Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Syrian Rubics Cube

The Syrian Rubics Cube from the Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Bashar al-Assad
One has to have some sympathy for those in the CIA or the White House folks charged with telling the President what has been going on in Syria since 2011 when the opposition to Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship turned into a fighting war. It must have looked and felt like playing with a Rubics cube where the competing groups and militias kept changing all the time.

In his book, “Inside Syria”, Reese Erlich, a Peabody Award-winning journalist and author of four books on foreign policy, has a chapter devoted to the way the Syrian revolt took shape. “The antigovernment demonstrations began in the southern city of Daraa in March 2011.”

Erlich reports that they began after police arrested several pre-teen school children for writing anti-regime graffiti on the walls of a school. Being Syria, they were beaten and tortured. More than 600 protesters confronted the local governor demanding the injured children be let free.

Security forces attacked the group and killed two of the protesters. This is in keeping with the Middle Eastern mentality and culture, something Americans, accustomed to having peaceful demonstrations, have difficulty comprehending.

“By mid-March demonstrations broke out in Damascus and other parts of the country” because the Arab Spring had let loose a vast feeling of discontent and opposition in a number of nations and the Assad regime was, to put it mildly, unpopular.

It didn’t help that “Assad cracked down mercilessly on peaceful protesters” opening fire with live ammunition. Security forces arrested and tortured anyone suspected of participating in the protest.

It is necessary to understand that it is difficult to organize Syrians or other Middle Easterners under the best or worst of conditions and that explains why Americans following events can be forgiven for trying to figure out who was doing what. That includes our intelligence community.

“Local Coordinating Committees developed spontaneously in many cities as mostly young activists created grassroots groups unaffiliated with the traditional opposition. They were united on the need to overthrow Assad, hold free elections, and establish a parliamentary system with civil liberties.”

It only took from March 2011 to July for defectors from Assad’s army to announce formation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), followed on both sides by targeted assassinations.

For many years the Muslim Brotherhood seemed to be the most influential opposition group, but it was led by an older generation that was surprised by the events led by young Syrians. “Brotherhood leaders had cultivated extensive ties internationally, particularly with the Islamist government of Turkey.

Those leaders became major players in the formation of yet another group, the Syrian National Council, (SNC) based in Istanbul. Suffice to say that there are many secular, non-religious, Muslims in the Middle East and those in Syria were not inclined to believe anything the Brotherhood's SNC had to say.

The Obama administration had a problem figuring out who to support in the developing civil war. They opted for the Free Syrian Army, as did Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, but it was reluctant to provide arms with which to wage a war against Assad. By the spring of 2012, the FSA was asking for shoulder-fired missiles capable of bringing down aircraft and our CIA said no, fearing they would fall into the wrong hands which in Syria’s case could be virtually any other group.

Another group was Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam), “formed from the September 2013 merger of dozens of smaller militias, mostly in the Damascus area.” They were Islamists preferring Sharia law and they flew the black flag of jihad. By the end of 2013 they helped form the Islamic Front. To make things more confusing there was another group, Ahrar al-Sham, one of the largest militias in Syria and their aim was a Sunni Islamic state.

In November 2013, al-Sham joined with other conservative groups and they opposed the Syrian Free Army and the Syrian Military Council, along with the al Qaeda affiliated groups of al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Confused? Who wouldn’t be?

Suffice to say al-Nusra was devoted to creating an Islamic state ruled by the Koran. In December 2012, the U.S. State Department put al-Nusra on its list of terrorist organizations because of its ties to al Qaeda, but it turned out that an even more extreme group existed, calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). It was this group that announced it would lead an Islamic State in the area seized from Syria and Iraq.

ISIS is so extreme that in February 2014 Ayman al-Zawahri, the al Qaeda successor to bin Laden, cut ties to ISIS.

The U.S. and a handful of coalition partners are currently bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In time the U.S. will have to put ground troops into the area to root out and kill ISIS.

Barack Obama has become a war President thanks to the chaos he created by removing U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 and to the Arab Spring that swept over nations whose populations wanted to be rid of dictators like Bashar Assad.

This will not likely end soon.

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Islamic ISIS beheads its way to the west

ISLAMIC ISIS: Beheading Its Way Through The West from the files of Audrey Russo at Clash Daily.com

Read the Russo Files at Clash Daily.com
What we infidels (kuffar) are seeing before our very eyes is what occurred, sans the technology, in the 7th century…but as Walter Cronkite would say in the 1940s CBS TV series…”all things are as they were then, and YOU ARE THERE.”

The rhetorical rot continues to dance out of the pie holes of various luminaries and the erudite among us, that Islam and beheadings have nothing to do with each other. These souls are either incredibly ignorant, frauds, or intellectually dishonest defenders of Islam (are there any other kind?).

The blather by politiques and media parrots denying the relationship between decapitations and Islam, can be corrected with a simple look at the actual texts of Islam’s “holy” books and the words of its scholars:

  • Quranic verses that command beheadings of non-Muslims: 5:33; 8:12; 47:4; 9:123; 2:191; 5:45; 2:193; 9:29; 8:17.
  • Proof of beheadings practiced by Muhammed himself (“Sirat A, Rasul” page 464): “When Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe was surrendered (627 A.D.) unconditionally, the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches tying theirs both hands with their necks…”
  • Sahi Buchari Hadiths #143, page-700 : ” Sulaiman Ibne Harb…Aannas Ibne Malek (ra) narrated, “in the war of Khaiber after the inhabitants of Banu Qurayza was surrendered, Allah’s apostle killed all the able/adult men, and he (prophet) took all women and children as captives…”
  • According to the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, Prophet Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe mercilessly. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. (Note: The Qurayza Jews submitted themselves to Muhammed’s mercy and he butchered them [Ishaq/Hisham 688] as his response.)

And the current savage revival of Islamists saw two innocent Americans beheaded (James Foley and Steven Sotloff) and one Brit (David Haines)…publicly. (There have been, of course, thousands of beheadings globally that are NOT getting media coverage.) Now ISIS are holding more Western journalists (they know they will get publicity by using media brethren)…and we already know of the plot foiled in Australia that would have meant the beheading of possibly dozens of innocents.

Islamists, with ISIS in the media vanguard, are beheading their way through the West.

How many more have to be butchered before the West locates a spine…attached to a brain…and smashes back the current uprising?

Unless we promote ISIS, and their ilk, to a remnant of timid toddlers cowering in a corner…we ALL better consider neck armor as our next fashion accessory.

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 40

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 40 of 41 parts of a true to life story

Read Barbara C. Johnson's Bio at Amazon.com

Available on Amazon.com
Bea was suffering her own personal distress during the questioning of Denise. She tried to recall why she hadn’t asked Denise about the no-whispering rule? Right, she had not been allowed to discuss Denise’s problems. Without being able to show the background, she feared being perceived as attacking an innocent, blameless mother from protecting her child who was suspected of being abused.

Blakeley had been allowed to question Denise about her alcoholism, the rape story, the rape groups, her personal counseling, the divorce, and more. As a result of his questions, Denise was coming across as not the blameless mother.

Bea could have shown Denise’s control, but to what avail? She wouldn’t have been able to account for Chloe’s initial disclosure. The impact would not have been the same. Self-doubt, counterproductive self-doubt was the ultimate punishment Mathers had given Bea. She would never forgive him that.

Hugh hadn’t helped.


Carol Tracy was four years older since she had last testified in this case. She’d had four years more of no one questioning her judgment and four years more of no accountability. She also now had a degree and a license as a social worker which she didn’t have when she interviewed Chloe.

ADA Cooke began by asking Tracy to explain a rape-group meeting in which Denise participated.

“And did Mrs. Abernathy indicate to you what her concern was at that point?” Cooke asked.

“About the talking hand, yes.”

“Aside from the talking hand, did she indicate any... did she elaborate any further beyond what you just described?”

“She described the punching and kicking, and that was all she talked about that evening.”

“And what are anatomical dolls?”

“They’re dolls that are detailed like a person would be.”

Blakeley said, “I’m sorry, detailed like what?”

“It has the anatomical parts that a person has.”

Cooke then instructed Tracy to explain what happened when interviewing Chloe. “Tell the jurors what next happened.”

“When I asked her if she would tell me what the talking hand said or tell me what the secret was, she said her daddy tickles her.”

“Your Honor, excuse me,” Blakeley said, “at this point, I think it’s incumbent on me to ask the court to instruct the jurors on the limited use of this evidence in the sense of fresh complaint.”

“Correct,” the court said, and proceeded to give, in Bea’s view, an accurate description of a fresh complaint and the corroborative purpose of a fresh-complaint witness’s testimony.

“I asked where he tickled her.”

“And did she explain to you?” Cooke asked.

“She did.”

“What did she explain?”

“She said he starts at her feet and moves up her legs, and then he hangs her upside down.”

“Did she say anything further to you at that point?”

“Not at that point,” Tracy said.

“I was just surprised he had hung her upside down,” Cooke commented, for emphasis on the act.

The remainder of Tracy’s testimony was the same as it had been, with the same graphic details.

“She said his pee pee doesn’t taste good and she thinks he has a virus in his penis.” Blakeley didn’t object to this comment, even though “pee pee” wasn’t a fact to which Chloe had testified.

“Did you inquire further of her at this point?”

“I said, ‘You think he has a virus in his penis? What makes you think that?’”

“And what did she respond?”

“She said it comes out in her mouth and it doesn’t taste good.”

I Didn’t Say I’d Never Say It

The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault had twenty-one centers across the state. The Salem Woods center was one of them and Carol Tracy was its director. Although the American Psychological Association recommended videotaping or audiotaping, the MCASA did not, and according to Carol Tracy’s description of its policies, it sounded like it was Invasion of the Body Snatchers of the ‘90s.

In beginning his cross-examination of Tracy, Blakeley said, “Is it your understanding this coalition has a position that a child being interviewed for alleged abuse by his or her father or mother, perhaps, should not be tape recorded?”

“It is the stance of the coalition that you keep minimal records as possible.”

“That you keep— What is that?”

“As minimal records as possible.”

“As minimal records as possible.” Blakely, too, was emphasizing what was important to him.


“And, in fact, you would agree with me that you don’t even take notes yourself, until after your meeting, or whatever it is, is over, and then you go and reconstruct question and answer, right?”


“Well, let me ask you this. Do you sit there right in front of the child and take notes?

“No, I would never do that.” Tracy sounded pompous.

“Because you’re trained not to do that, right?”

“Right, I would never do that.”

“So you have no audiotape or videotape, right?”


“And you have no notes, right?”


“What you do is, later you go back and reconstruct or write what your memory is of what was said at that time, correct?”


“Now, in your studies, did you also study the use of what you referred to as... what did you call them, anatomical what?”

“Anatomically detailed dolls.”

“Isn’t it true that originally you guys used to call them anatomically correct dolls and—”

“Yes, that’s true.”

“But now you’ve changed. You’ve been taught to use the words ‘anatomically detailed’ dolls, right?”

“That’s correct.”

“And that’s because there is quite a controversy in your field about the use of these things, isn’t that right?”

“Restate the question for me,” Tracy said.

“The reason you changed the words in your mind from ‘anatomically correct’ dolls to ‘anatomically detailed’ dolls is because there’s a controversy about these dolls in your field, correct?”

“I don’t believe that’s why the term was changed, no.”

“Well, you would agree with me that certainly articles have been written in various psychological magazines, child sexual abuse magazines, dealing with these dolls?”

“There’s controversy around using them when you’re inexperienced, correct,” Tracy said.

“Back in 1989, when you had Chloe Abernathy in the room, were you experienced then?”

“I wouldn’t say I was an experienced anatomically detailed-doll interviewer, no, at that time.”

“You were not an experienced individual in using these dolls?”

“At that time with the dolls, no.”

“I’m asking you about the date when you indicated you were going to report a 51A against this man.

You were not experienced in using those dolls, were you?”

“Not with the dolls, but I didn’t need that.” Tracy continued to be argumentative.

“In fact, the dolls you refer to as anatomically detailed, they are disproportionate in the size... They have the penis, they have breasts, they have all that stuff right on the dolls themselves, isn’t that right?”

“Disproportionate in size?”

“Yes, isn’t it true they focus the child’s attention right on the sex organs themselves?

“No, that’s not true.”

“You don’t obviously have the dolls anymore, right?”

“No, I don’t.”

They were deep-sixed?

“Okay, but you do have, you can identify these things as to what they look like, can you? Teach a body of lay people? Does that ring a bell?”


He showed her an advertisement for anatomically correct dolls, but she claimed her dolls hadn’t looked like that. Bea suspected Blakeley was using the advertisement that was in her files when she passed them on to him. The dolls at the first trial didn’t resemble the advertisement at all. She never thought to warn him, because she thought he knew the dolls were exhibits and should have been in the custody of the Probate & Family Court.

Blakeley began asking whether the dolls were circumcised or uncircumcised. Even Bea thought that was over the top, but she had asked about labia.

Leaving that topic he went on to ask, “Are you familiar with things called the Thematic Apperception Test, TAT?”

“Yes, I am.”

“Are you familiar with the studies that have actually come out? Are you familiar with the Institute for Psychological Therapists?”


“Are you familiar with the use of the TAT test that would allow a blank screen in the sense of the child’s mind, as opposed to focusing on naked bodies or focusing on anatomical design through those anatomical dolls?

“I’m very aware of what TAT is. It’s not my training.”

“It’s not your training, right?”


“That’s because you’re not a psychologist.”


“But you know the American Psychological Association has recommended that only trained psychologists or trained individuals should use these anatomically detailed dolls, correct?”

“That is their wording, it’s not the licensed clinical social worker’s belief.”

“So the licensed clinical social worker, which you are, would differ with the American Psychological Association, correct?” Blakeley didn’t flinch going head to head with her.


“And you feel if you’re trained properly, it’s okay to use those things?”


“But in this case, you agree you were not trained properly to use them, correct? But you didn’t need them anyway.”

“I would give you that.” This was an unexpected concession from Tracy to admit for all intents and purposes she had worked to no standards when she interviewed Chloe. “That’s right, I wouldn’t have needed them anyway.”

Blakeley then asked if she would agree that the use of the anatomically so-called correct dolls focus the child’s thoughts, fantasies, and feelings into matters pertaining to the anatomy of the human body.

“No, I don’t agree at all.”

“You’ve already indicated to the jury you actually haven’t had much interaction with either her or her mother, anyway, other than this initial July 1989 involvement and running into them in court on occasion, right?”

“I’ve said that about Chloe, but Denise Abernathy was in a group of mine.”

“Before the disclosure, correct?”

“Yes, and after.”

“Is it your understanding, by the way, that the American Psychological Association recommends and suggests that a psychologist or psychiatrist who does not keep adequate notes of sessions and procedures actually is in violation of the APA professional standards?”

“I’m not a psychologist. I don’t know their guidelines.”

“Okay, but as far as social workers are concerned, you don’t have to do that.”

“We have different guidelines, correct.”

Denise had come for an individual session, but when she heard there was a group, she wanted to be part of it. Tracy had spoken to Denise for about an hour to learn why she was there.

“What did she tell you about the rape involving her husband?”


She evaded that question!

“When was this conversation?”

“I don’t know.”

“And there are no records at all of this, right?”

“There might be records of that. There might be a log showing a one-hour individual session and the date, but there’d be no written information about it, no.”

As far as the discussion you had with Mrs. Abernathy, it’s fair to say you kind of counseled her a little bit at that point?”

“I really don’t remember. I remember she came, she wanted to talk about being raped by her husband, she wanted to know what the services were. I talked to her about our individual and group services.”

In that talk, Tracy didn’t ask about her background. Tracy also didn’t ask whether she was married to Bill, whether there was a child in the house, whether he was in the household with them, whether she was seeing a doctor, perhaps, for depression or anything, whether she was in some type of counseling or therapy, whether she drank, whether she had AA involvement.

“Did you know anything at all about her at all?”

“It wasn’t relevant.”

“And what was relevant was that her husband, Bill Abernathy, raped her, right?”


“And as a result of him raping her, she needed some therapy and treatment, right?”

“It was not therapy. We don’t consider it therapy, just counseling.”

“Well, do you recall her statement about her child being abused by her husband?”

“She told me she had a concern—”

“Excuse me, with all respect, can you say yes or no? Did she make a disclosure in the group that her child had been abused by her husband?”


“And the disclosure was to the effect that he had been crawling in and out of bed with her, isn’t that right?”

“Never heard that.”

“You make a face at that. That’s not true?”

“Never heard that information.”

“You never heard that information.”

“I never heard he was in and out of bed with her.”

“You never heard what?”

“That he was in and out of bed with her. You just told me that.”

“How about an itchy bottom? Did you ever hear that disclosure, Ma’am?”

“Never, never.”

“Well, did you ever have occasion to discuss with Chloe Abernathy about her mother talking with her father about the secret and the hitting game? You remember that, don’t you?”

“No, I do not. Never heard that term.”

“Did you disclose to Rachel Gidseg that, ‘The child complained to her mother her bottom was itchy and about her father coming into the bedroom at night and bothering her. Mother mentioned this in her group.’ Did you say that to Rachel Gidseg?”

“No, never,” Tracy answered firmly.

With permission, Blakeley approached Tracy and showed her the 51B report.

After she read the section Blakeley pointed out to her, Tracy said, “That’s not what I recall.”

“You at no time, then, have a memory of Denise mentioning in her group anything about him crawling into bed and her bottom being itchy or anything like that?”

“Never.” There was no quiver in her voice.

Bea, once again, was upset thinking of the wasted, anxiety-filled years caused by Mathers not allowing her to mention the rape group in the first trial. All of this could have been brought out four years ago had Mathers not forbade me mentioning the rape and the rape group, and even earlier had the Probate Court judges not let Tracy avoid the subpoena to deposition.

Still referring to the 51B report by the bat-lady, Blakeley again quickly asked, “And do you recall Mother mentioning that Chloe was abused with a bat?”

“That’s somebody else’s words you’re reading, that is not mine,” Tracy slashed back indignantly.

Blakeley staccatoed, “So that’s not what happened. Is that your testimony, right?”

“I’m telling you those aren’t my words,” she insisted angrily, coming right back at him.

“So your testimony is you did not interview Chloe for possible sexual abuse—”

“I interviewed Chloe—”

“But you just came in about the talking hands.”

“I interviewed Chloe.”

“All right, hold on now,” Ankora said, intervening.

Apparently unaware the court had spoken, Blakeley said, “And as far as Chloe’s disclosure—”

Ankora interrupted, “Excuse me, Mr. Blakeley.”

“Yes, Sir.”

The judge said, “I just want to step in here as the referee for a moment. I want to make sure there’s no punching after the bell, and have everyone talk, oh, about twenty percent more slowly, because we’re accelerating and we’re stepping on each other’s words, and I’m concerned that the jurors aren’t getting a chance to absorb the answers and the questions. So if we just slow down about twenty-five percent, I think the same points and the same information will come in, and at the same time, the jurors will get a chance to absorb the information.”

The tempo lost, Cooke took an opportunity to bring them to sidebar. There, Cooke complained that Blakeley had misunderstood and misrepresented all of the records in the case throughout the course of the trial.

“Your Honor,” Cooke continued, “I’m asking the court to rule that he cannot inquire any further into what Rachel Gidseg wrote or said or anything else unless he can specifically point to where it says Rachel Gidseg got it from this witness.”

Blakeley said indignantly, “Isn’t that amazing I have to be under a limitation in cross-examining this person when this kid is talking about being molested in bed in her diapers and getting hit on the head with a baseball bat.”

“It’s not there,” Cooke said.

“But it was, Your Honor. The report read, ‘She also stated her father hit her with a wooden baseball bat on her head and on her bottom and left marks.’”

The court observed, “That’s the problem we had this morning. It’s a sophisticated evidentiary problem now.”

Essentially the judge was saying that as a DSS document, it could be used for cross-examination, but there were serious evidentiary problems with what was in the documents. “In substance, you’re entitled to use that material, but in form, you cannot be siphoning it in, you know, in large chunks.”

The document was not an exhibit, for Gidseg was not available to authenticate it.

Then the judge added, “The other problem is this. I think the witness is becoming argumentative.”

Blakeley began again. “Do you recall when Denise Abernathy introduced the child to you she called you Carol?”

“I guess.”

“And then did she say to you, ‘And this is my beautiful child’?”


Tracy impeached Denise again! This time with something the jury could clearly seize upon.

“Are you aware the use of these dolls compels or directs the child to put an object into a hole, if there is one? Like a penis into a mouth or any opening. Have you ever read any studies like that?”

Bea chuckled silently. That was my observation, too—sexualized Fisher Price.

“Of course, I’ve read studies. I haven’t read the study you’re talking about.”

“As to the focal point on the penis or on the vagina or the mouth on these dolls?”


“And then you—after Chloe was finished talking, you then thanked her for being honest, correct?”

“I thanked her for coming. I thanked her for—”
nterrupting, he insisted, “You thanked her for being honest.”

“I thanked her for talking with me. I thanked her for telling me the truth.”

“Did you thank her for being honest—”


“Did she appear to be uncomfortable at any time talking to you for the half-hour dealing with the dolls and talking about these things?”

“No. She appeared hesitant at one point, when she didn’t want to tell the secret.”

“And then, obviously, you were about to coax that out of her, right?”


“Well, you were about to talk to her about it, right?”

“She must have felt comfortable.”

“And you told her again you were really glad she told you, and you were going to get the hurting to stop, correct?”

“I was going to try to help her to get the hurting to stop, correct.”

Tracy seemed familiar about Denise wanting changes in the visitation status. She claimed not to remember who told her. Bea suspected it was Joe Aguilar, since his law office was one floor below the rape center in the almost-abandoned building.

She remembered writing a letter to Maryellen Murphy and recommending visitation be revoked.
Tracy made a face at Blakeley.

“Well, how about the letter, ‘I strongly urge that visitation rights be revoked in this case.”

“Can I see it again?”

“Sure. Right here,” Blakeley said, indicating where the stance was.

“That’s what it says.”

“That’s what it says. So you look at me and you make a face like, ‘I’d never say that.’ You wrote that—”

Then Tracy interrupted Blakeley: “I didn’t say ‘I’d never say that.’”

“You wrote that to the Probate Court, didn’t you?”

“Right. I never said— I didn’t say ‘I never said that.’”

“Okay, I’m sorry, but I misunderstood your testimony. You strongly urged that visitation rights be revoked in this case, correct?”

“That’s what the letter says.”

“And you wrote it on the Center’s letterhead, signed it as the program director, and sent it to the Probate Court, right?”

“I guess so.”

“And that’s based only on your faint recollection of what Denise might have told you as a person in your group as a rape victim, correct?”

“I guess so, correct.”

“You guess so.”


The Moon is Made of Green Cheese

Redirect examination of Tracy was so brief, it seemed as if it almost never happened. There were two bench conferences, both provoked by Cooke.

In the first, she wanted the court to allow Tracy to appraise her own interview of Chloe eight years earlier now that she had more experience.

Blakeley objected. “It’s self-serving. My objection is on record. It’s clearly objectionable.”

In the second, Cooke wanted permission to introduce a handwritten version of the 51A report into evidence. Tracy was present to authenticate it. Blakeley could not have gotten the 51B report into evidence because the author of the report, Rachel Gidseg, was in Florida and not available to authenticate the document and be examined.

Cooke’s problem had arisen when Tracy denied facts that the DSS bat-lady, Gidseg, had written in her 51B report. Gidseg had written that Denise told her she had shared with her rape-victims group several of Chloe’s complaints, such as Chloe having an itchy bottom and Bill having come into her bedroom at night. And Tracy, who had not seen Gidseg’s report and had not heard Denise testify, denied Denise told the group about those complaints.

Cooke accused Blakeley of both implying that Tracy had told those things to Gidseg and concluding that Tracy’s notes were inaccurate because they didn’t contain references to those complaints.

Blakeley said, “I resent the implication, that I took something out of context, Your Honor. I haven’t taken one thing out of context in this trial. It’s her rope. Well, who did it come from? It didn’t come from Chloe.”

Ankora said, “Well, if we have the author of the 51B here, she can authenticate it and she’s still subject to cross.”

Not so. Gidseg can't authenticate it and be available for cross. She's in Florida! Her report would be inadmissible.

Blakeley said, “If I cross-examine Ms. Tracy one more time, this jury is going to knock me down.

Everybody’s had it. It’s obvious she’s hostile. The prosecutor can get up there and say, ‘Isn’t it true that the moon is made out of green cheese?’ and Carol Tracy will bend over to be nice. All I have to do is get up and say ‘Tell me your name,’ and she’s going to take my head off. And to get into putting her self-serving written reports into evidence is improper.”

Ankora, at all times quite pleasant to both attorneys, said to Blakeley, “Let me ask you this. Would it help if we called it a day?”

Cooke said, “No, I think we ought to get rid of this witness now, Judge, and just be done with it. The Commonwealth’s going to rest at this point.”

Ankora revealed his sympathy with Blakeley. “Your concern is that you’ve repelled the jury so they don’t want to listen to anymore of your questions. I’d like to help you out and give you an overnight to dispel them.”

“Thank you, Judge, I appreciate that, but I don’t need an overnight. I’m all set.”

The judge nodded. “You’re entitled to cross her by means of the 51B report at this point or tomorrow morning, if you’d like.”

“No, let’s just be done with it. I don’t need tomorrow morning, Judge.”

“Well, all right, I’m going to permit the 51A to be admitted and permit some final cross by means of the 51B report. I think in the end, all of this does not come to a great deal on the matter of substantive evidence.”

“Note my objection,” Blakeley said, regarding the admission of the 51A.

No, Never

“It’s your testimony,” Blakeley was asking Tracy, “that at no time did Denise Abernathy say to you the child told her that her bottom was itchy, is that correct?”

“She never told me that.”

“Did Mrs. Abernathy ever say to you that Chloe’s father would come into her bedroom at night and, quote, ‘bother her,’ end quote, and wake her up?”

“Never told me that.”

“And is it your testimony the mother never then mentioned these issues in your group, Carol Tracy?”

“She never told me those things you just read to me, no.”

“And it’s also your understanding that you never discussed those topics with Rachel Gidseg, correct?”

“I would never have the knowledge, no.”

“Have you ever seen a report filed by DSS on these types of cases?”


The court accepted the 51B report for identification, not as an exhibit, which meant it would not go into the room with the jurors when they deliberated.

Then, to close on a strong note, Blakeley again asked Tracy, who had been sequestered during

Denise’s testimony, whether Denise had introduced Chloe to her by saying, ‘This is my beautiful daughter.’

Tracy said “No.”

Final episode/epilogue of this story will post tomorrow, Wednesday - October 1st

Monday, September 29, 2014

Obama says 'thanks a latte' to ISIS strategy

President Obama says 'Thanks-a-Latte' to ISIS plan from the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at Legal Insurrection.com

Get a Daily Dose of Political Humor from the  A.F. (Tony) Branco Art Studios

Check out some of the sights listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.


Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Oklahoma woman beheaded by Islamist at work

Beheading comes to US: OK woman killed at work by Islamist from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Meet Colonel West
Today we’ve once again been exposed to the savage barbarism of Islam. ISIS executed a Western female humanitarian aid worker.

And here in Moore, Oklahoma a disgruntled “lone wolf” who had been trying to convert coworkers to Islam attacked two women, killing one by beheading her.

The 30-year-old man who remains unidentified at this point had just been fired. Thank goodness the company’s Chief Operating Officer was armed and was able to stop the killer.

I fully expect the Obama administration to classify this as “workplace violence” and for Barack Hussein Obama to admonish and lecture us all on the absurd “religion of peace” — tell that to the families of Americans who have brutally lost loved ones by the hands of these insane jihadists.

God bless these women who were savaged and their families. Molon Labe.

For the video accompanying this narrative, [ click here ]

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 39

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 39 of 41 parts of a true to life story

Read the Amazon.com Bio for Barbara C. Johnson
No Wiggle Room Here

Available on Amazon
Blakeley’s job was a big one. He had to convince the jury, if not to dislike Denise, to believe she was a controlnik. Whether it was because of her nature or because of her obsession about the rape didn’t matter. He had to impeach her credibility so they would not trust what she had to say.

His weapons were many: the nonviolence of Bill; Denise’s affidavit, which she filed to get Bill out of the house when all of this began; the few pages from Denise’s diary, which ADA Democrates Eleutheria, also a Holy Cross grad, had passed to Bea before he left DA TKO’s office for private practice; the bat-lady’s 51B or DSS investigative report; Carol Tracy’s handwritten notes of her interview with Chloe; and the transcripts of the depositions and of the divorce trial.

Were they enough to destroy the obstacles? The alleged rape of Chloe by Bill; Carol Tracy’s 51A mandatory report; the process notes of MSPCC social worker Heather Bruce; the process notes of social worker Roberta Leavitt, who had posed as Chloe’s therapist.

Denise had never been questioned on any of the social workers’ or the rape-counselor’s notes. Bea hadn’t had some of them before deposing Denise, and she hadn’t needed to question her on any of them for the divorce trial. In other words, the notes had never been tested for consistency... or inconsistency.

Blakeley probably didn’t want to call any of the social workers to the stand except maybe Rachel Gidseg, the bat-lady, but she was in Florida, so said ADA Cooke. A coincidence?
Certainly Cooke didn’t want Gidseg to testify or to use her report; otherwise she’d be in Massachusetts and not in Florida.

Every trial lawyer would ask questions in a linear or chronological fashion, but when a witness is evasive, a trial lawyer must jump in different directions in an irregular manner. And in every trial lawyer’s bag of tricks were questions that didn’t require answers, or it didn’t matter what the answers were.

Blakeley began examining Denise as if they were in the divorce court. To show Bill’s considerateness, he asked briefly about fine wines and the time share in New Hampshire and got her to admit Bill had not struck or hit her.

But Blakeley had to travel territory Bea had been forbidden to enter in Mathers’ court and build to the rape.

“Your life took a significant change in 1984, didn’t it?”

“Yes, it did.”

“In fact, you started drinking to the point where it interfered with your ability to take care of the child, isn’t that right?”

He hammered her drinking home until she said, “Yes, I am an alcoholic... yes.”

“And in fact, during that period of time, you also were focusing on the fact that you were a parent of this child who was not a planned-for pregnancy, correct?”

She shook her head. “No, I wasn’t focusing on—”

“Didn’t you have occasion many times to argue with Bill Abernathy about the child being in the house?”

“I don’t understand your question.” That was a clear signal to change tack.

So the jury heard about child care, vacuuming, food shopping, laundry.

When the questions became a bit repetitive, Cooke objected and requested a sidebar conference.

“If Your Honor please, this is not a divorce trial and I pray Your Honor’s judgment at some point in regards to how long we’re going to go on about who did what chores and all of that. Unless there’s some particular point to it, it is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand and it is simply going to distract this jury from the issue at hand, which is whether or not this defendant raped his daughter.”

And so, a lengthy legal argument continued between Cooke and Blakeley—Cooke holding that the divorce trial had no business in the criminal trial.

Ankora resolved it. “Let me ask, Mr. Blakeley, I understand one of the themes, if not the theme, of the defense is going to be that the mother may have resented the birth of the child and may have been angry for a number of years, angry at the husband for the birth of the child, and that she, therefore, inspired a false accusation against him.”

Absolutely,” Blakeley said. “I’m not going to beat this to death. I’m not trying a divorce case here. I am going to be off this issue in about three more questions.”

When Cooke intervened, Blakeley insisted, “You can object to any question I ask that’s outside the scope of the direct question of whether or not this guy raped his child, but I cannot try the case in a vacuum. I have to be able to elicit the background in this relationship.”

Ankora said, “As I understand it then, the relevance of the questioning is that the mother’s aversion or inability to perform the usual division of labor within the household is evidence that she resented the existence of the child and couldn’t cope with her existence, and therefore resented the father.” He paused. Neither Blakeley nor Cooke moved. “All right, I’ll give you a few more questions on point, but I am concerned—”

“I understand,” Blakeley said, sounding relieved and probably grateful.

Ankora tried again, “I am concerned, if we set about a long course of impugning the mother in front of the jury, A, it’s prejudicial and B, it’s distracting. Also, you could put in a lot of that information through the defendant himself, who I understand will testify. So a few more questions.”

“Okay,” Blakeley said.

“Thank you, Your Honor,” Cooke said.

Blakeley laid the foundation of the divorce case so he could use a transcript he’d received from Bea to impeach Denise when she balked. He read in the questions and answers about who did which household chores and then asked “Do you recall that?”


In this way, all wiggle room for Denise was eliminated. Mathers would have had a fit if Bea had tried to use the divorce transcript to impeach Denise, and Bea would’ve been found in contempt and fined, as he had threatened.

Denise herself was finally confronted with the knowledge that Ankora was not Mathers.

“You stayed home and didn’t really go out and have any activities, and you drank to numb your feelings, didn’t you?”

“Yes.” She held her head in both her hands as she admitted a fact she’d always denied.

“And during that period of time, you would agree with me that when he was not working, he would be home and would help take care of the child, correct?”

“Yes.” She nodded.

“Now, during that period of time, you also had, for that three-year period, fair to say, a lot of arguing in the household?”

Denise’s head stayed still, but her lids blinked rapidly as she answered, “Yes.”

“And the arguing was pretty pointed, in other words, it was dealing with one particular issue, wasn’t it?


“And there was a lot of shouting about that, wasn’t there?”

“Yes.” Her blinking became more pronounced. Bea hadn’t seen this before.

“And that would be you shouting at him, correct?”


“Because he never argued with you, did he?”

“He did not argue with me.”

“In fact, isn’t it true that you allege he’d raped you, and as a result of his sexual intercourse with you, Chloe was conceived?”

“I do allege that he raped me and that Chloe was conceived as a result of the rape.” The compound answer from Denise was a rarity.

“July of 1983 was the conception, correct?”


If Blakeley wanted the frowns, the furrowed brow, the clasping of hands, and the blinking eyes back, he got them.

“There was only one thing you objected to in your marriage to this man, correct?”

“No, there wasn’t one thing that I objected to.” She clasped her hands, hard.

“You were angry and accused him of raping you, right?”

“I was angry and I accused him of raping me, yes.” She held her head in both of her hands. This was what Denise and Cooke had desperately tried to keep out of the trial.

Then Blakeley digressed to the rape story, step by step, leading her with questions containing the answers Bea had gotten from her at the deposition. Occasionally, Blakeley read directly from the transcript.

Her voice remained calm but quavered slightly when testifying about the alleged rape and saying she loved her daughter even though her daughter was the result of the rape. But not once during all of that did she make eye contact with the jury.

Then Blakeley proceeded on to the subject of her counselor, Ruth Stanton.

“I continue to see her today.”

“And the focus of your discussions or your treatment or your therapy was the rape, that he allegedly raped you, correct?”

“And my alcoholism.” Bingo, Bea thought. At least he got the “and.” This was also something she had previously denied.

“Do you work now, by the way?”

“No, I do not.”

“When was the last time you worked?”

“Two years ago.” With Chloe in junior high school, Denise had no reason not to work. Let the jury think about that.

And then the suppository story. “She screamed and would yell and it was a horrible thing when she had the suppositories, and it was Bill who gave her the suppositories, and she went and told you she didn’t like it, right?”


Laboriously over and over, he reviewed her moving out of the bedroom and visiting with Stanton. On to the karate and the swimming classes.

“You don’t even know that she had a white outfit with a little white belt, do you?”

“She did not have the karate outfit at that time.” Denise claimed Bill had bought the outfit for Chloe when she was six or seven, after he was out of the house.

“And it’s fair to say that in 1989, your marriage was virtually over as husband and wife?”


“And there were tensions in the household with him?”


“Did you say to your daughter that you weren’t sleeping in the same bed with your husband because he would attack you?


“And you unburdened yourself at the Salem Woods Rape Crisis Center as to how you felt about being a rape victim, correct?”


“And during those periods of time, you actually participated in group sessions as a rape victim, didn’t you?”


“And during the period of time that you participated in group sessions as a rape victim, you made statements and you talked about your experiences and your fears and your concerns with your ex, or at the time, husband, correct?”


“And it was after you had been involved with the rape-crisis center that you then went and made a statement to the group about the puppets you testified to the jury Friday, right?”


“Carol Tracy then said to you to bring Chloe in, correct?”


And then, very rapidly but repetitively, as was his style—to give himself time to think what his next question would be—he backtracked to the secret told by the talking hands, the hustling of Chloe upstairs, the discussion with Bill about the hitting game.

“Then you went upstairs and you started talking to Chloe, right?”


“And you asked Chloe if her father touched her and tickled her, didn’t you?”

“I don’t remember specifically what I asked her.” This Bea found strange inasmuch as Denise remembered everything else.

“Was she crying?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Was she upset?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Was she confused?”

“Objection to that, Your Honor.”

“I’ll withdraw the question.”

The court said, “All right.”

More about the hitting game—kicking and punching versus kicking and punching playfully—and the fact that Denise never saw any bruises on Chloe. And again, Blakeley occasionally had to use a Bea-transcript to force Denise to give the answer he sought.

“In any event, you obviously had no disclosure of any sexual connotations, correct?”


“Never entered your mind, right?”

“It did not.”

“Never entered your mind that the hitting game had anything to do with karate, either, did it?”


“The thought never entered your mind on that either, did it?”

“No, it did not.”

Bea could almost hear Blakeley thinking where to go from here. He had to have had an agenda or goal. If he didn’t, he had to find one soon.

“And then another day went by.” He rolled back and forth from the balls of his feet to his toes and back again repeatedly. Bea thought it presaged he was on to something.

“Did you go to work, do you recall?”

“I don’t recall.”

“Did he work the next day?”

“I don’t specifically recall.”

“Well, you’ve got two or three more days, actually, before Chloe is brought by you to the rape counseling center, right?”


“Isn’t it true that, in fact, you asked Chloe whether or not Daddy got into bed with her?” There was no evidence that she did. B’god, that’s bait.

“No, I never asked her that.”

“You never had a conversation with her as to him crawling in and out of bed? Did she ever say to you that Dad would crawl in and out of the bed with her?”


“Did she ever say to you, ‘my bottom itches’? Did you ever ask her about her bottom?”


By gum, he’s got it. That stuff is from the 51B. Bea had learned those reports almost by heart. The bat-lady wrote that Denise said Chloe had told her this. Those two days had to be when Chloe told her. Watch it, Bea. Maybe not. She had a few days between the Tracy and Gidseg interviews.

“You told the jury how you talked with her about penis and vagina, correct? I mean, as far as the names of the parts of the body.”


“Did you ever ask her about good touches and bad touches?”

“No, I don’t, I don’t believe I discussed that with her. I don’t recall.”

“Were you angry?”

“Yes, I was upset and probably angry. I don’t remember being angry, but I was certainly upset.”

“Do you recall asking him whether or not he had done anything inappropriate to her, touching-wise?”


“No, you did not, or no, you don’t recall?”

“No, I did not ask him if he had— Well, I guess I’m confused. I thought it was inappropriate for him to be kicking her and scratching her and pinching her and punching her.”

Suddenly they were back into the cycle of “but you saw no bruises.”

Blakeley picked up a piece of paper and appeared to read it and then looked up at Denise and asked, “And you recall telling Rachel Gidseg, the DSS social worker, that the child complained to you that her bottom was itchy? Do you recall saying that?”

“I don’t recall saying that, no.” He’s reading from the 51B without letting on that he’s reading from it.

Again glancing at the 51B and looking up, he asked, “Do you recall saying to Ms. Gidseg that Chloe also said her father would come into her bedroom at night and bother her? Did you say that?”

“I don’t remember saying that at all.”

“Did you say to her that the father would come into the bedroom at night and wake her up? Do you recall saying that? And then Mother mentioned this in her group.” He was giving the jury the signal those words were on the paper he was reading. “Do you recall discussing it in your group, Ma’am?”

“About her father coming in?”

“Yes,” Blakeley said.

Denise said, “No, I don’t remember anything about that at all.” Not remembering was, of course, not denying doing it. Denise had learned a lot about answering over the years.

“Would you agree with me that—” Blakeley suddenly stopped and asked the court, “May I approach, Your Honor?”


“I’m going to object, Your Honor,” Cooke said.

His Honor asked, surprised, “Objection to approaching and showing the transcript?”

“That’s correct, Your Honor.”

“I’ll withdraw the question,” Blakeley offered.

He had probably wanted to ask the court to accept the report with the proviso that it be authenticated by Gidseg later, and then had realized Gidseg was in Florida and would not be available to say she wrote it. Bea thought, You can still show it to her and ask her to read it to herself! That’ll be enough to open her up!

A few questions later, Blakeley decided to do just that. “Now, may I approach the witness, Your Honor, just to show her?”

“All right.”

“I’m going to ask you to look at this and just read it to yourself.”

“Mr. Blakeley, just for the record, could you identify the document?”

“Yes, Your Honor, certainly.” Then he identified the 51B, the bat-lady’s report, and had Denise read it. But Denise maintained she had no memory of saying what the report stated she said. So Blakeley moved on to the day Denise brought Chloe to see Tracy.

“And then you started to weep a little bit and said, ‘This is my beautiful daughter, Chloe.’ Do you recall saying that to Ms. Cooke?”

“Yes.” That was not a Denise expression. Michael had picked up on Cooke’s mirage.

“Is that the way you introduced Chloe to Carol Tracy?”

“I did.”

“Were you weeping at that point?”

“I was not weeping.”

And then Blakeley had a stroke of luck. He had simply been asking Denise what Tracy had said to her after interviewing Chloe: “Was that the first indication you had that your daughter was sexually abused by her father?”

“Carol had suggested the possibility the night before when—”

“So Carol told you before she talked to the child—”

“She wanted me to bring Chloe in.”

“So she told you before she even talked to the child there was a possibility of sexual abuse because of the hitting game, huh?”


“Okay, and the night before, did you go back, did you talk to Chloe at all and tell her you were going to bring her in to talk to your friend Carol?”


This is wonderful. Bea immediately thought. He can impeach her with Tracy’s report. That first question to Chloe: “Do you know why you’re here?” It explains away how Chloe could’ve made the statements she made to Tracy before she went to Hilda Crowleys’ group and heard the other kids’ stories of sexual abuse be their fathers.

Bea found herself breaking into a sweat. Her adrenaline was up. M’god, it was just by accident. It points to Denise telling Chloe about sexual abuse or rape. An accident that could not have happened at the Mathers trial because rape-center questions were verboten.

“And Carol told you, by the way, to get a restraining order, right?”

“No... she may have suggested it.”

“Well, you went to the court downstairs and you got a restraining order right away, right?”

“Yes, I did.”

“Now, up to that point, did you have any conversations with your daughter about her being in fear of her life, Ma’am? Of her father?”

“I don’t recall.”

“Well, Carol certainly didn’t say to you the child was in fear of her life, right?”


“And up to that point, at least from your testimony, he had not ever raised a hand to you or threatened you or threatened you with your life, had he?”


“In fact, you went to the court and you submitted an affidavit, didn’t you?”


“And you told the judge in the Probate Court ‘Both my daughter and I are in fear of our lives at this time,’ correct?”

“I don’t recall. It was in there, but I think it was something like that.”

“May I approach the individual, Your Honor?”


He handed her the affidavit. “Do you recognize that?”

“This is my signature. I do remember that, yes.” Bea was surprised. Bill had never told her the affidavit wasn’t in Denise’s handwriting. And she’d never thought to compare it with Denise’s diary!

She’d gotten them almost a year apart.

“Okay. Who wrote this up for you?”

“There was a legal aid. I don’t remember her name.”

“A legal aid wrote it up for you and you read it, didn’t you, before you signed it under the pains and penalties of perjury?”


“And, in fact, you had indicated to the judge that ‘On Wednesday, July 26th, my five year old daughter related a secret to me involving suspected sexual abuse by her father.’ Correct?”

“That’s what is written down there,” Denise answered.

“Right, and that, ‘Both my daughter and I are in fear of our lives at this time.’ Correct?”


“And you indicated you’re ‘afraid of him, as you’ve been under regular counseling for his forcibly raping you a few years ago’ and you’re in ‘constant fear of him raping you again,’ right?”

“I believe that’s in the affidavit, yes.”

Blakeley was fully on his toes now, walking toward Denise. “I don’t mean to take advantage of you.

This certainly is the document.”

Cooke said, “I have no objection to that being admitted, Your Honor.”

As the affidavit was being marked as Exhibit 1, Bea remembered the trial with Mathers and how he would not let her put the whole affidavit in. Bitch, bitch, bitch, Bea said to herself, Goddamn unethical bitch. She had had no f’n reason to object to it before Mathers either. Damn righteous bitch.

Holier than thou, damn righteous unethical bitch. How can she live with herself ruining people’s lives like this? Denying the father the child, and the child the father.

While Bea was preoccupied with her own thoughts, Blakeley had been letting Denise reread the affidavit.

“Now, when that was submitted to the judge down in the Probate Court after you signed it, you got a restraining order, correct?”


Blakeley then tried with many questions to get Denise to admit she accused Bill, after getting the order, of raping the child. But Denise, clenching her hands together, held fast and denied it.

“And what did he say when you told him he was suspected of having sexually abused Chloe?”

“He asked me who told me that or where I got that information?” Her lids were blinking rapidly again.

“And did you tell him?”

“I don’t remember what I told him.”

“He was very upset, wasn’t he?”

“I don’t know. I wasn’t—” she said, frowning, “I was upset, myself. I wasn’t—”

“He was very upset, wasn’t he? Do you remember that much, at least?”

“I’m sure— I don’t know.” She unclenched her hands. “I don’t remember. No.” One hand had gone to her brow.


While the jury was enjoying their mid-morning coffee break in the deliberation room, Bea, near the back of the room, was the first person to get to the corridor after the jury filed out. Then Denise and Cooke left the courtroom. Bea, like Denise, was wondering whether she’d been too quick to kick Hugh out, too quick to pass judgment. And like Denise, she had felt betrayed.

Suddenly, the pack of people from the hospital who came to support Bill were coming out in 2s, 3s, and 4s. Bill’s old boss wasn’t there. The doctor had been transferred. Denzil Fillmore was there. Smiling, Bea waved and mouthed, Thank you. Then she saw someone who looked like Jennifer Ouellette. Bea wasn’t sure. This woman looked tired. Bea had remembered Jennifer as more vibrant.

“Denise looks dysfunctional,” someone said.

“What do you mean ‘looks’ dysfunctional, she is dysfunctional. All she does is stay home all day.

How can she? The child is in school.”

Someone else said, “The child looked robotic.”

“I don’t think she wanted to testify.”

“Uncomfortable. That’s what she was. I think she believed she had to testify.”


“Can you imagine Bill having to go through this?”

“I understand he speaks to his daughter every week on the phone.”

“Yes, but Denise listens in!”

“And he hasn’t been able to see his daughter in years.”

Okay, Bea, she said to herself, how can you compare yourself to her? But deeper down, she still feared she was kidding herself. Denise had said over and over at her deposition the communication failed. And Bea remembered her own pompous humor, her own self-righteousness in concluding that Denise was equating communication with confrontation. Did you communicate that to him? Bea had asked in essence. Yes, I confronted him. Did you attempt to communicate with him, tell him you loved him? Tell him wanted him back? No, she hadn’t. Why won’t they talk? Why won’t they listen?

Bea had managed to depress herself despite the morning not being so bad. Maybe they do... maybe they do.

She decided to go outside for a cigarette first. The coffee line would thin out by then.

The Big C

Responding to Wendell Ankora at a sidebar requested by Cooke, Blakeley explained he wanted to inquire about Denise’s monitoring Bill’s phone calls with Chloe.

“Because the next step to develop through these meetings or supervised visitations is that she wants no more telephone contact and she wants no visits in the home. She wants to restrict everything and actually exclude visits over the course of about a two-year period—any contact at all, including at the MSPCC office. It’s just part of the overall control this woman has over this child. If she says, ‘No, I don’t,’ I can ask her if she recalls doing something.” Blakeley was saying, I don’t give a damn whether she said, I saw a moon made of green cheese, I just want to show she said it.

“What do you say to the basic theme?” Ankora asked Cooke. “Counsel wants to develop the point that Mrs. Abernathy was gradually narrowing down and closing off communication between father and daughter.”

“Whatever she said over the course of seven or eight years is hearsay,” Cooke replied.

Ankora said, “As I hear it, we don’t have literal hearsay. The statements are not being offered for their truth. That is, the questions are going to ask Mrs. Abernathy what she said or did. I infer that if she falters or doesn’t remember, counsel will approach with the report?”

“Yes, to refresh her memory,” Blakeley said.

“Do you recall speaking to Kristin Uhler from MSPCC,” Blakeley asked Denise, “and indicating that Chloe speaks with her father on Tuesday evenings and that you monitor the calls by being on the line?”

“I don’t recall telling Kristin Uhler anything, really.”

“Do you recall indicating you feel his style is to utilize subtle intimidation and, therefore, his communications with Chloe should be carefully monitored? Do you recall saying that?”

“I don’t recall what I said to Kristin Uhler.”

With permission, Blakeley approached Denise and asked her to look at Uhler’s report. Denise still maintained she didn’t remember saying that to Uhler, but she did admit Chloe wanted visits with her father.

“Do you recall that?”

“I have a faint memory of that.”

“A faint memory of that,” he echoed her, and then asked, with a bit of snide, “Can you try to use your faint memory to remember what your daughter told you in September 1989 about talking to other children about how their fathers hurt them?” The question brought forth no answer.

Bea, too, chuckled at the words “faint memory.” Blakeley evidently saw a use for those potentially delicious words, but got waylaid by them and got pushed off the track he was on.

He got back on track with the rules—the no-whispering and no-touching rules—to show Denise’s intent to control Chloe and Bill. Using Heather’s process notes, he pointed out all the times Denise called to complain about the previous visitation.

“No touching at all, and that would include a hug, it would include a handshake, it would include any physical contact, right?”


Savoring that answer, Blakeley added one more question, one more poignantly worded, on the subject for the jury to hear. “Do you agree that the no-touching rule literally meant no touch at all. Don’t hug, don’t touch, don’t even brush the hair out of his eyes. Isn’t that what that meant, Ma’am?”

“At the very end, yes, it was no touching at all.”

Then Blakeley hammered on every instance when Denise invoked her rule of no-touching at the home visits, forcing her to give almost the longest answer she’d given in any of the proceedings.

“They evolved over the two-year period when the visitation took place in my home. They were supposed to stay within my sight and no-whispering, and by the end of the two-year period, there was no touching.”

He even hammered home her refusal to allow Bill’s sister to accompany Bill on the Saturday visits to the home, and her refusal to get Bill his clothes from upstairs when he visited with his father. Then he hammered home her putting Bill’s clothes in a plastic trashbag outside. Just a few more wrinkles on the Big C.

At a sidebar, Cooke said, “Your Honor, please, all he’s doing is reading these records that he cannot get into evidence and—”

“It’s the history of visitation, Your Honor.” Of no relevance to the charge of rape, he was using the history only to show control by Denise. Cooke was missing the crucial point.

“But that doesn’t mean he can read it,” Cooke complained, wincing. “Just because there’s some records there doesn’t mean you can read them into evidence, and that’s what he’s doing here.

Granted, he’s saying, Do you recall it, but that doesn’t mean it’s admissible, just whether a person recalls it or not. It has to be admissible on its own before you can start asking—”

Blakeley said, “Can I point out that more than three-quarters of the questions I’ve asked her asked if she at some point recalled. Whether it’s not right away, after I beat her, she has a faint recall, a faint memory, and a faint recollection. So this is not improper cross-examination.”

The judge said, ‘I think the problem may be one of form more than substance. That is to say, as I understand it, you have the DSS intake document.”

“No,” Blakeley said, “these are actual observations, the clinical contacts. I’m not getting into this stuff except for her: this is Mother says, Mother calls, Mother complains, Mother does certain things.

How else can I cross-examine her?”

“Who is recording the material in the document you’re using?”

“The social worker, Heather Bruce.”

“So these are statements by the social worker—”

“Who’s available,” Blakeley said, finishing Ankora’s statement. By saying “available,” Blakeley was telling the judge, Heather could be called as a witness to authenticate her notes.

“So these statements purport to record positions, actions, or statements by Denise Abernathy... I think you’re entitled to pursue them.” He addressed Cooke. “The problem or problems may be ones more of form.” The judge was saying that the substance of the material was more important than the form in which it is presented.

But Cooke persisted, contending Denise’s statements were being taken out of context. Blakeley saying not.

“I think if you’d slow it down more,” Ankora said to Blakeley. “I think the key words may be, ‘Did you ever say.’” Ankora certainly was not Mathers. “And give her some breathing space in which to answer. Naturally, the prosecutor is free to go back and do any necessary rehabilitation or elaboration upon the points.” Then he wanted to know how much longer Blakeley would be on cross. Blakeley said he should be finished by lunch.

“All right, I’m not going to curtail your right of cross because of the importance of the witness, but we’re getting some diminishing utility, I think, to some of the questions.”

“Do you recall indicating the visits were having an adverse impact on Chloe, the intensity of the visits were too much for her and, in fact, they should possibly be eliminated in the future? Does that refresh your memory?


“Did you ever talk to Chloe about her father going to jail?”

“I certainly have.”

Issue after issue in Heather’s notes—the handcuff game, Bill’s moving closer to the family home, Bill’s letters to Chloe in Heather’s office—all became subjects that Blakeley implied were Denise’s means for gaining and keeping control. He also wanted Denise’s take on Heather’s process notes because Heather’s name had appeared on the Commonwealth’s witness list for this trial. She hadn’t been on the list for the Mathers trial.

“‘He’s digging his own grave.’ Did you ever say that?”

“No.” He didn’t pursue her denial. He just left it out there for the jury’s consumption.

“You wished he would shrivel up and die?”

She had no memory of saying that. He left that, too.

A Mother’s Love

On redirect examination, by which Cooke was to repair any damage done by Blakeley on his cross-examination, Cooke wanted to know whether Denise’s personal therapist had referred her to the rape-crisis center. The apparent purpose of Cooke’s question was to take the onus off Denise for bringing Chloe to the rape center.

Blakeley immediately interrupted and asked the judge, “Ruth Stanton, is she on the witness list?”

“Ruth Stanton is not on the witness list,” Ankora said.

After putting the onus on Ruth Stanton, Cooke went on to another subject.

“Are there some errors in that restraining order?”

“It was composed by a legal aid.”

When Denise failed to give Cooke a straight answer, a yes or a no, Bea thought, She’s lost confidence in Cooke to protect her.

“When I say that, in other words, are there some inaccuracies in the information contained in the restraining order?” Cooke was insisting on a proper answer. She knew how to control her witness.


Sure, the entire affidavit is a lie.

The DA-witness relationship repaired, Cooke finally began repairing the damage Blakeley had done.

Cooke asked a few more questions of no consequence.

“At some point, did Chloe stop seeing the defendant?”

“Yes, she did.”

“Could you tell the jurors approximately when that was?”

“In 1992.”

“Can you tell the jurors why Chloe stopped seeing the defendant?”

“The visitation center required Bill to sign a form listing their rules, and he refused to sign it, so they refused to supervise the visits.” Whereupon Cooke put the SWFCC visitation rules into evidence.

Blakeley didn’t object.

“Once Chloe was born, did you love her?”

“Very much.”
“And do you continue to love her today?”
“Yes, I do.”

On recross, Blakeley continued Cooke’s issue. “You certainly agree Bill loves her, as well?”


“You indicated you objected to Hilda Crowley’s Victim of Sexual Addiction program. Apparently, you didn’t like your daughter talking to other alleged rape victims and the mixing of non-offending parents or something? Isn’t that what you said?”

“I said I objected to mixing offenders with non-offenders.”

“Isn’t it true, in fact, you objected to Hilda Crowley because she had you fill out a psychological form and noted you were—”

“Objection, Your Honor. Objection, Your Honor, objection,” Cooke said.

The judge suggested a sidebar.

Blakeley wanted to move on. “I’ll avoid the psychological issue, Your Honor.” Which he did. But the jury heard there was one.

Finally, he asked, “Do you recall telling Heather Bruce that Hilda Crowley was confrontational, and told you that you had to trust her. Then she asked if you had trouble listening? Did you tell that to
Heather Bruce?”

“I don’t remember.”

The next episode of this story will post tomorrow, Tuesday - September 30th

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Islam Comes to Moore, Oklahoma

Islam Comes to Moore, Oklahoma from Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know Caruba's Warning Signs

It took the gruesome videos of two American journalists being beheaded by a masked Islamic State (ISIS) butcher, followed since then by more victims, to finally wake Americans to the threat that they face from Islam, but the beheading of a Moore, Oklahoma victim by a man who had been trying to get his co-workers to convert to Islam that brought the threat to the homeland.

The memory of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon have long since begun to fade, but Islam has returned to page one with a display of the violence that is the heart and soul of a cult based on the life and teachings of Muhammad. Don’t call it a religion. And surely do not call it the “religion of peace.”

There was nothing peaceful about Islam from its earliest days when the citizens of Mecca came to the conclusion that Muhammad and his followers were a threat to them. That was 1,400 years ago.

Also Available on Amazon
If it were in my power, I would require every American to read “It’s All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet” by F.W. Burleigh ($`6.95, Zenga Books). Instead, I will only highly recommend it as the best way to understand the man who literally invented a so-called religion based on his own pathologies and then, through terror, ensured it spread to the entirety of Arabia in his lifetime.

As the author notes in its introduction, the biography is based almost entirely on the original literature of Islam as well as early biographies, histories, and collections of traditions. Twenty thousand pages of material were given line-by-line scrutiny “because what is written about him in the original literature is disturbing.”

“More than two-thirds of the canonical biographical materials have to do with the violence he used to spread his religion.” It was a short step from Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet who later called himself the messenger of Allah, to Alton Nolen, the Muslim convert who is alleged to have beheaded a former co-worker.

What is little known about Muhammad is that he suffered from epileptic fits throughout his life and had had a troubled youth that would have unhinged anyone. A fortunate marriage at age 24 took him out of a life of low status and poverty. His wife was twenty years his senior, a woman of wealth. Though a grave concern in an era when the fits were seen as demon possession, Muhammad began to interpret them as the voices of Allah and his angels, particularly Gabriel.

“It was during this period of emotional and intellectual upheaval that his overcharged brain, wracked by doubts and suffering, came to his rescue in the form of a series of spectacular hallucinatory experiences that convinced him he was unique and had been singled out by God for a special purpose. This took place in A.D. 610 when Muhammad was forty years old.”

“His belief became unshakable and later became content of much of the Koran and his later ruthless behavior as pillage, rape, the enslavement of men, women, and children, and other atrocities he perpetrated—make such a belief beyond ludicrous.”

“It was sufficient for Muhammad to think something for it to become the truth. He was convinced that whatever came into his head came from Allah.” For ages insane asylums have been filled with such people. As Muhammad drew followers to himself and to the exacting rituals he created for Islam, he enriched himself and them with acts of banditry, attacking caravans and then attacking tribes, particularly Jewish ones, to build a mountain of stolen wealth.

Burleigh notes that the Koran has a chapter “entitled ‘The Spoils of War’” that “transformed Muhammad’s religion into an organized-crime enterprise for its approval of plunder.” He told his believers “Enjoy what you take in war” for it is “lawful and good.”

Again, it is a short step from his era to the present one in which believers have united to create the Islamic State (ISIS) by war and to begin to steal the wealth of Syria from the sale of its oil on the black market. Imposing themselves on a large area of Iraq, ISIS is simply an extension of al Qaeda and al Qaeda is an expression of Muhammad’s demand that Islam become the sole religion of the world, exacting a subjugation tax from any who would not convert.

Burleigh concludes his book saying “Muhammad was a diseased genius, an epileptic psychopath with a clever tongue who believed God talked to him, a toxic mixture that transformed him over time into a mass murderer and a despot pushing a delusional religion.” It should surprise no one that he “divided the world into lands conquered and lands yet to be conquered, into lands that submitted to his delusions about himself and lands yet to submit to his delusions.”

Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam was in decline, but the discovery of oil in the Middle East provided the funding to spread its message. That message, dependent on violence and terror has created such a problem in the Middle East that Islamic nations there are joining in the effort to defeat ISIS. Burleigh asks “Who will defend you against the encroachment of what Muhammad created and the very real threat that it could eventually destroy all that you cherish?”

He does not recommend the man who said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

That man is President Barack Hussein Obama. And now you know why the murders committed by Major Nidal Hasan in 2009, killing his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or the murder in Oklahoma were both deemed “workplace violence” by law enforcement authorities reluctant to challenge the White House to the reality that both were inspired and approved by Islam.

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

President Obama displays his version of "Fairness"

President Obama Displays His Version of "Fairness" from the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco featured at Comically Incorrect.com

Get Your Daily Dose of Humor from Political Cartoonist A.F. (Tony) Branco

Check out some of the sights listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.

Protect the poor from climate change policies

Protect the poor – from climate change policies in the files of Paul Driessen at CFACT.org

Cornwall Alliance works to ensure reliable, affordable energy for poor families worldwide

Read the Driessen Files at CFACT.org
In a more rational, moral, compassionate, scientifically literate world, this Cornwall declaration would not be needed. It assesses the “far-reaching, costly policies” that the world’s governments are adopting, supposedly to prevent global warming and climate change. It calls on governments to focus instead on protecting the poor, who desperately need the affordable energy that those policies circumscribe.

The declaration was crafted by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This coalition of theologians, faith leaders, scientists, and economic, environmental and policy experts is committed to safeguarding God’s entire creation: not just the Earth and its wildlife, but the people who also inhabit our wondrous planet, especially the poorest among us. More than 150 have already signed the declaration.

The declaration lists ten reasons to “oppose harmful climate change policies.” It notes that our Earth is “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.” Its climate system will respond to and correct damage that might arise from the relatively small effects of carbon dioxide that we humans are adding to the atmosphere – compared to the numerous, complex, powerful, interacting natural forces that have always ruled our planet’s ever-changing climate and weather.

For one thing, crops and forests and other plants will respond to the extra CO2 by growing even faster and better, greening the planet and helping to feed wildlife and people. For another, as my extensive new climate report makes clear, the real world is simply not cooperating with the alarmists’ dire forecasts.

President Obama says climate change “will define the contours of this century more than any other” issue. Secretary of State John Kerry insists that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and poses “greater long-term consequences” than ISIL, terrorism or Ebola – even as ISIL butchers crucify men, behead little children, and promise to murder Westerners in their homes and streets.

Reality tells a different story. Not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States in nine years – the longest such period since at least 1900 and perhaps the US Civil War. Arctic ice has rebounded. Antarctic ice that is supposed to be melting is instead expanding to new records, “because of” global warming that’s supposed to be happening with increasing speed, but instead stopped 18 years ago. Sea levels are barely rising. Perhaps all this good climate news is due to our carbon dioxide emissions?

All these “inconvenient truths” are at the heart of the Cornwall appeal. Look first, it suggests, at actual, empirical, real-world climate observations. In almost every case they differ significantly from – or are directly opposite to – what the White House, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other alarmists assert and predict.

Second, the declaration implores, consider how anti-fossil fuel climate policies would affect the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. Then “abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature, and instead adopt policies that simultaneously reflect responsible environmental stewardship, make energy and all its benefits more affordable, and so free the poor to rise out of poverty.”

As UCLA emeritus professor Deepak Lal (who wrote the foreword to the India edition of my Eco-Imperialism book) wrote in Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:

“The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.… [I]t is mankind’s use of the mineral energy stored in nature’s gift of fossil fuels … accompanying the slowly rolling Industrial Revolution, [that] allowed the ascent from structural poverty which had scarred humankind for millennia. To put a limit on the use of fossil fuels without adequate economically viable alternatives is to condemn the Third World to perpetual structural poverty.”

The Cornwall Alliance echoes and expands on these concerns in its Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor, a 55-page analysis by professor of climatology David Legates and professor of economics Cornelius van Kooten.

Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty, the Alliance points out. Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions would greatly increase the price of energy, as well as goods and services. Such policies would slow, stop or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to prosper and adapt to all climates. They would harm the poor more than the wealthy,

President Obama says the United States is committed to helping poor nations deal with the effects of “climate disruption.” However, he has also signed an executive order requiring that federal agencies take climate change into account when preparing international development, loan and investment programs. This has meant that U.S. agencies will support wind, solar and biofuel projects – but will not provide loans or other assistance for state-of-the-art gas-fired power plants in Ghana, coal-fired power plants in South Africa, or similar projects in other severely energy-deprived and impoverished nations.

Worldwide, 2.8 billion people still use wood, charcoal, coal and dung in open fires to heat and cook. At least 1.2 billion people still do not have access to electricity and the countless blessings it brings. In India alone, more than 300 million people lack electricity; in Africa more than 550 million. The result is millions of deaths every year from lung and intestinal diseases. The vast majority of these victims are women and children.

But under current White House, IPCC and EU policies, they are not likely to get electricity anytime soon. Mr. Obama justified his policies by telling students in Johannesburg, South Africa, “if everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over – unless we find new ways of producing energy.”

In other words, in a world where hydrocarbons still provide 82% of all energy, for this White House and IPCC, exaggerated concerns about climate change 50 or 100 years from now trump concerns about safeguarding billions of people from rampant poverty and lethal diseases. This is intolerable.

Wind and solar power will let people in remote areas have light bulbs, cell phone chargers and tiny refrigerators, until they can be connected to an electrical grid. However, such limited, unreliable, expensive electricity cannot support modern economies, factories, shops, schools, hospitals or families.

No wonder China, India and other developing countries are building hundreds of coal-fired generating plants. Their leaders may be happy to participate in wealth transfer schemes, in which they receive (at least promises of) “climate adaptation and mitigation” money from rich countries. But they will not sign any international accord that restricts their fossil fuel use and economic development. They understand all too well the need to end rampant poverty, misery, disease and premature death – even if Mr. Obama, UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon and Al Gore do not, or do not care.

Put bluntly, “climate-smart” policies for poor countries and poor families are stupid – and immoral.

As American University adjunct professor Caleb Rossiter asked in a June 2014 Wall Street Journal article: “Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”

So study these issues. Ponder what the Cornwall Alliance has to say. Sign the declaration. Speak out against energy deprivation, prolonged poverty and needless death. And help protect your children’s futures – and the hopes, aspirations, lives and basic human rights of the world’s poorest families.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death