eluminator
Flashlight Enthusiast
I knew that would get your attention /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I apologize for the length of this post. I hope some of you find it as interesting as I do.
I was called for jury duty and I just finished a three day trial. I strongly suggest each of you do your duty. You might be pleasantly surprised like I was. And if you like soap operas and tear jerkers, and maybe a gut wrench, you might find that too.
My first pleasant surprise was how well the prospective jurors were appreciated and cared for. The people that handled the juror system were uniformed officers of the sheriff's department. I suppose they would be called sheriff's deputies. It was very obvious they cared about what went on in that courthouse. It was obvious they were proud of their courthouse and the uniform they wore. They bent over backwards to make the jurors as comfortable as possible and they were proud of that too. And they were courteous to a fault. Truly they were the finest. Sheriff Speziale and his deputies deserve a commendation.
The second pleasant surprise was the jurors I served with. Fourteen of us, Nine women and five men. They were all good people. In fact I would say they were even better than that.
Several people had expertise that helped us try to figure out what was going on in this case.
As the judge predicted, this case took three days. In the parlance of a baseball player, it was a "laugher". No, I don't mean we didn't take it seriously, I mean it quickly seemed evident that we weren't going to be able to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That was a big relief to me, as I was dreading a lot of mental anguish over reaching the proper decision.
None of the jurors knows what happened. There are only two things I'm fairly certain of. Of all the people involved in the lives of those two girls I saw on the witness stand, only we the jury, and the judge, and perhaps the very fine defense attorney, were interested in the truth. The state agency that handles abused or raped children, or to be more precise, allegedly abused or raped children, needs a complete overhaul. Or maybe it should be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up.
I could come up with a hundred scenarios to describe what actually happened. Probably all would be wrong. If the one I think most likely happened, then I just watched a nice 16 year old girl be put through pure hell as she sat in the witness chair and somehow felt compelled to repeat the lie she told two years ago. She told us her step-father raped her two or three times a week for three years, from the time she was eleven to the time she was fourteen. Of course her "daddy" was sitting there in the courtroom at the time. If she was lying, and I have good reason to think so, this will leave scars that won't heal for the rest of her life.
I still want to see her as a nice girl that was trapped in a lie. Maybe she will grow up to be like her mother, and make a fool of me. I can't forget the picture that was introduced into evidence. I believe it was taken sometime during the years when the alleged rapes took place. It was a picture of her. She had given it to her father. On the back she had written this:
I love you daddy!!!!!
I will always be your little girl.
Then there were lots of hearts and kisses.
The defense attorney took the picture to her to ask if she recognized it. The instant she saw it her whole body flinched. Then she did a lot of crying. We saw several crying episodes from her and her sister. I don't know if the other ones were real or not, but I'm sure this one was real. I'm not sure what it means though.
I will willingly tell you the rest of the story, if you want. Why I think the allegation is a lie, and why I care for the girl and her older sister who also testified. I could tell you why I think their "daddy" might actually be a good candidate for "father of the decade", and why their very strong willed and outspoken mother who worked long hours and then went to school might want her husband who was disabled and stayed home and raised many daughters and step-daughters, to rot in jail. I could tell the circumstances of the original lie, and why it might have happened.
But I want to talk about something else now. You and I know something that all the people in the state "Department of Raped Children" refuse to even let enter their minds. They are as terrified of the truth as Dracula is terrified of the cross. I think I know why, and I understand it, but it's terribly wrong.
You see, we know that a child can lie. Every child must be allowed to tell one lie and wiggle out of it without their entire world crashing down around them. If that weren't the case, none of us would be here. Would we?
About twenty years ago there was a big political movement concerning child rape, incest, etc. There were no doubt many laws passed and many government agencies created, etc. Every little girl was taught some things. Most of this is probably good, I wouldn't know. But I do know that most every law, and most every government program has unintended consequences. One reason I so detest most politicians is that either they are too stupid to see the unintended consequences or more likely, they see no political benefit in mentioning these unintended consequences, or doing something about them.
One of the unintended consequences may be that we have set a horrible trap for girls. It's fairly easy to see that a girl's lie could send an innocent man to prison for twenty years and have him branded a sex offender for life. What may not be so obvious is that this lie could put the girl through torture that is worse than an actual rape.
They lived on the wrong side of the tracks in Patterson NJ. There was trouble at home that day. The father tried to inspect the girl's bookbags for drugs. The girls resisted. The mother was aware of the trouble by a phone call and came home earlier than usual and took the girls to dinner. The mother says she left it up to the girls whether they wanted to continue living with their step-father. By the way, there was some indication that the mother suspected her husband of spending some time with his previous wife. The girl said he raped her. Whether it was true, or an "innocent" lie or a not so innocent lie, I don't know. That is, I don't know if the girl realized the consequences of that accusation or not, at the moment she said it.
The mother immediately drove her to the hospital in Wayne, a place I'm familiar with. The girl was examined from the top of her head to the tip of her toes, and nothing was found. But a report was generated and sent to some state agency as required by law.
I don't know the name of the agency. Of course it wouldn't be called the "Raped Child Agency", but something like the "Abused Child Agency". As a juror looking for the truth I see a problem already. The name of the agency says it all, and I suppose nothing can be done about the name. The correct, but politically impossible name should be the "Allegedly Abused Child Agency". You probably think I'm off my rocker, but I listened to two "expert witnesses" concerning child rape. And I can assure you that they think every child that is referred to their agencies has been raped. They simply can't allow the thought in their minds that any one of those children has told a lie. That was painfully obvious to me, and to the judge, and to the defense attorney. The children they see can no doubt get couseling appropriate for a child that has been raped. But a child that has lied can get no appropriate counseling at all.
Once the report was generated, the wheels started turning. A month later the girl was sent to one of these agencies and was given a more intensive examination. This time they used a remote controlled microscope device to inspect in great detail every tissue of interest in the girl's body. They found absolutely nothing. The first expert withess was part of the examination. She was quick to point out that just because nothing was found, didn't mean the girl was not raped. Okay, so far as it goes. Even at this point, she wouldn't even entertain the thought that the girl might not have been raped.
Why was this examination done? Obviously to obtain any possible evidence to send the horrible man to jail. That's good. Unfortunately there is no device they can use to examine her mind to see if she lied. Even more unfortunately, even if there was such a device, they wouldn't use it.
The judge had apparently seen these things many times. He took the unusual step of questioning the withess himself. He asked "Did you test the girl to see if she was fertile?" She didn't want to hear the question. He asked again. She didn't understand. He asked a third time. She replied this way. "The girl said she had her period ten days previous so there was no need".
It took me a while to see why he asked. Then I understood. Anyone interested in the truth would want to know why an eleven year old girl that had been menstruating for a year didn't get pregnant when raped hundreds of times. But as I said, only we the jurors and the judge were interested in the truth.
The defense attorney then asked some questions concerning arousal, lubrication, and abrasion. The woman said that an eleven year old that had been menstruating for a year could have enough lubrication to prevent any physical trauma without being aroused. I plead ignorance here. All I know is that when we went back to the juror's room, most of the women and some of the men were laughing at her. One woman stated that obviously she didn't have a man.
By the way folks, if you think this lack of trauma is why we on the jury doubt the rape, perish the thought. For instance the rapes occurred in various rooms of their small apartment. Her sister was always there, and for a year, her grandparents were also there. She said she screamed and struggled, but no one noticed anything. And she lied about something else. A childish, almost innocent lie, but still a lie.
The second expert witness was, I believe, a social worker. One of the tools of her trade is a list of six symptoms a raped child can exhibit. The last, and most troublesome, is recantation. That is, the child can deny it happened.
It was written by a doctor who is well known and respected in the child abuse field. The defense attorney asked her if she knew that the doctor had since retracted what he wrote, at least to the extent of warning that it shouldn't be used in court. She said she was aware of that. To her credit, she said that recantation mostly happened with the younger children.
I can see how that can happen. If a father rapes his six year old child, she would be terrified. She would become scared to death. She would be afraid she would lose her parents.
I suspect that recantation is the Child Abuse Agency's worst nightmare. It's probably a nightmare for all of us. Sometimes, as in this case, the child's testimony is all the evidence the jury has. If the girl says it didn't happen, it makes it more difficult for the jury to put the horrible man behind bars.
But those "expert witnesses" are in denial. I suspect if the girl in this case had gone to the second "expert witness" and was able to say she lied, and that's hard to do, that expert would be horrified, and would likely ignore the girl. After all, recantation is a symptom that a raped child can show.
The defense attorney asked this witness if there was a list of symptoms that a child that lied about rape would show. Utter silence. He asked what percentage of children that alleged rape were lying about it. She didn't want to hear the question. After much prodding she quickly and quietly said "one to three percent". I have no idea what the percentage is, but I'll bet she doesn't either. I'll bet in her mind, none of the children she has seen has lied about it.
Neither she nor the other expert witness knew about this case. But obviously they could figure it out.
It seems clear that she didn't want to answer the question in the presence of the jury. In fact, she didn't even want to think about it. She didn't want to contaminate the minds of the jurors. She didn't want the jurors to even consider something that all the rest of us know. She didn't want us to consider that the child might be lying. She only wanted to put the awful man behind bars. Only we the jurors, and the judge, were interested in the truth.
The trial is over now but I still think of those girls. They were pretty close. They may only have each other now. Actually they have an older sister that is living with her boyfriend, so they aren't completely alone. They have a mother but I'm not sure how good a mother she is. I wish them luck.
In defense of the "Abused Child Agency" and the prosecutor's office, I suppose none of them had access to all the evidence that we did. I suppose the purpose of a trial is to gather all the evidence and examine it. But it's unfortunate that the girl had to be put through it.
I could tell you a few more things that might bring tears to your eyes, but this is way too long already. Of course we don't even think about the poor man. But that's always the case, isn't it guys? Thanks for reading it.
I was called for jury duty and I just finished a three day trial. I strongly suggest each of you do your duty. You might be pleasantly surprised like I was. And if you like soap operas and tear jerkers, and maybe a gut wrench, you might find that too.
My first pleasant surprise was how well the prospective jurors were appreciated and cared for. The people that handled the juror system were uniformed officers of the sheriff's department. I suppose they would be called sheriff's deputies. It was very obvious they cared about what went on in that courthouse. It was obvious they were proud of their courthouse and the uniform they wore. They bent over backwards to make the jurors as comfortable as possible and they were proud of that too. And they were courteous to a fault. Truly they were the finest. Sheriff Speziale and his deputies deserve a commendation.
The second pleasant surprise was the jurors I served with. Fourteen of us, Nine women and five men. They were all good people. In fact I would say they were even better than that.
Several people had expertise that helped us try to figure out what was going on in this case.
As the judge predicted, this case took three days. In the parlance of a baseball player, it was a "laugher". No, I don't mean we didn't take it seriously, I mean it quickly seemed evident that we weren't going to be able to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That was a big relief to me, as I was dreading a lot of mental anguish over reaching the proper decision.
None of the jurors knows what happened. There are only two things I'm fairly certain of. Of all the people involved in the lives of those two girls I saw on the witness stand, only we the jury, and the judge, and perhaps the very fine defense attorney, were interested in the truth. The state agency that handles abused or raped children, or to be more precise, allegedly abused or raped children, needs a complete overhaul. Or maybe it should be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up.
I could come up with a hundred scenarios to describe what actually happened. Probably all would be wrong. If the one I think most likely happened, then I just watched a nice 16 year old girl be put through pure hell as she sat in the witness chair and somehow felt compelled to repeat the lie she told two years ago. She told us her step-father raped her two or three times a week for three years, from the time she was eleven to the time she was fourteen. Of course her "daddy" was sitting there in the courtroom at the time. If she was lying, and I have good reason to think so, this will leave scars that won't heal for the rest of her life.
I still want to see her as a nice girl that was trapped in a lie. Maybe she will grow up to be like her mother, and make a fool of me. I can't forget the picture that was introduced into evidence. I believe it was taken sometime during the years when the alleged rapes took place. It was a picture of her. She had given it to her father. On the back she had written this:
I love you daddy!!!!!
I will always be your little girl.
Then there were lots of hearts and kisses.
The defense attorney took the picture to her to ask if she recognized it. The instant she saw it her whole body flinched. Then she did a lot of crying. We saw several crying episodes from her and her sister. I don't know if the other ones were real or not, but I'm sure this one was real. I'm not sure what it means though.
I will willingly tell you the rest of the story, if you want. Why I think the allegation is a lie, and why I care for the girl and her older sister who also testified. I could tell you why I think their "daddy" might actually be a good candidate for "father of the decade", and why their very strong willed and outspoken mother who worked long hours and then went to school might want her husband who was disabled and stayed home and raised many daughters and step-daughters, to rot in jail. I could tell the circumstances of the original lie, and why it might have happened.
But I want to talk about something else now. You and I know something that all the people in the state "Department of Raped Children" refuse to even let enter their minds. They are as terrified of the truth as Dracula is terrified of the cross. I think I know why, and I understand it, but it's terribly wrong.
You see, we know that a child can lie. Every child must be allowed to tell one lie and wiggle out of it without their entire world crashing down around them. If that weren't the case, none of us would be here. Would we?
About twenty years ago there was a big political movement concerning child rape, incest, etc. There were no doubt many laws passed and many government agencies created, etc. Every little girl was taught some things. Most of this is probably good, I wouldn't know. But I do know that most every law, and most every government program has unintended consequences. One reason I so detest most politicians is that either they are too stupid to see the unintended consequences or more likely, they see no political benefit in mentioning these unintended consequences, or doing something about them.
One of the unintended consequences may be that we have set a horrible trap for girls. It's fairly easy to see that a girl's lie could send an innocent man to prison for twenty years and have him branded a sex offender for life. What may not be so obvious is that this lie could put the girl through torture that is worse than an actual rape.
They lived on the wrong side of the tracks in Patterson NJ. There was trouble at home that day. The father tried to inspect the girl's bookbags for drugs. The girls resisted. The mother was aware of the trouble by a phone call and came home earlier than usual and took the girls to dinner. The mother says she left it up to the girls whether they wanted to continue living with their step-father. By the way, there was some indication that the mother suspected her husband of spending some time with his previous wife. The girl said he raped her. Whether it was true, or an "innocent" lie or a not so innocent lie, I don't know. That is, I don't know if the girl realized the consequences of that accusation or not, at the moment she said it.
The mother immediately drove her to the hospital in Wayne, a place I'm familiar with. The girl was examined from the top of her head to the tip of her toes, and nothing was found. But a report was generated and sent to some state agency as required by law.
I don't know the name of the agency. Of course it wouldn't be called the "Raped Child Agency", but something like the "Abused Child Agency". As a juror looking for the truth I see a problem already. The name of the agency says it all, and I suppose nothing can be done about the name. The correct, but politically impossible name should be the "Allegedly Abused Child Agency". You probably think I'm off my rocker, but I listened to two "expert witnesses" concerning child rape. And I can assure you that they think every child that is referred to their agencies has been raped. They simply can't allow the thought in their minds that any one of those children has told a lie. That was painfully obvious to me, and to the judge, and to the defense attorney. The children they see can no doubt get couseling appropriate for a child that has been raped. But a child that has lied can get no appropriate counseling at all.
Once the report was generated, the wheels started turning. A month later the girl was sent to one of these agencies and was given a more intensive examination. This time they used a remote controlled microscope device to inspect in great detail every tissue of interest in the girl's body. They found absolutely nothing. The first expert withess was part of the examination. She was quick to point out that just because nothing was found, didn't mean the girl was not raped. Okay, so far as it goes. Even at this point, she wouldn't even entertain the thought that the girl might not have been raped.
Why was this examination done? Obviously to obtain any possible evidence to send the horrible man to jail. That's good. Unfortunately there is no device they can use to examine her mind to see if she lied. Even more unfortunately, even if there was such a device, they wouldn't use it.
The judge had apparently seen these things many times. He took the unusual step of questioning the withess himself. He asked "Did you test the girl to see if she was fertile?" She didn't want to hear the question. He asked again. She didn't understand. He asked a third time. She replied this way. "The girl said she had her period ten days previous so there was no need".
It took me a while to see why he asked. Then I understood. Anyone interested in the truth would want to know why an eleven year old girl that had been menstruating for a year didn't get pregnant when raped hundreds of times. But as I said, only we the jurors and the judge were interested in the truth.
The defense attorney then asked some questions concerning arousal, lubrication, and abrasion. The woman said that an eleven year old that had been menstruating for a year could have enough lubrication to prevent any physical trauma without being aroused. I plead ignorance here. All I know is that when we went back to the juror's room, most of the women and some of the men were laughing at her. One woman stated that obviously she didn't have a man.
By the way folks, if you think this lack of trauma is why we on the jury doubt the rape, perish the thought. For instance the rapes occurred in various rooms of their small apartment. Her sister was always there, and for a year, her grandparents were also there. She said she screamed and struggled, but no one noticed anything. And she lied about something else. A childish, almost innocent lie, but still a lie.
The second expert witness was, I believe, a social worker. One of the tools of her trade is a list of six symptoms a raped child can exhibit. The last, and most troublesome, is recantation. That is, the child can deny it happened.
It was written by a doctor who is well known and respected in the child abuse field. The defense attorney asked her if she knew that the doctor had since retracted what he wrote, at least to the extent of warning that it shouldn't be used in court. She said she was aware of that. To her credit, she said that recantation mostly happened with the younger children.
I can see how that can happen. If a father rapes his six year old child, she would be terrified. She would become scared to death. She would be afraid she would lose her parents.
I suspect that recantation is the Child Abuse Agency's worst nightmare. It's probably a nightmare for all of us. Sometimes, as in this case, the child's testimony is all the evidence the jury has. If the girl says it didn't happen, it makes it more difficult for the jury to put the horrible man behind bars.
But those "expert witnesses" are in denial. I suspect if the girl in this case had gone to the second "expert witness" and was able to say she lied, and that's hard to do, that expert would be horrified, and would likely ignore the girl. After all, recantation is a symptom that a raped child can show.
The defense attorney asked this witness if there was a list of symptoms that a child that lied about rape would show. Utter silence. He asked what percentage of children that alleged rape were lying about it. She didn't want to hear the question. After much prodding she quickly and quietly said "one to three percent". I have no idea what the percentage is, but I'll bet she doesn't either. I'll bet in her mind, none of the children she has seen has lied about it.
Neither she nor the other expert witness knew about this case. But obviously they could figure it out.
It seems clear that she didn't want to answer the question in the presence of the jury. In fact, she didn't even want to think about it. She didn't want to contaminate the minds of the jurors. She didn't want the jurors to even consider something that all the rest of us know. She didn't want us to consider that the child might be lying. She only wanted to put the awful man behind bars. Only we the jurors, and the judge, were interested in the truth.
The trial is over now but I still think of those girls. They were pretty close. They may only have each other now. Actually they have an older sister that is living with her boyfriend, so they aren't completely alone. They have a mother but I'm not sure how good a mother she is. I wish them luck.
In defense of the "Abused Child Agency" and the prosecutor's office, I suppose none of them had access to all the evidence that we did. I suppose the purpose of a trial is to gather all the evidence and examine it. But it's unfortunate that the girl had to be put through it.
I could tell you a few more things that might bring tears to your eyes, but this is way too long already. Of course we don't even think about the poor man. But that's always the case, isn't it guys? Thanks for reading it.
