My previous post, “Controlling the Narrative,” ended on a choice I made in response to a threat by corrections not to talk to my children’s mother while I attended our daughter’s high-school graduation dance. It was one of several demands that were issued with warnings by justice system officials through a span of a decade. That said, there were many conversations that were less intimidating, but more revealing that I will highlight in this post. 

As I bring to light these conversations, which I will deal with in a number of upcoming posts as well, you will see the depth of dehumanization that takes place in the quiet chambers of our courts, and behind the fences and walls of our correctional institutions. The first conversation I had was with a justice system social worker. It happened just days after the assault, and took place while distraught and in a state of shock, as described the attending psychatrist at the Forensic Institute.

Conversation with justice system social worker, Marc Leblanc; Forensic Institute, Port Coquitlam, B.C.

“Hello, Mr. Mitchell. My name is Marc Leblanc and I have been asked to help you during your stay here. I am going to set up your spending account immediately. You’ll be able to buy cigarettes, chocolate bars, and anything else you need from the canteen.”

“Thank you,” I replied, my voice sounding distant to me. (At the time, just days after the assault, severely depressed, I am grateful for any help.)

“That’s my job. This is not a prison, it’s a hospital and we try to make it as comfortable as possible.” Leblanc paused, then in a lighthearted tone, said, “It looks like you got yourself in a bit of a jam.”

“Yes, I assaulted a man who was involved with my wife.”

“Well, these things happen. It will probably help if you talk about it.”

“I’m supposed to start talking to my doctor any day now,” I replied.

“Well, you can talk to me if you want. I’m here to help, and we all work here as a team. Tell me about your assault on this man.”

“I don’t remember much about it. I talked with psychiatrist for a few minutes theother day, and he said it’s not unusual for someone to block out such an event.”

“That’s understandable. Do you believe your wife and this man were involved in a relationship before she left you?”

“Yes, there was a night around Christmas last year when she called out this man’s name in her sleep. Then early in the New Year, she told me about it, or I should say, tried to tell me about it, but didn’t want to believe it. And after that, the very next day, she put her arms around me and said all she wanted was me. I thought that meant that she had ended the affair and that we could put it behind us.”

“What do you think is going to happen in court?” Leblanc asked.

“I don’t know,” I answered, “I know what I did was wrong. Some people have said that due to the circumstances I will probably get some kind of probation. I don’t know, I just hope people will understand.”

“Well, circumstances are important in these cases. I’m sure people will understand. How about your work history? Supported your family pretty well over the years, have you?”

“Yes.”

“What about men’s night out? Ever have a guy’s night out, drinking and gambling?”

“When I was younger, but I haven’t done that in years. Just before the separation I took my wife to Eureka in Montana furing our anniversary. She played the slots, but I didn’t gamble. And we watched the Holyfield-Forman fight.”

“Sounds like a nice trip,” Leblanc said, “Kind of like a second honeymoon.”

“Well, it wasn’t a lot, but that was the idea.”

“Trips like that produce a lot of points for us guys. They make up for some of the bad times. There must have been a few of those in seventeen years of marriage. That’s a long time and guys tend to get a bit physical once in a while.”

“I wan’t a violent marriage,” I said, “There were two slaps early in the marriage, one by each of us.”

“She says you pushed her once while she was pregnant with your daughter?”

“That would have been…fifteen years ago? If I did, I’m sorrry.”

“Well, I wouldn’t be concerned about it. A push and a slap throughout a lengthy marriage like yours, hardly portrays you as a violent husband,” said Leblanc, “We’ve had some open and honest talks and I’ll pass my notes onto the psychiatrist.”

Throughout our conversation, Marc Leblanc portrayed himself as being understanding and agreeable. Showed no signs of being offensive or deceptive in his motives.

This is what Marc Leblanc wrote for the court after our conversation.

“On top of his drinking problem there is regrettably also the evidence that at one time or another in the past he has been gambling. He would accuse his wife of infidelity. On occasions he physcically assaulted her. He began being violent towards her during her second pregrnacy. Finally, she decided to leave him as he continuously controlled her behaviour and was prenting her from attending the sporting events that their daughter was competing in. As well, she realized she says that their children too were suffering because of their unhappy marriage. More than physical abuse, she believes that she had been enduring a great deal of emotional abuse.“

(Note: These allegations of abuse were later proven to be untrue in sworn testimony given in family court. On top of my ex-wife’s evidence to a single slap and a push in the marriage, the children dismissed any suggestion of family violence in the home, and our daughter, specifically denied the allegation noted by Marc Leblanc, that her mother had been prevented from attending any of her sporting events.)

Continued…“Marc Leblanc, David Mitchell’s social worker at this hospital concludes his social history as follows:” (Take note of the deception the social worker engages in–mentioning himself in the third person while portraying the author as being Dr. Dilli, the institutional psychatrist. Who, in an interview conducted after my release, acknowledged that he had written only the summary and conclusion of the report, and that Marc Leblance had authored the body of the report) …“During our conversations, David minimized the importance of his charges and actions. He indicated that he considers it entirely possible that he will be placed on probation if convicted, and stated that he had talked to several other patients on ward who had been put on probation for much more serious offences than this. He did not elaborate on what offences were more serious than attempted murder.” (When you look back at our conversation, it is clear that Marc Leblanc went out of his way to misrepresent the brief discussion he brought as it related to this topic.

Remember, Marc Leblanc asked me about what I thought would happen. His mention, stating that I did not elaborate on what offences were more serious than attempted murder was never discussed. As stated by Dr. Dilli; depressed and in a state of shock, the depth of my legal situation had never entered my thoughts beyond confusion and uncertainty, which is clear in my response of, “I don’t know?”. Marc Leblanc’s description, using the wording as he did, suggests a report, that, if not already written, was at least sketched, and waiting to be colored.

When I look back, Marc Leblanc showed a lack of fear at being exposed for his deception. It raises the question, “How is this kind of deception possible?” To me, the answer is a simple one—“Marc Leblance was fully aware of the justice system’s ability to control the narrative!

Part two of “Quiet Conversations,” will highlight my Appellate Court hearings, and a conversation with a Case Manager inside one of B.C.’s prisons. —Coming soon!