Is Lena Dunham a Sexual Abuser?

Trigger Warning Extreme Sexual content

Last month, Lena Dunham published a memoir “Not That Kind of Girl”.  In it she discusses numerous sexual trysts and her own neuroses about them.  Last week Kevin Williamson at NRO wrote a very pointed article accusing Dunham of sexually abusing her sister Grace who is 6 years her junior.  Williamson’s work was decried as conservative hit piece on a liberal feminist icon. 

While Williamson’s work would certainly qualify as a hit piece, it’s important to understand that he used Dunham’s own words to frame his work.  The issues that he brought up are not political.  Sexual conduct with a child isn’t a right/left issue.  It’s an issue that everyone should be disturbed by and Dunham’s accounts of what happened should give everyone pause no matter who they voted for.

 

When I saw the pull quotes from the book, I realized I needed to read it for myself to determine what may have been appropriate childhood curiosity and what was possible sexual abuse.  I obtained a copy courtesy of Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia on Twitter) and read the memoir.  

Aside from the astounding narcissism, there were several incidents between Dunham and her sister that were troubling at best and abusive at worst. 

In the passage that Williamson references in his piece,  Dunham describes and incident when she was 7 and her sister Grace was 1.  

“Do we all have uteruses?” I asked my mother when I was seven.

“pYes,” she told me. “We’re born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren’t ready to make babies until we’re older.” I looked at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte’s Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble.

“Does her vagina look like mine?"

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked.

My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.

There is a whole lot wrong with that passage.  

First, Dunham does herself no favors by writing about it in such a lurid way.  Grace offered no resistance because she was one! The fact that Dunham classifies Grace's behavior as a prank is incomprehensible.  One year old's can't comprehend pranks beyond playing peek a boo.  

Second, I have dealt with my own daughters when they were one, and countless other girls through investigations over the years.  I have never heard of a child inserting 6 or 7 pebbles into their own vagina.  I’m not saying it didn't happen, but the likelihood is very small.  

One year olds may stick stuff up their nose or in their ear.  They might even stick one pebble in their vagina, but multiple pebbles seem beyond the norm. One year olds simply don't have the manual dexterity to do it. It has been postulated that Dunham may have done it then called for her mother’s help, which is possible, but its only speculation at this point. 

I have done numerous investigations in which a 7 or 8 year old has fondled or penetrated another child.  Most of those cases have resulting in finding out that the perpetrating child was abused sexually and are displaying sexually reactive behaviors. 

Dunham examining her sister’s vagina and moving her labia is on the line between normal childhood curiosity and molestation.  The law regarding molestation is pretty specific that the touching has to be done for sexual arousal or gratification, which doesn’t appear to have happened.  If this were a case in my jurisdiction it most likely be investigated as a "Risk of Harm" rather than a sexual assault. 

Later, in the chapter detailing her relationship with her sister, Dunham writes:

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying. 

What a cruel and callous thing to write. This shocking passage not only acknowledges a predatory bent in Dunham's affection for her sister, it essentially makes fun of people sexually abusing children. What a lark! I'm just like a sexual predator wooing a small suburban girl. 

This passage is particularly offensive given the cases I've seen in which candy, money and fear have been used to groom a child.  Dunham clearly has little or no understanding of how things work in the world, and clearly has no empathy for victims. 

The passage of the book that is hardest to reconcile comes in section 1 chapter two, "Platonic Bed Sharing":

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out. Grace had the comforting, sleep-inducing properties of a hot-water bottle or a cat.

Again with the lurid language "sticky, muscly" body.  Dunham's admission that while her sister, 6 years her junior was laying next to her as she "slipped her hand into her underwear to figure some stuff out" means that she was masturbating possibly as old as age 17 while her sister (11 at the time) was in bed with her.  

In Illinois, "self masturbation in presence of a child" is investigated as Sexual Exploitation. I researched New York law regarding child sexual abuse and it's a little less concrete.  I was unable to find a "Sexual Exploitation" allegation, but numerous references of sexual conduct with a child. 

If I were investigating Ms. Dunham, my questions would be: Did you masturbate next to your sister? Yes. You're indicated for sexual exploitation. (Please note, 'Indicated', means "a reasonable person would conclude abuse or neglect occurred, it is not a criminal  indictment)

Having said all of this, given what Dunham has written, I think she would have been indicated for sexual abuse for the masturbation incident.  I don't think, however, that she is a child sexual abuser in the classic sense, meaning that I don't think she'd go out and abuse a child today.

I think that she was horribly sexually inappropriate with her sister. I think that she walked right up to the line.  She has no boundaries whatsoever as evidenced by her writing.

Dunham purports to be a feminist, an edgy provocateur and a voice of her generation.  Sadly that voice makes light of horrible situations.  That voice betrays a lack of understanding of the horrors of the real world.   

Dunham's  casual and flippant tone in discussing these experiences clearly show a lack of empathy for victims of sexual abuse.  This isn't a game. This isn't 3 pieces of candy for a kiss.  Children's lives are ruined every day, yet Dunham casually jokes about being a predator.  

In the end, Dunham's behavior with her sister is disturbing.  Even more disturbing is the fact that Dunham doesn't have a clue why people are rightly calling her out.  Dunham is about Dunham. Narcissists are like that. 

John Grisham is Wrong About Child Pornography

If you investigate child abuse for more than 20 years, you learn a few things. One thing you learn is just when you think you’ve seen and heard it all, you haven’t.

In what can only be termed a completely insane argument, John Grisham, author of such works as The Firm, and A Time To Kill, told the Telegraph that the U.S. is imprisoning too many people for viewing child pornography. Grisham draws from personal experience. He describes an old college friend whose drinking was “out of control” and he was on the internet and found himself looking at “16 year old girls who looked 30″ and downloaded it. He was later caught up in a child pornography sting and ended up serving three years in prison.

Grisham went on to say, “He shouldn’t ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. He didn’t touch anything.” This lack of understanding of the horrors of child pornography is appalling. The child was touched by somebody, watching it over and over again is just as vile as doing it. He’s also apparently something of a homophobe as looking at 16 year old girls isn’t as bad as 10 year old boys.

Let’s set the record straight. Child pornography is in many ways the most pernicious form of child sexual abuse.  The children are abused on film, video tape, digital recordings and photos. Those different mediums make their way to the internet for the viewing pleasure of the slavering masses.

Since the internet is forever, the child victims, if they ever get away from their abuser, have to live with the fact that their abuse lives on. I’ve been to several conferences on child pornography and the internet run by the FBI and the postal inspectors. People who were abused and filmed or photographed as children in the 1950s and 1960s still find their pictures and videos on the internet.

