| Newell Children Still
Denied Their Father
Judge Fails to Make A Decision
By Ed
Oliver
April 2001
Sidebar:
Former Wife Files Another
False Charge; More Lies
The trial about a permanent restraining order on
Ken Newell concluded February 14, but a decision has still not
been made by Judge Robert Langlois of Dedham Probate Court.
The two Newell children still do not know if
they will be allowed to have more contact with their father. They
were only recently allowed to visit him a little more, thanks to
the intervention of attorney Chester Darling. According to
comments heard in court, the increased visitation has worked out
wonderfully for kids and dad, but they need more contact.
Newell's former wife requested the permanent
restraining order after the old temporary one expired late last
year. This woman - who has mental problems according to a court
psychiatric report and has filed over twenty false reports to the
police - claims she is in fear of him but she is unable to
demonstrate any evidence that such a fear is justified.
Judge Langlois commented before the lawyers made
their closing arguments in the trial that there was a lot of
"he-said-she-said" with little corroboration by either
side in the trial. He said the restraining order law is based on
whether or not the plaintiff is in reasonable present fear of
physical harm from the defendant that requires that he say that
there shall be "no contact."
The judge reiterated that his decision to issue
or deny the restraining order is not based on protecting the
former wife from her alleged fears. He said the question is
whether there is fear of imminent violence.
The judge said he would weigh a statement Newell
allegedly made in the past at a "batterers program" he
was forced to attend, saying that when he was angry, he hit a wall
instead of his wife.
Langlois said that even if a restraining order
had been properly granted in the past that does not mean that one
is warranted today. He must make an independent assessment.
He does not like using a past restraining order
as a reason to re-issue another one. "I will look at the
evidence of this current trial," he said.
Silly Remarks by Judge
Attorney Chester Darling told the judge that on
the basis of testimony, there was no pattern of abuse by Ken
Newell and no bodily injury demonstrated. Regarding the "he
said-she-said" comment by the judge, Darling reminded him of
the more than 20 false accusations leveled at Newell by his
ex-wife. He said that clearly amounts to malicious prosecution by
her and demonstrates her lack of credibility.
The judge told Darling, in a refrain similar to
what he said in a past hearing, that even "65 false
accusations have no bearing" on his decision.
But Atty. J. Edward Pawlick, Publisher of
Massachusetts News, says this is a silly remark by the judge that
makes trial lawyers want to scream. "Any first-year law
student knows that even a single false statement would severely
damage any witness's credibility, particularly when it was a
serious charge made to a police officer," Pawlick stated.
Poverty Lawyer Strains the Truth
Poverty lawyer Pauline Quirion, who is
representing Newell's former wife, brought up an old slapping
charge from before the couple was married to which the judge
responded incredulously, "Wasn't that in 1979?"
The poverty lawyer then claimed that Newell hit
his wife in her eye in 1998, leading to his arrest. However, the
former wife had already admitted under Atty. Darling's
cross-examination that she had a blotch from a vein under her eye
since she was sixteen and she always uses makeup to cover the
spot. The police report shows she refused medical treatment after
making her accusation about being hit there, saying she would seek
it on her own. There was no medical report of any injury entered
into evidence.
The poverty lawyer also charged that Newell
violated his restraining order by going to a hospital at the
urging of his children during the period when the wife had first
left. He went to check on his wife's condition as she was
supposedly admitted for a lengthy time. He later realized he was
tricked by her.
"I'm not concerned that a restraining order
has been violated," answered the judge.
Poverty lawyer Quirion, obviously not impressing
the judge, then reached for even weaker reasons to grant a
permanent restraining order. Quirion complained about coverage of
the Newell case in Mass News, which was not to her liking. Then
she pointed to unsubstantiated testimony by a DSS social worker
close to the ex-wife about a photo the ex-wife allegedly found in
her car of Newell in Vietnam holding a gun. "She's in genuine
fear of him," said Quirion unconvincingly.
The judge said at the conclusion of the trial,
"This is not an open or shut case," even though many
observers wonder why it is not. In a ray of hope for Newell and
the kids, the judge said his findings would reflect Newell's very
emotional statement on the stand that he tried to get his wife
help.
As Massachusetts News reported in previous
issues, Ken Newell went to family court in 1998 to try to get help
for his wife's emotional and drug problems. The court granted him
custody of the kids and ordered his wife to undergo drug testing
and a psychiatric evaluation because of her reported behavior.
At that critical point, the wife began to use
spurious charges to obtain a restraining order against him, which
eventually resulted in custody of the children reverting to her.
Ever since, she has hounded the father and obtained favorable
treatment in their divorce by leveling over two dozen demonstrably
false charges of threats, violence and stalking against him that
has bankrupted him and robbed his children of contact with their
father.
Sidebar:
Former Wife Files Another False Charge;
More Lies
April 2001
As he was leaving the courtroom last November
30, Ken Newell expressed his fear to Massachusetts News that his
former wife would lie again and have him arrested on another false
charge before the end of the month.
His prediction came true. On the day that Newell
made his prediction, his former wife did try to have him arrested
on a false charge of stalking her that evening. Newell didn't find
out about the charge until a month later when a Plymouth police
officer contacted him. The ex-wife didn't mention this event at
the trial when she took the stand in December to tell the court
how Ken Newell stalks her.
The police report gives an indication of why she
tried to keep silent about it.
On November 30, Plymouth Police Officer Colman
O'Toole responded to a complaint by "Ms. Newell." He
wrote in his report that she believes she observed her
"estranged husband" pulling out of a restaurant parking
lot in Brockton as she was heading home from her mother's house at
7:30 p.m. She handed a copy of the restraining order to the
officer.
She complained that Newell was driving a small
Red Chevy pick-up truck, which followed her for a short distance
before she lost it. She reported a similar truck followed her
again in Kingston and followed her South on route 3 until she
exited. The truck continued on.
The officer asked her if the driver made any
attempt to get her attention or harass her in any way. She
answered "no." He learned from the dispatcher that
Newell owns two red full-size Ford trucks.
The police officer wrote in his report: "At
this time I asked Ms. Newell to fill out a victim statement form.
Ms. Newell was adamant about not filling out the form. Ms. Newell
further stated that she does not want any further police
services...Due to the inconsistencies of Ms. Newell's statement
and the lack of cooperation, this officer is not seeking any
charges in this incident."
The officer said he made several attempts to
reach Newell to inform him of the accusations made by his ex-wife.
He finally reached him on December 30. "Mr. Newell assured
this officer that he was not in Brockton at the time of this
incident nor did he follow Ms. Newell to Plymouth."
At the February trial, Darling entered into
evidence a letter from Braintree Cooperative Bank stating that a
withdrawal was made with Newell's card from their teller machine
located on Washington St. in Braintree at 7:25 p.m.
Chester Darling entered the police report into
evidence. He asked the former wife if she recalled talking to a
Plymouth police officer on November 30.
"No, not specifically."
"You don't recall making a call to police
saying you were followed by a small Red Chevy truck?"
"No."
Darling showed her the police report.
"Yes, now I recall. It wasn't a small Chevy
truck."
Darling told her that was what she had reported.
"No."
He asked her if the officer was wrong.
"He must be."
"Did you pursue the matter?"
"No."
"Did he question that the event took place
at all?"
"Yes."
Newell told MassNews that he did some errands
after the hearing that day, went to his sister's house, went to
the teller machine, then attended a comedy show that evening.
He did not save the ATM receipt, and was thankful
the bank produced a record for him.
|
