 |
| Sheriff Chris Elliot Danny Elliot |
By now many might be sick of hearing about the details of the Wooley family persecution but it is without a doubt one of the larges miscarriage of justice in recent years. The Wooley persecution rests upon two legs; a discredited Medical Examiner's report that is discredited by two other examination of the evidence and the word of a SANE nurse, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.
The Oklahoma State Medical Examiner Office has been in disarray for over a decade. Back in 2009 they lost their accreditation with the National Association of Medical Examiners in part over their facilities and in part over poor management and practices. Back in 2016 a plan was hatched to purchase a building in Oklahoma City to move the ME office to provide more room and in 2018 the ME office moved into the building. But the Oklahoma State ME Office remains un accredited as of this date. A recent job posting by the ME office proves the point as they are advertising that they produce autopsies to standards, a nice way of stating that they are not accredited despite the millions spent on the new building and increasing the budget.
The autopsy in question in the Wooley case was Elijah Wooley's autopsy. Despite making erroneous claims that tiny 1/8” and 1/4” marks on the 14 month old infant were evidence of injuries the autopsy doctor Niblo refused to procure tissue samples that are normally used to prove that the tissue has broken capillaries below the skin, something that is required in a competent medical examination. The tissue samples are used by pathologists that verify the autopsy results.
A second opinion out of Austin disagreed with major points of the Niblo autopsy and made further unsubstantiated claims that would be impossible to claim without the tissue slides.
A third opinion from the Medical Examiner of Detroit Michigan, a man that is responsible for hundreds of infant autopsies each year, found massive discrepancies in the original autopsy results and the second opinion.
Then there is simple common sense. If the x-rays of the infant's corpse showed the entire bowel filled with....McDugle.... golf ball sized.... McDugles... how was it possible that the child had been savaged? If the McDugles were soft, at death the relaxation of the body would have allowed the McDugle to leak out as most bodies indeed do at all orifices. Had the infant's Kannaday been penetrated with an adult sized...Gary Mize... there would have been zero constipation and the diaper would have been full of McDugle. In fact there was only a tiny 1/8” diameter area found and the Kannady was dilated after death to only 3/8” or 1cm.
Then there was the SANE nurse report where she claimed the five year old meth baby child had made elaborate statements that she recorded verbatim, including Ebonics used by the inter racial child that had been raised by a lily white family, including the unused name of the grandfather who goes by Bill and not William. What five year old calls his grandfather by his first name anyway? The child's school records were published last week including the evaluations for several years stating that the child had problems speaking and had a limited vocabulary and a speech impediment. The hours of taped interview on two forensic interviews also showed that the child had limited abilities to speak, a limited vocabulary, no Ebonics used, and that the interviewer was frustrated and challenged by trying to decipher what the child was saying.
And yet this SANE interview magically produces incriminating utterances, which the child denied saying four days later in the second forensic interview. This second forensic interview was withheld by Wagoner County District Attorneys for eleven months until a slip on the witness stand revealed the existence of the second interview.
But there is so much of an abundance of proof that this is a malicious prosecution that we have been forced to reveal the story over nearly a month's of stories. The sheer volume of information would make a fifty page story that no one would have time to read.
The Grand Jury Refuses to Indict
Normally when a Grand Jury refuses to indict a defendant that is the end of it. After all twelve peers have rejected the prosecutor's arguments after interviewing the witnesses and reviewing all the evidence. If fewer than nine jurors think there is a problem, the case is dismissed.
So why then did Wagoner County District Attorney Jack Thorpe charge the two grandparents after the Multi-county Grand Jury refused to indict?
The daughter of the Wooley grandparents, Glory Wooley, the aunt of the deceased child and the remaining child had cooperated initially with the Wagoner County Sheriffs Office as did the grandparents. All felt there was nothing to hide. Wagoner County Sheriff Investigator Danny Elliot had gone into the investigation with his mind made up according to his supervisor at the Sheriff's office and Elliot made a point to encourage Glory “to come forward with any additional information but not alternatives”. Elliot had murder on his mind and was dismissive of anything that didn't support his view of why a child died.
At one point Glory Wooley was brought in for another interview and got the impression that Elliot wasn't searching for the truth but was searching only for what would reinforce his views of why the child died. At that point Glory asked that her rights be read to her; I know, not a smart thing to do if you understand the law and what Miranda warnings were supposed to do. Glor wasn't considered a suspect according to Elliot, despite his previous testimony and the transcript of that testimony, but Glory was convinced that her rights needed to be read to her as if that would somehow protect her.
Elliot got frustrated and ended the interview although he could have just read her the Miranda warning and completed the interview. Shortly after that, OSU police officers escort Elliot and another Wagoner County deputy into the library at OSU to slap a subpoena on Glory Wooley that demanded her testimony at the 17th Multi-county Grand Jury. The smirking Elliot informed Glory that since she wouldn't “cooperate” they would do it this way.
Glory shows up in OKC at the AG office expecting to be sworn in and to testify before the Grand Jury. Only to find Jack Thorpe there with a big box of case files. No testimony was scheduled, the hour was spent trying to convince Glory and her attorney that her parents were child rapists and murderers.
The second time around Michelle Kelly, another ADA named Bennett, and Jack Thorpe were all there and Glory was sworn in before a judge and testified to the Grand Jury. Glory testified about the relationships of the people living in the home when the infant died and if the doors and windows was locked, establishing that the “murderer” had to be in the home. For the first time Glory was able to inform the jury that the Tulsa based Oklahoma State Medical Examiner's Office as not accredited and she testified to other facts that probably left Jack Thorpe red in the face as he was powerless to stop the testimony.
And before some idiot at the Wagoner County District Attorney gets excited, it is not illegal to discuss what you testified about before a Grand Jury once the six month gag order has expired. Been there, done that, got charged with a felony for doing so and watched with amusement as the AAG had to back down in front of a judge and dismiss the charges.
Wagoner County Sheriff Investigator Danny Elliot, Might be Well Meaning, But Probably Disturbed, Alienated, Incompetent, and Dangerous, Didn't Even Understand the Words He Threw Around
Battering Average on Abuse Cases? Three Cases Including This One, The Other Two Cases Found Innocent
Remember when we first started telling the Wooley story we first brought up the man that is responsible for malicious persecution of the Wooley family, Danny Elliot. That ought to have given you a clue as to just how much evil this man has done against families in Wagoner County. Something isn't right with that boy, he is damaged to the core, has to be in order to see him repeatedly charging families with felonies and losing the cases in court.
We first find out about how potentially damaged Danny Elliot is in an interview with the mother of Elijah, Desiree Wolley. Desiree is in a Christian drug recovery center, a faith based non profit that doesn't take a dime of government money. Elliot is interviewing her in an effort to convince her to support his twisted agenda and his version of why the infant died that night. Desiree pours out her heart and bares her soul describing what she had devolved into through weed and ecstasy after the birth of her first son. By the time she was pregnant the second time she was doing meth heavily and she is truly sorry for the damage she did to Elijah. She made an observation that she sensed a darkness in Elijah, that he wouldn't look people in the eyes like a normal baby will do, but will allow their eyes to roam around unfocused and only look at a human when heavily engaged only to look away when the hyper stimulus ends. Desiree also spoke of the love and admiration she held for her parents and her dad in particular, the sacrifice he made, working with bad knees, sacrificing for the family. She was both upset that her parents took her two kids and glad at the same time, knowing that she wasn't a fit mother yet.
Elliot attempts to paint Bill Wooley as a patriarch, bossing the family around, but Desiree totally dismisses the idea to the point where Elliot gets frustrated. You can sense a problem with religion and Danny Elliot. He is dismissive, curt even, when Desiree gets to talking about religion, and decides to switch gears and start asking questions about what Desiree knew about the death of Elijah. As part of that, Desiree recounts a story of a lawyer that goes to their church coming in and warning them to be careful of what is said, that police can twist things around. At that pint Elliot appears to be offended, saying “We are truth seekers.” Some sources say that Elliot has a problem with Christinaity, others say he doesn't.
The most troubling fact is Elliot's complete dismissal of SIDS as cause of death worth considering. The CDC says it is real.
SIDS of course is a recognized cause of death. Medical experts and researchers do not understand everything but they have noticed that smoking tobacco, smoking weed, and doing drugs increases the likelihood of SIDS. But the two men interviewing this grieving mother do not believe in SIDS and are looking for a murderer.
But Elijah wasn't a healthy kid. He was a recovering meth baby and at least six months behind developmentally. Elliot goes on by telling the mother that her baby had been sodomized and smothered to death.
