Not quite proven, but no less true; Volume II

You guys. Let me explain something here. Clearly brevity is not my strong suit, so please bear with me. I have read comment upon comment; on website upon website; about how a person's life causes them consequences. That a lifestyle causes a set of consequences, or even just one; the ultimate consequence--that may at first seem unrelated but after all the pieces are placed just so, the picture is very clear. Crystal clear. I cannot count how many people I have read/heard/seen say that Farries is now paying the consequence for her lifestyle, which ultimately killed Allen Rose. She has been convicted and blamed for her "negligent lifestyle."

I have stated all along, for nearly one year now, that it is not justice in any form; not social justice, not legal justice, not theistic justice, or moral justice, to convict Detra Farries for the things that are unrelated to the approximately 1.4 mile route she drove that caused Allen Rose's death. All along, I have encountered resistance to this concept, even from my own significant other, saying eventually the consequences of your life catch up with you. Which unfortunately is true. However, it was the consequences of Allen Rose's life that caused him to pay the highest price, and consequence of Detra Farries's fertility, practice of not aborting babies, skin color, gender, and (almost unbelievably so but actually true), HAIR STYLE, that Allen Rose's lifestyle choices are being misplaces and projected onto her. In short, what I am saying is that all the things that Ms. Farries is being accused of being on the basis of her outsides, Allen Rose actually was on his inside.

Allen Rose is a felon. He has a felony menacing charge, and a child abuse charge, and his own wife testified against him. This is heartbreaking, to say the least. That Mrs. Rose had to be the victim of such abuse at the hands of her husband, that his child/children did at the hands of their father, and that now the Roses are victims again of a great loss. It is the most saddening and most helpless place, to be in the shoes of a true victim. Unfortunately, our society puts all the responsibility on the victim to somehow stop being victimized, rather on the victimizer to stop abusing. It is erroneous to the greatest degree to take someone's codependency, their own fatal flaw, and make them responsible for their own abuse. Trust me, victims WANT to be responsible. They welcome with open arms the ability to make their abusers stop hurting them. Unfortunately, they can't make anything stop. They can't beg enough, sacrifice enough, suffer enough, try enough, give enough; to make it within the scope of their to stop being hit, yelled at, threatened, tortured, abandoned, imprisoned, and thrown away... but it's not for lack of effort.

The saddest thing of all, in the case of The People vs Detra Farries, is that now Mrs. Rose will feel the survivor's guilt for the rest of her life of not being good enough to save Allen Rose. This is what happens when a codependent loses the one who they try to rescue, even if it means they suffer endlessly trying to do it. Even if it means they are tortured emotionally or physically. I know there have to be some victims of domestic abuse, victims of drug addiction, and victims of codependency reading this right now. Surely, they can be a testament to the horrible truth of being a victim. So sad, is that with Farries's conviction, Mrs. Rose will never now be able to get help in order to cope with her own torment. Her own sadness of the abuse she endured will now be lost in the attempt to convict Detra Farries. It is the best distraction but for the worst reason, and again the attention is shifted away from Mrs. Rose's constantly unmet needs; how she was probably constantly covering for her husband, just begging the world to step in. Begging silently after her words were met with slammed doors and holes in walls.... and still it's Mrs. Rose that is the victim again. Mrs. Rose who is now faced with the choice to either get help with dealing with the abuse; or act selflessly again, cover for Allen again, act like Allen was a saint again, and say again the words she's learned to live by "oh, ya, it's fine. I'll be ok. Thanks." How sad. If you know Mrs. Rose, if you see Mrs. Rose, if you think of Mrs. Rose,  even if you don't like Mrs. Rose, please pray for her. Please tell her you know she's not ok, you know she needs help, you know that things were bad before they got worse, but if she works for it, they will get better. She will not want to hear this. She will want to protect her abuser. This is always the way it is, the abuser/victim cycle. Victims stay because they are driven by the hope of one day getting comfort from their tormentor. This will not happen, but it doesn't not mean she does not need comfort, even if she doesn't want it. Please hear the truth to this, and please allow it to call someone to action to help Mrs. Rose heal instead of hide. Help her tell the truth, instead of protect the memory of Allen Rose. For her, the memory of Allen Rose will be her torment if her pain is not validated.

Allen Rose slept with prostitutes. There, I said it. Legit prostitutes, tricks, hoodrats, hookers, whores... Those are the kind of prostitutes I'm talking about. Not like the colloquial "you hooker!," like you say to your friend when she eats the last bite of dessert you're supposed to be sharing, but like North Nevada, Prospect Lake, Union and Platte freakin hookers. You understand? Those tricks out there will find me, or I will find them, and they can't wait to come forward and tell the truth in a safe place outside of the presence of law enforcement and the fear that they will be locked up or hurt even worse. These girls know Allen Rose.... They know him biblically; they know him from the streets. They know him when he hits them, and beats the shit out of them. They know him when he uses crack and meth with them. They know him and every other John just like him... with a wife and kids at home who take the fall for his shortcomings. They know him, they know his money, they know his abuse, they know where he goes, they know he'll find them. They know even if he's gone and straightened up a bit and flying right for a few miles, he'll be back; they always come back. They always leave, but they always come back.

What does this have to do with the trial? Well, nothing. It has as much to do with the trial as the false allegations about Ms. Farries welfare skimming hoodrat life. It has as little to do with the trial as the weave everyone loves to hate. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything... unless you are one of the people of the mindset that it is our negligence, the consequences "en totale" of our lifestyle choices, that someone who is a drain on our society deserves to die. Kind of like what everyone is saying about Farries, that she is a drain on our society and everyone would love to fry her. Or that she is a hoodrat  and professional welfare collector and thus deserves life in prison. That consequences reflect choices, and choices cause consequences. If you are of this mindset, then the person that Allen Rose was, the choices he made, the behaviors he had, the area of town he lived in, and people he hung out with.... then they mean EVERYTHING. What's fair is fair, right? A Rose by any other name would stink like hell.

