WRITTEN RESPONSES HAVE BEGUN!

Readers are beginning—just beginning, mind you—to express in writing words of encouragement for Elsa Newman and for her sons and hope that she will find some way out of the whole dreadful situation. It think it is time for me to share some of those words of support and hope.

G******
First of all, I believe, cause you believe in Elsa, I trust your opinion, I trust you. But, second of all, I too know that this has happened far too many times, and from what I have read of Elsa, she is innocent, and not only innocent, but she, and her precious children are the victims!Please send me a link to where you will be blogging …and I will keep up on your blog.Thirdly, my heart, my prayers, my love, and my strongest of positive thoughts go out to you and Elsa.
Tuesday December 4, 2007 - 03:04pm (EST)

Here is another, in the same vein, written because I had told people who read my pug blog, Pug Chatter, that I would be spending more time writing about Elsa and less about my four-legged kids:
N*****
i trust that you are doing the right thing… please send me the link where you will be blogging, and please give an occasional update on the pugs. you have my e-mail address, so please keep in touch, i will certainly continue to send you things to brighten your day.all of our love and +++++++++++++++++++++ energy is coming your way; we pray for you and yours daily already. blessings to you on your new journey. xxoo - n***** and pugs
Wednesday December 5, 2007 - 07:27am (EST)

And here is yet another. This one, I warn you ahead of time, is written in obvious pain from the deep places of the writer’s heart and spirit, where she takes her words from personal experience. Somehow it is also important to me to let you know that this person lives, not in the U.S., but in the U.K. The story of Elsa Newman and the lies and betrayal that put her in prison and her sons in the hands of a pedophile custodial parent—that story is on its way around the world!
Sexual abuse is as bad as murder, because the abused never ever get the opportunity to forget. The lies, deception, corruption that it all encircles grow and grow and years later anything can trigger the recall button on the abuse. I do hope someone can bring to bear proceedings to release this mother from the prison and torture of the mind she must be experiencing and also get her children away from the pedophile father.....
It will be some time before these boys will be able to stand up and defend themselves and their Mother against this animal....but believe me the day will come because every abused child finds the strength to tell, even if it's well into their 20/30/40s....they tell.....the father will not always have the power to poison their minds because in the end things do not add up and that is where the truth outs and then the abuse child will put things into perspective and do the right thing to get it set out by the record.....
In the meantime it will take people like yourself to pry, research, accuse etc and hopefully some righteous lawyer (If there is one) will take on the case and with the proof you and your colleagues have gathered will be able to overturn the verdicts and [have] the innocent freed from their prisons including those with no walls…and the guilty made to pay for their sins......Good Luck and as a Survivor of Child Sex Abuse, I wish you a speedy conclusion for all the innocents’ sake.


The following was written as a response to my statement that Elsa Newman had been told (by the pedophile father) that her sons wanted nothing more to do with her. I had stated clearly that I did not believe that to be the case.

S********
I don't believe that either. I've met her sons and they seem very bright. They know in their hearts that their mother cares deeply for them and the time will come when they will see her again. My very best to Elsa and her sons. We must turn poison into medicine.
Posted by S******** on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 4:24 AM


This is the most recent statement—in response to the picture of Travis with his nose pressed against the bars of a crate and trying to understand how Elsa feels.

N*****…
bless his heart........hope you and yours are all well, and double bless you for trying to help elsa. xxoo n***** and pugs
Friday May 23, 2008 - 07:11pm (EDT)

This final entry is an IM exchange between myself and one of the wommon who has come to believe in Elsa and support her. I leave my own name in the exchange, but I am substituting initials only for the name of the person involved in the other half of the conversation:

