Watchman

Gaelic

TRAITORS

Medicine?

The Personal Nightmare of a Man Falsely Accused of Rape

by James Donald Anderson

 CHAPTER 1

MY PERSONAL NIGHTMARE

In the summer of 1985 I was 24 years old and naive to the workings of our legal system. I was unaware of the subtle conspiracy against men by the radical feminist movement. I am from a middle class upbringing in California and had a stable family life. In school I had been in a program for mentally gifted minors (MGM), and upon graduating from high school I joined the Air Force. After the service I guess I wouldn't be considered a "choir boy," and had been arrested for several minor alcohol related misdemeanor charges.

 I moved to Alaska and worked hard as a commercial fisherman. I played hard, sometimes too hard. I occasionally spent a couple days in a county jail somewhere for a minor alcohol related charge.

The summer of '85 I met a young woman in an alcohol treatment center I had checked myself into. We became friends and on our last night there we had sex. This innocent sexual encounter of so many years ago would change my life forever, take me places I never dreamed I would go, and show me injustices I could never imagine existed. This woman I had sex with would turn out to be sick and would falsely accuse me of rape. Four years later, I would find myself in front of a jury as they pronounced me guilty. I would go to a maximum security prison to serve ten years for my "crime." I would escape, be recaptured and given even more prison time. I would have numerous articles written about my wrongful conviction and I would start a national organization for innocent men in prison. I would even get the attention of the Governor of Oregon who may commute my prison term.

 In that summer of 1985, I had been staying with a relative of mine in Oregon. Things were not working out for us. We did not get along. I had been drinking too much and not acting very responsible.

 I decided to leave my relatives, visit my parents in California and then return to Alaska. Before I left for California I checked myself into an alcohol treatment center for a five-day detoxification period and then I planned to enter a long-term treatment center. I believed I may have a problem with drinking and decided to get help before seeing my parents.

 I checked myself into the detox program located in Salem, Oregon. It was one large building, actually portable trailers that had been attached together. It contained offices, a large living area, and a number of sleeping rooms that patients shared, one side for men and across a hall, the other side for women. As I recall, there were about 20 men and 10 women. I was assigned to a room with three other men.

 The five-day treatment consisted of lectures, films, and group discussion on alcoholism. I had decided that my drinking had become a problem and I decided to enter a 90-day treatment center in Grants Pass, Oregon, after my five-day detox treatment and before visiting my parents.

 There were a number of women in this "detox." I was 24 years old, unattached, and never had a problem attracting women. One woman began to flirt with me, and not being one to pass up the opportunity to get to know a good-looking woman better, I flirted back. On the third day of my treatment, this woman and I went to the back of this detox building to lie on the grass. One of the alcohol counselors "caught us" giving each other back rubs and we were "reprimanded." While in treatment it was forbidden to fraternize with the opposite sex. This was said to interfere with treatment. This woman was due to leave the next day, so I gave the "reprimand" little thought.

Throughout my stay, up to this point I had been talking to another woman who had arrived the same day as me. We ate some meals together, would sit together on one of the couches and talk. I was reprimanded again after we were "caught" laughing too loudly together. I was told I could be kicked out of the program for fraternizing and told not to sit with her again.

 We continued to see each other in the back laundry room secretly and soon began to make out and kiss. She told me she was addicted to "crank," was in hot water with her mother, and may not have a place to live any longer. I felt sorry for her, but I had my own problems.

 On our last night there with our "treatment" to be completed the next day, I went to her room. She had been sharing a room with a woman who left that day. When I opened her door and went inside she had been reading. She put her book down and we began to talk. Soon we were kissing and petting heavily. We both undressed and I crawled in bed with her.

 We started to have sex on the old hospital bed, but it began to creak noisily. The walls of this building weren't actually walls but more like partitions. We spread a blanket on the floor and continued to have sex, trying to be as quiet as possible since we didn't want to get caught and kicked out. Afterward, we got dressed, said our good byes and I left. I wanted to get back to my room before the hourly bed checks that were made. I got back to my room and went to sleep.

 In the morning this woman and I ate breakfast together and said our good byes. I would be leaving for Grants Pass and she was going back to her mother's, if her mother would let her in her house. I remember her giving me her mother's phone number. She said she wanted me to call. I packed up my belongings and left. I never called. To be honest I didn't think of this woman until many years later when she changed my life forever.

 After the 86 days I was kicked out of the treatment center in Grants Pass, Oregon, for drinking beer. After that I went to California to visit my parents. After a few months there I went back to Alaska. For the next few years I lived in many small fishing towns on the coast of Alaska and led a rough and tumble life. Just the way I liked it. I was never a 9 to 5 man. I didn't see eye to eye with a time clock. But I always worked hard while I was at sea. I continued to drink from time to time and every now and then would end up in jail for the night. In all my arrests I had never spent more than 20 days in a row in jail and that was only once.

 The summer of 1988 found me on the Kenia Peninsula, which is world famous for having the world's highest concentration of bears per square mile. I was living in a tent with my new girl friend, a slightly older woman who was as rough around the edges as I, but extremely good looking. She was also as big a drinker as I, if not bigger. We were in love, but drinking caused its problems between us.

 Because we were living with so many bears around, I had bought a shot gun for protection. I would leave it with my girl friend as I went to look for a new boat to work on. I sawed off the barrel and stock to shorten it so that it wouldn't get caught in the heavy bush just in case I needed it quickly. This was a major mistake.

 My girl friend and I broke up. We had grown apart and it was time to move on. One night while drinking in a local bar, I was arrested for having a weapon. I didn't have any shells on me, nor was the gun loaded. It didn't matter, though. I was arrested and taken to the county jail.

 The next day I went in front of the judge to be arraigned for "possession of an illegal weapon." Not only did I have this charge, the judge told me, but I was also wanted as a fugitive on a first degree rape warrant from Salem, Oregon. I was shocked. I would never force a woman to have sex with me. It must be a mistake. It wasn't.

 I plead guilty to the weapons charge and was sentenced to 14 months of which I would serve 8. I was then extradited to Oregon to face the rape charge and 20 years in prison.

 I had no idea who was claiming I raped her, or why. After four long months in the Kenia County jail, I finally found out. It was that woman that I had long since forgotten that I had sex with at the detox program I was in so many years earlier. I was contacted by a civil attorney working for the treatment center. This woman had claimed I raped her so she could file a million-dollar law suit for "damages" against the detox center. Money had been her motive! To be honest, I was relieved. At least now I knew who was accusing me of such a horrible crime. The civil attorney wanted a statement from me on how the sex between this woman and I was in fact consensual instead of the wild and bizarre "story" this woman was telling. The civil trial was to begin in a month to see if this woman was raped, and to see if she deserved money from the detox center. This attorney told me a detective would be coming to see me soon.

 A few days later, a private detective came to see me in the county jail. I, being innocent, had nothing to hide, and felt I should talk to this man. He was an older gentleman and seemed quite concerned. I spoke with him for over an hour and a half. He said he would make a full report. He seemed sympathetic to me and told me not to worry.

 A month later when I called the civil attorney he told me the woman had won her case and I was guilty of rape. He wanted nothing more to do with me and got what he wanted, my statement for him to use in court. He didn't want to hear of my innocence any more and hung up the phone. I was in shock. How could this be? I did nothing illegal!

 I phoned my father and related the news to him. He had earlier told me on the phone that since I was innocent I had nothing to worry about. He, too, was now beginning to see how the legal system really works. He hired an attorney for me as soon as he could. He called our relative in Oregon and asked her to find me an attorney. She, in turn asked one of her close friends, a male attorney, if he could handle the case. He said he would and needed $10,000 up front. I phoned him and he said he would start the case as soon as I was returned to Oregon.

 After serving eight months in jail in Alaska I was extradited to Oregon. I was shackled and taken aboard a commercial airline with two Oregon detectives as escorts. Throughout the flight I remained chained like an animal. It was a very humiliating experience. In Oregon I was taken to the Marion County jail. After my father somehow scraped together the money for my bail, $2,000 ransom to be paid to the state of Oregon, I was released and free until my trial. As soon as I was out of jail I went to see my new attorney.

 He was about 40 years old, over weight, and reminded me of a used car salesman. He was not what I had in mind as a go-getting, hot shot attorney, that my relative assured me he was. He talked fast and always seemed to be sweating. He told me the civil trial meant nothing, but it may to my jury and he wouldn't mention it in court. He also said in civil trials the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal trials. He then said that since this woman had won her money, her goal all along, that she didn't want to go through with the trial, but a rape crisis counselor had put pressure on her to proceed and worked her into a man hating frenzy in which she screamed, "Let's get that bastard!" This rape counselor and her buddies at the local rape crisis center also put pressure on the DA and judge to continue with the trial.

 My attorney then relayed the following to me: the "victim's" testimony in the civil trial testimony was very convincing and tears flowed easily. The rape crisis counselor had coached her on her testimony and rehearsed with her how to act like a real "victim" of rape. Also on how to squeeze as much sympathy out of a jury as possible and cry on cue.

This woman also had a history of filing false accusations of rape and even accused her own brother on one occasion when she was mad at him. This woman was forever being sexually assaulted, in her eyes. A jury would never believe such a woman.

 I was shown her psychological reports from years before I ever met her. She was one sick woman. I would have never gone near her or talked to her had I know she was so mentally ill. Among her psychological problems were border line personality disorders, amnesia, and organic brain damage (presumably from drug abuse). She fantasized about suicide, liked to view herself as a victim, hated men, was an alcoholic and a drug addict. No jury would believe such a deranged woman.

 I learned she had been kicked out of this detox center for not being willing to enter long term treatment, and she was accusing me of rape to get back at this center and to sue them. Also, how could her mother refuse to let her in her home after she had been "raped"? She was a desperate, homeless woman who did the only thing she could think of: cry rape, which had worked for her in the past. She was also known to "hang out" at her local court house and view trials for nothing else better to do and learned all about how accusations of rape and rape trials work.

 There was no evidence other than my saying the sex was consensual. This would be used against me. All the staff were to testify on my behalf. The "victim's" report of the "crime" was so bizarre that no jury could believe her. Besides, she had changed her story several times. My attorney also said this woman was going to sue me for "damages" and for child support. She was claiming her kid was mine! My attorney said he would ask for blood tests to disprove this insane accusation of my fatherhood.

 My attorney wouldn't let me see the transcript of the civil trial and other information, saying it would be too hard to look for. He said to trust him, not to worry about anything, and to go on with my life until the trial. He would take care of everything.

 I believed him and was not too worried. I decided to go to California. Along the way I met a Canadian woman and we stayed together until my trial. I visited my parents with my new friend and then went on a mini vacation with her, touring northern California. I returned to Oregon three weeks later with her, bought a suit, and was ready for my trial. I planned to go to Canada with my new friend after my trial, and then back to Alaska.

 Little did I know that my future plans were unnecessary. In two weeks I would be in Oregon State Maximum Security Penitentiary to begin serving a ten-year prison term and fighting for my life.

 CHAPTER 2

MY TRIAL

I soon found out that my trial was not to find justice, but to send me to prison as quickly as possible. Not only was the district attorney prosecuting me, but the judge over seeing my case was also searching for a conviction. Every motion, except one, and every objection about the DA's slanderous comments during my trial was disallowed by the judge. The jury also could not have cared less about my innocence. Eight out of twelve that heard my case were women over fifty years old. During my trial they looked as if they just wanted to get home. With all these factors against me I needed a competent and caring defense attorney. What I got for my "defense" was an incompetent shyster who was too busy counting the money he milked out of my father to give a damn about my innocence or winning my case. My trial, from beginning to end, was a total farce!

 The first example of my defense attorney's incompetence can be found in the grand jury indictment charging me with the crime of rape in the first place. This indictment was issued in 1986. If my attorney had even bothered to review this indictment, which is one of the most basic features in preparing a case for trial, he would have found that this indictment was invalid. A grand jury indictment is where a district attorney presents evidence of a supposed crime to members of a jury, the grant jury, and then they consider whether or not have the state file formal charges. A grand jury has the power to either pursue criminal proceedings; arrest of accused, trial and so on--or to vote that no charges are to be filed.

 In the State of Oregon a grand jury must have at lease seven members present to make an indictment valid. This is in Oregon's Constitution to prevent corrupt district attorneys from having indictments filed with only two or three jury members that he could easily sway. The grand jury indictment lodged against me was made by fewer than seven grand jury members. The indictment was illegal according to Oregon's own Constitution. The indictment charging me with rape was invalid! A simple check by my attorney would have found this out. I should have never even been charged with a crime, let alone face a trial and risk 20 years in prison. On my own I have found out about my improper grand jury indictment and have appealed the issue. This indictment was the first in a long list of injustices I would face in my "fair trial".

 Before my trial began, I had my attorney file a motion to have blood tests performed on myself, my "victim," and her child to prove I was not the father of her child, as she had long claimed. The judge remarkably ruled that a blood test should be done. This is the only motion he ruled in my favor throughout my entire trial. He ordered the tests to be done immediately. I wanted to have these tests conducted to show that not only was my "victim" lying about me being the father, but she was lying about this whole alleged rape.

 I had blood drawn a few days after the judge's order. When it came time for the "victim" to have her blood drawn she refused the judge's order. With this refusal she was in direct "contempt of court," and any other judge would have dismissed the whole case for her defiance. Her plan all along was to sue me for child support. This plan was now void. But when she admitted her lies, the judge seemed to forgive her for refusing his order, and now the trial could go on as before, with no action taken by the judge for her "contempt of court."

 As my trial date neared, I was enjoying what would be my last days of freedom. The judge made some outrageous decisions that ensured my conviction. This judge's calendar, like most court calendars, was full, mostly with civil and misdemeanor cases. He decided because of his "full" calendar to hold my trail at night. This is unheard of in major criminal trials. I was facing 20 years in prison! and he wanted my jury to decide my fate at night while half asleep. My jury could not possibly make an accurate decision or pay full attention to the upcoming proceedings after having worked all day, being tired and fatigued.

 This is exactly why major criminal trials are not held at night! Most people want to get home after work, not sit on a jury during a rape trial. This put undue prejudice on me and my case. My jury seemed to want the case over quickly so they could get to bed.

 My attorney filed a motion with the court for a day trial. The judge stood firm: No day trial. My attorney could have pressed the matter knowing full well the injustices of night trial, but instead he dropped the subject. He filed no further motions on this matter. My trail was to be held at night. My attorney then filed a motion that before my trail was to begin my accuser should be examined by a psychiatrist to see if she was competent to stand trail because of her past bizarre behavior and mental illness. The psychiatrist would then tell the jury of his findings.

 Past psychological exams showed her to have a number of emotional problems and mental illness years before I ever met her. Tests showed that she viewed herself as a victim of her life's short comings. She had stated in the past that she hated men and was victimized by all men. By introducing this evidence to the jury I could show considerable bias on her part. She was accusing me of rape to get back at men. In her twisted mind, men were to blame for her unemployment, alcoholism, drug addictions, and past suicide attempts. A psychiatrist's testimony about this would show that she would be very much more inclined to make up a rape story than a "normal" woman.

 The judge ruled that no psychiatrist exam would be allowed on this "victim," and furthermore no references would be allowed in front of the jury about her sordid past. This ruling fell under rape shield laws that were intended to protect a woman's privacy in rape trials, but in reality hide vital evidence of men's possible innocence and makes fair trials impossible in rape accusations. Again my attorney filed no new motions against this decision. The woman the jury saw on the stand was a fake! By the judge not allowing psychiatrist's testimony nor allowing any references about this woman's unstable mind I was denied my most basic right in what is supposed to make up a "fair" and "impartial" trial, the accused's right to confront his accuser, his true accuser, in front of a jury and cross examine her.

 My attorney then filed a motion to the court to present the evidence that my "victim" had a history of making false accusations of rape. This the judge could not possibly refuse. If a man had burned down homes on numerous occasions before and then burned down another to collect the insurance, a judge would never disallow his former acts of arson in a trial. By presenting my "victim's" past false accusations, a jury would have considerable doubt that she had been "raped again" with no evidence to back up her already tainted word.

 Oregon's OEC 412 (Rape Shield Law) states, "A defendant to cross examine the complaining witness in front of the jury other accusations she has made if 1.) she has recanted them; 2.) the defendant demonstrated to the court that those other accusations were false; or 3.) there is evidence that the victim has made prior accusations that were false." With this clause, no judge could possibly deny my right to expose my "victim's" past false accusations to the jury, but this is exactly what the judge did. Another one of my attorney's motions was again denied by the judge. It was apparent that the judge was trying to stack the odds in favor of a conviction. My defense attorney would not be allowed to mention or question my "victim" on her many past false accusations. He could have pressed the issue but he dropped the matter. He didn't think it would be worth his time to file more paperwork, even though he was paid handsomely by my father.

 My trail began the night of November 27, 1989. The first stage of my trial was the jury selection. A succession of potential jury members were asked a series of questions by the prosecutor and defense. The hope was to pick the best jury that would be most likely to either convict or acquit, depending on what side you were on. This process is extremely important for a defense.

 In a rape trial, the prosecution would want all women, preferably older women. The defense would want an educated jury of either men or women, who would rule by the facts of the case rather than by their emotions. My attorney asked me to pick what jury members I liked best. He was the supposed professional. How would I know who to pick for the twelve members for my jury? At that time I was still uneducated about the legal system and one juror would be just as good as another, I thought. My attorney, it seemed, had never been involved in a jury selection, nor did he seem to know the importance of this procedure. The jury of "my peers" who were to decide my fate consisted of ten women, mostly 50 years old or older and two men. Even the jury, I have come to realize, was stacked against me. The trial began the next day. I went home but wasn't able to sleep.

 The next day my family and I went to the court house. I was a little intimidated by the vast official building. I was still confident that the jury would easily see that this woman was lying in order to make some easy money. How could they possibly believe a woman with such a sordid past, who had made prior false accusations, and was now making another? How could they ever believe her with no evidence when all the witnesses present at the time of the alleged rape testified she was lying? My attorney conveniently forgot to tell me that none of this woman's past could be used in court. He again assured me instead that I had nothing to worry about. But in reality, because of the way the trial was rigged, my conviction was just a matter of time. Had I known this I would never have shown up for this so-called "fair trial."

 In the court house I finally saw the woman who had caused me and my family so much unnecessary pain. She looked pathetic. The prosecutor had positioned her right outside the courtroom door. She was sitting with her mother, who, according to the so-called psychological exam, had tortured her as a child years earlier. Sitting on the other side of her was a rape crisis counselor. All three of these women were crying and wailing in an Oscar winning performance for the incoming jury members.

 My family sat in the viewer's benches in back of the court room and I sat with my attorney in the accused's chair facing the judge's desk. My attorney shook hands with the DA. They wished each other luck as if "old friends." I found out later, after I was in prison, that my attorney also worked in the same county in which I as being prosecuted as a city attorney. He probably saw the prosector who was wrongly trying to send me to prison every working day. Maybe he even ate lunch with him or played golf with him. This, of course, is a "conflict of interest." My attorney never informed me of his dual alliances.

 The jury entered the court room and I could tell right away the prosecutor's tactic of having the incoming jury view the spectacle of three wailing women outside the court room doors worked. The stares I received from my "impartial" jury were frightening. I could tell by the looks in their eyes I was already guilty and that any evidence I would have to offer would be lies anyway. The judge finally entered the court room and the jury's icy stares were momentarily diverted.

 Before my trail, my attorney insisted that I not testify. He did not want me to say a word in court. His reasoning was that if I did not testify the prosecutor could not question me on my former felony weapon charge and my misdemeanor alcohol offenses and that wouldn't look good to the jury. I thought that this was not right and that I should testify. Wouldn't the jury think I was guilty if I did not personally answer the accusation? He assured me that my former police record must be hidden, and anyway the prosecutor did not have enough evidence to convict me. He directed me not to make a sound, and if I saw anything wrong in the trial to inform him and he would bring it up later. I agreed not to testify.

 This was a major mistake on my part and it only helped the prosecution. I have come to realize it is imperative in "she said/he said" rape trials that the accused testify on his own behalf. I trusted my attorney in advising me not to testify. This trust was another major mistake.

