Aug. 15, 2012

The North Carolina Supreme Court won’t release its next batch of opinions until August 24, but its recent decision on a 2009 child sex abuse case could augur well for Junior Chandler.

On June 14 the court upheld the North Carolina Court of Appeals’ overturning of Patrick Loren Towe’s conviction in Surry County. Here’s the crucial part of the opinion:

“Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a qualified expert may testify as to her opinion in her field of expertise if the testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence. An expert may not, however, testify as to the witness’s credibility or state that she believes the defendant is guilty.

“In sexual abuse cases involving child victims, an expert may not testify that sexual abuse has occurred without physical evidence supporting her opinion. An expert may not testify that the child has been ‘sexually abused’ if the testimony is based solely on the interview with the child-victim.”

In Patrick Towe’s case, only one expert witness so testified – in Junior Chandler’s it was six.

Without such a parade of “expert vouching,” Junior surely would have spent the past 25 years back home in Madison County instead of behind bars. How can the North Carolina Supreme Court now fail to acknowledge this?

May 4, 2018

“Only a pedophile would attempt to justify other pedophiles. If you didn’t follow the case in the news at the time or attend the trial,
how do you know they’re innocent? The fact is you don’t and are just saying they are to brush the incident under the rug.
“You should be investigated yourself.”

July 20, 2012

… Little Rascals parents were caught up in a frenzy of panic and misinformation.

… Ill-prepared therapists served prosecutors, not their patients.

… In their zeal for convictions, prosecutors behaved cruelly and unethically.

… 20th century North Carolina never saw a more sweeping injustice.

… Bob and Betsy Kelly, Dawn Wilson, Shelley Stone, Robin Byrum, Darlene Harris and Scott Privott deserve full and unequivocal exoneration.

Feb. 14, 2014

Thanks to Ivan Oransky at Retraction Watch for spotlighting Psychiatric Times’ remarkably inept retraction of Richard Noll’s “When Psychiatry Battled the Devil.”

Don’t miss the update appended by Dr. Noll:

“On 16 January 2014 I received a gracious email from PT’s editor-in-chief, Dr. James Knoll, updating me on the status of my submission. This message cleared up the mystery of the published article’s disappearance from PT.

“According to Dr. Knoll, ‘In an effort to present both sides, PT contacted Dr. (Richard) Kluft (of Philadelphia). Please know that not only did he take exception to a number of your points, but he also raised the issue of legal liability. We are currently in the process of confirming that Dr. Kluft is willing to write a rejoinder to your piece.’

“Apparently he refused. About 10 days later I received another email from Dr. Knoll telling me that the reposting of my piece was to be put on hold at the advice of their attorneys. He did not outright reject the possibility it would be reposted, but I have heard nothing since….”

Followers of Retraction Watch – or even of littlerascalsdaycarecase.org – are not surprised to see editors go to absurd lengths to avoid candid correction. But the behavior of Psychiatric Times, billed as the most widely read psychiatric publication and boasting a lengthily-credentialed editorial board, seems especially unbecoming – even pusillanimous.

Dr. Kluft? Dr.Knoll? Can’t you do better?