Creating Victims for the Sexual Inquisition

The first time a fanatical Italian prosecutor tried to silence me through an accusation of “sexual acts with children,” there was a little obstacle: the police couldn’t find any victims. So to avoid losing that first case, the prosecutor made a desperate effort to create some victims. In the summer of 2019 after years of unrestricted fascist-style investigations, the state brought a ten-year-old girl to court and she said “He touched my private parts. I hate him.” An open and shut case? Not quite.

The accusation referred to 2014, when I visited a poor family every Sunday, brought them groceries, clothes, books and toys, took them to the beach and the zoo, and helped them with their homework. As part of my 30 years of volunteering with poor families, in some cases I have even registered children for school, got them out of bed every morning, fed them, brought them to school, then accompanied them home.

My regular contacts with the family lasted for a year, and then occasional visits over the next three years. In 2016 when the prosecutor ordered the police to illegally search my home and confiscate my computer and cell phone, the inquisitors saw my normal photographs of the children (never nude or in any sexual context) and identified their parents through my telephone records. Then they interrogated the father, who had nothing negative to say about me.

But in the fall of 2017 when it appeared that I would be acquitted of the ridiculous charge of “child pornography,” the prosecutor became desperate for evidence of some crime, any crime, so three little sisters were suddenly taken away from their parents and placed in state custody. The official excuse was that the father was unemployed and the family was now living as squatters in an occupied school. But in reality the father had been unemployed for years – not just in 2017, the children have grandparents they could have been placed with, and there were many other families living in the school whose children weren’t kidnapped by the state. (The classrooms had been converted into apartments with private bathrooms, kitchens and free electricity.)

In cases where the suspected perpetrator is a family member, teacher, or other person who is very close to the child, being isolated from the suspect may be more damaging to the child than the supposed abuse. But since there is mass hysteria over child sex abuse, state employees are rarely if ever prosecuted for being overzealous. Despite no reports of any kind of abuse, the prosecutor ordered the police to interrogate the sisters while in state custody. The children denied any abuse and had nothing negative to say about me. They even said they liked me and missed me. Frustrated, a few months later the prosecutor even interrogated the mother, who likewise had nothing negative to say about me.

Then in the summer of 2019, five years after the supposed crime the children were brought to court by the state. In theory it was a pretrial taint hearing, so the witnesses could confirm their previous accusations against me, except that the children hadn’t made any accusations against me or anybody else. The real motive for bringing the children into court was to coercively interrogate them again so they might make some accusation this time. Upon the prodding of the judge one child did make a 180 degree turn – accusing me of touching her. Note that in court the child was reluctant to say anything, probably because she had been forced to lie.

In state custody the conversation is always controlled, and the topic of sex is always related to investigation and prosecution, which may actually lead to more negative outcomes for the child such as suicidal ideation. Blind law enforcement is considered more important than the welfare of the child, and the assumed importance of assessment, “treatment” and other interventions that justify the salaries of victim advocates may be more than coincidental. At first the child refused to answer and began to cry, but the judge and state psychologist insisted that she answer suggestive questions, which indicates the state already knew that while in state custody the child had been persuaded to accuse me of something, anything, so she had probably agreed in exchange for being left alone after her testimony, and a promise of being freed from state custody eventually.

That isn’t a normal investigation, it’s an inquisition. The state can treat adult criminals like that, but not child witnesses who will eventually agree with whatever the kidnappers want the child to say. In this case the child who said “He touched my private parts” was actually five years old in 2014, and yet five years later she has a reliable memory of supposed abuse that she had denied before? She doesn’t even remember her previous statements defending me much more recently than the supposed abuse. Her accusation was made only after being in state custody for two years, after who knows how many hours of unrecorded suggestive questioning, promises, threats and other mental torture by state employees. After two years in “protective” custody the formerly happy little girl also declared “I hate everybody.” When asked if she ever lies, she replied “In school I always tell lies.”

According to Italian law, the accused is entitled to copies of all videos and transcripts or other supposed evidence, but so far I have received only half of the evidence, and always at the last minute when there isn’t enough time to prepare for the next hearing. An open and shut witch hunt, just like the many other wild west prosecutions that have gone before. I feel like the man who was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife and child. On top of losing his wife and child, the state then hanged him by the neck until dead.

Posted in child sexual abuse, children, sex, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Do Allegations of Sex Crimes Justify Judicial Misconduct?

A prosecutor in an ongoing case in Italy requested the precautionary arrest of an American teacher on charges of child sex abuse, citing recorded “interviews” of some children as supposed evidence. The preliminary judge approved the arrest without any acknowledgment that repeated threats of the witnesses were recorded, some videos of the interrogations are missing, the interrogators used blatantly suggestive questioning, and then the prosecutor even made false assertions of what the children supposedly said. Such witch hunt tactics were not unknown in the U.S. and other modern countries decades ago, but they are still being used in Italian courts today – despite the claims of Italian psychologists and other victim advocates that they are well-informed and up-to-date on the recent research on appropriate methods of treating children who are believed to be victims or potential witnesses.

Most modern nations have an adversarial system of judicial procedure, but Italy still clings to the ancient inquisitorial model. Italian judges and prosecutors are not elected by the people or appointed by elected representatives, but are colleagues who are hired by the state bureaucracy. There is no jury trial here. Despite the international consensus that a judge is supposed to be impartial between the prosecution and defense, a judge here may be virtually in bed with the prosecutor. You’ve heard of dirty politics. What about a criminal justice system in which prosecutors make unfounded accusations that contradict the concrete evidence, but preliminary judges and even appeal court judges completely ignore the concrete evidence and instead literally copy and paste the prosecutor’s unfounded accusations word-for-word into their pronouncements?

Welcome to the mass hysteria over child porn and child sex abuse. Everybody wants to be a hero, especially if being a hero has come to mean being on the safe side of the lynch mob. Where is the heroism in being on the same side as the lynch mob? The hysteria began long ago as a reasonable and courageous criticism of real child abuse, but due to the personal agenda of political opportunists and financial profiteers, children’s health and safety are now being sacrificed and the rights of the accused to due process are ignored for the convenience of the real psychopaths in government and business who are willing and eager to exploit a child for their own benefit.

The presumption of the innocence of the accused exists because it is very easy to make false accusations. Some evidence beyond the mere verbal accusation is necessary to substantiate any charge – except when the charge is sex crimes against minors? Quite the contrary, children are the witnesses most vulnerable to suggestive interrogations (1,2). When there is reason to believe there may be ulterior motives for making false accusations, corroborating evidence becomes even more important. How dare a prosecutor or judge ignore these plain facts?

In some states fabricating evidence is a felony punishable by over ten years imprisonment, but in this ongoing Italian case the evidence against the accused was clearly fabricated by the prosecutor, and the judge is an accomplice in failing to acknowledge the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. In theory the state needs to protect children at all costs, but in reality no child or parent came to the police voluntarily. Rather than investigating a specific report of any crime, the prosecutor ordered the police to go out and round up potential victims for coercive interrogations. (It isn’t the first time such fascist “investigation” tactics have been used in Italy.) Then after threatening several children and suggesting accusations, the prosecutor made no effort to verify any accusations. The prosecutor and judge have merely provoked as many accusations as possible and then accepted those coerced verbal accusations at face value.

An interrogator in a modern, civilized democracy is not even supposed to mention the name of the suspect unless the child makes an accusation spontaneously or there is already strong evidence of abuse (e.g. a reliable witness to the abuse, a video of the abuse taking place, or an unequivocal medical report). In that case the interrogators should ask “Who/What/Where…?” If there is a known time when the abuse occurred, or the child herself alleges a time-frame, the interrogators should establish that the child’s accusation is credible by asking details of other events during that same period. In this case the supposed victims were prodded and terrorized by the arrogant authorities, so the children made elaborate accusations of abuse that supposedly occurred years ago, but they are unable to remember the accusations they claimed two weeks ago. As far as the prosecutor and judge in this case are concerned, that’s not a problem.

When an interrogator suggests specific accusations, and interrogators claim other children have disclosed abuse by a particular suspect who they label “a dangerous person,” then any claims the child subsequently makes are contaminated. In this case despite no concrete evidence to justify the interrogations in the first place, the interrogators refused to believe the children when they said nothing happened to them. The children were then called liars, the prosecutor threatened to arrest their parents, the videos were interrupted so someone could coach the child’s testimony while the video was turned off. But the preliminary judge whose duty it is to at least check the supposed evidence, himself denied the clear evidence that the children had been threatened, and he even refused to accept a retraction. The supposed victims have changed their stories multiple times to please the scary interrogators, inventing impossible scenarios that may easily be verified to be false, but the judge doesn’t see anything wrong with that.

This same prosecutor and judge previously accused my innocent video Buddy Massage of being “child pornography,” citing the title of one of my blog posts on Emotional Incest as if the text were evidence of sexual intent. But that post actually attacks sexual abuse as “damaging and reprehensible.” Even after the investigation ended and the trial began, the prosecutor prejudiced the judge by reopening the original investigation during the trial without any justification whatsoever. The prosecutor and judge are guilty of gross misconduct by not bothering to examine the supposed evidence carefully, e.g. by ordering a translation of the English text into their own language. Rather than presuming innocence, their approach to justice is to shoot first and ask questions later.

Section 351 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows any person to complain about a federal judge or magistrate who “has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or “is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability” (e.g. the judge is overcome by the mass hysteria over child sex abuse). This law also provides for the judicial councils of the circuits to adopt rules for the consideration of such complaints. Title 28 USC §§ 351 – 364 allows any persons to complain about a federal judge who they believe has committed judicial misconduct in the U.S. Evidently, there is no such provision in Italian law.

References

  1. Lamb, Michael E. et al. (eds). Children’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
  2. Heaton-Armstrong, Anthony et al. Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Persectives. Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.
Posted in child sexual abuse, sex, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is this Child Porn?

What qualifies as “child porn” is becoming so broad as to include even the most ridiculous claims about the most innocent images. Here are the incredible arguments used by one prosecutor in Italy to justify the arrest and eventual conviction of an American teacher for his instructional video on peer massage.

Italian law is similar to U.S. law in stating that images of minors are “pornographic” if they are intended to sexually arouse viewers. In addition, Italian law requires that the images also contain genital nudity, and beyond the relatively minor charge of “possession,” the much more serious charge of “production” requires that there must be evidence of an intent to distribute the images (1). So in order to claim that my video Buddy Massage was the “production of child porn” the prosecutor cited the titles of a few of my publications in English as “proof” that my intent in producing the video was to sexually arouse viewers, but without any official translation or reference to my specific content.

For example, the prosecutor cited my novel Revolt of the Children which is actually a story about poor children in Palermo’s old quarter who rebel against physical, sexual and emotional abuse by their parents and other adults in their community, culminating in the crucifixion of an abusive priest and violence against the insensitive state. Another title cited is my short eBook Real Child Safety which criticizes the hysterical popular focus on sex crimes. Far from promoting the sexualization of children, Real Child Safety describes how to protect kids from the more serious and more often deadly dangers kids face from conception to adolescence. The prosecutor also cited my photo-documentary about puberty Girl Becomes Woman which promotes breast pride, and this very blog, even though I have never published anything that suggests kids are or should be sexually arousing, despite over 100 pages of text accompanying the photo-documentary and over 50 long blog posts in nearly 10 years. Quite the contrary, I have specifically criticized any and all insensitivity or exploitation of children, and I’ve published an article specifically about child massage which never made any reference to sex, eroticism or arousal.

Another false claim is that my publications supposedly advocate unlimited sexual freedom for children, even though I have repeatedly written the exact opposite: Children’s play should be monitored by parents. I’ve specifically warned against unmonitored play: “Children’s first sexual experiences should be carefully monitored by responsible adults…” (2). The audio narration of my video also specifically recommends parental consent and monitoring. The prosecutor also neglected to mention my clear and repeated references to the health benefits of child massage, and my references to the scientific research on child massage by the Touch Research Institute of the University of Miami Medical School.

The introduction to Buddy Massage even includes the specific disclaimer: children should always be safe and protected from any kind of physical, sexual or emotional abuse (3). Either the prosecutor has never read or understood my writings in English, or she knows very well that her ridiculous accusations are contrary to the evidence but she doesn’t care because Italian judges won’t bother to read the publications in a foreign language or require that they be translated into Italian anyway.

The prosecutor is aware of my hypothesis on the possible causes and effects of clitoral erectile dysfunction which entails the undisputed fact that little girls are capable of clitoral erections. But she makes the remarkable claim that my video on peer massage is somehow an attempt to “confirm” that hypothesis. How could a video that contains no genital nudity of any girl possibly be an attempt to confirm any such “theory?” Ask the prosecutor and Italian judges who have copied and pasted that ridiculous reasoning over and over again in their judgments. Even more outrageously, the prosecutor and trial judge claimed that in the cited publications I myself admit that such is the goal of the video – while carefully neglecting to cite exactly where I ever admitted any such thing. The very idea doesn’t make any sense: How could a video on peer massage possibly confirm any sexual theory? If the prosecutor’s conduct seems too incredible, keep in mind that she may have expected me to flee the country as soon as I was accused, so I would never see the court documents and the case would be tried in absentia with no defense whatsoever. So sorry that I have to disappoint the witch hunter!

The only specific text reference the prosecutor made is to a brief press release I sent out to the international news wire services upon the publication of Girl Becomes Woman in 2012. The prosecutor falsely claimed I had supposedly said “children are sexually castrated,” while in reality anybody can easily verify that I specifically said girls are being mentally castrated, resulting in sexual dysfunction in women. In other writings I have repeatedly referred to little girls still being the victims of physical genital mutilation by the prosecutor’s prudish allies in some third world countries, but she is too busy to mention let alone worry about that gruesome fact.

The sloppy and misleading language used by the prosecutor is only the tip of the iceberg. To support the charge of possession of “child porn” the prosecutor cites one of my personal photographs (never published) of two sisters who are sitting on the floor playing patty cake (hand jive). Even though the lower parts of their bodies are not visible at all, the prosecutor claims the children are “nude.” That’s like saying: “The photograph shows the defendant with a gun in his hand,” while in reality there is no hand – let alone a gun – visible in the image. In fact the sisters were NOT nude when the photo was made, as the mother who was present at the time can testify.

In another personal image never published a young girl demonstrates a periodic self exam of her breasts recommended by doctors (which the girl herself who is now over 21 has confirmed in writing), consistent with my numerous publications promoting breast health and criticizing the sexualization of breasts in popular culture. But the prosecutor claims the image illustrates the girl “stroking” her “nipples” – even though no nipple is visible! In that image the lower part of the girl’s body is clearly clothed. As with all the other claims which are unfounded and contrary to the concrete evidence, this claim was copied and pasted by the judge in his verdict.

As a volunteer with child cancer patients and their families for about 10 years, I have supported children at bedside in a near-death crisis, and suffered the tearful loss of several children I got to know and care deeply about. Nonetheless, the prosecutor claims I volunteered for hundreds of hours at the hospital over the course of many years only for the opportunity to take pictures of the patients, which I actually never did except once during a visit by Santa in which the child patients are viewed from behind and are unidentifiable. The trial judge even added his own bizarre claim that I volunteered with child cancer patients for 10 years in order to pursue my research to “confirm” my sexual “theories.”

Another demonstrably false claim is that “numerous” pornographic images of children were found on my hard disk, and they were obsessively copied and preserved “in practically every folder.” In reality, only a handful of images of minors with genital nudity were found, and they were present only in the original SD card that came out of the camera, the computer hard disk, and a thumb drive for back-up. Temporary files that had been deleted during editing were also found in the disk’s free space; they were not accessible to me and hence were not in my “possession.” That handful of images merely portrayed innocent family nudity or artistic portraits in everyday naturist life. Consistent with my lifelong practice as a photographer, there was not a single truly “pornographic” image of any child anywhere in my possession.

Still more absurdity: the first clip of my video on peer massage was made in 2014, in which a nine-year-old girl massages her five-year-old cousin. She is wearing long pants so her genital area is always covered, while a towel is covering the boy’s genital area and buttocks. When the boy turned over to be massaged on the other side his genital area was uncovered and exposed to the camera for a few seconds. That accidental and momentary scene was cut and deleted from the final video as unwanted and irrelevant to the project. The second clip was made in 2015 in which a ten-year-old girl massages her eight-year-old brother. Her “private parts” are always clothed, and his genital area and buttocks are always covered by a towel. There are no breasts visible in either of the clips. These two clips were edited and combined to form the final video with titles and credits, audio narration, and background music. There is no scene whatsoever exposing anybody’s breasts, buttocks or genital area in the finished video. There is no contact with any “private parts.”

Incredibly, the prosecutor claims that the momentary scene of the five-year-old boy turning over which was cut and deleted from the final video qualifies the work as “child pornography,” i.e. intended to sexually arouse viewers. Worse, despite the major difference in the first and second clips of the two pairs of children, the judge declared that the two “videos” are “identical.” Forgive me for being excessively logical, but if my intention was to sexually arouse viewers wouldn’t I leave the momentary nude scene in the final video instead of deleting it? Or wouldn’t I have included a similar nude scene with the second pair of children? Or wouldn’t I have made the whole video without any towels covering the genital areas?

Trying out her skills as a dramatic fiction writer, the prosecutor also claimed that since the massage takes place on a carpet on the floor, that is a sexual context, and the particular massage performed in my video is a simulation of a sexual act, since the children’s movements are sensuous. But in reality the term “rugrats” exists precisely because the carpet is a favorite place for children’s normal play, and there are at least 30 videos on mainstream websites like YouTube and Vimeo in which parents and other amateurs and professionals perform the identical movements in their illustrations of child massage techniques.

When I was interrogated with my lawyers present, I clearly said: “The video was professionally planned and produced, and viewing of the video was carefully restricted. It’s not like I made the video using a cell phone and then showed it to everybody.” But the state employee who transcribed the audio recording of the interrogation claimed I said the exact opposite: “I made the video using a cell phone and then showed it to everybody.” My lawyer pointed out that “error” in court, but the judge didn’t even acknowledge or respond to my lawyer’s complaint, let alone subpoena the audio recording to verify the truth. Before anybody was allowed to view the finished video I required potential viewers to answer a 20-item questionnaire to prove they read Real Child Safety and don’t have prurient interests.

The only private image of mine that does deliberately expose a minor’s genital area is a professional portrait of a nine-year-old girl sitting in a bathtub with a shower hose in one hand and a liquid soap dispenser in the other hand. I don’t claim the image is high art, but nor is it a casual snapshot either. It is similar to the portraits of actress Brooke Shields at ten by photographer Gary Gross, and is a classic scenario for family portraits of children. Assuming that nobody wears a bathing suit to take a bath and nobody has sex in a bathtub, my subject was certainly not photographed inappropriately attired or in a sexual context. Another private image is of a two-year-old girl standing normally on the floor. Those private images were never exhibited or shown to anyone, but the prosecutor has exhibited the images to who knows how many government employees without asking for the consent of the children, the parents, or the photographer who owns the images.

Still more misinformation intended to promote prejudice against me is that I supposedly purchased real estate in Italy (?), and I supposedly claim to be “perfectly bilingual,” a claim I have never made and which contradicts my repeated, humble admission that I do not speak, write or understand Italian perfectly. My accusers even claimed I have “contact with pedophiles,” even though nobody has ever offered any concrete evidence for any such thing. Apparently Italian law allows prosecutors and judges to make unfounded accusations without any need whatsoever to document what they are claiming.

Still more nonsense: Since my residence permit expired 30 years ago, the prosecutor claims I have been hiding out to evade the authorities. This claim is despite the documented fact that I went to the police station twice during the previous year to voluntarily report local crimes I witnessed, and in each case I told the police my correct, current address. This false claim began as an excuse to justify the illegal search of my home, but has now become a legend copied and pasted by others without question. Three years after that ridiculous claim was first made it is still being repeated by judges, even though I have long since requested a new residence permit from the immigration police – providing my correct, current address.

The prosecutor also distorted her portrait of me as a teacher. She never mentioned that when she ordered the Italian police to violate the privacy of my home I was teaching three classes in two state middle schools, as well as teaching free classes after school as an unpaid volunteer for students who were having difficulties preparing for their final exam.

Does this investigation, arrest and conviction asserting “possession and production of child pornography” satisfy the requirements of Italian law to violate the privacy of my home, destroy my reputation and career, take away my income, and send me to prison? According to the prosecutor and trial judge in this case, there is no reasonable doubt of guilt!

 

  1. Note: during my trial the Italian Supreme Court modified previous jurisprudence by no longer requiring evidence of any danger of distribution for the very serious charge of “production” of child porn, although the material still has to be truly “pornographic.” In theory, the new standard is not retroactive.
  2. Ideal Sex Education https://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/ideal-sex-education/
  3. https://vimeo.com/127757099

 

Posted in censorship, children, nudity, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Child is Called to Testify

The self-righteous know no shame. One of the children who was interrogated by the police in the sex abuse witch hunt described in my previous posts, was a 10-year-old cancer patient. I had befriended her and her family near the end of my 10 years as a volunteer in the pediatric oncology department of Palermo’s children’s hospital. Her tragic life was marked by a diagnosis of leukemia when she was only two years old, followed by the accidental death of her father in a car crash, her remission and then relapse, and another remission and relapse and her own death at 12. Since L. isn’t the only child I’ve known who I must now visit in the cemetery, I don’t think many other people have a similar perspective.

L. was always a beautiful, cheerful little girl, who had mentally adjusted to her misfortunes. I brought her little gifts at the hospital, taught her how to make a purse out of fancy cloth, we played countless card games and board games, but mostly I just kept her company. When she had to undergo an invasive procedure, she asked me to accompany her rather than the full-time professionals. Since I always had my camera with me, she once asked me to take her picture. It was against hospital policy to photograph patients, so I suggested that I let her mother use my camera to take her picture. Even without any hair, she smiled beautifully for the camera, and she even posed for a portrait with me. Since her mother was a widow, I asked for her mom’s telephone number, but then it was L. who sent me silly messages, and even tried to get me fixed up with her aunt. I was willing to meet her aunt, but I would have preferred to marry her mother and adopt L. as my own daughter.

In March 2016 when a fanatical Italian prosecutor ordered the police to search my home and break my doors down if necessary, they confiscated my computer disk and saw the pictures of L. They also confiscated my cell phone and saw the innocent messages L. and I had exchanged. So the police first tracked down and interrogated L.’s adult brother who was like a father figure, and he assured them that I was always nice to the child. Dissatisfied with that lack of evidence of wrongdoing, the prosecutor then ordered the police to interrogate the child herself without any parent or guardian or legal representative present.

At 10 she was in remission, had all of her hair, and was her usual cheerful self. In the video of the interrogation you can see that when the interrogators asked her about me, she too said I was a nice person. They asked her specifically if I had ever done anything that bothered her, and she replied: No. Over the course of an hour the interrogators repeated that question and many other questions over and over again, trying to confuse the child so she would contradict herself. As in the interrogations of the other children, the video was even interrupted so someone could coach or threaten the child while the video was turned off. Eventually the interrogators blatantly suggested that L. was lying to protect me from the state. (Gee, I wonder why?) But the brave child insisted that she had nothing to hide. Finally the interrogators threatened to make her brother come to the police station again to get at the “truth.” L. called their bluff, so they gave up temporarily.

Some time after that despicable interrogation, despite her adult brother’s defense of me, and despite the child’s persistent defense of me, the prosecutor demanded that the child attend a pretrial “taint hearing” to be interrogated again in front of the judge. In other countries the defense requests the taint hearing to determine if the witness has been compromised. But in Italy the prosecutor calls the taint hearing as an excuse to interrogate the child again. Before the date of the taint hearing L. relapsed again and died. Nonetheless, the prosecutor requested that the preliminary judge include the deceased child’s recorded interrogation as evidence for the prosecution. Evidence of what? The more names of witnesses “against” the defendant presented at trial, the more prejudice is created against the accused, and in accusations of child sex abuse where words are the only evidence, prejudice counts more than proof.

Despite the outrageous misconduct of the state in this case, legal experts in Italy have informed me that there is no chance any of the families who are victims of this witch hunt will ever receive any compensation for the stress, indignity, and financial loss we have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous government employees and “victim advocates” who claim to be “protecting” children. There have been several studies suggesting that children are often worse off after state intervention (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc.), but that evidence doesn’t stop some “professionals” from recommending coercive interrogations of child witnesses and even taking children away from their parents to be placed in danger of greater harm in state-sponsored group homes.

References

  1. Bagley, Christopher. Children, Sex and Social Policy: Humanistic Solutions for Problems of Child Sexual Abuse. Ashgate, 1997.
  1. Maddock, J. “Child reporting and testimony in incest cases: Comments on the construction and reconstruction of reality.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 201-220, 1988. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
  1. Martone, M. et al. “Criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse cases.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 5, 457-464, 1996. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
  1. Myers, J. (ed.). The backlash: Child protection under fire. Sage, 1994. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
  1. Sauzier, M. “Disclosure of child sexual abuse: for better or worse.” Psychiatric clinics of North America, 12, 455-469, 1989. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
  1. Saywitz, K. and Nathanseon, R. “Children’s testimony and their perceptions of stress in and out of the courtroom.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 613-622, 1993. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
  1. Tedesco, J. and Schnell, S. “Children’s reactions to sex abuse investigation and litigation.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 267-272, 1987. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
  1. Underwager, R. and Wakefield, R. The Real World of Child Interrogation. Charles C. Thomas, 1990. Quoted in Bagley op cit.
Posted in child sexual abuse, children, sex, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Interrogators

In some countries there are guidelines for interrogating child witnesses to avoid the risk of false accusations. The guidelines are important to protect innocent adults from wrongful convictions, as well as protect children from the torment of coercive techniques and the subsequent lifelong guilt feelings for having falsely accused an innocent person. In Italy those guidelines are published by the Italian Criminology Society, but the courts in Italy have declared, in effect, that those guidelines are not binding on interrogators, and judges need not consider repeated marathon questioning, insults, promises, and threats, as evidence that the resulting testimony is unreliable. Witch hunters in the sexual inquisition need to be free from “excessive” regulation.