Another fallacy that Grisham perpetuates is the “accidental” location and download of child pornography. This is laughably false. If you Google “child porn,” “Lolita,” “16 year old sex” or any other term, you get about 5 million hits of agencies working to prevent child porn — sites that have adult actors pretending to be minors and the actual book and movie Lolita.

The point is you can only find actual child porn if you go looking for it. In every child porn case I’ve investigated, the perpetrator has used some form of “it was an accident” I didn’t know it was in my history, on my hard drive etc. Every single one of them has been a liar.

Recently local police, the feds and the Illinois Attorney General’s office is prosecuting a child pornography case in which a five year-old child was being live streamed performing sex acts with adults and objects. Hundreds of hours of video were also confiscated.  A number of men were busted for watching via the live stream and viewing other videos.

That’s just one case. I defy Grisham to say that the people “who only look” and “don’t touch or hurt,” don’t deserve justice. I defy him to tell that five year-old that the people who were watching the abuse, as it happened, only did so by accident.

The attitude that Grisham revealed in his interview is all to familiar.  Many people think as he does that “looking” is not victimization.  That it’s only the filmmakers and people literally touching the child that are the real bad guys.

Child pornography victimizes children over and over again. In the age of the internet it makes the victimization eternal.  Grisham’s lament that his buddy was wronged is short sighted and ignorant of the facts. He’s made a career on writing with legal accuracy, too bad he didn’t research the facts about child pornography before he spoke to the Telegraph.

Yes, the Kid Who Had a Threesome with 2 Teachers is a Victim.

Today news broke that two teachers in Louisiana were arrested for allegedly having a threesome with a 16 year old boy. While the local authorities seem to be taking the high road regarding the boy and the crimes committed, there have been some people who don't seem to think the child in question was a victim at all. Its a common reaction that I've seen many times before. Being common doesn't make it correct.

Writing for the Daily Banter, Chez Pazienza was one of those who doesn't think that the 16 year old should be called a victim. It's an understandable, although outmoded way of thinking, that continues to frame cases like this one. The boy said it was consensual, he was bragging to friends, "he's a god".  All familiar refrains, that really don't hold up under scrutiny.

Sex crimes, and especially crimes committed against children are not about hot sexy time with a teacher or older woman.  Sex crimes and crimes against children are about power and control. In the Louisiana teacher case, the young man may have thought he was in control and he was consenting, but this is how predators work.

It may seem harsh to label Shelley Dufresne and Rachel Respess predators, but teachers who seek out sex with students, even teen aged students are exactly that.  Using a position of trust and authority IS predatory and it is wrong.  

In 2013, Montana Judge G. Todd Baugh came under fire, and rightfully so, for saying a 14 year old girl was older than her chronological age and "as much in control" of the situation as the teacher who was convicted of raping her.  That girl later committed suicide. 

Judge Baugh's comments were seen as cruel and insensitive to the victim, and they were.  The same can be said of comments regarding the young man in the Louisiana case.  He may be convinced that he's the greatest stud that walks the earth, but the fact is he was manipulated into having sex with those teachers just as surely as the girl in Montana. 

I've written numerous times in the past about the percentages of boys who are victims of sexual assault. One in ten boys report sexual assault.  The numbers are lower than that of girls (1 in 4) because of the stigma of reporting.  The sad truth is that the stigma isn't always shame of being abused, the stigma is not realizing that you were a victim in the first place.

One case that always comes back to haunt me, involved a teacher and child.  The teacher was well respected, the child was 16 and turned 17 during the course of the case.  The teacher seduced the child and had sexual contact with the child in his hot tub. The child was struggling with his sexuality and the teacher took full advantage of that. The child was convinced that it was consensual.

Despite a confession, the teacher was not prosecuted.  The child in question later committed suicide as a young adult.

I'm not saying that the boy in Louisiana is going to commit suicide. I understand that a 16 or 17 year old boy has crazy sexual desires, hell all men do no matter what their age.  The back slapping and locker room high fiving that a lot of people are doing, however, is ill informed and childish.

It may seem awesome to a guy in his 40's who once fantasized about his teachers, in some respects I understand why so many people think this kid is awesome, hell I had crushes on teachers.  Hot for Teacher was a ANTHEM for kids my age.

Just because many men have had teacher fantasies as children doesn't make what happened in Louisiana right.  Just because the boy in Louisiana thinks the sex was consensual doesn't make him "a god", it makes him naive and horny.  Ultimately, like thousands of children a year, it makes him a victim.

.   

Daddy Has a Whoopin' Room

Trigger Warning: Child Abuse

In a stunning announcement Friday, Adrian Peterson, a professional football player for the Minnesota Vikings was indicted for child abuse.  He allegedly beat his 4 year old son with a switch after the child shoved his brother.

Police reports detail the child's account and it is harrowing. Not only did he get beat with a switch, but claims that belts had been used in the past. Expressed fear of being punched for telling and at one point said "Daddy has a whoopin' room".

Photos taken a week later show red welts and scabbing cuts. Peterson allegedly injured the child's back, buttocks, legs, thighs and scrotum.  He also texted the child's mother in what can only be termed a gloating tone. Saying at one point he "got too good with the switch".  He admitted to police that he did it and it was discipline.

Today we learned that Peterson's employer, decided to let him play despite the evidence.  Relying on 'due process' and the criminal system.  It should be noted that Texas CPS has probably already had a "founded" report no matter what happens in the criminal case.

Adrian Peterson is famous and that makes this a sensational case, but he's certainly not the only child abuser in the country. The injuries that he inflicted on his four year old son are horrible and it's almost impossible not to be furious at what happened to that child. Sadly that child is not alone. Peterson's excuse that he was just disciplining the way he was disciplined is an all too familiar refrain.

(Bloggers note: Some details have been altered to protect confidentiality)

The first time I met Adrian Peterson, the name wasn't Adrian Peterson. I honestly don't remember what the name was. I remember the little girl whose eyes were swollen shut and whose forehead skin was scalded almost to the bone.  The child had put too much 'grease' in her hair so as a punishment she was held face up under scalding (150 degree) tap water. That was 1995.

In the most recent reporting year there were 3.4 million reports of child abuse and neglect made to hotlines around the country.  Of those 1.8 million were opened as investigations. On those 1.8 million cases there were 3.1 million unique children. There are 32,000 Child Protective Service Workers in the US. 32,000 people investigating 1.8 million cases. It's safe to say we've all met Adrian Petersen.

