Return to Innocence

by G. M. Frazier

  “Yes, thank you, Doctor.” Moultrie takes the bag over to the jury and parades it in front of them. The look of revulsion in their faces is striking. Moultrie’s gaining ground with this. “The State would like to offer these underpants into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit Two, Your Honor.” Moultrie returns Tommy’s underwear to the exhibit table.

  “Any objection?” the judge asks Jim.

  “No, Your Honor.”

  “Proceed, Mr. Moultrie,” the judge says.

  “And what was your diagnosis based on the examination of the boy, Dr. Peck?”

  “There is no question that he had been anally penetrated.”

  “When you do an examination, trying to establish evidence of abuse, what is an immediate indication of anal intercourse?”

  “Semen in the rectum.”

  “Did you find any semen in Tommy’s rectum?”

  “No.”

  “Your conclusion about the semen stains in the boy’s underpants was what?”

  “The stains were in the front and caused by his own semen.”

  “So you found no semen in the stain in the seat of the underpants?”

  “That is correct. Just fecal matter and blood.”

  “Alright, Doctor, the primary indicator of anal intercourse was not present, namely, semen in the boy’s rectum. What did you look for next?”

  “General trauma in the anal area, dilation of the anus, relaxed anal tone, distension...any tears, lesions, or fissures.”

  “And of those indicators, which are the clearest signs of anal intercourse?”

  “Obviously, all of those indicators can be caused by other things. In this case, relaxed anal tone and dilation with no feces in the rectum...these were the strongest indicators.”

  “Dr. Peck, you just said that all of the indicators present in Tommy can be caused by other things. Why are you sure this is a case of anal intercourse?”

  “Mr. Moultrie, the only way I could be absolutely sure of that would be if I had witnessed it myself. But given the boy’s allegations and the condition of his anus...well, that’s the basis for my conclusions. Tommy Jackson was anally penetrated.”

  “In other words, Tommy was raped,” Moultrie says.

  A collective shiver runs through the courtroom. The solicitor turns and stares at me, giving his words time to settle on the jury. I avoid looking at them and return Moultrie’s stare.

  Jim stands to no doubt object, but surprisingly, I see Vern hold his hand up. Jim sits. Vern says: “Mr. Moultrie, ‘rape’ is a legal term, not a medical one. I just described what the physical condition of the boy’s anus suggests to me medically. I have no idea if he was raped or not.”

  “Tell us what happened when you tried to notify Lucille Drake of your findings,” the solicitor says.

  “I couldn’t reach her, so I called New Horizons. I knew Glen—Dr. Erskine—would want to know about this.”

  “At that time you didn’t know the defendant was the one accused of abusing Tommy, correct?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And did you speak with Dr. Erskine when you called New Horizons?”

  “No, they said he had gone home so I called his house.”

  “Did you reach Dr. Erskine at home?”

  “Yes.”

  “And did you tell him of your findings concerning Tommy?”

  “I did.”

  “Dr. Peck, what was Dr. Erskine’s reaction when you told him that Tommy had been sodomized?”

  “I’m not sure I know what you mean.”

  “Well, was he shocked? Disgusted? Outraged? How did he react?”

  “Objection, Your Honor,” Jim says. “Calls for speculation.”

  “I disagree, Mr. Aiken,” the judge says, “your objection is overruled. The witness may answer. Repeat your question, Mr. Moultrie.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor. How did Dr. Erskine react to the news of Tommy’s abuse?”

  “I don’t recall that he reacted in any particular way, Mr. Moultrie.”

  “So, what you are saying is that the defendant didn’t react at all?”

  “I guess that’s what I’m saying, yes.”

  “He didn’t even act surprised?”

  “Objection. Asked and answered, Your Honor.”

  “Sustained. Move on, Mr. Moultrie, you got your answer.”

  Moultrie walks over to the prosecution table and speaks to his assistant.

  “Mr. Moultrie?” the judge says.

  “I don’t have anything further at this time, Your Honor. Thank you, Dr. Peck.” Moultrie steps behind the table and sits.

  “You may cross, Mr. Aiken,” the judge says.

  “Thank you, Your Honor. Now, Dr. Peck, what was the first thing that you told Dr. Erskine about your findings—I mean on the phone that morning?”

  “I just told him that I had examined the boy and that based on the evidence I thought his allegation of abuse was credible.”

  “And what was Dr. Erskine’s reaction to that statement by you?”

  “I believe he said, ‘Evidence? Evidence of what?’”

  “And did you take that question by my client as an indication of surprise?”

  Moultrie is up. “Objection,” he says.

  “No, Mr. Moultrie, you can’t have it both ways. Overruled.”

  Moultrie sits.

  “Dr. Peck, did you take Dr. Erskine’s question as an indication of surprise?”

  “Yes, I suppose I did.”

  “And what did Dr. Erskine say after you told him what the evidence showed?”

  “I believe he asked me why I checked for signs of anal intercourse. He asked if Tommy had said he had been sodomized.”

  “And had the boy told you that he had been sodomized?”

  “No. But like I told Glen, I always check the underwear for spotting. Then I do a rectal examination.”

  “Did Dr. Erskine ask you anything else?”

  “Yes, he asked if Tommy’s condition could possibly have been caused by an impacted stool or digital insertion.”

  “Digital insertion? You mean a finger?”

  “Yes.”

  “And your response?”

  “I told him no. This was a case of anal intercourse, pure and simple.”

  “You stated, Dr. Peck, that Tommy didn’t tell you that he had been sodomized. Did he tell you anything about the alleged abuse?”

  “No, he didn’t say anything.”

  “He didn’t tell you who had done this to him?”

  “No.”

  “Or when the incident occurred?”

  “No, he didn’t tell me anything about it.”

  “So, at the time of your examination of Tommy, you didn’t know when the alleged incident occurred?”

  “That’s correct.”

  “What time did you examine Tommy that morning, Dr. Peck?”

  Vern looks at his notes. “A little after seven that morning.”

  “Okay. Now, based on your findings during that examination, and in your expert opinion, how much time had elapsed from the time of the alleged anal intercourse and your examination of the boy?”

  “I would say an hour or two at the most.”

  There is some murmuring in the courtroom. Moultrie is talking with his assistant. Jim had said this would be the “smoking gun,” and now I know what he meant.

  “Why is that?” Jim asks.

  “Because the boy’s anus was still slightly relaxed and dilated.”

  “So if you examined Tommy a little after seven o’clock, then you are saying, based on your findings, that he was sodomized sometime between five and six that morning?”

  “That’s my best estimate, yes.”

  “And if the incident had occurred between ten and eleven the previous night, would Tommy’s anus still have been dilated at seven the next morning?”

  “In my opinion, no.”

  The jurors look confused, which bothers me. Jim eases over to them. “Dr. Peck, so that we are absolutely cl
ear on this, let me see if I can accurately paraphrase what you are saying: Tommy was sodomized, but it did not happen when Dr. Erskine had been in the boy’s room the previous night. Is that correct?”

  “Yes. In my opinion, that is a correct statement. Tommy was sodomized between five or six o’clock that morning, not between ten and eleven the previous night.”

  “Dr. Peck, do you recall how your phone conversation with Dr. Erskine ended?”

  Vernon thinks. “No, not really.”

  “Think carefully, Doctor. I believe you had already formed an opinion about who may have done the abuse and you indicated that opinion in a question you asked my client. Do you remember?”

  “Yes, you are right, Mr. Aiken. I was assuming that one of the older boys at the home had done this to Tommy and I asked Glen if that was the case.”

  “Did Dr. Erskine answer your question?”

  “Not as I recall.”

  “Thank you, Dr. Peck. I have no further questions, Your Honor.”