Not quite proven yet, but no less true.

After visiting with one of the witnesses tonight (who has already testified, whose subpoena is finished, and who has been released), I was told that although all of the witnesses are given strict and solid rules not to discuss the case with each other, not to discuss it with anyone, and not to share testimonies, the other day in court, when the witnesses were sitting in the hallway waiting to be called in, they were actually discussing Farries's guilt. Right outside the courtroom, by witnesses, who had been told and ORDERED BY A JUDGE AND/OR POLICE not to discuss the case, or share testimonies, or speak to anyone about their own testimony; feet away from where the defendant was sitting, but a million miles from reality, sat two witnesses collaborating with each other. COLLABORATING. Please forgive me for this, but I have to.... O M G. Ok, there now it's out. I had to do it. O M G. Sorry again.

Here is how this went down. Three witnesses sat in the hallway, on the bench just outside the door to the courtroom. We will call the witnesses BlueBell, Pinky, and Tulip Jones.  One of the witnesses, BlueBell, who is no fan of telling on people and doesn't prefer to get involved in the drama of others; sat silently. Another witness, Tulip Jones, freely offered their two cents as though she had millions left where that came from, and just started talking.... Tulip Jones said "There's no way not to have known she was dragging that man." Pinky responded, as though he/she was so excited to discuss this case in the safety of the hallway but with a heart of conspiratorial rebellion. Pinky said, "Ya, she definitely meant to do that." This obviously drew the confused attention of rule respecting, non meddlin' in the affairs of others, BlueBell. BlueBell said nothing about his own testimony, offered no information or perspective. He was curious, though, why these self assured, and rife with the self inflicted righteousness of a demigod, felt so comfortable all the way up there on their high horses. So BlueBell began asking questions, just to see how reckless they really were with the laws they wanted everyone to think they upheld. BlueBell said to Pinky: "What, you heard people screaming?" Pinky: "No, I heard the car." BlueBell said "Oh, so the motor was loud?" Pinky went on to describe how event through the glass of the office, and being well inside the safety of the building, and not even being able to see where the sound was coming from, the car was still audible. Loud, even. BlueBell asked "Oh, do you think that's why she couldn't hear the guy?" Both Tulip Jones and Pinky looked at BlueBell with shock as if it was BlueBell who was stupid, for questioning their agreed upon, illegally discussed testimonies. Pinky responded on both of their behalf, and said with the same confidence as the CSI/witness/whodunit specialist by day, regular civilian by night regarding the tire tracks on Platte, that "No, there is NO WAY she couldn't have heard that." Even though Pinky couldn't hear it over the noise of the dual exhaust, somehow Ms. Farries should have used her GoGo Gadget ears to detect screams over the dual exhaust, V8 engine, American Engineering, road noise, AND the plastic sheet on the window flapping loudly in the wind.... According to Pinky, "there is no way she couldn't have heard that."

Luckily, there is a post on this blog all about all that freaking noise. There is a post here about driving that SUV. There is a post here about not getting a fair trial. There is a post here about the impracticality of the entire situation... and there is going to be one here shortly about who Allen Rose was. Please look for the post titled "Not quite proven yet, but no less true; Volume II" to find out more about that. I'm going to hurry, but I need to make sure I am thorough too.

If you're reading this, thanks for making it through that.

Love,
Masky

A thank you to all the readers and thinkers, and maybe even the haters but I'm not sure yet

Hi.

Thank you all for being so patient. After the trial proceedings I felt as though I had been led astray and felt that I too willingly dove into my own anger. I asked that my readers and especially my commentors be respectful and think first, and I believe that it is only fair that I do the same. I began to post something yesterday that I did not feel comfortable posting, and I began to respond to inflammatory comments in the way that they begged for, with inflammation and abuse. I feel deep down that there is a strict set of rules and guidelines I have been commanded to adhere to. This is not a set of legal guidelines, not even moral guidelines. The rules I was given are that I take no glory for myself, and I do not say words that are my own, and I do not respond to hate with hate. I broke all three of those rules yesterday, and I had to sideline myself for the evening. Throughout today, I have been seeking guidance, inspiration, and a special intimate knowledge of the fallacy of this case; to be made aware of any corruption that could be exposed, so that my words would again not be my own; and any vengeance would not be from me. I asked for the missing piece of the puzzle to be shown to me, or to at least give me it's general location, so I could search a smaller area more thoroughly rather than a larger area less thoroughly.

After leaving the courthouse, I stopped by the workplace of one of the witnesses who was released earlier this week and whose testimony is complete and official. The good thing about Mask of the Sun, is that they actually know everybody. They are never who you think they are, and have a memory that you wouldn't even believe. This particular witness that I dropped by to see, I actually met last summer. This witness owns a business, and I called this business to get a quote on some yard work for me that I desperately needed done, and is too big of a job to do on my own. I remembered this person clearly, the quotes he gave me for each area of my yard, front and back, the vehicle he drove up in, and the method he said he would use to tackle my problem. I didn't end up getting the yard work done, and the next time I saw him was in the court house. Shortly before he was called in to testify, I asked him if he remembered me. He, not at all surprisingly, said "Um, no. Why, do I know you?" I explained the yard work situation to him, my house, my dog, my living room, and the location of my home. And then, he remembered me. The good news, is this happens to me all the time. Every where I go, I know people. I remember the conversation, I remember their clothes, I remember nearly everything. It works to my benefit that they don't remember, and it is what allows me to be invisible when I am in plain sight. So, I stopped by his workplace where he is the proud owner, and began to question him informally, far from the presence of the judge, jury, public defender, or district attorney. What ensued and what was inspired are the topics of tonight's post.

