Mr.Rebates

Mr. Rebates

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

IT couples split over trivial issues: Lawyers

Dec 22, 2010


Till death do us part” is no longer valid for couples of the current generation. Rather, the bold, economically independent couples of the 21st century are opting for “trial and error” marriages that often see them in court in no time.
Often their brief to their lawyers goes like this: “We are paying your fees. Please don’t try to counsel us. Instead hasten our divorce process so that we can start life anew.”
Family court advocates say that’s the attitude of couples aged between mid-20s and early 30s, more than 60 per cent of whom work in the IT sector. These new age couples aren’t prepared to spare a little time for the marriage to work out.
Economic liberation of women is also being misused as an indirect reason for divorce. Family court advocate, Ms Anita Shalabh Jain, says, “Couples aren’t marrying to be together forever these days. They are ready to come out of wedlock even if the issues are trivial and easily resolvable. Ironically, economic independence of women gives them this ‘don’t care attitude.’ At the same time, the girl’s parents aren’t keen on the patch-up because it becomes an issue of ego and self-respect for all parties.”
Lawyers also blame the current corporate culture marked by hectic and indefinite work hours, late night parties, staying away from home for long periods or remaining hooked to the office phone and laptop even at home and so on. And when the husband is a government employee, ego issues crop up more prominently, says as a senior advocate of Secunderabad family court, “The wife expects her husband to do all the household chores and take care of children if any because she is earning more than her spouse. The husband also suffers from an inferiority complex. However, instead of comparing their job-related lifestyles, the couple fails to understand that a government job is more secure in many ways.”
Interestingly, most couples also seek divorce on grounds of non-consummation of marriage referring to impotency.

Source: deccanchronicle.com

Disadvantage, male govt servants

Open and blatant Misandry in the hands of India Government on Male public servants, read below how the Indian government abuses Mens Rights. 

Dec 21, 2010

Shimla, 

If a male government servant neglects his wife and family, he is liable for punitive action under the Central Civic Services Conduct Rules, applicable to the employees of the Centre and the state government, but the rules are silent in case of female government servant.



This interesting fact has come to light from the information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) by Devashish Bhattacharya, an RTI activist, while pursuing a complaint of a husband, whose wife, an employee in the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs, left the family following a dispute.


As the ministry did not take any action on his complaint, he obtained the file notings pertaining to the case under the RTI to know the reasons for it.


The copies of the file notings supplied by central public information officer J.C.Gupta read: “The instruction for proper maintenance of family states that in case a government servant is reported to have acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, for instance, by way of neglecting his wife and family, departmental action can be taken against him on that score. Penalties that may, for good and sufficient reasons, can be imposed on an errant government servant. Further, it has been held that neglect of wife and family in a manner unbecoming of a government servant may be regarded as a good and sufficient reason to justify action being taken against him under this rule”.From the instruction, the noting says, it is observed that the rule is for male government servants, who neglect their wives and family, whereas, there is no provision of rule for taking action against a female government servant for neglecting their families
Bhattacharya said it was time to review the skewed rule to end the gender bias and ensure justice to husbands who are neglected by their spouses.


In his complaint, the husband had stated that his 76-year-old mother, who was a heart patient, was not in a position to avail the medical treatment facility as his wife after an altercation, had taken away both CGHS cards. He had sought the intervention of the department in the matter to get the cards returned failing which the department would be bound to hold her responsible and accountable by taking action against her.


Source: Tribune

(Video) 498a.org Delhi Seminar of 11dec10 coverage -p7 news channel 20 dec 10 Part 1/2

Join the Social Activism to save the crumbling indian family system and fight against gender biased indian draconian laws
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saveind...
http://www.saveindianfamily.org
http://498a.org
http://ghrs.in/
http://mynation.net/
http://www.498a.org.in/
http://498amisuse.wordpress.com/2010/...
http://www.crisp-india.org/


Part 1


Part 2

One Thing You Won't Find in WikiLeaks Cables: Concern for Women

One more thing Feminazi's have to bitch about. These Witches are always complaining and whining about something, they can never keep there mouths quite.

The staff at a women's news service have been poring through the WikiLeaks cables looking for government concern for women's rights. They've found nothing.

Dec 16, 2010

 So far, a small sampling of those 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks suggests the irrelevance of women's rights to the real business of U.S. state craft.
At our behest, a Women's eNews reporter last week researched dispatches from more than 40 countries. She looked at cables from developed countries such Italy; struggling countries like Yemen. She paid special attention to the Middle East because of military conflicts there and social tensions over traditional family practices. She read cables about China and India, our economic competitors.
All in all, she read 200 cables.
She sent us a memo saying she found nothing about political participation of women, their role in civil society or efforts to empower women and facilitate access to justice.
On Thursday, she alerted us that the Guardian had a story about some of the cables revealing that Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, hired investigators to unearth evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general so that they could persuade him to drop legal action of a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis.
But she's still trying to find where women enter the picture.
She worked with a list of stories that Women's eNews had produced about women's rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other hot spots to determine whether U.S. diplomats were addressing these issues in any way.
"I found nothing about poverty and women, reproductive rights, etc.," she e-mailed us.
Checking in With State
After reading the memo I checked out the State Department Web site and spotted a photo of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bestowing an Eleanor Roosevelt award on someone.
I entered the word "women" in a keyword search and found a number of interesting studies and projects.
The Middle East Partnership Initiative, for instance, is working with Bahraini women "to help them advocate for their own causes and to be better prepared to contribute in all sectors of society."
But when I went to the department's internal page for its Council on Women and Girls I was astonished to find a top article with the headline "A Reindeer Romp to Remember."
It's bad enough that the classified analyses by diplomats at 250 U.S. embassies treat women as a non-entity. But romping reindeer on a diplomatic piece of turf reserved for just us?
Our researcher's memo mentioned dozens of cables from embassies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the Emirates and Egypt reporting that leaders in these countries wanted the U.S. to strike Iran to stop the country's nuclear programs. But she found no mention of the lack of food, medical care or education in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Most Disturbing Finding
She said she was most disturbed not to find any mention of the women and children killed in drone attacks in Pakistan and other places.
I realize that these cables, by their nature, are about crisis, danger and international discord and that women's issues often concern a country's internal courts and its own customs and traditions.
Nonetheless, it would have been nice to find indications that that U.S. diplomacy is driven by the keen awareness of the big post-Sept. 11 idea: That extremist people are created by conditions that leave them with nothing left to lose.
No such luck.
Women's eNews has an Arabic-language site and we are committed to the basic notion that when women's conditions are taken seriously, the world has a chance to become more civilized and safer.
As we read more of the WikiLeaks documents--there are thousands still to go--we hope to find that at least some of our foreign-affairs representatives share this view.
Source: http://www.alternet.org

What the Assange case says about rape in America

This article is from a Feminazi perspective, Jessica Valenti is a Feminazi blogger, read one of her articles in my previous posts.

Dec 12, 2010

By Jessica Valenti



Let's get this out of the way: Sweden does not have a "broken condom" law. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was not arrested because his contraception failed mid-coitus. Nor is he charged with "sex by surprise."

The details of Assange's arrest last week are being sorted out in a bizarre game of Internet telephone in which misinformation reigns. Facts about the alleged assaults are hard to come by and are confused by contradicting media reports, translation issues, political bias and cultural disdain for rape victims.

Everyone from Fox News's Glenn Beck to feminist writer Naomi Wolf is getting in swipes. Beck told viewers that Assange is being investigated for "sex by surprise" (again, not a real law) because of a "radical" feminist bent on revenge. Wolf wrote a snarking letterto Interpol in the Huffington Post, arguing that the accusers are using feminism to "assuage . . . personal injured feelings." And AOL News writer Dana Kennedy dismissed the incidents as a simple "condom malfunction."


