At the age of 51, at 5:15 a.m., I dragged my reluctant, 30 pounds overweight ass out of bed to attend my second fitness bootcamp. Despite knowing that exercise is important for living a long, healthy life (and being a Mom Again, I long for longevity, if not immortality), I searched for every excuse I could to avoid doing this 45-minute high-intensity workout again, searched all the way into the parking lot—desolate at 5:55 in the morning. Maybe, I thought, no one else will show up and the class will be cancelled.
Fortunately, several other campers had already entered the brightly lit Shao-Lin DO Center, a beacon in this dark hour of the morning. Right inside the door was Jason Yun, proprietor of Yun’s Fitness Bootcamp, which was meeting this morning at the Hilliard, Ohio location. So—there was no escape for me. And that’s good.
Yun’s Fitness Bootcamp is like no exercise routine I’ve done before. I’m used to the hopalong, dancealong, Zumba-esque aerobics class with a frightfully excited expert leading the rest of us in complicated sequences of lock-step moves. Nor is it what I expected—a screaming Sarge commanding us to ‘drop and do 20.’ Jason’s sessions include a variety of weight-training exercises and simple calesthenics. His demeanor is encouraging but calm, and everyone works and advances at his/her own pace.
Jason’s workout is based on interval training, which he describes as “…high intensity exercise performed for a certain amount of time or reps, followed by less intensity or complete rest for a certain amount of time or reps.” Key words here—high intensity. And let me tell you, I’m feeling the effects.
The warm up for my first class was about 8 minutes; that meant at 4 minutes, my thighs were already screaming for help. For a week afterwards, I continued to feel the burn. But by the time I arrived at my second class, I knew what to expect. After all, a writing on the wall (literally) said, “Pain is inevitable. Suffering is a choice.” I completed the workout feeling invigorated, and prepared for the short-term pain that is to come.
As I was leaving, a fellow camper asked me, “Do you like this?” I had to admit I did. “Are you feeling sore?” she asked. To which I should have replied, “Are you kidding?”
So, in an effort to gain, if not immortality, at least vitality, I will get up at 5:15 a.m. to attend the next Fitness Bootcamp class, and the next, etc., looking forward to the day I can drag my reluctant, 20 pounds lighter ass out of bed.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Mom Again Hall of Fame: Honoring Kinship Caregivers
Periodically, this site will post a Mom Again Hall of Fame Honoree. These Honorees will be women and men--historical, fictional, or contemporary, prominent or little known--who in middle age or as seniors take on the responsibility of raising the children of their children. People like
Madelyn Dunham, a Kansas-born woman who played a significant role in raising the
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Support, 3.0
You may remember my quest for a local support group for Moms Again in my area. After a long search, I finally attended one meeting of such a group. I was enthusiastic about the meeting, but have not returned. I could blame this on logistics, laziness, or "Other Life Events," but the truth is, the group just didn't seem like the right fit for me. Presumably, these groups have continued to meet, but I just learned that the county-wide organization linking them together is shutting down.
The Kinship Navigator program was created to provide information, resources, and activities for kinship caregivers. I first learned about them in Montgomery County, Ohio, where the organization is fully staffed, fully funded, engaged with many other community organizations, and by all accounts, thriving. However, in this county where I now live, the program had a small staff that was often hard to reach, seemed to operate on a marginal budget, seemed somewhat isolated, and is now going away. No doubt a victim of budget cuts. No doubt those of us who should have did not support their activities or advocate for their existence. I know that I didn't. Perhaps--and this is just my personal musing--this particular program didn't do much for kinship caregivers in this county and won't be missed. But if the closing down of such programs is happening across the country, then the need for Parents Again to find other means of sharing experiences and information is crucial.
With that in mind, I have joined a grandparents raising grandchildren group on Facebook. I plan to be a more active participant this time. I have high hopes--for myself and for the group--that we can make a difference in each others' lives and in the communities that support (or don't support) us.
Members come from different parts of the country, have care of grandchildren of different ages, and no doubt lead lives very different from each other. But we have some key things in common:
we are dealing with the issues of being middle-aged parents to young children whose own parents are a source of worry, pain, loss, and sometimes hope;
we want to share our stories because we recognize that our social position is odd: most people our age are not raising young children; most parents of young children are 20 to 30 years younger than we are. While there are benefits to cross-generational communication, we really want to talk to people who are like ourselves, to form a new (and by all accounts, growing) social group;
we have been given the special gift of having our grandchildren with us all the time (in contrast to those proud grandparents who are happy because they can "send the children back to their parents," we can't, and for myself, I don't want to); and
we need (and are actively seeking) help!
I have so many questions I want to ask, so may opinions I want to hear, so many experiences I want to share and learn about from others--but I will reign in my enthusiasm and let the benefits of talking to other Parents Again on Facebook accrue over time, like a savings account--with much better interest!
The Kinship Navigator program was created to provide information, resources, and activities for kinship caregivers. I first learned about them in Montgomery County, Ohio, where the organization is fully staffed, fully funded, engaged with many other community organizations, and by all accounts, thriving. However, in this county where I now live, the program had a small staff that was often hard to reach, seemed to operate on a marginal budget, seemed somewhat isolated, and is now going away. No doubt a victim of budget cuts. No doubt those of us who should have did not support their activities or advocate for their existence. I know that I didn't. Perhaps--and this is just my personal musing--this particular program didn't do much for kinship caregivers in this county and won't be missed. But if the closing down of such programs is happening across the country, then the need for Parents Again to find other means of sharing experiences and information is crucial.
