Chapter 17 - GWENDOLYN ON TRIAL
The courtroom did not resemble television.
Too much waiting.
Sidebars.
Evidence objections.
Medication charts.
Email headers.
The prosecution began with the cleaner.
Simple.
I testified.
“What did you see?”
“My wife pouring dirty floor-cleaning water into Florence’s mouth.”
“What did she say?”
“Tell me what the floor cleaner tastes like.”
“What did you do?”
“I took the pitcher and slapped Gwendolyn once.”
“Why?”
“To stop what I believed was an immediate assault.”
“Did you strike her again?”
“No.”
“Did you shave her hair?”
“No.”
That mattered because another recent family story had involved clippers; this one did not. Here, the violence was one defensive slap and then separation.
Defense cross-examined.
“You were angry.”
“Yes.”
“You hate your wife now.”
“I filed for divorce.”
“You stand to benefit if she is convicted.”
“Emotionally maybe. Financially the divorce is separate.”
Some courtroom laughter.
Judge stopped it.
Florence testified by video accommodation because standing long periods was difficult.
Gwendolyn’s lawyer asked whether she disliked Gwendolyn before moving in.
“Yes.”
“Called her irresponsible?”
“Yes.”
“Criticized spending?”
“Yes.”
“Told her Lucas should not pay her business debt?”
“Yes.”
“You wanted their marriage to fail.”
Florence paused.
“No.”
“Did you ever tell Lucas to leave her?”
“No.”
True.
Then:
“Did you sometimes refuse medication?”
“Yes.”
“Throw pills?”
“Once.”
“Throw a glass?”
“Yes.”
“Insult Gwendolyn?”
“Yes.”
“What did you call her?”
Florence looked embarrassed.
“A peacock with a credit card.”
I closed my eyes.
The courtroom almost laughed again.
The judge gave them a look.
None of that justified abuse.
Still relevant to caregiver-conflict context.
Gwendolyn testified.
Against advice, apparently.
She admitted the cleaner incident.
Said she “snapped.”
Denied intending serious harm.
Admitted redirecting mail “to keep documents organized.”
Denied financial theft.
Admitted wanting Florence found incompetent because she believed decisions were irrational.
Admitted adjusting medication.
“How?”
“Within what I thought doctors allowed.”
The prosecutor showed Dr. Crane’s message:
Do not alter medication for evaluation.
Gwendolyn’s face changed.
Then:
“Why did you write ‘2 tabs night before, 1 morning’?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Why did Florence’s blood show elevated sedative?”
“I don’t know.”
“Why did your security video show you replacing pills?”
“She had mixed them.”
“With pills from your pocket?”
“I had organized them earlier.”
Possible.
Weak.
Then the POA.
Mail.
Consulting fee.
Forged signature.
The prosecution asked:
“Was Lake Arden Lucas’s?”
“I believed it should be.”
“Was it?”
“No.”
“Did Florence owe it to him?”
Gwendolyn cried.
“I thought she did.”
There.
She built abuse on entitlement to property that legally belonged elsewhere.
The jury convicted her of elder abuse, assault involving the cleaner, financial exploitation, mail-related identity fraud, document falsification, and medication tampering.
It acquitted her of one aggravated poisoning count requiring proof she intended serious bodily injury through drugs.
The evidence supported impairment.
Not beyond reasonable doubt that she intended grave poisoning.
Correct distinction.
She was also acquitted of one theft count because Arden Ridge advances were legally paid to her business despite the unethical arrangement.
Not every ugly dollar was stolen.
Her sentence combined imprisonment, supervised release, restitution, and restrictions on serving as caregiver or fiduciary for vulnerable adults.
Substantial.
Not life.
Before sentencing, I submitted a statement.
May you like
“She did not abuse Florence because Florence was helpless. She worked to make Florence more helpless because control was useful.”
That was the truth.
