pageok
pageok
pageok
More on Abusing Children in the Name of Prosecuting Child Abuse:

From the amicus brief of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists, State (New Jersey) v. Michaels, one of the bogus child care sex abuse cases of the late 80s and early 90s:

After reading a number of these interviews, it is difficult to believe that adults charged with the care and protection of young children would be allowed to use the vocabulary that they used in these interviews, that they would be allowed to interact with the children in such sexually explicit ways, or that they would be allowed to bully and frighten their child witnesses in such a shocking manner. No amount of evidence that sexual abuse had actually occurred could ever justify the use of these techniques especially with three- and four-year-old children. Above and beyond the great stress, intimidation, and embarrassment that many of the children so obviously suffered during the interviews, we are deeply concerned about the long-lasting harmful effects of persuading children that they have been horribly sexually and physically abused, when in fact there may have been no abuse until the interviews began.

Warning, graphic below.

And out of the mouths of babes, from an interview of one of the children in that case:

(show)

Anderson (mail) (www):
Bad link -- ???

Horrible stuff, of course. I was checking the link b/c I wondered what kind of representation, if any, the children had at these "interviews." I would've been on the phone to the court in five seconds, had I been an attorney or GAL for this kid.
7.11.2007 6:32pm
AppSocRes (mail):
I wonder why some of these perpetrators weren't indicted for child abuse after the witch hunt hysteria died down. Is there any possibility that a civil action could be initiated against any of these depraved cretins?
7.11.2007 6:54pm
EMC (mail):
I have practiced criminal defense long enough to have lost most of my squeamishness, but I am sorry to say that this type of interview is not remotely unusual, and I read interview transcripts like this one all the time. The case I consider to be the worst of my career was not a murder case, but a juvie case in which a 12 year old was accused of molesting two little girls. The actual charges were neither convincing nor particularly egregious, but listening to the police interview with the little girls convinced me that the officer conducting the interview was a sex offender waiting to happen.
7.11.2007 7:05pm
Dave N (mail):
I was always struck by the atgument made by those who prosecuted these cases. Several times I heard this tautology:

1. Children never lie about sexual abuse. 2. If a child says sexual abuse didn't happen, the child is simply in denial.
7.11.2007 7:09pm
vinnie (mail):
So if anyone interviews my five year old this way one of you guys will help me get off on justifiable homicide right?
7.11.2007 8:00pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Were it my kid, I'd probably have to be gunned down after shooting as many of those bastards as I got get my sights on.
7.11.2007 8:09pm
PersonFromPorlock:
So, when does Scott Harshbarger get out of prison?
7.11.2007 8:17pm
Waldensian (mail):

So if anyone interviews my five year old this way one of you guys will help me get off on justifiable homicide right?

Yes.

First piece of advice: stop posting about your willingness to kill someone who engages in specified conduct. Makes it hard to beat that premeditation/sanity claim by the prosecution. :)
7.11.2007 10:35pm
Fub:
Waldensian wrote at 7.11.2007 9:35pm:
First piece of advice: stop posting about your willingness to kill someone who engages in specified conduct. Makes it hard to beat that premeditation/sanity claim by the prosecution. :)
Yeah, it's just too damn bad that "Yerhonner, he needed killin'" isn't a valid defense anymore.
7.11.2007 11:51pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
I believe it was William F. Buckley, Jr. who asked the important question: "Where is Vlad the Impaler when we need him?"
7.12.2007 12:04am
Sarah (mail) (www):
I suppose it comes down to a mob mentality or "all you other people aren't stopping him, so I guess I should behave this way too" rationalization for the second, third, etc. investigators who cross the line like that. But I can't figure out the psychology of the first guy in that first room who asks a 4 year old these kinds of questions. I mean, honestly, "did you enjoy it?" ??????
7.12.2007 12:56am
BruceM (mail) (www):
We must abuse the children to protect the children. It's the thought behind the abuse that counts. Abuse for sexual gratification is wrong, but abuse to lock up another abuser is okay (as long as nobody gets an erection).
7.12.2007 1:22am