Does Not Included = Not Molested?

PSP asks some "hard hitting" questions today regarding the investigation against Robert Adams.

I find it quite interesting that the initial complaint by Irma Mertens that ignited this firestorm was deemed by investigators to be non-credible and the police interview of the little elementary age girl in question found that she wasn't molested afterall. Hummm, you think that it would have been a little smarter to figure that out BEFORE they closed the school and threw someone under the bus? I also find it interesting how police say they "instructed' parents on how to interview their children--it must be an extremely easy thing to do if any lay person can do it. I wonder though to do this if they had parents take a course on victim interviewing, did they give them a book to read on how to do it with a pass/fail test, or did they just give them a piece of paper or tell them over the phone, do this don't do that? Also, wondering if they made the parents videotape or audiotape the interviews so that they know exactly what was said, when it was said and how it was said. I'm thinking that since parents probably aren't professional interviewers but were intrusted with the police to do this, I wonder how many didn't follow all of the police's 'rules' on interviewing victims and 'accidently' used leading questions or nonverbals to get answers? Many thoughts to ponder....

I admit, the question regarding why Irma's most serious complaint was not part of the charges filed is a good one.  We don't know why her initial allegations were not part of the charges filed.  While prosecutors have the ability to include that charge at a later date, it is very interesting that it wasn't included initially.  It could be for a myriad of reasons, none of which truly matter in terms of the current 7 charges.  Is she saying she would rather he face 8 counts in court? As interesting as the Irma Merten's allegations are, never has it been said that the child in those allegations "wasn't molested afterall".  It simply means that as of today, there is not enough evidence for the District Attorney's office to warrant bringing charges forward. Yet.  That is a very big yet here, folks. Charges can be added (or dropped) any time during the legal process. This answers our question, not included surely does not equal not molested.

Remember though, Irma's allegations were regarding two different incidents and two different children.  One incident occurred in the summer of 2010, the other occurred in January or February 2011. Irma reported that a parent had complained to her that their child said "Mr. Bob had touched her on her pee-pee".  This child is included in the original charges that were filed.

Let's talk about the "parent interviews". Nowhere have I seen, heard or witnessed anything about CHPD instructing parents on how to "interview" their child. In fact, in looking at their website, it actually says quite the opposite:

- If you suspect your child may have been a victim, it is critical that investigators obtain the best statement possible.Conducting your own interview with your child may hamper this. 

-If you suspect your child may have been a victim, it is normal to be concerned. Please contact the police station via the provided numbers as soon as possible. 

-Avoid leading questions which may cause your child to falsely disclose 

-It is normal to be upset. Your child may interpret this to mean that an act of molest, if one did occur, is their "fault" you should be sensitive to these feelings an attempt to mitigate any feelings of guilt they feel.

At the parent meeting on July 18, 2011 the lead detective at that time was asked by a parent how to determine if their child may have been a victim.   His response was to ask non-leading questions and open ended questions and to call CHPD immediately if there was a concern.  The interviews of the children in each of the charges were done at the SAFE Center by one or all of the following: law officers, deputy district attorneys, social workers, medical professionals, victim advocates and licensing workers.  Parents are not involved in the interviewing done at the SAFE Center because of the very thing PSP mentions.  Charges are not brought forth simply because a parent says their child said something happened.

Once a report is received, Law Enforcement officials are engaged and the complaint goes through the course of investigation like any other case. To think I could simply call CHPD and report that PSP had taken valuables from my home and she would be charged is ludicrous.  There would be an investigation, LE would look for evidence and if sufficient evidence was found, charges could be brought against her.  Suppose my case makes it to the media, the DA is not responsible for disclosing the evidence found to the general public. Motions will be filed by PSP's attorney for Discovery and at that time evidence will be shared.  It still does not mean that the general public will hear about it.  The DA will not try their case in the media and if the evidencing is particularly damning, PSP's attorney will not want to advertise it either.

As the general public, we do not have all the facts, nor should we.  CFS supporters do not have all the facts despite possibly believing they do.  For some supporters, their reality of this case relies solely on media and what the Adams family tells them to believe. We are not saying don't believe in Robert Adams innocence.  We are simply asking people to use the brain in their head and truly think about the facts that are public record.