It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
District 18 Assistant District Attorney Adam Scharn plans to appeal against Sheets’ decision from Monday.
It seems extremely odd, or intentional, that neither of the Pittsburgh County Sheriff’s investigators nor the nurse from the hospital were called to testify, in essence leaving a 4-year-old abuse victim’s testimony on the stand as the sole source on which the judge ultimately base his decision.
Who made the decision not to call the nurse or the investigator; and for what reason?
Read more at thefreethoughtproject.com...
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: musicismagic
District 18 Assistant District Attorney Adam Scharn plans to appeal against Sheets’ decision from Monday.
Here is a picture of the NAMBLA judge.
There is interesting information about the case there. Everyone should check it out.
dailyhaze.com...
www.law.cornell.edu...
b) Alternatives to Live In-Court Testimony.—
(1) Child’s live testimony by 2-way closed circuit television.—
(A) In a proceeding involving an alleged offense against a child, the attorney for the Government, the child’s attorney, or a guardian ad litem appointed under subsection (h) may apply for an order that the child’s testimony be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised by 2-way closed circuit television. The person seeking such an order shall apply for such an order at least 7 days before the trial date, unless the court finds on the record that the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.
(B) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by closed-circuit television as provided in subparagraph (A) if the court finds that the child is unable to testify in open court in the presence of the defendant, for any of the following reasons:
(i) The child is unable to testify because of fear.
(ii) There is a substantial likelihood, established by expert testimony, that the child would suffer emotional trauma from testifying.
(iii) The child suffers a mental or other infirmity.
(iv) Conduct by defendant or defense counsel causes the child to be unable to continue testifying.
(C) The court shall support a ruling on the child’s inability to testify with findings on the record. In determining whether the impact on an individual child of one or more of the factors described in subparagraph (B) is so substantial as to justify an order under subparagraph (A), the court may question the minor in chambers, or at some other comfortable place other than the courtroom, on the record for a reasonable period of time with the child attendant, the prosecutor, the child’s attorney, the guardian ad litem, and the defense counsel present.
(D) If the court orders the taking of testimony by television, the attorney for the Government and the attorney for the defendant not including an attorney pro se for a party shall be present in a room outside the courtroom with the child and the child shall be subjected to direct and cross-examination. The only other persons who may be permitted in the room with the child during the child’s testimony are—
(i) the child’s attorney or guardian ad litem appointed under subsection (h);
(ii) persons necessary to operate the closed-circuit television equipment;
(iii) a judicial officer, appointed by the court; and
(iv) other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child, including an adult attendant.
The child’s testimony shall be transmitted by closed circuit television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the defendant, jury, judge, and public. The defendant shall be provided with the means of private, contemporaneous communication with the defendant’s attorney during the testimony. The closed circuit television transmission shall relay into the room in which the child is testifying the defendant’s image, and the voice of the judge.
Cathey said in the incident report he went to PC-Care in McAlester to have a sexual assault exam and a forensic interview conducted on the child in connection with the investigation. A DHS agent conducted a forensic interview and an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse conducted an examination on the child.
The examiner concluded physical evidence supported the allegation that a sexual assault occurred, the incident report states.
I can't think of any other reason a judge would make the decisions that he did.
Cathey then contacted the state Department of Human Services and requested a joint response to further investigate the incident and to try to learn if it did in fact take place, the report states. A DHS agent arrived at the hospital to assist in the investigation. The joint response team consists of professionals including law enforcement officers, a district attorney’s representative, a mental health expert, DHS representatives and others trained to respond to allegations of child abuse or neglect.
all emphases mine
When a 16-year-old McAlester girl started getting lewd comments from an Internet stranger, her mother's boyfriend stepped in. Or rather, he sat in. At the computer.
Carl Appel, 39, set up a fake online profile for himself in March and, posing as a 13-year old girl, entered the world of chat rooms and instant messaging. Soon he was approached by the same man with the same lewd comments.
...
All along, Appel worked with McAlester police detectives to ensure he was handling the case properly. Every week, he took a disk of the conversations, plus photos, to the McAlester Police Department.
McAlester Detective Martin Stites oversaw the case and kept any evidence Appel collected.
...
Now they're determined to learn more about preventing what Stites predicts to be a growing problem, even in small-town Oklahoma.
The McAlester Police Department said Flora has no prior criminal record.
"Our role was to really maintain the safety and well-being of the parties involved, and it went down real well, Stites said.