Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: child molestation Indiana

  1. #1

    Default child molestation Indiana

    I hope someone can help me here. I have a friend who has another friend, we will call Alice. Alice divorced her husband about 5 years ago when her oldest daughter (she was almost 4 at the time) told her that her daddy was touching her. The girls are 6 and 9 now. The judge in the divorce case told Alice that she was coercing her daughter into saying it. Between then and now she has gone to child protective services a couple of times for it and they have never found anything. Just yesterday both of her girls told her that he has been doing it again. Alice took the girls back to CPS and they told her that them saying that he is touching them is not enough evidence because there is not proof that he is getting sexual gratification from it. I don't understand this. There is no reason that he should be touching them down there at all. They are obviously too old to be in diapers or anything like that. Alice is going to go file a police report, but isn't there something that can be done? Isn't CPS there to protect the kids? Both of them told my friend that they are scared to go over there anymore. Please someone give me some advice to give them. These girls have got to be protected.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I don't have much advice on it but I hope that they help those girls. If they talk to the cops and tell them everything, they probably will do something. Sometimes CPS doesn't care or too busy or whatever. The cops might just give all the info to CPS, and like I said, sometimes they don't care. But, I hope they will help those girls.

  3. #3

    Default

    Does anyone have any advice for me on this? I really want to keep these girls out of harm. Alice is going today to the juvenile court to try and get a temporary protective order on the girls until there is a court date. But, what is going to happen at court? Will they then do a more detailed investigation?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swteyez View Post
    Does anyone have any advice for me on this? I really want to keep these girls out of harm. Alice is going today to the juvenile court to try and get a temporary protective order on the girls until there is a court date. But, what is going to happen at court? Will they then do a more detailed investigation?
    The children should have been put into counseling when the mother FIRST found out about this! The counselor would have been able to help figure out what was going on and if the children should be kept from the father...The counselors opinion would have gone a long way w/CPS also...

    Get these children into counseling right away!!
    Please Note: My "warm and fuzzy" font is not working, therefor my posts will be direct and to the point.

    Thank you in advance for your anticipated understanding.

    Bay

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ohio via tx
    Posts
    7,662

    Default

    From experience here....

    1. The mother should not talk to the children about this AT ALL. (I know it seems to completely contradict the mother's place, but trust me on this one.) If the children bring it up, she should reassure them that she is taking them to a wonderful person who can help and that they can tell this person everything. She should be honest that she is not the best person to help them with this, she KNOWS she isn't, and therefore, is taking them to somebody that can and will.

    2. The children need to IMMEDIATELY be evaluated by a trained (preferrably forensic) professional whose emphasis of treatment is child sexual abuse. This will take more than one visit.

    3. CPS needs to re-interview the children alone.

    4. If the psychologist does find any evidence of sexual abuse, a copy of his findings needs to be presented to CPS (and the mother needs a copy for herself to present in court).

    5. BOTH parents need to both submit to forensic psycholgical evaluations to rule out or in, as the case may be, any coersion on either parents' part.

    6. She can attempt to get a restraining order, but at this point with CPS not having any findings to support the allegations, it is going to be a long shot. She is better off finding anyone to supervise the visitation. If nothing else, the children need to stay together at all times during visitation. If during visitation, he does anything inappropriate, the 9 year old (and possibly the 6 year old) is old enough to understand how to call 911. If she doesn't know how, she needs to be taught TODAY.

    Everybody tells children to tell someone when they are being abused. Nobody tells the adults that the worst thing they can do is talk to the children and get details from them. It's a nasty, vicious cycle. If so many parents didn't make up false accusations (and I am not saying that is what this mother is doing) for their own gain, this problem wouldn't exist.

    Oh, one more thing. If the doctors or the case worker asks the mother any questions WITH THE CHILDREN PRESENT, she should absolutely refuse to answer until the children are removed from the room and hearing.
    Last edited by mommyof4; 06-28-2007 at 06:51 AM.
    HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
    How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
    (unique up on him)
    How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
    (same way)

  6. #6

    Default Thank you

    Thank you so much for your replies.

    Babystategirl, the oldest child has been in counseling for this since the beginning of it. I don't know if the mother knew she could use anything the counselor finds out or not. She has already made appointments for both of the girls now to get in next week again.

    Mommy, thank you so much for your advice. I will make sure I give it all to the mother. I don't know if the children have been told to call 911 if it happens. I do know the oldest one has told the youngest one before not to say anything or else daddy will go to jail. Which makes it extremely hard, but I think the oldest one has now come to the reality that what he is doing is not right.

    Again, thank you both. I will keep you updated on anything that happens.

  7. #7
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default More than it appears

    Be very careful of claiming the sky is falling. When ex spouses and divorce is involved, often times there is more than meets the eye. There are more possible scenario's than most ever consider and too often jump on the hysteria of there being a child abuse epidemic. WWW.pathlights.com/are_experts_reliable.htm
    The above web site can better explain this issue than I can, but I can vouch for its truthfulness. Children do lie and will play one parent against the other. Vindictive X's can be very cruel too. Not to say abuse doesn't happen, but one needs to be very cautious and patient before supporting an allegation without evidence. A father has as much right to touch his child as a mother. There are circumstances when children are of a young age a parents care might be required and has nothing to do with being sexual. Media and know it all teachers often are not qualified to teach children the difference of a good or bad touch.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ohio via tx
    Posts
    7,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saxxyman View Post
    Be very careful of claiming the sky is falling. When ex spouses and divorce is involved, often times there is more than meets the eye. There are more possible scenario's than most ever consider and too often jump on the hysteria of there being a child abuse epidemic. WWW.pathlights.com/are_experts_reliable.htm
    The above web site can better explain this issue than I can, but I can vouch for its truthfulness. Children do lie and will play one parent against the other. Vindictive X's can be very cruel too. Not to say abuse doesn't happen, but one needs to be very cautious and patient before supporting an allegation without evidence. A father has as much right to touch his child as a mother. There are circumstances when children are of a young age a parents care might be required and has nothing to do with being sexual. Media and know it all teachers often are not qualified to teach children the difference of a good or bad touch.
    This thread was dead.

    At age 9, there is NO good reason for anyone (other than a doctor during an acceptable physical examination WITH a nurse in the room) should be "touching" a child's genitals. NONE.
    HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
    How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
    (unique up on him)
    How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
    (same way)

  9. #9
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Was Dead

    You said it not me. I decided to reopen it and you read it, so guess it isn't closed is it? Also is that the best response you have? Obviously you didn't check out the web sites, before you responded. Concerning the remainder of your comment, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

  10. #10
    FlyinHawk
    Guest

    Default

    First of all your link doesn't even work.

    Second if you think its ok for someone to touch a child on their genitals, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

    And responding to a dead thread where the OP is not likely to come back and read it was the point of saying it is closed. If you have a legal question start your own thread.

  11. #11
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default ????

    I suppose if your wife did not help or teach good hygiene and the 2 -4 year old children need bathing and were raw because of rash.
    1 rash from diapers not changed
    2 raw due to circumcision not enough skin removed
    3 Dr suggested keeping it clean and applying ointment to keep the skin from sticking.
    You would just let your children go uncared for? Excuse me, but you are the one sick. This is in no way sexual. You liberal know it all are truly delusional and in complete panic by media induced hysteria! It is no wonder so many are falsely accused and convicted.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ohio via tx
    Posts
    7,662

    Default

    If you have a 9 year old with a diaper rash, there are some pretty big issues going on in that kid's life. Reread the original post. The children were 9 and 6.
    HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
    How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
    (unique up on him)
    How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
    (same way)

  13. #13
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Perhaps you should reread

    Quote Originally Posted by mommyof4 View Post
    If you have a 9 year old with a diaper rash, there are some pretty big issues going on in that kid's life. Reread the original post. The children were 9 and 6.
    She states the children are 6 & 9 NOW the original incident was 5 years ago. True enough those kids should be out of diapers, but often times children do not bathe very well and need assistance and training. FOLLOW CLOSELY but no touching in a sexual way. Does that mean you ignore a child's privates if they are not getting the area clean or should they be taught? The comments about the 2-4 year olds were about my own personal experience and false allegations.
    Perhaps reading up on PAS and SAID syndromes will shed some light on the subject. Authorities (PROFESSIONALS) said she was coaching the children in their findings. True enough no child deserves to be abused, but isn't false accusations abuse also? That is what the professionals were suggesting, but yet the issue is still going on, but no psychical evidence? How gullible has or society become by the mere mention of child abuse? Have we forgotten innocent till proven guilty? Guess not in this specific area of our justice system and society it is guilty as charged. Are we back in Salem hunting for witches?
    Children of this age are very gullible and impressionable. Easy to coach and brain wash. Read up on the syndromes above. Does this make me right ? Certainly not. Does this make her right? Certainly not. All I am saying is the senieros are endless, but by her own admission, I question its validity. I think she is a sore looser and is shopping for a friendly forum.

  14. #14
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Helpless?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyinHawk View Post
    First of all your link doesn't even work.

    Second if you think its ok for someone to touch a child on their genitals, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

    And responding to a dead thread where the OP is not likely to come back and read it was the point of saying it is closed. If you have a legal question start your own thread.
    If the link didn't work, can't you type in the root web site address? It is still working fine. Perhaps you need another computer.

  15. #15
    FlyinHawk
    Guest

    Default

    Yes because I just have soo many other computers lying around for when links don't work on this one.

  16. #16
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Please

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyinHawk View Post
    Yes because I just have soo many other computers lying around for when links don't work on this one.
    Strange how mine can pull it up and yours won't.

  17. #17
    FlyinHawk
    Guest

    Default

    Perhaps you typed it wrong, because I tried every way to get to that page.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  18. #18
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Here is what mine brought up

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyinHawk View Post
    Perhaps you typed it wrong, because I tried every way to get to that page.
    Original web address....www.pathlights.com/are_experts_realiable.htm
    *** NOTE*** The end paragraphs left off too allow post.Also Spaces eliminated to allow room for post

    Pathlights Home / Creation/Evolution Encyclopedia / Natural Remedies Encyclopedia / Dangers of Abortion / Bible Courses / Books to Read / Gleanings / Shadduck / Links
    Facts and Transcripts that Tell the Truth About Many
    CHILD MOLESTATION CASES
    1. Has a child been molested?
    2. Why Children Lie in Court
    3. The McMartin Preschool Witch' Hunt
    4. Victims of Child Abuse Laws
    5. Learning from the McMartin Hoax
    Has a child been molested?
    A psychiatrist argues for reforms in the way child sexual abuse cases are investigated.
    by Lee Coleman, M.D. Berkeley psychiatrist, Lee Coleman. M.D., wrote about the use of psychiatry in the courtroom in his 1984 book ‘The Reign of Error’.
    “Innocent until proven guilty." It's a sacred principle of our legal system, and one we have for the most part lived up to. Until recently, that is. In the past few years we have abandoned this principle in cases of alleged child sexual abuse. Particularly noteworthy in such cases is the cozy relationship between law enforcement and psychiatry. Police and prosecutors have traditionally thumbed their noses at psychiatry, but now these former enemies are dedicated allies in the war on child sexual abuse. The tools of psychiatry may not be worth much when it comes to men’s realms, but they are reliable (so the argument seems to go) when it comes to determining if a child has been molested and finding out who did it.
    Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of our handling of such cases--and the single most important reason the system is doing a terrible job at getting at the truth—is the direct importation into investigations and court proceedings of the idea that "children don't lie about sexual abuse."
    Where did investigators get such an idea? From the "experts” in hundreds of workshops for police, protective service workers and prosecutors, the leading lights from psychiatry, psychology and social work are training investigators to believe that when it comes to alleged sexual abuse, the child's statements are unimpeachable.
    Ignored at such workshops is the fact that the experts developed their ideas by studying incest in intact families, while the major arena of false allegations is divorce/custody battles. In the former the child may be pressured to drop a true accusation, but in the latter the pressure may go the other way to "remember" something that never happened. The young child may easily be led to the point of sincerely believing in things that did not take place.
    Armed, nonetheless, with the belief that under no circumstances would a child claim to have been molested unless it were true, child protection agencies are ready to send a child for "therapy" before any kind of thorough investigation has been done. Even worse, those interviewing a child allegedly molested (whether investigators or therapists) frequently manipulate the child. They do so because they do not take very seriously the possibility of a false allegation. Let us look at why this is happening.
    If "children don't lie" about sexual abuse, then it follows that a child may be asked leading and suggestive questions about possible molestation, urged to pretend with dolls, and rewarded for statements indicating abuse, with no danger that a child may stray from the truth. Any denials of abuse merely indicate that the "yukky secrets" are hard to tell and that the abuser must have threatened the child into silence.
    As a result of such thinking, the "sensitive and caring" professional pushes even harder until the child complies and offers up information about sexual exploitation. My own study of audio and videotaped interviews with children indicates that this is how the claptrap about "satanic cults" and murders has surfaced in places like Jordan, Minnesota, Bakersfield, and the McMartin Pre-School in Manhattan Beach.
    Three possibilities
    If it is not true that children never "lie" about sexual abuse, it is true that such a thing is rather unlikely. But this misses the point. When it comes to a child's statements about sexual victimization, there are not two possibilities—lying or telling the truth—but three. A child may be neither lying nor telling the truth. A child, particularly a very young one, may say what he or she believes is true, even though it is not the truth.
    At first blush, this seems a rather unlikely possibility, to say the least. A child believes in sexual abuse, which has not taken place? I would certainly be skeptical of such an idea if I hadn't had a chance to see how children are being manipulated by adult interviewers, sometimes by a police officer or protective service worker, sometimes by a mental health professional—who have been trained to believe that those who really care and are sufficiently skilled at their work will help the child talk about sexual abuse.
    Consider what such methodology does to a case in which the child has been manipulated before the police or child protection worker arrives. Especially when divorce and child custody disputes are taking place, it is a tragic fact that certain parents either deliberately create false accusations, or interpret a child's problems as "subtle clues" to child sexual abuse. Everything from nightmares to temper tantrums is being listed by the experts as signs that should alert parents to the possibility of sexual abuse.
    Thus, when an investigator first contacts a child, it is crucial that all possibilities be considered. Instead, too often a judgment is reached once the child's statements are heard, however inconsistent they may be. The investigation effectively grinds to a halt, because "children don't lie about sexual abuse." All that is left is for the judge to give the juvenile court's stamp of approval. The possibility that the child may have been manipulated by an adult with an axe to grind is not taken seriously.
    By the time the child has been interviewed several times. the statements may become increasingly embellished, and any chance to help the child stick to what he remembers is lost forever. The child now believes he has been molested, because so many adults believe the same thing and seem so pleased with the child for saying so.
    The use of dolls and other play materials is a powerful technique for confounding this problem. Consider the difficulties inherent in using play materials to get at the truth. Children use dolls, puppets or drawings to make stories—not to stick to the facts. Why are such techniques nonetheless being used in fact-finding investigations? Because our legal system has naively turned to the child therapists, who have used play therapy for decades. But using play techniques in therapy is one thing; using such techniques in legal investigations is quite another. Even worse is the result when the adult interviewer is already convinced that sexual abuse has taken place and (perhaps unwittingly) uses play methods to coax some "evidence" from the child.
    Four reforms
    Awareness of these problems leads directly to the kinds of legal reforms needed to bring some sense of proportion to protecting children from sexual exploitation.
    First, all contacts with the child must be either video or audio-taped. Taping preserves a record not only of what the child says, but of the interviewer's behavior. Such a record will not only spare the child repeated interviews; it will also give county counsel, district attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, and juries an opportunity to study whether a child's statements seem spontaneous or the product of manipulation.
    Second, a child's competence to testify must be examined in a more thorough way than it is at present. With few exceptions, children as young as four are being found competent if they can tell the difference between the truth and a lie. But such awareness is irrelevant if a child has been so manipulated by adults that he believes something happened which did not happen. Judges faced with deciding whether a child is competent to testify must focus on the issue of independent recall. Is the child capable of sticking to what he can remember, or has prior training contaminated his ability to do so?
    Third, our juvenile court procedures are in urgent need of major review. The vast majority of child sexual abuse allegations are not prosecuted criminally but are handled in juvenile court, where tradition dictates that judges rely heavily on casework evaluations. It is especially here that an accused person may be considered guilty until proven innocent. Judges, acting in good faith, assume that the child protection system is doing a good job of unbiased investigation. This faith is misplaced, given the biases that currently pervade our county child protection agencies.
    Fourth, our child protection system will need to alter its current practices. Its primary mistake has been placing so much trust in the experts. By now the mistaken ideas from mental health are rooted in the very foundations of our investigative agencies. While I don't see this reform coming soon or easily, nothing less than a massive retraining will be necessary. Just as in other kinds of investigations, the primary role of unbiased fact-finding must be established, with no reliance on "examinations" from mental health professionals. Whatever psychiatry and related disciplines are good for, they do no good, and much harm, when it comes to getting at the truth.
    If psychiatry has no examinations to determine if a child has been molested, and has no examinations to determine if the accused person is a child molester, then our continued reliance on psychiatry will only add a new form of child abuse, one in which we subject the very children we aim to protect to manipulations they are powerless to resist. California Lawyer
    Why Children Lie in Court
    New research shows how the power of suggestion can lead youngsters to say things that send innocent adults to jail.
    By JEROME CRAMER WASHINGTON
    The poignant scene is played-out time and again in America's courtrooms. A small, bewildered child sits in a witness chair, being led by an attorney through shocking testimony. The youngster speaks haltingly of unspeakable things done to him or her by a stranger, a baby-sitter or even a parent. Could such an innocent soul possibly be telling anything but the truth?