So thank you again for your patience. There are almost 1000 people looking at this blog, in only one week. It is now of the utmost importance that everything remain clear, honest, and moral. I must remember to hold myself to an even higher standard that readers and commentors. It is upsetting and disappointing to me when I have to delete comments because of their disrespectful content, instead of being able to respond to them. I try to respond to everything I see that I can offer any additional information to or shed any light upon. Please, allow this to be the one place where civility precedes hate and malice, and where open mindedness rules over personal vendetta.

Thank you.

Love,
Masky

Why there is no post for tonight, Thurs 2/9/12

I feel like these comments have gotten out of control.
I don't feel comfortable saying anything that could jeopardize the trial, witness testimony, or outcome.
Since I don't know what things those would be, I have removed, either temporarily or permanently; any comments by the audience or posts from myself which could be legally inflammatory, destructive, or damaging in any way.

There is an awful lot brewing right now, and gaps can be filled in by the media who is covering this case. Hopefully by tomorrow, or at least by Monday, everything will be back on track and all involved will exercise more control when posting and commenting.

Thanks,
Masky

Wait, did the DA really try to say that Bruce Knight was lying by kind of lying by omission?

Yes. Yes they did. Let me paint you this picture using the witnesses' testimonies from today as my paint, my words as my brushes, and this blog site as my canvas. I don't know what's being said out there, if people are getting the story from the beginning, the preface, the title page... so here it is if they're not.

Detra Farries was moving from Denver to Houston. She has family in Colorado Springs... a cousin, one Bruce Knight. Knight was living in the Hill Park apartments. She stopped by to see him before she would be out of the state. He asked someone he "knew from the neighborhood" Mr Donald Hearn, to help fix Detra Farries's daughter's car. Donald Hearn called his nephew, Mr. Christopher Dunlap, because Dunlap has a lot of tools to help with these minor repairs. Hearn's testimony was heard today, and Dunlap's testimony was given yesterday.

Detra Farries was in Bruce Knight's apartment while Dunlap and Hearn worked on her daughter's car. Bruce told his cousin "I don't know those guys well enough to leave my purse in the car with them there. I would go get your purse if I were you." Detra Farries went to retrieve her purse at the request and suggestion of her cousin. Like many cousins who are close in age, kin, and compassion; they call each other "cuz" short for cousin. Also friends call each other this, even acquaintances use this term. This isn't a black thing... actually Baloo says this to Mowgli in the kids Disney movie "The Jungle Book."

Soon after Farries got down to the car to get her purse, the tow truck driven by Allen Rose pulled in. Both Dunlap and Hearn commented that it looked like someone was about to get towed. The truck was positioned behind Farries's vehicle, with its bed towards the rear end of her car. According to these witnesses' accounts, Farries walked in a normal pace to her vehicle. She probably was afraid it was there to tow her, so instead of grapple with the tow truck driver, as is not recommended (see the post "Wait, are you saying I don't..." for links and more information about this), she left; aka- she fled. Since the tow truck was behind her, she went forward. She drove across an EMPTY OUTDOOR volleyball court and into the next driveway in the apartment complex. This was the only time Farries was not on a road, and was driving illegally or in any manner that could be construed as reckless. Driving through this sandy area was also not what caused Allen Rose to become snarled up in the coil of cables. She was already, unbeknownst to her, attached to the cable, and Allen Rose began to chase her on foot, although not through the sandy area. He attempted to cut her off on the other side of the parking lot. Detra Farries was being chased by a man possibly with a knife, in a parking lot, so she FLED.

During the time that she had driven forward (she could not go in reverse because the tow truck was there obstructing any path backwards), through the sandy area, through the paved and asphalted areas of the parking lot, Mr. Rose had successfully lobbed and latched his hook using an underhanded toss, a "bowling motion" as described by both witnesses' testimonies; "a lucky catch." the cable was dragging behind the SUV the whole time she was driving in the parking lot, and Mr Hearn called out to Mr. Rose to "watch out for that cable, watch out for that cable!!!!!" According to Hearn, for a split second, Mr. Rose seemed as though he was about to look and stop chasing after the Suburban driven by Farries. Instead of stopping, Mr. Rose just kept chasing after her.

Ms. Farries reached the exit of the parking lot, and proceeded to turn left onto Murray. It was at this moment that Mr. Rose's situation became grave and turned deadly. Just seconds before, he had become entangled in his own towing cable, that had been pulled out of the winch. Because he set to tow a car that was occupied, on, and very possibly in motion; he had to rush back to the control box in the cab and engage the tension on the cable. But he got there too late, and the cable had already come completely out. The cable is actually designed to come completely out of the winch to avoid extreme levels of potential damage to both vehicles, and the winch system. It has been described as "his feet being swept out from under him." The people who heard his cries heard him begging for help, heard him say "You're dragging me!!" as though he was aware that she didn't know she was dragging him.

No one saw Ms. Farries for hours. Her cousin, the resident at Hill Park apartments, called and texted her repeatedly, but she was already in custody. The DA reminded Knight of a text message he had sent to Farries... and read it with his Super Villain voice "Hey cuz, 'cuz spelled c-u-z' I need you to call me so I know what to say and what to tell people." Right... Because he didn't know anything except what he heard, since he wasn't there, and the media was already saying things that were incriminating. So he wanted to know "what to say," from her perspective, or her explanation, or if he should not talk to anyone at all. All of her children were with him, and he didn't know "what to say, what to tell" those kids. The DA then showed Knight the GMT on the text message record, and told him that GMT is Greenwich Mean Time, 6 hours ahead of Colorado Springs. I know I've seen that before, so I looked down through the settings of my own BlackBerry, and found the current time, listed in Mountain Time, 7 hours behind Greenwich Mean Time. 

