Summary of the Clemency Petition
Clemency Petition Outline.
I Introduction (pages 1, 2, 3)
In which Mr Snedeker hits the nail on the head on his analysis of what the political and psychological climate was in the 80s and 90s. The recognition of the reality of child abuse, physical, psychological and sexual took us out of our indifference, but the problem was that:
“A swinging pendulum, however, does not stop in the middle. The possibility of child sex abuse soon became the inevitability of child sex abuse. As lives had been wrecked by society's refusal to acknowledge sexual abuse of children by adults, lives in the mid-1980's were ruined by false charges of large-scale sexual abuse of a grotesque nature that created a moral panic chillingly reminiscent of the hysteria that gripped Salem, Massachusetts in 1692.1
Abuse was inferred from what previously had been viewed as innocent circumstances; non-deviant or marginally deviant behavior became fertile ground for the eruption of charges. Sharon Krause, the principal investigating officer in the present case, told a Salt Lake City audience in 1986 ~ four months before she began developing the charges against Ms. Malcom ~ that children often only hint at sexual abuse and that parents must look for signs. Signs, Krause warned, include a child's "acting out anger with peers, short attention span in school, compulsive cleanliness, or change in grades." (See NEXIS printout of U.P.I. story dated Thursday, October 9, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
Krause echoed the fervency of a national movement of those who would see child sexual abuse in the most innocuous of circumstances. Thus, behaviors long recognized by psychologists and parents as within the continuum of normal development became pathologized, and labeled as evidence of sex abuse (see, e.g., Ilg, F., et. al., Child Behavior. New York, Harper & Row, 1981).
II Background (pages 3, 4)
This section contains a description of Lynn Malcom’s life previous to the accusation, including her educational background, her marriage and divorce and her opening a day-care center.
III How the Charges Arose: A Chronology of Events (pages 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
This section tells the story of the neighbors and the kids and tales of alleged improprieties, which started the investigation. Sharon Krause’s interviews and how the investigation slowly turned to Lynn Malcom. Tells of her son’s arrest on six charges of rape and her own children’s repeated denial of any wrongdoing. Tells of the children’s improbable and impossible tales (the children alleged multiple murders, moved dead people, and much more, all suppressed during the trial).
B Analysis of Investigation (pages 9,10, 11)
Dr Maggie Bruck gives her expert opinion stating that all of the Sharon Krause interview techniques were improper to the extent that none of the testimony was reliable. Must read analysis. Most of the records and notes of “spontaneous” revelations and accusations were destroyed by the investigator, Sharon Krause.
IV Consensus on False Charges: Published Research Indicates Significant Percentages of Charges of Child Sex Abuse Are False (page 11, 12, 13)
Mr. Snedeker reviews some of the literature and cites the infamous Satanic Church case of Bakersfield, California. “ In 1985, California's Attorney General was asked to investigate the so-called Satanic Church case in Bakersfield, California, where up to 60 children and 77 adults were thought to be involved in a devil-worshipping sex ring. The case collapsed when the children, as if to demand incredulity, accused a deputy sheriff, a social worker, and a prosecutor who had been involved in prosecuting cases like the one brought against Ms. Malcom, of themselves being part of a baby-killing Satanic Church. The Attorney General concluded:
"If any aspect of an investigation into child sexual abuse could be called critical, it would be the victims' interviews. The manner and frequency of these interviews can determine the course of an investigation because in many of these cases the children's statements constitute almost all the evidence." (Van de Kamp, Report on the Kern County Child Abuse Investigation, California Attorney General's Office, 1986, fit 6, p. 70, attached, hereto as Exhibit F.)
Dangerous and Improper Interview Techniques Have Produced False Charges of Multi-Victim, Multi-Perpetrator Sex Abuse Cases.(pages 14)
This section is basically a review of some of the literature citing some of the now infamous cases such as the McMartin case.
Modern Consensus- False Charges Are A Reality (pages 15, 16)
How the then new view that children don’t lie about such things or make things up under suggestion has been proven false. (Deborah Poole told us that she can get 30% of kids to say that an adult hurt some part of their body in less than a couple of minutes without any apparently improper suggestions. The testimony of these children is then judged to be completely reliable by other adults!)
V Trial
Exclusion of Testimony about or from Six of Eight Children Allegedly Abused (pages 16, 17, 18)
The exclusion of the six children who were the first ones involved in this investigation was done to keep the insanity and absurdity of the children’s stories away from the jurors so as to keep the less apparently absurd charges uncontaminated by those kids’ stories.
