Washington Courts

Every witness in Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch must give an oath to tell the truth.

The oath is to impress upon the witness, commitment, loyalty to something which transcends, and at the same time, grounds us all. It is the basic commitment to the deepest good, truth. To the ground of being.

Washington Evidence Rule ER 603 Oath or Affirmation says:

Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.

The oath is “calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience” the duty to tell the truth.

Plaintiff’s case is built upon a foundation laid by Kenneth Putman, Michael Clarke, Paul Baggett, Stephanie Miller, William Knapton and Mike Call. Each of these people have histories of not telling the truth, or not acting truthfully toward their fellow beings. The oath, for these people, does not have the meaning it has for others, for those who are law-abiding people.

 The character of these people, as they have shown by their own testimony, is not a character which is committed to truth.

What these people say is certainly not to be accorded as truthful under the oath each has given. Conscience is not something which animates the beings of these people, of these witnesses.

The foundation Tim Kosnoff has laid may gain him and his client some money in this litigation, but it will not gain him or his client participation in the world of truth.

The system of justice will have been used.  And, for what?  — simply, sadly,  for money.  Ah, the world of the “Super Lawyer.”

Tomorrow, Monday, the attorneys for Morning Star Boys Ranch will finish their case.  They will put Kenneth Putnam on the stand. He will be the main witness; they also have two others.

Mr. Kosnoff and Dan Fasy will put on some rebuttal witnesses and the case will come to an end either in the afternoon or on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, if time allows, the attorneys will present final argument to the jury.  The jury will begin deliberations probably on Wednesday.

This weekend, Judge Kathleen M. O’Connor has been working on the jury instructions.  Both sides have presented instructions.  The instructions selected will be given to the jury prior to the time it begins deliberations.

Questions were asked of Mr. Fleck regarding Father LaVoy. He testified that he never saw Father LaVoy engage in any inappropriate conduct. He also testified that he never saw Father Joe Weitensteiner engage in any sort of inappropriate conduct. As to both men he testified that he had never heard of anyone saying that either Father LaVoy or Father Joe engaged in inappropriate sexual contact.

He talked at some length about Billy Knapton. He knew him well. Billy came in 1964; he may have left in 1968. He was small, young, like a child. He was the youngest kid at the ranch. The senior kids took him under their wing. It was made clear by the boys that Billy was not to be treated harshly because he was vulnerable. The rough stuff simply did not happen regarding Billy. There were 25 or so boys at the ranch at that time.

Mr. Fleck was asked how easy it was to keep a secret at the ranch. He said it would not be possible. The ranch was a closed society. The kids were together all the time. He said it would have been very difficult not to know any secrets.

During Billy Knapton’s testimony, a story was told about several boys who one day when they were supposed to be ill were punished when the counselors put stems of flowers in their butt cracks. It was told that a picture or pictures were taken and that the pictures circulated around the ranch.

Mr. Fleck was asked whether he knew of this story, whether he had even heard of the story, whether he had seen any pictures related to the story. In each case he clearly said no.

He spoke of many camping trips that Father Joe would take groups kids on overnight in and about the area near Morning Star Boys Ranch. He talked about sleeping out under the stars, about sleeping in war surplus, mummy sleeping bags.

Tim Kosnoff, the attorney for the plaintiff, did not particularly like what he was hearing.

Mr. Kosnoff wanted to show his negative response to Fleck’s testimony. He wanted to express his dismissiveness of the testimony in front of the jury. He made a snide remark about the use of mummy bags as if to say Fleck must not be telling the truth because war surplus mummy bags did not exist, that there were no such bags. Perhaps he was suggesting that mummy bags were only invented long after the war, maybe in Seattle.

Of course anyone age 60 today without much money in the 50’s and 60’s would have gotten his camping supplies at war surplus stores. As would Morning Star Boys Ranch. World War II sleeping bags were in great supply then. Many of the World War II sleeping bags were mummy sleeping bags. Down filled mummy bags were used by the 10th Mountain division. Wool blanket mummy bags were used by hundreds of thousands of other troops. Both such bags were also used during the Korean War and were available in surplus stores all over the nation.

Mr. Kosnoff attempted to be dismissive and somewhat snide with respect of Mr. Fleck’s testimony that Father Joe and the boys would sleep outside because they camped out when it would not rain. Kosnoff said something like “sure, it doesn’t rain in Spokane.”

Mr. Fleck said that the nights they went out on their night camping trips took place on nights when it would not rain. He said that if it did rain, everybody would just pack up, hop in the bus, and drive back to 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.

In jury trials, there is a certain form of evidence which I have come to call “gotcha evidence.” I use the term gotcha evidence in the sense that one attorney has gotten “evidence” before which plays on the irrationalities of human nature and does so for the benefit of his client’s cause.

Gotcha! He has just put a hook on the wall so that a jury can hang its hat of a decision on the hook. So that the jury can use the fact to reach a conclusion – a conclusion which has to do with the aura of the gotcha evidence and not the real facts of the case. A conclusion which is driven by emotion, by sensation – not hard reality.

An instance of gotcha evidence in Putnam v. Morning Star Boys Ranch is this: Tim Kosnoff, the attorney for Putnam, called Father Joe Weitensteiner to the stand. During a part of his examination, he had Father Joe look at a number of photographs and to identify where the photo was taken, who the people were in the photo, the time, and so on. This process went on for perhaps a half an hour, many pictures were examined. Innocent enough, no real surprises. Not one of the pictures was shown to the jury – except for the very last. This was a picture of a person who is generally known to the community as the “Pedophile Priest” – Patrick O’Donnell.

In fact, I think Kosnoff’s examination ended at that time – that is, with the picture of the Pedophile Priest, enlarged, projected onto a large movie screen directly across from the jurors.

Gotcha! There it was. The whole case sort of became tied into this one person, this one bad person. The person who perhaps has had more to do with the destruction of the Spokane Catholic Diocese and its many charitable programs than any other.

Kosnoff was calculating when he did this. He had to know there would be a subtle play on minds of the jurors. He had a right to do what he did, one supposes, because O’Donnell came up in the testimony as one who allegedly had sex with one of the witnesses, Billy Knapton. But, O’Donnell was not implicated with respect of Kenny Putnam.

The jurors were being subtly manipulated.

Gotcha! There is the picture of this bad man and it is associated with Morning Star and Father Joe because it is and . . . . The attorney is betting the picture will play well for his case. Yet, it is logically irrelevant to the claim Putnam is making. O’Donnell has nothing to do with the Putnam claim.

My guess is that it is going to be some time before I understand what is, or may be, going on regarding the so-called Michael Clarke allegations yesterday – that he procured boys for Father Joe and was paid $2,000 by Father Joe to keep silent. Some random bits:

1. Tim Kosnoff, plaintiff Putnam’s attorney, did not list Clarke as a witness in his case.
2. Kosnoff found out about the allegations last Friday, January 15, 2010, after a week of jury selection.
3. Kosnoff has been working on this case and related Morning Star claim cases for years.
4. There were at least 5 to 6 other lawyers in the courtroom during the week, from time to time, who have clients who have claims against Morning Star and appeared to me to be aligned with Kosnoff. That is, Kosnoff in a way may also be working or assisting in the cases for their clients.
5. Clarke’s lawyer, Julie Twyford, has been in the courtroom the last two days – Wednesday and Thursday, January 20 and 21.
6. Kosnoff and the other lawyers are there, are in this case and the other cases, for personal reasons, their personal reasons, money being, I would suppose, the primary motivator.
7. Kosnoff has put on a weak case thus far.
8. He has not developed the depth of the evidence he said he was going to present.
9. He seems to want to throw things up on the wall with the hope they will stick in the minds of the jurors and will affect them so that they will have enough hooks to hang their hat of money for Putnam if that is what they are inclined to do.
10. For instance, out of the blue, when he was examining Weitensteiner he asked whether Father Joe knew the meaning of the word “narcissist.” One could hear an unspoken “huh?” from the courtroom observers, at least some of us.
11. The sexual contacts described or better said, attempted, by the so-called perpetrator abusers seem to have a similar context: The perpetrator is being aggressive, forceful, tactless, and the person being abused is rejecting, aggressive, not wanting the contact, not ever having indicated in any way he wanted the contact. This is not how it really works. Seems the situations described are more than likely fantasy because between men and boys or older boys and boys things just do not work the way the witnesses, especially Putnam, are describing them.
12. At the end of his opening statement, Kosnoff put up a picture on the screen in front of the jury which said something to the effect that Putnam had been abused by “Doyle Putnam” and Father Joe.
13. At the time I thought the use of the term Doyle Putnam was really just an innocent slip. Before he had said the person’s name was Doyle Gillum (sp), who is a man now dead.
14. Then during Putnam’s testimony yesterday, he said that the name of his absent, child abandoning, and neglecting father is Doyle Putnam and that his older brother’s name is Doyle Putnam.
15. Now I wonder whether Kosnoff’s use of “Doyle Putnam” in his opening argument could be pregnant with meaning. I wonder whether this case is about Kenny Putnam playing out an Oedipus Complex of emotions of anger directed to the father who never cared for him and a mother who was almost as careless and worthless and also a great disappointment. For a young man, the worst disappointment in life is to realize his father is not really a father. The anger and disappointment stays with a boy into his manhood and permeates his whole being.
16. The Clark allegations are explosive.
17. If they are untrue one wonders who else is involved in them, and the timing of their disclosure.
18. One can only reasonably suspect there is some terrible wrongdoing here. But what is the wrongdoing and who are the wrongdoers?
19. I come back to the weakness of the Putnam case and the claim against Morning Star.
20. Putnam is off the stand now and will not be recalled by Kosnoff.
21. Putnam has not testified to his damages. Things can happen to a person which should not have happened and someone might be responsible. But to get money, one has to prove damages – one must develop facts which show injury and somehow the injury must be quantified. The jury does not have the power to just throw money to a person from another because the latter did wrong.
22. So what is this case, in actual fact, all about?  
23. Why do the Clarke allegations surface now?
24. I do not recall any damages as having been actually established.