With that in mind, I have joined a grandparents raising grandchildren group on Facebook. I plan to be a more active participant this time. I have high hopes--for myself and for the group--that we can make a difference in each others' lives and in the communities that support (or don't support) us.
Members come from different parts of the country, have care of grandchildren of different ages, and no doubt lead lives very different from each other. But we have some key things in common:
we are dealing with the issues of being middle-aged parents to young children whose own parents are a source of worry, pain, loss, and sometimes hope;
we want to share our stories because we recognize that our social position is odd: most people our age are not raising young children; most parents of young children are 20 to 30 years younger than we are. While there are benefits to cross-generational communication, we really want to talk to people who are like ourselves, to form a new (and by all accounts, growing) social group;
we have been given the special gift of having our grandchildren with us all the time (in contrast to those proud grandparents who are happy because they can "send the children back to their parents," we can't, and for myself, I don't want to); and
we need (and are actively seeking) help!
I have so many questions I want to ask, so may opinions I want to hear, so many experiences I want to share and learn about from others--but I will reign in my enthusiasm and let the benefits of talking to other Parents Again on Facebook accrue over time, like a savings account--with much better interest!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Jury is Out
The jury is deliberating. We are on our way back to court this morning (Wed.), hoping for a verdict soon. We must leave Atlanta today either way, and may be on the road when the verdict is read. I hope not. I want to be in the courtroom no matter how it turns out.
No time to say much about the closing arguments of the last defense attorney and the lead prosecutor. Suffice to say, they were as expected. The defense attorney may have convinced the jury to acquit his client of at least some of the charges. The prosecutor gave a closing that sparked emotion in Justin's friends and family. He dramatically pointed to Josh, who was running close behind Justin that night, and said, "He's lucky to be alive and here today." The entire court turned to look at Josh.
What seemed to be a solid case now seems to have its doubters. Let's all hope and pray that true justice is done.
No time to say much about the closing arguments of the last defense attorney and the lead prosecutor. Suffice to say, they were as expected. The defense attorney may have convinced the jury to acquit his client of at least some of the charges. The prosecutor gave a closing that sparked emotion in Justin's friends and family. He dramatically pointed to Josh, who was running close behind Justin that night, and said, "He's lucky to be alive and here today." The entire court turned to look at Josh.
What seemed to be a solid case now seems to have its doubters. Let's all hope and pray that true justice is done.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Defense (Un)Rests
On Friday, the entire defense team rested its case WITHOUT CALLING A SINGLE WITNESS. One by one, the defendants responded to the judge's questions about their right to take the stand on their own behalf. To the man, they all declined to do so. With no one else, apparently, willing to either (1) perjure him/herself under oath to be an alibi witness or (2) claim under oath that these young men are of good character, court ended early on Friday because at least one of the defense attorneys claimed he was "not ready" to give his closing arguments. The truth is, no one wanted to give a closing argument that would be forgotten over the weekend.
So, Monday opened with the first of six closing statements, each of which could be two hours long. First to speak was the prosecution co-counsel who explained the law for the jury for the first time. He explained about legal responsibility, specifically how each party to a crime can be held legally responsible for the actions of only one party. This is because of two legal principles: "party to the crime" and "conspiracy." For instance, if two men decide to rob a bank, but only one actually goes into the bank while the other stays outside and drives the getaway car, both are EQUALLY responsible for the bank robbery. And, if the one inside the bank assaults or kills someone, both are equally charged for murder, even though there was only one shooter.
This applies directly to our case. For two weeks, the defense attorneys have argued their clients' innocence of the charges because there was only one shooter and no one (except Ahmad) claimed to know who the shooter was. Well, the co-prosecutor shredded that defense with a simple explanation of the elements of each charge against the defendants (there are 15) and with examples everyone could understand. He used a power point presentation to illustrate his information and he provided evidence from the trial's 33 witnesses and over 200 exhibits to show why these people should be found guilty. His presentation took a little over an hour, just as he had said it would.
When the judge asked the defense attorneys how long each of their presentations would be, they answered from twenty minutes to less than an hour. That was the first lie they told.
The first defense attorney who spoke represents the (unadmitted) shooter, MB. He had said his presentation would take about 20 to 30 minutes, but because he repeated himself so often, he ended up speaking for over an hour. He advised the jury that they were the "barrier" between the "awesome power of the state" and his client. As an example of this "awesome power," he noted that the prosecutors used Power Point, while he was reduced to his legal tablet and scribbled notes. There are five-year-olds who can put together a Power Point presentation. This relatively simple technology might have helped him organize his thoughts. If he had had a clear plan of presentation, he might have cut out all of the unnecessary and annoying repetition. Then his summation might truly have been only 30 minutes. From his opening to this closing, this lawyer deserves to be labelled "Unprepared."
After a break, the next defendant's two attorneys split their two hour time allotment. This was Ben Matlock and his co-counsel. The co-counsel spoke first. He made it known that the true presentation of the laws that apply to the charges against the defendants will come from the judge, not the prosecutor. A valid point. He also pointed out the lack of evidence against his client concerning his "gang affiliation."
"He had just graduated from high school two months before this tragic incident. How could he be a member of a gang?"
Ummm.
He also lacked any of the "gang" tattoos, and on his MySpace page, he was never seen wearing a bandanna. He neglected to remind the jury about the gang "symbol" flashed by his client repeatedly on his web pages. He continued to claim his client was "just passing through" the secured apartment complex at the time of the incidents, having gained access by crawling under a fence. The trouble is, this reminded everyone in the court, including the jury, of the fact that his client's "re-enactment" of this entry was shown to be impossible on video tape. Mercifully, his summation was short.
Ben Matlock, unfortunately, was neither brief nor interesting. He began by simply restating what each witness for the prosecution said on the stand. I admit, I left the courtroom during his presentation. There is something about the sound of his voice that just irks me. But reports from Justin's friends indicate he continued his recitation in the same vein, to what purpose only he (and presumably his client) knows.
While in the hallway outside the courtroom, I had an encounter with a friend of one of the defendants. I know, I know, we're not supposed to speak. But the young man approached me, and it's not in my nature to be nasty or even impolite. He asked me if I had a friend in the courtroom, and I told him Justin was my son. Despite the fact that I think he knew this already, he showed genuine sympathy. He let me know that he and the defendant had been friends since 5th grade. But he did not go on to say how impossible it is that his friend could be involved in such criminal activity. This may be because his friend is already a convicted felon, having driven a getaway car from a shooting involving an AK-47 a couple of years before.
This brings up an interesting and disturbing fact about all but one of these defendants. Three of the four on trial have previous arrests and convictions for felony crimes. Felonies involving guns and home invasions and weapons on school property. MB is still facing charges in North Carolina for involvement in a murder case. He was OUT ON BAIL when he shot Justin. Why? Why? Why are these boys out on the street??????
The last closing argument for the day came from the attorney who could be labeled "Has not a clue." It is impossible for me to relate here the many illogical statements he made during his hour and half presentation. Early on, this was his claim: "The evidence that my client knew nothing about the shooting is that he asked 'Nancy' (a co-worker who lived in the apartment complex on Aug. 2, 2007, and whom his client called that night to gain access to the property) 'Did you hear about the shooting at your apartment complex last night?'" He asked this before any news reports had been published. He asked this before Nancy, or any of the residents, had been notified of the incident by management. But, oh, he "knew nothing" about it. Except that it had happened.
Actually, this lawyer made some good points about evidence not offered by the prosecutors, evidence which might have strengthened their case. For instance, he pointed out that since each of the boys reportedly climbed over a fence with barbed wire at the top, there must have been some blood evidence to collect. No such evidence was offered. Also, a "wife-beater" tee shirt and a "do-rag" were recovered on that barbed wire, indicating the criminals used these to avoid getting too cut up. But no DNA tests were performed on these items, tests which might have definitively placed at least some of them there. However, these perfectly reasonable points were lost in his rambling, otherwise illogical, oftentimes contradictory remarks. Furthermore, he insulted the jurors several times! "I can hold you here for another 45 minutes" he told them when he learned he had been speaking for over an hour. "I know you want a bathroom break, but I'm going to keep talking," he said.
You had to be there. The jurors, the defendants' friends and family, Justin's friends and family, and EVEN THE COURT REPORTER could not help but express incredulity at this attorney's close. I've seen very few closings in real life, but I've watched a lot of Law and Order. This has got to be the worst closing I've ever seen!
Today, the last defense attorney, the exuberant African, will give his arguments. We can all expect a dramatic presentation. Then the lead prosecutor will close. We can all expect a highly competent presentation. Then the judge will give the jury instructions, and they will retire to deliberate.
The light at the end of this tunnel appears. We are all ready for this to be over.
So, Monday opened with the first of six closing statements, each of which could be two hours long. First to speak was the prosecution co-counsel who explained the law for the jury for the first time. He explained about legal responsibility, specifically how each party to a crime can be held legally responsible for the actions of only one party. This is because of two legal principles: "party to the crime" and "conspiracy." For instance, if two men decide to rob a bank, but only one actually goes into the bank while the other stays outside and drives the getaway car, both are EQUALLY responsible for the bank robbery. And, if the one inside the bank assaults or kills someone, both are equally charged for murder, even though there was only one shooter.
This applies directly to our case. For two weeks, the defense attorneys have argued their clients' innocence of the charges because there was only one shooter and no one (except Ahmad) claimed to know who the shooter was. Well, the co-prosecutor shredded that defense with a simple explanation of the elements of each charge against the defendants (there are 15) and with examples everyone could understand. He used a power point presentation to illustrate his information and he provided evidence from the trial's 33 witnesses and over 200 exhibits to show why these people should be found guilty. His presentation took a little over an hour, just as he had said it would.
When the judge asked the defense attorneys how long each of their presentations would be, they answered from twenty minutes to less than an hour. That was the first lie they told.
The first defense attorney who spoke represents the (unadmitted) shooter, MB. He had said his presentation would take about 20 to 30 minutes, but because he repeated himself so often, he ended up speaking for over an hour. He advised the jury that they were the "barrier" between the "awesome power of the state" and his client. As an example of this "awesome power," he noted that the prosecutors used Power Point, while he was reduced to his legal tablet and scribbled notes. There are five-year-olds who can put together a Power Point presentation. This relatively simple technology might have helped him organize his thoughts. If he had had a clear plan of presentation, he might have cut out all of the unnecessary and annoying repetition. Then his summation might truly have been only 30 minutes. From his opening to this closing, this lawyer deserves to be labelled "Unprepared."
After a break, the next defendant's two attorneys split their two hour time allotment. This was Ben Matlock and his co-counsel. The co-counsel spoke first. He made it known that the true presentation of the laws that apply to the charges against the defendants will come from the judge, not the prosecutor. A valid point. He also pointed out the lack of evidence against his client concerning his "gang affiliation."
"He had just graduated from high school two months before this tragic incident. How could he be a member of a gang?"
Ummm.
He also lacked any of the "gang" tattoos, and on his MySpace page, he was never seen wearing a bandanna. He neglected to remind the jury about the gang "symbol" flashed by his client repeatedly on his web pages. He continued to claim his client was "just passing through" the secured apartment complex at the time of the incidents, having gained access by crawling under a fence. The trouble is, this reminded everyone in the court, including the jury, of the fact that his client's "re-enactment" of this entry was shown to be impossible on video tape. Mercifully, his summation was short.
Ben Matlock, unfortunately, was neither brief nor interesting. He began by simply restating what each witness for the prosecution said on the stand. I admit, I left the courtroom during his presentation. There is something about the sound of his voice that just irks me. But reports from Justin's friends indicate he continued his recitation in the same vein, to what purpose only he (and presumably his client) knows.
While in the hallway outside the courtroom, I had an encounter with a friend of one of the defendants. I know, I know, we're not supposed to speak. But the young man approached me, and it's not in my nature to be nasty or even impolite. He asked me if I had a friend in the courtroom, and I told him Justin was my son. Despite the fact that I think he knew this already, he showed genuine sympathy. He let me know that he and the defendant had been friends since 5th grade. But he did not go on to say how impossible it is that his friend could be involved in such criminal activity. This may be because his friend is already a convicted felon, having driven a getaway car from a shooting involving an AK-47 a couple of years before.
This brings up an interesting and disturbing fact about all but one of these defendants. Three of the four on trial have previous arrests and convictions for felony crimes. Felonies involving guns and home invasions and weapons on school property. MB is still facing charges in North Carolina for involvement in a murder case. He was OUT ON BAIL when he shot Justin. Why? Why? Why are these boys out on the street??????
The last closing argument for the day came from the attorney who could be labeled "Has not a clue." It is impossible for me to relate here the many illogical statements he made during his hour and half presentation. Early on, this was his claim: "The evidence that my client knew nothing about the shooting is that he asked 'Nancy' (a co-worker who lived in the apartment complex on Aug. 2, 2007, and whom his client called that night to gain access to the property) 'Did you hear about the shooting at your apartment complex last night?'" He asked this before any news reports had been published. He asked this before Nancy, or any of the residents, had been notified of the incident by management. But, oh, he "knew nothing" about it. Except that it had happened.
Actually, this lawyer made some good points about evidence not offered by the prosecutors, evidence which might have strengthened their case. For instance, he pointed out that since each of the boys reportedly climbed over a fence with barbed wire at the top, there must have been some blood evidence to collect. No such evidence was offered. Also, a "wife-beater" tee shirt and a "do-rag" were recovered on that barbed wire, indicating the criminals used these to avoid getting too cut up. But no DNA tests were performed on these items, tests which might have definitively placed at least some of them there. However, these perfectly reasonable points were lost in his rambling, otherwise illogical, oftentimes contradictory remarks. Furthermore, he insulted the jurors several times! "I can hold you here for another 45 minutes" he told them when he learned he had been speaking for over an hour. "I know you want a bathroom break, but I'm going to keep talking," he said.
You had to be there. The jurors, the defendants' friends and family, Justin's friends and family, and EVEN THE COURT REPORTER could not help but express incredulity at this attorney's close. I've seen very few closings in real life, but I've watched a lot of Law and Order. This has got to be the worst closing I've ever seen!
Today, the last defense attorney, the exuberant African, will give his arguments. We can all expect a dramatic presentation. Then the lead prosecutor will close. We can all expect a highly competent presentation. Then the judge will give the jury instructions, and they will retire to deliberate.
The light at the end of this tunnel appears. We are all ready for this to be over.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Even Speak
Yesterday, on my way to court, I was told that if anyone on the defendants' side should say something to me, I should not respond but should inform one of the deputies. The day before, several friends and family of one of the defendants became very vocal outside the courtroom about a decision by the court to allow certain evidence. They were well aware that Justin's father could hear them; yet they ranted on. Earlier in court, some of them had laughed at a description of a picture of Justin flashing a "peace" sign. His father and I engaged in a stare-down with the gigglers, I admit. So, antagonism between the two groups of family and friends seems to be growing. Thus the warning not to engage in any conversation with "the other side."
Before being told this, I had already had a conversation with a defendant's mother, and we continue to speak whenever we have occasion. I have made eye contact (nonhostile) with some of the others, but have received little indication they want to engage. Fine with me. In the hallways, bathrooms, and streets outside the court, I have also run into defense attorneys, jurors, court employees, and even the judge--and they have all made a big show of not speaking to me. Not even a hello. Not even a nod. Nada. It's a wierd situation, but now I understand why no one seems inclined to show simple politeness.
As for the case, the prosecution seems close to resting its case. The lead detective finished testifying in cross-examination, and now the ADA is calling witnesses to testify about "similar transactions." These are prior bad acts of assault, robbery, gun possession, even murder committed by the defendants. After this, the dreaded medical examiner will take the stand. I have decided to sit this day out.
I hope by Monday the defense will begin presenting its case. What kind s of witnesses will they call? Already, two people on thier witness list have been told they will "not be needed." One was clearly going to perjure herself, and evidently did not want to go to jail. No doubt they will call a string of people to say what wonderful citizens these boys are, how they could not possibly have been engaged in the crimes with which they are charged. With any luck, it will be a short presentation and the case can go to the jury early next week.
Stay tuned.
Before being told this, I had already had a conversation with a defendant's mother, and we continue to speak whenever we have occasion. I have made eye contact (nonhostile) with some of the others, but have received little indication they want to engage. Fine with me. In the hallways, bathrooms, and streets outside the court, I have also run into defense attorneys, jurors, court employees, and even the judge--and they have all made a big show of not speaking to me. Not even a hello. Not even a nod. Nada. It's a wierd situation, but now I understand why no one seems inclined to show simple politeness.
As for the case, the prosecution seems close to resting its case. The lead detective finished testifying in cross-examination, and now the ADA is calling witnesses to testify about "similar transactions." These are prior bad acts of assault, robbery, gun possession, even murder committed by the defendants. After this, the dreaded medical examiner will take the stand. I have decided to sit this day out.
I hope by Monday the defense will begin presenting its case. What kind s of witnesses will they call? Already, two people on thier witness list have been told they will "not be needed." One was clearly going to perjure herself, and evidently did not want to go to jail. No doubt they will call a string of people to say what wonderful citizens these boys are, how they could not possibly have been engaged in the crimes with which they are charged. With any luck, it will be a short presentation and the case can go to the jury early next week.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Wheels on the Bus
I did not attend court today. Instead, I took Sun and Raine on their very first ride on a city bus. For some reason, these two children absolutely love buses. They sing the song "The Wheels on the Bus" at least once a day and most days more than once. Their favorite DVD is "The Wheels on the Bus." They play with bus toys, read books about buses (well, we read them, but we've read them so many times I'm sure they know them by heart). So, we rode the bus from the university where I used to teach back to our hotel. Raine took it all in stride, but Sun was all grins and stares riding that bus. When we reached our destination and it was time to get off, he became one of those babies on the bus who go "Waa waa waa," all the way off the bus, into the hotel, and back to our room He stopped only when I warned him I would never take him on a bus again unless he stopped crying.
Meanwhile, the wheels of justice turned sloooowly. Yesterday, the lead detective on this case began testifying. He was on the stand all day today, and will likely be under cross examination most of tomorrow. And the defense attorneys went "Waa waa waa" all day long. They raised so many objections, the jury had to be sent out three times. The lunch break for the jury stretched out to about 3:30, and court did not end until 6:00. The prosecutor introduced what "our side" considers some very damaging testimony that, among other things, included a totally illogical story by one defendent who claims he just happened to be walking through this secured area after crawling under a fence at 2:00 a.m. on his way to see his mother. Problem is, his videotaped "reenactment" found this formidable steel fence unmolested, with no holes and no space for anyone to crawl under. Another defendent was recorded on a phone call he made from jail. He was intimidating a witness, who happened to be his own father. And a third defendent, the shooter, in a taped interrogation with the detective offered to confess to his part in the crime (still denying that he even had a gun) if, and only if, the police would buy him a Bojangles chicken lunch.
I'm sorry I missed all of that. But hubby and I have decided to save money and time by taking turns going to trial and staying with the children. I'm glad I did not miss seeing the wonder in Sun's eyes as the big blue Cobb County bus rolled up, the doors hissed open, and the driver said "move on back!" (Okay, the driver didn't say move on back, but he did let us ride for free!) When the wipers started going "swish, swish, swish," and the riders started going "bumpety bump," you could not have paid me to be anywhere else than with Sun and Raine, for whom art today became life.
Meanwhile, the wheels of justice turned sloooowly. Yesterday, the lead detective on this case began testifying. He was on the stand all day today, and will likely be under cross examination most of tomorrow. And the defense attorneys went "Waa waa waa" all day long. They raised so many objections, the jury had to be sent out three times. The lunch break for the jury stretched out to about 3:30, and court did not end until 6:00. The prosecutor introduced what "our side" considers some very damaging testimony that, among other things, included a totally illogical story by one defendent who claims he just happened to be walking through this secured area after crawling under a fence at 2:00 a.m. on his way to see his mother. Problem is, his videotaped "reenactment" found this formidable steel fence unmolested, with no holes and no space for anyone to crawl under. Another defendent was recorded on a phone call he made from jail. He was intimidating a witness, who happened to be his own father. And a third defendent, the shooter, in a taped interrogation with the detective offered to confess to his part in the crime (still denying that he even had a gun) if, and only if, the police would buy him a Bojangles chicken lunch.
I'm sorry I missed all of that. But hubby and I have decided to save money and time by taking turns going to trial and staying with the children. I'm glad I did not miss seeing the wonder in Sun's eyes as the big blue Cobb County bus rolled up, the doors hissed open, and the driver said "move on back!" (Okay, the driver didn't say move on back, but he did let us ride for free!) When the wipers started going "swish, swish, swish," and the riders started going "bumpety bump," you could not have paid me to be anywhere else than with Sun and Raine, for whom art today became life.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A Defendant With a Conscience
Apologies for letting a couple of days of the trial go by without this update, but I can explain. On Friday, I was told the forensic investigator was testifying, and I didn't want to hear all of that. His testimony had a profound effect on those who love Justin (J.B.), and I was told that it was good I wasn't there. But I returned to the courtroom on Monday afternoon and today to hear from one of the defendants, whom I'll call Ahmad, who made the decision to testify against the others as a prosecution witness.
For this decision he received nothing but scorn and ridicule from the defense attorneys who charged him with having a "secret deal" to lessen his charges. We've been assured by the lead detective, the prosecutor, an investigator with the state, and the witness himself--over and over on the stand--that he did not, in fact, have any kind of deal and had been told, explicitly, that he would not have a deal. He was testifying, he said, to "clear my conscience," recognizing that he is partly responsible for what happened and he has "the blood of Justin Brown" on his hands.
I don't know what the jury thought of his credibility, but we (the family and friends of Justin) believed him. We believed him even though he had previously lied to the police. We believed him even though he said he "never touched a gun" that night and had tried to convince the others that no gun was needed. But the defense attorneys (seven of them now!) hammered away at him, trying to shake him off his resolve. To no avail. He held up. He stuck to his story. And he NAMED THE SHOOTER!
(Yes, MB, we know you did it. You bragged about it. You told your "boys" you "hit that dude in the chest" and saw him crumple. You can sit in the courtroom and ACT LIKE you're innocent, but we now all know you did it!)
Yes, Ahmad agreed to do the robbery that led to this shooting. Yes, he suggested the target (a former classmate of his whom he said was an "easy mark"). And yes, he went up to the target's apartment with the intent to rob him. But he has done what the other three defendants who did not shoot the gun should have done--he admitted his role and told what happened--the truth.
If the jury believes his story, the case is decided. If they don't, I just don't know what to say about people.
For this decision he received nothing but scorn and ridicule from the defense attorneys who charged him with having a "secret deal" to lessen his charges. We've been assured by the lead detective, the prosecutor, an investigator with the state, and the witness himself--over and over on the stand--that he did not, in fact, have any kind of deal and had been told, explicitly, that he would not have a deal. He was testifying, he said, to "clear my conscience," recognizing that he is partly responsible for what happened and he has "the blood of Justin Brown" on his hands.
I don't know what the jury thought of his credibility, but we (the family and friends of Justin) believed him. We believed him even though he had previously lied to the police. We believed him even though he said he "never touched a gun" that night and had tried to convince the others that no gun was needed. But the defense attorneys (seven of them now!) hammered away at him, trying to shake him off his resolve. To no avail. He held up. He stuck to his story. And he NAMED THE SHOOTER!
(Yes, MB, we know you did it. You bragged about it. You told your "boys" you "hit that dude in the chest" and saw him crumple. You can sit in the courtroom and ACT LIKE you're innocent, but we now all know you did it!)
Yes, Ahmad agreed to do the robbery that led to this shooting. Yes, he suggested the target (a former classmate of his whom he said was an "easy mark"). And yes, he went up to the target's apartment with the intent to rob him. But he has done what the other three defendants who did not shoot the gun should have done--he admitted his role and told what happened--the truth.
If the jury believes his story, the case is decided. If they don't, I just don't know what to say about people.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Trials and Triumphs, Day 1
The trail started yesterday and I am happy to say I did not fill up with hate when I got my first look at the defendants. In fact, with the antics of the defense lawyers, it would have been comical if it hadn't all been so sad. But the great show of support from Justin's friends who showed up and who are following the trial on blogs, facebook and twitter was an antidote to all that is sad about this whole thing. It's too early to make any predictions about the outcome but I have a couple of observations:
1. The lead prosecutor is ALMOST as cool and collected as Barack Obama. I am very impressed with him. His opening statement was organized, thorough, clearly articulated, and yet he struck a conversational tone. He remained unruffled by the numerous objections and motions to dismiss the case from the peanut gallery, uh, I mean the defense attorneys.
2. The defense attorneys are made up of these characters: a Ben Matlock lookalike, complete with heavy Southern drawl; a hack whose cross examinations seem to support the prosecutions case more than his client's; a couple of ill-prepared dolts who apparently have not done their due diligence; and a flamboyant African man who distorts the truth, uses flattery and humor to try to win over the jury, but who is the most entertaining and probably the most effective of all the defense attorneys.
3. Having said that, there's still no guarantee the the trial will go our way. Like I said, these defense lawyers made no less than 10 motions to dismiss in just one day and too many objections to count. They may wear down the judge's good judgment. They may influence the jury. Speaking of the jury--I just don't know. At least one juror for whom English is a second language admitted during voir dire that she 'didn't understand much' of what was being said. Ummm, how did she make it on the jury?
4. With four defendents and six defense attorneys, numerous State witnesses still to come and all the motions and objections, this trial may go on for two more weeks.
I walked out of the courtroom at one point to avoid seeing some video tape I didn't think I could handle. In the lobby sat the mother of one of the defendents. I looked at her and she looked at me, but we didn't say anything. After I sat there for a minute, I got up to introduce myself to her (she knew who I was). She began apologizing for "all of this," and telling me how much she has thought about our family and our loss, and how much she has been praying for us, and how sorry she is. She told me she had lost a son last Fall. We hugged. She admitted that nothing she could say would make a difference in this tragedy. I agreed. I said, "I wish you had known Justin. He was a good son." Then we parted. I'm still processing this encounter.
On a happy note, we took the children with us to court in the morning because the Atlanta traffic made it impossible to make it all the way to the babysitter's house and back in time for the opening statements. They behaved splendidly! But during the lunch break, we did take them to stay with her. As I expected, there were tears, but those stopped soon after we left. And as I hoped, the children came running into our arms when we returned.
Finally, kudos to JB Sr. (Justin's father) for how well he handled his time on the witness stand. He was the State's first witness who was there to "say who Justin was." He did it with great dignity and intelligence even though I know it was a tough time for him. And thanks "Jack" (Justin's uncle) for coming to Atlanta. Thanks BD for the get together after the day's ordeal. Thanks to Justin's friends and if I start naming names I will surely leave someone out, but you know who you are. And great thanks to the lead detective for ALL THAT HE HAS DONE AND IS STILL DOING TO BRING THESE YOUNG MEN TO JUSTICE.
1. The lead prosecutor is ALMOST as cool and collected as Barack Obama. I am very impressed with him. His opening statement was organized, thorough, clearly articulated, and yet he struck a conversational tone. He remained unruffled by the numerous objections and motions to dismiss the case from the peanut gallery, uh, I mean the defense attorneys.
2. The defense attorneys are made up of these characters: a Ben Matlock lookalike, complete with heavy Southern drawl; a hack whose cross examinations seem to support the prosecutions case more than his client's; a couple of ill-prepared dolts who apparently have not done their due diligence; and a flamboyant African man who distorts the truth, uses flattery and humor to try to win over the jury, but who is the most entertaining and probably the most effective of all the defense attorneys.
3. Having said that, there's still no guarantee the the trial will go our way. Like I said, these defense lawyers made no less than 10 motions to dismiss in just one day and too many objections to count. They may wear down the judge's good judgment. They may influence the jury. Speaking of the jury--I just don't know. At least one juror for whom English is a second language admitted during voir dire that she 'didn't understand much' of what was being said. Ummm, how did she make it on the jury?
4. With four defendents and six defense attorneys, numerous State witnesses still to come and all the motions and objections, this trial may go on for two more weeks.
I walked out of the courtroom at one point to avoid seeing some video tape I didn't think I could handle. In the lobby sat the mother of one of the defendents. I looked at her and she looked at me, but we didn't say anything. After I sat there for a minute, I got up to introduce myself to her (she knew who I was). She began apologizing for "all of this," and telling me how much she has thought about our family and our loss, and how much she has been praying for us, and how sorry she is. She told me she had lost a son last Fall. We hugged. She admitted that nothing she could say would make a difference in this tragedy. I agreed. I said, "I wish you had known Justin. He was a good son." Then we parted. I'm still processing this encounter.
On a happy note, we took the children with us to court in the morning because the Atlanta traffic made it impossible to make it all the way to the babysitter's house and back in time for the opening statements. They behaved splendidly! But during the lunch break, we did take them to stay with her. As I expected, there were tears, but those stopped soon after we left. And as I hoped, the children came running into our arms when we returned.
Finally, kudos to JB Sr. (Justin's father) for how well he handled his time on the witness stand. He was the State's first witness who was there to "say who Justin was." He did it with great dignity and intelligence even though I know it was a tough time for him. And thanks "Jack" (Justin's uncle) for coming to Atlanta. Thanks BD for the get together after the day's ordeal. Thanks to Justin's friends and if I start naming names I will surely leave someone out, but you know who you are. And great thanks to the lead detective for ALL THAT HE HAS DONE AND IS STILL DOING TO BRING THESE YOUNG MEN TO JUSTICE.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Of Babies and Babysitters
Here is a dilemma I never thought I'd face: leaving my two grandchildren with a babysitter I just met today so that I can attend the trial of my son's killers tomorrow.
After two months of searching and with help from extended family and friends, especially Jacque and Niki, I have hired a woman to babysit the children while we're in Atlanta: an expectant stay-at-home soon-to-be mom again who will care for Sun and Raine while my husband and I sit in a courtroom for eight or more hours. She comes highly recommended. She seems lovely, warm and generous and she says she loves children. Her home is a good environment for children--free of knick knacks and what nots children should not touch, with a playground nearby and trails for walking.
I'm grateful she's willing to take on our two- and three-year-olds for eight or nine hours, sight unseen. This happened truly at the 11th hour. Until about 7:00 this evening, we were still without a babysitter or a solution. Would we take the children with us to court? Is that even allowed? It certainly isn't ideal. Would both of us miss part of the trial as we take care of them in tandem? That's the easiest and best solution, perhaps, but totally unsatisfactory. Now, we have a solution, and now, I'm having all kinds of doubt.
