Thursday, May 21, 2009

Accusers as "Victims": A Case Study



















The Reign of the Accuser, Salem 1692: Mary Warren, one of six young female "victims" whose allegations propelled the Salem Witch Trials, points the lethal finger of accusation at a village resident. Even a brief acquaintance with contemporary child abuse prosecutions is enough to disabuse one of the notion that the mass derangement at Salem was unique: It is recreated somewhere in the United States every day.


One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity .... [A]t the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. --

Deuteronomy 19:15


(The first in an occasional series.)


It would hardly be difficult to convict any man of child sex abuse if the prosecutor were provided with the following advantages:


*The accuser would be designated a "victim," and referred to as such in pre-trial hearings and during the trial, thereby leaving jurors predisposed to accept her allegations as fact;



*The trial judge grants a prosecution
motion in limine (a request to exclude "prejudicial" evidence) forbidding the defense to call witnesses whose first-hand testimony would impeach the credibility of the accuser;


*In similar fashion, the judge prevents the defense from "prejudicing" the jury against the "victim" by referring to at least one previous occasion on which she made a false allegation of abuse;



*The accuser/"victim" is permitted to change critical, materially relevant details of her story without being accused of perjury or simply impeached as unreliable;


*Even as the judge carefully shields the "victim" from adversarial scrutiny, he permits the prosecution to mention that the defendant had previously been the subject of an abuse investigation, without being charged, prosecuted, or convicted of any offense;



*Most egregiously, the judge permits the prosecution to present an "expert" witness to explain how the critical piece of exculpatory evidence in a child rape trial -- a gynecological examination of the accuser showing perfectly normal physical development, including an intact hymen -- was actually a common finding in child sexual abuse cases.



Indeed, just as the notorious "magic bullet" of Daley Plaza managed to defy established laws of physics, changing directions several times without losing its lethal velocity, the accuser's virginal membrane possessed magical properties that permitted it to survive repeated episodes of full intercourse forced upon the girl by her step-father, which supposedly began when the accuser was 12 and the accused was in his late 20s.


It is
possible, albeit monumentally improbable, that a young girl could endure multiple sexual violations, including incestuous intercourse, without enduring physical trauma of the sort revealed in a detailed gynecological examination.


In the absence of corroborating evidence, however -- such as eyewitness testimony, photographs, video, or perhaps an item of intimate apparel infused, Clinton-style, with DNA from the accused -- a normal examination should be enough to shut down a prosecution cold. All that would be left is the word of the accuser, which -- under the tenets of Western law as old as Moses -- is not enough to secure a conviction.


Yet it's likely that every week, if not every day, people (usually men, although women are hardly immune) are convicted of sex crimes and sent to prison following "trials" that follow the template described above.



The word of a single accuser is considered the self-ratifying testimony of the "victim"; exculpatory physical evidence is suppressed or explained away; the defense is forbidden to impeach the credibility of the accuser, while the prosecution is free from any similar restrictions in assailing the character of the accused; and a presumption of guilt informs the entire proceeding.



Often such trials partake of "magical thinking" of the sort that led credulous officials in 17th Century Salem to accept "spectral evidence" -- dreams and visions in which the disembodied spirits of the accused supposedly committed vile acts while their physical bodies were in another location -- as a valid rebuttal to an otherwise unassailable alibi.


Once those convicted in such "trials" serve their sentences, most of them -- including at least some people who are victims of grotesque injustice -- can be designated "sexually dangerous persons" who will never fully regain their freedom. In fact,
a law enacted in 2006 permits the open-ended "civil confinement" of paroled sex offenders within the federal prison system. This amounts to a potential life sentence inflicted on the basis of crimes yet to be committed, since "civil confinement" only begins after the detainee has served the prescribed sentence for the crimes of which he was convicted.


Some innocent people caught in the coils of this system find themselves in a uniquely painful predicament: To obtain parole and a chance to rebuild their lives, they must allocute to the offense for which they were convicted.


In some cases, this confession is coupled with a polygraph examination, which puts genuinely innocent people in an inescapable double-bind: If they assert their innocence, they will be denied parole; if they falsely confess to the charges, they'll most likely fail the polygraph examination, with the same result.


Happier times: David Dutt with his son before being unjustly convicted of sexual misconduct with a child. He is currently serving a 30-year prison term.


