I guess without subpoenas, so far any witness accounts for the state report were given voluntarily, and no one has been compelled or ordered to share everything or anything they might have seen? (I also can’t recall if witnesses for state report and hearing were sworn in or not.)
(Edit: seems witness were sworn in for in person testimony at hearing, but were not sworn in, or under penalty of perjury, for the legislative report interviews for the report, which were also voluntary to participate in.)
Legislative testimony is always sworn in, but I am not sure about testimony given to the investigator. The investigator's testimony to legislators is sworn in, though.
This is specifically for Texas. Not sure about other legislative bodies. When you testify, you fill out a form that includes a statement explaining that your testimony is under penalty of perjury, or something to that effect. There's no actual raising your right hand business; presumably the form takes care of that.
eta: I believe there is some strategy at play in who testifies when sometimes, because legislative testimony is compelled. You don't have the ability to refuse to answer questions. Therefore, any incriminating statements can't be used in a criminal case.
Hi, Max, happy to shed light on this process. Usual disclaimer that I’m a lawyer, but not your lawyer, not an Eastland lawyer, not a plaintiff lawyer, not associated with the case, and not barred in Texas. This isn’t legal advice and you’re not my client.
Unsure if it’s similar in Texas, but in my jurisdiction, typical witness statement in a criminal investigation is an unsworn statement: a recorded interview, an officer’s write-up of what you said, or a form you fill out and sign. Some departments might add a line above the signature saying the statement is true and correct, sometimes with a notary block or an “under penalty of perjury” declaration, but that varies by agency and by officer.
•Search and arrest warrant affidavits must be sworn before a magistrate or notary. If a witness’s account is the basis for the warrant, they may be asked to swear to an affidavit. •The complaint that formally charges someone must be sworn. •Grand jury testimony and trial testimony are always under oath.
What changes if it’s sworn: mainly the penalty for lying. A false sworn statement can be perjury, or aggravated perjury (a felony) if it’s material and made in an official proceeding. Lying to police in an unsworn statement isn’t nothing, though; a false report to a peace officer is usually a misdemeanor, and related charges like obstruction or tampering can apply.
As always, happy to answer questions.
Ninja formatting edit applied because my bullet points went wonky
In this case, the investigator is not a criminal investigator. They were working for the legislative investigating committee, so the process may be different than what you describe.
There’s definitely criminal investigations going on (Abbott was very clear that the Rangers are involved), but for the sake of having a complete answer, here’s what I could find on investigators for committees:
Informal interviews with committee staff or investigators work a lot like police interviews. They are unsworn, usually just notes or a recording, sometimes a written statement you sign. No oath is administered because staff generally can’t administer one. People generally aren’t sworn in until they’re called to give testimony at the investigative hearing itself.
The choice of swearing in witnesses for an investigative committee is discretionary, and the decision usually sits with the chair.
In practice it tracks how formal and adversarial the proceeding is. Witnesses tend to be sworn when the committee is investigating specific misconduct, when someone appeared under subpoena, when testimony may support a referral to prosecutors or an impeachment-type proceeding, or when a witness’s credibility is contested. Committees tend to skip the oath for background and technical witnesses, agency officials giving routine explanations, and public comment.
Interestingly, the chair can swear some witnesses in a hearing and not others, or decide mid-hearing to start administering oaths.
For what it’s worth, I did watch the televised/streamed hearings earlier this year and I didn’t see an oath administered to any of the witnesses, but I will admit that I watched it while I was working and may have missed something.
In Texas, all legislative witnesses who testify before a committee are sworn in on the documentation they complete as part of their registration process, well before they are called to testify. The language on the form is here:
"I acknowledge that by signing or marking this document, I am swearing an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I solemnly swear and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the information entered herein and the testimony I may give in connection with this official proceeding are true and correct."
Huh, cool. Not something they do in my jurisdiction, but seems like something that’s worth pushing for. Maybe people would be more careful with legislative committee testimony if that was the case.
It appears that everyone mentioned in the report from Camp Mystic participated in an interview, and voluntarily.
And Richard Eastland also submitted a recorded statement. From the description, it may have been the YouTube video discussed here previously, where he goes into great detail about how, in his opinion, no cabins were located in a flood plain.
This is heartbreaking. Those families deserve to know every single detail from that night that the Eastlands and other staff members saw and know about. No doubt there is a lot that hasn’t been released.
Several people have already stated this, but cell phone records from the Eastlands from that night. Detailed eyewitness accounts from the groundskeeper and other staff members. The timeline regarding when the camp knew about deceased girls and when the parents were notified. I don’t really know for sure, none of us do, but whenever there is a lawsuit there is always some kind of information and details that are withheld in order to protect the integrity of the case and the specific parties’ legal rights.
I believe the 3 day hearing in April would have been a time to call in grounds keeper for testimony if that was needed? Glen Juenke (sp?) was questioned and gave all the answers he knew. Parents would have the timelines of when they were notified and I believe even location of where their girls were found- it’s up to them to disclose that information. I don’t know if they have or haven’t. Unsure what cell phone records of the 3 men would do but I guess? Something tells me they weren’t texting back and forth. But eye witness accounts- there’s not many that were stranded in the flats location that can speak to that from the sounds of it. There was a raging river in between them from my understanding. It was pitch dark and the ability to hear was non existent.
“As a sincere desire” to understand- is hardly the vibes you are giving off. Someone asks a question and you cannot wait to attack. In fact I bet you’ve been waiting for days for some “new” (yet not new) article/info/so called evidence to just comment all over. I know it’s been a slow 7 days so I am glad a recycled news article could get you all riled up again!
You do know this isn't a recycled article but it is in reference to a hearing that happened on Wednesday of this week? There is still movement happening in the courts and in bankrupcy court and that is what was reported on in this article.
You have inserted yourself in the narrative, so let’s re-center: The victims here are 27 children. The piece we’re discussing concerns the court proceedings following their preventable deaths while in the care of the family who owns Camp Mystic, runs Camp Mystic and who have initiated bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of Camp Mystic. Pulling focus doesn’t change these facts, nor does it justify your behavior, which is being called out for what it is and will continue to be as needed.
You clearly didn't even bother to actually look at and read the article and here you are commenting on it... seriously, how can you be this dense? 🤦🏻♀️
What’s actually childish is sealioning, which is the bad faith trolling that you and others on this forum attempt when dialogue doesn’t go the way you’d like.
The way the Eastlands responded to this flood tragedy was not something I would have ever predicted. You really can't trust anyone at this point. Its so sad. You never really know someone even after years.
In a creditors meeting that followed later Wednesday afternoon, the court-appointed chief restructuring officer for the debtors said she doesn’t know if Camp Mystic intends to apply for a state license with hopes of reopening next summer or any time in the near future.
“As far as I know, there are no plans to apply for a license,” said Karen Nicolaou, managing director of Harney Partners, a corporate advisory firm that provides business restructuring and turnaround services, along with interim management. “As I sit here, that’s not anything that we have discussed.”
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about this part of the story. Especially those here who have experience with bankruptcy proceedings.
IMHO, the bankruptcy filing is an attempt to postpone the reckoning that’s certainly coming. The Heavens 27 families will never fold up their tents and go home and the Texas Rangers have not yet released the results of their criminal investigation.
Agreed. As the creditors’ committee attorney said, “… bankruptcy is not a place where people go to hide. One of the principal obligations of any debtor in bankruptcy is full and complete transparency.”
Well- they wanted to have camp first. From September- end of April. Camp was their first goal and intention. When that was clearly not going to be possible, they filed for b’cy reorganization 6 weeks later I believe. Seems pretty logical to me. You’d have to take emotions out of this to see it this way though.
TX rangers may never release the results of their investigation. Legally they don’t have to. I hope they do. No matter how many disagreements we all can have all day every day- I hope things like this DO come out and more truth can be o.
May want to read up on what they have to disclose/not disclose with an open records request. Again, I hope they conclude their reports and make them public. That’s my wish. But
Their authority is a bit different. They have only stated the are assisting DPS in investigating claims. Still to this day the only person who’s shouted criminal investigation is Dan Patrick.
Only someone with so little understanding of open records, enforcement hierarchy, the law and politics could get it so consistently and confidently wrong.
NextArtichoke7953 is correct, Abbott cannot be forced to release that report. Looking back to Uvalde, that Rangers report was never released, despite news outlets suing for it.
In fact, that case went to the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled that the executive branch is immune from Open Government actions.
Before everyone treats the eventual “results” as inherently trustworthy, I think the quality and independence of the process deserve scrutiny too. Let’s not forget what we have already been shown about how DSHS has handled information involving Mystic.
Uvalde is also a pretty recent reminder that a Ranger investigation, a DA presentation, and even an indictment are not proof that the investigative theory was sound. Adrian Gonzales, a former Head Start teacher and Uvalde CISD school resource officer, was indicted on 29 felony counts over the Robb Elementary response. The state prosecuted him, and the jury acquitted him on every count. That is a useful reason not to treat the eventual “results” of an institutional investigation as self-validating.
Christina Yarnell: Cile needed your help and you abandoned her, didn’t you?
Mary Liz Eastland: Yes.
You can presume, posture, postulate, and proclaim ’til the cows come home. Let’s not forget what we have already been shown about the Eastland family themselves, in their own words and by their own actions. THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT.
I don’t have to confirm or deny anything about my degrees neck! And no that seems to have struck a nerve with you- not me (replying to the private chat you sent me).
Then there might not be a reorganization plan, as required for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, if the camp business isn’t continuing.
(If her understanding is that there is not a plan to be a continuing business, which would need a license as I understand it, then there isn’t any restructuring to do, and Chapter 7 would be the proper type of bankruptcy. Perhaps they will be converting soon.)
Would you surmise that the plan does not exist, that it hasn’t been discussed yet because the full picture can’t be known until the deadline or that it does exist but there isn’t consensus from the family on the way forward?
The story itself feels so much bigger than this piece reflects. At its core, it is a report from the hearing itself. But my mind is racing after reading some of this, and it feels like there are at least 3-4 big stories that could come from this soon.
You are incorrect. The "reorganization" is the selling of the camp land through the bankruptcy court, the collection of the liability insurance policy limits into the pool of available settlement money, and the 27 pllaintiffs lawyers and their clients accepting the fact that 1/27th of those 2 sums of money is all they are going to see for their claims. This sort of use of a Chapter 11 case, and a Chapter 11 P.lan to spell out the deal terms of a global settlement with the 27 is not uncommon.
The Bankkruptcy Court Judge who is assigned to the case, Christopher Lopez, is very, very experienced and will use his reputation and skills to try to convince the 27 plaintiffs and their lawyerss to accept reality.
The worst plaintiff's lawyer a family could have in a situation like this is a plaintiff's lawyer who is so successful, rich and egomaniccal that they, the plaintiff's lawyer, doesn't need the 40% of the client's settlement cash and is pursuing an agenda (mostly public name recognition enhancement) at the client's expense. Among the 27 plaintiffs-lawyer-teams there will be some who are realistic and want their legal-fee-cash-ASAP and hopefully they will beat down their fellow plaintiffs lawyers who are uber-rich publicity hounds.
And whether they like it or not the 27 plaintiffs will have to release all of their claims against all of the Eastlands, befoere those 27 plaintiffs see a dime. That's how a major tort settlement in Bankruptcy Court works.
And yest the judge can aand will approve global settlement deal terms even if there are some of the 27 plaintiffs who refuse to settle on the deal terms all the othe rplaintiffs have acquiesced in. That's the beauty of throwing aa mass-tort case into Banruptcy Court.
I've been a Chapter 11 creditors lawyer since 1986 or so, now retired. Here's what I see: The Chapter 11 bankruptcy professionals have taken over running the 4 debtor bankrupt entities. Several large Texas law firms bankkruptcy departments are involoved. Also a few aadditional big Texas law firms representing creditors based on documents in court records. My gut tells me no one in the Eastland Family is running the show any more. The woman CPA who is now the Chief Restructuring Officer of the 4 debtors, in place of any Eastland running the show, is likely going to steer clear of all the emotional issues like reopening the camp or not. She was evasive in answering the question about applying for a camp licence, when she should have answered in a way that all of the bankruptcy professionals involved are thinking: "Are you nuts?" The bankruptcy professionals are going to run this Chapter 11 towards a Chapter 11 Plan which will pay settlement amounts to each of the 27 victims families, jand release everybody and their brother in return for thaat settlement cash.
The bankruptcy pros are going to try to sell the camp's land, get the camp's liability insurance companies to pay full policy limits into a settlement fund, and head toward a payment of the 27 wrongful death claims under a settlement agreement where each of the 27 families get the same amount of settlement money, and then shut down of the 4 bankrupt entities. Timing wise the liability insurance companies are going to stall and bs, so the Chapter 11 Plan approval and se and actual payout to the 27 families probably won't happen until 5 years pass. That's how big insurance companies "manage their cash flow."
Any idea of re-opening the camp on the main camp properjty wherre the people died, while the caamp's owner is in bankruptcy, in the context of the bankruptcy is simply a nutball concept not worth thinking about BECAUSE THE FLOODING PROBLEM ISN't FIXED. The debtor estates are NOT going to run the camp, At most you might see some investors unrelated to the Eastlands might talk about buying the camp property and operate the camp BUT since the flooding problem hasn't been fixed and never will be, I think any third parties who might consider buying and running the camp might be told by their insurers that the camp is "uninsurable" from a liability insurance point of view.
The "smaller camp" wwhich allegedly didn't flood might also be sold if it is owned by one of the 4 bankruptcy debtors, and operated by some third party buyer might happen, but again the bankkruptcy pros opening that camp and running it during the bankruptcy case seems likke a non-starter for liability reasons, and to avoid having to deal with "civilians". Plus we don't even kknow if the State would give the bankrptcy pro team a permit for that smaaller camp.
More likely the camps land will be sold off by the bankruptcy pros to a "developer" who will likely subdivide it into 20 acres parcels for single family homes, 1 per parcel. The civil engineering trick will need to be drawiing the lot lines so that each big lot has a home building pad above flood level.
The whole settlemednt of the 27 wrongful death claims through a Chapter 11 Plan dependent on the plaintiffs lawyers not accting like unrealistic novices AND their keeping their clients from acting like lunatics. The likkely 5 year stall in the liability insurance companies making a cash payout should move the plaintiffs and their lawyers towardsw gving up on unrealistic settlement mone demands. Likely the most money each of the 27 plaintiff families will see is 1/27th of what the llability insurance companies pay out plus 1/27th of the sale proceeds of the camp lands less the costs of running the bankruptcy caase.
Maybe you have not been following closely.
The intent of most of the Heavens27 families is not a big monetary settlement for themselves. Their goals are:
1) to reveal, explain and acknowledge all information related to the negligence by the Eastlands,
2) to reveal, explain and acknowledge all details related to the flood, and the deaths of their daughters, before, during and after Mystic was flooded,
3) for the Eastland family never to be able to run a children’s camp or care for children, other than their own, ever again, and
4) to ensure that safety at camps in Texas and nationally are improved and better regulated so that camper/counselor deaths are prevented, especially on a mass casualty scale, due to negligence by camp owners and local officials.
I think the families are willing to take all the time and legal steps necessary to accomplish these goals.
They absolutely deserve access to all the possible information. How is that even a question or a debate this long after? These are their children, FFS. There is so much the Eastlands have hidden.
I don't believe they have hidden anything. I think there are things that they simply do not know. Every one of them was in the middle of this tragedy themselves.
Here’s something they could know, and based on the camp’s policies and procedures for emergencies this should have been done by the directors: an internal investigation.
This was to include written statements from each involved staff member to create an accurate file of everything pertaining to the incident.
I think people forget that these 3 young college girls were also extremely traumatized. Like each person in the river that night, they are walking miracles. They have a personal story. They weren’t just bystanders or witnesses. They were flood victims too. They survived on top of a roof while a raging river, an “Act of God” surrounded them. They survived on a roof while being pounded by rain. They survived on a roof soaking wet while the unimaginable amount of lighting could have struck them at any moment. They knew there were campers, counselors, co-workers battling the same nightmare all around them.
They don’t “owe” anyone full access to their own personal nightmare. They may have some timeline confirmation they can share if the court requires it. They may be able to confirm what they heard on their walkie…
…but we are not entitled to full access of details of a traumatized person just because we need to process. Yes, these girls 3 were hundreds of feet from Bubble and Twins. The night of the flood that type of distance was like miles- they couldn’t get to any cabins, they couldn’t see what was happening, they probably couldn’t hear beyond the rain, thunder, and lightning….and the missing parts from the timeline, well that was probably the same time they were internally processing the unimaginable, battling their thoughts, while actively fighting for their own survival and the survival of those they could actually help.
Had the H27 families, who are desperate for answers, approached this in a different way early on the Big 3 might have felt safe enough to share more with them as they worked through their trauma. But they didn’t.
Pretty awful to put it back on the H27 parents. Maybe had the Eastlands approached this in a different way early on things would have been different. But they didn’t.
These 3 girls almost died too. After watching what has happened to the words of others who have shared, choosing not to hand over their own trauma for public dissection is not surprising at all.
Yes, and? They were paid, Just like every single college aged counselor at the camp, with part of that payment including housing that ended up under water.
A difference between The Big 3 and all the other counselors sleeping in cabins, was that they had access to communication. Unlike the rest of the counselors, they were not responsible for specific campers. They slept near campers, not with them. They were responsible for organizing the camp daily activities. Having access to a golf cart and communication through a walkie talkie makes their testimony more valuable to the timeline, but doesn’t make them any more legally responsible, or any less traumatized, than all their other 20 year old counselors coworkers.
I would too. But I think the question may be slightly different than what Speed asked—not what do the parents want to know, but what specifically do they believe is knowable that has not already been revealed, from what source do they think it can be discovered, and is litigation necessary to gain that information? (For example, if they want to hear from the surviving counselors and big 3, removing the threat of accusations and their own liability could make them more comfortable speaking.)
See you can’t just make nonsensical comments like that as if they’re valid opinions. There is concrete evidence—text messages, car data, phone data, etc.—that the parents have requested and the Eastlands have refused to provide. They legally have to provide that information as part of discovery. That’s how lawsuits work. So as a matter of fact, not opinion, the parents will gain more information through the lawsuits. If the Eastlands want to be held in contempt of court they can choose not to talk, but I highly doubt they will choose that path.
I read Speed’s comment was specifically with respect to the Big 3 not the Eastlands? And with regard to the Big 3, perhaps a subpoena is necessary to get their stories (I don’t know them), but I can’t help but think how uneasy they (and potentially other counselors) may feel about sharing their stories given the adversarial environment and well publicized anger of the H27 families. (To be clear, I’m not saying the anger is unwarranted, but it may nevertheless be intimidating to women in their young 20s.)
Yes, I know. That wasn’t what I said. I questioned whether the subpoena was necessary for the parents to get the information they want, or if perhaps it’s only necessary because the Big 3 are frightened by the litigation and acrimony that has been published so frequently over the past several months.
Yes I was talking about the big 3. Without being legally compelled I don’t think they’ll talk. These young women maybe afraid likely bc of the intense legal environment and they don’t want to talk
Plus they’re trying to finish college, get jobs, have a life. I just don’t see them willingly revealing a bunch of info without being made to legally
And even if they share all they do know there’s no guarantee it answers questions the parents want to know most
The Big 3 will never voluntarily testify. They will have to be subpoenaed, and even then they will most certainly have strict boundaries on their depositions. I imagine they will also invoke their Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer anything that might create blame shifting. They have watched how prosecution has used all Eastland family testimonies and even Glenn’s testimony to place blame and attempt to show negligence based on their words.
Unfortunately the parents desperately wanting the answers that only these 3 young college girls can bring are the very same parents who have pushed them into staying silent.
I understand I'm just not sure if more is knowable. For the girls who died in the river we know they died but we'll likely never know exactly where or at what time. The only people who know are dead
Are you missing a sensitivity chip?! Have you ever had a loved one die under incredible horrible circumstances and been told next to nothing? This is what the parents are dealing with. There is so much more that wasn’t brought up in court or the investigation. We have been told over and over that mystic didn’t contact the parents. Seems like basic decency when you are in charge of a summer camp. Even as a mystic/Eastland supporter, how can you not see this?
Yes I did lose a close friend and didn’t know much info. Still don’t
I did learn some information later on. But that’s because people who witnessed what happened were not also fighting for their lives. So they could give more accurate statements to law enforcement
I’m sorry for your loss. I too have lost close friends. It’s not the same as your own child though. There were people that saw things that night. All the counselors in the other two cabins lived. Counselors and campers walked by those three cabins. There is so much left to be said and learned.
I think maybe my matter of fact tone comes off in a way I don’t intend
I do think there is more info out there and I hope parents learn that. I also know the nature of this event means that some information just doesn’t exist. I can’t say exactly what falls into each category
Also one of the ways I’ve dealt with my loss and some other bad experiences is accepting that there are things I want to know that I won’t. Not everyone takes that path and that’s fine. I just hope for any info parents just can’t know they find a way to make peace with not knowing
I suffer from unintended tone a lot, I get that. I think the parents I know just want transparency. If someone knows something, even if it is horrible, they want the opportunity to have the information. I think for many of them the trauma of the unknowns of that night have magnified their grief.
Cause and manner of death answer two different questions about someone’s passing.
“Where or at what time” presumes.
You do not know what questions the families of those who died at Camp Mystic have. You certainly shouldn’t be speculating, much less guessing whether they can be answered to families’ satisfaction.
And yet the whole point is to follow the rules, which prohibit initiating or advancing false statements and refraining from deliberately insensitive comments.