GB: Aine, I am reading your blog now. I am horrified! Tell me the site where this monster is, please?
grammapug: What are you reading? The one about the hands?
GB: yes
GB: Write to Oprah! Maybe the publicity would help
grammapug: He is on MySpace. HIs name is [expletive deleted—although I did give her the name].
GB: We have got to do something!
grammapug: He is not using the site, particularly...but he doesn't have it blocked from viewers. I was able to see the picture and thought immediately of what to do with those obscene hands.
GB: I refuse to sit by and let these children and their mother be " sacrificed"
grammapug: I think somebody already tried Oprah. We'd have to get thousands of people to write to her, I suppose, in order to get it to do any good.
grammapug: What in the world else can we do?
grammapug: I wish I could think of something.
GB: Then we will do that if that is what it takes!
GB: May I repost your blog?
grammapug: Go for it, lady!
GB: Ty
grammapug: Maybe you could drop Elsa a short note. It would do her good, I think, to hear that I am beginning to get some response.
GB: does Elsa Have e-mail?
grammapug: No. Prisoners are not allowed access to computers. She hand writes all mail to me.
grammapug: But if you just printed something out...or sent a card...every little thing I get cheers me up.
grammapug: Want her address?
GB: Yes,,could u send it to my e-mail please?
GB: I am on your "team"!
grammapug: OK...will do that. Uh...I'm not sure I still have your email address.
GB: [email address deleted for privacy]
grammapug: Thanks.
GB: I can't find the monster on MySpace.
grammapug: May I copy this and use it?
GB: ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!
grammapug: Can you search for [the name I gave you]?
GB: I did and nothing came up
grammapug: That was how I found him. Somebody told me he was there. Hmmmmm. I'll go check and get back to you, OK?
GB: ok…ty
grammapug: If you aren't on, I'll send that info in an email, too.grammapug: I'd love it if he is gone! It would mean I'm actually getting somewhere.
GB: I am going to repost your blog ( with a short introduction from me) everywhere I can!
grammapug: Back later.
GB: ok
GB: I found him
grammapug: You found him? Are you still there?
GB: yep
grammapug: How come you couldn't find him at first? Spelled the name wrong?
GB: Yep lol
GB: I am trying to add one of the boys to my friend list
GB: I hope he accepts me
grammapug: Oh...did you find Aitch’s site?
GB: yes
grammapug: Isn't he a pleasant looking young man? I copied that picture and sent it to his mother and grandmother.
grammapug: They literally had not had a picture of him for years!
GB: He looks like such a sweet boy
GB: I wanted so much to send that asshole of a father a message, but i did not
grammapug: You're a good wommon. Good self-control.
GB: HARD!!!!!!!!!!
GB: But there is more than one way to skin a cat, isn't there?
GB: and we are going to find ways
grammapug: I have tried more than once to get Aitch to accept me as a friend. I have had no success...either as myself or after I renamed the site and made it Elsa's site. He doesn't respond.
GB: gotta keep trying though
grammapug: Well...back to work, huh?
GB: yep…for us both
GB: I am working on a bulletin of your blog now
grammapug: Eventually.
GB: We need a "myspace" page to form a group
grammapug: OMG...never thought of that one.
GB: Count me in!
grammapug: I thought of a group...but I've been on Yahoo so long I didn't think about MySpace.
GB: I will wait to talk with u a bit more before posting bulletin
grammapug: OH, heck...post anything you like.
grammapug: I am well aware of the possibility of a lawsuit.
GB: We are going to form a plan
GB: I am om a mission!
grammapug: The more we post...the less chance I will be attacked.
GB: yep
grammapug: You are now officially a part of The Elsa Project!
GB: That's part of what we will Plan
grammapug: And I will send you her address.
GB : good
GB: I will HELP
GB: I hope u don't mind
grammapug: Mind? I'm grateful. Now we need another hundred thousand or so!!!!
GB: I must warn u
GB: When I get on a mission, there is no stopping me!
grammapug: G'night, my friend. Sure nice talking to you again.
grammapug: I feel better just talking to you!

HUH?

"Newman's (the mother's) former divorce lawyer, Stephen A. Friedman, testified that he believed there is evidence that Slobodow (the father) had been abusing at least one of the boys, citing a report from Children's Hospital."

http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/000087.html

Surfing the net last night--looking for new information about the Elsa Newman case, I came across the preceding quotation, from the site given. Now wait a minute...Stephen Friedman was Elsa Newman's divorce lawyer, right? And he was the one, in her first criminal trial, who testified against her--despite supposed lawyer-client privilege which the court set aside, to allow him to testify against her.

But he "testified that he believed there is evidence that Slobodow (the father) had been abusing at least one of the boys...." He cited a report from Children's Hospital to back up that belief.

And then he gave testimony which helped place those boys in the custody of the man he believed to be a pedophile?????

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like something rotten in the state of Maryland?

WHEN FREEDOM COMES--WILL IT ALSO COME FOR ELSA NEWMAN?

THE QUESTION OF THE DAY IS: WHEN WILL FREEDOM--IN THIS VEIN--HAPPEN FOR ELSA NEWMAN AND HER CHILDREN???

I am on the email list for The Innocence Project. This bit of news was in my in-box this morning, and I find great joy in sharing it with you.

I cannot contact the Innocence Project by e-mail to obtain permission to use this here...but on their message was a link to click to send this message to friends. By this means, then, I send this information on to all my friends who read this blog.

I rejoice for Dean Cage. I grieve his years of unjust confinement.

And at the same time--forgive me for indulging myself in an expression of a little heartache--when in the name of G-d will someone be able to do something for Elsa Newman!!!


Dean Cage exonerated in Chicago. After nearly 12 years in Illinois prison for a rape he didn’t commit, Innocence Project client Dean Cage is finally free today. His mother and other family members picked him up when he was released late last night from a prison three hours outside of Chicago. Back at his mother’s Chicago home early this morning, his family threw a party to welcome Cage home. Cage said at a Chicago press conference this afternoon that he is overjoyed to be rejoining his family and that he is committed to working for fair justice in his home state and across the country.

He is the 217th person exonerated by DNA testing in the United States, and the 29th in Illinois. Only Texas — with 31 — has more DNA exonerations than Illinois.

Read news coverage of Cage’s release — and learn more about his case and others across the country — on our website.

Cage was wrongfully convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl on her way to school during the winter of 1994. The victim’s identification of Cage as the attacker was the centerpiece of the state’s evidence against him at trial. After the assault, the victim helped police prepare a composite sketch of the perpetrator. A week later, police received a tip that a man matching the sketch worked at a local meat market. Police took the victim to the market, where she identified Cage. Later, at the police station, the victim identified Cage again, this time based on the sound of his voice.

At today’s press conference, Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld said Illinois has been a national leader for several years in reforming the criminal justice system for capital cases. But the state has fallen short in implementing reforms that can prevent wrongful convictions in non-capital cases, which are the vast majority of convictions — and wrongful convictions — in the state. Last summer, the Illinois Legislature created a commission to study non-capital wrongful convictions and develop reforms that can make the criminal justice system more fair and accurate. Nearly a year later, that commission has not been funded and no members have been appointed to it. Neufeld and Cage today called on the Illinois Legislature to move quickly to get the commission started on its critical mission, noting that a similar commission in Illinois led to substantial reforms in capital cases. "If this commission were operating as it’s supposed to, it could help prevent a substantial number of wrongful convictions and restore confidence in the state’s criminal justice system," Neufeld said.

"Perhaps most chilling is the reality that people across Illinois are still being wrongfully convicted based on eyewitness misidentification that could be prevented if the state enacted simple, straightforward reforms that are proven to work."

WHY DON'T CHILDREN DISCLOSE ABUSE?

Many Americans labor under the false impression that it is a simple thing, indeed, for an abused child to get help. For many children, this is absolutely untrue. Abusers are not simple people. Many are sociopaths--showing a charming, charismatic front to the world, while they inflict sexual...physical...and mental abuse on a child. They control the child by any means possible, so that no one will believe the child--or, as in the case of Elsa Newman, or the case of the Castillo family [both in Maryland, incidentally; both in the same county in Maryland, incidentally; both under the same judge in the same county in Maryland]no one will believe a mother who tries to speak out for her children.

Here is a challenge for you: if you are struggling over the question of whether or not to accept my assessment of Elsa's case--that Elsa is unjustly imprisoned and that her two children are in the clutches of a pedophile parent--then read about the Castillo's. There is no arguing over that one at all. The mother pled with the judge not to allow the father unsupervised visits, saying he was a threat to the children. The judge disregarded her pleas, allowed the unsupervised visits. And all three Castillo children are dead--drowned in a bathtub by their father, during one of those unsupervised visits.

OK...back to the question of why the children themselves do not disclose abuse:
There are several categories of threats from an abuser—all designed to keep a child in silence and keep the abuser and his abuse secret. The first is the verbal threat:

If you tell…I’ll kill you.

If you tell…nobody will believe you, because you’re a kid and I’m and adult.

If you tell…I’ll give you such a beating that nobody will be able to tell who you are.

If you tell…I’ll kill your mother.

If you tell…well…you know those drugs I’ve been getting for you? You won’t be getting any more. You know what “cold turkey” means?

If you tell…like you did before…and those social workers come out here again, like they did the last time? The same thing will happen all over again. There won’t be any evidence…and I’ll beat the s*** out of you when they’re gone.

If you tell, I’ll kill your dog [who may be the only friend the kid has]. And you remember what happened to your other dog…and your hamster.

If you tell, I’ll send you to an orphanage, and you will get nothing but stale bread and water until you grow up. If you go to an orphanage, no one will ever adopt you—and no one will ever love you. No one ever loves somebody who grows up in an orphanage.

If you tell, everyone will know what you’ve been doing with me, and they will know it’s your fault, because you are such a bad person.

If you tell, nobody will believe you, because they know me and they like me…and they know what a bad person you are.

There are also the implied threats. For example, the broken toy syndrome—one father used to throw children’s Christmas presents across the room and break them. No words accompanied this. There was no verbal threat. There was only the implied threat that the mental image left in the child’s mind.

Another category is the demonstrated threat. In a case like this, the abuser might, for example, turn on a stove burner…hold the child’s hand near enough to the burner that the hand hurt—badly. And then warn the child that telling would result in her/his whole hand being held on the burner.

Finally, there is the threat by the enabler—the mother or father who knows at some level what the other parent is doing. This person may try to convince the child that what is happening is normal. “You just have to put up with it. That is what men are like.” This parent may then issue threats of her own, much in the same vein as those issued by the actual abuser.

Darby questions the state of Maryland...

How Does She Stand It???

Here is a silhouette I made from a picture of Elsa's sons. How does she stand being forced to be away from them? How does she stand being in prison and unable to see them?

How does she stand it when the court says she may communicate with them only with the supervision of her ex-husband, whom she believes to be abusing them sexually and otherwise?

How could anybody stand this???

