Second Link for Anita

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The first link I gave you contained this quote:

"Sir William Blackstone stated famously that it was better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. Place this statement against the background of child abuse allegations, in which 9 out of 10 reports are false, and where therapists are creating a revenue generating class of victims. One must ask who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.

One such case was that of 22 year old Kelly Michaels, in which a counsel who had not even completed law school was appointed to defend her against multiple counts of sexual abuse. Her lawyer's anemic defense allowed the prosecution present evidence to support charges so patently ridiculous that her conviction was a crime.

Fortunately, after spending only five and one half years in prison, an appeals court threw out her conviction, stating that the case presented against her was fraudulent. Most innocent defendants are not so fortunate. "

And here is the link to the court ruling:

"New Jersey v Margaret Kelly Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 642 A2d 1372 (June 13,1994). A unanimous Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ms. Michaels on the basis of science and reliability. The Court stated;

oThe issue we must determine is whether the interview techniques used by the State in this case were so coercive or suggestive that they had a capacity to substantially distort the children's recollections of actual events and thus compromise the reliability of the children's statements and testimony based on their recollections. New Jersey vs. Margaret Kelly Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1377 (June 13, 1994). oIf a child's recollection of events has been molded by an interrogation, that influence undermines the reliability of the child's responses as an accurate recollection of actual events. Michaels 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1377 (June 13, 1994). oWe note that a fairly wide consensus exists among experts, scholars, and practitioners concerning improper interrogation techniques. They argue that among the factors that can undermine the neutrality of an interview and create undue suggestiveness are a lack of investigatory independence, the pursuit by the interviewer of a preconceived notion of what has happened to the child, the use of leading questions, and a lack of control for outside influences on the child's statements, such as previous conversations with parents or peers. 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1377 (June 13, 1994). oA lack of objectivity also was indicated by the interviewer's failure to pursue any alternative hypothesis that might contradict an assumption of defendant's guilt, and a failure to challenge or probe seemingly outlandish statements made by the children. The record is replete with instances in which children were asked blatantly leading questions that furnished information the children themselves had not mentioned. Michaels 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1380 (June 13, 1994) oTo ensure defendant's right to a fair trial a pretrial taint hearing is essential to demonstrate the reliability of the resultant evidence. 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1382 (June 13, 1994) 13. Assessing reliability as a predicate to the admission of in-court testimony is a somewhat extraordinary step. Nevertheless, it is not unprecedented. [Citing to Mason v Braithwaite, 432 US 98, 97 S Ct 2243, 53 L Ed2d 140 (1977) & Jackson v Denno, 378 US 368, 84 S Ct 1774, 12 L Ed2d 908 (1964)] 136 N.J. 299,642 A 2d 1372, 1381 (June 13, 1994).

Specific points addressed by the Michaels Court;

oFailure to videotape initial interview; oLack of control for outside (family) influences; oAbsence of spontaneous recall in the supposed victims; oInterviewer bias - A preconceived notion that alleged wrongdoer, "did it"; oRepeated leading questions; oIncessant questioning, either by examiners of by family members; oMultiple interviews; oTransmission of suggestion to children ie: tone of voice; oPositive reinforcement of inculpatory statements; oNegative reinforcement of exculpatory statements; oFailure to probe outlandish statements; oContact with peers and reference to their statements; oUse of mild threats, bribes or cajoling; oVilification of alleged wrongdoer. -- "

http.www.allencowling.com/nojava/false08.htm



-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000

Answers

Pig,

Here's your link:

Link.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 08, 2000.


Thanks Sheeple.

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000.

I read your link, Pig. I was particularly amused by the statement associating some evidence with casting chicken bones and reading goat entrails.

I also went to the main page for this reference. Allen Cowling....a PI who specializes in false allegations of sexual abuse, etc.

Allen Cowling, PI

Again, Pig, I'm not saying that some folks aren't falsely accused of stuff. HOWEVER, I WILL say that I don't think folks simply make up stuff because they think you're ugly, or because they don't like the way you mow your lawn.

We've all heard on the news about the cases where hypnotism somehow revealed sexual abuse in the past. The evidence wasn't there then, and it isn't there now. If hypnotism can induce someone to remember what someone did to them and the testimony of that someone is used to put someone behind bars, I'd suggest injustice. However, I have a co- worker with a grand-daughter who told HIM that her step-dad molested her.

