WIEGAND CASE

Enclosed please find a concealed State of Connecticut report that confirms the severe sexual abuse of two boys in the hands of their abusers, Thomas Wilkinson and Karen Wilkinson Nutter.

The report was prepared at the request of Connecticut State's Attorney, James E. Thomas by Senior Assistant State's Attorney, John H. Massameno and submitted on October 27, 1998. This report recommends a criminal prosecution of Thomas Wilkinson and exculpates Linda Wiegands's efforts to protect her children from their abusers, the charges for which she is currently a fugitive. The State has stripped her of all assets, present and future income and has issued numerous warrants in an effort to silence her.

Instead of immediately releasing this report, it was suppressed for eighteen months, which left (and still leaves) her children unprotected in the custody of their sexual abusers. The report came to light in the February, 2000 criminal trial of Colonel James "Bo" Gritz, who is currently on trial for his efforts on behalf of the boys, Jon and Ben.

As soon as the State released the report to Col. Gritz's defense attorneys, Connecticut Judge Rubinow sealed the report claiming to protect the children's "privacy". (Also, in separate family and criminal court hearings, Connecticut judges sealed audio tapes of the children's sexual abuse disclosures, which according to Motions to Quash (see enclosed), contained grave allegations of sexual abuse allegations by the children against Thomas Wilkinson" also to protect the children's "privacy" Since this report establishes that the children are in danger and that the State has protected abusers, the judges reasoning is absolutely unacceptable.

Many people are outraged by the injustice in this case. Although it is painful to make public the disclosure of these children's suffering, their protection from abuse takes precedence. It does appear that their only hope for protection is public attention and action.

The Connecticut "judicial" system has, and is trying to, severely punish a protective parent's efforts to protect her children. It has fined her, imprisoned her, and as this report makes clear, is trying to prosecute her for taking her children away from their abusers. Since the legal system has protected the abusers, only you have the power to protect her children by exposing the states' failures; requiring that the recommended prosecution of the abusers begins; requiring that an emergency and removal of her children be made from this abusive home for their protection and initiate an investigation of the cover-up of the abuse. To assist you, in addition to the aforementioned report, a detailed chronology of the case is also enclosed.

In conclusion, the judges' sealing of evidence which concretely substantiates the sexual abuse of these children has subjected these boys to continued harm and abuse and possible death. Six years ago, a series of defective orders have led to a malicious cover-up, leaving two children in the hands of their abusers, without their mother and without psychiatric treatment. These children have been denied their civil rights and the protection that the judicial system and our laws afford them. Their lives are in danger and your help is imperative.

Expose the truth!

Please read the enclosed documentation.

A case narrative and additional court documentation can be accessed HERE [scroll down to the "Linda Wiegand case".]

MEMORANDUM

I. INTRODUCTION

As I discussed with Chief State's Attorney Bailey and Deputy Chief State's Attorney Christopher L. Morano on July 8, 1998, during the course of my work on this case I learned of evidence that supports the allegations that Thomas Wilkinson sexually abused J.W. (D.O.B. 1/13/86) and B.W. (D.O.B. 1/8/89). That evidence would be exculpatory in any trial of Linda Wiegand on charges of custodial interference, which is scheduled to proceed in Enfield. That is so because, as I am informed, Ms. Wiegand intends to assert the common-law defense of necessity, claiming that she needed to prevent contact between the boys and Thomas Wilkinson in order to protect them from further sexual abuse.

In accordance with my responsibilities under the state and federal constitutions, the General Statutes, and the Rules of Professional Responsibility, I set out below a brief summary of that exculpatory evidence. Because of the volume of documents, some that are not readily accessible to me, and the amount of time that would be required to review them, I rely upon my recollection of the facts, my notes summarizing the documents that I have reviewed, on occasion the documents themselves, and draft reports of Det. Sgt. Brian Cavanaugh summarizing them. Recourse to the actual documents relied upon or recalled should be made to verify the facts set out below.

This memorandum is divided into three parts: (1) the introduction; (2) a summary of the evidence that would appear to support the allegations of sexual abuse; (3) a presentation of Wilkinson's apparently misleading statements and other conduct that would indicate that he is conscious of his guilt and seeking to conceal it; (4) some remarks about the credibility of Linda Wiegand; and (5) a brief discussion of the evidence that Wilkinson abused the boys by failing to attend to their psychological needs and deliberately harmed them by pursuing the various court actions designed to obtain money for him directly or as their representative and custodian. I have also attached three appendices, one containing copies of some of the boys' drawings that were presented and described to Dr. Gordon Ahlers, Appendix A; the second is a copy of my earlier memorandum to you concerning the case and the custody evaluation performed by Dr. Kenneth Robson, Appendix B; and the third is a drawing by J.W. depicting what he described as an instance in which Wilkinson punched him in the stomach.

As I am certain that you realize, the narrative set out below is by no means exhaustive.

It is my opinion that a reasonable parent in Linda Wiegand's position in February, 1994, would have believed that J.W. and B.W. had been sexually abused by Thomas Wilkinson and Karen Nutter and would reasonably have concluded that, to avoid further abuse, it was necessary to disobey an order of a court requiring that she deliver custody of the boys to either of them. This opinion is based upon a factual assumption that Linda Wiegand had no knowledge of, or participation in the creation of any false report of child sexual abuse concerning the boys.

II. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD APPEAR TO
SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE

1. According to the records of the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the Stowe Vermont Police Department, on January 15, 1993, Linda Wiegand anonymously reported that her four-year-old son, B.W. (DOB 01-08-89), told her that he had been sexually assaulted by his father, Thomas Wilkinson. Wiegand explained that B.W. told her that his father makes him "swallow his pee down to my belly (showing me) and makes me sick." B.W. described the pee as white in color. B.W. also spat on Wiegand's hand and said that is how his face feels when "Daddy peed" on him. He also said that his father licks his "penis and pooper," and drew a picture depicting that When J.W. ~OB 01-03-86), Wiegand's seven-year-old son from a prior marriage, returned home from school, Wiegand told him that his brother had told her about a "problem" that he had. B.W. then told J.W. that he had discussed his 1'worries" with their mother. Although J.W. became anxious, he denied at that time that Wilkinson had done anything like that to him. He did acknowledge, however, that he had seen Wilkinson insert his penis into B.W.'s anus. J.W. drew pictures depicting the assaults of B.W. The pictures showed Wilkinson with his penis in B.W.'s anus, their two penises entwined, and the two French kissing. He also drew a picture of Wilkinson holding a pitchfork and another picture of a candle with a devil above. B.W. also reported to Wiegand that, "When dad goes up and down, up and down, (making a sex motion), it feels like my brains are going to explode out of my head and like my eyeballs are going to pop out!" Wiegand informed social service officials that B.W. told her that when these things happen "I say ouch and Daddy says [13]e quiet or Mommy will hear." Wiegand also reported to Vermont authorities that B.W. would wake up in the middle of the night screaming, "No, no, no, don't touch me daddy, don't pull my pants down! Leave me alone, I'm sleeping." On the basis of the boys' disclosures, some of the assaults were thought to be related to a ritualistic or Satanic ceremony. The boys also described the abuse t6 Dr. Steven Balsam, the psychiatrist who treated them in Vermont in connection with the disclosures. The assaults reportedly occurred while Wilkinson visited the boys in Stowe, Vermont and while the family was living at 3 South Road, Simsbury, CT.

2. Linda Wiegand also provided to Vermont authorities the following information: She and Wilkinson had a romantic relationship in 1988, as a result of which Wiegand conceived B.W. Wilkinson moved in with Wiegand around May, 1988, and B.W. was born in January, 1989. Wiegand and Wilkinson were married, after a stormy relationship, on January 7, 1991. Wiegand also reported that, during this time, J.W. was often constipated and would "make love" to his teddy bear. In 1989, Carol Morrissey, Wiegand's mother, reported to D.C.Y.S. (now D.C.F.) her suspicion that J.W. was the victim of sexual abuse. The report was based upon her observation of the child engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior. An evaluation was done by Dr. Douglas Sue, of the Newington Children's Hospital. While Dr. Sue could not at that time substantiate child sexual abuse, he did document oversexualized behavior in the child and an apparently sexual humping "game" that Wilkinson reportedly had taught him. Reportedly, J.W., who was then less than three years of age, would not speak with the evaluator.

3. According to Wiegand, B.W. also developed constipation problems as a toddler and would walk around holding his crotch. Wiegand also reported that, shortly after their marriage in 1991, Wilkinson declared himself "celibate," saying that he "needed all of his energy for 'spiritual development."' As a result, he slept with the children after he put them to bed or in the spare room in the attic of their Simsbury home. Wilkinson also told Wiegand that he felt like he had been married to B.W. in a previous life and that he did not mind if she had an affair or a boyfriend. Wiegand also reported to Vermont social service authorities that Wilkinson belonged to an Anthroposophist group that had "secret" meetings once a week and that he has a large collection of books on the subject. Anthroposophy is described in reference works on religion as a "discipline by which to see directly into the spiritual world." Its adherents reportedly believe in reincarnation. Its founder, Rudolf Steiner, claimed to be able "to track the souls of the deceased and to ..... . a transcript of human and cosmic history available to accomplished psychics and spiritual seers." Wiegand also reported that Wilkinson had used L.S.D. and marijuana in the past, and Wilkinson admitted to Connecticut D.C.F. workers his use of marijuana, but claimed that he did so only in 1977. According to his military records, Wilkinson was discharged from the Navy because of his use of marijuana.

4. On September 23, 1992, Wilkinson filed for a divorce in Superior Court in Hartford. According to Wiegand, she and Wilkinson were about to agree to joint custody of B.W. with her as the residential parent. Wiegand did report B.W. coming back from visits with Wilkinson saying that his father was going to take him far away to get a house together. When Wiegand confronted Wilkinson with B.W.'s reports, he said it was only "baby talk" and that Wilkinson was speaking with B.W. only about getting a house together when he would be fourteen years of age. Their separation in July of 1992, was congenial, she said, and Wilkinson had been visiting the boys in Connecticut and in Vermont and voluntarily paying child support ever since.

5. Wiegand reported.that, in September, 1992, after the separation, she moved with the boys to Vermont, where Wilkinson would visit the boys periodically. The boys had problems sleeping around that time and Wiegand brought them to Dr. William Warlock, a horneopathic physician in Shelbourne, Vermont. After obtaining a history from Wiegand and meeting with the boys, Dr. Warlock suspected that the boys had been sexually abused. When he told Wiegand of his suspicion, she reacted with surprise, which he would later describe as appearing genuine. See deposition of Dr. William Warlock 10/21/96 at 22. He recommended that she contact the Vermont child welfare agency and bring the boys to a psychiatrist.

