### MindNet is no longer active.

#### Back to MindNet Index

    ================================================================
         MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 93A * [Part 1 of 2 parts]
    ================================================================
         V E R I C O M M sm                 "Quid veritas est?"
    ================================================================

    The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
    views and opinions of VERICOMM or the editors, unless otherwise
    noted.

    The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
    the author.

    Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
    non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
    copy remain intact and unaltered.

    Copy formatted in ASCII. Netscape mail reader format:
    "Options/Mail & News Preferences/Appearance" = Fixed Width Font.

    ================================================================

    ACCLAIMED 1991-92 SAN DIEGO GRAND JURY CHILD ABUSE REPORT
    DEMONSTRATED TO BE FRAUDULENT BY SUBSEQUENT GRAND JURY

    By Alex Constantine

    December 1996

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1992 some 2,300 copies of a report on child abuse were mailed
    by a San Diego County grand jury to legislators, newspaper
    reporters, social service agencies and college faculty. The
    report, "CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT AND MOLEST ISSUES," was
    touted on network television and in the public print. Even the
    liberal Mother Jones magazine, in its July 1996 number, lauded
    the efforts of Carol Hopkins, deputy forewoman of the original
    San Diego grand jury and organizer of the mailing campaign, for
    countering "unfounded allegations" of child abuse. The Mother
    Jones story, written by Judith Levine, was typical of the
    publicity given the report, which claimed "panic" over child
    abuse "seems to sprout from the desert soil of San Diego as
    abundantly as neon fuchsia succulents and bougainvillea":

    "The county has been the scene of a string of highly publicized
    false allegations of molestation, including satanic ritual abuse,
    going back to the 1980s. In 1992, a major grand jury
    investigation found the county's child welfare agencies and
    juvenile courts to be 'a system out of control,' so keen on
    protecting children from predation that it took hundreds of them
    away from their parents on what turned out to be false charges.
    The report called for 'profound change' throughout the system."

    Verbatim copies of the report are available from "men's rights"
    organizations and legal advocacy groups on the Internet promoting
    the "false memory" thesis of ritual child abuse. Defense
    attorneys representing accused pedophiles and ritual abusers have
    quoted from it in the courtroom.

    And much of the report has been proven to be confabulated --
    sheared from whole cloth and sewn into a legal parachute for
    child abuse defendants facing conviction. In the second,
    unpublicized inquiry into claims made in the 1991-92 report, it
    was discovered that the first grand jury, chaired by retired Navy
    Captain Richard Macfie, had misrepresented case histories, cooked
    courtroom testimony and ignored physical evidence of sexual abuse
    to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that a "family crisis"
    exists in the justice system, that a break-up of families is
    endemic, aggravated by overzealous social workers and a fury of
    unfounded accusations.

    The '91-'92 "Families in Crisis" report concluded that the issue
    of ritual molestation has "suffered from excessive, sometimes
    bordering on hysterical, media attention, reporting of inaccurate
    or questionable statistics, and the failure to define and
    identify child sexual abuse accurately." In fact, rarely is media
    support thrown to victims of ritual child abuse. And the panel's
    own handling of facts and statistics can, ironically enough, be
    interpreted as an attempt to generate hysteria, to arouse
    parental fear of child protective services and promote the
    ongoing backlash against ritually abused children and their
    advocates.

    An April 1993 report by the San Diego County Commission on
    Children conflicts flatly with the original grand jury's argument
    that "children lie about these issues." On the contrary, the
    commission's study, cited in the second grand jury's review,
    refutes the "false memory" argument and the original panel's
    suggestion that children frequently "lie" about sexual
    predation:

    "Goodman (1986, 1989) and Saywitz (1989) on children's memory
    and on the reliability of children's allegations of sexual
    abuse ... demonstrate: 1) It is uncommon for children to make
    false allegations about being molested. 2) Children's memories
    are relatively good when compared to adult's memories. 3) Errors
    by children in the recall of events are usually those of
    omission, rather than commission. 4) While children may be more
    suggestible with respect to their memory of peripheral details,
    their recall of significant events that they have experienced,
    rather than things they have merely observed, cannot be easily
    changed or manipulated."