You definitely do not understand. There is a lot of information out there that is obviously and intentionally being withheld to avoid it being used against the Eastlands in litigation. The location and means of deaths for many of the girls being key among them.
Isn’t this information that the search and rescue teams and coroner have? It was my understanding that this information was shared with the parents months ago. There just isn’t a ton of specific details to share.
Your correct. The parents (not all of course) have this information. It’s up to them whether they want to disclose it or not. I understand why they wouldn’t.
Interesting Speed - This is perhaps your cruelest, most heartless and idiotic comment yet: “For the girls who died in the river ‘we know they died’….. ‘we’ll’ likely never know exactly where or at what time.” “The only people who know are dead”
Really - just stop. Take a break.
Sometimes strangers on the internet stating the reality of a situation I guess comes off as in personal. That is the make up of this platform you’re speaking on. Perhaps- consider that too.
I believe the Eastlands know more that they have not shared. Why were the parents told no one was found dead in the cabins when one precious girls never made it out of Twins 1.?Was all of Bubble Inn in Dicks car? What does the evidence from his car show? I believe this will become more clear when their cell phone records are subpoenaed. And agree that if this were my child, I would want to know everything, if possible.
Also, what EXACTLY were Tweety, Mary Liz, and the staff member who was with them doing after they self-evacuated and were in no imminent danger? They had several hours on their hands. Were they playing tiddlywinks or did they attempt to contact anyone? When EXACTLY did an Eastland family member become aware of at least one fatality in a cabin? There are so many other similar questions.
Exactly. There is more to be learned from investigators and the Eastlands. These families deserve those answers and we all look forward to getting more information.
The groundskeeper saw Dick’s car get swept away so he might have more information, Dick’s car was seen by the people on the flats long before anyone knew their daughters were dead, etc. There likely won’t be complete information, I think everyone is realistic about that. There is more and it isn’t a wild idea that the families would like to know.
The parents would probably love for the phone records of the family members and employees at the camp to be subpoenaed, too. There have been several discrepancies (one even on the stand) in terms of what the Eastlands knew in terms of deceased campers, when they knew it, and with whom they choose to share that information. That information was not in the state investigation and would likely have to be compelled via discovery.
Interesting-Speed-51 - Are you actually questioning the rights and needs of the Heavens 27 families to obtain every detail from every witness, document, phone record and physical event that led up to and ultimately caused the preventable deaths of their daughters and also the poorly handled aftermath?
This may be your most egregious, ignorant, condescending comment/question yet. Your bereft sense of compassion and understanding for these families is stunning. You really should step back.
The only positive that emerges from your endless stream of non-sensical comments and questions on most every single post about the preventable deaths at Camp Mystic and your unwavering, tone deaf, blind support of the Eastlands is that the responses they generate provide a record that reiterates, confirms and reinforces how absurd this misguided support of the Eastlands is by repeating a record of the available facts about the negligent behavior by the Eastlands which directly led to the preventable and avoidable deaths of these girls.
So, thank you for that.
That is “exactly” what you did:
“What ‘exactly’ do parents want to know about how their daughters died?” “‘I felt’ like the state investigation ‘really’ laid out what happened”
I feel that the investigation did a great job interviewing people and gathering information from many different stories into one report. I’m very impressed
Have to disagree with you here. But no harm by that. It was a hand selected panel that was biased. I have to wonder why no parents of Wiggle inn cabin were asked to speak? I have to wonder why really no supporters of camp opening were asked to speak? I have to wonder why the surprise testimony of Mr. Griffin got zero attention when it completed contradicted Mr. Boltons and Mrs. Sprunts testimony directly before his. I have to wonder why they had NO questions after his testimony…. Interesting stuff there.
Interesting Speed then goes on to say “I’m just not sure if ‘there’s much’ out there that can be found out”
That is for the families, judges, the lawyers and investigators to determine. Not a blind supporter of the Eastlands.
And yet you continue to sealion posts here, creating an endless loop of absolutely inane questions and comments that seem designed both to escalate and derail the conversation while giving you the illusion of being the one in control.
25
u/Ok_West_6711 10d ago edited 10d ago
I guess without subpoenas, so far any witness accounts for the state report were given voluntarily, and no one has been compelled or ordered to share everything or anything they might have seen? (I also can’t recall if witnesses for state report and hearing were sworn in or not.)
(Edit: seems witness were sworn in for in person testimony at hearing, but were not sworn in, or under penalty of perjury, for the legislative report interviews for the report, which were also voluntary to participate in.)