Zabeth, under cross-examination by Jensen was squeezed to extract information that might be construed as admission that Paul had alone time with his several week old infant and he might have hurt her. Zabeth gave Jensen nothing. Then, of course, Jensen did the unthinkable. What was a loving confidence between husband and wife and shared with only a few others, her new pregnancy, mistakenly disclosed or clandestinely pirated to Jensen became for him a cruel instrument. He knew the effect it could have. The method is formulaic. When a counsel can make a witness come unglued or display behaviour that casts doubt upon emotional control and stability, it is easier to assert incapacity to care for children. He posed questions that evoked from her, what else, truthful responses. Yes, she and Paul have always loved children. Yes they wanted a large family. Yes they had considered enlarging their family. And then, “Are you pregnant now?” “Yes,” she said. She cried. A young woman, happily pregnant, had been made to feel soiled, guilty. Caught in the act of being with child.
This is the adversarial nature of the Court Room. The weapon was dulled at the moment of impact by the unified abhorrence of a full court room. So Jensen's propositions continued. Whether Zabeth agreed or not, Jensen expressed questions to the Court that inferred that after three years without children in her home, and with the significant demands of a newborn, she and Paul would surely not be able to adequately care for these children. If he thought that his sails filled just then with a desirable breeze, Zabeth closed her trial by shredding the sails with her valiant and forceful final words.
Unless the judge is heartless, Jensen was really stupid to attack Zabeth in such a fashion. I hope the judge socks it to him; he deserves it. What a creepy way to make a living.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:16 AM
ReplyDeleteLook, Jensen was not doing anything that has not entertained us as TV viewers in the past. Perry Mason and Matlock and Law and Order fascinated us with clever legal minds. He won't be scolded by the judge. This is Jensen's vocation. Creepy? Perhaps!
Well what has happened is that well before a case enters court the social workers are entertaining themselves by being lawyers and judges and private investigators and doctors and psychologists and psychiatrists and cops. They try all the creepy tricks and feel they know better than all the above professions. I am not saying this to slam them, I learned this from years of experience. I have been involved with MCFD for years. In the past, they were actually nice and tried to help. But now it is all about winning the case at any cost.
ReplyDeleteHaving 5 Children Myself and Loving every minute of It,What Zabeth said was True and A Woman should never be scorned for doing something so Right! I hope what she said dried His Mouth so bad He will never Forget!
ReplyDeleteCPS wants to treat the Family as something inherantly disfunctional almost like a disease in to which they are the Cure.
I must admit that I sometimes wondered about the effectiveness of some of Jensen's tactics and I could not help wondering whose side he was really on. He is not in a jury trial, trying to bamboozle a jury and cheap tactics will not impress a judge--we hope.
ReplyDeleteSomeone made the point yesterday that far too much time was taken up on the testimony of Loren Humeny. It is only fair to point out that quite a lot of this time was taken up by Doug Christie in cross-examination. He completely discredited Humeny three times over and then jumped on his head for good measure. I wondered at the time whether it was necessary to take up so much time in Cross-examination, but Doug was doing it on his own nickel, so I did not complain. Then, on refection, it dawned on me. This was not just about a protection hearing, Doug was effectively putting the ministry on trial and exposing all its shoddy tactics and blundering incompetence for all the world to see in an open court. He was also putting on trial the whold shaken baby syndrome hypothesis.
I did a lot of preparatory work for Doug in the cross-examination of the social worker witnesses. The Baynes gave me copies of all their documents from disclosure. I could not see what possible relevance their testimony could bear in supporting the director's complaint. The director's case was the opinion of Colbourne. None of the proposed non-medical witnesses for the director had any evidence to show that eithere parent had ever hurt a child. Also they knew of nobody that had such evidence. I could see that all that was going to happen was that they were going to get a terrible mauling. I found it very hard to believe that the director could possibly have been advised by counsel that he should bring on such testimony. The only reason I could see for a lawyer to give such advice, would be if he wanted to wreck their case.
I felt very sorry for the social work staff, because they would suffer great stress while partaking in an exercise in futility. I knew waht they were in for. Accordingly, I wrote to the director and his counsel urging them to reconsider calling Humeny and Grey to the stand, in order to save them a great deal of unnecessary stress. It looks as if I had more compassion for them than their boss did. He seemed quite happy to throw them to the wolves. (As I was one of the wolves, maybe I should re-phrase that. How about angels of wrath?)
Well, as you all know Mr. McNeill did not heed my plea for mercy and his staff had a dreadful time.
Anonymous Vancouver 5:37 PM - You left a new comment on the post "FORMULAIC LEGAL REPRESENTATION / Part 291 / and referenced to Ray. I have removed a sentence or two and you will know which ones. The rest is here.
ReplyDeleteRE: RAY FERRIS COMMENT AT 2:38 PM.
Thank you, Ray, for whatever work you have done to help the Baynes and others.
I have a some comments on your post. People who testify against a good family in an effort to deprive them of their children forever deserve to be "thrown to the wolves." I myself wouldn't have warned the Ministry. I also believe Doug is putting the Ministry on trial; they should be put on trial. They are corrupt, full of malice, and dangerous to all families in BC.
