Freshwater Day 16: Whose Arm?

Ok, can someone explain to me how this matters? Why do the newspaper photographs matter?

Friday June 20th 2008 - Columbus Dispatch

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/06/20/freshwater_decision.html?sid=101

Does that help?? It's the earliest I could find.

A picture in the report released by Mount Vernon City School District of the branding.

None of the photos I could find had a name with them.

Ben testified that when he saw the photograph in the newspaper, he exclaimed “That’s not Zach’s arm.” His father corroborated the account.

Jenifer Dennis Direct Examination Zach’s mother Jenifer testified next. She related how Zach came home from school and showed her the mark. She was concerned, but with a neighbor there and Zach due to be driven 1.5 hours to hockey practice (for the obvious reason that Mt. Vernon doesn’t have any ice) she didn’t make a big deal of it then. She did take two pictures of the injury with her digital camera. Later her husband called her from the rink and said Zach was complaining of pain in his arm and was using it strangely on the rink. He took pictures of it with his cell phone.

[Added in edit 11/2/08] Mother informed me that she actually took the pictures late that night after Zachary arrived home following hockey practice, and that’s what she recalled testifying. That’s plausible – my notes are occasionally fragmentary. Her husband took cell phone pictures of Zachary’s arm at hockey practice.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Ok, can someone explain to me how this matters? Why do the newspaper photographs matter?

I think there's some confusion on what and why he's looking for. If it is "not Zach's arm" than the damage was invented and the charges could be fraudulent, even if there's another child involved. He wants to know the first time that a paper *published* the pictures with his name to establish that the supposed witness could not possibly have made this statement.

When that picture was published, weren't the plaintiffs trying to keep the child's name out of the proceedings? Why should the defendants expect that the photo be attributed to any specific child before the time the judge okayed the defendant's move to make that name public?

Benji: even if it's not Zach's arm, I can't see the witness doesn't seem all that great for the defense. Sounds like he said the damage that was done wasn't as bad as what's been shown -- so there still was damage. ("Nielson testified that he saw a mark on Zachary’s arm shortly after the incident in December 2007," but the details didn't match up.)

It's amazing how wacky the defense is getting. Sad, but amazing nonetheless.

Since the picture was taken by a cell phone there should be metadata in the JPEG file that identifies date and time.

Second, does anyone recall reading reports of Freshwater or his supporters challenging the veracity of the kid's injury?

They might be trying to establish a basis of doubt because there is still a civil case pending against Freshwater, if I recall correctly.

Interesting story today in Mount Vernon news relating to this ...
http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/09/03/27/ex-student-disputes-photo-evidence

Also, isn't it true that the pictures published in the newspapers are not evidence?? The evidence would be the cell phone pictures and the pictures that the Dennis family took.

Stacy said: Friday June 20th 2008 - Columbus Dispatch http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/06/20/freshwater_decision.html?sid=101 Does that help?? It's the earliest I could find.

When that picture was published, weren’t the plaintiffs trying to keep the child’s name out of the proceedings? Why should the defendants expect that the photo be attributed to any specific child before the time the judge okayed the defendant’s move to make that name public?

According to the Dispatch, Ben and his father claimed to have seen the named photo last spring! Is that an error on the reporter's part?

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/ticker/fresh27.ART_ART_03-27-09_B8_6JDCAUV.html

The earliest mention I can find in the Dispatch of Zach's name is an Oct. 2 article, which covered the release of his identity at the hearing; the Mount Vernon News covered this on Oct. 3. I don't see any later Dispatch articles showing pictures of his arm, but of course I'm only looking at the online edition; maybe there was something else in the paper copy? I'm not sure the Mount Vernon News has pictures in its online articles at all.

RBH said: That June 20, 2008, newspaper picture is the exact image that Ben Nielson testified he saw ... And, as noted, Zachary was not publicly identified until October 4, 2008, nearly four months later.

Just because Zachary was not yet publicly identified doesn’t mean that some people didn’t already know he was the one involved. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of his peers at school knew well before 10/4.

Anton Mates said: According to the Dispatch, Ben and his father claimed to have seen the named photo last spring! Is that an error on the reporter's part? http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/ticker/fresh27.ART_ART_03-27-09_B8_6JDCAUV.html The earliest mention I can find in the Dispatch of Zach's name is an Oct. 2 article, which covered the release of his identity at the hearing; the Mount Vernon News covered this on Oct. 3. I don't see any later Dispatch articles showing pictures of his arm, but of course I'm only looking at the online edition; maybe there was something else in the paper copy? I'm not sure the Mount Vernon News has pictures in its online articles at all.

e-dogg said: Just because Zachary was not yet publicly identified doesn't mean that some people didn't already know he was the one involved. I wouldn't be surprised if many of his peers at school knew well before 10/4.

What's amazing to me is how long this is dragging out. Hannibal probably crossed the mountains with his elephants in less time.

If only war crimes received even a snippet of the time associated with this hearing....

Enjoy.

I am just going to say this:

This is entirely to impugn Zach and his family's testimony - paint them as liars.

If that's how they want to play it, then the obvious rejoinder is to prove the kid is being coached to LIE at the hearing. And the more evidence you can pile up, the less the creos and their lawyer can make this a he said/he said.

So that's why all the photo stuff matters. Because Freshwater and crew are playing hardball indeed.

I am a little surprised that Zach would be favoring his arm considering how most other kids fared. It might be a slip or a different angle or psychological, even. That is part of why the Freshwater team is probably so into the impugn testimony mode. They think Zach is either faking or a wuss, basically.

The same commonsense objections rise up when someone claims they said "that's not Zach's arm!" by the way. If Freshwater et al. were surprised Zach would make a big deal of the arc gadget pinking, I totally don't believe that "That's not Zach's arm!" BS. What kid says that? Only one pre-coached to say things like that - it's completely unnatural. If the dad was hinting around "so, is that what you saw? Was that mark that big and red?" and the kid says no, then it's not what he's saying now. It was elicited, not spontaneous.

This is entirely to impugn Zach and his family’s testimony - paint them as liars.

If the newspaper is in black and white how can someone really tell?

I think the basic argument, that this is an attempt to paint the legitimacy and veracity of the burn pictures and testimony. Without going back through earlier days, didn't a number of the witnesses for the defense claim that the coil was touched (not touched to people), or that it was a small "X" not a large cross, etc. I think what they're trying to do is cloud the issue of the burn, make it appear that the family lied about it, perhaps faked it, muddy the water, get as many stories about the incident out there as possible and then push one of their versions as the "true" one. Also, if they can make this look like a set-up and/or a witch hunt, like the family and the school were looking for a scapegoat, a victim, or for one reason or another looking for an excuse to get rid of Freshwater (religious persecution perhaps?) then they might think they could win.

I don't think these tactics will work. They're very weak, the testimony for the defense has been contradictory and, quite often, weak or even damaging. On the district's side, their only real fault is that they didn't do something sooner, discipline him, implement more corrective action, etc. This really hinges on the fact that the previous administrator agreed with Freshwater, as evidence suggests knew about his activities, and not only allowed them, but apparently protected him. That one might actually get some traction, which is why damaging the injury to students charge might prove to be critical. IMO it's a two part strategy.

1) Convince the court that Freshwater didn't know that his religious activities weren't allowed and imply that the administration knew about his activities and condoned them. Most states have guidelines that require schools to take corrective actions to improve teacher performance before they fire them. If he can get that argument to take hold, many of the charges against him become questionable.

2) Convince the court that the injury to Zach was blown out of proportion or outright fraudulent.

Getting both of those to stick will be difficult, but if he does the court could (though unlikely) rule that the firing was unjustified because they didn't follow proper performance improvement guidelines. Again, let me make it clear, I don't agree with any of these arguments, and doubt the court will either, but I think that's what he's trying to do.

dogmeatib said: I think the basic argument, that this is an attempt to paint the legitimacy and veracity of the burn pictures and testimony...

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

dogmeatib said: I think the basic argument, that this is an attempt to paint the legitimacy and veracity of the burn pictures and testimony...

Dogmeatib, while I agree with pretty much all of your conclusions, do you mean "...taint the legitimacy..."?