Boise resident David Shawn Dutt has lived every element of that nightmare since being accused in 2001 -- along with his then-wife Terry -- of sexually abusing his ex wife Terry's daughter, S., for more than two years, beginning in 1999.


At the time the abuse supposedly began, S. -- Terry's child from a previous marriage -- was 12 years old. David was charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor, including full-fledged intercourse. Terry was arrested on charges of sexual battery, sexual solicitation of a minor, and failing to report abuse (the first charge was dropped before trial).



The prosecution presented the same evidence against David and Terry. David was convicted on all counts; Terry was acquitted. That disparity of outcome is sufficient -- but hardly the only -- reason to entertain misgivings about the soundness of the verdict, since the prosecution was permitted to full use of the tactics discussed above.



No diary or journal entries by S. describing abuse were entered into evidence. And S.'s testimony during the trial differed in numerous small but significant ways from the story she had previously told to the police and social workers.


Most importantly, a detailed medical examination carried out when S. was 14 and a half years old, and had supposedly endured several years of sexual molestation -- including numerous episodes of full intercourse -- found no anatomical evidence of abuse of any kind.


That examination (described in an official report to which I have been given access) revealed that S.'s private anatomy was normal, the hymeneal membrane fully intact.


All of this adds up to a very compelling case for reasonable doubt -- unless, of course, one is possessed of the sort of mind-set that considers "spectral evidence" to be credible. Regrettably, the Ada County Prosecutor's office has just such a person in its employ: Deputy Prosecutor Jean Fisher, who has been handling sex crime cases for that office since 1989.


The entire case against David rested on the "disclosures" -- that is, allegations -- made by the "victim" -- which is to say, the accuser.
And Fisher's opening statement was built around a trope quite common in child abuse prosecutions: The jury must honor the "courage" of the "victim" by believing her testimony.


"[I]t takes a very brave child to come forward in a case such as this to escape specific ... fears," such as the "fear of not being believed," insisted Fisher in her address to the jury. "But she's a brave girl and she's here to tell you what has happened to her. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, when you hear the descriptions, when you hear what comes out of her mouth as she describes these acts you will have no doubt in your mind that this defendant systematically sexually abused her over and over and over again...."


Of course, in the Anglo-Saxon system of justice, the precise duty of the jury is to doubt the word of an accuser until that burden of doubt is overcome by a suitable preponderance of evidence. That duty is the same even when the accuser is a winsome, sympathetic young girl claiming to be the victim of unspeakably vile acts.


In her opening statement, Fisher obliquely admitted, in an elliptical and artfully dishonest fashion, that there was no evidence S. had been involved in any sexual activity, whether consensual or abusive: "[Y]ou'll hear about ... the medical condition which involves the her, the estrogenization of the hymen and those sorts of things, and Miss Henbest will be able to explain for you the process of -- of how that works, and that there aren't physical findings in a case such as this."


"Miss Henbest" was the prosecution's star "expert witness," Margaret Henbest -- a nurse practitioner, not an M.D., and a former member of the Idaho Legislature. She was the medical professional who conducted the medical examination of S. immediately following the youngster's first abuse allegation.


It was Ms. Henbest -- not S. -- whom the prosecution chose as its lead witness, and in cross-examination she admitted that there was no evidence that abuse had occurred.


The admission is recorded on page 459 of the trial transcript, lines 3-7, in an exchange between Henbest and defense counsel Dennis Weigt:



Q. The hymen was actually normal genitalia and didn't -- your physical examination didn't reveal any indication of sexual abuse; isn't that correct?

A. That's correct.

(Emphasis added.)


At this point, Mr. Weigt should have asked the witness to be excused and made a motion for a summary judgment: The prosecution's star witness had just admitted that there was no evidence to corroborate the accuser's story. Whether or not that motion had been granted, it would have impressed upon the minds of the jury the utter poverty of the prosecution's case.


In fact, Weigt should have made that motion immediately following Fisher's opening statement to the jury, in which she outlined a prosecution case that fell far short of meeting its burden of proof. At the very least, he should have focused with laser-like coherence on the fact that even before any evidence had been presented to the jury, Ms. Fisher was admitting that there was no physical evidence of abuse.


