We hear that State Attorney Kirk Zuelch thinks that it's unfair that only one newspaper has covered the case of Nick and Carrie Nowatney, the young couple falsely accused of child abuse and put on trial by Zuelch— and subsequently vindicated when Judge Mark Jones threw the case out of court last month.
In a 50-page motion reportedly filed last week in circuit court, Zuelch is asking Judge Jones to let him go public to try to balance the reporting. He reportedly wants to unseal at least some of the case records.
We like this idea. We've been trying to get Zuelch, Assistant State Attorney Janine Gedmin (the government lawyer who lost the Nowatney trial), and some of the key officials at the State Dept. of Children & Families (DCF) to talk for months. They always say they can't because the records of juvenile cases are sealed. We would like nothing more than to get them all at a press conference and ask them some hard questions:
• What was your justification for snatching that breastfeeding baby away from his mother and holding him for 200 days, along with his 3-year-old sister?
• At what point did you realize that you didn't have a winnable case— and why didn't you drop the charges at that time?
• You forced the Nowatneys to undergo exhaustive evaluations by two psychologists. Then, when both doctors reported that neither parent showed any characteristics normally associated with child abuse, you fought to keep the judge from seeing those reports. Why? Was it because you were more interested in winning the case than finding the truth?
• How much public money did you spend to try to prosecute the Nowatneys?
• Would you now recommend that the state reimburse the Nowatneys for the more than $100,000 they had to spend to defend themselves against your charges— charges that have now been documented as false?
• Would you consider at least apologizing to the Nowatneys for needlessly putting them through this ordeal?
Hey, guys. If you don't want to have a press conference and risk surprise questions, we'll take your answers to these questions in writing.
We don't know what's in the file that Zuelch thinks might put a better face on the fact that he got his ass kicked in this case. Maybe it's the language in the judge's order. From what we've heard about that order, Jones rules for the Nowatneys then, in essence, pats Zuelch on the head and says "Good try."
In any event, Zuelch apparently feels that, if he can get Judge Jones to allow him to open up the case file, there may be something in there he can parade around to the Zuelch-friendly press and, just maybe, get some coverage that will, somehow, make him look good. Maybe we'll soon be getting a press release from Zuelch that says something like: "Look right here! The Judge says that we might have actually won that case— if only the other side hadn't presented any witnesses!"
Judge Jones is reportedly scheduled to hear Zuelch's motion on June 28. We're not making this up.
"If he thinks there's something in the case record that shows that he ever had a case, why doesn't he appeal Judge Jones' ruling?" said Nick Nowatney.
The Nowatneys have argued from the very beginning that the hearings and trial should have been open to the press and public. But the State Attorney's Office and the DCF have consistently argued against it.
"We're happy that Zuelch is finally coming around to our way of thinking as far as opening up the court record is concerned," Nowatney said. "But, as we understand it, he only wants to open a small portion of the record. We want it all made public.
"For example, we want the depositions of all listed witnesses released, whether they were allowed to testify or not," he said. "Some of our witnesses were not allowed to testify. And some of the state's witnesses changed their testimony between the time they sat for depositions and the time they testified in court.
"We want the complete testimony of all witnesses who testified at the trial released.
"We want transcripts of all the arguments of all the lawyers on both sides released," Nowatney said. "These records will show that the lawyer for the state lied to the court.
"We want the results of our polygraph examinations and our psychological evaluations released. The press and the public should be especially interested in the report of one of the doctors who commented on the probable trauma our baby suffered when his breastfeeding was forcibly interrupted and he was abruptly separated from his mother," Nowatney said.
"We want the results of both the Army and Navy investigations released. Both of those investigations were completed very early and neither found any indications of child abuse. But both the State Attorney and the DCF ignored those reports.
"And we want all the DCF files on this case unsealed," he said. "We believe that these records will show that, early on, both the DCF and the State Attorney knew they didn't have a case— but continued to go after us anyway, because we refused to plead guilty to something we didn't do.
"If they refuse to do this," Nowatney said, "I think a fair question would be: What are they trying to hide?"
If what we hear is true about Zuelch's motion to unseal some of the Nowatney records— we haven't been allowed to see the actual motion— it's got to be absolutely delicious. Reportedly, much of the document is devoted to whining to the judge about how the State Attorney's office and the DCF has been treated by this newspaper.
To try to make his point, we hear that he liberally quotes from our editorials over the past few months, lists some of the headlines, and attaches a number of copies of the complete commentaries— making the document he sent to Judge Jones about a half-inch thick.
Nick Nowatney has told us about the headlines that Zuelch seems to be complaining about and, frankly, we don't see Zuelch's point— unless he's just mad because we've exposed the misconduct on the part of his office and the DCF.
For example, we understand that the first headline Zuelch listed was from our first story on the Nowatney case, which appeared on Jan. 28 of this year— "When the System Doesn't Work: Nick and Carrie Nowatney Fight to Get Their Kids Back." And, reportedly, the subhead on that story was also listed— "Army and Navy Investigations: `No Child Abuse.' But State Seems Determined to Tear `Perfect' Family Apart."
Nothing untrue here. Why would Zuelch be unhappy about our publishing the truth?
We hear that Zuelch also sent Judge Jones a copy of one of the subheads from our Feb. 18 issue— "Intervention By a U.S. Congressman Forces State To End `Hostage' Situation."
Nothing untrue here.
We hear that the headline from our March 10 edition was also included— "Top Expert: Nowatney Kids Suffered No Child Abuse." Also the subhead from that story— "State Still Has No Case, But Will Put Couple On Trial Anyway. DCF Attorney Blocks Kids' Homecoming— Unless State Can supervise."
Then, according to Nowatney, his quotes from that article are included in the motion:
"The DCF knew months ago that they didn't have the evidence to back up child abuse charges, but they bulled ahead anyway. And they continue to bull ahead.
"They don't seem to be concerned in the least about truth, justice or the fact that our children are still separated from us months after they had enough evidence to return them to us and say,'We're sorry.'"
Nothing untrue here. And keep in mind that Nowatney's remarks were made before Judge Jones threw Zuelch's case out of court. The fact is that Judge Jones considered Zuelch's case so lame that he didn't even want to hear all of the Nowatneys' testimony. "I've heard enough!" he said. And he stopped the trial and ruled for the parents! That action pretty much says it all doesn't it?
We also understand that this damning headline from our March 17 edition was included with Zuelch's motion— "Another Top Medical Expert: No Child Abuse." And the subhead— "Expert: Prosecution Is Being Overly Aggressive Without Attending To Lack Of Supporting Evidence." This was a quote from a top medical expert.
Nothing untrue here.
We were also glad to hear that, in the package Zuelch sent to the judge, he also listed one of our subheads from our April 7 issue— "There Is a `Child Abuse Industry' Populated By People Whose Livelihoods Depend On Encouraging Child Abuse Allegations, Coercing Parents To Admit Guilt and, Then, Providing `Services.'"
Nothing untrue here. Writers who write for far more important publications than Key West The Newspaper have written about this flourishing "industry." Just last week, in an effort to force reform of the system, two class-action lawsuits were filed here in Florida. In one of these suits, the DCF is being sued for $501 million!
Zuelch reportedly also took issue with one of our favorite headlines of all time, which appeared over a front page editorial on April 28— "The Forced Taking Of Elian Must Have Been Orgasmic For the Baby-Snatchers At the DCF."
Actually, we don't know what is orgasmic for those people over at the DCF, if anything. What we do know, however, is when they showed up at the Nowatney home to take the children, Carrie was breastfeeding Nathan on the couch. The DCF people all but tore him away from his mother's breast!
If and when you go public, Mr. Zuelch, tell us about that!
We do have to admit that we are disappointed to hear that Zuelch, in the package he sent to Judge Jones, didn't include the best headline of all, which appeared on May 12— "Judge Finally Throws Out Bogus Child Abuse Charges Against the Nowatneys!" But we do understand that Zuelch did include the heart of our commentary on that day:
"The only criminals in this case are the corrupt officials at the DCF and the State Attorney's office who went forward with this prosecution, spending thousands and thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars, when they knew they didn't have a case!
"Well, today, fellow citizens, that pack of wild dogs has been hosed down. Today, they are cowering in their dens, tails tucked, licking their sores. Today, there is no honor over at DCF and the State Attorney's office. There is only defeat and dishonor."
We are flattered that Zuelch would want to include this excerpt from our editorial in his motion about the public having the right to know. But, now, we wish we hadn't toned it down before we published it.
We hear that Zuelch also included this excerpt from the same editorial:
"There will be more to say about this shameful abuse of power in the coming weeks . . . but we hope that the resolution of this travesty will result in at least two outcomes."
At this point, Zuelch, for some reason, reportedly only lists the first of our hoped-for outcomes. Assuming that was an oversight, we've listed both of them here for you:
"1. Every parasite in the local DCF office who had anything to do with the decision-making in the Nowatney case should be fired. They should never be allowed to do anything like this to anyone ever again!
"2. State Attorney Kirk Zuelch's 20-year ride as an elected official should be terminated. He is the one man who, at any time, could have ended the pain and suffering of the Nowatneys. He didn't do it. He's up for reelection this year. We predict that the voters will punish him appropriately."