I disagree with the suggestion that Jensen is actually surreptiously working for the other side (i.e., the Baynes), and acting somehow as a sort of double agent. Jensen is no more acting for the other side than ?????? was. ?????? also did stupid things that looked like he had a death wish or whatever. But that doesn't negate the evil of what he did.
One thing that keeps coming up again and again is the refusal to acknowledge the true nature of the child protection industry. The kind of people who would viciously attack Zabeth Bayne, the kind of people who smirk while they are causing such pain (e.g., the pain of a parent losing their children forever), the kind of people who lie all day long in court just so they can exercise abusive power, these kind of people need to be recognized for what they are. They aren't incompetent, they aren't double agents, they aren't secretly trying to lose their case. They are malicious bullies, who thus far have faced no real consequences for their actions.
Before we can even begin to ensure that they do face consequences, and that they are held accountable, we need to recognize them for what they are.
It is crucial that we recognize child protection corruption for what it is, because every minute that we do not recognize it for what it is, is another minute of children and families being victims of an awful tyranny.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere are some youtube videos that show the difference between shaking and impact. These are animations showing the multiple points of tearing inside a baby's brain due to a shaking action.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHRWH4USmw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_toKPs9Jj4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6yfvx0ik1M&feature=related
Single point impact doesn't cause the multiple points of bleeding within the brain, which was fairly clearly illustrated in the Baynes case.
I believe Mr. Christie and the various experts made this point rather emphatically.
Anon 12:52 AM from New West, up so early in the morning....
ReplyDeleteYou comment occasionally. Today's comment is either shrewd or it is uninformed. You provide SBS video links championing the SBS diagnosis that warn against ever shaking a baby. Good. The videos do miss the controversy around SBS however. I think you know that. The presenting medical issues that have been automatically diagnosed as SBS do have other possible causation. These videos do not include that possibility. What you also do not say is that Dr. Colbourne who gave the SBS diagnosis for Baby B, later included impact as well as shaking as cause. There were multiple points of bleeding in Baby B's brain that's true. Dr. Sergeant made the point that the long delay in diagnosis prolonged the bleeding, which no doubt caused much of the damage which was found. He could not ascribe cause and did note blunt force trauma. Your second last sentence “single point impact doesn't cause the multiple points of bleeding...” seems intended to cast doubt on the Baynes' explanation of one child's fall on another. Mr. Christie and the experts for the Baynes did not support shaking cause for Baby B's injuries but said they were consistent with the Bayne explanation. I provided all ten medical experts reports in one of my blogs. Reading them will tell you what they actually said. What were you really trying to accomplish here?
Once my little ones sleep and I have time to reflect on the day, my aging brain shifts gears towards more weighty matters, such as improving the Baynes chances at having their children returned sooner. Hence, the late night (or early morning) posts.
ReplyDeleteI have been on the lookout for decent animations that clearly show shaking type damage with interior brain structure.
I have gone through the medical reports and have given the Baynes my fairly lengthy analysis to assist Mr. Christie in his examinations. It is very unfortunate the machinations of Mr. Finn prevented Van Ee's testimony, as he would have neatly summarized the non-attending doctor's reports and added considerably more weight to Mr. Christie's presentation.
In these animations, it should be fairly clear that a shaking event of Bethany at her tiny size and premature age would have caused far more damage than has been evidenced to date, especially these nearly three years later. This is where the lengthy incarceration of Bethany and her brothers works against MCFD's position.
In other words, Bethany should be blind, she should have far more motor difficulties, and any mental deficiencies should be far more pronounced.
The sentence in question should have been better phrased, I can see how it may have been misinterpreted. It is my opinion, had the various scans and photos been performed immediately, there would be less discussion on comparing impact versus shaking (or multiple "mini" impacts).
If you present as overly defensive on the Baynes behalf and do not write with adequate precision on a point of question or dispute or interpretation, you do them a disservice and can result in more than a few raised eyebrows with an overly vigorous response.
I note you have included emotionally loaded phrases such as "seems intended to cast doubt..." and "today's comment is either shrewd or uninformed" and "what were you really trying to accomplish here" without knowing who exactly you are directing your comments to.
Too much emotional investment has the potential of disabling clear thought. In complex, or seemingly complex legal matters such as is evidenced by this case, if you make such gaffs in a court environment, this is picked up quickly and easily used against you.
Anon 2:18 AM
ReplyDeleteGrab some Z's when you can.
Knowing your involvement with the Baynes sheds improved light for me on your previous comment.
I have 6 kids and my social worker was all upset about it and she said it was lucky they got involved with my family again and stopped me from having a 7th child. What a ridiculous thing to say about a miraculous blessing. They cannot figure out if they are for the woman or against the woman. They think women should be 'liberated' from having children and that it is stupidness that keeps us going. Such a patronizing attitude. It would do well to learn that we love having children and believe in it and the MCFD has no say in the greater miracle of life and who is blessed with a child is not theirs to decide!!!
ReplyDelete