PUGS GO POLITICAL

How do you suppose it feels to be stuck behind bars when you know you are innocent--but most people don't listen...and those who do listen can't think of anything to do in order to help? As you see here, my pug grandson, Travis, is taking full advantage of the crate situation in the land of Brocken to try to find some degree of understanding concerning the plight of Elsa Newman.

What Ever Is Going On In the State of Maryland??

I have come across a most interesting story—one that in many ways seems to parallel the Elsa Newman case. The man—both husband and father--involved in the second case is one Mark A. Castillo. In the Castillo case, the authorities did not believe the mother. In Elsa’s case, the authorities would not believe the mother.

In the Castillo case, the separation and divorce were ugly. In Elsa’s case, the divorce had turned ugly.

In both cases the children were quite young.

The Castillo’s had three children. Elsa and her husband had two.

In the case of the Castillos, the husband and father seemed to be a pleasant person, easy to get along with, who loved his children. In Elsa’s case, the husband and father was quite charismatic and seemed to love his children.

In the Castillo case, Mark Castillo talked to the mother about how he could most hurt her. In Elsa’s case, the father seemed to be—and still seems to be—looking for ways to hurt his ex-wife.
In the Castillo case, the mother desperately wanted custody, believing that her children would be harmed by their father. In Elsa’s case, the mother desperately wanted custody, believing that her children were being abused by their father, both sexually and otherwise.

In the case of the Castillos, the authorities chose to believe the husband. In the case of Elsa Newman, the authorities chose to believe the husband.

In the Castillo case, Mark Castillo was allowed unsupervised visits with his children. In Elsa’s case, the father was allowed unsupervised visits with his children—visits the children begged not to have to make.

Elsa’s ex-husband charmed the authorities and found the perfect way to hurt her. He gained custody of the boys. He testified against her—charming the jury and the media, so she ended up in prison. He limits, to every extent he can, their contacts with her. When he was required to take them to see their mother, he would say things like, “Well…let’s go. I have to take you to see your ‘bad mom.’” Or “Here’s a letter from your “terrible mother.” For twenty years, Elsa Newman will live her life in prison—where her children are nothing but an occasional letter, email or phone call—strictly monitored by the children’s father. And she will live out those years, knowing that because nobody would believe her, her children are now in the hands of a pedophile custodial parent, knowing every day of her imprisonment that life could have been different, if only someone would have believed her.

Mark A. Castillo also found the perfect way to hurt his children’s mother: He drowned them in a bathtub. That’s right. All three of them. All dead. He admits it. Now Amy Castillo, because no one would believe her, will live out her life in a different kind of prison—where her children are nothing but memories, knowing every day of her life that her children could have been with her, if only someone would have believed her.

Flagrant Falsehoods and Outright Lies

Why have I heard from some sources that the reason behind Elsa's conviction was not truth--but rather an assortment of lies? Lies told with a straight face. Lies that made her sound guilty, even though she is innocent?

Yes...I've heard that.

Why have I heard that?

Could it possibly be true?

A BOOK BY THIS NAME...OR ANY OTHER...

A thought just struck me, a possible title for a book about Elsa Newman, should she ever find herself in a position to revisit the horrors of her imprisonment and her struggles to rescue her children from child abuse.

How about this: A PERSONAL HOLOCAUST:
The Story of Elsa Newman

Do you think the reference to the "holocaust" is too much? Would it offend people to compare Elsa to the millions who suffered in Hitler's broken-minded attacks on and murders of Jews? Or would it be acceptable, with the understanding that the writer was not comparing Elsa to them, but rather was adding her and her sons and their torturous treatment to those Jews who suffered during WWII.

Just a question. No answer.

ANOTHER WHY..."

Why do states and the institutions where prisoners are housed make it so incredibly difficult for prisoners to place phone calls at a reasonable price?

Although Elsa has a sort of a "phone card" whereby she can pay the incredible charges involved, when she has available money from her low-low-paying job in the prison, I also receive the occasional collect call from her. In these collect calls, an automated voice informs me that the call will cost $3.00 for the first minute and $.30 for each minute thereafter. We usually talk for the whole 15 minutes, no matter which of us pays. That means $7.20 per call, unless we can make it shorter, which we seldom do. As a matter of fact, there are times when we have unfinished business--about blogs I am posting for her, about her worries for her children, about the websites I have created for her and what items should be included and where.

It seems to me that one thing that would tend to help many prisoners pull themselves together and make changes in their lives--those who actually have committed the crimes of which they are convicted, that is-would be to help them have access to the people who know and love them, rather than making phone contact both difficult and overly-expensive.

It also seems to me that one thing that would tend to help prisoners maintain their sanity when they--like Elsa--have been convicted of a crime or crimes they did not commit would be the same thing--contact with people who love and support them, believe in them and work to create justice for them in a world that has declared them criminals.

Either way, it would seem like it would be an advantage to the system...an advantage to prisoners who are guilty...and an advantage to prisoners who are innocent--if they could just make calls at a reasonable clost.

Seven dollars and twenty cents is not a reasonable price for a phone call that is limited to fifteen minutes.

I have nagging feelings of anger when I hear that automated voice declare, "You have one minute left to talk," and then shortly "You have fifteen seconds left to talk."

Elsa and I never even get to say "good-by," because we need every second to conduct the business of getting attention to her agonizing plight.

Thus I repeat the question with which I began:

Why do states and the institutions where prisoners are housed make it so incredibly difficult for prisoners to place phone calls at a reasonable price?

Article--and more questions.

I am posting here a recent article that was sent out to members of Elsa's on-line support group. Included in the first version below are many questions which the article raised in my mind. I have left the text of the article as it was, but added my own comments in brackets and red print.

For the benefit of those who might prefer to read the article without my interruptions, I have printed it in its original form just below the version that contains my bracketed comments and questions.

This is about Elsa Newman, a graduate with highest honors of Goucher College and the University of Maryland School of Law, with an impressive C.V. including a listing in Who’s Who in American Law. She allegedly concocted allegations of sexual abuse and then allegedly tried to murder the man, her ex and father of her children.

These are two open, joyous, brilliant, good children with the confidence of kittens. The children went to Elsa to confide about their father’s abuse. They had no expectation of being hurt or that their mother would be horribly punished because she spoke out for them. Although Elsa had successive protective orders, the children had to visit this abusive father during their divorce.

A family friend named Margery Landry broke into the father’s home. She was charged and found guilty of assault and is serving a 20 year sentence. Repeatedly she’s written, testified and refused the prosecutor’s offer of a sentence reduction. She says Elsa didn’t know of her plans and [Elsa had] warned her to stay away from the ex. [Excuse please the interruption here. but I have a serious question: If Margery Landry repeatedly states—both orally and in writing—that Elsa knew nothing about Margery Landry’s venture into the father’s home; and if Margery Landry refused repeated offers of a sentence reduction for herself, determined to hold to the truth, whatever the cost to herself—why is she not credible????] Elsa was at her niece’s wedding when this happened. Landry found the ex in bed nude with his younger child. [Pardon me—another question: If a man is in bed, naked, with one of his sons—also naked—isn’t this situation indicative of a little something wrong? No…that’s not the real question. The real question is not whether there was “a little” something wrong. The real question was why didn’t somebody see that there was a whole lot wrong with that!] She pulled them apart. He beat her and bit off her finger. The gun she brought to protect herself discharged into his leg at such close range, the bullet went through his leg. [I’ve read in other accounts that there were no bullet holes in the man’s pajama bottoms, despite the fact that the bullet went clear through his leg. I don’t think I’ll even bother asking this question. You can figure it out.]

Over a year earlier, Elsa told her divorce lawyer’s secretary she wished the ex were dead. [Wait a minute here. Haven’t many of us entertained--in a moment of deep pain--the fervent wish that some person who had horribly injured us or someone we love would depart this earth immediately and forthwith? And haven’t many of us even said so—out loud? So what does that prove?] Elsa was convicted of conspiracy for attempted murder, attempted murder and other charges.

Elsa’s conviction was vacated after Maryland’s highest court found no evidence connecting her to any criminal activity. [So this court declared her innocent? She was, in essence, acquitted when the decision of the lower court was vacated? Or wasn’t she? I thought there was something called “double jeopardy. I am a schoolteacher, not an attorney, but this seems to me like an unforgiveable miscarriage of justice and the double jeopardy question just keeps ringing around in my head. If the highest court in Maryland said there was no evidence connecting her to any criminal activity. If Margery Landry said Elsa had nothing to do with it. If Elsa agrees that she had nothing to do with it. Then who else in the world had the legal or moral right to say anything??? I don’t get it.] Despite the absence of evidence—no DNA, no emails, no letters, no calls, no manuals, no nothing, no circumstantial evidence in any of the file cabinets, boxes of documents or computer, the prosecutors, Doug Gansler, State’s Attorney who was running for Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Katherine Winfree, his deputy, pursued Elsa.

Gansler was quoted by the press after the conviction was vacated as claiming Elsa wanted to kill her kids. This, like the rest, came out of thin air. [OK—here’s another question: if the highest court in Maryland said there was no evidence of any kind against Elsa; if the highest court in Marlyland released Elsa after her hearing there, then how in the world could the lower court have the brutish audacity to go after her again????] After her release, the prosecutors continued to retry her and added a death penalty to punish her for winning an appeal. [Huh? Where did this death penalty idea suddenly come from? If it wasn’t needed in the previous trial, why in this one? Might it actually have been “punishment” for winning an appeal? OMG!] There was no evidence, nothing new. Elsa’s ex was the chief prosecution witness. [This is a man to whom I have more than once heard the term “puppetmaster” applied. Was this man in fact “pulling strings” and controlling movements of everyone in the courtroom?”] He connected Elsa to Margery Landry by spinning a “twisted sisters” link. [Was there any other person to support this “twisted testimony”—or was it merely the father’s word against the mother’s, and the father ‘s word being accepted against the mother’s???] Elsa’s divorce attorney’s secretary was called again to distort Elsa’s wish expressed over a year earlier confidentially. [Whoa! Haven't I heard that the question of attorney-client privilege also carries over to the employees of the attorney? How then can an attorney’s secretary be a witness against Elsa? What am I missing here?]

Every single expert, and the best professionals were involved, opined over and over that the kids were molested and their mother was not coaching them to say it. [Here we are again. Experts and professionals of the finest quality available spoke to the children. After speaking to the children, said experts and professions declared that the children were being sexually abused. Why did no one listen to this? Why were the children left in his hands?] Their father, a pedophile, needed to be investigated thoroughly and supervised (see, e.g. Dr. Michael Lamb’s (NIH) report of Nov. 20, 2001, Dr. Leon Rosenberg’s (John’s Hopkins University) report of Sept. 20, 2000, Russell Brown’s (LCSW, D.C. Children’s Hospital) report of June 2000, Dr. Jill Scharff’s reports of 2000, 2001, and 2002). [Why was this documentation ignored? I am looking for these reports online, and will publish them here, if I can obtain permission—or if they are a matter of public record.] There were documented behavioral and physical manifestations of child sexual abuse (bruises, bloodied rings around the anus and symmetrical lesions, severe sexually transmitted rashes on penis and buttocks, bite marks) reported by teachers, court personnel and doctors not to mention 3 years of disclosures by the children [What? You are telling me that the children themselves complained of sexual abuse—and possibly other forms of abuse—and nobody would listen to them, let alone believe them? And this despite the number of different people, as well as the number of different types if people—i.e. teachers, doctors and court personnel. You can’t be telling me that! You are telling me that, aren’t you?] (during the period of the prosecutor’s Montgomery County Maryland’s involvement). Dr. Newberger in 2006 wrote an extensive report establishing that the children suffered severe sadistic abuse throughout the term of Elsa’s prosecution, and before, and that Elsa’s ex can be clearly expected to continue to abuse the kids. Dr. Newberger called Maryland’s investigation well below the national standard. [This last goes in larger type and bold type, to be sure you won’t miss it. Please…you won’t miss it, will you?”]

Elsa’s prosecutors were responsible for the below standard child abuse investigation. At the trials, they touted their closed investigations as proof Elsa supposedly accused her ex of sexually abusing their children in a deliberate attempt to “get him”. Because they closed the so-called investigation, Elsa was now conspiring to murder her ex. The jury deliberated over 2 days, and it was, unfortunately, Elsa’s lawyer who asked to press them to a verdict. They convicted just before a long holiday weekend.

Elsa was convicted long before either trial, however. All along her prosecutors fed the media distorted facts to make her look guilty. [In fact, I just finished reading a lengthy selection on the net, from washingtonian.com. In case you are interested, the web site is http://wasingtonian.com/articles/6517.html. The article is entitled. “Deadly Triangle” and was written by Harry Jaffe and Cindy Rich. I was absolutely appalled by the article and its anti-Elsa bias. She was convicted in the media long before she was ever convicted in court—the article was written before the first trial even began, as witnessed by the statement from the article, “The women…are in the Montgomery County Detention Center awaiting trials expected to be held later this summer.” Elsa was tried as a “twisted sister” to Landry. Articles were on the front pages of newspapers coast to coast where they remain via the internet.

[More questions for the jurors and the court]:Jurors decided Elsa was guilty before the trial started. A deputy sheriff and a prospective juror notified the judge of these illegal conversations. The judge did not excuse the panel. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury foreman proudly boasted to Channel 9 news reporter Bruce LeShan that he knew Elsa was guilty from the start. [Why did the judge not act on the report from the deputy sheriff? Why did the judge not act on the report from the prospective juror who apparently noted in his report that other jurors were illegally discussing the subject of the trial—Elsa Newman—and had already stated their belief that she was guilty? What am I to think of a jury foreman who boasts on TV news that he “knew Elsa was guilty from the start?”

The jury never knew the ex sadistically abused the children but when their suffering mother privately expressed a wish the molester were dead to her divorce lawyer’s secretary, that was viciously and crudely exploited and distorted to stick Elsa with a crime. [My favorite
“junk food reading” is mystery and suspense. Over and over I read the words, “ Don’t talk to anybody without your attorney present.” Now I’m wondering if—once charged with or being interviewed about a crime, we woudn’t be better off not to talk to anybody at all—including our attorneys?


Doug Gansler and Katherine Winfree are now the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the State of Maryland, respectively. [Now, one more time, please take note of this anguished ending from one of Elsa’s firmest supporters]: In 2002 they silenced Elsa’s children. Now they silenced Elsa.

THE ORIGINAL VERSION:

This is about Elsa Newman, a graduate with highest honors of Goucher College and the University of Maryland School of Law, with an impressive C.V. including a listing in Who’s Who in American Law. She allegedly concocted allegations of sexual abuse and then allegedly tried to murder the man, her ex and father of her children.

These are two open, joyous, brilliant, good children with the confidence of kittens. The children went to Elsa to confide about their father’s abuse. They had no expectation of being hurt or that their mother would be horribly punished because she spoke out for them. Although Elsa had successive protective orders, the children had to visit this abusive father during their divorce.

A family friend named Margery Landry broke into the father’s home. She was charged and found guilty of assault and is serving a 20 year sentence. Repeatedly she’s written, testified and refused the prosecutor’s offer of a sentence reduction. She says Elsa didn’t know of her plans and warned her to stay away from the ex. Elsa was at her niece’s wedding when this happened. Landry found the ex in bed nude with his younger child. She pulled them apart. He beat her and bit off her finger. The gun she brought to protect herself discharged into his leg at such close range, the bullet went through his leg.

Over a year earlier, Elsa told her divorce lawyer’s secretary she wished the ex were dead. Elsa was convicted of conspiracy for attempted murder, attempted murder and other charges.

Elsa’s conviction was vacated after Maryland’s highest court found no evidence connecting her to any criminal activity. Despite the absence of evidence—no DNA, no emails, no letters, no calls, no manuals, no nothing, no circumstantial evidence in any of the file cabinets, boxes of documents or computer, the prosecutors, Doug Gansler, State’s Attorney who was running for Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Katherine Winfree, his deputy, pursued Elsa.

Gansler was quoted by the press after the conviction was vacated as claiming Elsa wanted to kill her kids. This, like the rest, came out of thin air. After her release, the prosecutors continued to retry her and added a death penalty to punish her for winning an appeal. There was no evidence, nothing new. Elsa’s ex was the chief prosecution witness. He connected Elsa to Margery Landry by spinning a “twisted sisters” link. Elsa’s divorce attorney’s secretary was called again to distort Elsa’s wish expressed over a year earlier confidentially.

Every single expert, and the best professionals were involved, opined over and over that the kids were molested and their mother was not coaching them to say it. Their father, a pedophile, needed to be investigated thoroughly and supervised (see, e.g. Dr. Michael Lamb’s (NIH) report of Nov. 20, 2001, Dr. Leon Rosenberg’s (John’s Hopkins University) report of Sept. 20, 2000, Russell Brown’s (LCSW, D.C. Children’s Hospital) report of June 2000, Dr. Jill Scharff’s reports of 2000, 2001, and 2002). There were documented behavioral and physical manifestations of child sexual abuse (bruises, bloodied rings around the anus and symmetrical lesions, severe sexually transmitted rashes on penis and buttocks, bite marks) reported by teachers, court personnel and doctors not to mention 3 years of disclosures by the children (during the period of the prosecutor’s Montgomery County Maryland’s involvement). Dr. Newberger in 2006 wrote an extensive report establishing that the children suffered severe sadistic abuse throughout the term of Elsa’s prosecution, and before, and that Elsa’s ex can be clearly expected to continue to abuse the kids. Dr. Newberger called Maryland’s investigation well below the national standard.

Elsa’s prosecutors were responsible for the below standard child abuse investigation. At the trials, they touted their closed investigations as proof Elsa supposedly accused her ex of sexually abusing their children in a deliberate attempt to “get him”. Because they closed the so-called investigation, Elsa was now conspiring to murder her ex. The jury deliberated over 2 days, and it was, unfortunately, Elsa’s lawyer who asked to press them to a verdict. They convicted just before a long holiday weekend.

Elsa was convicted long before either trial, however. All along her prosecutors fed the media distorted facts to make her look guilty. Elsa was tried as a “twisted sister” to Landry. Articles were on the front pages of newspapers coast to coast where they remain via the internet.

Jurors decided Elsa was guilty before the trial started. A deputy sheriff and a prospective juror notified the judge of these illegal conversations. The judge did not excuse the panel. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury foreman proudly boasted to Channel 9 news reporter Bruce LeShan that he knew Elsa was guilty from the start.

The jury never knew the ex sadistically abused the children but when their suffering mother privately expressed a wish the molester were dead to her divorce lawyer’s secretary, that was viciously and crudely exploited and distorted to stick Elsa with a crime.

Doug Gansler and Katherine Winfree are now the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the State of Maryland, respectively. In 2002 they silenced Elsa’s children. Now they silenced Elsa.

Huh?

Throughout all Elsa's difficulties: her first realization that her children were being abused; the word from doctors that the abuse was, in fact, taking place; her first notice that SHE would go to trial, but not the abuser; her realization that many, if not most, people would not believe her or anyone else who said that her sons suffered abuse; her conviction in the first trial; her successful appeal to have that conviction set aside; her second trial and second conviction...

Through all this, Elsa kept saying things like, "We must let the law take care of this," and "Our legal system will protect the children," and "The courts will show that I am innocent."

So, the question of the day is this: Was her faith justified?

Now, as I understand it...

...the only evidence against Elsa Newman in her first trial was from a man who had been her attorney at one time in the proceedings.

SO WHAT HAPPENED TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE???

And today I have a second question, stemming, doubtless from my lack of knowledge of the law, but still...I need to know this one.

If the results of Elsa's first trial were set aside...abrogated...annulled...abolished

on the basis of the use of her former attorney's testimony, how in the name of all that's holy could she be tried again? Isn't there something called "double jeopardy?" And why doesn't it apply in this case???????

And one more time, the questions that absolutely terrifies me. I've tried all my seventy years to be a law-abiding citizen. On the othe hand, I firmly believe that our system of "justice" is little more than a debating society, and the best debater wins for his/her client, whether said client is innocent or guilty.

And so, one more time, the terrifying question: If this could happen to Elsa Newman, attorney, a wommon confident in the law and its processes, how do I know it cannot happen to me or to someone I love? By golly, I've even got an answer for this one: There is absolutely no way I can know that!!!

NOW ABOUT THE SYSTEM...

These are Elsa's children. You won't recognize them of course. Elsa probably will not recognize them if she ever gets to see this, unless she happens to remember the photograph from which the silhouette was made. You can distinguish, I am sure, the head of the older boy, where he stands with his arms around his little brother. To the left of H's head, you can see his shoulder and then part of the head of is little brother, Arsakey. H has his arms protectively around Arsakey, as Arsakey seems to cling to H. for support and protection.

Little brothers often love, admire, respect and cling to their older brothers. The question here is this: Why is Arsakey clinging so tightly? Is he afraid? What is it that he hopes H will protect him from?

G-d help us all, G-d forgive us all, if someone out there does not take an intrest in this...believe their mother...and do something to help these boys.

Who will it be?

Sometimes there are so many questions...

...that I have a hard time sorting out which ones to ask.

Today, I think I'll focus on one of the most simple ones.

First, a little background—as I understand it--to let you understand the question:
· Elsa stands accused and convicted of “conspiracy” in “attempted murder.”
· She had a friend, who for the sake of convenience and privacy, I shall call simply “Friend.”
· Friend was aware that the then-husband of Elsa was molesting Elsa’s two young sons sexually.
· Friend decided she would “help out” as Elsa tried to prove the sexual abuse. This Friend did by breaking into the house at night in an attempt to plant some form of child pornography in the dwelling, hoping to help establish Ex's guilt.
· Friend has declared repeatedly that there was no murder attempt—that she never gave a thought to murder.
· Friend has likewise declared repeatedly that Elsa had not known what Friend was doing.
· Friend carried a gun during the break-in, saying it was merely for protection, and just in case.
· During this attempt to plant "evidence," Friend discovered Ex in bed with one of his and Elsa’s sons. The boy was sleeping in the nude. His father was at least partly nude—wearing no pajama bottoms.
· During the attempt, Friend accidently woke Ex, who went for her.
· In the ensuing scuffle, two things happened—Ex pull off the ski mask that Friend was wearing, and was thus able to identify her; and Ex was shot in the leg.
· After this, Friend was arrested and apparently accused of attempted murder.
· Authorities made Friend an offer—reveal Elsa’s part in the so-called “attempted murder” and Friend would receive a less severe sentence. This offer was apparently made more than once, in fact, several times.
· Friend refused the offer, saying, first, that it was not attempted murder, and second, that she would not lie to help save herself.
· Friend repeatedly informed authorities that Elsa was not involved and in fact had no prior knowledge of any kind about what had happened.
· Elsa agrees that she had no prior knowledge of any of Friend’s activities.
· Thus we have a situation where only two people in the world know the truth, and both of them declare—Friend at some detriment to herself, since she is now serving a 20-year sentence—that Elsa was completely…entirely…totally uninvolved in the break-in and subsequent events.

After all that, my question for the day is this: On the basis of what evidence is Elsa Newman imprisoned?

And my comment on the question? The need for such a question to be asked is terrifying. Because if this could happen to Elsa Newman, it could happen to any of us.

HOW THE QUESTIONS BEGAN--LONG AGO!

It is a bit difficult for me to harken back in memory to the time when first I heard of Elsa Newman. It was the media that originally brought the case to my attention, and at that time, I knew nothing at all about the wommon, except that she was an attorney and even in news reports that came across as pretty anti-Elsa, it was obvious that this was an exceptionally intelligent human being.

At that time, Elsa was on trial for a supposed conspiracy to murder her then-husband.

And my vivid recollection is that as I read and watched story after story that stretched from the East Coast to a national audience...my only vivid recollection is a question: What on earth are those people talking about?

My line of reasoning was this: If a wommon of such obvious quality and intelligence wanted somebody dead, then that somebody would be dead, wouldn't he!