PROVOST/PROFESSORS/TEENAGERS/DOGMA: Pitts decides to hang the judge!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016

Part 3—A basic fact disappears:
What actually happened on the Stanford campus on the evening of January 18, 2015?

We can't exactly tell you. This March, a jury ruled that Brock Turner, then a 19-year-old Stanford freshman who says he wasn't black-out drunk, committed three felonies that night.

That suggests that the jury may not have believed Turner's account of the evening's events. That said, his account of the evening's events does in fact exist.

His account may be true, or it may be false. The world's leading authority on the case describes his story thusly:
After his arrest, Turner told police that he and the victim "drank beer together," "danced and kissed" at the party and both mutually agreed to go back to his room. Turner stated that the victim slipped on a slope behind a wooden shed, and Turner got down to the ground and they started kissing each other. Turner said he then asked her if she wanted him to "finger" her, to which she said yes. He stated that he "fingered" her for a minute as they were kissing, then they started "dry humping." Turner then said he got nauseous and told her he needed to vomit.
How much of that account is true? We have no way of knowing. In part, that's because the woman, described by police as Emily Doe, gave no account of these events. She was black-out drunk that night, in accord with the dangerous, illegal campus culture permitted by the upstanding, august men who serve as president and provost of the famous university with the frightening "scary path."

(The victim's sister, who was initially present, couldn't give an account of these events. She was helping another drunken student get back to his or her room.)

What actually happened that night? Like you, we can't quite say. Turner had every reason to lie to police. Doe was too drunk to say.

That said, this scenario has become amazingly familiar in the past few years, as the liberal world and the mainstream press have discussed, or pretended to discuss, the problem of sexual assault on American college campuses.

In an amazing array of high-profile cases, the victims and alleged victims of campus assaults have been blackout drunk at the time of the assault, and have therefore been unable to speak to what occurred. As part of our childish, crackpot "liberal" culture, liberals and mainstream journalists persistently agree to behave as if this is an unremarkable state of affairs.

(Like Turner, many of these victims and alleged victims have been underage. As such, their drinking wasn't just excessive and dangerous, it was also illegal and enabled.)

Within our enlightened liberal culture, we pursue the 19-year-old freshman whose blood alcohol was 0.17 at the time of his crime. We look away from the highly august provosts and presidents who have relentlessly accepted and enabled the dangerous, illegal campus culture which is deeply entangled with this series of appalling cases, in which many young people get hurt.

In the current case, we also take the rope in our hands and pursue the local judge who was forced to deal with the predictable results of this illegal cultural mess. Power relations have always been thus. For starters, this brings us to Leonard Pitts' column.

For starters, let's say this. By all normal measures, Leonard Pitts, age 58, is a sensible, decent person.

He's even a former Pacific-10 great! The world's leading authority offers this capsule description:
Leonard Garvey Pitts, Jr. (born October 11, 1957) is an American commentator, journalist and novelist. He is a nationally syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. He was originally hired by the Miami Herald to critique music, but within a few years he received his own column in which he dealt extensively with race, politics, and culture.

Raised in Los Angeles and educated at the University of Southern California, Pitts currently lives in Bowie, Maryland. He has won awards for his writing from the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and the National Association of Black Journalists, and he was first nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993, eventually claiming the honor in 2004.
By an array of normal measures, Pitts is a serious, decent, intelligent person. For that reason, it's worth reviewing the way he chased after the local judge, while deferring to the august behavior of the president and the provost.

The local judge who handled this case is named Aaron Persky. It falls to people like him to adjudicate the messes which emerge from the illegal lunatic culture created by higher-ranking, more august men and women who run our finest schools.

Following the pack, Pitts went after Persky. Just for the record, he used the current ages of Turner and Doe, rather than their ages on the night in question.

(Our journalists have occasionally massaged age in this way ever since the thrilling case of "the 21-year-old intern" who was neither 21 nor an intern at the time in question.)

Whatever! Pitts had the local judge in his sights. His account of Persky's decision started like this:
PITTS (6/12/16): Turner was facing up to 14 years in prison. Judge Aaron Persky gave him the aforementioned six. Months.

A harsher sentence “would have a severe impact on him,” explained the judge.

Persky’s compassion for the rapist—and lack thereof for the victim—has detonated social media like a bomb. People are furious. They are weeping. They are calling Turner a “monster.” At this writing, a petition at Change.org demanding Persky’s recall stands north of 900,000 signatures.
The local judge had compassion for the "rapist," Pitts said, but none for the victim. (Under California law, Turner wasn't convicted of rape.)

