Rascals case in brief
In the beginning, in 1989, more than 90 children at the Little Rascals Day Care Center in Edenton, North Carolina, accused a total of 20 adults with 429 instances of sexual abuse over a three-year period. It may have all begun with one parent’s complaint about punishment given her child.
Among the alleged perpetrators: the sheriff and mayor. But prosecutors would charge only Robin Byrum, Darlene Harris, Elizabeth “Betsy” Kelly, Robert “Bob” Kelly, Willard Scott Privott, Shelley Stone and Dawn Wilson – the Edenton 7.
Along with sodomy and beatings, allegations included a baby killed with a handgun, a child being hung upside down from a tree and being set on fire and countless other fantastic incidents involving spaceships, hot air balloons, pirate ships and trained sharks.
By the time prosecutors dropped the last charges in 1997, Little Rascals had become North Carolina’s longest and most costly criminal trial. Prosecutors kept defendants jailed in hopes at least one would turn against their supposed co-conspirators. Remarkably, none did. Another shameful record: Five defendants had to wait longer to face their accusers in court than anyone else in North Carolina history.
Between 1991 and 1997, Ofra Bikel produced three extraordinary episodes on the Little Rascals case for the PBS series “Frontline.” Although “Innocence Lost” did not deter prosecutors, it exposed their tactics and fostered nationwide skepticism and dismay.
With each passing year, the absurdity of the Little Rascals charges has become more obvious. But no admission of error has ever come from prosecutors, police, interviewers or parents. This site is devoted to the issues raised by this case.
On Facebook
Little Rascals Day Care Case
This Facebook page is an offshoot of littlerascalsdaycarecase.org, which addresses the wrongful prosecution of the Edenton Seven and other such victims.
Click for earlier Facebook posts archived on this site
Click to go to
Today’s random selection from the Little Rascals Day Care archives….
‘No innocent person should have to endure….’
March 15, 2013
“To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry.
“No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law.
“We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered.”
– From a letter hand-delivered to John Ramsey, father of JonBenet Ramsey, by Boulder, Colo., District Attorney Mary Lacy in 2008
Just a reminder that, however difficult it is for prosecutors to admit their mistakes, it is not impossible. Other than pride and self-righteousness, what stands in the way of an apology from H. P. Williams, Bill Hart and Nancy Lamb to the Edenton Seven?
Less bonding, less crying, more thinking – why not?
Jan. 21, 2013
“According to advocates (of victim impact statements), they allow victims to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim by describing the effect the crime has had on them or their families. Some laud the courtroom ritual as an aid in the emotional recovery of the victim…. A few legal scholars suggest that the well-intentioned personalization of a crime can blur the line between public justice and private retribution….”
– From “Death by Treacle” by Pamela Haag in the American Scholar (Spring 2012)
“Prosecutor Nancy Lamb and the mothers of the victims burst into tears. Court officials handed out tissues.”
– From “Day Care Owner Convicted on 99 Counts of Child Abuse” by the Associated Press (April 22, 1992)
Count me with those “few legal scholars” who doubt justice is well served by injections of sentimentality. (Although Bob Kelly’s sentencing seems to have concluded without victim impact statements, prosecutors ensured an ample display of mawkishness – the front row was packed with supposed child-victims holding tight to their dolls and teddy bears.)
But sentimentality also extends to the blindered bonding of Little Rascals prosecutors and parents.
What if Nancy Lamb had managed to keep even the slightest professional distance between herself and the parents, instead of being swallowed up in their manic cause? Might she have been able to glimpse reality?
And what if Bill Hart had avoided dating (and later marrying) one of those parents?
Pennsylvania prosecutor Alan Rubenstein managed to avoid such pitfalls – why couldn’t others?
Leading questions, not spontaneity, marked interviews
May 4, 2012
“Written reports that contain statements such as ‘The child said that Mr. Bob told them secrets’ are meaningless.
“We need to know whether this was a spontaneous remark, whether this was prompted by an open-ended question (e.g., “What did Mr. Bob tell you?”), or whether this is merely the interviewer’s memory of the gist of a conversation in which the interviewer asked, ‘Did Mr. Bob ask you to keep secrets?’ and the child reluctantly may have replied, ‘Yes.’
“Some summaries of the interviews are written in such a way as to make one believe that children made spontaneous and detailed statements about sexual abuse. However in the few instances where we have transcripts of other interviews, it is clear that the child only responded ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a barrage of leading questions.”
– From “Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s
Testimony” by Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck (1995)
Prosecutors still digging in their heels?

March 7, 2016
“Have any public officials apologized to Dudley?
“No.”
– From “Howard Dudley’s new life: restaurants, cellphones and a cemetery visit” (cached) by Joseph Neff in the News & Observer (March 5)
Aw, what’s to apologize for – it was only 23 years of wrongful imprisonment (cached)….
![]()





