Background: Premise that child's testimony is "Hearsay" refuted by new Supreme Court Decision
Children's testimony is considered valid and may not be challenged
 |
| Link to Article |
How this applies to our case:
This account of K's sexual abuse was graphic and detailed . In one incident Robert is molesting K. in the bathroom and turned the lights on, telling her that I was in there too, watching. Interviewer is Laurie Fortin, MSW from Rady Children's child abuse unit the Chadwick Center.
K. was very verbal at a young age, but County Counsel Mary Mitchell working on behalf of CPS took our case out of jurisdiction in criminal court in order to "water down" the case against Robert L. Arnold.
This testimony was called "HEARSAY" by Mary Mitchell, as she did some behind the scenes maneurveing to ensure pedophile Robert Lynn Arnold was pleased with the outcome. This is child protection??
GRAPHIC CONTENT BELOW: WARNING!
 | |
| -K's forensic testimony is detailed and graphic- |
Mary Mitchell and all of the "team" were present and edited the charges for Bob from a 300(d) count to a lesser count (b). This was done in this court hearing that I was not invited to, or even told about it after the fact. Mitchell also challenges K's credibility saying she was not a reliable witness, and not able to tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Mitchell brings no evidence from the forensic medical or interview, and minimizes the veracity of K's statements.
There is a "Hearsay Exception" that allows statements by child sexual abuse victims is inherently valid, as they are too traumatized to make up stories while disclosing abuse. Mary Mitchell knew this, but in order to help out Robert L. Arnold to get our children she denied them safety with a nonoffending parent.
Mitchell asked for charges to be reduced, for Robert L. Arnold to get custody (5 months earlier child sexual abuse charges were Substantiated), and asks that he not be made to admit to the crime. Mary Mitchell is a despicable evil demonic creature knowingly removing any barriers that would prevent Robert L. Arnold. Mitchell also tells Judge Gale Kaneshiro that in exchange for dropping the charges that there was a "quid pro quo" agreement between them, and because of this the Judge rules on the case.
"I referred earlier this morning to a "Quid Pro Quo" for dismissing the (d) and that was the father agreed to participate in some group program having to do with the sexual abuse of children.In the next breath Mary Mitchell then asks for specific changes for the Judge to make
including
- placing my son with a child molester
- Charged me with extra things and gave me a new case plan
- Tried to get a confidential address for Robert L. Arnold and his victim
- Also abused my children terribly by helping a violent criminal and removing any protection
