Shanda Vander Ark Psychologist Reacts to Opening Statements, Testimony, & Verdict

I'm Dr. Patrice Barry. I'm a licensed clinical psychologist, and here I share educational information on a variety of topics. I really enjoy covering the psychological aspects of court trials and some popular TV topics, and then also just general mental health education.

Today, we're going to be covering the case of Shanda Vander Ark. She is accused of horrific things, and so please be prepared. There are some things that may be troubling for some viewers, probably most of us. I still do think that it's important to talk about these topics because she brings up mental health and claims to have dissociated during these times and to not have memory. And yet, her behavior right after the incident, I think, to me, it's telling, and it'll be interesting to see what the jury finds.

Let's start with an overview of this case. Shanda, she is being charged, charged with the murder of her 15-year-old, who the state alleges was, to say, neglect, like was, was physically, emotionally, and was harmed in a lot of different ways based on the allegations from the state and also the recordings and the evidence that's come forward. She's being charged with the murder of her 15-year-old. She also, she had a 19, 18-year-old son at the time who was involved in the harm that the 15-year-old experienced, and he's going to testify. And I will cover Paul's testimony. The victim in this case, his name is Timothy. And then they will refer to the child who was about seven or eight at the time, they will refer to him as, she will refer to him as "little man." The state will refer to him as "G."

She is alleging that she experienced significant stress after the stroke of her husband, this 15-year-old's stepfather, and that, and he came, he moved out of the home. I think he was in a wheelchair, according to the state, like he was, he was in a wheelchair before and after his stroke. He was unable to remain in the home, and he moved in with his parents. And she became responsible for the care of her children. She moved from Ohio, so she was living in Ohio, and she moved to Michigan. And it's my understanding that child services was getting involved and kind of starting to take a look, and that she moved right before that.

She comes off to me as very intelligent. She passed the bar and was working to be a lawyer. And when she talks about that, when I cover that, especially when the state has her talk about her education and everything, she does it in a way that was reminiscent of Amber Heard to me, in a little, a little bit, just her style of talking and the way that she kind of talks about her accomplishments and things.

To dig deeper into what the state is alleging, I'm going to go on ahead and play the state's opening statement, and I'm also going to play the defense's opening statement as well. I might fast forward through some parts, but if this starts to get triggering for anyone, I will add timestamps so that if you would like to fast forward, if you already know this part of the trial, that you'll be able to fast forward to the next section.

This is the attorney for the state talking with the jury. "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, on behalf of the people of the state of Michigan, I want to thank you for your time and attention to these matters. We certainly had some light-hearted moments yesterday during the jury selection process, and there's nothing wrong with that. But as Mr. Johnson and I repeatedly told you yesterday, and this is not in any way an overstatement of this, the facts and circumstances here are just simply horrific. I wish that I could spare you from some of the details in this case, but I cannot. Quite simply, it is the position of the people of the state of Michigan that Shanda Vander Ark committed the crime of first-degree felony murder when, during the course of physical and mental abuse in the first degree of her child, Timothy Ferguson. Timothy Ferguson died. As we referenced many times yesterday, unfortunately, as part of this process, you will see some very graphic photographs, images that will not easily leave your mind. But I don't want you to focus on just those photographs. As I repeatedly told you yesterday, I want you to look at the entire picture here. I will tell you this: the entire picture is just as horrific. The average 15-year-old male weighs 132 pounds and is 68 inches tall. At the time of his death, Timothy Ferguson was right on that average height, 68 inches tall. At the time of his death, Timothy Ferguson weighed 60.9 pounds. How does this happen? My six-year-old weighs 50-something pounds. And so, uh, I'm probably going to speed this up just a little bit. How does a 15-year-old child die as a result of malnutrition? How is a 15-year-old child 63 pounds under the average weight? How is a 15-year-old child in literally the zero percentile for weight? How, how of this begins to unfold on July 6th of 2022, when police officers from the Norton Shores Police Department are dispatched to 4788 Marshall Road in Norton Shores. The first officer on scene is there. ProMed is already on scene, and they've already found Timothy Ferguson deceased in the basement level of that home. You're going to see photographs of that home. It's a B-level home, and Timothy Ferguson is in the basement of that home. By the time the officer arrives, Timothy Ferguson is deceased and has been deceased for some time. It's immediately obvious to ProMed, just as it is to Officer Stepanich, who you will hear from this morning, that Timothy Ferguson is severely malnourished. Now, there's a lot, another layer of mystery that is discovered the next day as it relates to the cause of death of Timothy Ferguson, and you will hear from the medical examiner that in addition to the severe malnourishment that caused his death, Timothy Ferguson also showed signs of hypothermia. How does a 15-year-old child in Michigan in July have hypothermia? The pieces of that puzzle start to unfold as the police investigation does. Officer Stepanich begins to notice, in addition to the shocking image of Timothy Ferguson deceased, other things unusual in the home. There's leg cuffs in the basement. There's cameras everywhere. There's hot sauce in the bathroom upstairs. In the upper level of the home, there's locks on the refrigerator and the freezer. More cameras, motion sensors, alarms everywhere in the house and in the basement, as if part of some demented version of Harry Potter. There's a small closet, again with an alarm on the door. Inside that closet, a blue tarp just laying on the floor in a small box. That room, as officers later come to learn, it's called the "small room." That was Timothy Ferguson. That's where he was forced to sleep. The leg cuffs also for Timothy Ferguson. The cameras also for Timothy Ferguson to watch his every movement. His every movement monitored by his mother on those cameras. The bathroom camera. Who puts a camera in a bathroom? The bathroom camera is literally a motion-tracking camera, and the officer notices as soon as he walks into the bathroom, the camera starts to follow his motion. Again, hot sauce in the bathroom. Why is there hot sauce in the bathroom? These are all questions at the time the police officers have, but they have no explanation for most of them. All they know is that Timothy Ferguson died as a result of malnourishment, as it's obvious to anybody that would just see him. Look at. So, Officer Stepanich starts to ask him questions. Miss Vander Ark says, 'Well, he's been on a hunger strike for the last couple of weeks. He hasn't been eating. And I noticed last night he wasn't eating really good, so I made him some toast with some peanut butter, some butter on it, and and I made him eat it, and then he went to bed.' And then more detectives become involved in the investigation. More statements coming out from Miss Vander Ark about some of the unusual things in the home. The leg cuffs, 'Oh, those, those are Paul Ferguson.' Paul Ferguson is the older boy that lives in the house. He's 19 at the time, and you're going to hear from Paul Ferguson, and I'm just going to tell you right now, you're not going to like Paul Ferguson. I don't like Paul Ferguson. Paul Ferguson was a contributing factor to the death of his brother. What you will come to learn is that what Paul Ferguson was, was the strong arm for the defendant when she wanted a punishment inflicted upon Timothy. She used Paul to do it, and Paul did it. And he will tell you that he did those things, and he will tell you he's remorseful about, remorseful about those things, as he should be. Because the mental and physical abuse that those two individuals inflicted upon Timothy Ferguson over the course of multiple months, from February of 2022 to the time of his death in July, caused his death. For all intents and purposes, Timothy Ferguson was a prisoner in his own home. He never went to a doctor. He never went to school. The only time he was allowed to leave the house was if he was being punished, and he had to run up and down the stairs in the backyard where nobody could see him, or walk the dog in the backyard, again, where nobody could see him. You know, to take my word for it, you will hear in the text messages between Paul Ferguson and Shanda Vander Ark, the extent of the horrors they inflicted upon Timothy. You will hear about his every moment, every movement being monitored by motion sensors and alarms on his body, multiple alarms on his body, cameras watching his every move, making sure he did not go upstairs without permission, making sure he did not go to the bathroom without permission. When he went to the bathroom, he got one minute if he had to pee, and two minutes if he had to poop. Some of you might already be saying to yourself, 'This sounds too incredible to be true.' Again, you don't have to take my word for it. You will hear the text messages. You will see right there in print, right there before your very eyes, everything that I'm telling you. Access to food denied. Locks on the freezer, locks on the refrigerator, alarm on the pantry door, alarms on the door to the small room where he was forced to sleep. Now, interestingly, when we talk about that alarm in, in the small room, you're going to see the photographs of that alarm. When the police are there the first day, they take photographs of the scene. And as the investigation progresses, they go back the next day. Strangely, that alarm has been removed. But please get the text messages and start to go through the text messages. And a broader picture begins to emerge of what happened to Timothy, especially in those final hours leading up to his death in the early morning hours of July 6th. And what they find is just as shocking as the fact that Timothy died as a result of malnourishment. For roughly the last nine hours that Timothy Ferguson was alive, he was in an ice bath, first monitored by Paul, and then by Shanda. Timothy Ferguson was forced to lay in an ice bath for nine hours, already severely malnourished, already bone thin, forced to be in this bathtub, again, first monitored by Paul, watched by Shanda from those cameras, and then by her when Paul goes to work. He was too weak to even move on his own. Malnutrition at that point, that's where the hypothermia comes into play. Medical examiner puzzled at first, 'How can there possibly be hypothermia in a child of 15 years old at this time of year?' Well, you spend nine hours in the ice bathtub, that's what happens. You'll see the ice maker in the home where the ice came from for his ice baths. And again, you don't have to take my word for it. You're going to hear it all in the text messages. And Vander Ark, again, when she talks to the police, she says, 'Well, Timothy's really, he's just been on a hunger strike for the last two weeks, and I just didn't, I didn't know how bad it was getting until last night, and I made him a piece of toast.' It's, and again, you don't have to take my word for it. On July 13th, almost three weeks before Timothy Ferguson passes away, Paul, in a moment of clarity and a moment of sympathy for his brother, sees his brother without a shirt on and sends his mother a picture. Now, he's already right thin at that point, nothing more than skin and bone. When I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that any rational human being looking at that photograph would say, 'Oh my God, we have got to do something to help this child.' This is the picture that, when she sees this picture on the stand, this is the one where she has a, looks like she's gagging. I think, I don't know if she alleges, but I don't know, like, uh, some people say that she regurgitated. A lot of people have thrown out there, was that real? Was she faking that? Like, was that, was that response real? And we will play that a little later. The thing that the prosecution is going to get to is the fact that Timothy also has autism, ADHD, and sensory processing disorder. And the way that the mom is going to describe the sensory processing disorder is that he was hyposensitive, so that, um, it took a lot of stimulation, so like that he had a very high tolerance. She's going to describe it in that way because she also alleges that she has sensory processing disorder along with some other mental health things, which we will talk about. It was just, this case is, is very, very sad."

The defense is going to try to explain things. So I'm going to skip ahead to the defense's side. I'm going to slow it down because I think he's going to go relatively quickly on his own, or else I'll slow it down to 1.25. We'll see how that goes. Here is the defense. "Now, she is presumed innocent until the jury comes back and decides. And every person should have a defense. And this is their case. Yes, what you said, I don't have a lot that, yep, that's what you're going to hear. All things you're going to hear, you're going to hear those things. Most not going to be controverted. All that's going to come in, almost exactly like he said, it's going to come in. And at the end of the day, you're going to say, 'What's up? Why are we here?' We're here, folks. We're here, folks, because this case, it's not just terrible, it's weird. It's just strange. It, it goes into, uh, portions of our brains that we hope we don't have. I say that because if you, you, I was paying attention. Says one of the things he, he didn't talk about was what the statute says. The judge read this morning again, the word, the exact word of the statute for this type of time is knowing and intentional."

Sorry, I have to interrupt because he just said "knowing and intentional," and I think this is why the prosecution is going when they cross-examine. So Shanda decides to testify, and they're going to get to cross-examine her, and they're really going to focus on her education and how smart she is, and how she treats her dogs, and would she do the same things to her dogs? And her explanation for it is just, it's, this is, this is a hard one. Let's, let's keep going. "All the things that he says that my client did, she has to know, and she has to intend for these, for either one of these charges to be. And, you know, and if you had a, a recorder and you hear his old speech again, there's nothing about that she knew. She let me, you're going to be sh, and I want, and they're going to be red some of the jury. Your, I ask you to pay close attention to those texts because when you listen to those text messages and you're paying attention, it, and, and understand these text messages were made and created at a time nobody knew that anybody would ever read them. In other words, nobody's trying to fake what they're saying in here because they don't know anything else. So this is, this is what they're thinking at the time. This is what's going in there. All, all the things are going in there. It's raw, it's real, it's unedited text messages. And what you're going to hear over and over again, over and over, but you listen to these messages is my client, Shanda Vander Ark, and her older son, Paul Ferguson, had no idea that they were hurting this boy. They, they, if you listen to those messages, they don't have a clue. So they considered this to be a form of discipline. Which, y'all know that irritates them. That's because this was, this was harmful. This was illegal. This is not how you treat anyone. This was inhumane, in my opinion. And it's two of them. It's not just the one, not her. And just at one point, he sends her a picture. At another point, she asks him, 'Is he okay?' You think, and each time the other person deflects, and they continue to go on. They don't figure out that they're hurting until he's dead. That's the first time it occurs to them, 'Hey, we got a problem here.' And they get mad and they panic. They try to make up a story. Shoot, she's going to tell, she's going to testify, she's going to tell you what's going on. But as you listen to Paul's testimony, and as you listen to my client's testimony, neither one of them are aware of what's obvious to him, you, and him, and all the rest of us. We're all going to see it. How could you not see it? But listen to them. They don't, they see, they don't see the suffering. They don't see the, this is, they call what they're doing to him punishments. And they, they consider, in response to what they're doing over and over again, he's not going to win on this one. He's not going to get away with this. He's not going to do this. These are punishments that, that they feel are reasonable and are not hurting them. Punishments for just like for going to the bathroom without asking, or for you taking food without asking. Like these are, he wasn't a horrific kid. He wasn't in therapy. He wasn't seeing a medical doctor. He wasn't even in school. I, I have her, and I expect Paul to take that stand and tell you, he, he, he wishes he could change everything now, and he wishes he could, he could die for his brother now. But at the time he was doing these things, he didn't see, he didn't see a problem with it. In fact, Paul is the one, my client's the one, Paul wants to take it a step further. He wants to start getting physical with this boy. As my client tells him, 'You're not allowed to do that. These are appropriate punishments.' There's no intention. There's no intention to hurt or kill or to abuse this young boy. My client will take the stand. You'll find out she's a highly intelligent person. She went to law school. She passed the bar examination. She was in the process of trying to become licensed as this matter began. She graduated, couldn't, like, in her high school, college, say, I think lost the second person on the list. She was clerking for judges. She was working and studying, and she was, she, she was this close to achieving lifelong goals. Then she gets a call from her ex-husband. 'I'm putting to the out the victim. You want him, or he's going to protect service.' So she did get a call from Timothy's father saying, 'Hey, like, we're having trouble, and either you can take him, or we're going to, or like DSS.' And I haven't heard any statements from Timothy's father. I'm sure everyone looking at the situation now wishes that Timothy had went to, to a safe and stable home. This was not safe for him. She takes him in. She takes him in. She takes him in. 'Send them to me. I don't want my son sister. Send them to me.' She takes, she brings them to her home. And then the wheels start to fall off in her life. Her husband gets seriously ill. She's now struggling, struggling with the expenses of the home and the three children and everything else that's going on. She's working, she's going to school, she's doing all these things. She's not sleeping. And I hate it when they try to make the defendant the victim. Like, that's just, just doesn't feel right. Something happens with her and Paul. This tends to see things that, that I can't. And I'm not, I'm not a doctor. I have a doctor coming to you to tell you about this stuff. All I have is exhibit W, or whatever it's going to be. I was going to tell you, these people don't know they're hurt. They love this. They don't know. They don't see whatever's going on between. They don't see it. Go. And that's what happens. There is a terrible situation. Everything he said, you're going to hear that's, that's all right. So that's the gist of their defense. Okay, so let's play the, and I don't, let's, let's play the, the panic attack part."

"Put a cell phone belonging to Ms. Vander Ark. Is that correct? And did you have an opportunity, did, did as part of the investigation, did the Norton Shores Police Department, uh, perform an extraction of that cell phone? Yes. And seems I'm going to skip ahead because they're going to start reading the messages and then they're going to have to pause court for a period of time. Date is February the 28th. 'And check his breath. I can almost guarantee he's eaten something. He was, was chewing on something when he walked downstairs. You and I will be talking about this on a later date when we're both home. Yes, he grabbed chips. I know. Break there. Yes.' The next text thread starts on March the 4th at 8:59 p.m. [Music] KK."

So this is where the defense attorney is going to come up and say that his client is having a panic attack and that they need to stop. I believe they're going to excuse the jury. We'll see that in a second. The full links to all these videos will be provided in the description. So that's her. "I'll make that part bigger. A five, maybe 10 minutes. So I'll have you retire to the jury room, uh, just for purposes of the record. Uh, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Johnson, uh, had a sidebar with the court. Indicated Mr. Johnson indicated that his client was suffering some distress, specifically a panic attack, and he asked for five minutes. I think that's, um, reasonable. So at this point in time, court is going to take a brief recess. Mr. Johnson, just please let the court know when your client is, uh, well enough to proceed. Thank you. All right, we recess."

So, do I think she had a panic attack? I'll never know. Panic attacks can come up for a variety of reasons. Also, there could have been extreme emotional distress that those text messages kind of made her look bad. Like, that could be one reason. And she is alleging that she was dissociated, that she does not remember what she did during this time. And yet, to me, her behavior afterwards does not link up with somebody that does not have awareness. And typically, things like dissociation, you're not dissociating and doing like multiple crimes over a period of time, kind of like a Leticia Stauch tried to allege. Like, that's, that's just not how dissociation works. Dissociation is typically protective to something happening to the person, and it's typically not them being harmful to someone else. If there is some harm, there's typically harm to themselves. There's typically not harm to someone else.

And let's talk about Paul. And I thought it was interesting that the defense mentioned that people might not like Paul. Paul might not come off very likable, that he did these things to his brother. The, I'm sorry, the prosecution, if I said defense, I meant prosecution. The prosecution describes him as his mother's strong arm, that he's the one that did the things that she told him to. And Paul is going to talk about why he, he did these things, and he is going to talk about regretting it. He's going to talk about wishing that he could switch places. The jury is going to ask him some questions. I will watch just show just a little bit of his testimony and then talk about my thoughts about Paul and answer some y'all's questions.

Thank you so much. I posted that I was going to be covering this early, and some people submitted some questions. And y'all had questions specifically about Paul. So they are going to start off with the fact that Paul, he is currently only charged with, I believe, like child neglect, I think felony child neglect, and he has not yet been charged with murder. And that he can, so the state can file charges, and that they haven't promised him anything, that they would be more lenient, or that they wouldn't charge him with something based on his testimony. So the state clarified that at the beginning of his testimony. Yes.

"And back down to four people. When Adam unfortunately had a stroke in January of 2022. Yes. Now, around the shortly after the time of the stroke, um, did there come a point in time where you became involved in having to administer some discipline to your younger brother, to Timothy? Yes. Um, we'll talk about some specifics, but, uh, we've already had some text messages read, and, and you saw him looking down, you saw him looking around. To me, he seems to show remorse for what he did. Let's, let's keep going. You had an opportunity to kind of hear about some of those text messages throughout this, right? Yes, sir. And you sent text, text messages back and forth between yourself and your mother. Um, and we had those text messages. If you saw that glance over to his mother, I think he likely now sees what his mom kind of had."

So this is his allegation from, from what he alleges, his mom kind of forced him to do to his brother. I just, I see a lot of contempt, I see a lot of pain in him, like when he looks towards his, his mom's side. "From January through the time of your brother's death in July of 2022, was that your understanding? Yes, sir. The, at some point in time in February, there's a discussion fairly early in those text messages about, um, blocking Timothy's access to food. Can you describe what was happening at that time and how he was restricted from getting access to food? Um, he was sneaking food that was not necessary at that time, and it was solved by placing locks on the fridge, freezer, and pantry. When we said he was sneaking food that wasn't necessary, who would make that determination that it wasn't necessary? Shanda. And it's also interesting. So throughout his testimony, he's going to refer to his mother as Shanda. And what type of food are we talking about that he would think that wasn't necessary? Sweets or anything he could really get his hands on. So, is there early as February, there was restriction that the locks were going on the freezer and the refrigerator? And you said there was also some type of lock on the pantry, is that right? Yes, sir. Um, and we've heard a text exchange, but at some point a little bit later, as, as things are progressing into April, was there a time where Timothy was doing something to get the locks off of the pantry door? He was pulling them off by hand. And what were you instructed to do as a result of him pulling the pantry door locks off? I think he's trying to remember right here. Let me ask you this way. Was, were, were you given some instruction to replace that lock? Yes. And who gave you that instruction? Shanda. And, and what was your understanding of why you were locking the pantry back up? Because he was sneaking food."

I talked about this with the Timothy Ferrier case and also with adoption. If you want more information about that one, please go and check out that video. Often, I see people restricting access to food and using that as a means of control. And I think there were four children in the home. I, I think he says, or, or there were four people. I forget if it was just four people, or because I know it was Paul, Timothy, and the little brother, I believe. So then I guess it was four people total. And when you looked at, at the cabinets and the cupboards, there wasn't a lack of food. So it doesn't sound like this was a financial thing. This seems like control to me. And I've seen people do things where people had to earn things, or people, and he's 15, his, his appetite might have been kind of high. They also, when he moved there, um, he allegedly didn't have medical insurance that they were able to use in the state. And so he, he did not see a doctor. He, um, Paul, sorry, Timothy, Timothy's diagnosed with ADHD and autism and came on a variety of medications. They, uh, all those medications because they didn't get refills for them. So he came off of all those medications. And if he was on something like a stimulant, I have no clue what he was on. But if he was on something like a stimulant, sometimes that can reduce appetite. And I've seen people when they come off that medication, sometimes there's like an increase in, in, in appetite. Also, ADHD, one of the symptoms can be like impulsivity, that sometimes people, they just, they do things without thinking. And he came to live back with his mother after having lived with his father. I have no clue what his life with his father was, was like. It sounds like there were some difficulties that the father was having difficulties with some type of behavior. And when people are struggling with people's behavior, especially people that have one diagnosis, yet less like three or four, you want to make sure to get some extra help and, and support. And the fact that they decided to homeschool him, I do think a part of that. Now, so homeschool, great choice. You have the ability, the resources to do it. It seemed like they were kind of hiding him a little, that he was being homeschooled as another means or way to, to control him, and that he needed this strict discipline so that he could get his behavior together and fall in line with Shanda's expectations. It, it really reminds me of that kind of militant thinking that I've seen sometimes in, um, people that, that sadly can be at risk to do things that end up hurting kids.

"And so let's talk about your brother Timothy for just a little bit. Did Timothy have some special needs? Yes. What were, what was your understanding of what a special needs work? He was Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder as well as as autistic. He had speech and motor impairments. Speech and what type, impair, motor impairments? Movement impairments. Movement impairments. Yes. And is at the time that he came to live with you, was he supposed to be taking some medication? Yes. And did that, did he stop taking his medication? Yes. Why did he stop taking his medication? Um, could you please reiterate? Yeah, who, I guess the better way of saying it is, who made the decision for him to stop taking his medication? Shanda. As far as you know, from the time that Timothy came to live with you in May of 2021 in Norton Shores to the time of his death, did you ever see Timothy go to a doctor? No. Did Timothy go to school? Not public. No. How was he schooled? Home. When we say home school, what would that entail? Um, at first it was assignments on a tablet, and then my mother restricted it to where she would print out the assignments, and he would sit downstairs and do that. So we never went to school and never went to, to a doctor, as far as you could see. Yes, sir. Um, basically from January, from the time of the stroke moving forward, was Timothy allowed to even leave the house? No. When was, when, if ever, was he ever allowed to go outside? To walk the dogs. Sometimes. And when he would walk the dogs, where was it that he would walk the dogs? In the backyard, out of sight. Was there ever some physical discipline that was involved with him being outside as well? Yes. What was that discipline? He was made to run up and down the patio stairs. Um, and those are, so those are stairs in the back of your house? Yes, sir. Are those visible at all from the front of the house? No, sir. Visible to anyone walking by on the street or driving by, anything of that nature? No, sir. Okay."

"So I'm going to fast forward just a little bit where Paul talks a little bit about the things that he, that he did during, during this time. And you know about how many times you did that up until the day that, that the day before Timothy died? Um, before the day that Timothy died. The day before Timothy died. We'll get to that in just a moment. And I believe three. Then, so you remember doing it three times for the day before he died? Yeah. So they're talking about the ice baths that, uh, Paul gave Timothy three ice baths where he would fill it up with cold water and then add ice as a form of punishment. Yes. And who would direct you to put him in the ice bath? Shanda. Was there some type of camera in the bathroom as well? Yes. On the counter. Was that camera monitored by somebody? If, if you were in the bathtub or if you were in the bathroom with Timothy? Shanda. Were you instructed to stay in the bathroom with Timothy when he was in the tub? Yes. Why? To ensure that he couldn't get comfortable or try to turn the water hot. So you can see him kind of closing his eyes and kind of starting to."

"So I am not a body language expert. Please check out Dr. G Explains. I've added a like recommended channels portion. Um, a lot of my followers, uh, follow Natalie Lawyer Chi and some other people, so I included that there. A lot of his, like, this just seems to be very painful, and he wants to participate in getting justice for his brother, even if that means possibly implicating himself in his role in all of this. So one of the questions that I received, let me make myself bigger so we can talk about this. You all ask phenomenal questions. And Laura Fuller asked, 'How culpable do you think Paul was?' I felt very sympathetic towards him on the stand. He seemed genuinely terrified of his mom in that moment. I think Mom was using him as a tool. And although there's no excuse for his actions, he really didn't seem to be trying to excuse his actions as many defendants try to. And, um, I would love to know how much coercion, you consider, um, how much the, like, the role of coercion could have played in this. She was very hands-off in texts, 'Do this, do that.' And the thing that kind of makes this, she's the mom. Okay. So when we talk about culpability, so Paul is her child. And the jury is going to ask him what special needs or diagnosis he has because I do think the jury is kind of looking at him like, 'It seems like he could have used some extra support. Like, it seems like he didn't fully understand all that was going on and what this could have done to to his brother.' Now, Paul is also going to talk about the role that trying to get his mother's approval, the role that kind of his low confidence, the role that that played. It does seem like Shanda was a type of parent that believed in blind obedience. Blind obedience is, 'Do it because I told you to.' I do not believe in blind obedience. If I tell my child to go run into traffic, I want him to be like, 'Wait a minute, Mom, that's not safe.' If I tell my child to go and do something that is not right, I want him to be able to question that. Because if something happens to him that isn't okay, even if it was an adult, I want him to know, 'Wait a minute, adults aren't supposed to do this.' Like, 'I know you're in a position of authority, this is not okay.' And for him to know, like, to come and tell me. Because sometimes when people are raised with blind obedience, 'Do it because like religion says to do it, because the parent says to, just do it, but do not think, just do this because this is what you are told and do not question.' When people are raised that way, now if you're an adult going into the military, okay, because so that type of blind obedience is expected in the military, but they often have, unless it goes against the Constitution, like they, they have something where like, if your general, if the person above you, if their, if your commanding officer is telling you something that goes against the, like, morals and rules. And so I'm not a military person, this is my understanding, okay? But there's something that's like, even in that situation, you can still be like, 'Wait a minute.' If you're deployed, you don't get to complain about where you're going or anything. And so there, there are situations, there are cultures where blind obedience is kind of expected. I don't think that's appropriate with children. Now, I do need my child to know, 'Hey, it's safe.' So my child and I, every day in the morning, we cross a street to get to school. And I don't need him to ask me, 'Why do I have to look both ways? Like, why I have to look before I go into the road?' Like, so there are times when it's like, 'Hey, this is, this isn't safe.' And that's, and so I don't sit down and give him a detailed explanation of why we don't run into the road without looking. Like, it's like, 'That's not safe.' I give, like, a short thing. But when you look at a situation like this, I do think Paul should be held responsible for his role in all of this. I think Mom should be held more responsible. That Shanda should be held to a higher standard. She was the adult. She's the one. Between her and Paul, she comes off extremely intelligent, and she was, she's a lawyer. Like, she understands the law. She should have known that this was illegal. That it was illegal to. Because, so when the detectives all come, because she tells Paul to say, 'Hey, oh, this is what, what's alleged.' And I think, even I think she even admitted this on the stand, that she told Paul to say that he was on a hunger strike, knowing that they were the ones that were severely restricting his food to the point of malnourishment. They were the ones forcing him to eat pieces of bread with hot sauce that's so hot."

"I am going to play because they actually read the back of that hot sauce label. I am going to just play that for us to, to hear that part because she's going to describe, 'Oh no, he liked hot food.' It's like, 'Wait a minute, if he liked hot food, why would that be a form like, why would you, why would you give that as part of discipline?' And, um, this hot sauce that they're using, it combines two of the hottest peppers, and that is, it's meant to cause pain. And I always think the parent should, should do better. Um, there is such a thing as parentifying a child. Now, now Paul was 19, so if he had been like 14, if he had been underage when all this happened, I still think he would have been. But like, he was legally, he was legally an adult. And I do think the court system is going to hold him responsible for the neglect part. I don't know if they're going to charge him with murder. They might go with manslaughter. I don't know what's, what's going to happen with him. I don't think he had malice. I don't think he intended for this to happen. For Shanda, [Music] I think Timothy, it sounds like, jeez, I'm going to say it, this is going to be hard to say from an outsider looking in, and I don't know her, I don't know her situation. It seems like he was an inconvenience. Her life was falling apart. Her life was so bad, he was making things so difficult for her that she wanted to make things difficult for him. Now, I don't think she intended for it to go as far as it. Now, I'm talking about intention. So I don't know. I think, because they kept saying, 'He's faking it, he's faking it, he's faking it.' Like they kept saying they thought he was faking being so weak that he could not, like, because he was starting to have difficulties towards the end. There were signs that he was not medically okay. I don't know that they ever would have taken him to a doctor because if he had ever had contact with the outside world. Now, I think he did meet with his grandmother or something, not close to the time of his, like, I think there was somebody that would come and visit. I don't know if they're visiting him or if they're visiting one of the other kids, because it sounds like somebody would come to visit, and the house was a mess, and that she would have these instructions for when people came to visit to make sure to kind of meet them outside, don't let them come inside the house. Peace out. Lisa also asked if I thought Paul might be on the spectrum. And I will get back to that question once we listen to the jury questions for him. So let me skip ahead to, to that portion. He is going to be asked by the defense if he loved his brother, and he is going to say something to the effect of, um, 'Not, not enough.' That was just because I think he was, I think he acknowledges that the things that he did, that that's not a way to show love or discipline or care to another person. So all right, here are the questions from the jury. Kind of a compound question, so I'm going to ask it. Okay, Mr. Ferguson, do you have any special needs? 'I am diagnosed as ADHD, reactive attachment disorder, and sensory processing disorder as well. I was taking medication for anxiety and depression.' Okay. Now, the reactive attachment disorder, because typically reactive attachment disorder, so I don't, I, he is self-providing any potential diagnosis that is typically diagnosed when there is severe maltreatment of that individual early, early on, typically infancy, before the age of five or six. Like, typically it's early childhood neglect or more. And so that diagnosis was interesting to me. I also don't know if what the therapist said is that he has a disordered attachment, especially that because his connection to his mother, I think he desperately wanted her care and love. And if, if he wasn't doing what she wanted him to do, she probably would have turned on him. These are my, like, that's my hypothesis. I don't know that for sure. I think he desperately wanted her approval. And he said that in a part of his testimony that he struggles with self-esteem and that he wishes that he had handled things different. Sensory processing, because they don't have Asperger's as a diagnosis anymore, so I don't know what his social connections, what his social relationships are like, because in autism diagnosis, there's typically severe impairment in social ability. ADHD, some of the ADHD symptoms can sometimes look kind of like autism, because sometimes ADHD also has difficulties with connecting socially, but it's, it's a different, it's a different thing. And, um, so I don't know for sure. Uh, the sensory processing and some of his other diagnoses, um, I will also give the caveat that I typically refer out to somebody else for autism diagnoses because trauma can look a lot like autism as well. And it, when there's been early childhood trauma, it can be very difficult to parse out because the, of the way that that trauma can affect the brain. Now, autism is not like a, because they saw when it first came out, they thought it was because mothers weren't caring to their children, and that's, that's not at all true. And so, but what I'm saying is, is that early childhood neglect can cause the brain to not develop in the way it's supposed to, particularly those social parts. And so I would want to, to know more about his early childhood experiences, how he did, like, attach to those important caregivers, in particular the mother. And we're going to talk about Shanda in a minute. Okay, let's keep going. Uh, similar might be the same exact answer. Do you have any learning disabilities? Um, I'm not sure if any of those count as learning disabilities, but I suppose, I suppose reactive attachment disorder can make certain things hard. Okay. And, uh, well, let me, let me follow up with that. This is not the jury question, but do you, has anyone told you, well, strike that. Run. Do you have autism? This is the other question. Do you have autism, to your knowledge? Um, not to my knowledge, not that I've been diagnosed with. And do you..."

Have any. So I think even the jury was picking up, especially with the family history, with his brother having high-functioning autism. I think the jury was like, "Could he have been on the spectrum as well?" Other emotional issues that you're aware of? Anger issues? I never have been good at controlling my anger. Never was truly taught well. Okay, so that little statement.

All right, y'all. So I recorded this entire section and then realized that my mic disconnected. What I was saying is that he seems to be pointing out that his mother also had anger management problems. He did not say that specifically. You could kind of get the reference there that he did not learn in the home how to appropriately manage anger. And he was open about this. And to me, his testimony was incredibly open and honest, and I did think he came across as credible. I also think he came across likable. I did not feel that he was unlikable. And really, everything that I've seen in my comment section, a lot of people had pity for him. I think the way that Shonda wanted people to pity her.

Okay, so let's start with Shonda's testimony. This is where her lawyer starts out asking her questions. With you, uh, knowing as I do, I don't think volume's gonna be a problem with you. Probably not, sir. Talking fast, maybe? Yes, sir. It might. Okay, so this is, uh, are you nervous? Yes, sir. This is stressful? Yes, sir. Very. So you're gonna be questions going to be thrown at you fast and furious. You, you've seen how trials work, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And under those circumstances, you, you may speed up again, as I do. Yes, sir. Okay. You, you may be reminded from time to time, slow down just a little bit. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, let's make sure everyone understands. You, you've been sitting through this, this, this trial for the, since the beginning, correct? Yes, sir. And you were arrested for these offenses alleged back when? July 7th of 2022. Okay, so you've been living with this thing for more than what? 18 months? 17 months? Yes. 17 months. You know what we're talking about, correct? Yes, sir. And you, a lot of her mannerisms and everything. Is anyone else getting like Amber Heard vibes? Like, I just, her style just reminds me so much of of Amber Heard. And and Amber Heard did not do near, you know what I mean? Like their cases are totally different. I'm talking about the manner, the way that she's talking and some of her body language and everything. It just reminds me of of of Amber Heard. You understand the allegations against you? Yes, sir. And and that it also helps that that you have a legal background, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Uh, uh, the things they said about how well you did in school and and all those things, were those all true? Uh, yes, sir. Okay. I, I want just sitting there and regaling this, but but the things about Kumla and going to law school, all that stuff is true. It was Magna Kumla? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right, she corrected him to Magna Cum Laude.

Okay, so I can only take so much of this part because this is the part that she wants to present. What were his special names? He was on the autism spectrum, but he was completely verbal and he was grade level in school. He was not behind in school at all. Um, he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He was diagnosed as bipolar and sensory processing disorder. Um, I heard Paul mention physical disabil. He didn't have any. Now, Timothy, when he first got there, said he had a physical disability. And I asked his his stepmom about about it to make sure, and she said, no, he's, he was not coordinated at all. Um, the first summer that he lived with us, my youngest was playing baseball, and Timothy actually mentioned because we had planned to put him in public high school, "I'm gonna try out for the baseball team." And I didn't say anything to him, but I remember thinking, sorry. So then if his physical ability wasn't at grade level, I would think he, so he might have had, he might have had motor delays. I don't know the use of like, I, no, sir. I never saw anything with that. Uh, you heard Paul talk about plastic ties? What was that about? I honestly don't remember. Okay. Um, I, I don't know why we would order. I mean, I saw the ties. I don't, I don't remember ordering them. I don't know what happened there. You're gonna say I don't remember a lot, aren't you? Unfortunately, yes, because of the dissociation.

Okay, explain to, explain to the jury what that means. Um, well, I guess there's different forms. Somebody told me this. I did not find out about the PTSD and the dissociation until about seven months after my husband's stroke, even though it had been going on since the stroke.

On the record. So I did see some more testimony later where I think she was able to go into talking about dissociation, and that was interesting. I will get into that in the next part. Now, you all commented about how she talked about her son, that she seemed to have some contempt toward words Timothy, and that, um, some people made made comments about that. It was very difficult for me to watch her testimony. Once again, going back to her claims of dissociation. I, so I did not assess her. I have worked with people that dissociate, and her behavior afterwards does not seem to be consistent with dissociation, with being totally checked out. Her memory seems to be selective, and selective for crimes. So like, she doesn't remember the stuff that was illegal, the stuff that makes her look bad. That seems to be, that's where I'm not sure how, how accurate that was. Now, she could legit, the stroke that her husband had, that could have caused significant emotional distress. And I do not like it when people use mental health as like why they harm someone. So to me, she seemed to be very focused on her goals, what she wanted, and she very much seemed to think that Timothy was faking, that he could do more than he said, or I don't know. Like, she just seemed to just have this perspective of him. But just, it doesn't come off like she liked him very much. She does not sound connected to him in the way that you would think a mother would be connected to her child.

They alluded to something from 2012. They did not get into it in front of the jury. Jury, the jury will not have this information, but the prosecution seemed to allude to the fact that there might have been a court order that prohibited her from having custody of Timothy from something from 2012. And so the fact that he wasn't already with her, the fact that he was with his father, to me, I think she just saw him as an obstacle and as just a problem. And to me, she treated him in that way, which is just like, uh. So I work with lots of kids that are on the autism spectrum. They require an additional level of support and encouragement. I work with individuals that get very fixed, they really struggle with following rules. And, uh, there is something called pathological demand avoidance, PDA, that's more common over in the UK. In the US, we don't have that as an official diagnosis. And, um, with pathological demand avoidance, the person, if you tell them to do something, it's like their brain, like for some reason, they just won't do it. But if, if it's, if they think of doing it, it's like, if they, they will watch and clean on their own, but if you ask them to clean, they'll refuse. And, um, sometimes that can be characteristic within, um, autism. And they are talking about the fact of how high functioning he was, and yet he wasn't potty trained. He wore a diaper. They were recording him in the bathroom. They were timing the amount of time that he could spend in the bathroom. They had cameras in the bathroom. They would make him. Okay, so this is, this is the triggering part. They would make him kneel as a punishment and hold his hands up, and they would put sensors on him where if he moved, the sensor would go off, and they would know. Like, I just, all of that was just. There we go. If my mic sounded weird for that period of time, I apologize. It was coming out of here. Hopefully, there was no clicking or anything, but my mic is fixed back to this one. If that portion of the audio sounds weird, let's get into the prosecution cross-examining her, which is why most, most lawyers, when a defendant testifies, it, it just, it opens them up to cross-examination. So let's watch this part.

Now, uh, Mr. Johnson kind of tried to shortchange you a little bit earlier in your cross, or in his direct examination, when he wanted to talk about your background, uh, your schooling. Uh, remind the jury again of your educational background. Uh, I have a Bachelor of Science degree, Magna Cum Laude, and then I also have a Juris Doctorates, a law degree, that I graduated Magna Cum Laude, second in my class. And, uh, Magna Cum Laude, for those that might not be familiar, means with the highest honors, correct? Yes, sir. In law school, actually, Suma only goes to number one. In at the college level, you, it's above a certain GPA. But the why she's explaining this just doesn't make any sense. And he is trying to point out how intelligent she is, and that she should have known better. That is my hypothesis of why he's doing this line of questioning. For law school, only number one gets, then above a certain GPA gets Magna, and then below that is even Cum Laude, which is what Mr. Johnson tried to say you were. And I think he corrected them and made sure the jury understood. You were second in your class. School, correct? Yes, sir. And, uh, you took the bar exam? I did. Passed the bar exam first try? Yes, sir. With a very high score, right? Yes, sir. What was that score? 182 out of 200. Uh, bar exam is an incredibly difficult test to pass, isn't it? Yes, sir. It is. And was like 400 hours of study that went into that, and the pass rate for it usually hovers somewhere around 60%. So four out of 10 people that take it usually fail, right? I did not know that, but I'll take your word for it. But you understood it to be a very difficult test when we took. I believe that score would constitute the highest score for for your, for that time that that you took the bar, right? Your score? I, I mean, I don't know. I would assume so. Um, and you also were Magna Cum Laude in undergrad as well for your bachelor's degree? Yes, sir. Where did, what did you obtain your bachelor's degree? Liberty University. And Liberty University is Jerry Falwell's, the Jerry, I forget, I can't say his last name, Falwell, but it's a, um, it's a Christian school. You had an opportunity to actually work in this very courthouse for for a period of time, is that correct? Yes, sir. I did my law school externship, and then after I graduated law school, I stayed on as an intern. It wasn't paid, but the, the experience was invaluable to me, so it was worth it. And particularly the field that you were working when you were working here, you worked under Judge Smedley, one of our other Circuit Court judges, correct? Yes, sir. And, uh, the, your area of focus that you wanted to to really focus in on was appellate criminal work, is that correct? Yes, sir. And you had an opportunity to work on some cases here in Muskegon? I did. Yes, sir. And eventually, that that turned into an opportunity to go work for another judge in another.

So to me, she really liked talking about all of her accomplishments and everything, and she would go into more details than she even had to. Um, now, you're not suggesting to this jury that you couldn't afford to have food for your kids, are you? No, sir. In fact, you're, we've seen the pictures, and you don't need to show you the pictures of your freezer, your refrigerator, pantry, all pretty well stocked with food, wouldn't you agree? Yes, sir. So you can, so there was something, a financial ability for you to provide for your children, at least in the food sense, correct? Yes, sir. Plot food first. And you're, you're a highly intelligent woman, and I'm sure you're aware of multiple resources available in the community if that ever became an issue, right? Yes, sir. United Way, food pantries, anything of that nature. But, but you never felt the need to reach out to any of those resources? No, sir. Because we had groceries covered. And yet she wasn't feeding, like her child was emaciated and only 69 pounds.

Okay, so I wasn't able to find the exact part where she was talking about just how she just cared for the dogs. And the prosecution's asking her, "Would you give the dogs hot sauce?" And she's like, "No," like, because you wouldn't give them human food, like, what you wouldn't give service dogs human food, like. And but all the things that she did to her 15-year-old, she wouldn't have done any of those things to even her dogs. So there's that moment where they show her the picture and she gags. I'm gonna try to find that part. You look like that when you put them in the bathtub? Sorry. Yes. I believe they're gonna ask for a break. Please rise. So they're going to excuse the jury and they're going to take a little break, and then she's going to come back on the stand and continue. So here are my thoughts. I think this is a horrific case. And her panic attack and this gag, regurgitating, I'm not exactly sure what happened. She did not have this response. And this was pointed out by a viewer over in the questions for this stream. She did not have this response when she saw that picture that first day because Paul sends her this picture saying, "Do you think he looks bad? Do you think I should give him some food?" And my understanding is that her response was like, she didn't say, "I think," I think she told him to give him a few extra pieces of hot sauce bread or she told him, but whatever she said, it wasn't, "Oh my gosh, my child isn't okay. He's getting too skinny. He's this. We need to, we are doing this to him. We need to make sure that he's okay." There was never any concern for him in that moment. Some, a lot of people commented that they think this is was theatrics for the jury, and that she's trying to respond in a way that you would expect a loving mother, a loving parent to respond. I think she showed more care and love for little man or G. I don't know that she meant for him to die. I think she, there is a possibility that she was just so focused on just punishment, punishment, punishment, he's going to learn, that she didn't realize. I don't know, but she just didn't seem to care. And the result is telling. Thank you.

Before we get back to the question, I, or originally asked Miss Vander Ark, um, you just obviously had quite a, a visual reaction there to the jury, a physical reaction in front of the jury looking at those photographs. That's not the first time you've seen these photographs, though, is it? Yes, sir. In fact, you sat in this very courtroom not even a week ago on Friday when we had a hearing about those photographs and looked at those photographs, didn't I? I did not look at them last week, sir. You didn't look at them last last week? No, sir. I did not. But you've looked at them before, haven't you? It was, I think it was at the prelim, and I just felt, I gagged that day too, it just wasn't as bad. Didn't throw up? No, it wasn't. So if there's video from that hearing that we had last week where you thumbed through the photographs, including the autopsy photos, without vomiting, do you just not remember that as well? We didn't have the autopsy, we didn't have those photos over at our table, sir. You, it won't be on the video. I can promise you that. Well, then I'll return to my original question. Those three photographs picked your son hours after you supposedly put him in a warm bath. Did he look like that when you put him in the warm bath? Up for the fact that he was alive, I did not look at him, sir. He was 15. I tried to give him his privacy. It may sound lame, but I, I intentionally look away. That's, that's why Paul did most of his bath because he's 15 and I didn't think that was appropriate. So you didn't put him in the bathtub? No, he was already in the tub. I just looked. Did you get him out of the tub? Um, I don't remember. I think, I think so. Later, later that night, I would assume so. Later that night. How long was he in the tub? Well, night to me is anytime after work. So, okay. How long was he in the tub?

I really like how the prosecutor pointed out the fact that she had been shown that picture in the past, and really the reaction where other people also saw it. Theatrics. It sounds like the prosecutor called it out as a possibility as well. The last thing that I wanted to show is today there was court, and she was unable to be there, allegedly because of physical or something mental health. They kind of alluded to the fact that she might have been having like suicidal thoughts. And they did closings today, and I think the jury is going to be deliberating today. And if they do a verdict before I post, post this video, I will definitely do my response.

Mr. Roberts is here on behalf of People of Michigan. Miss, uh, Vander Ark, uh, is not present. My understanding, Mr. Johnson, that she is suffering some medical distress this morning. And, um, I know you want to put something on the record regarding that before we go forward, so you may proceed. I do, your Honor. My, my client is, is suffering a medical issue. We were hoping that, given some, some time this morning, we'd be able to get her to a point where she'd be able to come and join us, be competent to do so. Uh, uh, the court has been gracious. For trial is supposed to start at 9:00. It's now 10 minutes to 11:00, and we appreciate the court's grace and and allowing us to work with her and hopefully get her to the point where she can come and participate in her own trial. Uh, I must report to, to the court at this point that, that that situation has not occurred. That she, at this point, is not able to, to, to participate in trial, given this medical situation. That, uh, um, as a result of that, she's been basically, we, we've gone over a couple options. One, ask for to adjourn this, this case until a later date. But, quite frankly, the situation that brought on this medical situation is occurring and is part of the stress of being on trial. So, the reality is, we could, could guarantee the court that as of Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, that we'd be any different. So the stress of the trial was so much that she allegedly had a medical condition, and she did end up waving her right to be in court. And the words might not match what my mouth is doing right now because my mic went out for a second time, and I did not realize it. So I am re-recording this section. But the fact that she was out of the courtroom, she did not have to face the jury questions. So the jury was going to have the option to ask questions. I would love to know, and I don't know for sure, if she was aware of what questions the jury would be asking. I don't know if her attorney knew, and if her attorney would have been able to give her a heads up or not. Legally, I do not know that at all. I'm sure she heard the questions that the jury asked other people. And I honestly, my personal opinion is that she was avoiding having to face the jury and then having to publicly have to face this sentence. I think she likely knew that this wasn't going well.

And to me, so a lot of people throw words out like narcissism, or they throw words, a lot of people throw a lot of words out. And a lot of people ask me, what about autism and psychopathology? Well, particularly individuals who are antisocial or have antisocial traits, and there's a difference between being not social and being against social norms. Something that traits within autism can have is a lack of empathy, but that does not mean that the individual is dangerous or is a risk to other people. So individuals who have antisocial personality disorder, that have those psychopathic traits, those individuals, they have no sense of right or wrong. And a lot of the individuals that I meet that have autism, they often have an intense need to get things in their mind right. So I do not think that diagnoses like autism or ADHD or any of those things necessarily place a person at a higher risk. Some of those diagnoses can make people a little bit more impulsive, a little bit more risk-seeking. I honestly think this individual, a lot of the qualities and traits that I saw within the trial, to me, she sounded very self-centered and about herself, entitled, and egocentric, that she was the center. And she seemed to have this need to be seen by others as intelligent, and to be seen by others in a certain way. And there was this side of her that nobody else saw. It reminds me of that Timothy Farrow when his daughters talked about there being the public side and then this private side that nobody else was was was aware of. And just because a person seeks control does not necessarily mean that the person is going to be unsafe. I'm just pointing out some of these characteristics that I saw within this case. I hope this is helpful. Thank you so much to the psych nerd that messaged me that we have a verdict. And so I'm going to go ahead and flip to that now. I have not seen it yet. This will be my live reaction to that.

FC People versus Shonda Vander Ark. The court has been informed the jury has reached a verdict. Mr. Johnson, Miss Vander Ark is not present. My understanding is you had an opportunity to speak with her and discuss her presence, and today is that is that correct? That's correct, John. That's where I've been since, since I, I think she knows I just came up with her. She's declined to join us for this portion of our time. Okay. Okay. Uh, during the break, I anticipated that, and I did a little case law research. There is no law in the state of Michigan at this time that requires the defendant to be present for the verdict. There is a law that does require. I think he searched this knowing that she is very smart, and she was an appellate clerk. Okay. She actually used to write briefs for the second judge that she worked for. And so, so she knows the, she probably knows the law very well, and she's a very smart woman. So I think that's why the judge is doing this, her to be here for sentencing and hear the victims, victim statements. But, uh, so the court was essentially left with a choice of forcibly compelling her to be here, which could cause her to, uh, I, I don't know, could cause further issues. We have deputies, um, that certainly if I order them to do that, they would do that, but I don't want to put them in a position of harm, if, if something happens, and I don't think that's appropriate. So I'm not going to do that. And again, there is no law that requires her to do that. Um, so Mr. Roberts, anything for the record before we bring the jury out? J. I would concur with the court's research here. I think that we're all aware that there was a law recently passed that requires the defendant to be present for at least the victim impact portion of sentencing, and I agree. I don't think there's anything that requires her to be here. So pursuant to the written stipulation that she has already filed and been witnessed and updated by Mr. Johnson as we go here, I think proceed without her presence. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Johnson, before we? No, sir. All right. Please rise. Bring the jury has been informed that you have reached a verdict. If that is true, I'd have the foreman. Please rise and give the verdict form to Mr. Weaver. The BFF. All right. Thank you, Mr. Weaver. Uh, can the foreperson please rise and announce the verdict? Guilty. Guilty across the board. But we'll see. She wants some sh through the whole thing or, uh, typically there's no set way to do it, but typically you could say in the People of the State of Michigan versus, and then on one count, what the verdict is. In count two, and the People of the United States versus Shanda Van Ark. Mean, People of the State of Michigan, correct? Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. United States will be federal. Of Michigan versus Shanda Vander Ark. Count one, charging open murder involving the death of Timothy Ferguson. We find her guilty of first-degree felony murder. Count two, first-degree child abuse. We find her guilty of first-degree child abuse. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Court will record the verdict for the record. Mr. Johnson, would you like the jury polled? Please. All right. All right. I believe they're all gonna say that that is their verdict. I'm not surprised. The evidence was clear. Her own son that she had do a lot of things that she told him to. There were text messages, and even in the defense's opening, they said, "We're not going to have a lot of like a good reason." They did not bring in, to my understanding, they did not bring in a mental health expert to testify that she was dissociating, or she didn't put up like an insanity defense. None of that was there. And so the bringing up of dissociation and her own mental health, that seemed to be, and like people in my comment said, the way that she talked about Timothy, it's just, I hope for justice, and I'm glad that in this case, it does look like Timothy will get justice.

And for sentencing, I'm not exactly sure what she's facing in the state of Michigan, but this is first-degree, and so, and then that felony child, and so I'm thinking it's going to be quite a bit of time. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you so much for watching. And if there's a case that you would like for me to follow, let me know. And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.