Washington Courts

In the hallway outside of the courtroom yesterday (February 3, 2010), I talked with two people - one who had been observing the trial every day, and one, a former radio talk show co-talker who was observing that day.

The radio talker was of the opinion that men engaged in sex with boys and seemed to believe that if a person said a man had come out and said a man had sex with him when he was a boy, it was probably true. She was a bit in disbelief when I said the evidence in the case, at least as far as I had understood it, did not establish that Kenny Putman had been sexually in contact with anyone at Morning Star Boys Ranch.

She seemed to be a bit uncomfortable with my observations, so I changed the subject and we talked of various pleasantries – of Mark Fuhrman becoming a counter-terrorist specialist for Fox News and that soon he would be heading off to Israel. That will be interesting, I said. (And I meant it.)

The other person I talked with said he had “at least 200 cases” of confirmed priest sexual abuse. He must be part of some sort of group against priests or the Catholic Church or someone. I have seen this man before and remember he was in the courtroom one time when I observed a hearing in the Spokane Diocese bankruptcy appeal before District Court Judge Justin Quackenbush. See this Spokesman - Review piece.

We also talked about the circumstances of man-boy sex abuse. He said it always occurred in private. I said hetero sex also takes place in private.

His point was that if people thought that such things took place in public from time to time, a person who had been sexually abused would never be able to prove his case. Consequently, if the boy, now a man, said that sex took place 20 -50 years ago, it was probably (was he thinking “must be”) true?

I did not go into his argument. I did not tell him that such events may take place in private, but that the private trysts would have to be established, could be established by evidence that man and boy actually were together alone in a private place. For example, that people saw them go into a private place.

I wanted to tell him that men and men and men and boys engage in something on a regular basis in High Bridge Park and its environs every day in good weather in Spokane. How does one know this? Because one can observe while he is walking his dogs that men and boys regularly leave their cars individually and walk deep into the park near Latah Creek and into the bushes, the same general bushes. Thus, the tryst could easily be established. What goes on at the time of the tryst may be “secret,” but the meeting would not be.

I wanted to tell him these things, but did not. I sensed it would be a waste of time. I left the man and the conversation with a shudder rising in my being. A shudder because his prejudices seem like they might be the hidden reason why people could easily get away with false claims of man-boy sexual abuse. I wondered how many false claims had been approved and paid in the Spokane Diocese Bankruptcy.

There is no evidence in this case that establishes Kenny Putnam was ever alone with Father Joe Weitensteiner or Doyle Gillum. There is no evidence, other than his statements, that he ever had sexual contact with anyone at Morning Star Boys Ranch.

There is something deeply wrong with Kenny Putman, but it has to do with the treatment he received from his mother and father, not the treatment he received at Morning Star Boys Ranch. This deeply-troubled young man is not being helped by the bringing of this action. And, he will not be helped even if he prevails.

Years ago, Spencer Hampton was in trouble. He pled guilty to a crime, a business financial crime, and went to federal prison. He spent seven months at Leavenworth Camp at Leavenworth in Kansas. When he was released on probation, he was obligated to perform 3,000 of community service. He began working at Morning Star Boys Ranch in 1984. He continues to work at the ranch today.

Mr. Hampton is about 70. He has two adult children, spent four years in the Air Force and has an honorable discharge, the trouble he got into was related to his work in a mortgage brokerage effort in the Omaha area.

At Morning Star, he worked on maintenance and groundskeeping. As time passed and as he became more acquainted with the work of Morning Star, he found his calling, he enjoyed the work and goals of the ranch. He trained, learned what had to be done to help the boys and keep records and protect the boys from themselves when they were having difficulty. He worked with Doyle Gillum, was trained by Reese Hall, was supervised by Lyle O’Neal and Father Joe Weitensteiner, and others.

He became and still is a Shift Supervisor – he is with the boys all the time and supervises and keeps records of the work of the staff workers who are in constant contact with the boys.

He testified to his knowledge of Doyle Gillum, Father Joe and others at the ranch. Questions were asked as to whether he had any knowledge of sexually inappropriate contact, words, etc. The answers were always a clear calm “no.” He was asked whether he ever saw or heard of Father Joe striking a boy,  “no,” striking Kenny Putnam, “no,” hacking a boy, “no.”

