Santa Clara County False Child Sex Abuse Scandal

Written by: Print This Article Print This Article   
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
February 15th, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

Child sexual abuse is a serious allegation, often destroying the lives of those accused even when they not convicted. The trauma of the investigation often damages the children, too. In the case of children who were not abused, the investigation can be far more abusive than anything that really did happen to them. Yet apparently the government of Santa Clara County behaves as if child sexual abuse allegations warrant hiding evidence to prevent a defense and possibly bullying children into getting the testimony the police and DA want for their cases.

The Center for Child Protection at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, an organization contracted by the county to do medical exams on alleged child abuse victims, apparently hid 3000 child sex abuse exam tapes since 1991. This crippled the defenses of many accused of child sex abuse crimes. The DA’s office claims to have just found out about the existence of the tapes.

Shortly after the “discovery” of the sexual abuse exam tapes, the tape of one exam that showed there was no sexual abuse was used in the California Sixth Court of Appeals to overturn the conviction of a man named Agustin Uribe. The alleged child victim had already recanted and provided inconsistent testimony, but with the “guilty until proven innocent” bias of child sex abuse trials, Uribe had been convicted anyway.

More requests for new trials are pending. Mary Ritter, the coordinator for the Center for Child Protection, was one of the witnesses in many cases who testified regarding sexual abuse. This includes the Uribe case. Yet she had knowledge of evidence such as the videotapes that was relevant to the cases, but apparently hid it. Her credibility should be seriously questioned given these revelations and her ties to the county government, law enforcement, and the prosecutor’s office.

Santa Clara County should launch civil and criminal grand jury investigations of Mary Ritter, the Center for Child Protection, and the District Attorney’s office. Conspiracy to cover up evidence in a criminal case is a serious offense. If this is indeed what happen, Ritter and the others involved should be fired and prosecuted. Furthermore, the County should consider terminating the services contract with the Center for Child Protection.

Santa Clara is just another of the many California counties involved in persecution of people apparently falsely accused of sexual abuse. It joins San Diego County’s infamous record of government abuse in the James Wade and Dale Akiki cases and Los Angeles County’s abysmal record with the McMartin Preschool sex abuse trials. It is clear that the policies in the State of California are encouraging wrongful prosecutions and abuse of both children and the falsely accused.

When will the government abuse end? After reviewing what happened in the James Wade and Dale Akiki cases and many other false child abuse cases promulgated by the San Diego County child protection system, the San Diego County Grand Jury and many others believed the abuse would not end until individuals in the child protection system are held legally accountable by stripping them from immunity for misconduct. That hasn’t happened, so the government abuse continues.

Custom Search

Further Reading

Hospital videotapes may jeopardize child sex abuse convictions

Fraudulent child sex abuse claims in Santa Clara County?

Up to 3,000 fraudulent child abuse claims in Santa Clara County?

San Diego County Grand Jury Letter Regarding CPS Abuses

False Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Disputes

Wikipedia: McMartin Preschool Trial

Wikipedia: Alicia Wade

Wikipedia: Dale Akiki

San Diego County Grand Jury 1993-94 Report on Dale Akiki Case

Assessing the Costs of False Allegations of Child Abuse: A Prescriptive

  1. rockymeet
    June 21st, 2009 at 08:20 | #1

    Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent abuses a child for sexual stimulation.[1][2] Forms of CSA include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure of the genitals to a child, displaying pornography to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, or using a child to produce child pornography.[1][3][4]

    Effects of child sexual abuse include depression,[5] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6] anxiety,[7] propensity to re-victimization in adulthood,[8] and physical injury to the child, among other problems.[9] Sexual abuse by a family member is a form of incest, and can result in more serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest.[10]

    Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases. Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; women commit approximately 14% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.[11] Most offenders who abuse pre-pubescent children are pedophiles,[16][17] however a small percentage do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.[18]

    Under the law, “child sexual abuse” is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.[4][19] The American Psychiatric Association states that “children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults”,[20][21] and condemns any such action by an adult: “An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior
    Sept 1–Sept 1

  1. April 22nd, 2009 at 23:21 | #1
  2. July 4th, 2009 at 18:09 | #2
  3. September 21st, 2009 at 02:43 | #3
  4. October 27th, 2009 at 20:59 | #4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *