawyer is free to correct me. However, there is something by the name of “Rule of Evidence 403.” In essence, Rule 403 exists to prevent evidence, a witness testimony for example, from being presented to the jury if it has the potential to mislead, confuse, or unduly bias or influence the jury if said evidence or testimony has little or no relevance to the alleged crime. Now, Rule 403 is up to the discretion of the judge. However, its purpose is to present a fair trial and focus solely on the facts of the case. With this in mind, let’s listen in to some of the questions that were asked by Deputy Prosecutor Jason Simmons.

Man: Are you familiar with a group called the Sound Doctor Church? How was it that you came about joining the Sound Doctor Church? And where was Sound Doctor Church located? Back then, around that time, how many people would you say were members? What was it that drew your family to the church at the beginning? Did your joining the Sound Doctrine Church have any impact on your connection with your family other than Jessica and the daughters we currently talked about? Is Winepress Publishing associated in any way with the Sound Doctrine Church? And would those friends from homeschooling group be members of the Sound Doctrine Church? Are you familiar with the Salt Shaker Bookstore? To begin, what is a rebuke? For those of us who don’t understand, what is a rebuke, and what does that mean in the context of the church? Were there any other people in the Sound Doctrine Church while you were there that, other than me, were not just white? And when you say fellowship, what does that mean?

While you were a member of the Sound Doctrine Church and a member of that community, was it important for you to follow the various teachings and doctrines of the church? What was your understanding of that doctrine? While a member of the Sound Doctrine Church, did your beliefs come from your understanding of the doctrine of the church? Did you have any neighborhood friends that were not members of the Sound Doctrine Church? Other than just kids and even fathers? And at that time, what was the kind of leadership? How was it? Who was in charge? How did it work? When you say your salvation, was that an important thing for you during the Sound Doctrine Church? Do you, in the Sound Doctrine Church, really celebrate birthdays? How about, was there any particular holiday celebration for Christmas or anything of that nature? Why was it that you left the Sound Doctrine Church?

Thomas: Clearly, since these questions were taking place in front of the jury, the judge was allowing it. But why? The prosecutor argued that it was to establish environment. The only problem with the concept of doing this under the guise of environment is that the vast majority of the questions involving Sound Doctrine Church were things that MC was never present for. Here are just a few examples.

Man 1: Now, Brooke Ada, she has a husband that is not part of the Sound Doctrine Church, right?

Man 2: Yes.

Man 1: And isn’t it true that he does not claim to be a Christian?

Man 2: To my recollection, no.

Man 1: And does that have any impact on her ability to be in that marriage?

Lady: I’m going to object about Brooke Ada’s marriage.

Man 1: And what’s the relationship with your husband? He’s not a member of the Sound Doctrine Church, is he? Did you personally ever leave the Sound Doctrine Church?

Thomas: Now, it wasn’t just the fact that the church and its Christian beliefs and practices were being targeted by a government employee. It was that the prosecutor was specifically misrepresenting the church’s beliefs and practices through witnesses he knew had negative feelings towards the church and had a propensity toward lying. For example, MC’s mother, who, again, despised the church, was asked a series of questions regarding her experiences with the church. Because the prosecutor’s goal was to build animus and bias against the church rather than build a case based on facts or evidence, he provided witnesses free reign to lie, slander, and misrepresent any aspect of the church that they wished. For example, the prosecutor allowed Jessica, the accuser’s mother, to phrase every answer as though it was the church forcing her to do something.

Man: Why was it that, you know what is it about this community and Sound Doctrine Church that made you make a decision such as that?

Thomas: Which, again, is a lie. And this, of course, insinuated that she was a mindless cult member carrying out instructions she had no say in. This, of course, again, was a lie meant only to help bias the jury against the church. Another lie that got forwarded by Simmons and his witnesses was that Sound Doctrine Church members were not allowed to communicate with members of their own family.

Lady 1: And [INAUDIBLE WORD 33:58] is married, correct?

Mrs. Williams: Yes.

Lady 1: And you know her husband well?

Mrs. Williams: I don’t know him well. I know him.

Lady 1: And he’s not a member of sound Doctrine church, right?

Mrs. Williams: He wasn’t at the time that I went.

Lady 1: Okay. To the best of your knowledge, he never became Sound Doctrine Church member?

Mrs. Williams: He never became a Sound Doctrine Church member

Lady 1: And how long have you been a member of Sound Doctrine Church?

Mrs. Williams: For about 12 years.

Lady 1: Is your husband also a member of Sound Doctrine Church?

Mrs. Williams: No, he’s not.

Lady 1: Are Sound Doctrine Church members permitted to have relationships with family who are not members of Sound Doctrine Church?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, and it has never been a rule that we are not.

Lady 1: And you know Julie Fraser, right?

Mrs. Williams: I do know Julie Fraser.

Lady 1: And you know that Mrs. Fraser is in contact with her family, right?

Mrs. Williams: No, I didn’t know that.

Lady 1: Okay. You know Carrie Williams?

Mrs. Williams: I do know Carrie Williams.

Lady 1: Carrie Williams is the wife of Joshua Williams?

Mrs. Williams: Yes.

Lady 1: And Carrie Williams is in contact with her family?

Mrs. Williams: I don’t know that.

Lady 1: Are you in touch with their family?

Mrs. Williams: Yes.

Lady 1: How would you describe your relationship with your family?

Mrs. Williams: I have a great relationship with my mom, better than ever. She’s actually coming tomorrow to be here for the birth of my baby. I talk to my brother. We talk on Facebook type thing.

Lady 1: Mrs. Williams, are you a member of Sound Doctrine Church?

Mrs. Williams: Yes.

Lady 1: Well, you do know that there’s other Sound Doctrine Church members that are in contact with their family?

Mrs. Williams: People don’t associate with their family.

Lady 1: That you’re aware of?

Mrs. Williams: That when I was in there, family members did not come on a regular basis to visit.

Man: Let me just take a step back. Did you have interaction with your mom really during the course of your time in Sound Doctrine Church?

Mrs. Williams: I did, but it was always, my mom would come to my house about every six months or something. When I was in there, family members did not come on a regular basis to visit. My mom would come to my house about every six months.

Thomas: And again, even by Jessica herself. The larger point here to focus in on, however, is that this has no relevance to the case. It is the state of Washington attacking a church’s religious beliefs and practices for the sole purpose of prosecuting a crime for which they have no evidence. If a church existed that required its members to wear blue shirts on Tuesdays, they are free to do so without being harassed and certainly not prosecuted. Beyond being highly prejudicial in this case, it’s also unconstitutional. The Washington State Constitution itself reads as follows.

Article 1, “Section 11 states that absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion.” Because of the highly prejudicial and outright slanderous nature of the state’s case, the defense attorney even made mention of it.

Lady 1: Your Honor, these beliefs do not have any place in this criminal trial. It’s simply not relevant and is unduly prejudicial. While the evidence of bias against Sound Doctrine Church is admissible, it appears to me that Mr. Simmons is attempting to justify these former members’ bias by casting Malcolm Fraser and Sound Doctrine Church in a negative way. In other words, impermissible character evidence. The logic goes like this. Pastor of an abhorrent church acts abhorrent by molesting a child. Our federal constitution and our state constitution are clear. I’m concerned about the damage that has already been done and I’m asking the court at this time to instruct the jury by reading the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 22, which covers religious freedom. I’m handing a copy of that verbatim section to Mr. Simmons and if I could approach, I’d like to hand it to the court.

Man: And then the last issue of whether or not the court should read the Washington State Constitution, The Washington State Constitution is not irrelevant according to this case.

Lady 2: And as for reading Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution, it’s not appropriate.

Thomas: In response, the prosecutor and judge agreed that the Constitution was irrelevant and inappropriate for the jury to hear in this case. Beyond slandering the church’s religious beliefs, Simmons made it a regular habit to have whatever witness he was questioning point out all of the members of Sound Doctrine Church that were in the courtroom at the time.

Man: In the courtroom right now, is there anybody that you recognize from your time at Sound Doctrine Church? Do you recognize anybody in the courtroom today from Sound Doctrine Church? Do you recognize… Obviously Malcolm Fraser is in the courtroom. Do you recognize other people from Sound Doctrine Church in the courtroom now?

Thomas: Again, what relevance does this have to the case? Absolutely zero. But it does a great job of further targeting and biasing the jury against the church. Nothing communicates a group of people are bad without cause than having them pointed out in a courtroom. Again, this has zero relevance to the trial and serves only to violate Rule 403. Imagine for a moment if in Tequila Mockingbird, Mr. Gilmore was free to ask his witnesses to point out and even name all of the other black people in the courtroom. We would all consider that to be disgusting. However, that’s exactly what Mr. Simmons and King County prosecutors did just with another group of people.

This theme continued as the state continued to call its witnesses. The state called two other witnesses, following the accuser’s mother and stepfather. These individuals were called allegedly to help testify to the dates the Frasers lived in the Gambles’ home. The only problem is that for the short period they testified on this subject, they possessed little more than guesses that ranged from months to a year and had zero paperwork or reference points to back up their claims. One of the witnesses, Joe Ellis, was asked to testify about dates and yet was having significant difficulties at work from that time period because he was forgetting basic details. So, if these witnesses were, for the purposes of the allegations, useless, why were they testifying? To further disparage Sound Doctrine Church and its practices, of course. Which is exactly what they did. As individuals who were disgruntled former members, they were happy to provide the state with their own warped negative feelings about the church, its practices, and its beliefs.

Lady 1: So, are your feelings generally negative towards Sound Doctrine Church?

Man 1: Absolutely.

Man 2: Were you always a single guy during your time in the church?

Man 1: When I first joined, I was married. And then my wife and I got separated and then divorced.

Man 2: During your time in the church?

Man 1: Yeah.

Man 2: Did the church play a role in that?

Lady 2: Objection. Relevance.

Lady 1: It’s not relevant.

Thomas: Keep in mind the previously mentioned Rule 403. These witnesses offered zero evidence that was in any way relevant to the alleged crime and instead existed only to bias the jury against the church of which the defendant was an assistant pastor. This continued on with other former members or family members of former members. Since the prosecutor lacked any evidence of the crime being committed, aside from the accuser’s testimony itself, it was important he find other ways to bias the jury. Outside of disparaging the church, the prosecutor was careful to bring other witnesses who offered no evidence in their testimony so they could make vague, questionable accusations generally meant to disparage the defendant’s character.

Lady 1: I specifically remember one day going over there and all the kids were having lunch on the back porch and I remember Mr. Frasier coming out of the slang glass door and he was standing there and I said, hi or whatever. And I remember he was just kind of like I didn’t belong there, like I should, like he gave me a look like…

Lady 2: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.

Lady 3: Some men in particular, some I’m completely comfortable around and others just give me an uncomfortable feeling.

Man: I never knew what smug was until I met Mr. Frasier and someone else described him as smug and I was like oh, that’s what smug is. Okay, so kind of quiet but very intelligent and kind of like I know I’m more intelligent than you.

Lady 4: Your Honor, I’m going to object because it’s improper character evidence.

Man: If I have a problem with that, can I say something? Because that’s an important part. He is smug.

Lady 4: Your Honor, I would look to strike that response.

Lady 5: There are things that are allowable and things that are not. I will make the determination. You answer the questions that are posed to you. Again, the jury will decide.

Thomas: To contrast this, when the defense began presenting witnesses, the judge was very careful to disallow any testimony that was positive about the defendant’s character.

Man: What Anna and Ezekiel, or frankly Abigail Davidson, what their relationship with the defendant was at that point is irrelevant. What could potentially be relevant about it is the state which is cross-examined to show bias. That could be relevant, but I don’t believe that defense can use that to bolster the credibility of their own witnesses.

Thomas: Beyond cherry-picking people he knew did not like the church, Simmons had yet another witness in the case who made his hatred of sound doctrine church abundantly clear, and that was Enumclaw Police Detective Grant McCall. Simmons seemed to shy away from eliciting McCall’s personal animus against the church because clearly any thinking person would be able to see why the officer making the arrest and conducting the investigation having a bias would be a problem. This didn’t stop Simmons, however, from using McCall’s hatred of the church to make false claims about their religious practices to further bias the jury against the church.

Man 1: You’re right. The fruit exhibited by Malcolm’s group is evil and twisted. They bring forth only that which benefits Tim Williams. The last portion you say, they bring forth only that which benefits Tim Williams. Why is it that you wrote that?

Man 2: Because it appears based on what we’ve been able to determine from the church, and from my own experiences, churches are outreach places for people that are typically, according to the church, who they would believe are not saved. So, they outreach people in the community. The only thing this church does, as far as we can tell, is what benefits their leader.

Thomas: This notion would be news to anyone who ever bought a coffee at the non-profit bookstore known as the Salt Shaker, which we’ve discussed previously, but we do not have time here to answer every single one of McCall’s knowably false statements. What we can say is that every person who knew Williams personally, including myself, would say that he is by far the most generous person that they’ve ever met. Despite Simmons’ best efforts, however, McCall was opened up to cross-examination, which revealed a number of unhelpful patterns. One defining one was answering one thing and then saying the complete opposite.

Lady: And, Detective McCall, you knew it was important to tell us the truth?

Detective McCall: Yes, it’s important.

Lady: And you told us the truth in your interview on September 19, 2012, right?

Detective McCall: Yes, I did.

Lady: Now, Detective McCall, you never thought of Malcolm Fraser’s church in a negative light, did you?

Detective McCall: No, not originally. They were, excuse me, they’re a little bit different, but as far as their religious beliefs, as far as I can tell, they’re relatively close to what I believe.

Lady: So, is it your opinion that the truth exhibited by Malcolm’s group is evil and twisted?

Detective McCall: Their truth is bad, yes.

Lady: Is it evil and twisted?

Detective McCall: Yes, it would be.

Lady: Detective McCall, you’re familiar with Facebook, aren’t you?

Detective McCall: Yes.

Lady: And have you ever used Facebook in any way during a police investigation?

Detective McCall: We, that’s a yes or no question. Yes, it looks like this is about her son.

Lady: And the email begins by using her first name, Athena, right?

Detective McCall: Yes, it does.

Lady: And Detective McCall, it’s personal in nature, isn’t it?

Detective McCall: I don’t consider that personal in nature. Personal to me is when I have coffee with somebody or we talk about our kids. I’m just calling her by her first name.

Lady: Okay, so this is an email communication and you’re discussing her son.

Detective McCall: Personal to me is when I have coffee with somebody or we talk about our kids. Yes, it looks like this is about her son. Or we talk about our kids. Yes, it looks like this is about her son.

Thomas: Aside from outright lying, a common tactic by McCall is simply to play stupid and to pretend he doesn’t know something to help avoid responsibility.

Lady: Detective McCall, it’s a statement of opinion about whether or not a group can spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, correct?

Detective McCall: Correct. I’m not sure if I understand.

Lady: And you have no idea today how that communication got in your original case file. Is that your testimony?

Detective McCall: Yeah, I don’t remember where I got this. I’m sure it was forwarded to me somehow. I just don’t remember where it came from.

Lady: And you have no explanation in terms of what a thing being communication is doing in your original case file?

Detective McCall: I’m sure at the time I thought there was some type of value to it, but I just don’t remember why exactly I put it in there.

Lady: Now, you understand that a promise to tell the truth doesn’t guarantee truth telling, right?

Detective McCall: That’s correct.

Lady: However, it does underscore the importance of an interview, right?

Detective McCall: I’m a little confused.

Lady: Now, it’s critical that an interviewer take time before an interview to consider alternative explanations for the allegations, right?

Detective McCall: Okay. That’s a tough question. You know what? I don’t know.

Lady: Now, Detective McCall, what is that exactly?

Detective McCall: Well, it looks like it might be an email, but I think this is one of the emails that I read last week, or the week before. I think it’s an email.

Lady: The date on the message, this is a message from Athena, right?

Detective McCall: Yes, it’s signed Athena.

Lady: And it says 18 hours ago, current time 122. Emails are not dated in that way, are they?

Detective McCall: No, I’ve never seen an email dated this way.

Lady: That’s more consistent with a Facebook post, right?

Detective McCall: I guess it could be. I really don’t know.

Lady: Something that was posted a certain number of hours ago is very typical the way Facebook messages are posted, right?

Detective McCall: I just don’t know. I’ve never printed a Facebook post.

Lady: You’ve seen a Facebook post, right?

Detective McCall: I have. I’ve seen a Facebook post.

Lady: And you’ve seen that it indicates how long ago it was posted, right?

Detective McCall: That’s true. It does. It has the time on there that the person posted it.

Lady: So, this looks more like a Facebook post than an email, doesn’t it?

Detective McCall: I’ve never printed a Facebook post, so it could be a Facebook post. I’ve just never seen one printed before.

Thomas: Because McCall constantly changed his story, flip-flopped, played dumb, and generally acted like a giant toddler on the stand, the defense attorney repeatedly had to bring out a giant binder filled with his statements and have him read them. I’ll be referring to this as the book of shame.

Lady: When you talked to Athena Dean, you talked to her about this case, right?

Detective McCall: No, I think the only person I would probably talk to would be Jessica Gamble, the mother of the victim.

Lady: Is it your testimony that you never talked to Athena Dean by phone about this case?

Detective McCall: No, I’m sure that I spoke to Athena Dean on the phone. I just don’t remember exactly what we spoke about.

Lady: And does that refresh your recollection about talking to, what you told me about talking to Athena Dean?

Detective McCall: And I said, I think it was after Malcolm’s arrest that I spoke to her.

Lady: And you talked to her about this case, right?

Detective McCall: I don’t remember what we talked about, to tell you the truth.

Lady: I’m handing you what’s been marked with Penance Exhibit No. 8, Mark of Identification, and ask you to take a look at that.

Detective McCall: Okay.

Lady: I’m handing you what’s been marked with Penance Exhibit No. 10, Mark of Identification, and ask you to take a look at that.

Thomas: Instead of conducting an actual investigation, doing things like visiting and inspecting the house, something he never did, McCall communicated closely with Athena Dean, the woman who despised Sound Doctrine Church and claimed that she wanted to burn their church building to the ground.

Lady: Now, Detective McCall, Athena Dean took an active role in this case, didn’t she?

Detective McCall: No, she did not.

Lady: Athena Dean became active in communicating with you about this case, correct?

Detective McCall: No, I think there was one email I sent to Athena asking her who Malcolm Fraser had lived with, let’s see, since he came to America, I think was the question.

Lady: That email wasn’t sent to Athena Dean, it was sent to Jessica Gamble, wasn’t it?

Detective McCall: Well, I don’t remember. It could have been sent to Jessica.

Lady: Okay. And she sent you several emails, is that right? Athena Dean sent you several emails?

Detective McCall: Yes, Athena Dean sent me several emails.

Lady: So, you saw Athena Dean at the Eden Park Police Department on March 15, 2012?

Detective McCall: Possibly, yeah. I don’t remember the exact date that I saw her.

Lady: But it was the same day you talked to Athena?

Detective McCall: I think it was the same day that Athena came in as well.

Thomas: Why on earth does this random woman, Athena Dean, who wants to see their church burnt to the ground, be so heavily involved in McCall’s investigation? The answer is they both wanted to see the church burned to the ground. Beyond perjuring himself repeatedly on the stand, McCall was presented with a Facebook post from Athena Dean that showcased that she was aware Fraser was going to be arrested prior to the investigation completing.

Lady: You didn’t know the details of the allegations until you interviewed her on March 19, 2012, right?

Detective McCall: That’s correct. I just knew what was reported to us in the CPS report.

Lady: You had no opportunity to evaluate the credibility of her accusations until you interviewed her on March 19.

Detective McCall: That’s correct.

Lady: And so, you had no reason to arrest Malcolm Fraser until after you interviewed him on March 19, 2012, correct?

Detective McCall: That’s correct.

Lady: But that communication indicates, and I quote, “Please don’t talk anymore about it until I let you know that Malcolm has been arrested.”

Detective McCall: That’s true, that’s what it says, but there’s no quotation marks, just a sentence.

Thomas: Because McCall was colluding so heavily with the former church member in a manner that is clearly unethical, if not outright illegal, McCall accidentally deleted much of his correspondence between himself and Athena Dean.

Lady: And on September 26, 2012, you told us we had all the emails from Athena Dean, correct?

Detective McCall: Yes, I probably did say that, that all the emails that I had saved from Thelma Fraser were probably then added because you said you wanted them.

Lady: Okay, but my question is, on September 26, 2012, you told us that we had all the emails from Athena Dean, right?

Detective McCall: Yes, I think so.

Lady: And in fact, you deleted some emails from Athena Dean, right?

Detective McCall: I told you at that time that I probably deleted some emails, I couldn’t remember which ones I had, and then there were some that I had saved.

Lady: Detective McCall, on September 26, 2012, I don’t want to be difficult here or belabor, but you told us we had all the emails from Athena Dean, and then later you acknowledged that you had deleted some emails, right?

Detective McCall: That could be true, yes.

Thomas: It cost in the neighborhood of $50,000 for government agencies to attempt to recover the emails to no avail. As you might imagine, if you’re aware of McCall’s history, he faced no repercussions for concealing evidence and costing taxpayers a significant amount of money. We don’t have time in this video to go through all of McCall’s testimony. However, suffice it to say, it wasn’t particularly helpful for the prosecutor’s case. Part of the reason was because it was painfully clear how much he hated the church in question, which provided a pretty clear motive for why he would want to fabricate the allegations against the pastor. Magically, however, there happened to be an individual who managed to whisper in Simmons’ ear as McCall was testifying.

This individual was a woman by the name of Arletta Van Hoof. She just so happened to be sitting and watching the trial, McCall specifically, when she let Simmons know that she had an interaction with McCall, which she felt would help his case. As it would turn out, Van Hoof regularly bought coffee supplies from an individual who served as a different pastor for the church, not the defendant. Apparently, as the allegations hit the newspaper, this woman approached McCall and asked if she should continue to do business with the man whom she bought coffee supplies from. Keep in mind, while this man was a pastor for the church, he owned his own coffee supply company that was in no way affiliated with the church. McCall told her that she should just continue to do business with him. In the mind of Simmons, this showed that McCall did not have any bias against the church.

Man: It does anticipate that we’re seeing from Grant McCall an interaction he had with a woman by the name of Arletta Van Hoof. This interaction took place after the defendant was charged. He came across Ms. Van Hoof, who at the time had a small business. She procured many of her coffee supplies through the Sound Doctor Church. She asked… She procured items through the Sound Doctor Church, or at least through, I believe, the Salt Shaker Bookstore, an entity associated with Ms. Van Hoof. Importantly, Ms. Van Hoof asked Detective McCall, in essence, if she should stop doing business with them because she was concerned because of the allegations that came out about Malcolm Fraser. The detective indicated, no, there’s no reason, they’re not bad people, the only issue potentially is the defendant. I believe that that directly rebuts assertions and allegations made that he’s biased in some way, he’s motivated by some sort of animosity towards the church.

Lady: So, is it your opinion that the proof exhibited by Malcolm’s group is evil and twisted?

Detective McCall: Their proof is bad, yes.

Lady: Is it evil and twisted?

Detective McCall: Yes, it is.

Man: That being said, I was just spoken in my ear by someone sitting here who happened to be Van hoof, who’s here for the trial. I asked her to step outside because we’re talking about her. I’m more than happy to call her as a witness. Indeed, I think that defense has made this an issue in their cross-examination. The state certainly would have never called her as a witness, absent defense, putting on all this biased evidence. But I’m more than happy to call her immediately after taking the call. You know, Ms. Van Hoof indicated that she was here for a portion of what I think would, my understanding would be a 3/5 portion of the technical cost testimony.

Thomas: Beyond the clear and obvious problem of her testimony being in direct violation of what trial attorneys commonly refer to as the rule, a witness seeing other testimony prior to their own, she had a personal connection to the King County Prosecutor’s Office.

Lady 1: Van Hoof is the mother of an alleged victim that was, the defendant was prosecuted by Mr. Simmons’ office late last year. I don’t know if Mr. Simmons had that case or not, but it was in his office. I know that the defendant pled guilty in that case to some amended charge. It’s not clear to me. I did contact his attorney’s office, Jim Newton’s office, to ask about that case while it was pending. The business that Mr. Simmons is referring to is Northwest Coffee Supply. Northwest Coffee Supply is owned and operated by Joshua Williams. Other than that, there’s no connection to Sound Doctrine Church, or Salt Shaker Bookstore, or Winepress Publishing.

Thomas: Despite the last minute and completely irrelevant and inappropriate nature of her testimony, the judge, of course, allowed her to testify.

Lady 2: I am going to allow the testimony by Detective McCall. Most importantly, I think it goes, it is proper rebuttal, and I believe it goes to his state of mind, which is sort of the issue before the court with regard to, and before the jury with regard to the bias issue. With regard to the testimony of Ms. Van Hoof, with regard to the question that she asked, which sort of initiated, I think it gives context to his, to Detective McCall’s statements. I do, in this instance, agree with the prosecution that this question is not a statement an assertion for the truth of the matter, certainly, and therefore it’s appropriate to add that information.

Thomas: Keep in mind, the judge did not allow Enumclaw’s city attorney to testify to the fact that he warned McCall personally that the charges were likely fabricated because, to her, it was not relevant.

Lady 1: I believe that Mike Reynolds, the city attorney for Enumclaw, when he learned of these allegations of Malcolm Frasier’s arrest, went to the Enumclaw police department, that he was aware of the hostility between Athena Deane and Sound Doctrine Church, and advised Detective McCall to look at the other side of this case, specifically any motive that may have to fabricate that may be related to Athena Deane.l And I believe that the testimony will be from Detective McCall that he failed to follow up on the city attorney’s admonition to look at the other side of this case in order to fabricate the allegations.

Lady 2: The fact that this came from this particular person is not relevant, and I think it would serve a purpose that is not appropriate for the trial.

Thomas: Apparently, it is relevant if somebody asks permission from a police officer to do business with someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the case, but what is not relevant is a city official familiar with all the parties involved expressing his views on the clear motive he observed as to why the allegations would be fabricated. As you’ll be able to notice throughout this trial, the judge, Lori K. Smith, was very careful to prevent the defense from presenting anything before the jury that implied the allegations were fabricated, which is a long-winded way of saying they were not allowed to present a defense. Nevertheless, the prosecution was free to present Van Hoof’s testimony, and the trial moved on.

Man: Are you familiar with the Sound often Church? Have you heard of it? And is that a yes? I’m sorry.

Lady: Yes.

Man: And to your understanding, at the time, did you know if Joshua Williams was associated with the Sound Doctrine Church in any way?

Lady: I wasn’t sure really what the church was or anything about it. I had so much going on that I didn’t really care. I just needed help.

Man: What were your concerns?

Lady: I wanted to know if it was safe for me to continue business with Joshua because I didn’t want my kids anywhere near something that could yet hurt them again.

Lady 2: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike. And I would ask for a recess.

Thomas: With that, it was time for the prosecution to call the cornerstone of his prosecution against Sound often Church.

After spending the vast majority of the trial slandering a church’s beliefs and practices, it was time for Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jason Simmons to call the complaining witness in the case. There are a couple of things to note before we proceed, however. First is that the judge ordered that the complaining witness was not allowed to be on video during her testimony, so the court audio is what we have to use instead. The second is a bit of a viewer discretion is advised warning. The reality is that Enumclaw Police Detective Grant McCall suggested some pretty graphic details to the complainant, and as a result, some of it had to be repeated. With this being the case, viewer discretion is advised. If you thought, however, that he would focus on the allegations solely, you would be wrong. Devoid of any evidence that the alleged crimes took place, it was an important part of the state’s case to slander, smear, and castigate the church in this case as much as possible. That being said, let’s see if you can pick up on a pattern by the questions that the prosecution asked to the complaining witness.

Man: What’s the name of the church?

Lady: Sound Doctrine.

Man: You mentioned clothes. Was there any sort of guidelines for the clothes you were supposed to wear at the Sound Doctrine Church? When you were a child in this church, were you concerned with your own salvation? Previously, you used this term, rebuke. Do you and your understanding, what was a rebuke when you were at the Sound Doctrine Church? When you heard that you’re leaving Sound Doctrine Church, how did that make you feel?

Thomas: Aside from the church itself, the government-employed prosecutor couldn’t pass up the opportunity to take some swipes at homeschooling.

Lady: I was homeschooled.

Man: Did you ever attend any sort of homeschooling at the Sound Doctrine Church? And were all these other kids that were participating in homeschooling at times, were they members of the church? How about summers? Would you still be homeschooling during the summer?

Thomas: When the King County prosecutor had finished the process of painting a church’s religious practices in as poor a light as possible, it was time for him to dive into the graphic details of the allegations themselves. As he did, he was very careful to not allow the complaining witness to simply say what she thinks happened. Similar to Detective McCall, he was free to guide her through what happened to her as to make it easier for her to keep the story straight. We’re going to play the entirety of Simmons’ questioning, largely because it was highly graphic, but also because it was incredibly repetitive. Throughout the course of the direct questioning, he led the accuser through the graphic details four, five, sometimes six times. Since there was no evidence, he could present to point to the allegations being true, he had to settle for getting them to be repeated a thousand times.

Rather than taking part in his brainwashing session, however, we’ll instead focus on bullet-pointing exactly what she, Simmons, and Detective McCall alleged to help us determine its credibility. First, let’s start with the timeline. When did she allege these things occurred, and for how long? This is a little difficult to pin down because her answer to this question has changed over time, as did many of her answers. What was written in her original report was that the incidents took place while the Fraser’s, Malcolm and his wife Julie, lived with her and her family for a year. The alleged abuse took place two to three times per week, and never on a weekend, only on weekdays. She also alleged the abuse happened approximately 20 times throughout the time the Fraser’s lived with her family, the Gambles. Setting aside the obvious math issues with those numbers, we’re instead going to focus on the key memories she had to piece together the timeline.

The first is her bedroom. This is something her stepdad and others constructed to provide her privacy from her two sisters. According to her testimony, it was started prior to the Fraser’s living in her family’s house, and the construction finished while they were living there.

Lady: Well, I think that they started building it before they moved in, and it got like totally finished when they were living in our house.

Thomas: The reason this bedroom is important is because the alleged abuse only took place within this room, so it’s reasonable to assume the bedroom had to exist for the allegations to have taken place. A conservative estimate for the completion of the room would be about two to three weeks after the Fraser’s started living there until the room was complete and she could begin sleeping in it. The problem is that when the room was first built, there was no door. It only had a blanket that was covering the entrance. She was very clear that the alleged abuse only took place when there was a door on her room and not just a blanket. According to her, it was approximately a week for them to customize and then install the door.

Lady 1: When you moved into that room, was there a door on that room?

Lady 2: I think that I had like a blanket for like a little bit when I first moved into that room, but then he put up a door.

Lady 1: How long of a period of time did you sleep in the room with just a blanket on the door if you can recall?

Lady 2: Maybe like a week or two.