    Most legal experts, child psychiatrists—and juries--have long thought that children rarely lie about sex-abuse crimes on the witness stand. On the strength of that assumption, many adults have been sent to jail for sexual abuse or other charges, professing all the way that they are not guilty. But evidence is mounting that children, particularly those who have been extensively coached, give inaccurate testimony far more often than previously imagined. Both research studies and courtroom experience are causing many psychiatrists to question their views of the reliability of what comes from the mouths of babes.
    A stunning piece of evidence came late last year when a California appeals court overturned the convictions of three men and four women for molesting 10 children. The adults had maintained their innocence but were sentenced to a combined total of 2,619 years in prison. The case fell apart, and the adults were freed when three of the children later recanted their testimony and the state attorney general's office criticized the way prosecutors had allegedly manipulated the children's testimony.
    Recent research has shown how easy it is for youngsters to stray unwittingly from the truth. Psychologists Karen Saywitz of Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Gail Goodman of the State University of New York at Buffalo interviewed 72 girls, ages 5 and 7, about routine medical procedures they had received. Half were given full examinations, including anal and vaginal checks, and the rest were given just general physicals. When the first group was asked a broad question about what I had happened, only eight mentioned the vaginal examinations, and when the children were shown anatomically correct dolls, six pointed to the vaginal area. But of the girls who received only a general checkup, three claimed they had also had vaginal or anal exams. One child even reported that "the doctor did it with a stick."
    Child-custody disputes are often the trigger for youngsters' unwitting lies. Suspicions can cause parents to launch what legal scholar Douglas Besharov of Washington's American Enterprise Institute calls "the atomic bomb of child-custody fights, the charge of sex abuse." In these stressful situations, children quickly discover what adults want to hear and can offer lies or distortions in order to please an anxious parent or social worker. A study conducted by the American Academy of Child Psychiatry found that in custody disputes involving charges of sex abuse, as many as 36% of the allegations were later proved to be untrue.
    Research by psychologist Alison Clarke-Stewart of the University of California at Irvine illustrates how easily adults can sway children's perceptions. In that study 75 five and six-year-old children were asked to watch a man clean up a room. During that time, he picked up and cleaned a doll. Later an interviewer told the children she thought the man had been playing with the doll. When first questioned, 25% of the kids said the man had played with the doll, and the rest said he had cleaned it. The interviewer then told the children she was certain that the man had been playing with, not cleaning, the doll. In the end, all but two children accepted the interviewer's story as the truth.
    Misleading questions by adults can cause children not just to lie but also to believe their falsehoods. Besharov cites the case of a three-year-old who told a social worker a story about a piece of candy being dropped into her underpants. After interviews by various child-protection workers, the story evolved into a tale that a candle had been inserted into the child's vagina. It took months of further interviews to discover that the original story had been correct.
    The current methods for obtaining evidence in sex-abuse cases—direct questioning and the use of dolls with sex organs; are under fire. "Kids can be fed ideas they quickly come to believe are true, and these dolls are highly suggestive," says Lenore Terr, a professor of psychology at the University of California at San Francisco. For example, some of the dolls lack hands and have only painted eyes, yet they have highly explicit genital areas. Terr stresses that normally inquisitive children who play with these dolls can mistakenly be suspected of having been abused.
    The controversy is sure to escalate this spring, when the American Psychological Association publishes a book called The Suggestibility of Children's Recollections, in which several experts question the truthfulness of kids' testimony. The APA will not allow outsiders an advance look, but a psychologist involved in the project says the book shows that "there are definite limits to our knowledge about whether children are telling the truth."
    What these researchers and others are finding is that truth for a child can be blurred, especially in periods of stress, such as during a trial. To protect children from sex crimes— and adults from unfounded accusations—child-welfare workers and prosecutors will have to take special care when searching for the truth.
    The McMartin Preschool Witch' Hunt
    It was the longest preliminary hearing in the history of California. It became the longest and most expensive trial in the history of the United States. It caused one journalist to write: “It is the most interesting case I have ever heard of, and the most frightening. It is bizarre and unreal— so much so, in fact, that jaded, middle-aged, veteran newsmen from major, national news media nave left the courtroom rubbing their foreheads in disbelief after a day spent covering the proceedings. Several of the news-people who have attended the hearing for all these months nave complained of chronic nightmares and sleep disturbances. So have the lawyers. So have I.
    "The media coverage has been superficial, infrequent and not very informative. They apparently do not understand that it may be the best story they will ever get. It is a landmark that will affect every child abuse case in the country. It will affect much more that that. McMartin may well be talked about three hundred years from now."
    An article recently appearing in the magazine Los Angeles chronicled the events surrounding this celebrated case. An edited version is reprinted below.
    A Case of Dominoes
    It was the moment everyone had been waiting for. Last July, principal defendant Raymond Buckey was finally tiling the witness stand in the McMartin Preschool child-molestation trial. Camera crews and cable lines jammed the hallway.
    Prosecutor, Lael Rubin grilled Buckey about games that were played, in the nude, the stabbing of horses, and the raping of little girls. Yet Buckey remained calm, speaking in an assured monotone, he denied every charge against him.
    Rubin hammered away, asking about the former McMartin Preschool teacher's habit of keeping adult erotica in his bedroom. Specifically, Rubin asked if he had ever affixed photos of preschoolers onto the sexually explicit pictures of adults.
    "I know I never did that," Buckey said emphatically.
    "How do you know this?" Rubin asked.
    “Because I know what I do and what I don't do," he shot back.
    "And what is it you don't do, Mr Buckey?" she baited.
    Defense lawyers voice loud objections, cutting off the exchange, But Buckey wouldn't be stopped. He'd waited' nearly six years to make this statement. Indignantly, he leaned forward in his chair, glaring at Rubin.
    Look. Ms. Rubin." Buckey said. “I’ve spent five years in jail for something I didn't do. I know what I do and I know what I don't do. And I don't molest children."
    When the McMartin case is mentioned these days, most people are understandably confused. It first burst on the scene in February 1984, and within a few short months eight South Bay preschools had been closed and seven defendants charged with allegations of everything from sodomy and oral copulation to satanic rites and animal sacrifice. Yet today, as the longest Trial in United States history comes to a close at a cost of $16 million - all that is left are two defendants facing 64 counts of child molestation and one count of conspiracy. And unless a mistrial is called over juror disqualification, Peggy McMartin Buckey, 61, will most likely be acquitted, and her son, Ray Buckey, 30 -at the very worst —appears headed toward a hung jury.
    What went wrong? What became of the crime of the century that six years ago shocked the world?
    The answers lie partly in secrets long withheld from the public but known well by those close to the case. Previously sealed court documents recently made available tell part of the story. But mostly, as the facts come to light, the answer appears to be that there was never any case at all
    Indeed, in the end it may alt come down to the actions of six individuals, who, for reasons of ambition, vested interest or simply bad judgment, created their own domino effect when no credible evidence ever existed against the defends.
    At the very least, it is a blueprint for preying on public fears and, as Los Angeles District Attorney Ira Reiner charges, blowing a criminal case out of all proportion. It may also be the story of how a case was simply invented
    The Mother
    She was 12 when her mother died of Cancer, but Judy Johnson never fully recovered from the blow: Cheery on the outside, she hid her problems from friends until it was to late.
    In March 1983, after the birth of their second son, and due to fierce squabbles over money, Judy Johnson's husband Bernard walked out. Broke and alone, Johnson got a job selling lamps, and she needed to find a nursery school to look after her young son. Of all the preschools in the area, Johnson knew the McMartin Preschool, founded by Virginia McMartin and later directed by her daughter Peggy McMartin Buckey, to be the most desirable. In business since 1958, the school had a proven track record, with a long history of satisfied parents.
    When Johnson called McMartin to inquire about enrolling her son, she was told there was a long waiting list. So on the morning of May 12, 1983, she simply dropped the two-and-a-half-year-old off at the front gale and drove off. None of the teachers knew who he was - he was still preverbal, unable even to give his name, and there were no tags on his clothes or on his lunch bag. But, reasoning that a parent would eventually come for him, they took the child in for the day. After speaking with Johnson later, McMartin Buckey said she "felt sorry" for the woman and enrolled the boy that June. That decision would prove to be the worst one of her life.
    On July 11, Johnson visited a health care clinic. According to medical reports, she told a physician that her son's anus was "itchy." Believing the problem was with the mother, the doctor didn't feel it was necessary to examine the boy.
    On August 11, Johnson's son returned to McMartin's. By that day, he had been to the preschool a total pf 14 times. The teacher supervising the afternoon play session that day was Ray Buckey, the grandson of Virginia McMartin. Johnson's son had never been in Ray's class.
    The following morning, Johnson called the Manhattan Beach police and was connected with juvenile officer Jane Hoag. She told Hoag that her son's bottom was red and that he had blurted out something about a man named Ray at his nursery school. It was this call to Hoag that sparked the biggest mass-molestation case in history, but for Johnson, it was another in a series of steps toward madness and an early death from an alcohol-related liver disease.
    It wasn't long before Johnson's accusations took on a life of their own. Within six weeks of her call to Hoag, according to previously sealed police reports, Johnson was accusing Buckey of wearing a mask and sodomizing her son while he stuck the boy's head in a toilet. A few months later, she claimed he had taped her son's mouth, eyes and hands, and stuck an air tube in the boy's rectum. On subsequent days, she said Buckey made her son ride naked on a horse and then molested him while dressing as a cop, a fireman, a clown, and Santa Claus.
