The first thing we did was place Jamin under oath, and when he was under oath before God, we asked him if the written confession he had provided to the Greenfields some months ago was a true and accurate account. He replied that it was. . . .
Douglas Wilson
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
Since Jamin is a convicted perjurer, why would anyone believe he was truthful under oath …
Hi Rachel:
The oath in this quote took place in 2005; whereas he perjured himself 2009. However, both oaths relate to the same crime. Jamin Wight swore the first oath to solemnly affirm his confession regarding his criminal behavior; Jamin Wight swore the second oath to solemnly affirm that he had kept his probation — which was part of his punishment for the crime he confessed in the first oath.
So, yes, Jamin Wight’s perjury in the matter of his probation casts doubt on his honesty in the matter of his confession. I think Wight’s deceitful testimony in court impeaches the credibility of his first oath altogether, but that’s just my opinion, which is based on the pattern of criminal behavior he established before the Kirk put him under oath.
And as long as we’re on it, does anyone really believe that the Kirk cares if Jamin Wight perjured himself on one or both occasions? Wilson fought for the lesser charge to reward Wight’s lawlessness, not because he thought it warranted punishment. Wilson’s pattern is as clear as Wight’s: he approves wicked behavior.
True and accurate seems to leave wiggle room on the issue of complete.
So a pedophile’s oath can be taken seriously? A pedophile’s whole life is a lie, they think “putting him under oath” means anything? What planet are these people from?
@Shy1: Since his victim was not 12-years old or younger and since he pled to Injury to a Child, it’s more accurate to describe Jamin Wight as a child molester.