  Chapter 17

  Page 516

  “How long have you been in the Criminal Investigation Division of the Country Sheriff’s office, Mr. Carter?” Moultrie asks.

  “Nine years.”

  “And how long have you been the chief investigator for the Sex Crimes Unit?”

  “Four years.”

  “So this is not the first case of this kind that you have investigated?”

  Carter smiles and crosses his legs. “No, Mr. Moultrie, it’s not the first. I’m sure it won’t be the last, either.”

  “Mr. Carter, did you obtain a search warrant for Dr. Erskine’s house subsequent to his arrest?”

  “I did.”

  “What was the reason for the search?”

  “Basically, to find any evidence in connection with the crime.”

  “What led you to seek this search warrant?”

  “Two things. Because of the allegations the victim was making we felt there was material evidence of the crime in the house, specifically in the room where the alleged molestation occurred.”

  “And the other reason?”

  “We did a search of the FBI’s P-5 database and Dr. Erskine’s name came up on the B list as a suspected pedophile.”

  I nudge Jim. “Did you know about this?” I whisper.

  “Yes,” he answers and motions for me to be quiet.

  Why am I on some FBI list as a suspected pedophile?

  Moultrie moves over to the prosecution table and picks up a stack of papers. He hands a stapled stack—twenty or thirty pages—to Jim, the other one goes to Mark Carter. Jim reaches in his briefcase and pulls out his own copy of this list of names. Several names on Jim’s list are highlighted in yellow. He flips a couple of pages, slides the stack over to me, and points to a name. I can’t believe what I am seeing.

  Moultrie enters the list into evidence and asks Carter to point out my name on it.

  “It’s on page eight,” Carter says.

  “What criteria does the FBI use to put someone on this list?” Moultrie asks.

  “Well, actually, the FBI doesn’t generate the B list. That comes from the Postal Inspector’s office. They keep a computerized list of all names and addresses from mailing lists of known child pornographers, suppliers of child pornography, and pedophile organizations.”

  “And this is the sort of criteria that the Post Office used to put Glen Erskine’s name on this list of suspected pedophiles?”

  “I would assume so, yes, given what we found at Dr. Erskine’s residence.”

  “What did you find in your search of Dr. Erskine’s home, Mr. Carter?”

  “We found commercial child pornography and pedophile magazines and books.”

  Moultrie moves over to the exhibit table and gestures to all the items on it. “Your Honor, all the items recovered during the search of Dr. Erskine’s residence have been marked and the State would like to enter them into evidence at this time.”

  “Mr. Aiken?” the judge asks Jim.

  Jim half stand. “We renew our previous objection, Your Honor.”

  “So noted and overruled, thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Moultrie, proceed.”

  Moultrie walks over and picks up some of the items from the evidence table. He walks back over to Carter. “Are these some of the child pornography magazines you found in the Erskine home?” Moultrie hands the stack to Carter.

  “Yes,” Carter answers as he thumbs through them.

  “Was there anything odd about this material that you noticed? I mean as far as subject matter?”

  “This is all pedophile material.”

  Moultrie holds out his hand and Carter gives him the stack of magazines. He walks over and distributes the magazines to the jury members.

  Moultrie gives them ample time to look at the magazines before collecting them. The jurors are all shocked and repulsed by what they have seen. Moultrie returns the magazines to the evidence table.

  “What else did you find?” Moultrie asks.

  “Several issues—dozens actually—of the NAMBLA Bulletin—”

  “Tell us about NAMBLA. What is it?”

  “The North American Man/Boy Love Association. It’s a pedophile organization.”

  “And Dr. Erskine had dozens of this organization’s magazines in his home?”

  “Yes.”

  “What else did you find, Mr. Carter?”

  “Several issues of a journal published in the Netherlands called Paidika - The Journal of Paedophilia.”

  “And is this a legitimate scholarly journal?”