Here are some specific examples from the interrogations of eight children aged 5 to 14, suspected of being victims of “sexual acts” with an adult. The context of the witch hunt has been described in previous posts. Trigger warning: reading about the vicious mental coercion used on presumed child witnesses may be just as upsetting as reading the details of sexual or physical abuse.

I have long suspected that the attempt to expel me from Italy was necessary to avoid a “foreigner” witnessing the gross misconduct that would follow my departure (a trial in absentia), and the kangaroo court tactics would probably be even worse in my absence. But now that I have chosen to stay and fight, the state’s only possible excuse for what they are doing is to say that Italian law permits prosecutors and judges to commit dishonest tricks to win convictions, hence technically speaking what they are doing is not “misconduct.”

The first rule to avoid false accusations is that during any contact with the interrogators the minor must always be accompanied by a lawyer representing the child, not merely a psychologist or social worker hired by the state for the state’s benefit. Even if a video is made of the interrogation, the child’s lawyer must always be present to witness what is said and done before the video begins and after the video ends. In some cases, as in this one, there was no lawyer, some videos were turned off during the interrogations, and someone spoke to the child while the video was turned off.

Another fundamental rule is to not repeat a question. If a child is asked: “Did that person do anything to bother you?” and the child replies “No.” The interrogators should not repeat: “Nothing at all? Never?” But in this case the interrogators repeated the same question nearly 10 times over a course of hours, expressing more and more frustration, until the child finally changed her answers to please the interrogators and get the torment over with. If there is already objective evidence of abuse (e.g. a photo of the child being abused or an unequivocal medical report), then the interrogators can dispute the child’s claim by saying that they have the photo or the medical report. But if there is no such objective evidence, by repeated questioning the interrogators are inducing the child to invent accusations, embellish, exaggerate, lie.

Another obvious rule is that at the very beginning of the interrogation the child needs to be informed that if she doesn’t remember, she can say so. If the interrogators repeat a question several times the child assumes she has to guess what answer the interrogators want. Incredibly, in this case the witch hunters not only failed to preface some of the interrogations by informing the child of the important option of answering “I don’t remember”, they told her the exact opposite: If a child is telling the truth, then she remembers. Or in other words, if she says she doesn’t remember, then she’s a liar.

The interrogators should also use the accused person’s name (when known). Repeating a question and referring to the accused as “that person” even when the child and interrogators have already mentioned his name, expresses that the interrogators are not merely seeking information about a person who may be innocent. They are communicating that they already know or believe the accused is a bad person, so the child should not answer in any way that contradicts their desires or expectations. When a child says “that person” didn’t do anything to bother her, and then the question is repeated over and over again, the child perceives that the interrogators want her to change her answer, and to please the really scary, arrogant “authorities,” that’s exactly what she does.

When one child witness invented a story about meeting me in an after-school center and supposedly witnessed me touching other children – upon which I was supposedly fired, the interrogators took the child’s claim for granted. It would be very easy for the police to go to the center, check the school files for that year, and find out the child had never even been present at the center when I was there, nor was I ever fired. In fact the child’s older sister had already testified that the younger child was never at the center. But the interrogators merely included the child’s invented story in the public record as if there is no reason to doubt it ever happened.

After hours of non-stop questioning and threats to keep the child in the police station all night, the child was so overwhelmed that she began nodding assent to whatever new accusations the interrogators suggested. When the interrogators read aloud the summary they had printed, the child didn’t even object when they read off statements and accusations that the video shows the child never said. The child was so desperate to get out of the interrogation room as soon as possible that she quickly signed every page of the summary without even reading it.

During the multiple interrogations over the course of several weeks, the child witness said she couldn’t even remember what she had told the interrogators two weeks earlier, but the interrogators expressed no skepticism when the child offered detailed descriptions of conversations and events that supposedly took place three to five years earlier. The interrogators admitted that every time the child talked to them, she added new accusations. If they met with her another 100 times, the child would “reveal” another 100 new instances of abuse.

In the prosecutor’s request for an arrest of the accused, she added a few accusations that weren’t even in the transcript or the summary of the interrogations. The judge who approved the arrest merely repeated the prosecutor’s claims without even checking the transcript or video to verify if the child ever really said such things. After all, prosecutors never lie, exaggerate, or make mistakes, right? As I mentioned in a previous post, the verbatim transcript of an audio recording of an interrogation in 2016 featured hundreds of omissions and errors, in which the transcript reports the exact opposite of what the witness actually said. Even after a “verbatim” transcript was made of some videos in this case, the prosecutor claims some of those videos were damaged and no longer visible. The supposedly damaged videos were not even made available to the defense to verify the “damage.” The accusations were so horrific that the evidence didn’t matter.

Threats should be considered obvious coercion, but in this case the “psychologist” told the child that if she didn’t tell the interrogators “everything,” the child would never leave that room. Even after the child repeatedly assured her tormentors there was nothing else, they kept interrogating her for hours. Nonetheless, the preliminary judge who approved my arrest, quoting the transcripts which he supposedly read, made no mention of the interrogators’ multiple threats.

In the end what upset the interrogators the most was not that the girl claimed she was sexually abused, but rather the problem was her reaction – or lack of a very negative reaction – which contradicted their politically correct expectations. The child didn’t cry or even express any discomfort in describing the “sexual acts with an adult” that supposedly occurred over the course of years. The interrogators insisted that the witness should have “screamed” – assuming the abuse really happened. Instead of interpreting this incongruity as an indication that maybe the abuse didn’t really happen, the witch hunters were furious that they were witnessing a heresy. They believed it was urgent to stop the abuser as soon as possible, to prevent the heresy from spreading, even if that means ignoring the suggestive questioning, contradictory answers, repeated threats, and multiple changes in the child’s story.

When asked why the child never told anybody about the repeated abuse that supposedly occurred over the course of years, the child replied that the abuser threatened to stop coming if she told. Huh? If the monster really did such horrible things, then not coming back anymore would be a reward not a threat. In cases where the abuser is a parent or guardian so abandonment would be truly terrifying for a child, then such a threat would be credible. But is this case the accused was completely outside the child’s family.

Some people assume that even if paid by the state, a psychologist or social worker will protect a child witness from mistreatment by the state. But in reality some psychologists and social workers are more cruel than anybody else. Although most people are afraid to say it out loud, western society is obviously in the grip of an international hysteria so terrifying that few people have the courage to criticize it.

