Pronunciation: -v&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 1786
: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>
- ir·rel·e·vant·ly adverb
Posted on 05/10/2002 9:38:38 PM PDT by RGSpincich
Christines guilty of robbery, acquitted of kidnapping
By LANDON HALL
The Associated Press
5/10/02 10:54 PM
ROSEBURG, Ore. (AP) -- An Oregon couple accused of taking their children from state workers at gunpoint were found guilty Friday of robbery, custodial interference and unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
The Douglas County jury found Brian and Ruth Christine innocent of kidnapping.
The Christines, both 29, face minimum prison sentences of 7½ years on the robbery charges. Brian Christine will face an additional five years for pointing a gun at child welfare workers last August to take his three daughters -- Bethany, then 5; Lydia, 3; and Miriam, 2.
Circuit Court Judge William Lasswell set sentencing for May 28.
The Christines showed no emotion as the verdict was read. However, Ruth Christine started sobbing and breathing heavily when discussing the sentence with defense attorney Edgar Steele.
Brian Christine tried to comfort his wife, who was sitting next to him, but was stopped by a deputy. Ruth Christine then turned to her mother-in-law, Teri Christine, and other supporters and said: "I love you guys."
Outside the courtroom, Steele said he was prepared for his clients to be convicted on the lesser charges, but he was "stunned" that the jury found them guilty of robbery.
"Brian and Ruth Christine are good people," Steele said. "They deserved better than this."
The case was closely watched nationally by child-safety advocates, as well as anti-government activists wary of bureaucratic meddling among families.
Brian Christine took his daughters after forcing two case workers out of a state van at gunpoint on Aug. 1, 2001, following a supervised visit in Grants Pass.
Prosecutor Rick Wesenberg said the Christines left early from the supervised visit so they could scope out the van that would take the girls back to their foster home in Bandon. The Christines guessed that the two case workers in the van would stop at an Interstate 5 rest area about an hour north of Grants Pass.
The prosecutor said Brian Christine waited until everyone was back in the van before he approached it, pointing a .357-caliber handgun at case worker Terrence Nelson on the driver's side. He then ordered the other worker, Jennifer Barrett, to step away from the vehicle. Christine drove off, ditched the van about two miles away and met up with his wife and a friend before they fled to Montana.
The Christines were apprehended, and the girls taken back into custody, a few days later after Brian was stopped for speeding.
Steele had sought to deflect attention from the crimes by painting his clients as a deeply religious couple whose basic rights as parents were violated when the state Department of Human Services took custody of the children on July 30, 2000.
State workers who handled the case said the girls were severely underweight, dehydrated and malnourished, requiring them to be hospitalized for four days. Miriam was only 15 pounds and was so emaciated that a neighbor assumed she was an infant.
The defense argued that the children were naturally slight of build, like their parents.
Wesenberg said the Christines repeatedly refused several conditions set by the state Services to Children and Families: They missed appointments, were reluctant to undergo psychological examinations and declined to take anger-management courses.
"That's it. That's what they needed to do," Wesenberg said during closing arguments Friday. "Instead, they chose confrontation at every turn."
The emergency-room doctor who treated the girls at Three Rivers Community Hospital in Grants Pass was the last witness to testify. Dr. James Giesen said he had never seen children so emaciated. Two-year-old Miriam was so small she looked like a famine victim from "Biafra or Ethiopia," Giesen said.
He said the girls showed obvious signs of abuse and neglect. Ruth Christine told the doctor that her husband had struck Lydia, causing her to fall down some stairs. Giesen said X-rays and a CAT scan revealed a fracture at the base of her skull. Also, she had a cut on the right side of her forehead that had not healed, and the wound was so badly infected that it gave off a bacterial smell of feces.
"The odor almost overwhelmed the room," Giesen said. "A couple of us stepped out."
Using the logic of some posters on this thread, this couple should not have been charged with child abuse/reckless endangerment. If the child died, they shouldn't be charged with murder, either. If they'd been in charge, it's a "Get Out of Jail Free" card--if she was charged in the first place. From the New York Post and this thread:
May 14, 2002 -- Queens prosecutors are pursuing new charges against the self-proclaimed vegans accused of nearly starving their baby to death - as lawyers for the couple begged off the case.
Assistant District Attorney Eric Rosenbaum will ask a grand jury to indict Joseph and Silva Swinton on first-degree assault charges for allegedly withholding breast milk, formula and medical care from their daughter, Ice, he said yesterday in Queens Criminal Court.
The Swintons could face five to 25 years in prison if indicted and convicted on the new charge, which is more serious than the reckless-endangerment charges on which they were arraigned last month.
Rosenbaum said he sought to upgrade the charges after reviewing photos of the allegedly emaciated baby and medical records from the child's hospital stay.
"It was nothing less than shocking," he said. "What they fed that baby or, more accurately, what they didn't provide for her, almost killed her."
Sixteen-month-old Ice Swinton weighed only 10 pounds and looked like a 3-month-old when authorities discovered her close to death last November, prosecutors said.
Meanwhile, the defense lawyers asked Judge Pauline Mullings to remove them from the case, saying they disagree with Joseph Swinton's intention to testify to a grand jury.
Mullins said she'll assign new lawyers on May 16.
The child abuse trial was scheduled before the children were taken at gunpoint by the Christines and was postponed when they absconded with the children. Once the Christines were in custody in Montana, they fought extradition, so the court couldn't schedule hearings and the trial until they were returned to Oregon. Why the abuse trial was rescheduled after the kidnapping, robbery, car theft and custodial interference trial is unknown to me. However, I do believe they're being tried for the child abuse in another county, so scheduling that trial is up to the judge and the judge's schedule. RGSpincich might know more about the scheduling of the child abuse case.
Even if the abuse case was tried first and they were acquitted, the abuse and neglect evidence would probably have come in, although their lawyer would've fought hard to keep it out. But because their lawyer alluded to the abuse and neglect evidence (or lack of abuse or neglect) as justification for snatching the children (although Steele's motion for the "lesser of two evils" defense was denied, he was able to use a "rescue" defense), the state would have been able to bring it in. And even if the Christines had been acquitted of the abuse charges, this case would've gone forward. These were separate acts.
You also have to remember that this lawyer came into the case late. The Christines had public defenders, but they didn't want them. That may have been an additional factor in his failure to get this trial rescheduled. It was too close to the trial date and the judge refused to reschedule. The other judge probably refused to move the abuse trial up.
And, I've always wondered if there are any photographs of the children in their state of malnutrition and neglect? I would think the hospital crew would have taken some. Don't they normally take photos of such children?
A picture of Miriam is on the trial thread. The Christines' lawyer is selling these t-shirts for $30, with the money going into the Christine's defense funds. I'm sure the abuse case discovery contains many more pictures of the children, as well as other discovery ("discovery" is what the prosecution has to give to the defense--it includes pictures, police statements, medical evidence, and other information and evidence in the prosecutor's case file). But when the Christines go on trial for child abuse in July, that evidence, and much more, will come in.
The public defenders were working on a plea bargain that would have included Josephine (mistreatment) and Douglas (robbery, etc.) County charges. An omnibus deal, they called it. When the Grants Pass t-shirt crowd heard about it they went nuts and accused all of the attorneys of selling out. Steele was in the background then but still part of the deal and was criticized also. That's what prompted his article blaming that crowd for the Christines' loss of children.
The Christines decided not to deal, fired the court appointed attorneys and made Steele the attorney of record. The case had been combined with Matt Gerawan's case as all three were indicted together. Ruth was refusing to waive time on the kidnap,robbery,etc. charge, (the Christines did waived time on the mistreatment charges in Josephine county). I don't know that she ever did waive time in Douglas County and the robbery trial going first may have been a result of that.
Maybe so, but what about the groups that are adamant about the child protection system being corrupt? Oregon is the place and that's where they're at. They are all over the Christine case, not a peep on Rivera. Riveras are not accused of mistreatment of the children. They "kidnapped" their children, too. Although not at gunpoint and in a more defendable manner. Their case might be easier to achieve the desired results.
If the malnourishment proves to be true, then they needed a wake-up call and got one. Their irresponsibility as parents made them a target for state intervention -- and they should be thankful that the kids are with the grandparents.
I wonder if the grandparents, friends, people along the way had tried to talk to Brian and Ruth and just couldn't get through to them ----
That's the feeling I get when seeing what Ruth's father has to say. Some of their new friends didn't help them though.
1 : a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) -- compare MASOCHISM
2 a : delight in cruelty b : excessive cruelty
- sa·dist /'sA-dist, 'sa-/ noun
- sa·dis·tic /s&-'dis-tik also sA- or sa-/ adjective
- sa·dis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Desire and reason are the mother/father of ideology--religion...
the fruit from the tree of man made 'knowledge'...
lies and death---
a forbidden fruit---state religion(liberalism)--'gods(liberals)'!
Where devilcrats come from---evolution/satan!
Ah, no doubt the very words inscribed on that Borg cube.
Here is an article from Cornwall, England with a few quotes from the parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.