Wednesday, April 6, 2011

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 6of 10 Contesting Jensen's Summary / 494

If you are new to this, Paul's and Zabeth's 3 children have been in court ordered foster care since Oct 22, 2007. After a 2010 court case, they were told on Mar 2, 2011 it would be another 6 months of care (now corrected to three [3] months.)

Yesterday we published points 11-14 from the transcript of Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. This is a public document, delivered on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne on November 4, 2010. This is the sixth installment in a brief series of quotations.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's Submissions and Analysis points 11-14. Today it is....
Submissions and Analysis,  ….points 15-17 beginning, "Mr. Jensen claims that the director’s medical witnesses are part of an unbiased team...This argument does not hold water."
15. "Mr. Jensen claims that the director’s medical witnesses are part of an unbiased team, just trying to do what is best for the children. He claims that the defence medical witnesses have “an agenda” and thus are not to be trusted. This argument does not hold water. Colbourne made a premature diagnosis of shaking. She made a pre-diagnosis, which is the worst diagnosis in medicine. She had to do a lot of backtracking and damage control. Dr. Gardiner was her close colleague and SBS promoter. She certainly had an agenda. It can be noted that Dr.Poskett, who did the actual radiology exams, declined to testify for the director and Dr. Sergeant was a substitute. Dr. Sergeant gave a fair and professional report and his interpretation was very similar to that of Dr. Barnes for the defence. He only differed on the matter of rickets. He did not give any opinion on cause of injury and certainly did not support Dr. Colbourne. In fact he made it clear that the long time lag in diagnosis had made it impossible to tell whether there was one injury or more and also what damage might have been caused due to prolonged subdural hematoma. On the topic of the femoral fracture he makes one very useful observation. He says that the damage was caused on or about October 6th, 2007. This was the actual date of the radiology and confirms Mr. Baynes opinion that the fracture was actually caused during the examination because the nurse had to pull hard on Bethany’s legs to straighten her out for the exam. More detail will be given on this later. Dr. Randall Alexander has a very large agenda. He is little more than a hired gun who will sell his opinion to any prosecution for $10,000 a day plus expenses. He had his mind made up before he even saw the medical background. He was asked to testify exactly because he had an “agenda.” Did the Bayne witnesses have an agenda. They certainly had no financial agenda, because most of them made no charges. Dr. Plunkett was only reimbursed for direct expenses. One could say that they all had a very specific agenda in that they were all working for the achievement of justice. They were all convinced that a lot of damage was being done by unjustified accusations against parents, due to the shaken baby syndrome. They wrote and campaigned and appeared as defence witnesses."

16. "Mr. Jensen enters into lengthy discussion attempting to discredit Zabeth Bayne’s account of sibling impact. He says she is unclear on date and has brought in no witness to corroborate and so on. He goes through each doctor’s report and says they have no grounds for supporting her story and their testimony should be discarded etc. These allegations are simply not true and Mr. Jensen himself inadvertently provides corroboration at a later date. Zabeth was always very clear on two points. She saw the impact, but there was no sound. Bethany was whimpering afterwards and unhappy. Zabeth was worried that there might be an injury and took Bethany to the doctor the next day, but was reassured that there was no problem. She gave the dates and the name of the doctor to Adrienne Glen the hospital social worker and Dr. Colbourne confirms in her testimony that Zabeth reported seeing a Dr. Torry at the Murakami clinic. Note; it is normal for a doctor to accept the word of a parent unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. If the doctor holds an opinion that the injury is consistent with the cause described, his opinion should carry as much weight as any other medical opinion. The judge is perfectly free to conclude that the parent’s story may be true and if so, then the comments by the defence doctors are certainly reasonable. Mr. Jensen also repeatedly seems to hold the view that no defence statement can be believed unless there is eyewitness corroboration. Basically he says that Zabeth lies about everything unless she has a witness. This position is not acceptable. One more thing needs to be understood. Zabeth Bayne admits that she was careless in leaving the baby on the rug for a minute while she did something else. Nobody can offer her any admonishment that she has not offered herself. Such lapses are not uncommon in normal households and most of the time we think little of it until the unexpected happens."

17. "September 30th. Mr. Jensen portrays the Hoffmans as benevolent caring friends whose offers of friendship have been rebuffed by the needy Baynes. All their busybody interference is seen as reaching out to help. Inadvertently he reveals something that Loren Humeny was reluctant to state. He confirms that Zabeth was a successful music teacher with a thriving student body. Could that not be considered as strength? We draw two things to the attention of the court, which compel one to state that the Hoffmans are simply not credible witnesses and that their testimony should be totally disregarded. First, Mr. Hoffman is a very slow reader and the court had to stand down for half an hour while Mr. Hoffman tried to plough through 18 pages of transcript. When he finally got through it, he could not remember one thing that he had told the RCMP, but conceded that if it was in the transcript he must have said it. This shows that he must have a very poor memory and calls into question whether any of his testimony could be relied on. The second thing is that all the time he was claiming to be a good friend, he was running off to the RCMP making malicious and silly reports. I do not think that we need to go into the details of his inane testimony. The stupid allegation of Muenschausens by proxy and so on. His unwarranted and ignorant assumptions and his mixture of hearsay, malicious gossip and uninformed opinion. Neither he nor his wife had a shred of factual evidence to show that the Baynes had ever hurt a child, or were likely to hurt a child. The Baynes were wise to start avoiding them, even if it meant being labelled as recluse and withdrawn. Mr. Jensen repeatedly makes an argument that sounds plausible, but does not bear close scrutiny. He states that all the evidence must be accepted at face value unless the Baynes call rebuttal evidence. When one looks at the ridiculous testimony of the Hoffmans, it is easy to see the fallacy of this argument."
To be continued …................


  1. Go Mr Christie!!

  2. Is it not interesting how all the rules only work one way. Even the legal rules only apply to the parents and never to the director. The ministry disregards the notification and hearing rules as it wishes and the judges just smile benignly on them. A protection hearing within 45 days of a presentation hearing? You must be joking! That would be unseemly haste and not in the best interests of the children.
    My report not admitted as it would be biased. Assuming that it will be biased without reading it, now that is biased. Of course Lorne Humeny's "risk assessment" was in no way biased. He did not mention that the Baynes has any good qualities--absolutely none whatsoever. Even though the judge in his ruling mentioned their steadfastness and dedication to their children. He mentioned the sacrifices they made and yet it all went over Humeny's head. The good education and work record do not count.Why should they? Anybody can fake that. No bias whatsoever. Is it not strange that the judgement did not allude to any evidence given by ministry staff, even though they took up a week of court time. Had he alluded to their evidence, all he could have said was that it was garbage. Now that would be really unkind. Easier to pick holes in Zabeth' testiomony because her memory was not perfect three years after the event.

  3. CPS, the same all over the world:

    Shocking, heartbreaking, but true. The same vindictive practice of taking children from parents who dare fight back, the same rubber stamping of social workers' lies by family court judges. The same corruption, the same massive propaganda, the same brutal victimization of children and families. All for money and the exercise of perverse power.

  4. The video mentioned underscores the reason why live cases such as the Baynes must be followed and supported.

    The first major win by the Baynes is reversal of the shaken baby diagnosis.

    I strongly believe if the family had NOT fought to hard, had NOT gone public and did not acquire the experts they did, they would have lost their children to a CCO.

    ONLY because of publicity and the knowledge that everyone was watching, these are the reasons the Baynes have increased access. If they did not get this extra access, the Ministry could later have claimed the children have been in care too long and have become aclimatized to the foster family, and THAT would have been sufficient justification for a judge to award a CCO.

  5. Can you clarify if this is a transcript of an oral rebuttal by Mr. Christie, or is this a written response to Mr. Jensen's 3-day closing argument.

    Also, would it be possible to post Mr. Christie's first closing argument, which was made before Mr. Jensen did his summation.

    It seems rater clear the judge used information from Mr. Jensen's argument but not Mr. Christie.

  6. To Anon 7:43 AM
    It was unusual at the time. Christie had enough of listening to Jensen's badgering of Zabeth and he suddenly announced he was ready to give his summation. It would have been customary for Jensen to do summary and for Christie to follow, but Christie could not return due to other commitments. The Judge permitted him to do a summary then and there, with the proviso that Jensen's summation transcript would be sent to Christie and he submit in writing a response. Christie gave his impassioned and rapid summation. Then later submitted what you are reading today.

    I will check whether I have a personal record of Christie's rapid summation. We would not have the original clerk's record since that is part of the official transcript of the whole, and the cost of that is hundreds of dollars.

  7. Again Anon 7:43 Am
    I think the best I can offer with respect to your request for posting Christie's closing summation, is a link to my blog post of Sept 12th 2010 when he delivered it.

  8. to Anon at April 7, 2011 7:36 AM:

    I agree completely that publicity and fighting back relentlessly and immediately is the only way to fight MCFD.

    MCFD, and CPS worldwide, fear one thing more than anything else: PUBLICITY.

    The reason they fear publicity is because they know that the public would be outraged to learn what they are really up to. It would expose them as the unsurpassed hypocrites and child abusers that they are.

    And what worse hypocrite is there than one who pretends to protect children and uses - in the most corrupt and wasteful manner, the law and taxpayer money to carry out this pretense - yet does exactly the opposite, harming children, families, society, and the justice system, irreparably, in the process.

  9. To 8:52 AM
    I agree with your statement "MCFD, and CPS worldwide, fear one thing more than anything else: PUBLICITY."

    But with your comment that MCFD and CPS workers are 'child abusers' not so much. And further, where your comments and mine separate is when you say SW's pretend to protect children whereas I say that most are doing it sincerely to discharge a responsibility. I even agree that MCFD is wasteful but not determinedly corrupt. I believe that the harm to children and families and society and justice comes because the operating system in which SWs work is itself faulty and without checks and balances. And occasionally that faulty system breeds a failing manager and SW. They then wind up generating the stories that hit the news.

  10. Ron 10:43 AM May I suggest the comment about the SWs who are doing what they do sincerely to discharge a responsibility is not necessarily true.
    Firstly, if someone has to approach adversarially and attack parents, lie and falsely sign off documents, I think that one cannot tell basic right and wrong in the discharge of their duty. That's bad news! An underlying attitude of arrogance, disrespect and assumption of guilt is pervasive in MCFD. People feel like they are part of a food chain. This doesn't happen accidentally but it is a taught/learned adversarial stance that is easier to teach/learn than the skills that are required to successfully work with other human beings.

    In the past, some police officers committed assaults and perjury and easily escaped accountability. Those kind of officers are now frequently prosecuted. The police are learning that they cannot make their own rules. Even military personnel and other groups of authorities can be successfully prosecuted. Those formerly closed institutions are slowly learning. A well functioning judiciary, bureaucracy, or gov't, however, requires constant vigilant work to bring forward and publicize unacceptable incidents and attitudes or behaviours. More Canadians need to be involved constantly. Democratic society doesn't work well otherwise.

    Pre Magna Carta lords and kings mentalities undermine public trust in Canada and in democracies everywhere. I suggest arrogant, terrifying attitudes often prevail and can be dispensed by any worker. Crowns and badges can create shortcuts that skip over textbook chapters on respect and personal accountability, integrity and even caring.

  11. When you give such enormous power to people who have so little, if any, accountability, it is only common sense that it will be abused. The expression "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely," is very apt in the context of MCFD. The situation with the Baynes is not an anomaly. If it were an anomaly, it would have been rectified a long time ago. The fact that it has gone on this long is an indication of the underlying philosophy and mentality of MCFD.

    If an organization or corporation or group of any kind is essentially just and honest, it will quickly address and remedy an instance of singular injustice or corruption, such as the Bayne case. The fact that this vicious injustice has gone on so long, and the Baynes have not been helped one iota by MCFD, and only harmed by MCFD, should tell people that MCFD is not a group of people who are essentially concerned with the welfare of families.

    The overall lesson to be learned in all of this is that government is not helping people. On the contrary, government(and this is true all over the world) is taking more and more from people. Money, property, peace of mind, children. Government has too much power.

    Part of the reason they have too much power is because people have bought into the philosophy that they can and should be taken care of by the government. People should take care of themselves, and if their neighbour or a stranger needs help, help them, but don't ask the government to do it, because the government, time and again, proves it is incompetent at best, and extremely harmful - such as in the Bayne case - at worst.


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise