This is a brief analysis of a 1981 Courier-Post article highlighting some of the major inconsistencies between what attorney Edward Kent stated during his testimony and what actually took place during Michelle’s adoption process. This post briefly discusses these issues, which are obvious in this one article alone, and questions why the State of New Jersey did not do more to review the adoptions Kent arranged once they discovered what he had obviously done. Much of the information in this article, which was taken directly from Kent’s sworn testimony, contradicts Hollie’s experiences and even some of the details provided to Michelle by her adoptive father in 2017. This post also discusses testimony provided by another biological mother involved in the case (not Hollie), whom Edward Kentoffered money to if she would lie to investigators about his involvement.
Here is the original article text: Our brief analysis is provided below in italics below the bold red sections.
CAMDEN — A woman who was to have been the state’s chief witness against a Willingboro lawyer charged with acting as an illegal intermediary in a series of adoptions was able to recall only sketchy information about the case yesterday. When first called by Deputy Attorney General Nancy Singer, the woman said she couldn’t remember anything about her pregnancy in 1977, her meeting with attorney Edward Kent or the couple who adopted her baby.
It is extremely difficult to believe this young woman was unable to remember anything about her pregnancy, or the adoption of her baby just a few years earlier, despite previously providing detailed testimony for the grand jury in 1978. While this understandably could have been a very traumatic experience for her, even under the worst circumstances, it seems more likely that a woman would remember ‘some’ details about placing her child for adoption. It seems more plausible that she was scared and/or being influenced in some way by Edward Kent, or someone on his behalf, into withholding information — especially sincehe already attempted to bribe her to lie to investigators. Again, we have no evidence at this time to support these claims except for what we’ve already established that proves Kent’s willingness to lie, and his disregard for the law that he took a professional oath to uphold.
When pressed by Superior Court Judge Peter J. Coruzzi, the witness remembered coming to the Camden Courthouse in February 1978 to testify in connection with an investigation of three adoptions. But she couldn’t recall whether she lied during that testimony. She gave birth to a baby May 1, 1977, and turned it over five days later to a woman she could not identify. At the time, she was living in Burlington Township. Despite strong objections from defense attorney Carl Poplar, Singer read portions of her grand jury testimony into the record. The case is being heard without a jury.
It is strange that Kent’s attorney objected to the testimony of one of the biological mothers if Kent had indeed acted in “limited capacity” as he claimed. If that were the case, her testimony should have been welcomed by the defense because it would have supported his claims that he was not as involved in the adoptions as he was being accused of. Unfortunately, nobody involved in this case pressed harder to not only ensure justice was served for Kent, but especially for the biological mothers and babies involved.
Six days of pre-trial motions were needed to compile transcripts of tape recorded conversations between Kent and yesterday’s witness. Poplar is expected to ask the court to exclude some of these tapes from evidence. Kent, 55, is charged with obstruction of justice and three counts of acting as an intermediary in the adoptions. Poplar said his client, who specializes in matrimonial matters, did tell pregnant women who did not want to keep their children after birth that he would pass on their names to couples seeking to adopt children. Poplar said Kent told both the natural and adoptive parents that he could not make any arrangements for the adoption. He said Kent’s involvement ended at that point.
This is all false. The Riess and Gray families never reached out to Edward Kent — Hollie’s Ob/Gyn did — because they had a pre-existing arrangement. After Michelle’s birth, the Ob/Gyn contacted Kent directly, who then began the process with the adoptive parents. Despite his testimony to the contrary, Kent was actively involved in the entire process from start to finish and was heavily involved with Hollie — even visiting her in the hospital to fill out paperwork when her parents were not present (she was a minor at the time.)
Yesterday’s witness said she met Kent only once prior to the birth of her child and that she called him to set up the meeting. She did not speak to him again until requested to do so by members of the Camden County prosecutor’s staff, who were investigating allegations that the lawyer participated in several adoptions.
Again, this is very difficult to believe considering Kent’s very heavy involvement with Hollie after Michelle’s birth. This sounds like something Kent instructed her to say. Again, our family did not initiate contact with Kent, and all contact with Kent after Michelle’s birth was initiated directly by Hollie’s Ob/Gyn.
The adoptions occurred between December 1976 and May 1977.
During pre-trial motions in the case last week, reporters agreed to withhold the names of the women who gave up their children for adoption and the couples who adopted the babies.
m
View Original Article: Click here toview a JPGof the original newspaper article
You can read more of thearticles about this casehere.