|
Post by Further You on Apr 7, 2008 23:27:22 GMT -5
Left something out of your review.
While the victim and defendant were in Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether defendant had violated the terms of the PPO, the Wayne Circuit Court Judge ordered defendant to submit to a polygraph test. Prior to the test, defendant was advised of his Miranda rights.1 Following the test, defendant, after again being advised of his Miranda rights, allegedly told
The Defendant had the right to refuse the polygraph base on Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).
It appears that you are wrong in that this defendant did not object based on the possibility of self incrimination.
|
|
|
Post by aussiegal on Apr 8, 2008 5:46:42 GMT -5
Howdy Gary, If you want drop me an email to: bescottross@aol.com If you weren't anywhere near the state, and feel as if you were falsely accused, maybe I can help you out. Scott don't you think you've done enough? you are the accusers. later, after everything is done, you want to go back and check to see if maybe they were falsely accused. Scott is not the accuser and has never been the accuser. I believe he is genuine in his offer of help to Gary. There has been so much speculation on this board about this case... but from what I've seen of Scott he has remained impartial (as he should do) and intent on only reporting fact. He has not accused anyone of a crime - he has reported what has happened of the information that he knows and in is in a position to know.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2008 8:25:32 GMT -5
Howdy Gary, If you want drop me an email to: bescottross@aol.com If you weren't anywhere near the state, and feel as if you were falsely accused, maybe I can help you out. Scott don't you think you've done enough? you are the accusers. later, after everything is done, you want to go back and check to see if maybe they were falsely accused. Please, start a new thread and show us where Scott has been the accuser. Or at least state why you think so.
|
|
|
Post by ram unplugged on Apr 8, 2008 9:14:46 GMT -5
Remember too, many defence lawyers try to avoid long drawn out trials in court. That's the equivelent of earning their money the hard way. Advising their clients to go for a "no contest" plea could mean they will manage "that round of golf" later in the day. This also goes for judges and even prosecutors.
Believe me, I have seen this happen first hand. I can recall one incident where plea bargaining (we don't have "no contest" where I'm from, but there are other dilution practices) was done to guarantee a female judge her horse riding arrangements in the afternoon. A trial had been set for the day, but the plea bargaining seriously watered down the number and severity of the charges to the point it was sickening. Being party to what was going on made me puke, however those involved (i.e. victim + witnesses) were oblivious to the real reasons behind the "deal."
|
|
|
Post by words on Apr 8, 2008 9:26:21 GMT -5
Left something out of your review. While the victim and defendant were in Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether defendant had violated the terms of the PPO, the Wayne Circuit Court Judge ordered defendant to submit to a polygraph test. Prior to the test, defendant was advised of his Miranda rights.1 Following the test, defendant, after again being advised of his Miranda rights, allegedly toldThe Defendant had the right to refuse the polygraph base on Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). It appears that you are wrong in that this defendant did not object based on the possibility of self incrimination. Looks like the argument is over "Court Ordered" v. "Court Forced" Since a polygraph does take some degree of cooperation forcing would be out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by ohreally on Apr 8, 2008 10:32:56 GMT -5
don't you think you've done enough? you are the accusers. later, after everything is done, you want to go back and check to see if maybe they were falsely accused. Scott is not the accuser and has never been the accuser. from what I've seen of Scott he has remained impartial and intent on only reporting fact. hey, thanks for the laugh, i needed that! ;D we report, you decide, huh? believe any thing that is written by anonymous people, even if it seems absurd, like this post is.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 8, 2008 11:09:08 GMT -5
Note; Sorry for the mistake below, I have edited it in red. There may be a difference in how lie detector tests are used in the investigation leading up to the trial vs the trial itself. Lie detector tests appear to be used fairly often during CPS investigations. Also what is being "reported" on this thread are facts about *allegations*, this needs to be kept straight. Allegations are not legally facts until a guilty verdict is returned by the court/jury. It is a fact the news media reported that allegations of sexual abuse and prostitution have been made, but it is not yet a legal fact that sexual abuse and/or prostitution actually occured. That may not even be non-legal fact either. This is why Apple's advice is very good advice. When considering allegations vs facts it is interesting to look at actual numbers from the Administration for Children and Families Children's Bureau - these are CPS's own numbers; During Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006:
- Approximately 3,300,000 allegations of child abuse and neglect including 6.0 million children were made to CPS agencies.
- About 62 percent (61.7% 2,036,100) of those allegations reached the report stage and either were investigated or received an alternative response.
- Nearly 30 percent (28.6% Edit **582,324**) of the investigations that reached the report stage determined that at least one child was a victim of child abuse or neglect.
>> Source << Those numbers show 2,717,675 of the 3,300,000 allegations (82.4%) were inactionable. If they were factual and solid accusations all 3.3 million would have been actionable, when considering this it seems the only logical conclusion one can draw is that the inactionable allegations were either false and/or very flimsy. Looking further into CPS data we see CPS groups "intentionally false" allegations in with what they classify as "unsubstantiated" allegations. Their definition of unsubstantiated is; "An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated." Thus what CPS determines to be unsubstantiated allegations may not be obvious "intentionally false" allegations but still are, at best, unintentionally false allegations. One would think CPS doesn't view it as their duty to put a lot of effort into determining if an unsubstantiated allegation is "intentionally" false or not. That would likely be the domain of law enforcement and there are laws to that effect; >> NYS Laws Regarding Falsely Reporting Child Abuse and Maltreatment <<Here is a graph showing the sources reporting allegations to CPS; Notice "alleged victims" very rarely report allegations, thus it stands to reason their percentage of "intentionally false" allegations would be very low. The problems with children's imaginations seem to have come out in the investigation stage when CPS investigators try things like recovering "repressed memories". >> Day care sex abuse hysteria. << This is another interesting graph showing how credible professional vs non-professional sources are, a dispostion is a CPS determination if the allegation is actionable or not; CPS does not consider clergy to be a "professional" source, they are grouped in with "other" non-professional sources. This page appears to be a good objective guideline for churches; >> How Child Abuse Reporting Laws Apply to Ministers and Lay Church Employees <<Jesse
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 8, 2008 11:27:55 GMT -5
Howdy Jesse! Thanks for the interesting information you shared. Very informative. Also what is being "reported" on this thread are facts about *allegations*, this needs to be kept straight. Allegations are not legally facts until a guilty verdict is returned by the court/jury. It is a fact the news media reported that allegations of sexual abuse and prostitution have been made, but it is not yet a legal fact that sexual abuse and/or prostitution actually occured.You are absolutely correct. I have ONLY posted what has become public information in one of the cases in Michigan. I don't plan on putting anything here that isn't a matter of court documents or reported in the media. So my 'facts' are those things which become a public record. Interestingly enough, I have been accused of making false accusations, when in fact a good portion of my posts have been in defense of how the workers are handling the issue in an open and honest manner consistent with how these issues should be handled. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 11:37:04 GMT -5
can you point out the posts that criticize you for telling the truth?
|
|
Apples
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by Apples on Apr 8, 2008 12:22:49 GMT -5
Left something out of your review. While the victim and defendant were in Wayne Circuit Court to determine whether defendant had violated the terms of the PPO, the Wayne Circuit Court Judge ordered defendant to submit to a polygraph test. Prior to the test, defendant was advised of his Miranda rights.1 Following the test, defendant, after again being advised of his Miranda rights, allegedly toldThe Defendant had the right to refuse the polygraph base on Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). It appears that you are wrong in that this defendant did not object based on the possibility of self incrimination. You are correct, it is my error. I was assuming the way a judge (court) forced something was to issue a court order - do this or suffer the consequences. Whether it it was legal or if the person took the test is a moot point. I was only addressing the fact that courts do issue orders for taking a polygraph.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 8, 2008 12:54:15 GMT -5
Howdy Jesse! Thanks for the interesting information you shared. Very informative. You are absolutely correct. I have ONLY posted what has become public information in one of the cases in Michigan. I don't plan on putting anything here that isn't a matter of court documents or reported in the media. So my 'facts' are those things which become a public record. Interestingly enough, I have been accused of making false accusations, when in fact a good portion of my posts have been in defense of how the workers are handling the issue in an open and honest manner consistent with how these issues should be handled. Scott Scott, Yes, it is a fact allegations have been made, a fact those allegations have been published by the media, a fact the media reports were published here at TMB. But people need to remember - the mere publishing of allegations does not mean the allegations themselves are facts. The CSP data above shows allegations reported to them are NOT facts over 80% of the time. I know you understand this - and hope everyone else reading this does too. Apples's good advice --> "If you don't know sometimes it is better to just sit quietly and watch." thanks, Jesse
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 8, 2008 13:37:47 GMT -5
Sorry Scott, I meant to remind everyone of Apple's advice not just you.
Thanks, Jesse
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 13:51:18 GMT -5
"the mere publishing of allegations does not mean the allegations themselves are facts. "
Jesse, while your statement is perfectly true, it is problematic along with the statistics you published here which report that 80% of allegations are inactionable.
You seem to be inferring that since 80% of allegations are inactionable, then that means 80% of allegations are not true. That is simply not correct. It only means that the information available to investigators is not sufficient for a good chance of a conviction. We will never know what proportion of those "inactionable" 80% are true allegations and factual.
Here is a hypothetical case in point which is probably a common inactionable complaint. Whenever a neighbour child arrives home from school, yelling and screaming ensue, along with regular noises, crying and crashing. The neighbour is concerned for the child and calls CPS. CPS arrives to investigate and hears from the accused and alleged victim that everything is fine, so CPS marks that one down to "inactionable", and the beatings continue. The child victim of course was too scared to tell on his abuser. I suspect that this kind of example goes on every day in the job of a CPS investigator.
My guess, and only my guess, is that only a tiny % of that 80% of inactionable complaints are truly false accusations where a neighbour or a family member is trying to use CPS as a weapon. You would have to be a very twisted soul to do so, but no doubt there are a few out there.
Yes, it is possible that the girls in this case are such examples of twisted sisters, but my life's experience tells me that where there is smoke, there is almost always fire. It is probably true that of those 80% of inactionable allegations, there is a whole lot of abuse going on. Some people do get away with murder.....and other things.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 8, 2008 14:35:47 GMT -5
You seem to be inferring that since 80% of allegations are inactionable, then that means 80% of allegations are not true. "Inactionable" was my word but that is what *CPS* seems to be saying if you consider the information they themselves provide. A determination is made after an investigation. Again the definition of "unsubstantiated" according to CPS is; "An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated." They say nothing about conviction, it is not the job of CPS to convict. CPS is saying that after their investigation of the reported allegations they cannot conclude or even suspect there was maltreatment or even risk of maltreatment. Thus they cannot take any action, ie remove the child, recommend improvements in the home or for the parents, or take it to the law. CPS is doing a very poor job of investigating reported allegations if they make very many "unsubstantiated" determinations in error. Have you found solid evidence of poor CPS investigation in this respect? thanks, Jesse
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 15:27:05 GMT -5
"An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated."
Perhaps I am interpreting the quoted stats wrongly or am misunderstanding Jesse. "Unsubstantiated" cases is only ONE category of inactionable categories. It is nowhere near 80% of all cases reported. 80% appears to embrace all categories of inactionable or cases which do not result in successful prosecution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 15:41:52 GMT -5
"An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated." Perhaps I am interpreting the quoted stats wrongly or am misunderstanding Jesse. "Unsubstantiated" cases is only ONE category of inactionable categories. It is nowhere near 80% of all cases reported. 80% appears to embrace all categories of inactionable or cases which do not result in successful prosecution. The problem is the ''sensationalizm'' that the term ''abuse'' is currently receiving! And its a given that when someone uses that particular term, no matter the degree of ''abuse'' , as long as it is used, it gets everyones attention!
My guess that the term will play full circle, until people get sick and tired of the term, and then the CPS will have to invent another term to get ''reactionary'' sensations from the general public.
If someone steps on my toe , I could call that action, ''abuse''. If someone looks at me wrong, I could claim harrassment. If I don't like the abuse I have to suffer when he mows his lawn , ''too early'' in the morning for my tastes.
Abuse , is a loaded word, and pretty soon CHICKEN LITTLE will be crying that the sky really is falling, and people will turn a deaf ear.
Seems like one of Aesop's fables, for whatever they are worth, huh??? just some thoughts....not meant to justify the wrongs and sins of anyone
|
|
|
Post by I am guilty on Apr 8, 2008 15:49:32 GMT -5
I think lying is abuse I think sin against another is abuse I think sin against god is abuse
it depends on how you define ''abuse''.
should we further sensationalize it as ''HURTFUL abuse'' and then have a scale of 1-10 , with a ten being ''felony abuse'', [would that be murder, I don't know?]
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 8, 2008 15:54:28 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I made a huge mistake in the post above, Ill correct it in red. Here is another way of looking at it. In 2006 CPS recieved approximately 3,300,000 allegations of child abuse and neglect including 6.0 million children were made to CPS agencies. 38.3% (1,263,900) of those were screened out apparently as not viable for investigation. >>Source<<Here is what CPS investigations determined for the remaining 2,036,100; Here are CPS definitions for those results; - Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not identified as a victim when a response other than an investigation was provided.
- Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was identified as a victim when a response other than an investigation was provided.
- Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that maltreatment could not be substantiated under State law or policy, but there was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions.
- Substantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or State policy.
- Unsubstantiated: An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated.
Jesse
|
|
|
Post by honesty on Apr 8, 2008 15:56:52 GMT -5
H. Ross Perot used a lot of charts also.
|
|
|
Post by TrollyOllie on Apr 8, 2008 16:41:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I made a huge mistake in the post above, Ill correct it in red. Here is another way of looking at it. In 2006 CPS recieved approximately 3,300,000 allegations of child abuse and neglect including 6.0 million children were made to CPS agencies. 38.3% (1,263,900) of those were screened out apparently as not viable for investigation. >>Source<<Here is what CPS investigations determined for the remaining 2,036,100; Here are CPS definitions for those results; - Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not identified as a victim when a response other than an investigation was provided.
- Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was identified as a victim when a response other than an investigation was provided.
- Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that maltreatment could not be substantiated under State law or policy, but there was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions.
- Substantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or State policy.
- Unsubstantiated: An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated.
Jesse I must add one very important point with those statistics. I will agree that on the surface it looks like the CPS fails by being over zealous. I believe it is better to error in the side of caution then let real issues of abuse pass. Hence, this is why there is such a large % of cases not substantiated or not supported for further action. By law they must pursue all complaints for initial review. This account for the large % of non issue cases. I do know however that many cases they do find valid get tied up in legal tic-tac-toe and in the end some poor child ends up being abused horribly. It is this failure which I find appalling and it is a result of many things wrong in the system. Never the less, I would be very upset of CPS came to my door with an inquiry as to the well bing of children as a result of some false claim; but on the other hand would be glad that they are at least checking out the complaints in the first place. From under the bridge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 16:57:32 GMT -5
Jesse, Thanks for posting the piechart. Are you able to give us details of what constitutes "sufficient evidence" under state law to conclude or suspect a child has been or is at risk of maltreatment ?
I am not acquaint too much with investigation standards in the USA. I suspect (at the risk of being way wrong) that sufficient evidence would need to include facts over and above a child's testimony, e.g. forensic evidence, doctor's report re injuries etc, admission by Accused; in fact anything that would support a child's testimony.
Very often these matters come to light some time after an offence has occurred. The opportunities for gathering evidence have greatly diminished, any injuries/bruises may have healed, late reporting itself asks its own questions although allowances may be made in certain circumstances. Unless the child abuse involves actual penetration you may only have a child's testimony which by itself mayl not be regarded as sufficient evidence ?
It is interesting that although the "unsubstantiated" percentage is very high, those cases deemed intentionally false are almost non-existant, therefore it is my view that the unsubstantiated percentage includes those cases where it is "perceived" by whoever is reporting the case that an offence "may have" occurred to those where the level or nature of evidence is insufficient to meet the state law standards (which will be substantive) to indicate an offence has occurred.
Example:-
Adult male sexually abuses a female child by fondling private parts. Matter comes to light two-three weeks later. Doctor's examination reveals nothing of evidential value and suspect denies the allegation. No other person was present. It is the child's word against the perpetrator. No other evidence is found. Conclusion - allegation is unsubstantiated ?
It is very nigh impossible to prove such cases in isolation. The character and awareness of the child may be taken into consideration to give a feel if he/she was telling the truth, but this would not in itself substantiate or corroborate her testimony. Also prosecutors have to bear in mind persons of tender years will have to give evidence in court if any charges are denied by the Accused. Any average defence lawyer would dance rings round a child in these circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 8, 2008 17:37:46 GMT -5
If you look at the report source chart in post 174 you can see the initial reports do not seem to come from CPS. It looks to me like the *reporting to CPS* might be over zealous if <20% of the reports are viable and actionable. One should remember those classified as professionals by the CPS are legally liable for not reporting suspected abuse. It seems reasonable they will err on the side of over reporting. I would doubt much if any of this over-reporting ie "report if there is any doubt" or "err on the side of caution" is considered "intentionally false" by CPS. Like I said above if this kind of report turns out to be false - it is "unintentionally" false or maybe what CPS calls "unsubstantiated". If these "unintentionally" false, "unsubstantiated", and screened out reports are not hurting people that means we are erring heavily on the side of caution in a good way. Ram - as I understand it real physical evidence is not needed, CPS investigators use other methods to try and cut through the he said- she said senario. You might find some information on how that is done here; >> Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment Issues <<Thanks, Jesse
|
|
|
Post by been thinking on Apr 8, 2008 17:55:51 GMT -5
lets just say someone hurt if someone ''mutilated'' my private parts, does that mean they give it a spanking. ? is that what abuse means , to hurt my private parts? just wondering
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 18:01:04 GMT -5
Hi Jesse, thanks.
It appears the investigation includes not only CPS caseworkers but also law enforcement officers, doctors, mental health practitioners and any other professionals who may be able to assist. Doctors examine the child, law enforcement officers gather evidence, Accused persons are interviewed, etc, so really the investigation is about gathering evidence to support the child's testimony or otherwise.
It is the manner in which the investigation takes place which differs from many other cases because is specifically sensitive to the mental and physical conditions of young children. It is nevertheless an evidence gathering exercise but one in which is carried out in a very sensitive way in order to try and establish the true facts.
|
|
|
Post by social worker on Apr 8, 2008 18:23:06 GMT -5
if someone ''mutilated'' my private parts, does that mean they give it a spanking. ? is that what abuse means , to hurt my private parts? just wondering[/quote Are you a troll? Abuse doesn't mean to hurt someone on their private parts, it means that the perp enjoys touching. The cases are closed, if the perp did not get any enjoyment from his actions.
|
|
|
Post by fables on Apr 8, 2008 18:26:45 GMT -5
"An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated." Perhaps I am interpreting the quoted stats wrongly or am misunderstanding Jesse. "Unsubstantiated" cases is only ONE category of inactionable categories. It is nowhere near 80% of all cases reported. 80% appears to embrace all categories of inactionable or cases which do not result in successful prosecution. The problem is the ''sensationalizm'' that the term ''abuse'' is currently receiving! And its a given that when someone uses that particular term, no matter the degree of ''abuse'' , as long as it is used, it gets everyones attention!
My guess that the term will play full circle, until people get sick and tired of the term, and then the CPS will have to invent another term to get ''reactionary'' sensations from the general public.
If someone steps on my toe , I could call that action, ''abuse''. If someone looks at me wrong, I could claim harrassment. If I don't like the abuse I have to suffer when he mows his lawn , ''too early'' in the morning for my tastes.
Abuse , is a loaded word, and pretty soon CHICKEN LITTLE will be crying that the sky really is falling, and people will turn a deaf ear.
Seems like one of Aesop's fables, for whatever they are worth, huh??? just some thoughts....not meant to justify the wrongs and sins of anyonewho is Aesop have to do with abuse? I dont get it.
|
|
sarahjane
Junior Member
"Think it'll work? It'd take a miracle. Bye-bye!"
Posts: 117
|
Post by sarahjane on Apr 8, 2008 21:46:13 GMT -5
Social worker, Are you serious? I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or are being serious...
|
|
|
Post by Class listing on Apr 8, 2008 22:26:10 GMT -5
who is Aesop have to do with abuse? I dont get it. I think Aesop taught Sentence Structure 101. From your response it is clear you didn't get it.
|
|