Wait... are you saying that I don't HAVE to let a tow truck driver tow my vehicle? Whaaaaa??? Aren't they the same as cops?

Now, let's also clear up a few more things. All over the internet, there are insults and attacks related to these principles: "If they were honking, why didn't she pull over?" Also, "If you see a tow truck messing with your car, you don't get in it to leave." And of course the all incriminating "If she could see a car following her, she obviously knew she was doing something wrong, and she should have pulled over." Interestingly enough, these are very similar to the questions the jury keeps asking. It seems as though they are asking these questions to determine intent and knowledge, or mens rea (read legal definition of mens rea here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea), which is honorable since it indicates that they are STILL unsure of whether or not she knew she was hooked, dragging, and being chased. It isn't fair to only defend the defense, without also considering the prosecution. So, for demonstrative and honest purposes, let's explore the side of the prosecution.

If the prosecution is correct, Ms. Farries knew she had been hooked by Mr. Rose's hook and was attached to his cables. Many people are of the mindset that Farries, or anyone else for that matter, has some obligation to let a tow truck driver take their vehicle. They think if there is a "tow truck messin' with your car, you wait until it's done" to figure out what's going on. That actually couldn't be further from the truth. Insurance companies have been reporting inflated towing costs and tow scams for the past three years. The first 9 and ten months of 2009 and 2010, basically until it gets too cold and/or Thanksgiving/Yuletide Holidays, the National Crime Insurance Bureau reported dramatic increases in fraudulent towing practices and scams. Yes, SCAMS. (This link gives the full story from the NCIB https://www.nicb.org/newsroom/news-releases/3rd-Quarter-2010-Questionable-Claims). It is of such concern, that insurance companies have provided their customers with suggested practices in order to AVOID being towed, and provide a list of guidelines to follow to make sure you should actually be towed, and what to do if it is happening to you. Here is a list of what to do and what not to do from an actual insurance agent: http://www.insurancequotes.com/auto-insurance-tow-truck-scams/

Secondly, it seems that the general public thinks of tow truck drivers as similar to emergency response vehicles or law enforcement. They are not the same. In fact in this incident Mr. Rose's own pocket knife was recovered at the scene, with the blade out and exposed. Tow truck driver theft rings are also very common and auto thieves often pose as tow truck drivers to attempt to wield false authority over unsuspecting victims.

Today, one of the witnesses stated that he saw Allen Rose make it to the driver's side window and tap the glass to get Ms. Farries attention. She kept driving... which in no way determines guilt. Here is why: any good cop in the world, and probably bad cops too, will tell you to NEVER pull the car over for someone who makes you feel unsafe or threatened. They suggest not to pull over even for police officers until you reach a public, well lit, and safe spot. They also encourage motorists to call 911 dispatch and verify that the officer pursuing them is a real police officer, and to get any information they need while they are on the phone with the 911 operator. Ms. Farries actually did pull the car over when she got to a safe, populated, and public place. She pulled into a market parking shopping center. The car she thought was following her continued driving, and did not turn into the parking lot as she had, nor did it stop at all.

 Let me relay this little anecdote. I was driving home one night when I was a teenager from my father's house to my mother's house. I was on a major freeway through the heart of coastal California, but this was 16 years ago, and things weren't so congested then.I suddenly got a flat tire. It was about 10:30 at night, and there were no cell phones, and no shops to stop at on the side of the road, since I was on the freeway (the 101 to be exact). Just before I was about to get out of the car, a man pulled over on the shoulder behind me. He came up to my window, and started to tell me he was there to help me, and he was going to tow my car. I don't know why... I had always been taught to do whatever adults tell me to do.... but I did not roll down my window for this man. I started screaming for help, but I was in my car with the windows up, on the side of the freeway, with no street lights, and no one to there except this man to "help" me. When I started screaming, he began to try to break into my vehicle. I kept screaming, I thanked God that I had locked my doors, a practice I had always shrugged off. I turned my car on, and when I started the ignition he left. I waited a long, long time until I felt safe getting out of my car to make the trek across a dimly lit section of freeway, six lanes total, and three shoulders; jump over the median, and run down an embankment to use a telephone. I called a tow truck, and was still scared out of my mind when they got there. I had no choice if I wanted to get home. He gave me a ride home, and I told my mother what happened, and at that moment she warned me to never, EVER get out of the car for someone who wants to tow me, or who seems like they are chasing me or following me until I am in a safe place that is public and well lit and populated.

Here are some links to guidelines from insurance companies that say when you should pull over:

http://www.carinsurancequotes.com/articles/when-to-pull-over/

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&story=cartalk-signs-you-should-pull-over&subject=more

here is a link on how to pull over safely:
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/10/nervous_about_pulling_over_for.html


And here are links to give you an idea on how other states view tow truck drivers and that they have laws to protect the vehicle owner. Here in Colorado, Allen Rose's law is set up to protect the tow truck driver. It makes it easy to see how tow truck drivers can get away with almost anything, and if they can't they can make it look like murder.
http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-04/news/27100657_1_tow-truck-drivers-philadelphia-parking-authority-unlicensed-contractors
http://daviswiki.org/If_Your_Car_is_Being_Towed
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22658.htm

As far as witness testimony goes today, the main witness called by the prosecution who verified that the truck was hooked after it started moving... the second witness in a row to corroborate that theory and use the EXACT SAME WORDS, "A BOWLING MOTION," added that Mr. Rose must have done this a thousand times to catch like that. This particular witness, however, screamed over and over for Mr. Rose to "look out for that cable!" and was stunned and speechless when Mr. Rose began to chase Farries's Suburban with the cable dragging behind. He just continued to scream for him to be careful, and couldn't figure out why he was chasing the car with the cable attached in the first place. It was after Ms. Farries had been in motion, and driven all the way around the parking lot, and come back to the exit to leave the complex, that Mr. Rose had tried to cut her off, jumped in front of her, and the cable swung back around and entangled him.