One of the first witnesses testifying for the state was the doctor who examined the "victim" in the supposed crime the next day. The doctor testified that, yes, he examined the girl, and yes, semen was found. I had all along told the truth, saying I did have sex with her and it was purely consensual. He then testified that the woman had no injuries, "not a scratch on her." This lack of evidence goes directly against what this woman described as a "violent attack" that she claimed she went through. Would she not have at least a "scratch" on her from fighting off an attack as she claimed she had done? From this doctor's testimony would seem that I was telling the truth and that the sex between this woman and me was in fact consensual. This doctor was the only witness that was helpful to my defense.

 Other witnesses were called by the prosecutor. One was a woman police officer who took my accuser's report on when she was supposedly raped the day before. This state "expert witness" testified that my accuser showed the "classic" signs of a rape victim. By her comments the jury was led to believe that this state "expert" on rape victims was assuring them that the "victim" should be believed, was a bona fide rape victim, and that I should be convicted.

 It has been a long standing rule of law that no witness may directly testify to the credibility of another witness. But this state "expert" on rape cases, who in fact was only a "beat cop" led the jury and suggested they should believe the "victim." This "beat cop" was testifying to the "victim's" credibility.

My defense attorney offered little cross examination. The next witness was the private detective that had come to see me in the Kenai County jail over eight months earlier. The state had flown this detective down from Alaska to testify for the prosecution! This private detective, I would later learn, was an ex-police officer who more than likely would have leanings for the "state." He read the mere one page report that he wrote from our hour and a half conversation about this alleged rape. The concerned and caring private investigator I had met in Alaska had now been transformed into a man only filled with contempt for me. After he read his short report he talked in a tone that suggested disgust. This witness only furthered the jury's already prejudicial attitude toward me. Again, little rebuttal was offered by my attorney.

 The next day the staff of the alcohol treatment center testified to the facts of what they saw the night of the alleged rape and the events of the next day. These five staff member's testimony went totally against that of what the "victim" gave.

Surely the jury could not possibly ignore five different testimonies that in short said the alleged victim was a lying fraud. Surely they would see the "victim's" twisted and bizarre testimony for what it was: lies by a very sick woman who was after a quick buck in the form of a lawsuit.

 The first staff member testified that on the night of the supposed attack that he did count all the patients every two hours and that on each count the "victim" was sound asleep. This goes against what the "victim" had earlier said in reports and what she testified to. In one report she said she stayed in her room all night and cried. In another she said she went to the bathroom and then back to her room and cried all night. In front of the jury she testified she went to the bathroom after being violently raped, locked herself in one of the stalls, cried all night, and didn't come out until morning. Is this the same woman this staff worker saw sleeping soundly throughout the night? Who was lying? And why?

 The other staff members testified the day after the supposed rape that the "victim" appeared to be doing fine. She ate breakfast and did not appear to be disturbed in any way. Two of the staff testified that on several occasions the "victim" and I were seen together talking and laughing.

I was even reprimanded for flirting with her. These witnesses' testimony went against what the "victim" said--that she never met me or talked to me.

 On the last day of testimony a female alcohol counselor testified that the "victim" had refused to own up to her drug addictions and would not participate in any further treatment as recommended. As a result she was asked to leave the detox center. Other than her refusal for further treatment, she appeared well and made no complaints. This testimony contradicted what the alleged "victim" said took place.

 The "victim" testified that in the morning after the "rape" she was so upset she could not eat and that she desperately tried to tell the staff and fellow patients that she was violently raped the night before, but no one would listen to her. She also testified that she tried to tell this female counselor that she had been raped, but the counselor didn't believe her, was mean to her, and finally kicked her out of the detox.

Could the jury possibly believe that this female counselor was so cold and uncaring that she would not listen to another woman who said she had been raped? What motive would this staff member or others have to lie? Could these staff members by lying to cover up a rape and protect a violent rapist? Could they be committing perjury to save my skin?

 During the cross examination by the prosecutor, all five of these witnesses were grilled on their histories. Defense witnesses' life histories are an open book in the courtroom during a rape trial, while the accuser's life history is completely hidden.

All of these witnesses were recovering alcoholics and two of them had police records that were years old. All of these witnesses were badgered and harassed by the prosecutor. These five dedicated counselors trying to help other addicts overcome their own addictions, as they had done, were made to look like five drunken ex-cons who were covering up a violent rape to save their jobs. The jury seemed to believe the prosecutor's wild accusations of deceit, even though three of the five no longer even worked at the treatment center.

 My "fair trial" was not going well. I was beginning to get worried.

During the three late nights of testimonies, I noticed several of the older women jurors actually sleeping. How could they make a fair and accurate decision based on all the information when they had missed half of it because they were sound asleep? I informed my attorney of the sleeping jurors. He said he would make a note of it and inform the judge later. He never did. I should have informed the judge myself, but my attorney kept on me not to say a word in court and let him do all the talking.

 One of the last witnesses to testify was the alleged "victim." She really put on a performance. Tears flowed as if on cue. She gave her testimony as if reading from a well rehearsed script, which it was. She said I entered her room, ripped off her clothes, dragged her to the floor, and violently raped her. She said she tried to fight me off, but I was too strong. After the "attack" she said she didn't wake any of the other patients but did try to tell the night shift staff. He was sound asleep and she couldn't wake him, she said. Instead she locked herself in a bathroom stall and cried all night. She claimed she didn't eat breakfast the next day and tried to tell someone, any one, of the "rape," but all the people she told were mean to her and wouldn't believe her. Then they kicked her out of the treatment center because she had been "attacked." The staff and her fellow patients were all against her! After she was kicked out of the treatment center she was in a daze, she claimed. While walking home in tears she passed a hospital. Surely they would believe her, she told the jury. They did, and so did the jury.

 Her testimony at trial greatly differed from earlier versions she had related in police and investigator reports. I guess she thought that this "version" would have greater dramatic impact. Her testimony at trial went totally against common sense. How could anyone believe such a bizarre story? I pointed out numerous discrepancies to my attorney about the "new and improved" version, but he didn't seem to know what I was talking about.

 All during her testimony, the "victim" cried and carried on. This performance worked like a charm for the jury of mostly women. The jury was also in tears and shot me looks that would kill.

 In the closing arguments my attorney, as usual, had little to offer. The prosecutor, though, had plenty. He leaned over the defense counsel's table and screamed two inches from my face, "You're the scum of the earth! And I'm going to see you wind up where you belong--behind bars!"

I looked at my attorney to somehow help me in this verbal attack. He was looking at the floor as if ashamed. The prosecutor went on. Why would this woman lie about being attacked? She had no motive. Look at what I had done to this healthy woman! All the time he was claiming these things, he knew she had made a career of accusing men of rape and was deeply mentally disturbed. Everyone knew the vile past of my accuser except the jury. The judge and his partner in crime, the DA, made sure they didn't know.

 The trial was over and I went outside to smoke a cigarette while the jury deliberated my fate. What I had been through these last three nights was not a trial but an inquisition. I was in shock. I should have run right then and there. I was ordered back into the courtroom to await the jury's "fair decision."

 The jury gave their verdict: "Guilty as charged!" I had only two words for the jury. The only two words I would speak through the whole trial. It didn't matter now. My attorney's advice not to say a word in court aided in my conviction. I told the jury, "I'm innocent" as the courtroom guard applied the shackles to my wrists and ankles. My defense attorney raced out of the doors without saying a word. I turned to see my family in tears. The insane woman who did this to me, along with the "rape crisis counselor" and the "victim's" mother broke out in laughter. The judge congratulated the jury on their fine decision. I was taken away to the county jail to await sentencing.

 My attorney finally showed up at the jail a few days before my sentencing. He had since quit accepting my collect calls from the jail. He told me a pre-sentence report would recommend to the judge that I serve six years in prison and judges always go by the pre-sentence report. The six year prison term for a first degree rape conviction was very low, he said, and I received such a low sentence because I had no history of a major violent crime. He said he would start the appeal process just as soon as he received more money from my father.

 At my sentencing the judge asked the rape crisis counsellor for her comments. She said I deserved the maximum sentence for causing so much pain to the "victim." She then said that the money the "victim" was awarded from her civil law suit ($24,000) was not nearly enough for all the pain and continued suffering she endured and she needed more. After my prison term she said I would be made to pay the "victim" $10,000 for "restitution." the "victim" of course cried loudly for more money. The judge flatly refused this request for more blood money, saying, "I think the victim has made enough money off this."

 Then came the prosecutor's turn. He said because the crime was so violent and that because I showed no remorse for the "attack" that I should be sent to the State Mental Hospital for violent sexual deviants and then after "treatment" spend twenty years in prison.

 Next came the "victim's" turn. After she composed herself and wiped the tears from her eyes all she said was, "I hope he gets raped in prison."

That did it. I could not control myself any longer. I shouted, "She's lying pig and did this just for the money!" Then I told the court what a joke of a trial I had gone through and what I thought of this "justice." The court room was in silent shock.

 This outburst cost me four extra years in prison. The judge overrode the pre-sentence report and sentenced me to ten years in prison, but he said the case does not warrant my being sent to the State Mental Hospital. I was again shackled. My attorney said he was sorry and was out of the door in a flash. I never saw him again. My father would not throw away any more money on this shyster. In all, he had been milked out of more than $15,000.

 I was taken to Oregon State Penitentiary, Oregon's toughest prison, holding the most violent offenders in the state. I slowly adjusted to the harsh realities of prison life. Six months later I was taken in front of five members of the Oregon Parole Board to decide if I would spend the whole ten years the judge had sentenced me to in this hell hole.

 Also present at my hearing was the DA who wrongfully prosecuted me, the hate filled rape crisis counselor, and the "victim," looking again pathetic. Throughout the hearing the "victim" cried and blubbered repeatedly, but this time her "show" didn't work.

 Since this was not a rape trial, I could present all the evidence to the parole board. I presented them with the "victim's"" past psychological reports that showed her to be very unstable long before I ever met her. I showed them how she lied that I was the father of her child, her motive in making her claim of rape in the first place, the $24,000 profit she gained by her imaginary "attack," and her past false accusations of rape.

 These "three stooges," the DA, rape counselor, and the "victim," were stunned. the DA said I was dangerous and had been caught in Alaska with a "loaded" shot gun. I showed the board the arrest record saying the gun was unloaded, nor did I have any shells on me. The DA was warned not to lie to the parole board. The rape crisis counselor said that even though there was no physical evidence nor was this poor girl harmed in any outward appearance, she had suffered greatly and was now under a psychiatrist's care. Again she begged for the "victim" to receive more money.

 The Parole Board concluded that "the victim" was not harmed in any way, physically or emotionally, and there were not even threats of violence. The chairman of the parole board questioned the "victim" on her lies that I was the father of her child and also stated there was evidence this "victim" aided in the criminal episode. Six years would be deducted from my prison term.

 This still left me to serve four years in a prison for a crime I did not commit. A month after this hearing I escaped from prison. I was a "free man" for 18 months until my recapture. I was sent back to prison in Oregon and given more prison time.

As for my "victim," I hear she bought a new truck with her "blood money" and spent the rest of it on drugs. She is now broke, back on welfare, and continues with her sorry life. I wonder if she has been "raped" again and has filed another law suit for "damages." It was easy enough the first tim

CHAPTER 3

FALSE RAPE

False accusations of rape are nothing new. From the Bible, Egyptian Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph. When this failed, she accused him of rape and had him thrown in prison.

Motives for falsely accusing men of rape make up a long list.

The justice system in the U.S. used to recognize that false accusations are easily made and common place, and used to require some sort of evidence in charging a man with rape, bringing him to trial, and then throwing him in prison.

 In this day and age, however, no evidence is needed, just the accusation. The American public has been so programmed by the radical Feminist controlled medias that no one even seems to realize that false accusations of rape have been destroying men's lives and their families for years. The media is full of bias against men and over inflated statistics to keep the fires at the stake burning on the over reported rape issue.

Here is an example of the male hating rhetoric I have read. Some of these are so ingrained into the public's mind they are taken as fact:

 "One in four men are rapists."

 "Only ten percent of rapes are reported."

 "Most women do not know when they've been raped."

 "All women are victims of men."

 "Rape is the most under reported crime."

 "Even innocence should not be a defense in an accusation of rape."

 "Any sex between a man and a woman is rape."

 and so on ...

 Even though these and other statements go against proven fact and common sense, the medias continue this type of feminist propaganda and myth that portrays all men as predators. That only promotes false accusations.

 In The Liberator's "Statistic of the Month, April 1992", we see the way Feminist propaganda is exposed by fact:

"Percentage of female students estimated by feminists to have been raped on the UC Berkeley Campus: 25 percent. Number that comprises 25 percent of the females on the UC Berkeley campus in an average year: 3,000. Over the last two years the number of rapes actually reported at the UC Berkeley: two."

Here we have an example of feminist rhetoric that would have us believe that 3,000 rapes are committed at UC Berkeley every year. But when one looks at the facts only two rapes were actually committed in a two year period--we can see that the statistic given by the feminists is outrageously overblown. Why do they wish to make UC Berkeley appear so dangerous to women? It is clear they do not wish to promote equality and justice, but these types of feminists wish to promote hatred and fear among the female population at the campus to that they in turn will join the noble cause of the Militant Man-Hating Feminist movement. Be creating a false rape hysteria at the school they hope to further their cult of eternal victims of men.

 In Alan Dershowitz's column, "Justice" that appeared in Penthouse November 1992 here's what he has to say about the false accusations of rape crisis:

 "The reasons why rapes are over reported are far more complex. A "need for attention," a "Need to feel important," a "desire to exact revenge on a former boyfriend," and attempts "to hide [consensual] sexual relationships from their parents or husbands" were among the reasons cited by psychologists, rape counselors, and law enforcement experts in a recent Washington Post survey.

 Many unfounded rape accusations involve interracial accusations. For example, one young black woman accused a young white man of hurling racial epithets at her and slashing her with a razor after abducting her from a Silver Spring, Maryland, supermarket and raping her. She later admitted slashing herself "to make the rape more believable." A white teenager made up a similar story about nonexistent black attackers in the Washington D.C. area. Social scientists explain that women who make up such accusations "expect society's racism to work in their favor."

 Other women are recidivists, such as the one who charged a man with raping her at gunpoint in New York's Central Park. She admitted that she make up the story after investigators discovered that she had Filed 11 false accusations in California. A Washington woman falsely accused a newspaper deliveryman of raping her because she needed an excuse for having been late for work. A year earlier this same woman had been prosecuted for filing another false rape report.

 Some rape counselors are beginning to take this phenomenon seriously, but others deny or down play it's significance. One counselor said, "It doesn't compute to me. Why should a woman go through interviews with police and the horrendous experience of taking a [physical] exam?" (It may be because some false reporters are mentally ill and need to be perceived as victims of both the [supposed] rapists and the legal system.) Another counselor trivialized the problem of false rape reports, arguing that the under-reporting of rape costs "society a lot more than the small percentage of false reports." A third counselor agreed, stating that under-reported rape is a "far more tragic" problem than over reported rape.

 But our legal system is premised on the principle that "it is better than ten guilty defendants go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted." That is why proof of guilt must be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Every false report of rape can lead to a false conviction. indeed, it is precisely because rape is such a horrendous crime that false reports are so serious a problem."

 And a serious problem it is. The F.B.I. has recently stated that 8.5% of all reported rapes turn out to be false. That would mean that the average of 100,000 rapes reported every year (feminists like to say that over one million rapes are committed yearly, yet of course have no proof to back up this myth) over 8,500 of these reported rapes sturn out to be false. And this 8,500 is only the number proven to be false. What of the ones that slip by and of the innocent men imprisoned?

In the F.B.I.'s Behavioral Science Unit's study on False Allegations conducted in 1983 of 556 rape investigations, a total of 220 of these reported rapes turned out to be false. Over one fourth of these 556 turned out to be hoaxes. And yet, some feminists and rape counselors claim that only two percent of rape reports are false. In this F.B.I. study 27% of 566 reported rapes they investigated were false. Is 27% a small percentage? Again this 275 is only the number proven to be false. The actual number is undoubtably much higher.

 Again facts are facts. No matter what rhetoric feminists or their allies try to say. Take what Charles McDowell had to say in the June 1985 issue of Chicago Lawyer about the number of rape accusers who lie. Here being interviewed by Rob Warden, the editor:

 Q: How was the model developed?

 A: It is based on a study of 1,218 cases that were initially investigated as rapes. Of those, 460 were proven rapes, 212 were disproved allegations, and 546 cases remain unresolved.

 Q: What were your criteria for classifying a rape accusation as disproved?

 A: There was just one criterion. In each case, the victim ultimately admitted that the allegation was a hoax.

 Q: All 212 of those cases are now admitted to have been false allegations?

 A: Yes. That's the reason that we have a leftover category of 546 cases. My personal opinion, based on the evidence, is that many of those also are false allegations. but they are not admitted hoaxes, and we have not classified them as disproved. We have been extremely conservative in classifying an allegation as false for purposes of the study.

 Q: What were your criteria for classifying an allegation as proved? Are these all conviction?

 A: They're not all convictions. Some are, but the remainder are cases in which the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence support the allegation so strongly that there really is no other logical conclusion.

 Q: Then your standard for classifying an allegation is false?

 A: Definitely. If there was a margin for error, if there was any area in which we gave the benefit of any doubt, it was in favor of a rape."

 Charles McDowell, the subject of this interview is an experience Air Force Criminal Investigator and has been called "probably the world's leading expert on false rape accusations." He has stated that falsely accusing a man of rape is a crime as reprehensible as rape itself and that the former happens about as often as the later. With false rape allegations as high as 25% and higher there is a serious problem going on. The medias must educate the public to these true statistics instead of the ones (largely deflated) that feminists give when talking about the percentage of false reports.

 Another important area is the shift that over the years has been the burden of proof required in an allegation of rape. In any other crime, the burden of proof that a crime wa even committed lies with the victim. This is not so with rape accusations. When detectives want proof that a rape was ever committed, feminists go up on arms saying this is "blaming the victim." How can there be a "victim" if there is no evidence of any crime? And how do we send countless innocent men to prison on the mere word of only one witness, the supposed victim, when the motives for lying in rape accusations are so well know?

 The definition of rape over the past years has evolved so that now it is so vague no evidence is even needed these days to throw a man in prison, only motive. In Mr. Dershowitz's article mentioned earlier, he stated that rape being such a horrendous crime that men accused should only be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" of guilt. This is far from the case.

 Take the bizarre allegation described i the article, "Rape of Justice Continues" that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times August 1990:

 "While rape allegations are not new, the willingness of courts and legislatures to presume guilt before innocence of such charges does seem to be a current phenomenon. Others might say we are returning to simpler times. Either way, we present an example of relaxed standards in bringing such allegations into a court of law.

 In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, a 29-year-old man is on trial for having sex with a 26-year-old woman. Although the woman consented, several of her 21 personalities claim they were raped. The man who faces up to ten years in prison if convicted, said he had no idea the woman was mentally ill. According to the prosecution, however, consent is not even an issue in this case.

 "It is like statutory rape," the prosecutor said. "Even if the woman agrees to have sex, a crime has been committed.

 On the stand, the woman easily moved between personalities at the request of the prosecutor. Each time she changed selves, they made her take a new oath. The man, or one of her, testified that Emily, a six-year-old personality, kept emerging during the intercourse."

 Why do Feminists and lawmakers wish to redefine rape so that it can be easily charged and all accusations believed? For man-hating feminists it is time to get even with men and what better way to do this than to accuse him of a crime he can not defend himself against? The more men in prison the better. Women have always been victims of men and its time for payback. Lawmakers on the other hand, who bend over backwards to please these man-haters also have a motive. Men wrongly convicted of rape are just another notch on their gun belts and "cattle" to be fed into the growing prison industry. How else do we explain the shocking 47% increase in the prison population of so-called sex offenders? Convictions at all costs are the norm now in alleged rape cases.

 Hear what Norman Podhoretz says in his article, "Rape in Feminist Eyes":

 What on earth is going on here? Why should the feminist movement be promulgating a conception of rape that comes so close to turn seduction, and even heterosexual intercourse in itself, into a criminal act?

 One possible explanation is that the influence of lesbian and other man-hating elements within the movement has grown so powerful as to have swept all before it. No doubt lesbians are only a small minority among feminists, but like other radicals in other political movements they tend to be more passionate, more energetic, and more ideologically coherent than moderates, whose waverings and ambiguous feelings make them easy to manipulate. Once the moderates have been subjected to "consciousness raising" they begin to find more and more truth in the radical deconstruction or demystification.

 "If the "experts" get their way, any male who has intercourse with any female, including his wife and or girlfriend with whom he has been sleeping with all along, without first getting a signed and notarized consent form to cover that particular episode, will wind up in jail."

 The date rape controversy is a prime example of the way the definition of rape has become so vague and that woman are now to be considered the "victim" in any situation, no matter how innocent. women no longer are responsible for their own actions. I am not saying "date rape" does not occur, it just doesn't occur at the proportions feminists claim. Being a "victim" of a date rape is almost in vogue these days to some women.

 Take what Terry White wrote in his article, "Date Rape Redux" in Playboy August 1993:

 "Recall, if you will, our not-so-popular position a couple years ago on the issue of date rape. We stated then that statistics wreaking havoc on college campuses were questionable. We found it hard to believe that one in four female students was ravaged by a drunken, hormone-crazed frat boy who wouldn't take "no" for an answer. With in pages, author Stephanie Gutmen raised an appropriately skeptical eyebrow at the Ms. magazine--funded research that was the source of these statistics.

 Now even the mainstream commentators are voicing similar doubts. Their reevaluation reveals a crucial point. The date rape crisis became a crisis because of a broadened definition of rape among crusading feminists.

 A recent article by Peter Hellman in New York magazine argues that sexual assault as a major campus issue is fueled by politics, not genuine concern. At Barnard College, for instance, Hellman found no rapes were reported by any of its 2,200 students in the 1991 school year. He found that, in the same period, Columbia University statistics cited only two rape accusations for a student body of almost 20,000. Neither of these accusations held up under investigation--one of the women admitted that her "attacker" had actually only pushed her to the bed.

 But the date rape crisis rallies continue. One featured a victim who claims, "I have counted the times I have had a penis sin me that I hadn't wanted, and I had to stop at 594." Do you ask as sociologist Pepper Schwartz did, "What is she, a professional?"

 None of the testimony is challenged by the movement. The self proclaimed survivors and potential survivors are too frenzied to let reality interfere.

 In response to the date rape hysteria, many colleges open campus crisis centers. Hellman gives the impression that they stand empty and unused. One center reported treating a mere 79 clients, and only ten percent of these cases were a result of recent sexual assaults. Most involved post incidents of childhood incest or molestation.

 Moreover, there is some tension between the women driven by rhetoric and those moved by compassion. Hellman describes how feminists at Columbia held a rally and recruiting drive, while volunteers who actually counsel "victims" sat lonely as Maytag repairman, in the rape crisis center unwilling to join the sound and fury of the debacle outside.

 A guerrilla technique pioneered at Brown University in the beginning of the date rape controversy a few years ago (and now used at other schools) scrawled the names of students accused of rape on campus walls. Maybe it's time men responded to unfounded slander: Next time you see guerrilla graffiti, add your name and the name of every other man on campus.

 Camille Pagilia adds this about date rape from her book, Sex, Art and American Culture:

 "In dramatizing the pervasiveness of rape, feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract. In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been victims of rape. On elite campuses in the Northeast and on the West Coast, they have held consciousness-raising sessions, petitioned administrations, and demanded inquests. At Brown University, outraged, panicky "victims" have scrawled the names of alleged attackers on the walls of women's rest rooms. What marital rape was to the 70's, "date rape" is to the 90's.

I would like to point out that contrary to popular belief, the number of men who are in fact true rapists is extremely small to the overall population of men in the U.S. These sick and deranged men who commit these violent acts against women are not representatives of all men or even most men. Most men do not hold women in contempt. The men who do harm women should be locked up, but do not classify all men as predators or potential rapists because of the acts of a very few. Feminists in their "war" against men and manhood are now and have been using scare tactics to frighten women into their ranks in their "battle" against men.

 Another myth that some feminists like to use is that women just do not lie when they accuse a man of rape. Even though studies indicate as many as 25% or more rape accusations are lies. Feminists and their allies like to cite that no woman would go through the trauma of falsely accusing a man of rape.

 to counter the myth that women never lie when accusing men of rape, Scott Kuehl says,

 "Why would a woman lie? Why would a woman put herself through such an ordeal unless she was telling the truth? Why would she subject herself to police interrogation, humiliating physical examinations, testimony in open court, cross-examination by a defense attorney, attacks on her credibility and integrity and character, etc., simply to accuse an innocent man?

 "Obviously, when women cry "rape," the compelling nature of their reasons for lying, the intensity of their hatred, desire for revenge, fear, desperation, or whatever, outweighs the inconvenience, discomfort, and embarrassment of police questioning, physical tests, testifying in open court, and cross-examination.

(In my own case, I am sure my so-called "victim" wasn't fazed at all in accusing me of rape from the "discomfort" of questioning or testifying. She had a lot riding on her accusation as far as financial gain was concerned.)

"Reasons for lying include hatred, vengeance, an attempt to conceal pre-or extra marital sex and other activities, the elimination of a feared and/or despised male, the alleviation of shame and guilt, the absolution of responsibility, money (extortion or civil suits), and mental illness.

The false accusation is always instrumental. It solves a problem from the victim's perspective. It many explain a pregnancy, venereal disease, or otherwise conceal evidence of promiscuity. It may assuage guilt or enable the false accuser to avoid responsibility for her acts. It may exact revenge. Obviously, these categories aren't mutually exclusive.

 There's not a single cogent, persuasive argument, not a scintilla of compelling tangible evidence, to support the contention that women never lie in accusing men of rape. It is dogma, an article of ideological faith, espoused with religious intensity, it is a lie to devise and manipulate, a myth of propaganda, disseminated, whether sincerely or insincerely. For tactical or political reasons.

 Police and district attorneys who have been trained by feminists to believe women "don't lie" about rape, who know little or nothing about women's reasons for lying, and have nothing but contempt for the accused only encourage women to bring false rape allegations."

 We all remember the outrage over the acquittal of William Kennedy Smith. Feminists were outraged. Mr. Kennedy was found innocent because the jury could not in good faith sentence him to prison because they could not be sure a crime was even committed. This was too much for the Storm Trooping Feminists. They held protests and lengthy articles were written on this great injustice against all women. They wanted blood, Kennedy blood! An accusation was made, so of course a crime was committed. It didn't matter that there was no evidence. This was a woman accusing a man of rape! Didn't the jury know that no evidence is needed or that women don't lie when accusing men of rape?

 What could possibly be her motive in accusing William Kennedy Smith of rape at this parents' estate? I wonder if she planned on suing the Kennedys for "damages"? or that her accusation was some sort of sick publicity stunt. After Mr. Kennedy's acquittal of any wrong doing, Patty Bowman, the accuser, became America's new sweetheart victim. After the trial she hit the lecture circuit and I hear plans to write a book on her "ordeal," naturally making a healthy profit.

 As for William, he will always be known as the rapist who got away. His reputation is forever ruined because rape accusations are so easily made and believed, no matter what the evidence suggests, or a "victim's" motive. William has since tried to put this all behind him. After the jury found him innocent he moved to New Mexico to continue college. But the New Mexico chapter of the man-hating feminists continues to harass him at his school and place of residence. They also track his movements and stage protests where ever he goes. William Kennedy Smith has learned one thing: False accusations just don't go away, even after a jury finds you innocent.

 The false accusations of rape crisis continues to grow every year. Innocent men in droves are being rail roaded into the prison grown industry because the media refuses to report the truth on the false rape issue. The lies of radical feminists must be exposed for what they are, and the true statistics must be given.

 False allegations will continue to ruin men along with their families until the general public becomes well aware that false reports are not only mae, but are common place in the overall reports of rape. The myth that women do not lie in allegations, is just that, a myth. The media must end their bias against men in reporting on rape issues. Men accused of rape, as in no other criminal proceeding, are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. This goes against every ideal in our American Justice System and must end.

 CHAPTER 4

CHILD ABUSE HOAXES

What worse crime could there be than to sexually abuse a child? None! Men who molest children deserve prison and the longer the prison term, the better. These animals are the scum of the earth. I can assure you that once these slime are caught and slither into prison, they're in for the ride of their life. A lot of child molesters are killed in prison within the first year of their sentence. Most are confined in Protective Custody (PC) to keep the rest of the prisoners from getting at them. Child molesters are the most despised vermin in prison. I have no sympathy for a man who would victimize a child and any unpleasant fate he may face while in "the joint," he richly deserves.

 When I started SAFAR in 1990 I had no idea that the problem of false accusations of rape also extended to false reports of child abuse. Since the abuse of an innocent child is the ugliest crime one could commit, where does that leave a man falsely accused of this atrocity? In the worst nightmare I could imagine. SAFAR now has a large number of members in prisons who are victims of child abuse hoaxes. I believe their innocence wholeheartedly since educating myself of this hysteria.

 My research into false allegations of child abuse has shocked me. I have read studies that indicate 125,000 men each year are falsely accused by their wives of child molestation. In others, 33% to over 50% of reported child abuse cases turn out to be hoaxes. I am now aware that in some cases a man in prison for child abuse is innocent and probably doing a longer "stretch" than a true child molester. Men guilty of child abuse usually take a "plea bargain" from the prosecutor and get away with minimal prison time. While an innocent man refuses a "plea bargain" and will go to trial. But as in adult female rape trials, child abuse trials are also "rigged" for a conviction. So in the end, an innocent man gets "slammed" with the highest degree of child rape while a true child molester, after being "rewarded" by a prosecutor for being guilty and accepting a plea bargain skips out of prison after a much reduced stay, only to molest again. It's a Catch-22 for the innocent man.

 Take the Oregon case of Dean A. Schwartzmiller who had a 23-year record of molesting children. Over the years he had kidnapped and molested 13 boys in six states. At his new conviction for raping a 15-year-old boy, he was "rewarded" for pleading guilty, and was sentenced to a mere 49 months. Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Jim Hayden said after his sentencing in May 1993, "Schwatzmiller will serve about three years if he gets time off for good behavior."

This animal will get out of prison before I do! And I have already served a total of three years in prison! Because I wouldn't wheel and deal with the District Attorney due to my innocence, I was convicted of the highest degree of rape and sentenced to ten years. Is the justice system in Oregon telling me I am twice the "menace to society" that the scum, Dean Schwatzmiller is? Something is extremely wrong with this picture.

 Even with my contempt for the real villains who commit crimes against children, I have total compassion for the innocent man faced with a false allegation or the man who is already in prison due to this injustice. In the following series of articles we will see not only how wide spread child abuse hoaxes are, but also who is being falsely accused, who is doing the accusing, why, who are their "partners in crime" in the false reports, how do they profit from false reports, and finally what can men do when faced with the growing nightmare of a false allegation of child abuse.

 Take the case of a young girl forced by her mother to send her uncle to prison in "Teen Recants Rape Story Against Uncle; Says Mother Threatened Her," from the Milwaukee Sentinel, November 12, 1987. Though this is not an allegation of child abuse, but rather rape, it clearly shows the power mothers have over their children to force them to lie.

 LOUISVILLE, KY--An 18-year-old woman has recanted the testimony that sent an uncle to prison for sexual abuse nearly eight years ago, saying that her mother threatened to kill her if she did not lie on the witness stand.

 In a sworn statement filed October 27 [1987] in Jefferson Circuit Court, Webster said, "The story that I told to the court and to the jury was completely and totally false, a lie. I told that false story because my mother told me what to say and forced me to lie under oath.

 "Sharron Jeffries [the mother] threatened to drown me if I didn't tell the police what she told me to say...Sharron Jeffries threatened to kill me if I didn't tell the jury what she told me to say."

 Webster told the Courier-Journal of Louisville that she decided to make her recantation public because she turned 18 and was no longer under her mother's control.

 "For a man to stay in prison so long for something he didn't do, my conscience couldn't live with that," she said.

 Webster first maintained her charges were false less than two months after she made them, trial records show. During trial in December 1980, Jeffries testified she did not like Edwards and wanted him out of her house but not enough to lie.

 One of Webster's aunts, Mary Mannong, testified that within two months of the alleged crime, the girl confided to her that nothing had happened.

 Several people, including her father and a psychiatrist, testified that Webster lied a lot. No physical evidence was presented against the defendant. After three hours of deliberations, jurors acquitted Edwards of rape but found him guilty of sexual abuse.

In another child abuse hoax, teenager Twana Brawley went so far as to cover her body with dog feces just to falsely accuse a gang of imaginary white men of rape. She had not been home for two or three days, and her motives for lying were apparently to concern the facts of and reasons for her disappearance. The truth in her case may have never come out were it not for six newspaper reporters who investigated the story at length. Their investigation resulted in a 400-page book, Outrage: The Story Behind the Twana Brawley Hoax, Bantam Books, 1990.

 From Hustler magazine, September 1991, we see the full range of the child abuse Hysteria in Larry Wichman's article, "Framed Fathers":

 When Jacqueline Belton discovered that after nine years of marriage her 37-year-old husband, Larry, was sleeping with a younger woman, the Sacramento, California, mother of three decided that divorce alone was not punishment enough. She didn't want just the car and the kids and Larry's federal retirement pay. She wanted to see her husband rot in prison.

 Her plan was a malicious as it was effective. Before filing for divorce, Jacqueline went to the police and falsely accused Larry of molesting her 12-year-old daughter, Monique. The girl hated the way her step-dad was always disciplining her for wearing too much makeup and talking to boys. She was easily persuaded to corroborate the lies.

 Within hours, Larry Belton was taken into custody.

 At the preliminary hearing, Monique's testimony proved so convincing that the judge raised the charges from three counts of molestation to well over 50. She even fooled Belton's defense attorney, who was overheard congratulating Superior Court jurists on their verdict minutes after they'd found his client guilty.

 "I couldn't believe the panel bought her story," recalls Sacramento private detective George Wimberly, a defense investigator. "The child made so many bizarre allegations. She claimed Larry got her pregnant and performed an abortion with a coat hanger--which she then said had to be surgically removed from her vagina at the hospital! There was no physical evidence, no hospital records, nothing."

 Although several alleged participants in Jacqueline's conspiracy have recently come forward, Larry Belton remains behind bars. He has 105 years left to serve on his 111-year sentence.

 Belton's is not an isolated case. An estimated 40% of all reported incidents of sexual child abuse in the United states spring from bloody divorce/custody battle, with 80% of the allegations being vindictive hoaxes.

 "All your wife has to say is, 'My child was molested,' and you won't see your kid for a year...automatic," explains Seattle, Washington, PI Larry Daly, whose firm averages 60 new false allegation cases each month. "As soon as there is an accusation, there is an immediate assumption of guilt."

 For falsely accused fathers--an estimated 125,000 each hear--the repercussions are devastating. Although saddled with crippling legal fees, 80% lose their jobs or get laid off. They become prone to deep depression and suffer public humiliation. Many spend months in jail awaiting trial. A false allegation is quick, efficient and brutal. All a mom needs to do is turn the child against her father, rehearse a few lines of testimony and let the county Child Protection Service (CPS) rubber-stamp the charges. Presto, Dad's hung out to dry!

 "Our judiciary resolves everything in what it perceives as the best interest of the child," explains attorney Peter Sokaris, a men's rights activist from Albany, New York. "False allegations are considered unimportant in comparison."

 The rules of evidence in family court are looser than in criminal court. "If you're the defense, you've got everybody working against you," says Chicago, Illinois, family law attorney Alan Hoffenberg. "Chances are, the judge will admit every piece of [so-called] evidence and then decide a case on [so-called] evidence that should never have been allowed."

 "We definitely sacrifice civil liberties," admits Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Center on Children and Law. "The alternative is to sacrifice the ability to protect children."

 The moment a father is accused of sexual abuse, he is forbidden to have any contact with his children until the court decides whether to file criminal charges or otherwise modify his custody rights.

 Meanwhile, the alleged victim undergoes evaluation by CPS. If she's assessed to have been abused, she's put into therapy, where, as Daly puts it, "she spends six months learning with other little girls about how daddies molest."

 Once prosecutors get a conviction, they won't give it up, despite a valid recantation by both the mother and the child.

 Thirty-four-year-old Robert Glenna is presently serving 36 years in Folsom Prison for allegedly molesting his nine-year-old daughter. During his 1986 criminal trial, the girl tried to retract her testimony, but was told that if she did, she would be prosecuted for perjury.

 The original charges were leveled against Glenna shortly after he left his wife and child for another woman. The girl, seeing how devastated her mother was over the breakup, lashed out at her father, accusing him of abuse.

 For months, the child and her cousin had been secretly watching an uncle's porn videos. When investigators asked her to describe the sex acts her father had allegedly forced her to commit, she easily rattled off lurid details.

 The jury only heard the child's account as stated in transcripts of the preliminary hearing testimony. Two months prior to trial, the girl had admitted to her mother that she had lied on the stand and that her father was innocent.

 "Jill Glenna called and told me there might be a problem," explains Wimberly, who'd been hired to investigate the case for the defense. "When I interviewed the girl, she broke down and cried and said, 'I can't sleep. I can't go to school. Daddy didn't do anything!'"

 Glenna's attorney filed a write of habeas corpus with an affidavit from the mother attesting to what the child has said. Yet, the mother and daughter soon had second thoughts.

 Neither the girl's counselor nor the investigating officer believed her when she told them she'd lied. According to her mother's sworn statement, they scared the girl out of recanting.

 "She said she was afraid that by telling the truth she would go to jail for lying in court or be put in a foster home," Jill said. A week later police warned Jill that if Robert was released as a consequence of her actions, they would see that she lost custody of both her children. "They definitely got the message," says Wimberly. "Robert is still in prison, and the child and her mother are too afraid to speak out. It's a nightmare."

 According to Larry Daly, the financial cost of defending against even blatantly false accusations runs anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000. "The investigation costs $5,000 to $10,000," he explains. "Attorney fees are another $10,000 to $45,000. Then your psychologist and court costs. I have a client who's already paid out $200,000. And if you don't have any money, you go to prison."

 Some divorce attorneys actively advise their clients to use false charges as a weapon. "It occurs regularly in New York State," admits Peter Sokaris. "We don't have joint custody as an option--it's winner take all. Unethical behavior is widespread among attorneys and clients."

 "If an accusation is made," adds Larry Dale, "the lawyer stands to earn more money for the additional litigation. He's assured of making $25,000 minimum.

 "I've begun to pinpoint attorneys in Seattle who are doing this. I'm onto one right now, and I'm going to make her ass suffer."

 According to news stories, Attorney Peter Gianino of Stuart, Florida, reportedly advised a client that the only way to gain sole custody of her four-year-old daughter was to claim that her ex-husband, Cecil Don Smith, molested the girl.

 A week later, Gianino's client, who'd initially lost custody of the child after attempting suicide, filed the charges. Within hours, a judge had returned the girl to her mother's care.

 As a result of his ex-wife's allegations, Don Smith was charged with capital sexual battery, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no parole for 25 years. Although a jury eventually found Smith innocent, he spent over seven months in jail awaiting trial.

 "I spent the first five weeks in maximum security with rapists, armed robbers and murderers," recalls Smith. "It was degrading. Inmates threatened to beat me up."

 Many states have made it a crime to deliberately file false accusations of child abuse. Sokaris notes, however, that in New York the law proved ineffective. "Authorities are reluctant to enforce it," he says. "To my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted."

 Left unpunished, there's no limit to the atrocities. For the past six years, 37-year-old Kevin Shea has been serving what amounts to a death sentence at the California State Medical Facility in Vacaville.

 Kevin was not a bad husband. He didn't beat his wife or drink his paycheck. His only sin was that at 24, he met another woman, fell in love and got divorced. For this, neither his first wife, Stephanie, nor their three-year-old son, Christopher, ever forgave him. When the time was right, they took their revenge.

 The ax didn't fall until Stephanie decided to remarry six years later. By then Kevin and his new wife, Cheryl, had a family of their own--two girls and one boy. Christopher lived with his mother and saw his father during regular weekend visitations.

 Stephanie announced to Kevin that Christopher wanted to be adopted by her new husband. Wishing to retain his right to see his son, Kevin refused to allow it. A month later, he and his wife were arrested and charged with 25 counts of child molestation.

 As Sacramento police officers drove off with his children, Kevin suffered a mild heart attack and was rushed to the hospital. Neither he nor his wife--against whom charges were eventually dropped--have seen the children since.

 "Christopher claimed his father molested everyone, including his ten-year-old niece," Kevin's mother, Elaine Shea, recalls. "But she kept saying she'd never been molested. She said so on the stand, but no one would believe her."

 The trial was a nightmare. According to Mrs. Shea, the judge, Benjamin Diaz, was on probation because he'd been caught getting head from a hooker in an alley. "It was as if he was proving to the world that he was sorry," Elaine says. "It was hand over Kevin to save himself."

 And hand over Kevin they did. The jury even found him guilty of having molested his 18-month-old son for a period of over three years.

 Stephanie was delighted. When the judge sentenced Kevin to 30 years in prison, she reportedly turned to her mother-in-law and laughed.

 Tragically, eight years ago Kevin underwent open heart surgery, at which time he received a heart valve that doctors said would last ten to 15 years. But Kevin has another nine years to serve before being eligible for parole, at least two years too late to save his heart.

 Defending against trumped-up child molestation charges means battling a three-headed monster. In addition to a vindictive ex-wife and a judiciary that errs on the side of children, men face a potent child abuse industry.

 "They've helped put many people in prison who don't belong there," claims Leslie Wimberly, president of the National Association of State VOCAL Organizations (P. O. Box 1314, Orangevale, CA 95662).

 VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws), a nonprofit organization with 14,000 national members, was established to provide moral and professional support to those falsely charged with child abuse. Wimberly decries privately operated social services that profit from unwarranted finding of molestation. "A lot of people are deliberately abusing the system," she says. Many communities rely upon quasi-independent investigatory agencies. One such operation, California's Child & Family Institute (CFI), is under a grant by the Sacramento County board of Supervisors to investigate allegations of child abuse, and to provide counseling for those involved.

 CFI runs a slick operation. When charges of sexual abuse arise in court, the child is sent to CFI for evaluation. Should CFI find evidence of molestation--which it reportedly always does--the father is told that unless he wants to drag his child through a traumatic trial, he must plead guilty and enter a therapy program that lasts four to eight years and costs a minimum of $485 a month--payable to CFI. Should the father drop out of therapy at any point, he goes immediately to prison without a trial.

 "CFI," Wimberly charges, "has literally built itself into the system. It makes a tremendous amount of money by creating its own caseload."

 A state fund to aid victims of crime allows CFI to make money off the children as well. If a child is assessed to have been abused, the agency can put him or her into therapy and bill the state for up to $42,000.

 "We interviewed a girl who was sent to CFI when she was nine years old," Wimberly recounts. "Her mother wanted her to falsely accuse her father of sexual abuse. She said that during group therapy at CFI, the children would sit in a circle, and each would tell the group how they'd been molested. If a child claimed nothing had happened, she was placed in the center of the circle and stared at until she finally admitted to being molested."

 According to Berkeley, California, psychiatrist Dr. Lee Coleman, most interviewers use a subtler coercive technique. "They take the iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove approach," he explains. "If a child says that nothing happened, they'll say, 'Well, we know something happened. We know it's hard to talk about, but you would make your mom proud. So let's put on our thinking cap. If something did happen, what do you think it might have been?'

 "Pretty soon, the child comes to believe that something did happen, because this powerful grown-up who knows all these things believes it did. That's how you send an innocent man to prison."

 Interviewers assume that children don't lie about being molested.

 In 1983, such unwarranted assumptions lead to an outbreak fo child abuse hysteria in Bakersfield, California. At one point, law enforcement officials believed that 77 local residents had formed a satanic molestation ring that had sacrificed 30 infants and subjected 60 children to physical and sexual abuse.

 The insanity began with the Dill-Pitts case. Ricky Pitts and his wife, Marcella, were falsely accused of sexual abuse while trying to gain custody of two sons by a previous marriage. By the time the case went to trial, the number of charges stood at 377, and the list of defendants included Marcella's mother, brother, sister, brother-in-law and a close female friend.

 It was alleged that the Dill-Pitts family had sexually abused six young children and had assaulted them with guns and knives and made kiddie porn films. Despite testimony from two of the girls who swore under oath that they had never been molested, the seven defendants were found guilty and sentence to a combined 2,619 years in prison.

 Within two years, children began to retract their statements. The first to recant was Ricky Pitt's 13-year-old niece, who blamed her perjured testimony on pressure from the prosecution. "None of it's true," the girl, who'd been ten at the time, admitted. "I told them it didn't happen, but they kept after me and after me."

 The girl estimated that during the six weeks prior to her testimony, the DA's child abuse coordinator, Carol Darling, had interviewed her 30 times. "She told me that she knew I was molested," the girl recalled. "I told her I wasn't, but she said that all the other kids had been saying that they had seen it happen.

 "She kept saying, 'Why don't you just tell me it's true?' Finally, I did, because I was sick of her questions."

 The seven defendants remained in prison until December 1990. After six years, California's Fifth District Court of Appeals overturned their convictions, citing 500 counts of prosecutorial misconduct.

 "I've handled over 120 felony appeals," says local Shingle Springs attorney Richard Power. "I've certainly seen misconduct before. But I have never seen anything that was within telescopic sight of this case."

 The prosecution's case hinged on accusations that the children had been subjected to frequent intravenous drug use and bondage, but there were no needle marks or bruises to show the jury.

 So they brought in Dr. Bruce Woodling, a family practitioner turned child abuse expert who claimed he could detect evidence of prior molestation by interpreting such anomalies as anal-sphincter reflex (aka perianal wink) or unusual patters of blood vessels on the hymen. With Woodling on the stand saying he had seen physical evidence of abuse, the jury forgot all about the nonexistent bruises and needle marks.

 "Much of the testimony presently used to support false accusations in these cases comes from supposed medical experts like Woodling, who don't know their butt from a hole in the wall," says Powers.

 Woodling, whose views are so widely accepted that they're taught in medical schools, developed his theories without performing a single scientific study. He simply examined children who were molested, never looking to see if his indicators for abuse were also present in children who hadn't been abused.

 Recognizing the value of Woodling's' techniques in securing convictions, law enforcement and child protection workers began to seek out medical examiners who subscribed to his teachings. Soon Woodling-trained "specialists" were in such demand that professionals came from far and wide to be tutored by the Master and his disciples. Each would then return home to teach the theories to dozens of others, who have since testified against falsely accused fathers nationwide.

 It wasn't until 1988 that the first solid data disproving Woodling's theories surfaced. A study of 300 prepubertal children performed in Fresno, california, by Dr. John McCann, found that most of Woodling's indicators for molestation were present in up to 50% of all unabused children.

 By then it was too late to mend the shattered lives of countless men and children who'd been victimized. According to Lee Coleman, plenty more carnage is yet to come. "Anyone who thinks the problem is going to go awry," he warns, "doesn't know what's happening."

In Daniel Goeman's article, "Taking a Child's Word on Sex Abuse: Researchers Find New Land Mines" for the New York Times Service, he explores the way very young children are apt to give false testimony.

The testimony of small children is usually considered truthful unless proved otherwise--a belief that had led to convictions in many child abuse cases. The younger the child, the less likely the child was making up a story, psychologists have thought.

 But now there is new evidence that persistent questioning can lead young children to describe events that never occurred. The new research fuels the debate over the question of how much judges and juries should rely on a child word when that is the only evidence of abuse. These studies are the first ones based on the questions commonly asked children in legal cases.

 "Many people who specialize in these (sex abuse) cases have a preconceived notion of what happened, and in the course of questioning suggest it to the child, who then reports it as though it were true," said Dr. Maggie Bruck, a psychologist at McGill University. She and Dr. Stephen Ceci, a psychologist at Cornell University, reviewed studies of children suggestibility in the current issue of Psychological Bulletin.

 Some researchers fear the new findings will be used to muzzle investigators, leaving them unable to get children to report sexual abuse when it has actually occurred.

 "It may take a certain amount of leading questioning to get a sexually abused child to disclose it," said Dr. Gail Goodman, a psychologist at the University of California at David who is co-editor of "Child Victims, Child Witnesses: Understanding and Improving Testimony."

 An estimated 20,000 children testify in sex abuse trials each year.

 Repeated questions can breed fantasy

 The new research focuses on children 6 years old and younger.

 Certain investigative techniques appear to increase the likelihood of false reports. One technique is repeated questioning over several weeks. When sexual abuse is suspected, children typically are asked the same questions by case workers, police, parents and lawyers before they testify in court.

 That repetition may lead some young children to concoct stories, according to a study by Ceci and colleagues.

 In the study of children ages 4 to 6, parents helped researchers make a list of two events that had occurred in each child's life and eight that had not. In weekly sessions, the researchers reviewed the list with the child, asking for each event, "Has this ever happened to you?"

 One 4-year-old boy, for example, answered truthfully, "No, I've never been to the hospital," the first time he was asked if he had ever gone to the hospital because his finger had been caught in a mousetrap.

 But the next week, in response to the same question, he volunteered, "Yes. I cried." By the eleventh week of questioning, he was offering an elaborate tale about his brother's pushing him into the mousetrap.

 Such accounts were common. By the eleventh week, 56 percent of children reported at least one false event as true, and some children reported all the false events as true, Ceci said.

 "The more often you ask young children to think about something, the easier it becomes for them to make something up that they think is a memory," he said.

 Accounts of their false memories are often quite believable. Ceci has shown videotapes of children recounting both true and false "memories" to more than 1,000 professionals who specialize in cases of child abuse, including lawyers, social workers an psychiatrists.

 The experts can tell truth from fantasy only about a third of the time, Ceci said. "That's worse than chance."

 The research also casts doubt on anatomically detailed dolls, which often are used in investigations of child abuse. Ceci and his colleagues reported on a study in which they questioned 3-year-olds who had just had a physical examination.

Half the exams included a genital inspection. Of those children who received no genital exam, 38 percent answered "Yes" when a researcher pointed to the doll's genitals and asked, "Did he touch you here?"

 When the question was posed in a leading fashion, using the child's own word for genitals, 70 percent of children who had received no such exam said the doctor had touched their genitals.

 The children are not being intentionally misleading, Ceci said, but are simply very poor at recalling and explaining what happened.

 That uncertainty may help explain why adults who think they know what has happened to a child can often get the child to agree.

Then from Louis Kiefer's "Defense Considerations in the Child as Witness in Allegations of Sexual Abuse," 1989, in the journal, Issues in Child Abuse Accusations 1989, we see the motives of older children and why they lie in knowingly accusing adults of sexual abuse.

My theory as to why older children would lie about sexual abuse is one of a small lie getting out of hand. The results were unforeseeable to the child at the time the false allegation first came to life. Consequently, one should consider the motive for the little lie and attempt to learn how it goes wild. Based upon general reading, it appears that the motives in the adolescent victim may include one or more of the following:

 (a) Shift blame from a boyfriend.

 (b) Get even, revenge, i.e., against a teacher for a bad grade, against a parent for perceived unreasonable punishment.

 (c) Get attention--I guarantee you that there is no bigger hero or heroine among the mental health and police community than the child who claims sexual abuse.

 (d) Imitation of movie scripts--A child who has seen a TV movie about incest or rape may identify with the heroine. Check to see if such movies as, "The Trouble with Amanda," or "Kids Don't Tell" have been viewed by the alleged victim.

 (e) Imitation of real accusations. Adolescents are fad conscious, and if this becomes a fad, then other children may be prone to join the fad. Consequently, do not discount, especially when a teacher is involved, that other teenagers want to get in on the action. A child can become a real hero with her peers if she, too, can claim that she was the object of a teacher's affections.

 (f) Psychotic delusional thinking --some children are simply out of touch with reality.

 (g) Jealousy--the child is jealous of the attention given by a natural parent to a stepparent or a step sibling.

 (h) Take the heat off for doing poorly in school or for other behavior problems. Once the false allegation is made, it is guaranteed that no one will mention the word "homework" again.

Now what do you do once faced with a charge of child abuse and sexual assault? You'd better do something because it sure isn't just going to go away. If you think it is, just wait a couple months and do nothing. I assure you that in no time you'll be in prison labeled a "child molester"and it won't be a day at the beach for you.

 Here Sidney Siller, president of the National Organization for Men, 11 Park Place, New York, NY 10007, gives us some tips on what to do when faced with a false allegation. from his column, "Men's Rights" in Penthouse magazine, March 1993:

 There is no greater horror than to find out that your child has been a victim of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or emotional neglect. But equally--or probably more devastating, is when a false charge of child abuse is made in a custody case. The media has been quick to draw attention to cases involving the issue of child abuse. Most recently, we've seen this in the ongoing battle between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. In fact, allegations of child abuse in divorce proceedings have become so common that intellectual bureaucrats have given them their own acronym--SAID (sexual allegations in divorce). Such accusations can be extremely destructive and can cause you the loss of your child, your career, and your civil rights. The essential question is, what can you do when you're faced with becoming a victim of false abuse accusations?

 Dean Tong, a father falsely accused of child abuse and the author of the book, Don't Blame ME,Daddy helps us answer this question. Tong's book is important not only for the painstaking descriptive narrative of his case, but also for the advice he gives readers who may find themselves in a similar situation.

 Tong emphasizes the importance of remaining in the marital residence, "unless ordered to move out by the court or advised to do so by a professional you trust." Leaving can be considered an abandonment of your child, and once you leave, your ex-wife will have full control of the child.

 He also states that it is important to "document everything throughout the divorce/custody suit" and to keep notes of what the kids say during their visits. Record any denials of visitation. These can raise questions as to whether your wife is sincere in her efforts to do what is best for the child.

 Have an eyewitness present at all visits that you have with your child. This will help corroborate your testimony at trial. Don't be alone with your child if you have any suspicions about your spouse's actions or potential actions.

 If you foresee a bitter divorce/custody battle ensuing, hire an expert attorney who is familiar with SAID syndrome cases.

 Tong writes that you should "do everything possible to halt any further interviewing or treatment [of your child], unless there is some guarantee the individuals involved will avoid teaching the child that he/she has ben abused. Continuous interviews and/or therapy may be used to train the child to give desired responses or tell preprogrammed stories." Repetition is often a device used to brainwash a child.

 If you have been previously prevented from seeing your child "attempt to regain custody or visitation immediately, with the understanding such custody or visitation will include constant supervision by a third party."

 Never offend the child protection agency personnel or a court appointed law guardian. These civil servants may look for any opportunity to turn on you.

 do not verbalize any ill feelings you have about your spouse to your child. This form of influence often backfires and may injure your cause.

 Lastly, never concede that you are guilty of child abuse charges when you are not. Never waver in asserting your innocence.

 Another excellent article on what to do in cases of false reports was written by William Bender, Ph.D. (University of Georgia) in The Liberator June 1993. It shows men how to fight not only false reports of child abuse, but also covers the full spectrum fo false allegations.

 Every man in our society today is at risk. It happens like this...At work one day you see a police officer at your door. Your immediate thoughts are for the safety of your wife, your children, or your parents. And while you are in the process of asking questions about those individuals whom you love, you realize that the police officer has begun to advise you of your rights. You vaguely hear the word "arrest" as they put the handcuffs on you. And in front of your co-workers and whoever else happens to be in the building, typically in a very public display with disgust written on their faces, the police officer will lead you out of the building an take you downtown. You are sitting in the back of a police car, you don't even know what is happening, you vaguely recall someone having mentioned the word abuse.

 Sexual harassment, child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual abuse of minors; these are the crimes that our society has become more cognizant of.

Unfortunately, with our increasing awareness of these issues, our society has seen a drastic increase in false allegations of all of these types of crimes. Dean Tong, in his recent book, Don't Blame ME, Daddy indicated that 56% of allegations of child sexual abuse in custody cases are false. Other data indicate that as many as 3 or 4 allegations of sexual harassment may be false.

These false allegations cost unbelievably in terms of time and money, but the biggest price is paid in reputations destroyed. Further, our courts have not determined an efficient, reliable manner to distinguish between true and false allegations. The implications are clear; every man in society is presently at risk.

 These are the days of the Salem witch trials. The demagoguery, the mistrust, and the overt bigotry of those bygone days have returned. In Georgia, as one example, one's name can be added to the state registry of "abusers" with no investigations and no trial. The allegation is sufficient. We are clearly in the McCarthy era again. These are the times when an allegation is synonymous with conviction, at least in the court of public opinion, and many of us who have been through false allegations and survived, believe that the court of public opinion is much more important than the court of law. We tremble, we know that one more false allegation begins to sound like truth; we know that two false allegations sometimes result in a conviction. We live in fear

 False Allegations: The Available Evidence

 Only in the context of these lies, half truths, and overt bias against men can the issue of false allegations be understood. This bias accounts for the drastic increase in false allegations, as documented by the national press, as well as numerous practitioners. Still, only a few research articles have investigated this phenomenon. In the "Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy," Besharov suggested that 35% of the allegations of abuse in 1976 were determined to be unfounded. However, by 1985, that percentage had soared to 65%.

 In Thoennes and Thaden's work, recently published in the "International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect," 169 cases from 12 district courts throughout the U.S. were studied. Two percent of the custody/visitation cases involved allegations of sexual abuse of children, and in only 50 % of those cases was abuse actually demonstrated. In 33% of the cases, the accusations were found to be false, and 17% of the cases were ruled in determinant. An error rate between 33% and 50% indicates a very serious problem; false allegations are prevalent, pervasive, and disproportionately discriminatory (against)men.

 What can I do?

 There are some ideas and strategies which seem to emerge from the literature that you should consider if you are the victim of false allegations. The first point is do something! As soon as any type of accusation is made, retain an attorney and demand to see any evidence of abuse or harassment. Often, in cases of harassment, an employer will caution the accused to "Keep a low profile." The employer may not even reveal who made the allegation, and may advise you not to obtain a lawyer. That is unsound advice, since the accused, may then be victimized at whim (e.g., merit pay allocations, bonuses) while never having the opportunity to confront the accuser. It is crucial from the outset that you view these charges as something serious enough to take your freedom and your life savings. If yo are male, you are at great risk and you should act accordingly.

 Next, become as knowledgeable as you can on the issues of false allegations. You should investigate the several books available on the subject, and obtain copies of the available scholarship. You should not assume that the judge, hearing officer, or human services professionals are aware of the drastic increase in false allegations. You should be prepared to present the evidence on false allegations to your attorney and these practitioners in the field to let them know that you will not "roll over and play dead" when confronted with false charges. Tong and many others in the field suggest that men should assume that human services workers are as biased against men, as the courts. The best strategy is to present your case assertively; stand up for yourself because no one else will.

 Next you may wish to consider a psychological exam for yourself, a personality assessment. While this can be a double edged sword, you should have yourself evaluated and, if the resulting report is favorable towards your case, use that psychologist as an "expert" witness to testify that your personality is not the "typically abusive" personality.

 Next, accused persons should challenge the definition of "abuse." In the psychological literature, for example, there is no single definition for spousal abuse. For example, it is quite frequent in our society when marriages fail for there to be one, two, three, or five incidences of pushing, slapping, or shoving. In some cases there are multiple incidence of these behaviors. However, there is a great deal of difference between two slaps, or four slaps over the lifetime of a marriage--as socially unacceptable as that behavior is--and spousal abuse. courts tend to consider whether or not those slaps took place in the context of an argument, if there was no use of alcohol or other drugs involved when those slaps took place, if there was contextual disagreement of the parties at the time those slaps took place, and a number of other factors. Practitioners and courts tend to consider abusive behavior as highly repetitive behavior, aggressive assaults, both in and out of the context of arguments that result in serious injury. Abuse often takes place in the context of the use of "recreational" drugs.

 Still women have found that if there has been one or two shoving incidents or a slap or two over a two or three year period prior to the dissolution of the marriage, that the use of false allegations is an effective tactic. The court will spend hours listening to the man's exact description of what he did and then will deliberate for hours whether or not abuse took place in that context. The use of false allegation as a tactic is disreputable and repugnant; however, it is very frequently used and frequently effective given the pervasive anti-male bias.

 No one, I repeat, NO ONE, in this field wishes to excuse real abuse or wishes to go back to the days when real abuse was swept under the rug. However, it is not conducive to society's growing understanding of these issues to use inflated and exaggerated claims of what happened. Every push, slap or shove is not abuse. Abuse takes place when there are repetitive, extremely violent, occurrences independent of ongoing arguments, and where it can be documented.

 Next, force your attorney to confront the "experts" who testify agai