Continued from Monday's post:
...The judge in my criminal trial didn’t allow us to expose anything negative about this family. It was, like, he had orders to do whatever it took to put me in prison. But how else can you learn who a child is without knowing where she came from, what kind of parents she had, what kind of house hold she lived under? The jury in my criminal trial saw none of her home environment, and probably believed what Mary Doe told them, that they were your average, church-going family.
My criminal lawyer, Chip, tried to expose something, anything, but with no luck. He asked the judge if he could ask Mary Doe a few questions about violence in the home. Here’s how that went. (Keep in mind “The Court” means the judge.)
(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 113, 114)
The Court: Well, I think we need to do it outside the presence of the jury before we do it in front of the jury.
Chip: The only reason – and to make it even quick consider and cause any less – I’m not going to ask about any specifics. I do know of specifics but my only question is going to be has she observed – has (Jane Doe) observed any aggression between her and (John Doe).
DA Andrews: How is that relevant?
DA Oncken: It is not relevant.
Chip: I understand their position but my experts are going to say it’s one of the very things that shapes a child’s mind and one of the things that they are looking for in a child in a case where there might be an accusation that is not true.
The Court: Well, before anybody testifies to that they are going to have to do it outside the presence of the jury to make sure –
Chip: We can do that now.
The Court: Okay. Well, let’s just ask her the question outside the presence of the jury. That may solve all the problems and then we’ll go from there.
Chip: Fair enough.
(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pgs. 115-118)
The Court: Go Ahead.
Chip: Thank you, Judge.
The Court: We’re outside the presence of the jury.
BY MR. LEWIS
Chip: Ms. (Mary Doe), over the course of your relationship with (John Doe) there has been some incidences of violence between y’all; is that correct.
Mary Doe: What do you mean?
Chip: I mean, there have been physical altercations between y’all?
Mary Doe: Normal fights.
Chip: I’m sorry?
Mary Doe: Just normal fights.
Chip: Okay. I understand and I’m not getting into the particulars or making any judgments about it. There have been instances of violence between you?
Mary Doe: Yes.
Chip: And on occasion (Jane Doe) has been present when that’s happened?
Mary Doe: The arguments.
Chip: Okay. And what you characterize as an argument, some of those have been physical in nature, somebody put their hands on somebody else – without blaming anybody there’s been heated arguments that resulted in somebody putting their hands on somebody else?
Mary Doe: No.
Chip: Okay. But what you’ve characterized as arguments, it’s your testimony that none of these that (Jane Doe) observed ever involved anybody touching anybody else?
Mary Doe: Correct.
Chip: How would you characterize these arguments that she has observed? Heated?
Mary Doe: I’m sorry. Can you repeat that again?
Chip: Yes, ma’am. You said there were arguments that she had observed. Is it a fair statement to call those arguments heated, somebody’s voice was raised, somebody was unhappy with the other?
Mary Doe: Unhappy.
Chip: Okay. Voices raised?
Mary Doe: Yes.
Chip: Okay. And on how many occasions would you estimate she had seen that?
Mary Doe: Through her entire life?
Chip: Yes, Ma’am, your best guess. More than ten?
Mary Doe: No, not more than ten.
Chip: More than five?
Mary Doe: Maybe.
Chip: Okay. So, maybe between five and ten?
Mary Doe: Yes.
Chip: All right. At one point in time during (Jane Doe’s) life (John Doe) lived in the same household that you and (Jane Doe) and your other two children lived in, correct?
Mary Doe: Correct.
Chip: And that would have been some of the times when she might have observed some of that behavior?
Mary Doe: Yes.
Chip: That’s all I have, your honor. That’s as far as I plan to go.
The judge wouldn’t even allow Chip to show the jury that Jane Doe saw arguments, much less the nightmarish life she lived. And that’s basically how my criminal trial went, with the judge using his power to hide important information that the jury should’ve heard.
Another example of that is when Chip found out, (through investigation), that Jane Doe’s younger brother and older brother had been caught trying to watch a porno movie. Chip asked Mary Doe about it, and she had to admit it was true. This was our chance to tell the jury that a porno is a plausible source of where Jane Doe could’ve been exposed to the act of oral sex. Because whether she made it up, hallucinated it, dreamt it, she would, first, have had to be exposed to it. Exposure could come from either, God forbid, her experiencing the act, or seeing it.
