Love, Joy, Feminism
A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris
Last week Gwen bumped into a new lawyer, Peter Barron, and they headed off to talk about the case over lunch. This week we pick up with Donna, who is also having lunch out.
Two disparate couples discussed the same lawsuit over lunch in the Flour Mill that day. The ancient grinding mill, perched on the banks of the Spokane River, had been turned into an upscale mini-mall of gift shops and restaurants.
Down on the lower level of the mill, sitting by the windows facing southwest, was the victor—Donna Corliss, with her boyfriend, Stephen Stockton, catching a quick lunch at Pizza Haven.
I’m kind of surprised Farris doesn’t have Donna eating at Vegan Planet. 😛
Farris tells us that Stephen, who has just graduated top of his class from law school, is “well into his nine weeks of intensive study for the bar exam,” spending 10+ hours a day studying in a strict schedule dictated by his father. Stephen, remember, has daddy issues, which Farris reminds us of—Stephen doesn’t think he needs to spend this much time studying, because he graduated top of his class, but his father is insistent.
But this luncheon discussion of the law was not one of hypothetical exam questions and legal theory. Donna had just been in a real court and Stephen wanted to know all about it.
Isn’t Donna in “a real court” all the time, though? I mean I get that Stephen might still want to know how her day was going regardless, but the way this is written makes it sound like it’s an oddity rather than a regular part of her job.
Oh, also? Farris really did just call her “Donna” and him “Stephen.” Literally everywhere else in the book he calls them “Corliss” and “Stockton.”
“Stephen, can I tell you something in absolute confidence?”
“Of course. What is it?”
“I mean really in confidence. You won’t get in an legal ethics problems or anything if I tell you something strictly off the record?” Corliss asked.
“Hey, if it makes you feel any better, give me a quarter.”
“What?”
Stephen explains that if she gives him a quarter they will have “official attorney-client privilege.” This launches into a discussion of some underlying issues in Donna and Stephen’s relationship.
“If you would accept my proposal of marriage, then you could tell me anything you want and it would all be within the husband-wife privilege. I could never testify against you.”
“Stephen, we’ve been through this before.”
It seems Stephen plans to spend two years in D.C. after passing the bar—though we’re not told why—and Donna doesn’t want to leave Spokane, but will be “thrilled” to accept his proposal when he returns.
After more discussion about the seriousness of what she is about to say and the importance of Stephen keeping complete confidence, Donna says this:
“We won [the case today] because of facts I made up in my affidavit.”
The soon-to-be-lawyer sat absolutely still for more than a moment. Finally he said, “You’re kidding, of course.”
“No, I am serious. I signed an affidavit that said I saw bruises, fading bruises on this girl, but really I didn’t.”
Stockton stared in open disbelief.
“You don’t understand. You haven’t seen all the beaten children I have. Sometimes you have to embellish the facts to advance the cause you believe in,” Corliss said.
“What cause are you advancing this way?” Stockton quietly demanded, becoming increasingly nervous that someone might overhear what was being said.
“This woman admitted what her child told us, that she regularly beats her child with a wooden spoon. We didn’t find any bruises that day, but there is a 100% likelihood, in my opinion, that when you have a child abuser, sooner or later you are going to have bruises. I did it to protect this little girl. I may not have seen actual bruises, but I know in my heart that there are bruises there sometimes, and so the morality of it is just the same.”
Stephen finds this extremely concerning, to say the least. At one point Farris tells us that Donna is “rocking slightly in her chair from her increasing nervousness that her boyfriend seemed truly offended at her behavior.” Stephen tells her that she better not get caught, and Donna insists that they’re being careful.
If you’ve been following the series, you may be have some questions at this point. I do too! I’m not sure whether we’re to take this as Donna being honest and truthful, or as her lying to Stephen about her motivations. After all, I have been under the impression that Donna faked her findings to get back at Gwen for calling her a nazi and a witch, not out of a conviction that Gwen does sometimes leave bruises. I flipped back to the section where Donna talked Blackburn, her boss, into implementing “Plan B”—i.e. lying on the affidavit—wondering if I’d read it wrong.
—————
Donna walks to Blackburn’s office with the words “nazi” and “witch” running through her mind. When she enters his office, she says “I’m back to report on my latest efforts to protect the lives and health of innocent children,” but Farris tells us she says this with “dripping sarcasm.” In other words, she is primarily upset about Gwen’s behavior.
Blackburn asks about the family, and Donna describes Gwen as “An uncooperative cheerleader-type who hits her kid with a stick. She admitted it!” So she does have the fact that Gwen spanks Casey with a wooden spoon in mind, but honestly, it seems more attached to her anger at Gwen than to concern for Casey, especially because when Blackburn asks if she found any bruises Gwen says she didn’t and angrily calls Casey “the little rat.”
“What did this lady do to make you so upset?”
“Well on top of her total non-cooperation from beginning to end, she called me a Nazi and a witch and threatened to sue me.”
“Well, you’ll be pleased to know that I’ve heard a lot worse, and besides, we hear threats to sue all the time.”
“Yeah, I know, but I think she’s the type who will probably do it.”
“You really think so?”
“Absolutely. This woman is very intelligent. She speaks with perfect grammar and is very precise. She is also very emotional and is furious with us—me in particular. I haven’t heard as many threats as you, but I’ve heard my share. I think she is serious.”
Blackburn despised anyone who challenged the authority of CPS.
“Well, we could always implement Code B for this file.”
“That is exactly what I was going to ask you,” Donna said, leaning forward in her chair. “If we don’t, I’m going to have to unfound this report and close our investigation, giving this blond child-beating chick a clean bill of health.”
So . . . to me at least, this reads as though Donna primarily wants to get back at Gwen and Blackburn primarily wants to avoid being sued. The use of the “child-beating” descriptor reads (to me) as being more about anger with Gwen than about concern for Casey (“the little rat”). I mean Donna never says Casey’s name or shows any real concern for her. Instead, her focus is her anger at Gwen.
Is it possible that Gwen was actually motivated by concern for Casey, but didn’t tell that to Blackburn, because he wouldn’t have implemented Plan B if he hadn’t been worried about a lawsuit? I don’t think so, for two reasons. First, that would be really bad writing, because we’re never given anything to suggest that Donna isn’t being honest with Blackburn. And second, if this were the case, Donna would probably have focused more on the threat of lawsuit than on her own personal anger at Gwen.
—————
Now let’s return to Donna’s lunch with Stephen. I am forced to conclude that either Donna is lying to Stephen about her motivations, or Farris has misled us about Donna’s motivations so far. After all, if Donna was actually concerned about Casey here, that should have shown up before this, and it hasn’t. Instead all we’ve been shown is Donna’s anger at Gwen.
Several readers have pointed out that this could also be Donna’s attempt to justify her actions to herself after the fact. I can see that—it’s a very human thing—but that would mean some actual thought had gone into her character, and given what we’ve read so sure, I’m a bit skeptical. Hopefully we’ll hash this out as the book goes on.
As numerous readers have pointed out over the last few months, this story would be easier to believe if Donna were in fact motivated by the sort of concerns she gives to Stephen—a conviction that spanking a child with a wooden spoon is abuse and a desire to protect Casey. Of course, that’s still not quite what she’s saying. She’s saying she’s sure that Gwen sometimes leaves bruises, and that that makes her an abuser. She’s also not haunted by the one that got away—a case where, say, she closed a case where a mother admitted to spanking with a wooden spoon, and the child turned up dead six months later.
Having said all this, let’s turn to the rest of Donna’s conversation with Stephen.
“Didn’t you tell me about some famous constitutional case you studied where the woman made up some facts to advance her cause and then years later she revealed that the facts had been fictitious?”
“Yes, that was Roe v. Wade. But in that case all she said was that she needed an abortion because she had been raped. And it turned out that years later she revealed she had just been involved with her boyfriend.”
“Yeah, see?” Corliss said with a voice declaring triumph in the argument.
“But that was different. She didn’t lie about the central facts in the case. The existence of bruises is the essential fact of your case against this lady. Roe didn’t lie about what the modern courts call ‘essential facts.'” It was a perfect recitation of a law school lecture which he remembered from a class in Constitutional law.
“I don’t see the difference. Roe stretched the facts to advance women’s rights. I stretched these facts to protect children’s rights. It sounds the same to me.”
Curious, I went to the wiki for Roe v. Wade and found that rape did not appear anywhere in the judicial proceedings. It seems McCorvey initially said she was raped because Texas law only allowed for abortion in the case of rape and incest, but that because she had no police report she was denied, and that was the end of her rape claims. I’m seriously concerned about Stephen’s law school if they’re using Roe v. Wade as an example of lying about nonessential facts in a court case. I’m also seriously concerned about Farris if he thinks this is true.
If anyone has more information about this, feel free to chime in!
Before leaving the point, I do want to note that I find it odd that Farris would have Donna not be able to remember the name of Roe v. Wade. Not only is Roe a pretty big deal in general, I also would have thought Farris would have Donna recite its preamble every night before bed given his earlier efforts to portray her as a feminist.
Finally, Donna may talk the talk on children’s rights here, but she has not actually shown that she cares anything about children’s rights. Her only interaction with children thus far has been to forcibly strip search a screaming child, whom she has proceeded to describe as “the little rat.” I suspect that Farris thinks this is an accurate portrayal of the sort of people who talk about protecting children’s rights, and that makes me slightly sick.
After this exchange, Stephen says Donna has “a good point,” but that she shouldn’t tell anyone else about this.
“All right honey, I won’t. And I’ll always have my Washington, D.C. sweetheart to defend me if I am ever falsely accused,” she laughed.
Except that the accusations wouldn’t be false.
“I am sure going to miss you when you’re in Washington. Don’t you want to just stay here and work for your father’s firm? Surely he will pay you enough.”
“Money’s not the issue. My job in Washington is the chance of a lifetime. And it will go quickly. It’ll be over before you know it and I’ll see you at least three or four times a year. You can come stay with me in my apartment during your vacation.”
If Stephen takes the bar in Washington state, can he practice law in Washington, D.C.? If not, I’m super curious what this job is. I’m sure we’ll find out at some point, of course.
Farris finishes this section with this line:
But her revelation of perjury cast a shadow on his feelings for her that was cold and dark.
Color me not the least bit surprised. I suspect Stephen sees Donna as someone who is hard working and smart as a whip, and this casts a pall on all of that. He may even be wondering if she’s the person he thought she was. This portrayal is at least realistic. Although, I will say that I’m not quite sure whether or not Farris wants us to like Stephen. I suppose we’ll find out as the book goes on.
Next week we’ll pick up with Gwen’s conversation with lawyer Peter Barron.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In