PDA

View Full Version : Lindstedt Update: Hearing Date Set


il ragno
07-04-2006, 09:09 AM
http://www.neoshodailynews.com/articles/20...news/02case.txt

Lindstedt case review set for Dec. 14
By John Ford / Daily News Associate Editor
Published: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:09 PM CDT

http://i6.tinypic.com/16ldvye.jpg

Martin “Mad Dog” Lindstedt's case will be reviewed in another six months, a Newton County judge has decided.

Lindstedt, who faces an unclassified felony charge of first degree statutory sodomy, will have a case review on Dec. 14, Judge Kevin Lee Selby ruled Monday.

Lindstedt has been accused of first degree statutory sodomy. A probable cause statement alleges Lindstedt inappropriately kissed a family member on the child's back, buttocks and groin sometime between March and August 2003.



Lindstedt was transferred to the Fulton State Hospital late last year and proceedings against him were put on hold. Additionally, 22 counts of contempt of court were set aside.

Lindstedt has been a perennial political candidate, seeking a number of local, county and statewide offices over the years as a Libertarian, a member of the Reform Party and as a Republican. In April 2005, he ran for Granby municipal judge and for a seat on the East Newton R-6 School Board.

Last week, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Lindstedt's appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Richard Dorr's decision to toss out the Granby man's lawsuit alleging Blunt would not allow him to use the nickname “Mad Dog” on the 2004 ballot for governor, as well as the 2002 U.S. Senate race. In 2004, Blunt was Missouri's secretary of state and was the Republican candidate for governor.



Lindstedt had also asked Blunt to provide a link to his web site. However, the secretary of state refused because of its racist content.

Lindstedt did not seek monetary damages in the suit, but asked for injunctive and declaratory relief, including punishing Blunt by placing the name Matt “Runt” Blunt on the November ballot as well as placing a link to Lindstedt's web page concerning the lawsuit and Blunt's “moral, mental and political shortcomings.”

Instead, Dorr opted to dismiss the suit. Lindstedt has made several attempts to get the judge to overturn his decision, to no avail.



Martin Lindstedt has filed, and lost, a number of other lawsuits against a variety of people and entities in the past. Among these:

€ Against Missouri Southern State College and the city of Joplin in 1996. Lindstedt sought $1.3 million from the college and $5 million from the city of Joplin for violation of his civil rights. The incident stemmed from a Nov. 2, 1993, visit to the campus by Robert Ressler, a former FBI agent with whom Lindstedt had a verbal altercation and was detained by campus security, then arrested by Joplin police;

€ Against the city of Granby and former Mayor Craig Hopper for alleged civil rights violations in connection with a defective equipment charge;

€ Against the Missouri Libertarian Party in both state and federal courts for kicking Lindstedt out of the organization;

€ Against Newton County Clerk Kay Baum, petitioning to run for Newton County Sheriff in 1996, and;

€ Against Jasper County Judge Joe Shoeberl for alleged violation of his constitutional rights.


Lindstedt has also effectively been excommunicated from the Church of the Sons of YHVH, which has white supremacist ties. Pastor Morris L. Gulett said Lindstedt was booted from their membership because he was “writing and distributing some very disturbing ideas,” including “prion poisoning” of game animals, the “skinning alive of prisoners and execution by slow torture,” and the “gang rape of female whigger herd animals to use them as a brooding stock.”

In a July 5, 2005, letter to the Neosho Forums, Lindstedt warned Newton County authorities have set a precedent “for the torture and extermination of regime criminals and their spawn and made Newton County a prime target for biological warfare / prion poisoning in particular. A racial, religious and class civil war / revolution in which not a single non-white or mixed-race creature will be left alive in White homelandsŠ.

“I don't build bombs. I build bombers. Not just one or two bombers, and not armed with just one little truck bombŠ. I build bombers who know how to make their own biological weaponry and who do not get caught, who will make survival impossible for anyone other than rural White people.”

It's disgustingly clear that he's in jail because of his offensive opinions....which, until George W Bush seized America's joystick in 2000, were perfectly legal to hold and even utter aloud. Considering Lucky's been locked down, assaulted on numerous instances (four teeth knocked out), and his mail service and outside conrtacts all but suspended, "inappropriately kissed a family member on the child's back, buttocks and groin sometime between March and August 2003" looks flimsier and flimsier.

"Inappropriately kissed"?

This was his four-year grandson we're talking about! Did your grandparents kiss you when you were four? Did they ask you to reciprocate with a handjob afterwards, the mangy pervs? Who exactly witnessed this to determine inappropriateness? Is the testimony of a scrupulously-coached, developmentally-disabled 4-year-old now considered slam-dunk evidence?

"Sometime between March and August 2003"?

More proof this is all a fishing expedition. Not only was this virtual buggery unwitnessed and uncorroborated, they can only guesstimate when it "happened" besides? What are they waiting for - the kid to grow attached to his new foster family so they can threaten to remove him from them if he doesn't "remember" it according to their script?

Here is the entirety of the "evidence" in The State of Missouri vs Martin Lindstedt:

Exhibit A: Pastor Morris L. Gulett said Lindstedt was booted from their membership because he was “writing and distributing some very disturbing ideas,” including “prion poisoning” of game animals, the “skinning alive of prisoners and execution by slow torture,” and the “gang rape of female whigger herd animals to use them as a brooding stock.”

Exhibit B:“I don't build bombs. I build bombers. Not just one or two bombers, and not armed with just one little truck bombŠ. I build bombers who know how to make their own biological weaponry and who do not get caught, who will make survival impossible for anyone other than rural White people.”

...and, God willing, an average of 50 hours a week of tv viewing per each member of the jury.

If a tree nobody much likes falls in the forest where no one has to watch, will anybody even care that it didn't fall, it was purposely cut down?

Sulla the Dictator
07-04-2006, 09:48 AM
Did your grandparents kiss you when you were four?


My grandparents never left a trail of kisses down my back and around to my genitals. :sick:

The state doesn't fabricate stuff like this, il ragno. They sometimes make the mistake of believing people who falsely accuse other people of such acts, but they don't make up child molestation charges.

Jake Featherston
07-04-2006, 10:28 AM
It's disgustingly clear that he's in jail because of his offensive opinions....which, until George W Bush seized America's joystick in 2000, were perfectly legal to hold and even utter aloud. Considering Lucky's been locked down, assaulted on numerous instances (four teeth knocked out), and his mail service and outside conrtacts all but suspended, "inappropriately kissed a family member on the child's back, buttocks and groin sometime between March and August 2003" looks flimsier and flimsier.

"Inappropriately kissed"?

This was his four-year grandson we're talking about! Did your grandparents kiss you when you were four? Did they ask you to reciprocate with a handjob afterwards, the mangy pervs? Who exactly witnessed this to determine inappropriateness? Is the testimony of a scrupulously-coached, developmentally-disabled 4-year-old now considered slam-dunk evidence?
"Sometime between March and August 2003"?

More proof this is all a fishing expedition. Not only was this virtual buggery unwitnessed and uncorroborated, they can only guesstimate when it "happened" besides? What are they waiting for - the kid to grow attached to his new foster family so they can threaten to remove him from them if he doesn't "remember" it according to their script?

Here is the entirety of the "evidence" in The State of Missouri vs Martin Lindstedt:

Exhibit A: Pastor Morris L. Gulett said Lindstedt was booted from their membership because he was “writing and distributing some very disturbing ideas,” including “prion poisoning” of game animals, the “skinning alive of prisoners and execution by slow torture,” and the “gang rape of female whigger herd animals to use them as a brooding stock.”

Exhibit B:“I don't build bombs. I build bombers. Not just one or two bombers, and not armed with just one little truck bombŠ. I build bombers who know how to make their own biological weaponry and who do not get caught, who will make survival impossible for anyone other than rural White people.”

...and, God willing, an average of 50 hours a week of tv viewing per each member of the jury.

If a tree nobody much likes falls in the forest where no one has to watch, will anybody even care that it didn't fall, it was purposely cut down?

Il Ragno and I are of a single mind on this question. He has already said it (slightly :) ) better than I can, so I won't needlessly reiterate his points. I did embolden some of his remarks with which I feel a particularly strong affinity.

Jake Featherston
07-04-2006, 10:29 AM
Lindstedt really does go out of his way to bring down the wrath of the state upon himself.

A responsible regime wouldn't rise to take the bait, but would instead recall both the letter and the spirit of Article I of the Bill of Rights. :mad:

WFHermans
07-04-2006, 10:30 AM
Solly is deleting posts again.

Furcht
07-04-2006, 10:31 AM
Well I believe he was tried for being an assclown and nut, suprising after all this interesting information they feed they fail to mention the current standing of the "NEWLY divorced CI fucktard family" but i don't even think the whiggers can help him out. He is a an Insane Political Prisoner, however due process was not brought upon him. fade and or ilragno can easily be next, i don't understand why they don't seem to care.

Ahknaton
07-04-2006, 10:31 AM
The state doesn't fabricate stuff like this, il ragno.
How do you know that?

Jake Featherston
07-04-2006, 10:31 AM
The state doesn't fabricate stuff like this, il ragno. They sometimes make the mistake of believing people who falsely accuse other people of such acts, but they don't make up child molestation charges.

Ridiculous.

WFHermans
07-04-2006, 10:32 AM
My grandparents never left a trail of kisses down my back and around to my genitals. :sick:

The state doesn't fabricate stuff like this, il ragno. They sometimes make the mistake of believing people who falsely accuse other people of such acts, but they don't make up child molestation charges.
But you are. You're caught changing your posts again.

Jake Featherston
07-04-2006, 10:33 AM
How do you know that?

He does not. And I rather doubt he cares much either way, so long as it happens to people like Lindstedt, instead of people like himself.

Ravenheart
07-04-2006, 10:47 AM
The state doesn't fabricate stuff like this, il ragno. They sometimes make the mistake of believing people who falsely accuse other people of such acts, but they don't make up child molestation charges.

The state is not monolithic. I don't doubt you are right in most cases, but I can imagine a prosecutor being more likely to believe such a story (or even press the alleged victim more) if the suspect is an extremist, especially if he's as 'in your face' as Linstedt.

Sulla the Dictator
07-04-2006, 11:00 AM
How do you know that?

Because sex crimes are sticky subjects. They need forensic evidence or a witness in order to put their case forward. There's easier charges for the state to invent.

But I'd be happy to see an example where the state made up a child molestation charge.

Sulla the Dictator
07-04-2006, 11:02 AM
The state is not monolithic. I don't doubt you are right in most cases, but I can imagine a prosecutor being more likely to believe such a story (or even press the alleged victim more) if the suspect is an extremist, especially if he's as 'in your face' as Linstedt.

Sure, thats possible. I think its likely Lindstedt is guilty, and the reason I lean that way is the type of posts he used to make. The guy struck me as perverse enough to make this plausible. The prosecutor probably feels the same way.

That being said though, he isn't making up the charges. There is a complaining witness that he chooses to believe..

il ragno
07-04-2006, 11:55 AM
The state doesn't fabricate stuff like this, il ragno. They sometimes make the mistake of believing people who falsely accuse other people of such acts, but they don't make up child molestation charges.

No, I mostly agree with you here. Fabricating sex-crime evidence is a tricky/risky enterprise, and I'm sure Lucky's not worth that sort of risk.

But I don't see ANY "evidence". None! I see regurgitated and wholly-unsourced hearsay. I see years-old Lindstedt quotes and website excerpts revived time and time again....the quotes in this article were themselves recycled from at least three old Neosho articles....produced in lieu of any credible nuts-and-bolts facts, or even a visible breadcrumb trail.

I believe the whole plan was to lock him up on a heinous charge...anybody following the Duke case can see how tough that is to do.... wait for Lucky to inevitably rise to the bait and be himself, and use that as a pretext to certify him as fubar, thus nullifying any need for a credible case and a jury trial. It's an old and tested truism that a DA can indict a ham sandwich if he chooses. Proving it is another matter. And I'm quite sure these old horrible awful racist "his diseased mind doesn't belong around us decent folk" quotes will be bandied about more and more frequently as Dec 14th approaches. The idea being to bait the bear into frightening the burghers, so that nobody can question the "need" to keep him in a cage, and quiet any civil-libertarian unease over doing so.

No, the State may not fabricate sex-crime evidence,. But fabricating proof and railroading an innocent man are two different things. (Surely a bleeding heart, nigger-loving conservative like you, Sulla, wouldn't argue that.)

Besides, I didn't see anything in this story about a "trial"....just a "hearing".

WFHermans
07-04-2006, 12:05 PM
It's very easy to make up child molestation charges, and the state does it all the time. One reason it gets done so often is that it looks good on a prosecutors resume and will him get re-elected if he has some people sent to jail on child molestation charges.

It's almost impossible for an innocent person to defend himself, or even to get a good lawyer.

il ragno
07-04-2006, 12:40 PM
Sure, thats possible. I think its likely Lindstedt is guilty, and the reason I lean that way is the type of posts he used to make.

No wonder the less-enlightened hate us for our freedom and goodness, given that lightweight, travel-sized Burden of Proof we require to whomp someone - like "I don't like your face", or "your opinions suck". Thank God it isn't "I don't care for your skin color" any more, though, and we're out of the Dark Ages, eh?

That being said though, he isn't making up the charges. There is a complaining witness that he chooses to believe.

Well, it isn't the kid, who was 4 years old and borderline-retarded. And it wasn't his wife. Might be one of Lucky's white-trash relatives, who were forever squabbling with him, or one of his neighbors, who loathed the sight of him.....someone impartial like that with no axe to grind. Damn, it could be anyone at all, what with the county DA's total information-blackout onm this 'case'.

Hey, didja see this week's NEWSWEEK? You know, the same NEWSWEEK that demanded racial justice for the Duke lacrosse "victim" two-three months back in a cover story called "Sex, Lies and Duke", when they thought the lacrosse players were guilty and the reason they leaned that way is the type of remarks attributed to them plus they're, you know, white and well-off and besides there was a complaining witness who wasn't?:

On cable TV, Jon Stewart was making fun of Geraldo Rivera for gravely and fatuously intoning, "It is not always the nuns that get raped. Sometimes it's the strippers that get raped." Some people may find it funny. Except, of course, the case is no laughing matter to the young woman who suffered injuries that appear to be caused by a sexual assault.

The Durham police, who do not look fondly on wealthy children's behaving like louts, began citing Duke students for minor nuisance crimes, such as holding open beer cans and public urination. Lacrosse players at Duke have generally excellent grades, almost always graduate and often find jobs waiting for them on Wall Street. But they have a reputation for swagger and rowdiness, and have been known to kick in doors and urinate out windows. History professor Peter Wood, who often has lacrosse players in his course on Native Americans (who invented the game), complained that team members sometimes signed in to class and then walked out, without bothering to sit down.

Strutting lacrosse players are a distinctive and familiar breed on elite campuses along the Eastern Seaboard. Because the game until recently was played mostly at prep schools and in upper-middle-class communities on New York's Long Island and outside Baltimore, the players tend to be at once macho and entitled, a sometimes unfortunate combination. The two players arrested last week fit the rich-kid stereotype.

Here's their new take, where it sure looks like the DA was railroading them, and the "complaining witness" was and is a brillo-haired delusional liar:

Doubts About Duke

Early in the Duke lacrosse rape investigation, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was in a close race to keep his job, spoke about the physical and emotional trauma the alleged victim had suffered at the hands of the players. A police affidavit stated that her medical records revealed the victim had "injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally." But according to a motion filed by defense attorneys last week, no such physical trauma was found during her exam at Duke hospital. Quoting from the report, which was submitted to the court under seal, the motion states that the nurse—who was in training—examined the woman's entire pelvic region and noted only diffuse swelling of the vaginal walls, a condition explainable by consensual sexual activity.

Police documents indicate that the accuser had in fact engaged in such activity in the days leading up to the incident. The accuser told police that she'd had sex with her boyfriend a week before. She added that she'd also performed using a vibrator in front of a couple. (Though the timing of this incident is not specific, the clear implication is that it had happened near the time of the lacrosse party.) And, according to defense attorneys, the boyfriend's seminal fluid was found in her, suggesting she'd also had sex with him within 72 hours. Jarriel Johnson, who identified himself as the woman's driver, told police in a statement that in addition to sleeping with the accuser himself a week prior to the party, he'd taken her to several appointments at hotels in the days before.

The documents are devastating to the accuser's credibility. They show that the night of the party, the accuser kept changing her story. After reporting that she'd been raped, she told Sgt. J. C. Shelton, according to his statement, that no one forced her to have sex. Then at the hospital, she said again that she'd been raped. She told one doctor she'd had no alcohol or drugs, according to the motion, but told the nurse that she'd had one drink and was currently taking the muscle relaxant Flexeril, which can cause drowsiness and dizziness if taken with alcohol. The next morning, at UNC hospital, she said she'd been drunk.

The police summary of the statement Kim Roberts, the second dancer, made is especially damning. Roberts said the idea that the woman was assaulted was a "crock." She went on to say that the accuser, who used the stage name Precious, was out of Roberts's sight for less than five minutes. Roberts later told NEWSWEEK she believed a rape could have happened. In the meantime, Nifong, who declined a request for comment, had approved a motion to eliminate Roberts's bond payments stemming from a prior conviction.



And this!:
The order had come, signed by a judge, requiring that the Duke lacrosse team give DNA samples. The prosecutor was trying to identify the three players who had allegedly raped an exotic dancer at the house rented by three of the team's co-captains on the night of March 13-14. All 47 players had gathered in a classroom near the lacrosse field to hear their lawyer, Bob Ekstrand, tell them what they needed to do. Ekstrand was about to tell the players that they could appeal the order as "overbroad," too sweeping in its scope, when the players got up and started heading for their cars to drive downtown to the police station. (The team's one black player was not required to go; the accuser, who is black, claimed her attackers were white.)

Ekstrand was struck to see how little hesitation the players showed. After all, if the DNA of any one of those men matched DNA found on the accuser's body, it could ruin his life: disgrace followed by many years in prison. But there was no talk of hiring individual lawyers or stalling for time; the players seemed to want to get on with it. "I was watching to see if anyone hung back," Ekstrand told NEWSWEEK. No one did.

It is possible, almost three months later, that the players are maintaining a conspiracy of silence. But it seems highly unlikely. Rather, court documents in the case increasingly suggest that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong had very little evidence upon which to indict three players for rape. Indeed, the available evidence is so thin or contradictory that it seems fair to ask what Nifong could have been thinking when he confidently told reporters that there was "no doubt" in his mind that the woman had been raped at the party held by the lacrosse team.

The media coverage of the case has been enormous. NEWSWEEK put the mug shots of two of the players—Reade Seligmann, 20, and Collin Finnerty, 19—on its cover the week after they were indicted. Some early accounts raised doubts about the guilt of the players, but the story more typically played as a morality tale of pampered jocks gone wild. Lately, as more evidence from police or medical reports have been filed or cited in court documents by defense lawyers, the national and local media have been raising questions about Nifong's conduct of the case and his motivations.

Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press."

Amazing how "evidence" had so little to do with anything, and the manipulation of public opinion did, eh? Well, if the sons of millionaires can be railroaded, what makes you think a dirt-poor Missouri racist can't? A "complaining witness"?

WFHermans
07-04-2006, 01:56 PM
The you-know-hooz made a mistake by going after the Duke lacrosse team, in particular because one of them was jewish. It's a lot easier, as they found out now, to falsely accuse and sentence someone who is poor, has no influence in the media, and cannot afford a good lawyer. They learnt that lesson well, and in the next fake crime of a "white raping a negress" they will choose some poor redneck.

Sulla the Dictator
07-04-2006, 02:55 PM
No, I mostly agree with you here. Fabricating sex-crime evidence is a tricky/risky enterprise, and I'm sure Lucky's not worth that sort of risk.

But I don't see ANY "evidence". None! I see regurgitated and wholly-unsourced hearsay.


Except that we know he said that. He said those things here and elsewhere. You and others mocked him for saying it.


I see years-old Lindstedt quotes and website excerpts revived time and time again.


Well he's not the Speaker of the House, il ragno. There's only a limited amount of material available to attribute to him. And I remember him being pretty one note anyway.


I believe the whole plan was to lock him up on a heinous charge...anybody following the Duke case can see how tough that is to do....


That Duke case fell apart as soon as the indictment fell.


wait for Lucky to inevitably rise to the bait and be himself, and use that as a pretext to certify him as fubar, thus nullifying any need for a credible case and a jury trial.


Do you believe that the mentally disturbed should be put on trial when they cannot aid in their own defense?


Itt's an old and tested truism that a DA can indict a ham sandwich if he chooses.


Very true. What isn't common, however, is the defendant being locked in a mental institution. Were you to be fair, you would credit Marty with that achievement rather than the local small time DA.


No, the State may not fabricate sex-crime evidence,. But fabricating proof and railroading an innocent man are two different things. (Surely a bleeding heart, nigger-loving conservative like you, Sulla, wouldn't argue that.)


Thats true. Thats what the trial is for. And were Marty wise, and if this case was so weak, I would expect to see ACLU interest in the case.


Besides, I didn't see anything in this story about a "trial"....just a "hearing".

Marty would have his trial in no time if he would control himself. If he can't control himself, then he SHOULDN'T be put on trial, no?

Sulla the Dictator
07-04-2006, 03:02 PM
No wonder the less-enlightened hate us for our freedom and goodness, given that lightweight, travel-sized Burden of Proof we require to whomp someone - like "I don't like your face", or "your opinions suck". Thank God it isn't "I don't care for your skin color" any more, though, and we're out of the Dark Ages, eh?


An interesting note; I'm not his judge, nor am I a member of the jury. I'm an American citizen who is entitled to form opinions about a variety of things. One of which is the level of perversity of a fellow who used to talk about giving a woman a lobotomy and putting her to stable in some sort of breeding kennel.


Well, it isn't the kid, who was 4 years old and borderline-retarded.


Children and the handicapped are high risk targets.


And it wasn't his wife.


I don't know that.


Might be one of Lucky's white-trash relatives, who were forever squabbling with him,


Could it be one of his children, ie, the child's parent? THAT would be a pretty damning witness, regardless of what acrimony you suggest exists. Children do not usually accuse their parents of molesting their grandchildren.


or one of his neighbors, who loathed the sight of him...


The state must take action if someone reports something like this. The neighbor would actually have to claim they had seen this happen for Marty to be arrested. I think the family is much more likely. That, or Marty had some awkward photographs that someone glimpsed.


Hey, didja see this week's NEWSWEEK? You know, the same NEWSWEEK that demanded racial justice for the Duke lacrosse "victim" two-three months back in a cover story called "Sex, Lies and Duke", when they thought the lacrosse players were guilty and the reason they leaned that way is the type of remarks attributed to them plus they're, you know, white and well-off and besides there was a complaining witness who wasn't?:


How is this relevant?

Slavic Enforcer
07-04-2006, 03:04 PM
Has this guy his personal fan club here?

il ragno
07-04-2006, 03:08 PM
Except that we know he said that. He said those things here and elsewhere. You and others mocked him for saying it.

Is that what he's in prison for then? Saying terrible things on the Internet?

Well, of course it is. I have yet to see anything besides "he called me a whigger ass-clown - he MUST have done it!" offered as a smoking gun.

Does it even matter? You're the prototype of the NR subscriber/NWO cheerleader harumphing about "complaining witnesses" and "reasonable assumptions" when what you really want is a quick conviction under any pretext, and for no other reason than to send a sic semper racialist message to any lingeringly-discontented white people out there who aren't sure of what the Bill of Rights allows them exactly, except that the government can do whatever it wants to them and come up with a justification for it later.

How is this relevant?

How isn't it relevant? If wealthy young men from good families - with whitebread politics, if any - can be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion by an overzealous DA, with a "complaining witness" and dark hints of white skin privilege and racist attitudes used like a club to drive the spikes home, what chance does a unkempt trailer-woodchuck like Lindstedt have of the justice system being wielded fairly and impartially towards him? Until the past few weeks, the only people angrily taking the Duke boys' side were the 'racists', the 'haters', and the living-in-the-past 'cognitively dissonant'.

Of course, as the case comes apart like French toilet paper, I expect even you and Poty are gonna claim you never thought that girl was raped. But in the all-men-are-equal wonderland we're stuck with, a couple of million illiterate yard apes insisting them lacrosse muthafuckas be rape-iss, no matter what the evidence says, means the rest of us are going to have to publicly pretend there's merit to that viewpoint, lest we give some Jew an opening to hit the sale key on the Racist Cash Register all over again.

Starr
07-04-2006, 11:38 PM
wasn't the witness a retarded kid? I could be wrong here, also, but wasn't there some sort of family dispute going on? I thought I remember Martin bitching about that a few different times. False accusations, of this type, arising from situations like that are not unlikely.


[QUOTE=Sulla the Dictator]Sure, thats possible. I think its likely Lindstedt is guilty, and the reason I lean that way is the type of posts he used to make. The guy struck me as perverse enough to make this plausible. The prosecutor probably feels the same way.



So someone's internet postings are all the evidence you need? LOL. He was a little different, but I don't recall ever seeing a post from him that gave me the impression that he would molest his own grandkids. He seemed more like someone who would do some real damage to anyone who would do anything like that to his grandkids, on the other hand. And as I have talked about previously child molesters often appear to be incredibly "normal.", rather than odd, That is one of the ways they gain the trust of others around them that allow it to occur. Child molesters(unfortunately) do not generally come across as raging lunatics.

il ragno
07-05-2006, 02:19 AM
I don't recall ever seeing a post from him that gave me the impression that he would molest his own grandkids.

Forget that - I never saw a post from him that gave me the impression that anybody, anywhere, would sign on as a footsoldier in Marty's Militia - and take their marching orders from a goober-natorial candidate who saved his piss in jugs to pour on a backyard asparagus patch.

To enact a prion poisoning campaign, first you need prion poisoners. Insofar as plots to overthrow Leviathan and wipe out nonwhites go, infecting livestock that's most likely to be consumed by the white folks within a 50-mile radius of you seems flawed at best. See, evil plans require plausibility to warrant staying up nights counteracting by any means necessary. Whereas

"Borrow your crosscut saw, Obadiah?"
"Sure, Nahum. What'cha building?"
"Oh, just a rape kennel for captured whiggeresses to serve as broodmares for dual-seedline resistance soldiers"

indicates a low order of probability.

Slavic Enforcer
07-05-2006, 03:04 AM
I hope he dies in prison.

Negro > :hump: :whip: < Redneck

Starr
07-05-2006, 04:04 AM
Children and the handicapped are high risk targets.

And very unreliable witnesses. How easily could someone like that be coached, most likely by another family member?

Sulla the Dictator
07-05-2006, 05:19 AM
And very unreliable witnesses. How easily could someone like that be coached, most likely by another family member?

Its pretty difficult to coach a retarded child into a coherant story that they'll remember, and won't break on. Its unlikely the child is their primary witness, Starr. My guess is the child's parent.

il ragno
07-05-2006, 06:45 AM
The child is (supposedly) mildly retarded.

And the purported unreliability of children in sticking to a script never manifested itself in the 80s, when a flurry of daycare-center proprietors got hit with 50-to-100 year sentences for supposedly performing Satanic sex rituals on their charges, based almost wholly on the spurious (and coached) testimony of children.

Thing is, once the State has you locked down - even demonstrably wrongly - they're loath to let you go, and resist every effort to overturn the sentence and release you.

See, even if Lindstedt is vindicated tomorrow, the state can easily cobble up new reasons to stall his release and extend his incarceration - and how does he get back these lost years of his life anyway?

Ahknaton
07-05-2006, 07:04 AM
Sulla's faith in the criminal justice system is touching (no pun intended).

Sulla the Dictator
07-05-2006, 11:06 AM
The child is (supposedly) mildly retarded.

And the purported unreliability of children in sticking to a script never manifested itself in the 80s, when a flurry of daycare-center proprietors got hit with 50-to-100 year sentences for supposedly performing Satanic sex rituals on their charges, based almost wholly on the spurious (and coached) testimony of children.



This was a case of mis-diagnosis, not 'framing'. A fraudulent technique was used to interview the children by pressuring them into 'admiting' what had happened, based on the false testimony of the mother.

Though I haven't yet met the person who would suggest that someone accused of child molestation (Accused) shouldn't be arrested.

Are you that person, il ragno?

Sulla the Dictator
07-05-2006, 11:07 AM
Sulla's faith in the criminal justice system is touching (no pun intended).

Ahknaton, are you aware of a single instance where the state has fabricated charges of child molestation?

Sulla the Dictator
07-05-2006, 11:08 AM
Thing is, once the State has you locked down - even demonstrably wrongly - they're loath to let you go, and resist every effort to overturn the sentence and release you.


BTW, I see that you forgot to mention those people were declared innocent and released.

il ragno
07-05-2006, 11:23 AM
BTW, I see that you forgot to mention those people were declared innocent and released.

Yeah - just like that. Sorry, luv, all better now, you're free to go.

http://crimemagazine.com/daycare.htm

Nightmare at the Day Care: The Wee Care Case

by Lona Manning

"The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters"

Kelly Michaels never intended to become a preschool teacher -- she had taken fine arts and drama in college -- but she wanted to live near New York City and was looking for something to pay the rent when she applied at Wee Care Day Care in Maplewood, N.J. Although Kelly doubted if she had the qualifications, the director, Arlene Spector, had been encouraging and had persuaded her to give it a try. Once hired, Kelly was quickly promoted from teacher’s aide to preschool teacher.

Kelly, then 23 years old, found that the children responded well to her. She was the oldest child in a large family and she’d done a lot of babysitting. Even without special training, Kelly knew what little children liked, what songs and games made them laugh, how to soothe their upsets, and settle their quarrels. But Kelly grew dissatisfied with Wee Care and complained that the teachers were expected to do too much without enough support and supervision. She decided to look for another job.

Although she knew that it was upsetting for little children when their teachers -- with whom they’d formed a bond -- came and went, Kelly accepted a teacher's job at the Community Day Nursery in East Orange, N.J., where she shared an apartment with a roommate. Community Day Nursery was a nicer facility -- larger, lighter, airier -- than Wee Care where the kids were stuck in the basement of a stone church and had to traipse down a long hall and up a flight of stairs to go to the restrooms.

On May 6, 1985, as Kelly was getting ready for work, she must have felt that her life was beginning to take shape and direction. She had fallen into the other day-care job, but this one she had chosen.

Then came the knock on the door of her apartment. It was just after 7 a.m.

A police sergeant and an investigator, both men, stood in the doorway. They were looking for Margaret Kelly Michaels. Could she come down to the prosecutor’s office for questioning? Bewildered and concerned, Kelly went to the prosecutor’s office where she was told she was suspected of sexually touching three of the little boys at the Wee Care Day Care. Kelly was shocked and horrified and as the questioning continued, she began to cry:

"Did you sexually assault Jonathan Moore during naptime or any other time while you were at Wee Care?"

"No."

"Did you ever touch or attempt to touch Sean sexually?"

"No."

"Did you ever lock any of the pupils in a closet?"

"No --"

"Did you ever touch Paul on his penis with a spoon?"

"No."

"Are you sexually attracted to any of these pupils that we just talked about?"

"No!"

The questioning went on for nine hours, and included a lie detector test, which Kelly passed. She was also repeatedly asked, "Why would the children say that you did these things?" It was up to Kelly to prove to her interrogators that she wasn’t a monster.

Kelly racked her brain trying to think how this could have happened to her. ''I was a very trusting, naive person," she described herself later. "I loved life… I wanted to be an actress, I wanted to be a writer. I had never been in trouble with the law, not even a parking ticket, Catholic high school, Catholic college, drama club, president of my student council in high school.''

The whole thing had started, she learned, when one of the little boys that she used to supervise at naptime, Jonathan Moore, was at his doctor’s office. He was being examined for a rash, but his mother was also worried about his hyperactive behavior, which was another added stress in her life, on top of her troubled marriage. The nurse was taking his temperature with a rectal thermometer and Jonathan had said that his teacher at day care took his temperature. He wasn’t upset or angry or frightened when he mentioned it, and upon further questioning, explained that the teacher was named "Kelly." Jonathan added that Kelly also had taken the temperature of two other boys, Sean and Evan (the names of all the children and parents are not their real names and are the pseudonyms used in Nap Time, a book about the Wee Care case).

Jonathan’s grandfather was a prominent local judge. Soon Jonathan was repeating his allegations to Sara McArdle, an assistant D.A. at the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. McArdle, an intense woman in her 30s, would become the lead prosecutor in the case. McArdle also interviewed the other two boys Jonathan had mentioned at the doctor's office. Evan Connors denied that Kelly had inserted anything in his bottom or abused him sexually in any way. But Sean, described as "agitated, hostile, rushing around the room, almost trapped," during questioning, came up with a new charge -- he alleged that Kelly Michaels had touched his penis. The wheels started to turn on what would become one of New Jersey’s longest and most expensive crime trials.

Although the Wee Care parents were initially told only that "serious allegations" had been made against a "former employee," it wasn’t long before all the parents knew that Kelly Michaels was the employee in question and the "allegations" became, at least in their minds, an established fact. Peg Foster of the Child Abuse Diagnostic and Treatment Center at Children's Hospital of New Jersey, in Newark, met with the parents the week after Kelly was first questioned. She provided the parents with a list of symptoms that children might be displaying if, in fact, they had been sexually abused. The list included tummy aches, fear of being separated from parents, and bedwetting. In addition Foster included a warning to be on the lookout for any sexual behavior or remarks, such as inappropriate sex play or touching.

None of the Wee Care parents had raised any complaints or alarms about Kelly during the seven months that she had cared for their children. None had mentioned suspected sexual abuse at the day care to the director, or to their doctors, or to the police. But after the meeting with Foster, the rumors and after-the-fact detection work began to spread like a virus in the Wee Care community. In retrospect, the parents remembered that many of the children had been refusing to take naps. Some had mysterious rashes on their bottoms. Another child had been stuttering. What about that time a little girl asked a teacher, "Do you want to see my vagina?" Parents, especially mothers, spent hours on the phone comparing symptoms and worries-- what if, what if? They were alternately reassured and horrified to learn that Lou Fonolleras, an investigator with the Department of Youth and Family Services, would be spending some time at the day care to interview the children.

ENTER THE SOCIAL WORKERS

Sometime in between Jonathan Moore’s first remark that Kelly took his temperature and Kelly’s arrest two months later on charges of multiple child abuse, the prosecution shifted from investigating to see if a crime had been committed, to building a case against Kelly Michaels, the sex pervert.

Nap Time, a book about the case that was based on interviews with the prosecution team, doesn’t discuss any hard evidence or forensic findings that solidified doubt into certainty for the prosecution team; it only relates emotions and intuitive flashes. Peg Foster "was overwhelmed by a kinetic feeling of sudden conviction" when listening to the children’s parents talk about how their kids weren’t sleeping well and were refusing certain foods. Lou Fonolleras and Sara McArdle got that tingling feeling just by walking down the paneled hallways of the church in which the day care was located.

Thus the case against Michaels was driven by emotion, and conducted not with reference to logic or traditional crime detection techniques but in accordance with certain beliefs to which Foster, Fonolleras and McArdle subscribed and which they, in turn, preached to the parents.

One was that young children seldom, if ever, lie about sexual abuse. Even if some of the details were far-fetched, the basic charge of sexual abuse was true because children as young as 3 or 4 could not even conceive of such a thing on their own, therefore they had to be speaking from experience. Their rallying cry was, "Believe the Children."

Another was that if a child denied that anything had happened with his teacher, it wasn’t because nothing had happened, it was because the child was afraid to tell. In fact, as Foster told her fellow investigators, "the more silent the child, the worse the abuse the child must have suffered."

Therefore, it was necessary to question and re-question and question again until the child did tell. This second point, that if a child said ‘no,’ he had to be lying, was in direct contradiction to point one, "Believe the Children."

Point three explained the discrepancy: The children were withholding the truth because they were afraid of Kelly. In addition to tormenting her young charges sexually, Kelly must also have terrorized them with threats for their own and their families’ safety. Therefore the children had to be reassured that Kelly was a bad person who was now in jail.

When, after repeated urging, a child unlocked the dark secret that had been corroding his soul, it was known as "disclosure."

Imbedded in this belief system, however, was the classic Catch-22: Because "disclosure" meant the child had been abused, and refusal to disclose also meant the child had been abused and threatened to boot, there was no way for a child to demonstrate that he or she had not been abused.

Little Evan Connors is a case in point. When assistant D.A. McArdle first interviewed him he denied that anything bad had happened with Kelly. A few weeks later, Lou Fonolleras of the Department of Youth and Family Services came to Wee Care. Fonolleras interviewed Evan and again Evan denied that anything bad had happened. Fonolleras, however, had confidence in his ability to intuit when children were hiding the truth. "You can’t go by what they say," he explained. Fonolleras suggested that Evan’s mother read No More Secrets for Me, a child’s book about sexual abuse, to him at bedtime. Fonolleras felt that if tales of body parts, touching, and secrets were Evan’s nightly bedtime fare, he might be encouraged to "disclose." Soon, Mrs. Connors reported that Evan was misbehaving and acting out in the daytime, and haunted by nightmares at night. After two weeks of urgings from the grownups in his life, and scary bedtime stories, Evan was ready to "disclose." According to his mother, Evan said that his teacher Kelly had sucked his penis and scraped his nipples with a fork. He named other children as participants. He was interviewed once again by Fonolleras and this time he added new allegations -- the children had been made to undress and pile on top of one another. Kelly had inserted forks, knives and spoons in his private parts. (This interview and the other initial interviews – when the allegations were first made, were not recorded).

All the other friends I talked to told me everything that happened. Randy told me. Connie told me...And now it's your turn to tell. You don't want to be left out, do you?

(The following quotes in italics are taken from excerpts of the transcripts of the interviews held with the Wee Care children. For more excerpts, click here.)

The children Evan named were questioned in turn and they added yet more names to Fonolleras’s list until practically every child who attended Wee Care was declared to have been a victim and the charges against Kelly Michaels became a mind-boggling catalog of sexual perversity.

Some of the allegations that the young children made -- such as claiming that Kelly forced them to play "duck, duck, goose" in the nude -- were improbable, but at least were physically possible. Other charges, such as the allegation that she had put cars on top of them and turned one child into a mouse, were not.

The investigators, suspecting that the young children lacked the vocabulary to explain the evils they had been subjected to, taught them the names of body parts with anatomically correct dolls.

Investigator: What are these things [pointing to a doll]? What we all have here? Breasts or boobies? What do you want to call them?

Child: You're teaching me.

Investigator: I'm not teaching you. I'm asking you. Come on. Don't go throwing stuff around like that.

Child: Stop teaching me this stuff.

Investigator: You got to learn somehow. . . .

The social workers believed that disclosure would bring psychic relief to the children.

That's why I need your help, especially you older kids...because you can talk better than the younger kids...and you will be helping to keep her in jail longer so that she doesn't hurt anybody. Not to mention that you'll also feel a lot better once you start.

But after talking to the investigators, the children didn’t feel a lot better. They felt a lot worse and most went into therapy. They were upset, fearful, and started saying and doing sexually inappropriate things. "Pee on me!" one child exclaimed to her mother. Nightmares and stomachaches were common.

Investigator: And did you have to pee on her at all?…

Investigator: Well, what about licking the peanut butter?…

Investigator: Did you ever see Kelly locking any of the kids in the bathroom or closet?…

The children’s suffering was carefully related in Nap Time, written by Lisa Manshel, a friend of Peg Foster. Again and again in Nap Time, Manshel records that after "disclosure," the children’s behavior got worse, not better. One child started to masturbate openly, and invited her mother to "smell my vagina." In every instance, the social workers, the prosecutors (and Manshel, the author), believed that the children were acting up because they had been sexually assaulted and were wounded on a psychic level.

The prosecution was blind to the alternate explanation that the children were traumatized because they had been through a psychologically terrorizing interview process with grownups who wouldn’t take "no" for an answer.

I'm here to help you, and I know you want to tell me something, and I'll stay here all day -- till you tell me.

Or the children were acting up because their world no longer made sense. All of the adults in their lives -- their parents, their remaining teachers, their doctor, and the man with the funny dolls -- were telling them that Kelly had done horrible things to them. They had liked Kelly and they were mad at her when she went away. The policeman said she was in jail. So she must have done something bad. Some of the children began speaking of a "good" Kelly and a "bad" Kelly, perhaps as a way of separating their memories of their pretty, smiling teacher from the mean person Mr. Fonolleras kept talking about. "Tears still come out of my eyes sometimes," Joey Gardner told his mother, "because I feel so bad because Kelly was my best friend."

Tell me what Kelly did to your hiney and then you can go. If you tell me what she did to your hiney, we'll let you go.

Although many of the children expressed affection for Kelly, and distaste for the questioning and the questioners, (Little Joey referred to McArdle as "Vomit," and spit at Fonolleras) the investigators were certain the terrorized tots were really in mortal fear of Kelly. For example, Jonathan "became inhibited around (McArdle)," but this was not because of his feelings toward the abrasive prosecutor, it was because of his feelings about his teacher: "(Jonathan) seemed to react negatively to women as a corollary to his feelings toward Kelly." Later analysis of the Fonolleras interviews showed that "16 of the 34 children never said they were afraid of (Kelly Michaels) and the remaining children never volunteered that information."

Furthermore, the prosecutors were never able to extract from the children’s disjointed and contradictory answers a plausible scenario whereby the young preschool teacher could have kept so many children silent for so long. Three-and-4-year-olds, after all, are at a developmental stage where they are beginning to understand the concept of rules of behavior, and "I’m telling!" is their constant refrain, particularly among female children. But as Manshel records in Nap Time: "the team was certain, even without specifics, that somehow the children had been made to keep silent."

Investigator: You Wee Care kids seem so scared of her.

Child: I wasn't. I'm not even.

Investigator: But while you were there, were you real scared?

Child: I don't know

Investigator: What was so frightening about her, what was so scary about her?

Child: I don't know. Why don't you ask her?

In the following exchange, the investigators make little bribes and even plead for the child to cooperate At no time does the child say he is afraid, but the investigator supplies the reassurance that Kelly cannot harm him: The investigators are blindly pursuing their belief – ignoring, even contradicting what the child does say about his feelings, and interpreting his reluctance as fear.

Child: I hate you.

Investigator: No you don't...You just don't like talking about this, but you don't hate me.

Child: Yes, I do hate you.

Investigator: We can finish this real fast if you just show me real fast what you showed me last time.

Child: No.

Investigator: I will let you play my tape recorder....Come on, do you want to help us out? Do you want to help us keep her in jail, huh? ...Tell me what happened to (three other children). Tell me what happened to them. Come on...I need your help again, buddy. Come on.

Child: No.

Investigator: You told us everything once before. Do you want to undress my dolly?

Investigator (2): Let's get done with this real quick so we could go to Kings to get popsicles...Did Kelly ever tell you she could get out of jail?

The investigators believed the children needed more reassurance, which meant more discussions about the bad things Kelly had done to them, and how she was in jail now and couldn’t hurt them any more. However, when the counselors told the children that Kelly had used her power over them but that she couldn’t any more, the preschoolers, operating at the level of concrete thought, could only understand this as a reference to the only kind of powers they knew about – the superpowers of cartoon characters. Soon, the investigators were reporting that, according to the children, Kelly Michaels claimed she could walk through walls and turn herself into a monster. This must have been, the prosecution figured, one of the ways in which she terrorized them! They didn’t realize they were hearing their own jargon, distorted by childish misunderstanding, turned back on them. They were hearing the echo of their own fears and reporting it as child abuse.

During the weeks Fonolleras was questioning the children, the Wee Care parents were actively involved, exchanging allegations and warning each other if one child mentioned another child’s name in connection with the investigation. Some of the children continued to attend the day care (it closed permanently a few months after the allegations surfaced) and the remaining Wee Care teachers heard the children discussing the interviews with each other, and the strange dolls that had private parts on them.

THE SMOKING (PEANUT-BUTTER) GUN

Kelly Michaels, stuck in a county jail for six months because her family had trouble raising the $25,000 bail, felt as though she had fallen down Alice’s rabbit hole. She thought that the impossibility of the charges -- their sheer number, variety and inconsistency, would make it obvious to any rational-minded person that the whole thing was a horrible mistake, a fantastic concoction of childish fears and fantasies, abetted by some sick-minded individuals on the prosecution side.

Sneaking off with her entire class to the choir room and playing "Jingle Bells" in the nude? Peeing on them? Engaging in group orgies with 3-and-4 year-olds? What child molester would take chances like that when footsteps in the hall meant being caught red-handed, with no time to clean up and dress the children. Feeding children a cake made of excrement? Most of them didn’t want to eat their vegetables! A child forced to drink urine and eat excrement would probably throw up. How was that even sexual?

"If you don’t help me, I’m going to tell your friends that you not only don’t want to help me, but you won’t help them."

Kelly’s lawyers suspected that the "counseling" the children received was really just a way to reinforce the false stories of abuse that the investigators had planted. They asked the court for the right to have their own expert therapist interview the children. But the defense team was denied any access to the children before the trial.

Some parents, it is true, were at first reluctant or skeptical. Peg Foster and the other therapists in the case worked at persuading them that it was all too true. This was referred to as overcoming their "denial."

Nap Time also describes how Foster, searching for some physical evidence to back up the wild accusations, finds peanut butter in the day-care kitchen:

"She thought, ‘Oh God, it’s really here, I found it!" Peg was surprised at herself for not having expected success, stunned, even after all she had heard, to be reminded (by the jar of peanut butter) that the sexual activity had actually happened...."

If a jar of peanut butter, found where one might expect to find peanut butter, could be proof, to a trained professional, of sexual perversion -- then Kelly Michaels was facing a tough time when she came to trial, a year and a half after her arrest. Just as the investigators left no way for the children to demonstrate that they had not been abused, the prosecution left no way for Kelly Michaels to show that she was innocent.

THE TRIAL

By the time the trial began, Kelly was already well established as a monster in the media. Her lawyers had advised her to not give interviews. Unfortunately this strategy meant that anyone could project an image of a molester on the young woman they knew only as a stoic but forlorn figure wearing handcuffs and escorted to the courtroom by a full security detail. The security was to protect Kelly from the death threats she’d received, but it also created the impression that she was so dangerous that she might somehow, like an evil genie, escape from her captors and resume her rampage.

Kelly’s family and friends mostly lived in Pennsylvania, while the relatives and friends of the children were close at hand. In Nap Time, Manshel only mentions Kelly’s immediate family and an uninvited assortment of kooks and convicted sex perverts as sitting on Kelly’s side of the courtroom.

Judge William Harth agreed to let the child witnesses, 19 of them, testify one after another from the judge’s chambers on closed circuit TV, so that they didn’t have to face their alleged abuser in court. He ruled that the defense could not discuss the children who were not testifying, thus cutting off another avenue of defense. Kelly and her lawyers could not show that, taken as a whole, the investigation was seriously flawed, and that if some of the allegations were obviously impossible, then all of the allegations were suspect. Even so, some fantastic tales were aired in the courtroom, such as the charge that Kelly had made a child stick a sword in her bottom, and some of the children appeared confused, answering the same essential question "yes" to the prosecution, "no" to the defense, and "yes" again to the prosecution on re-direct.

Some of the parents, alternating between simmering hatred for Michaels and grief for their children, testified that their little ones were frightened about going to day care, crying and begging not to go, and the parents didn’t understand why until after the investigation began. But although this says a lot about the callous indifference of some Wee Care parents, it doesn’t establish that their children were sexually abused at the day care.

One of the child witnesses was Joey, whose interviews with Fonolleras yielded some of the most shocking accusations ("We chopped our penises off") and the most vehement retractions ("It’s all lies!") According to Nap Time, Joey loved the day care, "(Joey) insisted on going… Joey...attended Wee Care nine-to-five, four days a week, and he was fiercely attached. It was his life."

"Fiercely attached" to a place where he was allegedly being sexually tortured?

Continued in post following

il ragno
07-05-2006, 11:25 AM
THE EXPERTS SPEAK

Whether the Wee Care children loved or hated day care, were outgoing or withdrawn, clowning it up or nervous, acting out sexually or wearing three layers of clothing, sucking their thumbs or sassing their parents, they were said to be exhibiting traits of sexual abuse. It could all be explained, said the prosecution’s expert witness, Eileen Treacy, by the Child Abuse Syndrome, (the description given to the cluster of behaviors and emotions often displayed by young victims of sex abuse or incest, by a Dr. Suzanne Sgroi.) Treacy was an attractive and authoritative young woman who was eight years away from obtaining her Ph.D. in psychology but could quote the psychological literature chapter and verse. She was neither licensed as a therapist in New York, where she worked at a clinic for sexually abused children, nor in New Jersey. What she lacked in credentials, she covered over with bravado, substituting dogmatic certainty for scientific validity.

Despite Treacy’s lack of academic or research credentials, she evaluated all the Wee Care families, calibrated the amounts of stress in each one, such as the stress brought on by a new baby or a pending divorce, and determined whether there were other "confounding variables" to explain the bedwetting and the stuttering. She concluded that all but one of the little child witnesses had no tensions in their lives, apart from Kelly Michaels, that could explain the degree of maladjustment they were showing. She spoke of the behaviors of the children, as reported by their anxious parents, as having a "high degree of correlation," (with sexual abuse) "over point six [.6] in numerical terms of probability," which gave her testimony a pseudoscientific gloss.

Treacy was on the stand for eight days, presenting the listed behaviors of the syndrome as though they were as reliable an indicator of sex abuse as rash and fever are indicators of measles. Using the syndrome label, Treacy was able to link a variety of child behaviors to the purported sex abuse, including the fact that one child had an aversion to eating tuna fish.

Treacy also reassured the jury that children didn’t lie about sex abuse, and that they could not be pressured, coerced or coached -- as the defense claimed -- into making false accusations. "It is possible to suggest particular answers to children," Treacy confidently informed Kelly’s attorney during cross-examination. "Whether they’ll accept is another matter."

In Nap Time, Lisa Manshel quotes Treacy’s assertion that the children could not be intimidated into speaking falsely, then two pages later she writes that "Children are taught, in no uncertain terms, to do what they are told... children should not be expected to have the strength of will to say no to an adult," by way of explaining how Kelly intimidated them into silence.

Many of the 19 children who testified on closed circuit television from the judge’s chambers, where they yawned, fidgeted, ate potato chips, and spun in their chairs, behaved as though they could not be easily cowed by mere grown-ups. Little Lewis sassed the judge and the defense attorneys. "Objection overruled, buster!" the 6-year-old yelled at Kelly’s lawyer.

Although the prosecution used an expert witness to testify that the Wee Care children acted like sex-abuse victims, the defense was not allowed to bring in an expert witness to testify that Kelly Michaels did not act like a pervert. She had no criminal past, no history of child molesting, no unusual episodes in her childhood. But sex perverts, as everyone knew, didn’t have to be dirty old men in raincoats. They could be anyone, anywhere.

Day after day, for nine grueling months, Kelly heard herself described as a "grotesque liar," and a monster. "It was a long trial because they had to make something unbelievable – believable," she later explained. "And they piled on so much to wear the jury down. Really there was no credible evidence or plausibility. You keep beating the jury day after day after day and you get pseudo-experts – and you can get an expert to say anything, particularly in the psychological field."

When the jury looked at Kelly and saw a bright, attractive young person, it only demonstrated, as the prosecution said, how devious, how cunning she was! Was she kind and patient with the children? She was only trying to seduce them. Did she offer to help another teacher? She was just trying to get more time alone with her victims. Manshel enthusiastically took up this theme in her book. Kelly, for example, was a pretty woman with thick, curly dark hair and nice features, but she wasn’t cute, she "seemed" cute. While Fonolleras and the other investigators were conducting their interviews with the children, Manshel sympathetically explained that they sometimes resorted to black humor to get through the horror of it all: "They joked about ‘peanut butter and Kelly.’" But when Kelly, during her long trial for appalling sex crimes, sometimes laughed and joked with her family, Manshel records that the jury and the media were shocked by their demeanor.

As for physical evidence, the prosecution could offer nothing substantial. Some children claimed that Kelly had made them urinate in the piano bench in the church’s music room. The bench was sent to the FBI laboratory to be tested for traces of urine, but the tests came back negative. Many of the children were examined, and although some had rashes, and one little girl had "notches" in her hymen, no child had lacerations consistent with being raped with a knife, or a perforated intestine from being repeatedly poked with a fork. And although Kelly was rumored to have taken pictures of the children, no pictures were found. But the lack of evidence didn’t dampen McArdle’s prosecutorial zeal. It only proved what a sly and cunning creature Kelly Michaels was. She was an unnatural monster, a succubus who preyed on little children. Kelly’s seeming ordinariness was a compliment to the zeal and brilliance of the investigating team – they had hunted and trapped a rare creature and brought her in, in chains, to receive her punishment.

Kelly and her family kept hoping and expecting someone -- a juror who’d had lots of kids and who knew darn well that you couldn’t dress and undress a dozen squirming children in the blink of an eye, or a journalist who wasn’t overawed by the prosecution’s expert witnesses -- that someone would stand with them and proclaim that the prosecution’s case was ludicrous. But in the superheated atmosphere of the trial, to question the charges was to question that children could be or were, sexually abused. Dissension was denial. To add to Kelly’s nightmare, one of the accusing parents was an editor at the local paper.

During his closing arguments, one of the prosecutors sang the Joni Mitchell song, "Both Sides Now," the lyrics of which were found scribbled in Kelly’s Wee Care attendance book, as further evidence that Kelly was hiding her sadistic character under her normal exterior:

I’ve looked at life from both sides now
From up and down
And still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall...

Kelly could only watch from the prisoner’s dock. How do you defend yourself against the charge that you like Joni Mitchell? Surely that’s only a misdemeanor in New Jersey, not a felony? What did it all prove?

GUILTY

After an extraordinary, unprecedented nine months of testimony, the case was sent to the jury. The jury deliberated for 13 days, during which time the jurors were allowed to replay some of the videos of the children’s testimony. They found Kelly guilty. As she later said, "You're finished. Your life is over. You're dead. For all intents and purposes, you're dead. And I remember just looking at the jury and saying, "Why?"

"You have to understand," says psychiatrist Dr. Lee Coleman, "that these trials are not rational. You cannot try to explain what happens on the basis of the evidence, or the basis of reason, or anything like that."

Dr. Coleman has testified at dozens of sexual abuse trials as an expert witness on the reliability of child testimony and the use and misuse of psychiatry in the courtroom. He believes that jurors, asked to choose between sending an accused molester to jail on scanty evidence or possibly releasing a depraved monster into the community, are swayed by "fear of criticism, the fear if they don’t bring in some kind of conviction," that they will be perceived as soft on child abuse. "They will acquit people on dozens and dozens of charges and bring back a few convictions when there’s no possible way you could separate the evidence leading to some versus the evidence leading to the other."

"The prosecutors thought that ‘we’ll just keep throwing so much against the wall day after day after day,’" Kelly reflected years afterwards, so that the jury concluded "‘even though we can’t pinpoint one thing that’s really concrete about any of it, there’s so much of it that something has to be true.’" Kelly was indicted on 235 counts but eventually convicted of 115 counts of child abuse. Ironically, she was acquitted on the charge that she sexually abused Jonathan Moore by sticking a thermometer into his rear – the allegation that started the whole thing.

Kelly was sentenced to 47 years in prison and denied bail pending appeal. She spent the first 18 months in solitary confinement. She would have been treated better if she’d murdered somebody.

SCARS THAT NEVER FELT A WOUND

While Kelly and other day care workers like her in other towns and cities were marched off to prison, cognitive psychologists were investigating the question of young children as witnesses and if young children could be made to agree to, and eventually believe in, things that didn’t happen.

This was understandably a difficult area to investigate without harming children. Obviously it would be unethical to try to persuade preschoolers that somebody had molested them. But some ingenious experiments, most notably by Stephen Ceci of Cornell University and Maggie Bruck of McGill University in Canada, showed that children could be influenced by adult questioning. In one experiment, children came to believe that someone had licked their knees and stuck marbles in their ears during a touching game -- intimate contact without the sexual overtones -- even though it hadn’t happened. Children could even be persuaded that they had had the painful experience of catching their fingers in a mousetrap.

Children could also be brought to agree that someone else had done bad things, especially if the person they were questioned about was presented to them in a bad light. In the "Sam Stone" experiment, a man impersonating "Sam Stone," an acquaintance of the teacher, briefly visited with two groups of preschoolers. The second group was prepared for his visit by being told that he was clumsy and always breaking things. In interviews after Sam Stone’s visit, many of the children in the second group agreed that Sam Stone had ripped a book and damaged a teddy bear, even though this had never happened.

In addition to clearly showing how easily young children can be swayed, the researchers investigated the investigators. They provided erroneous information to adults who were to interview children, and proved that the children’s responses were influenced by the adults’ expectations. According to Nap Time, during the Wee Care investigation, Peg Foster told the other investigators that if Kelly Michaels used peanut butter in sexual abuse, then she might have used excrement and urine as well. Immediately afterwards, the first allegations of that sort were recorded.

Lou Fonolleras, Peg Foster, Eileen Treacy and the other Wee Care investigators were confident of their ability to see into the children’s souls and interpret the truth, no matter what the child was actually saying. Eileen Treacy, for example, told the children, "God gave me a special blessing. He did. You know how some big people can’t talk to kids too good? You know, they don’t seem to listen?… Well, you know what? God gave me the blessing that I am able to listen and I help kids with this stuff." But the cognitive psychologists showed that intuitive judgments, divinely inspired or not, were completely unreliable. In the "Sam Stone" experiment, videotaped interviews were made of the children from both groups of preschoolers -- those who accurately said that Sam hadn’t torn up a book, and those who said he had. These interviews were shown to "approximately 1,000 researchers and clinicians who work on children's testimonial issues... They were asked to decide which of the events reported by the children actually transpired and then to rate the overall credibility of each child."

"The majority of the professionals were highly inaccurate," the researchers discovered. In other words, when watching a child who said that Sam Stone had ripped up a book, something that never happened, the child experts were as likely to say the child was telling the truth as not. The intuition and empathy of the experts turned out to be a fantasy of their own egos. Driving the point home, Ceci and Bruck wrote, "Experts who conduct research on the credibility of children's reports, who provide therapy to children suspected of having been abused, and who carry out law enforcement interviews with children, generally failed to detect which of the children's claims were accurate and which were not, despite being confident in their judgments." Ceci added that one could do as well or better by simply tossing a coin.

The use of "anatomically correct dolls" also came under fire. In the '80s, the only children who came near the special dolls, made with large, prominent genitals, were children who were suspected of having been abused.

In the Wee Care case, as Dorothy Rabinowitz reported in Harper’s,

As a rule, children were given knives and forks and then asked to show -- on an anatomically correct doll -- where Kelly had hurt them. On the tapes that I heard, the child’s first response more often than not was to poke the doll in the eye or the neck or a knee. Invariably, the listener then hears the voice of Fonolleras, urging, "Where else? Uh-huh, where else?" After a succession of "where else?" responses, the child winds up poking at a penis, or a vagina, or an anus. Here, the "where else’s" stop. Later, Fonolleras's official report typically would note how a child "described" the penetration of her vagina or his anus.

The cognitive researchers gave the dolls to children who had never been suspected of being abused, and saw that many children, when given a doll with breasts, vaginal and anal openings, or a penis and testicles, will touch, poke, pull and insert things. Again, video tapes of the children at play were shown to experts and again, the experts could not tell, based on the way the children handled the dolls, which children had never been abused and which ones had.

Just as normal children had never been tested with the special dolls, so the shape and variation of normal little girls' hymens had never been established through large-scale examinations. This finally occurred after Kelly Michaels and hundreds of others were in prison and it was discovered that there was a great deal of variation in hymeneal openings among little girls and that bumps, notches and ridges were commonplace. Likewise, at the time of the day-care trials, it was widely believed that if a boy’s anus dilated, or "winked," during examination, it indicated that he’d been abused, and suspected molesters were sent to prison for life because of testimony about anal "winking." But when examinations were conducted on a dozens of young males, it was discovered that anal "winking" was a typical response to the light touch of the examiner’s gloved hand.

These discoveries played an important part in the vindication of some of those convicted of ritual child abuse.

TWO JOURNALISTS FIGHT FOR REASON AND JUSTICE

When public opinion against Kelly Michaels was at its height in 1988, when she was "the most hated woman in all of New Jersey," an investigative reporter named Debbie Nathan who worked for a newspaper in El Paso, Tex. came to her aid. Nathan had investigated a similar case in Texas and Kelly’s parents asked for her help. Nathan spent two intensive weeks in New Jersey examining the case. She says she was not surprised at the cold shoulder she got from the prosecution team, but she was surprised that even the local media people were reluctant to talk to her and were even hostile because of her skeptical attitude.

Kelly’s nightmare, meanwhile, continued in prison. When she had to walk past her fellow prisoners, they cursed at her and threw garbage. She was sent to a treatment center for sex offenders for evaluation. "I had to leave in shackles – chains around my ankles and my hands cuffed down at my stomach," she told Nathan. "I walked by all (the other convicts) and there was total silence. They just totally stopped what they were doing. All these guys; sex offenders who probably have fantasies of women looking just like I did then. I came back to jail and cried all night."

Her family continued to travel to New Jersey to visit her almost weekly and brought her audio tapes of family conversations that she could listen to while she was alone and pretend that she was with them once again. She read, she wrote, she exercised, she prayed. But "there were times when I did want to bang my head against the wall and just become unconscious and stay that way forever."

Debbie Nathan wrote a series of critical articles for the Village Voice, slamming the whole day-care, witch-hunt crusade and challenging the pseudoscientific pretensions of those who were sending people to prison for life in the name of protecting children. Her interest in the subject led her to write other articles and to co-author the book, Satan’s Silence.

Another journalist, Dorothy Rabinowitz, who worked at a New Jersey television station at the time of the trial, wanted to present an on-air editorial criticizing the prosecution and the media coverage of the case, but her station manager demurred. Angry at being censored, Rabinowitz reviewed the case and interviewed Kelly, her parents, the prosecutors and defense team, and some of the parents. She came away convinced that Kelly was innocent and wrote a stinging article that exposed the way the child interviews had been conducted. It’s a measure of the atmosphere in which Nathan and Rabinowitz worked that Rabinowitz’s article, which was originally for Vanity Fair, was not published there and was finally published by Harper’s Magazine in 1990.

After Rabinowitz’s article came out, Kelly decided to leave the solitude of protective custody and try her luck among the general prison population, although she knew that many of her fellow inmates were victims of child abuse themselves and could well decide to dish out some rough justice. She began to serve as tutor in the prison’s literacy program and gradually convinced some of the inmates and guards of her innocence.

Essex County still wasn’t through with her, however. "I had been (in prison) a couple of years," she recalled recently, "and a bill arrived, literally a bill, from the Public Defender’s Office for over $800,000.00. (I was) just walking down to my cell, and I’m saying, ‘I’m innocent, I didn’t do any of these things, yet I have to pay for the pleasure of having been prosecuted wrongfully and serving a 47-year-sentence for it.’"

THE APPEAL

Thanks to journalists Nathan and Rabinowitz’s second look at the Wee Care case, an eminent attorney, Morton J. Stavis, was persuaded to come to Kelly’s aid in early 1990. He was in his 70s and had had a long and illustrious career as a civil-rights crusader. He met with Kelly and reviewed her case. She recalls his indignation when he returned to prison to tell her that he would defend her: "He came back… and he was slamming his fist on the table and he was saying, ‘there was no way these things happened, we’re going to defend you,’ and I said, ‘but you know what, my parents are all out of money, we have no money to give you.’ And he said, ‘We’ll get the money somehow.’"

Stavis devoted two years to preparing her case for appeal. In the 33,000 pages of the trial transcript, he found plenty to dispute -- the defense’s hands had been tied from the start, while the prosecution had free rein with the child witnesses. The use of Eileen Treacy had been grossly inappropriate. She had helped to choose which children would testify, but she also served as the independent expert vouching for their credibility.

Then there were the damning tapes of the interviews with the Wee Care children. Robert Rosenthal, a young lawyer who joined the defense team, contacted the researchers Ceci and Bruck and asked them to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief ((http://www.falseallegations.com/amicus.htm)) which was endorsed and signed by no fewer than 45 other researchers. This lengthy report outlined the many ways the investigators had misled, coerced, frightened, bullied, and bribed the Wee Care children and how as a result, the children’s testimony was hopelessly tainted. The researchers pulled no punches in their estimate of the work of Lou Fonolleras and Co.: "The interviews with the children in the Michaels case are some of the worst I have ever heard..." Ceci told a reporter. "The children were undoubtedly abused, but probably not until they met the investigators."

Finally, a court date was set for the spring of 1993 to argue the appeal. In December of 1992, Stavis and his wife were vacationing in California but he made time to pick up and sign the final papers in the case, checking them over one last time before sending them back East. Then he prepared to take his wife Esther out to dinner.

Back in her prison cell, Kelly learned that while Stavis was walking outside, he stumbled and fell down an embankment and hit his head. He was dead.

"When my father came to prison to visit me and told me – I still said, ‘Dad, we’re going to win.’ Even though it was personally devastating…. I still felt it was going to be all right. It turned out that the work (Stavis) had done was completed, it was just the oral arguments hadn’t been heard… I really believed – and maybe this is youth and naivete -- that the truth would win, it was stronger than the hysteria and the lies and the craziness."

Out of respect for his longtime friend Stavis, flamboyant, civil-rights lawyer William Kunstler agreed to take over the oral arguments for the Michaels case.

Finally, came the day that Kelly and the Michaels family had hoped for, dreamed of -- the state appellate panel overturned the conviction. The appeal judges singled out Eileen Treacy’s testimony as being inappropriate, because she was, in effect, used by McArdle to tell the jury to believe the children, when it was the jury’s job to decide which witnesses to believe. The judges were especially critical about the child interviews, describing them as coercive, highly suggestive, and inept.

Kelly’s lawyers moved quickly to get her released on bail. Understandably, the Michaels family saw the verdict as a vindication of their daughter’s innocence, although technically all that had happened was that the appellate court had ruled that Kelly’s trial was unfair. The Star Ledger reported:

Tears were streaming down Michaels's mother's face as she rushed out of the courtroom surrounded by family and close friends after the hearing concluded. One woman gave the white-haired Marilyn Michaels a bouquet of flowers in congratulations.

As Mrs. Michaels pushed through the crowded courtroom, filled with an entourage of reporters and onlookers, she said the family was ecstatic about the judge's decision.

''My daughter is innocent. She has always been,'' Mrs. Michaels said, overcome with emotion. ''The whole world knows it now. This means the truth has come out.''

Parents of the children were stunned at the reversal. Essex County vowed to retry the case, with the same prosecution team. As the months passed, the Essex County Prosecutor's Office continued to defend its prosecution of Kelly, but not as vehemently. By 1997, the office was conceding that the interviews of the children were "horrible," but that no one knew, way back in 1985, how to interview small children. "It was a completely gray area back in that time," claimed the lawyer for McArdle, as though common sense didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Investigator: Just tell me -- show me what happened with the wooden spoon. Let's go.

Child: I forgot.

Investigator: No, you didn't. I'll tell you what, let's just go to the doll, we won't waste any time.

Investigator (2): Now listen, you have to behave.

Investigator: Do you want me to tell him to behave?

Investigator (2): Are you going to be a good boy? Huh? You have to be good. Yes or no?

Child: Yes.

AFTERMATH

The appellate court had ruled that the children’s testimony was so corrupted by the leading questions asked by the investigators that a "taint hearing" had to be held to determine if any of the children’s testimony could be considered valid, or if it was too tainted. This would be akin to unscrambling an egg, and Essex County appealed the decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In June 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling – no new trial without a taint hearing.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/9062/witchhunt/Wee_Care/supreme.txt

The problem of bringing back the child witnesses, after so much doubt had been cast on their testimony, proved to be insurmountable for the prosecution team. After spending over $3 million to prosecute her, Essex County dropped the indictment against Kelly Michaels in December 1994. The $800,000 bill for her defense was not officially withdrawn, but she has not been pursued for the money.

Kelly, by then 32, was free. But, "being technically not guilty is not the same as being completely innocent," she reflected. "You cling to that difference when you walk into a courtroom and people spit at you, or when you’re sitting in a cell and all around you people are screaming filthy names at you. That difference, it’s everything."

After her release from prison, Kelly Michaels was staying with Morton Stavis’s widow in New York, when she agreed to give an interview to a freelance journalist who was also a lawyer. Partway through the interview, he was so moved by her story and so convinced of her sincerity, that he turned off his tape recorder. Soon afterwards, he asked her for a date.

They are now married and have four children. She says that she doesn’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the past, but "the prayer I have is that someone will come to me…maybe a parent or a child all grown up, and say ‘we got sucked into this horrible madness, and looking back we see that it just didn’t happen, and I was led by these experts to believe… and I’m really sorry.’"

In May 1999, the District Court dismissed Michaels’ lawsuit to hold Essex County, McArdle, Lou Fonolleras, Eileen Treacy, Peg Foster, and others responsible for the harm and the horror they visited on her and the financial ruin they brought to her parents. She adds that she and her family are not the only victims of the Wee Care case, there are the deluded parents and children as well, and the millions wasted on prosecuting her case, "taxpayer’s money…(that) could have been used to help children."

http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/995486.txt

Sara McArdle is now deputy assistant prosecutor at Essex County. In Nap Time, she is reported as wondering, "Why are people afraid to show children normal affection? It makes me so sad that people think hugging a child is going to make him accuse them of sexual abuse." She was apparently oblivious to the answer -- the reason people are afraid to hug children is because of people like McArdle. Although she discussed the investigation with Lisa Manshel while Nap Time was being written, she declines interviews about Wee Care today.

Eileen Treacy is now a professor at Lehmann College in New York City. She has continued her second career as a trial expert who trains others in "how to recognize, treat and prevent occurrences of sexual abuse."

Peg Foster is still with Children’s Hospital in Newark working in the field of child abuse diagnosis and prevention. She still believes that Kelly Michaels tortured dozens of children with cutlery and peanut butter, but feels the court battle has led to improved child-interviewing techniques. She is in what she used to like to call "denial."

Lou Fonolleras, whose interviews of the Wee Care children completely corrupted the case, is still an employee of the Department of Youth and Family Services. He declined to be interviewed. A spokesman for DYFS says that Fonolleras has been working at an office job, not with children, for the past nine years.

Lisa Manshel, the author of Nap Time, became a lawyer. She declined to be interviewed.

The Wee Care children are now young adults. Many have been in therapy for years. To date, no Wee Care parents have publicly retracted their accusations against their child’s former teacher. Some of the families have received financial settlements from the day care’s insurance company. The last of these suits was settled in June 2001. The amounts paid to the families is undisclosed.

THE ROAD TO HELL

Kelly Michaels's case, in its broad outlines, followed the same pattern as other infamous day-care cases of the '80s – McMartin, Fells Acres, Country Walk.

During the 1980s many people came to believe that as soon as the parents’ taillights disappeared over the hill at the neighborhood day care, the staff -- people with ordinary names like Peggy and Brenda, Bernie and Chip -- dropped their friendly poses and preyed on their young charges with every type of perversion known to man and some no one could have imagined. Children spoke of having their heads dunked in buckets of blood, of being tied naked to trees, being forced to mutilate animals and kill babies, of being transported through underground tunnels, or spirited away by airplane, of being brutally assaulted sexually and used in child pornography. And to ensure the children’s silence, they said they were threatened that Mommy and Daddy would be killed, their house would be burned down, that they must never, ever tell.

According to some true believers – social workers, police detectives and prosecutors -- these macabre scenes were playing out in dozens of day cares – and had been for years. Some leaders of the crusade against child abuse believed that there was, in fact, a coordinated conspiracy going on – that sex rings had infiltrated the day cares and were using children to produce child pornography or even recruiting the kids in Satanism. Their campaign was, quite literally, a witch hunt.

According to investigative journalist Debbie Nathan, "research shows that between 1984 and 1995, at least 185 adults nationwide, about half of them women, were charged with ritualized sexual abuse. Of those, 113 were convicted, mainly on the word of young children." (Not all of the accused were day-care workers, some were bus drivers, some were parents and grandparents, some, like Patrick Figured of North Carolina, currently serving a life sentence, simply knew someone who owned a day care.)

The ritual abuse day-care cases usually start with one suspicious parent. The first ritual abuse case was the infamous McMartin School case in California. There, the initial accusations were made by a mother, later diagnosed as a schizophrenic, who was convinced that someone was abusing her 2-year-old son because his bottom was red. Her son started attending McMartin after she had dropped him off unannounced in front of the school, and drove away. The staff looked after him and later allowed the mother to enroll him, out of pity for the child. Later, her paranoid accusations against the Buckey family who owned and operated the day care led to the longest and most expensive trial in U.S. history, in which the Buckeys were eventually acquitted, but not before spending years in prison.

Once parental suspicion is aroused, for whatever reason, the anxious parents –naturally enough -- contact the authorities. In ritual-abuse cases, a familiar scenario begins. The authorities warn all the parents to be on the look out for signs of sexual abuse. Panic ensues. The children are questioned and re-questioned by parents and counselors. Denials are ignored. The children, pressured to "disclose," start to make allegations that range from the bizarre to the impossible.

Whether charges were laid or not doesn’t seem to depend on the credibility of the allegations but upon the credulity of the investigators: Parents in both Roseburg, Ore., and Cape Cod, Mass., for example, believed their children had participated in satanic rituals that included murdering people. In Roseburg, three people were convicted and sent to prison; but in Cape Cod, the prosecutor’s office refused to press charges and concluded that the children’s stories were a "hoax," a fantasy. (No dead people were found in either case.)

But although children were questioned about masks, candles, chanting, and upside down crosses, these elements were not always introduced into the courtroom and juries were asked to pass judgment on comparatively straightfoward cases of molestation and rape. The prosecutor in the Gallup Christian Day Care case openly admitted that Mr. and Mrs. Gallup and their son Chip were prosecuted not as Satanists but as child molesters, although he believed that Mrs. Gallup, a white haired minister’s wife, had been torturing children in satanic rituals for 20 years. He believed that "the Gallups and some of the workers were sexually interacting amongst themselves and with the small children…they watched reruns of these videos and they were fed popcorn and (there were) incidents of animal torture and so we had to decide how we were doing to deal with that aspect of the case and so we focused our first two cases in particular on simple cases because we knew that the jury was going to have a terrible time of believing that kind of a situation."

The children in the Wee Care case were also questioned about robes and crucifixes. It appears that juries were not always given the opportunity to judge the investigation in its entirety and understand the context in which the allegations were gathered.

Not only were juries kept in the dark about fantastical allegations and impossible and conflicting testimony, so were the defendants. Jenny Wilcox and Robert Aldridge of Ohio spent 11 years in prison before their conviction was overturned. According to the Ohio Observer, Wilcox’s lawyer "said evidence suggested that (in the original trial) prosecutors had received a 29- page report from police on the case but only provided defense attorneys with a sanitized eight-page report that left out details of…wildly varying statements by other children and denials by others." Like Kelly Michaels, Wilcox and Aldridge have not been allowed to sue for wrongful prosecution and false imprisonment. In neither case has the state admitted it made a mistake in prosecuting them, and even if mistakes were made in collecting evidence, the prosecution has immunity from being sued for errors.

THE VERDICT OF HISTORY

While the verdict of the court, labeling the unfortunate accused as sick child molesters, still stands in many cases, the verdict of history is slowly changing. More and more people now believe that the Great Day-Care Witch Hunt was a collective fantasy of prosecutors, social workers and frightened parents.

Historians of the day-care witch hunt have pointed to several factors that led to the panic: the mass exodus of mothers from the home to the workplace in the '70s and '80s, which gave rise to a lot of stress and free-floating guilt and, in some quarters, condemnation; then there were the pioneering child- protection crusaders, flush with new federal dollars to ferret out abuse; and the vulnerability of minimum-wage child care providers who found themselves cast in the role of the bogeyman in the closet. At the same time the country was enjoying frightening itself with titillating stories of human sacrifice and child torture in books such as Michelle Remembers, which spelled out in graphic detail how Satanists would go to any extreme to get children and do horrible things to them.

Michelle Remembers and several other supposed memoirs of life in the coven have been exposed as hoaxes. No child pornography involving children from any of the suspect day cares has ever been found. And there’s no physical evidence that any of the day-care centers were turned into torture chambers at all. No corpses of slaughtered animals and babies. No cages. No tunnels.

When the controversy was at its height, Dr. Roland Summit, an advocate for the belief that satanic sex rings were operating all over the country, said that although the claims made by the child witnesses were fantastic, it was impossible to suppose that the little ones could make the stories up out of whole cloth:

There’s been a great effort to understand… how it couldn’t be true. And the best answer people seem to come up with is the notion that therapists or police investigators are brainwashing the children into telling crazy stories. Why these people would want children to tell unbelievable stories that make them look stupid, make the investigators look stupid, has never been explained in that theory. But, there is a great willingness to believe that children will say anything in order to please adults… I think if we look at the coalition of data as it comes together, there’s no way children have made these things up.

No one has searched more diligently for evidence of satanic ritual abuse than Ken Lanning of the FBI. He looked into over 12,000 allegations of ritual abuse and concluded there was no hidden satanic network. ((http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_rep03.htm)). As he put it, in his 1992 report:

The large number of people telling the same story is, in fact, the biggest reason to doubt these stories. It is simply too difficult for that many people to commit so many horrendous crimes as part of an organized conspiracy. Two or three people murder a couple of children in a few communities as part of a ritual, and nobody finds out? Possible. Thousands of people do the same thing to tens of thousands of victims over many years? Not likely. Hundreds of communities all over America are run by mayors, police departments, and community leaders who are practicing Satanists and who regularly murder and eat people? Not likely.

But Lanning did find a group of people who were assiduously trading how-to information about satanic rituals coast-to-coast. It was the investigators and social workers themselves. The Los Angeles Ritual Abuse Task Force, for example, distributed thousands of copies of a pamphlet with the warning signs of satanic abuse including "fear of death," or "aversion to attending church." The author, therapist Catherine Gould, and her fellow committee members later became convinced that the evil Satanists were trying to poison them.

Lanning concluded, "until hard evidence is obtained and corroborated, the public should not be frightened into believing that babies are being bred and eaten, that 50,000 missing children are being murdered in human sacrifices, or that Satanists are taking over America's day-care centers or institutions. No one can prove with absolute certainty that such activity has not occurred. The burden of proof, however, as it would be in a criminal prosecution, is on those who claim that it has occurred."

STILL IN PRISON

If the diligent hunt for satanic ritual abusers has come up empty, why are there, by one estimate, over a dozen convicted ritual abusers still in prison?

Gerald Amirault is in prison in Massachusetts where his legal battle to overturn his conviction has ground to a halt. His conviction was based on children’s testimony collected by the same kinds of interviewing techniques used in the Michaels case. He has asked the governor of Massachusetts for a pardon and a commutation of his sentence to time served, 15 years so far. His mother and sister were also convicted of abuse and released from prison after serving eight years, maintaining their innocence throughout. Violet Amirault, Gerald’s mother, died in 1997, hoping to the last that her son would be freed. http://hometown.aol.com/DanFinneran/AmiraultFrames.htm

Bernard Baran was arrested in 1984 and convicted for allegedly molesting three preschoolers at the day care where he worked. He was only 19 years old. The initial accusation against him came from the parent of a little boy who accused Baran of touching her son. She was a drug addict who periodically lost custody of her child. The other accusations against Baran arose after the other parents learned about the first accusation. The medical evidence against Baran was similar to that brought against Kelly Michaels – that is, it was non-existent. Baran’s mother had no money to mount a proper legal defense for him. Baran is still in prison, also in Massachusetts, a victim of prejudice and hysteria. http://www.freebaran.org/

Patrick Figured was sentenced to prison for life for allegedly abusing three toddlers at his girlfriend’s mother’s day care. The allegations against him and his girlfriend, Sonja Hill, were preposterous and included burning bibles and forcing the children to drink blood. Jurors ignored testimony that Figured, an electronics company executive, was never alone with the children and had very little to do with them. The anal "winking" test helped sentence Figured to three life terms. He is currently incarcerated in North Carolina’s Nash Correctional Institution. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_smith.htm

To be accused as a child molester, is to be tainted for life. While no new evidence can be brought to light to absolutely prove the innocence of Kelly Michaels or any of the other people accused in the great ritual abuse witch hunt, it is important to remember that the evidence used to convict them is no more substantial than the evidence brought against the Salem witches. What happened to Kelly Michaels and others like her could happen to anyone. While there are unquestionably real life child abusers out there, the need to protect children must be tempered by justice based on evidence and reason.

MORE LINKS

Debbie Nathan and lawyer Michael Snedeker’s book: Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, is available through http://www.iuniverse.com/

The Witch-hunt information page, is a collection of information and links on the day-care-abuse trials; http://www.geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt.html

The Religious Tolerance web site tracks the ritual abuse cases, the fates of those accused, and includes a good discussion of how children might be led by anxious parents and zealous social workers, to believe in horrible things that never happened:http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_case.htm

The parallels between the day-care witch hunt and the Salem Witch Trials ((http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SALEM.HTM)) are striking.

Fade the Butcher
07-05-2006, 11:28 AM
I'm not impressed with the evidence against Lindstedt myself. He kissed a retarded child on the buttocks?

Ahknaton
07-05-2006, 11:28 AM
Ahknaton, are you aware of a single instance where the state has fabricated charges of child molestation?
http://www.truthinjustice.org/child-abuse.htm

I'm not alleging that "the State" has necessarily made a conscious decision to frame anyone for child abuse in order to get rid of unwanted political dissidents (although that's probably happened in 3rd world countries) but it's certainly plausible that prosecutors would be willing to pursue bogus charges resulting from overzealous social-workers or axe-grinding relatives in a family dispute if the accused happened to be advocating some very unconventional political opinions.

Ambrosio Spinola
07-05-2006, 11:57 AM
The guy was/is a nut but what has happened to him is WAY out of line.

themistocles
07-06-2006, 05:25 AM
If the government framed Linstedt, then why? How was he such a critical danger to The Man for them to do such a thing?

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 05:26 AM
It's very easy to make up child molestation charges, and the state does it all the time. One reason it gets done so often is that it looks good on a prosecutors resume and will him get re-elected if he has some people sent to jail on child molestation charges.

It's almost impossible for an innocent person to defend himself, or even to get a good lawyer.

This post from Hermans is a quaint yet noble example of what us regular folk like to refer to as "the truth." I understand such a category is of little interest to an urbane sophisticate like Sulla, but some of us still find "the truth" has an endearing and enduring charm all its own, no matter how unfashionable it may become.

il ragno
07-06-2006, 05:34 AM
One reason it gets done so often is that it looks good on a prosecutors resume and will him get re-elected if he has some people sent to jail on child molestation charges.

Not just re-elected, but propelled up to higher office quite often. And prosecutors' records, and their political lives and ambitions, come into play when the State plays hard-to-get on new or exculpatory evidence, retrials and overturned verdicts.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 05:36 AM
No wonder the less-enlightened hate us for our freedom and goodness, given that lightweight, travel-sized Burden of Proof we require to whomp someone - like "I don't like your face", or "your opinions suck". Thank God it isn't "I don't care for your skin color" any more, though, and we're out of the Dark Ages, eh?

Man, you just friggin' said it all. We can pretty well shut down all Internet political discussion now; Il Ragno's won everything for our side, for all time. Too bad Sulla and his ilk are too ignorant and/or self-deceiving (or even conciously dishonest) to acknowledge how severely he just handed them their heads, so I guess we'll have to keep waging this already-won war. Go on, Sulla, with the whole "the government is good & honest, and wouldn't hurt an innocent man" schtick; I'm always in the market for a good laugh!


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to il ragno again."

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 05:39 AM
Not just re-elected, but propelled up to higher office quite often.

I hear that had quite a lot to do with Janet "Kill 'em All" Reno's promotion from Dade County D.A. to Attorney General of the USA under Klinton. Well, that, plus the facts Zoe Baird was a crook and Kimba Wood a fairly sweet piece of ass....

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 05:44 AM
MORE LINKS

Debbie Nathan and lawyer Michael Snedekerís book: Satanís Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, is available through http://www.iuniverse.com/

The Witch-hunt information page, is a collection of information and links on the day-care-abuse trials; http://www.geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt.html

The Religious Tolerance web site tracks the ritual abuse cases, the fates of those accused, and includes a good discussion of how children might be led by anxious parents and zealous social workers, to believe in horrible things that never happened:http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_case.htm

The parallels between the day-care witch hunt and the Salem Witch Trials ((http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SALEM.HTM)) are striking.

Il ragno, these people were not framed. The way I've heard it, the mother was crazy and fabricated the original complaint, and the child specialists were not only incompetant, they weren't even licensed and were 'trying' a new technique.

Thats called a mistake, il ragno. A mistake is not a conspiracy.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 05:52 AM
Except that we know he said that. He said those things here and elsewhere. You and others mocked him for saying it.

How do any of Mr. Lindstedt's goofball socio-political commentaries and related remarks constitute evidence of homosexual pedophilia? HOW?

Do you believe that the mentally disturbed should be put on trial when they cannot aid in their own defense?

I don't believe Mr. Lindstedt is insane; I believe he is (very) eccentric. I believe you share that opinion, yet lie about what you really think. I believe much the same could be said of the authorities who have locked him up in the Laughing Academy. They know they have no meaningful evidence, so they had to find some excuse not to hold a trial, didn't they?

Marty would have his trial in no time if he would control himself. If he can't control himself, then he SHOULDN'T be put on trial, no?

I believe he can control himself, but that he has a Bartlebyesque tendency to prefer not to do so. I'm pretty sure you think that as well, but just love seeing someone with whom you vociferously disagree be destroyed, irrespective of any other consideration. How revolting.

il ragno
07-06-2006, 05:54 AM
Il ragno, these people were not framed. The way I've heard it, the mother was crazy and fabricated the original complaint, and the child specialists were not only incompetant, they weren't even licensed and were 'trying' a new technique.

Thats called a mistake, il ragno. A mistake is not a conspiracy.

...and any DA's office is helpless to do anything but follow orders handed them by crazy parents and child psychologists. Any exuberance they displayed in coaching testimony and overwhelming the jury with bogus evidence is all somebody else's fault.

Welcome to Sulla's America, where only the accused citizen is accountible; all representatives of the State are merely punching a clock and doing their assigned tasks to the best of their abilities.

Shit, it took you long enough to finally hide behind "Ve vass only followink orders!" Still, I always knew you had it in you.....

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 05:58 AM
Has this guy his personal fan club here?

I don't much care for Mr. Lindstedt. He's obnoxious and counterproductive to the cause in which I believe. But I loathe innocent men being destroyed for exercising their First Amendment rights. I'd stand up for any jerk on that basis (especially if, as is the case with Mr. Lindstedt, it was a jerk I knew on a personal level, and thus were morally obligated to speak out to a greater extent than would be the case were he just some stranger whom I perhaps didn't feel quite as confident in the innocence of; I simply do not, and will never believe Martin Lindstedt is an incestuous, homosexual pedophile. Uh-huh, baby. No way. A lot of other bad things, perhaps, but not that.)

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:05 AM
Is that what he's in prison for then? Saying terrible things on the Internet?

BINGO!!!


(Sadly, your prize is a jar of gefilte fish; this is the New America, after all.)

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:08 AM
...and any DA's office is helpless to do anything but follow orders handed them by crazy parents and child psychologists.


Oh, I see. Lets DESTROY the judicial system, release all prisoners, and suspend all convictions until we can develop Artificial Intelligence to the point where it can run the PERFECT system for law enforcement and criminal justice, complete with cyborg cops and computer DAs.


Any exuberance they displayed in coaching testimony and overwhelming the jury with bogus evidence is all somebody else's fault.

Welcome to Sulla's America, where only the accused citizen is accountible; all representatives of the State are merely punching a clock and doing their assigned tasks to the best of their abilities.


Thats what elections are for. Thats what the appeals process is for. Thats what impeachment is for.


Shit, it took you long enough to finally hide behind "Ve vass only followink orders!" Still, I always knew you had it in you.....

Question il ragno: Lets pretend you're a cop, or a DA investigator. A child's mother comes and tells you that she believes her father is molesting her son. After you interview the neighbors, you learn that the fellow is one of the most grotesque people you've ever heard of. He has a sheet a mile long, and has spoken quite openly about his desire to comit sex crimes.

You're a cop, not a defense attorney. Do you arrest him, or 'give it more time' to sort out? PARTICULARLY since Marty was in all likelyhood completely uncooperative.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:09 AM
So someone's internet postings are all the evidence you need? LOL. He was a little different, but I don't recall ever seeing a post from him that gave me the impression that he would molest his own grandkids. He seemed more like someone who would do some real damage to anyone who would do anything like that to his grandkids, on the other hand. And as I have talked about previously child molesters often appear to be incredibly "normal.", rather than odd, That is one of the ways they gain the trust of others around them that allow it to occur. Child molesters(unfortunately) do not generally come across as raging lunatics.

I see Starr is a fellow devotee to that fetid swamp of outre irrelevancies some of us still pay homage to by referring to it by its proper name i.e., "the truth." I knew there was a reason I liked her....

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:11 AM
How do any of Mr. Lindstedt's goofball socio-political commentaries and related remarks constitute evidence of homosexual pedophilia? HOW?


I pointed out that Lindstedt's comments were not just 'alleged', they're known facts. We know that he said those things.


I don't believe Mr. Lindstedt is insane; I believe he is (very) eccentric. I believe you share that opinion, yet lie about what you really think.


Thats a bit too convenient. He's obviously disturbed. If Lindstedt doesn't suffer from psychological disorders, then no one does.


I believe much the same could be said of the authorities who have locked him up in the Laughing Academy.


Not really.


I believe he can control himself, but that he has a Bartlebyesque tendency to prefer not to do so. I'm pretty sure you think that as well, but just love seeing someone with whom you vociferously disagree be destroyed, irrespective of any other consideration. How revolting.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that there should be a procedure to a trial? That there should be rules governing it, and that if those rules are not followed, a legitimate trial cannot proceed?

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:16 AM
Oh, I see. Lets DESTROY the judicial system, release all prisoners, and suspend all convictions until we can develop Artificial Intelligence to the point where it can run the PERFECT system for law enforcement and criminal justice, complete with cyborg cops and computer DAs.

Yeah, that's what Spidey was saying. Man, that is like the friggin' Strawman Golden Horde!

has spoken quite openly about his desire to comit (sic) sex crimes.

The "sex crimes" to which you refer are A) decidedly not of a pedophile nature, since they pertained to bona fide sexual reproduction i.e., "breeding stock," and B) were acts he said he wished to commit (because we all know we wasn't just trying to shock us or anything) within the context of a revolution in which they would no longer be illegal. You know all that, hence you are a liar and a slanderer.

il ragno
07-06-2006, 06:20 AM
Question il ragno: Lets pretend you're a cop, or a DA investigator. A child's mother comes and tells you that she believes her father is molesting her son. After you interview the neighbors, you learn that the fellow is one of the most grotesque people you've ever heard of. He has a sheet a mile long, and has spoken quite openly about his desire to comit sex crimes.

You're a cop, not a defense attorney. Do you arrest him, or 'give it more time' to sort out? PARTICULARLY since Marty was in all likelyhood completely uncooperative.

I see you dropped that what happened to Kelly Michaels was nobody's fault tack like a envelope marked 'anthrax', and we're back to Lucky.

Okay: Granby County Missouri is hardly a bustling metropolis with a backlogged court calendar. Bring the case to trial; stop stalling with endless nuisance penalties, sanity hearings, contempt citations, etc. It's been almost two damn years - if the case is so compelling, bring it to trial.

(Actually, even if the case isn't at all compelling, the Constitution guarantees even disagreeable gadflies a fair and speedy trial. Hey - remember the Constitution?...I mean before Bush and Cheney put it on a Homeland Security watch-list.)

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:20 AM
Yeah, that's what Spidey was saying. Man, that is like the friggin' Strawman Golden Horde!


One bogus child molestation conviction (Which was not a frame job, btw, I have yet to see an example of the state fabricating a child molestation charge) serves as 'evidence' for you to believe that Marty Lindstedt is playing the lead in his own production of Jesus Christ Superstar.


The "sex crimes" to which you refer are A) decidedly not of a pedophile nature, since they pertained to bona fide sexual reproduction i.e., "breeding stock," and B) were acts he said he wished to commit (because we all know we wasn't just trying to shock us or anything) within the context of a revolution in which they would no longer be illegal. You know all that, hence you are a liar and a slanderer.

LOL So the investigators should ignore his call for brutal rape and mutilation because they wern't calls for the brutal rape and mutilation of a child.

Its good to see that you've DECIDED that Marty Lindstedt was just trying to shock you, and he didn't sincerely hold these beliefs.

Thats nice. Convenient, and generous to boot. I don't usually see this level of generosity for the articles you fellows spam about crime. I'm looking to see more of this LIBERAL view of criminal justice from you people. Its very interesting.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:24 AM
I see you dropped that what happened to Kelly Michaels was nobody's fault tack like a envelope marked 'anthrax', and we're back to Lucky.


Actually I said it was several people's fault already. You ignored that because you wanted to spam this case. Its absolved Marty for you, even though its completely unrelated.


Okay: Granby County Missouri is hardly a bustling metropolis with a backlogged court calendar. Bring the case to trial; stop stalling with endless nuisance penalties, sanity hearings, contempt citations, etc. It's been almost two damn years - if the case is so compelling, bring it to trial.


Ok, another question for you. How do you hold a trial with a screaming, ranting, raving defendant? How does he help in his own defense? How is the trial supposed to proceed if he keeps disrupting the process?

If they gag him, you would be complaining even more.


(Actually, even if the case isn't at all compelling, the Constitution guarantees even disagreeable gadflies a fair and speedy trial.


The mentally disturbed can't aid in their own defense.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:25 AM
I hope he dies in prison.

Negro > :hump: :whip: < Redneck

I'm tempted to hope the same about you, you Stalinist piece of filth.

People who joke about prison rape are sick fucks who deserve to experience it.

And since I know we're about to see some sick little joke at my expense, to the effect of perhaps I might be touchy on this subject because it happened to me, then you don't know me very well. If it'd happened to me, I'd be shouting about it from the rooftops, to the effect of my human rights having been abused, and filing a lawsuit against my county for having done such a piss poor job of protecting me while I was literally in protective custody (in reality, they did rather a good of protecting me, one of the only facts of my case which accrues to the credit of the local authorities).

I can see why so many people wanted a childish clown like you banned. To speak so cavalierly about such brutality and death, merely because you don't like Mr. Lindstedt, it just turns my stomach. Maybe one day you'll emerge from your chrysalis of parent-pampered Extendo Adolesence, and resemble something akin to a man. I wouldn't go betting a lot of money on it, however.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:26 AM
Its pretty difficult to coach a retarded child into a coherant story that they'll remember, and won't break on.

Yeah, we know. That's why no trial.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:27 AM
To speak so cavalierly about such brutality and death, merely because you don't like Mr. Lindstedt, it just turns my stomach.


Spare us. You're here trying to make a martyr out of a guy who called for women to have pieces of their brains cut out so they could be gang raped by 'white soldiers fighting the race war'.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:28 AM
Yeah, we know. That's why no trial.

Oh, I'm sure. The DA is keeping Marty in custody even though he believes him to be innocent. Thats right.

Delusions of granduer never end. Everyone's out to get you, Kevin.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:30 AM
Though I haven't yet met the person who would suggest that someone accused of child molestation (Accused) shouldn't be arrested.

Are you that person, il ragno?

I'm sure as Hell that person. It takes more than a single, non-credible accusation of any felony charge to warrant the arrest of the alleged perpetrator; I don't think accused pedophiles should be treated differently from accused felons of other varieties. Convicted ones should be burned at the stake, however.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:38 AM
I have a question for you. Do you believe that there should be a procedure to a trial? That there should be rules governing it, and that if those rules are not followed, a legitimate trial cannot proceed?

Yes, of course.

It is my contention that the psychiatrist(s) who ruled Mr. Lindstedt unfit for trial set out to do so prior to having first interviewed him. At this stage, its impossible for either of us to prove that one way or the other, but its what I strongly suspect.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:41 AM
Spare us. You're here trying to make a martyr out of a guy who called for women to have pieces of their brains cut out so they could be gang raped by 'white soldiers fighting the race war'.

Martin was just shootin' his fool mouth off; what Ken Abyss is saying is for real.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 06:43 AM
Delusions of granduer never end. Everyone's out to get you, Kevin.

More characteristically dishonest slander from Sulla; I wasn't talking about my case from seven years ago; I'm talking about the current case against Martin Lindstedt. If they were out to get me, I'd be gone. I have no illusions about that. The mere fact I'm not in prison or dead is proof positive they are not out to get me.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:57 AM
I'm sure as Hell that person. It takes more than a single, non-credible accusation of any felony charge to warrant the arrest of the alleged perpetrator; I don't think accused pedophiles should be treated differently from accused felons of other varieties. Convicted ones should be burned at the stake, however.

How do you decide credibility? I would be surprised if these accusations didn't come from a family member.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 06:58 AM
Yes, of course.


Ok, then do you believe that Martin Lindstedt could not help in his own defense if he was interupting the trial with his ranting, insulting the judge and the DA, etc?

Is that helpful to the conduct of a trial?

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 07:00 AM
Martin was just shootin' his fool mouth off.

How do you know that? Care to share with us the private correspondence he sent you with the "Just kidding" post script?

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 07:16 AM
Ok, then do you believe that Martin Lindstedt could not help in his own defense if he was interupting the trial with his ranting, insulting the judge and the DA, etc?

Is that helpful to the conduct of a trial?

Of course not. But if we could convict and sentence to death (or was it life without parole? I forget) Zacharias Moussoui, who used to scream "I am Al-Qaeda! I am Al-Qaeda!" while being dragged out of court, surely we can put Martin Lindstedt on trial at all.

Besides, Mr. Lindstedt (and I suspect Mr. Moussoui as well) could help in his own defense, were he so inclined. He would simply prefer not.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 07:18 AM
Of course not. But if we could convict and sentence to death (or was it life without parole? I forget) Zacharias Moussoui, who used to scream "I am Al-Qaeda! I am Al-Qaeda!" while being dragged out of court, surely we can put Martin Lindstedt on trial at all.

Besides, Mr. Lindstedt (and I suspect Mr. Moussoui as well) could help in his own defense, were he so inclined. He would simply prefer not.

Whats the point of having an invalid trial, exactly? It excuses the guilty verdict. It allows you and il ragno to cry foul after he's convicted. You'll say "Marty was convicted because he was an obnoxious bigot during his trial, not because he did it".

Why doesn't he shut up and participate in his trial, if he's so innocent?

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 07:24 AM
How do you know that? Care to share with us the private correspondence he sent you with the "Just kidding" post script?

I didn't realize people were so gullible that they took everything Martin said as seriously as he wanted them to. I myself have been guilty of saying dumbass things I didn't really believe, due to being carried away with the spirit of unbridled enthusiasm. It seems obvious to me that Mr. Lindstedt is a more eggregious and more frequent examplar of said unbridled enthusiasm. And even if not, so what? How does his belief that it ought to be legal to utilize White female hip-hop enthusiasts as breeding stock for White Nationalist men (they are, after all, already being used today as breeding stock for nigger criminal males), even were it completely serious and sincere on his part (which I suspect few believe, even in the unlikely even you are among that number), constitute any sort of evidence he wanted to wiggle his tongue inside his 4-year old grandson's sphincter?

Martin Lindstedt simply wouldn't do that.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 07:28 AM
Why doesn't he shut up and participate in his trial, if he's so innocent?

Do you remember which obnoxious, eccentric, obstinate, knuckleheaded individualist we're talking about here? Because it was fucking Martin "Mad Dog" Lindstedt, that's why the Hell not!

Wanting to be a martyr and/or refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the legal authorities who had arrested and attempted to arraign him does not constitute evidence of mental illness.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 07:49 AM
I didn't realize people were so gullible that they took everything Martin said as seriously as he wanted them to. I myself have been guilty of saying dumbass things I didn't really believe, due to being carried away with the spirit of unbridled enthusiasm. It seems obvious to me that Mr. Lindstedt is a more eggregious and more frequent examplar of said unbridled enthusiasm. And even if not, so what?


So he's a deviant, who is more likely to abuse a child. I'm sorry, I don't say things for shock value. I don't pretend to be a Neo-Nazi to delegitimize them, or pretend to be opposed to bigotry because I like to argue.

I think you're being very generous without any reason to be so. You're assuming that Marty was 'just kidding' because that would help with his 'innocence'. And you want him to be innocent, because if he is, this is an example of the government 'oppressing' you.

The suggestion that Marty's statements about mutilation and rape shouldn't be considered in his trial is particularly absurd. And I doubt it would be a gesture you would extend to any non-white supremacist charged with the same crime. Your politics have influenced your judgement on this issue.


How does his belief that it ought to be legal to utilize White female hip-hop enthusiasts as breeding stock for White Nationalist men (they are, after all, already being used today as breeding stock for nigger criminal males), even were it completely serious and sincere on his part (which I suspect few believe, even in the unlikely even you are among that number), constitute any sort of evidence he wanted to wiggle his tongue inside his 4-year old grandson's sphincter?


Because it shows a perverse view about sex, pleasure, and the value of other human beings. You forgot to mention that he wanted to mutilate their brains and keep them in 'kennels' like dogs.


Martin Lindstedt simply wouldn't do that.

Its farsical to believe anyone knows anyone else over the Internet well enough to make such a statement. Your belief seems to be that since Marty was SO OPENLY VILE, he couldn't possibly have done this vile act.

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 07:50 AM
Do you remember which obnoxious, eccentric, obstinate, knuckleheaded individualist we're talking about here? Because it was fucking Martin "Mad Dog" Lindstedt, that's why the Hell not!

Wanting to be a martyr and/or refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the legal authorities who had arrested and attempted to arraign him does not constitute evidence of mental illness.

No, his ranting and his statements about mutilation, poisoning, and rape don't constitute evidence of anything. Nothing constitutes as evidence as long as it casts Marty in a poor light. I notice the pattern.

Do you believe that the mentally ill should be put on trial, regardless of how they damage themselves or their defense?

il ragno
07-06-2006, 09:26 AM
Do you believe that the mentally ill should be put on trial, regardless of how they damage themselves or their defense?

Do you believe statements and opinions that offend and/or disturb you constitute proof of 'mental illness'?

Lindstedt managed to support himself and put food on his family's table; he could write and read with proficiency, served in the US military, and furthermore had mastered the nuts-and-bolts of both the legal and political processes sufficient to be a perennial legal candidate for office. I don't see any telltale mental illness warning signs there. In fact, his entire "criminal record" prior to this as-yet unproven charge consisted wholly of his political provocations of elected officials. Lucky's courtroom shenanigans are his protest against what he feels to be the corrupt local machine's lack of moral authority to hold him, try him and judge him.


Do affable, well-liked fellows in suits and ties ever molest their kids? Can respected pillars-of-the-community, who never say anything in public that anyone might object to, be criminally insane?

If your answer to both questions is no, of course not, then you too can be an Upwardly Mobile Conservative Republican just like Sulla. Just make sure, when you're judging the unkempt, the cantankerous and the disreputable, that you take special care to reserve your condemnation for white reprobates only; gentiles preferred.

Ambrosio Spinola
07-06-2006, 10:46 AM
I see Sulla would have had much joy under a NS goverment :p

Sulla the Dictator
07-06-2006, 11:22 AM
Do you believe statements and opinions that offend and/or disturb you constitute proof of 'mental illness'?


Do I believe that a call to nationalize industry and redistribute wealth is a sign of mental illness? Nope.

Do I even believe that a call for racial segregation and oppression is proof of mental illness? No.

But do I believe that calling for women to have portions of their brain removed so they can be chained in kennels, to be raped at leisure by the brute squad you have killing people in the streets?

Yeah, thats pretty out there. Thats not enough for a diagnosis, but it sure as fuck is something to BE CONSIDERED in such a diagnosis. And if you won't admit that, then you're completely insincere. Sorry, but comparing Martin Lindstedt to some 'political insurgent' is laughable. You know that 'prion poisoning' and rape kennels are some eyebrow raising nutter shit, not 'an arguable political philosophy'.


Lindstedt managed to support himself and put food on his family's table; he could write and read with proficiency, served in the US military, and furthermore had mastered the nuts-and-bolts of both the legal and political processes sufficient to be a perennial legal candidate for office.


There is a difference between being crazy and being retarded, il ragno. There are levels of crazy, too.


I don't see any telltale mental illness warning signs there.


If he said half the shit in real life that he said here, the hell you don't.


Lucky's courtroom shenanigans are his protest against what he feels to be the corrupt local machine's lack of moral authority to hold him, try him and judge him.


Thats nice. The court is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't.

How is the court supposed to proceed if he's shrieking, il ragno? Answer that PRACTICAL question, please. Do you support gagging him for trial? Sedating him? I doubt it. Then its "they won't let him speak!" or "see! They're drugging him!"

This all smacks of the absurd, since the assumptions you are making about the nature of this case strike me as irrationally optimistic.

WFHermans
07-06-2006, 11:34 AM
@Sulla: If someone claims that having sex with a three year old is OK, do you think that's normal?

tricknologist
02-28-2009, 08:46 PM
Ahknaton, are you aware of a single instance where the state has fabricated charges of child molestation?

Yes, I think we can all name one.

Captain Marinesko
02-28-2009, 09:21 PM
Yes, I think we can all name one.

It's not that the state fabricates the thing out of thin air- it's usually a false allegation that is pounced upon by an over-zealous prosecutor.

In Arizona there was a case very similar to Lindstedt's, where the alleged victim was mentally retarded. The case was a big controversy because the prosecutor was none other than the Governor Janet Napolitano. Apparently some evidence came out that exonerated the defendent totally, yet she lobbied to keep him in jail for no apparent reason.

Trying to find the link to that specific story, but the search isn't going well.

If it seems that Lindstedt is innocent, then I will not say otherwise. But he is clearly mentally ill and needs help.

Stanley
02-28-2009, 09:50 PM
Lindstedt got several years of help from the state. For some reason, knocking his teeth out did not improve his attitude.

Captain Marinesko
02-28-2009, 10:15 PM
Lindstedt got several years of help from the state. For some reason, knocking his teeth out did not improve his attitude.

He needs more.

Jake Featherston
02-28-2009, 10:24 PM
He needs more.

What do you suggest, a lobotomy? Perhaps they should break his legs?

Captain Marinesko
02-28-2009, 10:28 PM
What do you suggest, a lobotomy? Perhaps they should break his legs?


I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. I mean he needs more compassionate help. Obviously some of what they did just made his condition worse. That is especially bad considering that Lindstedt strikes me as the "Bell-Tower" type if you know what I mean.

Don Quixote
02-28-2009, 10:43 PM
I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. I mean he needs more compassionate help. Obviously some of what they did just made his condition worse. That is especially bad considering that Lindstedt strikes me as the "Bell-Tower" type if you know what I mean.This is incredible! Only the other day you were exhorting him to commit suicide.

Jake Featherston
02-28-2009, 11:06 PM
That is especially bad considering that Lindstedt strikes me as the "Bell-Tower" type if you know what I mean.

I doubt a man who is in his early 50s, as I recall, is going to do something like that, if he hasn't already.

Your (unquoted) clarification is appreciated, however.

Jake Featherston
02-28-2009, 11:19 PM
they did not say he was inocent did they NO!!

Courts are not in the business of proactively declaring people to be innocent. But they did decide there was so little evidence, that a trial to determine the question of his potential guilt wasn't even necessary. Under our law, a man is considered innocent, unless he is convicted, or pleads guilty, to a criminal offense. Obviously, some criminals who ought rightfully be convicted are occasionally acquitted, or have their cases dismissed (or are simply never detected), so failure to obtain a conviction does not innately prove one did not commit an offense (nor can such a negative proposition be definitively proven by any other manner), but in light of the fact that Mr. Lindstedt is a White racialist activist, and is personally well-known and despised (perhaps even feared) by the local, Newton County, Missouri authorities, its safe to say they didn't choose to be lenient with him. If they can't obtain a conviction, its reasonable to suppose the evidence is weak, non-existent and/or fabricated.

I find it very difficult to believe a grown man in today's society is not aware of the epidemic of prosecutorial social workers obtaining false allegations of child molestation through the badgering of very young children, so your claim that somehow credible witnesses/victims were somehow pressured, or otherwise cajoled into declining to testify against Mr. Lindstedt, is without legitimate basis. It is far more likely a child who was never molested at all has gotten a little older, and now has a greater understanding of the issues involved, and is not interested in telling lies that will send Grandpa to prison.

Origenes
02-28-2009, 11:24 PM
It is far more likely a child who was never molested at all has gotten a little older, and now has a greater understanding of the issues involved, and is not interested in telling lies that will send Grandpa to prison.

The moderators of this forum do everything to defend him.

Jake Featherston
02-28-2009, 11:29 PM
The moderators of this forum do everything to defend him.

I strongly defend him from a charge I believe to be trumped-up, perfidious, and false, as would always be my inclination in such an instance. Il Ragno, Basil Fawlty, and Starr have also spoken out on this topic. But to claim "the moderators do everything to defend him" is quite an exaggeration.

Origenes
02-28-2009, 11:32 PM
I fear he could become a moderator here soon...

Jake Featherston
02-28-2009, 11:37 PM
I fear he could become a moderator here soon...

That is a groundless fear; he has been barred from posting in the Academy section of this website.

Origenes
02-28-2009, 11:41 PM
That is a groundless fear; he has been barred from posting in the Academy section of this website.

Maybe you will give him The Lounge...

Jake Featherston
02-28-2009, 11:45 PM
Maybe you will give him The Lounge...

That's absurd. The guy has been banned from most of the website; he's not going to be given authority in those sections where he is still permitted to post.

Hermetic
02-28-2009, 11:49 PM
Thats about it. If the systjewm had any kind of real case against Lindstedt or even anything they could spin into an effective lie to create a lasting case. They would have used it considering Lindstedt is a open White Racial activitist.

Being that Lindstedt if Iam correct defended himself as his own lawyer and is well schooled in law it worked out for him. Where Hale also having a shaky jewshit case against him. Made the mistake of getting a jew lawyer paided him big bucks and then was fucked over. Where if Hale a literal lawyer had of defended himself it might have worked out different.



Courts are not in the business of proactively declaring people to be innocent. But they did decide there was so little evidence, that a trial to determine the question of his potential guilt wasn't even necessary. Under our law, a man is considered innocent, unless he is convicted, or pleads guilty, to a criminal offense. Obviously, some criminals who ought rightfully be convicted are occasionally acquitted, or have their cases dismissed (or are simply never detected), so failure to obtain a conviction does not innately prove one did not commit an offense (nor can such a negative proposition be definitively proven by any other manner), but in light of the fact that Mr. Lindstedt is a White racialist activist, and is personally well-known and despised (perhaps even feared) by the local, Newton County, Missouri authorities, its safe to say they didn't choose to be lenient with him. If they can't obtain a conviction, its reasonable to suppose the evidence is weak, non-existent and/or fabricated.

I find it very difficult to believe a grown man in today's society is not aware of the epidemic of prosecutorial social workers obtaining false allegations of child molestation through the badgering of very young children, so your claim that somehow credible witnesses/victims were somehow pressured, or otherwise cajoled into declining to testify against Mr. Lindstedt, is without legitimate basis. It is far more likely a child who was never molested at all has gotten a little older, and now has a greater understanding of the issues involved, and is not interested in telling lies that will send Grandpa to prison.

Origenes
03-01-2009, 12:00 AM
Hale wasn't man enough.

il ragno
03-01-2009, 12:01 AM
Lucky could be the worst monster who ever got born and it would matter not an iota here: I never for a moment thought he was guilty and neither did the goverrnment (since they never actually charged him with anything...they merely tried to keep him, "for his own good", in those custodial arrangements most likely to get him killed or permamently brain-damaged or, as a consolation prize, committed to some dank, state-run snakepit and the lifetime "care" of bored, sullen and likely-vindictive minimum-wage Negroes in hospital whites).

What they did to him was no less than attempted murder in slow motion, hopefully (to them) minimized into insignificance by Lucky's four-alarm, bizarro-doomcrier personality. Which, again, is immaterial to the matter at hand. (If he were an ornery, unlikable, borderline-crazy Jewish holocaust survivor or Soviet dissident, for instance, he'd already be the subject of a Hollywitz movie complete with nauseating trailer-tagline:

".....this fall, Paramount Pictures proudly presents..... Brendan Gleeson as....LINDSTEDT.....They took his freedom - stole his family - and destroyed his world. The only thing they couldn't break - was his spirit."

Hlinkova Garda
03-01-2009, 12:02 AM
Why are you talking like him now Vindex ?? while I never EVER agree with any of your one subject posts.....you at least sounded like you had a good head about you

Cole
03-01-2009, 12:08 AM
You breaking weak now ?? this F'ing animal molested a child ..............................comrade realy now come on







They did not do enough say I

This garbage needs to be deleted. Mr. Lindstedt has been exonerated. Posts reported.

R1a-I2a1 Rock Farmer
03-01-2009, 12:22 AM
And he does everything to substantiate that he's really innocent, by writing shit like that the children of foes should be tortured?
Is that what you want tell us?

Mad Marty is trash and his screeds are filth, but he's innocent of the charges thrown at him and has every right to seek compensation for being put through the ordeal that he had to endure.

Kriger
03-01-2009, 01:16 AM
Why is all of this being said on a thread that Lindstedt cannot respond to?

I personally consider him to be a poor excuse for a White man...regardless of what I personally think about him this posting in a thread where he cannot respond is chickenshit.

Jake Featherston
03-01-2009, 04:35 AM
Why is all of this being said on a thread that Lindstedt cannot respond to?

I personally consider him to be a poor excuse for a White man...regardless of what I personally think about him this posting in a thread where he cannot respond is chickenshit.

You'd be entirely correct, of course, were it intentional. It didn't even occur to me that he couldn't write in this thread (although I have probably said little he would feel the need to refute) until you mentioned it. I'm inclined to assume the same was true of the others.

Ambrosio Spinola
03-01-2009, 06:07 AM
Why is all of this being said on a thread that Lindstedt cannot respond to?

I personally consider him to be a poor excuse for a White man...regardless of what I personally think about him this posting in a thread where he cannot respond is chickenshit.

Fair point, moving this to the lounge.

Additionally I strongly advise against slandering the man on very serious issues he has been shown innocent.