At this point Elliot is exaggerating the autopsy, alleging that there were wounds that were massive, not saying that they were either 1/8” to 1/4” in size. He goes on to talk about the lividity, the draining of blood to the lowest part of the body after death, not discussing that the baby had been laying face down for about 12 hours before being taken out of the crib and laid on his back after the 911 operator requested it be done. All the classic signs of strangulation were missing in the autopsy reports as well. No tissue samples were taken of any of the so called “wounds” that were so tiny so that burst capillaries could be confirmed.
At this point Elliot begins wildly exaggerating to the mother who had not seen any of the evidence. Autposy photos and crime scene photos show a perfectly normal nose, no distortion, no imprint of fabric, no normal signs of pressure. There is zero signs that the baby struggled, no bruises on the arms or legs, no damage to the front lips and frenulum (tissue connecting lip to the gums). Zero evidence to either allegation.
At this point Elliot tries telling Desiree about the obviously fabricated statements made by the five year old in the SANE examination. Keep in mind that the five year old just went through hours of forensic interviews denying that any abuse happened, that the SANE nurse is just a nurse and isn't qualified to diagnose or make opinions, she is there to look for marks on the kid or signs of neglect, and that a second forensic interview four days later had the five year old vehemently denying that he said anything had happened. And it was this second interview that was illegally withheld from the defense for eleven months. And even the mother of this dead infant knows the allegations are outrageous so she starts laughing.
By this point Elliot is flat our lying about things. First he refuses to allow the mother to see the forensic interview when she asks to see it “That's not how forensic interviews work.” Then Elliot claims that the interviewer doesn't make leading questions yet watching the interviews shows the interviewing tripping all over herself when the five year old says “hoppler”, with the interviewer saying “You mean Papa did it? Papa?” and the kid is screaming “Hoppler. Hoppler” referring to a school friend name Hopper. This is in reference to the five year old admitting that someone touched his privates, another five year old that was whacking him in the McDugle. Then the part about “children healing more quickly.” after the mother listed the people that saw that baby's butt when changing diapers.
Where a normal person with a brain will scream stupidity is in this next section of the transcript. Elliot is claiming that the wounds were “acute”, supposedly meaning happening near the time of death or at death. Well that isn't what “acute” means at all. Acute means that a wound happened quickly as opposed to a wound like an ulcer that took some time to develop. It refers to a wound that will heal normally by the body through tissue regeneration and scarring. There is a word for wounds that occur during death, it is called peri-mortum and they are determined by the amount of blood coming out of the wound. It is just common sense really, you split open a child's McDugle while the child is alive and the blood pressure is high so wounds bleed like a stuck hog. If you wound a body after the heart has quit pumping there is zero blood pressure other than the gravity acting on the blood so little blood will flow. The body also reacts to injury and starts to clot the blood and repair very quickly. The amount of inflammation and cells like myocytes can prove that the body was already starting to heal the wound before death occurred. And of course there defendant was completely and utterly cleared from all DNA evidence found, no semen, no lube, no latex, no other DNA matched the grandfather
But I want to wash out my eyes and mind after researching McDugle fissures and wounds caused by child abuse. Children do not heal more quickly nor will a scar erase or cover up another scar. The imbecile is making this poor child's McDugle hole seem like I 40 at rush hour. Furthermore, the studies on McDugle raped infants are clear, 84% show scars or fissures. The pictures in the research show mainly 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock tears in the skin. Read this single paragraph intro into one study:
“The notes of 214 children who, over a period of 7 years, had been referred after an allegation or a suspicion of any form of child abuse, were examined retrospectively to establish the pattern of injury found, especially with regard to anal fissures or scars. These were all children who had had their genitalia examined at the time of their referral. In 81 children (Group A) who had no history or evidence of sexual abuse, two fissures were found, both with medical explanations for their presence. In 83 (Group B) who alleged sexual abuse but denied anal abuse, nine (11%) had fissures or scars, and in four of the nine there was a history of significant constipation at some time In 50 children (Group C) who had a strong history of anal abuse, 41 (84%) had fissures or scars. The diagnosis in 13 of these cases was considered definite because there was a confession or guilty plea from the abuser; in the remainder, the diagnosis was "not proven" despite a strong history or gross anal signs and regardless of the verdict in court proceedings. The significance of the findings was discussed with a view to clarifying the relative importance of anal fissures in children with a strong history of anal abuse.”