    By February 1984, Johnson's allegations turned increasing bizarre, in phone calls and letters to the district attorney's office, she said that her son had been sodomized by an AWOL marine and by three models from a health club. In one letter she said that the family dog may have also been sodomized, as it "had some hair missing." She wrote that McMartin teachers jabbed "scissors into his eyes and staples in his ears, nipples, and tongue”; Ray *****ed her son's right finger and put it in a goat's anus: and Peggy (Ray's mother) killed a baby and made him drink the blood."
    Then in 1985, shortly after her divorce was final, Johnson retreated into paranoia. According to her brother, she met him at her front door one day with a l2-gauge shotgun. Police dragged her to a patrol car, and she underwent a 12-day psychiatric evaluation. Diagnosis: acute paranoid schizophrenia. Her ex-husband was eventually given custody of the boy,
    Four months before the trial started in 1987, Johnson died. She was 44. Police found her lying naked and face down in her son's bedroom, her phone off the hook and the Yellow Pages opened to "Liquor Stores." But by then the McMartin case had no further need for the woman who had started it all. The dominoes had already begun to fall against the defendants.
    The Cop
    Jane Hoag went to work as a detective in the Manhattan Beach Police Department when she was 22, She was assigned to the sex abuse and juvenile beats and had the reputation in the community of being brusque and zealous in the pursuit of her cases, Hoag once told a reporter that it was not unusual for her to work 15 hours a day, though she was married with two young children.
    Based entirely on a telephone call from Johnson she became obsessed with the alleged guilt of one man. Nothing could sway her - not an extraordinary lack of evidence, not the few other suspects she subsequently interviewed. Nor could she consider another possibility: that there had been no crime. On August 12. 1983, Hoag had listened to Johnson's complaint about a McMartin teacher named Ray. She told Johnson to have her son examined at a health clinic. A doctor there noted redness around the boy's anus, but was unable to determine the cause.
    Apparently unsatisfied with the results, Hoag sent Johnson to UCLA Medical Center five days later. Two doctors, one an intern, determined that the boy's condition was "consistent" with being sodomized. Later, the intern confided "she didn't know anything about sexual abuse," a former LAPD detective said. The other physician confirmed her evaluation in testimony, but her ability to recall details was challenged when she maintained the boy had been circumcised, though, according to his father, he had not.
    Hoag visited Johnson's home three times in August to interview the boy. When she could’nt get him to talk, she concluded "he didn't understand the concept of the word "name." (In fact, according to court reports, the boy never spoke at all to Hoag.) Then, hoping to get the boy to identify Buckey visually, she showed him class photos that included Buckey, but the boy was unable to identify him.
    During searches of the Buckey homes, officers seized attendance records, a Polaroid camera, rope, yarn, and class photos. They were looking for a video camera and child pornography photos, but came away empty-handed. They also seized a rubber duck from Peggy McMartin Buckey's beachside home, Virginia McMartin's diaries, and even Peggy Ann Buckey's USC graduation gown, which prosecutor Rubin would later claim was a satanic robe.
    One of the parents told Mrs. Buckey that Officer Hoag had called her repeatedly and said,— Your child has been named as a victim. And if you really love your child you'll ask him these questions . . . Others gave similar accounts of the telephone calls.
    In 1984 Haag won the "Officer of the Year" award for her work on the McMartin investigation.
    The Social Worker
    Attractive and vivacious, Kee MacFarlane had been a program administrator with the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect for several years. In LA, she joined the staff of Children's Institute International (CIl), an agency that cared for abused and neglected children.
    MacFarlane interviewed the first McMartin preschooler on November 1. She used undressed, anatomically detailed dolls in a playtime setting to elicit responses. By mid-1984. nearly 400 children had been interviewed: or those, MacFarlane and other CII social workers filed reports indicating their suspicions that 369 had been molested. Of those, many attended the preschool long before Buckey even began working there, some, in fact, while he was still in high school.
    What's not commonly known is that with the exception of one child, all of the former preschoolers denied being molested at the school until after they were interviewed at CII. "The case was made at Cll, not at the preschool," said Buckey’s attorney. That child who made a claim was dropped from the case because her allegations were considered too bizarre.
    Expected to be the foundation of the prosecution's case, MacFarlane's interviews would actually wind up being a boon for the defense because of the nature of her questions. The following exchanges were taken from official transcripts of the video-taped interviews. In the interview, the boy — a witness in the McMartin trial —is holding an alligator puppet, and the two are discussing a game —Naked Movie Star —that investigators alleged Ray Buckey played with the children.
    Boy: "Well, I didn't really hear it [Naked Movie Star) a whole lot. I just heard someone yell it from out in the…"
    PAUSE: "Maybe, Mr. Alligator, you peeked in the window one day and saw them playing it, and maybe you could remember and help us."
    Boy: "Well, no, I haven't seen anyone playing Naked Movie Star, I've only heard the song."
    MacFARLANE: "What good are you? You must be dumb."
    Some of the litany of accusations coming out of CII seemed absurd, at least on the surface: children digging up dead bodies at a cemetery with pickaxes larger than they were: children jumping out of airplanes over Palos Verdes: horses beaten to death with bats and machetes: children molested in car washes and grocery stores. During this time, according to a defense investigator, MacFarlane urged parents to drive around town with their children to pinpoint possible perpetrators. The result was pandemonium. Soon children were pointing out community leaders, gas-station attendants, and store clerks. Hoag kept busy interviewing some of these candidates, but not one person, other than the McMartin teachers remained suspects.
    A former 20-year juvenile-division investigator, said of the CII process: "It was certainly different from how we would have handled It. It sure seemed stupid. When we interview kids suspected of being abused, we try to get the truth from them and not put words in their mouths."
    In the end, seven McMartin teachers were indicted on more than 200 counts of child molestation. The defendants included Ray Buckey, his mother, grandmother, and sister, plus former McMartin teachers Beny Raidor, Babette Spitler, and Mary Ann Jackson.
    The Politician
    Robert Philibosian was appointed District Attorney for Los Angeles county when the former DA became Attorney General in January 1983.
    In September of that year, Philibosian shifted into gear as a politician. He faced an election in 1984 and needed a strategy. The one he adopted became one of the most critical developments in further cementing the McMartin case.
    In early September, Philibosian commissioned a public-opinion poll. When asked which issue concerned the citizens the most, child abuse rated number one. George Young, Philibosian's campaign manager, called the poll "a shopping expedition" for something the district attorney could take advantage of."
    Within six weeks of the poll, Philibosian's office was in control of the McMartin case. Despite an ongoing investigation by Manhattan Beach police, however, no credible evidence had been discovered. In spite of that fact, Philibosian was able to obtain a grand jury indictment of all seven of the defendants.
    Despite Philibosian's efforts to address the public's alarm over child abuse, he lost the election in December 1984. Within eight months of taking office, the new DA dismissed the charges against five of the McMartin defendants, saying the evidence was "incredibly weak."
    Philibosian responded: "Why was Reiner [the new DA] to come along with no felony prosecution experience and prune this case? This was not a rose bush to prune away the bad experiences of children. All of the defendants should have stood trial."
    The Reporter
    Investigative reporter Wayne Satz was described by his former college roommate as "a kind of guy who wanted to get ahead." Satz's bold, sensational stories prompted one KABC news employee to confide that "he seemed more interested in making news than reporting it." Some media sources joked that Satz was on his way to the Geraldo Revera School of Journalism.
    In an FBI document, Kee MacFarlane Stated she told KABC reporter Satz, that he would have an exclusive on the McMartin story in February, a period that coincided with the important ratings-sweep week. On February 2. 1984. Satz brought the McMartin story to the world. His report told of dozens of "alleged" acts of oral copulation and sodomy with "little" children.
    Although Satz covered himself by using the qualifiers "alleged" and "reportedly," his newscasts, one reporter said, "set the tone that these people were monsters." In June 1984 Los Angeles Times television critic Rosenberg noted: "It was like calling Hiroshima an alleged bombing." And the Satz style helped to stir up hysteria and establish in the public's mind that the defendants were guilty. In one segment, while he reported on the alleged mutilation of rabbits, live bunnies were used as an on-camera backdrop to illustrate the charge.
    Most of the coverage for the next two years carried the same frenzied slant. Reporters were swept away by the horrifying charges, reinforcing what most of the public already believed about the defendants. Chris Woodyard, who covered the case early on for the Herald Examiner said: "There was very much a mob psychology operating in those days." An April 1984 People story carried the incriminating headline: "The McMartins: The 'Model Family' Down the Block that Ran California's Nightmare Nursery." It wasn't until three years after the case broke that the press calmed down and reporters "began to think for themselves." Woodyard said.
    Satz ultimately won two Golden Mike awards for his reporting on the McMArtin case, though he was later criticized for entering into a romantic relationship with MacFarlane, his primary source.
    The Prosecutor
    Lael Rubin had the reputation in the DA's office of being a "tough and tenacious" prosecutor. Once she became lead prosecutor on the McMartin case in March 1984, Rubin, along with two co-prosecutors, became acquainted with Johnson and her increasingly bizarre allegations. Stevens, one of the co-prosecutors, said he received increasingly strange telephone calls from Johnson. And then there was her hand-scrawled letter to the DA accusing various men of sodomizing her son and the McMartin teachers of jabbing scissors into his eyes and staples in his ears, nipples, and tongue.
    Eventually, child pornography surfaced as the official motive, igniting a massive, national and international hunt by Interpol and FBI agents to track down pictures of the McMartin children. None were ever found. A Huntington Beach archaeological research team was hired to make a painstaking search for alleged underground secret rooms and tunnels where the children claimed they'd been molested. The researchers tore up the preschool floor and used an electronic scanning device to try to locate the secret passages. Investigators dug up the vacant lot next door to the school and analyzed the found pieces of chicken bones to determine if they had been tortured.
    The results? "You can boil everything down to zero," Stevens says. Still Rubin remained steadfast in her determination to prosecute the Buckeys. Just because they didn't find any (child pornography) doesn't mean it doesn't exist," Rubin told a reporter.
    "It was as if this case was Lael's star vehicle," Stevens says, "And she wasn't going to let the facts get in her way,"
    By the time Stevens openly expressed his doubts about the guilt of the defendants, hysteria had risen to a witch-hunt pitch in the South Bay. Seven other preschools closed down under the weight of suspicion. At least one parent openly vowed to kill the defendants if they were released from jail. Residents turned into vigilantes. One spraypainted "Ray will die" on a wall of the preschool. Later, the preschool was set on fire.
    "Wherever the words child abuse came up, all of a sudden there was a presumption of guilt," notes public defender Hall. "And rather than the investigations taking into account evidence that pointed to the innocence of a suspect, the investigations were bent on building cases."
    Even after Reiner, Rubin's boss, dismissed all charges against five of the women, Rubin insisted that hundreds of children had been molested at the preschool. "I believe in this case; I believe all of the crimes occurred. And that's what I intend to argue to a jury," she told Mike Wallace on Sixty Minutes.
    As we go to press, the trial has lost all six jurors and is feared headed toward a mistrial if one more juror drops out The prosecution and defense have rested their cases and are moving into final arguments, which are expected to last a month. Judge William Pounders says he hopes to get the case to the jury for deliberation by December 1. by Mary A. Fischer, August 1989
    Women of the 90s A special feature in the Gazette Telegraph (Colorado)
    Sunday, October 22, 1989
    Child abuse. Those two words carry heavy images: Physically and emotionally scarred children, ruined marriages, ruined lives.
    There's another image, too - that of the accused adult. Many of the accused are guilty, some are not. It's for the latter group that organizers have formed a national nonprofit group called VOCAL: Victims Of Child Abuse Laws, a resource for those who believe they are falsely accused of assaulting children.
    A personal experience prompted Susan Gabriel, a technical writer at TRW, to organize a VOCAL chapter here. Shortly after she married her second husband a few years ago, he was accused of sexually molesting one of her two daughters.
    "It just wiped me out totally, it was devastating," Gabriel says. "It was a very long, hard struggle and I was extremely frustrated with the system and the way it was working."
    The case went through the Department of Social Services and the courts, and Clark: Gabriel was found not guilty at trial. Related civil charges were dismissed and his name was removed from the registry of suspected abusers.
    After her experience, Gabriel decided, "I wanted to do whatever I could to help other people suffering the same thing."
    She founded and is chairman of VOCAL Southern Colorado, Inc., an organization that provides information about case procedures for families of those accused of abuse and their attorneys, operates a hotline and works with professionals in the child protection system. The local membership varies, but has been as high as 90.
    Gabriel is also editor of the national organization's publication, VOCAL PerSpective.
    "A lot of people think we're out there to protect abusers", and they like to call us 'the other side,'" Gabriel says. "We're not the other side. The other side is those people out there who abuse kids.
    Mishandling of abuse cases — in some cases by such extremes as falsifying records — exists, Gabriel says, and it can jeopardize cases of real abuse.
    Gabriel does, of course have a life away from VOCAL.
    She’s a third-generation Colorado native, raised in Loveland in a traditional household. "It was stable, but very boring," Gabriel says. "I just dreamed of being able to get out, maybe go to New York or to France."
    She didn't make it to New York or France, but she did put her lifelong love of writing to work.
    She Started at TRW as an assembler, working her way to technician and finally landing a writing job in the technical publications department.
    Gabriel is close to completing a bachelor's degree in psychology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, and she is in interested in following that with a Ph.D. in law and psychology. She's not bored.
    "I think one of the reasons I used to get bored was because I felt there were very strict boundaries on what I could or couldn't do," Gabriel says, noting that the boundaries were often her own. "I was always too afraid of failure. It was like a little box around me that said I could go this far but no further.
    "When I broke free of it I started really enjoying life."
    That's what the '90s will be, Gabriel believes: "Getting a chance to really find out who you are, maybe breaking out of rigid definition to explore all the different things you want to try and finding out what you have to offer society, the good things you can do,"
    LEARNING FROM THE McMARTIN HOAX
    By Dr. Lee Coleman
    Slowly, begrudgingly, more and more people are beginning to recognize that the wild charges against the staff of the McMartin pre-school are without foundation. Even more important, the cause of this tragedy is also being acknowledged in some circles. Others, however, despite being in a position to see how the hoax developed, refuse to face up to the truth.
    If what the children have said is not true, why would they say these things? The answer is both simple and terrible. They were trained. Trained by the “experts” our law enforcement agencies trustingly allowed to "evaluate” the children.
    Most, influential among those defending the way in which the children were interviewed is psychiatrist Roland Summit. Recently, Summit has written that the McMartin children were in fact 'the victims of sexual abuse, that social worker Kee MacFarlane and the children's Institute International used proper, up-to-the-minute techniques to interview the children, and that the crumbling of the prosecution merely points to weaknesses in the criminal justice system.
    Summit argued that there was both reason and precedent for the methods used in the initial interviews with children'. “MacFarlane practiced the state of the art...highly evolved, intensely specific and largely unknown outside the fledgling specialty of child abuse diagnosis.” This new art form, Summit continued, was “an amalgam of several roles...the knowledge of a child development specialist to understand and translate toddler language, a therapist to guide and interpret interactive play," a police interrogator to develop evidentiary confirmation and a child-abuse specialist, to recognize, the distinctive and pathetic patterns of sexual victimization. " We evidently need such artists to assist police investigators because their “specialist understanding is both unexpected and counter-intuitive."
    Summit doesn't tell us whether he has viewed any of the videotaped interviews done by MacFarlane and her protgs; but either way, his defense of the techniques used is itself indefensible. I don't know which is worse---defending interviews which he has studied and which so clearly show that the children were trained; by the interviewers to believe they were molested, or defending interviews which he has not studied.
    That the children, and, their parents, were horribly victimized by the interviews—is a conclusion which is inescapable. So far, I have watched the interviews of thirteen children. In some Kee MacFarlane is the interviewer. In others, those she has taught faithfully practice the new "art” Summit, so highly praises. In each and every session, have seen, so far, an outrageous pattern emerges, one in which the children are systematically manipulated and indoctrinated until they finally give the interviewer what he or she wants, some “yukky secrets”.
    Let us look at a few examples.
    1. A five-year-old girl is introduced to hand puppets which can "speak for the child.” MacFarlane tells the girl that "we can pretend.” She goes on to tell the girl, I think that something happened to you at school with Mr. Ray (Buckey) that you don't want to talk about. “No," the child responds.
    “I think it's true, MacFarlane answers, "I, talked to lots of your friends. All of them are telling me the things that Mr. Ray did"
    When the child still has no "secrets" to tell, MacFarlane is not deterred. She tells the child, "He told you not to talk, didn't he...But: all the kids are telling...You could just show me with the dolls. You don't even have to use words."
    Even if it were true that the other children had in fact told of these things, rather than been manipulated into saying them, is this the way to find out if a particular child has been victimized or witnessed others being victimized? Hardly.
    2. A four year old girl is asked by MacFarlane, “Do you like Ray?” She responds, “No, he's bad." “What did he do?” MacFarlane asks. The girl responds, “My mom said he tied up kids.” Instead of helping the child understand the difference between what her mother or anyone else may have told her, and what she could actually remember from her own experiences at school, MacFarlane proceeds to ask the child to demonstrate, with dolls and rope, how the children were tied!
    Not surprisingly, the child complied. After all, children regularly use dolls to tell stories. By the time the session was over, the child was tying dolls to legs of chairs with the rope, and using handcuffs which were also handy. At one point in this "fact-finding" process, 'the child said that after Mr. Ray tied kids, her mother came and tied up kids too! When MacFarlane asked if this was just a story, the child agreed that she was just pretending.
    Armed with these profound insights into the operations of the McMartin school, MacFarlane and her colleagues then proceeded to tell subsequent children that they knew kids were being tied up at the school. Other children had said so.
    3. An eight year old boy is interviewed by Kee MacFarlane. It has been several years since this boy attended the school, so his memory will need an extra bit of jogging. He is told that a lot of other kids have told about the secrets. The ones who tell are “a big help in figuring things out." He is told that some of the teachers did yukky things. When he asks which teachers, he is told" that the puppets know and they can tell the “secret machine" (microphone). When the child, even with the puppets, fails to come forth with a secret, the puppet on his hand is asked by the puppet on MacFarlane's hand, "Are you dumb or smart?” The boy's puppet responds, "I'm smart.”
    The boy is nudged further by being told t hat because the youngest children are some times unable to talk, “we're talking to the older kids, cause they're the smartest. They can help. We can figure out these games, if you're smart." The boy responds, once again, “I’m smart.”
    MacFarlane says, “It was a long time ago, you might not remember... We can pretend." Now the boy says, "I remember, but the best: he can do is talk about beating up puppets. MacFarlane, via the bird puppet on her hand, tells the child, "Bird says some of them are naked games." The child asks why they played naked games.
    MacFarlane responds, “It was a special school where they play naked games. Remember?"
    With MacFarlane doing the “telling,” the boy will obviously need even more encouragement. She tells him, "He had a meeting of the mommies and daddies of the kids. They said how proud they were that their children had told (the secrets). But some parents said their kids didn't tell any secrets, so we said “sorry". Your parents talked to the other parents, so they know the secrets and your parents said, “We don't know if Bill [pseudonym] has a good enough memory".
    To this the boy immediately blurts out, "Well, I have a good enough memory," "To which MacFarlane responded, "Oh, great. Was that you, Mr. Monkey? o.k. Lets figure out a naked game. --- Later we can tell the mommies and daddies. Oh, they will be so happy.”

    With this, the child began to talk about games he supposedly “remembered." But, alas, none of the teachers were naked in the games he described. That would never do.
    MacFarlane: “I thought that was a naked game."
    Bo: "Not exactly"
    MacFarlane: "Did somebody take their clothes off?"
    Boy : "When I was there no one was naked."
    Mac Farlane: .. We want to make sure you're not scared to tell."
    Boy: "I'm not scared.”
    MacFarlane: Some of the kids were told they might be killed. It was a trick. Alt right Mr. Alligator, are you going to be stupid, or are you smart and can tell. Some think you're smart."
    Boy: "I'll be smart."
    MacFarlane: "Mr. Monkey (the puppet the child had used earlier) is chicken. He can't remember the naked games, but you know the naked movie star game, or is your memory too bad?"
    Boy: “I haven' t seen the naked movie star game."
    MacFarlane: "You must be dumb."
    Boy: "I don't remember."
    Sooner or later, most children will buckle under this kind of onslaught, as they did in the McMartin case. This, I submit, is child (and parent) abuse.
    The techniques used on the McMartin children point dramatically to one conclusion: MacFarlane and her trainees had decided, before the very first interview, that children were molested at the McMartin preschool. However they now try to rationalize their interview techniques, their behavior with the children looks like an attempt to squeeze from the children "evidence" of what the interviewers were sure must have taken place.
    Summit defends this by writing, “If a child suspected of being abused is unable to volunteer information, it must be elicited with warm reassurance and specific, potentially leading questions" This seems to assume that a molestation has taken place, despite the fact that the interview is supposed to discover whether molestation has occurred. Tragically, this assumption of sexual abuse is precisely the attitude that Summit, MacFarlane and other leading lights in child sexual abuse have promoted, through countless workshops for police, protective service workers, mental health professionals, and district attorneys. It is this belief that if an allegation is raised, regardless of the circumstances, it must true because "children don't lie about sexual abuse," which explain the irresponsible investigations in the McMartin case, and the hundreds of other false allegations throughout the country.
    This raises other serious question. Where does the claim that "children don’t lie about sexual abuse” come from? Are there only two choices, that the child is either lying or telling the truth, or does this ignore the possibility that a child may be manipulated into an accusation, and with sufficient training, eventually come to sincerely believe in things which never took place?

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,179

    Default

    There is no way I am going to dig through that.

    While I do not doubt that there are some false claims made of child molestation in the course of divorces, the above does not seem to ring true.

    I challenge you to give me one incident where a father should be physically examining the genital region of a 9 year old. Even if that father was a doctor, it is suspect.

    I say this as the father of two girls. Once a certain age is reached, a father should take his children to the doctor rather than performing examinations himself.

    After all, you would want them examining daddy's "rash" either, right? Some things are just not appropriate.
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

  20. #20
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default What is it with reading?

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjeff View Post
    There is no way I am going to dig through that.

    While I do not doubt that there are some false claims made of child molestation in the course of divorces, the above does not seem to ring true.

    I challenge you to give me one incident where a father should be physically examining the genital region of a 9 year old. Even if that father was a doctor, it is suspect.

    I say this as the father of two girls. Once a certain age is reached, a father should take his children to the doctor rather than performing examinations himself.

    After all, you would want them examining daddy's "rash" either, right? Some things are just not appropriate.
    How man of you actualy absorbed what the original post was saying?
    You seen to dwell on the fact these kids are now 6 and 9. This incident began 5 years ago. That puts the children's ages at 1 and 4 not 6 and 9. Do you need reminding professionals dismissed her allegations due to her coaching. It is very hypocritical to be backing professionals evaluations when it substantiates a claim and discounting it when it does not. This is called tunnel vision. What is even more disturbing, America's prides itself on the claim innocence till proven guilty. This is also a false when it comes to crimes of accused crimes of this nature. Need you be reminded anyone can make a claim to have an individual charged. I do not have to speculate to make such a comment, because this was actual experience. While this does not make it true for everyones case, neither does it make them automatically guilty just based on ones say so, as is the case in this situation. How gullible society has become on their witch hunt of today. Not much different than Salem Witch Trials of years past. Where is the evidence? No where else is this possible to convict a person of a crime except cases of domestic abuse. This includes child abuse. If you are unwilling to educate yourself to the fact, then I sincerely you get the experience the presumption of guilt by the mob of society first hand. The perhaps you will have some objectivity and open your eyes. The individual appears to be shopping for ideas to further her cause based on societies hysteria and sympathy. Again where is the evidence other than the accuser's say so? Making judgment based on emotion does not carry justice review the facts!

  21. #21
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Food for thought

    Quote Originally Posted by saxxyman View Post
    How man of you actualy absorbed what the original post was saying?
    You seen to dwell on the fact these kids are now 6 and 9. This incident began 5 years ago. That puts the children's ages at 1 and 4 not 6 and 9. Do you need reminding professionals dismissed her allegations due to her coaching. It is very hypocritical to be backing professionals evaluations when it substantiates a claim and discounting it when it does not. This is called tunnel vision. What is even more disturbing, America's prides itself on the claim innocence till proven guilty. This is also a false when it comes to crimes of accused crimes of this nature. Need you be reminded anyone can make a claim to have an individual charged. I do not have to speculate to make such a comment, because this was actual experience. While this does not make it true for everyones case, neither does it make them automatically guilty just based on ones say so, as is the case in this situation. How gullible society has become on their witch hunt of today. Not much different than Salem Witch Trials of years past. Where is the evidence? No where else is this possible to convict a person of a crime except cases of domestic abuse. This includes child abuse. If you are unwilling to educate yourself to the fact, then I sincerely you get the experience the presumption of guilt by the mob of society first hand. The perhaps you will have some objectivity and open your eyes. The individual appears to be shopping for ideas to further her cause based on societies hysteria and sympathy. Again where is the evidence other than the accuser's say so? Making judgment based on emotion does not carry justice review the facts!
    One more point or question........How many of you are familiar with PAS or SAID syndromes?

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saxxyman View Post
    How man of you actualy absorbed what the original post was saying?
    You seen to dwell on the fact these kids are now 6 and 9. This incident began 5 years ago. That puts the children's ages at 1 and 4 not 6 and 9. Do you need reminding professionals dismissed her allegations due to her coaching. It is very hypocritical to be backing professionals evaluations when it substantiates a claim and discounting it when it does not. This is called tunnel vision. What is even more disturbing, America's prides itself on the claim innocence till proven guilty. This is also a false when it comes to crimes of accused crimes of this nature. Need you be reminded anyone can make a claim to have an individual charged. I do not have to speculate to make such a comment, because this was actual experience. While this does not make it true for everyones case, neither does it make them automatically guilty just based on ones say so, as is the case in this situation. How gullible society has become on their witch hunt of today. Not much different than Salem Witch Trials of years past. Where is the evidence? No where else is this possible to convict a person of a crime except cases of domestic abuse. This includes child abuse. If you are unwilling to educate yourself to the fact, then I sincerely you get the experience the presumption of guilt by the mob of society first hand. The perhaps you will have some objectivity and open your eyes. The individual appears to be shopping for ideas to further her cause based on societies hysteria and sympathy. Again where is the evidence other than the accuser's say so? Making judgment based on emotion does not carry justice review the facts!
    First, here is a bag of white spaces and returns. They will help make your "Stream of Consciousness" rant easier to read and comprehend.

    Second, I, as will most people, always side on the side of conservatism when it comes to child molestation. If you were accused of being overly detailed in a medical examination of your daughters of any age, I would have let professionals - real live professionals - decide if there was merit.

    If the system convicted you while innocent, I am sorry. However, the vast majority of cases need to go through the process.

    I would rather you have lost than take the chance on the children losing. Sorry.

    Insert your next rant here. Try to use grammar check first, huh?
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

  23. #23
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Duh

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjeff View Post
    First, here is a bag of white spaces and returns. They will help make your "Stream of Consciousness" rant easier to read and comprehend.

    Second, I, as will most people, always side on the side of conservatism when it comes to child molestation. If you were accused of being overly detailed in a medical examination of your daughters of any age, I would have let professionals - real live professionals - decide if there was merit.

    If the system convicted you while innocent, I am sorry. However, the vast majority of cases need to go through the process.

    I would rather you have lost than take the chance on the children losing. Sorry.

    Insert your next rant here. Try to use grammar check first, huh?
    Obviously you have no regard for due process and have a double standard when it comes to professional evaluations. Go back to the original post and apply "your reasoning" as stated to the case!

    As far as grammar observations are irreverent, you completely understood the comments. Statements like those are from those that have little else to back up their point of view. Again where was the evidence in the first stated case? Do you convict simply from hearsay? If so I hope you get your chance to face that exact situation. Perhaps then you will understand this being compared to the Salem witch trials.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saxxyman View Post
    Obviously you have no regard for due process and have a double standard when it comes to professional evaluations. Go back to the original post and apply "your reasoning" as stated to the case!

    As far as grammar observations are irreverent, you completely understood the comments. Statements like those are from those that have little else to back up their point of view. Again where was the evidence in the first stated case? Do you convict simply from hearsay? If so I hope you get your chance to face that exact situation. Perhaps then you will understand this being compared to the Salem witch trials.

    I have a great deal of regard for due process. Due process is exactly the situation you want to change.

    I did not understand your comments. For example, from your rambling text I would assume you are an undereducated man that has been judged in a court of law to be molesting your own children. Further, you believe that to be none of the court's business.

    I must be wrong.
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

  25. #25
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Soap Box

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjeff View Post
    I have a great deal of regard for due process. Due process is exactly the situation you want to change.

    I did not understand your comments. For example, from your rambling text I would assume you are an undereducated man that has been judged in a court of law to be molesting your own children. Further, you believe that to be none of the court's business.

    I must be wrong.
    It is you who seem to be the ignorant one. Education, is not the sole determining factor in ones intelligence. I assume, by your ranting, you consider yourself very intelligent and educated, yet do not have personal experience with the topic at hand. That would imply ignorance about such things. Further more, rather than directly address the points about the original post or about the legal system and other poster's points, you resort to personal attacks. That also shows ignorance and lack of debating skills. Your attitude and unwillingness to acknowledge problems with the original post comments and double standards within our justice system, destroys your credibility, because your unwillingness to be objective. Objectiveness is the key to making rational decisions and have good judgment (this would exclude you). You have one thing correct, I was falsely accused, and forced into a plea bargain. though you would understand nothing in what factors were involved in that decision. Neither will I engage in your biased attempt to turn this discussion about me. IT IS YOU WHO NEEDS TO GET OFF THEIR SOAP BOX and back to the debate or give answers to the original poster. In case you forgot, it was a woman who's children are now 6 & 9 that's original claims of abuse came 5 years ago. Need I point out once again that makes these children 1 & 4 at the time of allegation. In either case it is irrelevant, except for the comment about the injected notion that would make touching one's child appropriate ( These instances were for care and not sexual gratification) Professionals believed she was coaching the children. (That says a lot) She has continued to try to have action taken against her x husband. Remind you the evidence is all based on HER say so. Again officials have supported that there is no evidence. She then comes to a legal talk forum for TWO POSSIBLE REASONS, not one. Those reasons are that she is being truthful, and the other is she is shopping for information to further her agenda. ( I brought up the possibility, that this individual has "Parents Alienation Syndrome (PAS), at this time is being pushed as being changed to a disorder. I also assume you have no idea what doing so will mean to our legal system. Another possibility is the "SAID SYNDROME". Because it is you who are unwilling to educate yourself by reading calling it ranting, I will leave it to you to educate yourself rather than try and explain. Besides the professionals would do a better job. I do not claim to be a know it all, but I do claim to have useful knowledge about this topic gained through experience (The best teacher and education) On the other hand you are self absorbed in your own impression of yourself as somehow being more educated and better than anyone else's! I suggest you get back on point and offer useful points to the debate rather than personal attacks.
    To stop you in your tracks the only reason I strayed from the topic at hand was due to you and others willingness to address the facts. You would rather base your opinion based on emotion. I submit to you that is the reason I plea bargained, is because of ignorant individuals like yourself ignoring the facts. In doing so people faced with such accusations have no better chance than those during the Salem Witch Trials. Perhaps you should consider teaching grammar in school since you seem to be more concerned about that!

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,179

    Default

    Can you say "hello" in under 3,000 words?

    Darn son... you love to hear yourself talk.

    I didn't wade through that either... except to find where you called me biased.

    Yup, guilty as charged. I am forever biased towards the children. Sorry if this is inconvenient.

    In the original post... the children say that daddy is touching them again. AGAIN.

    You seem to think that automatically makes the children and mom a liar. I disagree.
    Last edited by cyjeff; 11-04-2007 at 09:39 AM.
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,222

    Default

    the op specifically said it started again when the children were 9& 6

    "Just yesterday both of her girls told her that he has been doing it again."

    so- why should he be touching them??????????????????????? your theory just got blown away

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,179

    Default

    Saxxy is in such a hurry to jump on his soapbox that he didn't read the original post.

    To clarify -

    While the OP said that the abuse began 5 years ago, the children complain that it is happening as of their last visit. In other words, Daddy is examining the nether regions of 9 and 6 year old girls.

    There is absolutely no proper reason for dad to be doing this.

    Saxxy, maybe you should spend more time reading and less time talking. I realize that you don't own a calendar or a grammar text, but these words are right in front of you.
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

  29. #29
    saxxyman
    Guest

    Default Convicted and lynched

    Quote Originally Posted by cyjeff View Post
    Can you say "hello" in under 3,000 words.

    Darn son... you love to hear yourself talk.

    I didn't wade through that either... except to find where you called me biased.

    Yup, guilty as charged. I am forever biased towards the children. Sorry if this is inconvenient.

    In the original post... the children say that daddy is touching them again. AGAIN.

    You seem to think that automatically makes the children and mom a liar. I disagree.
    1 You have once again not addressed the points, other than convict yourself to the accusations made about you.
    2 You have still ignored the facts of the original case.
    3 Correction. The mother says the children are saying this. This has not been proven or substantiated by professional evaluation as correct.
    4 You admit to your own bias, admittedly everyone has some form or another.
    the difference is being able to keep ones objectivity. You poses none! Thus your credibility makes your opinion worthless to me and the court of law.
    5 Because this is a board about the law you should recuse yourself, because of your rationality.
    6 A discussion or debate is not worth much with an individual with your perspective. Therefore I will no longer consider your comments worth responding to.
    7 If a neutral judge were to make judgment on our debate, you would be the clear looser and to think you were calling in to question my intelligence and education? You should consider getting mental help for your paranoia.

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,179

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by saxxyman View Post
    1 You have once again not addressed the points, other than convict yourself to the accusations made about you.
    What accusations? That I actually read the original post? Guilty as charged.

    2 You have still ignored the facts of the original case.
    Not me, you. You are ignoring the facts in the original post where the children still state that Daddy is touching them.

    3 Correction. The mother says the children are saying this. This has not been proven or substantiated by professional evaluation as correct.
    Which is why the original post was written. It was a request to see what could be done next. In the answers to this post, professional evaluation was recommended. Read more, talk less.

    4 You admit to your own bias, admittedly everyone has some form or another. the difference is being able to keep ones objectivity. You poses none! Thus your credibility makes your opinion worthless to me and the court of law.
    First, are you really stating that you are objective here? You have got to be kidding. As to the rest, I never "poses" as anything.

    5 Because this is a board about the law you should recuse yourself, because of your rationality.
    Step away from the crack pipe. I am not a judge or a legal voice that has anything to do with this case. Therefore, the issue of recuse is not relevant. Well, other than your voice would go unchallenged if you didn't have that darn inconvenience of actually proving any of your statements.

    6 A discussion or debate is not worth much with an individual with your perspective. Therefore I will no longer consider your comments worth responding to.
    Excellent. Bye now.

    7 If a neutral judge were to make judgment on our debate, you would be the clear looser and to think you were calling in to question my intelligence and education? You should consider getting mental help for your paranoia.
    Looser than what? What am I loosening?

    Anyway, how do you think most child molestation cases are started in this country? By testimony from the children. I guess you should think that their opinion and the opinion of the custodial parent should just be ignored?

    If anyone is feeling paranoid here, it is you. You jump onto an old thread to spout your "poor poor pitiful" me crap again about how you aren't REALLY a child molester. If anyone is biased here, it is you.

    Speaking of therapy, aren't you late for the court ordered session as we speak?
    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Confusing laws in Texas re: getting away.
    By AnonymousTX in forum Texas Family Law
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-16-2008, 05:49 PM
  2. Giving up parental rights New Jersey
    By canary1106 in forum Child Custody & Support
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 08:41 PM
  3. iam 17 and really need some help???please... Texas
    By kyle747 in forum Texas Family Law
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-23-2006, 11:03 AM
  4. Age of child when support ends in New Jersey
    By Wanda L in forum New Jersey Family Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-03-2005, 09:08 AM
  5. Separation agreement -- Would you prefer side "A" or "B"
    By Zydeco in forum Registration and Title
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2004, 05:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •