The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

It strikes me, somehow, that certain people in the state of Maryland in the US must be have both empty heads and empty hears--no brains...no concern...no caring.

If you've had a look at what I've been posting...or it you've taken a look at the blogs of the woman in the US about this Elsa Newman case, you qualify to offer some support to this Maryland mother who was unjustly imprisoned for the "crime" of trying to protect her children from a father who was sexually abusing them--and everything she did, including advice to other mothers in support groups and workshops--was carefully within the law.

Elsa Newman is an attorney. She believed in the American justice system. Too bad her faith in that system was misplaced.

So we have a chance to sign a petition on behalf of Elsa Newman. Let's let a few of those ning-nongs in Maryland State, USA, know what we think of their attitude.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/js/widget.js?petitionID=260097654

Elsa Newman

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

 

Elsa Newman has lived with injustice in the courts, injustice by the police, injustice from attorneys, injustice from psychologists who made recommendations about her, injustice in the prisons. When you are put in prison and you are innocent--everything is unjustice.

As far as I can figure out, the only thing “they” haven’t done to Elsa Newman so far is send her into a Nazi-style shower; you know…the kind with no soap and water…only gas!

“They” have separated her from her beloved children.

She has seen those children placed in the hands of a man who torments them with sexual abuse, physical abuse and virtually any kind of other abuses he can think of.

“They” have tried to turn her children against her and toward their dominating, abusive father.

“They have sometimes deprived her of a specific diet she needs to maintain her health—because she does have some health issues.

“They” won’t let her have a new pair of glasses.

Medical care is lacking for specific items she needs.

“They” have provided inadequate clothing: In the winter, when the prison is cold, she freezes, without enough clothing for winter.

In the summer, when the prison is hot—no AC, of course—she swelters.

“They” have called her crazy—as “they” have always done with women “they” could not understand.

“They” have lied about her. Witnesses—in court—presenting sworn testimony: Arlen Slobodow, her former husband, perjured himself; Stephen Friedman, her former attorney, perjured himself; Sandra Ashely, former employee of Newman’s former attorney, perjured herself.

Then there were the attorneys in court:  Katherine Winfree, prosecutor, who manufactured a case from bits and pieces and snippets of near-truth, awkwardly stitched together into a  monstrous patchwork of a prosecution of her own invention;  Stacey Blondes Talbott, attorney for Arlen Slobodow. I wonder what is it like to be the attorney for a man who abuses his children sexually—and get him off—and get those children placed into his physical custody? Was Talbott  merely following in the slimy footsteps of her disbarred father?  As soon as she heard the news of Margery Landry’s crime, Stacey Blondes Talbott rushed to the police station, carrying a box of “evidence” and practically tripping all over herself in her rush to get said “evidence”  (from the acrimonious divorce case which was already in progress—now there’s unbiased opinion for you) into the hands of police and prosecutors. All of these people lied and knew they were lying.

In a recent return to the courtoom, Newman was stuck with the judge assigned to the case—although she had asked him to recuse himself because of previous and frequent decisions against her. He refused, and so she had to face him again, a man who had probably already made up his mind that he would rule against her yet another time.

They’ve called her names: Prosecutor Katherine Winfree apparently liked this part, referring to Newman as “nuts,” and a “delusional witch.”

So look at this woman. Does she look dangerous to you? She is not dangerous. She is soft-spoken. She is a loving and protective mother.And she is treated like the worst of criminals.

On her last trip to court, Newman had to wear shackles—not just chains, mind you, but also some kind of a box affair into which she was forced to place her hands, so this “dangerous,” “monster of a woman,” this “threat to life and limb,” this woman who according to Doug Gansler, now Attorney-General of Maryland “wanted to kill her kids,” could not break her way, Samson-like, to freedom and stand between the pillars of what passes for truth in Maryland Courtrooms and the bring whole system of lies and deception down upon the heads of those who had told the lies.

“They” have surrounded her with armed guards who look for chances to “throw their weight around” and make Newman’s life more difficult. She is subject not only to rules, which she tries desperately to follow. She believes after all, that she’s had enough trouble for a woman who didn’t deserve that kind of trouble in the first place, and she would like to avoid further trouble. But there are times when it seems like the guards make up additional rules of their own and torment her with them.

“They have surrounded her with fences and walls.  Those fences and walls to keep Newman in--and friends and supports out. For outside is the land of the free.

"They" force her to work for them.

"They" have given her cellmates who shout Christian hymns in her ear…or who draw swastikas on the walls when Newman prays…or who read the Christian bible, emphasizing at the top of their voices, “And Jesus said.” There are prisoners who walk past her, heads down, muttering, “Kill all Jews.”

Meanwhile, Newman’s sense of herself—by some inner strength only Newman knows for sure--holds fast and remembers who she is and that she is right: that she had no part in any attempt to kill her estranged husband; that in fact there was no such attempt; that a gun went off accidentally; that her children are sexually molested by their father; that the father lied to help put her where she is today.

You did notice earlier when I mentioned that Elsa Newman is a Jew? So I’ll close as I began: about the only thing they haven’t yet done to Elsa Newman is to send her into a Nazi-style shower, the kind with no soap and water or towels…only gas!

Shame on Mongomery County courts. Shame on the state of Maryland.

And shame, I am sad to say, on the United States of America for allowing such injustice to happen.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

I stole this one from the lady in the United States. It seems to illustrate pretty well how things go when you are in trial in the state of Maryland over there. You don't even try to use complete evidence in context. Rather, you use "snippets," little bits and pieces of evidence taken completely out of context, so the defendant seems guilty whether or not said defendant really is guilty. It works like this:

 

KATHERINE WINFREE AND “SNIPPETS” AND “GO AND DO THOU LIKEWISE”

You can prove almost anything if you are good at excerpting, as is Katherine Winfree, who pulled "snippets" of information from Elsa Newman's computer and used said "snippets" against Elsa.

Let me give you an example from Judeo-Christian scriptures: In Matthew 27:5, the Bible states, "...and he [Judas] went and hanged himself." That's a snippet of scripture, right?     

Again the scripture states in Luke 10:37, "...[G]o and do thou likewise." Now there's another snippet. I

f I put them together and preach a sermon or homily, then all listeners who heard and believed my sermon or homily would immediately rush forth from the church building, locate a strong rope and a convenient limb and hang themselves.

It only stands to reason, does it not? After all, it's in the Bible!

By such means and such snippets did Kate Winfree win the conviction of Elsa Newman for a crime she did not commit—a crime which, in fact, did not even exist because there existed neither conspiracy nor foreknowledge on Elsa’s part.

That's another reason for believing Elsa. I believe Elsa Newman because she was convicted on the basis of prosecutor Katherine Winfree's "snippets."

Let us all, of whatever faith or lack of faith, hope and pray that other prosecuting attorneys shall not take pages from Winfree's book--and do likewise.

So much for the woman in the US. I can't resist adding that it looks to me like the prosecutor also had to come up with some witnesses who were willing to lie for the sake of the prosecution. In fact, there are three witnesses I believe lied: Stephen Friedman, Elsa Newman's attorney who turned on her and swore he had heard her plotting to kill her husband; Sandra Ashley, who once worked for Friedman and was willing to say that Newman had told her [Ashley] of a plan to have the abusive father killed; and the father himself, Arlen Slobodow, who seems to have had a considerable stake in the conviction of Elsa Newman. After all, if the jury came up with a "guilty" verdict, Slobodow got control of the kids and would be free to have his own, in-home, custom-made objects of sexual abuse.

It seems to have worked well for him.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

Hi, Terri-lee...

Here is the response from the woman in the Us, when I wrote to tell her of your question. I'm afraid it's not exactly what any of us want to hear. Children can face abuse for years. If they have made disclosures and then been called liars and seen their mother go to prison for trying to defend them and get help for them, there is probably little chance they will have the courage to try again.

 

Greetings, Wiz…

Can’t say that I know a lot more about the Elsa Newman case than what you seem to have figured out or researched. Maybe some little details, since I talk to Elsa by phone every once in a while.

The latest I hear is that Elsa and Elsa’s attorney are going through thousands of pages of information that was withheld by the prosecution at trial. That’s right.  You got it. The same prosecutor, Katherine Winfree, who said of Elsa, “She is so nuts!” and referred to this mother as a “delusional witch,” seems also to have withheld a great quantity of exculpatory information in the form of materials copied from Elsa’s computer and also from Margery Landry’s computer. These papers  which someone withheld contain evidence that is clearly pro-Newman and her sons. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this material will be able to be used. Being a tired and re-tired schoolteacher, I make no claim to be able to figure out the courts and attorneys of the American “justice” system.

As to the present state of the children, I would say, based on their last visit with their mother, that they have been and remain terrified of their father. They apparently say and do virtually anything and everything that the man wishes. Remembering back to a time when I was Herbie’s age, I know I tried desperately to read my father’s moods and avoid his wrath. I could not even begin to imagine, at that age, any means of escape from him. I was too afraid. And that was merely a matter of verbal and emotional abuse—not the horrors that Elsa’s children suffer daily, as surely as he molests them daily.

I do know one thing that you may not have heard: Elsa’s problems maintaining contact with her children is continuing. She has not heard from or spoken to Lars since their visit to her at the prison. When she calls, Herbie will tell her that someone picked Lars up and he has gone to visit friends. This is a ploy which Arlen Slobodow has used in the past, when he wanted to “punish” Elsa for doing something he didn’t like: he withheld the children from her by saying they were gone when she called, then forcing them to lie and say the same. It does seem unlikely, now, that Lars would be “away” or “at a friend’s house” for call after call after call. Elsa is beginning to be quite concerned about him.

Unfortunately for your inquirer who wants to know more about the present situation, there is little I can find out. Elsa is in prison. Her imprisonment is unjust. The former attorney who testified against her lied, as did the man’s secretary during the second trial. Both of these people insisted that Elsa had talked about a murder attempt in their presence. I think you and I have both noted in blogs that Elsa simply is not that stupid. The prosecution almost seemed to be carrying out some kind of vendetta against her. People are increasingly reading my blogs—and hopefully yours. I believe there are attorneys in Florida working on the case, as well as Elsa’s attorney in Maryland. The best thing that could happen right now might be if someone in Florida—a teacher perhaps, or a parent of a friend—would find evidence of abuse and report. If the boys were not so terrified, they might disclose abuse. However, in view of what happened as a result of their previous disclosures—they were interviewed for hours (literally) until they were forced to recant, just to get out of the interrogation room and get Detective Que Edwina Wallace to stop harassing them; they were called liars and handed over to the custody of their abuser—I find this unlikely. Abusers have many ways to dominate the children they abuse.

There have been reports and investigations in Florida. These, however—and I have copies of the reports that resulted—were superficial and conducted in the presence of an abusing father who is probably a sociopath and more than capable when it comes to presenting a charming face to the rest of the world. Sociopaths somehow have that knack. They can be more believable than a quiet and peaceful, loving mother who is more than a little stressed out by what she knows is happening to her children. And if this sociopath turns his wits to seeing that the mother is imprisoned? You can see what happened.

I learned only yesterday that among the first words that Arlen Slobodow said to the 9-1-1 operator when he called for help after the accidental shooting were, “Don’t let my wife take my kids.” Thus in one sentence, he hinted at guilt on the part of his then-estranged wife and made himself sound like a caring, concerned father.

Reality check: He knew that if the children went to Elsa for care, she was likely to have them examined for sexual abuse—and he knew what he had been doing to them.

So I would say that speaking to the children themselves at this time offers little hope.

I will surely let you know if anything further occurs.

Friends always, although we may never meet. And I am most grateful for what you are offering in the way of help and support.

Aine

 

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

 

I am going to indulge myself for a while (maybe even for a few days) in writing about some of the people involved in Elsa Newman’s continuing ordeal and what I have learned about these people through research on the internet.

First let me take a long, hard look at Stephen Friedman. You lied, Stephen Friedman. Yes. You did. You said that Elsa Newman sat in your office and told you of how she wanted to kill her estranged husband. And you also said she talked of killing one of her sons, so she could save the other and so her estranged husband would “get what he deserved, because he’s a criminal.” You said she talked of this with Margery Landry. You said she talked of it to you.

But you were not quite careful enough about your lie, Stephen Friedman. You gave yourself away. You gave away the lie, Mr. Friedman. There are so many holes in that lie that I could walk through it, and I’m not a small man.

First, you gave away the lie when you said Elsa talked about killing one of her sons. You never took time to know Elsa Newman, or you would know she would never have said such a thing. According to what I have learned about Elsa Newman, everything she did, she did for her children.

Second, you gave away the lie when you said Elsa Newman spoke, in front of you and in your office, about killing Arlen Slobodow. Whatever Elsa Newman may be, loving mother, protective mother, besieged mother (and by that I mean besieged by the so-called “justice” system in the United States) she is not stupid. She is an attorney, and she knows full well that one does not speak, in the presence of any attorney or, in fact, in the presence of any credible witness of any sort, about murdering one’s spouse or murdering one’s children or any other murder.

Further, it requires an incredible amount of stupidity or gullibility or credulity or whatever you want to call it to believe that this highly intelligent mother would act in such an incredibly stupid fashion as to discuss murder in front of any person, including her own attorney.

Third, you gave away the lie when you stated that Elsa Newman spoke to you of two diametrically opposed plans. One, you said, was that she was going to murder her estranged husband. The other was that she was going to murder one of her children and place the blame on Arlen Slobodow. It takes only a small amount of common sense and intelligence to realize that the so-called “plots” were mutually exclusive. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Friedman. It would require a complete fool to believe you.

Fourth, you gave away your lies when you supposed that Margery Landry and Elsa Newman plotted to have Landry break into Slobodow’s house when the children were visiting, and that Landry would carry a gun. Barry Helfand, Elsa’s attorney at the criminal trial, addressed this issue, saying, “[It is ridiculous] that anyone would believe that Elsa Newman…whatever her misgivings are, or were, would ever have allowed Marge Landry to go into this house and to shoot this man and then kill this man and to then have her two children wake up in the morning, either hearing gunshots, be in danger of these gunshots or even worse, even if not in danger, to walk in and find their father lying dead in a bed and having to call the police…[line missing from trial transcript].”

Nor are you the only one, Stephen Friedman, to brand Stephen Friedman a liar. Margery Landry testified that you lied. Landry said to the judge in a pre-sentence letter that she had been given chances to turn on Elsa Newman and testify against her. Landry didn’t do it. She didn’t do it, because she alone was responsible for breaking into the house and for the accidental shooting of Arlen Slobodow during a scuffle over the gun. Elsa had nothing to do with that misguided plot (and I must remind you that the supposed plot never even existed; there was no conspiracy) which you tried to lay at the door of both women together.

Finally, Elsa Newman herself stated that your words fell far short of truth. She stated, in fact, that you “were either asleep or pretending to sleep” during many of her sessions in your office. She stated that when she asked you to remain awake and listen to her, you were highly offended. She stated that you never took notes when in conference with her, preparing for trial. Again, this was a situation to which she strenuously objected, and about which you became quite incensed, as though a mere woman and a mother agonizing over the continuing sexual assault of her children had no right to challenge you. 

And yet, when you arrived in court to testify against her, you had many pages of “notes,” supposedly taken during these same conferences. I believe you referred to those notes frequently, as if reminding yourself of something that happened or was said, or of precisely how it happened or was said. How long did it take you to walk back through your memory and write down those notes, Stephen Friedman? How did you do it? Perhaps your secretary had an appointment book so you could get the dates right, at least.

Beyond that, you lied, Stephen Friedman. Yes, Stephen Friedman, you certainly did!

In fact, even Maryland’s highest court deemed your testimony improper. You had no right or reason to testify against Elsa Newman, who had been your client. You had no right or reason, and yet you insisted on propagating a story that you carefully fabricated from the whole cloth of feral untruth.

Next, leaving the lies of Stephen Friedman behind, let us move on to his replacement, one Sandra Ashley. Allow me to catch you up on her role, if you will. Because Sandra Ashley also lied.

Just over a year before the horrible “event” of which Margery Landry was guilty and Elsa Newman was accused, Newman met with Sandra Ashley, then secretary in the office of Stephen Friedman. They were supposed to discuss upcoming legal matters, and Ashley was supposed to report back to her employer about anything important that they discussed. In fact, Sandra Ashley spent most of the meeting rambling about a party which she had attended, and at which she had won a prize of some kind and was thrilled about that.

After this meeting, Sandra Ashley, per instruction of Stephen Friedman, emailed information to him about all the important things that Newman had discussed at the meeting. The complete text of her email reads as follows:

---Original Message---

From:             Sandra K. Ashley

Sent:              Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:09 PM

To:                  Stephen Friedman

Subject:         Elsa Newman

The children have been w/father for past several days and w/be returning tomorrow evening, Fri. She wants to have them examined and was in search of a pediatrician who “will tell it like it is”

Yes, that’s it. That’s all there was to the whole thing. What? No mention of sinister plans to commit murder? No.  Nothing beyond what appears above? Nary a word!

So tell me then…how is that some four or five years later—when Prosecuting Attorney Katherine Winfree desperately needed a witness to “validate” Winfree’s “conspiracy theory,” Sandra K. Ashley suddenly recalled that there was more to her interview with Elsa Newman than she had originally informed her employer. And the noble, concerned-for-justice, honorable Sandra Ashley stepped forward.

How is it that Sandra Ashley suddenly recalled that at that long-ago meeting Newman had stated that she wanted to kill her husband? How was it that she had never mentioned that horrible idea to her employer?

Never mind that Sandra Ashley’s testimony should have been just as much covered by attorney-client privilege as had her employer’s. Never mind that the meeting had occurred years ago, and we might have expected her to remember less, rather than more. Sandra Ashley said she remembered something new. And on the basis of this suddenly-remembered information, Sandra Ashley was overwhelmingly welcomed by the prosecution. Thus Sandra Ashley trotted off to court to testify against Elsa Newman.

I’ll wrap this up with a simple set of statements: Sandra K. Ashley also lied. She lied. She lied. She lied through her teeth.  What do you say to those statements, mate? They work well together, don’t they?

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

Sometimes I can't resist copying something right from that lady in America. Do I dare say the woman is vicious? I do hope she doesn't cut me off from her blogs for saying that. It would be such a bother to have to write all of my own!

In this one she addresses the question of who is crazy and who is not regarding the Elsa Newman case. The lady from the states is intending to say, I suspect, that she and Elsa are both quite sane...but she has her doubts about everyone else. Good God--could she mean even me.?

And the shoe? The red shoe with the stilleto heel? What part could a crazy shoe play in demonstrating that the woman falls far short of insanity? Hmmmmm?

 

AN OPEN  LETTER TO ALL PEOPLE WHO “PROTECT” CHILDREN: INCLUDING THE PROSECUTOR IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND, WHO WORE STILLETO HEELS AND COMPLAINED--EVERY TIME SHE HAD TO APPROACH THE BENCH—ABOUT HER ACHING FEET; INCLUDING EVERY CHILDCARE WORKER OR SOCIAL SERVICES WORKER IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND, USA…IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, USA…AND ANYWHERE ELSE THIS  MIGHT APPLY.

IF THE SHOE FITS? WEAR IT! And quite complaining that your feet hurt; the children you are supposed to care so much about have far more pain than you have yet imagined.

 

Child sexual abuse—especially when the abuse takes place at the hands of a family member—is extremely difficult to prove, especially when it takes place in the context of a bitterly contested divorce and a bitter disagreement over child custody. This is the situation faced by Elsa Newman. Her children made disclosure after disclosure after appalling disclosure to her, regarding what their father, Arlen Slobodow was doing to them. They begged her to find a way to put an end to visits with their father. They offered her horrifying facts. And when Elsa Newman began the fight to save her children from that sexual abuse, it was said of her, “She is so crazy!” [per Katherine Winfree in an email to Susan Mercer.] Nor was Winfree the only one who made the accusation. The father himself, Slobodow, testified to a dark and twisted relationship between his estranged wife and family friend Margery Landry. It was a “crazy” relationship that had Landry, according to Slobodow, running hither and thither, taking on the bidding of Elsa Newman. A psychologist who testified at her first trial—having set aside his tests and basing his evaluation solely on interviews—said that Elsa was—you guessed it!—crazy, a borderline personality. (Testing had shown her well within the normal range.)

Same psychologist—different subject—testified that Arlen Slobodow fell well within the range of “normal,” despite the fact that he had also thrown out Slobodow’s tests and based his opinion on interview. (And guess what the tests showed about Slobodow? Hah! Not good. The psychologist had to throw out said tests, if he was to have anything positive to say about the father of Elsa’s children.)

God only knows who else used that term about Newman—“crazy”. Perhaps it was certain members of the jury, who declared that they knew before the trial ever started that Elsa was guilty.

Do you remember the story of Elizabeth Morgan? The doctor who sent her child into hiding and spent two years in jail for refusing to tell where the child was…because Elizabeth Morgan believed the child’s father was sexually abusing her? Elizabeth Morgan was also labeled “crazy.”

I read on the internet of other women who have similarly tried to help their children gain freedom from a sexually abusive father. And what is it that I read? Crazy! Crazy! Crazy!

However, my best guess after taking a long, hard look at what the internet has to offer…as well as taking a long, hard look books like the one co-authored by Michelle Etlin and Leora Rosen, The Hostage Child, is that it is not at all the protective, loving mothers who are “crazy.”

Nope.

It is the prosectors and the courts, the American “justice” system and the judges who practice court-ordered child abuse. Now that is what’s crazy.

Perhaps you will indulge me. Take time to read the material I have transcribed below—material in which Elsa Newman recorded, without personal comment, the horrors her children disclosed to her. As you read, please remember that these are only a portion of the facts on which Elsa Newman based her certainty that Arlen Slobodow was sexually abusing and misusing her children. There are many more. There is not time to include all of them.

I’m indulging in a rant, I know. Sorry. But please read on, anyhow, knowing that you are only reading a portion of the disclosures that these children made.

If I understand correctly, the Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Katherine Winfree, in the days before she became Chief Deputy Attorney General, wrote to Florida authorities, explaining very sweetly that thorough investigations had been done in the state of Maryland…and there was no evidence that Arlen Slobodow was sexually abusing his sons.

Let us ignore for a moment the fact that this was not just a highly unusual communication for someone in a position of authority to make, it was also highly unethical. In addition, I wonder about the legality of it—but that is, admittedly, just a random thought of mine that popped into my head.

So…there was no evidence in Maryland of sexual abuse, huh? Let me set out here a few disclosures by Elsa Newman’s children, and you can decide for yourself.

First—please refer to the recent post I recently made in several blogs, as welling as sending the letter out by email: “An Open Letter to Dr. Jill Scharff,” in which I noted that I believe Dr. Scharff has considerable evidence of the abuse of the boys by their father, Arlen—and that she has declined to offer it to authorities, citing physician-client privilege, after she had already reported sexual abuse of the two boys, by Slobodow.

Second—let’s take a look at some of the disclosures made during visits with Mom, Elsa Newman, at District of Columbia Family Services. These visits were made with an observer/supervisor in the room, and the disclosures themselves are dated:

March 1, 2001—Herbie called dad evil. Said he hated Dr. Fox and dad.

March 8, 2001—Elsa asked one of the boys why his voice was raspy. The boy’s answered, “I was yelling at dad that I hate him and Dr. Fox. I don’t want to see Dr. Fox anymore.”

March 15, 2001—Per Herbie “Dad cut up the toy that mom had given.” He repeated this to Mrs. Wilma Daniels, the supervisor at the time, who wrote it down. Maternal grandmother, now in Florida, saw this.

March 20, 2001—Lars says, “Dad does not break our toys anymore, just hurts us.” Herbie instructed, “Don’t tell her, she tells dad. Dad beat me for telling about the toy.” (Social worker instructed Elsa not to give toys any more.)

Lars says, “My bottom hurts.” Why? Lars turns to supervisor and says, “because Dad keeps stuffing toys in my bottom.” Herbie interrupts, “Don’t tell her, she tells dad, and dad beat me for telling about the toy.”

April 2, 2001 Both boys say Dad is mean to Herbie, Dad is too old [possible reference to sexual relationship with Herbie. Lars is younger and therefore more attractive to a pedophile.]

Herbie states that he is punished by not being able to go to Sunday School.

April 3, 2001 Lars states, “My bottom hurts.” Supervisor, at this time a woman named Magwood, asked, “What did he say?” She called Lars over and asked about the statement. “Dad puts toys in my bottom.”

April 9, 2001, Herbie has a long bruise mark on his arm from dad. Stated that he had burned his arm because his dad would not let him get his Pokemon cards. Ms. Firestein was sitting in.

May 29, 2001, Photo of bruise on Lars’ nose during supervised visit. Bruises on face. Janice Magwood is again the supervisor. Germain Walker also present. Lars would not say what had happened.

May 22, 2001—Herbie said he hates Dad. Dad puts toys out and turns TV on when Ms. Magwood is coming. Said, “Dad made me eat ants.” He showed Elsa how dad had squished the ants in his [Herbie’s] mouth. Supervisor Janice Magwood heard this. Did nothing about it. This occurred at the Child and Family Services building.

June 11, 2001, Lars says, “Mom, you said what we said was lies, but they weren’t. We told the truth of what dad does. Herbie goes to Magwood and says, “Dad takes us into a dark room and puts toys into our bottom.” Herbie, when asked, says he tells the therapist. Elsa asked what Dr. Fox does “Nothing,” Magwood says, “That is the first time he talked to me like that.”

June 13, 2001—Magwood says “kids said so much already, why must they say more?”  Elsa notes that she perceives this as an excuse not to report. Asks that readers remember that this is the DC case dismissed against her, when she was accused of abuse and neglect.

June 22, 2001—Magwood returns Lars to Arlen’s House. They are all in the same car. Lars waves. Arlen pulls Lars off the railing, wrenches his arms of the railing and drags him into the house. Magwood saw this.

July 16, 2001—Photos of rash. Dr. Dugan says this rash can be sexually transmitted. [I believe this is in reference to a time when Herbie had a rash from his anus, spreading out to his buttocks and up to his shoulders. If this is the time and the physician I am thinking of, Dr. Dugan muttered “or a wet bathing suit” and did not report.

Third--Let’s move on to a diary of disclosures the boys made to their mother:

March, 2000—Lars and Herbie, “Dad wrestles with us and tickles us and he won’t stop.

March 12, 2000—Harbie insists that Dad is not his father, that he is an alien.

March 25, 2000—Herbie asks me why I make him have visits with Dad.

April 1, 2000—Herbie said he had an accident at Dad’s and Dad kept calling him “peeboy” until Lars threw himself at Dad.

April 13, 2000—At bedtime, Herbie begged me not to send him to Dad’s. He wouldn’t stop crying because I could not agree not to send him.

April 16, 2000—Dad Kicked Herbie, threw grass on him (which he is allergic to) & touched his private parts.

April 27, 2000—Herbie came home crying from Dad’s, saying he could not see.

May 4, 2000—Herbie said Dad calls him fat & that Dad rewards Lars when he says Mom hit him & Herbie says that’s not true.

May 6,2000—Arlen kicked Herbie & Lars; keeps telling Herbie he doesn’t love him & that Lars would go to heaven & Herbie to hell.

May 12, 2000—Herbie tells me all evening he doesn’t want to go to Dad’s tomorrow.

June 3, 2000—Lars said Dad kicked him in the crotch until he [Lars] kicked Herbie in the crotch. Dad kicked and punched both of them and laughed.

June 10, 2000—Dad bit Herbie’s arm leaving 2 red dots. Dad said Herbie & I [Elsa] were going to die in a fire.

June 18, 2000—Dad smooshed Herbie’s shoe in dog doo & made Herbie clean it. Dad takes Lars to a private room.

June 27, 2000—Dad pushed Herbie down the stars. Lars said Dad put his mouth on Lars’s wee wee. Herbie saw Lars with Dad in his room with his pants pulled down. On the way back home, Dad said, “We’re going to terrible Mom’s.”

 

[NOTE: I’m interrupting here to insert records from a July 11, 2000 visit to a medical doctor. These are marked NOT privileged—medical records. I therefore assume that I am free to use them.

Notation on the records states that three persons were present for the examination of Herbert: mother, brother and patient.  The record continues:

Herbert:

Subjective: 7 yr. old Caucasian boy here for medical evaluation. Father reportedly has bitten his crotch/put finger in anus. Denies dysurea (?), rectal pain or rectal itching. Mother has seen occasional scratching. Herbert bathes himself, but his mother helped bathe last 2 nights. Has not visted father for last 2 weeks. Seen by pediatrician on this am referral to CAP. Mother concerned missed visitation for examination.

Disclosure by Child: My father has tickled/bitten my crotch and put his finger in my butt. (Giggling with brother)…mother did ask both boys if father ever touched their butts (bottom).

Objective:  Age & size appropriate 7 yr old. Neatly dressed. Circumsized penis no lesions or marks penus or scrotal sac testes descended. Anus—red (?) skin folds and tone, hyperpigmental ring extremity 3 cm from anus—symmetric acute excoriation between anal folds. Shallow. Multiple. [also notes insect bits and plantars warts]

Assessment/diagnosis: symmetric hyperpigmentation (?) digital penetration of rectum. No loss of skin folds or tone. No evidence bit marks on genitals Normal examination does not exclude digital petetration.

 

Lars-mother, brother and patient

Subjective: 4 ½-year old Caucasian boy here for examination. Seen also this a.m. in pediatrician’s office referral to CAP. Denied dysuria or pan or defecation per mother. Usually bathes and toilets self.

Disclosure by child: My father bits my crotch and puts toys in my bottom.

Objective: No penile lesion circumcised testes descended. No scrotal lesions. Anal tone normal, does have intermittent dilation…normal finding in knee chest position…small ring post inflammatory hyperpigmentation 1 cm from anal verge.

Assessment: Normal examination does not exclude digital penetration. No evidence of genital trauma.

Treatment: sitz baths.

 

Follow-up visit: Herbert

Date 7/16/01

Progress notes: 8-yr-old boy with rash in perianal anus

…atopy and ecxema

Perianal rash with circles of scale

No intact pistules

On both cheeks of buttocks

erythematos

 

Note here that proving child sexual abuse can be difficult in the extreme, especially when the abuser is someone close to the child, like a father. Physician seems unwilling to make a statement—but will not exclude such abuse either.]

 

 

July 16, 2000—Lars tells me his bottom hurt & I saw symmetrical red marks inside his anus. Lars said Dad put the feet of a transformer toy in his bottom. Herbie said Dad took Lars into the private & closed the door. Lars said Dad made noises like this, “uh…uh” when he did it.

September 10, 2000—Herbie said Lars got in his bed in the middle of the night and Tickled Herbie’s crotch (Lars slept in Dad’s bed.) Lars wet the bed.

September 11, 2000—Lars wet the bed again.

September 24, 2000—Herbie said no one likes him at Dad’s. Dad twisted his arm behind his back and bent his wrist backwards. Dad gave him one French fry for dinner. Lars said Dad tickled his crotch.

September 26, 2000—Dad told Lars to hit Herbie & rewarded him [Lars] with candy.

October 3, 2000—In the middle of the night, Lars came in my room and said eh was scared of Dad tickling his peepee because he always does that.

October 4, 2000—While we were walking the dog at school waiting for Herbie. Lars told me he is scared of Dad because Dad is mean to Herbie.

October 9, 2000—Herbie again tells me he follows Dad & Lars to the basement in the middle of the night because he’s afraid Dad will touch Lar’s crotch. Herbie said Dad threw his clothes on the fan and he had to get them with no clothes on. Then Dad threw his clothes downstairs and Herbie had to run downstairs. Then Dad threw the clothes outside & Herbie went outside w/o clothes to get them.

October 10, 2000—A.m. Both say, separately, they don’t want to visit Dad. At bedtime, Herbie says he stayed home alone at Dad’s, he cannot play w/any toys. Dad tells Christina Mom puts toys in Lars’s bottom & the kids don’t tell the truth (&C said I’m a bad Mom) that Lars tickled Herbie’s crotch & pulled is pants down, that Dad said he hates Herbie & called him stupid. Lars wets his bed several times tonight.

October 17, 2000—Both kids demonstrate the tiny piece of tomato Herbie was given to eat at Dad’s.

October 18, 2000—Lars afraid to go to the bathroom alone, afraid to go upstairs to get a toy.

October 23, 2000—Both kids said Dad tickled their crotches & put his hand inside Lars’s pants w/his other hand over Lars’s mouth. When Herbie tried to stop him, Dad punched him. Herbie said Dad played with his wiener & said he was playing the piano. Dad made him do thousands, hundreds, nineties, eighties multiplication & hit his hand hard when Herbie made a mistake. Dad told Herbie he would beat him up if he told him off again. Dad told Herbie not to tell Mom or he would beat him up double.

October 26, 2000—Herbie said he does all the laundry at Dad’s & when he hits the wrong buttons, Dad punches him hard.

November 7, 2000—Lars said his bottom hurts because Dad puts his nails in Lars’s bottom & stuck his nose in Lars’s bottom & a toy. Herbie said Dad made him smell his poopl

November 8—Lars told me he told Dr. Copeland that Dad put his hand in Lars’s bottom & got poop on it and was mad at Lars. Both said that Dad said he would get them at night if they told on him. That Dad would put Herbie’s foot through the window glass & leave Herbie alone w/o bandaid. At dark, Lars followed me all around and held onlto my sweater. He needs reassurinance all the time: what are we doing? do we eat now? Cries if he doesn’t have right cup. Upset if his hair is sticking up a bit. Worries about changing his clothes during the day, Questions me all the time. Anxious.

November 13, 2000—Herbie had a terrible nightmare, screaming that a wolf (transformer) was eating him.

November 14, 2000—Dad motioned Herbie to come outside, made him take his clothes off & tickled him repeatedly. Herbie asked him to stop but he didn’t. Inside he ticked more & gave him a glass of ice water to drink. Lars said in Florida, Dad put tissue paper over his eyes, tying it and pug something in his bottom.

November 19, 2000—Herbie said at Dad’s Lars went in Herbie’s bed again & ticked his crotch. Lars told me his bottom hurt & it looked blistered w/red marks inside. Lars said he tells Dad to stop but he doesn’t. Lars wet Dad’s bed & was hit.

November 27, 2000—Lars said that at night while Herbie was asleep, Dad broke off the chain of Herbie’s mezuzah & took it. Lars said he doesn’t want to visit Dad anymore because he puts toys in his bottom. Herbie said Dad does that to him, too. 20 times, he counted. Dad uses a wolf transformer. Herbie stays alone at Dad’s & Dad unplugs the phones.

November 29, 2000—Lars said Anders put his head under Dad’s tummy (he gestured where) and dad said no, no and “did what Dad dows to us.” Anders showed Dad it was bad.

December 10, 2000—Lars told me he wanted a bath when he got hime because Dad put a toy in his bottom. He said in the middle of the night, Dad took him to the bathroom, tickled his crotch & put a toy in his bottom. Herbie said Dad tickled his crotch when he played the violin. Herbie described how Dad takes his arm, starts laughing, whispers funny & takes him to his room & says, “this toy wants to sleep in there” when he puts a toy in.

December 12, 2000—Lars said Dad made him take all his clothes off & go up to the private room. He sad Dad put a toy in his anus and tickled his peepee. Lars asked me to stay w/him when he was on the toilet. Then he asked me to wipe him. I saw a red ring around the anus. I called John & hee saw it too. When Lars sat down in his bath, I saw a cloud of red puff up in the water & when he got out, the ring was gone.

December 29, 2000—Lars said Dad put his hand in his bottom & that his bottom hurt and his peepee hurt when he pees. Herbie said he punched Dad’s face when Dad put a toy in his bottom and a lens came out of Dad’s glasses and Dad’s nose was bleeding.

December 30, 2000—Lars said Dad is meaner to me than Herbie because dad puts his mouth on my peepee every time he pugs a toy in my bottom. There are 3 drawers with toys. The ones we hate the most are the ones Dad calls good toys & he puts them in our bottoms, a small brontosaurus (Lars) & a small worlf transformer (Herbie). Herbie doesn’t like the transformer because it speaks mean like Dad “hit.” “destroy the world. When you squeeze it, it sticks its tongue out. Also a brachiosaurus goes in Lars’ bottom. In the “bad” drawer are the toys we like to play with that Dad tries to break. Dad takes Lars & uses him as a punching bag.  (Herbie gets up and punches in front of him.) Lars said it hurts. Every night Dad takes Lars to the bathroom. Dad showed a video with a magician who makes kids appear naked and with towels around them. Dad took pictures of us with no clothes on and in a pirate costume.

December 31, 2000—At bedtime, Lars says it’s taking too long to stop the visits.

January 1, 2001—At bedtime, Lars says its taking super long to stop the visits. When Lars goes to bed, Herbie must go to the basement & draw nice pictures of Dad (with hair) & of Miss Ward & bad pictures of Aunti Margie & Uncle John. Then he is to put Lars to sleep. He waves a toy back & forth. Said he doesn’t know how. Dad always hits me because I can’t. Lars dances with my weiner.

January 10, 2001—Herbie said Dad but a scissors in his bottom. Lars showed how Dad drums on his penis with his fingers. Dad took more pictures of them w/o clothes. Dad took his clothes off. Dad pointed a gun at Herbie.

January 13, 2001—Herbie told me Dad smokes cigarettes.

January 14, 2001—Lars told me the worst thing is when Dad puts his hands in his bottom because his nails are sharp & they hurt. Dad throws shoes at them at nite. Herbie is…

January 16, 2001—Lars told me Dad put a toy in his bottom and touched his peepee.

January 17, 2000—At Dad’s in the middle of the night, Dad took Lars to the basement with a torch and took Lars’s bottoms off & put each leg in one leg of a pair of underpants, then put pajama bottoms back on & took pictures of him. Herbie watched. Dad put a tiny toy, like a lego, in both their bottoms and squeezed their penises. Herbie did not get dinner.

January 19, 2001—Herbie said Dad said if he doesn’t get more money, he’s going to hurt them & kill them.

January 21, 2001—Message that if I called back right away I could have input whether a plastic surgeon should sew up Lars’s face which needed stitches.

January 22, 2001—On phone when I called I asked Herbie if Lars hurt his head by falling. Herbie said no, Mom.

January 25, 2001—Herbie is afraid Dad will kill his toy dog. Dad made Herbie eat oranges which he doesn’t like & Lars eat burned apple. Herbie showed me how Dad pushed Lars with both his hands on Lars’s shoulder & Lars hit his head on the radio & fell to the ground & was bleeding. Herbie helped him up & Dad got mad at him.

January 30, 2001—Lars told me Dad hurt Herbie’s bottom more than his. Herbie says when he told Dad to stop, he did it more. Herbie’s teacher told me Herbie was eating dirt on the playground.

February 1, 2001—Lars told me Dad put underwear on his head and took pictures of him.

February 11, 2001—Lars showed me where Arlen bites his peepee & I saw tiny dark dots.

February 15, 2001—Timen’s mother told me Herbie did not have lunch some days.

July 7, 2001—On way to school Lars playing a game w/a male figure toy, put his nose to the toy’s rear and said, “I smell your butt & it smells good.” He told me Dad likes to smell theirs. Lars said Dad puts his mouth on Lars’s peepee every morning.

