Monday, September 21, 2015

J.P. vs. MCFD Trial Watch - Day 5 Afternoon 2-4pm - William Strickland

William Strickland lookalike, Jack Coleman
Day 5 of the lawsuit against MCFD run by Peter Hittrich.

Courtroom 75, with Judge Walker presiding.
This is the 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM session, Friday October 4, 2013

Examination in chief of social worker #3 William Strickland by Leanne Johnston (Lawyer for the BC Attorney General's office).

Other AG lawyers include Keith Johnston, Micah Weintraub and Tina Parbakhar.

This is the third social worker Mr. William Strickland on the stand this week.
This social worker is the higher ranking dude in the MCFD office, a Team Leader I think, who is apparently the individual who made the higher level decisions, backing up the lady social worker who testified the day before. He's a slightly sinister looking square-jawed Nazi looking aryan-nation sort of fellow with slicked back lighter colored hair, something like

The glasses are the elongated rectangle type rather than the horn-rimmed round glasses in this photo.

It should be pointed out that none of these social workers came to testify in the first part of the trial because MCFD withdrew and magically decided that after 60 days or so, the protection concerns had suddenly evaporated, so they withdrew. Saving themselves lots of cash and further embarrassment.

There was a fair bit of reference to transcript testimony by the mom (imagine the cost to taxpayers of the crown acquiring 60-90 days of transcripts), and the witness was asked how accurate mom's statements to him were. By his recollection.

It appeared to me that the primary exercise of this was to go through all the interactions this social worker had with mom, and to have that worker dispute each and every interaction, then offer the correct version what "really happened".

Parents, make DARN sure you are hidden-recording each and every contact with EVERY PERSON before, during, and after litigation - ESPECIALLY social workers. If it is hidden video, that is even better. If these people lie on the stand, then out comes your recordings, then you can have them charged with perjury and have them impeached.

Frankly, I found it pretty funny the fellow had a few brain farts in failing to remember significant events and substituted, "well, I don't recall, but I 'would have probably done this or that'" to avoid lying outright... However, immediately before and after, recollection of events from 2009 was razor sharp, as if it occurred yesterday.

Record, record, record, is all I can say, if you want to avoid social worker "selective recollection" syndrome.

Apparently, it would seem this fellow has not read the judge's ruling regarding his finding, that mental health issues claims against mom, and the entire MCFD office and all the VPD investigators belief that mom falsifying and corrupting her children to convey sexual abuse allegations against her ex husband was utterly without basis. Because, for the entire two hours of questioning, this social worker just went on and on about the correctness of his and his cohorts process, decisions and actions.

Really, it was quite remarkable to watch. These people just do not consider for one second they might be wrong. Information from collaterals simply "confirmed" and augmented their previous suspicions, such as information from "reliable sources." As such, in this trial, all three social workers were uniform in their self-assured we-are-right presentation, and they were all in agreement as to the removal and the reasons.

Clearly, it is important to be sharp in spotting hearsay and irregular lines of questioning that would introduce confusion in the recorded evidence, and Mr. Hittrich was quick to point out these seemingly minor transgressions that those of us sitting in the visitor section would notice because we are less attuned to these trial subtleties.

Examples include rattling off several questions in sequence, not not being specific about which part of multiple questions the witness was to answer, asking questions about what other (yet-to-testify) witnesses said (which was hearsay), referring to transcripts that the judge and Mr. Hittrich did not have copies of. I imagine those sorts of things are tricks used experienced lawyers who hope to fly these past judges unnoticed.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Arayan square-glasses guy introduce (or try to introduce) new evidence that he states was not written in any black book notes or intake summary reports (so as not to badly reflect on mom at the time, he is generous to note) but now, in court, because they are now on the hot seat, revealing this unrecorded undocumented information is important. (Take THAT, you lying mom, he seems to suggest.) But, oops, omitting information from intake reports begs the question, what ELSE was omitted?

Presumably this tactic works well in lower Provincial Court where the judges will generally accept at face value any word spoken by social workers, because they are essentially officers of the court, and have no motive to lie. In this venue, the BC Supreme Court, in light of Judge Walker's decision, I think if I were a testifying social worker, I would tread far more lightly than what I saw here today.

There was extensive opinions and lines of thought supplied by this social worker, that were the opposite of the finding of the judge's ruling, with regards to mom suspected of falsifying sexual abuse claims, and supposed serious mental health issues, that mom was going to kill her children, that she was hiding the kids from social workers, and so on.

It was this social worker's opinion then and now, that mom was the manipulator, dad was the victim, and NOTHING would have altered that conclusion. Regardless, the belief was that children would suffer either way, so removing them was inevitable, so goes the thinking of all three of these social workers, the deputy directory, and presumably the several VPD officers who assisted with their opinions and helping with the removal.

Evidence that SHOULD have been forwarded to the police by these social workers, presumably may have allowed VPD to come to the same conclusion as the judge, was clearly not made available as it should have been.

This fellow's testimony today appeared to me, that the intent and collective objective of the social workers involved that the led up to the removal, was an exercise in information steering. Meaning, that there would be little danger of any alternate conclusion that VPD investigators (or a Presentation Hearing judge) that might arrive at that would differ from that of the social workers.

The lineup of information meant that the report to court would survive the scrutiny of a summary presentation hearing, and the kids would stay in care for years before a protection hearing happened. About two and a half years to be more precise, is how long it took to arrive at a decision to return the children to mom.

Judge Walker's ruled that these worker's approach to accumulating and passing on evidence did irreparable harm to the VPD investigation, allowing a pedophile dad to completely escape criminal charges. Today's testimony of this social worker flew in the face of that judgment.

The belief of this social worker who testified today, that he was right, implying that the judge was wrong, was the same sort of thinking as the previous two workers who testified earlier this week.

The result of all this is that dad is still running around free and still has (supervised) access to his kids that he irreparably harmed.

Mr. Glasses guy was asked the brain dead question of whether or not he intended to mislead the VPD investigation, he responds "no". The effect of this workers action left no doubt from reading the judgment, that the EFFECT of corrupting the VPD investigation is exactly what occurred.

Presumably the determination yet to be made by the judge, is whether the activity of these social workers was purposefully malicious, or an "honest", and "good faith" "mistake" that any reasonable person could be forgiven for, and/or that removing kids for 2-1/2 years is a small price to pay for erring on the side of caution.

After all, what if the NEXT mom with 4 kids involved with MCFD really did make up all that evidence and the kids were not removed? (Oh, right, nothing would happen... the kids would still be safe OUT of MCFD "care".)

In this social worker's recollection, never, ever, has a parent produced videos as evidence for social workers. This in itself was deemed a "red flag" (this term popped up several times, each time as a negative reference to the opinion of the mom). This DVD "evidence" was viewed as a corruption of how the allegations "should" have been processed, by VPD with an entirely hands-off approach by MCFD (meaning, they do NOT, and should not have had to have seen this disturbing testimony of the children, but they all watched several times anyways, then they determined the kids were forced into saying what the mom wanted them to).

The examination in chief continues on this witness Monday a bit earlier, at 9:30AM.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are manually approved to eliminate spam and off topic discussions.