Feb. 29, 2012

“The battle cry of those leading the charge in these cases is ‘Believe the children!’ In fact, the trouble always begins when adults do not believe children who truthfully report that no one abused them.

“The mantra would be more accurate if it went, ‘Believe the children, but only when or if they say they were abused, no matter how incredible, bizarre or unrealistic their stories may be.”

– From “Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives” by Mark Pendergrast (1996)

March 27, 2013

“Authorities fed… parents and public (in Edenton) a biased reading of the evidence, but few realized it was biased.

“Consider the following: John and David, two friends in the day care, are both questioned. John says he and David were both molested, but David says it didn’t happen. Thus the evidence is 50/50 on John and 50/50 on David. They can’t be both right.

“What now? If David keeps denying, he is dropped from the investigation, and the negative evidence on John exits with David. Meanwhile, John’s parents are not told that David denies, and John’s case goes ahead. From 50/50, the allegation has become 100 percent true.

“For this investigation to inevitably produce more victims of abuse, three things are necessary:

“1. Parents are told that their child was named by others as abused, but not told that their child was not abused according to still other children.

“2. Parents are told that denial by their child is a sign of abuse and that therefore the child should be questioned by therapists until he admits.

“3. In some therapy sessions, the children do disclose even if they were not abused.

“Did the prosecution in the Little Rascals investigate in such a manner? The (North Carolina) Appeals Court certainly was of that opinion. It was the principal reason the convictions of Robert Kelly and Dawn Wilson were overturned.”

– From “Why False Beliefs Prevail: the Little Rascals Child Sex Abuse Prosecutions” by Anthony Oberschall in “Essays in Honor of Raymond Boudon” (2000)

Oberschall doesn’t use the term, but I’m reminded of the widespread and pernicious “file drawer effect” – that is, “the practice of scientific researchers to file away studies with negative outcomes.”

Sept. 29, 2014

“Duke law professor Theresa Newman has three boxes full of files about Andrew Chandler Jr.’s case: details about the bizarre allegations, the expert testimony that would not be admissible today and the multiple appeals….”

– From “Duke law clinic to review 1987 conviction” in the Asheville Citizen-Times (Sept. 27)

Thanks to reporter Romando Dixson for providing a thorough recap of the Chandler case, pegged to the recently expressed interest of the Duke Law School Wrongful Convictions Clinic.

Publication in the Asheville paper is especially welcome for Junior’s friends, family and other supporters in nearby Madison County, who likely haven’t seen the case mentioned in print since his conviction in 1987.

Dec. 28, 2013

End-of-year grab bag from the wide world of justice delayed:

● Thanks to Professor P. S. Ruckman Jr. at Pardon Power for posting my comments on Andrew Junior Chandler.

● Two glimmers of light on misrepresented “genital scarring” and other examples of junk science – from Texas of all places!

● In New York a remorseful former judge testifies against his own verdict.

● Recently uploaded onto Vimeo by the Alfred I. duPont Awards: a three-minute, full-screen excerpt from “Innocence Lost”. (The complete series can be viewed from the “Innocence Lost” page of this website in small-screen format.)

● Gov. McCrory proves himself able to dispense clemency to LaMonte Armstrong – can he find it in his heart to be similarly just to the no less innocent Junior Chandler?