Dishonest Video Exploits Family of Murdered Child

Dishonest Video Exploits Family of Murdered Child

By

James Scott Trimm

Within 24 hours of publication of my recent article The Death of Leiliana: The Untold Story Part 1, an anonymous video began to be circulated in response, which was billed as being “The Real Untold Story”. 

According to Brian Maker (father of Leiliana) the video was produced with the “help” of Jennifer Olson of Protective Parents of Texas (also known as Protective Parents Coalition).  In a recent article I documented that Jennifer Olson, who is a family violence activist, was herself arrested just last year for family violence.  Olson has not been above exploiting the death of little Leiliana, and even her family in her political campaign of unfair attacks on Tarrant Family Court Judges, and in this case Judge Haddock, the Associate Judge of the 233rd District Court. In fact Olson has stooped so low in her exploitation of the death of this precious child as to publish an internet Meme with pictures of the beaten up Leiliana next to a picture of Judge Haddock and the words “Vote No in Memory of Leiliana” written across it.  Now Olson has stooped even further, in exploiting a grieving family to support her political agenda.

The basis of the video is a secretly recorded conversation between Olson’s close confederate Duhnelle Essary and Judge Diane Haddock.  In my research, I acquired a copy of this recording back in February of 2017.  This recording was not new information for which my article did not account,

The secret recording was made in a highly unethical manner, by Duhnelle Essary, whose brother has a case in judge Haddock’s court.  Essary called the court, claiming to be returning a call, but the court had no knowledge of a prior call to Essary.  Judge Haddock answered, and had what she believed was a private conversation.  Just over a minute and thirty seconds into the conversation, Judge Haddock asks the caller “can we talk freely?” to which Duhnelle Essary dishonestly replies “we can talk freely.”  It appears that to Duhnelle “we can talk freely” means “I am secretly recording this phone call and intend to publish it.”

As I said, I have had a copy of this entire phone call for several months before I wrote my article.  I was well aware of its contents, and there is nothing about this fraudulently recorded conversation that calls the facts presented in my article into question.

Since there was nothing about this recorded conversation that supports the false claim that the judiciary are responsible for Leliana’s death, the video’s producer stoops to dishonest edits of the most extreme variety, and engaging in a campaign of misdirection and distraction, addressing issues that are unrelated to responsibility for the death of Leiliana, often at the expense of the family. 

Did CPS Contact the 233rd District Court?

After a brief introduction he first segment of the video is designed to convince the viewer of something that has been well established as false.  The video begins with an outtake [slightly altered] of Judge Haddock from the recorded phone call saying:

The 233rd never heard any evidence.

[We... you know when they filed, when the Klakley's filed]

And it was really Alisa, the grandmother,

when she filed she attached an affidavit.

But there was no evidence to the affidavit

Now since we have done the research that

we have done and since CPS did their research

there was never even a CPS report prior to January of 2016.

(The words in brackets were edited out in the video)

The narrator/interviewer then picks up saying:

 So contrary to what Judge Haddock said, CPS was there?

Here the producer intents to give the false impression of a refutation of something Judge Haddock said, but actually responds to something Judge Haddock never said at all!

This dishonestly worded question is posed as an interview question directed to Leiliana’s grandmother Alisa Clakley, who responds:

“Yes because uh, I believe that Crystal Evans had told me that she had to be subpoenaed to go to court um in this case period. And us so I am assuming that  also going back the  following month that judge Haddock and the attorneys all know she was there.”

Despite what Mrs. Clakley may have been “assuming” there is no subpoena for Crytsal Evans and/or CPS records in the court record.  No such subpoena was filed with the 233rd District Court in this case. 

No one seems to be disputing that the CPS worker was there, participating in out of court negotiations.  However, as presented in my blog, the evidence indicates that she was there to participate in negotiating a settlement.  What is known is that Crystal Evans (the CPS worker) disappeared into a room with the two attorneys, and they came out of that room with a settlement. 

As stated in my blog:

We may never know what took place in that conference.  However the CPS Fatality Report sheds some light on the negotiations that appear to have been “approved” by CPS that day.  The CPS Fatality Report says “on December 17, 2014, CPS approved the mother's request to move the PCSP from the sibling's paternal relatives to the children's maternal relative's home.”

No hearing was held that day, and CPS did not present any evidence or testimony to the court.  Mrs. Clackley chose to settle her case out of court that day and therefore chose  to not call up the CPS worker to give any testimony to the court. 

 It is unlikely Judge Haddock even knew at the time that a CPS worker had been there participating in negotiations, because the case was never brought before her.

Although Judge Haddock made the statement on the recording that there was not a CPS report until January 2016, there was a CPS investigation before that time, as detailed in my recent blog.

It is possible that Judge Haddock simply did not know at the time of the recording, that there had been a CPS investigation before the January 2016 report.  Or she may be referring only to the 2016 investigation as a “CPS Report” because the prior investigation was originally opened for “neglectful supervision” not abuse, and was ultimately closed with a finding of “ruled out”.  Since the term “CPS Report” can mean many things (such as a report made to CPS, or any number of types of reports made by CPS).

At any rate the truth is that there was is no Subpoena for CPS or the CPS worker filed with the 233rd District Court and there was no testimony of evidence provided to the court by CPS.  The video simply seeks to cloud the issue and convince people of a falsehood.

Brian Maker’s Drug Problem

Next the video presents another sound clip from the recorded conversation:

Brian Maker, the son of the Clakley's is a drug addict. In Rehab out of rehab.  None of this did we know at the time of course everything I am telling you is what we have learned since then.  You wanted a review, we have done it, trust me, um.  But anyway he is a drug addict and so he...  But he was here, I heard he was here.

This clip is followed by the narrator asking Mrs. Clakley another interview question:

“How does it make you feel when you hear this judge speak about your son like this, after his daughter has just been murdered?”

To which Brian’s mother responds:

I was very aggravated, very upset at the fact that she was making that assumption, if you will.  My son has never been in drug rehab, never.  Where she got that information from, I would like to know.

In light of what Brian Maker has suffered with the murder of his daughter, it is unfortunate that Mrs Essary chose to make this private conversation public, and even more unfortunate that the producer of the video has in a very public way, used this in a cut to imply that Judge Haddock wrongly accused Maker of having a drug problem. 

It is worthy of note that Mrs. Clakley did not object to the claim that Brian Maker was “a drug addict” but only that he had been in rehab.  If a person is a drug addict, but has never tried rehab, it is not disparaging to wrongly assume that they would have tried rehab.  And it is not defamation to say that a person has had a drug problem if it is true.

It is especially unfortunate that the producer has paraded this private conversation into this video, because, other than stirring up the pitchfork crowd, this issue has nothing to do with the false claim that the judiciary has was responsible for Leiliana’s death.  It is merely presented as a distraction to exploit the grieving family to forward a malicious political agenda.

Did CPS Drug Test the Mother?

Next the video plays another sound clip from the recording:

But the affidavit said that the mom was a known drug user, did you know that there was no evidence in the CPS file of her drug use?

Then the video immediately shows a clip from a news broadcast:

In October, 2014, two months before the scheduled hearing, CPS already had a report that Leiliana’s little half brother was born  with drugs in his system. And during that investigation, the children’s mother tested positive on a drug test.

However the editor of the video has cherry picked certain statements by Judge Haddock, while conveniently leaving out others:

Later in the same recorded conversation Duhnel Essary asks:

Duhnell: Well it seems as if they had asked for that [drug test] mom certainly would not have passed it. I mean-

Judge Haddock: No she would have. Mom was being tested-

Duhnell: She did take a drug test-

Judge Haddock: She was being tested thru her parole, not thru us and not thru CPS. Yea mom would have passed..

While the CPS Fatality Report says:

On December 1, 2014, CPS received the mother's drug test results. She tested positive for marijuana.

However it also says:

It appears the mother was drug tested through either her service provider or probation

services, however results of drug tests were not clearly documented. CPS did not drug

test any parent during the FBSS case.

So Judge Haddock’s statements that “there was no evidence in the CPS file of her drug use” and that “She was being tested thru her parole, not thru us and not thru CPS” were absolutely correct.

Remember, Judge Haddock did not have the CPS report, at the time she signed off on the family’s out of court agreement.  She is here referring only to what she has learned since the child’s death.  This issue also has nothing to do with the false claim that the judiciary was responsible for Leiliana’s death.  It is merely presented as a distraction. 

Did Judge Haddock Call Brian Maker a “Dead Beat”?

Now we come to the most dishonest edit yet.  The video extracts the following statement by Judge Haddock from the audio recording:

She got pregnant right when she got out of prison to this other, ahhhh, can you forgive me for using  a pejorative, but another dead beat.

A message on the screen says “Judge Haddock describes Brian Maker as a “deadbeat.”

The narrator/interviewer then asks Brian’s mother:

Alisa, the Judge Haddock describes your son as a “deadbeat.”  Do you feel she is biased in this case? 

However if we look to the statement Judge Haddock actually made, we find this video producer is being completely dishonest.  In context Judge Haddock was speaking, not about Brian Maker but about a completely different person: the father of Leiliana’s younger half-brother.  The complete statement in the original audio recording was:

She got pregnant right when she got out of prison to this other, ahhhh, can you forgive me for using  a pejorative, but another dead beat. And she gets pregnant with this guy and his name is ***name withheld**

Although judge Haddock says “another” deadbeat, it is unclear what this means.  She could be referring to the father of Leiliana’s three older half siblings, to the mother herself, or simply to other parents who have gone thru the 233rd in other cases as also being “deadbeats.”  But through dishonest editing, the viewer of the video is led to believe that statement in the outtake referred specifically to Brian Maker. 

That said, if a father who helps create a child and fails to financially support his child is a “deadbeat” then it is interesting to note that Maker signed onto an out of court settlement which required him to pay no child support and which stipulated that he would have “no access to the child” and “not be allowed in the presence of the child”.

It is unfortunate that the video producer has chosen to embarrass Mr. Maker, a man whose daughter was murdered, by dragging the issue of whether or not he was a deadbeat into a public video.  No such statement came from Judge Haddock.  Brian Maker is not who she was talking about, and the whole issue is simply brought forward by the video producer as a distraction, as it has nothing to do with the false claim that the judiciary was responsible for Leileana's death. 

Standing Strong: Fighting for Changes in the Law

Next the video gives us another statement by judge haddock, from the recorded conversation:

When this happened with Leiliana I knew it was not my case because I knew I had never heard any evidence like this. But I none the less put myself on trial for about a week and I have researched it.  I have gone to- and I have with my own time with my own money,

to try and find [out] any crack that I can possibly find. And I am happy to tell you that I am going to stand strong.

The narrator/interviewer again misquotes the statement from Judge Haddock:

“How do you feel when you hear Haddock say she’s proud to say she’s standing strong?”

In fact Judge Haddock said nothing about being “proud” and the dishonest editor has cut the edit just before Judge Haddock explains her words.  In the original recorded conversation, Haddock immediately follows these words with:

I knew and I know that my heart is pure, and there was absolutely nothing that this court  could have done. We do need some changes in the law and I hope we get them. But I got to start fighting for that, because I will tell you right now, its met with a lot of resistance.

So when Judge Haddock said “I am going to be standing strong” it had nothing to do with pride, it meant that she would be “standing strong” “fighting for” “changes in the law” that she is concerned will be “met with a lot of resistance.” Fighting such opposition and not a fight for the weak or impure of heart.

The Best Interests of the Child

Next the narrator-interviewer asks the grandmother:

“But isn’t this court supposed to be more concerned with what’s in the best for the child?”

To which the grandmother very emotionally responds:

Absolutely, and I don’t feel that at all in this case- at all.  Because if Leiliana was the center of it, then it wouldn’t have come to the point that it did.

In Texas law it is presumed that the parents act in the best interests of their child unless it can be proven that this would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development.  When a family enters into an out of court agreement, the law in the State of Texas presumes that family is acting in the best interests of the child, and Texas law therefore compels judges to sign off on such agreements.

On December 17th both Alisa Clakley and Brian Maker signed their names to an out of court agreement, which stated right up at the top “In the Interest of Leiliana Rose Wright.”  Judge Diane Haddock simply followed the law in signing off on the out of court agreement that the family had declared was “In the Interests of Leiliana Rose Wright”.

[Above] Close up from the out of court settlement

"In the interest of Leiliana Rose Wright"

[Above] The Out of Court Settlement "In the Interest of Leiliana Rose Wright"

Signed by Alisa Clakley and Brian Maker

Stamped "Agreed w/o hearing or conference" 

Unfortunately the very people who placed custody of Leiliana with her mother, now wish to blame the judges who never had the case before them.  It is even more unfortunate that this grieving family is now being exploited by Jennifer Olson and Protective Parents of Texas for a political agenda.

[Above] Closeup from the Out of Court Agreement

Signed by Alisa Clakley (upper left) and Brian Maker (lower left)

Stamped "Agreed w/o hearing or conference"

Settled Out of Court

In yet another dishonest sound edit the next out take in the video poses the following question from Duhnelle Essary with a very dishonest edit of Judge Haddock’s answer.

In the video we hear:

Duhnelle: As a judge, don't you make the final determination in that:

Judge Haddock: No, that is not true.

I can't make it- be a final determination about all cases in all children all over the world.

But Judge Haddock’s actual answer on original audio recording is:

Judge Haddock: No, that is not true.

The law of the land is, and I think we want it that way, parents get to make the decisions, they get to parent their children, and the judge can only make a decision when evidence is brought to us. And we can't,

I can't make it- be a final determination about all cases in all children all over the world.

Then we hear the following question from Duhnelle Essary: “I understand, but if it's before your court?” but this is replaced in the transcript running on the screen with “But all before your court?” 

This is yet another dishonest change and is designed to imply that the case was actually brought before Judge Haddock’s court (it was not).  The original question Duhnelle Essary asked Judge Haddock only refereed to any hypothetical case brought before her court “if it’s before your court” but the question substituted on the screen edits out the phase “I understand” (which implied an understanding that the case had not come before Haddock’s court) with a declaration implying that this case was before Judge Haddock’s court “But all before your court?”.

Judge Haddock then responds:

No ma'am, that is not true.  It isn't.  They filed a pleading and they did not want to prosecute it. They just did not want to. Did they not want to because they had something on them? Did you think about that? Did they not want to because, maybe  their lawyer said "You know she is going to ask if your drug free, and if  you’ve used anything in the last six months, your not going to get custody, Did you think about that?

The layman may not understand that “filed a pleading” means that they filed a case in the court, and “did not want to prosecute it” means that they chose to settle out of court rather than bring the case before a judge.

The narrator / interviewer then asks the grandmother:

Alisa, do you feel it is in fact a judges responsibility to make decisions about cases like your granddaughter’s in her court?

To which the grandmother responds:

 Um- absolutely.  She should have been uh- making a judgment call but we never got into the courtroom. And it sounds to me like she knew nothing about anything as far as this case goes. If she did, and as Judge Harris had said, he had made a statement that this case should have been heard in court, Now- they were together, so if she knew and read the evidence, and saw everything that we have produced for them, she should have read it. 

The truth is that this case never went before a judge for one simple reason: because the family settled it out of court.  Contrary to the grandmother’s statement, there was never any evidence presented in this case.  The only thing filed was an affidavit from the grandmother attached to the original petition, which was never presented to the court.  By signing the out of court settlement, the grandmother was effectively recanting the affidavit (which itself never mentioned the CPS investigation of Leiliana, and which probably did not meet the very high standard for a grandparent to obtain custody from a parent). Judge Haddock never saw this affidavit, because it was in the main file in Judge Harris’s court, and was not needed because the family chose to settle out of court.

Next that narrator asks the grandmother:

Was she also suggesting that you as Leiliana’s grandmother was [sic] also using drugs?

It is very clear from the original audio that Judge Haddock said no such thing about the grandmother.  Moreover this issue is merely thrown out as part of a distraction, because it has no impact on the false claim that the judiciary is responsible for Leiliana’s death.

The narrator asks the grandmother what one question she would ask the judge.  And the grandmother responds “Why can’t you tell the truth,” yet the judges have been completely truthful.  It is now time to see the other side of the coin.

The 233rd Court Has Saved the Lives of Thirty Children!

The video ends as it began with an outtake from the recorded conversation in which Judge Haddock says:

In seventeen years we’ve lost five babies.

Then the narrator snidely adds “Tarrant County does not need a sixth.

And Duhnelle Essary writes on her Facebook page:

"...from what I understand that is an extremely high death count to happen in one courtroom."

However the truth is that this number is shockingly low!

On average about 1,580 children in the US die from abuse or neglect each year.  Over a seventeen year period that would be 26,860 children out of 74 million children in the USA, or 36 out of every 100,000 children.

Approximately 4,800 children pass through each Tarrant County Family Court each year.  Over a seventeen year period that is 81,600 children.  Out of that, only five children who went through the 233rd District Court, died from abuse or neglect.  That is an average of 6 out of every 100,000 children.  This is way below the national average!

In other words the children who passed thru the 233rd district court were six times less likely to die from abuse or neglect than the national average.  Put another way, Judges Harris and Haddock have together, saved the lives of over thirty children, and we will never know who they were!

There is nothing about this new video that offers any real refutation of my recent article.  The video is filled with dishonest sound edits, and falsifications, dealing almost entirely with issues that are distractions from the real question of responsibility for the death of Leiliana.  In the end, this video is a sad exploitation of the death of a child and a grieving family for Jennifer Olson’s political agenda.