You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

21721212? ago

Part 30

August 28, 1991, STATE OF OREGON v. MARY LOU GALLUP, COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON, 816 P2d. 669, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1266, Conviction Remanded // September 6, 1989, STATE OF OREGON v. EDWARD J. GALLUP, SR., 779 P.2d 169, Conviction for Sodomy Affirmed

Overview: Appellate documents state Mary Lou Gallup sought reversal of her conviction for sexual abuse in the first degree. The Appeals Court found error in the local courts ruling that material contained in the District Attorney file was work produced, and exempt from discovery, which resulted in her conviction being vacated.

Mary Lou Gallup operated a private kindergarten in Roseburg, Oregon, called the Gallup Christian Daycare center. Her husband, Edward J. Gallup, an ex-minister of the Nazarene church, operated a separate preschool in that same vicinity. Their son, Edward (Chip) J. Gallup, operated a preschool in Winston, Oregon.

In 1987 defendant Ed Gallup Sr. was indicted for sexually assaulting a young boy who was a student as his preschool, and his son, Chip, was ultimately indicted on six separate charges for sexually assaulting six other preschool students. Chip Gallup was ultimately found guilty of three charges.

In February, 1988, defendant Ed Gallup Sr. and his wife were indicted on new charges for sexually assaulting another child. Ed. Gallup Sr. appealed, claiming that publicity in his case prevented him from having a fair trial. He objected to a State’s witness’ testimony and the fact that he wasn’t allowed to question his expert witness on re-direct. He also objected to the State’s psychologist statement that children who have been sexually abused will very often not report the incident if they have been threatened by the abuser. The appellate court affirmed the conviction of Ed Gallup Sr.

According to a documentary about this case the children reported having to participate in the killing of animals, they were put in cages, the Gallup’s “dunked” children’s heads in buckets of blood, they threatened the children, telling them that if they disclosed their abuse their parents would be killed. The Gallup’s would take toothpicks and make crucifixes or crosses out of them, and would ask, “Who are we worshipping today?... Jesus.” Then on other occasions they would turn the crosses upside down and ask, “Who are we worshipping today?” and the Gallup’s would say “Satan.” A child was worried that she would not go to heaven because she believed she participated in the killing of another person.

See “Introduction to Children at Risk: Ritual Abuse in America,” 1992, Narrated by Mike Farrell, for documentation of the ritual abuse aspects of this case. Ordering information is at: HYPERLINK "http://www.cavalcadeproductions.com/index.html" http://www.cavalcadeproductions.com/index.html

July 30, 1991, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON L. ENDERS, ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 407 Pa. Superior Ct. 201, Conviction for False Imprisonment Affirmed.

Overview: Appellate documents state Jason Enders and three co-defendants Scott Francis Liptak, Alexander O. Steinberg and Daniel Nelson were convicted of false imprisonment stemming from their participation in a Satanic cult ritual. The victim stated he wanted nothing to do with them but he was forcibly taken to an abandoned barn and tied to stakes in the ground over a pentagram drawn in the dirt. He had a leather collar with nails placed around his neck and a Satanic ritual was performed over him. One of the defendants punctured the victim’s neck by pressing on the nails, and placed his fingers in the victim's blood, and then to his lips. A medical expert testified to treating wounds to the victims neck. The victim was then released after being warned he would be killed if he told anyone about what had been done to him. Skulls and books on the occult were taken from the perpetrators homes as evidence.

The court described the crimes as ritualistic acts and stated that admitting evidence of the belief in and involvement in Satanism at the time was relevant and probative.

See Part 31