Update: Law enforcement ignores allegations of first-degree attempted murder by Aaron Solomon, even as Angie Solomon’s pretrial release conditions create danger for her and Gracie

The pretrial release conditions imposed by the Williamson County courts on Angie Solomon place her at risk of serious bodily harm or death while potentially interfering with her ability to obtain a fair trial. At the same time, these conditions, which include a prohibition on cell phones and other electronic communications devices, do nothing to promote community safety. Making matters worse, these conditions are in place at a time when law enforcement is ignoring allegations that Aaron Solomon previously committed first-degree attempted murder by trying to strangle Angie with an electrical cord.

Those are the findings of an Anglican Watch review of the relevant court orders, which place Angie under house arrest and include requirements for a GPS ankle monitor, periodic law enforcement inspections of her home, and obtaining prior court approval for visits to her doctor’s office.

We provide a copy of the court order below.

Inability to seek help in an emergency

Our biggest concern is that a total ban on telecommunications devices leaves Angie and her daughter Gracie at profound risk in the event that Angie’s ex, Aaron Solomon, comes to the Angie’s home.

We long ago concluded that the allegations of violence and abuse involving Aaron are credible, including claims that Aaron sexually assaulted Gracie.

We also note that law enforcement has never adequately addressed the allegations of child sexual abuse involving Aaron, which only adds to our concerns for Angie and Gracie’s safety.

Moreover, our review of the available evidence resulted in Anglican Watch reaching the following conclusions:

• There is no evidence to support claims that Angie coached or influenced her children to claim abuse by Aaron.
• There are many indicia of credibility that strongly suggest that Aaron was, in fact, abusive towards his wife and children.
• We conclude that Aaron did sexually assault Gracie on multiple occasions.

Law enforcement is ignoring Aaron’s alleged first-degree attempted murder of Angie

Relatedly, we note that law enforcement has done nothing to address Angie and Gracie’s allegations that Aaron tried to kill Angie by strangling her with an electrical cord.

These allegations include assertions that Aaron expressly said that he intended to kill Angie, which under Tennessee law would make the matter one of first-degree attempted murder, which has no statute of limitations. Thus, there is no reason for law enforcement or prosecutors to ignore these allegations.

Further, to be clear, we have found no evidence that law enforcement has ever investigated these allegations.

As a result, we believe that fears that Aaron is violent are well-founded, and nothing suggests that this potential has diminished over time.

To reiterate: the court order also prohibits Gracie or other residents of Angie’s home from possessing telecommunications devices.

That raises the question: Why?

Everything we have seen suggests that Gracie is more than trustworthy, and should be able to have a cellphone in her possession.

Nor are our concerns limited to the potential of abusive/violent behavior by Aaron. Whether it’s a fire, a weather incident, a medical emergency, or just the presence of a suspicious person, we believe that an absolute ban on telecommunications devices creates a serious risk of bodily harm or death to both Angie and Gracie.

A better solution would be to allow or Gracie a landline, along with an express prohibition against making or receiving calls from anyone but her attorneys (except for calls to 911) and to simply arrange for Angie to submit her telephone bills to the court. It would be easy to review call logs to ensure compliance, and would increase the safety of two women, both of whom have made credible reports of domestic violence.

Possible inability to get a fair trial

We also are deeply concerned that the current arrangement may jeopardize the impartiality of potential jurors.

Specifically, we have seen various individuals claim to have inside knowledge about the details of the case.

Similarly, there are all sorts of comments and discussion on social media and about the charges against Angie. The latter include comments by Aaron’s sisters that are nothing more than facial attempts to bias the case against Angie, including:

• Claims that Angie is mentallly ill.
• Allegations that Angie has been trying to harm Aaron for an extended period of time.
• The revealing fabrication by Aaron’s sisters that they don’t speak out on these issues, when even a cursory review of social media makes clear that they are hard at it. To be clear, bullies and abusers always claim that they are the victims, or that they are “just the messengers.”

In addition, this outlet, and others, have received a number of threatening and harassing pseudonymous posts, emails, and comments which are almost certainly coming from Aaron’s family and friends. Indeed, several have purported to know the identity of the so-called “confidential informant,” which makes us concerned about the possibility of collusion and a set-up. As in, why are Aaron’s family and friends tampering with the judicial process by identifying this individual?

Thus, the court’s order sets up a bias against Angie by giving free reign to her detractors, while allowing her no way to respond to inflammatory rhetoric from her ex. And the various threats we and others have received do nothing to reassure us about Angie and Gracie’s safety.

Inability to exercise First Amendment rights

We recognize, of course, that First Amendment rights often are reduced when someone is out on pretrial release.

At the same time, however, the Tennessee courts have wisely recognized that Angie, Gracie, their supporters, and the public enjoy First Amendment rights to discuss the allegations involving Aaron Solomon. Indeed, those rights were the reason that the courts threw out Aaron Solomon’s defamation suit against Angie and others, which was dismissed with prejudice under the Tennessee anti-SLAPP statute.

Thus, we are concerned that the current pre-trial restrictions are overly broad and impose a prior restraint on the First Amendment rights of the public and the news media in this situation. Indeed, there are issues in the case that transcend those now before the courts, including the need to ensure that the allegations of child sexual abuse by Aaron continue to receive public scrutiny.

Further, we are mindful that Angie enjoys the legal presumption of innocence unless and until she is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Thus, Anglican Watch hopes that the Davidson County courts will consider ways to minimize interference with the First Amendment issues implicated in its pretrial release decision. And if Gracie or Angie are subject to gag orders, it certainly seems that similar orders should apply to Aaron, whose flying monkeys appear determined to stir the pot, including by publicly identifying the alleged confidential informant. (Where exactly are they getting this information, we wonder?)

If nothing else, there is a pressing need to ensure that the circumstances of Grant Solomon’s death, and the allegations of child sexual abuse involving Gracie, continue to receive robust scrutiny from members of the public.

Practical issues

Relatedly, we are not convinced that the current pretrial release conditions do anything to promote community safety.

As we have said many times, we do not believe Angie Solomon to be a violent person. Indeed, our experience has been very much to the contrary.

But, assuming arguendo that Angie was a violent person, it would be a small matter for her to access a phone, either en route to her attorney’s offices or following arrival.

Similarly, in the unlikely event Angie knew a real hitman, s/he could readily come to her home, or be contacted by a third-party intermediary, or even by mail.

But even then, it’s unlikely that Angie could hire a hitman.

Why?

The answer is simple: Angie is flat broke. Even if she wanted to hire someone, she doesn’t have the means to do it.

Thus, looking at the situation as a whole, the court’s order on the one hand creates serious risk for Angie and Gracie in the event Aaron or someone else threatens them.

Similarly, we see a broad-reaching, prior restriction on Angie and Gracie’s First Amendment rights, as well as those of the media, at a time when full-throated scrutiny of the larger issues in the case is a matter of vital importance, both to those directly involved, and to the larger community.

Indeed, our belief is that the real danger to the community — Aaron — remains entirely free of judicial scrutiny, which is profoundly worrisome.

Meanwhile, any potential benefits to the community resulting from the court’s conditions for pre-trial release are at best illusory, especially since Angie already is under house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and unable to leave her home except under very limited circumstances.

Thus, Anglican Watch hopes the trial court will revisit the conditions of Angie’s pretrial release, carefully balancing the First Amendment issues in the case, the interest in public safety, and the need for Angie and Gracie to be secure in the face of credible threats to their safety.