Report From Wichita 

Defense attorney Mark Rudy went after the fact that Tiller was an abortionist and tried in every way to expose that fact, that Truth, to the jury.    The walls of opposition were crumbling under his relentless efforts. The “A-word” came out and the jury was reminded – in case they actually knew nothing -  of the peculiar institution which is the heart of this case.

The day began with Providence supplying a parking spot in front of the Court House on Main Street where Dave Leach parked the Holman “Truth Van” – well bedecked with those visual aids for the public which testify to the fundamental truth of this murder case.  Babies are murdered by abortionists and Scott Roeder rescued a good number of them on Pentecost Sunday in Wichita when he shot to death their murderer.  Accompanying Dave this week is his bride, Dorothy, Donna Holman, Michael Bray, and Drew Heiss.  (There are some other local whom we can name at another time.)

The prosecutors brought on two ushers who witnessed “the individual” who shot Tiller and then departed and drove away.  Keith Martin, a litigation attorney, and Charles Scott both testified to hearing the shots and seeing the shooter.  Scott actually identified the defendant Scott and gets to have his name on the record as one who helped the prosecution get their man.  He strikes one as a regular good-ole usher who is just doing his civil duty, even if failed to do his brotherly duty to Tiller and exhort him to stop killing the innocents.  He dutifully remembered Scott as one whose clothes were kind of funny looking – he didn’t dress like all the more urbane membership who were a homogenous group of upper class progressives with a multi-million dollar building belonging to a denomination with a “liberal” view of abortion. 

Of course this dog and pony show is unnecessary as “the defendant” is happy to testify about the deeds which are not in question.  He has already proclaimed the fact that he “shot a man in Church.” He just wants to explain why he would perform such a drastic deed, and he would like legal representatives to present his defense upon the well established legal principle of “necessity.”  Real people were in need of real protection.  He delivered it.      

But the prosecution went on and on showing multiple pictures of the building with its various vestibules, foyers, and alcoves.  Particularly, mention was made repeatedly of the “narthex” and “sanctuary” and “sacristy”- those sacred places so violated by the man on trial.  This was a regular respectable church!  Never mind what our usher was doing or the money he have to the building fund!

Rudy pursued testimony to the fact that something was going on that offended many people.  He drew from the ushers the fact that there had been many demonstrations, interruptions, and invasions of the church services.  There was something one of their members was doing which profoundly bothered many people.  The church had ignored this grave matter.  What is had tolerated was being brought to light by this defendant and they seemed to want to suppress it.  (Did he not point a gun at other members as he made his escape?)

“I observed the defendant point a gun at Keith and tell him to get back,” said Charles Scott.  And then, “I chased after the car to get the tag number.”

Oh and tell us, invited the Prosecutor, “How was he holding the gun as he threatened you?”

Mr. Scott cooperatively demonstrated a half clenched fist with an index finger extended.

Listening to the testimonies of the ushers, another elderly and gentile new member, one Thornton Anderson, and the female pastor was altogether unimpressive to anyone who was paying attention to the real issue at hand, of course. 

Pastorette Kristin Neitzel’s manner of speech revealed the poor quality of pastor the apostate ELCA now produces.  Evidence presented included a written statement she had made pertaining to a line-up in which she selected Roeder out of a group of about eight mug shots. 

“Looks most like who I saw, but I’m not for sure,” she inelegantly wrote

Such an observation may seem hypercritical, but there was little in today’s proceedings toward which one could exercise the discriminating powers of one’s faculties.