Correction: the speed limit on that section of Platte is 50 mph. 50. So her "high rate of speed" between 35 and 50 mph, is actually the speed limit.

WARNING: Do not read unless you CAN handle the truth in the form of fact

After nearly every witness that offers testimony regarding the actual event where Allen Rose was being dragged by Ms. Farries, there is a legit cornucopia of questions from the jury directed towards the witness. Usually they are points of clarification, and more often than not the same two questions are asked: Did you hear any honking and how would you describe the driving of the defendant?

So far there have been a baker's dozen witnesses who have very different testimonies. The only thing they can seem to agree on are that Farries was driving erratically, and the public en masse seems to have this understanding that there was an angry mob trying to chase her down. When asked to describe her erratic driving behavior, a plethora of specifics are noted.... from her speed estimated by one witness to be wait for it.... "pretty fast, between 5 - 10 mph." Yes. Five. Five as in if it were dollars you couldn't even buy a value meal from McD's. Another witness swore up and down that she is sure Farries was fishtailing and swerving because Rose was swerving. Well.... Rose was attached to a cable behind her, and was indeed swerving. However, video footage shows the defendant driving in a straight line, and upon further questioning the witness say, with their own mouths and give the same answers to the prosecution as they do to the defense that they "actually weren't paying attention to the vehicle. I was looking at the man, screaming for help but her windows were up, and I was too far behind her," whether or not they were on foot or in a vehicle of their own, this story is repeated and confirmed. They couldn't tear they eyes away from Allen Rose, and the horror of the situation was gripping them tightly.

A witness today as well felt sure enough of herself to act as CSI, saying that she knows the Suburban jumped the median because there were tire tracks there after she had left, and they drive that road every day, "and it was pretty obvious they were her tire tracks. I would have seen tire tracks earlier that day on my way to drop off my mother in law." The defense asked her... "you would have noticed tire tracks?" The answer, as confident as her own name, "Yes." People aren't even that sure of their favorite color, food, or child; let alone confident there were no tire tracks on a curb earlier in the day.

So it seems that although these witnesses' first inclination is to describe Farries's driving as erratic, the truth is more like the situation was so horrific, all of their senses were heightened. 5 - 10 mph is now "pretty fast," not using the shallowest part of the driveway and hitting a few inches of the curb on the side is now off-roading, changing lanes is now "driving recklessly, driving all over the road. Swerving everywhere." Making a U-turn on a frontage road is now considered a fatal flaw, the worst of vehicular crimes. When they are asked specific questions that trigger their memories, any observer can see that these people were genuinely traumatized by what they saw, and the horror of the memories clouds small details.

As far as hearing honking goes... one witness said they heard honking. One. As in if it was a dollar you couldn't even buy something off of the value menu at McD's because they would add tax. One witness said he heard honking and he heard it for a distance of maybe.... 50-60 yards. The distance on the map he pointed to was half of a block from "there to there." While there is no doubt nor any reason to lie about whether there was any honking, there are a few things that must be straightened out. This witness was outside, up in the air; and not inside of a noisy vehicle, with dual aftermarket exhaust, windows up, and a piece of plastic affixed to the vehicle in place of an actual window blowing violently and vigorously in the wind. In addition to this, the average car horn is 110 decibels, and the average dual market exhaust is 103 decibels. That's a difference of 7 decibels. If the road noise, the noise from the plastic sheet as a window, the engine noise, being inside the cab with the windows up, and the car about 60 feet behind her can overcome 7 decibels... it's time to recheck your math.

So folks, these are FACTS. These aren't my opinion, although I have formed an opinion that is related to them. It's always best to have a respectable fact based opinion, so you can have a leg to stand on instead of finding someone guilty because you don't like their hair, you think they're guilty because you don't like their picture, or because they had more children than you. The facts related to those things are "I don't like her hair, I don't like her picture, I don't want 8 kids." But not "she is guilty, she deserves to die, I wish I could drag her to death." See the difference? If you don't, it's time to recheck your math. Like counting your fingers to make sure your brain cells are still intact and functioning. Start with one hand, then try thinking about it again.

let's get down to business, there must be a circus in town, CAN I GET A WITNESS!!

The witnesses called so far in this trial have been kind of a joke. Not a joke like haha, not even like knocknock. Not even the kind that makes you roll your eyes out of annoyance. The kind of joke that should never be told, the kind that would get Letterman or Leno fired, sued, libeled, slandered…. slaughtered. Each of these witnesses who have thus far testified against Ms. Farries, are the ones whom the prosecution is depending on most heavily to corroborate Ms. Farries’s criminal activity; as in she knowingly dragged Mr. Rose, she intended to get him wound up in the cable, and then had a little party as she drove in a normal manner through the streets of Colorado Springs for all to see. These witnesses were mostly interviewed within 48 hours of Mr. Rose’s death, when the memories and the time line were all fresh, before emotion had a chance to influence recall. One year and one million emotions later, the witnesses are giving testimonial accounts that are in DIRECT CONTRADICITON with their original statements. Here are a few examples:

Yesterday if you read the feb 6 2012 post titled “Would you like to take that back?” you will find the details of Reginald Lawson’s contradicting statements…. These were erroneous to such a degree that it would not have been so out of line if the judge accused him or perjury. Most of the witnesses today have followed similar suit, just without the witness yelling and questioning the attorney. (Yes yelling and asking the lawyers questions, instead of answering the questions he was being asked).

Luis Novoa was repairing a sign in the bucket of his truck at the flea market. He saw the Suburban and Rose from 30 feet up in the air, maybe more. The jury asked the questions “what kind of driving behavior did you witness” and “how fast was the Suburban going.” His answers were: “She never stopped, she was going quick,” and “between 35 – 50 mph.” Either way, the speed limit on Platte is 45 mph, and on the frontage road it is slower. The significance: The defendant was either speeding by 5 mph, or going the speed limit or below. Farries had stated in her initial interviews with law enforcement that she “thought she was on Platte,” so she would have likely been driving the speed limit or close to it (45 mph) until she realized she was on the frontage road and saw the reduced speed limit sign…. Probably 30 mph or 35 mph. The defendant was not from Colorado Springs, so mistakes like that are easy to make…. I have personally been confused about the same thing when I traveled to Texas, where there are frontage roads everywhere, and it’s as confusing to city dwellers how to navigate rural roads as it is to country bumpkins to navigate freeway networks and interchanges.

Jerry Flores originally stated to CSPD that the car was a Tahoe, burgundy or maroon in color. He stated that he found boots on the side of the road, as well as a pair of gloves. He stated they were the victim’s. He said the cable almost wrapped around his friend’s feet and his friend jumped out of the way. This same friend also pulled Mr. Flores away, and doing this the hook on the end of the cable snagged his friend’s jacket. He said the “Tahoe” was going “pretty fast… between 5 -10 mph.” How to deconstruct this testimony using truth: first of all, 5 -10 mph is the speed limit in most apartment parking lots. That makes it not fast, not “pretty fast,” but regular speed in a parking lot. Second of all, one of the first witnesses called, Officer Carnes, who was the first law enforcement responder on the scene, found Mr. Rose’s two boots close to the place where Mr. Rose became released from the cables. He secured the evidence for investigators who later collected it. One glove was also found in the cab of the tow truck, (next to knife with the blade exposed), and the other glove was introduced into evidence yesterday by investigator Joseph Thornburg. His friend’s jacket has not yet been mentioned, or introduced into evidence, so at this time it is insignificant at best and hearsay at worst. This witness stated he has PTSD, but also stated that his memory is getting better, and that over the last year, he has been able to remember things that he didn’t remember before, and, wait for it…. Every time he remembers it, he “remembers more things, so now I really remember A LOT.”

Yes. That really happened, yes that is the kind of testimony that is being used to convict a person and land them DECADES in prison. This is the “solid evidence” that is being used to bring the jury past a reasonable doubt that Farries KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSELY TORTURED, DRAGGED, AND KILLED A MAN. Evidence like Math, or video footage of Ms. Farries driving in a normal fashion, lying witnesses, and the actions of Mr. Rose are being completely overlooked in favor of lies, hate, and dare I say it… skin color. 

Would you like to take back what you said?

Maybe by now there are people wondering why the things written here focus mostly on the defense's hurdles and setbacks, and on the perception of how the district attorney is erroneous. The reason this website is dedicated to the truth of the defense, and probably seems a little bit more slanted than the other things you can read, are because all those other sites are dedicated to continuing to slander Farries in the method and means of the past nearly 12 months. Kind of like why Black History gets a whole month.... because every other holiday for the whole year, is in celebration of a white dude. Except for like, Susan B Anthony day, but seriously, who the heck even knows when that is. Her dollar was only worth 75 cents anyway, so that's not surprising.....

Today in court, a long awaited witness took the stand to give his testimony. This witness is: professional, he has a job, he is a manager, he has a winning smile, a kind heart, and loves to give back. He loves his community like it's his own family. Any other time, you would think this guy has a heart of gold. Hell, any other time he probably DOES have a heart of gold. I would even bet that it was his heart of gold that led him so astray during today's questioning... but that's beyond the scope of this observer's knowledge or proof. Just hearsay really. (But since hearsay is admissible sometimes, as long as the DA is the one presenting it, maybe we'll just go with it.... I kid, I kid. Too soon? )

This witness was one Reginald Lawson the manager at the Hill Park apartments where Farries's vehicle was parked. During his testimony, he repeated several times that the bed of the truck was in the tilted down position. He was so confident about this, that the public defender asked him several times, and had him reiterate this at least twice, maybe three times, just so the jury was clear, and there were no uncertain terms. During the initial interrogation by the DA, Lawson said "the bed (of the truck) was back and down." Everyone within visible range shot a look over to the defense counsel. If you blinked you would have missed it, but Elkins and Loew had the fire lit under them that was needed at moment to burn this testimony to the ground and reduce it to ashes.

When the defense got their opportunity for cross examination of the witness, Elkins asked the witness to confirm his statement, that "the bed was back and down." She then asked him "So you remember that. Clear as day." The witness knew at that moment he had been had, for lack of a better word and responded with "Maybe I don't remember it as well as I would have liked to." In Lawson's interview with Officer Mike Johns that day, February  23, 2011, Lawson vividly recounted the bed of the truck up... he told that to an officer that same day. Elkins addressed this with "is your memory getting better over time Mr Lawson?" She asked the witness if he wanted an opportunity to recant his statement: "Do you want to take it back?"

This was too much for Mr Lawson, as it would have been for anyone with a heart of gold. He did not know how he had been led down this path, and began to discredit himself in a manner defense counsel dreams are made of. He began interrupting the public defender, began questioning her, explaining himself, and raising his voice. It couldn't have been better or more poignant if it was scripted. It was so shocking and so intense, and so surprising to hear a truly good man lie in such a manner... which seemed to be somehow genuinely accidental. The mouths of the jurors fell agape, and their eyes got wide. It was quite the turning point for the defense.

This same story may or may not be found on other reporting websites; and the good thing about this one, is that there are no reporters. No one here is friends of colleagues with the DA or with the public defender. No one here knows the judge from a hole in the wall. As for Farries... well, it seems that everyone and their dear ol' granny is intimately acquainted with Farries, and good thing, that way she can't get away no matter what and this angry lynch mob can hang her, fry her, and behead her as they see just and fit.