6. Wiegand did not immediately contact the Vermont S.R.S. Instead, she attempted a reconciliation with Wilkinson. Wiegand did bring the boys to their pediatrician, Dr. Gordon Alilers, on December 14, 1992. Dr. Ahlers noted the boys' conduct in acting out sexually and their aggressive behavior. The boys ran around the office uncontrollably, making highly sexualized remarks. At a later visit, on January 14, 1993, Dr. Gordon Ahlers examined both boys for signs of sexual contact. During the examination, B.W. told Dr. Ahlers that his dad "peed" "white" into his mouth. "When it got to here" said B.W. pointing to his throat, "I threw up." The boys also brought with them drawings showing sexual acts with Wilkinson that they had made for Dr. Balsam and wanted to show to Dr. Ahlers. They described for Dr. Ahlers, without any coaching, what was depicted in the drawings, including anal and oral sex between Wilkinson and B.W. The drawings and descriptions "disturbed" Dr. Ahlers. B.W. brought some drawings with him to the office and made additional drawings at Ahier's office. Deposition 4/16/93 at 33-34, 62-63. Dr. Ahlers placed on several drawings the descriptions provided by the boys. See Appendix A. Although the physical examination of J.W. was normal, the examination of B.W. revealed "rectal soiling," suggesting "rectal patency," which could be normal but indicated that "further examination should be done." Dr. Ahlers did not have the benefit of a colposcope, which both illumines and magnifies the area of examination. Moreover, he limited his examination of B.W. to an external examination, which he himself later described as "perhaps... an error." In any event, Dr. Ahlers noted that a normal examination, especially in young children, "would not be inconsistent with the reports of abuse." See Deposition, supra. at 46-51. Also during this time, Susan Morrissey, Wiegand's sister, stated that B.W. reported to her that Wilkinson put his penis in his mouth and "up his bum." Deposition 4/16/93 at 34. She also recalled that J.W.'s sexualized behaviors began during Wiegand's pregnancy with B.W. Id. at 20-21.

7. After observing the boys' extremely over sexualized conduct during their December visit, Dr. Ahlers referred Wiegand to a child psychiatrist, Dr. Steven Balsam. Dr. Balsam, who met with the boys in December and January, 1993, also observed the boys engage in "violent sexual play"; that is, as he later reported to Det. Bruce Merriam of the Stowe, Vermont Police department in a taped telephone interview, "[B.W.] jumped on top of [J.W.], licked his face, kissed his lips and made sexual [humping] movements with his body on top of [J.W.]." The boys also spoke about B.W. wanting to put his penis into the St. Bernard's "butt." Dr. Balsam also observed the boys engage in simulated anal copulation. See Dr. Robson deposition 5/lO/96 at 96. In the course of treatment, the boys reported to Dr. Balsam that Tom Wilkinson had been sleeping with B.W. and doing "bad things." They also brought many drawings for "Dr. Steve" that showed explicit sexual contact between Tom Wilkinson and B.W. Dr. Balsam reported that the boys were "very clear" about the sexual acts. For example, B.W. reported to Dr. Balsam that his father "bends me, and breaks me and hits me and makes me bleed when he has x-e-x, sex, that's his word for sex, when he has xex with me." B.W. said to Dr. Balsam that this happened a whole lot, every time he sees his dad, and that he wanted it to stop. B.W. also told Dr. Balsam that his father puts his penis in B.W.'s mouth and makes him swallow his "pee," which he described as white. Dr. Balsam reported to Det. Merriam that the descriptions were "real explicit." Dr. Balsam also reported that the abuse appeared, at least in part, to be ritualistic and "perhaps danger[ous]." He also informed Det. Merriam that he believed that the children "absolutely" were truthful and that there was "too much detail, too much these kids couldn't possibly know any other way." He also informed Det. Merriam (as well as S.R.S. workers) that he did not see evidence that Wiegand was coaching the boys, although he did look for signs of coaching. According to Dr. Balsam's treatment notes, J.W. reported to him that Tom Wilkinson "put his penis in my butt"; that he did this in the bedroom with bunkbeds [Vermont residence]; that B.W. was there; that it occurred at night; that it hurt, but that he did not scream because "he would have killed me... he had a knife from the kitchen," and that Tom told him that "I will kill you if you tell." J. W. said that he was scared at the time, but that he wasn't scared any longer (after the separation) because "he's gone." The boys also went over with "Dr. Steve" the drawings that they had made depicting the abuse. Detailed, contemporaneously made treatment notes are available to corroborate the disclosures made by the boys to Dr. Balsaam. In addition, Dr. Balsaam already has testified under oath concerning the progression of disclosures from the boys made during their treatment and the accompanying sexualized conduct. Deposition 5/9/96 at 47 et seq. [It should be noted that Dr. Balsam did agree to a temporary suspension of his Vermont license to practice medicine and that he now practices in New York State. Nevertheless, he would be used as a witness only to provide his observations and to recite the statements made to him by the boys under the treating physician hearsay exception.] Vermont social service worker Jane Clark described Dr. Balsam as "conservative" in his substantiation of sexual assault cases. Deposition 4/13/93 at 23.

8. In a January visit to Dr. Ahiers, B.W. stated that his dad had peed white into his mouth, and "when it got to here, pointing to his throat) I threw up." B.W. also drew pictures for Dr. Ahiers at his office and brought other drawings that he had made with him. Deposition 4/16/93 at 62.

9. On January 18, 1993, Wiegand identified herself as the anonymous caller to the Vermont social services agency. Prior to that date, Wiegand appeared highly resistant to believing that Wilkinson had actually sexually abused B.W. and had displayed no anger toward Wilkinson. Deposition of Jane Clark 4/13/93 at 13, 17, 36. Dr. Ahlers described Wiegand as appearing to feel guilty and ashamed that she "missed" the possibility that the boys had been abused, which is a documented typical reaction of an otherwise protective, non-abusing parent. Deposition 4/16/93 at 31. As a result of Wiegand's decision to identify herself, on January 21, 1993, the boys were interviewed by Stowe, Vermont Police Detective Bruce Merriam and Vermont Social and Rehabilitation Services worker James Adams. In that interview, which was audio- taped, B.W. indicated that he knew the difference between the truth and a lie and that he was being truthful. He went on to authenticate several drawings as his own. These drawings depict Wilkinson engaged in multiple sexual acts with B.W., including mutual acts of fellatio, anal intercourse, and kissing. B.W. also demonstrated the acts of abuse using anatomical dolls. Deposition 4/13/93 at 71. Although several leading questions were posed to B.W. in the interview, they did not appear to undermine the reliability of his reports because: (1) there were times that B.W. rejected the suggestions in such questions; (2) B.W. previously had disclosed the abusive acts to his mother, his psychiatrist, and his pediatrician, and had made a spontaneous disclosure to Adams about his "three worries" before the tape recorder was turned on; see deposition of James Adams 7/29196 at 10; 50 that the interview was not the setting for the initial disclosures; (3) B.W. was able to provide first-person descriptions of the acts he reported, as well as the drawings that he had prepared in age-appropriate language that created setting and supplied idiosyncratic detail; and (4) B.W. provided vivid sensory details in his descriptions of the abuse. At two points in his interview, B.W. says that he "made it up" and that someone (Mom on one occasion and his brother J.W. on the other) told him to make it up. The meaning of these apparent disclaimers has been the subject of dispute. In the first instance, the child appears to have been referring to his authorship of the drawings, that he had "made it [a drawing] up." Indeed, the interviewer, Mr. Adams, testified under oath that he drew that very inference from B.W.'s remarks, as did Det. Bruce Merriam, who was present. Deposition of James Adams 7/29/96 at 11-13; see also Deposition of Det. Bruce Merriam, 7/29/96 at 32. In the second instance, the context strongly suggests that B.W. was again referring to his drawings (as Adams again believed), or simply did not want to speak further about the abuse and looked for a means for ending the interview. Yet, even if these statements could be viewed as recantations, and they do not contain clear recantation language, the existence of various unconvincing recantations in cases of actual parental child sexual assault is not at all uncommon. See R. Summit, "Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome" (1983). In any event, B.W. does clearly reaffirm the abuse prior to the end of the interview, as he does, too, in earlier and later interviews with others. In the interview he listed his "problems" as: Wilkinson putting his penis in B.W.'s mouth, Wilkinson putting his tongue in B.W.'s "butt," Wilkinson putting his penis in B.W.'s "butt," and B.W. doing likewise to Wilkinson, the two touching their penises together, and B.W. swallowing Wilkinson's pee, which he described as white in color and coming from Wilkinson's "hard" penis. B.W. provided setting, described who was present during the abuse, included idiosyncratic detail and sensory perceptions in age appropriate language and to the extent one would expect developmentally from a child of the age of four. Adams later described B.W.'s disclosure as unrehearsed and uncoached. Deposition 4/13/93 at 62. Adams substantiated the abuse, later saying that the boys appeared truthful and spontaneous. Id. at 87. Det. Merriam also found B.W. to be credible. Deposition of Det. Merriam 7/29/96 at 24.

10. The Stowe, Vermont Police investigation resulted in Wilkinsonts arrest on January 25, 1993, for sexual assault of B.W. As part of the Stowe investigation, the West Hartford Police Department was requested to obtain a search and seizure warrant for Wilkinson's residence. At that time, Wilkinson was renting a room in the home of Tom Hillsdon at 19 Jessamine Street, West Hartford. Wiegand had earlier reported that Wilkinson had a green box that apparently contained prayers and meditations, which she was not allowed to see. She said that J.W. had been punished by Wilkinson in the past for trying to open the box. A demonic face or mask was reported by the children to have been worn by Wilkinson at times related to the abuse. The objects of the search were the green army box and items of the occult, which included candles, crosses, demonic faces, literature and Satanic paraphernalia. The warrant was issued by Superior Court Judge Howard Scheinblum on January 26, 1993, and the West Hartford detectives conducted their search on January 26, 1993, without finding the items that they had identified. Their search, however, was limited to Wilkinson's bedroom and closet. Wilkinson had been living at the Jessamine Street house for approximately six months and had access to the home's basement and other areas. By limiting their search to the bedroom, a thorough search of the premises was not conducted. Moreover, the search warrant was executed one day after Wilkinson's arrest and four days after officers from the West Hartford Police Department had come to his home to question him. It is not improbable that, having been alerted to the possibility of abuse allegations, Wilkinson disposed of the box and its contents.

11. In late January, 1993, J.W. disclosed that Mr. Wilkinson had sexually abused him as well. The disclosure was prompted by J.W. seeing a knife in the kitchen of his Aunt Susan Morrissey's home in Vermont. J.W. held the knife to his throat and said that Wilkinson had threatened to kill him with a knife and had anally assaulted him, at times while he pretended to be asleep. Deposition of Susan Morrissey 4/16/93 at 34, 44. J.W. was later interviewed by Det. Merriam and Mr. Adams, of S.R.S., and repeated his disclosure that Wilkinson had assaulted him anally while he pretended to be asleep in his bunk bed in Stowe, as well as having assaulted him in Connecticut. Deposition of James Adams 4/18/96 at 59-62. It is not usual for a child victim of sexual assault to pretend to be asleep during the assault, and doing so may be a coping mechanism to avoid dealing on a conscious level with the assaultive behavior.

(12) In his 11/8/96 deposition, Wilkinson claimed that Dr. Warlock told him that he did not suspect the abuse and felt that the allegations were related to custody issues. Deposition at 18. This claim is patently false, as revealed by Dr. Warlock's contrary sworn testimony, his contemporaneously made notes, his instruction that Wiegand make a report to S.R.S., and the fact that Wilkinson made no prior mention of this highly significant alleged fact.

(13) Wilkinson also claimed in his 11/8/96 deposition that, while staying with Wiegand and the boys in Vermont in October, 1992, B.W. pulled his pants down and shook his "rear" at him while laughing. Wilkinson claimed that he brought this episode to Wiegand's attention and that she responded by saying that, since he had filed for joint custody, "things" were going to happen. Once again, this alleged event, though highly significant if it occurred, is mentioned no where else. It does not appear in any affidavit, brief, motion, or deposition. Nor was it mentioned to Dr. Robson, who inquired into the validity of the abuse reports and rejected the notion

(14) Wilkinson also testified that he never observed J.W. engage in the sexualized behavior reported by Wiegand's mother and that J.W.'s description of the "pee pee" game that his father taught him came only from Wiegand. Once again, the sexualized behavior was seen by others, including Wiegand and her sister Susan Morrissey. Even Dr. Robson conceded that Wilkinson was on the scene when the Morrissey. Even Dr. Robson conceded that Wilkinson was on the scene when the sexualized behavior began with J.W. Deposition of Dr. Robson 8/2/96 at 260. More importantly, Wilkinson never claimed that he informed Dr. Sue of these facts, and Dr. importantly, Wilkinson never claimed that he informed Dr. Sue of these facts, and Dr. Sue's report lacks any reference to them. It is beyond dispute that, haad such been the case, Dr. Sue's evaluation of the abuse allegations would have been far different.

(15) Wilkinson also claimed that he believed that Wiegand was sexually abusing the boys as recently as the middle of 1992, but did nothing about it. Deposition 11/18/96 at 50. He claimed that he failed to notify D.C.F. or take other action to protect the boys because he did not know enough and because he was afraid that Wiegand would throw him out of the house, leaving no one to protect them. Id. at 64 He does not explain why he did not make an anonymous report of the sexual abuse to D.C.F. in 1992, or why he declined to make such a report after he moved out of their Simsbury residence in 1993. Finally, nothing of his claims of sexual abuse appears in the divorce papers, where he sought only joint custody of B.W.

(16) Wilkinson claimed that Wiegand's court-authorized letters to the boys, which were permitted in August, 1997 and were stopped by Wilkinson in the end of November, 1997, were suggestive to them and sought to influence them to maintain the abuse allegations. Nevertheless, in a conversation with me and later in a written statement, Attorney Brian Griffin stated that he reviewed the letters for content and found them to be fully appropriate, if somewhat religious in tone. Re stated that Wiegand would encourage the boys to be "honest" and to "tell the truth." See statement of Attorney Griffin, dated 3/17/98. Attorney Griffin also informed me that the boys enjoyed reading the letters and asked for an opportunity to write back to their mother, which upon his request, later was permitted. Wilkinson, instead, claimed to us that the boys were disinterested in the letters, complained about their content, and at times did not even finish reading them.

(17) Wilkinson claimed that Ryan Barry's affidavit sounded like something that he would have written at the time (when Ryan was fourteen years of age). It is apparent that the affidavit is not written using language that one would expect from a fourteen-year-old, given its legalese, and Ryan and his mother acknowledged that she helped prepare it and that Wilkinson's attorney also may have assisted.

(18) Wilkinson claimed in an interview with us that he, his attorney, and Det. Bruce Merriam conducted an examination of Wiegand's Vermont residence and located condoms in Wiegand's bedroom, which Merriam supposedly seized. Wilkinson claimed that the presence of the condoms corroborated his claim that he and Wiegand had sexual relations during one or more of his visits to Vermont. Yet, there is no report of Det. Merriam to corroborate this claim, and, to my knowledge, no such evidence was seized by Merriam.

(19) Wilkinson claimed in an interview with us that the D.C.F. worker who conducted the home interview with the boys in 1997 was not truthful in her report of the incident. Nevertheless, the worker made a contemporaneous report, provided clear details, and had no motive whatsoever to falsely describe the interview inasmuch it was conducted only so that D.C.F. could justify closing its neglect case.

(20) Wilkinson claimed in his interview with us that he did not think the boys needed therapy upon their return from Las Vegas. He made this claim despite Dr. Robson's recommendation of therapy in his December, 1993 report and his remark after learning of J.W.'s August, 1996 deposition, that J.W. is clinically depressed and needed psychotherapy "immediately"; despite the fact that Karen Nutter unilaterally directed Dr. Balsam to stop treating the boys, without any indication that she had consulted with him or any other physician concerning their need for therapy; despite the fact that the boys had to be placed on a suicide watch on the return flight to Connecticut, according to D.C.F. records; despite J.W.'s deposition in August, 1996, in which he was brought to tears, that he hated his life because of the things that Wilkinson had done to B.W. and him, and that he hated living with Wilkinson and thought about killing himself; despite the fact that the boys were troubled to hear of newspaper articles about the case, and were teased by their classmates concerning them; despite the fact that in deposition after deposition the boys refused to answer questions, walked out, were sarcastic and resentful of the process; despite the fact that, even after Wilkinson unwillingly engaged Dr. Black as their therapist, neither boy was willing to open up and communicate at all about the allegations; and despite the fact that he himself testified that continuation of the abuse investigation presumably by D.C.F. and the Simsbury Police Department) was "damaging" to the boys; deposition 11/8/96 at 67.

(21) Wilkinson claimed to us that, in the 1/20/93 interview of B.W., he told Det. Merriam and Mr. Adams that J.W. threatened to stick pins in his arm to make him say these things. Yet, a careful examination of the transcript, even the defense version, reveals no such statement. Wilkinson stated to us that he made an enhanced version of the tape, but declined to provide us with a copy. What the defense transcript contains is a response to a question in which B.W. appears to say that J.W. made him "make it up," "or [J.W.] sticks pins in me." The connection that Wilkinson makes simply is not supported by the transcript.

(22) Finally, Wilkinson's description of the boys bursting into the bathroom as he stood urinating with their mouths open and he pushing them away, reported to us in 1998 for the first time, clearly appears to be a false exculpatory statement.

IV. Credibility of Linda Wiegand

As the above sections of this memorandum reveal, the exculpatory nature of the evidence that I have set out does not depend to a large extent upon the credibility of Linda Wiegand. Nevertheless, some of it does. Given the many conflicting views of her credibility, I thought that it would be appropriate for me to comment briefly upon the subject.

I believe that reasonably two conclusions could be drawn from all of the evidence concerning the abuse allegations: one is that the boys were sexually abused by Thomas Wilkinson and Karen Nutter and that Ms Wiegand reacted in an appropriate and supportive manner, as the police, medical, social service and psychiatric professionals in Vermont concluded; the other is that Ms Wiegand is a cunning, manipulative, vicious, if not mentally unstable person who has orchestrated the making of false abuse allegations to gain sole custody of B.W., with visitation rights for Thomas Wilkinson, a view shared by Wilkinson, Nutter, and their attorneys. I do not subscribe to the plausibility of the "middle of the road" view of Dr. Robson, that Wiegand unintentionally implanted the abuse reports in the boys because of her fear of loosing sole custody of B.W. or of Wilkinson taking B.W. away from her altogether. Reports and conduct of the sort presented in this case, if false, surely could not have been subconsciously or unconsciously generated.

Based upon my training and experience, I do not believe that the best Hollywood producer, much less Linda Wiegand, could fabricate the compelling evidence of abuse in this case, including the spontaneous reports, in first person detail, with age-appropriate language and sensory perceptions, oriented as to time and place, followed by behavioral and psychological changes in young children that clearly are consistent with parental child sexual abuse; nor do I believe that someone could instill the courage in J.W. to confront Wilkinson in Dr. Robson's office with false reports of abuse in feigned indignation, or to recount false reports of abuse in graphic detail and with enormous emotion after he was living with Wilkinson and fully dependent upon him for all of his needs. For a parent to pull this off without also leaving a trace of the "parental alienation syndrome" would be a feat of historic proportions.

Having reached that conclusion, I must add that the reliability of some of Wiegand's statements, concerning tangential aspects of this case or completely unrelated matters, can reasonably be questioned. Yet, many of the alleged untruths appear simply to relate to perception. For example, Wilkinson has claimed that Wiegand has been untruthful about her claimed disability relating to her back injury. Surely, the intensity of back pain cannot be objectively measured. While representations about what a person can and cannot do can be verified, it is interesting to note that the insurance companies, which have the greatest motive to expose any fraud in Wiegand's disability claims, apparently have not been willing or able to do so. Other alleged untruths, assumptions, or exaggerations may be attributed to Wiegand's limited knowledge of the legal system, her highly cynical view of those who operate within it, and her utter frustration with the outcome that it has produced in this case. If her boys have been sexually abused, then surely she, who has seen the system deliver the boys to the abuser while it has sent her to jail, has been one of the most gravely victimized parents ever to seek protection from the legal system, which would account for her cynicism. Finally, it is fair to say that, if a complaining witness' lack of candor concerning peripheral or unrelated matters rendered a case moribund, few prosecutions would be brought.

I have not discovered, to this point, clearly established deception by Ms Wiegand in the relating of a central fact pertaining to this case. Although there are inconsistencies between Wiegand's account of what two teachers in Vermont told her and what they now claim about whether they were confronted with abuse disclosures by the boys, it cannot be forgotten that, had they acknowledged receiving such reports, their failure to report them to child welfare agencies at the time would constitute professional, and perhaps criminal misconduct. Moreover, the statement provided by one of the teachers does not clearly state that she did not hear or see evidence of abuse.

What struck me in the course of this investigation was the extent to which much of the information provided to us by Ms Wiegand, even bizarre facts, resulted in some degree of corroboration (e.g., Wilkinson's belief in reincarnation, his continued adherence to the teachings of Athroposophy despite his claims to Dr. Robson that he had left the "religion," Wilkinson's involvement with dwarfs in California, Wilkinson's apparently sexual encounter with a homosexual serviceman and his concession that he could have described the incident to Wiegand as she reported it to us, Wilkinson's involvement in some ritual that involved the burial and exhumation of parts of an animal, Ryan Barry's coolness to Wilkinson after their trip to California and his mother's receipt of money and a car from Wilkinson and Wilkinson's mother [we later learned from his mother that Ryan experienced "night terrors" after the California trip], the unsuccessful attempt by East Hartford police to interview Ryan Barry, the romantic interest taken in Wiegand by Donna Dragon and the intimidation that Dragon experienced as a result of Wilkinson's attorney's warning her of criminal liability that induced her to divulge Wiegand's location to the F.B.I.; the "guide wire"account related to J.W. by Wilkinson in Nevada). Under the circumstances, I believe that it would be a mistake to discount entirely what Wiegand reports in this case.

I think that the proper approach would be to evaluate all of the evidence apart from Wiegand, determine what it indicates, and then assess Wiegand's first-hand evidence to determine if it fits the rest of the picture. Apparently, all of the professionals in Vermont (apparently apart from Lee Dow) did so and found Wiegand to be sincere, reliable, and genuinely concerned about the welfare of her children. There is no question that Wiegand became desperate after the Connecticut family court afforded her no hope of proving Dr. Robson wrong, appeared poised to follow Robson's recommendation of joint custody, and at a later, secret, ex parte meeting with Wilkinson's counsel, actually awarded physical and legal custody of both boys to Wilkinson's sister, Karen Nutter. From that event, which led to her flight with the boys from the jurisdiction, Wiegand did make statements and took actions that reflect the desperation and exasperation she appeared to be experiencing. Once again, if her children's chilling reports of abuse were accurate, it would be difficult to blame her for feeling desperate and saying and doing things that reflected that desperation.

In sum, as I view the evidence, apart from that provided by Wiegand, I believe that it points convincingly to the conclusion that the boys were sexually abused by Wilkinson and probably by Nutter. Wiegand's statements and conduct contemporaneous with the abuse reports and during the investigations that followed appear to fit and corroborate that scenario, and so I would consider them generally reliable, as did the professionals in Vermont, despite reservations one may have about her credibility in other matters.

