A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Pp. 155-159<\/em><\/p>\n It\u2019s the Tuesday hearing\u2014where the judge will decide whether four-year-old Casey should be returned to her mother, Gwen\u2014and it is now Peter\u2019s turn to call witnesses. He starts by calling Rita Coballo, the second social worker present during Casey\u2019s strip search. Peter asks Rita whether she saw the bruises mentioned in Donna\u2019s report, and Rita says she did.<\/p>\n \u201cMs. Coballo, can you describe the location, color, and nature of these \u2018fading bruises\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n Coballo froze. \u201cThey were on the lower back, just above the buttocks, and on the buttocks themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWas there a greater prominence on one side or the other?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo, not really.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMs. Coballo, are you sure of your description of these bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYes, I am virtually certain, but I do see a lot of bruises.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a problem, because it contradicts what Donna said at the original hearing<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cWhere were they located?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cOn her buttocks.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cCould 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 sure you are not mixing this up with some other case?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cI am absolutely certain of what I have told you.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n On some level this seems like a smoking gun.\u00a0However, Donna and Rita do see a lot of bruises, and when caught in their lie (which is what it is) they\u00a0could always claim they got mixed up. Would a judge go for that? How much leeway would he give for that sort of thing? Either way, Donna is a really lousy schemer if she didn\u2019t even think of making sure Rita\u2019s testimony regarding the bruises would line up with hers the previous week.<\/p>\n Peter does not point out the inconsistency here at this point (I\u2019m honestly not sure why), but we can only imagine that he will do so later in the hearing. Of course the real problem here is that there were no pictures (which isn\u2019t surprising, given that neither Donna nor Rita actually saw bruises). So let\u2019s return to the hearing:<\/p>\n \u201cSpeaking of seeing a lot of bruises, isn\u2019t it your policy at CPS to take photographs of bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYes. We usually do.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWas that done in this case?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo, I don\u2019t believe so.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhy not?\u201d Peter asked.<\/p>\n \u201cI believe we simply forgot the camera. Human error.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHuman error, huh? I see. How often does that happen?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNot often. \u2018We\u2019re careful to follow policies and regulations.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I looked back to the first hearing the previous week and didn\u2019t find any mention of pictures or the camera, so I don\u2019t think anything is being contradicted here. I really wish I had this book as an ebook and could just search the text for the word to be sure. Still, this may be a setup for future discussion of the absent camera\u2014I\u2019ve read this book before, but that was over ten years ago, so my memory is a bit fragmentary\u00a0here. I\u2019m not sure what Peter gained with this line of questioning except to remind the judge that regular protocol was not followed during the investigation.<\/p>\n And with that, Peter is done questioning Rita. Gail declines her right to ask questions of Rita too, and Peter calls Officer Donahue. Judge Romer expresses gratitude that things are moving a bit faster now, and Peter assures him that his questioning of Officer Donahue will be just as quick.<\/p>\n \u201c[D]id you see any bruises on Casey?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo, I did not. I saw the little girl. But she was fully clothed when I saw her.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDid you hear the CPS workers say anything about bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cObjection. Mr. Barron is asking for obvious hearsay,\u201d Willet said.<\/p>\n \u201cYour honor, I am not seeking the information for the truth of the statement.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe objection is overruled.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cLet me restate the question. Did you hear the CPS workers say anything about bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo, not directly.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDid they say anything indirectly related to the subject of bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n Donahue remembered his earlier discussion with Peter. \u201cOh, yeah. At the time, I didn\u2019t think they found any bruises, because the lead worker, this lady here\u2014\u201d Donahue said, pointing at Donna Corliss, \u201cshe told Mrs. Landis she would close the case if she would answer some questions.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI object,\u201d Willet cried out. \u201cThe officer can testify to what he heard. The inferences he draws from that are pure speculation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOverruled,\u201d the judge said, not because of any particular rule of evidence but because he was interested in the testimony.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter goes on:<\/p>\n \u201cCorporal Donahue, have you accompanied CPS workers on other such occasions?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYes, many, many times,\u201d Donahue said, shaking his head.<\/p>\n \u201cHave you ever heard a CPS worker say anything about dismissing a case when they had found bruises?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo. And That\u2019s the reason I didn\u2019t think they had found any bruises. I they had found bruises, it would be very strange for them to say anything about closing the case.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Farris tells us that \u201cWillet knew she had been wounded.\u201d This is one point where I wish I knew more about both CPS procedure and legal procedure. For example, are CPS workers allowed to lie to the parents they are investigating? I know that police officers lie to people all the time in crime shows on TV, and I believe (though again, I wish I knew more) that they are allowed to do so in the real world as well. What about CPS workers? Can they lie to a parent if they think it will make them more cooperative?<\/p>\n Mind you, I am not making a judgement on whether CPS workers\u00a0should<\/em> be able to lie. The idea makes me pretty nervous (as does the police\u2019 ability to lie) and I\u2019d have to hear some pretty serious evidence in favor of it to be convinced that it\u2019s worth allowing. I\u2019m not making a value judgement, I\u2019m simply curious whether Donna could just come back and say of course she told Gwen that, she had just seen some pretty serious bruises and was trying to make her cooperate with further questions in order to get an admission that she uses corporal punishment. As it is, everyone seems to think this is a slam dunk.<\/p>\n Judge Romer calls for a fifteen minute recess and says court will reconvene at 11:00.<\/p>\n Gwen reached over and squeezed Peter\u2019s hand. It was obvious to her that he had scored well with Officer Donahue and she was greatly heartened. He smiled at her, stood and said, \u201cHe was great, wasn\u2019t he? Couldn\u2019t be better if I had written him a script. But it\u2019s not over yet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I want to mention two more things before I close this installment (we\u2019ll turn to Dr. Schram\u2019s testimony next week). These questions may speak to my limited knowledge of legal procedure and CPS policy, but I thought I\u2019d bring them up anyway. If you\u2019re not already reading the comments on the posts in this series, you should be, because a fair number of my readers are knowledgeable in one or both of these areas, and what they have to add is often very helpful to understanding both what is going on here and where this book fails to make sense.<\/p>\n Anyway, first, this happens when Peter starts questioning Rita:<\/p>\n \u201cYou accompanied Ms. Corliss here,\u201d Peter said, gesturing toward her co-worker seated beside Ms. Willet, \u201con May 12, when the examination of Casey took place at the Landis home, didn\u2019t you?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cObjection. Leading question,\u201d Willet called out.<\/p>\n \u201cOverruled. Ms. Coballo works for the prosecuting agency; she is obviously\u00a0called as an adverse witness, which entitles Mr. Barron to ask leading questions,\u201d Romer said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n