(Court Transcripts Volume 10 of 31 pg. 169)
DA: And do you know how long it had been on top of the entertainment center?
Mary Doe: I worked. So for awhile.
DA: And do you know where (Jane Doe) was when they were caught trying to put that in?
Mary Doe: I don’t recall?
DA: She wasn’t in the room was she?
Mary Doe: I don’t believe so.
DA: Did you ever have a discussion with your children as to whether or not they had ever watched that video tape?
Mary Doe: I was embarrassed.
DA: I’m sorry.
First off, when you “catch” someone doing something wrong, it’s because they know they were doing something wrong. Then, to be embarrassed about discussing it with them… Even the DA had to hear that twice.
Secondly, Mary Doe didn’t say whether Jane Doe was in the room or not. “I don’t believe so”, is not a yes or a definite no. But think about that for a second. If your kids were about to watch a porno, wouldn’t you know, for sure, whether your little girl was there or not? Of course, you would. Your answer would not be “I don’t believe so.”
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 6-8)
Chip: Their own therapist has stated to me that one source of these types of ideas is explicit sexuality in movies or pornographic tapes, the likes that have already been introduced into the record. (Mary Doe) has already admitted that there was a pornographic movie that remained on top of the T.V. for some time before she discovered her kids had gotten ahold of it.
The Court: Wait. Wait. There is no evidence in the record that the complainant ever saw the movie, period.
Chip: No, Judge, there is a difference. The record is what the record is and I have the transcript and what – what is exactly stated in the record is that (Mary Doe) – there had been a pornographic movie on top of the T.V.
The Court: I remember the evidence.
Chip: Well, Judge, there’s inferences from the evidence that are just as important.
The Court: No, no, no, no.
Chip: They’re not important.
The Court: Inferences that she saw something? There is no evidence whatsoever in the record that it happened.
Chip: I shouldn’t be allowed to argue that with that movie that’s been laying on top of the T.V. that she discovers in her other kid’s possession that this girl might have seen it?
(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 10-11)
The Court: So if I drive by an X-rated movie store – I mean, I have access or somebody brings a whole barrel of them and puts them in my house that means that I’m –
Chip: Judge, that’s not even close to what happen[ed] here.
The Court: Well, how can you argue that that is – had an effect on her when there’s no evidence that she ever saw it?
Chip: I can argue that the inference is it was accessible in that house. I don’t know what happened in that house. I don’t know what happened in the house. It was, by her admission, laying on top of the T.V.
The Court: So, what is the inference.
Chip: That she could have seen it. I mean, I understand if the Court doesn’t like my argument, that’s one thing, but it’s permissible.
The Court: No, no, it doesn’t have anything to do with not liking it.
Chip: You’re laughing about it.
You probably know that Chip didn’t win this argument, but something happened that says a lot about this judge. When Chip said, “I mean, I understand if the Court doesn’t like my argument, that’s one thing, but it’s permissible,” the judge started laughing.
Have you ever been caught doing something wrong, and when someone brings it to light, you let off a guilty chuckle? The judge knew he was stopping a vital argument, (one the jury should’ve been able to hear), and when Chip put it to him bluntly, all he could [do] was laugh.
I think it was ingenious that Chip showed (on record) how the judge laughed. I almost feel that Chip knew this case would be talked about one day, and he wanted people to see the type of shit he was up against.
The truth was that pornography was accessible to this child, and the possibility of her being exposed to it was real, if not probable.
(Court Transcripts Volume 13 of 31 pgs. 105, 106)
DA: I guess let’s start from the end. Is it typical based on the research and your training and experience that children who have no sexual history or experience with any type of sexual act, do they typically dream, quote, or have a graphic sexual dream?
Therapist: No. The only way that would be possible is if they were actually exposed to some type of graphic sexual stimulation.
DA: So, are children able to just dream about oral sex being performed on them when they’ve never had that done to them before?
Of course, the DA is asking these questions because Jane Doe testified that she wasn’t sure if the assault was a dream.
That takes me to my next point. Our critics have said that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense” and that she was a credible witness.