[Bodymind] In response to Madamba family’s lawyer

This is an open letter to Joseph Noel Estrada, lawyer of the Madamba family, in response to his article ‘In pursuit of justice for Liam Madamba’ 

Dear Atty Estrada,

Thank you very much for your response to my column via a letter to the editor.  This could have opened the issue to even more debate, which is a very good thing indeed. (READ: In pursuit of justice for Liam Madamba)

I am, however, rather surprised at the Dr-Jekyll-Mr-Hyde tone of your letter, where you occasionally sound like a lawyer and then much more often veer off into false dichotomies, argumentum ad absurdum and some rather spiteful ad hominem accusations. I had hoped for arguments based on reason and logic rather than the generalizations without basis, innuendo and Pollyanna feel-good statements you seem particularly fond of.

Since many of the accusations against my column are moot – which you would have realized had you really read my letter more carefully – I shall just respond to your most egregious ones, ok? 

In paragraph 2 (P2) of your letter you say: “The claim of lack of impartiality on the part of Senator Osmeña..is clearly misplaced.”

Are you therefore suggesting that it is all right for Senator Osmeña to be partial because the hearing was not in the nature of an adversarial proceeding? I would think that makes Sen Osmena’s behavior even more shameful.

In response to Ps4 and 5: “Mrs Trixie Madamba appeared…as mother of Liam…in so far as how Liam lived his life is concerned, no expert testimony may be more important than the testimony of his own mother…the testimony of Mrs Madamba should be given importance, more than the lecture of a professional.” 

I disagree. Please re-read my column where the reasons are set out clearly.

It is also disingenuous of you to describe what Mr Penalosa might have contributed as a “lecture,”  especially since there was no indication he intended to lecture. 

You say: “…(there is) nothing wrong for Mrs Madamba to see everything that has happened in the “prism of her own sorrow.”

If you had read my previous column, you would realize that I agree wholeheartedly, and have already said so myself.

However, to use a mother’s grief as the sole basis to determine any broader issue is ludicrous.  

Perhaps, your practice has insulated you from the gritty realities of life, but I also disagree with your statement that “(t)here’s nothing more sincere and genuine than the candid statements of a grieving mother.” 

This would work well in a speech on Mother’s Day, but in a letter trying to prove my bias?

In response to P6: “Dr Holmes questions the behavior of the senators in allegedly giving preferential treatment to Mrs Madamba……Would she have preferred that the senators badger Mrs Trixie Madamba and stop her testimony about her son, Liam? (Italics yours).” 

Not only is this an example of argumentum ad absurdum. This is clearly a false dichotomy. 

Don’t you think the better option would have been for Senator Osmena to treat Mr Mann, Penalosa, etc with as much respect and civility as he did Mrs Madamba?  After all, as you yourself so clearly pointed out (which I am glad you did, because I would not have guessed it from his behavior) the hearing was not adversarial in nature.  

In P9 you ask: “How about Dr Holmes, what is her motivation for criticizing Mrs. Madamba and discrediting the Senate hearing? Is she a party in interest here? Is she a BSM parent?”

I am not a mother, aunt, distant cousin (as far as I know) of a BSM student; although I must admit to feel complimented (even as I fear your intention was the exact opposite) that a 65-year-old grandmother like myself should be mistaken for one.

I cannot help wondering: Is your experience of humankind really so limited that the only possible explanation for my criticizing Senator Osmena’s behavior is that I may be getting something personal out of this? You seem unable to comprehend that ordinary Filipinos can be so outraged by unprofessional and unethical behavior that they would react even if they had nothing to gain.   

In P10, you say: “Dr Holmes defended Natalie Mann against the claim of Mrs Madamba that her behavior was the reason Liam decided to end his own life. She even had the temerity to ask, “Where is the proof of that?”

In paragraph 11 you answer your own question: “Right now there is none.”

Doesn’t the temerity lie more with you, Atty Estrada, a lawyer, who indignantly asks why I ask “Where is the proof of that?” when clearly you have no proof at all?

You continue: “Where is Natalie Mann? Why did she flee the country hastily?” 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never met Ms Mann or communicated with her. 

But I cannot help being involved when I see her – also a young mother who, I imagine, worries about the impact being labeled a child killer would have on her own children – being demonized and pilloried in the press without proof. 

Tell me, Atty Estrada, if even you, a person as steeped in the law as you supposedly are, can forget the “innocent until proven guilty” maxim and instead immediately jump on the bandwagon and say, in so many words, that her leaving the country is proof of her guilt, what chance do we have of a fair trial? If Senators Osmena and Marcos can behave as shamelessly as they did during the Senate hearing with such impunity, wouldn’t you leave the country if you were Mrs Mann, especially after the death threats she received? What chance does she have for justice when the very people expected (and occasionally hired) to uphold the law behave like this? 

In P12 you ask what my basis is for saying Issabella wrote a more “rational”but “accurate report”of what happened on February 6. 

My basis is – sigh – as already set out in my column. I read Issabella’s letter so I know whereof I speak. If Senator Osmena had behaved more correctly and allowed the letter to be read out loud, other people would have had the opportunity to decide for themselves whether Ms Ver’s report was, indeed, what I say it was. 

Again I exhort you, Atty Estrada, please read the column you are criticizing.

In P14 where you say “Liam was forced to end his life.”

What evidence is there for this? Is there a legal definition for “force” that I do not know about? Or is this, once more, merely pseudo-legal hyperbole?

(Note to other readers: I apologize profusely for constantly referring to my column but, unless Atty Estrada does better research, remembers what I actually wrote more clearly, feels some compunction about telling the truth, etc. I am afraid I have no choice.)

Finally, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your ad hominem remarks.

People may wonder why I should thank you for writing “I suggest that she stick to the subject matter she is popularly known for, which is sex therapy, and get her hands off this case of Liam Madamba,” when it is mean-spirited and patently untrue.

Two reasons:

This gives me a chance to help people who bandy about concepts like sex therapy but seem to have no real understanding of it.

I am sure you have heard of the cliché: “The most important sex organ is that between your ears, not between your legs.” That is because sex, like grief, love, jealousy, and anything else that arouses strong passion, all have to do with who and what you are as a fully integrated human being.    

It also gives me a chance to tell you about my accomplishments without seeming mayabang. ☺  

I have been interviewed by countless local TV and radio shows and also by CNN, Al Jazeera, and the BBC, regarding issues affecting our country and the world we live in. This includes topics like human sexuality, but are certainly not limited to it. 

I have contributed to two American textbooks: one admittedly on human sexuality, the other on cognitive psychology.  I also wrote the first book on clinical depression in the Philippines, Down to 1: Depression Stories (Anvil Publishing, 2010), which several professors use when supervising their students on their internships.

Even a cursory glance at my other Bodymind columns would show that I cover a wider range of topics than sex therapy. But then research, even at such a cursory level, does not seem your strong suit; shooting from the hip seems more your style. 

Perhaps why you seem to remember my contributions only in the sexual arena reveals more about you than me? 

For the avoidance of doubt, I welcome debate on the many issues surrounding Liam’s suicide. It has ramifications in the fields of education, psychology, mental health, etc.   

But please, Atty Estrada, next time come up with arguments worthy of the readers’ time and effort, full of reason and logic, that truly add something to the debate – and hopefully free of tedious and irrelevant  ad hominem accusations, false dichotomies, attempted character assassinations, and innuendos.

MG Holmes

– Rappler.com