In 1999 Adrian Peterson was a mom's boyfriend who beat a 2 year old so severely that the blood beneath the skin was trapped by the diaper he was wearing. When the diaper was removed it looked like the kid was wearing brown, red and purple underwear. He was mad about potty training.

Potty training is one of the most dangerous times in child development.  The risk of abuse over and during potty training rises dramatically. In the last twenty years I can attest to a mound of anecdotal evidence of abuse during potty training.  Anybody who does this job can relate to it.

In 2001, Adrian Peterson was a guy gave a 3 year old a cookie when she performed oral sex on him. Turns out that was a pattern of abuse that had gone on for years with other 3 year olds and younger children. He's in prison for the rest of his life.

In 2012 there were over 62,000 children reported to have been sexually abused.  The number is probably significantly higher. Some states report sexual abuse directly to police. Some types of sexual abuse aren't counted in the Manual of Child Maltreatment.  Sexual abuse by teachers for instance in many states aren't reported to CPS.

Adrian Peterson was a teenage mom in 2008.  She was arguing with her mom and snatched her baby out of his car seat dislocating his shoulder.  She didn't know why he wouldn't stop crying and proceeded to slap his face. The police were called, nobody caught the dislocation for 2 days.

Twenty five percent of children who are abused experience teen pregnancy. Of those parenting teens fully 30% of them will abuse or neglect their child at some point in the future.

Peterson is the guy that blackened his son's eye in 2010 when the kid tried to keep his dad from beating his mom. Arrests were made but no charges were pressed. The kid was old enough that while he was certainly at risk, he wasn't in immediate danger.

As we've discussed before.  Domestic abusers are 50% more likely to abuse a child as well.

Adrian Peterson is the policeman, the firefighter, the teacher, the doctor that delivered your baby. Adrian Peterson is a single mom on welfare. Adrian Peterson is a millionaires wife popping illegal prescriptions. Adrian Peterson is your mail carrier, your next door neighbor and your best friend.

Everybody who investigates child abuse has met Adrian Peterson or will at some point in their career. We all wish that child abuse would end and we'd no longer be needed to protect the most vulnerable in our midst.  We're all smart enough to know better.  Adrian Peterson was out there today and he'll be out there tomorrow. We'll tackle him as we go.

Ray Rice Isn't Unique, Domestic Violence is a Sad Fact of Life for Many Americans

Due to the Ray Rice case, domestic violence has been featured prominently in the news this week. It has been the topic of many columns and editorials. It's an epidemic in America.  It is a daily fact of life for millions of people. Sadly far too many of them are children. 

In the field of Child Protection domestic violence is is something that we are very familiar with. Fully 50% of child abuse and neglect cases either directly involve domestic violence or after digging into the case it's found there was a history of domestic violence.

Domestic violence that children witness stays with them.  Not only is this a verifiable fact, I can personally attest to it in a small way. 

When I was 8 years old there was huge family argument at my grandfather's house, there was yelling, some shoving and at least one person got slapped.  Cooler heads prevailed and everyone calmed down and apologized, but even though it was 38 years ago, the memory is still with me.

It's safe to say that a child who witnesses their parent being hit, or punched, spit on or choked, will take it with them.  The trauma of seeing a parent abused often takes years to overcome, and people who have experienced this often need professional counseling to work through it.  

Witnessing domestic violence also breeds more domestic violence.  Statistics show that many women who are battered as adults witnessed domestic violence as children.  Men who witnessed domestic violence as are twice as likely to batter a partner or child as an adult. 

When I started as an investigator 20 years ago, I didn't understand domestic violence at all. I, like most people, thought the decision for a battered partner was a simple one. Leave. Take your kids and go.

I remember cases in which I was so frustrated with the mother, I threatened her with taking her kids. That was the paradigm back then. Re-victimize the victim. I was young and thought I knew everything. The years and extensive training around domestic violence have taught me otherwise.

As was brilliantly and painfully depicted on Twitter by the Hashtags #WhyIStayed and  #WhenILeft, the decisions by victims of violence aren't always easy. The reasons for staying the reasons for leaving are complex.  Often victims and their children are financially dependent on the batterer.  Victims also express that they think it will end or that they can fix the batterer.  Reasons for leaving range from realizing the abuse would never stop to wanting to show their kids that abuse wasn't normal. 

When I investigate these cases now, we talk about how I can help that person make themselves and their children safe.  Sometimes that means counseling and casework services for the victim, the children and the batterer, sometimes it means driving the victim and children to a shelter. 

It should be noted that while the majority of cases I investigate involve heterosexual couples, domestic violence is prevalent in the LGBT community as well.  Some studies show it may be more prevalent as a percentage of the population  than heterosexual couples. We don't see it as much in child abuse and neglect cases because there aren't as many same sex couples with children. 

While we focus on supporting the victims and keeping them safe, I think we also need more focus on helping those who batter.  As a profession we tend to label the batterer, and not really focus on helping them learn and grow.  We as a nation do a woefully inadequate job of teaching young people, mostly young men how to check their impulses. 

We set up the expectation that men are tough, machismo is to be lauded and we reinforce it by rewarding young men for their macho behavior.  It is imperative that more focus be placed on educating that a fist a club or a gun isn't the answer when things don't go their way.  I have jokingly said it's simple "don't hit a woman" but the pathology that creates these situations isn't simple.  

As mentioned earlier, many male batterers were abused themselves or witnessed abuse.  I've spoken to thousands of batterers in the last twenty years.  Over half of them related that they were abused, or they witnessed their mother getting abused, often saying "that's just the way we were raised".   It is incredibly challenging to make a breakthrough with someone who was conditioned from a young age to solve problems by lashing out.  Sadly, I've seen far too many of these men more than one time. 

Domestic violence isn't going away because Ray Rice can't run with a football for money, or Roger Goodell golden parachutes into obscurity.  Domestic violence isn't going away because we publicly humiliate abusers, but let's hope that the awareness spurred on by this week's events doesn't go away either. It is at least a start.

Gun Culture and the Lost Childhood of Two Girls

This week, two young girls lives were irrevocably changed because of guns.

The one that everyone has been discussing involves the accidental killing of a firearms instructor by a 9 year-old girl in Arizona. The other, has garnered less national attention, but is just as important, and in some ways more so: the arrest of Will Hayden, star of Discovery’s Sons of Guns for the alleged ongoing rape of a minor girl.

