You're right on the above. In his case she was right, but she was also a family friend so may not have been perfectly unbiased in her judgement. On the other hand, knowing my brother since birth, I think she knew he was not capable of that level of guile. But yes, I'm sure she wouldn't get on the stand and say she absolutely knows the truth because of this type of statement. Generalizations that make her feel comfortable in her approach to counseling doesn't mean undeniable truth.

And you're also right that we are still discussing this as "innocent until proven guilty." He was proven guilty so now there is/should be no presumption of innocence. But we know innocent people are declared guilty every day, which rounds us back to the top again. I know I am too righteously indignant to roll over, and I'd like to think that would apply to threat of jail, but who knows what I would do when confronted with this question in real life. In my brother's case, the whole mess fell apart in less than 2 weeks so he didn't have to face this either.

I used to think this too. Unfortunately it's just not reality for many people. Unless you have a lot of money, it can be absolutely debilitating to fight charges. And innocent people are charged, often because they trust the system and trust that there won't be evidence since they are innocent. Evidence comes in many different forms, and innocence is not the protection that it should be.

As for the rest of the thread, I hope that everyone who us ganging up on Kevin can see how much kettle they are to his pot. I don't agree with how he has stated his opinions, but there are others who have been his equal on many levels.

DubaiSis, what I'm wondering is do "we" always hold on to the "innocent people are sometimes found guilty" theme? If "we" do, what's the point of guilty verdicts?

;) The thread seems to be moving beyond Kevin so if you take issue with this back and forth don't hypocritically perpetuate the back and forth.

The point of guilty verdicts is to be able to mete out punishment. Our justice system is good but in no way perfect. So short of insisting that people actually, dare I say it, do the right thing, what can you do beyond argue about it? Hopefully you keep up the good fight, hold judges to account for bad decisions when you think they've occurred, and actually serve on juries when you're called. What else can we do? OK, raise kids to be good people and good citizens, not watch news that is known to be ridiculously flawed, but watch more that is known to be more accurate...

LOL. I was more wondering when it is appropriate to use the "sometimes a guilty verdict doesn't mean guilty" argument. That argument is definitely not used across crimes and across demographics.

I can think of plenty of times when someone is found guilty, some people are still arguing the person's innocence, and the response is to either find the resources to appeal or get over it.

This article gives a lot more detail about all of it-
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2014303190072

This includes information that he admitted to molesting his son as well, after he was already on probation from the plea bargain he accepted for the original charges of molesting his daughter.

There's no such thing as not taking a side. If you choose to decide that you don't know what happened, you are then saying you don't believe the victim and her testimony. When we talk about the legal system, you can say that you don't believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are saying that you think the victim is not trustworthy, and that means you have taken a side.

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

Right.

I'm also reminded of the McMartin preschool scandal where most of the kids have come forward and admitted that they said what they said to please the adults who were asking. They weren't abused.

From the article Dee posted, it sounds like there was medical evidence consistent with what was alleged. Interviews get a little murky.

The point is that *someone* has to be lying. The accused, the child, or I suppose in some scenarios, a third party who is trying to use the child to damage the accused (see: Woody Allen). If you say "I don't know who is telling the truth," you are deciding that the accused is not credible, and you'd rather err on the side of believing him than on the side of believing her. As far as the law goes, that's a good thing...innocent until proven guilty and all that, but as far as a bunch of us jerks Monday-morning quarterbacking on a GC thread, I will choose to believe a child who has been victimized over an adult who has shown a pattern of sexually predatory behavior towards children.

Based on that, I'm still not sure. The daughter, now eleven claims she was abused when she was three. At that age, I don't see how she can have a reliable memory of what happened when she was that age and as to any medical evidence, a lot happens to a body between the ages of 3 and 11, so if there was any medical evidence, its cause could never be traced to abuse by her father.

As to the polygraph, pass or fail, is generally inadmissible, so the court would still have to rely on the testimony of a very young child, or an 11 year old talking about her memories from when she was 3 which would be destroyed by anyone on cross examination. I can understand why the plea was offered.

It also looks like the ex is hoping for big money here. It would appear they've hired PR people (or maybe their law firm has a PR firm on retainer) and are attempting to contaminate the jury pool.

I'm simply amazed he didn't contact a lawyer before volunteering for a lie detector test. That's just dumb. That at least shows he was either extremely arrogant in that he thought he could beat the thing or dumb as rocks.

What is the earliest age of memory for most people, especially for allegedly traumatic events? I remember both good and bad things from when I was in preschool (4) and elementary school (5). I'm almost 40.

Is it unreasonable for an 11 year old to remember something from the age of 3? Not if grown adults can remember something from preschool and elementary school.

The issue would be having a detailed memory that includes the full context and correct interpretation/translation of events.

I have memory of falling off a bicycle (actually my memory is of waking up indoors after falling off my bike in the street) at around 4. I also have a memory at age 2 of my family eating my birthday cake while I was in bed with the mumps. This is a perfect example of how a memory can be completely wrong. I remember it plain as day, but it was in fact my brother's birthday they were celebrating, which is only a few days after mine. It still would have been traumatic for a 2 year old and understanding the difference between MY cake and his would be lost on a 2 year old. And wrong.

The defendant only needs reasonable doubt. In the criminal context. In the civil context, the burden will be much lower, but still, there are going to be a number of barriers to the plaintiff before this 11 year old would be allowed to testify.

I don't think she'll really need to though, the civil trial will be about damages. His defense at this point can't be "I didn't do it," he is going to have to say, "I did it, but she shouldn't be paid because _____."

I can't imagine many jurors will find him persuasive.

Yes, I know.

DuBaiSis and I are interested in the ability or inability of people to accurately remember things from as young as 3.

I believe I heard that the Defendant in this case has another child, male, that has also alleged sexual abuse at the hands of the father. I think it was a half sibling to the victim in this case.

In thinking whether this guy actually did it or not, I'm not sure I find this all that important. Looking at it from the side of the accused, this would only make it more likely that a vindictive ex might coach a child to falsely accuse the father in search of money.

When the original incident and arrest happened, the child was around 4. The Free Press article said she told her grandmother about it in October, 2007. She is 11 now and that was 6-7 years ago. This new civil suit is more recent, but the original occurrence (and plea bargain) were when the children were young enough to remember those recent events.

Memory before the age of 5 is very sketchy. I had memories of going to feed the neighbor's lion in his cage when I was around 3. I asked my mom about it when I was grown and she informed me they had a collie who had a kennel behind their garage. Much less exciting, clearly!

I have very vague memories of being in a cabin and my dad trying to kill bats. That really happened, when I was about 2 1/2. The same vacation, some geese attacked me and I have a vague recollection of that. Both events would have felt pretty scary to me and I believe that's why I remember them.

Psychologists generally agree on 3 years.

Memories at those young ages are very susceptible to modification.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftu...cles/sciam.htm

I've seen 4 year olds totally convinced that their father molested them. Fortuanately, in those cases, the forensic interview ruled it out. That doesn't mean that a well-researched parent couldn't train the kid up well enough to pass the interview.

Thanks.

Yes, I know. Hence....

None of that is relevant in this case because the man confessed to molesting both children years ago, when he first took the plea bargain. Wouldn't that be admissable evidence in the civil case?

I think there were two pleas.

But yes. It's just going to be a question of damages at this point in the civil case. Where I think it may be squishy (and it may not be, YMMV from state to state) is whether the father will be allowed to testify that he only plead guilty because he got no time and was already a registered sex-offender, which beat a chance, however small of going to prison.

I'm sure his more than capable law firm has that angle figured out.