Biden-cited story of 10-year-old Ohio rape victim - HOAX?

[Cow Poke]

So the court said that the mother is the one who reported Fuentez and the rape, and the Telemundo interview shows the mom denying it all. Like I said, something is still fishy here.

Yup - the "finding the rapist" wasn't nearly the end of the "hoax" accusation they thought it would be. Something is still not right.

It MAY be as simple as the two "health section" 'reporters' jumped the gun on releasing information that was going to be released in a more orderly fashion.

But there are a lot of things that just don't add up.

[rogue06]

So the court said that the mother is the one who reported Fuentez and the rape, and the Telemundo interview shows the mom denying it all. Like I said, something is still fishy here.

I'll go with convoluted.

FWIU, such contradictions are not unusual in these sort of cases.

[Juvenal]

So the court said that the mother is the one who reported Fuentez and the rape, and the Telemundo interview shows the mom denying it all. Like I said, something is still fishy here.

That had me confused, too, enough to look more carefully at the reporting and the original sources.

No, that’s not what was said in court.

Kessler’s Fact Checker column cited the Columbus Dispatch story.
.

Columbus police were made aware of the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother on June 22, Det. Jeffrey Huhn testified Wednesday morning at Fuentes' arraignment.

She didn’t report a rape, she reported a pregnancy, and she didn’t do it herself. FCCS wrote the pregnancy report. She signed her name to it. The report initiated a police referral by a mandatory reporter. And when the pregnancy report was handed over to the police, they connected the dot and opened a rape investigation.

This is all I can transcribe from the arraignment video.
.

Judge: The charge is rape, felony of the first degree, under 13 years old. Have you had adequate time to review the motion to hold the defendant without bail or bond?

Defense: Yes, your honor.

Judge: Mr. [prosecutor], would you like to proceed.

Prosecutor: Yes, thank you your honor, the state is asking you the court to hold Mr. Fuentes without bail or bond in this case.

[Break in recording, continuing with Det. Huhn testimony in progress]

Prosecutor: And what did she indicate?

Huhn: She indicated that her ten-year-old daughter was pregnant.

Prosecutor: At the time was the daughter still pregnant?

Huhn: Yes.

Prosecutor: Is that daughter still pregnant today?

Huhn: No.

Prosecutor: Why not?

Huhn: The victim went out of state to have a medically terminated abortion.

Prosecutor: Do you know approximately when she had that abortion?

Huhn: Consultation initiated on June 29. The procedure was initiated on the thirtieth. The products of conception were picked up on the second of July.

Prosecutor: When you refer to the products of conception is that the aborted fetus?

Huhn: Yes.

Prosecutor: Is that, products of conception available for DNA testing?

Huhn: Yes, the products of conception were entered into evidence [garbled].

Prosecutor: In what city and state did that abortion take place?

Huhn: Indianapolis, Indiana.

Prosecutor: How did you proceed with your investigation of the rape from there? Clarify, you, or other detectives?

Huhn: On July 6, [Detective, Sergeant, and Detective] met with the family …

[video ends]

Let me remind all y’all who couldn’t wait before blowing up fringe reporting of a hoax that this would be a great time to practice how not to repeat the same mistake. Wait for the DNA test before saying anything more about it not being Fuentes.

Not that I’m going to wait. It was Fuentes.

And it was her mom. Maybe not the first time, but every time he diddled her after that, she was figuratively holding her kid down while he did it. And by figuratively, I mean morally, and legally. She knew. She knew the first morning after her kid got popped. Even if the kid didn’t say a thing, her reaction to her rapist said it for her. And when she refused to do anything about it, she green-lighted Fuentes at the same time she was announcing to the kid that this is how it was going to be so there’s no point complaining about it.

And now she’s saying she doesn’t believe her kid.

The kid’s got no reason to lie.

There’s more to the story, like how the girl ended up at FCCS, but nothing is going to change the basic facts. A ten-year-old was impregnated by rape, and the adults in her life refused to protect her, leaving her no place to look for help.

[rogue06]

That had me confused, too, enough to look more carefully at the reporting and the original sources.

No, that’s not what was said in court.

Kessler’s Fact Checker column cited the Columbus Dispatch story.
.

Columbus police were made aware of the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother on June 22, Det. Jeffrey Huhn testified Wednesday morning at Fuentes' arraignment.

She didn’t report a rape, she reported a pregnancy, and she didn’t do it herself. FCCS wrote the pregnancy report. She signed her name to it. The report initiated a police referral by a mandatory reporter. And when the pregnancy report was handed over to the police, they connected the dot and opened a rape investigation.

This is all I can transcribe from the arraignment video.
.

Judge: The charge is rape, felony of the first degree, under 13 years old. Have you had adequate time to review the motion to hold the defendant without bail or bond?

Defense: Yes, your honor.

Judge: Mr. [prosecutor], would you like to proceed.

Prosecutor: Yes, thank you your honor, the state is asking you the court to hold Mr. Fuentes without bail or bond in this case.

[Break in recording, continuing with Det. Huhn testimony in progress]

Prosecutor: And what did she indicate?

Huhn: She indicated that her ten-year-old daughter was pregnant.

Prosecutor: At the time was the daughter still pregnant?

Huhn: Yes.

Prosecutor: Is that daughter still pregnant today?

Huhn: No.

Prosecutor: Why not?

Huhn: The victim went out of state to have a medically terminated abortion.

