Nelsons daughter and son-in-law accused of sex abuse

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Rosebud. Then what you need are copies of the actual Court files both at the trial and the appellate level. I don’t know how much of that is still available. In the two cases that went to the Utah Supreme Court, there would also be a “record” on appeal. That would consist of the parts of the trial testimony and exhibits that either side thought was relevant to the appeal. That wouldn’t necessarily be a complete record, but it might be easier to track down.

If I were taking this on as a project, I’d start by contacting the Utah State Archives asking if the trial and appellate court files for the specific cases you are interested in. That would help you figure out the universe of available legal documents. You could also search Google scholar for any law review article on the subject. That might help fill out the chronology, although it would not give the same level of detail as the court files.

[_Rosebud]

Thanks, Rosebud. Then what you need are copies of the actual Court files both at the trial and the appellate level. I don’t know how much of that is still available. In the two cases that went to the Utah Supreme Court, there would also be a “record” on appeal. That would consist of the parts of the trial testimony and exhibits that either side thought was relevant to the appeal. That wouldn’t necessarily be a complete record, but it might be easier to track down.

If I were taking this on as a project, I’d start by contacting the Utah State Archives asking if the trial and appellate court files for the specific cases you are interested in. That would help you figure out the universe of available legal documents. You could also search Google scholar for any law review article on the subject. That might help fill out the chronology, although it would not give the same level of detail as the court files.

Thank you Res.

Mary, I can help with this. But I'm at a point in my life where I'm too slammed to do anything I don't make a commitment to do -- out loud to another person like -you-. If I promise to get something done, it'll happen. If I start tracking documents down, will you have time to read through them and let me know what else I need to go look for?

Res, would you help advise us?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supre ... 70053.html

In response, defendant presented three expert witnesses who were critical of Dr. Snow's techniques and the validity of Dr. Tyler's corroborative assessments because of the asserted contamination of the victims' testimony occasioned by Dr. Snow's interviewing process. Specifically, Dr. Monica Christy testified that it was important to tape the initial interviews of the children, not only to record the answers, but also to understand how the questions were asked and to be able to remember the fine details of the interview. Dr. Christy challenged the objectivity of Dr. Snow's interviewing techniques of ignoring the child's response until the child learned to give the answer she expected and of rewarding answers that she liked by making such comments as "good boy." Dr. Christy was critical of Dr. Snow's practice of "shaping" the testimony of a child by confronting an undesired response with the statement that the child must tell the truth, thereby implying that the truth had not been told. She was also critical of the fact that at the meeting held in the office of the county attorney, the boys were permitted to "cross-contaminate" each other by sharing their versions of the sexual abuse incidents.

Dr. Michael DeCaria was similarly critical of Dr. Snow's interviewing procedures. He testified that when interviewing children, the questions must be "open-ended." That is, a question cannot have the answer already contained within it. The interviewer must also be neutral and impartial from the outset and not make prejudgments as to what has occurred. Additionally, Dr. DeCaria explained that there is a danger in having children repeat allegations to different people since the more an event is discussed, the more real the event may seem to become. He emphasized the need to record the interviews of the children. It was his ultimate opinion that by the time the boys were interviewed by Dr. Tyler, they were irretrievably contaminated by their previous contacts with Dr. Snow, their parents, and the other children.

Dr. Stephen Golding testified that one who interviews a child in such cases must remain completely neutral and that when Dr. Snow conceded that she was a child advocate looking for sexual abuse, she missed the forensic mental health standards "by a mile." It was his conclusion that once the boys had been contaminated by the interviewing methods of Dr. Snow, it was impossible for Dr. Tyler or anyone else to know what had actually happened.

Defendant contends that he was denied due process because the initial interviews of the child victims conducted by Dr. Snow so contaminated the investigative process through suggestive questioning and inadequate recording practices that the evidence of sexual abuse that surfaced during her interviews and the subsequent interviews of the victims by other persons, including their parents, rendered all of the evidence inadmissible.

Defendant also claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel (1) failed to raise the due process challenge to the admissibility of the State's evidence of child sexual abuse; (2) failed to challenge the admissibility of the child victims' out-of-court statements; (3) failed to object to the competency of the children, parents, and experts to testify; (4) failed to object to the "syndrome" evidence; (5) failed to object to the videotaping procedures employed; (6) failed to object to the expert witness testimony that the children in this case were victims of sexual abuse; and (7) failed to make an opening statement or file post-trial motions. Defendant *158 concedes that the claims raised on appeal were not raised in the court below.

I think at this point if you're in Dr. Snow's camp you're pretty much outing yourself as so far gone that there's no reasoning with you. You have three PhD's up above testifying under oath that Dr. Snow sucks Sasquatch balls at being a therapist.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Rosebud, I’m happy to give any advice that might be helpful. If I stumble upon something that might be relevant, I’ll post it.

[_Rosebud]

Rosebud, I’m happy to give any advice that might be helpful. If I stumble upon something that might be relevant, I’ll post it.

Thanks

[_Mary]

Thanks, Rosebud. Then what you need are copies of the actual Court files both at the trial and the appellate level. I don’t know how much of that is still available. In the two cases that went to the Utah Supreme Court, there would also be a “record” on appeal. That would consist of the parts of the trial testimony and exhibits that either side thought was relevant to the appeal. That wouldn’t necessarily be a complete record, but it might be easier to track down.

If I were taking this on as a project, I’d start by contacting the Utah State Archives asking if the trial and appellate court files for the specific cases you are interested in. That would help you figure out the universe of available legal documents. You could also search Google scholar for any law review article on the subject. That might help fill out the chronology, although it would not give the same level of detail as the court files.

Thank you Res.

Mary, I can help with this. But I'm at a point in my life where I'm too slammed to do anything I don't make a commitment to do -- out loud to another person like -you-. If I promise to get something done, it'll happen. If I start tracking documents down, will you have time to read through them and let me know what else I need to go look for?

Res, would you help advise us?

I'd be happy to help.

[_Rosebud]

Okay, I commit to following through with Res's first suggestion tomorrow afternoon. Utah State Archives.

[_Rosebud]

Er.... Monday ;)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supre ... 20640.html

Dr. Barbara Snow, who was then clinical director of the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center and had interviewed A.W., said that because of what A.W. had told her and the consistency of A.W.'s behavior with other sexually abused children, it was her opinion that A.W. had been abused. She stated that her clinic had "never had a child who gave false testimony" and that "[c]hildren typically don't lie."

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 36/505568/

Bullock also took the stand in his own defense, denying any improper behavior toward the boys or any other child. Similarly, his daughter testified and denied that she had been involved in any sexual activity with her father or with any of the boys, as the boys had alleged. She also described her interview with Dr. Snow wherein Dr. Snow attempted to coerce her to admit that she had been sexually abused.

- Doc

[_Rosebud]

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1989/20640.html

Dr. Barbara Snow, who was then clinical director of the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center and had interviewed A.W., said that because of what A.W. had told her and the consistency of A.W.'s behavior with other sexually abused children, it was her opinion that A.W. had been abused. She stated that her clinic had "never had a child who gave false testimony" and that "[c]hildren typically don't lie."

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 36/505568/

Bullock also took the stand in his own defense, denying any improper behavior toward the boys or any other child. Similarly, his daughter testified and denied that she had been involved in any sexual activity with her father or with any of the boys, as the boys had alleged. She also described her interview with Dr. Snow wherein Dr. Snow attempted to coerce her to admit that she had been sexually abused.

- Doc

Context is always critical Doc. Long docs on children lying. Easy to pull out a few worda and criticize. Harder to listen in context to learn. Still have seen little from Snow. Hoping we'll hear from her.