Thursday, July 31, 2008


Note: please note! I beg you to note! This photgraph comes to you, compliments of Arlen Slobodow, the man in the photograph.


Well...I have just discovered that the comment below, from the person calling herself (himself?) Ashan is a complete fake! When Elsa Newman was 8 years old, her mother was recovering from the loss of her son in an accident. The family did not invite anyone over, not ever. None of Elsa's acquaintances had parents who were friends of her parents.

Elsa Newman lived in Philadelphia until she was ten and then her family moved out of the city. Why didn't "Ashan" know that?

By 1979, when "Ashan" says she (he?) met Elsa and others for dinner, Elsa was married (her first marriage; the ill-fated one with Arlen Slobodow would come later) and living in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

My best guess here is that Arlen Slobodow himself penned that comment--or some member of his family who equally despises Elsa.

And what do I think of that possibility? The vindictiveness and lack of detail is typical of other things I have received that I believe to have been written by Slobodow.

Since he has apparently chosen to insert himself into my blog, I have responded by inserting a picture of Slobodow himself at the beginning of this note.

Petty!...Petty!...Petty! A cheap shot, Mr. Slobodow. A very cheap shot indeed. It begins to look like my research is hitting close to home! Which means that Elsa Newman really is innocent. And you, sir, are among the most vile of creatures, a man who sexually savages his own sons.

Because I would rather have everything out in the open than have readers miss it, I am posting the following comment as part of my blog today.
Please note that the name this person uses refers to "smoke" or "city of smoke." Thus my question in the title as to whether this writer might be trying to "blow smoke" on my writing about the Elsa Newman case. Please read these arguments--in which the writer gives vent to a serious dislike for Elsa and calls her names, but does not venture into the area of fact or detail, apparently expecting us to accept her words at face value, with no documentation whatsoever. This writer also notes that her most recent contact with Elsa Newman was in 1979. Whatever the realities of this individual's claims about Elsa--from so very long ago--I have to stop and take a look at the time that separates this person's claims from the Elsa Newman I know now. This person's last contact with Elsa was nearly 30 years ago. And on this basis, she claims that Elsa "should pay for everything, and that would not be enough for what she put them through," although she offers no details as to what "everything" is and likewise no detail about "what she put them through" entails.

Please read Ashan's fact-free, name-calling diatribe. And then please read my response. Thank you.

Ashan said...
I just felt compelled to write this even though I don't want to get involved in this sordid affair.From what I see here, you actually never met Elsa Newman. Well, I knew Elsa for many years - from the time we were about 8 years old. The last time I saw her was around 1979, in our late 20s.Elsa was a thoroughly manipulative, egocentric, jealous, psychotic, vindictive, vengeful, conniving and compulsive child and young adult. Her parents and mine were friends over the years, which unfortunately threw us together far too many times. I used to dread having to tolerate her fits of rage, verbal abuse and general nastiness. I used to beg my mother to leave me at home alone rather than have to put up with her for hours. My final contact with her in 1979 was as horrendous an experience as any when I was younger. She tried very hard to demean me in front of others (who she also verbally abused). I kept my dignity, as did the others around the dining table.Everything the psychologists said about her in the wake of her crime was right on the mark. I completely sympathize with Elsa's ex-husband. Those poor children were exposed to a true mother-from-hell, if you could call her a "mother". I firmly believe that she should pay for everything, and that would not be enough for what she put them through.It's a pity that you believe that lies can be proven to be the truth. Elsa Newman's two boys are in the excellent, caring hands of their father.
July 31, 2008 1:07 AM

Rather than dwell on your fact-free, name-calling diatribe against a woman whom state you despise, despite—according to your own statement—not having had any contact with her in nearly 30 years, let me present you with some current facts about the Elsa Newman I know and about her case:

FACT: The question of justice has nothing to do with whether or not you find Elsa Newman likeable.
FACT: Elsa Newman is in prison based on charges that are impossible—by the very definition of the word, you cannot have a conspiracy of one, and yet no one else was charged with conspiracy.
FACT: Elsa Newman was charged with attempted murder. Margery Landry was not.
FACT: As I understand events on the evening of the crime, Margery Landry found Arlen Slobodow, nude from the waist down, in bed in the master bedroom with his younger son, Lars, who was completely nude.
FACT: At trial, Prosecutor Katherine Winfree showed a series of slides of the crime scene. One of those slides showed a pair of shoes—little boy’s shoes—beside the bed, with a pair of socks, shoes and socks bearing silent witness to what had happened to that little boy in that bed.

FACT: Arlen Slobodow said his little son came and climbed into bed with him, either because of a bad dream or because he could not sleep (depending on which journalist you are reading.) The boy's bed had not been slept in. Therefore I am required to believe that Lars out of bed...made his bed...took off his pajamas...put on his shoes and socks...walked, naked, to his father's room...removed his shoes and socks...left them by the bed...and crawled, naked, into a bed where his father slept, nearly naked. Ptoooie!
FACT: There was no attempted murder. The gun went off while Landry and Slobodow struggled over it. One bullet struck Arlen Slobodow in the thigh.
FACT: When Arlen Slobodow called 9-1-1, he told the operator that his estranged wife had sent someone to kill him. The reality is that—even if it were true—there is absolutely no way Slobodow could have known it.
FACT: Another of Winfree’s slides showed a small bag of what appeared to be “sex toys” in the room.
FACT: Elsa Newman and Margery Landry are in agreement that Elsa had nothing to do with and no prior knowledge of the break-in at Arlen Slobodow’s house. Landry was repeatedly offered a reduction in her own sentence if she would testify against Elsa. This she refused to do, saying she would not lie, even to make her own sentence less severe.
FACT: Landry stated on record that she wished she could blame someone else for the crime, because it had ruined her life. She added, however, that she alone was responsible.
FACT: Maryland’s highest courted tossed out the conviction from the original trial, saying they could find no evidence to link Elsa to the crime.
FACT: When Elsa was rearrested and retried, the trial was moved to Frederick, for fear that she could not be justly tried in Montgomery county.
FACT: At least some of the prosecutors and detectives actually thought chances for conviction were better in Frederick.

FACT: Some of the jurors in Frederick expressed prior opinions of Elsa's guilt. This was reported. On of those who reported it was a deputy sheriff. The report was ignored. The trial continued.
FACT: One tactic which investigators often use when a woman tries to prove a father’s sexual abuse that has disclosed by a child or children is to call the mother “crazy.”
FACT: Prosecutor Kathleen Winfree wrote an email to Susan Mercer, one of the investigators working on the case, and in that email she said of Newman, “She is so nuts.”
FACT: Winfree was herself probably not completely sure of Newman’s guilt, since she wrote in another email to Susan Mercer, “…Rob Grims was 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!!
FACT: Again, by email to Susan Mercer, Winfree stated, “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…”
FACT: During the second trial, Prosecutor Katherine Winfree did not show the slides with the “sex toys” and the little shoes and socks beside the bed. She showed, instead, slides of Arlen Slobodow in his hospital bed. [Not fact, but suspicion—I suspect that she had realized the implications of the slides she had previously shown, found them too telling, and switched to the slides of the hospital scene.]
FACT: According to the decision of Maryland’s highest court, Stephen Friedman should never have been allowed to testify against Elsa Newman in any court—by virtue of attorney-client privilege.
FACT: Elsa Newman is herself an attorney. She is obviously highly intelligent. It would require incredible stupidity—a virtue that Elsa clearly lacks—to sit and plot a murder in front of any attorney.
FACT: On Thursday, December 28, 2000, Sandra Ashley, as an employee of Stephen Friedman, met with Elsa Newman. As Friedman’s employee and representative, her interactions with Elsa should have been covered by the same attorney-client privilege as any interaction between Elsa and Friedman himself. This meeting occurred some 13 months before Landry’s break-in at the Slobodow house.
FACT: On Thursday, December 28, 2000, Ashley sent the following email to her employer, Stephen Friedman, and I quote the email in its entirety: “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.’” Strangely, there was no mention of any sort of threat against Arlen Slobodow.
FACT: Four years after she sent that email, Sandra Ashley testified in court that at the time of that meeting, Elsa had threatened to murder Slobodow or have him murdered.

“In thirty-five years [of studying/reviewing child abuse cases] I have never seen a pushback like this….I’ve seen the disfavor professional mothers are held in, but never this….The disrespect shown Elsa and her children must be seen to be believed.”
Source: Pediatrician; Head of Child Abuse Unit at his hospital; Professor, Harvard Medical School; served on Presidential Commission on Child Safety. Name withheld as a matter of courtesy--although I'm sure that if you choose to research this statement, you will be able to discover the name of its source.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Yeah, go, mister. Tell it like it is!

Just recently I wrote here that a man from Australia has joined me in the struggle to gain attention to Elsa Newman's case and find help for her and her children. He now notifies me that he is ready to roll and has enough of a blog up and runnng that he wants me to invite people to drop by the Elsa Newman blog from "Down Under."

Please note that he has lots of different information than I have, so if you are interested in the case...check this out:

Monday, July 28, 2008

Stories you'll wish you hadn't read!

From this site about molesting custodial parents, try this on for size, county by county in the state of California. And this is nothing more than a small sampling:

This country needs to do something about this mess. NOW!

Thursday, July 24, 2008


The Wiz is posting---

I am so pleased and delighted and happy and all that good stuff--about making this announcement.

THE WIZARD OF OZ HAS JOINED ME in posting about Elsa Newman and her children. Apparently this man from Australia (Oz--get it?) saw some of my blogs...began reading all he could find about Elsa's case...and lo and behold! He has taken an interest.Word about Elsa and her unjust imprisonment in the U.S. is now traveling the world.
I don't know exactly what this guy has in mind, but it should be interesting: observations from "down under" about the American justice system.

It feels absolutely wonderful to know I am no longer alone in this battle. Someone finally believes me!

More important, someone who has the time and energy to devote to internet posting finally believes Elsa.

The photo above is a picture from his blog site. He tells me that when the time is right, he will let me post his web address in this country, so you can check up on what he has to say about Elsa, about her sons, and about the American justice system that turned so unjust and imprisoned this woman, one among many who are in prison for a crime they did not commit.
He has his site up and running, but wants a bit more on it before he opens it to worldwide scrutiny.

I guess his crystal ball is a little slow some days and he can't get things posted as rapidly as he would like.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008


Although I originally dedicated this blog to questions about the Elsa Newman case, my thought today is to share some of the answers I've come up with, my reasons for my deep and abiding belief in this woman. Thus, without further ado, let us proceed.


I must introduce myself as a rather obnoxious little-old-lady-type person, a retired teacher, who became interested in the Elsa Newman case and in Elsa's claims about the abuse of her sons.

My interest began with the fact that I am the full-time caregiver for a delightful Jewish artist who describes herself as "ably disabled.” My artist client sent for a list of pen pals from among Jewish people who are in prison. After some time, I also wrote for pen pals, and thus came across the name of Elsa Newman.

I have since begun to research Elsa's story and her concerns for her sons, and I find myself greatly dismayed by the facts my research has revealed.

Elsa Newman was twice convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The charges resulted from the actions of family friend, Margery Landry, who broke into the house of Elsa’s ex-husband. During the break-in, Margery was carrying a gun and had either taken child pornography with her, intending to plant it or was in search of child pornography as evidence—depending on which newspaper you read. Elsa’s ex-husband woke and struggled with Landry, and the gun when off. He was shot in the thigh. After considerable turmoil, he managed to get to a phone and call 9-1-1. Landry fled.

Elsa Newman remains firm about two things: 1) she was in no way involved in the incident created by Landry, and 2) her ex-husband is a pedophile who molests her two sons sexually, as well as abusing them physically, mentally and emotionally.

1. I am convinced that Elsa Newman is either totally delusional, or she is right. And I have not the slightest reason to suspect any delusion on her part. In short, I believe what she tells me. I am not alone.

2. There are many others who agree with me. There is even a small group of people who contact each other on the net and call themselves, I believe, “Friends of Elsa Newman.”

3. As an added note, and to give one reason among many why I accept Elsa's claims, I offer a brief review of the recent Castillo Case in Maryland . You've heard of this one; the one where the estranged husband was allowed unsupervised visits with his children, despite the pleas of Amy Castillo, their mother, begging the judge not to allow unsupervised visits, because she believed the father to be a serious threat to the children. The thing that many people don't know is that this family-court matter occurred in the same state as Elsa' the same the same courtroom...and with the both the same judge and the same psychologist.

Soooo…the same judge and psychologist that sent Amy Castillo's children to death by drowning at the hands of their father--despite Mrs. Castillo's pleading--placed Elsa's sons in the custody of a father accused of abuse--despite Elsa's pleading.

4. I believe Elsa because noted authorities in the field of child abuse believe her. For one example, consider Michelle Etlin, co-author of the book, The Hostage Child? One of the things she told Elsa was that she believed her, believed every word she was saying. Me, too.

5. I believe Elsa because I have spoken to her several times on the phone. The things she says resonate truth, as does her voice when she speaks or her letters when she writes to me.

6. I believe Elsa because of the depth and detail of what she says her children disclosed to her; I don't think anybody could invent all that garbage.

7. I believe Elsa because, even from where I sit on the opposite side of this country [I live in Washington State, which is about as far as you can get from either Maryland or Florida, where the boys live now—in the custody of the alleged pedophile.], I can see holes in the prosecution argument in her criminal trials.

· For just one example, the father of the boys called 9-1-1 and reported that his wife had sent someone to try to kill him. But even if that were true, it is impossible for him to have known it--and I don't believe it is true.

· And then there is the matter of the slide show: During Elsa Newman’s original trial, the prosecution, in the form of Katherine Winfree, presented a slide show—slides of the crime scene. I understand that one of those slides showed some paraphernalia that appeared to be a collection of some sort of “sex tools” or “sex toys.” No one mentioned that.

· Another slide showed a little boy’s shoes and socks, clearly visible and recognizable—beside or under the bed. I cannot place them more precisely than that, although Elsa probably could. Elsa had been leaning forward in her chair all during the slide show. It was, she says, her first opportunity to see exactly what had happened and the details about what she was accused of, and thus she was quite interested. When the slide with the shoes and socks appeared, Elsa gasped audibly, realizing fully whose they were: they belonged to her younger son. The father informed authorities that the boy had come to his bed because he could not sleep. However, later testimony in the trial stated that the boy’s bed had not been slept in. I cannot escape this question: what in the world were a little boy’s shoes and socks doing beside a bed where he slept naked and his father slept, naked from the waist down.

Katherine Winfree, as she showed that slide of those little shoes and socks, apparently heard Elsa’s gasp of shock and dismay. Winfree turned and stared at Elsa long and hard. Dare I presume that Winfree realized in that moment the significance of the shoes and socks? Dare I presume that she knew then that the allegations against Elsa’s ex-husband were true? Dare I presume that she knew, and that she then went on with her prosecution, caring nothing for the fate of those two then-very-young children?

It is noteworthy in this regard that during the second trial, Winfree did not use those slides of the crime scene at all. She presented instead a series of slides that focused on Elsa’s ex-husband in his hospital bed after the shooting. Pretty safe, I guess. No sex toys. No little shoes and socks.

8. I believe Elsa because there were, according to my understanding, no bullet holes in the father’s pajama bottoms—although he was shot twice in the leg, and those pajama bottoms were covered with blood.

9. I believe Elsa because I tend to view our American justice system as a system which presents organized debates in a courtroom setting, and the best debater, as decided by judge or jury, is the winner. According to Doug Gansler, now attorney general of the state of Maryland, Katherine Winfree, now his chief deputy, is a better prosecutor than even he is.

10. I believe Elsa because disbelief--once I contacted Elsa and heard her story—became too frightening. If this kind of disastrous contact with the legal system, followed by Elsa’s subsequent imprisonment and her children’s subjection to the care of an alleged pedophile, could happen in Maryland and happen to Elsa Newman and her children, it could happen anywhere, and to any of us.

11. I believe Elsa because fathers’ rights advocates have created a pendulum swing within the American judicial system, and that swing has been away from a mother’s rights. Yes, Michelle Etlin and her co-author wrote of the horrors women face in family court. But at the same time, there were no less than fourteen books written by fathers’ rights advocates. They said the exact opposite of what Etlin and her co-author documented in The Hostage Child. And they had more money. One of their authors sent a free copy of his book to every congress-person and every family court judge in this country.

12. I believe Elsa because of the 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.

While Elsa waited for her sons in a place apart from the interrogation room, the boys were grilled literally for hours, about their disclosures to their mother. They were held in that room for so long that Elsa’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 emerged, triumphant and absolutely beaming, from the interrogation room, followed by Elsa’s older son, who had gone completely white in the face. “H***** has made a disclosure,” the officer announced. Elsa looked at her and wondered why she was so happy if the boy had, indeed, made a disclosure of abuse. “Tell her,” said the officer to H*****.

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.

13. I believe Elsa because of the testimony of the psychologist who testified against her. He tried to say that Elsa had or was close to a borderline personality. The truth is that his testing showed Elsa well within the normal range, although a touch defensive, as well befits a mother battling for her children’s rights, for their custody--and perhaps even their lives. Tests by the same psychologist showed that her ex-husband fell outside that normal range. So what did the psychologist do? He threw out the test results and based his opinion on interviews with the two adults involved—Elsa and her ex-husband. In that psychologist’s opinion, when Elsa stated to him that she “hated” her husband (Well, duh…what mother wouldn’t hate someone who was sexually abusing her kids?) she was exhibiting behavior outside the normal range. And on the basis of his interview with the ex-husband? The psychologist stated that the man was clearly normal.

14. I believe Elsa because—even though the evidence would not have been admissible in court-- Elsa volunteered to take a lie detector test. Nobody took her up on the offer.

15. I believe Elsa because her conviction in the original trial was vacated by Maryland’s highest court, which said there was no evidence of her involvement in Margery Landry’s break-in and the shooting of Elsa’s ex-husband.

16. I believe Elsa because a major part of the prosecution case was apparently the testimony of her one-time attorney. What happened to attorney-client privilege?

17. I believe Elsa because the testimony of her ex-husband also seems to have made up a large part of the prosecution case. Talked about “vested interest!”

18. I believe Elsa because two noted Maryland attorneys wrote a letter to the judge who was to pass sentence on Elsa, saying, “We have serious doubts regarding the guilt of Ms. Newman.”

19. I believe Elsa because those same two attorneys went on to point out that the alleged “death threat” that Elsa had supposedly made to [name withheld—legal assistant in the office of Mr. Friedman, who was Elsa’s former attorney and had testified against her in the original trial] was made some 13 months before the ‘event’ took place,” in other words, 13 months before Margery Landry broke into the home of Elsa’s ex-husband and found him in bed with his younger son. That would make it several years before the woman actually sat in a witness chair and testified.

20. I believe Elsa because the alleged “death threat” was stated during a bitter divorce and custody battle. In other words, even if she said that—which is clearly in some doubt—the words were never meant in the context presented by the prosecution.

21. I believe Elsa because I understand that the jury foreman in her second trial stated that he knew before the trial ever began that Elsa was guilty. This was apparently reported to authorities—and ignored.

22. I believe Elsa because Margery Landry, the woman who pled guilty to the crime Elsa was accused of conspiring to commit, refused to testify against Elsa, even though Landry was more than once offered a major reduction in her own sentence in exchange for such testimony. She rejected the offer, insisting that Elsa was not involved.

23. I believe Elsa because of the attitude of the then-state’s attorney for Montgomery County concerning her case. For example, when Maryland’s highest court vacated the decision in Elsa’s first trial, the media reported that Doug Gansler said, “They just released the woman who wanted to kill her kids.” In this and similar statements lies the opinion of the prosecutor’s office and seemingly of deputy prosecutor Kate Winfree, as well. Blessed are those who search for truth and thus learn the truth, for the truth shall make them free. Not in Montgomery County Maryland, I guess. Said prosecutor’s office appears to have been far more interested in conviction at any cost than in a search for truth.

24. I believe Elsa because a timeline I have prepared shows that Doug Gansler planned well in advance his run for state office. We have evidence of this at least as early as the summer of 2002, when Gansler is reported in the media as having driven to Annapolis and arrived there at 8:45 p.m., just before filing for office ended—in case the current Democratic AG had withdrawn his re-election bid. He was allowing himself time, you see, so that just in case the AG had decided not to run, he (Gansler) would be just in time to file.

The timeline shows, of course, that Gansler actually did file in 2006, when the then AG decided to retire.

Elsa’s second trial opened on Tuesday, September 27, 2005. It seems likely, then, that by the time of this trial, Doug Gansler was at least hoping he would be running for state office in 2006, whether or not he actually knew he would have that opportunity. It certainly would not do for a man with such ambitions to allow the release of a mother prosecuted by his office for supposedly heinous crimes.

For the sake of Gansler’s political hopes, he had to send the case back to court, again in the hands of Katherine Winfree. And his office had to win the verdict.

25. I believe Elsa because there are so many others like her. When I first read statements that there are thousands of women in the same position as Elsa, I nodded my head in vigorous assent, but somewhere down inside, I wondered. It could not possibly be, could it?

It could. It is. I have read many for myself, both in Michelle Etlin’s book and on the net. There are, indeed, thousands of women in this country trying to protect their children from abuse of all kinds. And they are being prosecuted. Try this one on for size, if you doubt me:

25. I believe Elsa precisely because of the arguments of Winfree in court. She stated that Elsa is a “domineering personality” who pushed Landry around. Where did that assessment come from?

It’s hogwash!

That is not the Elsa Newman I have come to know. That is not the Elsa Newman spoken of by her friends, some of whom refer to her as “gentle” or “calm” or “patient.” In the words of a teacher at the prison, “Ms. Newman has consistently displayed a calm, patient, helpful and cooperative demeanor, even in the face of occasionally hostile and verbally abusive staff or inmates. She is thoughtful and deeply spiritual….”

26. I believe Elsa because I seriously question the ethics of a prosecuting attorney, Katherine Winfree, who, upon hearing that child abuse allegations had been raised in the state of Florida, where Elsa’s ex-husband had moved with Elsa’s sons, would place a phone call to Florida authorities…would lie to them, saying that similar allegations had been made in Maryland and discovered to be without foundation…and would assure Florida authorities that there was thus no need for them to continue their investigation.

27. Finally, I believe Elsa for another, more personal reason. I am a two-time loser to people who drive while intoxicated. When I was just a child—3rd or 4th grade—my grandmother, in the passenger seat while my grandfather drove, was put through a windshield and killed in a collision with the car of a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road. Years later, my younger sister, a college student who took off her seat belt to sit closer to her boy friend, was put through another windshield by another man who had been drinking and passed on a blind curve. You see, do you not, why I have little respect for anyone who drives under the influence of alcohol or any other drug? You see, do you not, why I tend not to trust such an individual?

About 11:55 p.m. on the 11th of December, in 2002, Katherine Winfree, then the principal deputy state’s attorney for Montgomery County, was arrested and charged with 1) driving under the influence, 2) driving while impaired, and 3) driving an unsafe vehicle (her county-issued car had a flat tire). God only knows how many times Winfree may have been in a similar state behind the wheel. I would guess that one has to indulge in drunk driving more than once in order to be caught and arrested just once.

And that’s all I care to say about that.

In conclusion, I must admit that the longer I work on this paper, the more reasons demand my attention. Thus I believe Elsa Newman.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Tearing a Heart to Shreds

Tugging at a heart is a fun thing only if the heart is a toy and the tuggers are puppies.

Shredding a heart is a fun thing only if the heart is a toy and the shredders are puppies.

But if you are a woman unjustly imprisoned…and if your two precious sons are in the physical custody of a pedophile father, of whom they are terrified…it is no fun at all. As a matter of fact, it is unbearable.

Please keep this latter thought in mind, despite the delightful photo I’ve used to illustrate the thought.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008


Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living!
Mother Jones

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

One answer--more questions...

This photo is cropped from the banner heading on the internet business advertising of the man I believe is a pedophile who sexually abuses his own children, takes photos and videos of them in compromising positions and further abuses them in other ways. As a matter of fact, the photo in yesterday's blog--showing strips of film--was from the same banner heading. In today's shot I removed a figure who appears to be an employee. No sense painting an innocent employee with a brush that only a pedophile deserves.

Answer to question 13: I could…but I’m not going to.

For me to give you an address would be harmful to the children. They are two wonderful boys, if I am to believe their mother—who loves them dearly and who is doing everything she can to bring their disclosures to light. But she’s sort of stuck in Maryland. If you’ve been reading this blog, you know what I mean.

Further, for me to give you the address would offer the alleged pedophile yet another opportunity to turn on the charm and charisma and pull the wool over still more eyes. It would give him yet another opportunity to call himself the innocent victim of false accusations. It would offer him one more chance to play on the sympathies of authorities and tell his rancid story of how difficult he finds it to live with these repeated and “false” accusations when he is trying so hard to raise two boys on his own; when he was forced to move to Florida because it was too difficult to stay in Maryland, due to circumstances there.