Prosecutor: Do you know approximately when she had that abortion?

Huhn: Consultation initiated on June 29. The procedure was initiated on the thirtieth. The products of conception were picked up on the second of July.

Prosecutor: When you refer to the products of conception is that the aborted fetus?

Huhn: Yes.

Prosecutor: Is that, products of conception available for DNA testing?

Huhn: Yes, the products of conception were entered into evidence [garbled].

Prosecutor: In what city and state did that abortion take place?

Huhn: Indianapolis, Indiana.

Prosecutor: How did you proceed with your investigation of the rape from there? Clarify, you, or other detectives?

Huhn: On July 6, [Detective, Sergeant, and Detective] met with the family …

[video ends]

Let me remind all y’all who couldn’t wait before blowing up fringe reporting of a hoax that this would be a great time to practice how not to repeat the same mistake. Wait for the DNA test before saying anything more about it not being Fuentes.

Not that I’m going to wait. It was Fuentes.

And it was her mom. Maybe not the first time, but every time he diddled her after that, she was figuratively holding her kid down while he did it. And by figuratively, I mean morally, and legally. She knew. She knew the first morning after her kid got popped. Even if the kid didn’t say a thing, her reaction to her rapist said it for her. And when she refused to do anything about it, she green-lighted Fuentes at the same time she was announcing to the kid that this is how it was going to be so there’s no point complaining about it.

And now she’s saying she doesn’t believe her kid.

The kid’s got no reason to lie.

There’s more to the story, like how the girl ended up at FCCS, but nothing is going to change the basic facts. A ten-year-old was impregnated by rape, and the adults in her life refused to protect her, leaving her no place to look for help.

I don't think the mangy pirate was questioning that all the evidence points to Fuentes, but rather was focusing on the perceived contradiction regarding the mother and what she said.

[Juvenal]

I don't think the mangy pirate was questioning that all the evidence points to Fuentes, but rather was focusing on the perceived contradiction regarding the mother and what she said.

The perception of a contradiction was because “the mother is the one who reported Fuentez and the rape,” but there’s nothing in evidence that shows either of these occurred.

[Sparko]

The perception of a contradiction was because “the mother is the one who reported Fuentez and the rape,” but there’s nothing in evidence that shows either of these occurred.

Got it. I thought she had reported Fuentez as the rapist. You cleared that up. Thanks.

[One Bad Pig]

Update:

Source: PJ Media

The strange part about this story is that it seems the child was not removed from her home by social services or police after it was found that she was pregnant. Several nurses PJ Media spoke to had never heard of releasing a pregnant 10-year-old to the person who brought her to a hospital. Every nurse we spoke to said protocol demands that the hospital and social services take custody of her until an investigation is done.

And yet, new evidence from the Indiana complaint that cited court transcripts suggests Dr. Bernard and the social services at Indiana University Hospital may have turned the child back over to her mother after performing the abortion. Noting that Ohio child services and Ohio police were involved, the complaint filed by Rokita alleges that Bernard failed to call Indiana police and released the child to go back to her home in Ohio after the abortion. If Ohio child services dropped the ball, and new information in the complaint seems to support that they did, then Bernard failed to protect the child by giving Indiana police the chance to take her into Indiana custody. Rokita’s complaint had the details.

The next day, on July 2, 2022, Respondent [Bernard] submitted a terminated pregnancy report to the Indiana Department of Health. And at 3:59 p.m. on July 2, 2022, Respondent emailed the TPR form to DCS, noting “this case was already reported through DCS in Ohio.” Ohio law enforcement also travelled to Indianapolis on July 2, 2022, to retrieve the “product of conception” as evidence.

Within two weeks of the IndyStar article, on July 14, 2022, a reporter located Respondent’s patient’s home in Ohio and knocked on her door with video cameras. That same day, during a media interview with 13WTHR, Respondent [Bernard] said, “It is important to tell our patients’ stories as much as we can.”

At no time prior to the 3:59pm email on July 2, 2022, did Respondent notify local law enforcement in Indiana or DCS concerning the possible child abuse she learned of on or before June 27, 2022.

After the child left the care of Respondent, she returned to Ohio, and upon information and belief, resided in the same home as her alleged rapist.

If accurate, this is important. It would mean that both Ohio DCS and Indiana DCS failed to protect a child rape victim from her abuser. Fuentes wasn’t arrested and charged until July 12. If he was still living in the home with the child, that means both child services departments in two states sent her back to her home, possibly to be abused further. Court transcripts seem to corroborate that theory. Rokita included the judge’s statements during Fuentes’s arraignment that the press never reported.

The Ohio judge in the matter denied Fuentes’ bond because “[t]o allow him to return to that home, the traumatic and psychological impact would be undeserving to the alleged victim.” The judge explained that “when a child who has gone through the physical trauma of being raped, the physical trauma of being 10 years old and being impregnated, the physical and mental and emotional trauma of having to drive to another state, have this whole entire incident in this child’s life become a national hot point to the point to where the President of the United States is referring to this case, the Court finds that that trauma is enough to never have that child be around the alleged defendant.”

If the child had been in the custody of the state, there would have been no reason for the judge to make this statement since foster care placements are confidential, and the offending parents would not be told where the child was staying. This could explain why Ohio DCS refused to answer the simple question PJ Media posed: Did you take the child into state custody?

© Copyright Original Source

More here.