Instead of attacking the prosecution at its most vulnerable point, Weigt offered a diffuse and rambling summation of the defense's theory of the case, which was that S. was "a very mature, very knowledgeable girl" who was angry and frustrated over domestic responsibilities she was given at home, and desirous of living with her maternal grandmother. From this perspective, the abuse accusations were the product of adolescent spite, and the detailed descriptions offered by S. reflected what she had synthesized from vulgar entertainment, material presented at school, and what she had learned in candid discussions of sexuality with her parents.


Weigt did make one telling point in his opening presentation. David Dutt had a flawless alibi on the only specific date offered by S. on which sexual intercourse supposedly occurred: He was in the hospital with his wife while their son was delivered by an emergency c-section; S., on the other hand, went home with her grandmother,where she stayed for the next several days.


Once that allegation was tested in court, however, S.'s specific recollection suddenly became very approximate, at least as far as the date was concerned.


The trial judge, Fourth District Judge Thomas Neville, again proved helpful to the prosecution by instructing the jury that "the State only has to prove on or about these time frames" in which the abuse allegedly occurred.


What this meant, in practical terms, was that the jury not only was to accept S.'s unsupported word that the abuse took place, but give her generous leeway regarding self-contradiction for the specific purpose of nullifying David Dutt's otherwise invincible alibi.


"She knows that she had intercourse with the defendant, David Dutt the night of [the son's] birth," Fisher insisted in her closing statement. "She believes in her heart it was the night [the son] was born. Now, if you think she's confused, that it maybe was the second night or the third night before [the son] came home, or that it's possible she could have been confused, but you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, it [the specific date] doesn't matter."


Oh, yes it does matter -- or it would in any trial held under legitimate rules of evidence. What Fisher was demanding of the jury -- with the support of Judge Neville -- was a standard of proof functionally indistinguishable from the Salem Witch Trial's notion of "spectral evidence." In Salem the prosecutors could dispense with an alibi by insisting that the accused could be two places at once; in the trial of David Dutt, the judge and prosecutor insisted that the accuser could alter critical details of her story in order to get around an alibi.


Jean Fisher's summation to the jury was an Oprah-magnitude onslaught of unalloyed sentimentalism, a blast of unfiltered bathos worthy of a Daytime Emmy.


"Today, S. is a victim," Fisher insisted. "The future will determine if she is a survivor.... After hearing from S., after seeing her pain, after seeing her presentation and how she suffered up here, can there be any doubt in your minds that she has been sexually abused repeatedly by her stepfather?"


The critical word omitted by Fisher is "reasonable" -- that is, the product of logic. "Reasonable doubt" results from a dispassionate examination of provable facts by jurors who understand that the word of an accuser is never sufficient evidence to convict the accused. That quality of intellect called "reason" dictates that accusations are never self-validating, and that this is true even when the accuser undergoes visible distress and "pain" as she makes unsupported accusations.


Perhaps the greatest scandal in this entire affair is that there wasn't a single juror with the intellectual ballast necessary to keep from being swept away by the gale-force blasts of emotion, and the leadership ability necessary to help others recognize the pervasive grounds for acquittal on the basis of reasonable doubt.


"You are a brave girl," gushed Neville to S. as he prepared to sentence David Dutt. "You're a courageous girl." Turning to Dutt, Neville upbraided him for having the temerity to deny S.'s accusations; the very act of doing so, Neville insisted, demonstrated that Dutt's capacity for rehabilitation was unacceptably low.


"You are in denial even after these verdicts," growled Neville at Dutt. "I believe that society does require protection from you. I believe that you are a clear and present and likely to be a future danger to society, and all of those factors militate toward a substantial prison sentence."


In addition to being required to register as a sex offender, Dutt was given a 20-year prison term: ten years fixed, and ten years contingent on his "rehabilitation," which -- as noted above -- requires that he confess to what remain, the verdict notwithstanding, unproven allegations and pass a lie detector test certifying that he believes himself to be guilty.


This relatively brief capsule summary of David Dutt's trial doesn't even begin to address the irregularities, implausibilities, and improprieties that are deployed in dense-pack in this case. It is presently on appeal to the state supreme court, and the persistence of both David and his father Dale in seeking to overturn the conviction has produced some interesting shockwaves within Idaho's criminal "justice" system -- something about which I'll have more to say in future installments.



An attorney and several other qualified observers of the Ada County justice system have informed me that Jean Fisher boasts a conviction rate north of ninety percent. If the prosecution of David Dutt is typical of her approach, and the latitude she is given by trial judges, that claim is entirely believable, and a compelling illustration of the fact that there is no justice to be found in our "justice" system.


On sale now.












Dum spiro, pugno!

33 comments:

The Omega Man said...

I must express admiration for Mr. Grigg's courage in taking on highly emotionally charged issues such as this. Few would dare to stand up for the rights of the falsely accused in matters like terrorism or child abuse.

The degree of emotion in cases like this is precisely what tends to cloud justice. As arguments become more emotional, they acquire an inversely proportional degree of reason--the reason necessary to reach the truth. Some resort to justifications such as "how would you feel if this happened to your daughter?" But that can easily be turned around to: "how would you feel if you were falsely accused of molestation?"

If there is sufficient evidence to believe that someone is guilty of child abuse, then they deserve what our society inflicts on them. But given the severity of that punishment--both legal and social-you'd better be damned sure the accused is guilty.

Anonymous said...

will,

this is so sick. man oh man.

rick

Anonymous said...

Will, looks like the girl's name slipped through in at least one place in the article.

zach said...

What a worthless defense attorney. What scum the jury are. I can just see them-all identifying themselves with the state. All statists themselves, registered voters for one puppet or another neocon or "liberal". Is there any dumber animal than boobus americanus? You know if I were Dutt's father, I'd get justice for my son. I may not get him out of jail, but I'd feel better in the end. I like nice things. A house, a car, plenty to eat, firearms, etc. But much more than a castle on the Black Sea, I want to see people like the judge and prosecutor in this case dangle from a rope in the town square. Freedom and justice are more attractive to me than a million federal reserve notes. People say, "oh you should be a lawyer then". Yeah, that would last long. One case like this, I'd have a psychotic break and take things into my own hands-because if my neighbor doesn't have freedom from this crap, then I'm next.

MoT said...

These kind of horror stories are rampant across, not only this nation, but so many others like Canada, Australia... the U.K. etc., where they think they're more "civilized". Nations with too much time and money stolen from the real producers put the old adage "idle hands are the devils workshop" into full play.

Al Newberry said...

Unfortunately, there still exists the myth that "children don't lie about abuse."

I can tell you, as someone who works in a residential facility for emotionally disturbed kids, that it happens. I've been fortune to have never been accused of anything by a client, but I've seen children frequently make false allegations against people, usually staff.

Even sadder, the few cases in which someone was truly being abusive have been the few cases in which children were afraid to tell.

So yes, children do sometimes make false accusations, just like adults do. This is exactly why we have protections for the accused.

Troy said...

I'll offer the "defense" given for putting convicted child molesters in "civil confinement" (one I believed for a long time): They raped kids because they're sexually attracted to children and you don't just grow out of that like it's some ordinary phase. These people are seen to be just like those who hear voices in their heads to burn things or kill people. Only someone hopelessly naive would think they could ever be let out because they'd almost certainly do the same thing again.

Also, children in abuse cases are treated as victims by default because they are seen as being in a different situation than adults. Any adult making an accusation against someone has some way of supporting themselves and protecting their person in the event a jury finds in favor of the defendant. But children are at the tender mercies of the accused if found innocent, liable to whatever retribution the parent has in store for them.

Anyway, that's the mindset as best I can tell.

GunRights4US said...

My brother was accused of molestation by his daughter many years ago. Luckily it just hung over his head within the family, and never came to the attention of the “justice system”. The girl wanted to live under the auspices of the overly permissive mother, rather than the strict and disciplined father. She openly admitted to engineering the whole thing about 3 years later, but of course by then the damage was done.

Broken said...

While I would contend theologically the Covenant of Moses is long closed, your cite properly the justice requirements from that covenant because they are based on a much older covenant, one which still applies to all nations on this earth. Further, it's not meant to be hyperbole to say such injustice invites demons to control our nation, or any other nation which sinks this low. This nation stands condemned before God, and His wrath falls justly, even now.

Anonymous said...

This is an appalling injustice that screams for an appeal of the verdict.

When the judicial rot exposed in this case becomes apparent here in the hinterlands of flyover country, it becomes obvious that the judicial cancer eating out the substance of
America has spread to the point of being uncontrollable. The death of the host has become certain.

As to the judge and the prosecutor in this case, it is obvious that "winning" is more important than "justice". They should be informed that presiding over what is a kangaroo court only makes them the object of scorn among those who understand how their "reputations" were built. One may also hope that "justice", as administered by them, is accorded to them in its full intensity some day.

Justice the joke; truth the victim; Idaho the unjust. Great, ain't it???

Tim said...

It goes without saying that Will Grigg is a gifted writer! Thank you, Will, for this piece. There are few things worse than being falsely accused of this type of crime.

One of the contributing factors is the notion that, from the onset, one must "believe the victim." That mindset is taught in continuing education for investigators and prosecutors.

The days of Joe Friday (just the facts, ma'am) are long gone when it comes to sex cases. Instead of putting together facts and coming to a conclusion, it seems that too many in law enforcement look for facts to prop up their preconceived theory and disregard any facts to the contrary.

Brandon said...

When such a travesty of justice is portrayed in the context of race, such as in the classic "To Kill A Mockingbird", people are rightfully outraged. Today it seems too many are incapable of understanding the obvious parallel to this context. Mr. Grigg's comment regarding how easily the jury members succumbed to raw emotionalism is a sad commentary on several things, including the general dearth of thinking people, and more specifically the allowing of thinking people on juries.

Ned said...

Anyone who thinks that the 'justice" system dispenses justice should be a juror.

The court system won't permit a juror with more than two brain cells to sit on a petit jury. I know from whenst I speak.

I've worked on criminal cases and know how the system works.

How the hymen-intact "victim" and prosecutors can live with themselves demonstrates what is wrong with the system. The prosecutor wants scalps on the wall - to hell with "justice."BROKEN" PRETTY MUCH NAILED IT: "This nation stands condemned before God, and His wrath falls justly, even now."

One can only hope that the perpetrators of the real crime here are punished in this world.

Anonymous said...

The saddest travesty of all is the ever increasing mob mentality that is ubiquitous amongst the general population today. All you need to do to see proof of this is to read the comment section at the bottom of a recent newspaper article published on their website on some recent crime that has been committed. Seven out of ten people commenting are more than willing to render the accused guilty long before the facts have been heard in one of our courts of "law".Is it any shock then the "justice" that is doled out makes a mockery of the word? It seems increasingly that if the State has determined to arrest you that that fact alone is enough evidence, in the small minds of the lumpen hoi poloi, to convict and if necessary to throw away the keys. Little do these poor people know they are slowly building the system that will over time ultimately find themselves ensnared within it. It really is tragic but ultimately can be blamed on the fact that base emotion has replaced critical, logical thinking. In short we have ceased to be a country of thinkers, and now we will reap the results.

S. Bevin

Anonymous said...

So true. My local paper, The Lancaster Eagle Gazette (a Gannett paper) is so full of comments from the local rabble, gossiping and condemning people who have had run-ins with the local AUTHORITIES. They introduce every sort of slanderous talk to the point where I can't believe I'm reading it. And the paper allows it.

Anonymous said...

The premier example is the travesty at Duke U. two years ago with that wicked prosecutor Nifong.

Kent McManigal said...

S. Bevin is right. To stand up for the rights of these accused men is to endure the wrath of the punishment culture that only wishes to see punishment handed out rather than justice done. Time after time in newspaper website comments I have tried to point out how easy it is for men to be falsely accused, only to be called a "pervert" or "child molester" myself for daring to stick up for the accused. It is sickening and horribly sad. But these gleeful "I hope he gets @%&-raped in prison" types will never see the truth until it happens to them. I used to say I hoped they were never in the position of facing that possibility themselves. I don't say that anymore.

Anonymous said...

Totally relevant story about 4 girls who accuse a cabbie of rape because he wouldn't let them smoke in his cab.

http://digg.com/world_news/4_Girls_Falsely_Cry_Rape_Cabbie_Has_Incident_on_Video?FC=PRCT1

MoT said...

Kent, that punishment culture that you speak of is only another branch in an otherwise dead and cancerous society. Callous towards the accused, towards loving thy neighbor, towards foreigners, you name it. These clowns would goose step to their own execution if it made them FEEL important.

Anonymous said...

Didn't someone say the heart of man is wicked above all things

traitor2tyranny said...

Jer.17

1. [9] The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

[10] I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings

Anonymous said...

So if you didn,t unerstand ,There is no such thing as a virgin. The court has taken notice that jesus can not be the son of God Joesph just knew what he was doing. As long as this man is in prison it has to be seen in this light

Anonymous said...

