I received a telephone call at my office. On the other end was the voice of an attorney that I had previously provided my services. The case was two counts of child molestation and of course the Suspect denies the sexual assaults. The attorney asked that I come into his office for a conference and review the case for defense. I hate child molestation cases as I detest child molesters. So now I have to walk the talk of not being biased. To handle the case with integrity and honesty. The Suspect is of Hispanic origin which put up a flag concerning the case. Understand what I am now going to write. In the Hispanic culture if a married man has a mistress on the side he will not "normally" go after the daughters of the mistress. Of course there is the one exception to the rule but it does not follow the rule.
According to the police report the suspect had molested the two daughters of his mistress at two separate times. The assault on the youngest who was about five at the time at the mistresses residence. The youngest sat on the lap of the Suspect, when the small apartment was occupied by the mistress and the older daughter, while the Suspect was sitting on the living room couch and the older daughter also on the couch. The relationship background was, the mistress is a single mother of two who knows the Suspect was married. The girls were starved for male affection. Which under normal circumstances lends an opening for a pedophile to sexually assault the child. Under normal circumstances the pedophile would not be very sexually active with his spouse and/or a mistress at the same time. His focus would be heavy upon the children. The second alleged assault was upon the older daughter on a bed in a garage at a friends residence. The police report looked very solid. So now what I needed to do was check out the reported information in the report and either prove or disprove the assaults.
As I read the police report I took notes on what I should look into. The police felt that the Suspect was lying during the interrogation. One area where the police thought the Suspect was lying was the location of the assault on the oldest daughter. The suspects story was that while estranged from his wife he was staying in the garage at a friends house. Apparently the wife reported to the police a domestic violence matter with the Suspect. The police were searching for the Suspect to arrest him for domestic violence and serve a restraining order on him. The police went to the friends house looking for the Suspect. The Suspect hearing that the police were there he hid under the covers of the bottom bed of a bunk bed. He then had two girls look like they were in bed under the covers, taking a nap. He told the interrogators that he could see the police but they could not see him. They asked how that was possible. He told them the garage door was open to where he could see them but closed to where they could not see him. According to the police that was when he sexually assaulted the older girl. The police felt that was impossible so they felt he was guilty because he was lying and indicated such in the report.
I drove to the location of the assault to photograph the scene as there were no crime scene photo's by the police. Once I arrived I knew the Suspect was not lying, that further in-depth investigation was needed. How did I know he was telling the truth? The police did not do their job and investigate thoroughly the incidents. The garage door was not the typical lift garage door. It was a sliding garage door. The door needed to be slid to the left for it to be opened. So how can the door be opened and closed at the same time? The door was open (to ones perspective) and closed (to anothers perspective) by being slightly opened or partially closed. From the exterior it is difficult for a person to see inside a partially opened door especially if the outside is lighter in brightness compared to a dark interior for the human eye can not and has not adjusted to the interior environment while in the bright exterior environment. The door being only slightly opened prevented the exterior light from exposing the dark interior to the light therefor keeping the interior dark. I took photos of the location.
My next step was to interview the mistress. I interview her at her residence. Her children were placed in the care of social services at a government residence for those children not placed in foster care because of the alleged sexual assault. She told me that her sister was against her being involved with a married man. It was also mentioned that her daughter had been sexually assaulted before, by a friend. The daughter on her own reported the assault to the school. Charges were never brought against that person. I found out that the current case was developed by the sister going to the school of the older daughter and reporting the sexual assault. The school then approached the girl about the assault. The girl acknowledged the assault. The mother indicated that nothing indicated that this assault occurred. The daughter never mentioned anything or showed any change in personality.
This is what probably occurred: The sister was total mad that her sister was seeing a married man as she felt he was a real bad man. Which is not unusual for a Hispanic woman. In that rage she went to the school to make the sexual assault report to stop the Suspect from seeing her sister. Why did she do that? Because in the prior sexual assault reported by the older daughter, the aunt saw the system in action. Also notice that the daughter did not make the report, it was the aunt. Because the daughter had been through this before if there had been an actual assault the daughter new the steps to take as she had done it before. The reason the aunt did it was to get at the Suspect. Why not go directly to the police? Because this direction worked before so utilize it again.
I received a call from the attorney that under discovery he received a video tape copy of the social services interview with both girls, interviewed separately. Watching the video I noticed that the social service personnel were actually spoon feeding the older daughter the information that they wanted to hear. They asked questions such as "Did he touch you here?" pointing to a specific location and the girl would say yes. The questions that should have been asked was "what happened?" "where did he touch you?, touch the same place" etc. This would have drawn out specifics to indicate truth and knowledge. The interview with the other daughter was also very informative to the defense but the prosecution dismissed the interview because it did not go the way the prosecution wanted. The younger indicated that she was never touched inappropriately by the suspect and that her sister was also in the same room.
Now let's go back to the beginning when the police were looking for the Suspect. Remember that there were two girls on the bed under the covers? Well, I needed to find that second girl. And things went my way. There was a prelim where not only did I attend but also the mother of the girls and her sister. Outside the court room I asked if the police had re-approached them for more information. The sister/aunt was not happy with who she thought was the investigator for the defense not knowing he was the detective on the case. She thought I was the prosecution investigator. I never implied that I was the prosecutions investigator, in fact when I interviewed the mistress I identified my self as a Private Investigator for the defense and showed my State License/Identification. The sister/aunt actually gave me the name and address of the second girl and that I need to interview her. I needed to get an interview with her before the police.
My Spanish is not fluent so I brought an interpreter with me. I interviewed the second girl and her father. This is what I actually found out about that day of the alleged sexual assault. When the police came the Suspect climbed onto the bottom bunk bed and went under the covers. He then called over the girls and had one lay on top of the covers on his right and left side then had them cover themselves with another blanket to make it look like the girls were taking a nap. His full body was under the covers. So it looked like this in levels: Top blanket, two girls, blanket and sheets, Suspect. It would have been impossible for the Suspect to touch the girl. Also he was afraid of being caught, why would he do something that could draw attention to his location and expose him thereby causing him to go to jail for which he was trying to allude. Also the girls father was also in the garage and verified the incident. By the way, after receiving permission to interview the second girl I asked that the father would not be present as he was also a witness and I did not want his testimony to be influenced by her statement and her statement to be influenced by her father being there. Both then indicated that when the police left everybody got up. Nothing happened. I asked the father and daughter that if necessary would they come to court. The father looked scared. He and his daughter were illegals. He was afraid that if he went to court that the prosecution would have them arrested and deport them. I told them I would talk to the attorney. Well, I asked the attorney about their concern and he indicated that citizenship would not be part of the questioning. I went back to the residence and found that the father and daughter took off and went to ground. I wold never be able to find them in time for trial.
I told the attorney of the situation we were now in. He had a meeting with the DA and took my findings. The DA agreed to drop the sexual assault on the older girl but was going to proceed with the allegation made by the younger. Whats funny about this is, the girl was too young to testify that nothing happened to her sister but old enough to testify that something happened to her when she indicated nothing happened to her according to her. The attorney made a plea deal with the DA, rather than fight because we had no witnesses to produce in the case as they vanished. It was better to plea than get hung out to dry.
The lessons learned in this case was that even though there was evidence to prove innocence the police were only interested in statistical numbers than a thorough investigation and determining the truth. If the suspect looks good for the crime charge them and let the courts sort it out. Which is a travesty to the issue of trust in the judicial system.
No comments:
Post a Comment