No matter how loving and caring she is, Sun and Raine are going to have a fit when we leave them with her. They will think we are abandoning them and be scarred for life. (Worst case scenario) Or they will cry for a while and then get distracted and adapt and have fun and rush into our arms when we picked them up. (I can only hope)
I'm not sure I can do this, after all. I've bought food for their lunch and snacks and treats and will pack their favorite books and toys. I'll EXPLAIN to them that Mommy and Daddy will come back to get them--. But there will be a scene. It's midnight now and I still don't know if I can go through it.
Thus, the dilemma: Do I skip the trial and stay with the children, or do I trust that this last-minute, lovely babysitter is truly a godsend and go represent my love for my son in court?
I'll find out tomorrow.
After two months of searching and with help from extended family and friends, especially Jacque and Niki, I have hired a woman to babysit the children while we're in Atlanta: an expectant stay-at-home soon-to-be mom again who will care for Sun and Raine while my husband and I sit in a courtroom for eight or more hours. She comes highly recommended. She seems lovely, warm and generous and she says she loves children. Her home is a good environment for children--free of knick knacks and what nots children should not touch, with a playground nearby and trails for walking.
I'm grateful she's willing to take on our two- and three-year-olds for eight or nine hours, sight unseen. This happened truly at the 11th hour. Until about 7:00 this evening, we were still without a babysitter or a solution. Would we take the children with us to court? Is that even allowed? It certainly isn't ideal. Would both of us miss part of the trial as we take care of them in tandem? That's the easiest and best solution, perhaps, but totally unsatisfactory. Now, we have a solution, and now, I'm having all kinds of doubt.
No matter how loving and caring she is, Sun and Raine are going to have a fit when we leave them with her. They will think we are abandoning them and be scarred for life. (Worst case scenario) Or they will cry for a while and then get distracted and adapt and have fun and rush into our arms when we picked them up. (I can only hope)
I'm not sure I can do this, after all. I've bought food for their lunch and snacks and treats and will pack their favorite books and toys. I'll EXPLAIN to them that Mommy and Daddy will come back to get them--. But there will be a scene. It's midnight now and I still don't know if I can go through it.
Thus, the dilemma: Do I skip the trial and stay with the children, or do I trust that this last-minute, lovely babysitter is truly a godsend and go represent my love for my son in court?
I'll find out tomorrow.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Happy Birthday, Pilar
Happy Birthday, Pilar. Wherever you are, I pray you are safe.
Maybe you will use a computer in a library, search for your name and find this post. We talked about that. It's possible. So, I'm sending this video birthday blog.
Your children are beautiful. On this blog, I call them Sun and Raine, but you know who they are. They are now both two (Irish Twins), and driving me into the library to find books about what to do with two-year-olds. They yell at each other. They do not want to share--toys, books, me or their Dada. They whine when they don’t get their way. Yet--they are the sweetest babies on Earth!
You can have a conversation with Sun and learn things from him. You would appreciate that Pilar because you were verbal early yourself. He uses metaphors and similes. He reasons things out and solves problems. He has a great singing voice (Watch the clip below). Raine can repeat just about anything you say and can say what she wants even if it's often in a language we don't understand. Her Uncle J. told her, "You got to start speaking English!" Happily, she is. She’s talking about as well as a typical two-year-old. Considering her preemie beginnings, that’s saying something.
Raine knows so much more than she lets on. Behind those big Brown eyes, Pilar, she’s always watching. I think this is a preemie characteristic. She was recently evaluated for a NIH preemie follow-up study. She sat there and put pegs in the right place, and matched shapes, and pointed out all these objects in a book and said words that were understood! She looked people in the eye and responded to her name and instructions and basically aced all the tests. At the end of the examination, the nurse packed up her things like, "No problems here!" You can read about this ongoing nationwide study here. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/cdbpm/pp/prog_epbo/
Not only do they communicate well, but Sun and Raine are also polite and friendly. Sun's teacher told me he always says "please" and "thank you." She says this is rare among kids these days. Wow. And Raine will approach just about anyone and say, "How!" which in Rainespeak is “Hello!” She is fearless. This can be dangerous, we know. We’ll have to help her develop her judgment. For now, she's just one of those babies you can Never Take Your Eyes Off Of—or else she’s gone and into something.
Did I say they were beautiful? Just look at them. Those are your children. They need you in their lives. We all do. We want you to get help.
I say that, and yet I know it's like asking a burning man to put out the fire himself. I also know that with the current state of mental health care policy and practice, you either go for help yourself or get taken there against your will, usually after some crisis. I still remember the first time we experienced the 72-Hour Hold process and I learned just how difficult it is to help people with mental disorders. But we keep trying. Your father and I are looking for a long-term residential facility where you can get the sustained care you need. Mostly, we are looking for you.
So, if you do read this, please go get help. You can go to the emergency room. I know you know where it is. They will contact us. If someone else reads this, especially in the Atlanta area, and sees Pilar, show this to her. If anyone knows and can recommend a good residential treatment facility for young women with mental disorders—please, contact us through this blog.
Help is available, Pilar. You don’t have to go through this alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
