Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Information from Two SANEs

A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner has an important job for she must examine a person who is claiming to have been raped or sexually assaulted and make a qualified judgment as to what has happened. I know some SANEs who are real professionals and people who bring honor to their professions.

Unfortunately, there are the Sharon Andersons, who like Tara Levicy of Duke Lacrosse fame, bring an agenda to the table. Like Levicy, who claimed that no woman ever lied about being raped, Anderson seems to believe that every child she examines has been molested or assaulted. Unfortunately, because the judges in North Georgia are willing to accept her as an "expert witness," she is able to get on the stand time and again as part of the prosecution's team and give misleading or outright dishonest testimony.

In this post, I am going to include some comments from two SANEs that challenge what the prosecution has been giving the public. One of them has made comments on the blog, and this is what she has to say:
I am a coming a bit late to this case, but several things just scream falsehood to me.

I reviewed the partial verbatim testimony given by the SANE in this case. If I was presented with the same "findings" I would not be able to testify to any type of sexual assault. The findings she notes are what we in the business call "indeterminate" findings. Meaning it could be caused by many things and without clear, provable and concise reporting from the child, usually indicate exactly what it is. A normal active female child. She did not testify to any findings that actually are "definite" signs of sexual assault. Yet she states as an "expert" that her findings are consistent with sexual assault. Disgusting, unprofessional and a clear abuse of her power as a SANE.

She noted no tears in the hymen and apparently assumed that due to "rolling and thickening" of the hymen edges that it is sexual assault. Sighs. Apparently she did her coursework via mail order.

Lets add this, between 85% to 95% of all children who give clear, truthful and concise reports of sexual assault, will upon examination show NO SIGNS of assault. This is because those tissues are extremely resilient. In most cases, there are additional behavioral issues that bring the assault to light. The prosecutor more often than not is faced with a case where he must present the child's side against the adult's side since little to no physical evidence would be found.

Remember, this case is not about penetrating rape, it is about supposed digital penetration.

As a SANE/FNE I am appalled at her summation of her examination and the "conclusions" she reached based on that. It is too bad this case is not going on out here, that nurse would be looking for work.
Regarding the next comment, I first note that someone on the comments section wrote the following:
I don't know anyone involved, but I know enough about medicine to know that the "expert" witness who testified that the girls showed signs of molestation was not qualified. In testimony that I read, she stated she examined all three girls in the supine, or laying on their back, spread-eagle position. Modern, as in within the past ten years, adolescent gynacologists examine in more than one position to rule out the fact that in between 10 and 50% of females there are naturally-occurring bumps and other "abnormalities" that when viewed ONLY in the supine position are easily mistaken for signs of abuse.

If she had been subscribed to journals of adolescent gynacology, like any "expert" on child rape would, she would know this. I hope that Tonya's attorney knows about this and rips her apart. How many men and women have been sent away because an "expert" witness for the prosecution testified that a child was molested when in-fact they weren't? In this case two of the three were "suspicious," and one showed no signs at all.

I would say that before this witness said she was sure the girls were abused she should have examined in what is commonly called the "frog legs" position, the one MOST likely accurately show whether a girl was molested. There are so many grounds for appeal if she's convicted in this sham. It's really just wasting the tax payer's money. By so botching this whole affair, when the appeals court overturns this verdict the whole thing will have to be done over again, and by that time memories will have faded, and when the girls change their story it will all be over.

If the girls are or were examined by a REAL expert who determines they weren't abused at all, and if at some point someone in the prosecution camp admits to a set-up, I'm in favor of a law that would state that any one who accuses someone of a sex crime and it's proven that they lied about it, then they get to make a choice: they either can give the person they accused one-half of the money they earn for the rest of their life or they can spend the exact amount of time that the accused would have spend in jail, without any parole. There's a reason why God put "bearing false witness" in among the top ten things not to do.
I ran this statement by another friend of mine who is a SANE, and she replied:
This is actually accurate. The examination of the adolescent/pre-pubescent child is nothing like examining a sexually active female (teen and older). I would have to see what the “expert” actually testified to. Did she say exactly WHAT signs she saw. I say that since the only time we assume the possibility of assault is in penetrating vaginal injuries in a young girl. You would attempt to visualize the hymen (not always easy and in my book it suggests the “knee to chest” position with the “frog leg” being the next best. Supine in stirrups (like a normal adult female) is high discouraged since it is difficult to visualize anything. Use of a speculum is all but forbidden unless there is a penetrating injury and at that point the child is taken into an OR and put to sleep for the exam.

The above is why SANE-p are usually NOT the one to do the exam, but instead a pediatric Physician does it. I have assisted in numerous exam’s but I have NEVER done a child suspected of sexual assault solo. There is always a physician (Peds Doc) present.

I agree heavily with this post.
It is time to tell the truth about the "expert witnesses" that the prosecution has trotted in front of us, "experts" who just happen to be associated with the Children's Advocacy Centers. These are not people whose testimony should be the basis of sending people to prison for the rest of their lives.

Let me put it even more plainly. By using these people who clearly are unqualified and, lets face it, dishonest and having an ideological agenda, the courts in North Georgia are declaring that truth does not matter, and that it really is not important if an accused person is guilty or innocent.

Now, I doubt that Chris Arnt and Len Gregor will care a whit, and I doubt that Brian House loses a minute of sleep when a person is wrongfully convicted in his courtroom. However, there are real people, decent people out there whose lives are destroyed, and whole families with ruined futures that suffer these fates because of men like Arnt, Gregor, House, and incompetent and unqualified witnesses like Sharon Anderson and Suzi Thorne.

While that state of affairs might be just fine with the editorial writers of the Times-Free Press and the politicians of North Georgia, it is not fine with a lot of good people with whom I have made contact. Right now, they feel helpless to do anything about it because the people with power and influence are people who do not wish to do the right thing.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please tell me how to find you on Facebook. I have typed in your name but can't find you. Sorry but I am kinda new to facebook. Thanks for all you are doing

William L. Anderson said...

Type in Bill Anderson. There is a picture of me (with darker hair than I have now) and glasses.

Anonymous said...

I still can't find you on facebook.

Anonymous said...

I'm saving my confederate money boys, cause the South's gonna rise again!

Anonymous said...

I also searched FB and there are an oddly small about of "Bill Andersons" and the main one is a musician. I believe there were 14 total...hmmmmm (You know, the Truth for Tonya group page was deleted mysteriously for a while too several weeks ago. Its back now...)

William L. Anderson said...

Well, I do have a page, and I have no idea why you cannot find it. I also have a number of friends on it. Sorry you cannot find it, but it is there.

Denise C. said...

When I put Bill Anderson in, it came back with 500 different Bill Anderson's. I didn't get through all of them. I will try again later though.

William L. Anderson said...

I wish I knew how to better navigate Facebook. The only reason I got a page is because someone else pretty much did it. You have to remember that I am not that good at computer technology and don't own an ipod, a Blackberry, or anything like that.

My apologies if you cannot find the FB page, but I don't know what to advise. An earlier poster was claiming that I was lying about (in order to discredit this blog), but I am telling the truth.

I'm very, very intrigued by the fact that the prosecution's supporters have made malicious comments or implied I am lying or something of that order. One put a comment, which I deleted, that falsely accused Arnt and Gregor of having homosexual relations with one another.

One thing I have not seen the supporters do is to list something factual. Instead, there is innuendo and outright lies. Am I missing something here?

tl said...

http://www.facebook.com/search/?flt=1&q=bill+anderson&o=2048&sid=100000135206437.492157545..1&s=470#!/profile.php?id=1037892561&ref=search&sid=100000135206437.492157545..1

The above link I think will take you to his facebook page.

Denise C. said...

I have been following the trial through Channel 3's constant updates. Channel 3 has been the best source so far, in my opinion, for unbiased reporting. Everything that has been blogged about here is backed up at the Channel 3 update site. I have no doubts about Mr. Anderson's integrity.

Anonymous said...

tl, the link didn't work.

Denise C. said...

Did you copy and paste the whole link? It worked for me.

tl said...

Anonymous, I'm not sure why the link didn't work.
when I put Bill Anderson in my search bar, it showed more than 500 matches, he was on one of the last pages... Hope this helps some

kbp said...

Bill Anderson at Facebook

You must be signed in at Facebook to see his page.

Anonymous said...

I was signed in at FB and yes copied the whole link, will try it again.

William L. Anderson said...

Thanks, kdp. I don't do much to my page, as I'm not really into the whole networking scene. I guess it would be helpful to me, but I see it as one more complication in my life!

For that matter, it took me a long time to figure out the various Internet acronyms like LOL, JMOO, IMO and the like. It is tough being a 70s dinosaur in a high-tech world!

Anonymous said...

Okay, enough about where a facebook account or isn't. What I want to know is, what are Sharon Anderson's qualifications to be a SANE? What kind of nurse is she? What is her training? Is she an LPN, an RN, a BSN? Does she hold a Master's in Nursing? What makes her qualified to examine a child/person and make an educated diagnosis on what has happened. Oh by the way, nurses CANNOT make a diagnosis, only an MD can do that. Is Sharon a Nurse Practitioner? What are the state's standards on a SANE? What is the salary of a SANE? How long has it been since Sharon was working as a nurse, if she ever was a nurse I suppose? What is her background regarding anatomy? I reckon I what to know what makes her opinion so valuable that someone can go to jail because she said there is evidence of abuse?