The fact that shared information was contaminating the investigation was well known to the police who repeatedly warned the accusing neighbors to stop meeting and discussing the case. Defense counsel did not raise this issue in the trial.
Trial Counsel’s Failure to Investigate and Present a Defense (pages 18, 19, 20,21)
Basically the defense attorney was incompetent and unprepared to offer any kind of defense at all. Here more evidence of the passing on of information from parent to child and to the other parent and child, corrupting the process of investigation is discussed again, and how the defense attorney made no use of this.
“Counsel failed to grasp even the most basic potential defense strategies for the case”….
“Counsel told the court he did not want to call any of the children to say that they had never mentioned Ms. Malcom initially because there was “no evidence presented in this case that did mention her originally.” The trial court, however, clearly understood the relevance. It informed counsel – again to no avail – that it would indeed be relevant and admissible evidence to call witnesses who would testify that Ms. Malcom was not mentioned around the time of the supposed molestations, or later during the first wave of parental and police interviews. Still, counsel failed to act.”
There is much more that needs to be read here.
Testimony of Kirk and Jennifer Malcom (pages 21, 22)
Lynn’s son was under indictment for six charges of rape and, after his sister finally gave in to Sharon Krause’s pressure, realized with the “help” of his father, that accusing his mother would help him in his own case (which it did).
Lynn’s daughter, Jennifer, recanted her testimony as a young adult. I have the DVD of the recanting and will be sending you a copy.
Medical Evidence (pages 22, 23, 24)
Dr Steven Gabaeff is the board-certified in emergency medicine. Dr Gabaeff was the architect for the protocols for the proper physical examination of children suspected of being sexually abused. Dr Gabaeff completely refutes any notion that there was any evidence of sexual abuse in the case of Lynn Malcom and explains why.
Dr Mengelberg’s examination of Jennifer to determine how her anal sphincter responded lacked the control step of seeing how Jennifer responded when not sedated. Hence the evidence on which Dr Mengelberg relied was the predictable and expected effect of general anesthesia.
Dr Mengelberg’s testimony that “Jennifer’s hymen was completely dilated and gone” is flatly refuted by the photograph showing a normal hymen.
Very few doctors are really qualified to give an expert opinion about hymens. More about this on request.
Evidence exonerating Lynn Malcom in regard to the boys whose testimony to police started the examination was not presented.
Defense “counsel made no challenge”.
Trauma Evidence (pages 24, 25, 26)
Dr Kevin McGovern, who testified for the prosecution, testified as to the state of mind and behavior of the children. There is no research to back up the whole line of testimony that Dr McGovern invoked.
Dr McGovern’s expertise was sharply questioned in the case of Pard V US and even rejected.
Defense (pages 26, 27)
Lynn Malcom’s counsel did not counter any of the state’s experts.
Sentencing (pages 27, 28)
Dr Jensen put the capstone on Lynn Malcom’s Kafkaesque trial when he decided that since Lynn Malcom had passed lie detector tests, had tested out psychologically as someone who was not a child molester in a battery of nine tests, and believing to be true police reports erroneously sent to him, reports judged as false by the DA, the police and the judge, decided that she was totally dangerous..
From the clemency petition: “The overwhelming evidence, however, consisted of the medical reports described above as well as police reports and therapist Karen Gladyschild’s reports containing material that the prosecutor himself had characterized as false”.
“It was solely based on this false evidence that the psychologist labeled Ms. Malcom as a pedophile.”
VI Conclusion: Exceptional Circumstances of This Case Warrant Clemency (pages 28, 29)
“Ms. Malcom has demonstrated that she is innocent of any crime whatsoever. She has now served a decade in state prison as model prisoner. She deserves to be spared any additional confinement and continues to be irreparably harmed by her incarceration. Her conviction and incarceration has damaged her children and has brought community shame and despair to a family of previously unblemished reputation. (See Letter of Marilynn Malcom to the Governor, 9/3/96, attached hereto as Exhibit U.) She is an extraordinary person and has kept her faith in God and her faith in our criminal justice system throughout an ordeal that would have crushed people of lesser moral strength. She is supported and loved by scores of individuals in her community, including her daughter. ,„......
She has demonstrated the unreliability and injustice of the process by which she was accused and convicted. Her case is an extraordinary one, within the meaning of the statute empowering this Board to make a favorable recommendation for clemency.”