Eventually one child witness appeared before a judge and recanted. She admitted she had invented her incredible stories because she was afraid of the police. So the judge replied in an angry, threatening tone: “This is very serious.” The “professional” psychologist chimed in: “What you are saying now is crazy.” The judge added “You made hundreds of pages of accusations. It’s impossible that they aren’t true.” Upon which the terrified child immediately retracted her recantation, to the smiling approval of her state protectors.

In reality the judge’s response was illogical as well as simply untrue. The mere quantity of accusations does not make them likely to be true. Worse, there are NOT hundreds of pages of accusations; there are hundreds of pages of attempts by the interrogators to coerce the witness to make accusations, as well as arguments back and forth in which the child attempted to resist the coercion. The interrogators indulged in repeated, page-long monologues browbeating the child. There are actually very few “accusations.” What is really very serious is that the judge ignored the hundreds of pages of coercive questioning, and instead perceived the handful of accusations as occupying “hundreds of pages.”

Ideally justice means not merely protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Justice also requires that proper rules of procedure be followed to determine if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. False accusations are possible even in the absence of coercion by the interrogators. But when the rules of proper procedure are not respected, false accusations are much more likely and the resulting show trail is similar to vigilante street justice. In the emotionally charged field of child sex abuse allegations, officially sanctioned vigilante justice has become the norm.

Posted in children, sex, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

A Proper Witch Hunt

As has been tragically demonstrated on numerous occasions, some government employees are so drunk with power that they will mercilessly persecute innocent people and even innocent children. Some well-known cases of witch hunts over accusations of child sex abuse have been described in a previous post. Here I will add my incredible personal experience, which I introduced in the first part Kangaroo Court in Session.

During my trial for the charge of “production and possession of child pornography,” and a week after my expert witness testified that my video Buddy Massage contains no genital nudity, nor any other suggestion of “sexual” intent, the prosecutor became so desperate she began multiple, coerced interrogations of eight children who have known me for years, and who the police were able to identify through the data on my hard drive and cell phone they had confiscated. The timing of the interrogations was certainly no accident. The prosecutor had probably planned to wait until my video was adjudicated to be “child pornography” by the trial judge, in order to use that judgment as a threat against the families who participated in my video. But after the testimony of my expert witness a conviction was no longer likely, so the prosecutor needed something new to prejudice the judge, such as a (coerced) confession by a child “victim” of “sexual acts.”

None of the parents or children went to the police spontaneously; they were apparently carted off to the police station by the officers without prior warning, and without an opportunity for legal representation. All of the children were interrogated without their parents present either, and the interrogations were all videoed – although at least some of those videos would disappear so the judge or defense could never see them. All of the children began the “interview” by defending me as a nice person, and some even repeated their nice words more than once despite the skeptical reactions of the interrogators. At some point during the coercive questioning, two of the children (13 at the time of the interrogations), began to change their stories. By no coincidence, those two children were the girls who had participated in my video and whose mothers were at risk of prosecution themselves as possible “accomplices” in the production of “child pornography.”

For example, one girl was held in the police station for five hours. Her mother was not allowed in the room with the child, but the mother reportedly did try to enter the room repeatedly while the police blocked the door. The child was eventually interrogated on two other days for a total of about ten hours. My attorney had to specifically request a copy of the videos and verbatim transcripts two months before the “taint hearing”, and we received only some of the videos – and only two weeks before the hearing.

From the videos it is clear that at least one of the child “witnesses” was the victim of the worst kind of interrogation techniques used for adult criminals. The interrogators lied to the child, and when she didn’t give them the desired answers, the interrogators repeated the questions, called the child a liar (!), and pointed out contradictions only when they didn’t reinforce the accusations.

It is obvious that the girl was encouraged to accuse me of something, anything, with implicit or explicit threats against her and her mother. When the topic of the massage video came up, the girl admitted her mother had signed the release consenting to the video and giving me permission to publish it, but she was clear when she assured her interrogators that her mother shared no responsibility for that “crime.” Only the photographer was culpable for the “pornography.”

Over the next few weeks the girl was interrogated again and again, changing her story multiple times until even the interrogators said her story was not credible, threatened to keep her in the police station all night, make her come back another five times or ten times, and haul her mother into court “which would not be very nice.” The girl cried and repeatedly begged her tormentors to stop, and understandably accommodated them by increasing the severity of her accusations until she claimed I was sexually abusing her in her bedroom on multiple occasions over the course of years – all while her mother was busy in the kitchen. When the interrogators were satisfied they had enough “evidence” to put me away for 20 or 30 years, they finally stopped.

Although required by law, the prosecutor never deposited some of the videos with the court. When I read the index of all the documents deposited, I noticed immediately that the last video deposited was eight days before the final interrogation. No other video was ever deposited, until my lawyer specifically requested the videos a year and a half later. The transcript of that missing video does include the interrogators’ openly expressed skepticism when the girl’s story displeased them, and the threats described above, though there may also be aspects of the interrogators’ actions that words leave out: the angry or sarcastic tone of their voices when she denied abuse, or the approving and congratulatory tone when she invented a new accusation, the interrogators’ gestures and postures, the psychologist caressing the child’s back during the questioning, etc. which can communicate more than words.

The interrogators conveniently ignored the girl’s contradictions that made the accusations incredible, and other unlikely aspects of her accusations, e.g. she told her mother at some point about my “sexual acts,” and the latter kicked me out but eventually let me come back and be alone with the girl in her bedroom again! At another point the girl in an apparent rage recanted her impossible accusations, saying that I didn’t do anything, which the interrogators refused to believe. At another point, after having claimed I routinely massaged her while she always wore only a top and panties, the top disappeared on one occasion without explanation. The interrogators expressed no skepticism at all as long as the girl continued accusing me of something.

The other girl who participated in the video years before had less to say, though she likewise began by defending me and the massage video as normal. But she suddenly changed her story, accusing me of brief sexual contact on one occasion, which she claims she told her mother about and the latter kicked me out. The problem with this story is that there is documented photographic proof as well as phone records that we continued friendly contacts for months after the supposed abuse and revelation, and even a year after the supposed crime.

The mother even allowed me to take her daughters out by myself months after the supposed abuse, and the girl herself even left me alone with her younger sister. The prosecutor has that evidence, but expressed no skepticism about the girl’s impossible story. This is all in the interrogators’ summary, since there is no transcript. The video of this girl’s interrogation was “damaged” and never deposited, so there is no way to verify what the girl actually said, let alone the questions and comments of the interrogators. There is a “verbatim” transcript of only the end of the interrogation, after which the video was “damaged” and disappeared.

