To Chrissie's psychologist:

I have decided to, once again, make my blog public. Because we were going to court, I decided to make it private so that the defense would not have any "ammo" against me if we went to trial.

Chrissie Clark's psychologist pointed out in court yesterday that both she and Chrissie spent some time reading my blog until they were no longer able to do so. I hope she will try to read it again. I need to address something she said in her statement:

Back on 12/3/07, I posted a blog here.

I openly stated that Stephen's blood alcohol content was .05, so he had in fact consumed alcohol that night. We were all aware he had done so. Her psychologist in court said "two young people made bad decisions that night." She made us look like hypocrites talking about how Chrissie chose to drink and drive when Stephen did the same thing. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Here is how the 2 differ:

Chrissie was a underage, and the limit for a MINOR for intoxocation legally is .02. Her blood alcohol (1 hour after the wreck) content was .227. That is 11 times the legal limit for a MINOR. She wasn't having a couple drinks. She was getting wasted. She was at the limit that most people need to seek medical attention. The fact that she was even able to have the hand-eye coordination to get the key into the ignition boggles my mind!

Now, Stephen was a responsible adult. He was on a date and had a couple of drinks at DINNER, where he ate a MEAL, 4 hours before getting onto his motorcycle. For the next 3 hours he drank nothing but water. Even the medical examiner told us "it was 0.05, but don't worry, that's nothing. He was not intoxicated." He was below the legal limit of intoxication. That's why the limit is 0.08. I know that if Stephen was as impaired as Chrissie was, he never would have gotten on his motorcycle that night, and his date wouldn't have ever let him leave either.

These are two VERY DIFFERENT scenarios. Stephen was not on trial yesterday, and frankly, neither was Chrissie. She had already said she did it. There was no reason to even bring it up. But we all knew about it. And everyone in the courtroom who mattered knows the limits of the law and knew who was at fault.