This was the FIRST step-dad. Heck...the story on that family goes on so far that I'm not even sure anymore if that wasn't the girl's REAL dad. Anyway, the girl told the grand-dad, and the grand-dad told his daughter, and the dad [of whichever flavor] was tried. The dad won the case. His wife divorced him anyway, and eventually remarried. Somewhere along this line, this woman had another child...a boy. The boy was diagnosed with hyperactivity. The girl did well in school, etc. UNTIL this same theme cropped up again. Grandpa was AGAIN told that step-dad was sexually abusing her. Grandpa AGAIN looked into it. THIS time, the son testified that he ALSO had been abused at the hands of this man. The grandpa obtained temporary custody of the kids. Both children now feel loved and the boy doesn't need medication anymore for his hyperactivity. The step-dad ended up in jail for a while [on another charge], and left town. The mom ended up in jail on another charge as well, and last I heard was STILL in jail.

Did this little girl cry wolf TWICE, or did her mom make bad choices in mates? *I* don't know, but AGAIN, we're not talking about just ANYONE making these claims of abuse.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.


Anita:

I tend to agree with you, however, there ARE many people who do make false accusations, during divorces, Prime Example, much emotion there.

Then there are those of 'us' meaning me, who had true reason to report even my own sister, and nothing was done from 92 till 98.

There are folks out there who make it up because they dont like somebody, this I know for fact. Still they undergo investigation.

I still cant figure out home come it took so long for me.?

Great subject matter, but not for the faint of heart or one who is prone to ache for children.

We have came a VERY long way imho with sexual abuse though. Before it was 'the family secret' but I am amazed at how many now are coming out about it...close friends of mine whose own 'fathers' molested them.

Does it get any sicker than that?

I say pull off da wee-wee for folks like that, and I am dead serious.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 09, 2000.


Anita, I know of several cases where black children were reported by day care workers for "mongolian spots" on their backsides -- spots that are common knowledge among people of color, social services, and the medical establishment. In every case I know of, the children were removed FIRST, before letting the parent know of the allegations, before letting the parent provide medical records. These spots are routinely noted on the child's medical records BECAUSE they are often mistaken for signs of abuse. I know of a case where the child was in foster care for weeks, in spite of the foster mother and the child's pediatrician repeatedly informing social services that the spots were birth marks and not fading at all.

Parents have been reported for abuse by people who owe the parents money, by people living next door who don't like children's noises, by teachers and other school personnel who don't like the parents, by doctors who goofed up on the kid and fear a medical malpractice suit, or by someone who wants custody of the children. There is a law called "good faith" which gives these people immunity. In the state of Missouri, a law has been passed making it a felony the THIRD time a false allegation is made. I know someone there who underwent two investigations at the instigation of an ex-inlaw, and the social worker promised to prosecute the ex the third time around...which never happened, because the ex knew the law.

I know a child who was actively engaged in playing hide and seek with his parent and siblings. The next door neighbor put this child in her car and took the child to social services without calling the police. Meanwhile, the parent called the police to help search for the missing child. Social services did NOT inform the police they were holding a child in their offices. The police finally called social services to report a possible negligence case against the parent and were told the child was there -- no court order on the child had been sought, even though the child had been there for quite some time. The parent went to the office without a requested police escort and demanded to see the child. Social services refused, the parent said they had better call police to report an assault and then forcibly removed the child from their office. Social services did not have the parent arrested. The police refused to arrest the neighbor for kidnapping. Lawyers refused to sue the neighbor. Officially, this incident "never happened". This is just one case of stupidity involving spiteful people and CPS.

Anita, read this carefully: The law allows for ANYONE to call a toll-free number and report someone for child abuse anonymously. ANYONE can go to a payphone, insert no money, and cause a family grief without leaving a name, number, relationship to family, or any other identifying information. It happens, you just don't want to believe it. It's a gruesome miscarriage of the law that was intended to encourage people to report REAL abuse.

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 09, 2000.



Pig:

I think we've reached the bottom-line on this one. You're suggesting that the Jerry Springer show really IS reflective of our society and that CPS sucks. I'm not really sure how we even got into this discussion. Did it start with Elian?

I believe all your stories, BTW. This stuff is too weird to make up. As I asked on another of these threads, what is YOUR suggested solution?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.


Anita:

I agree, not much left to say, and for the moment, no solution.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 09, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