Warning: getlastmod() expects exactly 0 parameters, 1 given in /nfs/c10/h08/mnt/175315/domains/archive.enumclaw.com/html/wp-content/themes/tdt-enumclaw/header.php on line 107
Back to Top
Jason Simmons

Malcolm Fraser Setup: Why the Jury Got it Wrong

· Editorial & Opinion (pro 23:23) · No Comments

2-1-2014 10-56-28 AM

The jury got it wrong because the story-line was made up as time progressed.

Do you believe there must be evidence to find someone guilty, beyond a mere accusation? If so, Prosecutors down at Dan Satterberg’s office will kick you out of the courthouse. That is one reason why the jury got it wrong. That is literally what Prosecutors Jason Simmons and Rich Anderson did.

Bottom Line: The jury got it wrong because it should never have gone to trial. Prosecutors had a “So what!” position to evidence, thus, they made up fictional charges. And who after all can defend themselves against made up accusations. One cannot prove innocents on a negative accusation. Example: Prove you did not beat your wife last night? All evidence pointed to a hate crime and Malcolm Fraser’s innocence so the Prosecutor’s office made up a fabricated case.

Prosecutors Mark Larson, Lisa Johnson, Rich Anderson, Jason Simmons fabricated a story-line and inflamed hatred to win the trial of Malcolm Fraser vs. Wa for their boss King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg. Each knowingly protected, and enhanced an on-going hate crime – turning a blind eye to the crimes of Athena Dean and Detective Grant McCall of the Enumclaw Police.

Just as prosecutors around the country abuse  power and have contempt for the truth is self-evident.

In fact, Prosecutor Jason Simmons asked potential jurors if they believed there must be evidence to convict, beyond a mere accusation. Those who said “yes” were kicked off the jury – thus illustrating the illegalities of the frame up.

After the conviction of Enumclaw Pastor, Malcolm Fraser, some in the City of Enumclaw are chanting continually “guilty, guilty, guilty!” without any mention of facts surrounding the case.

In the minority are individuals such as myself who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Mr. Fraser is innocent.

With such a firm belief, many have accused myself and others of “mindlessly protecting” the pastor, or “simply not accepting the truth.” In reality, the opposite is the case. No matter how many State Representatives “applaud” the guilty verdict, or attack the Christian beliefs of a church, the truth and facts remain the same.

As a reporter for Enumclaw.com, I sat through almost the entire State v. Malcolm Fraser trial. I witnessed nearly all the testimony, including that of the accuser. What the local newspaper and the jury failed to mention was how incredibly fantastical, and outright insane the accuser’s testimony was.

Consider these facts:

  1. The house in which the abuse allegedly occurred was old, creaky, and sound traveled well throughout. As many testified, one could hear a raised voice upstairs from downstairs let alone a scream.
  2. It was next to impossible to walk up the stairs without making a tremendous amount of noise. Two or three steps would awake a light sleeper, a few more and the others would hear.
  3. Two of the accuser’s sisters slept in the open 20 feet outside the accuser’s door.

Consider then, what the accuser testified on the stand:

  1. She screamed as loud as she could during every alleged act.
  2. She stayed awake at night, casually “reading a book,” waiting for Fraser to come up the stairs.
  3. This happened 2-3 times a week for six months, which equals an approximate 60 to 90 individual acts of abuse.

Lastly, consider what others testified on the stand:

  1. The accuser never showed any apprehension or fear of Fraser.
  2. Mr. Fraser was the Church photographer, and the accuser never showed the slightest unwillingness to have herself, or her family photographed.
  3. The accuser was quiet and reserved around her mother, but around others (including Fraser) she was a bright, smiling child.

At this point, this testimony sounds more fishy than a sushi buffet, but there’s more.

In order for Fraser to commit the crimes, we would have to believe that after 60 to 90 individual acts of abuse with the accuser screaming as loud as she could, her parents downstairs never heard a thing. All the while, the accuser’s sisters slept soundly only 20 feet away without the slightest clue their sister was being violently abused. Again, screaming, 60 to 90 times, 20 feet away, never heard nor suspected a thing. Try doing that twice in your house.

Let’s say Fraser only committed the act once (to which no one testified). He would have to float above the loud, creaky stairs (which on their own could wake someone up), sneak by two sleeping children, and then enter a room in which a child was “waiting for him” casually and calmly “reading a book.”

After Fraser miraculously dodges all the aforementioned “land mines,” his medical condition, Phimosis, would have to magically disappear in order to do what the accuser alleged. The next day, if we’re to believe the multiple testimonies given on the stand, the accuser was a bright, smiling little girl who had no apprehension or fear of Fraser.

“. . . every allegation that the accuser stated on the stand was invented, fabricated, made up, and totally created by Enumclaw Police Detective Grant McCall . . .”

Let’s add to the mix that Fraser passed a lie detector test which concluded that the “crimes never happened” with a 0.01% chance of deception. Or that every allegation that the accuser stated on the stand was invented, fabricated, made up, and totally created by Enumclaw Police Detective Grant McCall, during his interview. It doesn’t take a $450 an hour professional to figure out that something grossly wrong is happening at the Enumclaw Police Station.

Not to labor the point, but let’s explore the McCall interview. Dr. John C. Yuille, as previously mentioned, said that “every allegation” came from Detective McCall. That would mean “all” as in 100%.

Unless McCall (who, by the way, hates the defendant’s church) was either 1) in the room when these alleged events took place, or 2) able to guess the allegations correctly on nearly every question, his entire interview was fiction. In other words, the details the accuser repeated on the stand during the prosecutor’s questioning were inventions of Detective McCall. They were lies.

Before speaking with the Detective, the accuser had no details, only a general allegation of abuse taking place in the home as stated in a CPS report. According to the transcript, the accuser never took the opportunity to tell McCall “what happened.” Instead, the all-too-willing accuser let McCall tell her what happened with Fraser.

Let’s see if we can put this together. McCall sat alone in an Enumclaw Police station room with the young accuser, making up vile, disgusting, outright horrific details and asking the accuser to agree with him.

“If you want to give allegations to an interviewee, this is how you do it,” remarked Dr. Yuille when reading over the transcript of McCall’s interview while he testified on the Fraser trial.

What’s more? These are only the basics.

The question remains: if the storyline is so fantastical and completely unbelievable (for those who will, predictably, accuse me of lying, we have the audio recording of the whole testimony), why then did twelve jurors agree to find Fraser guilty? The answer is simple, and it’s the same reason Fraser was arrested with no investigation beforehand: Hatred.

Scientists agree:

“…the involvement of the frontal pole consider to be critical in predicting the action of others, arguably an important feature when confronted by a hated person . . . it is more likely that in the context of hate the hater may want to exercise judgment in calculating moves to harm, injure or otherwise extract revenge.”

Emphasis added.

Whether Christian or not, it’s easy to see that hatred has a powerful way of blinding individuals to even the most obvious facts and conclusions.

How does this apply to the conviction of Fraser? The prosecutor’s whole case was based upon getting the jury to hate Mr. Fraser and to even his surprise, it worked.

75% of the prosecutor’s witnesses spent nearly all their time expressing either:

  1. How much they hated Mr. Fraser’s church.
  2. How much they hated Mr. Fraser.

Unethical and unconstitutional prosecution? That’s putting it mildly.

The jury heard, for a week and a half straight, that Mr. Fraser was mean, rude, controlling, smug, nerdy, self-righteous, and the list continues. Add to this list the blatant lies and outright falsehoods stated about Sound Doctrine Church (who wasn’t on trial by the way) and jurors were drooling over the slightest reason to place Mr. Fraser behind bars.

Jason Simmons, the prosecuting attorney, could’ve said Mr. Fraser murdered Martin Luther King Jr. and the jury may have believed it.

This is why Mr. Simmons stating “believable testimony is proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is such an unethical, unprofessional, and outright lie. During a proper conviction, there’s always evidence. There’s always something that suggests the charges are accurate, not just a prosecutor stating “it simply must be true.”

Again, nothing, including the testimony of the accuser herself, gave any slight suggestion that the charges made any sense. What it does show, is that if a person sits on the stand and tells a well-rehearsed story, that person has the ability to send even the most innocent, to prison.

At this point, there are several people who should be in jail and Mr. Fraser isn’t one of them.

In the end, it’s not true for any juror, journalist, or State Rep. to say the accuser was “believable.” What such individuals actually mean is that they wanted to think she was believable.

The truth is simple. If you hate Mr. Fraser or his church, you will continue to work, just as the jury did, to discredit the facts and evidence to come to the conclusion you want: that Mr. Fraser is guilty as charged.

For those willing to push aside gossip and personal bitterness against a church, it doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce the crimes could never have happened. All that’s required is open eyes to see the absolute absurdity of the allegations. After all, Alan NorthropThomas Edward KennedyDamien Echols, and Brian Banks were all found “guilty” by a jury.

The only difference between them and Fraser, is that Fraser had about ten times more evidence indicating his innocence.

*Prosecutors Mark Larson, Lisa Johnson, Rich Anderson, Jason Simmons fabricated a story-line and inflamed hatred to win the trial of Malcolm Fraser vs. Wa for their boss King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg. Each knowingly protected, and enhanced an on-going hate crime – turning a blind eye to crimes. Like prosecutors around the country they abuse their power and are contemptuous of the truth – is self-evident – Prima facie in legal jargon. See enumclaw.com for more proof.