The trial, if goes as scheduled, is only 5 days, 3 business days, away. If Chantry is so innocent, what can he accomplish by being out of jail for such a short period of time? What is the point?

More seriously, I can understand that Mr Chantry (especially if innocent) would want to spend every day he can out of jail. I don’t know enough of the evidence to contribute to the trial, though; I can only hope it’s a fair one. Meaning, if he is innocent, then he is robustly cleared; and if he is guilty, any and all of his victims are robustly defended.

Nobody wrote:

You engage in evil when you speculate but know nothing.

It’s not speculation when it’s in the court records, genius!

dee wrote:

To you, Nobody, we give you the TWW official send off.

https://youtu.be/4L_yCwFD6Jo

What, no “Bye, Felicia”?

” ….Arizona has had a change in the law regarding certain sex crimes that allow for pretrial imprisonment if there is enough evidence to presume that the defendant is guilty”

well, I hope the ‘enough evidence’ to get this man into imprisonment pretrial will also be ‘enough evidence’ to save people from letting him out even now ….

let him be tried, then let the courts seek justice for all concerned

but that ‘enough evidence’ in the meantime establishes a reason for the state to keep this man locked up and the people of the state possibly less vulnerable to one more sick predator during this waiting period

dee wrote:

@ Lea:
He’s a troll. He probably is involved with Frank Turk.

Who apparently lives in my backyard too. Avoid!

dee wrote:

He is a naughty, obnoxious, wussy troll.

Remember when Mark Driscoll used to troll blog posts? He would sign on as “William Wallace II” to post naughty and obnoxious comments. He finally confessed to this misbehaving; it was so unbecoming of Pastor Mark.

Chantry’s court date of March 27th no longer appears on the court schedule for Superior Court of Yavapai County in Prescott, AZ.

The initial judge assigned to the case recused herself and a judge from Maricopa County presided over the case on 9/6/2016 for preliminary hearings. The Arizona public record on the Chantry case lists 7 criminal counts Chantry has been charged with and under the heading of “Disposition” for each count it says “DEF TO ANOTHER COURT FOR PROS.”

I read that the Maricopa judge who presided over the case in September has been assigned the case. I am guessing the trial will be held in his courtroom in Phoenix, but I can find no public record to verify this.

I am also uncertain whether Chantry remains incarcerated in the Yavapai County jail, or if he would have been transferred to the Maricopa County jail.

It would make sense that the trial date has been pushed back to sometime after the hearing in April scheduled to get Chantry out of jail. BTW, I know a man who spent about a year in the Maricopa County jail while awaiting his trial. He said his time there was much more dangerous than his time in state prison. I can understand anyone wanting to get out of jail, even if for only 1 day.

Max wrote:

dee wrote:
He is a naughty, obnoxious, wussy troll.

Remember when Mark Driscoll used to troll blog posts? He would sign on as “William Wallace II” to post naughty and obnoxious comments.

Never realizing that Braveheart was HIGHLY fictionalized.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Which also makes him a flight risk.
When “the Chantry Affair” surfaced earlier in this blog, someone commented that Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix isn’t that far from where Chantry is currently jugged. And that this might have been a reason he got returned to the stony lonesome after being out on bail.

I also think he’s a possible flight risk. It’s a very serious crime, and from his statements, from the fact that he kept moving around, and the things my aunt from Prescott said about him, it wouldn’t surprise me.

And it’d be just as easy to drive out of Arizona.

ishy wrote:

And it’d be just as easy to drive out of Arizona.

Probably easier. No paper trail.

I agree with you about flight risk, it depends on how bad the evidence is (and the fact that he’s sitting in jail rather than on bail makes it seem likely to be pretty bad). I also think a plea deal might be attempted, particularly if he swing something based on time served. I don’t know how likely AZ is to go for that.

Terrible to hear of his story, but am grateful to God’s grace for getting me out of those circles. Was friends many years ago with folks who hung out with his dad, and was a friend of someone who is still tight in Tom’s circle. The folks in those churches have way to much unhealthy adoration and trust in those pastors. Not really surprised this stayed subsurface for so long with the good-ole boy mentality that exists.

siteseer wrote:

Tom Chantry’s friends seem determined to make him look as guilty as possible. The way they have responded to the story being aired by attacking and accusing others, they probably don’t realize this but it’s classic guilty behavior.

All that’s missing is the Got Hard hysterical denials “NO! NEVER!”

Lea wrote:

If they had any real arguments that he was actually innocent you’d think that they might present them instead of being mad that people are reporting…legal court documents and public information that is not in dispute!

Right, they are just trying to intimidate people. It looks so bad.

siteseer wrote:

Tom Chantry’s friends seem determined to make him look as guilty as possible. The way they have responded to the story being aired by attacking and accusing others, they probably don’t realize this but it’s classic guilty behavior.

They’re not his friends if they’re blindly circling wagons round him based on his protestations alone, they’re not his friends even if they have personal knowledge of his innocence (which to me would seem to be impossible under the circumstances) if their idea of friendship is to do some of the reprehensible things they’ve done in his defense. They’re closer to being his worst enemies.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I remember when that surfaced, someone in these threads cited a source that the more hysterical and vehement the denials (“NO! NEVER! EVER!”), the more likely they’re guilty. And this is something that police interrogators are trained to look for — unusually or excessively-vehement denials.

I think that’s true. Also, there’s no specific denial of the exact charges, just vague protestations that you are supposed to interpret to mean a denial. Like he doesn’t say, “I didn’t molest [so-and-so]” he just exclaims “No! Never! Ever!” which could just as well mean he ‘never ever’ wanted to be called out or to have this conversation.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote [of Marc Driskle]:

Never realizing that Braveheart was HIGHLY fictionalized.

Or that “Braveheart” was the historic nickname of Robert Bruce, not of William Wallace (the significance of Wallace in Scottish history notwithstanding).

Brian wrote:

It is my great hope that there is another Reformation but it has to do with how people who have been victimized by the church are restored and believed by the power structure and that people realized that other people do not want to be victims of this kind of alleged situation.

Good idea.

Just heard a story on NPR of how an “entrepreneur” enticed young ladies https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/against-their-will/. Now in jail, he talks about the state-of-the-art and commonplace tactics used to manipulate, entrap, and exploit. No force needed – he says just find the vulnerable and use the right words. Chilling.

Chantry’s church still has that video of him on its main page: http://crbc.us/

You’d think they would take it down while he is facing charges and awaiting trial, even if they truly think that he’ll be found “not guilty.”

siteseer wrote:

Also, there’s no specific denial of the exact charges, just vague protestations that you are supposed to interpret to mean a denial. Like he doesn’t say, “I didn’t molest [so-and-so]” he just exclaims “No! Never! Ever!” which could just as well mean he ‘never ever’ wanted to be called out or to have this conversation.

I remember a Cold War spy thriller from long ago (Night Flight from Moscow) where that “Beat the Box” trick was an important plot point. Fake defector (played by Yul Brynner) on a lie-detector test uses a sudden vehement outburst like that to camouflage the actual polygraph reaction to the disinformation he is passing.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Again, chilling.