In addition to the mass hysteria over child sex abuse, which is supposedly usually seriously harmful and even “worse that death” in many cases, the prosecutor in this case has a personal incentive to destroy me at any cost. As described in my previous posts, the prosecutor searched my home illegally on the off chance that the police might find evidence of “sexual acts with children,” and when that fishing expedition didn’t find evidence of any crimes, that created a need to invent the accusation that my innocent video Buddy Massage is “child pornography.”

Due to the lack of evidence of any sexual content or intent in that video, and thanks to the massive evidence against that accusation, that video would have been exonerated if it were not for the prosecutor’s desperate efforts to protect herself from a charge of prosecutorial misconduct. Rather than risk damaging her career by admitting she made a mistake, the prosecutor has now dug herself an even deeper hole by coercing the minors who participated in the video to invent false accusations against me in order to protect their mothers. I have little faith in the Italian justice system, but the more the prosecutor persists in this spectacle, the more her misconduct and unfitness for her role become obvious.

Posted in children, sex, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Kangaroo Court in Session

The more lies are told, the more precious the truth becomes. After years of criticizing the pathetic mass hysteria over child pornography and child sex abuse – in this blog as well as in my other publications – I’ve become a victim myself of a witch hunt involving false accusations and kangaroo-court judgments. As the cynics say: No good deed goes unpunished.

I was generous in calling the popular focus on sex crimes “hysteria”, because the behavior of some individual witch hunters now seems more coldly psychopathic than hysterical. As is typical in a witch hunt, the focus of the hunters is to find any possible evidence consistent with a casual presumption of guilt, while completely ignoring clear and voluminous evidence of innocence. In my case the hunters hid and distorted the evidence that already exists, and having gotten away with that they are now inventing new evidence.

Trigger warning: don’t continue reading this if you have a weak stomach. For more detailed background information see “Photography vs. Pornography,” “Photography vs. Pornography 2,” and “Photography vs. Pornography 3″ before reading the gory details of my current battle below.

I’m describing official, public documentation that certain government employees didn’t merely neglect their duty to be fair and impartial, they indulged in gross misconduct. Despite the indignity, grief and financial losses I’ve already suffered at the hands of certain “civil servants,” I’ll try to focus on their behavior rather than attacking their individual characters, in the hope of preventing similar tragedies in the future.

To pick up the story since my last detailed description in the links above, the preliminary judge in Palermo didn’t approve the prosecutor’s request to arrest me, because my video “Buddy Massage” depicts a normal massage – not any indecent behavior. But in his written decision the judge referred to a law that had been superseded by a recent Supreme Court decision. So the prosecutor appealed to a higher court, which used that technical oversight as an excuse to finally approve a house arrest and gag order, which instantly destroyed my professional reputation as a teacher, and resulted in an immediate and complete loss of income. By the way, that preliminary judge has since been promoted to the very court that overturned his decision.

The higher court’s decision repeated uncritically the same unfounded assertions as the prosecutor that were even contrary to the concrete evidence, as if the higher court didn’t even examine the so-called evidence – they merely copied and pasted the prosecutor’s distorted accusations word-for-word. Typically, the sensationalist mainstream media reported my house arrest using stock footage of police cars racing through the night with sirens wailing and lights flashing, even though there was no such drama in my case. In reality I was discretely notified of the house arrest during normal office hours by plain clothes officers in an unmarked car.

The original motive for requesting a “precautionary arrest” was supposedly to prevent me from influencing possible witnesses against me. But after being completely free to do just that for nearly a year (during the prosecutor’s initial request and appeal process), I was suddenly isolated from the world for more than 100 days until another judge finally revoked the arrest.

During my isolation I volunteered to be interrogated by the prosecutor with my lawyers present, naively hoping I might end the witch hunt as soon as possible, but the three-hour inquisition did me no good and was even used against me later. I refused to name the families who participated in my video, to protect them from the witch hunters, but the prosecutor was not interested in protecting any families. An audio recording was made of the interrogation, but the written transcript of that recording featured hundreds of omissions (marked “…”), and errors – some of which reported the exact opposite of what I actually said. The same person who did such a despicable job of transcribing that audio recording, is still transcribing new recordings.

Only the pathetically inaccurate transcript was entered as evidence in the eventual trial; despite my lawyer informing the judge about the deceitful “evidence,” the original audio recording was never subpoenaed. This typical example of distorting the supposed evidence of guilt would be repeated by the prosecution again and again as standard operating procedure. A spin-doctor couldn’t have done a more effective job.

I also agreed to be interviewed by a state-appointed psychologist, but since my lawyers were not present I asked if I could make an audio recording of the interview myself. The psych refused, so I then asked if my personal physician could be present as a witness during the interview. The psych refused that too, so I said in that case I will consent to be interviewed only in front of the judge. The psych refused that too, and in his report to the prosecutor he falsely claimed that I had requested making a “video” of the interview, and he neglected to mention my request for my physician’s presence. The psych also neglected to mention my offer to be interviewed in front of the judge.

During the 100+ days of my isolation no new evidence was found, so the destruction of my reputation and loss of income were completely useless as well as being unjustified. In theory, a precautionary arrest is not supposed to be a form of punishment before conviction, but in this case that’s exactly what it was.

After I was free again I found out there were hundreds of pages of frivolous official documents filed against me, which I then studied carefully and which have been summarized in the previous blog posts linked to above. The prosecutor then requested an immediate trial, as if she had such a strong case, which was also reported in the mass media, but no “me too” accusations were forthcoming – despite my extensive experience with hundreds of Italian children during my 30 years as a teacher here. I contacted Palermo’s major newspaper and offered to describe what the prosecutor failed to mention, but I received no reply. At that point I could have fled the country and disappeared, but then a conviction in absentia would be automatic, and I would no longer be present to document the outrages the prosecutors and judges are getting away with.

My lawyers hired a technical consultant to view my completed video preserved online (not visible to the general public but available to any investigators), and he testified that “Buddy Massage” does not contain any genital nudity whatsoever – an essential element for a video to be judged pornographic in Italy. The judge ignored that evidence and eventually even contradicted it – without any counter-evidence whatsoever.

There was no jury in the brief trial (by Italian standards), which lasted for a year due to repeated postponements rather than extensive proceedings, and despite the concrete evidence to support an acquittal as well as a need to investigate prosecutorial misconduct, I was then wrongfully convicted of possession and production of “child porn.” The trial judge sentenced me to four years and two months imprisonment and a fine of 18,000 Euros. Note the nearly identical amount of my fine and Amanda’s Knox’s very recent award for damages by the European Court of Human Rights.