  “It claims to be and several established sociologists and psychologists serve on its editorial board and board of advisors. But according to my source at the FBI, it’s being produced by what is left of the Spartacus organization, which was a Dutch producer of commercial child pornography. It was started by a British pedophile who left England after he was convicted of sending obscene literature through the mail. Out of the publication business he started the Spartacus Club which would arrange to have boys available for sex for members vacationing in the Netherlands.”

  “Did you find anything at Dr. Erskine’s home to indicate that he had ever been to the Netherlands?”

  “Your Honor,” Jim says as he stands. “I must object to this as being totally irrelevant.”

  “Sustained, Mr. Aiken. Move on, Mr. Moultrie.”

  Moultrie walks back over to the prosecution table. “We have no further questions for Mr. Carter at this time, Your Honor. Your witness,” he says to Jim.

  Jim stands. “Mr. Carter, let’s talk about this FBI list of suspected pedophiles.” Jim walks over and gets the copy of the list—not the one Moultrie had given him earlier. “You mentioned that you had a source in the FBI. Would you elaborate on that for us?”

  “I contacted the local FBI office and they put me in touch with an agent in Washington, in the Behavioral Science Unit.”

  “And he is the one who explained about this list?” Jim holds up the papers.

  “I already knew about the list, Mr. Aiken. He brought me up to speed on some other items related to pedophilia, like those journals I was talking about.”

  “I see. Do you recall his name, Mr. Carter?”

  “The agent in Washington?”

  “Yes.”

  Carter removes a small note pad from his breast pocket. He flips a few pages. “His name was Trent Blackwell.”

  “And even though you already knew about the FBI list, you did discuss the list with him, correct?”

  “We discussed it, yes. I told him my suspect’s name was on the list.”

  “And this is a list of suspected pedophiles?”

  “That’s right, Mr. Aiken. Like I said before, the Post Office compiles this list. It’s comprised of people who contact known pedophile organizations either in the U.S. or overseas.”

  “What was the agent’s name again?”

  “Trent Blackwell.”

  Jim flips up a few pages of the list and hands it to
Carter. “Would you read the name there on page three that I have highlighted in yellow—I believe it’s the seventh one down in column one.”

  Carter takes the list. He looks at the name and then at Jim. He looks back at the list and reads: “Trent Blackwell.”

  There is some murmuring in the courtroom.

  “Can you explain why the FBI agent’s name is on this list? A list of suspected pedophiles?”

  “No, I can’t,” Carter says and scratches his eyebrows. I look over and see Moultrie looking through his list to find the name.

  “Would you assume that Agent Blackwell with the FBI is a pedophile just because his name is on this list?”

  “I...uh...no, I wouldn’t.”

  “Neither would I, Mr. Carter. Now, let’s think for a minute. You are a police investigator with nine years of experience, how would you account for his name being on the list?”

  Carter frowns. “I don’t know, Mr. Aiken. Maybe it got on there because of some contacts he made during the course of an investigation. I don’t know.”

  “So, in other words, you can think of a legitimate reason why this man’s name may be on the list. A reason that has nothing to do with him being a pedophile, correct?”

  “Yes, I suppose so.”

  “Thank you. Please turn to page thirteen of the list and read the highlighted name there.”

  Carter flips to the page. “Daniel Priester.”

  “Do you know who Daniel Priester is, Mr. Carter?”

  “No.”

  “He is a freelance investigative reporter. He did an article for Time on child pornography two years ago. Why do you suppose his name is on the list?”

  “Probably because of some of the contacts he made during his research for the article.”

  “So you wouldn’t automatically assume he was a pedophile just because his name is on this list?”

  “No, Mr. Aiken, I wouldn’t automatically assume it. But, if he were accused of molesting a child—as your client has been—then I might begin to suspect him.”

  “Please turn to page eleven and read the highlighted name there.”

  Again Carter flips the pages. His face goes blank. He looks up and stares at the prosecution table.