Notice that the remainder of the cases in the 50 child group were “not proven”, showing the difficulty of prosecuting these cases. Was it constipation or abuse? In a 14 month old alleged to have been McDugally raped, we know the damage would be severe. Another point, they list confessions and guilty pleas but how many were poor people unable to afford a defense and taking a deferred sentence from the D.A. because the D.A. knows he has a weak case, just like the deferred sentence offered the Wooley's.
And not only that, these tears or lacerations do not heal without signs or scars. Everyone knows that scar tissue might be lighter in color or darker in color than the surrounding skin. There will be V shaped notches or actual tears, slits in the tissue, anyone changing a baby is going to recognize that split with raw tissue showing, usually many times the diameter of the McDugle hole. And that is on an adult or teen rape victim, an infant is going to be much, much, much, more severe. Tell me that a dozen people that changed that baby's diaper on a daily basis, mutliple day cares and church day cares with reporting requirement, as well as the four family members that changed that diaper, tell me that one of them wouldn't have noticed a child that was raped on the couch on a daily basis while grandpa watched TV with the rest of the family.
Then the idiot really shows his ignorance of medical issues. He claims that if he cut someone on their arm and a month later cut them again in the very same place you would erase the signs of the earlier wound and that is why they had to take the tissue samples or look at the tissues. This is total B.S.. First, if you slit open a wound you aren't removing any tissue, the sides of the wound would show the scar tissue visible by eye. Second, despite making the allegations of there being a 1/8” x 1/8” wound and a second 1/4” x 1/4” wound up on the neck/back area, Niblo took NO TISSUE SAMPLES. The other pathologist said they always took tissue samples if an area was different or of concern. Through the microscope the signs of burst capillaries can be found and any signs of inflammation, tissue granularity, or other signs of injury.
This next part has Elliot discussing the manner in which the five year old “disclosed” things. The problem is that the five year old didn't disclose anything in the two hours long forensic interviews, he was alleged to have disclosed something that is physically impossible due to his speech impediments to the SANE nurse. How could Elliot determine the matter of fact “disclosure” where he wasn't there and there was no recording made? Once again the mother asks to see the forensic interviews and is refused, with Elliot saying that will wait till things go to court.
But the worst example of bias in this interview was when Elliot accused the entire family except the one daughter of not being upset enough when confronted with the “facts” that abuse happened. It would be obvious that all of these people changing that 14 month old's diaper would know for a fact that no abuse happened. You just as well tell them the sky is purple and expect anything other than disbelief or that the investigation is being ran by an idiot.
And the Desiree thought the same from her response to Elliot:
Now this next bit is illuminating. They claim that the family refused to talk to them when in fact the interviewed all the family members on site and again down at the Sheriff office.
And one of the recurring complaints from the family is that the Wagoner County investigators and the District Attorney is that they refuse to consider any alternatives to the infant being murdered. This last screen shot shows that the two investigators aren't interested in alternatives to what happened to the infant, they want information that confirms their accusations.
Danny Elliott tells that story in several of his interviews about a family member that was abused after he had assisted in arranging their adoption. Elliot claims he carries a heavy guilt and considers himself the catalyst for what happened even if he wasn't responsible for the harm done. The details of the story aren't important, what is important is that we actually verified the story as true. That made us a bit more sympathetic to Danny Elliot but at the same time it brings up the question of why in the hell would he be allowed to investigate abuse cases? Elliot claims he is more “acute” (there is that word again) to molestation, he says this in his interview with Desiree the mother of the infant and has said it during testimony.
Someone explain why we as a society put people into positions of power that can ruin lives but we don't do psychological evaluations before they are given that power? Anyone with emotional issues ought to at least be banned from being involved in those kind of cases.
Danny Elliot might have good intentions but the overwhelming evidence and circumstances in the case all scream malicious prosecution. He is ill trained, mixes up the medical terminology or is ignorant of basic forensic science, and it seems that we allow people to investigate abuse claims after a few hours of training at a continuing education conference. He has prosecuted two other infant abuse cases, one for molestation and another for murder and lost both cases. He will lose this case too and in the process expose the entire Wagoner County Sheriff Department to be incompetent and the Wagoner County D.A. to be either incompetent or gutless.