The sentence also ordered the destruction of all my property that was confiscated, even though the vast majority of the confiscated material has nothing to do with child photography – let alone pornography, and even includes the property of an innocent friend, my privileged correspondence with my lawyers, and some irreplaceable manuscripts. The sentence is clearly intended to destroy the evidence of my innocence, as well as censor my writing.

I soon discovered that the prosecutor had prepared for the possibility of an acquittal by actively prejudicing the judge months beforehand. During the trial the prosecutor informed the judge that new charges were in progress, thereby introducing new evidence to prejudice the judge in this case – which was not supposed to be allowed once the trial had already begun. In contrast, the judge refused to accept new evidence for the defense, namely the recent publication in Palermo’s major daily newspaper praising the images of nude children by local photographer Letizia Battaglia.

The blatant misconduct in this prosecution is worse than what Amanda Knox suffered, and may be a form of revenge for her eventual vindication, since many Italians are convinced she was guilty of murder despite the lack of concrete evidence against her. Many Italians believe whatever the grossly distorted Italian language media tell them. The government employees in my case seem to be saying: “You think Amanda Knox got railroaded? You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Inexplicably, even to my lawyers, the trial judge declared in another document published the same day as my sentencing, that my video is NOT pornographic! Apparently the trial judge had already begun composing my acquittal, when the new accusations (just as unfounded as the previous charges) changed his mind – but he neglected to remove his words: “The video is not pornographic” – stated twice!) Naturally, we are appealing the conviction to a higher court, and we’ll go all the way to Italy’s highest court if necessary. Complete details of the judge’s sentence are available in Italian here. (English translation and updates to come if I’m still alive and free in the near future).

Despite my efforts to protect the identity of the families who participated in my video, the prosecutor eventually managed to identify and interrogate the children and parents – with the assistance of another state-appointed “psychologist” who was even more vicious than the prosecutor. The hunters weren’t content with mistreating an adult defendant, so they proceeded to mistreat innocent child witnesses.

The gruesome farce of new “testimony” based on terrifying the children with threats, repeated marathon questioning (while the children begged the interrogators to stop), inaccurate transcripts, and missing videos of the interrogations, is a textbook case of psychopathic injustice. When we requested copies of the missing videos and missing transcripts, the prosecutor said “Sure”, and then promptly removed ALL the videos, now claiming that some of the videos are “damaged” and no longer visible.

From the texts we were able to get our hands on, at least one child was interrogated for hours, on multiple days, without being informed of her rights. When the child didn’t say what the interrogators wanted, the prosecutor and “psychologist” took turns badgering and brow-beating the child, calling her “a liar,” and threatening to arrest her mother and keep the child in the police station all night. Eventually the child obediently changed her story a few times to make them stop. In practice, the rules and procedures for interrogating child witnesses in this country seem to be the same as for interrogating adult criminals. The prosecutor also attempted to solicit false testimony from Rom (gypsies), calling them “Slavs”.

The judge in this case has turned a blind eye to the prosecutor’s blatant misconduct. It may seem incredible, but Italy is a country where, until fairly recently, even anonymous letters could be entered as “evidence” in a criminal trial. But some Italian prosecutors and judges today show little interest in rising above the shameful past. Some Italian prosecutors devote their precious time and scarce financial resources to investigate children, pregnant mothers, and old men. In other developed countries there would be a risk of damaging people’s faith in the justice system, but since most Italians already have zero faith in their justice system, rogue prosecutors and judges have nothing to lose.

Throughout this spectacle my own suspicion has been that despite the rhetorical urgency of the prosecution, there might actually be method in the madness. Rather than being a constructive, routine attempt to enforce reasonable laws against (real) child porn, the primary motive for persecuting me may be to censor my research and publications that expose the selfish political opportunists and financial profiteers in the child abuse prevention and rescue business. I also have a bad habit of publicizing my scandalous hypothesis on the possible cause of widespread sexual dysfunction in women.

How ironic that the prosecutor criticized my published hypothesis on female sexual dysfunction  as “lacking scientific confirmation,” while it is precisely this kind of witch hunt that has a chilling effect on academic freedom, and makes it politically impossible to obtain funding for scientific research to improve our understanding of human sexuality. In any case my writing should not be a legal issue at all, since Italy’s constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of expression to everyone.

The prosecutor and judge cited the mere titles of my publications, without any official translation of the English content specifying how it is supposedly relevant to the accusation that my video “Buddy Massage” was sexually motivated. Both the prosecutor and trial judge have ignored the evidence that peer massage is now practiced in schools in several countries – including Italy!

In this part of the world there is clear interest in defending Catholic Italy from repeated pedophile scandals, and one way to do that is to accuse non-Catholics and non-Italians of being “worse” child abusers than they are themselves. I’m not saying this with any malice against the Italian people in general. Quite the contrary, some of the warmest people in the world are to be found in this country. But there are also individual hypocrites who pretend to be Christians promoting justice while in reality they bear false witness with impunity.

At no time has the prosecutor or trial judge ever described my numerous publications promoting children’s health and safety education, or my repeated published references to the vast majority of child deaths and serious injuries due to physical abuse and neglect. Quite the contrary, the trial judge merely parroted the same unfounded accusations made by the prosecutor, without any attempt to confirm whether or not the accusations were true. For example, a claim they are in love with is that I supposedly advocate unlimited sexual freedom for children, but in reality I have repeatedly published the advice that parents should have the opportunity to consent to and monitor children’s play. I have specifically advised against un-monitored sex play as potentially dangerous and destructive. The audio narration of “Buddy Massage” also says it clearly: parental consent and monitoring.

As is typical of hysteria, the witch hunters show little interest in preventing thousands of child deaths and serious physical injuries every year, but there is great enthusiasm for the urgent crusade against accurate, balanced and comprehensive sex education. The witch hunters can’t legally censor me directly, they can only destroy me financially if not physically, to silence my continued criticism of the conventional belief that virtuous women and girls are “uninterested” in healthy sexual function. How dare I question the cherished belief that young ladies supposedly need to be “protected” from accurate, balanced, and comprehensive information about their own bodies.

Also ironic is that Italy is a country so strongly identified with the history of art, including nude art. Even in the city of Palermo there are numerous paintings, sculptures and statues of nude children on public display. But even though European and American researchers like professor Alfred Kinsey, doctor William Masters, and many others have been challenging primitive prudery since the 1950s, such courageous scientists have not yet had any significant impact on some government employees in modern Italy.

This story continues: https://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2019/05/12/a-proper-witch-hunt/ and here: https://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2019/05/12/the-interrogators/

Posted in child sexual abuse, children, photography, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment