Scotty Kidnapped: Hawaii

The Pause That Refreshes

This adventure is just getting started! I have tens of thousands of pages in research materials. There's more to come, promise. Our goal is to reveal things that, while completely worthwhile, didn't necessarily make it into the book. Please be patient while I refill the pipeline!

Scotty Kidnapped: Hawaii

I start this episode with a question: Is it possible for someone to kidnap their own child? Now, of course, the answer is “yes.” It even has a name. Or multiple names. Depending on the jurisdiction, it’s considered custodial interference. Or abduction. Or, sometimes, just plain kidnapping. But… There’s always a but. Depending on where you look, the question starts to get muddy. Immediately so. And, if you go back far enough, you can find almost anything… Here, for instance, is a passage from a famed English legal scholar, William Blackstone’s Commentaries, a refuge for anyone seeking a backward-looking view of reality. "The legal power of a father – for a mother, as such, is entitled to no power, but only to reverence and respect; the power of a father, I say, over the persons of his children ceases at the age of twenty-one: for they are then enfranchised by arriving at years of discretion, or that point which the law has established, as some must necessarily be established, when the empire of the father, or other guardian, gives place to the empire of reason. Yet, till that age arrives, this empire of the father continues even after his death; for he may by his will appoint a guardian to his children." In his authoritative pronouncement on English law, William Blackstone describes custody of children under the age of twenty-one as "the empire of the father." No one else need bother. That, my friends, is patriarchy at its finest.

One Year On

One year on, the Muriel Pfeil murder had birthed two parallel investigations. One, of course, was the investigation into Muriel’s murder. The second was the inquiry into Neil Mackay’s fitness to assume custody of Scotty Mackay. And fitness was the operative word. Muriel had already set the ground rules by openly declaring Neil Mackay unfit for parenthood. But both investigations were fraught. And it was sometimes hard to say which brought the bigger circus. The custody case was itself a growing cast of characters. Scotty’s lawyer. Scotty’s maternal aunt and uncle. His maternal grandmother. Scotty’s paternal aunt and uncle, with whom he now lived. His father, a controlling presence, always lurking, always fighting, one gladiator after another. As one of the psychiatrists on the case noted, “Scotty has more than seven parent figures in his life right now. That’s too much for a child.” He added, “it’s amazing he isn’t a basket case by now,” adding that the child has been moved around so much he began carrying his suitcase with him to breakfast. Neil Mackay’s biggest obsession – other than his son – was the money being expended on Robert Wagstaff – his legal representative during the custody process. Well, not just that. Wagstaff also wanted the experts to weigh in on Mackay’s fitness for parenthood AND also hear from anyone who could speak to Muriel Pfeil’s homicide. The latter was a reach, and Wagstaff knew it. He also knew it would make him few friends among the Neil Mackay partisans. He said it anyway. Even put it in writing. “Whether or not Neil S. Mackay was involved in the death of Muriel Pfeil, or who else might be involved,” Wagstaff told the court, “is relevant to the best interests of Scotty Mackay, here being litigated.” At a minimum, he was convinced Neil Mackay was not fit to have custody of his son. That his condition – make that conditions, plural – was not temporary. In Wagstaff’s estimation, Mackay would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. And he only wanted one thing. Scotty. The animosities were mutual. Mackay said Wagstatt was in “fairyland, that he lived in a “make-believe world.” Neil Mackay also thought – was convinced – that he’d identified Wagstaff’s core motivation. Was also convinced it that underlying motivation was sufficient to get Wagstaff off the case. Now that’s animosity. Here he is, spreading the love, early on in their “relationship.” Mr. Wagstaff knows just as well as everyone else that the bottom line of this proceeding is the estate of Muriel A. Pfeil, deceased. There are assets available. Wagstaff is not adverse to make material misrepresentations to any court and he is not adverse to withhold information which would be to the benefit of Scotty . In fact, Mr. Wagstaff is not adverse to do anything so long as he can make money at it. Mr. Wagstaff has a money-making machine so long as he is the attorney for Scotty. Simply stated , he is not representing the best interests of Scotty; if he were. he would certainly be protecting Scotty's rights rather than hiding behind a bush. Mackay was just getting started. His aim here was to permanently remove Robert Wagstaff from Scotty’s care. Remove all obstacles was his theme song. One sometimes got the sense that he'd been singing this song for quite awhile.

In The Courts

One of the biggest challenges – risks? – of writing about true-crime are the parts that dig deep into the legal process. I’m thinking of a comment someone made about an early version of my book, “What Happened In Craig.” The comment? “The trial was boring.” Problem was, there were two trials in that book! Unfortunately, in this episode I’m about to go there again. Into the minutia of the legal process, that is. Because wouldn’t you know it… for all the horror of Muriel Pfeil’s stunning homicide, the first place to see any “action” related to her murder was… an affidavit filed in the court by Neil Sutherland Mackay on October 7, 1976, seeking to modify his custody and visitation rights. This affidavit was all about Neil Pfeil Mackay. Also known as… Scotty. His son. By October 14, 1976, the case of Muriel Adele Mackay, Plaintiff versus Neil S. Mackay, Defendant, had been assigned to Judge Allen T. Compton. Seems mundane and strange all at once. After all, everyone knows Muriel is dead. But remember: child custody is never far from the forefront here. In an act of judicial courtesy, however, Judge Compton contacted Scotty’s father, Neil, and told him he’d been assigned to his case or, actually, cases plural. As part of that communication Judge Compton told Mackay that he was going to appoint a guardian ad litem for Scotty. That is, provide Scotty with his own legal representative, independent of anyone representing Neil Mackay or his uncle, Robert Pfeil. It wasn’t long before Compton received a telephone call from Neil Mackay. In a letter to the presiding judge, Compton memorialized that phone call as follows: Shortly after I arrived at home late that morning, I received a telephone call from Mr. Mackay. He advised me that he was going to exercise his right to peremptorily challenge me in the above referenced cases... He was somewhat concerned about the timeliness of the challenge and asked that I honor the “informal request,” since that is allowed by the rule.  Timeliness. That was the official reason. As in, Mackay did not want to wait any longer. Let me say that, over time, the timeliness rationale revealed itself to be something of a Trojan Horse. It is also my sense, based on emerging evidence, that the term “Guardian Ad Litem” scared the hell out of Neil Mackay. I say that because the next judge, the replacement judge, made good on the promise to provide Scotty with his own legal representation. Neil Mackay fought that appointment with every tool in his toolkit. But of course, in the immediate instance, Mackay did not know what the future held. https://lelandhale.com/wordpress/days-in-court/

What About Scotty?

You have no doubt noticed that Scotty has… sort of disappeared from our narrative. Yeah, you know, the “adults in the room” have taken over. Not that he has been forgotten. In fact, he’s at the center of things. But in that odd “he’ just a child” sort of way. With that said, I can add this: At this point in our story, Scotty is a mess. Here’s what psychiatrist Dr. Barry Mendelsohn -- someone who’d examined him previously – here’s what said of Scotty after he examined him in the days and months Muriel’s death: “A major area of anxiety [for Scotty] is in relation to the loss of [his] mother. He has a strong sense of loss and a magical expectation that his mother will return. He has a desire to join his mother.” There’s more: “Scotty showed anxiety in his play with other children. Anxiety over dirty play – in dirt. Anxiety relating to the death of his mother… Some anxiety in his play. Playroom sessions – direct play. Would play games, drawing and sand tray technique. Done with little direction. It’s a useful tool. Usually say, ‘what would you like to do.’ And this was a play activity he liked.” Mendelsohn continues: [He] played in playroom with a castle. He knocked everything down, said, “things are bombed and on fire.” Things are bombed and on fire. [A] child of this age ascribes causation to self. [The] notoriety of this case – Scotty listens for his name on TV and feels a great deal of responsibility. [The] absence of his father is seen as something, “I did.” Children of this age mirror what is going on around them. [Scotty is a] confused child. Mendelsohn felt compelled to add some qualifiers. As in… “Statements by Scotty not always a reflection of the way Scotty feels. He’s open to what people say to him. He’s searching for stability. There are discrepancies in terms of his behavior. We’re into the area of what people do to confuse small children. These [things he is saying] are feelings of Mackay. Mackay is egocentric – he has clear ideas about people.” And then there was this. Said because Dr. Mendelsohn had seen Scotty before. Had seen him during the divorce. Before the murder. “He hasn’t always been this way. I first met him in 1974 – his health was good. Initially his health was good – before his mother’s death.” Blog Page: https://lelandhale.com/wordpress/what-about-scotty/