Public Defender - Blacks can not reason well

Quite possibly the most racist article you will ever read from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Visit Colonel Allen B. West's Website

Still liberal after all these years.

Every now and then you come across an article that folks just need to read. This one written by Michael Smith entitled, “Confessions of a Public Defender” and originally posted at American Renaissance on May 9, 2014 is one of those articles.

It is a profound and deeply disturbing piece, which, as we end 2014, we all need to comprehend as we move towards the 50th anniversary of the Great Society initiatives of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Smith articulates that which ails the black community — the real discussion we should be having on race, not that of victimhood and the further expansion of the welfare nanny-state.

He begins by saying:

“I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.” 

“I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.”

He presents his observations based on his personal experience with black defendants, and his words will no doubt inflame many:

My experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

It will take you only 5 minutes to read this article — and I would bet you’ll read it again. Then ask yourself, is this something you hear Al Sharpton addressing? Or President Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson or Jesse Jackson?

I’m quite sure the progressive socialist left will criticize me for sharing this article – that’s just who they are – they hate the truth. But if there is a war to be fought, it is for the soul of the inner city and the black community. The facts and observations in this are not shocking to me. They are quite well known, but the manner in which the writer so eloquently presents them is quite commendable.

We cannot begin to “have a conversation about race” until we are willing to honestly address the facts.

As Smith says at the end, “I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth.”

_____________________________________________________

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes.

In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black.

All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down.

They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself.

At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation.

Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date.

They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case.

I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction.

I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The risks of trial

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent.

A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand.

Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. 

This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. 

The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. 

There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. 

It is my firm belief many blacks are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women.

All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video.

“They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others:

“What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

No fathers

As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. 

I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenage mother. 

Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan.

When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” 

They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care.

This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. 

These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school.

They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment.

They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.

When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it.

I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

From time to time the media reports that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system.

What the media only hints at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public.

Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth.

As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

_____________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

America's war on men

America's War on Men from Judson Phillips, Founder on the Tea Party Nation

Visit the Tea Party Nation on-Line

The left has taken control of parts of America and now it is open season on men.

Let’s ignore such issues as affirmative action and so-called “diversity” where men are put at the bottom of the pile, there is a more dangerous trend.

One writer called it a “sexodus.” This is where men check out from relationships with women all together.

Why would men do that?

From Roanoke.com:

A day after Rolling Stone published an article describing a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house, a former Washington and Lee student claims he was expelled for having consensual sex with another student who eight months later regretted the encounter and claimed rape.

The former W and L student has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the private Lexington university discriminated against him because he is a male, and because it wanted to avoid the negative public scrutiny that UVa was experiencing.

Moreover, the student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit, contends W and L’s Title IX officer advocates to female students that “regret equals rape.”

“W and L has created an environment where an accused male student is fundamentally denied due process by being prosecuted through the conduct process under a presumption of guilt. Such a one-sided process deprived Plaintiff, as a male student, of educational opportunities at W and L on the basis of his sex,” John Doe claims in the lawsuit.

W and L spokesman Brian Eckert said, “We don’t feel it is appropriate to discuss the specifics of a legal proceeding, but we’re confident that we correctly follow our established university policies and procedures, as well as federal mandates. We’re committed to treating all students fairly and maintaining a safe environment on our campus.”

John Doe claims that twice, he had consensual sex with a student identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe. The first encounter occurred in his room at the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity house where they went after an off-campus party on Feb. 8. Both had been drinking, he said.

He claims they sat on chairs in his room and talked for about an hour. He said Jane Doe then said that while she doesn’t usually have sex with a man when she first meets him, she found him very interesting. He said she moved toward him, initiated kissing, took off her clothes except for her underwear and got into bed with him. He said at no point did she say she did not want to have sex.

He claims she spent the night, that he contacted her later through Facebook and that they had sex again in early March. He said she told her friends she had a good time. But at a Pi Kappa Phi St. Patrick’s Day party a few weeks later, Jane Doe left when she saw him kissing another woman, who is now his girlfriend.

It wasn’t until July that Jane Doe told a friend that she was sexually assaulted, the lawsuit claims. Then in October, Jane Doe, as a member of a student organization against sexual assault called SPEAK, attended a presentation by W and L Title IX officer Lauren Kozak. According to the lawsuit, Kozak shared an article:

“Is it possible that there is something in between consensual sex and rape … and that it happens to almost every girl out there?”

Human nature can be very simple. When you create a major disincentive for a certain activity, it is discouraged. The equation for many young men today is simple. Relationships carry too much risk for the reward. They can be accused of rape with no evidence.

They can be expelled from a institution of higher learning by a system that makes Stalin’s show trials look like a paragon of fairness.

If a man has a bad breakup with a woman, she can go get a restraining order based only on her “fear” and a record of that restraining order, even if she comes in and admits she lied, follows him for the rest of his life.

Men quickly realize that in the family court system they are at a significant disadvantage knowing that their children can be taken from them at any time and their role being reduced to nothing more than a cash donor for their ex.

Is it any wonder marriage rates are at a record low? Birth rates are now also at a record low. The birth rate is approximately 1.88 per woman. That is below the replacement rate.

That means America will follow Europe into a demographic death spiral if something isn’t done soon.

But then again, that is what the left wants.

______________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

 

Immigration: The law and assimilation at issue

IMMIGRATION: The Law and Assimilation at Issue from the files of J.B. Williams at the North American Law Center.org

Click Here to Read the J.B. Williams Files

There is no more guess work needed to accurately assess the current immigration policy of the United States Federal Government, all three branches. The current policy is designed to forever alter the social fabric and population demographics of the United States.

Because Americans would never willingly accept “global governance” or Marxist notions like “social justice,” it was necessary to flood America with anti-American illegal aliens and legal immigrants. To “change” America, they have to “change Americans.”

An immigrant is someone who enters our country “legally” and abides by our laws, assimilating into American society, speaking our language and revering the principles of freedom and liberty that brought them to our shores.

Those who come here by any other manner are not “immigrants,” they are “illegal aliens.” They are mere illegal migrants, “inhabitants” of the territory, and certainly not “citizens.”

The Rule of Constitutional Law

In the United States, amendments and statutes which are of themselves not constitutional -- have no force of law behind them. For any statute to enjoy the force of law, it must be in pursuance of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights.

Over the past 227 years, legislatures have drafted and passed many federal, state and local statutes which are directly in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the courts have assumed unconstitutional legislative authority via Common Law Rules of Precedent and Procedure, issuing numerous case rulings (aka common law) which directly undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law. The courts have unconstitutionally altered the Supreme Law of the Land by way of broad ungrounded interpretations and irregular applications of law.

Further, academia’s role in the subversion of Constitutional Law has been to redraft new definitions for old words. In the case of immigration, the primary definition change relates to the term “birthright citizenship.”

In 1828, the official American definition of “birthright” was – “any right which results from descent.” In modern terms, a birthright is any right which one inherits from natural descendants (parentage) at birth. The Law of Nations goes into great detail in Sections 212-219, separating the many different types and rights of “inhabitants vs. citizens vs. True (aka Natural Born) Citizens.”

But by today, academics have already altered the definition of “birthright” as follows – “a right that you have because you were born into a particular position, family, place, etc., or because it is a right of all people.”

As a result, we have “anchor babies” and “illegal aliens” today, presumed to be entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of True American Citizens. Of course, the process by which we arrived here is entirely unconstitutional, as it is a direct offense to the Rule of Constitutional Law and an affront to every True American Citizen.

The use of Common Law (judicial fiat) amounts to the intentional subversion and usurpation of Constitutional Law, resulting in “equal rights” for non-U.S. citizens. Today, illegal aliens often have more rights than legal U.S. Citizens. It’s not constitutional… it is only “social justice.”

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court declared regulation of immigration a federal responsibility in 1875. Seizure of federal supremacy has relegated State’s Rights to the ash heap of history and provided unconstitutional protections for illegal aliens against a disapproving American society.

Now, Americans can be arrested for “racism” and/or “hate speech” for calling illegal invaders by their rightful legal name, “illegal aliens.”

“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

Today, it is easier for illegal aliens to access federal taxpayer assisted benefits than for legal American Citizens to do so, thanks in great part to a heavily flawed 14th Amendment recklessly passed by Congress in 1868.

In 1882, Congress passed the first comprehensive Immigration Act. The act prohibited the entry of “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The “public charge” doctrine served to bar arriving foreigners who could not show the financial ability to support themselves. Foreigners denied entry were returned to their starting points at the expense of the ship owners.

By 1986, after a hundred years of inadequate law enforcement concerning immigration, Congress had to pass a “one-time exemption” to these laws, which included a “one-time amnesty” for an estimated one million illegal aliens in our country at that time, signed into law by then President Ronald Reagan as The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

The condition of that bill was strict federal enforcement of all existing Immigration and Naturalization Laws forever thereafter. Obviously, the Federal Government has failed to keep that bargain with Reagan and the American people.

The Rule of Constitutional Law must be reinstated and enforced or America is no longer America.

To be American

To be “American” means much more than to claim residency in the United States. It means to invest in the American culture, to buy into American principles and values of freedom and liberty, to respect and abide by our laws, use our language and to swear an allegiance to our country, defend our way of life, with your life if necessary.

One cannot possibly enter our country in direct violation of our immigration and naturalization laws and then claim to be an American. We simply cannot afford to reward illegal invaders with “rights” equal to those of law-abiding legal U.S. Citizens, or we will be working to destroy our own country.

The Art of Assimilation

If you legally seek freedom, liberty, equal opportunity, peace and tranquility, and are prepared to invest yourself in the American way of life in order to access the American dream, then “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …”

But if you seek to exploit America’s kindness for purposes which present a threat to American principles and values, then you have entered our country with the intent to destroy it.

• If you come with the intent to harm America, hiding within society rather than assimilating into society, then you have come with ill intent and you should be met with extreme prejudice.
• If you respect America, Americans will respect you.
• If you respect our laws, our Constitution will protect you.
• If you speak our language and adopt our traditions, you will be welcome in our country.
• If you bring peace, you will find peace.
• If you are willing to earn, you will own.
• If you assimilate, you will be American.

America was once known all over the world as “the great melting pot…” where people from all corners of the earth sought freedom and liberty, the right of self-determination.

America has always been the most diverse society on earth and that was not a point of celebration until recently.

However, at some point in our history, people stopped melting into society, they stopped assimilating. They stopped seeking to become “American” and started trying to “change America.” The principles and values of freedom and liberty are worthy of celebration, that which all True Americans hold in common. The things that now divide Americans are deplorable.

This is the “change” that Obama democrats have promised all Americans. When their “change” is completed, we will no longer be America. We will no longer be a sovereign nation, or a Constitutional Representative Republic.

The Fix

The fix is in on America and amnesty by any means is a critical part of the global fix on our country.

If you expect Congress, the President, academia or the Courts to fix this, you are overlooking their direct involvement in the total destruction of our great nation.

The people are the only fix we have, and most of the people are still waiting, as if there is anyone else to solve the problem.

There is only one way to deal with evil and that is to confront it head-on and defeat it. Until the people summon the strength and courage to do so, the future of this nation is indeed bleak. The fix is the people, but so is the problem…

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –~ Thomas Jefferson

____________________________________________________________

JB Williams, Co-Founder

www.PatriotsUnion.org
www.VeteranDefenders.org
www.NorthAmericanLawCenter.org

"Tolerating evil in any form at any level only brings about more evil. As a result, the true cost of tolerating the intolerable is a totally intolerable society, from which you can never draft good government." - JB

_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Same-sex weddings: Right not to perform them

Same-sex weddings, and the right not to perform them from the files of Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained Pentecostal
ministers, operate the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel
in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

On October 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage. On Oct. 15, county clerks in the state for the first time issued marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Then, five days later came startling news out of the Idaho resort town of Coeur d'Alene: Two Christian ministers, owners of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, had reportedly been told by local officials that they were now required to perform same-sex weddings, or risk fines of up to $1,000 and as much as six months in jail if they refused.

Under the city's antidiscrimination ordinance, the Hitching Post is considered "a place of public accommodation," and refusing to marry couples on the basis of sexual orientation was no longer a legal option.

So the two ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, filed a lawsuit, seeking to block the city from forcing them to host same-sex ceremonies in violation of their sincere religious beliefs. "The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted, and sent to jail," their attorney told reporters.

At first blush, the story seemed to confirm the grimmest forebodings of those who have warned that the gay marriage juggernaut will roll right over religious liberty concerns. Was the government really threatening to jail clergy who refused to perform same-sex weddings?

The short answer: No, it hasn't come to that — at least not yet. The Knapps weren't charged with any violation, and since they recently reincorporated the Hitching Post as an explicitly "religious corporation" under Idaho law, it seems doubtful that any prosecutor is seriously gunning for them.