Stay classy Colorado.
Love,
Mask of the Sun

What the news WON'T tell you

What the news WON’T tell you…..
The defense counsel has requested a sanction several times against different kinds of evidence, different ways the evidence is presented, and different questions that may or may not be asked. The reason they are asking for these sanctions is because the court has rejected the defense’s original sanction request that the DVDs from the interviews… the volume of nearly 60 of them, be stricken and unusable, because the only two that show what is called “exculpatory evidence” of Farries’s actions/motive/innocence/guilt were lost by CSPD. The defense had requested the sanction against the DVDs only, so that the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense are equitable. They asked that the prosecution only be allowed to use written transcripts, as they (the defense) are relegated to use… based on no fault of their own.
The court rejected this sanction, so the defense does not get the 2 DVDs they need, but has to work against all 55 plus DVDs the prosecution gets to use. The defense now has to rely solely on witness testimony… (more on that later), and on written word instead of the multi layering effects of video/audio/live witness the prosecution now has in their arsenal. The defense requested an alternative sanction today, asking that in exchange for their handicap, the prosecution not be allowed to use any witnesses’ rap sheets to undermine or erode witness testimony or witness credibility. The defense argued that just because someone has a felony doesn’t mean their eyes are broken, nor are they lying now since they are under oath and not on trial themselves for perjury. The defense requested that prosecution not be allowed to imply that any witnesses’ criminal background be exposed and should be exempt from their testimony.
Well… guess what happened? The judge denied this sanction as well. Basically, it’s as though this trial is about Detra Farries. It doesn’t seem that the evidence is as important as pictures of Ms. Farries’s weave. The idea of equality, of a fair trial, has gotten lost in a collective hate for Farries’s hair, her children, her vehicle, her lack of money…. And all of these are things that have silently become more important than evidence.
It’s rather unfortunate that the elephant in the room is a youngish, black, woman. Since the elephant cannot be addressed, it cannot be harnessed. We are to act like there is no elephant, act like the elephant is invisible, act like the elephant could be there, if… but it’s not. But since it’s an elephant, it cannot be ignored. In order to cope with this elephant taking up so much space, and inconveniently unloading elephant droppings in a place where they don’t belong, our minds see instead of an elephant, a sweet little puppy dog; not capable of doing any harm to anyone. Instead of giant piles of crap, our minds see gumdrops and lollipops.
We are a fickle people. We want justice, we want to end our own oppression, vilify “The Man,” stand up for our rights, reclaim the constitution of our hearts AND our nation, and be the 99% without freezing outside occupying Main Street. Well, we can’t do that if we don’t address the elephant, and call it an elephant, and admit that its poop effing stinks, man. The elephant is a black woman, and it’s time to look at the evidence and come to grips with our hate. We have to admit it. We want to vilify The Man when he is choking us out… but as soon as we have the option to leave the ring, we choose instead to become The Man on our own, and choke out someone else. And just like The Man, we deny the villainous accusations made about us, and immediately lay back down and become willing to be choked out by the Man Again. We are comfortable being the victim, as long as we know it will cycle back around, and we will once again be able to vilify.
The evidence here is irrefutable. There is no way a driver of a Suburban could have seen inside of their blind spot (http://www.mobileoptics.com/consumers/blindspots.html), the vehicle was in motion when it was latched to the tow cables, the transcript of the witness interrogation by the CSPD clearly states several times that Mr. Rose “stomped” (yes, stomped. STOMPED), on the cable. It is a wonder why this is overlooked and ignored in favor of name calling, lie telling, and hate spewing; pretending the elephant is a cute witto puppy dog.

However, the defense has a picture taken not at an angle...

The district attorney asked the witness "it looks like that parking lot is on a grade" in an effort to undermine future witness testimony. Anyone on the planet can look up the grade scale of the parking lot of the Hill Park apartments in Colorado Springs. I don't think anyone would find any significant grade. I think even the DA knows it's flat there, in the eastern part of the City In Which They Live, where their investigator spent ample time, where CSPD spent even more time...

The picture was taken from an angle... Like how girls angle their phone up in the bathroom mirror to take a sexy picture. But... the bathroom isn't on a grade just because the camera is at an angle. This is the kind of questioning that's going on here. This is what's being allowed in the courtroom... where the officer is being led to state the parking lot is on a grade, even though it's clearly not. The DA's hope for this whole "grade" thing, is to offer s subtly implication that the witnesses couldn't see... That they were mistaken...

Also, in the cab of the truck was a grey work glove (who cares right??) AND a pocket knife with the blade exposed, the knife open. One glove missing, and a knife laying there open... when the court brings the significance of this to the jury's attention it will be available for your reading pleasure, right HERE.

Details of driving a Suburban... "THAT" Suburban in particular

It's a fact that math has no feelings. Neither does physics, neither do the angles and sides of a triangle. So according to this non biased source, it is clear that the blind spot on a regular, unlifted Chevrolet Suburban is 50 feet. That is based on the mathematical principle of triangulation: Rear view mirrors--to eyeballs--to 50 feet. If we asked Math, who doesn't care about Detra Farries, AT ALL; if eyeballs could see from the rear view mirror, an object at 25 feet, Math would say no. If Math was satan or saint, Math would still say NO.

According to a key witness for the prosecution, she said the cable was from the witness box to the middle of the prosecution counsel's table. A distance of approximately 20 feet... between 15 and 25. (This was the witness who answered the length of the cable was "quite a ways; not too far"). Regardless of if it was more like "quite a ways" or if it was more like "not too far," it surely was not 50 feet.

In addition, this car had dual exhaust installed on it, prior to Farries's purchase of the vehicle. So it was louder than even normally loud Suburbans. It was also having engine trouble, so it ran even louder than louder than normally loud Suburbans that are modified to be louder. One of her windows was missing, and a sheet of plastic was covering the window. Yes, that sounds really ghetto, and it's not something ANYONE would ever be excited to drive or be proud that they cannot afford to repair. I'm sure Farries was not proud of this either, not exactly her proudest moment.... but definitely NOT a badge of honor. Nor does this confirm or prove guilt or motive... but it certainly corroborates her story of why and how she could not have heard someone honking to get her attention, which so far, has not been confirmed by the prosecution's main witness as of yet.

This Suburban was lifted 4 inches. It was built as a 5 inch lift, but was damaged on one side and had dropped one inch. So, for the sake of the devil's advocate, assume a 4 inch lift. If the difference between a Toyota Sequoia's (length: 17, blind spot: 25 feet) and a Chevy Suburban's (length: 18.5 feet, blind spot 50 feet) blind spot is 25 (check this website for verification: http://www.mobileoptics.com/consumers/blindspots.html), but it is only one and a half feet shorter... If it is 4 inches higher that would be an additional 12 feet of blind spot, approximately. That puts her blind spot at a whopping 62 feet... at least 3 times the length of the cable that Mr. Rose was attached to.

Is any one wondering WHY no one cares about this, and WHY the DA was still able to press charges, regardless of the non biased evidence (Math) presented? Think about why first, try to CONSIDER, JUST CONSIDER, that this is unfair... and that yes, it is painful and horrible and gruesome... but IT WAS NOT CRIMINAL.

odd discrepancies you think someone would have thought first about...

The public defender and the defendant have received multiple death threats. Clearly Ms.Farries cannot get a fair trial in Colorado Springs. Before the comments on the Gazette.com were disabled regarding this story, at least one commenter said no she can't get a fair trial here, and the majority of the commenters said she doesn't deserve a fair trial. Why did the judge not grant a change of venue?

The defense asked that the prosecution not be allowed to request double punishment. The judge denied this request. In the wake of Mr. Rose's tragic and heartbreaking death, the district attorney (prosecution) said that they weren't even sure that a crime had been committed, or if there were any charges to be made. Now, in light of the world rioting with a collective have against Detra Farries, they are not only charging her with heinous crimes, but they are asking for double punishment.

CSPD lost the only part of the DVD volumes that shows the defendant's composure changing when she found out she had unknowingly dragged a man to death. They lost the evidence that shows the interrogating officers' statements about how her reaction was genuine, and she did not know. The defense requested that since they don't have all of the evidence due to a mistake, that none of the evidence be admissible since those key pieces provide accurate context and background with which to view the other evidence. This request was denied... As in the prosecution is allowed to use whatever evidence they want, even though the defense doesn't have the evidence they need.

The defense asked the witness not be allowed to use the term "reckless driving" because it is a legal conclusion as well as one of the charges against Farries. The defense asked instead that the witness be allowed to use any descriptive terms, but not be allowed to conclude that the driving was reckless. The motives for this request are as follows: 1. "reckless driving" is a legal term, and one of the charges against the defendant and the witness is outside the scope of her authority to label driving in such a way. 2. Although it is common speech to use the term reckless driving, "careless driving" could actually be more accurate, and is a misdemeanor, while reckless driving is a felony, and the fact that it is common speech to say reckless, it holds felonious implications. The prosecution's counter rationale: 1. People make the statement "drunk, inebriated, intoxicated driving all the time" and it is an observation and just how it is described. THE DIFFERENCE: "drunk, inebriated, intoxicated" are not felonies or even misdemeanors on their own. Likewise, it is very clear when a person is drunk, and since it is not illegal be drunk, it's not at all the same. If that is the standard of reference, it would be like an unqualified witness saying that the driver looked to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.13. Since the legalities and illegalities of this particular crime are driving with a BAC of a specific value. Surely a witness would not be able to incriminate a defendant by stating a blood alcohol level when they are not qualified to do so, have not measured the blood alcohol level in any way, and concluding a specific BAC implies felony and guilt even though there has been no conviction; and possible no crime anyway.

Tow truck drivers in general are notorious for illegally towing legal cars, not legally towing illegal cars. Even if the car is illegal in some way, the chance of the tow truck driver doing illegal things is pretty high. Allen Rose's law has given tow truck drivers a way to legally steal your vehicle so they can make a quick 70 dollars. It is now illegal for a someone to get in their car while their car is being towed, even if they are towing your car without reason, even if your car is legal, or even if they're scamming you. Hopefully there will soon be a Detra Farries law, saying tow truck drivers can't tow your car if there is no imminent danger without the owner being contacted, or waiting one hour, or giving them a chance to move their vehicle first. Wouldn't that be the safest thing? To not have to tow in the first place? It would be interesting to see a room full of tow truck drivers given that option.... imagine all the fidgeting and general discomfort if they were told "it's now a felony to assemble your rig if the car is occupied" or "you must give the owner of the car 60 minutes" or "you must release the car to the owner if they show up."

For almost one year, this woman has had to live with death threats, being slandered, this whole microcosm of Colorado Springs taking her to the figurative gallows... yet it seems no one knows the facts of what happened to cause any of this. To reiterate: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS NOT EVEN SURE THERE WERE ANY CHARGES TO PRESS, IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED.... until the world outside rallied against Ms. Farries. Then they saw the hate that convicts the innocent, the hate that builds empires, the hate that joins people together, the hate that calls her a "welfare rat," the hate that soothes the burn of the haters' own personal dissatisfaction. This the dirtiest and scariest kind of hate, where we have to act like the hate doesn't even exist, we have to act like "what's fair is fair," even when it's not, and we have to place our trust in blind justice that is peering intently through a microscope to uncover the flaws of the organism. The result? You, me, all of us... as The People vs. Detra Farries.