Sam Redman's musings

Reading some of my other posts, you might mistake me for someone who believes that Bent got an appropriate sentence. But, prior to the trial, in several internet forums, I strongly advocated that Bent be given probation and that he should not have to serve any jail time. Of course, the sentence which he did receive is within the bounds of legal reasonability for a unrepentant convicted sex offender and so the prospects of it being overturned are now virtually nonexistent. But, I personally wished for him to have leniency and to be able to serve his punishment from his home. I presented my arguments accordingly during the two weeks after the verdict and prior to the sentencing date (which was the proper time to get such pleas voiced).

Logically (conversationally), some have wished to compare what happened in this case to that of a high school coach, who got a light sentence after he confessed to having sex (consensual) with a student and subsequently plead guilty, but while that kind of argument might be useful in an effort to advocate changes in the legal system (I suggest that if there are those who really care about that kind of reform, they get started on that), but the similarities and comparisons with an isolated, unrelated case, honestly have no use (legally) in consideration of whether this sentencing was appropriate.

The way the system works, this is indeed a very technical “game,” a very serious and sometimes cruel one at that, involving the prospect of personal freedoms being lost and varying amounts of time possibly spent in prison (and even lives being lost by execution), all depending on how well that “game” is played. The law has various technicalities and those strange detailed particulars about the way a given law is written are what must be understood by the defense in such a way so that they can design an approach which will enable their client to either be found not guilty or get the lightest punishment possible.

Many people are confused regarding whether testimony of several witnesses which seems to exonerate the accused should be all that a jury should consider. They suppose that if you can get a few witnesses to testify on behalf of the defendant, then the jury is obligated to respond with a "not guilty" verdict. The mafia mobsters often attempted to defend their people on trial using just such an approach. Many also think that if a prosecution witnesses turns that a jury has no other choice than to acquit.

But, such a position stems from a basic misunderstanding about what a jury does and how our trials work. The role of the jury is not to compile or collect the various statements of witnesses. That’s the role of the court clerk, preparing the trial transcript. The jury instead is known as the “triers of fact.” This means they simply are the determiners of the truth. They listen to witnesses and based on such things as intuition and best judgment (inclinations, reason and even opinion) they decide whether what was testified was “the truth.” Sometimes, it’s as simple as what is colloquially known as “the smell test.” In spite of a witness making a statement, which seems to indicate something, even assertively (such as Wayne Bent didn’t touch a breast), the jury must decide whether such a testimony is credible (remember the old “I’m not buying it” line your mother gave you when you told about how the cookies disappeared).

Bent admitted on the witness stand that he put his hand on the girl’s naked chests. Whatever the girls said about that (or anything) could have then been disregarded by the jury (they have that prerogative and direction), because those girls might have shown signs of having been coached and the jury had the testimony of the accused on that subject. The question came down to whether Bent could have (or would have) put his hand only on the one inch wide sternum bone. Common sense (and the helpful video provided by the defense) showed that any testimony that the breasts weren’t touched wasn’t believable. I think that once that “sternum” phrase was introduced, the credibility was lost right then. It just has the ring of a "contrived" explanation. In my opinion, that is another example of what was a defense failure, permitting that word usage as a part of the strategy (yes, they are the ones who made this into a technical discussion, employing an anatomical term not in the conventional vernacular). They invited the concept of width comparisons… they reduced it to a jury decision, regarding whether the width of a man’s hand would have allowed merely touching such a narrow location and if it made sense that would someone could (or would) just limit their touch to the “sternum”. If they only could have shown a video of Bent just touching sternums, it would have been believable that someone would have ever conducted such a strange practice… but, they offered another one showing something else.

Back in May of 2008, in several writings in preparing for the Grand Jury, Bent first introduced the concept of the “sternum” touching (Bent is actually the architect of his own defense tactic). I immediately called it out in several detailed postings on the internet (those are available if anyone would be interested) as a bad defense strategy. I called it the flawed “sternum defense” and said that it wasn’t credible. I was correct… it just didn’t pass “the smell test.” What was strange was that they had already used this same weak approach before the grand jury (and it failed) and then they tried it again in the open trial. If you are going to play the “technicalities game,” as Bent did… you must be certain that your tactic is the truth (or at the very least, believable). His wasn’t.

— Sam

Wayne Bent , the would-be messiah, is in prison (with a ten year sentence) and now his crew is asking for donations so that they can launch an appeal. They are saying that, although they have the income and the assets so that 50 people can live on a grand 350 acre estate without any of them having to hold a job, that they are too poor to hire an attorney for an appeal for their former leader and so now they are asking the public to contribute to pay those expenses.

If the "church" were to do a full disclosure of all assets and income, then what they represent (about their state of poverty) would be believable. Most reputable non-profit organizations asking for solicitations go to great pains to make their internal financial records transparent (not just public, but certified by a nationally recognized accounting firm). Wayne often used the expression that they lived on a "sea of glass," meaning that nothing they did was hidden, that everything was open to public scrutiny, which is a rather obtuse interpretation of the Revelation 15:2 reference to the sea of glass. But, irrespective of the accuracy of that meaning, it is significant that Bent frequently proclaimed how totally open they were in everything they did. However, that is just simply not true. They don't reveal anything other to give hints which suggest that they are reputable in their financial arrangements, like to say that they have put their assets into a "trust." However, trusts can have many definitions and some are revocable. Trusts may be created purely for privacy. The terms of a will are public, the terms of a trust are not. Unless those terms are made public, I am highly suspect that this is just another way to hide assets (this is not at all what you would expect from a religious group, seeking donations).
And saying they can't work. How ridiculous. They are internet savvy. Lots of money is able to be made offering your services as internet professionals without leaving home. Plus, it would not hurt for a few of them to take a sabbatical from their lives of ease to go away and work somewhere else for a while. Many locations in the country are booming. Like Dallas, Texas, where hundreds of illegal aliens still stand at six job pickup locations around the city every morning. They are hired for ten bucks an hour and more... all that want to work are placed by eight a.m. every day. Skilled workers (who are computer competent) can get jobs here easily (they don't have to stand on corners). If they move here, I will help them find employment in a few days (and temporary apartment suites are rentable at very low rates). What a "crock" to say, "we are so poor, because we are stuck here living in luxury on our sprawling estate with a guaranteed income." Nonsense.

I actually (personally) have no problem with Jeff Bent raising money. I say "milk it" for all it's worth. They have provided a lot of great entertainment (and they should be compensated). Ben Anthony made money off of them. National Geographic has... BBC has. I am happy for Bent's crew to cash in. They are continuing to provide entertainment with their ongoing drama (that fast should be good for several weeks of good wholesome fun).

But, I do think that they are very dishonest in their pitch... sticking all of your assets into a trust doesn't make it where you can't afford an attorney, because whomever manages that trust could free up funds for the defense. Total expenses for that appeal process, all the way until it's ultimate resolution (denial) will only be about $15,000 (unless they think it's constitutional... and that would take quite a bit more). If they don't plan to pursue it as a constitutional question (like freedom of religion) then it is a fairly routine procedure. They have land they could sell (as described previously). And for anyone to say that it hasn't sufficient value in today's real estate market... that is a ludicrous statement. Without listing it (you determine your own asking price) you don't know what you could get. If you don't get offers... then you can describe its lack of marketability, but not until then.

But even though it seems that they are lying about needing the money, I still wholeheartedly support them in their efforts to try to grab some bucks from a gullible public. It's a business (and they have learned how to work the system and be a tax-free paradise) and improving their situation (to make the estate richer) is a worthy goal (I support business ventures), because they have earned it providing the high level of entertainment which they have to so many. I am looking forward to the next stages in the saga... I pay for movies, why not for their knock-em-dead performances?

--- Sam

Many times during the sixties, I observed quite the similarity to religious services in the truly ceremonial procedures of smoking weed. The nature of its illegality created a necessary secrecy, which made the group have those certain elements of a cult-like gathering to which a surrender of your will and rejection of adherence to conventional beliefs was necessary to join.

So many things about it (especially in those days) gave it the nature of a prohibited religious practice, right down to clandestine meeting cells like those of the early days of Christianity. There was the commonality of the "believers," made apparent by the distinction of those gathering for the ceremony from anyone else who wasn't a follower. A non-believer in your midst could cause the "service" to be delayed until they were, in effect, cast out... or brought into the fold by gentle initiation. In fact, every single participant has a story to tell about the time they were first told the "good news" and first participated in the ritual. Even the unique "hippie" clothing made us all somewhat like monks or nuns in their robes. But, just wearing the "outfits" didn't do it... those who were the true participants could recognize a real stoner on the street (sort of like the biblical, "by their countenance you shall know them").

Often there was an initiate being brought into the fold. I saw many skeptics, ardent non-believers, who only reluctantly would participate and then become virtual evangelists after they had their first consciousness expanding experience. But, then a few others went away sorrowful... because they felt nothing. It was so similar to "let he who has ears let him hear."
And most apparent to anyone realizing the religious nature to all of this was the ritual of the partaking of the "holy" (just kidding) weed itself. Like the liturgy of a communion service, involving the preparation of the bread and wine, the steps were well laid out (one person assuming a sort of priestly role) with selection, preparation of the "smoke" (separating leaves from stems and seeds), the technique with the rolling paper and the lighting, explanation to the newly converted of exactly how the inhalation is done, with the culmination of the passing of the joint from one to another, like the sharing of the liturgical cup. Could those early Christian followers meeting in the catacombs passing the wine and the unleavened bread have looked much different?

After the burning joint (the specially rolled paper made it so different than a cigarette) or pipe made its passage around the group (most only once, but others taking additional turns) then what transpired was very much like a revival service with enthusiastic spiritual and intellectual conversations. Some of those lively late night sessions changed lives and let people explore their beliefs in ways most had never done before (the term mind expansion was truly apropos). Often that expanded consciousness (eventually) brought the participants to a level of awareness that they had learned all they could from this journey, coming to the conclusion (yes, in an epiphany) to never smoke again (I think that was most of us).

Forty years later, sometimes while sharing a great 12 year single malt Scotch with a select group of friends, as the glasses are raised, I think of those long ago times in various Manhattan apartments and Brooklyn lofts. I can suddenly feel the mood change, the camaraderie deepen and for a while I can experience again that certain feeling reminiscent of those communal "spiritual" gatherings way back then.

--- Sam

While I am of the opinion that a better defense might have freed Bent, I think that the way the case was presented, the jury made the correct decision. If the defense had rested after the cross examination of the two "victims," then possibly a reasonable doubt would have been present. Most people don't realize (or forget) that the defense is not required to prove anything (the accused is innocent until proven guilty). The entire "burden of proof" rests with the prosecution and they have to establish guilt, "beyond" even the tiniest bit of a "reasonable doubt." The jury must start with a "presumption of innocence." Those cross examinations introduced enough information to have raised several sticking questions. The defense could (and should) have rested their case after the prosecution concluded their presentation. That would have been their very best tactic.

But, the defense didn't do that... they instead launched a vigorous defense and, most significantly, the defense really made the fatal mistake of putting the accused (remember, he is presumed innocent and doesn't have to testify) on the stand (and he admitted what the prosecution was saying he did). You must realize that the testimony of the accused, concerning any admission, would take precedence over the statements of any "alleged" victim, because often victims in sexual manipulation cases have been groomed by their abusers (to the point where the victims often are "in love" with the perpetrator, as you saw in one of the victims here).

Now, after Bent admitted to having placed his hand on the naked girls' chests, he really sealed his fate. The facet of this case, which many persons, who are commenting on these proceedings, don't seem to understand is that it was immaterial whether his intent was sexual or not or whether there was any attempt for sexual gratification. And, it did not matter if it was being done as purely a "religious healing act" or any other lofty purpose.

The law doesn't distinguish on the basis of purpose or intent. The law merely prohibits an adult (in a position of authority using that authority) from any "intentional" touching of any intimate (meaning private, as in normally clothed) area of a child (and the breast is defined that way). The moment an adult "intentionally" touches the intimate area of a child, he has violated the law (and it becomes. "Criminal sexual contact of a minor"). The only exception would be a licensed medical doctor in the course of a medical examination or treatment. Other health practitioners (such as massage therapists) don't even have that right. Bent's position, that he was doing a totally naked healing exercise in his bedroom on his bed (even with the excuse that he was in his jockey shorts) really doesn't reasonably rise to the level of an appropriate therapeutic (certainly not state-licensed) environment. Religious freedom does not allow the violation of prohibitions provided by that law.

The prosecutor did an excellent summary in delineating and defining the law and in separating that what was needed for conviction was "distinct" from any need for proof of sexual intent for sexual gratification. Bent admitted that he placed his hand on the naked child's sternum. The jury decision was reduced to its most simple terms... "Was it reasonable that his wide hand could have been placed there without touching the breast? " Well the truth is, "No, it couldn't." They had no other choice than to vote for a guilty verdict.

Jurors considering that the other witness was not being truthful (they were correct in their assumption) about Bent not being the leader goes directly to the consideration of whether Bent was "a position of authority over the child" and used that authority to "coerce the child to submit." If they thought that witness was lying about that... then it set the stage, removing any doubt about whether Bent was in that position of authority. Putting a non-credible "Gabriel" on the stand to swear to what (the facts from outside the courtroom later show) was not truthful testimony, was a cardinal defense error, because his apparent deceptiveness confirmed to jurors particulars about that requirement for a second degree felony. The defense should have kept this all very, very simple, instead of making the mistake of trying to prove innocence.

Then for the prosecution to remove all traces of doubt (after all of that), only Bent's testimony was needed and in light of his on-the-stand admission. The prosecutor wasted no words in making sure the distinctions, defining the crime, were very, very narrow.

--- Sam Redman