    The second grand jury protested that its investigation was
    "hampered by missing 1991-92 files" -- a cover-up. The files
    "had been removed from the grand jury offices." A grand total of
    "fourteen files were returned on June 14, 1993, following a court
    hearing." The review panel's report, completed in 1993, details
    serious "flaws" in the '91-92 findings, and uncovers an
    unmistakable pattern of misrepresentation, arriving at the
    false impression that families are routinely torn asunder by
    "unfounded accusations."

    A review of the original report found more unblushing
    falsifications in the presentation of abuse histories from county
    files, as evident in the following excerpts:

    The 1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

    "[A] school teacher was tried for child abuse after pushing a
    child. A jury found her not guilty. It was acknowledged by the
    supervising Deputy D.A. that this was a weak case, prosecuted
    'to teach a lesson, test the parameter of the law, educate the
    public.'"

    Review Findings:

    "The 1992-93 Grand Jury found there were seven victims. The
    defendant was not charged at all due to technical complications
    (statute of limitations and lack of witness availability). One
    child had been lifted by one arm and thrown into his desk,
    another was slapped hard on the head. She also had her hair
    pulled. A third child was slapped twice on the head and a fourth
    was hit on top of the head during a school assembly.

    "The children said that the defendant called them such names as
    'stupid' or 'idiot.' This teacher's personnel file showed that
    she had received ten notices complaining about her inappropriate
    use of physical discipline on 8-year-old children. One of them
    suggested termination."

    The 1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

    "A teenager was prosecuted for felony child molest upon an
    allegation by a foster child in his mother's home. There was
    no physical evidence. The D.A.'s office prosecuted despite its
    awareness that this child's DSS file contained references to
    previous unfounded allegations as well as psychological
    evaluations of the child as a pathological liar."

    Review Findings:

    "The case was based on a report by a 12-year-old boy to his
    social worker. He said that the defendant had molested him
    numerous times during a two-year period by oral copulation,
    sodomy and masturbation/fondling. The abuse began about one
    month after the victim was placed in foster care at the
    defendant's mother's house. The victim described weapons that
    the defendant had either used or threatened to use, including
    a whip, a knife, brass knuckles and a rifle. These weapons
    were found in a subsequent police search of the defendant's
    living quarters. The examining physician detailed physical
    findings which supported the victim's claim of having been
    sodomized.

    "The victim was borderline retarded, had sociopathic behaviors
    and psychological problems, but no reference to a report that
    the victim was a pathological liar was found.

    "The defendant pled guilty to Penal Code 647.6 (child molest).
    The 1991-92 report makes additional comments about this case ...
    and alleges that the District Attorney's 'decision to prosecute
    was based solely on the child's accusation.' The files that were
    reviewed contained references to far more physical evidence, and
    in a civil suit brought by the victim against the County of San
    Diego, an award of over $1 million was made. This fact is a
    positive indication that the County felt their the case was
    valid, and that the victim was truly a victim."

    The 1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

    "A step-grandfather was prosecuted for the felony child molest of
    his 11 year old granddaughter. He and the family adamantly denied
    the allegations. Again, DSS files available to the D.A. contained
    contradictory information and evaluations of the child as a
    pathological liar. There was also a child molest report involving
    the natural father and the child. None of this information was
    revealed to the defense. The child testified at the preliminary
    hearing but was not cross-examined. At the time of trial, the
    D.A. stated that the child could not be located. The preliminary
    hearing testimony of the child was entered. The step-grandfather
    was convicted. Between conviction and sentencing the defense
    became aware that the child's whereabouts was known, and had been
    known, by the D.A. The defense asked for a retrial. It has been
    granted."

    Review Findings:

    "This case involves the molest of a 9-year-old girl by the
    boyfriend of the girl's grandmother. After trial, he was
    convicted of eight counts of violating Penal code 288(a) and he
    was sentenced to six years in a state prison. His motion for a
    new trial was denied. No reference in the reports contained in
    the dependency file contained any reference to the victim as a
    'pathological liar.' The girl's grandmother did accuse the girl
    of being a pathological liar. No police report was ever made
    regarding a molest of the victim by her father, after a report
    by the brother of an ex-landlord who said that he once saw some
    'messing around' between the father and the victim, but the
    incident was written up by the San Diego Police Department and
    referred to Child Protective Services.

    "The statement that the victim was not cross-examined at the
    preliminary hearing is untrue, and the preliminary hearing
    transcript shows such cross-examination. The prosecution found
    out where the victim was after the trial, when the victim's
    grandmother told the deputy where she was. Prior to this time,
    the prosecution had no information on the whereabouts of the
    girl. The defense did ask for a new trial, but the motion was
    denied and the defendant was sentenced to prison."