V. WILKINSON'S CRIMINAL CONDUCT APART FROM THE SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS

As noted above, it appears that, after the boys were delivered to Wilkinson in the Summer of 1996, he deliberately acted to endanger their psychological health, knowing that he was doing so. No one would suggest that the boys, after making graphic abuse allegations against Wilkinson, fleeing the jurisdiction with their mother, living underground for approximately two and one-half years in constant fear of detection, suddenly being separated completely from their mother and placed (following a suicide watch) in the custody of the person they had accused of violently abusing them, did not need some form of mental health counseling and treatment. Dr. Rob son recommended it in 1993 under much more stable conditions. Yet, if there was any doubt about the fact, surely it was resolved when J.W. testified in August that Wilkinson had sexually assaulted B.W. and him and was cross-examined by an attorney engaged by Wilkinson to the point of tears and the need for a D.C.F. worker to intervene to stop the questioning. J.W. also stated in that deposition that his life was messed up because of what Wilkinson had done, that he hated living with Wilkinson, and that he had thought about killing himself because of the abuse. Shortly after that incident, Dr. Robson testified before Wilkinson's attorney (if not Wilkinson himself) that J.W. was clinically depressed and need psychotherapy immediately." Deposition of Dr. Robson 8/2/96 at 271.

Yet, none was forthcoming. Instead, Wilkinson commenced yet another civil suit and permitted further depositions of the boys, some of which resulted in attorneys unknown to the boys asking questions of a personal nature followed by objections and argument when the boys refused to answer, the boys walking out of the depositions, and at one point, one of the boys actually asking the attorneys to tell the judge that he "hates" depositions and did not want to go through the process any further. Still, there was no therapeutic intervention or cessation in the litigation process. Even after D.C.F. filed a neglect petition alleging abuse from Wilkinson's failure to place the boys in therapy, Wilkinson's response was to secret them from the state, depriving them of school, in order to thwart D.C.F. intervention. When Wilkinson finally relented and brought the boys to Dr. Black for therapy, he refused to consent to D.C.F. officials examining their treatment records, speaking with Dr. Black, or speaking with school teachers about the boys' welfare. When Wilkinson's suit against Vermont authorities went to trial earlier this year, Wilkinson again took the boys out of school and moved them from hotel to hotel in Vermont to conceal their location. This conduct was engaged in despite Wilkinson's own statement under oath, on November 8, 1996, that it would be damaging to the boys for the abuse case to continue, and the similar opinion of the court-appointed attorney from family court. Because these depositions were either videotaped or transcribed, and the psychological trauma to the boys could easily be demonstrated, even apart from the testimony of the attorneys who observed them, it would appear that a strong case of child abuse could be made simply with regard to Wilkinson's wilful conduct requiring the boys to experience such trauma repeatedly, for the purpose of obtaining money.

I would be happy to discuss with you any portion of this memorandum or other facts surrounding this complex case.

/m

cc: Christopher L. Morano, D.C.S.A.

Joan Alexander, S.A.S.A.

APPENDIX B

MEMORANDUM

FROM: JOHN M. MASSANNEO, SENIOR ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY

DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996

RE: REFERRAL OF COMPLAINT OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE OF JONATHAN WIEGAND (d.o.b. 1/3/86) AND BENJAMIN WILKINSON (d.o.b. 1/8/89)

I. BACKGROUND

As you know, I was approached by Mrs. Cecile Enrico, Executive Director of Hartford Interval House, and Ms. Kate Kennedy, one of its counselors, and asked to review and present to you, if appropriate, a report that the children above have been sexually abused by Mr. Thomas Wilkinson in Connecticut. At your and Mr. Carlson's request, I have obtained a number of documents relating to the allegations of abuse from the Office of the Attorney General in the State of Vermont. These documents pertain to both the criminal prosecution that was brought there and to a federal civil rights and negligence action against two social workers, the childrens' pediatrician, and their psychiatrist that is now pending in federal district court in Vermont.

Having reviewed much, but not all of the material sent to me from Vermont, I transmit it to you with a recommendation that a criminal investigation be undertaken into the allegations. I set out my conclusions and recommendations after a brief review of the basic chronology.

II. REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS

I had begun to draft a brief factual summary, and found that, even so limited, the memorandum would have been far too long. Suffice it to say here that Ms. Wiegand, while separated from her husband and residing in Vermont with the two boys (only one of whom, Ben, is a natural child of Wilkinson) reported to the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services her suspicions that her younger son, Ben had been sexually abused by her husband (Wilkinson) in Vermont and Connecticut. The older son, Jon, reported witnessing his brother's abuse.

An investigation was conducted by the department and the appropriate police agency, resulting in Wilkinson's arrest on sexual assault charges pertaining to Ben. Subsequently, Jon disclosed that he, too, was sexually abused by Wilkinson. The prosecutor sought to refer the case for forensic evaluation by a team of medical and mental health experts. Before any review was completed, however, Connecticut family court Judge Herbert Barall, who was presiding over a then pending dissolution action commenced by Wilkinson, awarded custody of the children, by ex parte order, to the suspect's sister, Karen Wilkinson (hereinafter"Karen"). Karren, who resided in New York, had herself been implicated in the abuse allegations prior to the custody order. Dr. Kenneth Robson, with the Institute of Living, who had been appointed by the family court, to conduct a custody evaluation, rendered a report that expressed his opinion that the abuse allegations were "highly unlikely." Report at 86. Wilkinson, on the basis of that report, was granted visitation rights by the court and, as a result, Wiegand went "underground" with the boys.

In Wiegand's absence, the criminal prosecution in Vermont was dismissed "without prejudice," and the divorce was granted in Connecticut. The family court, Santos, J., awarded Wilkinson: sole and exclusive custody of both boys (including Jon, with whom he has no legal or biological relationship), child support in the amount of $374.00 per week, alimony in the amount of $391.00 per week, and Wiegand's Simsbury home together with its contents. Wiegand also was ordered to pay Wilkinson's counsel fees of $50,000.00 and to pay lump sum alimony in the amount of $500,000.00, the family court expressing its view that such an award was appropriate given Wiegand's "intolerable cruelty" in "subjecting [Wilkinson] to false allegations of sexual abuse." No evidentiary hearing on the abuse allegations was held in family court. Rather, its "finding" apparently was based wholly upon the opinion and report of Dr. Robson.

After criminal charges were dropped in Vermont, Wilkinson filed suit in state court (which action was later removed to federal court) alleging a violation of civil rights and negligence against the child welfare workers, the pediatrician and psychiatrist whose examinations and conclusions supported the finding of abuse.

Ultimately, Wiegand and the boys were located in Las Vegas, and were returned to Connecticut. Both boys were turned over to Wilkinson and Wiegand was charged with custodial interference.

It was at that point that I was contacted by Mrs. Enrico. After my first meeting with Mr. Carlson and you, I also spoke with Ms. Lee Dow, the prosecutor in Vermont who had handled the case there, and Harrison Lebovitz, the Assistant Attorney General who is representing the social workers in the civil suit. He has provided to me a number of documents from the civil suit, including Dr. Robson's report. Attorney Dow provided to me a copy of the arrest warrant that supported Wilkinson's arrest.

As you know, Wilkinson's attorneys have learned of D.C.F.'s interest in looking into the allegations of abuse and have sought an order in family court barring the department from proceeding. Pending action on that motion, Wilkinson reportedly took the boys and left the jurisdiction of the State of Connecticut. After reaching a stipulated agreement in family court, D.C.F. is proceeding with the investigation that, by letter dated October 30, 1996, you joined in requesting.

B. Conclusions

Based upon my preliminary and partial review of the materials, I reach the following conclusion for the reasons that I set out:

There is strong credible evidence that the children have been sexually abused by Wilkinson and his sister Karen. That evidence is briefly summarized below: (a) The reports of abuse were made initially by both children to a trusted adult (mother) in age appropriate language; (a) both reports were spontaneous; (b) the reports contained graphic detail of sexual conduct that clearly would be outside the realm of knowledge of a child the applicable age who had not otherwise been exposed to such information and experiences; (c) the reports expressed sensations of pain or pleasure that would not be experienced if the information derived from secondary sources; (d) the reports were delayed, owing to a threat of harm designed to ensure secrecy or a secrecy pact; (e) the reports were repeated with consistency as to basic facts and, initially, with appropriate affect; (f) the childrens' mother, though engaged in a divorce action with Wilkinson, initially disbelieved the allegations; Report at 122; and did not forbid contact between Wilkinson and the children; she expressed her wish that the first physician to suggest abuse would "shut up about the abuse charges"; Report at 11; and even after the allegations came to light, did not seek to bar Wilkinson from all contact with the boys, seeking instead supervised contact until a psychiatrist would state that they would be safe with him; Report at 104-105; (g) the boys' reports are specific and contain idiosyncratic detail (he made me swallow his "pee," which was white; "it makes me throw up" (Ben); "it feels like needles when daddy sticks his penis in my pooper. It feels like my eyes will pop out of my head and my brains will explode" (Ben); he placed a "wiggly thing" on his penis before he put it in Ben's "butt" (Jon); description of bedroom bunk beds, clothing, time of day, activity of others; description of humping action in anal intercourse (Jon); description of cunnilingus); (h) when properly understood, neither child described conduct that was physically impossible; (i) both boys have had severe behavior and emotional problems, requiring at one point hospitalization, that typically accompany sexual abuse, including sexually precocious play, excessive preoccupation with genitals, excessive masturbation, aggression, and suicidal and homicidal ideation; Ben reports to Dr. Robson a "fantasy" of being frozen in ice, a position of complete helplessness; (j) both children also display ambivalent feelings toward Wilkinson, including feelings of affection, Jon seeking desperately a father figure and Ben desiring the same and finding the sexual stimulation in part pleasurable; Ben has stated: "I don't want my daddy to go to jail, I just want him to stop doing bad things to me"; (k) Jon and Ben experienced sleep disturbances and dreams with clearly sexual content (Ben: daddy get "prickers or prickly off me"; "get that white stuff off my face"; "No, no, no, don't touch me Daddy! Don't pull my pants down! Leave me alone. I'm sleeping"); (1) both boys prepared drawings depicting explicit acts of sexual intercourse with Wilkinson (fellatio; sodomy); there is no evidence that these drawings were made by anyone else or were prompted; indeed, one, which was discarded, was made while the children were being watched by a relative with little involvement in the case; (m) at least one pediatrician, a child and family psychiatrist, two social workers, and a police officer, who observed and spoke directly with the boys, have concluded that both children were sexually abused;

(i) both boys have had severe behavior and emotional problems, requiring at one point hospitalization, that typically accompany sexual abuse, including sexually precocious play, excessive preoccupation with genitals, excessive masturbation, aggression, and suicidal and homicidal ideation; Ben reports to Dr. Robson a "fantasy" of being frozen in ice, a position of complete helplessness; (j) both children also display ambivalent feelings toward Wilkinson, including feelings of affection, Jon seeking desperately a father figure and Ben desiring the same and finding the sexual stimulation in part pleasurable; Ben has stated: "I don't want my daddy to go to jail, I just want him to stop doing bad things to me"; (k) Jon and Ben experienced sleep disturbances and dreams with clearly sexual content (Ben: daddy get "prickers or prickly off me"; "get that white stuff off my face"; "No, no, no, don't touch me Daddy! Don't pull my pants down! Leave me alone. I'm sleeping"); (1) both boys prepared drawings depicting explicit acts of sexual intercourse with Wilkinson (fellatio; sodomy); there is no evidence that these drawings were made by anyone else or were prompted; indeed, one, which was discarded, was made while the children were being watched by a relative with little involvement in the case; (m) at least one pediatrician, a child and family psychiatrist, two social workers, and a police officer, who observed and spoke directly with the boys, have concluded that both children were sexually abused; (n) Jon expressed fear of being in Wilkinson's presence, even in Dr. Robson's office, saying that he'd "do problems," the term used by the boys to describe the abuse; (o) some of the details of the abuse are disclosed incrementally, and only the younger boy disclosed at first, circumstances that are typical in such cases; (p) the older child, Jon, refused to be persuaded by Dr. Robson that he is confused about the abuse ("I saw Tom stick his penis in Ben's butt. I'm not mixed up!"); he is also willing to confront Wilkinson himself about it, as well as Wilkinson's attorney under vigorous cross-examination, as recently as August, 1996, when he had been removed from any influence from his mother and was fully dependent upon Wilkinson for his care and support; (q) Ben, who is younger and more attached to Wilkinson, his natural father, does at one point tell Dr. Robson that he "faked" the "problems", and "that's it and I don't want to tell any more"; shortly afterward, without Jon or Wiegand being present, however, Ben reverses himself and says that Tom did those things, saying, "I faked, I fooled you [Robson]"; it seems clear that Ben is suffering the weight and consequences of the reports of abuse, and jokingly attempts to escape them momentarily, conduct fully consistent with the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome; R. Summit (1983); (r) Wilkinson stated at first that he only wanted custody of Ben, and that Ben and Jon should be separated; then he said he wanted custody of both boys; his lawyer then informed the children's attorney that Wilkinson wanted no contact with Jon; ultimately, he agreed to accept custody of both boys; his preference to separate completely from Jon is evidence that, unlike Ben, Jon is not as easily manipulated and is less likely to suppress reports of prior abuse; it is also evidence of the lack of genuine concern for the boys since it is clear to all those involved in the case that the boys are and should remain inseparable; (5) the description of some ritualistic and satanic practices of Wilkinson is consistent with his odd religious affiliation (his admitted prior membership in an anthroposophist church, which promotes contact with spiritual worlds through extra-sensory perceptions akin to clairvoyance) and beliefs (he claimed that Ben was his wife in a former life) , his reported "religious" need for celibacy in marriage, his gifts to the children (candles), both children's fears in this regard, and other. documented cases of ritualistic abuse; (t) Ben's statement in August, 1996, after being placed in the custody of his father and in the enormous stress of a deposition by three male attorneys who were strangers; that he just didn't want to remember the "problems" then and that discussion of such stuff was "gross," was consistent with his earlier reports, as documented by the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome; R. Summit (1983); (u) both parents denied exposure of the children to sexually explicit magazines, movies, or videos, and state that the boys never observed them engage in sexual relations; the parents added that they did not engage in oral or anal intercourse in any event; and (v) there is no reasonable explanation for the reports of the children and their accompanying behavioral changes other than the clear and consistent accusations against Wilkinson and Karren.

C. DR. ROBSON'S REPORT

Inasmuch as the Family Court appears to have relied fully upon the report of Dr. Kenneth Robson, of the Institute of Living, in reaching its conclusion that the reports of abuse were false and were maliciously generated by Wiegand, I thought it appropriate to set out and explain my conclusion that the Robson report is professionally insupportable. The reasons follow.

(1) His numerous claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Dr. Robson betrays a clear bias in favor of Wilkinson and against Wiegand in his report. For example, he draws many favorable conclusions from Wilkinson's stable and engaging play with the children and contrasts it with Wiegand's apparent lesser ability to discipline and limit them, without any regard for the fact that (a) Wilkinson's visit was relatively brief; (b) it occurred in the unnatural setting of Robson's office; (c) Wilkinson had brought several toys and projects with which he engaged the boys; (d) the visit occurred after the boys had not seen him for a great deal of time and had expressed fear of him; and (e) the purpose of the visit was to observe Wilkinson and the boys interact and Wilkinson, therefore, gave the children undivided attention. In contrast, the children clearly are more testing and familiar with their mother-caretaker, who is interacting with Robson, and is not absorbed only with the boys, and had no new toys for them. Robson describes at length Wiegand's religious beliefs, including her belief in the second advent of Christ, with great skepticism, notwithstanding that it is the predominant religious view in America, while he fails to discuss in any depth with Wilkinson his bizarre beliefs in reincarnation, extra-sensory perception of spirit worlds, sexual celibacy while married, and reports of devil worship. Robson frequently seeks to substantiate Wiegand's statements through contact with third parties (e.g., Karen Wilkinson's alleged lesbianism), while apparently accepting Wilkinson's statements at face value, even when doing so is clearly not justified (claim that Wiegand prompted boys with sexually suggestive doll, even though both boys and Wiegand denied the existence of such a doll). Report at 9.0. Robson doubts Wiegand's credibility concerning Jon's paternity (after speaking to a third party) even though the various accounts surrounding it are, contrary to his claim, quite consistent. Report at 119-21. Robson denigrates Wiegand's parenting ability, citing a "pattern" of four childhood injuries to Jon, despite the fact that one occurred while he was supervised by a baby sitter, one occurred while he was at nursery school, one occurred when Jon was hit by a rock thrown by a friend, the report of the fourth (when caps went off accidentally) contained no reason to believe that Wiegand was negligent in any way or was even responsible for supervising the child at the time, and none of the incidents involved a history provided by her that was inconsistent with the injury. Report at 127.

(2) Perhaps of greatest significance, Robson never provided any reasonable explanation for (a) both boys' graphic descriptions of sexual abuse; (b) the boys' knowledge of unusual, but professionally recognized sexual conduct; (c) the boys' description of pain and/or pleasure associated with the abuse; (d) the boys' statements of idiosyncratic detail; (e) the boys' behavioral symptoms, including suicidal and homicidal ideation that required hospitalization, among other facts. For example, Robson seems to discount entirely the significance of the drawings graphically showing acts of sexual intercourse by stating erroneously that "[m]any, if not most of them, were drawn at home in the presence of Linda Wiegand." Report at 78. In fact, most were drawn in Dr. Balsam's office. S.R.S. Report at 7. Yet, even if most of the drawings were done in the mother's presence, Robson can point to no authority that would suggest that such a circumstance alone should invalidate or cast suspicion on their reliability. Had the boys appeared unable to describe the details of the abuse to others, the validity of the drawings would be questionable. But those simply are not the facts. Nowhere does one read, for example, that Robson, or anyone else to whom the boys communicated about the abuse, asked the boys to reduce their accounts to a drawing and that they were unable to do so. The enormous gaps in Robson's evaluation, of which his view of the drawings is an example, reveal its most fundamental flaw. I refer to his patent speculation about alternative sources for the reports below.

(3) Of substantial significance, Dr. Robson's conclusion that it is "extremely unlikely" that a three-year-old child could be repeatedly anally penetrated by an erect male penis without resulting sub-scarring in the anus was professionally in error. Report at 13. The medical community has documented in many cases that scarring, while sometimes present, often and typically is not. This error reveals Robson's ignorance of a fundamental medical fact in a field in which he claims expertise.

(4) Robson frequently speculates in a way that favors a conclusion that the abuse reports were false when there is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion or the evidence actually negates it (e.g., he speculates that sexual activity between Wiegand and Wilkinson, which apparently did not even occur, "may have been witnessed" by both boys, despite the parents' statements that such was never the case, and that the observation could have contributed to the boys' sexualization; Report at 11; he concludes that the referral of the children to Dr. Balsamn, because it mentioned the possibility of child sexual abuse, created a "mindset [in Dr. Balsam] that was not neutral"; Report at 15; while claiming that his own similar referral was unbiased; Robson speculates that Wiegand's brother's assault upon her was witnessed by the boys, when at least one child said it was not, and then Robson appears to accept uncritically Wilkinson's speculation that the assault also was a sexual assault witnessed by the boys, when no one has so described it; Report at 93-4; Robson at one point even suggests that the boys may have learned about anal intercourse by observing their dog. Report at 158. This type of biased speculation is highly unprofessional.

(5) Although Dr. Robson did not conclude that Wiegand had maliciously instigated what he claimed to be false allegations of abuse, he concluded that she at least encouraged them to prevent Wilkinson from gaining custody of Ben. Nevertheless, he never even attempted to reconcile this theory with Wiegand's unwillingness initially to believe the reports or pursue the matter, though urged to do so by two physicians, a psychiatrist, and the Vermont social service workers (parental conduct typical in such cases), her inability to recognize oversexualized conduct in the boys, the imminence of an agreement on joint custody prior to the reports, the absence of any deep hostility between her and Wilkinson over the divorce, and the empirical inability of a parent to generate the repeated, graphic, sensory reports of such abuse, not to mention generating the accompanying psychiatric symptoms in children of that age. Moreover, Robson fails to appreciate the significance of Wiegand's offer not to pursue the child abuse allegations provided Wilkinson were to agree to terminate his parental rights as to Ben. If, as Robson postulates; Report at 79; Wiegand instigated the report of false allegations to gain an advantage in a custody dispute, then it would make no sense for her to demand that Wilkinson terminate his parental rights, together with its consequent loss of any child support. Rather, she would simply demand custody in exchange for not pursuing the abuse allegations. If, however, Wiegand honestly believed that the boys had been sexually abused, it would make sense for her to seek a resolution that would ensure their protection from any re-victimization, regardless of the financial consequences to her. These factors Robson failed to consider.

(6) Robson never was willing to accept the possibility that both boys, and particularly Jon, was more comfortable with, and more trusting of their mother than of him, and so he considered Wiegand's repeated efforts to encourage them to say to him what they had confided to her as evidence of her coaching. See, e.g., Report at 63. This same attitude infected Robson's view of the graphic sexual drawings that he claimed (wrongly) were only drawn in Wiegand's presence.

(7) Robson reveals his unsophisticated assessment of this case when he simplistically views the boys' occasional statements that their Mom "told them" to say this, or to draw this, as evidence of coaching. While such is theoretically possible, we frequently find that what a child means when he makes these statements is that Mom told him to tell the doctor everything or to use the drawing to tell the doctor what happened. But Robson never sought such a clarification of the matter. Rather, he simply acted like a defense attorney who believes he just got a great concession, only to see it evaporate on re-direct. The only problem with this case is that their was no "re-direct." Hence, Robson simply ignores the times that the boys clearly tell him that their Mom just wants them to tell the truth; Report at 46, 70; and the fact that they do not alter their accounts simply because she is not around.

(8) False allegations of child sexual abuse generated by a parent to achieve some secondary gain generally result in a complete poisoning of the relationship between the child and the accused. R. Gardner, True and False Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse, at 193 (1992) (parental alienation syndrome). Otherwise, a child who retains some positive feelings toward the target of the scheme may be persuaded to recant the false charge, especially when present with the accused outside the presence of the instigating parent. Moreover, such a poisoning is reflective of the degree of animosity or desperation that motivates the falsely accusing parent. That Robson did not note the absence of a complete poisoning in this case is remarkable. For example, Robson did not view Jon's anger at Wiegand for bringing Wilkinson into his life as indicative of the reliability of the allegations (reflecting the absence of demonizing one parent while idolizing the other); rather, he attributed to the remark an expression of Jon's jealousy that Ben had a father while he did not. Nor did Robson view John's display of affection for Wilkinson or Ben's statement that "I don't want daddy to go to jail. I just want him to stop doing bad things to me"; Report at 17; as enhancing reliability of the reports.

(9) Robson denigrates the boys' reports by claiming that the allegations were specific, but the incidents of abuse were not. Report at 12, 14. Such an assessment of the facts of this case is professionally uninformed. Young children often will not be able to describe specific multiple incidents of sexual abuse in a chronological way. Repression and the sheer number of assaults may account for "merging" of incidents, a frequent occurrence. What evaluators look for are basic, age appropriate facts: what house what room, what people were wearing generally, who was present, what happened, did it happen once, more than once, or a lot? As in this case, the more comfortable the child becomes discussing the abuse with a trusted adult and the safer the child feels, the more additional detail he may be able to provide. Thus, when Jon discloses to Robson, apparently for the first time, that Wilkinson put a "wiggly thing" on his penis before he stuck it in Ben's "butt," Robson suggests that Jon's late disclosure of this idiosyncratic detail undermines the reliability of the report; Report at 53; rather than recognizing the widely acknowledged phenomenon of "incremental disclosure."

(10) Robson's failure to interpret reasonably the boys' reports is again remarkable. One would expect an untrained police officer, not a child psychiatrist, to interpret a child's descriptions of events in a strictly literal manner. Yet, Robson does so again and again, creating doubt and confusion where none exists (e.g., Robson concludes that Ben reported that his father put a "sewing needle" in his "pooper" and cut his eyes out when the child had earlier stated that "it feels like needles when daddy sticks his penis in my pooper. It feels like my eyes will pop out of my head and my brains will explode"; Report at 14; apparently, no attempt was made to clarify these and similar reports; Robson finds Jon's report of having "seen" Wilkinson's penis "in" Ben's "butt" when he observed them from the upper bunk of bunk beds as "impossible," never realizing that Jon made that reasonable inference after seeing Wilkinson on top of Ben making a humping motion). Report at 14; deposition of Jonathan Wiegand, August 1, 1996.

(11) Robson concludes that Dr. Balsam's conviction that the boys were sexually abused lacked validity, in part, because Balsam was serving as the childrens' therapist. Report at 15, 20. It is difficult to see how Robson reaches this conclusion, except to say that it is his view that a therapist is an advocate for his patient and cannot, therefore, be an unbiased evaluator. Yet, the predicate of all competent therapy is diagnosis. And diagnosis in these cases cannot occur without a fair and detached assessment of the facts. Clearly, the treatment for a sexually abused child is vastly different than the treatment for a child who has been abused through inculcation of false allegations of sexual abuse. While, for purposes of preserving doctor-patient confidentiality and trust, and to advance the economic interests of forensic evaluators, it may be preferable to separate the roles, it is mere self-promotion for an evaluator or for professional associations to declare that a therapist cannot arrive at a reliable assessment of child sexual abuse reports because he intends to treat thereafter. Indeed, it may be said that the therapist, whose success in treatment depends on the reliability of his diagnosis, has a clear incentive for accuracy that the evaluator does not. Moreover, Robson maintains this position even though it is clear that for "several months" Balsam considered at least the possibility that Wiegand could have been coaching the boys; Report at 17; hardly the attitude of a therapist biased toward accepting at face value his patients' reports. incentive for accuracy that the evaluator does not. Moreover, Robson maintains this position even though it is clear that for "several months" Balsam considered at least the possibility that Wiegand could have been coaching the boys; Report at 17; hardly the attitude of a therapist biased toward accepting at face value his patients' reports.

(12) Robson clearly was unwilling to believe the reports of abuse the boys previously made and continued to make to him, even though they were separated from their mother at the time he spoke with them. (E.g., Jon's statement that Wilkinson punched him viewed by Robson as "highly unlikely"; Report at 20; Jon's reiteration of the reports as "real" and that he was "not mixed up" viewed by Robson as "unconvincing"; Report at 45; Ben's momentary "recantation," accompanied by his expressed desire not "to tell anymore," though later disavowed, is seen by Robson as "convincing" without any regard for the difficulty that the boys have in speaking about the subject generally and the obvious negative consequences to the boys of making these reports; Report at 47; Robson actually attempts to persuade the boys that they are confused about what happened, even after Jon protests that he is not "mixed up"; Report at 45-52; later, Jon himself complained that Dr. Robson was "trying to make him say that nothing happened and was very upset about this"; Report at 59; and wanted to know: "When Dr. Robson is going to help me"; Report at 61.) It seems clear that even the boys were frustrated by Dr. Robson's unwillingness to believe them. Jon actually distrusted Robson. Report at 129.

(13) Although Dr. Robson considered it highly significant that neither boy raised sexual issues with Wilkinson when they finally were together after a long separation and without Wiegand being present; Report at 56, 57, 68; he attaches no apparent significance to Jon's fear of being re-victimized by Wilkinson;. Report at 44; or Jon's courageous confrontation of Wilkinson with the "problems" at a point at which they were recalling positive parts of their relationship. Report at 69. Given the security of the environment, the positive memories, Wiegand's absence, the toys and attention from Wilkinson, and Wilkinson's outwardly warm and caring attitude, it is extraordinary that Jon summoned the strength to confront him with "the problems," especially since Wilkinson's response was to defend himself and to turn the office into a confrontational courtroom setting. Robson, however, merely restrains Wilkinson and ignores the significance of the incident in its tendency to undermine his theory.

(14) Robson makes favorable reference to Wilkinson "pass[ing)" a "penile plethysmograph," which is professionally discredited as a diagnostic tool in child sexual abuse cases and is limited only to use as a treatment device. Report at 96; see, e.g., Gardner, supra at 258-60. By failing to point out its lack of significance as a diagnostic tool, Robson contributes to the creation of pseudo-evidence that appears to favor Wilkinson.

(15) Robson notes the absence of any "deviant developmental history" in Wilkinson without accounting for the large potential for inaccuracy given the source of his information (Wilkinson and Karen) and the context of Robson's inquiry. Report at 97. Did he actually expect a man facing the possible initiation and renewal of criminal charges of sexually abusing two young boys to describe to him some deviant sexual activity he may have engaged in with his sister or others as he grew up? Robson accepts Wilkinson's sexual history at face value, attempting no independent verification.

(16) Robson recommends his colleague Dr. James Black as the childrens' therapist. Robson and Black are friends with prior professional relationships in child sexual abuse cases. Dr. Black is well-known as a heavily Freudian-laden child psychiatrist who is capable of ascribing to an "overheated imagination" the most graphic reports of sexual activity made by young children. Black also has engaged in what he describes as "confrontational therapy," in which he confronts a young child with his own opinion that the child's prior reports of sexual abuse were false in the hopes of "aiding" the child to recognize their falsity. Just such coercive: "therapy" was anticipated in this case by Robson (Jon requires "debriefing" from the sexual abuse scenario). Report at 157.

(17) Robson never properly accounts for Wilkinson's at times indifferent and even hostile attitude toward Jon. While Robson uses laudatory adjectives to describe Wilkinson's initial interaction with the boys in the unnatural setting of his office, he acknowledges, but does not explain, Wilkinson's immediately confrontational response to Jon's direct accusation of him. Report at 69-70. Robson must intervene to neutralize what would have escalated to a court room style confrontation. Report at 70. Nor does he acknowledge the significance of Wilkinson's desire to separate the boys and to have NO CONTACT with Jon. Report at 87, 134. A similar attitude is expressed by Karen. Report at 142. Is it possible that Wilkinson formed little or no attachment to this child for whom he was the only psychological father? Did he not see the devastating effect that separation would have had on Ben? Or did Wilkinson and Karren view Ben as more easily manipulated and submissive, and hence, less of a threat in the future with regard to the abuse allegations? These questions, unfortunately, never were considered by Robson.

(18) Robson's failure to inquire or investigate collaterally Wilkinson's reportedly odd religious beliefs has significance beyond demonstrating his bias. It would be highly significant to a forensic evaluator whether one accused of sexually abusing two young children (a) declared himself celibate to his wife during the marriage for "spiritual" reasons; (b) suspected that he had a close relationship (as husband and wife) with one of the victims in a prior life; (c) taught the children devil worship, and engaged in rituals involving self-inflicted wounds producing blood in front of them as a method of intimidating and controlling them; and (d) was admittedly a member of a religious group that apparently allowed for similar beliefs. Dr. Robson never pressed these matters, accepting without suspicion Wilkinson's statement that his membership in a group practicing Anthroposophy had "lapsed" and that, if given custody, he would raise the children in a mainstream protestant religion. Report at 66. For Robson not to probe Wilkinson's unusual religious beliefs and his eleventh hour "conversion," in a case presenting allegations of ritualistic abuse and Satanic worship is shocking. Although Robson was critical of Dr. Balsam for not interviewing Wilkinson and observing him with the boys before arriving at his conclusion that the children were sexually abused; Report at 16; it appears that Robson, who did so, failed both to seek answers to the most basic questions and to appreciate the significance of the interaction that he observed.

(19) Although Robson notes that the sexualized behavior of both boys preceded the reports of abuse and any custody issue; Report at 79; he considers that fact as undermining the reliability of the reports. It is indeed difficult to understand how conduct contrived by Wiegand for some personal advantage could precede the events that gave rise to the advantage supposedly sought.

(20) Although Robson considers Wiegand's family to have a "predisposition to impulsive aggression" based solely upon Wiegand's brother's assault upon her; Report at 82; nowhere does he note the significance of Wilkinson's father's impulsive aggression against his own wife when she revealed facts to Robson about her son's.situation that her husband apparently did not want to come to light. Report at 149-50.

(21) Robson considers Wiegand's willingness to collect any evidence of the abuse (drawings, teddy bear, documents) as consistent with false allegations of abuse. Report at 83. One would have thought that, in all of Robson's training and education, he would have encountered some information concerning the protective instincts of parents toward their children. Had the evidence that Wiegand presented to him been demonstrably false, certainly an inference of malevolent contrivance could have been drawn. Yet, Robson can point to no such evidence.

(22) Robson believed that allegations against Karen arose only after she had been appointed legal guardian of the boys, and viewed the timing suspicious. Report at 83. Actually, the boys' allegations against Karen arose before she was awarded actual custody of the boys by the family court. Compare McLean Hospital discharge summary (9/2/92) with family court order (2/14/94). Surely, a reasonable person would not assume that Wiegand thought that Karen would be awarded custody of two children, one with whom she has no legal or biological relationship with, in preference to both parents, and that she therefore contrived abuse allegations against her.

(23) Robson views the boys' reports of sexual acts, about which he did not apparently inquire, as "hardly possible"; Report at 84; even though they involve recognized acts of sexual perversion. Is Robson receptive to typical acts of child sexual abuse but distrustful of unusual ones? Surely, there is no professional standard that would necessarily require an evaluator to view the later with extreme skepticism, absent other factors. Robson also doubts the possibility that Wilkinson would punch Ben in the stomach during the abuse. Report at 84. Once again, one wonders what professional. standard or practice would lead an evaluator to discount such a report, absent clear evidence to the contrary.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the documents that I have reviewed and other information that I have gathered about the case, I respectfully make the following recommendations:

(1) A criminal investigation of the abuse allegations be undertaken by an appropriate police investigative agency.

(2) Given the apparent connection between Wilkinson's extremely aggressive attorney, Louis Kiefer, esq., and Detective Warren Hansen of the Simsbury Police Department, the complexity of the case, and its interstate aspects, I recommend that the State Police Major Crime Squad, central district, be requested to conduct the investigation. By so doing, you and the Simsbury Police Department will avoid the appearance of partiality.

(3) The lead detective(s) should speak with the clinical psychologist who will interview the children before he does so and discuss with him the importance of asking the children questions eliciting idiosyncratic detail, such as, (assuming an accusation) did he say anything as he was doing this?
What? How did it feel? Did you like that? Why (not)? Did he say that you could tell anyone? Did he say what would happen if you did? What happened before and after the acts? Did you ever talk about it later? Have you spoken about what happened with him since? What has he said? Ask for description of any ejaculate mentioned. Ask about the disposition of any condom described. I have a list of other questions that may be posed.

(4) Both boys should undergo an anal and genital examination. As I noted above, evidence of chronic anal penetration, though not essential, may appear. I recommend that Dr. Frederick Berrien, of St. Francis Hospital Children's Center, do such an examination while the children are present there for their interview.

(5) Obtain from Assistant Attorney General Harrison Lebovitz a copy of the audio tape of the S.R.S. interview in Vermont, the audio tapes of Robson's interviews, and the video tape of the childrens' August deposition (I already have requested these) They should be transcribed to resolve disputes as to their content.

(6) Obtain a search warrant for Wilkinson's home, citing various professional and F.B.I. documents on the substantial probability that a pedophile will retain items employed to accomplish child sexual abuse (such as costumes, candles, knives, the locked green box that Wilkinson keeps, knives, needles, tables, and documents and books relating to religious beliefs that are consistent with his claim that Ben was perhaps his wife in a former life). I can assist in providing those authorities.

(7) Obtain a search warrant for examination of Wilkinson's arms, to see whether they have scars that would corroborate the childrens' accounts of wounding.

(8) Obtain from Wiegand or Dr. Robson the teddy bear that the children describe Wilkinson using prior to or during the abuse so that forensic testing may be done for seminal fluid.

(9) Obtain background from Wiegand and others about the boy that Wilkinson served as big brother for, Ryan Barry, son of Rosemary Barry, Goodwin Place, East Hartford. Although he has since praised Wilkinson, I am told that he had been close to him (even traveling to the West Coast) for a time and then, for some reason, did not want to associate further with Wilkinson. He may well be another victim, whose silence somehow has been procured. Wilkinson does have financial resources available to him. I believe that Barry provided some sort of statement to Vermont authorities, which should be obtained before any interview.

(10) Investigate the relationship between the boy that Karen Wilkinson reportedly served as big sister for in New York. Why was a boy selected? Wilkinson reportedly maintained a lesbian relationship during her present marriage. Notwithstanding Dr. Robson's indifference to such a scenario, an independent evaluator would find such boundary crossing in sexual matters to be highly significant.

(11) If still available, photograph the houses, rooms, bunk beds, and any other places or items described by the boys and associated with the reported abuse.

(12) At one point one or both of the boys describe a "devil table" used by Wilkinson. This should be located and seized, if possible.

(13) Prepare a detailed timeline of events in this case.

(14) Catalog and review all relevant documents.

(15) Offer Wilkinson and Karen an opportunity to take a State Police administered polygraph examination.

(16) Interview Lee Dow, the prosecutor in Vermont, as to the "lies" she reports Wiegand told her. Report at 82. I have sent a letter to her attorney concerning contact with her. I also have notes of my previous conversations with her for your review.

I have attached all of the documents provided to me in this case and will forward those that are later received. Please let me know if you wish to discuss any aspect of this complex case.

CC: Domenick J. Galluzzo, Deputy Chief State's Attorney

THE LINDA WIEGAND CASE - UPDATED 12/31/98

Linda Wiegand married Thomas Wilkinson on January 7, 1991, in Connecticut. Their child, Benjamin, was born two years prior to their marriage. Linda had full custody of her child, Jonathan, born on January 3, 1986, who was the result of a previous marriage.

July 1992

September 1992

January 1993

January 25, 1993

February 1993

April 1993

April 14, 1993

April 1993

May 1993

June 10, 1993

June 16,1993

Judge Barall received two faxed letters from Vermont doctors stating that Linda Wiegand was hospitalized in Vermont and could not appear in court that day. Barall refused Linda's request for an adjournment.

Judge Barall, in an obvious bias against Linda, stated, on the transcript and in reference to the doctor's letters, "I think the children are at risk [with Linda].. [I am] somewhat suspicious.. of even the doctors statements." To which the Linda's attorney replied, "Is there any reason, Your Honor, why a doctor in Vermont would lie to the Court?". Barall doesn't answer.

Connecticut's Department of Children and Families (DCF) was ordered to be in court that day.

Nina Elgo, Assistant Attorney General, appears for DCF, was ordered to get involved and was told that the children are "at risk". Judge Barall claimed that Linda has a contagious disease. When in fact, she had contracted Giardia while on a fishing trip with her sons. Giardia is contracted by ingesting contaminated water.

Elgo was told to communicate the court's concern to Vermont authorities and to have Linda examined.

Wilkinson's attorney, Kiefer, asked for out-of-state depositions for Linda's banks in Vermont and for the doctors in Vermont who substantiated sexual abuse.

Kiefer wanted a subpoena for Newington Hospital in Connecticut, regarding a sexual abuse claim "against Linda" - which was actually a sexual abuse claim against Wilkinson.

June 23,1993

At this hearing, Judge Barall says, on the record, that he believes the children are in danger because Linda is "disabled" (from a back injury).

June 30, 1993

Karen Wilkinson's attorney, Louis Kiefer, informed the Court that he sent Linda certified letters informing Linda of the June 30th hearing, but he had not received confirmation of their delivery. Linda never received his notice or motion.

Kiefer disclosed that he had Linda's sister's trash can searched and found an indication that Linda was giving her sister furniture, which, he asserted, was a marital asset (it was not). Kiefer goes on to say that he a made a motion to preserve marital assets and for out-of-state depositions, but didn't send them to Linda because "if she learned of the motions, they would be meaningless".

Kiefer notified the court that on June 21, 1993, Linda brought her children to the Simsbury, Connecticut police because the children had disclosed to the Vermont police they had also been sexually abused in Connecticut. The Simsbury police confirmed the children had been sexually abused in Connecticut.

(Note: The information concerning the Simsbury police investigation into the sexual abuse of Linda's children was apparently communicated to Louis Kiefer by the police officer assigned to the case, Detective Warren Hansen. The Vermont State Prosecutor's Office later informs Linda that Detective Hansen was a legal client of Louis Kiefer, Wilkinson's attorney. Kiefer had represented Hansen in two divorce actions against him by two of his wives).

Judge Barall appointed Doctor Ken Robson, a personal friend of his, to evaluate Ben and Jon, even though Jon was not a party to the Connecticut custody proceedings.

Also at this hearing, Kiefer moved to vacate a wage execution in the amount of $140 weekly against his client for Ben's child support. He reasoned that vacating the child support order would not hurt Ben since Linda earned $65,000 annually. Judge Barall instead orders that the child support paid to Linda by Tom Wilkinson via wage garnishment, was to be transferred to Judith Benedict for her legal fees.

Judge Barall transferred custody of Ben, ex parte, to Karen Wilkinson Nutter (Tom Wilkinson's sister). Karen is a resident of New York.

This transfer was based on the motion of Karen Wilkinson Nutter, filed on June 10, 1993.

He claimed that the reason he ordered the custody transfer is because he's .... very suspicious of the behaviors that have been going on.... The [doctors] letters that were sent to the court.. All indicative of someone who has some serious problems". Linda was hospitalized in May--June 1993 for Giardia. Judge Barall refused to stay proceedings.

Karen Wilkinson Nutter was told not to take custody of Ben until after Judith Benedict's scheduled interview with Ben on July 6, 1993. Judge Barall explained the reason for the delay in the execution of the custody transfer is "not to give her [Linda] an excuse for not coming". Presumably, the Court was referring to Linda's ability to obtain a stay of the ex parte transfer of custody if she learned of the transfer before the next Court date.

The Court sealed the custody order until the next hearing and stated that if Linda does appear at the next hearing with Ben, custody will shift to Karen Wilkinson Nutter.

July 7, 1993

Barall also ordered a Connecticut social worker, Paul Shanley, to contact the FBI and ask them to locate the children in order to pursue a possible parental kidnapping charge against Linda. In fact, Linda had gone on a planned vacation to Texas, with her children, to recuperate at a college friend's home.

July 15,1993

A Vermont Social Services supervisor, (June Russell, SRS), sent a letter to Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) supervisor, Paul Shanley, notifying him that she felt the children would be in danger of great harm if allowed to be in the custody of Karen Wilkinson, because then they would be exposed to further abuse from Tom Wilkinson.

July 20, 1993

Linda was given no notice of the transfer of custody of Ben to Karen Wilkinson, and there was no hearing in which a witness was sworn to verify notice to Linda.

July 21, 1993

July 28, 1993 Linda appeared before Judge Barall and her attorney requested the vacation all previous ex parte orders. Judge Barall refused on the grounds that he wanted a vehicle to have her arrested by the FBI if Ben left the State of Connecticut. Instead, Judge Barall modified the 6/30193 order and left Karen Wilkinson with legal custody of Ben and Linda with residential custody, on the condition that Ben live in Connecticut. He stated that if Linda "wishes to live with the child, then she'll have to come to Connecticut".

August 1993

Due to the homicidal (Jon) and suicidal (Ben) state of her children, Linda took them for evaluation to the Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, which she was referred to by an emergency room evaluator in Vermont. The hospital report states that Jon spontaneously advised, "I know why we're here." He then stated, "It's because my dad put his penis in our butts, and the last time he put it in Ben's mouth." Jon drew a picture of Wilkinson threatening him not to talk by saying, "I'll kill you."

Ben said, "Well, I have these problems. My dad has these problems. He wakes me up in the middle of the night and takes me outside." Ben described how his father took him onto the backyard and slaughtered a kitten and told him that the same will happen to him if he talks about the abuse.

Ben stated that he had "pee pee and doo doo problems" with his father outside one day. He stated that his "Aunt Karen has a vagina, a pee pee hole, and butt hole and tried to kill him." Ben stated that after his mother left, be had 'gina' problems with Aunt Karen, he said she "pushed my head down to her 'gina' and stood up and tried to pee in my mouth."

Immediately after Linda's attorney revealed to Wilkinson's attorney, Kiefer, the location of Jon and Ben, Ben's court appointed attorney, Judith Benedict began a barrage of calls to the hospital demanding that the children were not to be examined for sexual abuse. Four hours later, Wilkinson and his sister, Karen, show up at the hospital, present a court order stating that Karen has custody of the children. Karen demanded that Jon and Ben are to be withdrawn from the hospital and released into her custody.

Jon and Ben's doctor, Dr. Stromburg, told Linda to go to a judge immediately and get a protective order to make sure Wilkinson and his sister can't take the children. To protect the children, the doctor filed a committal of the children, to make it impossible for them to be removed. From court, Linda faxed the protective order to the hospital - just in time to stop Wilkinson and his sister from removing the children.

October 12, 1993

The evidence transferred to Robson was not produced at any time thereafter by Judge Barall, nor was Linda or her attorneys ever informed of the ex parte seizure of the evidence by Judge Barall. There was never a hearing by Judge Barall (or any other Connecticut Judge) into the sexual abuse charges made in Connecticut.

Sept. 1993 - Jan. 1994

Judge Barall had ordered a psychological examination of Jon and Ben by Dr. Ken Robson. In January, 1994, Dr. Robson determines that despite the heinous sexual abuse allegations, the boys did not see sexual acts, did not see explicit movies, were not coached and just made the allegations up as "magical thinking." Linda claims this is medical malpractice because she witnessed the boys describing the graphic acts of sodomy and oral sex with Wilkinson and his sister. Furthermore, Robson's theories are not AMA or APA approved. Robson also told Linda that he was a close personal friend of Judge Barall.

January 30, February 6, and February 13, 1994

February 14,1994 Linda had taken the children to Boston for rest and rehabilitation beginning on the February 12th weekend. While there, she learned from her attorney, Glenn Coe, that Judge Barall had held an ex parte hearing on February 14, 1994, at which he issued sealed orders.

Glenn Coe told Linda that he was called seven minutes before the hearing and was told to be there. He said he could not attend because he was about to begin a deposition in another case. When Linda's attorney, Coe, later called Ben's attorney, Judith Benedict, to learn what had transpired, he was told she could not tell him because the orders were sealed from him and from Linda.

Three days later, Coe receives a fax from Benedict requesting the location of Linda and the children, because she has to get in touch with Linda regarding the orders that had just been unsealed. In fact, the orders were not unsealed by the court until several months later (the entire file had been sealed).

Linda later learned that at this hearing, Judge Barall had granted an ex parte order pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-15, transferring full physical custody (on paper only) of both children to Karen Wilkinson, on the grounds that Linda had not kept Ben in The Master's School in Simsbury, Conn. Up until February 14, 1994, Linda's son, Jonathan, was not a party to the proceedings and had no attorney representing him. The order also contained the following directive:

"Notification to Attorney Coe and Linda Wiegand of these orders shall occur after the children are in Karen Wilkinson's custody."

The reason for the order transferring custody was the failure of Linda to keep her son Ben in school. There was no order and no agreement directing her to place him in school. Ben was only five years old at the time, and the age at which school was mandatory in Connecticut was seven. The application for this order contains misleading and false statements. The resulting ex parte order transferring custody lacked any basis in fact or law. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a parent cannot be deprived of custody of a child without a hearing, except in an emergency. The attendance of a five year old at school is not the emergency envisaged by the Supreme Court in Stanley v. IIlinois 405 U.S. 645 (1972) and Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2nd 817 (2d Cir. 1977).

The application was made by Ben's law guardian on behalf of Ben. C.G.S. 46b-15 is limited to situations where a family member has been subjected to a continuous threat of present physical injury by another family member. There were no allegations of a threat or infliction of physical pain or abuse by Linda on Ben in the February 14, 1994 application of Judith Benedict. The application and ex parte order were therefore jurisdictionally defective.

Also at this hearing, Doctor James Black was ordered to be the children's therapist. It was later learned that Doctor Black had been a client of Judge Barall and is a friend of Louis Kiefer. Doctor Black is presently the children's therapist administering "desensitizing" therapy.

Feb.16, 1994 T. Wilkinson applied for an ex parte order to gain possession of Linda's non-marital condo and contents and to be appointed receiver of rents from her pre-marital home and to take possession of her mail and her cars in order to obtain an in rem judgement because "there is a reasonable likelihood that the Defendant (Linda) neither resides in nor maintains an office or place of business in the State and is not otherwise subject to jurisdiction over her person by this Court;". This motion was resubmitted on Feb.25 and again on March 14. It was granted, exparte on March 14, 1994.

Feb.17, 1994

Karen Wilkinson went to the Granby, Connecticut police with her brother, Tom Wilkinson and requested an order for the arrest of Linda. Their request was denied (but was approved later). The ex parte custody order was still sealed.

Feb. 28, 1994

A hearing on the ex parte order was set for February 28, 1994, for the custody transfer order. The date of the 28th is significant because the protective order against Thomas Wilkinson seeing the children, issued in the Vermont criminal action, expired the previous Friday, February 25,1994.

On February 28, 1994, at 2:45 p.m. Glenn Coe received a fax from Judith Benedict notifying him that the hearing on the sealed orders of February 14, 1994, was about to begin. When he got there, Judge Barall misstated the events preceding February 14, 1994, by saying Glenn Coe had been invited to the February 14th hearing, but could not attend. The court also said that Linda was aware of the hearing, which was untrue. The court reaffirmed the transfer of custody to Karen Wilkinson who would share custody with her brother, Tom Wilkinson. Without taking testimony from a witness, colloquy between a counsel and a judge is not a hearing.

March 9, 1994

Judge Barall recused himself on March 14, 1994, and assigned Linda's case to Judge Thelma Santos. However, Judge Barall did not say he was recusing himself, but was merely transferring the case to Judge Santos.

March 14, 1994

This same order by Judge Santos also gave Wilkinson the authorization to seize Linda's mail from her non-marital post office box in Simsbury, Connecticut. The same mail box that was in the CAJA ad! In addition, the order gave Wilkinson a possessory lien on Linda's automobiles both pre- and post- marital. This prejudgment remedy was granted at a proceeding scheduled for sole purpose of taking Dr. Robson's testimony Dr. Robson never appeared before the court to testify. Instead, he speaks to the attorneys over the telephone in the judge's chambers which was passed from one attorney to the next so that Linda's attorney could not hear what was said between Dr. Robson and Lou Kiefer, Tom Wilkinson's attorney.

April 9, 1994

April 27, 1994

May 1994

November 1994

Judge Santos ordered the court officers to seize Ms. Ruhe's briefcase and bring it's contents to her, which Judge Santos went through as an in-camera review. The contents were then returned to Ms. Ruhe, she was ordered from the courtroom and directed to return with an attorney because she would be called as a witness. When she returned, she was placed on the stand and questioned, as to Linda's whereabouts by Judy Benedict and Louis Kiefer. She testified that she did not know Linda's location. The minutes of these bizarre proceedings were then sealed.

Also in November, 1994, Tom Wilkinson and Judith Benedict appeared before the Simsbury Connecticut Probate Court and got an authorization to make a claim against a bond which Linda had posted as guardian of her child, Jon, for monies received for an injury to Jon's hand. Their application was granted and they fraudulently obtained $10,000.00 from the insurance carrier. (They also got a $12,000.00 judgement against Linda for the same money 6/98).

This was a crime because both Wilkinson and Benedict knew Linda had been ordered by Judge Barall to use her child's account to pay for Dr. Robson's fees. Linda had transferred Jon's funds via two cashier's checks to Benedict, pursuant to Barall's orders, payable to Dr. Robson. Linda's disability income was garnished via wage garnishment against the CT state laws.

January 9, 1995

January 27, 1995

February 1995

July 3, 1996

Records obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Hartford, Connecticut, under Freedom Of Information Act, show that the U.S. Attorney's Office moved to dismiss the federal arrest warrant and complaint against Linda on July 5, 1996, two days after the arrest.

Linda's case was then processed through the Las Vegas Superior and Family Courts. In the Superior Court, after she asked for a few days to decide whether to waive extradition back to Connecticut, Linda was kept in jail, without bail and was not allowed to participate in the Family Court proceedings. Neither was her attorney.

The Las Vegas Family Court turned Linda's children over to her husband who presumably presented the court with his illegal, ex parte order of January 27, 1995.

July 8, 1996

Linda was shackled in hand, foot and belly chains twenty four hours a day, locked in a cage. Six days later, she arrived in Connecticut. The shackles on Linda's feet had cut holes into her heels, which now cause her constant pain and prevent her from wearing any shoes that cover her heels.

August 1, 1996

Jon, contrary to his attorneys prompting, testifies to sodomy twenty times by Wilkinson, who kept a knife on the pillow while he sodomized Jon. He also testifies he saw his brother Ben sodomized by Wilkinson. After his testimony, in the Vermont proceeding, Wilkinson is allowed to take the children home. Shortly afterward, Linda receives a typed transcript of the Vermont deposition, mailed anonymously.

August 21, 1996

The New York State Police attempt to serve the order of protection and take Jon and Ben into custody. Just prior to their arrival, Karen Wilkinson learns of the order and absconds with the two children from New York, back to the protection of Connecticut.

The next day, Linda, along with a child advocate, went to the Suffield, CT police to have them execute the New York court order. Although they were obligated by law to serve the order, the Suffield police refused to act. Not only did they illegally refuse to act, but a po]ice sergeant threatened Linda and the child advocate with imprisonment and followed them until they were out of town.

September 1996

October 1996

November 20,1996

December 3, 1996

At the end of the hearing, Judge Levine asked Linda if she still believes that her children had been sexually abused. She answered, 'yes". Judge Levine then said, "Sheriff, put her in irons." Linda was then placed in the maximum security prison at Niantic, Connecticut, an illegal commitment because civil prisoners cannot be placed in a criminal prison.

While in prison, Linda was assaulted by her psychopathic cell mate, a member of the street gang, the 'Latin Queens', who was incarcerated for murdering her own brother. Linda required medical treatment for her injuries.

January 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Linda filed a formal complaint against Judge Levine for civil rights abuses in his handling of the case. Judge Levine was then forced to recuse himself, but the Connecticut judicial review board denied her complaint against him (5/97).

April 18, 1997

May 1997

May 19, 1997

July 31, 1997

September 1997

The State's attorney then proceeded to add two new charges, which were ex post facto. They were based on amendments to the custodial interference penal statute passed one year after Linda left the state. Judge D'Addabo was asked to give an opinion for his denial of the motion so that the appeal could move forward. The Judge agreed to give an opinion but has not yet done so. The criminal case was set for trial (Fall, '98).

October 1997

Since the Connecticut Attorney General had a conflict representing DCF (Department of Children and Families) in their petitions regarding Linda's sons, representing the judges being sued by Linda and defending the lawsuit filed by Wilkinson against CTDCF, the Attorney General withdrew the abuse and neglect petitions involving Jon and Ben, instead of appointing a special counsel. The CT Attorney General filed an appearance in federal court on behalf of the judges and settled Wilkinson's lawsuit against Connecticut state officials.

October 14,1997

July 1998

This capias was issued despite the fact that Linda's attorney was present and announced he was ready to proceed. Judge Bishop set a bail on the capias of $25,000, cash olyy. At two subsequent hearings, the judge has refused to vacate the capias.

August 1998

The judge citing Linda for failure to appear, revoked her bail bond of $20,000, set in July 1996, issued a re-arrest warrant and set a new bail at $75,000 cash only. He declared, on the record, that the intention was to arrest Linda that day on the civil capias issued by Judge Bishop in July 1998. [The original (July 1998) capias was probably illegal because her attorney had appeared and was ready to proceed. There was no legal reason preventing the court from proceeding at the July hearing, and therefore, no ground for the issuance of a capias.]

September 1998

November 1998

At the time of the attempted kidnapping and custodial interference, custody of Linda's children had been transferred back to Linda by a New York State Family Court Judge, which order Connecticut was obligated to give full faith and credit to pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2265.

NOTE:
Jon and Ben have not seen their mother since the morning of July 3, 1996, when Linda dropped them off at summer camp. They remain in Wilkinson's custody.

Please send all contributions
and inquiries to:

The Wiegand Fund
P.O. Box 2043
Abington, MA 02351

For complete documentation, click on the following web site.

Linda Wiegand, A Mother's Fight for Protection of her Children Because of Sexual Abuse