July 13, 2001—Lars told me dad sucks his peepee.

July 16, 2001—Herbie saw Dr. Dugan at 8:30 a.m. & we left @ 9:30. She diagnosed candida. The children said that when I dropped the off Monday, A[rlen] watched me drive away through the window, then took Herbie to his room and “tickled his penis w/his chin.” Then he sent Herbie out, took Lars in his room and closed the door and punched his bottom while he put his mouth on his pee-pee.

Herbie complained that Dr. Fox asks him what bad things Mom does. When Herbie says it’s not Mom who does bad things, she’s good. It’s Dad who does the bad things. Fox tells him that’s not true.

Lars said Anders tries to push dad away when dad puts his mouth on Lars’s peepee, but Dad still doesn’t stop.

Lars told me that Dad holds his legs so he can’t get away. Herbie said dad pushes him down on the bed or chases him until he catches him and holds his legs down while he’s lying on the bed & tickles his weiner with his chin. It stings.

August 3, 2001—When A[rlen] called, Lars asked “why do you touch my private parts when I’m in the bath?”

August 8, 2001—I noticed Lars’s right eyelid was red and puffy and he has been complaining about his eye since he came back. Today he told me that dad hit him in the eye with a shoe.

Herbie showed how Dad punches his stomach. Herbie said Dad punches him there because it doesn’t show bruises there (he said he’s looked at his stomach and seen that it doesn’t show bruises.)) The children both said tha A[rlen] abuses them twice a day.

August 19, 2001—Lars said to Arlen on phone “my pee-pee itches. Why do you put your mouth on my pee-pee?” A[rlen] got off the phone shortly after that.

August 22, 2001—Watching credits of video w/lively music, Lars jumps off my lap and, in front of the TV starts dancing. Then he takes his shirt of & twirls it before throwing it. He puts his thumbs in the waistband of his pants before I stop hem. He tells me he dances like this in dim light in the basement of the new house for Dad & Anders to soft music. Dad pugs his peepee in Lars’s mouth & white stuff came out & I cleaned it off the floor. It wasn’t pee because that is green.

August 4, 2001—On supervised visit, Lars hugged little stuffed animal I gave him and said, “I’ll protect you from dad.”

August 5, 2001—On phone, Lars kept laughing inappropriately and I asked him why. He said Dad was showing him a picture of a girl with a weiner sticking out.

Here ends my copy of Elsa’s journal about the abuse of her children.

 

 

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

I'm copying this letter from one of the blogs done by the lady in the United States who first gave me the idea of researching and writing about the story of Elsa Newman of Maryland, now in the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women at Jessup. I state unequivocally that Newman is innocent and her sons are in the hands of a pedophile, child-abusing father whose pictures I have already posted here.

Well--maybe I should put in another one, just as a reminder:

Feel free to keep him in mind as you read this letter. As Nathan said to David of the Jewish Scriptures: "Thou art the man!"

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. JILL SCHARFF:

Please allow me to introduce myself as a rather obnoxious-style little, old lady in tennis shoes--bearing in mind, of course that being such has nothing to do with being little (I am more than plump) or old (although I am nearing seventy) or a lady (decidedly not--I prefer chopping wood to drinking tea or whatever it is that ladies do to earn that title) or wearing tennis shoes. It is a state of mind. And my state of mind at present is occupied with the anguish of Elsa Newman and her children.

My extreme dismay at this moment is based on my having just discovered that there  is, in fact, available evidence establishing disclosures made by Elsa’s sons that their father was sexually abusing them. This evidence lies in the records of Dr. Jill Scharff of Chevy Chase, Maryland, the treating psychiatrist who spent literally hours and hours with the two boys.

First, as I understand it, Dr. Scharff did, at one point, report this abuse, as is required by law. What happened to that report, I do not know. I do believe that in filing the report, Dr. Scharff has already waived any right to confidentiality of material about her treatment of the boys.

Second, I understand as well , that Dr. Scharff’s records were, for a time, sealed by the guardian ad litum in the child custody case between Elsa Newman and her estranged husband, Arlen Slobodow, now of Tampa, Florida, and now holding physical custody of the children.

Third, I understand that that fact is no longer of any concern—that the records are no longer sealed.  So Elsa Newman is in prison and her sons are in the hands of a man who Dr. Scharff apparently knows is abusing them sexually and physically, mentally and emotionally. They have been separated from their mother, to their inestimable detriment.

Soooo…there is a doctor in the field of psychiatry who could establish this mother’s contention that her children’s father  is a sexual predator whose prey is his own sons. That doctor is Dr. Jill Scharff, who has declined to open her records,  bring this information to light and reveal Arlen Slobodow for what he is.

Why?

I, personally, have no way of proving this sexual abuse. The only thing I can do is write. And write. And write. And tell this story of unjust imprisonment of a mother—and the unspeakable abuses her sons have revealed about their father. And tell it again. And then again.

Dr. Scharff, on the other hand, apparently has the solution to the problem in her records—and thus in her own hands. Me? I’m nothing but a little, old lady and a retired schoolteacher. But I do not understand allowing these children to suffer sexual molestation literally for years at the hands of a father who has convinced the world that he is Mr. Nice Guy.

Dr. Scharff, on the other hand is not in the helpless position in which I find myself. She has the ability to reveal and demonstrate that the Slobodow children’s mother is not and never has been lying about the nature of her ex-husband and his unnatural acts of repeated and continued child sexual abuse. Perhaps Dr. Scharff even has learned from the children about film Arlen Slobodow has taken, showing his sons, running naked about the house, looking for the clothes he hid from them. Perhaps she has information about photographs the boys say Slobodow took of his younger son, standing with one leg in his pajama bottoms and one leg out—and his dirty underwear on his head. Only G-d knows what Dr. Jill Scharff has learned.

So, what is this psychiatrist afraid of? What keeps her eyes closed to the abuse of these children--and her records unopened? What has allowed her to ignore what she knows?

This story so badly needs to be told. Arlen Slobodow needs to be held accountable for the unspeakable acts of sexual and other abuse these children have disclosed. I have no evidence. Dr. Scharff does. I pray--and I would beg, if I thought it would serve any purpose--that she will let the world know what this man is and how he has savaged his sons, sexually, as well as in other ways.

The two boys who pleaded with their mother, “Stop Dad!  Make him stop! Stop Dad!”—did those two little boys ask Dr. Scharff the same?

Please, Dr. Scharff: Are you willing--are you able??--to bring that evidence out into the open in order to spare these children further suffering?

Sincerely,

 Aine O’Brocken

Writing on behalf of Elsa Newman , Herbert Slobodow and Lars Slobodow

Following is a list of websites which I use to write about this mother and her children:

 

 

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

 

*THIS IS A REALLY NICE STORY…ABOUT A REALLY NICE POLICE OFFICER…AND A REALLY NICE INTERROGATION OF SOME REALLY NICE LITTLE BOYS.

(And just in case you miss my “nice” sarcasm? Let me put it into different words.)

 THIS IS A HORRIFYING TALE…ABOUT A DETERMINED, BUT TOTALLY INCOMPASSIONATE POLICE OFFICER WHO FAR OVERSTEPPED ALL KINDS OF BOUNDARIES WHEN SHE BRUTALLY INTERROGATED ELSA NEWMAN’S TWO LITTLE BOYS.

 As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I believe Elsa Newman is because of this horrendous interrogation of her two children by police officers. Let me say here, quite plainly, that as an attorney who believed the American system of justice was sure to help her and her two sons, Elsa was far more than a little naïve. She was a lot naïve.

So when Que Edwina Wallace and a partner strongly suggested that Elsa Newman bring her two sons in for questioning, Elsa obliged, sure that cooperation with authorities would work to the advantage of herself and her sons. The disclosures of the boys were to be heard at last. As I understand the series of events, Que Edwina Wallace took the two little boys aside into some sort of interrogation room. Elsa was informed that she would wait for them elsewhere.

While Newman waited for her sons in this place apart from the interrogation room, the boys were grilled—by Que Edwina Wallace, as I understand it—literally for hours, about their disclosures of sexual abuse. They had imparted the details of this sexual abuse to their mother. They had stated clearly that their father was the abuser. They were held in that room for so long that Newman’s younger son—too frightened to ask permission to use a bathroom—emptied his bowels into his underwear. Shortly after that, he was apparently escorted to a different room to wait for his mother. Probably smelled bad enough that the interrogating officer didn’t want to put up with the odor.

After many hours—I believe it was over six hours—the interrogating police officer, this same Que Edwina Wallace, emerged, triumphant and absolutely beaming, from the interrogation room, followed by Newman’s older son, who appeared so weary that a simple thing like walking was almost beyond him. This was Herbie. Herbie  had gone completely white in the face.

“Herbie,” announced Que Edwina Wallace, smiling, “has made a disclosure.”  Newman stared at her, puzzled, unable to understand why this officer of the law that Elsa so trusted… wondered why she was so happy if the boy had, indeed, made a disclosure of abuse. “Tell her,” said Que Edwina Wallace  to Herbie.

White-faced, obviously anguished, the boy blurted, “I made it all up, Mom,” and hung his head.

Elsa was left to claim her younger son, clean him up as best she could in a restroom, take the two boys home and try to restore some degree of their faith in themselves and what they knew to be true.

And Que Edwina Wallace? Whoever had instructed her to see to it that the boys sucked back their disclosures and began denying…whoever that was must have been very pleased with Que Edwina Wallace. Very pleased indeed.

SO ENDS THIS NOT-NICE-AT-ALL STORY ABOUT A NOT-NICE-AT-ALL POLICE OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED A NOT-NICE-AT-ALL BRUTAL INTERROGATION OF TWO VERY NICE LITTLE BOYS WHO TRIED THEIR BEST TO MAINTAIN THE HONESTY AND INTEGRITY OF THEIR DISCLOSURES—AND WHO FAILED BECAUSE ONE QUE EDWINA WALLACE APPARENTLY REFUSED TO ALLOW THEM TO LEAVE THE ROOM UNTIL THEY HAD RECANTED.

QUE EDWINA WALLACE WOULD HAVE DONE THE INQUISITION PROUD!

*My thanks to the lady in America who told part of this story. I borrowed some of her words, added some things she didn't know when she told it, and thus you have the combined effort here of The Wiz--and the "little, old lady" I borrowed the rest of the story from.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

 

Just a few words about the slides shown by Katherine Winfree during the prosecution case in Elsa Newman’s first trial. There was, of course, the little shoes and socks beside the bed, silent testimony to what had happened to the naked little boy who slept there beside his nearly-naked father.

What else was in those slides in addition to the shoes? Was that “set” or small collection of items in the room—the ones that looked like a small collection of sex toys in a bag—were they a small collection of sex toys in a bag?

Or is that my imagination?

And if they were sex toys, what were the damn things doing in a room where a father was sleeping in bed with his younger son, when the son was nude and the father nude from the waist down???

Speak up, Katherine Winfree. Does your conscience bother you at all? Do you have one?

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

 

 

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

More stories here like the story of Elsa Newman. If you care about stopping people who abuse children? Read it...please.

http://www.protectiveparents.com/cases.html 

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

Here, as best I can reproduce it, is a letter from Joan Pitkin, a former delegate in the state of Maryland. You will note that Pitkin clearly believes that Elsa Newman is innocent, in fact that Newman is a “heroine” for her courageous attempts to save her children from abuse at the hands of their father. This courage and these attempts were, in fact, part and parcel of the official decision to put Newman in prison. Below is the reproduction of Pitkin’s letter in its entirety.

 

Joan B. Pitkin

12005 Long Ridge Lane

Bowie, MD 20715

 

Warren Donahue

Montgomery County Circuit Court

50 Maryland Avenue

Rockville, MD 20850

November 13, 2005

Dear Judge Donahue:

Elsa Newman is a heroine in my book. She is a heroine in one of the most publicized child custody cases in Maryland- and because her “trial” in the media began before she ever set foot in a courtroom she was vilified before she could ever present her evidence. She is emblematic of numerous court cases throughout the country in the way the constitutional rights of the protective parents of victims of child abuse are being violated.

I have known Elsa Newman for more than four years. In my capacity as an elected representative to the Maryland General Assembly I had become known in Maryland as an advocate for the reform of the Family Law Court system and particularly identified with legislative initiatives on behalf of the victims of domestic violence and children who were victims of abuse. Because of the widespread interest in these reform efforts we started a statewide support group for protective parents, “Child Safe”, to share information, develop legislative and other strategies and to build coalitions across Maryland. The group met regularly in my legislative district.

Elsa, who helped form the group, was totally focused during those meetings on crafting legislation to reform the system: the courts, the court appointed personnel, law guardians, who often abuse their roles with impunity, visitation supervision agencies, and so-called mental health “experts” who make custody decisions in biased and unscientific ways, the public safety and social service agencies, all of who are too often failing to protect the very children they are mandated to protect. The family courts were not only failing these children, they were punishing the very parents who were making good faith reports of child sexual abuse, most often by their fathers. Adding to that injustice, too often these children were cut off from the parent whose only crime was in caring about their welfare.

