Anonymous Tip: Who’s in the Driver’s Seat?

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 292-295

As you may remember, Peter amended his complaint to include ir tampering charges, and then Gail write a reply brief. Peter is now writing a reply brief of his own, presumably to that reply brief, and spends three or four hours every evening for a week doing so. On Friday, Sally and Jo went over it, and that afternoon Peter made his final revisions. Farris tells us that “It was twenty-nine pages—just one page under the limit specified by the local court rules for briefs” and that “He had until next Wednesday to get the brief filed.” Presumably, it’s important for us to know, once again, that Peter submitted a quality product before the deadline.

Farris tells us that the research made Peter feel better about his chances, and then goes on for a bit about how upset Peter is about government officials’ legal immunity. Congress could have changed the law to allow suits against prominent officials who tell deliberate lies,” Farris explains, but government officials have a tendency to protect each other in the rules they write.” But this isn’t what you really want to know about! What you really want to know about is the newspaper article we all know is coming out!

Peter was awakened on Sunday morning by the phone ringing. He looked at his clock. It was 7:00 A.M. It was Gwen. It was only the second time she had ever called him at home.

Question: Why does Gwen have Peter’s home phone number?

“Peter, have you seen the paper? We’re on the front page of the Metro section.”

“No, I haven’t seen it yet. I’m surprised you’ve seen it already,” he replied.

“My dad woke me at six with the news. He liked the article a lot.”

Question: Why does Gwen’s retired father get up before six on a Sunday? Oh hey! Let’s flesh his character out a bit and give him fishing buddies! Actually, this has promise. He gets up early to go out fishing with his friend, and his friend brings a copy of the paper with him, and is like “Hey Stan, isn’t this your kid?” Or you know, if Farris was writing it, it would be more like “Hey Stan, isn’t this that beautiful daughter of yours?” Anyway, Stan leans over, has to put on his glasses, and then—-

Oh wait. There are no cell phones, Stan he can’t wake Gwen at six if he’s out fishing with a friend and doesn’t see the article until he’s sitting on the pier. Bummer, because my Stan felt a lot more interesting and fleshed out as a person than the Stan we’ve seen so far.

Okay, back to Farris:

“What do you think?” Peter asked.

“It’s OK. I just feel strange reading about myself in the paper.”

“Well, maybe I should go get my paper and call you back after I read it.”

“Good idea. Talk to you soon,” Gwen said, hanging up the phone.

Is this typical? I get that their case being discussed in the newspaper is something an attorney and their client should be on the same page about, it’s just that this whole talking-on-home-phones-on-a-Sunday-morning thing rather seems to make their relationship a bit more cozy than an ordinary attorney/client relationship. Oh, did I say “cozy”? Did I use the exact same word Bill Walinski used when proposing a “mutually beneficial” relationship with Gwen? Yes, yes I did. And the really funny thing is that I typed the word before remembering that it was the word skeevy pervy coercive Bill had used too.

Speaking of, it’s been several months now and neither Gwen nor Peter has reported Bill to the bar for what he did. Where is their concern that he’ll try the same thing with some other vulnerable female client? So much for Peter’s claims of being so very honorable and upstanding.

Peter puts on deck shoes—is that a 1990s thing?—and goes across the road to the newspaper delivery box attached to his mailbox to get his paper. He quickly finds the article: “Murdered CPS Official Accused Of Tampering With Documents.” He takes the paper inside so that he can read it while making coffee. The article starts on the front page of the Spokesman-Review and continues from there, and includes a picture of Gerald Blackburn being loaded into an ambulance. Farris explains that “The S-R night photographer took the photo after listening to his police scanner” but that the picture had not been used before because Blackburn’s death had originally not seemed all that important.

Peter was pleased with the article when he finished. the facts were mostly correct, and he and Gwen were both presented favorably. The article left no doubt Gwen had been absolutely innocent of the charges.

It’s true that Gwen was cleared at the second hearing, after Casey had been removed from her home for a week. The central reason she was cleared—that the police officer on the scene said he remembered hearing the social workers say they would dismiss the case—was not necessarily the point you would have expected to clear her—and several readers who are lawyers have said that part was a more flimsy defense than Farris seemed to think—but I’m not sure how far reporters usually go to get into the ins and outs of that kind of thing, and besides, Farris appears to believe Peter’s defense was perfect, so it’s not surprising the reporter would too.

Anyway, the more interesting thing is two quotes. First, this from Allen Radcliffe, the Attorney General of Washington:

“Our office will review the suitability of employing immunity defenses in light of the very special circumstances of this case.”

And then this quote from Tim McGranahan, a Republican state senator Farris tells us was “widely rumored to be Radcliffe’s likely opponent in the next election”:

“If our current Attorney General insists on protecting officials who have trampled on the rights of innocent citizens by employing tactics like these, we may have to hold legislative hearings to review this matter when the legislature reconvenes next January.”

Hey wait—what happened to “government officials have a tendency to protect each other in the rules they write”? Farris says Congress could have changed the immunity laws but didn’t because they’re government officials and protect their own, but when he was writing this book Republicans controlled Congress, and a moment ago he implied that government officials as a rule have a tendency to “protect their own” and here he’s quoting a government official calling the defense a travesty and I am so confused.

Anyway, now that the coffee is ready, Farris calls Gwen back.

Gwen picked up the phone and without even saying hello said, “Well, Peter, what do you think?”

“You were pretty confident it was me, weren’t you?”

AHAHAHAHA life before caller ID. Anyway.

Peter tells Gwen the article is awesome and that the quotes from the attorney general and the state senator will “put tremendous pressure on Willet.” In fact, says Peter: “You can’t ask for a better article than this.” Next, Gwen asks Peter if he thinks Blackburn’s murder is related to the case because “the article seems to hint at that,” and Peter says that the article does hint at that, but adds that clearly there isn’t an actual evidence of a connection or that evidence would be included in the article.

As I read this section, I honestly cannot believe this is something Peter and Gwen have never discussed before. Blackburn’s death occurred in the inexplicable three days between when the judge ordered the CPS computers examined for tampering and when that examination was scheduled, and oh hey guess what, they ultimately found tampering. You would think they would have at least considered that Blackburn’s random murder could be in some way related to the case, given the timing.

Gwen and Peter continue discussing as follows:

“But what do you think?” Gwen asked again.

“I still don’t know. Who would do it?”

“Maybe one of his trained witches.”

“What would be their motive?” Peter asked.

“To have a permanently silenced person to blame for tampering with the documents,” she replied.

“Not bad,” Peter said, rolling the idea around in his head.

Okay first of all, good on Gwen for finally using that brain we all know she has has in there somewhere, given that she is a nurse. It would have been nice if she could have avoided referring to the CPS workers as Blackburn’s “trained witches” right before that, but fine, I’ll take what I can get. And can I just say again that I literally cannot believe they have literally not thought about or talked about this before. So anyway, Gwen asks Peter if he can look into a connection, for their case, and Peter says he is curious but that he still doesn’t “see how it fits” and he has to be careful or Gail object on the grounds of relevancy.

And then we get this:

“And by the way, it would be better for you to stop calling them witches in private. You might slip and say it in a deposition.”

And why, exactly, would that be a problem? I seriously really want Farris to actually grapple with Gwen’s framing here, and her demonization of the social workers involved in the case, but I know he won’t. I get, too, that some readers may feel that the way Gwen talks about Donna and Rita is justified given that they did try to frame her—and there is absolutely no excuse for what they did—but it’s at least worth mentioning that there is a widespread demonization of social workers in evangelical Christian and conservative homeschool culture, and that the language used here, and without any correction or complication, will only underscore and reinforce similar language used in these communities to talk about social workers who have done nothing wrong.

Gwen called Donna and Rita witches the day they visited her to check on Casey’s wellbeing. This entire case would not have happened if she had not done so. Donna was completely in the wrong to fabricate evidence to get back at Gwen for calling her a witch, and in real life social workers would be well used to being yelled at like that—it’s part of the job. I am not in any way saying that Gwen brought this on herself. It was Donna who was in the wrong, and we should be able to yell at law enforcement and related government officials if we’re angry and feel our rights have been violated (whether or not they actually have) without having frivolous charges slapped on us as a result. But part of me can’t help but feel that a very important piece is missing here.

I’m trying to think about what my takeaway would be, if I were reading this as a member of Farris’s target audience. Now yes, I read it as a teen. I remember feeling it revealed the corruption of CPS. But I’m a mother now, and I wasn’t then. And you know what? I kind of feel like the takeaway is that you should cooperate with CPS, because while CPS workers may be anti-spanking personally (and I should note that I know not all are), what they’re really looking for is bruises, and it’s only when you resist and slam the door in their face and yell epithets at them and make it into a whole huge ordeal that they have any reason to be vengeful or frame you.

Anyway, let me just finish this bit by saying that I wish Farris would have Peter actually talk with Gwen about the language she uses for the social workers, and about her antagonism toward them, but I know he won’t, and he’s only telling her to stop calling them witches because it would make her look unstable and less trustworthy if she did so in court. What I think we are at least owed, though, is an actual statement of that—I want to hear him tell Gwen why it would be bad for her to call them witches in a deposition.

Back to the text:

“And it would be really a mistake for you to ever suggest that those two CPS workers may have had something to do with his murder. They could eat you for lunch in a defamation suit. You can say whatever you want to me—attorney-client privilege. But no one else should ever hear those words out of your mouth.”

This feels a little . . . harsh? I mean this is the first time Peter has had a conversation like this with Gwen, and he doesn’t actually explain anything.

“Thanks for the tip. At least I have one person I can tell my secrets.”

Peter was silent.

“Sorry,” Gwen said.

“It’s OK,” Peter replied. “You said it with an innocent heart. When I shoot my mouth off, I usually know exactly what I’m saying and what it implies.”

What even is this?! Ew ew ew ew Peter for god’s sake find Gwen another lawyer! I mean hell, you could still help with all the research, but that way she’d be meeting with someone who is actually professional with her! Run away, Gwen, run away!

Gwen says he’s being too hard on himself and then begs off to get ready for church.

“Be ready to be a celebrity at Vally Fourth,” Peter replied.

“You and Aaron are the stars of the article. I’m just along for the ride.”

“Right,” Peter said. “Bye, Gwen.”

Okay first, I feel like this really is symbolic of the book as a whole. Gwen is indeed “just along for the ride.” Which is weird, because it’s her case. Peter shouldn’t be in the driver’s seat here. She should.

But second, it sounds like the article mentioned both Peter and Aaron, and everyone at church knows they’re besties, so how long until someone tells the reporter that the computer expert they called in was the best friend of the lawyer making the case against the CPS workers? It seems to me that in having Aaron be the one to look at the computers, rather than asking for an independent computer expert to do it, Peter compromised his own case. I don’t think Farris sees it that way and so I doubt that will come up at all, but this is seriously driving me nuts.