    Among other many "flaws" in the '91-'92 child abuse report, the
    grand jury cited the statement that a chief deputy county counsel
    pressed subordinates to file charges in cases based on dubious
    allegations. The counselor in question, however, states that she
    had overruled deputies on only four petitions of child abuse, and
    all four petitions were sustained by the court.

    The initial San Diego grand jury report also quoted the director
    of Child Protection Services in San Diego, who denied that he had
    ever said, "I don't think I'm as good as some doctors at
    maintaining an objective outlook, but I do the best I can." This
    was based on a misquote in a newspaper story. He emphasizes that
    errors in "non-intervention" far outnumber "intervention" errors.
    The '92-'93 grand jury review confirmed the observation with
    statistical analysis demonstrating that, if anything, the system
    is hardly "out of control," but errs most often in favor of the
    parents:

    "Of the current annual level of 68,000 plus calls entering the
    San Diego Child protection system, most are closed without
    action, many result in children being referred to 'diversion' or
    left at home relying on 'family preservation' programs, with only
    1,500 (at current rates) resulting in removal of the child and
    dependency court petitions, less than half the number three years
    ago... Complaints may be expected from adults who feel deeply
    offended, regardless of the merits of the removal from the
    viewpoint of the best interests of the child. The adults may be
    articulate, or at least have articulate counsel. Adults can
    organize politically, contribute to campaigns, issue press
    releases, grant interviews to the media, testify before the
    legislature and attempt to persuade the grand jury. In fact,
    adults have done so -- particularly those accused of sexual
    abuse of their children.

    "The troubling question is, who speaks for the errors made among
    the 64,000 in which no action takes place? Here, there is no
    articulate spokesperson. Even where there is counsel for the
    child, that counsel is circumscribed by rules of confidentiality,
    meant to protect the child. In addition, no civil remedy for the
    child exists where the state fails to remove -- even where
    failure to do is gross negligence by the state."

    The result of the original San Diego grand jury's "investigation"
    has been, according to the subsequent grand jury report, that
    Children's Services Bureau employees "were caused unneeded
    difficulty in performing their jobs." Morale is "seriously
    affected." Prosecutors and social workers identified by job title
    and "accused of misconduct or worse have suffered greatly. And,
    because of the prestige associated with the imprimatur of the
    grand jury, the reports are now held up as authoritative proof of
    a malaise in child protection services generally, and by
    implication, those associated with the process."

    The review panel also blamed the '91-'92 child abuse report and
    attendant media coverage for creating an atmosphere in which
    "errors are more likely to be made in the failure to remove
    children than in their inappropriate removal," rendering abused
    children defenseless. Contrary to the widely reported findings of
    the original panel, the most significant flaw in the system was
    determined to be a failure to "adequately investigate and
    intervene where there is an indication of serious child abuse."
    The intransigence of child services was found to contribute to
    "substantial numbers of errors in failure to remove, failure to
    intervene, failure to treat," with the result that many children
    are "condemned to years of suffering."

    Failure to separate a child from parents suspected of abuse can
    culminate in tragic circumstances:

    "There has been a great deal of attention placed on voluntary
    diversion (family agrees to CSB contract terms in return for
    having children left at home) in the last few months. The family
    of Tiffany C. was offered a voluntary contract, which the father
    signed, agreeing that he would move out of the house, attend
    anger management classes, and never be alone with the children
    (Tiffany and her sibling). Two months after the contract was
    signed, Tiffany was dead of injuries sustained in her home.

    "Natasha B.'s mother has borne six children. The youngest, and
    the only one still in the mother's custody is Natasha, now six
    months old. When Natasha was 11 days old, her mother signed a
    voluntary services case plan. On two separate occasions since,
    Natasha has suffered head injuries inflicted during her parents'
    domestic disputes."

    The original grand jury detailed the handling of one child,
    Alicia W., which has since become something of a cause
    celebre in the "men's rights" movement. The review panel
    acknowledged that errors were made in the deputy D.A.'s
    investigation -- but as a result of statements made by Alicia
    and her parents themselves, and by confusion in verifying the
    identity of the true perpetrator, not an inquisitional campaign
    of persecution waged by the San Diego D.A.'s office, as the
    '91-'92 report claimed. There was no question that Alicia had
    been sexually abused. Alicia W. sustained serious injuries,
    conclusively. But the first grand jury report neglected to
    mention this fact and treated the molestation charge as
    frivolous:

    1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

    "In the case of Alicia W., the father persisted in denying
    allegations of molest, but the mother was repeatedly told by her
    attorney and social worker that her only chance to reunite with
    Alicia was to say that she believed her husband did it. The
    child, who persistently described a strange perpetrator, was not
    believed. In order to allow her 'the freedom to remember'
    without trauma, visits with her parents were terminated until she
    could come up with 'a more believable story.' This child was kept
    in court-ordered therapy for two and a half years, twice a week,
    'dealing with the molest.'"

    Review Findings:

    "Albert Carder was charged with [four] child molests ... in July
    1989. The deputy district attorney assigned to the case filed
    charges against Carder alleging molestations of these children.
    Carder pled guilty just before his preliminary hearing. Although
    the deputy D.A. had heard of the incident involving Alicia, which
    had occurred in May 1989, no evidence had been presented to her
    requesting additional charges against Carder since no evidence was
    known to the police connecting Carder to that case at that time.

    "In the case of the four victims mentioned above, the deputy D.A.
    learned that Carder knew the victims and their mothers. The
    attacks did not result in serious injury as they did with
    Alicia... The explanation given by Alicia's parents for her
    injuries was odd. Mr. W. told police that if he had done it, he
    did not recall it. The detective assigned to the case had
    received a report that Mrs. W. had told another person that her
    husband had committed the molest.

    "The grand jury report on Alicia W. unleashed an attack on [the]
    deputy district attorney, accusing her of ethical violations. She
    was threatened with criminal prosecution. This harmed her
    professionally, socially and emotionally. This attack was
    unjustified, based on sworn testimony given before the 1992-93
    grand jury."

    It is a horrific irony, in light of the many sexually-abused
    children neglected by the legal system, that the specious
    findings of the original grand jury report have been gleefully
    aired by the corporate press, while the grand jury examination
    issued in 1993 has been largely overlooked.

    It is serious enough that the 1991-92 "Families in Crisis"
    jury report defrauded San Diego's legal system into
    adopting policies inimical to the lives of children. Equally
    outrageous was the plagiarizing of the report by a grand jury
    in Merced County, a farming community in California's Central
    Valley, explained by Charyl Borba, forewoman of the Merced
    "investigation": "the cases we were involved with were very
    similar. As far as this plagiarism stuff, that is not what we
    did." But the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on July 9, 1992
    that the original red herring had propagated: "The Merced report
    is uncannily similar -- virtually word-for-word in most sections
    -- to the San Diego jury's report. Even some of the testimony
    quoted by the San Diego panel appears in the Merced jury's
    report." The pirating was discovered when officials of Merced
    County's Human Services Agency compared the documents, and
    concluded that at least three-fourths of the Merced report had
    been cribbed from the deception written under the watch of
    Captain MacFie in San Diego.

    [Continued to part 2]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    MindNet Journal FTP Archive Filename: [mn193a.txt]
    ================================================================

    To receive the MindNet Journal via email:

    Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

    To unsubscribe:

    Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

    Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
    FTP Archive site: ftp://idiom.com/users/vericomm/mindnet/

    The MindNet Journal Publication Index contains descriptions
    of all back issues and is located at the FTP site (filename:
    [mnindex.txt]).

    Letters to editor, Mike Coyle: .

    Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
    Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
    weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
    bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis and other related topics
    will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
    to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
    reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
    responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
    for publication to:  or VERICOMM, POB
    32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    VERICOMM (sm) and its agents disclaim any and all
    responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
    guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
    merchandise and/or services offered for sale by advertisers
    and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.

    The MindNet Journal mailing list is owned and maintained by
    VERICOMM (sm), POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM (sm) in
    cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB
    35072, Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

    ================================================================

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXX  XXXX  X      X       X  X      X      X   X   X   X   XXXX
    XXXXX  XX  XX  XXXXX  XXX  X  X  XXXXX  XX  X  X X  X  X X  XXXX
    XXXXXX    XXX  xxxxX      XX  X  XXXXX  XX  X  XXX  X  XXX  XXXX
    XXXXXXX  XXXX      X  XXX  X  X      X      X  XXX  X  XXX  smXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX