The NY Case of Anna Gristina: Mixed Messages

I am compelled to post on the recent indictment of Anna Gristina (AKA Anna Scotland) again today due to the many disconnected statements and the lone count charged of "promoting prostitution". What I am reading today leans towards her owning an escort service, except that there is no such thing as an in-call escort business. In-call operations are not any different than brothels and the mere existence of one anywhere except a list of counties in Nevada would be illegal.

Calling something an "in-call operation" is a polite way of stating "brothel" and nothing more. However, according to Anna Gristina's attorneys, this is not at all what she was operating. One attorney describes a plan (future) to open an online dating site, similar (but better) to Match.com. No one describes what she was currently up to except the ADA.

I have also read that it was an attorney that helped her set-up her business. The exact allegation:

"The building is owned by a close confidant of Gristina’s, a lawyer who “invests her money, helped her set up her business and helps to launder her money,” prosecutors said.

Source: High-end madam busted for running upper East Side brothel is a suburban mom with four children

My main question about that statement is this allegation, also included in the article:

"The prosecutor added that Gristina hasn’t reported income to the government in a number of years, and that New York State authorities will also be charging her with tax evasion."

Someone please tell me how an attorney could help Gristina with all of that and not address tax-related issues? These two statements together make little sense to me. But of course that is not the only separation from reality in this new case.

The same article describes Gristina being in business (some sort of business) as far back as 2004 and 2005.

There are also a few wild allegations thrown-in for good measure. Apparently the State Attorney's Office has a confidential informant that claims to have been present when Gristina set-up an encounter between a client and minor(s). The exact (and quoted) allegation:

"“We have had at least one eyewitness account of someone that has been obviously present for a sexual encounter arranged by (Gristina) for one of her clients in which minors were involved in the encounter,” Assistant District Attorney Charles Linehan said at her Feb. 23 arraignment."

Also apparently, the DA doesn't necessarily believe this confidential informant as Gristina is certainly not charged with anything relating to minors. Informants will make anything up to get out of their own legal problems, so this makes sense to me, but then why bother stating it? To make the world despise her? It does work too: If minors were involved in the case I wouldn't have anything good to say and probably wouldn't even discuss the case. If you lose me, you're really going to lose in the case. I'm as open-minded on the topic of tryst arranging that you'll ever find, but do tend to jump ship if minors or drugs are involved.

So, prosecutors have Anna Gristina doing all of this bragging in wiretap recordings. What is normally done with this sort of 'evidence' (I use the term lightly), is to investigate further for evidence that the bragged-about events actually occured. Ironic, but in my case agents tried to cram it down my throat that I had help from an officer - Internal Affairs was even involved - but I just kept repeating the truth: No, he never helped me do anything whatsoever. This really angered them and the "investigation" gained steam resulting in my arrest 8 months later. In my case they were out to get the officer in question though - not discover one or many officers.

And who is the unnamed co-defendant? I have heard of unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy cases, unnamed informants, and confidential informants, but never an unnamed co-defendant in a "promoting prostitution" case. Trust me - redacting the co-defendant's name in such a case is highly unusual. Look at the NY High Class Escorts case, also charged by the State of New York, if you doubt me.

And what of Gristina's husband in all of this? He almost looks like he was posing for the cameras in the images and videos I viewed. Prosecutors claim she was in business for 15 years and they have been married for 10, according to his statements. How could a husband not be aware of a business going on an hour away when there are children involved, or even without children for that matter? It is possible, but not probable.

How does anyone remain semi-active in real estate, take care of four children, rescue animals, have pot-bellied pigs and pit bulls on a farm, and operate an in-call that's more than an hour away? Such a business would require constant attention.

As for the black book of clients' names mentioned: Let's not pretend the DA's office would use it to prosecute anyone. Clients are never prosecuted. They certainly are used as witnesses though.

So far this is curious and confusing.