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….