Child Sexual Abuse Report

Those falsely accused of child sexual abuse may now access a national website for assistance.  Both attorneys and those falsely accused my download resources from www.falseabuse.com , or they may view topical videos.

Operated by Nichols Consulting, the national consulting firm assisting those falsely accused of child molestation, the comprehensive website includes updated national information and a blog.

Additionally, national help is available by calling the 24/7 national hotline at 800.400.8886

A comprehensive video is now available for immediate viewing that explains how Nichols Consulting provides the assistance needed to defend against false allegations of child sexual abuse.  This national consulting firm, that has been providing professional services for over 30 years, assists attorneys whose clients are the victims of false accusations of child sexual abuse.

This video, which features Edward Nichols, MSW, LCSW-R who is often acclaimed as America’s foremost clinical social worker. He has garnered the national reputation of advocating for the well-being of children by protecting them from those who would harm them in the context of false accusations of child sexual abuse.

Nichols’ national practice places great emphasis on exposing false allegation by demonstrating how children become victims of false allegations of child sexual abuse through improper interviews conducted by poorly trained personnel — particularly at departments of social services.  Help for the the falsely accused is available from Nichols Consulting’s comprehensive web site and is featured in this comprehensive video.

Nichols Consulting is located in central New York, but is available to help nationally.  Currently they have active cases in Illinois, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  Nichols consulting is as near as your telephone and operates a 24/7 hot line at 1.800.400.8886.

The problem of the suggestibility of young children in sexual abuse allegations has become one of great concern to those defending false accusations of child sexual abuse.  Clearly, when such allegations are false, it is incumbent upon the accused to provide an explanation to the court regard why a child would make such a false allegation and how such an allegation could evolve from a so called “disclosure” to a court proceeding.  We are happy to provide, in the context of the Child Suggestibility Litigation Library, the basic source documents that provide the information, insight, and practice wisdom that allows for the efficient and effective defense of false accusations of child sexual abuse wherein the issues of suggestibility, and thus the tainting of a child’s reports, are an issue.

The Litigation Library provides a comprehensive exposition of the detailed resource documents in two landmark cases:  State of New Jersey v. Margaret Kelly Michaels and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Gerald John Delbridge.  These two cases, appealed victoriously, provide all of the essential psychosocial concepts, and legal precedents, required to defend cases of false accusations of child sexual abuse, where child suggestibility is an issue.  A brief summary of these cases makes this clear:

Michaels involved the conviction of day care teacher on 115 counts involving various allegations of child sexual abuse committed on twenty children in her charge at the Wee Day Care Nursery in Maplewood, New Jersey.  On appeal, the court found evidence that child sexual abuse reports were founded on unreliable perceptions or memories caused by improper child interviewing and that admission of testimony premised upon those accusations of sexual abuse could lead to an unfair trial.  In reaching this conclusion, the court acknowledged the problem of relying on scientific and psychological theories in the context of considering the susceptibility of children to manipulative interrogations.  The court discussed the tension between the accepted legal standard that children as a class are not suspect witnesses, and the commonly held belief that children are peculiarly susceptible to undue influence. The court reviewed the various treatises written and relied upon the scientific and law enforcement communities regarding the susceptibility of children to improper child abuse interviews, and reached its conclusion as to the concept of “taint” by judicial recognition:

“We therefore determine that a sufficient consensus exists within the academic, profession, [sic] and law enforcement communities, confirmed in varying degrees by courts, to warrant the conclusion that the use of coercive or highly suggestive interrogation techniques can create a significant risk that the interrogation itself will distort the child’s recollection of events, thereby undermining the reliability of the statements and subsequent testimony concerning such events.” [State of New Jerseyv. Margaret Kelly Michaels, 642 A.2d 1372 (N.J. 1994) at 1379]

In analyzing the concept of taint as it affects the admissibility of proffered testimony, the New Jersey Courtlooked at its existing case law on the issues of suggestive pre-trial identification techniques, and the admissibility of testimony based on hypnotically induced recollections.  As those cases illustrate, evidence may be deemed inadmissible because it was corrupted by the manner in which it was collected.  The New Jersey court therefore concluded that taint was equally capable of corrupting the memory of a child witness during the interviewing for child sexual abuse.  The court identified various factors for assessing accusation of sexual abuse made by children, however, it cautioned that the list was not exhaustive and that the matter must be analyzed in the totality of the circumstances involve.  The factors identified in Michaels are: [1] the age of the alleged victim: [2] the circumstances of the questioning; [3] the alleged victim’s relationship with the interrogator; and [4] the type of questions asked.

To assist in the appeal of this case, a Committee of Concerned Social Scientists submitted an Amicus Brief which explicated the state of the science regarding the proper interview of children and how the interviewers in the Michaels case introduced suggestion and tainted the testimony of children.  This document, included in the Litigation Library, has become singularly important to establish a basic understanding of how to defend false allegations of child sexual abuse when improper child interviews have been employed. 

Ultimately, the defendant in Michaels prevailed and the New Jersey Supreme Court wrote:

“This Court has a responsibility to ensure that evidence admitted at trial is sufficiently reliable so that it may be of use to the finder of fact who will draw the ultimate conclusions of guilt or innocence.  This concern implicates principles of constitutional due process.  Reliability is the linchpin in determining admissibility of evidence under a standard of fairness that is required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Competent and reliable evidence remains at the foundation of a fair trial, which seeks ultimately to determine the truth about criminal culpability.  If crucial inculpatory evidence is alleged to be derived from unreliable sources, due process interests are at risk.”[State v. Michaels, 642 A.2d at 1380 (internal citations omitted).]

The Child Suggestibility Litigation Library contains the following resource documents from Michaels:  The Amicus Brief by the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists, the Opinion of the New Jersey Superior Court [1993]; and the Opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court [Decided June 23, 1993].

Next we turn to Delbridge, a case that changed the law in the state of Pennsylvania, and a case in which I consulted regarding the salient psychosocial issues.  This case involved two young children wherein it appeared that false sexual assault accusations were made based upon taint as a result of suggestive interviewing.  The problem was that this was a case of first impression with no precedent under Pennsylvania law to conduct a so-called “taint hearing” where the court probes into the interview process to determine if suggestive interviews may have tainted the testimony of the complaining witnesses.  Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the law in Delbridge  and ordered a taint hearing.

The most interesting part of the study of Delbridge is that originally, when the case was appealed to Superior Court, the court agreed with the trial court.  When the case was further appealed to Supreme Court, the defendant’s position prevailed.  This case provides an opportunity to see how the principles first identified in Michaels can be misapplied or successfully applied. In asserting that a child has been subjected to a suggestive interview process that has tainted a child memory – thus rendering inadmissible – the litigator must be mindful of the finer nuances of both the legal and psychosocial points that must be asserted, established and successfully argued.  The Child Suggestibility Litigation Library contains the following resource documents from Delbridge:   The Brief Of Appellant before the PA Superior Court [filed April 10, 2000]; The Opinion of the PA Superior Court [March 2001]; The Brief Of Appellant to the PA Supreme Court [Includes Exhibits], The Opinion of the PA Supreme Court.

In a professional career spanning over 25 years, it has been a rare occasion to be as pleased about a project as I am with my participation in bringing the Child Suggestibility Litigation Library to those who advocating for those falsely accused.  I believe that these materials will not only assist those who may have been falsely convicted, but perhaps more importantly, prevent false conviction where child suggestibility is a crucial issue.

On December1, 2009 the New York Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in the case of pediatric neurologist, Phillip Riback. because of the testimony of controversial psychologist, Richard Hamill and an overzealous prosecutor.  Dr. Hamill, who holds himself out as an expert in child sexual abuse, has increasingly been involved in controversial tactics in court.  In one case heard in Cooperstown, New York, Dr. Hamill testified against his own client.  While that case has not yet been appealed, New York’s Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in the Riback matter.

In late 2002 Phillip Riback was charged with criminal conduct involving sexual contact with 14 young male patients whom he treated between 1997 and 2002.  There was extensive media coverage of the defendant’s arrest and the charges he faced.    At a lengthy trial in June 2004, the prosecution presented testimony from 14 boys and their parent; the two police investigators who interviewed these children; a medical conduct investigator for the New York State Department of Health; a pediatric neurologist; and Dr. Richard Hamill, who despite the fact that he oversees one of the State’s largest sex offender treatment programs, is know as a prosecutor’s expert for hire throughout the state of New York.

The defense team was headed by the esteemed William Dreyer of Albany, who hired Edward Nichols– the nationally known consulting expert from Nichols Consulting.  The defense called personnel from defendant’s medical practice — the administrator, nursing supervisor, medical secretary, and defendant’s secretary; and parents of four other boys whom defendant had treated.  Defendant did not testify.  The defense theory, brilliantly pursued through cross-examination of the People’s witnesses and in defendant’s direct case, was that any unusual behavior that defendant displayed toward his patients was designed to create rapport and put them at ease; and that the most damning accusations made against him were the distorted or mistaken product of suggestive and coercive questioning by parent and police.

Due to an obvious tag-team type act between Dr. Hamill and the prosecutor — in which Dr. Hamill told the jury what a pedophile is and the prosecutor went overboard in summation — Dr Riback was convicted of 12 felonies and 16 misdemeanors, the County Court imposed a determinate sentence of 48 years of imprisonment and five years of post-release supervision.

The appeals court concluded that the trial court should not have allowed Dr.Hamill to define “pedophilia” and the “central characteristics” of a “pedophile”  Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine that this information was unknown to the jurors. 

In furtherance of the Dr. Hamill’s inappropriate testimony, the prosecutor told the jurors that they “heard the definition of a pedophile, didn’t you? Did you hear the definition of a pedophile from Dr. Richard Hamill? [Defendant] can’t stop.”  A little later he again linked defendant and the word “pedophile,” reminding the jurors that they “heard the definition of a pedophile. He’s have sex with boys in his office.  He’s not concentrating on medicine.  He’s not concentrating on medical questions.  He’s concerned with gratifying his own sexual desire.”

The prosecutor also commented on the presence of nationally known expert consultant, Edward Nichols: He said, “[g]et enough lawyers involved and jury consultants to make sure they pick the perfect jury.”  The appeals court wrote in ordering a new trial:  “This intimated that defendant was exploiting his wealth to engineer a sympathetic jury, and that the jurors should not let him get away with it.

Dr. Riback will get a new trial.

Edward Nichols commented, “I hope this decision spawns other appeals, and that eventually defense lawyers learn to hold Dr. Hamill’s feet to the fire”.  Nichols has made a study of Dr. Hamill’s testimony at trial.

Hi,

Recently my brother was accused of 4 felonies of child sexual abuse. My brother has a child and is not married to the mother of the child. The step mom is very controling and wants nothing more then to claim and have custody of this child. The step mom has already taken the child away from the bio mother and then tells the child your mom does not love you. The step mom is always telling the child horrible things about the mom and is very mean to the child. supposivly the child told her about a month ago that she was being touched and the step mom blew it off. The step mom wants to move to another state but my bro does not,he told her u can go but my child and i are staying here. Then my brother was not allowed to be with the child or have family be with the child and she always made the child feel very scared about being around family. # weeks later she calls me and says i just brought the child to the dr cause i think maybe something is going on. She would not let the child talk much and did most of the talking for the child. CPS was called and they told the step mom that if they found anything they would then notify the cops. The next day the step mom went to the cops and made a statement and next thing you know my bro is in jail. The dr found no evidense of any sexual abuse or anything in that nature. The judge set his bail very high and his public defender is just dumb. The child is now with this horrible woman and my bro has lost everything. She is building a case against him and has his child. Please tell me what i can do to build a case for my brother so he can be set free and his child can be back were she belongs.

Located in central  New York, Nichols Consulting, has been providing professional services to those falsely accused of child sexual abuse from coast to coast.  Recently, however, Nichols Consulting founder, Edward Nichols, has teamed up with two of New York’s most effective attorneys to bring awesome results to cases of false allegations.  Those falsely accused in New York state are urged to call our toll free hotline to discuss our services. (1.800.400.8886).  Speak personally with Mr. Nichols and find out how you may be helped.

Hi my name is Tabitha I am a 27 year old woman living in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Father of my two children has been FALSELY accused of raping our step-niece for a year. Unfortunately we could not afford a good attorney and had to have a public defender. The man my husband got stuck with didn’t do his job in any way shape or form. I had to find every shred of evidence for him against her and tell him what questions he needs to ask . Then he didn’t even use the evidence I had given him or even half of the questions. Including what he looks like down there when he is severely scarred. He has been found guilty but has not been sentenced yet. The real kicker in this case is there is NO evidence other then this girls word, and the girls own father testified for my husband and he is the only parent of the child who knows my husband and been around him and her together. I am begging for some one any one to help save my husband’s life. Please help our family save this innocent man who has the biggest heart of any one I have ever meet, a man who stops when he sees some one in trouble and tries to help in any way he can, a man who’s children miss him so much they have called 911 to take to him because to cops took daddy away and the cops phone # is 911, a man that loves his wife and children so much that he calls 15-30 times a day when he’s away from us and would never do any thing to hurt a child!!!! thank you for your time

Hi my name is Tabitha I am a 27 year old woman living in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Father of my two children has been FALSELY accused of raping our step-niece for a year. Unfortunately we could not afford a good attorney and had to have a public defender. The man my husband got stuck with didn’t do his job in any way shape or form. I had to find every shred of evidence for him against her and tell him what questions he needs to ask . Then he didn’t even use the evidence I had given him or even half of the questions. Including what he looks like down there when he is severely scarred. He has been found guilty but has not been sentenced yet. The real kicker in this case is there is NO evidence other then this girls word, and the girls own father testified for my husband and he is the only parent of the child who knows my husband and been around him and her together. I am begging for some one any one to help save my husband’s life. Please help our family save this innocent man who has the biggest heart of any one I have ever meet, a man who stops when he sees some one in trouble and tries to help in any way he can, a man who’s children miss him so much they have called 911 to take to him because to cops took daddy away and the cops phone # is 911, a man that loves his wife and children so much that he calls 15-30 times a day when he’s away from us and would never do any thing to hurt a child!!!! thank you for your time

Those falsely accused or charged with child sexual abuse often search for the “expert” that will interview the child and determine that the allegations or charges are indeed false.  This search is often unfruitful because determining whether a child was or was not sexually abused is a difficult matter.  This post will explicate why this is true.

Those attempting to determine whether a child was sexual abused, the so-called “experts” often rely on developmentally unusual sexual knowledge and behaviors.  It would seem to follow that such knowledge and behaviors would be indicative of sexual abuse.  The actual research, however, indicates otherwise:

Although quite a few symptoms and behaviors observed in sexually abused children are found in non-abused children, some behaviors are much more frequently observed in sexually abused children.   However, the research seems to indicate that these suggestions are simply not enough to conclude that a child has been sexually abuse.

The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children [APSAC] publishes The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment.  This book is considered to be the “Bible” regarding standards for assessing the abuse of children.  On the basis of all the research and experience of this national organization, they conclude: “In the final analysis, there is no behavior or set of behaviors — sexual or nonsexual — that is pathognomonic of abuse” [p. 393 -- second edition].  In simple terms, the science does not support the notion that a so-called expert can interview a child and conclude that sexual abuse has, in fact, occurred.

So what about the many falsely accused who must overcome the opinion offered by an “expert” that the child has, in fact, been sexually abuse?  What are the falsely accused to do?

This is exactly the reason that Nichols Consulting works with America’s finest law firms to controvert these wrongfully placed opinions.  We are truly the experts on how false allegations of child sexual abuse are to be forensically defended.  Our resources may be accessed by calling our national hotline — 800.400.8886.

Without question the most important thing that someone falsely accused of child sexual abuse must do is to select the right attorney.  While the sexual abuse of a child is clearly a very serious crime, so too are the false allegations of child sexual abuse.  While the law clearly states that one is presumed to be “innocent” until proven “guilty”, in child sexual abuse cases this proof is “turned on its ear”, i.e., there is, in the minds of juries the “presumption” that the defendant is “guilty” until proven “innocent”.  Only the finest and most experienced attorney will do in this situation.

The facts are clear:  There is certainly a difference between defending someone who is “guilty” as opposed to someone who is “innocent”.  This is the difference: When an accused person is guilty the only defenses are technical, i.e. what is or is not going to be used at trial to convict the accused.  When the accused is innocent, the facts are on their side.  It is the “factual” case that will win at the end of the day.

So let us explore this further:  The simple truth is that 95% of those accused of child sexual abuse are, in fact, guilty.  Doing the arithmetic, that would mean that in order for an attorney to statistically represent one person “falsely” accused, he or she would have to represent 19 clients who were in fact guilty.  Most attorneys do not have that kind of experience.

Selection the right attorney, therefore, becomes very difficult.  Add to this the problem of what I call “Internet predator law firms”.  There are so-called “national law firms” that claim to have the best attorneys in the nation.  Often headed by attorneys who are in fact entrepreneurs who have never practiced law, these firms seek out local attorneys who will work “on the cheap”.  Is this what you want?

While these so-called “national” firms are everywhere, there are a number of California firms known for their unethical practice.  One such firm was barred from the Internet after over 70 clients had paid for attorneys who were never paid by the so-called “national” law firm.  No doubt there are those in prison today that made the mistake of sending money to a California firm claiming to be “national”.

So, what is the solution?  For over 25 years Nichols Consulting has been working side-by-side with some of America’s finest attorneys.  We recommend attorneys solely on the basis of their demonstrated abilities.  When we are not familiar with an attorney in your area, we will do the research and interview attorneys for you.  Our national experience has taught us the difference between a bogus, so-called “national” law firm, and the real thing, i.e., an attorney that is experience, honest, and able to work within a team to defend those falsely accused of child molestation.  Don’t settle for anything less.

For more information, give me a call at 1.800.400.8886.

Once again Nichols Consulting is on the job in Georgia defending a school teacher falsely accused of child sexual abuse in a very complicated matter.  Working hand-in-glove with one of Atlanta’s top criminal defense attorneys, Nichols Consulting has set a proactive agenda designed to prevent indictment and counter the false allegations.

Based on the recent number of false allegations cases reported in Georgia, Nichols Consulting is considering the possiblity of starting a special defense project in the state.  It is very important to counter the false allegations at the investigative level, before criminal charges are made.  Nichols Consulting has amassed an impressive national reputation in terms of achieving this end.

Our methods for countering the false allegations are outlined in our book:  False Allegations Of Child Sexual Abuse, and this book, as well as other valuable materials, are available for immediate download from this site [see sidebar or visit our main site at: www.falseabuse.com .