Thomas: It was likely longer than this according to other testimony, but we’ll just stick with what her time frame was here. This puts us up to about three to four weeks or so that the Fraser’s stayed in the house when according to the complaining witness herself, nothing happened. This wasn’t the end of her timeline, however. According to her, nothing happened for the last month in which the Fraser’s lived with her family. That would put us right up to about a seven-to-eight-week period, which according to the complaining witness herself, nothing happened. So, this would leave us with a whopping 10-month period where the alleged abuse could have taken place, but there’s more. According to the original report she made to Detective McCall, which we’ve been ignoring up to this point, she stated that nothing happened for the first two months that they lived there.

Lady 1: You told Detective McCall that the first two months the Fraser lived with you, nothing happened, right?

Lady 2: I said the first couple months, but I didn’t say two exactly, but yes.

Lady 1: Okay, so you told Detective McCall that it was a couple months.

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: Does a couple mean two to you?

Lady 2: Not always necessarily, but…

Lady 1: Does it mean more than one?

Lady 2: Yeah, a little more than one, yes.

Thomas: Despite trying to change the meaning of the word couple, after all, if you see a couple in the street, you don’t think one. But this still leaves us with an eight-month period, right? Except for there’s one massive problem with this. The Fraser’s lived with the Gamble family for seven weeks. As it later came out in the defense witness testimony, corroborated with a number of bank statements, utility bills, signed agreements, and other physical evidence, it became abundantly clear that the Fraser’s lived with the Gambles for seven weeks. Now it is true, the defense didn’t have compelling arguments like this to validate the timeline.

Lady: Mr. Noreen, isn’t it fair to say that it’s almost next to impossible to pin down specifics during that period of time?

Man: I would not agree with that statement, because there are powerful emotions attached to events.

Lady: Do you remember what time of year that was?

Man: No, if I could, seasons, it was normal fall, maybe it was winter, fall, spring, or spring, fall, summer. I can’t pin down dates for you.

Lady: So, I think you just listed all the seasons.

Thomas: The documentation sourced from multiple places made it clear for everyone that the exact timeframe was seven weeks. So devastating was this to the prosecutor’s case, he decided to say in his closing arguments that it didn’t matter whether the Fraser’s lived there for seven weeks or seven months.

Man: Whether it was seven weeks or seven months does not matter.

Thomas: The problem with Simmons’ statement that it doesn’t matter is that it really does matter. As we’ve already worked through, there are specific events the complaining witness was basing her memory off of for the timeframe when the abuse was allegedly taking place. According to her memory, the timeframe based on events she was recalling made it impossible for the events to have occurred. She made it clear her room wasn’t completed for three to four weeks after the Fraser’s moved in, and that last four weeks they lived there, nothing happened. This leaves us with seven to eight weeks of time when nothing happened within a possible timeframe of seven weeks. For the math majors out there, that leaves us with a grand total of zero weeks in which this could have possibly taken place.

Keep in mind, she did not say this happened once. She did not say this happened twice. But some were in the ballpark of 20 times and never on a weekend. Which, by the way, her stepdad went away just about every weekend during this time, so apparently this abuse only took place while he was home? Timeline aside, let’s go on to the details themselves. As the complaining witness started getting asked questions about what she was alleging, the details didn’t hold up.

Lady 1: When he put his hand over your mouth, you fought back immediately, didn’t you?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And it was your testimony that he pinned you with one arm. Is that right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: So, by pinning, I think, well, tell me if this is true, that he took his hand and put it between your shoulder and your elbow and held you down on your back with one arm, correct?

Lady 2: Like, on my back? Like, I don’t…

Lady 1: You testified he was pinning you down, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And he was doing that with one hand, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And he had his hand on your arm, right?

Lady 2: He had, like, his, like, kind of his arm, like, pinning you down, and his hand over my mouth.

Lady 1: I see. Do you remember that you told me that he was, he had you between the elbow and shoulder and was holding you on the back?

Lady 2: Yes, I remember saying that.

Lady 1: Okay, are you telling us that’s not true? So, you told us he would try to make you kneel on your bed, right?

Lady 2: Or on the floor, yes.

Lady 1: And so, if he was trying to make you kneel on your bed, he would be standing on your bed if he was kneeling, right?

Lady 2: No.

Lady 1: So, if you were kneeling on your bed, and he was trying to have you have contact with your mouth and his penis, how was Malcolm Fraser?

Lady 2: I don’t understand what you’re asking.

Lady 1: How was Malcolm Fraser’s body positioned when you were kneeling on the bed?

Lady 2: Standing in front. My mattress was on the floor, so…

Lady 1: So, Malcolm Fraser was standing in front of you as you were kneeling on the bed?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And he was standing on your mattress?

Lady 2: No, he was standing on the floor.

Lady 1: Do you recognize that photograph?

Lady 2: I don’t remember ever seeing this photograph, no.

Lady 1: Okay, is that you in the photograph?

Lady 2: Yes, it is.

Lady 1: Is that you in front of your room?

Lady 2: Yes, it is.

Lady 1: And is that the room that this occurred in?

Lady 2: Yes, it is.

Lady 1: Is that how your room was in 2005?

Lady 2: No.

Lady 1: 2006?

Lady 2: No.

Lady 1: Okay, so, um, was that how your room was in 2004?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: Okay, so that’s how your room looked in 2004. And in that picture your bed is on a, has a headboard and is on a box spring, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: When did they take out the box spring and headboard and put you on a mattress on the floor?

Lady 2: I don’t remember exactly when it was, but I wanted my mattress to be on the floor.

Lady 1: Okay, so you asked them to take out the headboard and box spring?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And they did that because you asked them to do that?

Lady 2: Yes.

Thomas: Her parents, by the way, have no memory of removing her bed’s headboard and box spring and putting her mattress on the floor, nor are there any photos of her bed being in that arrangement while she was in the room that she alleged. There was another particularly graphic detail that kept making its way into the testimony. Let’s see if you can spot the progression of this particular detail of the accusation from its creation to the end of the trial. It, of course, starts with the twisted mind of Detective Grant McCall. Then here’s somebody reading the portion of the transcript of McCall’s interview with the complaining witness where he fabricates that specific detail.

Lady: Question: And you’re sure that his fingers didn’t penetrate your vagina? Answer: Yes. Question: What about your anus? It’s okay. Answer: Yeah, he did.

Thomas: Then is the prosecutor repeating McCall’s fabrication and getting the complaining witness to agree to it.

Man: Did you have a specific memory of the first time he put his finger inside your anus?

Thomas: And lastly, we have Simmons in his closing argument saying that this specific detail, the detail that McCall invented, among others, was what made her believable.

Simmons: And in many ways, another component of her credibility is what she has said, but just as much as what she hasn’t said. Her disclosure, what she’s reported, is kind of peculiar, which makes it credible that he would come up and touch her and that he put his finger in her anus, not her vagina. That’s credible in the fact that this is concocted. I wouldn’t say that.

Thomas: Then there were other details that should have been pretty easy to recall if the allegations were true.

Lady 1: Malcolm Fraser’s, is he a brief or a boxer guy?

Lady 2: Boxers or briefs? I don’t know. His underwear was not the main thing that I was trying to pay attention to.

Lady 1: Remember telling us they were briefs? And you testified that it was a normal male penis, right?

Lady 2: Yes, from what I saw.

Lady 1: And in this case, it’s Caucasian male?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And the penis was circumcised?

Lady 2: Yes.

Thomas: For the record, he wore boxers, not briefs, and was not circumcised. That is to say, with a 50/50 shot of guessing and getting them right in both scenarios, she was 100% wrong. Beyond the details, the next thing we need to determine from the testimony itself is outside evidence that what she was alleging is in fact true. Something we need to keep in mind is that every single one of the alleged instances of abuse were violent and loud. She said that in every instance, multiple times, she screamed as loud as she could. Let’s start with her stepfather, Greg. Greg was often gone on the weekends. However, as MC testified, the abuse never took place while he was gone, only while he was home.

Lady 1: You testified that it always happened in the middle of the week, not during the weekend, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: So, Greg Gamble was always home when it happened, right?

Lady 2: Yeah, he was always home during the week for the most part, I’m pretty sure.

Thomas: Now, if you were perpetrating a violent crime, it seems that less potential witnesses would be smarter than, you know, more potential witnesses, but who knows. Now, let’s see what he witnessed in regards to the 20+ incidents of screaming and fighting in a house where sound travels extremely well.

Lady: Now, in the time that Malcolm and Julie Fraser lived with you, you never saw or were aware of Malcolm Fraser going up to the attic, were you?

Man: Did you ever personally hear anything that caused you suspicion that something might be going on upstairs?

Thomas: So, her stepdad didn’t hear anything, but surely, surely her mom did, right?

Man: So, let’s say the girls are upstairs being rowdy, would you be able to hear them necessarily if you were in your room?

Lady: If I was in my room, I would be able to hear them.

Man: So, if you were in your room, show us on 110 where the girls, if they were being rowdy, you could hear them.

Lady: Well, this is directly above our room right here.

Man: Okay, and you’re pointing to the bottom right?

Lady: Yeah.

Man: Okay. And so, would it be that you would hear voices or would you hear them stomping up?

Lady: Yeah, stomping up. They were jumping around. We couldn’t hear their talking at all.

Man: You couldn’t hear their talking at all?

Lady: I mean, if they were yelling, we could hear that.

Man: While Malcolm Fraser was in your home, do you remember ever hearing anything suspicious at night?

Lady: No.

Thomas: One interesting point that MC made during her testimony, specifically about her mother, was her keen ability to notice when even the slightest thing was wrong with her. She would often nag MC until she would tell her exactly what was wrong.

Lady: No. If something was wrong with me, my mom would kind of have to constantly nag me about it until I finally told her what was wrong. But she wasn’t someone that I just volunteered stuff like that to.

Man: Do you recall what MC had moved back around him?

Lady: No, because I wasn’t really looking at her specifically. I don’t. No, I don’t.

Thomas: So, let’s get this straight. Her mom was able to tell when she was in a slightly grumpy mood and nag her about it, but she wasn’t able to spot any signs of her being violently raped night after night for several months? They only lived there for seven weeks, but again, her story was that this happened over the course of an entire year. Now a point that the prosecutor brought up in his closing arguments was that if this was all a big conspiracy and the accuser was lying, wouldn’t her parents just lie and say that they suspected something was happening with their daughter?

Man: And if her mom’s part of this big conspiracy, why didn’t her mom testify, oh yeah, you know, the defendant, I would see him kind of sneaking up and down the stairs at night, or it would only be kind of strange when I would hear him upstairs in the middle of the night. If it’s a big conspiracy, why didn’t people testify to things differently?

Thomas: Setting aside the casual nature in which this prosecutor throws out perjury as an option in his closing argument, the reason she wouldn’t want to do that besides going to prison for perjury is because if she testified that she did hear the alleged abuse taking place, she would then have to answer why she heard evidence of a horrific act taking place and then choosing not to do anything about it. But again, this is the level of reasoning we’re able to get out of a government employee who wields the power to put people in prison regardless of their guilt. That being said, what was the summary of the evidence we ascertained from the complaining witness’s parents? 20+ acts of violent abuse and confrontation with constant screaming for help and neither parent ever heard a thing.

The other two individuals who would have been relevant witnesses were MC’s two younger sisters who slept in the attic at the time the crimes were alleged to have occurred. According to MC’s testimony at the time of the abuse, one sister slept near the stairs and the other on the opposite side of the attic near the window. According to the testimony throughout the trial, the family’s pet dog would often alert the kids to her presence because of the sound of her claws clicking on the old wooden stairs as she made her way up. From MC’s testimony in every instance, Fraser walked up these loud, creaky stairs within feet of one of the sisters, made his way to her room, and committed abuse so devastating that she screamed throughout. And somehow, someway, neither of these two sisters ever heard a thing. Keep in mind, the clicking of the family dog’s nails had the potential to wake up one or both of these sisters, yet the footsteps of a full-grown man within feet of their beds, followed by ear-piercing screaming, could not.

It is especially worthy of note the fact that King County Prosecutor Jason Simmons never called either of these sisters as witnesses, which is curious. Why is it that those who were closest to the alleged crime were not relevant to the case? That would be like a bank robbery occurring with only two people in the bank, other than the teller who was actually getting robbed, and then not calling either of them to testify. The only reason you wouldn’t call them is if they didn’t see or hear anything. And the only way that would be possible is if there was nothing to see or hear.

Okay, so anyone who possibly could have seen or heard any of these alleged crimes didn’t. So, what evidence can we look at? The next would be physical evidence. As a part of the gruesome nature of these allegations, the complaining witness made claim that she found blood in her underwear on multiple occasions. 7 to 8 would be what she eventually testifies. One of the first questions asked was why her mother never noticed this, since of course she did her laundry. The answer was because she would throw them away and bury them within a small trash can in the main bathroom.

Lady 1: You saw blood in your underwear on seven to eight times from Malcolm Fraser’s conduct, right?

Lady 2: Maybe seven or eight times. I don’t know how many times for sure.

Lady 1: Okay, you told, in September, you told us it was seven or eight times, right?

Lady 2: I said I couldn’t give you an exact number, but I’d say maybe, probably about seven or eight times.

Lady 1: Okay, alright. So, probably seven to eight pair of underwear had blood stains on them, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: And you didn’t do laundry at this time in your house, right?

Lady 2: No.

Lady 1: Your mother did the laundry.

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: So instead of putting your underwear in the laundry, you threw them away.

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: Each time, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: You put the underwear in the trash.

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: You hid the underwear under some other trash that was already in the trash can.

Lady 2: Yes, I did.

Lady 1: And that trash can was in the bathroom downstairs, right?

Lady 2: Yes, it was.

Lady 1: You shared that bathroom with the Fraser’s and your sisters, right?

Lady 2: Yes.

Lady 1: So, in the six-month period of time this is happening, you threw away probably seven pair of underwear. Is that right?

Lady 2: Something like that, yeah, probably.

Thomas: Again, not only did her mother never hear anything at night, never noticed any cuts, bruises or scrapes as a result of the physical abuse she was supposedly facing, but also never noticed any underwear in this tiny trash can. Nor did she ever notice that eight pairs of her daughter’s underwear were missing. Again, for a very strict, attentive mother, she seemed to be conveniently missing every single sign that would signal that these allegations were true. Not only was there no physical evidence ever noticed on the complaining witness, but also for the defendant. According to the witness’s testimony, she scratched him, bit him, kicked him and punched him in the groin repeatedly and otherwise inflicted as much physical damage on him as was possible. Neither his wife, MC’s parents, nor any other person in this man’s life ever saw any evidence of these injuries the complaining witness said that she had inflicted upon him.

The last aspect of evidence to look at is things that were done to protect and defend against the alleged attacks. We’ve already discussed the physical attacks she inflicted on her attacker to defend herself, so clearly, she knew she needed to defend herself. Why then would you not grab a weapon to defend yourself if you knew a horrible act of abuse was coming? She didn’t do this. Instead, she apparently just waited patiently, reading a book while waiting for him to come upstairs.

Lady 1: You were waiting. You were expecting him to come? What were you doing? You said you would doze off? What else were you doing?

Lady 2: I was just… I would just kind of lay there and just stare at the ceiling or just think or…

Lady 1: You said you like to read. On days when you expected Malcolm Fraser to come up to your room, did you read?

Lady 2: Maybe some of the time I read, like when I first went to bed, but I didn’t read, like, up until the point that he was in my room.

Lady 1: Sure. So, there were some nights when you would read and then put your book down and then wait for him to come?

Lady 2: Well, it’s not like I was waiting for him. Like, I would put my book down and just kind of, like, lay there and… I, like, sometimes anticipated that he might come up, but it’s not like I was just waiting for him to come up there.

Lady 1: Okay. So, on every occasion it was a horrible event. It was violent, right?

Lady 2: Yes, every time it was a horrible thing. It’s not a fun thing.

Lady 1: It was violent.

Lady 2: There was always a struggle between us, yes.

Lady 1: And did you ever bring anything to your bedroom to protect yourself?

Lady 2: No, I did not.

Lady 1: Did you ever grab a tool out of your dad’s toolbox?

Lady 2: No, I didn’t.

Lady 1: Your dad had hammers, or your stepfather, pardon me, your stepfather had hammers in his toolbox, right?

Lady 2: Yes, I’m sure he had hammers in his toolbox.

Lady 1: So, you never grabbed any kind of instrument in which to use a pencil sharpener, did you?

Lady 2: No, I didn’t.

Thomas: Beyond this, she had a lock on her bedroom door. We know this because she said she used it to lock her sisters out at times. When asked why she never used it, she said she would get in trouble with her mother if the door was locked in the morning.

Lady 1: Now, you were asked about whether or not your door had a lock on it, the door of your room up in the attic. And do you remember locking your sisters out?

Lady 2: Yeah, I think at some point it did have a lock on it.

Lady 1: But you never locked Malcolm Fraser out of your room?

Lady 2: No, I never locked my door because if the next morning I had my door locked, then I would be in trouble.

Lady 1: If you locked your door, you’d be in trouble by your mother?

Lady 2: Yes.

Thomas: Okay, so let me get this straight. You’re more worried about your mom getting mad at you than you are being violently raped? Again, there is no world where that could possibly be true. Now, one thing you might be wondering up to this point is, according to her, why did it take seven to eight years before she finally told somebody about these allegations? According to her, she was told by the defendant that if she ever told anybody, she would go to hell. As with the other arguments, however, this one too fell apart pretty quickly.

Lady 1: If anyone was going to hell, the perpetrator of this conduct would be a more likely candidate to go to hell, right?

Lady 2: I’m sorry, can you say that question one more time?

Lady 1: If anyone was going to go to hell with regard to this conduct, the perpetrator would be the more likely candidate to go to hell, right?

Lady 2: I thought, I didn’t believe that, no.

Thomas: The true answer to this question is that Athena Dean entered her family’s circle and inflamed new rage towards this particular pastor and Sound Doctrine Church as a whole. It was only a very short time later that these allegations popped into existence. Either way, if there’s one thing that’s been consistent throughout with this and all of the witnesses thus far, it has been constant lying. Upon concluding the last of their witnesses, the state rested their case. After it was said and done, aside from the complaining witness herself, a grand total of zero witnesses provided any testimony that even hinted at the allegations being true. 75% of the state’s witnesses, on the other hand, had a clear bias and hatred for Sound Doctrine Church. With that being said, who do you think it was that the state had on trial?

Lady 1: Alright, we’ve gotten word from the jury that they haven’t moved it. And I just want to say to everyone in the courtroom, I realize that this is an emotional case, and people are very invested in the outcome. However, you will keep your decorum in this courtroom, or you will be forced to leave.

Lady 2: Will you rise for the jury?

Lady 1: So, I called you back into the courtroom. They indicated that the presiding juror stated that you will have reached the verdict. I’m going to ask that the clerk please read the verdict.

Lady 2: We’re going to inform, we need the jury to find the defendant, Malcolm John Fraser.

Post Number

This Post's ID Number Is= 8245

1. Remember the Post ID Number.
2. Enter the post number and it will be find.

See Post ID System For List Of Posts