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….
‘The most innocent man I have ever defended’
May 23, 2012
Experienced trial lawyers can’t afford to dwell on lost cases. Sometimes that’s quite a challenge:
“Robert Fulton Kelly…. was the most innocent man I have ever defended and the most victimized criminal defendant in the state’s history. He taught me that under certain circumstances madness can rule the day and overcome everything that is right and just.”
– Gerald Beaver (North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, 2010)
Catholic clergy abuse scandal unrelated to day-care cases
Nov. 18, 2015
“Readers who want a deeper look at how young children’s accounts of CSA (child sexual abuse) were discredited in the same time frame of the (Roman Catholic) clergy CSA scandal should read Ross Cheit’s 2014 book ‘Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology and the Sexual Abuse of Children’….
– From “ ‘Spotlight’ Gets A Lot Right” by Colleen Friend in the Chronicle of Social Change (Nov. 15)
Whoa.
The clergy sex abuse scandal at the center of the just-released newsroom drama “Spotlight” had nothing to do with the “satanic ritual abuse” moral panic so earnestly if unpersuasively denied by Professor Cheit.
Clergy abuse was all too real, and the evidence proved undeniable; abuse in day cares was a fantasy produced by undertrained and overreaching therapists. Tragically, the children’s accounts that were “discredited” were their original denials that they had experienced abuse.
Worth noting: Dr. Friend is former director of Stuart House in Santa Monica, Calif., a child abuse treatment center opened to accommodate the tidal wave of (mostly imaginary) abuse cases spawned by McMartin.
Three ‘built-in biases’ with tragic consequences
Dec. 2, 2013
“Of the many built-in biases in human thought, three have perhaps the greatest consequences for our own history and that of nations: the belief that we see things as they really are, rather than as we wish them to be; the belief that we are better, kinder, smarter and more ethical than average; and the confirmation bias, which sees to it that we notice, remember, and accept information that confirms our beliefs – and overlook, forget and discount information that disconfirms our beliefs.”
– From “History Gets in Bed With Psychology, and It’s a Happy Match”
by Carol Tavris at History News Network (Nov. 11, 2013)
Once again Dr. Tavris nails it. The prosecutors in Little Rascals and the other day-care ritual-abuse cases fit her profile as exactly as if they had been completing a checklist. Yes, it must have been difficult to resist those “built-in biases” – but it wasn’t impossible.
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?





