This, obviously, is not a picture of the real shoes in question. This sketch is here simply to serve as a visual aid and to attract attention to my subject for the day: a child’s shoes and where they were on the night Margery Landry broke into the house of Elsa Newman’s estranged husband.



I’m trying, in the interest of complete truth, to dig deeply into this story of the Elsa Newman case. And today, in the process of my search, I learned something new and completely unexpected.

During Elsa Newman’s first trial on the “conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree” or whatever they called it, Katherine Winfree showed a series of slides. These slides, as I understand it, were intended to provide the jury with views of the bedroom where the then-husband of Elsa Newman was asleep with his youngest son at the time Margery Landry broke into the house. If my informants are correct, the child was nude; the father was nude from the waist down.

Oh…well…the father said the child had had difficulty sleeping and had come and crawled into Dad’s bed.

Not an uncommon occurrence, you say? I agree. Many a child crawls into a parent’s bed in the night, whether from difficulty sleeping or to find safety after a nightmare.

But why was the child naked?

Why was his father naked from the waist down?

And the thing I just learned today: the child’s shoes and socks were on the floor beside the bed. They were visible in one of the slides shown by prosecutor Katherine Winfree in Elsa Newman’s first trial. You remember…the slides of the crime scene.

So what this father is telling us is that his younger son was unable to sleep that night. Thus the boy got up from his bed…removed his pajamas…put on his shoes and socks…walked to his father’s room…removed those shoes and socks…and crawled into the bed where his father lay, only partly clothed.

And you expect me to believe this? Who do you think I am?--a prosecuting attorney?

What I cannot understand is why the prosecuting attorneys, having seen those shoes and socks, could possibly have missed their significance.

Do they simply not care about anything but winning a case?

 

 

I have come across a most interesting story—one that in many ways seems to parallel the Elsa Newman case. The man—both husband and father--involved in the second case is one Mark A. Castillo. For the sake of the privacy of Elsa's sons, we'll make do without a name for their father.

In the Castillo case, the authorities did not believe the mother. In Elsa’s case, the authorities would not believe the mother.

In the Castillo case, the separation and divorce were ugly. In Elsa’s case, the divorce had turned ugly.

In both cases the children were quite young.

The Castillo’s had three children. Elsa and her husband had two.

In the case of the Castillos, the husband and father seemed to be a pleasant person, easy to get along with, who seemed to love his children. In Elsa’s case, the husband and father was quite charismatic and seemed to love his children.

In the Castillo case, Mark Castillo talked to the mother about how he could most hurt her. In Elsa’s case, the father seemed to be—and still seems to be—looking for ways to hurt his ex-wife. 

In the Castillo case, the mother desperately wanted custody, believing that her children would be harmed by their father. In Elsa’s case, the mother desperately wanted custody, believing that her children were being abused by their father, both sexually and otherwise.

In the case of the Castillos, the authorities chose to believe the husband. In the case of Elsa Newman, the authorities chose to believe the husband.

In the Castillo case, Mark Castillo was allowed unsupervised visits with his children. In Elsa’s case, the father was allowed unsupervised visits with his children—visits the children begged not to have to make.

Elsa’s ex-husband charmed the authorities and found the perfect way to hurt her. He gained custody of the boys. He testified against her—charming the jury and the media, so, partly as a result of his efforts, she ended up in prison. He limits, to every extent he can, their contacts with her. When he was required to take them to see their mother, he would say things like, “Well…let’s go. I have to take you to see your ‘bad mom.’” Or “Here’s a letter from your “terrible mother.” For twenty years, Elsa Newman will live her life in prison—where her children are nothing but an occasional letter, email or phone call—strictly monitored by the children’s father. And she will live out those years, knowing that because nobody would believe her, her children are now in the hands of a pedophile custodial parent, knowing every day of her imprisonment that it could have been different, if only someone would have believed her.

Mark A. Castillo also found the perfect way to hurt his children’s mother: He drowned them in a bathtub. That’s right. All three of them. All dead. He admits it. Now Amy Castillo, because no one would believe her, will live out her life in a different kind of prison—where her children are nothing but memories, knowing every day of her life that it could have been different, if only someone would have believed her.