Dec. 9, 2011

Had former district attorney H.P. Williams Jr. let our conversation drag on beyond 30 seconds on Wednesday, here are some questions I might have asked:

– In all the day care cases of the ʼ80s and early ʼ90s – Little Rascals, McMartin, Fells Acres, Wee Care, ad nauseam – why was not one instance of sexual abuse ever witnessed by an adult?

– Why was not one piece of physical or medical evidence ever presented?

– Would you still argue at Bob Kellyʼs sentencing hearing that “There is no reason he should be restored to the community at any time”?

– Have you been surprised that, since being freed, not one of the defendants has returned to a life of serial child sexual abuse?

– What would it take for you to admit the Edenton Seven were innocent?

● ● ●

If H.P. Williams Jr. – or any other reader – would like to respond, he is always welcome to do so here.

June 1, 2012

An incident recalled by a former Edenton resident:

“A friend had a son in Little Rascals but wouldn’t let him participate in the ‘hunt.’ She shielded him, as best she could, and didn’t interrogate him.

“Years later, when Bob Kelly was released, she thought it best to tell the son herself. He exploded in anger. Alarmed and filled with trepidation, she asked just what Mr. Bob had done to cause such a reaction.

“The child’s answer: Bob hadn’t let him put ketchup on his peanut butter sandwich.”

Nov. 19, 2014

“While (‘The Witch-Hunt Narrative’ author Ross) Cheit… admits that there was some ‘overreaction’ and injustice to innocent people – including ‘five, possibly six, of the seven defendants’ in the McMartin case – he argues that the ‘Satanic panic’ hysteria is a myth rooted in exaggeration and distortion….

“Whether the book succeeds in making a dent in the witch-hunt narrative depends, to put it bluntly, on whether we can trust Cheit to give a fair and accurate account of this material. A close look reveals enough evasions, highly tendentious interpretations, and verifiable inaccuracies to conclude that we cannot….

“It is ironic, or perhaps symbolic, that this book has arrived in the midst of a new wave of sex-crime hysteria. Just recently, in the impassioned debate over the sexual molestation charges against Woody Allen, such feminists as Jessica Valenti and Roxanne Gay revived the call to ‘believe the survivor.’ The same mind-set also appears in the current campus climate of pressure to accept virtually all allegations of sexual assault regardless of evidence. Despite Cheit’s attempted debunking, the lesson of the witch-hunts still stands: Emotion-driven, faith-based crusades against repellent crimes are a grave danger to justice.”

– From “The Return of Moral Panic: A scholar tries – and fails – to rehabilitate the sex-abuse hysteria of the ’80s” by Cathy Young at reason.com (Oct. 25)

Young contributes a welcome follow-up to Debbie Nathan’s Cheit-busting response from the National Center for Reason and Justice. She is especially effective in pointing out Cheit’s fact-fudging and cherry-picking in the McMartin and Kelly Michaels cases.

Aug. 27, 2012

“Prosecutors are the most powerful officials in the criminal justice system. They decide whether criminal charges should be brought and what those charges should be, and they exercise almost boundless discretion in making those decisions. Prosecutors alone decide whether to offer the defendant the option of pleading guilty to reduced charges….

“Equally problematic is that the charging and plea-bargaining decisions are made behind closed doors, and prosecutors are not required to justify or explain these decisions to anyone…. The lack of transparency also leads to misconduct, like the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence – a common occurrence made famous by the prosecutors in the Duke lacrosse and Senator Ted Stevens cases.”

– From “Prosecutors’ Overreaching Goes Unchecked” by Angela J. Davis in the New York Times (Aug. 19)

Prosecutors plea-bargained cruelly though futilely with the Edenton Seven. And while the evidence-withholding in the Duke and Stevens cases may have made bigger headlines, it was no more flagrant than in Little Rascals.

One example from the North Carolina Court of Appeals order overturning Bob Kelly’s conviction (May 2, 1995):

“Judge L. Bradford Tillery, a pretrial Judge, directed the State to file and present for in camera review identifying information, medical and psychotherapeutic files and DSS files with respect to the ‘indictment children’….

“In apparent compliance with Judge Tillery’s order… the State turned over a box of files to the trial court, Judge McLelland presiding. The box contained, inter alia, complete medical notes and therapy notes on the 29 indictment children, 12 of whom testified at defendant’s trial and 17 of whom did not….

“After trial, defendant’s appellate counsel went to the Office of the Clerk of Court for Pitt County to view the exhibits. He opened several boxes containing trial exhibits, none of which were sealed. One of the boxes contained 29 files labeled with the names of the indictment children. Appellate counsel reviewed some of the documents contained in the files before requesting the box to be sealed and transmitted to the Court of Appeals…. Defendant argues that the files contained undisclosed information that would have been material to the defense.”

In fact, the withheld files were bulging with exculpation – conflicting claims, evidence of hysteria, eyewitness testimony that nothing happened. Countless other examples are documented in Bob Kelly’s appeal brief.

Attorney General Mike Easley bridled at the appeals court’s concern over such “small areas… none of which are very significant.” And, after all, as prosecutor Bill Hart had asked smirkingly during the trial, “If you were playing poker, would you be playing with your full hand showing?”