Latest on Kate Parker

Per a comment I received on the last post, no I have not given up on following the case. There is just really nothing to post. We are at the mercy of the courts at this point. There have been a couple of court dates but those court dates have all had the type of case being “call” attached to them.

There was a court date yesterday that was another “call.”

The latest update to the court system site says she will have court on October 2, 2014 and it is listed as of right now as “hearing.”

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the terms associated with court nor am I familiar with how to find results of hearings or anything of that nature. I just look for public records and go with what I find.

This is the site where you can find future court dates.

Go to the Oregon e-court circuit calendars….

The county is Multnomah…..

Case number is…..140331212

And you have to change the *on or before date to within 90 days*


I am also attaching a screenshot of the page.

As soon as I get any new information I will definitely update.kate court


Just A Little Update

Actually there is nothing to update. Not sure when Kate’s next court date will be or anything else going on.

Just wanted to let everyone know that I haven’t forgotten about the blog just nothing to update on. When updates do start rolling in I will update the blog.

I am going to work on updating about the bail hearing as I forgot to do that.

Article on Dr. Monica Webhy’s Connection to the Parker Case

OregonLive and a couple other news outlets have published articles on Dr. Monica Webhy’s connection to the Parker case.

According to Kate’s writings, Dr. Webhy performed the operations related to these counts in the indictment, totaling 13 in all:

  • Count 1
  • Count 3
  • Count 4
  • Count 5
  • Count 6
  • Count 7
  • Count 8
  • Count 15
  • Count 16
  • Count 23
  • Count 24
  • Count 25
  • Count 26

Political analysts believe the Parker case could pose a serious problem for Dr. Webhy’s campaign, as she has been using her medical background to gain credibility among voters.

Pacific University government and elections professor Jim Moore told OregonLive that Dr. Webhy’s link to the Parker case, “raises questions about her judgment, and for the last 25 years voters have said judgment is very important…And remember, she’s not very well known in this state. She’s staking her whole campaign on her expertise in health care and her competence. So this is going to raise questions about the center of who she says she is…Because of the nature of these kinds of things, if she wins the primary, this is going to stretch out during the entire campaign.”

Notably, Kate’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 19, the day before the primary. But one of the prosecutors has said publicly that the trial date is expected to be pushed back.

Here’s the article on OregonLive:

Here’s the article on KOIN:

Article on Dr. Webhy’s Controversial Approach to Surgery has just published an article about one of the neurosurgeons involved in the Parker case, noting her reputation for performing surgeries when others would not. Dr. Monica Webhy (better known as Dr. W. among Kate’s readers) has reportedly been coming under fire for years for her controversial approach to tethered cord surgeries — an operation that Kate says was performed on Joshua on multiple occasions.

The article, titled ‘U.S. Senate candidate Monica Wehby draws critics, fans with surgery for urinary incontinence,” highlights Dr. Webhy’s history of “stirring controversy in the highly specialized world of pediatric neurosurgery.”

“Starting in the late 1990s, she advocated at pediatric neurosurgery gatherings for use of a well-known surgery on children even in instances where medical imaging didn’t clearly support doing so — but where other clues existed. Other surgeons suspected she was doing some surgeries unnecessarily, and without adequate basis, said Dr. Curtis Rozzelle,  a pediatric neurosurgeon for Children’s Hospital of Alabama,” the article explains.

But Dr. Webhy stands firm on her approach. According to the OregonLive article, “Wehby calls her tethered-cord advocacy her proudest professional achievement….Wehby defends her number of surgeries, saying it’s because she has become well-known among parents and urologists around the country. First, because she was more willing to do the surgery than others. And later, because she does it so well, using a tiny incision to lessen the risk and in just 20-30 minutes on an operating table.”

According to Kate’s writings, Dr. Webhy performed multiple surgeries on her children, including tethered cord surgeries.

Earlier in the investigation into this case, authorities indicated that they were closely examining the medical records in this case, but they hadn’t found any sign of wrong-doing on the part of the physicians. It’s unclear whether this is still the case, but to date, there have been no reports of charges or disciplinary actions  taken against any of the physicians involved in the Parker case.

Dr. Monica Webhy is currently running for a U.S. Senate seat.

Click here to read the article in its entirety.

Did Kate Alter Photos to Make Joshua Look Sicker?

Kate was very critical of McKmama for allegedly altering her photos.

But did Kate do the same?

An analysis of many images — particularly those taken when Joshua was said to be terminal — revealed that most had a blue/green cast and washed-out colors, which tend to make Joshua look unwell.

The blue/green cast is very apparent when the image is viewed side-by-side with a color-corrected version. We did not alter the saturation levels; only the color balance.

When color-corrected to remove the blue/green cast, Joshua’s coloring looks more normal, albeit rather pale.

Here are a few comparison images.


Joshua Color CorrectedJoshua Color Corrected

Note that the blue/green tint is not present in many older images from 2012 and earlier.


So did Kate alter Joshua’s images to make him look sicker?

We did examine the exif data on confirmed originals. Picasa — an image storage and editing program — was listed in the exif data. It’s possible she used this to edit the images or she may have simply exported the images without editing them. It’s impossible to know for certain.

So for now, the jury’s out on this one.

NOTE — One comparison image has been removed pending legal consult to ensure it’s covered under fair use doctrine.

Joshua’s MRIs

These MRIs were posted by Kate on a forum in July 2009.

The MRI scans were captured on June 30, 2009.

On the spinal MRI, you can see a clear defect in his lower back, so this does confirm a spina bifida diagnosis. It’s the site of Joshua’s spina bifida lesion where Kate mentions the presence of fluid, scar tissue and lipoma (a fatty tumor.) Fluid shows up as solid black on an MRI.

On the brain MRI, you can clearly see the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) surrounding the brain. The CSF appears as a strip of black between the brain and the skull, which appears white. Kate mentions reduced CSF flow at the back of his brain and it does appear that perhaps there is less CSF in that area, but it’s difficult to perform an accurate layman’s comparison due to the angle of his head (his head is tipped back, whereas other sample MRIs had a more normal orientation.)

There are some comparison MRIs at the end. So you can see Joshua’s scans compared to a normal scan and a chiari malformation MRI compared to a healthy brain MRI.

On July 1, 2009, Kate wrote, in part:

In my nonprofessional opinion, his brain looks similar to his last scan on Feb. 20th, but his back has a lot more scar tissue and lipoma than back in February. The good news is that he doesn’t have a huge collection of fluid outside his spine like he did back in February, so I *think* the leaks he had repaired in April are finally sealed over. Again, I don’t know for sure ~ those are my guesses ~ so I’ll see what the radiologist & neurosurgeon have to say (we see her tomorrow)…


Spinal MRI With Notations

…I got the radiologist’s report on Joshua’s MRIs. In a nutshell, the report says there is reduced CSF flow at the back of Joshua’s brain where the skull meets the neck, which is not a good thing (technical speak: “CINE imaging shows restricted CSF pulsations through the posterior aspect of the foramen magnum.”) Will it be significant enough that Dr. Wehby wants to do something about it? I don’t know yet. I’ll find that out tomorrow.


Joshua Brain MRI

…The spine MRI showed significant scarring & lipomatous tissue with a low-lying conus (tip of the spinal cord ~ it’s supposed to be at the level of L1 and Joshua’s is pulled down to the sacral level right now). There is no movement of the spinal cord during CINE imaging (it’s supposed to move; the fact that it didn’t means the cord is stretched tight, which is obviously not a good thing). Again, I don’t know if this will concern Dr. Wehby enough to want to do something about it at this time. I’ll report on that tomorrow.

For comparison purposes, we obtained “normal” spinal and brain MRIs and put them side by side for a comparison. The angle on the brain MRI is a bit different so it’s difficult to determine if the differences are due to a structural abnormality or the angle/positioning.

Brain MRI Comparison Spine MRI Comparison
Normal MRI vs Chiari MRI

April 24th Family Court Date

On Thursday, April 24, 2014, the Parkers were in family court in Grant’s Pass.

Kate was in court for the proceedings via phone.

According to the docket, this hearing was for a motion to reconsider judgment of disposition. A disposition is the settlement or final ruling on a case, so this motion is essentially asking the judge to reconsider whatever decision was made previously concerning the children’s placement.

This hearing involved the placement of Isaac, Emily, David and Sarah. Bethany and Joshua were not on the docket.

Here’s a link to the docket.

Reliable sources indicated that the Parkers had reportedly planned to plead “no contest” at the prior court hearing; the proceeding that is at the root of this motion to reconsider judgment of disposition. But notably, we have not been able to independently confirm what, if any, plea was entered at that prior court appearance. We’re also working on determining the outcome of this latest court proceeding.

A “no contest” plea essentially means  that the individual is not admitting guilt, but they are in essence admitting that the state has sufficient evidence to win the case.