But Coeur d'Alene isn't ruling out the possibility, either. Only if the Hitching Post truly operates on a not-for-profit religious basis, City Attorney Michael Gridley wrote in an Oct. 20 letter, would the Knapps be legally exempted from the antidiscrimination ordinance "like any other church or religious association."

Conversely, if their wedding chapel provides services "primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation," they could be cited for breaking the law.

Should they be?

Religious convictions haven't sheltered florists, bakers, and other vendors who have declined to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies. The Supreme Court earlier this year let stand the penalty imposed on a New Mexico photographer who turned down a request to shoot a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that wedding chapels, like bakeries and photo studios, are bound by nondiscrimination law, regardless of the owners' moral beliefs. By that argument, it makes no difference that the owner of a company is an ordained minister. An operation like the Hitching Post isn't a ministry, the ACLU would say, it's a business — and the First Amendment can tell the difference.

Compelling ministers to officiate at weddings when
it would violate their principles to do so is"just
something we don't do in a liberal society,"
  declares Andrew Sullivan, an influential advocate
of same-sex marriage.

Yet there is considerably more to the First Amendment than the unique protection it extends to churches. The freedom of expression it enshrines secures the right to speak no less than the right not to speak. Time and again the Supreme Court has confirmed that government may not force Americans to utter words they disbelieve or deny.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," Justice Robert Jackson wrote in a landmark 1943 decision that struck down a law compelling students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Whatever one's views on same-sex marriage — or on nondiscrimination statutes generally — it is unfathomable that ministers could be forced by law to pronounce the words of a marriage ceremony against their will. That they are being paid to perform the ceremony doesn't diminish the significance of the words they are saying, or erode their constitutional liberty to choose not to say them.

Supporters of same-sex unions have nothing to gain by forcing anyone, least of all clergy members, to officiate at weddings when it would violate their principles to do so. That is "just something we don't do in a liberal society," insists Andrew Sullivan, a stalwart advocate for gay marriage.

Concerns about what "marriage equality" is doing to religious tolerance and dissent run deep; surely the best way to allay those concerns is with respect and goodwill. As same-sex wedlock comes to Idaho, it is in everyone's interest that freedom of speech and conscience not be driven out.

_____________________________________________________________

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?”

“Yes.”

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?

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

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?”

“Yes.”

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?”

“Yes.”

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

“Yes.”

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

“No.”

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

“Yes.”

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

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

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

“Yes.”

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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“No.”

“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?”

“No.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“No.”

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

“No.”

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.”

“Yes.”

“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.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“No.”

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?”

“No.”

“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?”

“No.”

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

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

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.

Misgivings

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.”

“Brainwashed.”

“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?”

“Yes.”

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?

“No.”

“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.

“Yes.”

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?”

“Yes.”

“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

____________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 38

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 38 of the 41 part true to life serial

Read the Barbara C. Johnson Bio at Amazon.com

Repeat Performance

Available on Amazon.com

Blakeley’s opening was not as bad as Bea’s, but it was unimpressive. He offered no theme for the defense. He was probably inhibited by not knowing what Chloe would say four years later, four years older. Bea was hoping less was more.

Chloe was, again, the Commonwealth’s first witness. Cooke had her describe where she went to school and the layout of the house, but didn’t take a chance on being surprised by the karate and swimming classes again. So early on, she had Chloe say Bill had taken her. That was to be expected, but Bea knew the child had been unscrupulously prepared when Cooke asked, “Can you tell the jurors during that time if your mom or dad was working?”

“Yes, both my parents were working.” Denise was working only every other Sunday. Cooke was leaving lots of time for Bill to be alone with Bill in the house. Bea thought, The more time to rape you, my child. Damn Cooke. How dare she? She knows the truth.

Cooke asked, “How about when you were at home with your dad, were there times you were alone with him?”

“Yes.”

“And can you recall whereabouts in the house that you would be alone with your dad?

“In the living room and in his bedroom.” This is new. What’s she going to have happen in the living room?

“And where would your mom be when you were alone with him in the house?” Here it comes, here it comes. Bea wanted to scream.

“Either at work or—Yeah, at work.”

Cooke, you unethical bitch.

The bedroom scene, as at the first trial, began with Bill letting Chloe jump on the bed. “And he’d let me jump on the bed.”

Would a child who knew she was about to be raped want permission to jump on the bed?

“Now, can you tell the jurors, did anything else ever occur with your dad in that bedroom beside the tickling you just told us about?”

“He would sometimes jump on the bed with me and then knock me down and take off my clothes and stick his penis in my vagina.” Chloe was cold, detached, showing no emotion whatsoever, looking straight ahead at her mother, who was strategically seated in the rear of the courtroom on a line behind Bill and Kate.

“Do you recall what types of clothes you were wearing when he took off your clothes?”

“No.”

“When he would do that, can you tell the jurors what you felt at that point.”

“Scared.”

Peter, Peter, if you were only here. No pain, Peter. No pain.

“Can you tell the jurors what you were feeling or what you were thinking at that point?

“I was confused and scared.”

If it happened more than once, then why was she confused? She would have known what was about to happen.

No, she didn’t say anything to her dad and he said nothing to her. And mom was again downstairs in the living room either taking a nap or reading when her dad pushed her down on the bed.

“Aside from what you just described, did anything else ever occur in the bedroom when you were alone with your dad?”

Chloe didn’t respond.

“Do you recall where he would touch you when he would be on top of you?”

“He’d be holding my arms down.”

“Do you know approximately how long that would go on for?”

“I don’t remember.” And she didn’t remember when or how often it happened, just that it happened more than once.

“Did anything else happen in the bedroom between your dad and yourself that you can recall?”

“No, just the tickling and everything.”

“Did he ever touch you in any other way?”

“Well, when he tickled me, he would sometimes put his hands down my underwear.”

“And when he would put his hands down your underwear, can you describe where his hands would go?”

“On the surface of my vagina.”

“And what part of his body would be touching the surface of your vagina?”

“His fingers.”

No, she never said anything to him at that time, nor did he say anything to her. Nor did he touch her in any other way, nor did she touch him in any other way.

“When your dad was on top of you and your clothes were off, can you tell the jurors, what about his clothes?

“They’d be off, too.”

“When he would take his clothes off, did you see his body?”

“No, my eyes were closed.”

“And when would you close your eyes?”

“When he was on top of me.”

“Now, when you were upstairs in the bedroom, can you tell the jurors whether or not you ever saw any parts of your dad’s body?”

“No.”

“Did your dad ever touch you in your mouth?” That was a leading question and was improper.
Is Chloe unwilling to testify? Is that why Cooke reverted to leading her? Also, the child had already said he didn’t touch her anywhere else. Blakeley didn’t object. He, like Bea, didn’t want the jury to think he was interfering with the child’s story.

“Yes.”

“Can you describe for the jurors when he would touch your mouth?”

“He would put his penis in my mouth.” And that happened in the bedroom more than once.

“Do you recall or can you describe to the jurors what that was like?”

“It didn’t taste good.”

“Do you know where your mom was during those times when he would put his penis in your mouth?”

“Downstairs on the couch.”

No, she never said anything to him at that time, nor did he say anything to her. And yes, it happened more than once on separate days.

“Do you recall or do you know how old you were the first time that it happened, Chloe?”

“Three.”

“Now would you describe when you would go swimming with your dad or to karate, how would you describe your relationship with your dad then?”

“I was close to him then.”

“Now at some point, did your dad talk to you about talking about what was going on in the bedroom?”

Improper, leading question.

“Yes.” But she didn’t recall when or the number of times he talked with her about what was going on in the bedroom.

“Can you tell the jurors what your dad told you with regards to what was going on in the bedroom?”

“He said if I ever told anyone, he would kill my mother.”

“And how did you feel at that point, Chloe?”

“Very, very scared.”

Rules and Raping

Blakeley started slowly with questions about karate and about the gi, the side-tied karate shirt, and her little belt. Then he dared what Bea had not.

“Do you remember your father hitting you in the head with a baseball bat?”

“No.”

“No? Do you remember telling the lady— Do you remember talking to the people from the social work department about this case, you know, a couple of times?”

“Yes.”

“And do you remember or did you ever say to the woman, any one of the people you spoke to, that your dad hit you with a wooden baseball bat on your head and on your bottom, and that he left marks?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Do you remember saying he would hit you and punch you and hit you on the face with his hands and that he left marks on you all over?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember your father coming into your bed with you? Do you remember saying that to the person?”

“Yes.”

“And do you remember... your memory, do you recall saying you were in your diapers?”

“Yes.”

“You remember your father coming into bed with you when you were in your diapers.”

“I don’t remember that, no.”

Would the jury be able to distinguish between Chloe remembering whether something happened and Chloe remembering whether she had told someone? Blakeley had picked out the most outlandish events to ask Chloe about. Blakeley shouldn’t need Toffett now, Bea thought.

She remembered Carol Tracy. Probably only because she’d been reminded about her. It seemed unlikely she’d remember a 30- or 40-minute visit with Tracy that had occurred eight years earlier.

“And do you remember, did your mother tell you why you were going there?”

“No.”

“Did you know why you were going there?”

“Yes.”

“And why were you going there?”

“Because I was going there to tell about my father raping me.” Bingo, Blakeley, you did it. The inconsistency was beautiful.

“Raping you? And when you went into Ms. Tracy, did she give you some, like, doll things to play with, do you remember?”

“I don’t remember.”

She remembered the no-touch rule, but she remembered they could hug each other.

“And what was the no-whispering rule?”

“He couldn’t whisper to me and I couldn’t whisper to him.”

“Okay, and who would make those rules, do you know?”

“I don’t remember.” Neither did she remember getting into trouble with her mother because she hugged her father.

Then Blakeley mined the same treasure that Bea did. He asked her about hearing stories from other kids about how they were abused.

“Did your mother take you to a place where they had classes or a group of people talking about things like this?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember talking to other kids who had things happen to them like this?”

“Yes.”

“And did they tell you things that happened to them.”

“Yes.”

“Did you also go to, do you remember, like a camp with other kids that were from... that were abused by their fathers?”

“No, I don’t remember.”

“You would hear stories from other kids about how they were abused or raped, though, by their fathers, right?”

“Yes.”

Meet My Beautiful Daughter

Bea paced the corridor. Having finally heard Chloe as a young teenager, Bea was tempted to leave. I’ll regurge if I have to listen to Denise again, but maybe I should go in just to see what Blakeley will do differently. To do that, she’d have to listen to Cooke, too.

“I moved into the third bedroom,” Denise was saying flatly as Bea walked in and sat on a bench in the rear of the room. Denise had just finished telling the jury about the beginning of her marriage to Bill.

In very short time, Bea could tell that Cooke was skipping the rape. That’s strange. She knows Blakeley has permission to ask about it, and will. How come she didn’t ask about it? The first rule of thumb for a litigator is to let a jury know the bad stuff before your opponent does. In that way, you can prick the balloons before they make a gala display.

When Cooke directed Denise’s attention to the day of the talking hands, Denise iterated as she had three times before that it was the “hands” which told her the secret. But Cooke didn’t bother to have Denise testify that Chloe, the human being, spoke while she was playing puppets. If Blakeley’s smart, he’ll leave it alone. I wish I had.

Denise was in the middle of the Carol Tracy story, which was being told exactly as it had been before, when Cooke and Denise added something new.

“And how did you introduce her?”

“This is my beautiful daughter, Chloe, and this is my friend, Carol.

Only one other item differed for evidentiary reasons: because Bea had argued it was improper to talk about what Chloe did with the anatomical dolls and because Chloe hadn’t remembered playing with them, Cooke had Denise throw in a piece of information that hadn’t come out before. That was something that allegedly occurred when Chloe came out of Tracy’s office.

“Chloe went and got the dolls and showed them to me,” Denise said.

Tracy was a corroborative witness who should add nothing new substantively; Denise was not, legally. Tracy shouldn’t have added facts to which Chloe hadn’t testified, but she had. Also the way a child played with the dolls was proof of nothing. Denise, as an ordinary witness, was not confined by the restriction imposed on a fresh-complaint witness. Bea thought everyone but litigators would be bored by any discussion of the distinction, until they knew they could go to prison if the two evidentiary situations weren’t distinguished.

“And what did she do with the dolls when she showed them to you?”

“She showed me the male doll had a penis and the female doll didn’t have any underwear on.” Yes,

Denise and Bill had taught Chloe to call a penis a penis and a vagina a vagina.

Bea was bothered. Had Cooke and Denise set up a time bomb about the rape of ‘83 to blow up during Blakeley’s cross-examination?

The next episode of this story will post tomorrow, Monday - September 29th

____________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now