Question 14: If he is so damned innocent, why did Margery Landry find him, half naked, in bed with a small son who was completely naked? And why had had this creature told authorities the child came to the father’s bed when he (the child) was unable to sleep. And why had the child’s bed not been slept in? And why was there in the bedroom a bag of what appeared to be sex toys in one of the slides showed by prosecutor Katherine Winfree at the first trial? And why were that little pair of shoes and those child’s socks beside the bed, silent witnesses to what must have happened to the child in that bed? And why did Winfree not use those same slides at the second trial? Were they too telling?

Oops!…I guess that was more than just one question. But those questions and many more demand to be asked.
Just to be different and wrap this up, I think I'll go ahead today and offer a response to question 14:
Answer to question(s) 14: There is no answer to any of today’s questions. There is no answer at all.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Closing in...location:

Answer to question 12: Well…I could…

Question 13: So what is it?
The problem is that I know so many things about this
individual. I'm still deciding how far to go. And see...there's this belief thing: People don't want to believe that such a charismatic person could treat his children in the way they have disclosed. His children--and maybe others.

Sunday, July 13, 2008


Answer to question 11: Yup.

Question: 12: Are you going to tell?

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Answer to question 10: Not downtown. Looks like suburban Tampa to me.

Question 11: Do you have an address?

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Answer to question 9: Not that you could notice. Remember, pedophiles tend to smoothness. This guy is smooth. Tampa area authorities seem to have done a bit of investigating, but, charmed by the smoothness and charisma of the alleged pedophile, the investigation seems to have been dropped. Shame on Tampa! Children who are terrified of their father, interviewed in the presence of said father, are not going to disclose anything. They are going to do whatever Papa says.

Question 10: Where in Tampa?

Monday, July 7, 2008

Aha! That's the city!

Answer to question 8: Yup. I’m on a roll. How about the Tampa area? That’s right. Good old Tampa, Florida has at least one more alleged pedophile than they’ve admitted to or investigated thoroughly.

Question 9: What? No investigation of this guy?

Saturday, July 5, 2008

And closer still...

Hey, Aine...that's the same picture you posted yesterday! What's up with that?
Yes, it is the same picture, but I'm toing to tell you a bit more today. The answer to question 7 lies in one of these counties.
Answer to question 7: Take a pin. Stick it in a map of Florida’s central west counties. Yup. You’re right. No matter where that pin ends up, you’re right, because pedophiles are everywhere. I even have some registered pedophiles not far from my home in the boondocks of Washington State. But if you want to know the whereabouts of the particular alleged pedophile I’ve been writing about? Try Hillsborough County.

Question 8: And are you going to give up any more details about the location of this alleged pedophile? How far are you willing to go in making this revelation?

Friday, July 4, 2008

Closer...and closer...and closer...

Answer to question 6: Would you believe a location in the central west counties? That’s where he is. Of course, the disclosures of abuse were made in Maryland. I have in hand no disclosures from Florida or the central west counties. I only know that the alleged pedophile is now living in the central west counties with his sons and the change in the habits of men who commit sexual abuse is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Question 7: Where in the central west counties of Florida would you find such a person?

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Another day...another question and answer

Answer to question 5: Pick a spot—state, county, municipality, city, town, village, farmland. These things are occurring all over this country. But the two boys of whom I write live in Florida.

Question 6: Florida? OMG! I thought Florida was the dwelling place of retirees. Where in such a wonderful, bright, sunny state do children live with such torment? Where is this man whose children disclosed the most horrible abuse imaginable?

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

More questions about the location

Answer to question 4: The unspeakable abuse which these two children disclosed and of which I have been writing took place—and probably is still taking place, since abusers don’t change—in the United States.

Question 5: The United States? Our United States? Where in our United States, land of the free and home of the brave, would children have to suffer such unspeakable abuse?

Tuesday, July 1, 2008


Answer to question 3: The unspeakable abuse of which I have been writing took place—and probably is still taking place since abusers don’t change—in North America.
We're getting clooooser!

Question 4: OMG! In North America? Where in North America could such unspeakable things as these children disclosed be occurring?