Already, we thought that assessment was pretty tough. Later, though, Pitts wrote what you see below. He was speaking about the six-month sentence Turner was given, which he thought was too lenient:
PITTS: It’s not a big number. You were counting past it in kindergarten.

For an American woman, it’s a measure of the danger she faces from predatory men who consider her body to be their right. It is the difference between self-confidence and fear.

For Turner’s victim, it is a measure of the value the justice system placed on her trauma—and on her. It is the difference between the free woman she was and the frightened one she has become.

For Turner, it is the fraction of his life he’s been ordered to pay for the arrogant violation of another person’s self. It is the difference between spring and fall.

[...]

If you are a woman, or a man who cares about women, you ought to seethe, and then you ought to do whatever you can to fix a culture that makes possible a Brock Turner—and an Aaron Persky.
Just this once, we'll be honest. In a culture in which crazy people increasingly turn to the use of their guns, we thought that final reference to Persky stepped way over the line.

That reference struck us as possibly dangerous. Not as dangerous as the culture enabled by the provost and president, but perhaps a tiny bit dangerous nonetheless.

Different people had different reactions to that six-month sentence. Pitts seemed to think the sentence was heinous, although, in fairness, he showed little of sign of knowing much about such sentencing matters.

In this increasingly dangerous culture, we thought Pitts was possibly over his skis when he offered the fiery thoughts which, admittedly, helped his readers admire his own manifest moral greatness. More strikingly, though, we couldn't help noticing a more basic point.

We couldn't help noting the basic fact which Pitts omitted from his column. Increasingly, the omission of basic facts is a basic part of the "journalism" to which our failing nation has been condemned.

In his country's finest tradition, Pitts was ready to hang the local judge thisday. In service to that ancient desire, he disappeared someone else!

We don't refer to the provost and the president, though they got disappeared too. Tomorrow, we'll discuss the official who got disappeared in what has become a standard part of our "journalism."

The pundit was chasing the local judge. Did you see who he disappeared?

Tomorrow: Disappeared and irrelevant facts. But then, what else is new?

24 comments:

  1. As neither appears in Pitts' column, I honestly can't guess whether it will be the probation officer's recommendation or the victim's "rot in jail" statement which will be determined to have been disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Somerby seems inclined to accept the perpetrator's uncontested, self-serving account of what happened. He ignores that there were several witnesses who saw him attack an unconscious victim. His conviction is for sexual assault on an unconscious woman. She hadn't just drunk to the point of blackout -- she was unconscious. There is little excuse for that and that is why he was convicted. For Somerby or the judge to set aside that verdict is wrong. That is why people are upset.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right you are, anon 2:06. In addition to what you have Turner was also CONVICTED (we should continue to stress that word since Bob still seems to think that Turner's account "may or may not be true" - Hey, Bob, Turner's account is no longer in dispute. We know it wasn't true because a jury considered all the evidence and determined Turner's account was false. If you want to re-try the case be sure to include ALL the evidence, not just the defendant's account, otherwise we should all rely upon the jury's verdict to determine what may or may not be true.)

      I digress. Back to what I was saying...

      In addition to what you have Turner was also convicted of Assualt with ATTEMPT TO RAPE an intoxicated woman. That is a real charge under California law and Turner was found guilty. The only reason he didn't go forward with meeting California's definition of actual rape is he was prevented from doing so by the two passersby who stopped his ongoing assault. Those two passessersby, the Swedish grad students, also contradicted Turner's story. Turner said he was already standing to vomit when he was approached by the two grad students. The two grad students said he was on top of the victim. Turner indicated he had just spoken to the victim implying she was conscious and capable of engaging in conversation. The two grad students said the victim clearly was unconscious which is why they knew something was very wrong with what they were seeing. And then, of course, Turner ran as soon as the grad students confronted him indicating he knew right away he had been caught doing something very wrong. The victim was so obviously unconscious that the passersby checked to see if she was breathing. The police arrived shortly after, took the unconscious victim to the hospital where she remained unconscious for several more hours. Those details aren't in dispute. Is there any doubt the woman was unconscious when Turner forced himself on her? Is there any doubt Turner's story doesn't add up? Is there any doubt the jury got the verdict wrong?

      Only Bob seems to be saying that Turner's story may or may not be true.

      Delete
    2. George Zimmerman sighing in relief after reading your comment.