The shooting instructor’s death has been well documented. Her parents took her to a shooting range called Bullets and Burgers and allowed her to try to shoot an Uzi submachine gun. The child fired one round then the instructor Charles Vacca switched the gun to full automatic. The child lost control of the gun and accidentally killed Vacca. Because adults weren’t careful, this little girl has to live with the fact that she killed a man. Her life will never be easy. Childhood trauma, especially an event of this magnitude will require years of therapy. Even then, she may not fully be able to forgive herself.

The Will Hayden story broke earlier this week. He was arrested in Louisiana on Tuesday for the alleged repeated rape of a child that started when the child was 11 in 2013. The rapes happened almost daily until July of this year. He allegedly threatened her repeatedly by telling he was all she had and she wouldn’t have anything if he was arrested. That’s a powerful threat to a child. In my opinion, that threat was exacerbated by the fact that Hayden had a reality show on Discovery (Hayden was part owner of Red Jacket Firearms, and his company was featured on the show Sons of Guns, which has promptly been cancelled).

Child sexual abusers use multiple tactics to abuse the child and get them not to tell. They coerce and groom children like Jerry Sandusky did. They convince the child that the behavior is fun and normal, a tactic I’ve seen many times. They also make threats, like Hayden did. What is especially troubling about the Hayden case, though, is that as his popularity and wealth increased, his ability to threaten the child’s lifestyle also increased. The fact that his wealth and popularity were a direct result of his gun shop, the incessant fetishism of guns in America, and the equally unrelenting need for cable outlets to find the next big ratings getter were factors in his threat.

Imagine for a moment that you’re the child in the Hayden case. Hayden is wildly popular already, then he gets a TV show. No doubt that his sense of entitlement grew exponentially. He has the money to buy the best attorneys. He tells you nobody will believe you. You better not tell because I’m all you got. If you tell all this will be gone. It’s pretty easy to see why the child didn’t disclose for over a year.

I’ve dealt with child victims who were threatened with physical and emotional violence. Some of those victims were the children of wealthy parents. Some of those children felt threatened because the abusers had guns. The Hayden case involves a guy who got wealthy because of guns. The psychological strain on Hayden’s victim is unimaginable.

It’s entirely possible and actually probable that Hayden would have raped his victim whether he had guns and money or not — I’d hate to think that Discovery’s elevation of Hayden to the national spotlight gave him the final impetus to carry out his attacks — but child sexual abuse is about power and control. As Hayden’s power grew from wealth his control of the victim became even greater.

Time and treatment may help both girls get on with their lives. The unfortunate part of these stories is that for every one of these that make the news, there are thousands who don’t. Children accidentally kill with guns on a daily basis. Children are sexually violated on a daily basis. How many more children have to be permanently damaged before we take a serious look at these issues?

Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Sexual Abuse-Again.

Trigger warning:

In what seems to be a recurring theme, Richard Dawkins once again showed a shockingly callous and spectacularly uninformed view of child sexual abuse and adult rape. I've written about his misinformed opinion in the past.  Tuesday's performance seems to have outdone the idiocy in his Time Magazine interview of last fall.

Taking to Twitter he attempted to rank different types of abuse and rape.  It really has to be seen to be believed. The folks at the 'white guys doing it by themselves' Tumblr screen capped Dawkins' inanity for posterity.

While I find his insouciant dismissal of rape to be reprehensible, I specialize in investigating child sexual abuse, and will focus on that part of his sexual comparisons.

In my previous post I dressed Dawkins down for his misuse of the term pedophilia and I'll do so again. The term pedophile is a DSM V diagnosis.  Unless a person has been diagnosed as a pedophile by a psychologist or psychiatrist, they are to be called child molesters or child sexual abusers.  Dawkins prides himself on intellectual and scientific accuracy, but failed to research this.

His statement, "Mild pedophilia is bad, violent pedophilia is worse", illustrates his utter lack of knowledge about child sexual abuse.  It is well documented by anecdote and statistics that very little child sexual abuse is violent.

Child sexual abusers don't want their victims to be frightened.  In fact most child sexual abusers approach their victims with a friendly open manner. They want to build trust and develop a comfort level with the child. Think in terms of the Sandusky sexual abuse case.  Most of those young men had known Sandusky for some time and trusted him.

If you recall the testimony of the victims, Sandusky showed them special attention, bought them gifts and groomed them slowly over time.  Many of the victims were introduced to casual nakedness and horseplay showering with Sandusky before any overt sexual acts occurred.  This pattern was not unique to Sandusky. It is repeated over and over again.

Dawkins' portrayal of "violent pedophilia" highlights another common myth about child sexual abuse.  No doubt in the intellectually superior mind of Dawkins, violent pedophiles lurk on every playground waiting to rape the unsuspecting child.  The fact is that according to recent research, 90 percent of child abusers are known by the victim.

Dawkins' categorization of the types of child sexual abuse also shows a shocking lack of understanding the human condition.  Even in the instances I've cited in which the acts themselves were not "violent" as we may define it, sexual violence and degrees thereof are experienced differently by different people.

Dawkins' long ago "mild touching up" by a school teacher in boarding school, may have not had a lasting effect on him.  That same level of abuse may be and often is incredibly traumatic to other victims. Deigning to cast all victims and victimization into bad, worse and worst does an incredible disservice to victims.

Dawkins has a reputation as a brilliant biologist and intellectual. His intellect serves him well in many instances.  Tuesday, his pomposity and apparent need for grandiose pronouncements betrayed his lack of understanding of a serious subject and his lack of basic research into said subject.

Tuesday Dawkins' logic reminded us an ass is bad, a pompous ill informed ass is worse, if you think that's an endorsement of an ass Mr. Dawkins, go away and learn how to think.

Investigating Child Death and the Cooper Harris Case.

Investigating child death is one of the toughest things to do for anyone in child protection or law enforcement. I've worked closely with police investigating these cases for the last twenty years.  While it takes an emotional toll, I find it interesting and strangely exhilarating.

Death cases are the ultimate puzzle for investigators and after you've done them, you learn to look for certain things.  That being said, it gives me no pleasure to say that it appears that I was right about the death of Cooper Harris, the 22 month old left in his father's car in Suburban Atlanta.  Details are now coming out that this indeed appears to be a murder case, not a tragic accident.

When investigating child death, there are certain procedures and protocols that are followed. Each state, county and city has it's own unique system. Using the Cooper Harris case as a template, we'll walk through how these cases are investigated in my area.

The first thing that happens after a child death is an initial determination of probable cause of death.  In other words was the child beaten to death, suffocated, died in sleep, etc.  In almost every infant death in Illinois, the Child Abuse Hotline and local Police are called to inform them. If it's suspicious, investigators from DCFS and Police are called into action.

At the outset of the case, the investigative team would interview the parents of the deceased child.  Getting an initial statement sets the bedrock from which the case is built.

In the Cooper Harris case, the story that Justin Ross Harris told was that  he forgot his son Cooper in his car seat in the Hyundai Tuscon he drove. He was supposed to drop Cooper at daycare but he accidentally left the child in the car for 7 hours and Cooper died of hyperthermia. Harris only noticed the child after leaving work and driving a couple of miles, pulling in to a shopping mall and trying to revive his son.

After getting Harris' statement, one of the first calls that an investigator would make would be to the daycare. The first question I would ask: "What is your procedure when children are supposed to be there but don't show up?"  Many daycare's are hyper vigilant about children being dropped off. Did the daycare call the Harris home or Harris at work wondering about the whereabouts of the child?

After parsing the Harris' story, a seasoned investigator would question Harris getting in his car after work and not noticing the dead child for a couple of miles. The smell of death is not one that is easily confused with dirty gym clothes or a diaper that wasn't tossed out.

I'm reasonably sure the detectives in Georgia had these same questions.  When it has been established by the investigators that the father's story makes no sense, the team develops a list of questions and inconsistencies. With those questions the team in Georgia went to work.

Through some good shoe leather work, the detectives discovered that Harris ate breakfast with his son at a Chick Fil A around 20 minutes before "forgetting" that he was in the car.  Next they discovered that Harris had returned to the vehicle at noon time and threw something in the front seat.

With those facts in hand, the questioning, which would likely be moved to the Police Department at this point, would directly confront the inconsistencies.  In my experience, the discrepancies are soft peddled early in the interrogation. We ask for answers to the discrepancies. If the suspect gives weak answers or crazy explanations for the discrepancies the team digs in and goes harder at the suspect to get to the truth.

It's also being leaked that Harris Google searched information about how long it takes for an animal to die in a hot car.  This is information that investigators would typically hold back for an AHA moment. If the the suspect is making excuses about the other inconsistencies, this would be held back to use to try to get a confession.

If the suspect doesn't confess, the case falls back on the forensics. In the Harris case, the autopsy was performed the day after the child was found.  Autopsies are fascinating to attend. One has to have a strong stomach and the realization that you're watching a science project. According to reports, Cooper Harris died of hyperthermia.

At an autopsy, after the gross dissection, the pathologist takes a micro dissection of brain, liver, kidney, lung and spleen, to be sent off for tests. There is also a draw of ocular fluid, blood from the heart and a search of the stomach contents. In  the Harris case, I'm sure these things were done and the investigative team is awaiting results.

At some point during the investigation of the Cooper Harris death, the investigative team realized this was most likely not an accident.  I'm sure the team members are doing a thorough review of all the evidence. They're typing their reports and piecing together the puzzle.

If the team in Georgia is as good as the people I work with, they're masters at solving the puzzle. When all is said and done, the goal of any child death investigation is finding the truth. Too many times, the truth is that a parent did the unthinkable and killed their child.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and The Death Of American Compassion

The release of POW Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl has set off a firestorm of controversy across the United States.  News media members are breathlessly reporting on how the White House is in "damage control". Pundits are speculating about possible impeachment of the President and everyone seems to have an opinion on whether Sergeant Bergdahl deserted, wandered away or was actively seeking to join forces with the Taliban.

I'm not going to speculate on any of that.  Instead I'd like to focus on what I see is a disturbing trend in our discourse and indeed in the country at large. Sergeant Bergdahl's return has exposed a shocking lack of compassion by Americans.

There's a term in social work called "Compassion Fatigue" .  The official diagnosis is called Secondary Traumatic Stress.  It's usually transitory and it basically means you're so tired of helping people, you become callous.

I've experienced it. It's not a pleasant feeling.  On more than one occasion, I've felt like a client didn't deserve to be helped. Several times I've invoked the "teenager had it coming" rule for smart mouthed teens getting beat by their parents. It happens, you work through it, you learn from your mistakes.

I've worked very hard on becoming more compassionate. That's what makes the treatment of Bergdahl's return so utterly outrageous to me.

People have called death threats to Bergdahl's parents and harassed his hometown into cancelling a welcome home celebration. Calls have been so abusive to the Hailey, Idaho Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber president June Drussel said "People aren't being very American"

I beg to differ with Ms. Drussel. The people calling her office are being very American, in this new, cold, me first, screw you, America.

Over recent years because of the rise of social media, people care less and less about hurting the feelings of others. In fact they revel in it. There is no place anymore for gray areas or benefit of the doubt or just some human decency.

In recent weeks, a man was so cold and lacking in compassion that he stole the signs from Sandy Hook Memorial playgrounds and taunted the parents of the dead children.  A few months ago a judge said a 14 year old girl, who later committed suicide, was partially responsible for her rape.  This week a woman went off in a crazy racist rant. These are just three examples in a growing trend.

Even more troubling, than those individual instances, is the increase in the lack of compassion from elected officials. Cutting off food stamps for the working poor, cutting unemployment, refusing to expand Medicaid in states with Republican Governors are just a few examples.

The VA scandal is another. It takes a pretty heartless person to delay care to a wounded Vet.  Many people in politics saw the VA scandal as a great chance to attack the President and the Administration. Many of those same people say they would have left Sergeant Bergdahl in enemy hands which, if you think about it, is sort of the ultimate denial of care.

America was founded on looking out for each other, "promote the general welfare" is in the Constitution. Clearly the Founders knew that the great social contract that Americans are part of requires us to prop up those fellow citizens who need it. Instead of propping up Sergeant Bergdahl and his family, he has been brutally attacked. Some have called him a traitor, a deserter and worse.  Many have called for his execution.

People have said, what about having compassion for the families of the soldiers killed looking for Bergdahl. I'd respond to that by saying, why are compassion for the families of the dead and compassion for Bergdahl and his family mutually exclusive?

Americans used to be thought of as a great and generous people.  American exceptionalism wasn't just about how much money we made or how many skyscrapers we built. Americans were seen as exceptional because of our kindness, our willingness to help, we welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses, yearning to be free.

Now, it seems we're tired of the poor and the huddled masses, those yearning to be free.  We've got no time for them, if they can't do it themselves, too bad.  In short, we've lost our compassion.

John Paul II's Canonization and Victims of Sexual Abuse

Trigger Warning

Last week, a young man in the village of Cevo, Italy was crushed when a giant crucifix that honored John Paul II fell over. John Paul was the leader of the Catholic Church for 27 years. The sexual abuse of children and the legacy of  cover-ups and inaction that happened on his watch crushed uncounted thousands. 
 
I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic Schools. In college I went to a Catholic University and among other things, I took 25 hours of Theology.  Not quite enough for a major, but more than a lot of people.   also majored in Psychology and through a somewhat winding path ended up spending the last 20 years investigating child abuse. 

Working with survivors of sexual abuse, talking to children about the abuse they suffered is no easy task. It's even more difficult when the abuser is a member of the Clergy in any religion. If the abuser is a Priest it is almost impossible to get justice for the victim. 

John Paul II was the Pope during the horrific Priest sexual abuse scandals that were made public in the 90's and into the early 2000's.  He was aware of the scandal, and was made aware of Priests who were multiple time offenders.  Yet nothing was done until 2001, when he directed Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict, to deal with the scandal.     

Many say that much of the abuse happened before John Paul was Pope. Saying that John Paul is somehow absolved because people were abused 20-30 years before making complaints, is that same thing as saying Joe Paterno should be absolved of the scorn and derision he has received. 

In fact, the Catholic Priest sex abuse scandal is Penn State writ large.  An open secret known to many, if not all, in power.  Those in power turned a blind eye to the abuse.  Many more children were victimized as a result of institutional inaction.  The comparisons can go on right on to the current leaders of both Penn State and the Church gamely trying to move on and refocus on the healing of the victims.  

I know a few adult survivors of sexual abuse by Priests. Some I have met through my job, two I know from elsewhere and they confided in me in confidence.  What they all have in common, is that they were abused after John Paul II was made Pope. Some disclosed and some did not. 

We know that Cardinals all over the United States from Los Angeles to Chicago to Boston were actively covering up sexual abuse by Priests in the 80's, 90's and 2000's.  To say most of this happened before he was Pope is naive at best and an outright obfuscation at worst.  Due to the stigma attached to victims when they disclose, there's a great possibility that there are thousands up thousands of victims worldwide that we'll never know about.  

Another thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that the abuse of children by Priests is still going on. The Priests may face punishment sooner than in the past, but that hasn't stopped the behavior.  The same forces that kept victims silent 30 years ago, are still in play today.  Priests who abuse are no different than anyone else who abuses. 

On April, 27, the Catholic Church made two men Saints.  One man modernized the Church in the 1960's. The other turned a blind eye to the most egregious case of wide spread, institutional sexual abuse of children in recorded history.  Making John Paul II a Saint, is a slap in the face of people who were sexually abused by Priests.

Nancy Grace and the Death of Decency.

*Trigger warning* 

Over the weekend, Utah authorities found the remains of seven infants, allegedly killed by their mother, Megan Huntsman.  According to reports, she admitted to killing six of them by strangulation or suffocation. The seventh was allegedly still born.

This is a tragedy rarely seen.  As a twenty year veteran of Child Protective Services, I've been to far too many autopsies of babies and children. Going to seven at one time? Even for my thick skin, that would be a challenge.

Fortunately, though, we have Nancy Grace to guide us through the gruesome details.  Ms. Grace has a history of taking a special interest in nationally known cases that involve the death of children.  Her Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman coverage were nonpareil, because no-one in major media today likes to pick the bones of dead children like Ms. Grace.

Tonight it what can only be described as a window to her soul  empty place where her soul should be, her official Twitter Account tweeted this:

Nancy Grace        ✔ @NancyGraceHLN

Follow

Shocking new details: Cops say a Utah mom admits to strangling or suffocating her 6 newborn babies http://on.hln.tv/7sn7nG  #BoxesOfBabies

And the Hash Tag #BoxesofBabies has gone unchecked.

While many people chalk this up to normal TV sensationalism, I take personal offense.  The death of children is not a glib, funny tweet. It's not an alliterative hash tag. It's real life.

After seeing the tweet from Ms. Grace's account I went on a Twitter rant that probably means nothing to her. Unfortunately what Ms. Grace deems as a good news story and a ratings grabber, has far more serious consequences outside the TV studio.

The people who responded to the home, be they Sheriff's deputies, CPS, Firefighters or paramedics, aren't going to forget this scene any time soon.  They won't be spreading heartless tweets or being glib about headlines that say boxes of babies.  They are men and women, human to the core that will take this to the grave.

Maybe Ms. Grace and her staffers are unaware of PTSD, because you know, it's never in the news.  People who do this for a living, who deal with horrors that Ms. Grace can only blab about, have a very high rate of PTSD.  Rolling up on the death of one person is hard enough.  Seven babies? Don't even want to think about the nightmares.

These were seven tragic souls, their mother, most certainly mentally ill, or as Nancy Grace likes to call them: ratings.

I'll end this post with a simple question with regards to Joseph Welch.  Have you no decency Ms. Grace? I think we all know the answer.

For Shame: Matt Lauer's Interview of Dottie Sandusky

In what can only be described as the worst kind of sensationalism, NBC's Today Show Host, Matt Lauer conducted an interview of Dottie Sandusky, the wife of convicted child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.  As most people with a brain would surmise, Mrs. Sandusky thinks her husband is innocent despite being found guilty of 47 counts of child sexual abuse.

The interview was conducted at the Sandusky home. Sitting next to to a forlorn and tearful Sandusky was John Ziegler, noted grifter, scam artist and Joe Paterno apologist.  While the interview as ostensibly about Sandusky, Ziegler was able to work in " the unjust firing of Joe Paterno" about halfway through.

The entire thing was distasteful for many reasons. Dottie Sandusky said her husband is innocent of the chargers against him.  They're not charges, he was convicted.  Ziegler said he's met with Sandusky and now believes he's innocent.  Even Matt Lauer got in on the fun, at one point outside the basement bedroom in which at least one boy was raped, Lauer said that "this is the bedroom in which some of the accusers say the abuse happened".  Sorry Matt, they're not accusers, they're victims and they don't say things happened. They happened. Sandusky was convicted.

I have known many Dottie Sanduskys in 20 years of child abuse investigation. It may sound incredible to the average person, but there are spouses every day who don't believe their spouse sexually abused a child.  The number of spouses/paramours who believe the adult over the child would truly shock most of you. I don't know if Dottie is naive, mentally ill, in denial or all of the above. What I do know is that her response wasn't a surprise to me.

What was a surprise was NBC's decision to green light the story.  They gave a fringe element of truly horrible people led by the Snidely Whiplash of Paterno apologists, John Ziegler, a national platform. The entire interview ran for 51 minutes. 51 minutes of calling the victims liars, Dottie: "I didn't say they lied, I said I don't believe their story". 51 minutes of calling the victims grifters, again Dottie: "I think they were manipulated by the lawyers for money". 51 minutes of Ziegler saying things like "Its not PC to call a victim a liar".

My question for all involved is simple. Do you have any idea how hard it is for victims, especially male victims to disclose sexual abuse? I do. Hundreds of children have told me about their sexual abuse. Without exaggeration, boys who were abused as adolescents are almost impossible to get to disclose.

Current statistics indicate that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys have been or are being sexually abused. The numbers are skewed because of the lack of  disclosure by boys. Boys often don't tell because the stigma that can be attached to their abuse.  Unfortunately society teaches boys to be tough and being violated is the antithesis of being tough in their minds. Getting them to tell what happened takes patience and skill.

Now imagine that you've disclosed a horrible thing.  You've survived a long and contentious trial. Your abuser was found guilty, and a major network calls into question your honesty, your motivation, and allows two people to continue peddling a narrative that is completely false. Imagine how you'd feel when Dottie Sandusky hinted at "evidence that can't be revealed yet".

Victims already feel shame because they were abused. Victims blame themselves without any help from the media. If you were a victim and hadn't disclosed, would the treatment of the Sandusky victims by Lauer and NBC make you more or less likely to tell?

What Lauer and NBC fail to realize, or maybe they realize it and don't care, child sexual abuse cases are almost always about child disclosure vs. perpetrator denial. There is seldom physical evidence or confessions. In the Sandusky case, a jury heard the testimony of the victims and found Sandusky guilty.  This is not a case in which "both sides" are valid.

Jerry Sandusky is an evil man, his wife is either a naif, a patsy or a co-conspirator.  John Ziegler is the lowest form of human sleeze, one step removed from the pedophile he supports.  They don't get to argue their 'side' of the story because their side is a lie.

Unfortunately, for the victims of Sandusky and victims everywhere, NBC, The Today Show and Matt Lauer decided that lie needed 51 minutes.

An Investigative Look at The Woody Allen Case

Author's Note: This Blog Post May Be Triggering

The subject of child abuse and in particular child sexual abuse, is not something that people like to talk about. Most people don't like to even  think about it. Unfortunately it is real, it is happening right now, and frankly shouldn't be ignored.

This weekends open letter from Dylan Farrow to her father Woody Allen, and Hollywood in general, about the sexual abuse she suffered at his hand, set off a firestorm.  It is frank, it is heartfelt and it is powerful. It may also be triggering for some people. If you haven't read it, I recommend you do so.

Since the post went up yesterday there has been an outpouring of support for Ms. Farrow and condemnation of Woody Allen.  There have also been numerous supporters of Allen asking for more "proof".  Twitter and Facebook quickly rent down the middle by those survivors and their supporters, for whom Dylan's accusations ring true, and those who either support Allen or want more evidence than just Farrow's word.

Filmmaker and author Bob Weide, wrote a piece in the Daily Beast outlining questions, that might exonerate Allen.  The questions Wiede asks seem logical and objective.  They also illustrate how little  the average person knows about the disclosure, investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse.

As most of you know, I investigate child abuse for a living. I've been doing it for 20 years.  I've done hundreds of sexual abuse cases with thousands of victims.  I'm a certified forensic interviewer, advanced forensic interviewer and trainer of the forensic interview techniques.  It's with this knowledge and training that I look at the Allen case.

A Botched Investigation

One of the first questions that people have had about the Allen case usually has something to do with Dylan's disclosure.  In the original story in Vanity Fair in 1993 and in  the follow up in November, Dylan's appeared to garbled and contradictory.  She told the first doctor that she spoke to that Allen had touched her shoulder.  The next day she disclosed a more descriptive account.

This often happens with the outcry of abuse.  In the Allen case, Dylan should NEVER have been questioned by a doctor in a hospital room with her mom there. Unfortunately, it was 1993.  Now children are interviewed in safe one on one settings, for the most part.  Doctors know that if a parent brings a child in for possible sexual abuse, they are to take the minimum amount of information they need for an exam and let the professionals do the interview.

Weide makes quite a point that the Investigative Team of 3 doctors who conducted a 6 month investigation concluded that no sexual molestation happened. They claimed in part that Dylan was "emotionally disturbed child whose story became fixed in her head" or that she was coached or both.  They outlined inconsistencies in Dylan's statement about being touched on the vaginal area.

The idea of a team of 3 doctors interviewing a frightened 7 year old child individually or as a group over 6 months is reprehensible. There's a reason we do one interview on tape. Asking Dylan to relive and retell the account of her abuse over and over again victimized her even further.

It's not shocking that she said first she wasn't touched, then she was, then she wasn't.  Children who are repeatedly interviewed about the same incident often change an answer to please the person doing the interview.  We see this in custody cases all the time. When the kids at mom's they say they hate dad, when they're at dad's vice versa.

It's not a giant leap to think that Dylan was confused and scared by these three adult men asking her questions about her private parts for SIX MONTHS.  It's inconceivable to anyone who practices social work today.  It's entirely possible that she was "emotionally" disturbed because of the way she was dealt with by people who should have known better.

Many people, including Weide point out that medical examinations were done and there was no evidence of trauma to the anus or the vagina.  This doesn't rule out molestation.  In fact it doesn't even rule out penetration. The vagina heals remarkably fast and any doctor who knows how to conduct a sexual abuse exam of a child will tell  you that.

Charming and Sneaky

Weide also seems to think that the fact that some of the abuse happened during the time when Allen had to be on his "best behavior" on visits precludes the possibility that he abused Dylan.  Again a common fallacy among those who don't know a whit about how abusers work.

Abusers are charming. Especially when they are grooming the child.  Much of what Dylan described like getting under the covers with Allen, or Allen making her suck his thumb are mere precursors to abuse which could have followed.

In fact, the visits at the Farrow home would be the perfect time for Allen to abuse Dylan for the very reason that people think it was the worst possible time.  Nobody would expect Allen to do that while he was under intense scrutiny after his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn became public.

Weide also casts doubt on Allen being able to do it in a house full of children and nannies. Again abusers are good at what they do, and sexual abusers are the best.  Mikki Kendall, AKA @Karnythia a feminist, mother and author pointed out on Twitter,  that only the sloppy or the stupid sexual abusers get caught.

Prosecution Questions

Prosecution of child sexual abuse is notoriously tricky. It's no surprise that there was no criminal charge in the Allen case.  The prosecutor at the time, said he had probable cause to believe Dylan.  People wonder why charges weren't pressed.  A valid question with no easy answer.

The first problem with prosecution is almost every child sex abuse case is the child's word against the adults.  I mentioned forensic interviewing earlier.  We interview children in this manner to get a statement that is as credible as possible. The video of the interview is also a good tool to use to try to get a confession, and if there are charges filed, its an excellent tool for a judge and jury to see.

Once you get past the hurdle of the child's credibility, there are structural concerns with the criminal justice system that make things difficult.  Some cases can linger for a year or two until they come to trial. In that time, the victim and the victim's family may have decided that court may be too overwhelming.  Even in relatively quick cases, the family is hesitant.

Can you imagine the circus if Dylan Farrow had to testify against Woody Allen? Not only would she be dragged by a defense attorney, but Mia Farrow's life and previous history would also be fair game.  Weide mentioned Mia Farrow's previous affairs, imagine what an attorney that Woody Allen could afford would have done.

Another common misconception is that if there is no prosecution, there is no guilt. Every state has some form of Child Protective Services.  All of them have a name for reports of child abuse that are FOUNDED. In Illinois, we use the term Indicated. In other states they use Confirmed. The level of evidence in these founded reports is usually "reasonable person" which basically means  that a reasonable person would conclude that abuse or neglect occurred.

A friend on Twitter mentioned that he would like to believe that Allen is innocent until proven guilty.  Unfortunately for the overwhelming majority of these cases there is no court.  There is only the child welfare system and the findings of the professionals. Those cases are never made public due to confidentiality, but they are no less important than cases that go to court.

A Final Thought

Dylan Farrow's statement this weekend opened up a lot of wounds. So many victims have their victimization dismissed by everyone from family to authorities, its not surprising there were a lot of angry outbursts.  Victims never really get over it no matter that other's would like them too.

People seem willing to give Woody Allen the benefit of the doubt, and that is certainly their right.  Just keep in mind the raw feelings of a lot of people.  Keep in mind that there are an awful lot of people like Dylan Farrow, living with a horrible past and feeling like nobody believes them.

We've come a long way in the way we investigate and prosecute child sexual abuse.  If the Woody Allen case was investigated today, the outcome may have been completely different.  Given what we know, Dylan Farrow may have gotten justice.

What The Woody Allen- Mia Farrow Case Illustrates about Investigating Sexual Abuse

This article could be triggering.

Over the last several days there have been many articles and arguments about the tweets made by Mia Farrow and her son Ronan regarding Woody Allen being honored at the Golden Globes.  The Farrows are convinced that Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow.  Dylan made a statement when she was 19 that Allen molested her at the age of 7, she made similar statements when she was 7 and there was no real investigation.

There have been op-ed's about this matter written both in support of Allen and in defense of the Farrows.  Unlike The Daily Banter's Chez Pazienza, I've never been a huge fan of Allen, his writing or his movies. Unlike Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth I haven't had an extensive sit down with the Farrows.

What I can tell you is this situation is far too common.  Sure, the principals in this case are larger than life, but at is very most basic core, this story is played out time and time again in Child Protection. For every case that's founded by CPS, there are a dozen cases like Allen's.

The problems with the Allen case from an investigative standpoint are many and varied, from the statement by the victim, to taking the child to a doctor and not child abuse professionals, to the weird, neurotic behavior of both Farrow and Allen.

Any case against Allen was going nowhere fast, because the professionals involved didn't do things correctly.  The good news in the last 20 years, Child Protection Professionals nationwide have gotten a whole lot better at our jobs.

There has been a lot of talk about Dylan's statements as a 7 year old possibly being coached, and her memories as a 19 year old being false.  Those are certainly a possibility, but what I see when I read the account of Dylan's disclosure and the lawyers advice that she be  taken to a doctor, my first thought was "huge mistake".

A lot of comment has been made about Dylan pointing to her shoulder when asked about her private part by the doctor and later telling her mother that she was embarrassed to tell the doctor.  This absolutely consistent with hundreds of cases we've investigated.  Children have to be made to feel safe in a welcoming one on one interview, not the cold sterile impersonal environment of the doctor's office.

It's also not surprising that the next day they went back to the doctor and made a statement consistent with being molested.  This happens all the time. Children are afraid, embarrassed, confused. Also children generally don't want to get "in trouble" because they're sharing a secret.

The professionals around the country who conduct forensic interviews with child victims never and I mean never just ask what part the private part is.  We're trained to build rapport with the child, taking several minutes to get information about their home, their family, their school. Sometimes we draw face pictures.

After the child is more comfortable we might ask them why they are there to see us, if  the respond with something regarding body parts, we introduce a body chart and have them name body parts.  That way when they say "he touched my private" we can refer to the chart to ask what they mean.  Sidebar: Parents please teach your children the word vagina.  You have no idea how many names for vagina I've been told by children. From hoo-ha to pocketbook to monkey.  Also teach them the word penis, not winky, not pee pee, not dick, PENIS.

The other problem with proving that Allen did or didn't do something is quite frankly, Mia Farrow.  In the Vanity Fair article she was described as never wanting to make the allegations public, and her behavior showed a hesitance to go to authorities, instead telling a psychiatrist dealing with Allen.  Even in the early 90's this should have been completely handled by CPS and Police. People trained to investigate.

The fact that both adults Farrow and Allen are veritable baskets of neuroses also doesn't help the case.  Allen's affair and subsequent marriage to Soon-Yi Previn have devastated the Farrow family.  Allen's neurosis is the basis of his entire professional career.

Regarding Soon-Yi Previn, Allen stated that he didn't see Soon-Yi as his daughter. While that is technically true he was the predominant male figure for a significant portion of her childhood.  Her father figure.  Allen traded on these feelings and groomed her. While not technically a crime, since we don't know of any sexual contact between the two when she was a minor, it certainly is creepy.

Allen's behavior with Dylan as witnessed by several people, could certainly be construed as grooming at the very least, but we'll never know beyond a reasonable doubt that he molested Dylan. It's very possible that he did, but what happened with this case from the professionals was sadly wanting.  As to the Farrow's believing Dylan, I would expect no less.

So there it is, this case is a mess. Many child sexual abuse cases are a mess. The reasons this case is a mess aren't all that different than what we see on a daily basis.  Parents who despise each other, partial statements by a child that seem inconsistent, professionals who dropped the ball and failed to properly interview the child, all these things are a daily problem in Child Protection.