Now, we don't know if Assange is guilty or innocent - but we do know that the accusations against him have been badly reported, misconstrued and generally pooh-poohed. In the same way that Assange's document dumpheld a mirror to U.S. diplomacy, the accusations against him and the subsequent fallout reflect our country's overly narrow understanding of sexual assault, and just how far we are from Sweden's legal standard.

The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example,prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."

So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape. It defies common sense. Who besides a rapist would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner?

It was only two years ago that Maryland overturned an archaic court ruling stating that if a woman withdrew consent, any sex that followed wasn't rape. In 2007, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals justified this old ruling, explaining that anything after the initial "deflowering" of a woman couldn't be rape because "the damage was done" to her virginity and she could never be "reflowered." In fact, the injured party, according to this ruling, wasn't even the assaulted woman, but the "responsible male's interest" - that of her father or husband. It took until 2008 for the state's highest court to change this.

"The United States has relatively regressive rape laws; in most states, there's a requirement of force in order to prove rape, rather than just demonstrating lack of consent," feminist lawyer Jill Filipovic wrote last week. "We're deeply wedded to the notion of rape as forcible . . . a consent-based framework for evaluating sexual assault is not yet widely accepted."

The fact that U.S. law is so ill- equipped to actually protect women in realistic scenarios is a national embarrassment - not to mention a huge hurdle in obtaining justice for sexual assault victims. Swedish rape laws don't ban "sex by surprise" (a term used by Assange's lawyer as a crass joke), but they do go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation.

In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it.

"I am proud to live in a country where rape and assault are considered to be serious crimes," Swedish feminist Johanna Palmström told me. But "even if we have good laws, it still happens too often that people who report rape are questioned and slandered - we see that now with the women who have reported Julian Assange."


Indeed, better laws do not always mean justice for victims. Only 20 percent of the rape cases reported in Sweden in 2008 resulted in a court trial. A 2010 report by Amnesty International notes that acquaintance rape in Sweden is on the rise and that victim-blaming is just as alive there as in the United States: "Young and intoxicated women in particular had problems fulfilling the stereotypical role of the 'innocent victim.' As a result, neither rapes within intimate relationships nor 'date rapes' involving teenage girls generally led to legal action."
If anything, this means we can't stop at changing legislation. For true justice, there needs to be a cultural shift in the way Americans think about sex, consent and rape, so that when women come forward - whether they're accusing a celebrity, a sports star or a neighbor - our immediate reaction isn't to misconstrue or speculate about their motives, but to listen.

None of this is to say that the accusations against Assange are true - we have no idea. And there is little doubt that the timing of the legal proceedings is politically motivated: Assange's accusers came forward in August (the same month they allege being attacked), but it's only now that authorities are vigorously pursuing the case.


Assange clearly believes that the world has a lot to learn from his work with WikiLeaks. But we can also learn from his dismissive attitude toward these allegations.
"They called me the James Bond of journalism," Assange told the New York Times in October, discussing the warm welcome he got in Sweden. "It got me a lot of fans, and some of them ended up causing me a bit of trouble."

That "bit of trouble," as he put it, and the way the Swedish authorities are pursuing the allegations, is a key lesson. Whatever Assange is revealing about this country's diplomacy, his high-profile case has also shown how far the United States is from Sweden - and from justice - when it comes to victims of sexual assault.

Jessica Valenti is the editor of "Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape" and the founder of Feministing.com.

What is feminism worth?

Naturally only a Feminazi Fascist Witch can come up with something as outrageous as a statement like, What is feminism worth? Naturally they will ask such outlandish questions since they are freeloading off the tax payers pocket through Feminazi NGO which are funded by the US Government.  
In my humble opinion these Witches are not even worth a penny to put it politely. 




[I]f you want your activists front and center out there doing the work to combat the Forces of Intolerance and create a better liberal-progressive world, the reality is we need to get paid so we can comfortably live our lives and fight for you full time. –Monica, TransGriot
Since [the National Equality March], I began the arduous journey to get you to speak at my school, Texas Tech University… To me, the mere hope of reaching out to those who meet my words with deaf ears was worth putting up with your agent and the exorbitant amount of $10,000 to get you out here. I never for a moment questioned why it was that much, or why you were charging anything at all.
…About a month ago, after nine months of dealing with your agent, I received an e-mail directly from you. In short, you basically said that the only way I could get you to speak is if I raised enough money to bring you to Tech. No deals, no compromises, end of story.
…I’ve lost all respect for you as a gay- and human-rights activist…You, sir, have lost sight in one of those many $10,000 checks written to you, of why you came out and became an activist in the first place.
ZackFord at Pam’s House Blend and Monica of TransGriot have great posts addressing why this criticism of Choi is unfair, and why we need to support activists getting paid. As a feminist writer/activist who makes the majority of my income from speaking (in fact, sometimes it’s my sole source), I wanted to weigh in.  Because this is an issue that goes beyond individual activists’ fees or income sources – it’s about the way we value (or don’t value) activist work. And it’s a problem I’ve seen time and time again within the feminist movement: We’re expected to do the work for free, because if we were really committed, it wouldn’t be about the money.  So here are some reasons why we all should support paid activist work…
We don’t want to limit who can speak for our movements: Ouch mentions speakers who travel to events with “their own money.”  Zack rightly asks, “Where does that money come from? It seems to me there is an incredible assumption of socioeconomic privilege in that statement. There’s just this expectation that people should have money (from where?) and all the activism should be on them.”   If we rely only on speakers that have enough money to pay for their own travel and lodging and those who can take the substantial amount of travel time off to work for free – the only people speaking for social justice will be those with money.
Not all activists are rich: Pam, in Zack’s comments section, mentions the common assumption that well-known activists already have money.  In my own case, people sometimes think that because I’ve had books published, I must be rolling in it.  For serious, feminist book writing does not make you money.  The advances are generally very small, the royalties mostly nonexistent, and you can spend up to two years writing, editing and promoting a book that brings you less than a living wage.  All of the authors I know hustle for their income through consulting, freelancing, speaking, and other gigs; the same is true of bloggers, even those of us at highly trafficked sites.  For many activists, speaking is our bread and butter: it’s what allows us to blog every day for free, to write books and articles for little to no money, and to tirelessly organize and speak out.
Since Ouch is primarily offended with the fact that Choi’s fee is 10k, I also think it’s worth mentioning that the money is most likely not all going in Choi’s pocket.  An agent can take anywhere from 20-30% of that fee, travel and lodging is often deducted, as are taxes.  And I’m betting that Choi, like myself and most of the activists I know, also does some events for free.
Our time and labor is worth money: Ouch writes to Choi, “Think about those in Lubbock, Texas, and other cities who couldn’t ‘afford’ you and how you could have changed their lives.”  The notion that activists should work for free because we owe it to the movement is common, especially in feminism.  (After all, women’s work is often undervalued – by others and by ourselves.)  While I understand the frustration students like Ouch must feel when they can’t raise the funds to bring in a speaker who would make a difference in their community, the assumption that activists must forgo payment is simply unfair and unrealistic.
And beyond the basic fact that activists need income too, it’s also important to recognize that this work is hard.  Even the speaking is difficult – it’s not glamorous jet-setting.  A normal week for me this past Spring involved speaking at two or three schools, taking at least four flights (because there’s no direct flights to smaller towns) in small, uncomfortable propeller planes that – in my first trimester of pregnancy – meant I was throwing up constantly.  You don’t stay in shmancy hotels or eat dope, or even good, meals (believe me).  And the job is not just about speaking for an hour.  You’re doing afternoon workshops, hobnobbing with students and teachers, and just being generally available to your sponsors for the day and most of the evening.  Now, these aren’t complaints – speaking on college campuses is my absolute favorite part of the work I do.  I get to connect – in real life! – with amazing young activists, see what’s going on with feminism in different parts of the country, and get energized by the work that so many amazing college organizers are doing.  But it is still work – hard work – and it is still valuable.
Our activists are not public property: While the vast majority of experiences I’ve had as a public feminist have been amazing – I thank my stars every day that I get to do this work – there are troubling expectations put on well-known activists.  We are expected to do things for the “good of the movement” to the detriment of our own personal lives, boundaries, finances and more.  We’re expected to write or speak about whatever issue people demand of us at any particular moment (for me, it’s suddenly being expected to talk about motherhood).  We’re expected to be constantly accessible by email, Twitter, and Facebook.  I just had someone send me a nasty Facebook message, for example, when I suggested they “friend” me at a public fan page rather than my personal account.  Again, this work is rewarding and wonderful – and being a professional activist is a privilege in and of itself.  But activists like Choi are people – they’re not owned by the movement and they don’t owe us anything.
This is a movement-wide problem: Expecting activists and feminists to work for little to no money isn’t limited to speaking.  Anyone who has ever worked in feminist nonprofits knows that the pay is minimal; this is especially true if you’re a younger person or in an entry-level position.  Now, low pay for nonprofit work is to be somewhat expected.  A lot of organizations, especially smaller ones, don’t have large budgets and struggle for funding.  But there are a lot of bigger, mainstream feminist orgs that do have money.  And I heard the argument from higher-ups more than once – particularly when people were asking for raises – that this was about the work, not the money, and that working for peanuts was just “doing your part” for the movement.  (Never mind that many high-level employees at these organizations had trust funds and/or rich partners that allowed them to work for the sheer joy of it.)  It’s the same argument I hear from feminist orgs and publications that expect bloggers (again, mostly young women) to write for free – that we should be happy to be associated with the movement, and to have access to an audience and to this very important work.  The feminist movement’s work is done on the backs of unpaid and underpaid young people, volunteers and interns – and it’s not right.
At the end of the day, it’s about how much feminism is worth to you, and not just in the financial sense.  Do we really want to support a system that only allows a privileged few to speak for our movements?  Do we want a model of activism that devalues feminist labor, or one that takes it seriously – ideologically and economically?  The truth is, if we want a movement whose internal workings mirror our external values, then we need to do everything in our power to ensure that feminist work is valued and that activists’ work is sustainable.
Source: JessicaValenti.com

Breaking The Cycle of Abuse – Domestic Violence, A Crime That Can Turn Deadly If Allowed To Continue

Here is what the Feminazi's Witches say about Domestic Violence, there twist and smear campaign. 


May 10. 2010


Domestic violence is a crime and it can turn deadly, if it is allowed to continue.
 According to the Women’s Resource Center (WRC) of Northern Michigan, women in abusive relationships look to themselves as the source for change of their partner’s behavior. Women, however, in abusive relationships do everything possible to please their partners and adjust to the ever-changing demands.
 The experts at WRC say that these women may very well have dinner on time, keep up the house, hold down a job, wear their clothes and their hair the way their partner likes, and have little contact with family and friends. Then with his next whim, typically accompanied by abuse such as name-calling, throwing things, threats or physical violence, she is expected to change again or face the consequences.
 Domestic abuse is not about arguments, late dinners, too many bills, anger, or losing control — it is about a batterer’s desire to keep control and power. Any other explanation is an excuse, according to WRC.
 Renee Shelman, a legal advocate at the YWCA of Greater Flint for the past seven years, said they refer to domestic violence victims, as “survivors” and the majority of the survivors she works with are women. The YWCA does work with some male survivors, but it is much more prevalent for the male to be the batterer.
 Through optional counseling, Shelman and her colleagues focus on empowering these women. “They do have the ability to make great choices. They chose to stay safe and do what’s necessary to survive,” she said.
 An important aspect of their treatment is to make the survivors understand that there is nothing wrong with them. “They don’t have to be fixed. Domestic violence is not their fault,” Shelman said.
 Shelman said there is a difference between domestic violence and anger management. With anger management, the individual would focus their anger on anyone, such as through road rage or bar fights.
 With domestic violence, it is a power and control issue. “They do it because they can and to get what they want,” she said. Lack of confidence and low self-esteem are common character traits and these individuals use intimidation to get the survivor to comply with their demands.
 To help understand the difference, Shelman gives an example about a couple attending a party. The woman chats casually with another man while her partner says nothing, even though he has become quite jealous. He holds his anger until they arrive home.
 Although alcohol and drugs can escalate a domestic violence situation, they are not the underlying cause, said Shelman. She said the alcohol oftentimes acts as “liquid encouragement.”
  Not all children growing up in an abusive environment turn out to be abusive. Shelman said children are resilient. While some boys, who have witnessed their father abuse their mother, turn out to be just like their father, some vow later in life to never behave in that way. It’s very important to have a supportive environment and a positive role model for these children to express their thoughts to, such as a teacher, pastor, or neighbor.
 One important message Shelman has learned through the YWCA’s Domestic Violence Intervention Program is that there really is no good reason why someone hits or abuses another. “They do give reasons, but there’s no good reason.
 “They do it because they can, to get their way and to get what they want.” She said these individuals could be described as spoiled brats.
  Typically, survivors are on the receiving end of domestic violence six to eight times before they leave for good.
 A misconception of domestic violence is that it is more prevalent with low-income or uneducated people. “Domestic violence crosses all lines. It’s prevalent in all ethnicities, religions, race, economic status. We’ve seen it all. We have survivors who are college educated with careers here.”
  If anyone recognizes him or herself as the abuser, there is help. Shelman urges anyone who may be prone to committing domestic violence, to seek help with a therapist. “Call the hotline to the Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Definitely seek help.
 “There’s no good ending to domestic violence. You’ll either end up in jail or hurting her very badly.”
Domestic violence statistics
• An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.
• Women make up 85 percent of domestic violence victims.
• Females who are 20-24 years of age are at the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence.
• Most cases of domestic violence are never reported to the police.
Source: National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Baby Gabriel case takes new twist as mom, Elizabeth Johnson, heard on phone saying she killed baby

Totally disgusting vengeful murder of her own baby boy, see what some women will do to get back at there husbands, these women dont know were the limit is and go to any extent. She should get the Death Penalty for this crime. 


Dec 21, 2010


A vengeful young mom was caught on tape admitting she suffocated her baby boy, stuffed him inside a diaper bag and tossed him into the trash in a jealous rage, police said.
Elizabeth Johnson of Tempe, Ariz. is accused of kidnapping and child abuse of her son, Gabriel, who was 8-months-old when he was last seen alive the day after Christmas last year in Texas.
Johnson has repeatedly denied she killed Gabriel, insisting instead she gave the child away to a mystery couple in San Antonio.
But, according to a recorded phone call with Gabriel's father, Logan McQueary, on Dec. 27, Johnson allegedly admitted she killed her son because McQueary's Facebook page mentioned he was talking to other women.
"Gabriel is in the dumpster, I killed him this morning," Johnson allegedly says on the tape McQueary made and gave to cops last year.
"You want to talk to girls, that's the price you pay," she said before detailing how she callously killed the baby, according to the recording. "I suffocated him, he turned blue and that's when I put him in his diaper bag and put him in the trash can."
"You left me with no choice," Johnson allegedly adds. "You'd be surprised what a person will do if you push them enough." 
The parents were in the middle of a bitter custody dispute when Gabriel disappeared. Johnson fled to San Antonio with Gabriel and stayed with him in a motel room before allegedly giving him away, a babysitter told  News.
Analisa Urias said Johnson hired her off Craigslist to watch Gabriel in the room under orders to not answer the door and to give the baby medicine "if he started crying to shut him up."
Johnson's grandfather defended her, saying she took back the gruesome statements from the phone conversation.
"This isn't doing Elizabeth any good at all," Bob Johnson told the Arizona Republic last week. "Logan is the only one who has access to [the tape] outside of the police."
He also said Gabriel was given away to a couple from Texas, though the pair has yet to be identified.
Elizabeth Johnson gave cops a vague description of Gabriel's alleged adoptive parents, saying the man was tall with dark hair and the woman was average height with blond hair. Both are white and in their 30s, she said,  News reported.
Johnson remains locked up with no bond in a Phoenix-area jail.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/