FULL HEARING — Paul Ferguson sentencing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All rise. Come to order. 14th Circuit Court County Muskegon is now in session. The Hon. Matthew R. Kasel is presiding. And you may be seated. [00:00:30] Speaker 2: All right. Before the court is filed, 22-35-37-FC. It's the State of Michigan versus Paul Ferguson. Are you Paul Ferguson, sir? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Are you Paul Ferguson? Yes. All right. Mr. Ferguson appears before the court with an attorney, Mr. Joshua L. Brady, Mr. Roberts. At the same time, scheduled for a sentencing in this case, had the people had a chance to [00:00:59] Speaker 3: be sentenced accordingly. We have, Your Honor, we have no directions to that, although I don't the court is in receipt of the letter this morning as we all are from Paul's Holder. [00:01:10] Speaker 2: We have no objection to that. Is there any objection to that? I did receive a letter from Nolan Ferguson who is here present for Shauna Benner's sentencing. And I didn't receive that this morning. I didn't have a chance to be there. [00:01:26] Speaker 4: I have a copy as well. I have a copy, yes, Shauna. And I have no objection to that either. Okay. [00:01:31] Speaker 2: Also, the court is in receipt of two assessments, psychological assessments. One is from Thomas D. Shaver, a psychiatrist, one is a psychologist in Ann Arbor. It's 25 pages in length. That was submitted by the defense counsel. At the urging, I will say, of the court asking for that, so I appreciate that, Mr. Alvin Brady. Is there any objection to the court reviewing those in advance? [00:02:05] Speaker ?: Yes. Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? [00:02:05] Speaker 2: Yes. Yes, I have. Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Yes. Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Yes. Is there any objection to the court? [00:02:13] Speaker ?: Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Yes, I have. [00:02:13] Speaker 2: Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? [00:02:32] Speaker ?: Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? [00:02:32] Speaker 2: Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any objection to the court reviewing those? Is there any sentencing Mr. Robbins? Mr. Ellen Brady? No objection, but I would ask those be considered as non-public. Yes, the court is going to have them scanned in the court file, but they are going to be non-public. They do contain a large amount of what I would consider very personal medical information that I don't think is appropriate to be in the public domain. The court is going to reference certain inclusory conclusions from these reports, but those do not reveal specific medical information. I think it's appropriate so the court will make these part of the record because it's going to be inconsiderable in the sentencing, but again, it's going to be non-public. Any additions or corrections you have to the pre-sentence report, Mr. Robbins? Okay, Mr. Ellen Brady, have you had an opportunity to review the pre-sentence report and attach guidelines? [00:03:31] Speaker 4: Yes, I have no additions or corrections. I would also note as we're on the topic of letters, I submitted a letter from Stephen and Martha Van Der Ark. Those are Mr. Ferguson's. I believe those would be step-grandparents, the current placement of his younger half-brother G. They had intended to be here in support this morning, but were ill this weekend. [00:03:52] Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I have also considered that too. Did you receive a copy of that as well, Mr. Robbins? I did. Okay, I've read that too. I mean, I've gotten a large number of letters from people that I would say unrelated to this case specifically, just individuals who saw it on court TV and expressing their opinion. I am not considering those in sentencing because, one, they're not directly connected to the case. And I do appreciate the comments from individuals, but I think it's important we limit the record to the people that actually have something to do with this case or connected with the victim. So unless there's an objection to that, I've read them, but I'm not using it as a consideration. So any objection to that, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Elmbrady? [00:04:39] Speaker 4: I would note, not having seen copies of those, I can't comment on a specific letter, but no issue with that. [00:04:45] Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there's just random people who saw it on TV. I just don't think it's appropriate for the court to take that into consideration for sentencing purposes. I don't think that's very Mr. Ferguson. So, additions or corrections, Mr. Elmbrady? No additions or corrections. All right. And Mr. Ferguson, have you received a copy of the pre-sentence report in the cash guidelines? Yes, Your Honor. Any additions or corrections you have? No, Your Honor. And have you had an ample opportunity to discuss the contents of that report with your attorney? Yes, Your Honor. All right. Mr. Roberts, do we have any victim representative who wishes to make a statement today? We do not, Your Honor. Okay. Any comments regarding sentencing? Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:29] Speaker 3: Thank you. As I've said to the court before, this is, as it relates to Paul, this is one of the most difficult cases I think I've ever had to deal with, not just from the standpoint of how vivid the subject matter was here, the tragic activity and the circumstances surrounding it, but just with Paul, I think Paul himself, and I'm not saying anything today that I wasn't told in the multiple meetings that we had, and we didn't have a trial in his collaboration with, that I view him as favorable and that he was willing to help us and to testify against his mother, which was very difficult for him to do under the circumstances, but I was also angry, just frankly angry and shocked and called that his freedom that Timothy Christie was, for all intents and purposes, the enforcer arm of this two persons, the two people most directly responsible for Timothy's death, that he was the one that could be allowed most of the punishments that were directed by his van der Ark, and certainly she received the appropriate sentence for her role in this as well. So, I had mixed emotions about Paul, even up to and including the time that he testified in his trial, and those frankly continue. One of the things that we discussed at the time of the plea was giving Mr. Alvin Brandy an opportunity to get the evaluations that we now have, in an effort to hopefully demonstrate in some regard why Paul did these things. Was it a psychological condition? Was there some manipulation taking place? And quite frankly, I think, just as my feeling is good and bad with Paul, I think both of these assessments reflect the same thing. What is absolutely clear from both of these assessments is that whatever upbringing Paul had from his mother and from his father as well, led to him being how he is today, and that as a childhood, I think both of course indicated as marked with abuse and neglect, very traumatic upbringing, moved around a lot, and what also runs through in these assessments is that nobody did anything to get Paul any help, when it could have made a difference. So that is, in some respects, that's the good part of this, because it does seek to at least explain in some regard why Paul behaved the way that he did. But there's bad in here as well, and I'm sure the court will note this, but the one sentence struck me. In Dr. Shazer's report is that it says, "In my opinion, Paul Ferguson was predisposed to abuse his brother independent of his mother's presence and active influence in his life." That's, frankly, scary. And there's other scary parts of this as well that indicate that Paul was, at least in some respect, predisposed to being essentially a bully. And that's how you could view his behavior, is that he was a bully. Now, nobody, I think, would expect any bully to take it to the extreme of actually killing a person, although certainly it does happen, but nobody would expect that that was an intentional outcome that Paul sought here. And we can't lose sight of the fact that Paul didn't become this way in a vacuum, that his upbringing, in some respects, led to him being predisposed, as this report indicates, and I think the other report references as well, that he was predisposed already doing some of these things. Frankly, I think that Ms. Banderard took advantage of that and used Paul because she saw an opportunity to have Paul to do the horrible things that she couldn't do herself or wouldn't do herself but be done at her direction. And Paul was, unfortunately, willing to go along with those things because of, again, because of everything that had happened to him, because of his traumatic upbringing and because of the conditions that he did have that led to that. So it's hard to balance these things out. Certainly, we did not have this report at the time that Paul pled, and I don't know that in looking at this report that the decision that was made in this case would be any different, but certainly there are things here that would have been nice to have been able to consider, but we didn't have the benefit of that. And as I told the court, and I think I told the court on several occasions in speaking to the jury, they were, in Ms. Banderard's case, very much impressed by, might not be the right word, but certainly factored in Paul's testimony a great deal, believed that he was telling the truth, believed that he was honest about what his role in this and Ms. Banderard's role in this. So I think his testimony was instrumental in achieving the conviction that was achieved here against Ms. Banderard. So I certainly owe Paul that consideration. But beyond that, I certainly don't envy the position the court is in today. In balancing everything that has taken place here, the good and the bad, even in this report, and the good and the bad with Paul, I will stick to the agreement that we have made here. I will ask the court to sentence within the sentencing guidelines in this case. Certainly the court has -- look, the court is obviously free to exceed the guidelines if it feels there's a basis to do so, and quite frankly, there are reasons to exceed the guidelines. In some respects, there's reasons to go below the guidelines as well. So literally, I think any number that the court chooses to pick here, I think, would be the appropriate sentence, because I think it's a difficult balancing act that the court has to do here. But my commitment was and continues to be that we would ask the court to sentence within the sentencing guidelines. I would ask the court, however, to impose a maximum number here that is essentially equivalent to what Paul's life expectancy would be. And the reason for that is that if some of the bad that's indicated in these reports is actually present and Paul does not receive treatment for that and those conditions that are noted here, most notably the potential antisocial disorder, essentially a sociopath, if those things are borne out in the prison system, that the prison system then has the opportunity to keep Paul locked up as long as possible. I hope that he can get some treatment inside there, but the bad in here has got to be addressed, and if it's not, then certainly Paul does represent a threat to the public moving forward because of his disassociation essentially from feeling empathy or feeling bad about the things that he had done. In the moment, it did not appear that Paul felt bad about those things. There certainly was a moment where he thought he needed to let his mother know that Timothy was very thin and that they should start feeding him, but overall what comes through in these reports is that for the most part those were absent. And the text messages, I think, even bear that out as well. But even after that noting of the fact that Timothy was very thin and that they needed to start feeding him, Paul was still a willing participant in the truly tragic and horrible things that happened in the last days of Timothy's life, including the prolonged ice bath that Paul washed over. So certainly that bad needs to be addressed as well. So again, I don't envy the position the court is in today. I will stick with my commitment here and ask the court to sentence within the sentencing guidelines. But quite frankly, any number that the court picks here, I think, would be an appropriate sentence for Mr. Ferguson. I'm pleased that we've been able to achieve whatever justice we could for Timothy here in both of these convictions. And certainly the two people most directly responsible for what happened to Timothy are going to, in all likelihood, be incarcerated for an extended period of time. Certainly in Ms. Van Hark's case for the rest of her life, which is completely justified under these circumstances. So I would ask the court, too, as it will have to do, to weigh the good and the bad here in these reports. And I trust the court's -- I trust whatever decision the court makes in. [00:13:17] Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Robert. Mr. Eldenbrayton. [00:13:21] Speaker 4: Your Honor, I'd like to start by responding to a point that Mr. Robert made before I go into the multiple points I plan to address. I understand the prosecutor's characterization of Paul as being the enforcer, as being the primary one. But I believe part of that is based simply on the evidence that we have. This court's heard the text messages, extensive text messages, of Ms. Van der Hark instructing Paul on what he was to do to Timothy. He heard Paul's testimony about what he was instructed to do and what he did. The rest of the time, when she was there doing whatever she did, Paul was at work. She didn't have to send text messages to her son. Timothy's not here to talk about what happened when it was just him and his mother. So I disagree with that characterization. I believe based on what we do know of Ms. Van der Hark that there was far, far more that went on. There was far, far more that she did that there simply is no evidence of, no one to speak of, because the only person alive who knows what she did is her. Beyond that, reading the pre-sentence report in this case, I can't argue with the reasonableness of the recommendations in the pre-sentence report. I also really can't add anything about the offense, about the details of what happened to Timothy. You presided over the same trial that I watched. I know in motions, other paperwork submitted to the court, you're aware of far, far more than what came out publicly, what was submitted to the jury. But I'd ask the court to consider, I think there's five fronts on which Paul should be evaluated very differently than where his mother is. And the first is just capacity to understand. We heard Ms. Van der Hark's attorney argue they didn't know what they were doing. They didn't realize that it could kill him or cause that level of injury. And I don't have to come to a conclusion, I don't have to say I think that's right or that's wrong, I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. That's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. [00:16:41] Speaker ?: I think that's right. I think that's right. [00:16:43] Speaker 4: I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. That's right. I think that's right. I think that's right. [00:16:53] Speaker ?: I think that's right. [00:16:54] Speaker 4: I think that's right. Second, well, we recognize for purposes of the child abuse statute, for purposes of Paul's plea, the law may not distinguish between a parent and another person over the age of 18 who's placed in charge of a child. We all know a mother has a very different role than a sibling. We all know that there's a certain level of rivalry, a certain level of competition that we expect between siblings, which is very different than the care that we expect from parents. Third, and I'll come back to the text messages. It was very clear Paul was the follower and his mother was the leader in this case. Listening to over an hour of text messages read during her trial, there's pieces missing. We don't get the whole story because she talked to him on the camera or she talked to him on the phone or she talked to him in person. But what is very clear from those text messages is there is not a single time that Paul gives an instruction. Every single time an instruction is given, you need to do this, it is given by her. Fourth, and Mr. Roberts has addressed this regarding Paul's cooperation. Once the gravity of what happened sank in, I believe from the reports that was a day or so after, Paul has shown remorse. He's shown confusion over how he could have done this and recognition that it was wrong. He's testified honestly. He's fully cooperated in many areas in ways that were not of clear benefit to him. His mother did none of these things. She took the stand and lied, redirected. It's not my fault. I didn't do anything wrong. And fifth, and I think very important in looking at the evaluation of Mr. Ferguson, it's very clear that he and his other siblings were also victims of their mother. CPS involvement, going back to when they were in elementary school, back when Timothy was 18 months old. A third grade teacher who said Paul and Nolan are secretive about what happens at home. They're not supposed to talk about it. So when Mr. Johnson argued in cross-examination to Paul, why didn't you report it to somebody? A lifetime of being told you're not supposed to talk about what goes on at home. A lifetime of being isolated, separated from peers, having no meaningful social contacts outside his household. That all started with hurt. A record that when Timothy was 18 months old, when Paul was seven, that Timothy was underfed. Failure to thrive. Paul didn't have anything to do with that. Paul didn't have anything to do with that. He was seven. But that was the pattern. That was his entire life. That was his entire framework. That was what she taught him from the beginning. Or at times failed to teach him to neglect. Mr. Roberts' reference, and I don't remember if it was in sentencing or in his closing argument. That the difference between Timothy and Paul was that Paul was useful. Timothy wasn't. At least not to their mother. And I wouldn't disagree with that characterization. But I think that's important for the court to consider. Timothy was treated the way he was because he wasn't useful. That's how children in their mother's household were treated if they weren't useful. And I believe at some level, some part of Paul understood that. He understood that. He understood that we do these things to Timothy because he misbehaved. Because he doesn't follow instructions. And because he's not useful. And part of understanding that is also understanding that if he didn't follow instructions. If he misbehaved. If he got on her bad side. That he could once again be subject to some of the same mistreatment. On the neglect front, I don't think any of them ever ceased to be subject to that mistreatment. And I'll end with his mother's own words from the text messages written for him. To Paul. "If he falls asleep from you, not watching. That is not going to end well for either of you." [00:22:45] Speaker 3: "If I could just make one more brief point on it. It's not in response to anything Mr. Heldenberg has said. But the court referenced that it's had a lot of outside people contacting the court. I certainly have had that as well. And one of the consistent themes there is people believing that Paul suffers. Or not suffers. I shouldn't. It's not a suffering. The Paul is on the autism spectrum. I think it's important to note that in both of these evaluations that's not borne out. Certainly people may have that belief and think that that should be a factor here. But there's nothing in either one of these reports that supports that conclusion. So I just want to note that. That is certainly something that I think the court could have considered. But there's nothing in the report that would support that. And I don't think Mr. Heldenberg would disagree at that point. [00:23:41] Speaker 2: I was going to reference that in my comments as well. [00:23:44] Speaker 4: Your Honor, I think the reports do bear out that some of the characteristics that those individuals are observing and coming to that conclusion are connected to that neglect and abuse. And I believe it was Dr. Farak characterized as normalization of abnormal behavior. So while I agree that both analysis seem to have come to the conclusion that that diagnosis is inappropriate, I don't believe that those observations by the individuals mentioning that are ungrounded. It's simply that those behavioral characteristics come from a different source and therefore do not lead to the ability to officially diagnose with that condition. That does not change the fact that those characteristics are there, that those characteristics are relevant to Paul's interactions with his mother, or that those characteristics are relevant to ongoing treatment services that Paul will be moving forward. We'll move forward. [00:24:55] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:24:56] Speaker 2: Mr. Ferguson, anything we should say prior to something? [00:24:59] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. What reasons could justify my actions? I could make up a thousand and never believe one. What words could voice my regrets? I can think of millions, yet never feel it's not. If I could do it all again, and do it right, I would. I feel I will pay for my choices, and yet never feel better. Because he's still gone. I have had time to think during my time in Muskegon County Jail, and I've realized many things about myself that I might never have considered otherwise. My problems and flaws, to put it simply, are the place to begin correction of self. I ask the Judge for nothing more than mercy and fairness, to offer me compassion so I might learn from him. I only hope to better myself in the coming days, and serve my time with what little honor I have left, and to make right my faults in search of a better tomorrow. [00:26:15] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. First and foremost, Mr. Roberts referenced, the court was in a difficult position. This particular case, I think a lot of individuals saw Mr. Ferguson testify, and I think there were concerns about intellectual disability, and the court was concerned with that as well. There was also a concern whether Mr. Ferguson was the target of manipulation on behalf of his mother, and the reports that were submitted to the court really did help me a lot in trying to parse those issues out. The report specifically by Dr. Schaeser is very in depth, and very well done, and I thank him for doing such a detailed analysis. So the first concern of the court was whether or not Mr. Ferguson was suffering from some sort of intellectual disability, whether it be an attitude or something else. And there's a couple of references to that throughout the report, and specifically the first reference that the report had highlighted was on page two of the report's first full paragraph. And it says, in my opinion, he, referring to Mr. Ferguson, was clearly either psychotic or suffering from symptoms of a mood disorder at the time of the court interview. And he was apparently functioning within at least the normal range of intellectual ability at this time, lest, in my opinion, he does not suffer from a chronic psychotic disorder, a chronic mood disorder, or an intellectual disability. There's another reference. There's another reference, more to the end of the report, where he indicates, thus, his referring to Mr. Ferguson, his educational history is inconsistent with him suffering from intellectual deficits. And as noted above, he was apparently functioning within at least the normal range of intellectual ability at the time of the court interview. In my opinion, the defendant clearly does not suffer from intellectual disability. So the court, that was helpful in the court because, and some of the letters that I received as well, Mr. Roberts, indicated that there was concern that Mr. Ferguson was autistic. And I think probably more toward, that was easier to manipulate him and that kind of thing. And certainly, the court does take someone's intellectual capacity into consideration. I think it's important to understand the full situation. So the court, and that, and although those are two small portions of the opinion that the court referenced, they're borne out by much more in detail history. In Dr. Shazer's report, specifically, Dr. Shazer analyzed every statement that the defendant gave to the police. He also watched the testimony of Mr. Ferguson, interviewed him himself. He also looked through his history from the Oklahoma Department of Health and Human Services. He looked through his history from school records, from various psychological assessments that were conducted throughout his life based on the reports. So I think that opinion is well grounded in not only his interview, his review of educational records, his review of mental health records, and everything else. Health West records currently from when he was assessed when he became a Muskegon County Jail. So the court finds that to be quite persuasive in terms of whether or not Mr. Ferguson is suffering from any intellectual disability. The court concludes based on this report, well written report, well grounded in fact and history of the defendant, that he was not suffering from an intellectual disability currently or at the time of this offense. The second thing is whether or not Mr. Ferguson was somehow manipulated or coerced by his mother. I think all of us would like to believe that this is a product of manipulation, that this is simply somebody doing something that they were told to do, that they were afraid. Mr. Elvin Brady mentioned it in his allocution regarding the specific text messages. Well, those specific text messages, I heard as well of the trial. Shortly after the trial concluded, I asked the prosecutor's office for a complete copy of every single text message that would occur between Ms. Vanderardt and Mr. Ferguson, because I didn't want just the snippets, the kind of highlights or the real juicy stuff, for lack of a better term. I wanted to understand completely what the conversation was between these individuals. I read every single text message, every one of them, I think there's thousands in there. And I've read it three times now, three times in total. I read it two months ago, I read it a month ago, and I read it last week Friday. The entire afternoon was spent reading through these things. And I think it's clear to me that Mr. Ferguson, although he says that he was scared of his mother, or there's an allegation of that standpoint, I find that just the opposite to be true based on those text messages. There is some mention about punishment, but I think Mr. Ferguson, in my opinion, being submissive, for lack of a better term, to his mother was a result that he really had nowhere else to go. He had been kicked out from his father's house for failing to obey his father's rules and for other things. And he went to his mother's house. And I don't think Mr. Ferguson really had anywhere else to go. I think he was sort of beholden to his mother in terms of, well, there's going to be consequences. Although there are some text messages, one or two of those that bear that out, this strikes me in the text messages as more of a collaborative effort. In fact, there are some text messages where Ms. Van Der Ark actually tells Mr. Ferguson that if Ms. Timothy does not behave, essentially, I'm going to leave him to you. As in that he's going to let the dog out and just blah, blah, blah, the cheating. And Mr. Ferguson also several times, essentially, tells his mother things that are going on that are bad. And I think it's because he wants his mother to give him the permission to go ahead and engage in punishment. So in terms of whether or not his mother, he was somehow afraid of his mother, I don't think that to be the case. Now, that was my initial feeling about it and what I took it as. And that's why I wanted the assessment regarding whether or not he was being manipulated. And luckily, we did get one from, the second one I referenced was from Dr. Farhat, which is specifically, I think he was asked to assess this particular question. And in the beginning of his assessment, he says that specifically, I was asked to assess whether Mr. Ferguson possessed a psychological disorder of traits that would render him significantly susceptible to manipulation, coercion, or suggestibility. After conducting the evaluation, I could not substantiate these traits as they pertain to the commission of the offense. As such, this report will instead explain the nature of the evaluation and my overall opinion regarding Mr. Ferguson's psychological functioning. He also opined regarding his intellectual abilities, he says from a diagnostic standpoint, I did not find sufficient evidence to support Mr. Ferguson meeting criteria for any specific mental disorder. While one may consider whether his presentation suggested a neurodevelopmental condition, for example, e.g. autism spectrum disorder, I did not find this to be an appropriate label. Instead, I attributed his overall demeanor and presentation to factors such as a lack of socialization, normalization of abnormal dynamics and experiences, poor interpersonal skills, and emotional dysregulation. He also indicated later on on that page that I was initially asked to evaluate whether Mr. Ferguson had a mental condition or traits that would have rendered him susceptible to coercion, manipulation, or suggestibility at the time of the offense. Ultimately, I could not arrive at this conclusion based on the totality of the available information. Available evidence noted that he was capable of appreciating the abuse towards his brother, that he was capable of recognizing the detrimental impact it had, and that he at times disobeyed Ms. VanderArk and tried to provide his brother with aid and support. Furthermore, despite reporting that he was under Ms. VanderArk's quote, "psychological hold," he adamantly denied that he was coerced or manipulated into enforcing the abuse. Additionally, he recognized to some degree pleasure and hidden power and control over his younger brother. In this sense, while I acknowledge that he reported experiencing fear and concerns of disobeying Ms. VanderArk, I could not reliably substantiate his involvement as being a byproduct of suggestibility or coercion. So, what this court is left to conclude is that Mr. Ferguson, the way I look at this is that Mr. Ferguson in these reports, and a lot of these, throughout the report there's talk about how Mr. Ferguson bullied his brother when he was younger. That there's a mention of his step-sister who I think was allocated on behalf of his mother, or on behalf of Paul, excuse me, Timothy, at Ms. VanderArk's sentencing. It says the stepsister, and this is before the police even really told her about exactly what had happened in here. It says the stepsister reportedly told the police that, quote, "she doesn't know how involved Paul was in this situation, but he is the biggest bully she has ever met in her life, and he found genuine joy in tormenting Timothy whenever possible." [00:37:25] Speaker ?: So, maybe I'm wrong. Okay, so perhaps I'm wrong about that. [00:37:27] Speaker 2: But this was someone who, without even knowing the full details, reported that. In one of the interviews, Mr. Ferguson indicated that he liked getting praised by Shana and admitted he liked having control over Timothy. He reportedly admitted having power over somebody feels good. Later in the interview, I asked him whether he had felt the shame at the time when he was abusing his brother, and he said, quote, "no, he had not." I asked whether he had recognized his actions as more than wrong at the time, and he again said, quote, "no, he had not." He then volunteered that on one occasion, quote, "I sent her a photo of how thin he was, and when I asked why he did this, he explained that I was worried." When asked when he was worried about it, Mr. Ferguson replied that he had been concerned for his household, that he was nothing but bones. I asked him whether he had, at the moment, thought that this abusive behavior was wrong, and he replied that, quote, "that thought never even crossed my mind." A treatment plan back from July 22nd of 2012 indicates that, quote, "client," meaning Mr. Ferguson, sometimes bullies his younger brother, the decedent, Timothy. The report also mentions cruelty to animal stealing, abuse. His mother at the time, back in 2018, told staff at the clinic he's become bossy, telling his siblings what to do. For Mr. Ferguson's part, reportedly, when commenting about his being irritable, he admits that this is due to his younger siblings not listening. He gets physically aggressive towards his younger siblings. Also, he also tried to lock his younger brother, i.e., apparently a reference to the decedent in the closet because his brother wouldn't listen to him. So, the court read this, and certainly looks at this as someone who is predisposed, who I think was ultimately the court, the court read this, and certainly looks at this as someone who is predisposed, who I think was ultimately the court. He admits that this is due to his younger siblings not listening. He gets physically aggressive towards his younger siblings. He also tried to lock his younger brother, i.e., apparently a reference to the decedent in the closet because his brother wouldn't listen to him. So, the court read this and certainly looks at this as someone who is predisposed, I think was the ultimate conclusion, predisposed to abuse his brother, specifically the victim in this case, in a history of doing that. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Ferguson is a result of years and years and years of physical neglect and abuse on behalf of his mother. No doubt in my mind that's borne out of this report. But, the court is asked to essentially ignore the decisions or his behavior because of that and to somehow say that we're going to minimize the damage and what he did in this case because of that. If the court started imposing that standard, I think we would be in real trouble because every defendant that comes before this court has a horrible history, I would say. That's the reason they're here. People that have supportive parents and things go good for them typically don't come here. Now, that's not always the case. Believe me, there's a lot of interventions. But everybody has a history. What I was looking at is whether or not this is a product of his mother or his situation. And what I can conclude is that this is not. Mr. Ferguson is trying to shift blame from his mother, from him to his mother, to say that somehow, well, if it wasn't for her, I wouldn't have done this. Or she's the one that did this at the trial. Well, at her order, at her order, at her order, at her order. He kept saying it over and over and over again. So just keep underscoring the point. And if that had been an isolated incident, if that had been one or two of these things, if that had been a punishment that he administered, maybe the court could accept that. So we have an individual who was in a household for six months, intentionally himself engaging in torture of another person. And he doesn't, he said, "Well, I'm worried about what my mom's going to say." Clearly it doesn't, it's not borne out in these reports. He had the ability to disobey his mom. In fact, he was on the stand and almost boasted that I gave him extra food. Weren't you worried about how your mom was going to be upset? I still gave him extra food. So what that tells me is that this has been a careful, manipulated, manipulated story of Mr. Ferguson from the very beginning of this thing that he's going to put the blame on his mom. I'm going to be manipulated. He's going to be manipulated. I have Asperger's disease. I have autism. I have Stockholm syndrome. He's mentioning him saying, "Well, maybe I have Stockholm syndrome." No. This is an individual. The truth of this is, the truth of this is, is that we have two individuals. Two individuals that lack empathy, lack emotion. And both of them, the triggering factor in this report, the triggering factor that caused this abuse was the removal of the husband of a stepdad. Once he was gone, these two individuals were free to torture somebody, and they did it. That's what they did. And I think Ms. Van Der Ark did use Mr. Ferguson. I think that she knew from his history that he was predisposed to torment Timothy. I think that she knew that he would have no problem doing that. Mr. Ferguson walked through that door and was happy to be the enforcer. He was happy to do it. And continued to torture his brother over and over and over and over until he was a shell of the person until he was dead, died from starvation, died from hypothermia. He had no fat on him, barely any muscle. And the whole time, just letting it happen. Letting it happen. The report says, "It appears that the stepfather's presence in the home had prevented Paul and his mother from abusing the victim." Again, it wasn't anything to do. They were just holding him back, essentially. The overall opinion, which I think is important, is in my opinion, although a defendant's participation in the abuse was in a part a function of his social milieu and living situation, these contextual factors were not a necessary condition for his participation. As previously noted, mental health records contain information to the effect that while they were still living with their father and stepmother, and reportedly had no contact with their mother, Mr. Ferguson's stepmother told the psychiatrist that he would have become bossy, telling his siblings what to do, and the defendant himself that he would become irritable with his younger siblings not listening. He gets physically aggressive, told the younger siblings. He also reported that he's gotten irritated with his siblings and has pushed them into retaliation. He's also trying to lock a younger brother, get the seat in in the closet because his brothers wouldn't listen to him. Consistent with this, North Shore's police department documents indicated that Mr. Ferguson's steps is told to leave. Of course, he is the biggest bully. She's ever written this in her life, and he found genuine joy in tormenting him too when they were possible when they were living in the biological father's home. Notably, the defendant allegedly engaged in this abusive behavior despite there being any safety rules in place, despite his father and stepmother disapproving of this behavior to such an extent that they removed him from their home once he turned 18 because of it. In my opinion, Paul Ferguson was predisposed to abuse his brother independent of his mother's present and active influence in his life. Nonetheless, in my opinion, Mr. Ferguson's involvement in repeated acts of abuse that amounted to physical and psychological torture over a period of months reflects a general lack of empathy for his brother and lack of remorse for his actions. The court concludes that, in my opinion, there's no reason to believe that Mr. Ferguson's conduct disorder has remitted or that his participation in the abuse of his brother was not an expression of a persistent and social conflict. The court is concerned that Mr. Ferguson will not get the help he needs in prison. I think he's one step away from becoming a psychopath like his mother. And the court is concerned that he represents a danger to the public. That if released, he would represent a significant danger to the public. The charge here is childhood. And I don't think this charge or the sentencing guidelines is taking the adequate consideration of the long-sustained torture in this case. As I indicated in Ms. Van der Ark's testimony, there was a long, long period of months of various punishments, including bread with hot sauce. There's hot sauce that apparently contains two of the hottest peppers that we have in the world. A wall sits for an individual who practically had no muscle left. Running up and down stairs, cleaning out a garage with no pants on. Sleep deprivation in itself. Putting alarms on him so he couldn't move or sleep. Making him puke of food. There's bathroom time. Sleeping in the closet with a tarp down. Which, quite frankly, might be considered animal abuse. But we have a human being making his hands over his head. And then at the end of his life, the eight-hour practically ice bath that killed him. So I don't think any of those things are adequately taken into consideration of the guidelines. And I don't think the guidelines, quite frankly, can even... These guidelines don't justify Mr. Ferguson's actions. Mr. Ferguson, I think you are a product of your environment. But I don't believe you that you're sorry. I don't. I don't think you have empathy. I don't think you have any emotion whatsoever. And that's what scares the court. It really scares me. I think you're sorry that you're here. I think you're sorry you got caught. I don't think you wanted Tim to die either like your mother. Because you would get caught. And you wouldn't torture him anymore. And believe me, I have tried to sit here and try to think, "Well, maybe Mr. Ferguson's not as bad as Mom." I think you're just as bad. If not worse. If not worse. Because you had a job. You could have... Mr. Johnson actually asked you, couldn't you have brought home a thing of food for him? You could have gone to a neighbor and said, "Hey, my mom's abusing him." You could have grabbed him and got him out of there. You could have done any number of things to stop this. And you chose not to. Your own brother. And... This is where we're at. So... Based on all that, the sentence of the court, you served 30 years to 100 years of issuing department corrections. Credit for 592 days you've already served. The court's gonna assess the $68 state cost. $139 assessment. No additional costs. Mr. Ferguson, you have a right to file an appeal in this case. And if it's retained an attorney, you will be appointed to a public expense. Request the assistance of the lawyer must be made 42 days of today's date. The clerk is handing you a form that you must complete. Return to the court in that. 42 days if you wish to request the appointment, an attorney will be appointed to a public expense. Request the assistance of the lawyer must be made [00:50:59] Speaker ?: 42 days of today's date. The clerk is handing you a form that you must complete. Return to the court in that. Okay.