Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: Closing Arguments

Anonymous Tip: Closing Arguments

Last updated on: November 27, 2015 at 10:00 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: Closing Arguments 2015-11-27T10:00:41-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 164-167

In the comments on last week’s post, a number of individuals with far more experience in this area than I wrote that Dr. Schram’s 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. These 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!

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.

Peter questions Gordon first:

“Did Gwen spank Casey during your marriage?”

“Well, not at first. But around age two we would both swat her lightly on the bottom when she needed it.”

“Did you ever observe bruises on Casey’s buttocks or in the near vicinity at any time?”

“Never. At least never where there was not a reason other than spanking that we knew about.”

“Such as?”

“Kids fall hard sometimes. You know, just normal kid stuff.”

“Have you observed any bruises on Casey’s buttocks at any time for any reason since the divorce?”

“No, I haven’t.”

“What is your evaluation of Gwen’s parenting skills?”

“I think she is a very god mom. She really loves Casey. It’s the reason I didn’t ask for custody. I wish Gwen would resolve things with me. But that’s another story.”

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.

Anyway, Gail questions Gordon next:

“Mr. Landis, can you say for a certainty that some of these so-called ‘normal’ childhood bruises were not bruises left from spanking that your ex-wife just explained away?”

“I can’t say very much for a certainty. But I certainly don’t remember ever thinking that a bruise I saw was caused by anything other than Casey falling or something like that.”

“But it is possible that some bruises were caused by spanking, isn’t it?”

“I guess anything is possible. But I don’t think so.”

To me this reads as very effective. Gordon doesn’t know Gwen hasn’t bruised Casey. I also find it interesting that Gordon said he knew Gwen was a good parent because she loves Casey, not because she treats Casey well or because Casey seems happy with her. I imagine Farris thought he was implying that, but I’ve known of way too many abusive parents who loved their kids to think that loving your kids necessarily coincides with treating them well or with them feeling safe with you. Besides, doesn’t Gordon love Casey too?

I also wonder how Gordon’s 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 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—or 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.

Judge Romer says it’s three minutes to twelve and asks if they’re all through. Peter says he wants to question Donna. Judge Romer sighs.

“I 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.”

Someone could have budgeted their time better.

“Ms. Corlis, you heard Ms. Coballo’s description of the bruises this morning. Was it accurate?”

“Yes, it was very close to the way I remember the bruises.”

“Fine.” Peter pulled out a tape recorder from his litigation case. “I’d like you to listen to your own testimony from last week.”

Peter pressed the button and Walinski’s voice began.

“Can you please describe the bruises for me?”

“They were fading, ind of green and discolored a bit. They didn’t 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.”

“Where were they located?”

“On her buttocks.”

“Can you be more specific?”

“On the lower half of the buttocks, with a prominence of greater bruising on the left-hand side.”

“Are you absolutely sure you are not mixing this up with another case?”

“I am absolutely certain of what I have told you.”

Gwen caught herself having a positive thought about Walinski. But it was quickly choked off.

“Ms. Corliss, how do you explain the discrepancy between your testimony last week and Ms. Coballo’s testimony this morning?”

And this, right here, is why Peter should have done this right after he questioned Rita. All of a sudden everyone is wondering—just how did Rita describe the bruises, again?

“We both see lots of bruises. And I think the descriptions are pretty similar.”

“Oh, I see,” Peter said. “Nothing more, Your Honor.”

“Any questions, Ms. Willet?” Romer asked.

“Just one,” the prosecutor replied. “Do you have any doubt there were bruises?”

“None whatsoever.”

Peter doesn’t actually remind the court of Rita’s description 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. Wouldn’t it make sense to remind the court of Rita’s description, if we have to do this so much later in the hearing?

For those of you keeping track, it is now 12:07. Judge Romer gives Peter and Gail two minutes each for closing arguments. Gail goes first.

“Your Honor, I’ll be brief. Two professional CPS workers found bruises on that girl. If her mother had come to court and said, ‘I’m 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’s 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.”

Next it’s Peter’s turn:

“May 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.

“I would respectfully suggest that the CPS workers, for reasons I simply cannot explain, are wrong about the existence of these so-called ‘fading bruises.’ 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’s 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—otherwise a mandatory child abuse reporter would not sign an affidavit, even if it is addressing a particular incident.

“The 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’s own drawing—Respondent’s 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’s theory is just theory.

“There were no bruises. There is no abuse. A great injustice needs to be rectified by returning Casey Landis to her mother at once.”

And at that, the judge calls a recess and says he will announce his decision at 1pm.

I had initially intended to give you the decision today, but I’m not going to, because I want to open the floor for discussion. Who did you find more 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’s Chambers, Nobody Likes Seattle, What’s in a Lie, Papers, Please!, The Smoking Gun(s)?, and Dr. Schram, Stay-at-Home Mom.

I do want to note a few things real quick. First, Donna chose the foster family she did in part on the basis of their ability to testify convincingly. I’m rather surprised we not only did not see them testify but also did not see any discussion of why Gail chose not to have them testify. I also wonder if Peter’s 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.

Next, I find it odd that Peter doesn’t 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’s regular doctor, never saw bruises. It’s 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.

What are your thoughts? Weigh in in the comments!

But first, I’ll give you one last little tidbit:

Gwen walked over to Gordon. “Thank you, Gordon. I’ll never forget what you did today.”

Gordon smiled, “Maybe things can get better for us.”

“Maybe,” Gwen said. “But you know what you need to change first before I would ever consider it.”

“Yeah,” Gordon said, hanging his head. He stood and quietly slipped out of the courtroom and away form the courthouse.

Make of that what you will.

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

November 26, 2015

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Next Post

November 28, 2015 Saturday Link Love

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who predicted Persia's rise?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jeremiah Daniel Isaiah Ezekiel