Isabelle Zehnder also alleges the State of Utah had no case against Cheryl Sudweeks.
Not true.
Cheryl Sudweeks entered a no-contest plea against the allegations brought against her by the county prosecutor.
If there was no case or the charged had been dropped, there would be no need to enter a plea one way or another, correct?
Correct. From the
Deseret Morning News, September 22, 2006:
"Sudweeks, 51, pleaded no contest to four charges of attempted hazing, all class C misdemeanors. She was originally charged with six counts of child abuse, class A misdemeanors, and two counts of hazing, one a class A misdemeanor and the other a class B misdemeanor. A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt but is treated as such for purposes of sentencing".
It was a plea
bargain. Utah avoided a long jury trial, and Cheryl Sudweeks was sent packing, and as Juab County Attorney Eldridge said,
"It addresses some of the concerns I have — not all of them — but it resolves Mrs. Sudweeks to a be a law-abiding citizen for a year. Even if we got a conviction, that's all the probation she would have been given anyway. It requires her to pay a fine and do community service. And it shuts her down, at least here in Juab County, so they can't do business here. I believe it effectively shuts them down in the state of Utah," Eldridge also said,
"These kids made some allegations of abuse and I completely believe them. That's why I filed the case. But the fact that I believe them is one thing, whether a jury is going to believe is a whole different question," That puzzled me at first. Why did Eldridge think a jury would be so difficult to convince? Then I remembered: the case is in Utah, the haven of abusive programees. Why do you think Randall Hinton scampered off there?
When the criminal investigation began against the Sudweeks in November 2004, there were approximately 40 children enrolled at Whitmore Academy; and reportedly all of the kids were referred to Whitmore Academy by Scheff or people who worked/volunteered for PURE.
Two families gave thier statements to ISAC regarding Whitmore Academy; and both statements are critical of PURE; but for some reason these WHITMORE blogs only mention this one parent; as if only one parent was not satisfied with the referral made by PURE.
Wonder what that reason might be?
A
vendetta. Izzy isn't a great legal mind, is she? It takes more than one mad mom to file a class action lawsuit. Zehnder's going after someone who was quite vocal against Whitmore, and she's attacking this one parent for lack of any other targets. As for the rather bizarre story of the Whitmore runaways, I find it hard not to laugh at the extreme measures and expenses a stranger would undertake to enable some unknown kids to make it to Bonnaroo. The County Attorney didn't take it seriously, nor do I. By the way, Izzy, Bonnaroo is a "music festival", not a "drug fest". This is only speculation on my part, but I believe the boys were allowed to go by (fill in the blank) and given this rather implausible cover story to use in an effort to smear a known and very vocal Whitmore detractor. Makes more sense to me.
On her Whitmore blog, Izzy wrote:
"She goes on to say CAICA is worried because we referred children there. CAICA is not a referral agency so never referred any child there."No, but CAICA is aligned with PURE, and who's to say a parent didn't put trust in CAICA and followed CAICA's praise of PURE to Scheff, and from there the road to hell led to the Whitmore...
It's the dreaded "domino effect" Sue and Izzy want to avoid, and they're backpedaling, spinning, lashing out blindly, and trying to scorch the earth five miles in every direction in an attempt to get out of the way of the falling blocks.
