April 4, 2016

Junior Chandler may be the last still-imprisoned victim of the “satanic ritual abuse” day-care panic.

Chandler was a driver for a Madison County, N.C., day care. The prosecutor alleged that Chandler, in the words of appellate attorney Mark Montgomery, “would drive off his route to a park by a river, strip the children of their clothes, troop them down to the river, put them in a rowboat, commit various sexual acts, put them back on the bus and take them home.”

Based almost exclusively on hearsay and no-longer-permissible expert “vouching,” Chandler was convicted in 1987 and sentenced to two life sentences. This month he will begin his 30th year behind bars for a crime that never happened.

July 4, 2012

“The state has done me wrong and imprisoned me for over six years,” Bob Kelly said in 1995 after his conviction was overturned and prosecutors were deciding whether to try him again.

“They want me to take a plea so they can save face. It will never happen.”

Oh, how the prosecution dreamed of at least one of the Edenton Seven rolling over, pointing a finger at a fellow defendant.

Never happened, despite their being held under vague charges for endless months – and later offered every inducement short of a trip to Disney World.

Even when Betsy Kelly and Scott Privott took pleas to reduce their prison time, they continued to insist on their innocence.

There’s painfully little to admire in the story of the Little Rascals case, but the defendants’ strength under pressure was extraordinary.

April 10, 2013

“Consider the use of anatomically detailed dolls to prompt shy or frightened children to reveal abuse. This was an innovation of the 1970s, and at first it certainly seemed like an effective and compassionate one.

“But more recent studies have cast doubt on whether these dolls prompt more accurate recall, especially for the pre-schoolage children for whom they are usually deployed.

“The doll is supposed to be a body double for the child him- or herself; but since the vast majority of children this age lack the symbolic thinking required to make such a connection– most two- and three-year-olds, for example, cannot see the relation between a room and a scale model of it – this proposition turns out to be rather dubious.

“More to the point, it seems that some children who have not been sexually abused will also play with an anatomically detailed doll in sexually suggestive ways – promptly removing its clothes, touching or grabbing its ‘genitals,’ sticking their fingers into various orifices. As the authors of one study judiciously put it, the ‘average amount of sexualized doll play by presumably non-abused children is not alarming, but there is enough of it to be potentially problematic in clinical or forensic situations.’

“In other words, if you are prepared to see signs of abuse, you may see them even in behavior that, in other contexts or at other times, would be attributed to normal sexual curiosity.

“And this is precisely the issue: At a time when there was comparatively little data available on what constituted normal sexuality in children, this vacuum was filled by people with a very narrow view of the possibilities.”

– From “Against Innocence: The truth about child abuse and the truth about children” by Margaret Talbot in The New Republic (March 15, 1999)

Prosecution therapists in the Little Rascals case made extensive use of anatomically correct dolls. During Bob Kelly’s trial, therapist Janet Hadler of Chapel Hill showed a video clip of a 5-year-old girl pressing together the pelvises of a male and a female doll. “Children who are demonstrating explicit sexual contact,” Hadler testified confidently, “are doing that because they have some knowledge of adult sexual behavior.”

Sept. 17, 2012

I don’t doubt that prosecutors asked themselves many questions during the course of the Little Rascals case. “Think it’s gonna rain tomorrow, Nancy?” Or maybe “You want anchovies on yours, Bill?”

On more relevant issues, however, they seem to have been remarkably incurious. For instance….

■ Why did none of the defendants in the state’s biggest sex-abuse case have any history of sex crimes?

■ When sex-abusers of children are almost always men, why were five of the Edenton Seven women?

■ Why was there a complete absence of physical evidence?

■ Why did none of the frequently cited child-porn photographs ever turn up?

■ At a day care where parents came and went often and unpredictably, why did not one adult ever report anything suspicious?

■ Why was every child seen by prosecution therapists determined to have been abused, but none of those seen by out-of-town therapists?

■ When criminal conspiracies almost always collapse at the first offer of a plea deal, why did none of these defendants agree to point a finger at the others?

■ Could it really be just coincidence that these allegations surfaced so soon after a day-care ritual-abuse seminar attended by the Edenton police officer who would lead the investigation?

For prosecutors to have raised such questions, of course, would risk recognizing their career-making case as a colossal sham. Better to stay blindered and to forge ahead….