      Delete
    3. "George Zimmerman sighing in relief after reading your comment."

      derp

      Delete
    4. The most unfortunate event for this stoned out gal was the two guys who intervened. Without those guys, she and all others would have never known what happened. It was the police showing up and massive publicity that revealed her character to her parents and the world that freaked her out as her letter made clear. Now, instead of that wiped out night her panties got mussed and she can't remember anything, everybody nows and she has to be a huuge victim to avoid the actual truth.

      Delete
    5. Dear Unknown-5:42: The victim here had pine needles smashed up her vagina by Turner while she was unconscious. It's pretty sickening the way you and Bob Somerby are trying to exonerate this piece of shit. There were witnesses. He was convicted after a trial. Do you have any female relatives? Daughters, nieces? What if some freak attacked them this way?

      Somerby, you've completely lost the plot, and I'm sorry to see you reveal yourself as a misogynistic crackpot. Stop excusing rapists, this guy was witnessed and convicted of his crime. Disgraceful.

      Delete
    6. ....and I'm sorry to see you reveal yourself as a misogynistic crackpot...."

      Chris Matthews is dancing a jig of welcome for his fellow Irishman.

      Delete
    7. "Bob Somerby is trying to exonerate" Turner.

      Typical thoughtful reader.

      Delete
  3. (we should continue to stress that word since Bob still seems to think that Turner's account "may or may not be true" - Hey, Bob, Turner's account is no longer in dispute. We know it wasn't true because a jury considered all the evidence and determined Turner's account was false. If you want to re-try the case be sure to include ALL the evidence, not just the defendant's account, otherwise we should all rely upon the jury's verdict to determine what may or may not be true.)

    Thank you for affirming the infallibility of the justice system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Thank you for affirming the infallibility of the justice system."

      Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. No one said nor implied our justice system is infallible. The comment clearly indicates a verdict was reached based on actual evidence. If Bob wants to make the case that Turner's account may or may not be true, in other words there's reason to believe Turner's account might be true, he should present much more evidence than just Turner's statement to show that there's a chance Turner's statement could be credible. Bob didn't do that. Also, the comment clearly provides ample evidence that Turner's statement was actually FALSE. Based on all the indisputable evidence the jury rightfully reached the correct verdict. Again, if Bob still thinks the jury may have gotten it wrong the burden is on him to show credible and compelling evidence that shows the verdict may have been incorrect. He didn't do that, and I will go out on a limb and say he won't be able to do that, nor will he even try. He will continue to say wishy-washy things like "may or may not be true" as if there is a reason to remain neutral on the subject. The evidence is out there. It is compelling. Remaining neutral is simply willful ignorance and hurts the greater argument he is trying to make.

      Delete
    2. "Zimmerman's account is no longer in dispute. We know it was true because a jury considered all the evidence and determined Zimmerman's account was true."

      Send a memo to the usual suspects, they haven't gotten the message yet.

      Delete
    3. This isn't about Zimmerman's case. Why not stick with the case that is being discussed and why not stick with the specific evidence that was presented in that case. Is there any specific evidence in the Brock Turner case that was improperly interpreted by the jury? If so, state that SPECIFIC evidence that casts credible doubt toward Turner's guilt. Otherwise, what's the point of your inane posts?

      Delete
    4. The premise of many of these comments is hysterical.

      "Somerby seems inclined to accept the perpetrator's uncontested, self-serving account of what happened."

      A reasonable reading infers no such inclination.

      Somerby: "What actually happened that night? Like you, we can't quite say. Turner had every reason to lie to police. Doe was too drunk to say."

      Bob acknowledges that Turner had incentive to lie to the police. Many of his other statements are representative of healthy skepticism which is typical of Somerby.

      Somerby: "What actually happened on the Stanford campus on the evening of January 18, 2015?

      We can't exactly tell you.

      ...

      His account may be true, or it may be false.

      ...

      How much of that account is true? We have no way of knowing. "
      ___

      Let us consider what Bob is not sure is true. Using the same quote from wikipedia:

      "After his arrest, Turner told police that he and the victim "drank beer together," "danced and kissed" at the party and both mutually agreed to go back to his room. Turner stated that the victim slipped on a slope behind a wooden shed, and Turner got down to the ground and they started kissing each other. Turner said he then asked her if she wanted him to "finger" her, to which she said yes. He stated that he "fingered" her for a minute as they were kissing, then they started "dry humping." Turner then said he got nauseous and told her he needed to vomit."

      Having read the police report linked on wikipedia (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1532973/complaint-brock-turner.pdf) there are no other accounts of most of this summary, up until the dry humping where the two swedes found them. The police report from the officer confirms he had his pants on and that he had a boner.

      So what do we know and not know? When did she lose consciousness? We have no idea. Up until the Swedes found him, we don't have any other information than what Turner claims. We *do* know when she says she blacked out. In the police report she reports that she doesn't remember anything past around midnight, after she, her sister and friend got back from peeing in the bushes.

      I don't know how many drinkers there are here, but I would like to point out that "blacking out" means you don't remember what you're doing. It is *not* losing consciousness or not being awake. One who is "blacked out" is often capable of seeming regularly drunk or whatever. A third party would have no idea if someone is blackout drunk or not.

      Consider the wiki summary again to what we know.

      "Turner told police that he and the victim "drank beer together," "danced and kissed" at the party and both mutually agreed to go back to his room. Turner stated that the victim slipped on a slope behind a wooden shed, and Turner got down to the ground and they started kissing each other. Turner said he then asked her if she wanted him to "finger" her, to which she said yes. He stated that he "fingered" her for a minute as they were kissing, then they started "dry humping."

      Was she awake and consenting as Turner fingered her? We have no idea. Is there evidence that she was unconscious during this? There were no other witnesses and she had "blacked out" earlier. Turner, like Bob said, had reason to lie about it. Bob's repeated statements of "We don't know what happened" are completely reasonable and insisting that he is "inclined to believe Turner's account" is silly.

      Was she awake but "blacked out" up until a certain point? Likely as I don't recall seeing any evidence that she was dragged or otherwise forced to where she was found unconscious. From what I can tell she left the party willingly with him. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

      Delete
    5. Look he clearly did something wrong and also broke the law as determined by a jury of his peers. Bob pointing out that we don't *really* know what happened is not an inclination to believe his side of events. It is a healthy acknowledgement that, because of the drunken environment that our esteemed universities tacitly approve of and that the media is not critical of, we don't really know what happened until the Swedes found Turner humping her while she was unconscious.

      Read the police report. Everyone was fucking wasted and couldn't remember shit. A good portion of these youth are underage which is blatantly illegal.

      ---

      Re: The Zimmerman Posts

      "Hey, Bob, Turner's account is no longer in dispute. We know it wasn't true because a jury considered all the evidence and determined Turner's account was false."

      Many people question the Zimmerman outcome. Many question the OJ Simpson trial. Often juries consider all the evidence and determine an account is false and they are incorrect. Just because a jury comes to a conclusion doesn't make it true. To assume so is exceptionally ignorant, dangerous and anti-rational.

      Delete
    6. Inane rape, you just adopted the same nonsense the original Zimmerman poster was trying to throw out there.

      "Just because a jury comes to a conclusion doesn't make it true."

      Wow, that point was addressed when the first Zimmerman poster made his comment. Did you even read the response? No one was trying to make the point he and you are objecting to. The point is, if someone, such as a blogger like Bob Somerby, decides to comment on the circumstances surrounding a SPECIFIC legal case he really only has two choices:

      1. Accept that the jury's verdict was the correct one. Adopting this option means the blogger accepts there is no reason to remain neutral when discussing the case because any reasonable questions before the trial about who did what and whose story may or may not have been true were cleared up after all the evidence and testimony were presented. All REASONABLE doubt was eliminated. A blogger who does remain neutral after a verdict is really saying 1 of 2 things:

      "I really don't know much about this case at all and therefore I can't draw any conclusions," in which case there really is no reason for the blogger to comment since he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

      Or he's saying "I am aware of the evidence but there isn't enough information for me to draw a conclusion," in which case he is no longer neutral at all. He is taking a position. In effect, he is saying there is still reasonable doubt which means he thinks the jury got the verdict wrong.

      This brings up the 2nd choice the blogger has...

      2. Reject the jury's verdict. With this option the burden is completely on the blogger to make his case. If he takes the seemingly neutral, or even, as you'd like to phrase it, SKEPTICAL position that Turner's story "may or may not be true," then he truly isn't neutral at all. He is saying there is still reasonable doubt as to what happened. Fine. That is a valid position to take but that position comes at a price. The blogger must now make his case. We already know why Turner's story might be false, but the blogger now must explain why Turner's story might be true (and no, explaining why Turner’s story MIGHT be true is not the same thing as saying his story is true). You, Inane Rape, at least tried to do that in an earlier post (I'd argue you were unsuccessful). You tried to explain why there might still be doubt as to whether Turner's story may or may not have been true. Somerby should do the same and to do so he must consider ALL of the evidence, not just Turner's account of events. For example, he must poke holes in the stories of the two grad students who stopped Turner. Their stories actually CONTRADICT significant parts of Turner's story. Somerby must explain why a reasonable person should doubt their story. He didn't even try. He didn't try to poke holes in any evidence against Turner. He just accepts Turner's story "may or may not be true."

      Why does Somerby do this? I'll try to explain in a moment...

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. So why does a reasonable man, like Bob Somerby, try to advance the provocative notion that Turner's story "may or may not be true" when taking such a stance implies either ignorance about the case or that there is reasonable doubt as to Turner's guilt, in which case Somerby thinks the jury got it wrong? I'd argue Somerby is doing this because, although he is normally a very careful man when advancing his greater arguments, he is being extremely careless in this instance. I'd argue Somerby really wasn't thinking about the ultimate implications when in an earlier post he referred to Turner as "a drunken freshman" instead of a convicted criminal, and when he said Turner's story "may or may not be true." I think he adopted this stance because he wants to advance a greater argument that centers around the excessive party culture that exists on college campuses, and more emphatically, what he terms as the ILLEGAL party culture that is allowed by school presidents and provosts. Of course, that is a very important topic to discuss. But, in order to advance this topic, Somerby seems to think it was necessary to cast doubt about Brock Turner's guilt. He even went so far as to imply Turner might be some sort of victim when earlier he referred to Turner as "a drunken freshman" who was "set upon" by the press. That's extremely careless rhetoric. The college party culture is an important topic. The circumstances surrounding the Brock Turner case are actually relevant to this topic, so I don't disagree with Somerby referring to Turner, but it's one thing to argue that we would have less incidents like what happened at Stanford if school leaders were held accountable and forced to take significant steps to clamp down on the illegal party culture, it's another thing to imply that in this particular incident the person who was convicted "may or may not" have been telling the truth.

      Again, I think the abstract point is important. I don't think there is any doubt we would have less sexual assaults and less illegal activity if the party culture was addressed head on and school leaders were held accountable. The press should shed light on this subject and we all should advocate for change. But it is possible to take this argument too far and I believe Somerby has in this case. I believe Somerby thought it was important to point out that in a drunken party atmosphere where most of the party goers are drunk, incoherent, and prone to do really stupid and possibly illegal things, it may be difficult to discern what happened if a crime is committed during these raucous events. It may also be difficult for people to avoid being victimized or to at least expect justice after being victimized if they are too drunk to resist or remember what happened and everyone else around is also too drunk to remember. These are import points to bring up, but they are important to bring up in the abstract. Somerby didn't stick with an abstract point. He decided to refer to actual people and a specific incident. It may have been important to discuss doubt about the various stories surrounding this incident before the trial took place when we weren't sure of all the facts, but a trial has taken place and we have a verdict. The verdict was reasonable based on the evidence. Again, if Bob doesn't think so he should make his case, or, if he is just ignorant to the actual facts, he should just shut up and avoid talking about something he doesn't know about.

      Delete
    9. Inane Rape, you've tried to defend Bob but you seem conflicted. In one post you go on and on about how there may be reasonable doubt as to whether the victim gave consent, in another post you say, "look he clearly did something wrong and also broke the law as determined by a jury of his peers." Which is it? Is there reasonable doubt or isn't there. To help you along these lines it seems necessary to repeat what has already been said:

      Turner said he was already standing to vomit when he was approached by the two grad students. The two grad students said he wasn't standing, he was on top of the victim the entire time they observed him. Turner indicated he had just spoken to the victim implying she was conscious and capable of engaging in conversation. The two grad students said the victim clearly was unconscious which is why they knew something was very wrong with what they were seeing. They both indicated they took a decent amount of time to study the situation to determine what was going on because, as one of the grad students said, the situation "didn't look right." At no time did either of them see Turner talking to the victim as he claimed. Again, Turner claimed he had told the victim he had to get up to vomit right before he was confronted by the grad students. The grad students had been observing long enough to determine if Turner's claim was true. They both said there was no conversation, just a man on top of an unconscious woman. Turner then ran as soon as the grad students confronted him indicating he knew right away he had been caught doing something very wrong. The victim was so obviously unconscious that the passersby checked to see if she was breathing. The police arrived shortly after, took the unconscious victim to the hospital where she remained unconscious for several more hours. Those details aren't in dispute. We also know Turner's original statement to the police doesn't match his court testimony. He originally said he and the victim started kissing and somehow ended up on the ground and that he then started to finger her. At no time did he indicate that he and the victim talked at all. In fact the only form of consent that he offered in his original statement to police is he said the victim "rubbed his back with both hands." By his own account no verbal consent was given. He claimed the incident was so meaningless to him that he wouldn't be able to recognize the victim if he saw her again. Of course, his story changed once he was in the court room. He knew exactly who the victim was. He claimed they had been dancing earlier in the night. And, of course, he claimed the victim specifically gave verbal consent. We also have the victim's sister who said Turner had been forcing himself on other women by kissing them without their consent, including her. Of course, there is likely a lot of other evidence that the jury considered that hasn't been reported on.

      Given all of the undisputed facts in this case, is there any doubt that a reasonable person should conclude that the grad students' account of what happened was true and that Turner's account was false? Therefore, is there any reasonable doubt the woman was unconscious when Turner forced himself on her? Is there any reasonable doubt the jury got the verdict right? In your earlier post, Inane Rape, you seem to be looking for absolute doubt. By stating we can't know with absolute certainty that the victim never gave verbal consent because we weren't there you are trying to adopt a ridiculous legal standard. Of course we can't know with absolute certainty what happened in almost any legal case, but often we can know with REASONABLE certainty and that is all we need. That burden seems to be clearly met in this case. Somerby should continue making his greater argument without impugning the jury's verdict.

      Delete
  4. So, illegal campus culture made him do it.

    Interesting, Bob.

    Now go back into your incomparable archives and study how you mocked and ridiculed MIT for trying to get a handle on the problem, and the steps necessary to correct it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I reexamined those threads and found this exchange:

      AnonymousNovember 3, 2014 at 10:49 PM
      Honestly don't you social justice warriors ever get tired of calling anyone who disagrees with you a racist or a misogynist? I can assure you that the great American middle is getting VERY tired of it. Ignore the silent majority at your peril. There WILL be a great and terrible reckoning...


      AnonymousNovember 3, 2014 at 11:58 PM
      1049: Don't you open-carry types ever get tired of threatening anyone who calls a known racist and misogynist a racist and misogynist? As for the "silent majority" bs, look where that got Spiro Agnew.

      ---

      And today we have Trump!

      Delete
  5. Dispassionate ObserverJune 23, 2016 at 11:28 AM

    "Turner, like Bob said, had reason to lie about it. Bob's repeated statements of 'We don't know what happened' are completely reasonable and insisting that he is 'inclined to believe Turner's account' is silly."

    But that's the kind of reader/commenters this blog has these days.

    We've often read Somerby doubting that man [sic] is the rational animal -- his readers are determined to prove such doubt is more than justified.

    ReplyDelete
  6. HOW TO SAVE YOUR RELATIONSHIP
    THANKS TO GREAT DR GOODLUCK FOR SOLVING MY PROBLEMS my name is Mandy Divanna from uK, i was married to my husband for 5 years we were living happily together for this years and not until he traveled to Italy for a business trip where he met this girl and since then he hate me and the kids and love her only. so when my husband came back from the trip he said he does not want to see me and my kids again so he drove us out of the house and he was now going to Italy to see that other woman. so i and my kids were now so frustrated and i was just staying with my mum and i was not be treating good because my mother got married to another man after my father death so the man she got married to was not treating her well, i and my kids where so confuse and i was searching for a way to get my husband back home because i love and cherish him so much so one day as i was browsing on my computer i saw a testimony about this spell caster DR GOODLUCK testimonies shared on the internet by a lady and it impress me so much i also think of give it a try. At first i was scared but when i think of what me and my kids are passing through so i contact him and he told me to stay calm for just 24 hours that my husband shall come back to me and to my best surprise i received a call from my husband on the second day asking after the kids and i called Dr GOODLUCK and he said your problems are solved my child. so this was how i get my family back after a long stress of brake up by an evil lady so with all this help from DR GOODLUK, i want you all on this forum to join me to say a huge thanks to DR GOODLUCK and i will also advice for any one in such or similar problems or any kind of problems should also contact him his email is goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com he is the solution to all your problems and predicaments in life. once again his email address is goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com

    http://goodluck05spellcaster.yolasite.com

    ReplyDelete