While we catalogued the injustices visited on these many parents (mostly mothers, but some fathers, too) who came to our meetings, we were preparing for the upcoming Session of the General Assembly where our package of bills would be presented to the legislature. As an officer of the court, herself, Elsa was always determined to work within the system, as she often reminded us. As I testified in your courtroom in Frederick County, Elsa was assisting me in my role as a legislator in 2000 and 2001 through drafting the bills we were planning to present that hopefully would address some of these aforementioned injustices.

Indeed, Elsa had been invited by a number of statewide advocacy groups to speak before their statewide conventions and was scheduled, as I testified in your courtroom, to present our legislative package in mid-January of 2001, to the Legislative Agenda for Maryland Women annual meeting, sponsored by the Maryland Commission for Women held in Annapolis. Additionally, Elsa was scheduled to speak to the Maryland Coalition of Victims of Domestic Violence, later on in the session, at the State Capitol. There was absolutely no indication that she would ever have jeopardized all our legislative work, or risked losing these singular opportunities for us to garner important support to make a real change to the flawed family law system.

Elsa Newman is an amazing tower of strength. While she has been serving time in MCIW these last three years, she has channeled her disappointment and hurt in her own situation toward helping fellow inmates by using her legal background. To have endured the limitation of contact with her two sons during their developmentally critical years is punishment in the extreme.

What a horrendous lesson her sons have had to learn, that their mother, whom they adore, by trying to protect them, was turned on by the system making her, the non-abusive parent, the villain. This was done in order to justify giving custody to the alleged abuser. To deprive them of her love and devotion during these critical years is an unthinkable crime that all concerned will one day [have] to answer for.

Because the numerous reports of documented evidence of the abuse of Elsa’s sons has NEVER been allowed in any court dealing with this case, the jury in your court NEVER knew the opinions of many professionals who stated that they believed Lars and Herbie’s disclosures that they were being molested by their father. The truth of those allegations lies in the testimony of those professionals who were excluded from the trials. Even Stephen Friedman, the attorney who the Court of Appeals held had violated the attorney-client privilege with Elsa, also stated he believed their father was molesting the boys. That part of his statement was never heard in court. The most egregious exclusion was that of the children’s treating psychiatrist who made the original report of the boys’ abuse.

The jury in your courtroom therefore was presented with a very skewed perspective of the case, as the prosecutor was allowed to accuse Margery Landry of knowing there was no evidence of child abuse, when there was never evidence to that….You and the previous judge hearing the case did not allow the evidence that the allegations of sexual abuse were true into the record. The prosecutor was therefore able to argue that Margery Landry went to Arlen Slobodow’s house with the sole intention of murdering him. Indeed the jury wasn’t even allowed to know that Margery Landry never pleaded guilty to the charge of murder or to the conspiracy [charge] (which Margery denied throughout hers and Elsa’s trials) and is serving time in jail for the lesser charges by agreement with the prosecution.

If the jury had known the facts as we have heard them, they would have returned a different verdict, I believe.

I urge you, Judge Donahue, on Elsa’s behalf, but even more on behalf of her two young sons who still love and miss her, to show compassion in her sentencing. Her boys deserve the chance to have meaningful contact with their loving mother. Please don’t keep the mother they still love, from them another day.

Yours truly,

Signed: Joan Pitkin

Joan B. Pitkin

Former State Delegate

 I cannot resist pointing out to you, in case you skimmed rapidly and failed to notice, this fact: Pitkin clearly states that evidence about the father's sexual abuse was excluded from the case when Elsa Newman went to trial, with Katherine Winfree as lead prosecutor.

This same prosecutor, Katherine Winfree, would later write to child abuse investigators in the state of Florida and falsely state that no Maryland investigations showed any sign of child abuse. This same prosecutor was permitted to prosecute the case of Elsa Newman and show slides which actually contained evidence of child abuse--remember that small bag of sex toys in one slide and the little shoes and socks by the bed in another?--while at the same time, Newman was not permitted to demonstrate the truth of child sexual abuse accusations.

The result? Well, the innocent mother went to prison; the father/child molester was given physical custody of the children, of course. What else would you expect from a court which denies access to evidence which might have helped the defense.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

Research is a wonderful process. I come across all kind of things--both expected and unexpected. Today I believe I'll deal with one of the unexpected things, namely a letter from Margery Landry. Landry is the woman with whom Elsa Newman supposedly conspired, in a conspiracy that did not exist. Landry was the woman who was physically present at what the prosecution called a "murder attempt," but which was actually an accidental shooting during a struggle for the gun that Landry had carried when she broke into Arlen Slobodow's house and found him nearly nude in bed with a child that was completely nude.

Here is the text of the letter, exactly as it was hand-written by Margery Landry. Any errors in spelling or other errors are mine. I did find some parts of the letter a bit difficult to read:

Pataxent Institution

P.O. Box 700

Jessup MD 20796

November 6, 2005

The Honorable D. Warren Donohue

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Re: State v Elsa Newman/Sentencing

Your Honor:

I am respectfully submitting the following letter for your consideration in your sentencing of Elsa Newman. I am sending it ghrough the defense attorneys to ensure that it reaches Your Honor, but I did not discuss the letter with them.

I have consistently maintained that I did not conspire with Elsa Newman to kill Arlen Slobodow, even when it might have been to my advantage in mitigating my own sentence to testify otherwise. In my criminal case, the State entered a nolle prosequi to the conspiracy and attempted murder charges while I pled guilty to first degree assault and the other serious but lesser charges. I would not have pled guilty to conspiracy and attempted murder, regardless of any sentence agreement, and I would have gone to trial with my own attorneys had those two charges not been nolle prossed.

In March 2005, the State's Attorney's office again contacted my former attorneys regarding my testifying for the prosecution in Elsa's new trial. I told Ms. Winfree and Mr. Degonia that I would not testify that there was a murder conspiracy (because there was not one) even though it was my understanding that such testimony would put me in a favorable position to obtain the State's assistance in sentence relief for myself.

I realize, of course, that the jury did not find my October 3 and 5 testimony credible. I know this is not a venue for second-guessing the jury's or Your Honor's assessment of my testimony. However, I think that one reason, which may be relevant to Your Honor's sentencing, was the nature of my relationship with Elsa.

I believe that this relationship was a "co-dependent" relationship in which, briefly, a person assumes responsibility for another's emotional well-being, becomes excessively absorbed in someone else's problems, and tries obsessively to act as a 'care-taker' and 'rescuer.' I disregarded my own best interests and judgment, [sometimes] at Elsa's own initiative and direction, sometimes on my own, to help Elsa achieve her goals, advance her agenda, and resolve her problems. I did this to extremes when I believed that Elsa--and, more importantly, her children--were in a genuine crisis that dragged on and worsened over two years. When Elsa's lawyer told the Circuit Court judges in September 2001 that he believed she would hire a "hit-man" to kill her husband, I knew that she had lost custody of those children, unless the Court had evidence that confirmed my own strong belief that the children's father was abusing them. When the proper authorities failed to find or look for evidence, I made the terrible and disasterous mistake of trying to take matters into my own hands.

I am now trying to understand and resolve these issues in therapy. However, I never crossed the line of believing that I should kill someone, not could anyone, including Elsa, ever have convinced or manipulated me to believe this.

I have had no contact with Elsa for the past two plus years, and very little contact the preceding year and a half, and we have no mutual friends or acquaintances. I am paying a high price for my actions, with my incarceration, the loss of my marriage, career, financial security, friends, and reputation; and my guilt and remorse. If anyone shared responsibility for what I did, I would want that person to share the consequences. However, I know that I am solely responsible for my actions.

Respectfully,

Margery Landry

That's it. That's what Margery Landry wrote to the judge who was about to sentence Elsa Newman. I find it believable, even though the judge apparently did not and in fact disregarded the letter and went about sentencing Elsa Newman to a prison term she did not deserve.

So much for justice.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

Let your imagination go a little here. You are an investigator for an organization designed to protect children. You have been asked to investigate the case of Herbie and Lars Slobodow , who reside with their father in the state of Florida in the United States. They live in the Tampa, Florida area. The reason for this request for an investigation is that the two boys have in the past revealed sexual abuse by their father. Now someone unidentified has made a report in Florida, in Hillsborough County, where resides the man I accuse, and in his custody are his sons.

Well, da-amn! A thing like that cannot go uninvestigated, now can it? So you schedule a fact-finding visit. Of course you do!

In fact, you arrange to go to the very home where these children live with the father they have accused of abuse. Rather apologetically, you will explain to this father than a complaint has been received; he and his sons are to be investigated and assessed.

On 24 March, 2006, at 5:35 p.m., you arrive at the residence. You are accompanied by a Deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, one Deputy LaValee, who will write his own report of the assessment to accompany your report of the assessment.

Lars arrives about the same time you do, home from an excursion to Adventure Island with friends. Herbert is at a friend’s house for a sleepover, but the father agrees to pick him up and bring him home for an interview about the sexual abuse allegations.

The father, whom you call “Arlen,” states that he and his sons have lived in Florida for about three years. He likewise states that they previously lived in Maryland and Washington D.C. The father tells you that the biological mother of the boys is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring to commit murder against him. [YOU, OF COURSE, HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THERE WAS NO MURDER ATTEMPT, BUT AN ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING WHICH OCCURRED DURING A SCUFFLE FOR THE GUN. NOR DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT AT MERE MOMENTS BEFORE THIS ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING, THIS MAN WAS NAKED IN BED WITH A NAKED FIVE-YEAR-OLD SON.]

The father further states that the biological mother “had her best friend try to kill him in front of his children" in 2002. [YOU, OF COURSE, HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THE SO-CALLED BEST FRIEND OF HIS WIFE, WHOM HE ACCUSES OF TRYING TO KILL HIM WAS ACTUALLY A FRIEND OF THE FAMILY. SHE HAD ENTERED HIS HOUSE TO SEARCH FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED THE DISCLOSURES OF THE BOYS WHEN THEY TOLD OF THEIR FATHER’S SEXUAL ABUSE. NOR DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT THE CHILDREN’S MOTHER HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENT UNTIL AFTER IT WAS ALL OVER. FURTHER, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THE WOMAN WITH THE GUN, MARGERY LANDRY, WAS NOT JUST A FRIEND OF THE MOTHER AND A FAMILY FRIEND—BUT A  FRIEND OF ARLEN SLOBODOW AS WELL. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING ABOUT THE $20,000 SLOBODOW HAD BORROWED FROM LANDRY—AND NEVER REPAID.]

More from Arlen Slobodow: He informs you that reports of sexual abuse began only after divorce proceedings and a custody battle began. Those out-of-state abuse reports, he says, are unfounded. [YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THESE REPORTS HAD BEEN ONGOING, FROM THE TIME THE BOYS MADE THEIR EARLIEST DISCLOSURES—DURING A SEPARATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE, BUT BEFORE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AND THE CUSTODY BATTLE. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT WHEN ARLEN SLOBODOW SAYS ABUSE REPORTS OUT-OF-STATE WERE UNFOUNDED, HE IS LYING TO YOU—ACCORDING TO A VARIETY OF MEDICAL PEOPLE, SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD OF CHILD ABUSE, AND THE TREATING PSYCHIATRIST FOR THE TWO BOYS.]

Next Arlen Slobodow informs you that he has no criminal record history. [AGAIN, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HE IS LYING. HE WAS THREE DIFFERENT TIMES CHARGED WITH ASSAULT FOR VIOLATING A PROTECTIVE ORDER HELD BY HIS THEN-WIFE.]

Slobodow tells you that he has full custody of the boys. [I’M GETTING TIRED OF WRITING “YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING”—BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN TIME TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH ON THESE ISSUES. SLOBODOW DOES NOT HAVE FULL CUSTODY; HE HAS SHARED CUSTODY. NEWMAN, EVEN IN HER PRISON CELL, RETAINS A SHARE IN THE CUSTODY.]

During your interview with Slobodow, he takes time out to call the G.A.L. attorney in Maryland, Alan Town. Town then requests to speak to you. You advise him that a report of abuse has been received in Florida and that you and your department are “well aware” of previous on-going history with the family. You advise Alan Town that he  will be contacted at a later date as a collateral. [YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MR. TOWN, DESPITE HIS OFFICIAL POSITION AS AN ATTORNEY ASSIGNED TO LOOK OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THESE TWO CHILDREN, HAS BEEN, IN FACT, VERY FRIENDLY WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION, ARLEN SLOBODOW…THAT TOWN AND SLOBODOW HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, SEATED TOGETHER IN FRIENDLY, LAUGHING CONVERSATION AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, TIMES AT WHICH SUCH CONVERSATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE, SINCE THE G.A.L. SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE CHILDREN, RATHER THAN ON MAKING A FRIEND OF ONE OF THE PARENTS. YOU ALSO HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THIS G.A.L. BILLED NEWMAN FOR COUNTLESS HOURS THAT HE NEVER SPENT WITH HER.]

So…having no way of knowing these things, you take it all at face value and begin your interviews with the children. Your written report makes no mention of the father’s whereabouts at this time, so one may assume you allow him to remain in the room.

So you begin: Lars says that he is 10 years old and that he lives with his brother, father, two geckos and one hamster. He takes care of the hamster and his older brother takes care of the two geckos. [Once again, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THESE TINY CREATURES ARE ABOUT TO FACE DEATH BY “SQUISHING.”]

You ask about “good touch and bad touch” because you are, after all, investigating allegations of sexual abuse. Lars tells you, oh, no…there has been no type of “bad touch” by his father or anyone else. [YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THIS LAD HAS PREVIOUSLY REVEALED ANAL PENETRATION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE, INCLUDING HIS FATHER BITING HIS PENIS. YOU ALSO HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT HE IS TERRIFIED OF HIS FATHER AND WILL SAY VIRTUALLY ANYTHING HE THINKS HIS FATHER WANTS SAID.]

Lars tells you that he likes Florida a lot. He tells you that the weather isn’t as cold as it is in Maryland. He states that he likes playing on the computer, playing with his hamster or going swimming in his pool. He adds that he has a lot of friends who come over to his house or he goes to their house. He says he has family, like his paternal grandparents who live in Florida and come to visit them. [HE DOES NOT MENTION HIS MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, WHO ALSO LIVES CLOSE, BUT IS NOT PERMITTED TO SEE OR TALK TO THE BOYS.]

You ask about discipline. Lars replies sweetly, because this is, after all, one sweet little boy, that his father will tell him to go to his room for a while. Then he [the father] will come in his room and talk to him about why whatever he did was wrong. Same for his brother. You note that Lars presented as an articulate white male with no visible marks of abuse. [DUH! YOU SURELY UNDERSTAND THAT MARKS OF SEXUAL ABUSE ARE, AS A RULE, HIDDEN BY CLOTHING. SURELY YOU DID NOT PERMIT YOURSELF AN EXAMINATION OF PENIS OR ANUS, WHICH ARE TWO OF THE PRIMARY SITES THE CHILDREN HAVE REFERRED TO IN DISCLOSING ABUSE.]

You note, further, that the child was polite and answered all your questions. You note that his facial expressions made an impression on you that he has been through this type of questioning numerous times. [YOU DO NOT, HOWEVER, STATE THE OTHER POSSIBILITY, NAMELY THAT THE CHILD IS WELL COACHED ON HOW TO ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS AND MAINTAINS  LITTLE EXPRESSION FOR FEAR OF GIVING AWAY THE TRUTH.]

You have completed your simple assessment of Lars, an assessment which is probably also inefficient because of information you lack or information you fail to verify. You move on to the older boy, Herbert, who is usually called Herbie. Herbie tells you that he is 12 years old and in 7^th grade at Williams Middle School. He says he lives with his father, one brother, 3 geckos and one hamster. He says he takes care of all the geckos. You establish his understanding of good and bad touch [YOU DO NOT SEEM TO PERCEIVE THIS KIND OF QUESTIONING AS UNSOPHISTICATED AND LACKING IN APPROPRIATENESS FOR A BOY OF TWELVE WHO IS EXCEPTIONALLY INTELLIGENT.] and you apply these understandings to the allegations that have been made. The boy denies any type of bad touch by father or anyone else. The child states all this must be connected to his mother who is “kinda weird.” He stated he has asked his mother in the past why she does these types of things, but she never answered him. Herbie tells you that his mother has accused his father of all kinds of things that the father has not done. Herbie states that he likes living in Florida because it isn’t cold. [YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT HERBIE LOVED OUTDOOR COLD-WEATHER SPORTS, BOTH ICE SKATING AND SKIING.]

Herbie informs you that he has a lot of friends that he spends time with either when he goes to their house or they come to his house. He states that his grandparents who live in Florida come to visit and spend time with them. [AGAIN, NO MENTION OF HIS MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER. AND IT DOES NOT SEEM TO STRIKE YOU THAT THE WORDS FROM THE MOUTH OF THIS OLDER SON BEGIN TO SOUND ALMOST LIKE PARROTING OF THE WORDS SPOKEN PREVIOUSLY BY HIS YOUNGER BROTHER.] Herbie states that he likes to play video games, play tag outside with friends at night or use the computer.

The question of discipline now comes up with Herbie. Herbie says his father will make him go to his room for a while. Then the father will come back and talk to him about it. Herbie adds that if that does not work, then his father will ground him by not allowing use of video games for about a week or two. The same for his brother. [IS THIS TOO PERFECT TO BE REAL? FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, IT SOUNDS ALMOST WORD-FOR-WORD LIKE THE THINGS HIS YOUNGER BROTHER STATED. ARLEN SLOBODOW NEVER GETS ANGRY? YOU, OF COURSE, HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT HIS EX-WIFE HAD TO OBTAIN A PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST SLOBODOW BECAUSE HE HAD AN “ANGER PROBLEM” AND DID THINGS LIKE SHOVE HER DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT HE SHOVED ONE OF HIS SONS DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THERE WILL BE A BEATING FOR HERBIE IF HE STRAYS FROM THE PRESCRIBED SCRIPT.]

Herbie states that his brother “gets punished” more than he [Herbie] does. Herbie thinks this is because he is just younger. [AS AN EXPERT, SUPPOSEDLY TRAINED IN EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF SITUATIONS WHERE CHILD ABUSE HAS BEEN REPORTED, YOU SURELY KNOW THAT THIS STATEMENT IS A RED FLAG.]

Again you state that the boy’s facial expression made an impression on you that he has been through this type of questioning numerous times. [AND YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IN ITSELF IS A RED FLAG, WHICH SHOULD HAVE SIGNALED TO YOU THE POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE.]

You close your report with a note that the residence is a 4 bedroom/2 bath home with no visible hazardous conditions, adequate food [EXCEPT, OF COURSE, WHEN SLOBODOW DEPRIVES ONE OF THE CHILDREN OF FOOD, AS HE IS PRONE TO DO ON OCCASION. BUT THEN, YOU’D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT, WOULD YOU? AND YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF WHETHER THE HOME HAS ANY STAIRWAYS DOWN WHICH ARLEN SLOBODOW MIGHT THROW ONE OF HIS CHILDREN.] and furnishings. Both children have their own bedrooms.

[AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THIS FATHER, ARLEN SLOBODOW, HAS BEEN KNOWN TO SLEEP NAKED WITH ONE OF HIS SONS, A BAG OF SEX TOYS HANDILY BY THE BED AND A CHILD’S SHOES AND SOCKS ON THE FLOOR WHERE THEY WERE DISCARDED BEFORE THE CHILD, ALSO NAKED, CLIMBED INTO THE BED WITH HIS NAKED FATHER. SEXUAL ABUSE MUST BE HELL TO PROVE—ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON’T SEEM TO WANT TO PROVE IT AND LIMIT YOUR QUESTIONING TO THE SUBJECT “GOOD TOUCH AND BAD TOUCH” FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH AND OLD ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW.]

Ptooee!

[IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ON 27 MARCH, 2006, AT OR ABOUT 10:10 AM, FLORIDA TIME, “CPIS RCVD CALL FROM KAY WINFREE PROSECUTOR IN MONTGOMERY CTY AT 240-777-7392 STD SHE WANTS DCF TO KNOW THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANYTHING SUBSTANTIATED TO PRIOR CLAIMS OF SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ABUSE BY THE FATHER.”]

[WHAT ON EARTH WAS A PROSECUTOR FROM ANOTHER STATE DOING, CONTACTING CHILDREN’S SERVICES IN FLORIDA AND INTERFERING IN THEIR INVESTIGATION? IS THIS LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES? IS IT MORAL? IS IT ETHICAL? ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THAT PROSECUTOR’S HAVING SHOWN IN COURT CRIME SCENE SLIDES WHICH INCLUDED, ALONG WITH LOTS OF BLOOD, A BAG OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE SEX TOYS NEAR THE BED AND A SMALL PAIR OF SHOES AND SOCKS BESIDE THE BED. FURTHER, WE KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, THAT FATHER AND SON WERE NUDE IN THE BED WHERE THEY SLEPT TOGETHER. FURTHER, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ABUSE PROVIDED IN MARYLAND BY PHYSICIANS, PSYCHIATRISTS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE. BUT YOU HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING ANY OF THAT, DID YOU? NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE SO UNETHICAL AS TO WRITE AND INTERFERE IN YOUR INVESTIGATION.]

Ptooee!

I think it’s time for what that lady in the U.S. has neglected in her blogs, a look at child molesters and their behavior. I’ll save that for my next entry, however.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

Here are some more photos for your consideration. They are pictures of Arlen Slobodow, whom I have many reasons to believe is involved in sexual abuse of his own children, as well as physcial, mental and emotional abuse of those children.

You know, there is so much I have to tell you about this man. This is merely a start. Bear with me, and I will add more as I discover it through my research. Or read it on a variety of blogs I've found in the U.S., which deal with his pedophilia.

The U.S. blogs don't mention his name, of course, but they certainly tell a lot about him, and it is easy enough for anyone with internet experience to find out who the bloggers  are talking about.

Let's start with a few pictures, some recent, some from when his children were very young.

This one isn't so great, but it give you some idea of his build, and how he stands when he is relaxed and posing for a photo of his own.

This is one of the best pictures I have of Slobodow. It comes from the banner advertising on his company's webpage, Public Media Productions in Tampa, Florida.

The whole banner looks like this:

Why do I love the name of this man's company? PMP, which I shall, of course, pronounce pimp. Lovely. So appropriate for a man with his depth of passion for abusing children.

Slobodow seems to have a penchant for selecting the appropriate to apply to himself: another example is the headline on his MySpace blog--which is no blog at all, just space with a page and nothing much on it. The headline, however, seems significant, since it reads, "Headline: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness" Now if that doesn't sound like a perp...then I'm not the wizard of oz.

How about a couple more pictures of this guy? They were taken at a time when he was younger and a "family man," and hadn't yet started sporting a Van Dyke and a mustache.

 

So there you  have it. Arlen Slobodow of Tampa, Florida in the United States. He's a man against whom his children have revealed some of the most vile sexual abuse imaginable.

I hope someone who reads this will be a person in authority and able to do something about this horrible miscarriage of justice which sent Elsa Newman to prison for a conspiracy that never occurred--and placed her children in the hands of a man who abuses them in just about every way imaginable.

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

This is Herbie, and here is a photo from when he was quite young.

And here is another. Herbie appears younger in this one.

And here is one more:

 

Since Herbie was the one who provided descriptions of the photography and videos, he chose not to say whether or not he was in any of the pictures.

I do have, however, a copy of a disclosure made by these boys in which they stated that their father had hidden their clothes...then made them run around the house naked, looking for the clothes while he took video.

So if you see a photo of Herbie in anything or on any web page that might be even loosely interpreted as child pornography or explaoitation, please make contact and let me know.

I am posting an email address on the profile page of this blog. It is a safe address, and I can receive mail there without having to share that fact with much of anyone else.

In all honesty...if you find anything and tell me anything about these kids in pornographic photos or videos, I will not even download them, but takeyour information straight to the authorities.

That's the advantage of having an anonymous email address, on a site where all my information is likewise anonymous.

Give some help. I'll take care of the rest.

That's my business...

The Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

I have every reason to believe that these two boys may have been used to create both still photos and videos of child prornography.

This is Lars Slobodow, Elsa Newman's younger son:

Here is another picture of him...just a little older.

 

Here is still another picture, again, I believe, a little older yet.

 

I have descriptions of some of the photos that were taken of the boy. The photos were taken by his father. The descriptions were provided by his older brother, Herbie, who woke in the night, heard a noise, and slipped down to the basement, following his father and brother to try to figure out what they were doing.

1. The father, Arlen Slobodow, took a series of pictures of this boy, Lars, although I don't know his age at the time of the photo shoot, in which he was made to pose with one leg in his pajamas and one leg out. On his head he had his dirty underwear.

2. There were pictures of Lars dressed as a pirate.

3. And there was a video of Lars dressed like a British schoolboy and speaking with a British accent. The family had spent some time in the UK and their younger son had returned to the U.S. with an accent.

 

The Wizard of Oz knows injustice when he sees it, and he has no reluctance about revealing injustice and the perpetrators of injustice upon women and children.

if this were an online program of some sort, rather than a timeline, it would be called a "beta" version. The timeline works as it is. However, there is a lot more to add. This "beta" version is intended solely to provide you with the beginnings of an assessment of the case of one Elsa Newman, of the Baltimore area in the state of Maryland, in the United States of America.

Having offered my apologies for its shortcomings, I now offer the timeline itself. It records the story of an inexcusable injustice done to Elsa Newman and her children by a justice system she trusted implicitly. It contains information about her trial and imprisonment for a crime that did not even exist. It further contains brief mention of her fight to save her children from the hands of a pedophile custodial parent, their own father. I will go further into this matter of sexual abuse as I add to the timeline.

All that said, here is the timeline.

 

Timeline of events: Elsa Newman case, Baltimore area, state of Maryland, United States of America.

               

1990   Elsa newman married Arlen Slobodow. Overheard at the wedding: “Married a girl with lots of money. That’s what we like to see.” (comment from father of the groom)

*********************************************************************************

18 May, 1993  Herbie was born

**********************************************************************************

March, 1996  Lars was born

**********************************************************************************

Pre-1998 Doug Gansler was a federal prosecutor and in private practice.

Note: This information is included here, because Gansler was state’s attorney for Montgomery County at the time of Newman’s trial.

