Did Jackie Shroyer murder her husband?

To cut to the chase, the answer to the question I just asked is "no," although she was charged this week as "co-author" of his murder and will be facing trial sometime in the next year or so in Angola.
According to this Minnesota news website, Beau Shroyer was killed in "an act of violence" on October 25, 2024 on the outskirts of Humpata, Angola, where he and his wife Jackie were serving as missionaries with their children.
As more news came out, it appeared that Jackie was implicate in his death, the story being that she had hired one of their security guards to stab him, using a knife from their kitchen, for figures variously cited at $5000 or $50,000. This due to her being in an affair with the guard, and wanting her husband out of the picture.

Now, I'm not saying that missionary wives never cheat on their husbands, or vice versa--despite the rigorous screening that occurrs as part of the missionary application process, it does happen; but these allegations simply defy logic, and it appears that all of them are coming from Jackie's co-defenents, all of whom are said to have criminal records.
Now, I'm not saying that missionaries have never been known to murder their spouses, or even to feign distress when they learn of the news, but the story here is totally different. Jackie was present (if temporarily out of the scene) when her husband was murdered, so there's no question of her killing him; she didn't. The only question is whether she conspired to have it done, and it appears that the only allegations that she did, are coming from the killers themselves. That doesn't strike me as credible testimony whatsoever.
Furthermore, the money. Missionary families don't have $5000 laying around that they can spend on hit jobs, much less $50,000. Yes, they may have spent thousands of dollars on a security fence in their high-crime neighborhood, and maybe that's what planted that outlandish figure in the security guard's head, but such funds are carefully allocated, and there's no way Jackie could have slipped $5000 out of the pot to fund her husband's murder.
Without having access to any more of the facts than have come forth so far, I'm calling foul on these allegations, and unless further evidence comes out that actually implicates Jackie, I don't believe them.

I'm praying for Jackie, currently incarcerated in an Angolan hellhole, and their five children, now back in Minnesota with relatives. They NEED our prayers. Here is a video of the Shroyers' testimonies.
I'm also praying for Isalino Kayoo, Gelson Ramos, and Bernadino Elias, the other three implicated in this murder.

Finally, a Presidential Penny Policy.

Seventeen years ago, I noted that minting pennies was a drain on the Treasury, and forecast an end to the practice within the next decade. Like most of my predictions, I was over a decade ahead of the game, as it is only now that President Trump has indicated that US Pennies will no longer be produced.

The Nude New Jews (and Jewesses)

I have written earlier about nude baptism being the standard of the early church, and that the office of deaconess was orginially tied in with the responsibility to minister to female baptizands; it turns out that this practice was actually inherited from the Jews (edited to add: I noticed that one of my commenters had already pointed this out).

I quote here Gill's comments on Matthew 23:15 (note that, being a Whelmist, he is reluctant to transliterate the word in question):

The Ethiopic version reads the words, "baptize one proselyte, and when he is baptized"; referring to a custom among the Jews, who baptized; or dipped their proselytes in water, as well as circumcised them; about which there are great disputes in their writings; some alleging, that the dipping of them was necessary to the making them proselytes . . when he is healed [from the circumcism] they immediately dip him; and two disciples of the wise men stand over him, and acquaint him with some of the light commands, and some of the heavy commands; then he dips, and comes up, and is as an Israelite in all respects: if a woman, the women set her in water up to her neck, and two disciples of the wise men stand by her without, and inform her of some of the light commands, and some of the heavy commands.''

"Says R. Eliezer, in the name of R. Jose ben Zimra, if all that come into the world were gathered together to create even one fly, they would not be able to put breath into it: but you will object what he saith, "the souls they made in Haran", Gen_12:5, but these are the proselytes whom Abraham proselyted; but why does he say "made", and not proselyted? to teach thee, that whoever brings near a stranger, and proselytes him, "is as if he created him". You will say Abraham made proselytes, but not Sarah: the text is, "the souls which they made in Haran": which he made is not written, but which they made: Abraham proselyted the men, and Sarah proselyted the women.''

So we can see that even in Jewish culture, baptizing was in the nude, and special considerations had to be given when women were being so baptized. This separate practiced was inherited by the Christian community.

One last post on Arthur Blessitt

As referenceed in my main article about him, Arthur Blessit has died at the age of 84-only barely outliving the US Presidential candidate he ran against for the Democratic nomination in 1976. Now that he's dead, I wanted to share one last anecdote about him that I heard from a staff member at a hospital in of one of the tropical countries he passed thorough in the 1970's. He got really bad blisters and stopped in at a missionary Hospital, where he was amazed to be treated without charge. Later some hospital employees spread the story he was really a spy, and carried a camera inside the cross. As if being able to photgraph as one walked down a road could be a national security issue.

Jenkins v. Miller et al update

First of all, the platform host seems to have relented a bit and has allowe me to sign on without providing a second email address, so I'm back to being incognito, until further notice. So I'll go ahead and share more of what I have been able to learn about Janet Jenknin's RICO lawsuit against everyone who helped Lisa Miller shelter her daughter from the reach of her evil stepmother. Most of what I'll share is based on this website.
First of all, we learn the reason Lisa Miller is no longer named in the lawsuit: she settled privately, on the grounds that she waive her attorney-client privilege. Having accomplished that, the fight has moved into the area of just how much privileged material has to be provided. Lisa's legal team is arguing that her journals, retained by her lawyer for safekeeping, should be excluded, on the grounds of the right to personal privacy, and in a stroke of pure irony, they cite Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruling on birth control that opened up the way for Roe v. Wade and Obergeffel v. Hodges. The court shows the difficulty of settiling these issues ahead of the trial, giving us some clue as to why the lawyer fees continue to rack up without much progress. We are, as it turns out, on rather uncharted ground here.
"It is challenging to formulate a discovery plan that allows disclosure of the relevant portions of the journals while simultaneously protecting Miller's privacy. The journals likely contain private information that is irrelevant to the case. See, e.g., ECF No. 794 at 2 (Miller declaration stating that the journals contain “intimate details of romantic relations, financial struggles, personal reflections, and reflections on [her] day to day life”). On the other hand, for the reasons outlined above, they also likely contain private details relevant to the alleged conspiracy, including Miller's “spiritual beliefs” and even her “legal struggles with Ms. Jenkins.” --Jenkins v. Miller, 2:12-cv-184, 15 (D. Vt. Jun. 26, 2024)
What's particulary bizzare is that the court pages aloud through some of the allegedly privileged information, musing as to whether or not it should be allowed to be brought up at the trial--at the same time publishing it for all the world to see. In the end, it allowed the litigant to almost entirely pierce the veil of secrecy customarily allowed to a defendent in communication with his defense team.
And, despite Isabella's depostition that she is in no way having her interests defended by this proceeding, they still continue the legal fiction that this is all in the best interests of the "kidnap victim."
At last report, all defendents and ex-defendents who were overseas at various stages of this legal saga remain the the US pending outcome of the case.