Murder by Counselling

Last week, a Massachusetts judge invoked a 200-year old case as a precedent to hold a young girl guilty of manslaughter. Both cases raise fascinating legal and philosophical points.

In 1815, two men convicted of different crimes were in a Massachusetts prison. Jonathan Jewett, a black man, faced execution for murdering his father. George Bowen, a career thief, was in the neighbouring cell. They could talk but not see each other through a grill that separated the two cells.

Jewett was scheduled to be hanged on 8 November 1815. In those days, executions were public. Thousands gathered with excitement to watch the terrified face and later the limp body of the convict. The Sheriff of the town always made it a point to be present. Like directors are paid fees for attending a company’s meeting these days, the Sheriff was paid fees for attending each execution.

Bowen and Jewett often talked through the cell grill. ‘Why let them hang you in public, why not hang yourself’, Bowen suggested to Jewett. He told Jewett how one could be resourceful and create a noose from a bed sheet.  It should be noted that Bowen was profane, querulous, hot-tempered and mean-spirited. He hated black people. But he found joy at the prospect of denying the pleasure of the spectacle to the thousands gathering to see his fellow-convict die, and denying the fees to the Sheriff. Bowen continually urged, advised and persuaded Jewett to commit suicide.

Six hours before his scheduled execution, Jewett indeed took his own life by hanging himself in his cell.

Suicide was a grave crime and sin. Jewett was posthumously charged with that crime (although he would not be tried or sentenced). His neighbour in prison, George Bowen, was indicted for ‘murder by counselling’. He was considered not an accessory to murder, but a participant. The judge repeatedly cautioned the jury that the fact that Jewett was going to die in another few hours must be ignored. Nobody has a right to kill a person before the time scheduled by the State.

The defence argued that committing suicide was solely Jewett’s decision. Bowen was not physically present when the suicide took place. Words cannot kill.

Teenage suicide

200 years later, two American teenagers, Conrad Roy and Michelle Carter, met for the first time in Florida, while on vacation. They became friends. It appears that they met only twice in their life. Their two-year relationship was almost exclusively textual. We live in times where love can be digital. Michelle called herself Conrad’s girlfriend.

Conrad suffered from depression and inexplicable anxiety. He often considered ending his own life. In July 2014, Michelle encouraged, urged, and persuaded him to go ahead. Gassing himself in his car was an option, and she gave him detailed instructions to do so. Conrad obtained the necessary equipment. On 12 July 2014, he was once again dared by his girlfriend to show he could keep his word. When Conrad entered his car and the fumes began choking him, he came out. He was on the phone with Michelle all the time. ‘Get back into the car, don’t give up’, she ordered. Conrad re-entered the car with his phone in his hand and died of Carbon monoxide twenty minutes later. Throughout that time, his girlfriend heard him moaning and gagging on the phone. Conrad Roy was 18 when he died, and his digital girlfriend was 17.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs Michelle Carter

The defence argued Conrad was suicidal and he might have taken his life one day any way. Michelle was 35 miles away when Conrad killed himself, and they had not met for over a year. Text messages were mere words, how could one cause death through words?

Some legal experts argued the USA has freedom of speech. While Michelle’s conduct was awful, it can’t override her freedom of speech. She could at best be tried for cyberbullying, not for manslaughter.

The prosecution argued Michelle urged Conrad to commit suicide. Though not personally present, she was on the phone with him, she was in his ears, she was in his mind. In that sense, she was with him when he died.

The judge said Michelle’s conduct was reckless and wanton. When Conrad came out of the car, confused, she asked him to go back in. Instead of calling for help, alerting Conrad’s family or police, she was on the phone with him until he died. She could have taken steps to stop him or seek help, it was her duty. Not doing so amounted to criminal conduct. Michelle Carter was held guilty of manslaughter and faces up to 20 years in prison. The exact quantum of punishment will be announced on 3 August 2017.

Sample text messages

Here are some of the sample text messages between the teenagers.

Michelle to Conrad: Yeah, it will work. If you emit 3200 ppm of it for five or ten minutes you will die within a half hour. You lose consciousness with no pain. You just fall asleep and die. You can also just take a hose and run that from the exhaust pipe to the rear window in your car and seal it with ducttape and shirts, so it can’t escape. You will die within, like, 20 or 30 minutes all pain free.

Michelle to Conrad: Don’t do it in the driveway. You will be easily found... Find a spot. Just park your car and sit there and it will take, like 20 minutes. It’s not a big deal.

Conrad to Michelle: Okay. I’m gonna do it today.

Michelle to Conrad: You promise?

Conrad to Michelle: I promise, babe. I have to now.

Michelle to Conrad: Like right now?

Conrad to Michelle: Where do I go?

Michelle to Conrad: And you can’t break a promise. And just go in a quietparking lot or something.

Conrad to Michelle: 7/12/2014|3:40:35 p.m.: I’m determined

Michelle to Conrad: 7/12/2014 | 3:41:33 p.m.: I'm happy to hear that

Michelle to Conrad: 7/12/2014 | 3:47:18 p.m.: When you get back from the beach, you gotta  … do it….

Conrad to Michelle: 7/12/2014 | 4:26:55 p.m.: no more thinking

Michelle to Conrad: 7/12/2014 | 4:26:55 p.m.: Yes, no more thinking you need to just do it...

Michelle to Conrad: 7/12/2014 | 5:17:23 PM ...Did you delete the text messages?

Motive

What could be a possible motive for such messages, for a young girl to urge her digital boyfriend to commit suicide?

It seems Michelle wanted to gain attention, draw sympathy from her girlfriends. She had already told them (texted perhaps) about this suicidal boyfriend of hers. In her mind, they were getting sick of the suicide threats that never materialised; they didn’t trust her any more. Michelle needed to prove to them she meant what she had said. On Conrad’s death, she could become the ‘grieving girlfriend’.

This role of the grieving girlfriend is apparently inspired by American serials. A Netflix series “13 reasons why” is about a 17 year old girl who commits suicide and leaves behind a series of audiotapes describing her reasons. It’s been criticised as glamourising teenage suicide. About 5000 American teenagers commit suicide every year.

In another TV show “Glee”, its young actor died of drug overdose in real life. This death was included in the script after he died. Rachel, the fictional young girl in Glee, is the grieving girlfriend. Perhaps not as a coincidence, many of the text messages by Michelle Carter were found to be word-for-word with the lines uttered by Rachel in Glee.

Freedom of speech

Michelle, while urging Conrad to kill himself, hadn’t forgotten to ask him to delete all messages before dying. She had deleted the messages as well. However, the police recovered all deleted messages between them, since technology now allows such retrieval.

If you read detective novels, you are familiar with “Miranda rights” where the police are obliged to warn a possible culprit that he has a right to remain silent. An accused can’t be forced to say anything that may incriminate him. The fifth amendment of the USA constitution extends that privilege to witnesses as well.

If the communication between Conrad and Michelle was personal or telephonic (but not recorded), nothing would have happened to Michelle. We have heard the expression ‘his word against mine’ used in eyewitness testimony. In the 1815 case, the Jury pronounced George Bowen “not guilty”. One reason was that his alleged conversations with Jewett couldn’t be verified.

Michelle’s conversations with the dead boy, unfortunately for her, were in the form of a text message. She dug her own grave by recording everything she was saying. One peculiarity of this trial was that the prosecutor and witnesses were reading the text messages from a computer screen rather than recalling from memory.

This case also brings the real world and virtual world closer. Crimes can be committed without physical actions or presence. Orders over the phone or text messages are as good as the person’s presence.  

Euthanasia

One concern raised by legal experts is that this case sets a precedent that can attract “manslaughter” charges for someone offering euthanasia or mercy killing.

First of all, Euthanasia is not legal anywhere in the world. A doctor or a close relative mercy-killing a patient ailing from a painful, terminal illness can be prosecuted for manslaughter.

In certain countries such as Benelux or Switzerland, a Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is legal. The regulations are strict; there are enough controls to make sure the process is not abused. The doctor explains to the patient how to administer the medicine. It is the patient himself who must inject or consume the medicine.

Except these countries, assisted suicide is illegal and can qualify as manslaughter. In the case of Conrad Roy, he was a physically healthy young teenager with an anxiety disorder. It’s possible he could have overcome his depression and led a long life.

Your verdict

Apparently Massachusetts doesn’t have a law against encouraging suicide. Many other US states have such a law. That’s the reason some people argue Michelle Carter can’t be held guilty.

If you or I were in the judge’s chair, we would find adjudicating this case equally difficult. Carter’s defence waived the right for a jury trial because, I think, they feared jury are more emotion-prone.

I believe the judge was absolutely right in holding her guilty. Even if you assume a teenage girl may not understand the implications of her actions, you have a dead boy as a consequence. I personally believe in the spirit more than the letter of the law. In this case, justice requires overriding technicalities. Any fair minded person simply reading the anthology of her text messages (included in the footnote) will declare Michelle Carter guilty.

The sentence would be announced on 3 August. Of course, she would not be given 20 years, the possible maximum, I don’t think. The fact that she is out on bail until the sentence suggests the court will be lenient in view of her age. Sending a young girl to jail would destroy her life, it would make her prone to committing further crimes. My prediction is that she will be asked to spend two years or so in some form of community service for rehabilitation.

And one big lesson for everybody else: Be careful when sending text messages. They document your communication that can be recovered even when you delete it. Your reckless text messages can incriminate you and send you to jail as well.

Ravi

Web-o-graphy

(1)               http://www.wsc.mass.edu/mhj/pdfs/murder%20by%20counseling.pdf : the 1816 ‘murder by counselling’ case of George Bowen. A detailed narrative.

(2)              http://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-by-text-the-case-against-michelle-carter/ : Death by text: a detailed video report.

(3)              https://www.scribd.com/doc/276206526/Michelle-Carter-Texts : All text messages between the Conrad Roy and Michelle Carter.   

R. 

Helter-Skelter

Roman Polanski, 83, is a renowned international film maker. For the past 40 years, he has been a fugitive running away from the American law, and trying to escape from persistent US attempts to get him extradited. 

In 1977, while photo-shooting a 13-year model for Vogue, Polanski allegedly drugged and raped her. Even if consensual as Polanski maintains, it was a statutory rape, since she was a minor. The incident happened in Jack Nicholson’s house, but Nicholson was out. Polanski spent a few weeks in jail. Threatened by a lengthy jail term, he fled a day before the final hearing and has never been to the USA thereafter. (Couldn’t attend the 2003 Oscar ceremony, where he won the Best Director award for The Pianist). 

In 2009 Polanski, a French/Polish citizen, was arrested and imprisoned in Switzerland at the behest of the USA. After ten months in jail/house arrest, he was freed, when Switzerland decided not to send him to the USA. In 2015, after a lengthy legal process, Poland refused to extradite him. This week, his victim requested the American courts to drop the case. US media and legal fraternity have begun debating whether courts can drop a rape case at the request of the victim. The fact that the crime is forty years old and that its perpetrator is a celebrity is not relevant, legal experts say. Polanski is in the news once again.

A melodramatic life

I wasn’t really impressed with Chinatown and Rosemary’s baby, the two Polanski films I have seen. But I am more fascinated by Polanski’s life story.

Born in Paris, he moved with his parents to Poland just as Nazis began the Jew extermination campaign. Polanski’s mother was taken to Auschwitz and immediately killed. His father was in a German concentration camp till the end of the war. Roman Polanski, as a Jew child, was expelled from school and was denied access to education for the next six years. Living in the Krakow ghetto, he spent his childhood hiding and wandering. A catholic family sheltered him.   

Natural justice demands that a talented person with a childhood so miserable should be spared further traumas in adulthood. But there is no such thing as natural justice. Even before his fleeing America, the most traumatic day in Polanski’s life was 9 August 1969. On that day, his eight- month pregnant wife along with his friends were brutally murdered in what became one of the most sensational cases in America.

9 August 1969 

Sharon Tate, the 26-year old wife of Roman Polanski, was just ten days away from delivering their first child. On Friday 8 August, 1969 she was in her Los Angeles house. She had returned from Europe three weeks before that. An American actress, Sharon preferred to deliver in familiar surroundings. Polanski, shooting in London, had called in the afternoon. Debra and Patti, her two younger sisters, offered to come over to spend the night with Sharon. Sharon thanked them but said it was not necessary. She was disappointed Roman Polanski was not here, but he had promised to be back in time for delivery.

In the evening, Sharon went with three friends to El Coyote, her favourite Mexican restaurant on Beverly Boulevard. Jay Sebring, 35, was a hairstylist. He was Sharon’s lover before her marriage to Polanski, but all parties had reconciled to the change in relationships. Jay was friendly with both Sharon and Polanski. Wojciech Frykowski, 32, was known to Polanski since his days in Poland. Frykowski was an aspiring screenwriter. His girlfriend, Abigail Folger, 25, was the fourth person at the dinner table. Abigail was the heiress of the famous Folger coffee corporation. By 10.30 pm, they returned to the Polanski house. Sharon’s friends planned to be at her side for the weekend.

After midnight

Polanski had rented the LA property. Its landlord had appointed a young man as its caretaker. The caretaker had a visitor, one Steven Parent, an 18 year old student. At midnight, Steven was about to leave in his car. Had he left even five minutes earlier, he would be alive today.

Not known to him, though, another car had arrived near the house carrying a 23-year old boy, and three 21-year old girls. The boy confronted Steven, first slashing him with a knife. Steven begged for life. The stranger pointed a 22-caliber revolver and shot him four times in the chest, killing him.

The gang then broke into the house. Each of them carried a knife. Over the next two hours, they tortured and killed Sharon along with her yet-to-be-born baby, and her three friends. The descriptions of the torture and brutality are too inhuman to be repeated here. Sufficient it is to say that Frykowski was stabbed 51 times. One of the 21-year old girls took Sharon’s blood, and wrote PIG in big letters on the front door. 

The investigation

William Garrestson, the young caretaker, was the first suspect. He was subjected to a lie detector test. Garrestson denied any knowledge of what happened in the night. He was grieving for his friend Steven, and was in a shock over the massacre. The police released him.

The media talked about drugs. Drug consumption was common in Hollywood. Equally common were drug related murders. However, post- mortem did not find any trace of drugs or nicotine inside any victim.  

Despite that, the American media sensationalized the domestic life of the Polanskis. The personalities of victims were analyzed to boost newspaper sales. Some people wondered why Roman Polanski was on another continent. To create an alibi? If he could arrive on hearing about the murders, why couldn’t he arrive before the murders?

The police were perplexed by another twin murder that happened within 24 hours after the Tate murders. Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary were killed the following night with equal brutality. The two incidents could be connected.

The Manson family

Charles Manson was in and out of prison before he formed his hippy commune. Manson called himself a reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Apart from his criminal life, he was a singer-songwriter. He wished to publish his albums.

Manson believed in Helter-Skelter, a title of a Beatles’ song. Helter-Skelter means confusion, disorder, some haphazard apocalyptic event. Manson often talked about the inevitable war between the Blacks and the Whites in which all Whites would be destroyed. Manson conceived strategies whereby he and his commune would survive in bunkers (while the remaining White race would disappear). His cult would then rule the world from their secret place. Manson was a charismatic guru, with several girls out of teens joining his cult. Such was his influence they were prepared to do anything he told them. The commune came to be known as the Manson family.

To fulfill his musical ambitions, Manson first tried the well-known rock band the Beach Boys, and later Terry Milcher, the musician and record producer. Milcher was the only son of Doris Day, singer of the famed Que Sera, Sera Whatever will be, will be. Milcher initially showed interest. Manson even auditioned for Milcher, but Milcher never signed him. That truly angered Manson.

Order to kill

On 8 August 1969, Manson sent Tex Watson (23), Susan Atkins (21), Patricia Krenwinkel (21) and Linda Kasabian (20) to go and kill everyone at the luxury house at 10050 Cielo drive.

“Because we wanted to do a crime that would shock the world, that the world would have to stand up and take notice.” Susan Atkins would later explain the reason for the ghastly murders in which she had participated.

It was true Terry Milcher did not live in that house any longer. But killing everyone in the house previously occupied by Milcher would teach him a great lesson, scare him to death, Manson thought.

The investigators identified at least nine murders committed by the Manson family members. Charles Manson and his co-murderers were arrested and tried on 27 counts. After a lengthy trial, the jury returned a verdict of death for all, the death sentence later confirmed by the Californian judge. However, in this wacky story full of twists, Charles Manson is alive even today.

Twist in the tale

10050 Cielo drive was an LA luxury home that was rented out to Hollywood celebrities. Cary Grant and Henry Fonda were its earlier residents. In 1968, Terry Milcher, the record producer and his girlfriend were renting it. Early in 1969, Milcher split with his girlfriend and decided to leave the place. From February 1969, it was rented by Roman Polanski.

Had Polanski not rented the house earlier occupied by Melcher, Sharon Tate, Polanski’s unborn son, and the three others murdered on that fateful night would be alive today.

Their brutal killers were given a death sentence in 1971. Only Linda Kasabian who acted as a witness for the prosecution was let go. She had told the entire story in exchange for immunity.

Before the death sentence could be executed, in 1972, the state of California changed its law. Death sentence was termed unconstitutional and all death row prisoners were given life imprisonment. A few years later, this decision was reversed, and death sentence was re-established in California. However, once death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment, it can’t be reversed in case of an individual convict. As a result, in that window, Charles Manson and killers from his family escaped death. Manson’s requests to be freed on parole are denied every time. His next parole request will come up in 2027 when he will be 92 years old. 

Five innocent people die, their only fault being residing in the wrong house. And their killers continue to live their full life. If such a bizarre story was offered to Roman Polanski, he would have refused to make a film on it.

Ravi 

The Case of an Anonymous Father

A week ago, on 2 June, a large group of Dutch citizens visited a Rotterdam court. The group comprised of 22 plaintiffs - 12 adults and the parents of 10 children. The case was launched jointly by Joey Chief, Monique Aarts, Merel-Lotte, Dr Moniek Wassenaar, Tanja Koopmans and a few others. On 2 June, the Rotterdam court was expected to deliver the verdict.

Joey Chief 

Joey Chief, 30, is a sports instructor as well as a manager in a Vodafone shop. He lives in Den Helder with his partner. Joey is the middle child, with an elder brother and a younger sister. As a child, he realised he was very different from his siblings. His brother had learning difficulties. His sister was a party animal. Joey was of an enterprising nature, at 14 he started giving lessons at the gym. At 15, he left home.

His parents told him he was born through IVF. A fertility clinic had used his father’s sperm to make his mother pregnant. In grade six, he learnt that despite IVF, he was as natural a child as any.

After Joey felt attracted to a man (with whom he now lives), he began to wonder once again why he was so different. In his disturbed state, he began attending counselling sessions. The psychologist advised Joey to probe the matter of his birth further with his mother. As recently as on 23 March, 2017 he asked his mother the details of his conception.

It was a small clinic, his mother said. The doctor had done his job very well. Joey’s mother admitted it was not exactly an IVF, but artificial insemination. She had seen the straws with the seed. The vials were stored in a canister, and the name of her husband was displayed prominently on it.

Back in his car, Joey googled the words he had heard from his mother. Barendrecht. Fertility clinic. Bijdorp. The name of its director. The Google search also gave the name of Monique Aarts, a woman who had apparently initiated a case in a Rotterdam court.

Monique Aarts

Monique Aarts, 32, was born in a similar way to Joey, with her mother using the services of a fertility clinic in the Bijdorp section of Barendrecht near Rotterdam. Monique’s father was found to be infertile. He and his wife agreed they would meet Dr Jan Karbaat, known as the pioneer in the field of fertilisation. He was the director of the largest sperm bank in the Netherlands.

Dr Karbaat supported them throughout the process. The sperm of an anonymous donor was used for both Monique and her younger brother. However, the two children turned out to be different, in looks and in temperament.

In a casual conversation, Dr Karbaat had said the fertility centre often mixed the sperms of donors. Mixing the sperms of two or more donors increased the chances of conception, because it allowed competition between the sperms. It didn’t mean someone could have two biological fathers, no, that was not possible, Dr Karbaat had explained, smiling. As soon as a sperm has fertilised an egg, another sperm can’t enter the same egg. In rare instances, if a woman were to sleep with two men on the same day, she may conceive twins from two fathers, two different sperms entering two different eggs, yes that was possible. But still each child, born naturally or through sperm donation, has only one mother and one father, not a mixture of fathers. Monique’s mother had not bothered to share that explanation with Monique.

TheDutch foundation “Donorkind” (donor child) defends the interests and rights of donor children. It believes those children should have the same rights as naturally born children. One of these rights is to know your biological parents. Donorkind has set up a DNA database. A 2004 Dutch law entitles a donor child, on reaching 16, to trace its roots, to identify the anonymous father. However, children born before 2004 have no such legal privilege. Donorkind helps these children by comparing their DNA with the DNA of other children who may have been fathered by the same donor. Similarly, if a donor father is courageous enough to send his DNA to this foundation, the children can contact him - their biological father. However, many sperm donors are reluctant to announce themselves, because they fear their children may claim inheritance.

Monique decided she and her brother should send their DNA to Donorkind. To find their father. If not, possibly a half-brother or half-sister. The DNA tests were expensive, but Monique decided it was worth it.

“I am a little confused.” The doctor who had conducted the tests said to Monique. “You said you and your brother want to find your father.”

“Yes” said Monique. ‘We want to send those results to Donorkind. They compare our DNA with their database. We may find our father, or maybe someone else who has the same father.”

“I understand. But I’m afraid you and your brother don’t share a common father. The test is very clear. You have a common mother, but different fathers.”

Monique’s brother, or as it turned out her half-brother, went into depression. He often sits with the DNA results, staring blankly at the pages from the clinic. Monique went ahead and sent her results to Donorkind. To her surprise, she found four women who had the same father as she. She met two of them - her half-sisters. Monique realised she may have many half-siblings but no full brother or full sister.

Merel-Lotte

Merel-Lotte, 23, was one of the half sisters Monique had met. Merel-Lotte’s mother Esther Heij, 57, is a disabled person. After a few failed pregnancies, her husband and she had divorced. At 32, she wanted children badly. After failing to find another husband or lover, she turned to the clinic of Dr Karbaat. She needed an anonymous donor. However, she made the doctor promise that on reaching 16, the child would learn the donor’s identity. This would be done through the donor passport maintained by the sperm bank.

Every time Esther Heij visited the clinic for artificial insemination, she needed to wait. Dr Karbaat was proud his clinic supplied “fresh seed”, not frozen sperm lying in vials. Esther often felt curious about the anonymous man in some other room of the clinic donating his fresh semen. A possible father of her future child, but she never saw any such donor. She quite understood the need for the clinic to maintain a donor’s anonymity.

The exercise was expensive, costing 1000 guilders per donation. Indeed, after a few unsuccessful attempts, Merel-Lotte was born. When she reached 16, Esther wrote to Dr Karbaat requesting the details of the donor as was agreed. The Karbaats were on vacation. After a few weeks, Merel-Lotte got the information about her anonymous father on an A4 page. He was slim, fair, blue-eyed, optimistic, lover of camping and nature, hated dishonesty and had a happy childhood. The clinic regretted the man hadn’t left his name. (It wasn’t a legal requirement before 2004 to take down names).

What struck Merel-Lotte in the description were the blue eyes. Her eyes were brown with no trace of blueness.

Dr Moniek Wassenaar

Moniek Wassenaar, 36, is a psychiatrist. As a teenager she learnt sperm donation was the source of her birth. Since then, she was keen to find her nameless biological father. In 2010, a newspaper article had appeared with her photo alongside. The article mentioned Dr Moniek Wassenaar was looking for her donor father.

In a few days, a reader wrote to her. He said she bore an uncanny physical similarity to a gentleman he knew. The letter mentioned the address. Moniek decided to make a visit.

On the morning of 7 Jan. 2011, Moniek reached the address. It was a stately yellow brick house in the Bijdorp section of Barendrecht near Rotterdam. It used to be a sperm bank but the government had shut it down in 2009. The door was opened by Mrs Karbaat. Dr Moniek introduced herself and said she wished to see Dr Jan Karbaat. Moniek thought Mrs Karbaat looked reluctant to call her husband out, but she eventually did.

Dr Jan Karbaat, 84 years old, came out and shook hands with Moniek. “If you plan to have a child, sorry, our sperm bank is now closed.”

Moniek looked at Dr Karbaat in disbelief. Both of them had large teeth and mouths, a high forehead, high cheekbones and droopy eyelids. She marvelled at nature’s ability to clone features from a parent into a child.

“My mother had a fertility treatment in your clinic, doctor. I believe you are my biological father.”

Dr Karbaat narrowed his eyes. “Let me see your hands” he said. On examining the large hands, he said. “You could be a kid of mine.”

Moniek then requested Dr Karbaat to agree to a DNA test. The test would confirm the relationship.

“Why would I do that?” Dr Karbaat said. “To organise a family Christmas party?” He went on to say he has fathered at least 60 children by giving his own sperm. “What’s wrong with it? I am in good health and intelligent. I can certainly share my genes with the world. It’s a noble thing.” (As per records revealed by the case, Dr Karbaat was 81 years old, when he fathered his latest child).

Dr Moniek cordially ended the meeting with her presumed father. However, she understood he didn’t wish to see her ever again.

The case against Dr Karbaat

In 2015, Dr Moniek learnt from Monique Aarts that several children similarly suspected Dr Karbaat to be their father. The Karbaat clinic, the country’s biggest sperm bank, was shut down for falsifying data and analyses, fictitious donor descriptions and exceeding the permitted limit per donor. Dr Jan Karbaat had often swapped the donor’s sperm with his own to fill the Netherlands with his DNA.

Moniek Wassenaar said, “I fear I’m his daughter, and hope I’m not. A DNA test will make it certain. It’ll be sad to learn I’m a crook’s daughter, but at least this uncertainty would end.”

Tanja Koopmans, mother of the 18-year old Gioachino, said, “I feel like Dr Karbaat raped me.” That sentiment was echoed by many mothers, who were given false descriptions of imaginary donors.

Monique Arts had managed to get together 22 plaintiffs. All of them had large teeth and mouth, a high forehead, high cheekbones and droopy eyelids. The case against Dr Karbaat was to force him to take a DNA test. Each child was entitled to know its biological father.

Joey Chief, Monique Aarts, Merel-Lotte, Dr Moniek Wassenaar, Gioachino Koopmans and others, their children, were not supposed to exist. (Could they sue Dr Karbaat for coming into this world with his genes?)

The case was launched. Dr Karbaat’s lawyer denied any wrongdoing on his part. Because unless his DNA link to all the children was proven, what crime could he be charged with?

Before the trial reached its end, however, in April 2017, Dr Jan Karbaat died at the age of 89. In his will, he clearly specified nobody should be allowed to take his DNA in any manner.

2 June 2017

Dr Karbaat took his crime to his grave. He remained unpunished. That was the general sentiment among the plaintiffs.

Dr Karbaat’s toothbrush, nose hair trimmer and compressed stockings are preserved under a court order. On 2 June, the Rotterdam court ordered that these items can be used for conducting a DNA test. The court has overruled Dr Karbaat’s will. However, another court needs to decide whether the results of the DNA test can be made available to the plaintiffs.

If and when that happens, the 22 children, their own children, and perhaps many more children in Netherlands will become 100% certain that they are the off-spring of a depraved scoundrel.

Ravi 

A Loving Teacher

This week, a 20 year-old American scandal was revisited by newspapers. Americans were reminded of the case in which an attractive, convicted school teacher was interviewed by everyone from Oprah Winfrey to Larry King. Several books have been written on the case, and a couple of movies made.   

The story started in 1989, when Mary Kay Letourneau, a 27 year old married woman, with a teaching degree from Seattle University, was hired by the Shorewood Elementary School. Two years later, among her second grade students was an eight year old boy- Vili Fualaau. The school was like any other elementary school, the second grade was like everywhere else, filled with small, noisy brats.

Four years later, in grade six, Mary had Vili Fualaau as her student once more. Outside of school lessons, she was helping Vili develop his drawing skills. He often visited her house, and became friends with her son Steve. By the way, Mary already had four children by this time. While teaching Vili how to draw, Mary felt drawn to him. Their physical relationship began. The boy was 12 years old, and his teacher 34.

In a few months, Mary’s husband found a bunch of love letters between his wife and her student. By now Mary was visibly pregnant. The husband understood the connection between the love letters and the pregnancy. Mary was arrested for second-degree child rape. She was out on bail when her daughter Audrey was born. At the time of her birth, Audrey’s father was 13 years old.

The same year, in August 1997, Mary was convicted of child rape. (An adult having sex with a minor is statutory rape, even when it is consensual. A minor’s consent is no consent. Depending on the country, the adult may not be charged if the age difference between the two parties is less than four years. In the USA, this is called the Romeo and Juliet law. Clearly not applicable in this case).

 In the court, Mary cried and admitted her conduct was immoral and illegal. She was sorry, and promised it won’t happen again. She begged for help. To the court’s surprise, Vili’s mother said Mary was not a bad person; she had simply made a terrible mistake. Mary had been punished enough (by the media) and if she went to jail for a long time, Vili would feel personally guilty for that.

The mandated punishment for the offence was a 7½ year imprisonment. However, Judge Linda Lau considered the circumstances, the plea bargain, and sent Mary to jail for three months, keeping the rest of the prison term suspended, on condition that Mary should never again meet or contact Vili in any way.

The verdict provoked a huge debate. If the perpetrator was a male teacher and the victim a girl student, would any court be so lenient? Some commentators, including the TV host Bill Maher, said this constituted love; they were soul mates, and how could anyone be punished for love. Maher insisted women can’t rape.

In Jan 1998, Mary was freed from jail. She was free as long as she didn’t meet or communicate with her former student. In less than a month, the police found Mary and Vili in a car along with more than $6000 in cash. They were planning to flee the country together. Mary was arrested once again, and another trial started.

Judge Linda Lau noticed Mary was pregnant again. The judge had no choice, though, but to send Mary to prison for 7½ years. ‘You had an opportunity that you foolishly squandered’, the judge told her. In prison, Mary gave birth to Georgia, her second daughter from Vili. The daughter was whisked away at birth, and given to Vili’s mother. Vili’s mother looked after both her granddaughters. The father of those two girls was 14 years old.

A year later, Mary’s husband divorced her, took the four children and moved to Alaska.

In August 2004 Mary was released from prison after serving her full term. The condition remained, however, that she should not meet or contact Vili. If she did, she risked going to prison again. Judge Linda Lau hoped that after spending 7½ years in prison, Mary would have the sense not to break the judge’s order.

The next day though, Vili Fualaau filed a motion urging the court to reverse the order. Vili loved Mary, she was the mother of his two daughters, and he was unable to live without her. As it was, they had not met for more than seven years. 

Judge Linda Lau had no choice. Vili at 21 was now an adult. And if two adults wished to see each other, who was a judge to stop it? Judge Linda granted the motion. Mary, 43, and Vili, 21, reunited. Their daughters were 7 and 6 years old.

The following year, in May 2005, the two married at a winery in Washington in the presence of 250 guests. Two of Mary’s four children from her first marriage attended the wedding. (One of them had played with Vili as a child). Mary adopted the name of her new husband, her former school pupil. Since then her passport name is Mary Kay Fualaau.

Two years ago, the couple celebrated ten years of their happy marriage. They were interviewed on television and their story published by most newspapers.

This week, Vili filed for separation. Mary is now 55; Vili is 33, and their daughters 20 and 19. Vili told the court the daughters are no longer dependent on the parents.

 *****

Those who believed in this immortal love story were shocked on reading about Vili filing for separation. It has been 25 years since he met Mary as a student. They now have two adult daughters. Their celebration of ten years’ wedded bliss confirmed their true love.

Vili, in his latest interview, has comforted everyone. His separation request, he says, is only for technical reasons. He loves Mary, they will continue to live in the same house. Difficult to find useful employment, he wants to start selling Marijuana (legal in some places). The police must verify his and his wife’s records before granting him licence. With Mary’s sex offender status and prior conviction, he has no chance of getting that licence. So they will divorce technically, but will continue to live together and love one another.

One sociologist, while commenting on the whole affair, lamented how young boys seduced by their school teachers find their lives destroyed. Vili has been reduced to selling Marijuana. Mary Kay has completely messed up his life. A much older woman, manipulating a young pupil, will always end up ruining that boy’s life, maintains the sociologist.

Story retold

Some storytellers have suggested there are only seven basic plots, and from Shakespeare to Bollywood films, the same plots are regurgitated all the time. God’s stories are also similar, the same stories repeated again and again. Let me now re-tell the above story with minor variations.

On another continent, there was a school boy whose name was Emmanuel. He studied at a Jesuit high school. Brigitte, one of the teachers, was 25 years older than him. Brigitte was married and had three (not four) children. She was appointed as a drama teacher for Emmanuel’s class.

Emmanuel was 15 when he and his 40-year old teacher began working together on adapting an Italian play called The Art of Comedy. ‘We wrote and little by little I was totally charmed by his intelligence.’ Brigitte said. She added he had mature relationships with adults, whom he treated as his equals. (Mary had said the same about Vili).

It all started with a kiss.

Brigitte’s daughter was Emmanuel’s classmate. When Emmanuel began visiting Brigitte’s house often, his parents mistakenly thought their son was in love with the daughter. When they realised it was the mother he was in love with, neither of them thought it was great news. They decided not to lodge a police complaint against Brigitte in what was called ‘corruption of a minor’ in their country. Emmanuel’s mother requested Brigitte to please not do anything stupid until Emmanuel turned 18. Emmanuel’s father decided to send him to another city for further education. Hopefully distance would put an end to this silly liaison. 

  

Before leaving, Emmanuel assured Brigitte he would return. Whatever you do, I will marry you, the 16-year old boy said. Both knew how passionate their relationship had become.

Living in different cities, they would call each other all the time and spend hours over the phone. ‘Bit by bit, he defeated all my resistance, in an amazing way, with patience.’ Brigitte would recall later.

In 2006, she divorced her husband. The following year, Emmanuel and she married. He was 29 and she was 54. Her children from the first marriage, two of them older than Emmanuel, attended the wedding.

This year they celebrated ten years of their marriage, and twenty-five years of their romance. Their story was picked up by global media and once again debated by journalists, politicians, sociologists, criminologists, and moralists. Despite stormy debates, Emmanuel Macron succeeded in becoming the youngest president of France at the age of 39. On winning, in front of the flashing cameras, he passionately kissed his 64-year old wife, Brigitte.

*****

Plots may be limited in number. Stories are repeated over and over again, with slight variations.

But stories that look identical may have very different endings.

Ravi