***********************************************************************************

1998   Gansler entered  the political scene in Montgomery County, Maryland; became State’s Attorney for the County.

*************************************************************************************

1999   Katherine Winfree became Montgomery County’s second-ranking prosecutor

************************************************************************************

December, 1999 Newman separated from Slobodow—began custody battle in family court

Newman obtained  a protective order against Slobodow for domestic violence. It was later renewed.

***********************************************************************************

May, 2000    Newman was assaulted by Arlen Slobodow, despite the protective order against him.

***********************************************************************************

28 December, 2000  Elsa Newman met with Sandra Ashley, an employee of Stephen Friedman, Newman’s lawyer.

After her conference with Newman at the steak house, Ashley emailed her employer, Stephen Friedman. The entire content of the email read thus:

---Original Message—

From:      Sandra K. Ashley

Sent:       Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:09 p.m.

To:          Stephen Friedman

Subject:  Elsa Newman…

The children have been w/father for past several days and w/be returning home tomorrow evening, Fri. She wants to have them examined and was in search of a pediatrician who “will tell it like it is.”

Comment on email: Why…if Elsa Newman disclosed plans for murder to Sandra Ashley, did Ashley not disclose such plans to her employer? Why did no word of this supposed disclosure appear until nearly four years later, when Ashley would step forward to testify after her employer’s testimony was ruled inappropriate?

And if the employer’s testimony was inappropriate, then so was Ashley’s, since Ashley was acting in her capacity as Friedman’s employee when she met with Newman.

Spring, 2001                 Stephen Friedman claims he asked Landry to be present in his meetings with Elsa, for a “cool head in the room.”

Reality check: Landry had a full-time job, could not attend meetings with Newman on any regular basis. Newman recalls perhaps two occasions when Landry might have been present during a conversation with Friedman.

Friedman claims Landry and Newman discussed in his presence various plans that involved harming Elsa’s children and blaming Slobodow.

Reality check: 1) Elsa is not a mother who would harm her children; 2) What was Friedman doing all this time the two women were having this discussion? Just sitting there listening? 3) Landry worked full time and was not available for more than one or two meetings.

Question: Why did Friedman claim that Landry was often present and that he had many times heard them discuss plans for crimes?

*******************************************************************************

Spring, 2001                 Friedman took no notes when Elsa talked to him. She made complaints about this, and about is apparent lack of attention to what she was saying.

Despite Newman’s complaints, when Friedman appeared in court to testify against Newman, he carried page upon page of notes, which he consulted and from which he spoke.

Question: what was the source of these supposed “notes” from his conferences with a client, when he had taken no notes at his meetings with Newman?

***********************************************************************************

31 August, 2001   Friedman claims he met with Newman in preparation for 9/4/2001 hearing by Circuit Court Judge James Ryan. He claims that Newman stated, “You know, I don’t have to kill both children. I only need to kill Lars because I can save Herbie, and then Arlen [Slobodow] will go to jail and get what he deserves because he is a criminal, and I can at least save Herbie.”

Reality check: Elsa Newman is not a mother who would even joke about killing her children, let alone say this in earnest.

**********************************************************************************

September, 2001  Friedman told Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge that Newman had told him that if she lost custody, she would hire someone to kill her husband.

Reality check: As an attorney, Elsa Newman had complete faith in the law to provide justice for herself and her children.

QUESTION: Which was it? Newman was going to hire someone to kill her husband? Or she was going to kill one or both of her kids and blame her husband, so that he would “get what he deserved.” The two things you accuse her of saying, Mr. Friedman, are mutually exclusive.

Friedman disclosed to another circuit court judge the statement he attributed to Newman as of the previous Friday [August 31]. That judge informed Judge Ryan.

*********************************************************************************

4 September, 2001          At the scheduled custody hearing, Judge Ryan announced the substance of Friedman’s disclosure.

**********************************************************************************

4 September, 2001  Based on Friedman’s allegations, Newman was limited to supervised visitation.

*************************************************************************************

4 September, 2001              Friedman’s appearance as Newman’s counsel of record was stricken.

**********************************************************************************

4 September , 2001            Family court “trial on merits” was postponed until December 7, 2001.

**********************************************************************************

Sometime after 4 September, 2001   “Trial on merits” was again postponed, until January 28, 2002.

 

7 January, 2002       Margery Landry broke into the home of Arlen Slobodow about 3:30  in the morning. She wore a homemade ski mask, tan pants, green shirt and tan shoes. She carried pornographic material she intended to “plant,” if she could not find evidence of child pornography in the house. She also carried a 9mm handgun, with two bullets loaded. She had additional ammunition in a box, but these were not loaded in the gun, and were probably left in a fanny pack at the point of the break-in.

Landry found Slobodow sleeping in the master bedroom with his five-year-old son. The father was nude from the waist down; the child was completely nude. Slides of the crime scene would show a bag containing what appeared to be sex toys. The slides would also show a small pair of shoes and socks beside the bed.

It was at this point that Landry apparently lost control of herself. She entered the master bedroom and attempted to separate the man and his son.

As the two of them struggled, the gun went off, one bullet striking Slobodow in the thigh. There were both entrance and exit holes in the thigh; however there were no matching holes in Slobodow’s pajama bottoms, although that item of apparel was soaked in blood.

After further struggle, Landry fled. Slobodow called 9-1-1 and informed the operator that his estranged wife had sent someone to kill him—although, even had this been true, there was no way he could have known it.

Slobodow informed questioners that his son had been in his bed because the boy had been unable to sleep and thus had made his way to his father’s room. The boy’s bed, however, had not been slept in. So the scenario the father presents seems to suggest that this  five-year-old boy woke; climbed out of his bed; made the bed; took off his pajamas; put on his shoes and socks; made his way, naked, into his father’s room; removed his shoes and socks and climbed, naked, into bed with his father, who was naked from the waist down.

Note: As a parent of three sons, and having consulted with other parents of sons, I would like to note that little boys do not ordinarily sleep naked.

Later that day Landry was arrested outside her home.

Within hours of the crime, Stacy Talbott, Slobodow’s attorney, went to the authorities with a quantity of  materials she had prepared for use in the family court appearance scheduled for January 28. Talbott apparently offered these materials as evidence in the case that the prosecutors would devise against Newman.

Note: These files of Talbott’s would serve the prosecution well. Newman had hired a lawyer accustomed to dealing with criminal cases, as indeed, she should have done. Insertion of the family court materials provided some considerable difficulty for criminal attorneys, however, unaccustomed to working with family court matters.

***********************************************************************************

9 January, 2002       The state of Maryland filed charges against Newman for conspiracy to commit first degree murder and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree.

***********************************************************************************

10 January, 2002    Elsa Newman was arrested

***********************************************************************************

11 January, 2002    Press briefing: US Department of State

Question: “…[Margery Landry has been charged…” is she an employee of this building?

Answer:  (Richard Boucher) Margery Lemb Landry is a career Foreign Service officer. Her rank is FO—01….She entered duty with the Foreign Service in August, 1980. She was assigned to the Bureau of Consular Affairs to the office of Children’s Issues.

*************************************************************************************

Sometime after 10 January  Landry pled guilty to assault, burglary, reckless endangerment, use of a handgun in commission of a felony and obliterating the serial number on a gun.

*************************************************************************************

28 January, 2002    Newman/Slobodow divorce was final

************************************************************************************

4 March, 2002  Doug Gansler was quoted in People Magazine: “The boy was having trouble sleeping….Can you imagine how difficult it’s going to be for him to sleep now?

Note: It appears to me that Gansler little understood just how prophetic his statement was. A small boy, molested by his father, as part of his daily life and routine,  surely would be expected  to have considerable problems with sleep. And the courts of Maryland were about to turn him over to the custody of a pedophile father.

**********************************************************************************

4 April, 2002  Elsa Newman appeared before the Circuit Court of Montgomery County and entered a plea of not guilty.

*************************************************************************************

28 June, 2002  Pre-trial hearing. The Circuit Court considered the State’s motion to compel Friedman to testify.

State called Friedman to the stand.

Newman requested that the courtroom be cleared during Friedman’s testimony to preserve confidentiality  until the court had ruled on the question of attorney-client privilege.

Judge rejected that request.

Newman stated that attorney/client privilege precluded Friedman’s testimony.

Newman was granted a standing objection.

After Friedman’s testimony, the court ruled that he had acted reasonably and that his disclosure nullified attorney/client privilege about the disclosed statements.

**********************************************************************************

Summer, 2002          It was reported in the media that “This summer [Montgomery County State’s Attorney, Doug] Gansler drove to Annapolis at 8:45 p.m., just in case the current Democractic AG in Maryland had withdrawn his re-election bid by the 9 p.m. deadline.” Presumably, this would have given Gansler time to step in and file for a run for state office.

************************************************************************************

2 August, 2002      Friedman testified against Newman at her trial.

Appeals Court later ruled that this testimony exceeded the scope of his testimony at the pre-trial hearing.

*************************************************************************************

September, 2002  Landry pled guilty to assault, burglary, reckless endangerment, use of a handgun in commission of a felony and obliterating the serial number on a gun. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Landry did not plead guilty to conspiracy or attempted murder.

************************************************************************************

End of October, 2002        The Washington area snipers were arrested. Gansler appeared on TV, detailing his plans to prosecute.

Federal authorities turned the suspects over to the state of Virginia.

*************************************************************************************

25 October, 2002  Gansler announced  charges in the sniper case.

[Note: is this the same as the item immediately preceding?]

************************************************************************************

7 November, 2002               Meeting held, where decisions were made as to where to try the D.C. snipers. Doug Gansler did not attend.  Instead, Montgomery County’s prosecutor attended a meeting with Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, Chief Moose and perhaps others.

*************************************************************************************

11 December, 2002            Police spokesperson reported that Katherine Winfree had been arrested and charged with drunk driving on the previous Saturday night. Winfree was then the principal Deputy State’s Attorney. She was, at the time of her arrest, driving a county issued car. She was charged with:

•             Driving under the influence

•             Driving while impaired

•             Driving an unsafe vehicle (her county-issued car had a flat tire)

According to the police spokesperson, a police officer spotted a car moving unusually slowly on a road in Bethesda, Maryland. The officer “detected the odor of alcoholic breath” after Winfree was pulled over in the 9200 block of Fernwood Road, about 11:55 p.m.  Winfree is said to have refused a breathalyzer test.

This seems to have been during the time of Elsa Newman’s original criminal trial.

Note: in other words, Elsa Newman’s future lay in the words of a drunk driver. Ptooee!

*************************************************************************************

Late 2002 or early 2003—during trial of Elsa Newman Prosecutor Katherine Winfree showed a series of slides of the crime scene. One slide showed what appeared to be a bag of “sex toys” in the room. Another showed a small boy’s shoes and socks beside the bed.

During this slide presentation, Newman leaned forward in her seat, examining each slide as it was shown. It was her first chance to picture exactly what was supposed to have occurred in that room. She knew, of course, that she was charged with conspiracy. She knew that she was innocent of the charge. She fully expected to be exonerated. Nevertheless, she was interested in the slides because they provided the first details about what family friend Margery Landry had done at that scene.

When Winfree’s slide presentation reached the slide with the little shoes and socks, Elsa gasped audibly, realizing that they were beside the bed as silent witnesses to what had happened to the child in that bed, where he slept naked beside his father,  who was nearly naked.

At Elsa’s horrified gasp, Winfree turned and looked at Elsa, long and hard. No words were spoken. Then Winfree—either unaware or uncaring or both—turned continued her presentation.

Note: It is incomprehensible to me that a woman of the obvious intelligence, debating skill and attention to details that made upWinfree’s prosecutions case would have failed to note the significance of those shoes and socks.

The slides were never shown again. During the second trial, Winfree replaced them with slides showing Arlen Slobodow in the hospital. Not nearly so telling, I suppose.

************************************************************************************

17 December, 2002            Margery Landry was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment, with all but 20 years suspended.

***********************************************************************************

25 January, 2003  Elsa Newman was sentenced to life in prison, with all but 20 years suspended.

**********************************************************************************

December, 2004    Maryland’s highest court heard Elsa’s case on appeal.

Maryland’s highest court voided the decision in the first trial, saying there was no clear evidence to tie her to any conspiracy. They apparently ordered a new trial.

The appeals court ruled that the circuit court should not have allowed Elsa’s former attorney to testify about Elsa.

**********************************************************************************

December, 2004    Doug Gansler, upon hearing the results from the appeals court, said, “They’ve let out the woman who wanted to kill her kids.” 

New trial ordered [why wasn’t this double jeopardy?], new testimony to be presented. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” In the U.S. these days, one seems to have to prove one is innocent, rather than the prosecution needing to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note: I’d also like to know what happened to Gansler’s respect for the legal process of which he was a part.

***********************************************************************************

2005   Doug Gansler announced that although the two men had already been found guilty in Virginia courts, he wanted to prosecute John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo in Maryland.

Note: Nice sense of timing—or  “choreography” of his political career, as the media put it.  Nothing like a good trial of national interest to keep you in the spotlight during aplanned run for office.

 ***********************************************************************************

Tuesday, 24 May, 2005—about 2:30 p.m.    Antoinette Starks was released from the Maryland Correctional Institution at Jessup, after serving sixteen months for malicious destruction of property.

**********************************************************************************

Wednesday, 25 May, 2005          Less than 28 hours after being freed, Starks was back in police custody. She had attacked several women in a Nordstrom’s store, using four butcher knives. She had stabbed two of the women.

**********************************************************************************

25 May, 2005 or shortly thereafter    Doug Gansler’s response went like this: “The attacks were a random set of events and an absolute aberration in an otherwise safe mall and neighborhood of Bethesda.” [Not a precise quote, although it contains some phrasing from a Washington Post article.]

Notice that he made no mention of jail or prison time in the past of the offender. And there was no mention of working with police and/or mall owners to increase safety.

Note: What bearing does this have on the Newman case? It seems to me that this indicates that the man who was to become Attorney General of the state of Maryland was more than a little defensive in this case.

So this defensiveness is significant to Elsa Newman? Of course it is. It shows a man who does not like to have his opinions and stances and probably his courtroom victories challenged—even when the victory came at the hands of an assistant.

******************************************************************************

Monday, 15 August, 2005  Katherine Winfree emailed Susan Mercer, the detective working with her on the Newman case.

The entire text of the email follows:

From:       Winfree, Katherine

Sent:         Monday, August 15, 2005, 7:20 AM

To:            Mercer, Susan

Subject:    Re: Newman [Notice that the subject line indicates that Winfree was responding to an email from Mercer, and Mercer’s email had had “Newman” in the subject line.”

Hi, Susan. Welcome back. I think Frederick will be fine—it is just a bit inconvenient and I am hoping Judge Donohue does not gut our case before we even get to the jury!!  I don’t think the Fredneck rednecks will think much of Elsa’s Birkenstock 60’s look, especially if they conclude she and Margery were more than friends.

Elsa is claiming that we still have a bunch of her property—including some jewelry, papers and even a table she says her sewing machine was attached to. She is so nuts. [Note: Interesting comment, to say the least.] Can I fax you the letter to take a look at? [Note: The letter to which Winfree refers was apparently about missing property of Elsa’s. It was not written by Elsa, but by her attorney, Barry Helfand.]

Also, we would like to try talking to John Landry. Can you see if you can locate him [sic]

Kay

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Further note: It seems to me that Winfree’s email to Mercer demonstrates a distinct dislike for Newman, both in referring to her as “nuts,” and in referring to “Elsa’s Birkenstock 60’s look,” as well as in the statement that the jury in Fredrick County might conclude that Elsa “and Margery were more than friends.”

OMG! Is this tough, angry prosecutor  afraid to say the “L” word???

*********************************************************************************

Monday, 15 August, 2005   Susan Mercer responded to Katherine Winfree’s message. The entire text of Mercer’s message follows:

-----Original Message----

From:  Mercer, Susan            Susan.Mercer@montgomerycountymd.gov

To: Winfree, Katherine         Katherine.Winfree@montgomerycountymd.gov

Sent: Mon Aug 15 07:22:34 2005

Subject: Re: Newman

Kay,

Fax the letter to 301-840-2317. This list of property that I gave to you from our property section is all that was taken. We did not take the table, it was entirely too big and we only needed the sewing machine itself. We also had no reason to take any jewelry.

I will try to track down John Landry and get back to you. Did they get divorced do you know?

Susan

Note: They needed the sewing machine? Why? To determine whether Margery Landry’s homemade ski mask might have been put together on that machine? It obviously was not, or that information surely would have been used in the trial. However, the fact that Newman’s machine was not the source of the mask was never mentioned, since that information would only have served to distance Newman from the crime committed by Landry.

*************************************************************************************

Monday, 15 August, 2005   Another email from Katherine Winfree to Susan Mercer. Complete text follows.

From:       Winfree, Katherine

Sent:         Monday, August 15, 2005, 7:32 AM

To:            Mercer, Susan

Subject:    Re: Newman

Susan, I know there isn’t any remaining property—i [sic] am wondering if some of this stuff got sold when the house was sold. Do you recall the name of the lawyer we dealt with to get access to the sewing machine and kit?

I believe they are divorced. I think Arlen told me that. I also think he sold their house, but Arlen seems to think he may still live and work in the area. Was,t [sic] he a civilian employee for the Army?

By the way, Rob Grimes is giving us only a 30% chance of conviction. When I told him we were going to Frederick he upped it to 50!! And he is supposed to be on our side!!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

Note: the information in the second paragraph of Winfree’s email refers to John Landry and Margery Landry, i.e. “Are they divorced?” It is John Landry, not Arlen Slobodow, who sold his house. It is John Landry, not Arlen Slobodow who may still live and work in the area. It is John Landry about whom Winfree asks, “Wasn’t he a civilian employee for the Army?”

************************************************************************************

Tuesday, 27 September, 2005   Trial of Elsa Newman began.

************************************************************************************

September, 2005—on or about the 27 th     Barry Helfand: “Elsa Newman has worked within the system. She is a lawyer. She is a mother fighting for her children’s safety thoughout this entire matter.”

27 September, 2005          Katherine Winfree again prosecuted the case. She called Elsa a “domineering personality” who pushed Landry around.

Winfree further stated “Elsa Newman wanted Arlen Slobodow to die. She couldn’t bear to lose custody of her children.”

Notice: IMHO, if a woman of the quality and intelligence of Newman wanted Slobodow dead, then he would be quite dead.

Further notice: If Elsa so feared the loss of her children, why would she be a part of something which could only result in the loss of her children? The very argument argues against itself.

Winfree showed the jury snippets of email correspondence between Newman and Elizabeth Moran. According to Winfree, Morgan had advised Newman to do one of three things: 1) obey court orders, 2) flee with her children or 3) kill the abuser.

Reality check: If the snippets of email had not been taken out of context, the jury would have known that what Morgan was saying was clearly not advice to do one of those three things. Rather, Morgan was saying that there were no good choices, only bad ones, namely, the three things above.

Note: Amazingly, to me, in the face of Morgan’s own story and Morgan’s claim that there were no good choices, Newman had continued to believe in the American justice system, which was to treat her and her children with such grave injustice.

*************************************************************************************

27 September, 2005          Katherine Winfree continued the prosecution attack on Elsa Newman.

 

Winfree introduced Sandra Ashley, legal assistant to Friedman. You will remember that Friedman had been Elsa’s attorney for divorce proceedings. Friedman had disassociated himself from her and testified against her during the first trial. It was his testimony that Maryland’s highest court had ruled inadmissible when it overturned the verdict in the first trial.

So…now Winfree is going to use other so-called testimony, by another person whose presence on the witness stand should also have been covered by attorney-client privilege, since Ashley was employed by Friedman at the time of which she testified.

Note: It is highly interesting to me, at this point, to note that Ashley had once been employed by Stacy Talbott’s father, a man who was disbarred for accepting money illegally. Stacy Talbott was the attorney for Arlen Slobodow. You remember her from earlier in this timeline: she was the one who virtually stumbled all over herself to turn her records over to the police when she found out about Landry’s crime.

When Katherine Winfree called Sandra Ashley to the witness stand, Ashley testified that Newman had met her at a steak house before the break-in and described the plan Newman and Landry had made to kill Slobodow. This supposed “revelation” had been made nearly four years earlier, if it was in fact made at all.

Note: Such a revelation was never made. Elsa Newman is not that stupid!

Another note: After her conference with Newman at the steak house, Ashley emailed her employer, Stephen Friedman. The entire content of the email appeared earlier in this timeline. It said merely that the children had been with their father for past several days and would be returning home the following evening, Friday. Ashley also stated in the email that Newman “wants to have them examined and was in search of a pediatrician who ‘will tell it like it is.’”

Comment on email: Why…if Elsa Newman disclosed plans for murder to Sandra Ashley, did Ashley not disclose such plans to her employer?

Another note: There was no “plan”—except one of Margery Landry’s own private concoction. There was no conspiracy.  Landry’s plan was to look for evidence of child pornography and, in the event she could not find any such evidence, she intended to plant such evidence. Newman didn’t even know what Landry had in mind, and in fact had told Landry to keep out of the developing mess in family court.

**********************************************************************************

3 October, 2005     Defense case in Newman trial expected to start this day.

*********************************************************************************

7 October, 2005                Elsa Newman was again convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

*********************************************************************************

10 October, 2005              America’s CBS noted that the Newman trial had been moved to Frederick County from Montgomery County.

CBS also noted that Doug Gansler refers to the new site for the Newman trial as “Fredneck County.”

Note: Could such a disparaging remark actually be credited to a man who knew or hoped he would be running for state office [Maryland Attorney General] the following year? Remember the email from Katherine Winfree to Susan Mercer? Winfree used the same terminology. And Winfree is now Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State.

**********************************************************************************

21 November, 2005            Commentators at WTOP news in Washington, D.C. stated that Elsa Newman had been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Notice: I find this highly interesting. Newman was sentenced to prison for a crime that did not exist. There was no conspiracy. Landry was not charged with conspiracy. By definition, a “conspiracy” that involves only one person is not a “conspiracy” at all. “Conspiracy” demands at least two persons, and no other person was convicted of the same crime.

**********************************************************************************

25 August, 2006     Steve Vogel of the Washington Post reported that Gansler had said about his run for state office, “We think this is it—the primary is going to be the whole ball of wax.”

************************************************************************************

20 October, 2006  Philip Rucker of the Washington Post reported watching and speaking to Doug Gansler as Gansler watched his son play flag football. According to what Rucker said, it sounds like Gansler was playing catch with another father, rather than keeping his mind on his son and the game.

Rucker reported that Doug Gansler is ambitious and doesn’t see anything wrong with it.

During the flag football game, when his son’s team scored, Gansler reportedly shouted, “Goodbye, thanks for coming! Goodbye, thanks for coming!”

Note:  None of my sons were active in sports, but my daughter lettered in three sports in high school and went on to play college soccer. I’ve met many parents with this kind of nefarious attitude toward young people who want to play a game for love of the sport—and are hassled by parents they must learn to ignore in order to enjoy a game.

Back to Rucker: Gansler was talking politics some of the other parents as he watched the game.

*******************************************************************************

7 November, 2006               Gansler was elected to the position of Maryland Attorney General.

*******************************************************************************

January, 2007            Doug Gansler became Attorney General of the state of Maryland.

*******************************************************************************

July, 2007      Margaret Candler observed Arlen Slobodow and his two sons in the parking lot of the Maryland Correctonal Institution in Jessup.

Candler stated that she observed the trio leave after a visit with Newman. Arlen Slobodow walked ahead in seemingly companionable conversation with his older son, Herbie, leaving the younger son, Lars, to shuffle behind, head down,crying,  obviously excluded from the companionship of the other two.

**********************************************************************************

12 October, 2007  Margaret Candler wrote to Marecia Tolbert of the Hillsborough County, Florida Child Abuse Unit.

Candler copied that letter to Robert A. Butterworth, Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families.

*************************************************************************************

29 March, 2008     The Castillo children—three of them, very young—were killed, drowned by their father in a bathtub during an unsupervised visit at his hotel.

This occurred after the children’s mother, Amy Castillo, implored the judge in family court not to permit unsupervised visits. She insisted that the children were not safe with their father.

Note: This occurred in the same state, the same county, the same court, and with the same judge and psychologist who had ruled against Elsa Newman and who had turned Elsa’s sons over to their father, a man who had, according to disclosures by the children themselves, been guilty of indescribable sexual abuse when they were in his custody.

************************************************************************************

9 April, 2008              Gansler plays the race card. Concerning the 2006 election, he stated that problems at the polls reminded him of literacy tests and poll taxes as obstacles to voting.

Reality check: authorities were not prepared for such a large turnout.

**********************************************************************************

28 April, 2008           Maryland Court of special appeals hearing to decide if Newman would be required to pay Arlen Slobodow’s attorney’s fees in the child custody case.

Newman argued that Judge Ryan should have recused himself for bias against her.

She also requested that Ryan recuse himself based on a series of rulings denying her requests to visit her children.

Both requests were denied. The court stated that Ryan’s frequent rulings against Newman in the past did not indicate a bias requiring recusal.

Paul Victor Jorgenson represented Newman in appealing the requirement that she pay attorney’s fees for Arlen Slobodow.

************************************************************************************

28 April, 2008           Stacy B. Talbott argued for Slobodow.

Note: You remember Talbott? She was the one who raced to authorities with her collection of materials just hours after Margery Landry was arrested. Does this defense attorney have some kind of fascination with pedophiles that she defended this man?

************************************************************************************

28 April, 2008           This same Maryland Court of special appeals says Elsa Newman must pay Arlen Slobodow’s attorney’s fees in the child custody case. The reasoning? They assumed Newman’s reasons  for insisting that Arlen Slobodow was molesting her children were arbitrary reasons, not backed by reality.

Note: This ruling was made despite the certainty of many medical and professional people, including the treating psychiatrist for the two boys, who had carefully documented evidence of such abuse.

Further Note: Even Stephen Friedman, Newman’s former family court attorney who ended up testifying against her stated that he believed that the father was molesting at least one of Newman’s sons.

************************************************************************************

Undated: Source is Mark Plotkin, a commentator on WTOP radio in Washington, DC, who says that Gansler is a “great choreographer” of his own political career.

Plotkin also says that Gansler plans to be the first Jewish President of the United States and hopes to be inaugurated in 2017.