He remembered Kenny Putnam. He described Kenny as an assaultive, vulgar, disruptive, “particularly angry young man.” He said Kenny liked being with the horses; that he could express himself around the horses.

He spent a great deal of time with Kenny. Kenny would act out and had to be kept from hurting himself, others and property. He talked about the progress of restraint and the reasons for it. The progress of discipline or restraint consisted of kneeling, time outs, chores, and if necessary, when the boy was out of control, actual physical restraint.

This physical restraint is more in the nature of a person being behind the boy and embracing him, having him lean forward, or sit down and waiting as he held the boy for the boy to calm down and come back into his self-control.

He spoke of many difficulties Kenny Putnam had adjusting to the ranch, being with other boys.

He spoke of his constant efforts with Kenny, his care for Kenny and the work at the ranch.

He was forthright, content in his work and his life at the ranch. I had the sense that Spencer Hampton found redemption and a calling at the ranch. It was obvious that he had experienced grace and that he was doing what he could to pass that grace onto the boys he worked with at the ranch.

The jurors were not present in the courtroom yesterday morning. This was the time for the examination Michael Clarke, the surprise witness Attorney Kosnoff wanted to call on behalf of the plaintiff, Kenneth Putman. The purpose of the Clarke testimony was, I thought, to determine whether Mr. Clarke, as a surprise, unidentified witness, could be allowed to be called as a witness to give testimony in court in front of the jury.

Judge O’Connor at 1:30 pm, after deliberating over the noon break and with the jury still outside of the courtroom, made her decision. Mr. Clarke’s testimony would be allowed. She put some minor limitations on the testimony. And, she put limitations on James King, the attorney for Morning Star. The limitations on King were that he was limited in disclosing to the jury a goodly share of evidence related to Clarke’s more than extensive criminal history.

Mr. Clarke has a history so rich in crime he has been able to attend all but one of the penal institutions in the state of Washington. Washington has a goodly number. From his testimony it looks like Clarke was only a student at these institutions. He has yet to matriculate, yet to get his degree that he has been corrected. He seems to be a person who enjoys being in prison.

In allowing Mr. Clarke to testify, Judge O’Connor apparently did not say anything about the fact that Mr. Clarke was a surprise witness. Interesting. She should have. She had to have some reason for allowing Clarke to testify at the last minute, but from what I am told she did not – she just allowed Clarke to testify. Her decision may be a trial error.

So what did Clarke say? He said – he went to Morning Star when he was about 13; that he engaged in fellatio on Father Joe; that it took place at the ranch, on a hike, and on Father Joe’s boat. He says he was close to Father Joe and that he never reported the alleged acts to anyone.

His reporting came about after his attorney informed Mr. King that Mr. Clarke may assert a claim against Morning Star. I do not recall that the claim, which was read in court, said anything about sexual contacts or Father Joe.

Mr. Clarke testified that he went to the Chalet Restaurant at 29^th and Grand with his friend, Bobby Hunter (who talks like Clarke, and says “absolutely” over and over again as an interjected adjective to float around in the words flung into the air of the courtroom). Bobby is a person he smokes “weed” with. He came along with Clarke in the Spring of 2006 to meet with Father Joe. Hunter and Clarke will say Father Joe pushed an envelope toward Clarke which had money in it. Clarke says the envelope was opened and had in it $2,000 in $100 bills. Hunter says the envelope was unsealed and that he could not see how much was in it.

(Hard to believe a person who is alleged to have wanted to buy Clarke’s silence would have given him a bribe in front of a another person he did not know.)

Clarke’s many crimes include counterfeiting and first degree theft many times. When sentenced for his various runs of lawlessness, his sentences were in the range of 2 to 4 years in prison. He also owes restitution in excess of $150,000.

He testified that he had met with Father Joe and one of the attorneys for Morning Star, Matthew Daley. He says he talked about the testimony Clarke would give and said to Daley that Father Joe had given him $2,000 for his testimony – he called it hush money. He said Father Joe gave him the money in front of his friend, Bobby Hunter.

Mr. Clarke says “absolutely” a lot when he answers questions. His answers often begin “absolutely” this or that.

Judge Clarke should probably not have allowed Clarke to testify yesterday and should probably have continued the trial so that Mr. King could prepare his defense to Clarke’s testimony. During the testimony, it seemed to me Judge O’ Connor was liberal in letting Mr. Kosnoff ask leading questions, questions lacking in foundation, and in allowing Mr. Clarke to testify as to a good deal of hearsay testimony. I do not know what to make of the liberality shown Mr. Kosnoff and his client. There may be good grounds for appeal. An appeal will surely be taken because of this if Morning Star loses the Putnam case.

Today, Clarke’s “weed smoking” buddy Bobby Hunter will come to the stand.

Then maybe, Matthew Daley, the attorney, who along with Father Joe, met with Clarke at his home.

It is important to note that Clarke has never said anything about being abused until now. It is also important to note Clarke has come forward with these allegations at the same time he had his attorney send a letter to Morning Star Boys Ranch attorney Jim King that he would be making a claim.

Sounds more like Clarke and Bobby Hunter are trying to create the illusion of a claim. In any event, what Clarke is saying is highly attractive stuff to the lawyers who represent the plaintiffs who are claiming they were abused at Morning Star Boys Ranch decades ago.

Something has been bothering me all day. The something is a dissonance in the Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch case and the recently alleged facts. The alleged facts come from two sources – Kenny Putnam and Michael Clarke. When I say dissonance, what I mean is that the facts from Putnam and the facts from Clarke do not ring true. They are inconsistent, at least inconsistent from my perspective. Let me explain –

Putnam says Doyle Gillum (”Doyle” is also the name of Putnam’s very unloving and rejecting father and his brother) tried to suck his penis one night when he was in his room and was asleep. Gillum is dead. He was a young man who was on night duty in the dorm that night where Putnam had his room when he was at the ranch —  the night of the alleged sleepy fellatio.

Putnam says he and  Father Joe another boy were on Father Joe’s boat on Lake Coeur d’Alene and he was seasick (on Lake Coeur d’Alene?, – please give us a break, the lake is a lake) and in the front bow area. He says he woke up finding Father Joe trying to fondle his penis. He says he  fought him off and ran and jumped into the lake and was rescued by another boat and at the end of the day went back to the parsonage in Hillyard where Father Joe was living at the time because he was also ministering at the Catholic Church Parish in Hillyard with the other boy.  He again alleged Father Joe did something he should not have done. What he supposedly did is very unclear.  Again, he said he fought off Father Joe.  No word obout the other kid.

Putnam presents himself today as a sort of tough guy, a guy who knows his way around prisons, who knows nobody is going to mess with him. It is interesting that this is just how he describes himself when he was a kid — before, during, and after his stay at Morning Star Boy Ranch.  This is how his friend, Shane Mayfield, describes him.

So now in the 11^thhour, Michael Clarke —  a very surprise witness —  is presented. The court is having difficulty getting him to the courthouse because he is in prison at the Airway Heights Correction Facility.  Counsel for Father Joe, Jim King and Bob  Sestero, are surprised by all of this. The man was only mentioned in the testimony of Stephanie Miller, formerly Carl Smith. And now, just at the end of plaintiff’s case, Tim Kosnoff is going to call Mr. Clarke and he is supposedly going to say he groomed boys for Father Joe and that Father Joe paid him $2,000 cash to keep his mouth shut. At least that is what Tim Kosnoff, the attorney for Kenny Putnam, says he is going to say.

OK, I know your are saying – what?

Well, here is the dissonance. If Father Joe is the sort of man who needs to have boys who are groomed for whatever, why would he be forcing himself on Kenny Putnam? It simply does not fit. The behavior alleged by Clarke is completely inconsistent with the Father Joe behavior alleged by Kenny Putnam.  But there is more, more in the nature of common sense:

Do you, dear reader,  really think homosexual men go around trying to engage in fellatio while a person is asleep or worse . . .   sick?  Let me ask you, do you try to engage in such active sexual contact with your wife, husband, or loved one under such conditions?  I doubt it, I really doubt it.