Sunday, August 31, 2008


Saturday, August 30, 2008

Gaither High School, Tampa, Florida
Orange Grove Middle School, Tampa, Florida

An Open Letter to Teachers and Staff: With an invitation to the people of Tampa to read, to join in this effort, to help keep watch and to report evidence of the abuse of these children.

Greetings—from a little-old-lady-type retired teacher who has had a good many years of experience at both the middle school and the high school levels. And despite the casual nature of that introduction, I have something deadly serious to bring to your attention. For those of you who already know about this situation, just please consider this a reminder.

In the process of researching the story of Elsa Newman and her highly questionable trial and subsequent unjust imprisonment in the state of Maryland, I have come across information which leads me to believe quite strongly that there is at least one child in each of these schools who is being sexually abused by a sociopathic pedophile parent who has physical custody of said child.

[Shoot! Of course I know there are more abused children than that in your schools! Anywhere you have a classroom full of kids, you can be pretty sure there is at least one child among them who is being abused in one way or another.]

Having said that and set it aside, I return to my original thought: the question of the two boys, one at each school mentioned above, who are in the custody of a parent whom they have accused of sexual abuse, while their mother, the parent who tried to protect them, is unjustly incarcerated.

[You doubt? Oh, for Pete’s sake! I don’t blame you if you don’t believe me. I’m not sure I would believe this, either, had I not spent most of my waking moments for the past six months or so researching this case and examining it from every angle I can find. And what I have found to the present time are some sixty reasons for believing this mother—both when she says that she is innocent of any crime and when she says her sons have disclosed abuse to her as well as to medical, psychological, psychiatric and law enforcement officials. Not only that…but I continue each day—literally--to discover new reasons for my faith in Elsa Newman.]

If you want to know more about Elsa Newman and her case, may I suggest you google her name? You should, thus, come upon any number of blogs on which I write in an attempt to draw attention to her case and to the injustice done to this mother and her children. You will also come across some media reports of Elsa’s case. To be objective, I suppose you should read those, as well, but as you do, please remember that Elsa was convicted in the media long before her case came to trial.

So why am I writing an open letter to all of you? I dare to hope that someone among you will see evidence of the unspeakable abuse that these two boys have disclosed in the past. And I dare to hope that someone among you will have the courage—and yes, it will take courage to confront a sociopath who abuses his children sexually, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and in any other way he can think of—to report this abuse. And report it. And report it again, if you must, until someone does something for these kids.

I know how difficult it can be for a busy teacher to notice signs of abuse, let alone find evidence and report, no matter what the law requires. I’ve been there; I’ve done it; I’ve seen my efforts ignored or set aside by CPS or legal authorities.

In order to assist you in your search for signs of abuse, I offer the following:

• One particular abused child to whom I refer may tend to display as a little “weird,” offering behaviors that are slightly out of kilter, not quite the norm for his age level. As a matter of fact, one of these boys has been characterized by past teachers with just that term: “weird.” He’s not weird, folks. He’s struggling to survive. We all know there is a major semantic difference between “weird” and “surviving.”

• Neither of these children is consistent in turning in homework. (I hesitate to mention this one, because I know that should the father become aware of this letter and of that comment, the children will probably be beaten for this neglect on their part. Might he read this? Yes, he might. He knows that I am “on to him” so to speak and that I believe he is a sadistic pedophile, who enjoys his pedophilia to the utmost only when it causes pain to his victim[s]. I mention homework despite the risk to the boys, because time is passing so fast, and there is so little remaining of their childhood that I feel it is vital for someone to take an interest here and find some evidence.)

• Please watch the nature of these children’s art work. In kindergarten, for example, the younger of these brothers drew almost exclusively with two colors—black and red—and his drawings were filled with trees that looked like penises. He is now in middle school, but some traces of this may remain. The older boy, at about that same time period, filled his drawings with creatures all possessing sharp teeth. He seemed to have a horror of leaving any part of his drawing paper untouched. He covered everything spot, either with the pictures of sharp teeth or of creatures with missing body parts. He also used phallic symbols in his drawing. He is now in high school, but—again—some traces may remain in doodling or in an art course.

• The taller of the boys now walks with hunched shoulders, as if hunched shoulders were some protective mechanism. He lowers his head and looks awkwardly from beneath his eyebrows, instead of offering a steady gaze. You may well see him with his hands clenched into fists, seemingly without cause.

• One of these boys is often accused of misbehaving. Teachers object to his cursing in class. A noted psychiatrist and one sympathetic to the mother’s attempts to protect her sons, once told her, “You won’t get anything done by authorities until the day he is lying on the floor, foaming at the mouth.”

• The younger boy, on the other hand, is a person anyone would refer to as “a nice little boy…well-mannered…well behaved.” Perhaps he hopes that by being “the nice child” he will convince his father will to make the next sodomy session just the tiniest bit easier.

• Should you ask one of these boys about abuse at home, you may expect vague and evasive responses, rather than any clear, simple statement, such as “no.”

• The older of the two brothers has, over the last few years, been reluctant to remove his clothing for PE. This is not shyness. This is the reluctance of a boy who knows there are times when, if he removes his clothes, signs of sexual abuse will be obvious to anyone near him. It may be as well that the mere act of removing his clothes puts him in mind of what happens when he removes his clothes at home.

• Despite their carelessness about homework, both of these boys seem happy at school and enjoy being there. Well, of course they do! At school, they are safe from being molested.

• The father is known to write emails to teachers, regarding missing homework. [God, how I remember such emails from parents of my students here! Yuk!] In these emails, the father complains that he knows the child did the work, and the lack of it must somehow be the responsibility of the teacher. The father may be surly and rude. He may threaten. He may insist that the child be given credit for the work.

• This father, as I understand it, for some reason, sometimes turns nasty and threatening with teachers, where he might retain a façade of niceness for others, especially in face-to-face meetings. [Now that I think of it, I believe I have been the recipient of several such nasty and threatening emails since I began writing about this case. Each time, however, he pretended to be someone else. Acquaintances of his, however, recognized the writing and the tone.]

The older boy is said by his father to have been diagnosed as ADD. This is not true. There was never any such diagnosis. When this father moved himself and his sons to Florida, he apparently persuaded his Florida physician that a diagnosis of ADD had been made in Maryland. He thus acquired a prescription for amphetamines, which he has the boy take. I’m sure you know as well as I do that drugs are frequently one method of control used by pedophiles who molest the same child or children repeatedly.

• Another means of control, of course, is to keep the children terrified.

• The father has the occasion and the means to use these boys for the creation of child pornography. They have disclosed in the past that he has taken both still pictures and videos of them, either nude or partially clothed, in suggestive poses or suggestive states of undress or near undress.

• Each of the boys has, probably on more than one occasion, been found sleeping on his desk. Late nights modeling for pornography can do that to a child.

• This father refuses to name the names of any psychologist or psychiatrist in Florida who has treated the children, although I understand there has been at least one such person involved in treating one or both of the children for a time.

• In the event you find signs of abuse—and should you find these signs in one of the children of whom I speak—please remember that this father is a sociopath. He can be the ultimate in “likeability.” He presents himself to people outside his family as kind and caring, the sort of man who could never be suspected of something as vile as any form of child abuse. He will take a lie and wring it out until it looks like truth. He is manipulative. He is glib. He can make you believe that what you know to be true is untrue. His emotions are shallow; he may become enraged by the slightest incident, but remain cold and unmoved by something that would upset a normal person.

He has thus far showed no concern about the possibility that his children were being molested. When his Maryland attorney recommended that he show some concern, the best he could manage was to say he felt awkward or bad about being accused. On the other hand, he was at one time overheard saying, “I don’t care if the kids grow up f***** up!”

He is irresponsible. He has an exaggerated sense of his own importance. And on and on…you could google “sociopath” to find out more about what to expect of this man, in the event you come across the evidence you need to report his abuse of his sons.

I believe I’ve gone beyond knowing what more to say, except for this: One day THE TRUTH WILL OUT. Someone—teacher, friend, rabbi, total stranger—will see this man putting on a display of temper in public, will see him shove or kick or slap or punch one or both of his children. It has happened in the past. A criminal trial—full of lies and created evidence and snippets of “proof” taken out of context—interrupted the investigative process at that time. I hope and pray--for the sake of these two young men who are surviving the worst that any childhood could offer—that the next investigation will occur soon, and that this time there will be no interruptions. Unless and until that happens, there is no safe place for these children.

Saturday, August 23, 2008



Dear Mr. Gansler and Ms. Winfree:

On the date below I sent you the letter below. Since it has been nearly a week since I emailed you the letter, I now offer it to the public, via blog sites, so that perhaps this may stir one or both of you to some form of response.

August 17, 2008

Mr. Gansler:

It strikes me that it is about time for me to make personal contact with you and with your chief deputy attorney general, Katherine Winfree, since I have, for some time now, been including both of you in material that I have blogged, and it seems unfair for me to be doing this without your knowledge. I admit to having a serious distaste for doing things behind people’s backs.
Since the office of the attorney general in the state of Maryland is, as I understand it, technically responsible for any and all child abuse investigations that take place in that state, perhaps I should have begun with you in the first place.

I truly do not know, although it appears that officials in both Maryland and DC have investigated this particular case of child abuse in the past and deemed it unworthy of attention, and the abuser and his children have now removed themselves from the area and live in Tampa, Florida. I understand that some people in your area were so convinced that disclosures made by the two boys were completely unreliable that your chief deputy, Katherine Winfree, even wrote to authorities in Florida to inform them that reports of child sexual abuse had been made in the Maryland and the DC areas, were investigated thoroughly, and that the investigations had been closed because the allegations were unfounded.

Pardon a little, old lady for indulging in a bit of terminology from my childhood, but--hogwash!

My research says that even the slides Prosecutor Katherine Winfree showed at Elsa Newman’s first trial bore witness to abuse, as did other aspects of the prosecution case:
· Why was a little boy, Lars Slobodow, stark naked, in bed with a father who was nude from the waist down?
· Arlen Slobodow said the boy had had trouble sleeping and had come to crawl in bed with Dad. And they were both there sleeping when Landry attacked.
· Rrrrright! But if they were both sleeping and if Margery Landry was indeed intent on murder, why did she not slip in beside the bed…place the gun against Slobodow’s head…and pull the trigger?
· Maybe what happened was that Landry came upon a scene of abuse in progress? She said she tried to “pull them apart.” Sounds like abuse in progress to me. Two people—man and child--asleep in the same bed would not necessarily have needed to be pulled apart, would they?
· Maybe it was this sex-in progress scene that caused Margery Landry to lose control and ruin her life, trying to protect that child from something which had previously been only disclosure by that little boy and his older brother.
· And about that the fact that the boy was nude! As the mother of three sons, and as one who only recently and in regard to this case has repeatedly asked other mothers of sons if their little boys sleep without pajamas, I can tell you that little boys do not sleep nude. They simply don’t.
· Evident in one of Winfree’s slides were some items of little-boy clothing. Was that shoes and socks? Or just socks? Whatever it was, the clothing bore silent witness to what had happened—or was happening-- to that little boy in his father’s bed.
· Not only that, but this particular little boy’s bed had not been slept in.
· Therefore what you are asking me to believe is that this little boy, in his bed alone, had either a bad dream or something else that kept him awake. He got out of bed…made his bed…took off his pajamas…put on his shoes and socks or maybe just the socks…walked to his father’s bed…removed his footwear…and, thus nude, crawled into bed with an accused pedophile father, who was nearly nude. Uh-huh! Rrright!
· And what about the slide which had in it a small bag of what appeared to be “sex toys?” What was that doing in the master bedroom—open and ready to use--with father and son, if Arlen Slobodow was all that innocent and sleeping?
· What about the shooting? Is the internet correct when it tells me that, although there were holes in Arlen Slobodow’s leg—one from the entrance wound and one from the exit wound—and although his pajama bottoms were covered with blood, there were no corresponding holes in the pajama bottoms?
· Is the internet correct in telling me as well that there was a burn on Slobodow’s hand from the firing of the gun? And that the police took a picture of this burn. OMG—is it even possible that the man shot himself in the struggle with Landry?
· What about the 9-1-1 call? Did Arlen Slobodow actually tell the operator that his “wife had sent someone to kill him?” Because you and I both know that even if that had been true—and just for the record, I do not believe it is--there is no way Slobodow could have known it.
· Only one more question in this regard: why did Winfree use an entirely different set of slides in the second trial of Elsa Newman? Were the original ones too telling?

Should you question my belief in Slobodow’s penchant for sex with his sons, you might try contacting one Anders Arestad, now of Arlington, Virginia. If I read the situation correctly, this is a man who was “involved” with Arlen Slobodow. They were, in other words, “lovers,” in every way intended by the gay community when they use that word. However, I understand that even Anders sometimes objected to the brutality with which Slobodow treated his sons.

In regard to the propriety of waiting to contact you about this issue until after I have blogged considerably about said issue, I must admit that I have a terrible reluctance to address people in authority and/or in high office, so perhaps that will explain to you why I began as I did—blogging the case of Elsa Newman and her children, rather than writing to you about said case. It has, perhaps unfortunately, taken me all this time to work up my courage to address this issue to you and to your staff personally.

Below my signature on this email is a list of the blogs and websites I have been using, in case you want to see for yourself what I’ve been saying—or have one of your staff members check it out.
Let me say without further ado that I believe that Herbie and Lars Slobodow were and are the objects of sexual abuse by their father, Arlen Slobodow, now of Tampa, Florida. They were and are also the victims of his neglect and of physical, mental, emotional, verbal and even spiritual abuse. I have no question at all but that the man is a sociopath—he fits to a T virtually every quality listed for sociopaths—and I believe him quite capable of indulging himself in the things of which I accuse him. These atrocities have been going on for nearly ten years now.

So…what made me so convinced that this man is an abuser? Research, including the use of a tool called “Deepnet Explorer,” which makes available to me more information that do any of the more traditional web browsers with which I am familiar.

By means of this browser, as well as other more traditional browsers, I have put together and blogged a list of some 60 reasons for my belief that Elsa Newman is innocent and that her children are used and abused sexually and other ways by their pedophile father, to whom the courts of Maryland awarded the children as if presenting some kind of gift. Actually, I guess you could logically say it just that way. He persuaded the jury; he persuaded the court; he persuaded your office and his prize was?—his ex-wife unjustly imprisoned and custody of the children for himself.

This is the man who said of his children, “I don’t care if the kids grow up fucked up!”

I have posted these reasons on blogs around the world—as far away as the UK. With the help of a man calling himself “thewizardofoz”, who became interested in Elsa’s case, apparently from reading my blog, much of this information has also been blogged Down Under.

WhatI want to know is if there is anything possible that either of you can still do to remedy this situation? Or are you merely content to rest on your laurels, knowing that retrying Elsa Newman was part of the publicity you, Mr. Gansler, needed in your run for AG?
Elsa Newman, of course, still resides in the state of Maryland—at Maryland Correctional Institution for Women. I can only imagine what this unjustly imprisoned mother must feel, knowing that her children are incested daily by a pedophile father and that from a prison cell there is nothing whatsoever she can do to help them.

I seem to recall that on the occasion of Newman’s trial verdict being vacated by Maryland’s highest court, your response was, “They just released the woman who wanted to kill her kids.” Not only is that statement untrue—Elsa Newman is probably the last person on earth who would want to harm either of her children—but it demonstrates an attitude that frightens me, since I had always been under the impression that the purpose of a prosecutor is to uncover truth.
Or were you simply fearful that the release of Newman, a woman whose incarceration had made such a whopping publicity splash for the two of you would damage your chances in running for office?

The truth will out one day, Mr. Gansler. Perhaps you will put yourself in a position of willingness to help. Such willingness would, I am sure, put you in a good light as a man of integrity, who wants to reverse mistakes—even if such mistakes might be laid at his own door or the doors of members of his staff.

Thank you for taking time to read and consider.

Aine O’Brocken—retired teacher and obnoxious, little, old lady who thinks the treatment of Elsa Newman and her sons, as well as the treatment of the pedophile father who was awarded custody, all of it absolutely stinks!

The promised list of blog sites follows: possibly the best, since it has the highest readership—over 80,000 hits since I started it as a pug blog; I wrote a lot about Elsa on this, also --this is not my blog, but is written by a man in Australia, who apparently saw my blogging about Elsa and took up her cause; it is a bit different from the others. Love those Aussies!!!

Thursday, August 21, 2008

WHO has human rights issues?

Costa Rica frees US woman wanted for international kidnapping, grants her refugee status
The Associated Press
Published: July 26, 2008

OK… what is wrong with this picture? The United States is the land of the free and the home of the brave, right? Our leaders aim verbal blasts at China and other countries over the question of human rights. And yet this woman—and others like her—have been forced to flee this country and make their homes elsewhere in order to save themselves and/or their children from battering and abuse.
There is a cloud of shame roiling over our heads when this country makes such action necessary.
Remember Elizabeth Morgan? She was in prison for two years because she had sent her daughter out of the country to protect the child from sexual abuse at the hands of the child’s own father. And she wouldn’t tell where the child was, because she was determined that there would be no more such abuse.
Remember Elsa Newman? She didn't run. She trusted the American justice system to take care of her sons and herself. Now Elsa is in prison, and the two sons are in the physical custody of a man they have said abuses them sexually.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Hey! You! Out There! Doesn't Anybody Give a Damn?

This business of writing letters to people who could/should be able to help Elsa Newman and her children is getting monotonous. I receive the same answer every time: nothing…nada…zip…zero…zilch.

I wrote an open letter to Dr. Jill Scharff, who has records from a time when she was the treating psychiatrist for the boys. I suggested that if she would allow those records to be opened, she might be able to spare Elsa’s two sons a lot of pain and abuse. No response.

I wrote a letter to Doug Gansler, Attorney General of the state of Maryland. I suggested that, in the interest of justice, it might be worth his while to revisit the Elsa Newman case. Finding and correcting an error in the justice system that he supervises could only make him look good, would it not? No response.

The same letter I wrote to Gansler, I copied to Katherine Winfree. No response.

I have twice written to one Anders Arestad, a man whom I believe to be quite familiar with Arlen Slobodow. I suspect that Mr. Arestad, if he chose to do so, could have quite a bit to say about Slobodow’s sexual and other abuse of his sons. There are some who go so far as to suspect that Arestad participated in sexual abuse of the boys. I, on the other hand, have heard that he protested the abuse…that even Arestad thought Slobodow had gone too far. No response.
Why in the world won’t any of these people answer me? What does it take for a little, old lady to draw attention to an injustice in the state of Maryland and find someone who will remedy that injustice?

Yoo-hoo! You out there! Is anybody listening? Isn’t anybody willing to do anything at all?

Elsa Newman's Mother

Here is a photograph that actually goes with the blog I wrote yesterday. This is Elsa Newman's mother, Rose Newman. You will remember I told you that Elsa's mother stated there is one thing worse than losing a child in death--which this woman has also done. And that one thing? Losing a child to unjust imprisonment...and for all practical purposes losing her grandsons, since she is never allowed to hear from them or see them or contact them.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

What Is the Very Worst Thing That Could Happen to a Mother?

Today I spoke to Elsa Newman’s mother. This ninety-five-year-old woman (that’s right! I did write 95, and so she is.) lives on her own in a small apartment in the state of Florida. She cooks her own meals, does her own housekeeping, virtually everything one would expect a woman of 95 to need help with—she does it herself.

We-ell...OK…she has help one half day a week. But that isn’t for housework or things of that nature.

No…you see, Mrs. Newman had an accident with her car back when she was only 90, and she decided it was time for her to stop driving. So a woman comes once a week to take her shopping.

Her mind is as clear as the proverbial bell. She can carry her end of a conversation and more. I’m awfully glad of that, because I’m a poor stick for telephone conversations.

I mostly do all right with Elsa, because Elsa always has so many important things to tell me that I have little to do but take notes, tell her what I’ve been up to on the blogs and break in to ask the occasional question about something crucial that I didn't catch.

Elsa’s mother has the same talent, and I’m grateful. You know what they say about learning more with your mouth shut than you do with it open? Let me tell you about a couple of things I learned today, while I was busy keeping my mouth shut and a cell phone glued to my ear.

One of the first things I learned is that Rose Newman is only 4’ 8” tall. Now that was a surprise. I somehow thought it must take a giant of a woman to bear the struggle and stress and pain that life has offered her.

She had a son who died when he was 10 and a half years old. I’ve always thought that the worst thing that could happen to a mother was to lose a child in death. My mother lost a child—my younger sister—in a car accident, and I always knew that life was a bit out of kilter for Mother after that. Nothing was quite right. There was supposed to be another daughter in her world, and that other daughter was not there.

I said to Mrs. Newman that I had always thought that losing a child was the very worst thing that could happen to a parent. I wonder if my statement took her aback, because she paused for just a moment, thoughtful, and then answered, “You know, that was what I always thought, too. But this is worse.”

It’s worse to have a daughter in prison, knowing that your daughter does not belong there.

It’s worse having a daughter who was convicted by isolated “snippets” flowing from the mouth of Prosecutor Katherine Winfree—when the context would have shown your daughter innocent rather than guilty.

It's worse knowing you will possibly never again set yours eyes on that unjustly imprisoned daughter.

It’s worse not being able to see or talk to two of your grandsons, and knowing that you will probably never see or talk to them again.

It’s worse knowing that those two grandsons have been suffering for years—the boy who was 6 or 7 when it started is now 16—from the vilest sexual abuse imaginable.

It’s worse knowing those two grandsons disclosed their abuse and were ignored or called liars.

It’s worse knowing your daughter was accused of coaching the boys to disclose sexual abuse, accused despite the determined opinion of medical professions and specialists who declared that there was no way those children were being coached.

It’s worse knowing that the very justice system which her daughter so trusted turned on Elsa in every way it could: Elsa’s former attorney testifying against her—and lying on the stand; Sandra Ashley testifying against her—and lying on the stand; Arlen Slobodow testifying against her—and lying on the stand. Well, I mean you expect a sociopath to lie, but what’s up with the other two?

It’s worse knowing that Que Edwina Wallace, member of a police department that should have been helping her grandsons, instead interrogated them so fiercely and at such length that after six hours, they could take no more of her harrassment—and Herbie recanted, while Lars, far younger, just pooped in his underwear from not being allowed to use a restroom.

It’s worse knowing that Dr. Jill Scharff, who was the boys’ treating psychiatrist, now refuses to release the records of their treatment, citing doctor-patient privilege, when it is that very refusal that allows the torment to continue.

It’s worse knowing that those two precious grandsons also will live the rest of their lives under the shadow of abuse at the hands of their father, Arlen Slobodow, and only G-d knows what their lives will be as a result.

Yes…taken all together, I can begin to understand why Rose Newman would feel that this horrible situation is worse, even, than the loss of a child. And if anyone would know, Mrs. Newman would.

G-d help you, Rose. And G-d help all of us who are now fighting this battle to gain publicity for Elsa and your grandsons, her sons.

G-d grant us that this post and these blogs and whatever the publicity and new attorneys can accomplish have not come too late.

G-d grant that you may see the day when Elsa walks out of Maryland Correctional Institution for Women--free and vindicated.

And may G-d deal with the guilty according to Divine Wisdom.

Amen. So mote it be.

Thursday, August 14, 2008


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. If 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 and find a 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 was neither conspiracy nor foreknowledge on Elsa's part.

And that's another reason for believing Elsa. I'm not even putting that in the numbered blog. I'm handing it to you for free: 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.

Now...on to my reasons for believing Elsa Newman.

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 estranged husband while the boys were visiting. During the break-in, Margery was carrying a gun and had taken child pornography with her, intending to plant it in the house if she could not find child pornography in the home as evidence. Instead of child pornography, what Landry found was Elsa’s estranged husband, nude from the waist down, in bed with his younger son, who was completely nude. Landry blew it at that point, completely losing her cool. She entered the master bedroom and tried to pull the man away from his son. Elsa’s estranged husband woke and struggled with Landry, and the gun when off during the struggle. 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 judge ignored her pleas, allowed the unsupervised visits, and the man drowned the three children in a bathtub. 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 her children disclosed to her; I have seen documents. 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.
· Among the first things Arlen Slobodow said on that 9-1-1 tape was “Don’t let my wife have my kids.” Well, of course he didn’t want her to have them! He knew what he’d been doing to them, and he knew Elsa would take them to medical authorities to have the abuse verified.

· 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 in the leg, there were both entrance and exit wounds, 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 detectives. 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 detective didn’t want to put up with the odor.

After many hours—I believe it was over six hours—the interrogating police detective, Que Edwina Lewis--emerged, triumphant and absolutely beaming, from the interrogation room, followed by Elsa’s older son, who had gone completely white in the face. “Herbie 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 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.

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 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 normal, despite clear evidence in the testing that the man is a sociopath and a child molester.

14. I believe Elsa because of the comment on one of my blogs, by a person calling himself/herself “Ashan.” “Ashan” told an awkward, undetailed picture of Elsa as a young child, saying that he (Ashan) had known her since the age of eight, that his parents had been friends of Elsa’s parents, and that he had hated visiting her because she been demanding and petty. The problem? There never was such a little person in Elsa’s life. I wrote a comment on my blog in response to the original comment by “Ashan.” Wouldn’t you think that if any part of that letter were true, I would have received some sort of response? Nothing. Nada.

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, Stephen Friedman. What happened to attorney-client privilege?

17. I believe Elsa because the testimony of Friedman was so obviously a matter of his lying through his teeth. Elsa Newman is a very intelligent woman. Just how stupid would you have to be to sit in front of an attorney, of all people, and plot a murder? Duh! Elsa is an attorney.

18. I believe Elsa because, although Friedmen literally never took notes at his work sessions with Elsa—and I have in hand records from her computer that show she complained about this—when it came time to testify against Elsa, Friedman showed up in court with volumes of notes, ostensibly taken during work sessions with Elsa.

19. I believe Elsa because she had fired Friedman after a series of complaints about him. I have no doubt that Friedman would have considered himself justified in seeking revenge in the form of manufactured testimony.

20. I believe Elsa because her ex-husband was the only other major prosecution witness. Talk about “vested interest!”

21. 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.”

22. I believe Elsa because those same two attorneys went on to point out that the alleged “death threat” that Elsa had supposedly made to Sandra Ashley, an employee of Mr. Friedman, would have been 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 nearly nude in bed with his younger son. That would make it several years before the woman actually sat in a witness chair and testified.

23. I believe Elsa because I have in hand a copy of the email that Sandra Ashley sent to her employer, Mr. Friedman, after her meeting with Elsa, said in total, “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.’” If such a horrible death threat had been made that this Ashley woman would remember it years later—why was there no mention of such threat in the email?

24. I believe Elsa because I believe that Sandra Ashley’s testimony was not allowable any more than was Friedman’s. This testimony—because Ashley was an employee of Friedman at the time—should have been covered by attorney-client privilege, just as much as was Friedman’s.

25. I believe Elsa because I believe that Ashley, like her employer, fabricated the whole story of the supposed death threat.

26. I believe Elsa because the alleged “death threat” was stated during a bitter divorce and custody battle. In other words, even had Elsa uttered these horrible threats—an idea which is not only in doubt, but is itself ludicrous—the words were never meant in the context presented by the prosecution.

27. I believe Elsa because the prosecution removed item after item from its context and used these items to “prove” Elsa guilty. The reality is that, had the prosecution been interested in truth, rather than in winning a guilty verdict at any cost, the context would have shown Elsa’s innocence.

28. I believe Elsa because of the prosecution’s denigrating attitude toward her. Prosecutor Katherine Winfree called Elsa a “delusional witch.” Winfree said of her in an email to Detective Susan Mercer, “She is so nuts!!”

29. I believe Elsa because I believe the prosecution actually harassed her. How? Well, it went like this: Elsa would always arrive early for trial, lest she should run into problems in her journey to the courthouse and end up late. This early arrival meant waiting. And waiting sometimes put her in the area outside the courtoom with Katherine Winfree. Winfree would talk about her children—how she had to do this or that with them, or pick them up after some practice or other. During these “conversations,” Elsa cringed. Hearing about a mother’s daily, normal, routine interactions with her children was pure hell for a woman who did not have the privilege of that same sort of interaction with her own kids.

30. I believe Elsa precisely because of the repeated statements by Katherine Winfree that “She wanted him dead,” “she” being Elsa Newman and “him” being Arlen Slobodow, the pedophile father of her children. Those children had disclosed horrible sexual abuse at the hands of their father, and Elsa believed them completely. If a woman of Elsa’s obvious intelligence, quality and ability had wanted Arlen Slobodow dead—then he would be dead. He is not; therefore she did not want him dead.

31. 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 the judge in question decided that the jury foreman had meant he believed her guilty before deliberations ever started, rather than before the start of the trial.

32. 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.

33. I believe Elsa because of the testimony of Margery Landry at the second trial. With nothing either to lose or to gain, Landry testified plainly that Elsa had neither had anything to do with the crime—nor had she even known in advance that Landry had the idea of entering Slobodow’s house.

34. I believe Elsa because of the simple fact that if she had had the slightest hint of Landry’s intentions, she would never have permitted a gun to be taken anywhere near her children.

35. 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.
36. I believe Elsa because of the timing of the second trial. Doug Gansler was then running for (or maybe just planning a run for) state office. It would have been quite negative publicity were he to allow an innocent woman to be released at that time. He had to have her convicted again.

37. I believe Elsa because a timeline I have prepared offers further evidence about Gansler’s run for office. The timeline 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.

38. I believe Elsa because Gansler was making other moves to gain positive publicity in his run for Attorney General of the state of Maryland. For example, it was about at this same time that he declared he intended to prosecute the DC snipers in Maryland, despite the fact they had already been convicted and sentenced—one to death, as I recall—in the state of Virginia. But a Maryland trial would bring additional publicity, would it not, Mr. Gansler? And would make a win in the election more likely for you, would it not, Mr. Gansler? And who cares if an innocent woman was sent back to prison just because you wanted publicity. Right, Mr. Gansler.

39. 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:

Or take a look at a Yahoo group called “mothersincrisiscoalition.”

40. 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” or “funny.” 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….”

41. I believe Elsa because the ex-husband who was a primary witness against her at both trials manufactured testimony out of incidents he had seen or observed in other people or in different situations.

For example, Arlen Slobodow testified in two trials that he had seen Margery Landry slap Elsa and Elsa slap her back. Neither of these women has ever slapped the other Want the real story? Here it is: Arlen Slobodow has a history of violence against women. So intense did this violence become that Elsa was forced to taking out a protective order against him. Long before she took out said order, however, he was abusing her on a regular basis, both verbally and physically.

Although it had seemed at first to be simply an invented story, it became obvious later that the fake incident related by Slobodow had based it on an incident in which he, himself, had been involved. Elsa had seen in movies where an insulting or offensive man would be slapped by the heroine. So…on an occasion when Arlen was being extremely abuse verbally, Elsa slapped him. He slapped her back so hard he nearly knocked her down. She never again tried that tactic or anything physical with him.

She did state this in testimony during divorce proceedings.

Apparently it was on this incident that Slobodow based his manufactured story of Elsa and Landry exchanging slaps.

In other words, Slobodow took an incident in which he was involved and projected it onto someone else, thus perjuring himself.

42. I believe Elsa because Slobodow was so physically abusive that he often frightened her. He has been known to throw Elsa down a flight of stairs. One time she was even holding a baby when he did that. As I understand it, he also physically assaulted Margery Landry several times, one time catching her hand in a closing door and continuing to try to close it.

43. I believe Elsa because Slobodow was so verbally and emotionally abusive that Elsa used to enter a bathroom, turn the water on full force in the tub and put her hands over her ears to calm his ranting.

44. I believe Elsa because Slobodow several times ignored protective orders against him. On one occasion he threw her to the sidewalk and entered her house, walking out with some items he had decided he wanted.

45. I believe Elsa because Slobodow is a man of extremes, with no middle ground. During the time the family was living together, Slobodow was either involved in sports pages, in watching TV or in using a computer. OR…he was ranting and raving and violent. There was no in between. He never laughed. He never cried.

46. I believe Elsa because Slobodow showed no concern whatever about his children’s disclosures that his children were being abused. When his attorney, Stacy Talbott, told him he should appear concerned about why his children believed someone was abusing them so badly, apparently the best he could manage was to say that he didn’t like being accused of abuse. To this day, no one I know has heard him express concern for his sons.

47. I believe Elsa because of two professionals that ruled out any possibility that Elsa was “coaching” the boys in their claims of abuse—Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Lamb.

48. I believe Elsa because—despite the fact that Herbie has no evidence of ADD or ADHD—Slobodow has managed to finagle a diagnosis and now has the boy on amphetamines. I suspect this is an attempt at control, as one method abusers use to control the children and young people they abuse is giving or withholding drugs.

49. I believe Elsa because even Stacy Talbott, attorney for Arlen Slobodow, said Elsa is a person who speaks quietly, but not like she was hiding anything. And Talbott confided that she knew that Elsa knew Slobodow was molesting the children. I wonder how it feels to be the attorney of a child molester…and know he’s a molester…and win your case.

50. I believe Elsa because Alan Town (now deceased) who had been the court-appointed attorney for the boys during the divorce, insisted that once Elsa was charged, he [Town] had been also court appointed to protect the interest of the boys in a trust fund. Their grandmother, Elsa’s mother, had previously been in charge of that fund. The judge ordered it turned over to Alan Town only until Elsa’s trial was over, so Elsa could not use the money “for bond, fleeing, travel, etc.”

Then when the trial was over, Town refused to return the fund to the grandmother’s control, although the original court order clearly stated that he was to do so at that time.

This matter went to court, and the court left the fund in the control of Town.

51. I believe Elsa because Alan Town and Arlen Slobodow were so clearly friends that they were seen laughing and talking together at various times. It was stated in a police report that I have in hand, that the “Guardian [Town] covers up or doesn’t believe allegations.”

52. I believe Elsa because Margery Landry repeatedly tried to bring abuse disclosures by the boys to the attention of authorities—and failed.

53. I believe Elsa because Arlen Slowbodow makes it so obvious that he is not to be trusted.
His violence bears witness to that. His lying during testimony against Elsa demonstrates that. The disclosures of his children show that. His failure to repay a loan from Margery Landry show it.

54. I believe Elsa because Arlen Slobodow reveals his vindictiveness against his former wife in a variety of ways. His filing of petty lawsuits and motions against her, to deplete her resources is but one example of this. His settling for $20,000 when he filed a suit against Margery Landry—and yet demanding over a hundred thousand dollars from Elsa is another example. His invented testimony shows this. His 9-1-1 call on the night of the crime shows this, as he said, “My wife sent someone to try to kill me,” when there is no earthly or heavenly way he could have known that, even had it been true.

55. I believe Elsa because her ex-husband, Arlen Slobodow of Tampa, Florida, fits the description “sociopath” to a T. Let’s take a moment to examine that statement, based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.
· Glibness a superficial charm. [Fits. Slobodow, although in many ways violent and unpredictable, can display absolutely marvelous charm in public. Thus his ability to appear believable to a jury when he lies—or to a child abuse investigator when he lies—or to anyone interviewing him about his former wife.]

Manipulative and Conning. [Fits. A perfect picture of Slobodow, who manipulates people as if he were a puppetmaster and people his puppets.]
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self. Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." [Fits. Slobodow never admits to any faults in himself. Part of this whole mess seems to be his belief that he has a right to abuse his children if he wants to. Note also his comment on MySpace:
"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]
Pathological Lying---[oooh…right on] Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt—[right on again]A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions—[yup!]When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love—[but plenty of capacity for anger, hatred, revenge, duplicity, etc…etc…etc….]
Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. [Oh, yes.] Promiscuity and gambling are common. [Don’t know about gambling…but it does seem that there is evidence of promiscuity. His own sons are most likely not the only boys he has ever molested. For example, there were times when he would visit his wife and sons in London and would disappear for hours, late into the night. Hmmmm. What were you doing then, Arlen?]
Callousness/Lack of Empathy [Notice here that the kids have disclosed that when they have begged him to stop some form of abuse he was indulging in, “he just does it more.”]Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. [Sounds like Arlen Slobodow to me.]
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency [I honestly don’t know about this one. I’m entertaining suspicions, but that is all.]Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability [Unpaid debts to Margery Landry.]Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. [Does this apply to his use of his sons sexually?] Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they [the sociopath] obviously committed. [How about that thing of Slobodow taking things that happened to him—like the slapping incident—and turning into something Elsa and Landry had done.]
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity [Oh, wow! Following emphasis is mine. No further comment. Oh…changed my mind. What about Anders? Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. ]Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle [Ta-dum!]Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility [Still on track. Arlen Slobodow owns his own business.]
[And an assortment of related issues]
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution.
Changes life story readily.
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
a. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
56. 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.

57. I believe Elsa because of the appeal written by Norman C. Usiak, Esquire, then attorney for Elsa’s mother, who wrote, “Appellant, Rose Newman, is the elderly mother of a woman named Elsa Newman. That would be one and the same Elsa Newman whose personal dismantling at the hands of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County is already quite familiar to this court.” I take that to mean that Usiak, also, pretty well believed Elsa.

58. I believe Elsa because I have in hand documents that show how investigations of child abuse were conducted in Florida—superficially, quickly, with little apparent concern for truth and in the presence of the father they had accused of molesting them. Duh! How dumb is that?

59. 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 I would like to note that on this occasion, Winfree refused a breathalyzer test—although I understand it is illegal in the state of Maryland to refuse such a test.

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. I have reached 59 separate reasons--some of them long and involved and actually containing more than a single reason. I’m tired of typing, and I have other things to do today (some of those other things are also for Elsa), so I’m quitting for now, although I find more reasons every day.

Thus I believe Elsa Newman.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008



or: Sometimes Nobody Will Help You Unless You Make a Drastic Move

Sandy’s* father was a man who kept his children in line with his belt or his fists. These were used, however, not in what I would have called a “spanking” in my little-kid days. Spankings were common when I was a kid, most everybody got one at least once in a while.

But Sandy’s father took the issue far beyond mere spanking and into the realm of beating. It seemed to be common knowledge among the teachers at the middle school Sandy attended. I know. I was one of those teachers. Did we report? Of course we did. Teachers are required by law to report suspected abuse.

And Children’s Services arrived sweetly and politely at the household to inquire whether perhaps the children were being treated just a teensy bit roughly. Their investigation, of course, took place in the presence of the abuser. The children were asked if their father was given to beating them. Sweetly and politely, not even having to look at their father for cues, knowing already what would happen to them at his hands should they answer wrongly, each of the four children answered, “No. Why, no…he wouldn’t do anything like that.”

And the next day Sandy came to school with a mouse under one eye and God-only-knows what other signs of her father’s attention hidden under her jeans and her long-sleeved blouse.
Obviously that didn’t work.

Sandy had an older brother who had been in my room one year. I called him “Tom,” although that wasn’t his name. I said he reminded me of Tom Sawyer—who would pretty much go ahead and do whatever he wanted and thought was appropriate and desirable for him, and then take the consequences, which often included a “thrashing” in Twain’s wording.

I guess you could say that worked, in a sense. “Tom” made his own adaptation to the abuse and lived with his decision.

Despite the fact that Sandy herself eventually reported abuse, her report received roughly the same treatment as had reports from the teachers. It was weeks before she stopped looking frightened.

Obviously that didn’t work.

One of the children fled the home and went to live with grandparents.

Another thing that sort of worked. Provided a kid has grandparents he can trust and they are close enough to flee to.

A different time. A different state. A different school. And I was again a teacher. One family of little kids attended the school—which ran from kindergarten through 8th grade. The children from this family arrived each day in clothes that were dirty, poorly sized and unmended. The children themselves were usually dirty and unkempt.They came without lunches. We teachers called CPS about parental neglect of these children. And we called. And called. Nothing, to the best of my knowledge, was ever done.

So that obviously didn’t work.

Only recently in Northern Idaho, a three-year-old named Kyra Wine was taken to the hospital. Neighbors, medical people and friends had asked several times that CPS check on Kyra and her older sister. When a home visit was finally made, authorities found a child who had been terribly injured by her mother’s boy friend—including such things as having her hair pulled so hard that much of it came out and her scalp pulled away from her skull in places. Various parts of her body—including feet and hands had dead and decaying flesh. More than a month later, she is still in the hospital, and doctors are using methadone to keep her pain under control.

The input of nurses, friends and neighbors didn’t do much for this little girl, did it? Authorities arrived in time to save her life—but the rest of what happened to her is unbelievable.

In the state of Maryland, a father drowned his three children in a bathtub during an unsupervised visit at his hotel. This occurred after the children’s mother, Amy Castillo had begged a judge not to allow unsupervised visits because she knew the father was a serious threat to their safety and their lives. The judge ignored the mother’s pleading and allowed the unsupervised visits.

Obviously a mother’s pleading with the court didn’t accomplish much!

What is a kid supposed to do then, when he or she is being abused? It doesn’t matter if the abuse is sexual or physical, mental or emotional. Is there an answer? CPS obviously does not always come up with anything worthwhile, often arriving only after a child has died or been so severely injured that death threatens.

Well, I do know one story about a teenage girl who got herself out of an abusive situation after it had gone on for years. I’ll call her Angela. Angie had suffered abuse of almost every imaginable kind: sexual, physical, emotional and verbal. She had tried to tell her mother, and her mother just told her she had to put up with it, because “that’s just the way men are.”

Obviously disclosing to a mother who didn’t give a damn didn’t accomplish much, either.

I know another mother—her name is Elsa Newman—who did care. She cared so much that she fought to find help for her two sons and ended up in prison. She was convicted of a crime that didn’t even exist—conspiracy to commit murder—when there was neither a murder attempt nor any intention to murder, nor was there any conspiracy.

Obviously having a mother who cares immeasurably doesn’t do much good either.

Here is the bottom line: I know one person who was able to come up with a way to help herself. That would be Angie—the girl whose mother didn’t want to know about the abuse. Walking by a public phone one day, she stopped. She dialed. She got the police. And she said, “If you don’t come and get me right now…I’m going to kill myself.”

Police arrived, took her into custody, to protect her—not from the father who had abused her for years, but from herself.

Whatever works!

Would she actually have killed herself? Probably not. But authorities had to take her seriously, just in case.

Angie ended up in a foster home, and she was lucky. It was one of the good ones. There she was cared for and protected. End of story—or as close to the end as I care to bring you. Angie survived. I still know her today.

Obviously a nurse or a concerned friend or neighbor, a mother or a teacher or reports to CPS don’t work as we would like. Children die. Children are tortured. Children are beaten until they are bruised and bloodied. Children are sexually abused and tormented. Children are verbally and emotionally abused.

I tell you honestly that Angie’s is the only success story I know. All the other stories left children in abusive situations.

Do I advise use of her tactics? Heck, no! I’m in no position to give advice to children who suffer abuse. But Angie was desperate to escape her tormented home life, and the way she discovered is the only way I have ever known a child to save herself.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that!

*I’ve changed the children’s names and some minor details for the sake of the children’s privacy.

Sunday, August 10, 2008


Why did you lie? That’s really the primary question in the Elsa Newman case. It’s not so much whether you had the right or privilege to testify; you clearly did not. But when you testified, why in the world did you lie?

Why did you show up in court with all those notes? You never took notes when you were conferring with Elsa Newman. Documentation from her computer shows that she filed complaints about that. No notes. Exhorbitant fees. Breaks to go “get a Coke,” and then billing her for the breaks. Sleeping while she was in your office and you were recording billable time. Or else pretending to sleep—either way, she was billed and there were no notes.

And for God’s sake, why did you tell the court that Elsa Newman and Margery Landry sat in front of you and planned a homicide? Elsa Newman may have been naïve in trusting you and the rest of Maryland’s legal system. Naïve, but not stupid.

This is one intelligent woman. She was a graduate with highest honors of Goucher College and the University of Maryland School of Law. Her curriculum vitae is most impressive and includes a listing in Who’s Who in American Law.

And you proposed to the court, to Maryland, to the United States and to the world that this intelligent woman sat in your office with a family friend and was so unbelievably, incredibly, doggone stupid that she sat there in front of you and conspired to commit murder?

No-no-no. I rather suspect that you were ticked off because of her complaints about you. Got tired of them, did you? Figured out a way to get even, did you?

My God, man…you even admitted on the stand that you believe Arlen Slobodow is sexually abusing at least one of Elsa’s children! And then you lied to help put her in prison? You lied to leave those children in the hands of the man they had said is their abuser—sexually, physically, mentally and emotionally.

Just so you know I’m not the only one who would think and say this of you, I’m reproducing here an entry from the blog of the wizardofoz in Australia.

Oh, your reputation as a liar is spreading around the world. Isn’t that a good thing? If we expose the liars of the U.S., then perhaps we will help the truth to come out. And as Shakespeare and I have been saying, “The truth will out.” Yes, it will, Stephen Friedman. In the US…in Australia, thanks to the wizard…and in the UK, too, for I also have a blog there.

Here is just a portion of the wizard’s most recent blog. He actually called it “A Cacophony of Lies.” Interesting title, wot?

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.

Thus ends the blog of the wizardofoz--from Australia, of course.

Friday, August 8, 2008


to your exploration of the internet:

Google: "Elsa Newman"

Wednesday, August 6, 2008




As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I believe Elsa Newman is because of this horrendous interrogation of her two children by detectives. 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 Elsa 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 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 detective didn’t want to put up with the odor.

After many hours—I believe it was over six hours—the interrogating detective, this same Que Edwina Wallace, emerged, triumphant and absolutely beaming, from the interrogation room, followed by Elsa’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, “has made a disclosure.” Elsa 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.




Herbie Slobodow: My dad stuck a (unintelligible) into my brother’s butt and he, he touched my crotch and butt and he touched it under my (unintelligible).

Unidentified Person: Okay.

Herbie Slobodow: And this is the truth. This is another thing about the truth. And my mom told me to tell the truth.

Unidentified Person: Uh-huh.

Herbie Slobodow: And Lars told, I mean dad, I think dad told Lars to cut it down and he came out of the room with his pants down crying and I pulled him up and then he stopped crying and we hugged each other.

[For more information of what Lars and Herbie have said their dad did to them, please see other entries in this blog site.]


“…they examined the toy that this child apparently said his father abused him with and how physically it could not have happened.

About all the other recantations that these children made about how Lars, when he, after he recanted in front of a police detective in D.C. and his mother found out, she hollered at him and he defecated in his pants.”

[Wow! Is this a variation from the children’s account or what? I suppose Que Edwina Wallace dared not admit what really happened.]

Tuesday, August 5, 2008



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 said psychologist 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 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.”


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 another 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:
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

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 poop.

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.