Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Friday, September 26, 2008

Modus Operendi, the Mark, the Roots of a Corrupt Psychiatric Expert Witness

Imagine you are a psychiatrist or psychologist asked to contribute to proceedings involving divorce or child custody in the family court system. Imagine further that you are a corrupt individual and you have decided to use these proceedings for the strict purposes of lining your own pockets with as much money as possible. How would you pick your mark and what would your Modus Operendi be? The beauty of being a corrupt psychiatrist is that your function in any family court proceeding allows you access to all the information you need to find your perfect mark and orchestrate against them.

1) Money

This is almost a no brainer however a corrupt psychiatrist would also have access to all the necessary information in order to determine if the parties have money. Furthermore, a corrupt psychiatrist would have enough access to determine if one party or another is more flushed with cash. As such, the corrupt psychiatrist could determine which party ally themselves in part at least based on which party has more money. In all three of the cases I covered Susan Diamond, Katherine Tranum, and Darcy Boatman the parties were small business owners. They could each be able to afford to pay five six and even seven digits of bills from their corrupt psychiatrist (in this case Dr. Mark Blotcky)

2) Non arm's length extended family structure

Some folks move, others don't have big families, and yet others simply aren't close to their extended families. In either case, such a family dynamic sets someone up to be the perfect mark. That's because those with lot's of close relatives nearby, also have lot's of close relatives that spend time in the home. In the case of Katherine Tranum, she had moved to the Dallas area several years earlier. Most of her family lived outside the area. Susan Diamond's case was much the same. Susan Diamond was accused of having munchhausen by proxy. With no close relative nearby, she had no close relative nearby to dispute the charges. Close family become almost like eyewitnesses in a custody case. If a corrupt psychiatrist makes false accusations, a family member could be there dispute charges if they spend enough time in and around the family. Of course, if there is no close family nearby, such a person presents a perfect mark.

3) No good circle of friends to witness the family dynamic

Most folks have friends of course, but not everyone has friends that are friends with an entire family. A circle of friends that knows an entire family could replace or augment the lack of a large extended family being around. If friends are around to witness mom's and dad's interaction with each other and their kids, they could present a counter argument to any false diagnosis or observation by a corrupt psychiatrist. That's why if someone misses that sort of a friend dynamic, they also become the perfect mark.

4) A fractured or lacking community.

In the case of Susand Diamond, a territorial dispute between the major synagogues in her area turned out to spill over into her divorce proceedings. Ohr Hatorah and Shaara Tefila were the two synagogues in the area. The two congregations developed a rivarly at about the time that Mrs. Diamond began her divorce proceedings. That rivalry was exploited and her husband was able to get several folks from the other congregation, many of whom only knew Mrs. Diamond marginally, to testify against her. Once again, a strong community structure surrounding a person can also act as an eyewitness to counter the false or misleading charges of a corrupt psychiatrist. If that community structure is broken down or fractured, a person becomes a perfect mark.

5) Find one or a few people that are close to the situation and get them to back up your story

Once again, in the case of Dr. Diamond, her maid testified against her. She largely corraborated the story told by Dr. Blotcky in court. Within months, she stopped working for Dr. Diamond and worked for her ex husband and he paid her $3000 monthly for her work as a maid. You do the math.

No comments: