A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Pp. 164-167<\/em><\/p>\n In the comments on last week\u2019s post, a number of individuals with far more experience\u00a0in this area than I wrote that Dr. Schram\u2019s testimony was weak because she did not go into detail about why she had come to the conclusion she had and because she kept positioning herself as a mother rather than an expert, even to the point of stating, during the hearing, that her years as a stay at home mother were the most important years of her life.\u00a0These commenters pointed out that this positions her as biased in favor of Gwen, and as less knowledgeable and less professional as Dr. McGuire. I found this all very interesting, and was glad to have it pointed out!<\/p>\n After Dr. Schram\u2019s testimony concluded, Peter called Gordon to testify. Remember, Peter had earlier told Judge Romer that he would not be calling anyone else, because he hadn\u2019t thought Gordon would show. I have to wonder what Gordon did during the recess, because there\u2019s no mention of Gwen or Peter (or Stan or June) speaking with him. It\u2019s as if he was just forgotten. Anyway, Judge Romer tells Peter he can call Gordon, but says it has to be brief as there\u2019s only fifteen minutes left.<\/p>\n Peter questions Gordon first:<\/p>\n \u201cDid Gwen spank Casey during your marriage?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWell, not at first. But around age two we would both swat her lightly on the bottom when she needed it.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDid you ever observe bruises on Casey\u2019s buttocks or in the near vicinity at any time?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNever. At least never where there was not a reason other than spanking that we knew about.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSuch as?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cKids fall hard sometimes. You know, just normal kid stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHave you observed any bruises on Casey\u2019s buttocks at any time for any reason since the divorce?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo, I haven\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is your evaluation of Gwen\u2019s parenting skills?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think she is a very god mom. She really loves Casey. It\u2019s the reason I didn\u2019t ask for custody. I wish Gwen would resolve things with me. But that\u2019s another story.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One has to wonder if Gordon knows that Gwen has escalated the way she spanks Casey, graduating from light swats in the moment to premeditated hitting with a spoon.<\/p>\n Anyway, Gail questions Gordon next:<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Landis, can you say for a certainty that some of these so-called \u2018normal\u2019 childhood bruises were not bruises left from spanking that your ex-wife just explained away?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t say very much for a certainty. But I certainly don\u2019t remember ever thinking that a bruise I saw was caused by anything other than Casey falling or something like that.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBut it is possible that some bruises were caused by spanking, isn\u2019t it?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI guess anything is possible. But I don\u2019t think so.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To me this reads as very effective. Gordon doesn\u2019t know<\/em> Gwen hasn\u2019t bruised Casey. I also find it interesting that Gordon said he knew Gwen was a good parent because she loves<\/em> Casey, not because she treats Casey well or because Casey seems happy with her. I imagine Farris thought he was implying that, but I\u2019ve known of way too many abusive parents who loved<\/em> their kids to think that loving your kids necessarily coincides with treating them well or with them feeling safe with you. Besides, doesn\u2019t Gordon love Casey too?<\/p>\n I also wonder how Gordon\u2019s statement that he wants to get back together with Gwen affects all this. I would imagine that an astute judge would conclude that a man who wants his ex back \u00a0 \u00a0 might say anything he had to to defend her against child abuse allegations. After all, if Gordon contributes to getting her off the charges, that would probably gain him some good graces with Gwen\u2014or at least, he would have good reason to think it might. I would think this ought to affect how a judge would weigh the veracity of this testimony.<\/p>\n Judge Romer says it\u2019s three minutes to twelve and asks if they\u2019re all through. Peter says he wants to question Donna. Judge Romer sighs.<\/p>\n \u201cI have another hearing at one-thirty. We all have to eat and I have to announce my decision, and you both will probably want to make a closing argument. One or two questions, and that is it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Someone could have budgeted their time better.<\/p>\n \u201cMs. Corlis, you heard Ms. Coballo\u2019s description of the bruises this morning. Was it accurate?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYes, it was very close to the way I remember the bruises.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFine.\u201d Peter pulled out a tape recorder from his litigation case. \u201cI\u2019d like you to listen to your own testimony from last week.\u201d<\/p>\n Peter pressed the button and Walinski\u2019s voice began.<\/p>\n \u201cCan you please describe the bruises for me?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThey were fading, ind of green and discolored a bit. They didn\u2019t look like they had been terribly severe when they were fresh, but I believe that any bruising caused by a parental spanking is child abuse.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cWhere were they located?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cOn her buttocks.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cCan you be more specific?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cOn the lower half of the buttocks, with a prominence of greater bruising on the left-hand side.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cAre you absolutely sure you are not mixing this up with another case?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cI am absolutely certain of what I have told you.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Gwen caught herself having a positive thought about Walinski. But it was quickly choked off.<\/p>\n \u201cMs. Corliss, how do you explain the discrepancy between your testimony last week and Ms. Coballo\u2019s testimony this morning?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And this, right here, is why Peter should have done this right after he questioned Rita. All of a sudden everyone is wondering\u2014just how did Rita describe the bruises, again?<\/p>\n \u201cWe both see lots of bruises. And I think the descriptions are pretty similar.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOh, I see,\u201d Peter said. \u201cNothing more, Your Honor.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAny questions, Ms. Willet?\u201d Romer asked.<\/p>\n \u201cJust one,\u201d the prosecutor replied. \u201cDo you have any doubt there were bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNone whatsoever.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter doesn\u2019t actually remind the court of Rita\u2019s description<\/a> or point to the discrepancies between the two. I suppose the judge would need to go back through the testimony and check before making his verdict, but this seems a bit sloppy. After all, Officer Donahue, Dr. Schram, and Gordon have all testified since Rita.\u00a0Wouldn\u2019t it make sense to remind the court of Rita\u2019s description, if we have to do this so much later in the hearing?<\/p>\n For those of you keeping track,\u00a0it is now 12:07. Judge Romer gives Peter and Gail\u00a0two minutes each for closing arguments. Gail goes first.<\/p>\n \u201cYour Honor, I\u2019ll be brief. Two professional CPS workers found bruises on that girl. If her mother had come to court and said, \u2018I\u2019m really sorry,[sic] my recommendation would be to send Casey home and put the family under supervised counseling. But she continues to deny the existence of bruises. All professional witnesses agree this little girl is in need of serious psychological help because of fear. An angry, upset mother is not what this child needs. She needs a mother who will cope with reality, break the cycle of abuse and get on with life on a positive basis. Our plan of six months of custody with ongoing therapy is what is needed. Dr. McGuire\u2019s analysis is sound. His recommendation is sound. I strongly recommend that the court retain Casey in her current placement and order a psychological program for both mother and child.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Next it\u2019s Peter\u2019s turn:<\/p>\n \u201cMay it please the court. It is crucial to remember who has the burden of proof in this case. That proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that child abuse has, in fact, occurred.<\/p>\n \u201cI would respectfully suggest that the CPS workers, for reasons I simply cannot explain, are wrong about the existence of these so-called \u2018fading bruises.\u2019 There are no photographs; CPS routinely takes photographs of bruises. The police officer believed they found no bruises because they told Mrs. Landis that they would close the file if she would cooperate. Gordon Landis testified there were no bruises. And last Tuesday, this court authorized a medical and psychological exam, yet there is nothing offered today by the prosecution from the physician. It is proper to infer their doctor found nothing. Dr. Davenport, the child\u2019s regular pediatrician, also reported by affidavit last week the child was not bruised. Dr. Davenport is a mandatory child abuse reporter. It is reasonable to infer Dr. Davenport has never observed bruises\u2014otherwise a mandatory child abuse reporter would not sign an affidavit, even if it is addressing a particular incident.<\/p>\n \u201cThe two psychologists present a totally different interpretation out of the same operative facts. Both report a scared little girl, but one assumes bruises because CPS told him so. The other psychologist, Dr. Schram, concluded that Casey is frightened by the two CPS workers. Both theories are plausible on their face. But only one theory is supported by the tangible evidence of Casey\u2019s own drawing\u2014Respondent\u2019s Exhibit 2. Dr. McGuire also administered the draw-a-person test. He was required to fax his entire file, but there is no picture in the file. For whatever reason, the picture is missing, and McGuire\u2019s theory is just theory.<\/p>\n \u201cThere were no bruises. There is no abuse. A great injustice needs to be rectified by returning Casey Landis to her mother at once.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And at that, the judge calls a recess and says he will announce his decision at 1pm.<\/p>\n I had initially intended to give you the decision today, but I\u2019m not going to, because I want to open the floor for discussion. Who did you find\u00a0more convincing? What missteps did each side make? What will the Judge Romer decide?! If you need to brush up on the rest of the hearing, covered in past weeks, here it is, in order: In the Judge\u2019s Chambers<\/a>, Nobody Likes Seattle<\/a>, What\u2019s in a Lie<\/a>, Papers, Please!<\/a>, The Smoking Gun(s)?<\/a>, <\/strong>and Dr. Schram, Stay-at-Home Mom<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n I do want to note a few things real quick. First,\u00a0Donna\u00a0chose the foster family she did in part on the basis of their ability to testify convincingly. I\u2019m rather surprised we not only did not see them testify but also\u00a0did\u00a0not see any discussion of why Gail chose not to have them testify. I also wonder if Peter\u2019s pointing out that the prosecution chose not to have the physician testify was good form or bad form, coming at the last minute and with no chance of response as it did. I would have thought that introducing something new in the closing arguments would be a no-no.<\/p>\n Next, I find it odd that Peter doesn\u2019t return to the discrepancy between the bruises descriptions. He does remind the court that there were no pictures, but he could have made a much bigger deal of that than he did. It also seems irrelevant that Gordon and Dr. Davenport, Casey\u2019s regular doctor, never saw bruises. It\u2019s not like either of them have 24\/7 access to the child, after all! My children only see their doctor once a year, and maybe once or twice more for an ear infection or other malady.<\/p>\n What are your thoughts? Weigh in in the comments!<\/p>\n But first, I\u2019ll give you one last little tidbit:<\/p>\n Gwen walked over to Gordon. \u201cThank you, Gordon. I\u2019ll never forget what you did today.\u201d<\/p>\n Gordon smiled, \u201cMaybe things can get better for us.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMaybe,\u201d Gwen said. \u201cBut you know what you need to change first before I would ever consider it.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYeah,\u201d Gordon said, hanging his head. He stood and quietly slipped out of the courtroom and away form the courthouse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Make of that what you will.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After Dr. Schram’s testimony concluded, Peter called Gordon to testify. Remember, Peter had earlier told Judge Romer that he would not be calling anyone else, because he hadn’t thought Gordon would show. I have to wonder what Gordon did during the recess, because there’s no mention of Gwen or Peter (or Stan or June) speaking with him. It’s as if he was just forgotten. Anyway, Judge Romer tells Peter he can call Gordon, but says it has to be brief as there’s only fifteen minutes left. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":845,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[469],"class_list":["post-27159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-anonymous-tip"],"yoast_head":"\n