We finally have the Transcript of the GRAND JURY INDICTMENT in our possession!
Faxed, mailed or delivered copies are available as requested. In addition to having enough power to tamper with First Amendment rights of the media, Andrew Thomas also has the authority to FALSIFY and re-CREATE "facts?"
Prior to beginning presentation of this case, the Jurors are informed that "there may have been some media coverage of this case"-- (remembering that Brent's photo, name, age and residence-- were broadcast NATIONWIDE 5 hours after the arrest!)-- and the Jurors are asked if they have been exposed to the media coverage. Only one Juror admits she has seen it and replies that the media coverage will not influence her ability to impartially make a decision regarding guilt; she is LATER excused from the Jury!
During presentation, the State recognizes there is a behavioral health question in evidence for Brent's behavior, but when the Grand Jurors question whether he will receive counseling and therapy if charged as an adult, they are told that the OUTCOME of their decision is NOT their concern: they are there only to determine "probable cause."
The Jurors are informed-- after deliberations have already begun-- under AZ Statute 13.501, the PROSECUTOR selects whether or not a 14-year-old is dealt with through either the juvenile OR adult judicial system, and that the PROSECUTOR has chosen, in this case, to charge the boy as an adult-- even though he has only just turned 14 (so in a mere 21 days he's gone from being a juvenile to an adult. An awfully quick maturation and education, methinks)
***The statute also states the juvenile's prior history of involvement with the law, social interactions and family life will all be considered as mitigating factors. NONE of these factors was considered in Brent's case by the PROSECUTOR, effectively negating his entire life prior to this, even though they WOULD have made a difference had they been considered in ANY capacity whatsoever.
At several junctures the Jurors display concern regarding the rehabilitation and continuing behavioral health care for this child. With each concern expressed, the Jurors are re-instructed and often cut off in mid-speech. They are informed that the future of this child is NOT to be considered in making their determination. One Juror clearly asks why, then, are the Jurors there at all? (Back to the question of the "Kangaroo Court!")
The Prosecutor's presentation also clearly states that Brent's intention was NOT to terrorize, but to end his own life; yet at another point in the testimony, it is strongly implied that he carried the firearm onto school grounds in his backpack the previous day-- when, in fact, the firearm never left our residence. Based on this "evidence," the Jurors are asked to consider this a "dangerous crime" even though two separate incidents--while originally defined as separate incidents-- become combined due to the confused manner in which they are presented later in the conversation, and without reclarification that they are indeed separate incidents. The Jurors even ask what part of "this" crime are they to be considering as the "dangerous" part?