I am looking for an article you wrote about how you wilily gained access to a meeting in which western-style family planning methods were being pressed upon a strongly traditional Middle Eastern Islamic population. It was in Egypt, maybe? Pls publish link, if you wouldn't mind, if it's not too hard to find.

Anonymous said...

My son was falsely accused 11 year ago, shortly before his 16th birthday.

The facts of this story are so close to his, it's breaking my heart.

Not allowed to attend a party, his 11 year old cousin claimed - during a tantrum - he'd raped her every day for two weeks, two years before. Her mother and I had been feuding from an earlier accusation (she and her mother were 'frequent fliers' when it came to false accusations).

My son passed three polygraphs with high marks saying he didn't do it. She was virginally intact,but had claimed he used "Pert" shampoo "to make it go in easier".

She denied her other accusations(a 5 year old neighbor boy supposedly raped her at age 4. She also denied years of abuse therapy.)

The family left the state 10 days before trial, refused to return to testify.

When my son insisted on a juvenile hearing, she was admitted to a mental hospital. He had no choice but to accept an Alford plea(WHO are they gonna believe? YOU? Or that BEEEEEEU-ti-ful little girl?

He passed another polygraph during the pre sentencing evaluation, and was jailed for it. He was not 'in denial' and dangerous.

Not to worry. As soon as he was jailed she 'bounced back' and no longer needed therapy.

Three years of sex offender 'treatment' my son could never pass the forced confession polygraph. "Whatever she said I did, I did". He was placed on an ankle monitor for 'not cooperating'.

It's been 11 years now. Every birthday is celebrated with a trip to the police station to register as a sex offender.

He suffers more a time goes on...it just never ends. There's no way out...

Brad said...

This case is strikingly similar to my personal experience, except I was only accused and convicted of touching the buttocks for 1 second...receiving a 75 months sentence. I was innocent then, as I am now. God help this nation.
Go to: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/the_trials_of_an_oregon_lawyer.html

Brad said...

Without a fair trial, nothing done to a person in the name of "justice" is fair. Fairness IS the cornerstone of due process in our society, and anyone would agree that preventing crucial evidence to the jury is unfair. Watch 12 angry men. Yes, the DA will lie to and intentionally misled jurors.

Anonymous said...

Before defending David Dutt did you look at the fact he has other victoms? His own child a three year old girl at the time was taken from him for the same sick crap! On the silent record there were other parents that came forward and wrote to the judge that he had done sick things to their children as well when his parents were property managers of apartments, they didnt want to drag their kids through more pain by dragging them through the court system, You are defending a verry sick man!!!!Know your facts!!!!!!!

William N. Grigg said...

Before defending David Dutt did you look at the fact he has other victoms? His own child a three year old girl at the time was taken from him for the same sick crap!On the silent record there were other parents that came forward and wrote to the judge that he had done sick things to their children as well....

If what I have written here is in error in any particular, I will eagerly and happily publish a suitable retraction.

It's not an exaggeration to say that I have examined, in detail, hundreds of pages of official documents regarding this case, and none of what you describe is found therein.

Why should I accept as "fact" a collection of lurid charges that were never proven in court, or even made part of the public record?

The onus is on you to document what you have claimed here, not on me (or anyone else) to rebut charges that haven't even been made in public.

Please contact me -- WNGrigg [at] MSN [dot] com -- if you are willing to provide me with the means to substantiate your claims.

Anonymous said...

What is the “silent record” ???

“A record of a criminal proceeding which does not show that the defendant acted with knowledge or understanding of his or her rights (as in entering a plea of guilty or waiving the right to counsel).”

Let me see if I understand this concept of the “Silent Record.” Any Prosecutor can use anything they want in the Grand Jury even if they can’t prove it. The “silent Record “is information that is not in the main file or court record for one reason or another but resides in the Prosecutor’s “work product” file which cannot be disclosed via subpoena or discovery, therefore the defendant is unaware.

However, the Prosecutors generally in Grand Jury proceedings make use of “professional witnesses” affidavits’ who are not personally attending, corrupt victims witness coordinators statements, and make use of witness statements that may not exist or have made deals with to testify a certain way, and they never intend to put in front of the court, by reading these statements into the record. This in effect is the Prosecutors version of the police reports, and make up a case that is actual from their “silent record.” These “Silent Record” testimonies read into the grand jury by the prosecutor become unalterable and unarguable fact in the case, which the defense never knows.

Then without a preliminary hearing the Judge ultimately accepts the grand jury facts which can be made up of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo by the Prosecutor. These actual “silent record “facts become the only facts, the defendants have no due process to repudiate or confront his accusers. These “silent record” facts can and are being used to increase the sentence unjustly in front of the regular trail jury.

The system as allowed in Idaho, currently makes use of the “demon possessed” prosecutors lying to and commenting with the “silent record” to the grand jury to get an true bill of indictment, and then with inarguable facts portrays facts in the “silent Record “ to enhance and inflame juries for more convictions, which is unconstitutional

Anonymous said...

What is the “silent record” ???

“A record of a criminal proceeding which does not show that the defendant acted with knowledge or understanding of his or her rights (as in entering a plea of guilty or waiving the right to counsel).”

Let me see if I understand this concept of the “Silent Record.” Any Prosecutor can use anything they want in the Grand Jury even if they can’t prove it. The “silent Record “is information that is not in the main file or court record for one reason or another but resides in the Prosecutor’s “work product” file which cannot be disclosed via subpoena or discovery, therefore the defendant is unaware.

However, the Prosecutors generally in Grand Jury proceedings make use of “professional witnesses” affidavits’ who are not personally attending, corrupt victims witness coordinators statements, and make use of witness statements that may not exist or have made deals with to testify a certain way, and they never intend to put in front of the court, by reading these statements into the record. This in effect is the Prosecutors version of the police reports, and make up a case that is actual from their “silent record.” These “Silent Record” testimonies read into the grand jury by the prosecutor become unalterable and unarguable fact in the case, which the defense never knows.

Then without a preliminary hearing the Judge ultimately accepts the grand jury facts which can be made up of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo by the Prosecutor. These actual “silent record “facts become the only facts, the defendants have no due process to repudiate or confront his accusers. These “silent record” facts can and are being used to increase the sentence unjustly in front of the regular trail jury.

The system as allowed in Idaho, currently makes use of the “demon possessed” prosecutors lying to and commenting with the “silent record” to the grand jury to get an true bill of indictment, and then with inarguable facts portrays facts in the “silent Record “ to enhance and inflame juries for more convictions, which is unconstitutional

Anonymous said...

My son has been falsely accused of rape and I have no faith in the sytem, the cops, the judges, the juries, the prosecution. I am so scared he will be convicted on the accusation alone - there is no proof - she refused the rape kit.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious about why the blame is being placed on the judge. How are the laws written where this took place? Perhaps the judge had no choice if he was to follow the law. Here in NH, where a friend of mine has been embroiled in a case where there is no corroboration although there are several aspects to his case that could have lent themselves to it (alleged involvement of other adults, alleged online communication with accuser, etc.), it's explicitly stated in the sexual assault statutes that corroborative evidence is not required for conviction. That makes me irate.

Anonymous said...

I was at the wedding reception when Dave and Terry got married and the so called "victim" got up in front of the whole crowd and read a letter to the crowd that stated that she loved David so much and that she was so glad her mother Terry had found such a good man that treated her mom with great respect and love and that she loved David too, that he was a great step Dad. If I am correct this would of been at the approxmate same time that she was saying she was getting abused. So I find it hard to believe that she was being treated so badly at the time but would on her own write this amazing letter praising David so highly,and to get up in front of everyone and read it to us all again at approx. the same time of the allegations. There were people in the crowd with tears in their eyes because it was so heart warming. Again it just seams so hard to believe she would read this if in fact David was abusing her so badly. And as for accusations that David had other victims before, I have to tell you that David's ex-wife was the one telling the stories, she was a stripper and was very trashy in my eyes. David got sick of her and her trash ways and not caring about his Daughter and he left her for a better life. She would come to the door to let me in and be in her bra and panties only. Again, very trashy in my eyes. So she made up allegations against David so she could get custody of their daughter. I knew David very well and in my eyes he is nothing near a rapist. Just my opinion but I believe in him and that he is innocent. I also knew that the so called victim did not want to share her bedroom with the new baby and wanted to go to her grandmothers to live so she could have her own room and her grandmother spoiled her all the time. David is not going to admit to something he didnt do because he is a good man and stands for the truth in my opinion. I can't proove that he didn't do it but knowing him as I did I truly believe he is innocent. I do strongly feel that the case needs to be appealed and looked at very close. I feel justice has not been served.