Thursday, May 7, 2015


An American Tragedy April 2015

I’m Richard Oehler, a retired family doctor. I’m again talking about the case of Keith McMullin which continues to look like a rotten onion. As each new layer is peeled away, more rot is exposed.
Let’s review the case and add some new information.
December 2011, a 13 year old girl accuses her adoptive father of sexually penetrating (raping) her 2-3 times per week for 18 months.
After the delay of a week she is examined by Christine Smith at Oregon City Children’s Clinic. Starting immediately she was also interviewed by several sex abuse/sexual assault experts representing the police and DHS. Her story was immediately accepted as fact under the theory that young girls do not lie about such things. (It is a well known and accepted fact by anyone with psychology training that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This girl was known by family, peers, and adult acquaintances to be less than truthful.)
Her physical examination revealed a normal hymen. An anatomical impossibility if her story is true. (No problem was seen by all these so called sexual assault/child abuse experts. If the physical evidence does not fit the case, they just lie to the Grand Jury and to the trial jury. Juries are just average honest citizens who are instructed by the DA or judge to only consider the testimony presented in the court room where he/she has control over what evidence can be presented. )

No one EVER interviewed the accused, Keith McMullin. Not even to this date! No one ever checked his computer or home for porn or any evidence which might support his guilt or innocence.

At trial David Lundervold and Christy Fryett were called to testify from the sheriff’s office. Kelly O’Donnell, employed by DHS, and Amanda McVay and Christine Smith, employed by Oregon City Children’s Center were also called to testify. None of these people know anything at all about this case except what the 12 year old girl told them. None are trained psychologists but all were extensively questioned about the 12 year old accuser’s demeanor. No reliable conclusions can be made from demeanor by even the most trained psychiatrist, yet these people were allowed to imply to the jury that they knew what they were talking about and vouch for the accuser’s credibility.
Christine Smith, a nurse practitioner, was even allowed to claim she was as qualified as an MD to perform and testify about pelvic exams. She testified that she EXPECTED normal findings. She also testified that pregnancy proved sexual penetration. Definite proof that she is an unqualified imposter. Certainly she is not an expert. She was not even questioned about her training and experience in doing pelvic exams.

Ms Karabiecka, the defense attorney made few objections or challenges to any of the testimony by the above vouchering and lying by these witnesses. Prior to the trial, in a meeting with Keith McMullin and attorney, Mark Blackmon, an experienced trial lawyer in sex cases, turned over his files on the McMullin case to Ms Karabiecka and tried to offer some advice on what she could expect going forward. Instead of thanking him for his advice she pointed a finger at him and said words to this effect, I’m now Mr McMullin’s lawyer and don’t need your advice. Arrogant, Ignorant, Incompetent?
Mr Blackmon had also requested that he be allowed to present some facts to the Grand Jury before the indictment, but the DA would not allow that to happen or there would have been no case. At the time Mr Blackmon was terminally ill and could not handle the trial or in all likelihood McMullin would be free today.
In the opening phase of the trial it was agreed by the two attorneys and the judge that no testimony by a qualified MD would be allowed to prevent this judicial lynching. (See trial transcript page 11) I quote the prosecuting attorney: “Additionally, there are some statements that he is not guilty.” The judge is then quoted: “That’s all out.” At the bottom of page 11 and top of page 12 Ms Karabiecka said and I quote: “I certainly agree with all the law that has been cited so far. My investigator got statements from people who are impassioned about this case and had strong opinions. That doesn’t mean I’m going to try to elicit all of that testimony here in trial.” She certainly did not elicit any testimony that would help her client. She had a strong statement from me that he was innocent and why.
I assume that I was considered one of those impassioned people. I was the only person with 50 years of medical experience who knew the prosecution’s case was based on lies. I would have told the truth which most likely would have won acquittal for Keith McMullin. Therefore, I was told by Ms Karabiecka that if I would not agree to commit perjury by with holding the truth she would not call me as a witness. She stated in no uncertain terms that if I did not agree to only answer the questions she asked, she would not call me as a witness. I have only done a few thousand pelvic exams in my years of practice. I had examined a few hundred recently married females who had intercourse 2-3 times per week for at least a year. The exact scenario the accuser described in her accusation. I NEVER FOUND ONE WITH A NORMAL HYMEN!
Although I have not seen a huge number, I certainly saw quite a few normal hymens as well as variations of normal ones in the course of examining patients over the years for various problems.
.
In contrast, Christine Smith stated that she EXPECTED to find a normal hymen in this case and others like it. A statement so ignorant of fact that any person claiming to be as competent as an MD is lying. Any person claiming expertise as a sexual assault/sex abuse worker who blindly accepts and agrees with this incompetent statement is also lying. So it appears that Christy Fryett, Kelly O’Donnell, and Amanda McVay also lied under oath. According to testimony it was a team effort to produce the 19 page report submitted by Christine Smith.

There is a well known statement that those who fail to study history are bound to repeat it. According to Ryan Scott, in his analysis of this case, other similar cases had already been decided here in Oregon. Medical studies cited in his letter and in one of my you tube presentations also were readily available to the officers of the court, Judge Jones, Stacey Borgman, and Heather Karabiecka BEFORE the trial. Was it arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, or malice which made all these licensed legal experts fail to even attempt to understand the issues involved in this case. This case had very little to do with child abuse, BUT it had everything to do with a basic understanding of human sexual anatomy and reproductive physiology. None of the persons involved in this case have demonstrated that they have a clue about such matters but all were eager to send an innocent man to prison by lying under oath as witnesses and officers of the court.
Our appeals court system then accepted these lies and affirmed the conviction. A new lie by the reviewing attorney was even added to the file. She was well aware of the medical lies by a letter from me and contact by at least two attorneys who talked to her about the case before she filed her report to the appeals judges.

The Innocent Man by John Grisham, the well known fiction writer, investigated this real life Oklahoma case of an innocent man who was 4 days from execution before a judge finally took time to review the lies told by the prosecution. He was subsequently freed after 17 years on death row. A broken man driven insane by his ordeal who died shortly after his release. Another book Until Proven Innocent by Stuart Taylor Jr and KC Johnson was written about the Duke University LaCrosse players falsely convicted of rape in North Carolina.
.
Both of these cases have striking similarities to Keith McMullin’s case. Lying court officers and witnesses are responsible for all three convictions.
In both of these cited book cases irresponsible media reporting played a huge role. In the McMullin case our media has also been irresponsible. They have completely failed to even report on this case in spite of several letters being sent to their investigative reporters. So Keith McMullin has spent 2 years in prison and faces at least 2 more years as his case slowly wanders through the maze of judicial proceedings.
Here is an open invitation to any reporter and to the court officers and witnesses named by me in this report. I also include the appeals court judges and Atty Gen Ellen Rosenblum. I will give $5,000 (dollars) to the first one who can prove by valid medical studies and /or sworn statements by competent MD or DO family doctors or OB-GYN specialists these three lying statements made to the jury in this case are not lies.
Lie 1. Pregnancy proves sexual penetration. Christine Smith trial transcript pg 311 (I am not referring to artificial insemination which does not require human penis sexual penetration.)
Lie 2. An 11-13 year old girl sexually penetrated by an adult male penis 2-3 times per week for 18 months and examined within 1-10 days of the last penetration would be EXPECTED to have a normal hymen. C. Smith tt pg 312
Lie 3. The whole hymen business is a myth. All sexually active teen agers have normal hymens because our bodies are designed to have sex with one another. Stacey Borgman tt pg 625 Ms Borgman now has the honor of rewriting the text on human anatomy known to doctors for over a century. All she need do is prove her lie.
#1 and #3 are so obviously lies that there can be no question. Only an incompetent, ignorant, unqualified “expert” would say “yes” to #1 and # 2. No qualified MD or DO would display their ignorance by saying “yes” to these three lies.
.
So my fellow citizens and especially members of the media, would you like your fate in court decided by these arrogant, ignorant, incompetent liars? I certainly would not.
Atty Gen Ellen Rosenblum and the Oregon Board of Appeals judges have upheld this conviction apparently approving of perjury by the DA’s office. If only the lies are given to them for review there appears to be little hope that the Oregon Supreme Court or even the US Supreme Court would reach a different decision unless there is some judge some where out there who has an interest in justice, uses some common sense, and gets competent medical advice before rendering an opinion upholding this false conviction.
There are four possibilities of help for Keith as I see it. I hope there are more.
1 The FBI investigates the case as a civil rights violation of Keith McMullin's right to a fair trial. Perjury by the prosecution must be criminal misconduct.
2 A judge as I mention in the above paragraph takes a real look at the lies used to convict an innocent Keith McMullin.
3 The Media brings to light this judicial lynching by Judge Jones et al in Clackamas County, Oregon. Unless there is some reporter or news outlet with the integrity and moral courage necessary to report this atrocity there will continue to be more just like it.
4 The citizens of Oregon as well as the US become involved in seeing justice is done in all cases and appropriate punishment is meted out to those disregarding their sworn duty to uphold the law. A complete overhaul of DHS needs to be part of the process. Who investigates the conduct of a Grand Jury and the Oregon Court of Appeals?

Until I take my last breath, I will continue to expose those who lied under oath. I hope you my fellow citizens will help. Any one of you could be the next Keith McMullin.



Richard H Oehler MD You Tube An America Tragedy Richard Oehler
6831 SE Brownlee Rd freedomforkeith.blogspot.com
Portland OR 97267 Clackamas Co Circuit Court case #12-004-00

copies to:

FBI
KATU KGW
KOIN KPTV
Oregonian
Pamplin Media Group





Monday, February 9, 2015



An American Tragedy   Richard Oehler                         February 3, 2015
A new introduction with some new information   February 2015

Child and domestic abuse has many faces. This once happy couple represent another face in the world of abuse. This family was torn apart by the lies and misconduct by DHS and our Oregon court system. His accuser has now admitted lying.

My name is Richard Oehler, I am a retired family doctor. This is the case of Keith Allen McMullin who started his third year in prison on Feb 1, 2015. He is in prison because of the incompetence and/or corruption existing in the Clackamas County Oregon Circuit Court system and DHS. He is completely innocent of the crime for which he is imprisoned.
After viewing this You Tube go to the 4 previous You Tubes (same name) and Blog (freedomforkeith.blogspot.com) for more details. Total You Tube time is a little more than 30 minutes.

Let’s start with Heather Karabeika, his court appointed defense attorney. Now a judge.
1 I was subpoened to be a witness. She never talked to me before the trial. Shortly before I was to be called to the stand, Ms Karabeika talked to me in the hall and told me that if I would not promise to answer only the questions she asked she would not call me to testify. I stated that I would be under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God. She had my statement that I knew Keith was innocent and why. Why was she asking me to lie under oath by withholding truth which would free her client?
2 During the trial she called no expert medical witness. She did not question in depth the qualifications of the State’s medical witness, a nurse practitioner. She did not question an absurd statement and the opinion reached by this person who claimed to be as expert as an MD.
3 Why did she not strenuously object to the vouchering by the State’s witnesses?
4 Before trial Ms Karabeika was given information to help her handle this case by another attorney who had defended a similar case. Did she use that information to help prepare Keith’s defense? To me it appears this woman sacrificed Keith McMullin’s freedom for her own selfish reasons. Incompetence or criminal negligence?

 Next, let’s look at the performance of the presiding judge, Jeffrey Jones. My understanding is that the judge, the defense attorney, and the prosecuting attorney all are officers of the Court and as such are under oath to see that justice is done to the accused as well as the accuser. Withholding evidence and using or allowing perjury to convict an innocent person is a clear violation of this trust. Incompetence or criminal negligence?
1 Why did he decide a 10-2 verdict was okay to decide the fate of Keith McMullin who was facing 50-100 years and death in prison if convicted of the crimes for which he was being tried? The prosecution asked for 50 years. Crimes for which the resulting conviction average sentences of  7-12 years require a 12-0 jury verdict.
2 Why did this experienced judge allow vouchering by the prosecution? He and the two attorneys agreed before hand to NOT allow the defense to furnish evidence to refute testimony/evidence by prosecution witnesses. The fact that testimony was evidence was emphasized to the jury by the prosecution and the judge. Is not the only way to discredit false evidence the introduction of true evidence?
3 During the trial, the jury and officers of the court asked 29 times on record that witnesses speak up so their testimony could be heard. The worst problems were the first day when the accuser was testifying and the day the medical witness was on the stand. There was construction noise that day. Technology was used to record the trial. Why was a microphone not used so the jury could hear the witnesses? There might also be less mistakes in the trial transcript if the transcriber was able to understand the witnesses.
4 In his remarks before sentencing, Judge Jones complimented the attorneys on their professionalism. Many ordinary citizens untrained in the law recognized the incompetence of  Ms Karabeika during the trial. On reviewing the case after trial, an attorney pointed out that Keith had ineffective (meaning incompetent) lawyering.  A second lawyer who reviewed the case agreed. Why did judge Jones praise an incompetent performance as professional? Might he be incompetent also?

 Ms Rosenblum, the Oregon attorney general, stated to the appeals board that she felt the verdict should be upheld. When I had asked her office to investigate this miscarriage of justice 2 years ago, she replied that her office had nothing to do with decisions made in county courts. It appears she has a lot to do with recommending whether circuit court decisions should be upheld.

The competence of DHS has been frequently questioned in Oregon. In this case they had investigated the McMullins for years. They fostered 29 children and had adopted 4. His accuser claimed she was molested since entering the home at age 4. So for 8 years these child abuse experts had been visiting the home and interviewing the children. No problem with abuse was ever recognized. However, when the accusation was made, several DHS abuse experts suddenly claimed great expertise as child abuse experts recognizing the “demeanor” of this girl as an important factor in their determining her credibility on the basis of a 15 minute interview with her. NO ONE interviewed Keith McMullin to determine his credibility. It is interesting to note that in their files before the trial, DHS had at least 2 instances of this accuser lying to them. They also had in their possession a facebook or email the accuser had sent to a peer calling her filthy names and using the f word repeatedly. Not exactly the sweet naive child they portrayed her to be at the trial. Criminal tampering with evidence?

At this date the accuser has already admitted to at least 2 peers that she lied but can’t tell the truth because she would be in a lot of trouble. So this young girl has now really become a victim but her abusers are all these so called DHS sex abuse experts and officers of the court. She will live with her lie until this case is reversed or her conscience finally tortures her enough to admit her lie to authorities. Claiming to recognize credibility on the basis of demeanor is bogus and any who believe they possess this type of mind reading ability are frauds. Incompetence or criminal behavior?

 At  trial these DHS experts and the prosecuting attorney stated to the jury that they found her credible and that young girls don’t lie. Apparently none of them read the papers or ever see the news. Just recently in Wisconsin two 12 year old girls stabbed a friend 29 times and left her to die in the woods. There have been several shootings and killings by 12 year old boys. Young girls and young boys do kill, stab, and shoot people. They also lie about many things. The judge had letters from over 30 people who would testify that they knew the accuser to lie and that Keith was known for his integrity. The judge chose to believe that 30 fathers and mothers would lie under oath to protect a child abuser but the accuser would not lie!

Right now this case is in the appeals process. Even that process is flawed when the panel is not given truthful and accurate information. Had the Grand Jury been given the truth, this case would never have gone to trial. Had the DA studied previous cases like this, he might not have presented it to the Grand Jury. Had the trial jury not been lied to, Keith would not be in prison.

Keith McMullin and other innocent people will continue to suffer in prison until this system is changed. Here are some things  I believe need to happen.
            1 The FBI needs to investigate the denial of a fair trial by overzealous incompetent judicial persons here in Clackamas County.
            2 Honorable judges and lawyers need to step up to see that this type of case which dishonors their once noble profession does not continue to happen. The Oregon Bar Association needs to be involved. Truth and justice need to be the goal of all trials, not winning by lying.    
            3 The news media is constantly crying about freedom of the press. With freedom comes responsibility. Responsible reporters need to investigate and report incompetent and/or criminal conduct by officers of our court system. Several requests to investigate by me have gone unanswered. Domestic abuse and child abuse are horrible crimes. A worse crime is the imprisoning of innocent people.

So far nothing has happened and NOTHING WILL HAPPEN until you, Mr and Mrs Average Citizen send this You Tube to every person you know world wide.

Second, YOU and all your friends need to contact every news outlet and ask why they have done nothing to investigate this judicial crime.

Then personally contact every doctor and lawyer with whom you are acquainted and ask them to look at theseYou Tubes. Both professions have a huge stake in truth.

Finally and most important.DEMAND OUR ELECTED POLITICIANS GET INVOLVED. The problem in this case actually starts in the governor’s office.

Write to them, call them, email them, facebook them, twitter them and personally talk to them. Until Keith McMullin and other innocent victims of this type of judicial crime are freed, none of us can feel safe to enjoy our constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So take another long look at this ordinary mother and father who wanted nothing more than to love each other and their family. They recently “celebrated” their 25th anniversary praying for justice. Walking free are the real abusers.  DHS, officers of the court, and nurse practitioner, Christine Smith, had an obligation to study this case before trial. They KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that Keith McMullin was innocent. The facts in the form of previous trials and medical studies were all available to them before the trial. They chose to ignore the truth and lie. Why? Are they just ignorant and incompetent or do they just have contempt for the rights of innocent people?

Mr and Mrs Average Citizen you decide. Either decision makes them unfit to preside in a courtroom where justice for all is supposed to be the goal of all. Then TAKE ACTION!
Freedom for Keith from these vicious charges by judicial and DHS persons gone rogue must be accomplished. HE IS INNOCENT!

Thank you for helping Keith McMullin and his family, victims of a true American Tragedy which is the prostitution of our justice system.

Richard H Oehler, MD            You Tube An American Tragedy Richard Oehler
6831 SE Brownlee Road                      freedomforkeith.blogspot.com
Portland, Oregon 97267
503-659-6831                                                                          oehlerdick31@gmail.com


!                      

Sunday, November 23, 2014



To: Investigative Reporters at KATU, KOIN, KGN, KPTV, Oregonian, and Pamplin Media Group
                                                                                                November 21, 2014

Conviction by a jury of our peers sounds great. However, the jury has only the testimony of witnesses to determine guilt or innocence. They must rely on the witnesses being truthful. They must also realize that both the accuser and the accused could be lying. Ten jurors believed the prosecutions lies, two did not.

In child rape cases the accused is presumed guilty by the judicial system. That is one reason there are so many innocent people in prison. The case of Keith McMullin is a perfect example. The difference is in his case there is evidence that proves his innocence. You need to look at that evidence with an open, inquiring mind. Don’t blindly accept the prosecution’s version and interpretation of the evidence nor the prosecutor’s statement that young girls don’t lie.
1.      All state witnesses had no knowledge of the case other than what the accuser told them. None had bothered to interview Keith McMullin. The judge allowed them to testify that they believed the accuser. The judge did not allow any one who had known her for years to testify that they knew his accuser to be a liar. No one was allowed to testify that Keith had a reputation for truth.
2.      The medical expert was a nurse practitioner who made completely false statements. Even the study which she cited as the basis for her opinion she misunderstood or chose to misinterpret. She withheld the critical information which proved the innocence of Keith McMullin.
3.      His lawyer, Heather Karabiecka, is incompetent or just plain uncaring about her responsibility to her client and to the legal system which she has sworn to uphold. She failed to call a medical expert! You do not need a law degree to know that Keith McMullin’s PROOF of his innocence rested on the medical findings. She did not question the expertise of the nurse practitioner. She did not even ask the so-called expert to explain the study which was the basis for her medical opinion! The study stated that if found normal within 2 weeks of the last alleged penetration, the girl was in the category that sexual penetration did not occur within that 2 week period. She did not ask the expert to explain other medical studies which plainly disagree with the conclusion this “expert” gave the jury. Ms Karabiecka appeared clueless about the medical issues in this case. I personally believe she did not even read the study cited by the witness! It is perfectly obvious she did not look at and use other studies to help in Keith’s legal defense of this rape case. Her performance in this legal case is comparable to a surgeon amputating the wrong leg in a medical case.
4.      Remember the accusation: A petite 11-12 year old girl was sexually penetrated 2-3 times per week for 18 months by her adult male father but had a normal, intact hymen. If the accusation had been a one or two time penetration weeks, months, or years before, the hymen could be healed and appear normal. Think of this comparison. The ankle has ligaments supporting the joint composed of connective tissue. If you turn your ankle one time, stretching but not tearing the ligaments, over a period of time the tissues heal and return to normal. However, if you turn your ankle every week for 18 months the ligaments will be stretched or torn badly enough that no one would expect that ankle to be normal. Think of the hymen which is also connective tissue in a similar fashion. A one time stretching or even tearing of the hymen by vaginal penetration will probably return to normal with adequate healing time. Repeated vaginal penetration over 18 months up to the time of the exam as charged in this case will not leave the girl with a normal exam as the prosecution told the jury was EXPECTED in this case and others like it.
5.      So it is mandatory to approach this case with an open mind. Timing of the medical exam is critical in every case. The jury system works only if witnesses tell the truth and the defense attorney does their job. When the state witnesses lie and the defendant’s attorney does nothing to counteract the lies, we have innocent people like Keith McMullin sent to jail. We are all victims when over zealous people think that sending 10- 15 % of our innocent citizens to jail is okay just to make sure we incarcerate the criminals. Interview Keith’s wife and two young sons if you want to hear victims of this senseless prosecution.
6.      If any of you investigative reporters have medical questions about this case, I will be happy to answer them. This case will not go away as long as I still have breath. Truth will eventually be told.

As you investigative reporters celebrate a happy Thanksgiving with friends and relatives, say a prayer for Keith and his family. Give thanks that you are not in prison. Any one of you is one false accusation from prison.



Richard H Oehler, MD             Keith Allen McMullin  case # 12-00400
6831 SE Brownlee Road                      Clackamas County Circuit Court
Portland, Oregon   97267                     You tube: An American Tragedy  Richard Oehler
503-659-6831                                                                          freedomforkeith.blogspot.com


Before sending this I included this hand written note:
This could be a smoke screen, but it could be the truth. A little possible logic. Why would a retired physician risk being sued for libel by a judge, Jeffrey Jones, an attorney (now a judge) Heather Karabiecka, and a nurse practitioner, Christine Smith, unless he knew what he was talking about? Think about it.






Sunday, June 8, 2014



An American Tragedy     One                                                   May 26, 2014             

Hi, my name is Richard Oehler. I’m a retired family doctor, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin in 1961. My purpose today is to present a plan to create an American Tragedy. Sounds crazy.  Yes, this is a tongue in cheek presentation. I hope to draw your attention to the real life case I will present in you tubes 2, 3, and 4. So just pay attention for a few minutes and see if this scenario might apply to you and your community. After my experience of the past year, I believe it is common throughout the US.

1. First you need to select a horrible crime such as child sexual abuse. This allows some child advocates to lose all perspective of right and wrong. They see an abuser behind every tree. The mere accusation of abuse is enough that some of these zealots demand that an accused is automatically guilty and has no right to a fair trial.

2. It is helpful to live in a state where your Governor appears to care more about an admitted murderer than he does about an honest, honorable citizen. Oregon is one of them.

3. You will need a legal system willing to appoint an attorney who will fail to prepare even the most basic defense and ignore previous cases which may have helped her client’s case.

4. Next you need a medical witness and witnesses from child protective services who claim expertise in child sex abuse but seem to know little about genital anatomy and reproductive physiology. No common sense will be used by any of them.

The details of this case are presented on 3 more you tubes.

An American Tragedy 2 will present the lies told the jury.

An American Tragedy 3 will point out the response by our governor and the agencies appointed by him to see that we receive justice in Oregon.

An American Tragedy 4 will analyze the medical study upon which the medical expert states she based her expert opinion. Other studies anyone claiming expertise would have to know about also will be presented. None of them support the conclusions she stated to the jury as facts.

I recommend that you look at these 3 presentations and become informed. You or a loved one may become the next American Tragedy.

To learn more about this case here are the references.

Ref  1 State of Oregon vs Keith Allen McMullin
     Case# 12-00400 Clackamas County Oregon

Ref 2 Google: freedomforkeith.blogspot.com

Now on to number two




An American Tragedy           Two                                                         May 26, 2014

Hi, this is Richard Oehler ready to outline the case I talked about in video one

Memorial Day has just ended. A day on which we remembered men and women who gave their lives to protect our right to a fair trial. The following account will show you how our legal system has been corrupted to deny us this fundamental right in certain crimes. Why? I believe it is a combination of arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, and malice. After careful reflection on true facts the jury was never allowed to hear and the lies they were told, you decide. Substitute your name for Keith McMullin. Did he (you) receive a fair trial? I’ve titled my presentation an American Tragedy.

On Feb 1, 2013 Keith Allen McMullin was sentenced to 25 years in prison by Judge Jeffrey Jones for a crime he did not commit. I believe these are some of the lies told the jury that led them to vote for his conviction.  (page references are to the trial transcript )

Lie # 1 Testimony by his 13 year old accuser who stated that she was raped 2-3 times per week for the last18 months.  p 66-72

Lie #2 Opening statement by the prosecutor, Stacey Borgman, who said there is no physical evidence in this case.  (Isn’t the normal hymen physical evidence?) p 28

Lie #3 Testimony by the medical expert a certified nurse practioner, Christine Smith, who stated that she was as qualified as an MD to do her job. She testified that in this case and others like it she EXPECTED to find a normal hymen. In this case she found a normal hymen and documented it with a video of the exam. (No qualified MD or DO would so testify.) p 311  312

Lie #4 In her closing statement the prosecutor said this whole hymen business is a MYTH and ALL sexually active teenagers have normal hymens because we are designed to have sex with each other. (This statement is such a flat out lie that anyone making such a statement has no business being involved in a case where someone’s life is at stake. A judge who is so uninformed medically that he allows planting of false evidence in his courtroom also has no business in making life and death decisions in such a case.) p 625

Lie #5 All of the child abuse/sexual assault experts from child protective services had no knowledge of any thing involved in this case EXCEPT what the accuser had told them. Yet all were allowed to vouch for the veracity of her testimony and by implication that Keith was lying. Why was this allowed? No such vouching was allowed Keith McMullin.

Lie # 6 In his jury instructions, Judge Jones stated that the jurors needed to consider and I quote “evidence concerning the character of the witness for truthfulness.” P 630  631 (He and the two attorneys agreed before the trial began that no one would be allowed to testify about the character of the accuser and the accused.) See pre trial discussion, many pages. (There were several adult and teenage witnesses who had known the accuser and the accused for years but were not allowed to testify about their character and reputation for truthfulness. Why? (See Lie #5 The experts who had interviewed the accuser for a few minutes [or in one case a couple of hours] and NEVER had talked to the accused were allowed to vouch for her story. I find this truly amazing logic by the judge and both attorneys!)

Lie #7 Judge Jones congratulated the two attorneys on their professionalism in this case. P 665
 Is he really so unfamiliar with the law that he did not recognize incompetent conduct which would be considered malpractice or misconduct in any other professional field?

As you examine this case, consider the conduct of these professionals. Here is a simple comparison. A surgeon who operated without washing his hands or wearing gloves resulting in serious infection would be subject to malpractice for certain and probably even criminal misconduct. Should not these courtroom professionals be held to similar standards? Look at the mayhem they created in the life of Keith McMullin and his family through their negligent, incompetent actions.

Where was the attention and focus of  Keith’s defense attorney during the trial? Heather Karabeika was obviously in the courtroom. Was there a conflict of interest? Did she not want to rock the boat by doing her job because she was soon to be appointed a judge? (Only she can answer that.)
I was informed that Ms Karabeika was briefed by at least two other attorneys before the trial about what she should expect during the trial. Did she pay any attention to this advice? 
There were legal cases already decided that apparently addressed some of the very medical issues raised in this case. She knew or should have known about these cases. Why didn’t she use these to help in questioning Ms Smith? 
Why did she not call a qualified medical expert to refute the false testimony given by Christine Smith? (These facts were pointed out in the Ryan Scott letter. See blog )
Why did she not question Christine Smith about her qualifications to be called as a medical expert?
Why did she not challenge the child protective service witnesses who were called by the prosecution to vouch for the veracity of the accuser? According to the appeals attorney if no objection is raised by the defense attorney to lies and procedures during trial, there may be no legal basis to grant an appeal even if the conviction is based on these lies.
Why did she not question the medical study cited by Christine Smith?
Why did she not ask Ms Smith about some of the other medical studies available to her? Especially the Slaughter study of 213 victims in which 92 % had evidence of sexual trauma if examined within 48 hours of the attack. The 81 adolescents included in this study had 100% evidence of sexual assault if examined within 48 hours. None of several other studies agreed with the Kellogg study on which Ms Smith based her expert opinion. One of the main criterion of a valid study is that it can be and is repeated by other investigators with the same outcome. Why did Ms Karabeika not ask Ms Smith to explain this well known fact about medical studies?

It defies all logic that among the judge, the two attorneys, the medical expert, and all the sex abuse experts from child protective services not one questioned the accuser’s story in light of her normal hymen. NO ONE questioned Ms Smith’s report. The two attorneys had my statement that I knew it was a medical impossibility. Is this why I was not called as a witness? The judge also knew before sentencing because I had told him in a letter it was impossible. He also received a letter from a layman, Brian McNeil, questioning a normal hymen in a petite girl who testified of at least 100 rapes by an adult male.

Even if none of them believed me, an experienced physician, or an obviously intelligent layman with common sense, they should at least have had the professionalism to check with other qualified medical experts before condemning an innocent man to possible death at the hands of imprisoned felons who don’t like child molesters.

The judge and the two attorneys knew or should have known about the previous legal cases that had already addressed some of these very issues. Why did they choose to lie about the facts to convict a man they had every reason to know was innocent?  (It would be interesting to hear them explain their actions in this case.).

I have known and associated with many fine lawyers, nurses, and paramedics over my years of practice. I have learned much from their insight and knowledge and hopefully contributed to their understanding of some medical issues. We all can and do make mistakes but such blatant errors when the life of this man and his family was at stake is inexcusable. The truth had been pointed out to them BEFORE and AFTER the trial but definitely before sentencing.

How would you like to be Keith McMullin? He has now been in prison for over a year. His family is struggling and recently lost their home.

I don’t really like to think all of the persons involved in this case acted with malice, but the results of their arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent actions have brought about great harm to an innocent man and his family. If they DID NOT HAVE EVIL intent and acted out of pure ignorance, it is now time for them to step forward and correct their malignant actions. They need to admit the lies and mistakes made during this trial and get this innocent man out of prison and back to his family, now.

If there was malice and evil intent is still present, this foursome will not look to find the truth but will do their best to attack my credibility. They will also use every conceivable legal trick to bully me and any other people who speak the truth. However, Keith’s conviction still boils down to 2 questions that need to be answered “yes” by a qualified family physician or OB-Gyn specialist.
            1 Would you EXPECT a petite 13 year old girl who had been sexually penetrated by an adult male 2-3 times per week for 18 months to have a normal hymen?
            2 Is this whole hymen business a MYTH and ALL sexually active teenagers have normal hymens because we are designed to have sex with each other?

No VALID study supports either conclusion nor would any QUALIFIED physician.
 
Youtube  An American Tragedy #3 will discuss the response of  our governor and the various elected and appointed entities who are charged with over seeing justice for our citizens.

Thank you. Now let’s go to three.


Richard H Oehler MD                   Keith McMullin vs State or Oregon Case # 12-00400
                                                     Circuit Court  Clackamas County
Oehlerdick31@gmail.com           Google:   freedomforkeith.blogspot.com



An American Tragedy                Three              May 26, 2014

This has been the response to Keith McMullin’s trial by some of the elected and appointed officials and agencies charged with overseeing justice in the state of Oregon.

Governor John Kitzhaber MD:   After my 5 letters pointing out the lies told during medical testimony to our PHYSICIAN governor, his office finally responded stating my letter would be on file if Keith McMullin applied for clemency. (He is not asking for clemency, Doctor, he is asking for justice. You had time to commute Gary Haugen’s case, the admitted murderer. Taking a few minutes to check on an innocent person’s case should not overwhelm your time.)

Attorney General:  I have no jurisdiction over the courts. (Even if there is perjury and malpractice bordering on criminal conduct during the trial, you have NO responsibility to investigate. Who does?)

Oregon Medical Board:  We have no jurisdiction. You just published a bulletin pointing out the responsibility of the physician supervising medical spas. Should not the physician supervising the Oregon City Children’s Clinic for work done by Ms Smith at that facility have responsibility? ( When a medical mistake is committed by someone claiming to be as qualified as an MD and her testimony has the potential to send a man to his death, who does have responsibility?)

Oregon Bar Association:  We don’t investgate individual cases. (Even when malpractice is apparent to laymen. Who does?)

Committee on Judicial Fitness:  Fill out a formal complaint about the judge. Otherwise we don’t become involved. (So who investigates a corrupt system? This individual judge is not the only problem.)

Oregon Court of Appeals:  All trials have lies. If the defense does not object, there may be no basis for retrial even if perjury was committed. (Perjury by the states witnesses and misconduct by the judge and both attorneys is not a basis for appeal? The judge asked the jury to decide the case based only on the testimonies presented and on their common sense. He repeatedly admonished the jury not to check online or talk to anyone about the case. Was he afraid they might ascertain the truth? This placed a huge burden on the court to see that the jury be given the true facts. A responsibility completely failed by this judge and these attorneys. Shouldn’t our legal justice system be held accountable to show some common sense and ethical behavior?)

Department of Human Services: Renamed I believe because it had such a poor reputation as Child Protective Services. (This agency continues to have a less than stellar reputation for competent service. They continue in their role as experts in the field of child abuse/sexual assault in spite of cases like this where not one of those involved seems to understand human sexual anatomy and reproductive physiology.)

Remember Keith had a court appointed attorney, Heather Karabeika, who was on a list of 19 candidates to be appointed a circuit judge by Gov Kitzhaber. Shortly after this trial she received the appointment and is now a judge. If she was the top qualified candidate, it is hard to imagine what our court system is becoming. Or is it possible she was not the best candidate and the appointment was based on support for his campaign to continue as governor? You will have to ask him and her about that. However it does raise the conflict of interest issue and why she made little attempt to present a defense and challenge the court proceedings by being a strong advocate in his defense.

With each of the above elected persons or legally appointed entities denying responsibility, to whom does Keith McMullin turn? To a legal system which denied him his right to a fair trial in the first place?

Unless you, the honest citizens, start to hold our elected representatives locally and nationally responsible for this type of justice you or your loved one could be the next Keith McMullin.

We have become very aware of bullying in our schools. This type of case is a real world example of adult bullying. The child protection people accuse you falsely. They combine with a legal system to tell lies about you. Stamp on any defense you may try to put forward. Appoint a lawyer who offers no competent help. And finally throw you in jail with no legal recourse except to the very legal system which denied you justice in the first place. To me this is just a LEGAL system, not a JUSTICE system.

This case was decided on two very clearly known medical facts. Ask your family Physician or an OB-Gyn specialist these two questions:

            1 Would you EXPECT a petite 13 year old girl who testified she was sexually penetrated by an adult male 2-3 times per week for the past 18 months (100-150 times) to still have a normal hymen?
            2 Do you think the whole hymen business is a MYTH and ALL sexually active teenagers have normal hymens because we were designed to have sex with each other?

            If their answer to either question is “yes”, get a new physician.

Think about your responsibility as a tax payer also. Every one of the people involved in this case was paid by our tax dollars either directly or indirectly. Should we continue to pay for such incompetence? This type of case is happening in courtrooms through out the US costing us millions. At the same time our schools, roads, bridges, welfare programs, etc are suffering because of  the lack of these wasted tax dollars.

This is Dr Oehler saying, Thank you again.

In youtube 4 I will discuss a few of the medical studies available to Ms Karabeika and Ms Smith, as well as the judge and prosecutor involved in this case. They should have used these studies to inform themselves before ever entering the court room. Or did they know and chose to ignore them? 

Thank you for your kind attention. Please write, call, or email your elected representatives on every level until this type of modern day witch hunting justice is no longer the norm in our society.

I hope any other past or present victims of this type of justice will send me a brief email.

.

Richard H Oehler MD                                                  Keith McMullin
Oehlerdick31@gmail.com                                            Case 12-00400
Freedomforkeith.blogspot.com                         Circuit Court  Clackamas County,
                                                                                    Oregon



An American Tragedy       Four         May 26, 2014

This presentation will briefly discuss a few medical articles available to the medical expert as well as the judge and the two attorneys involved. The five studies discussed are listed on       freedomforkeith.blogspot.com.     There are many more.
(pages are from the trial transcript)

Ms Smith testified to several things which were not true.
1 She EXPECTED a girl in a case like this to have a normal hymen. P 311  312
2 Pregnancy proves sexual penetration. P 311
3 Tampon use has no effect on females using this method of controlling menstrual flow.
p 323
4 Young girls are no more likely to show abnormalities if sexually penetrated than          older girls. p 324
She based her expert opinion on the Kellogg study. P 311
( Numbers 2,3, and 4 have no direct application to this case but do prove that Ms Smith is not the expert she claims to be.)

The Kellogg study specifically stated that all persons examined within 2 weeks of the last penetration showed definite evidence of assault. (14 of the 36 were not normal, but did not show conclusively that there was a sexual assault)  Few of these girls were examined acutely allowing various periods of time, up to several months, for the hymen to heal.)
The study avoids stating that pregnancy proved penetration. It states that it proved sex abuse. (I agree impregnating an underage female is sex abuse in most or all jurisdictions.)
There was no mention in this study of tampon use.
So on what facts in this study did Ms Smith base her expert opinion as she testified?

The Teixeira study examined 500 cases of alleged sexual assault and found 310 had a ruptured hymen. (62%) Ms Smith testified that she EXPECTED to find a normal exam. According to this study she would be wrong 62% of the time.

The Emans study specifically noted that sexually active girls had hymenal clefts in 81%.  Ms Smith testified that she expected a normal exam.
According to this study she would be wrong 81% of the time.

This study also noted that tampon users had slightly bigger vaginal openings and more likelihood of hymenal irregularities.

The fact that pregnancy does not prove penetration is so well known that there is probably not a study trying to prove such an obvious fact. Even Amy Dickinson addressed this fact in her advice column. (Oregonian April 30, 2014)
 I don’t believe Ms Dickinson claims any medical expertise.
This statement by Ms Smith is 100% wrong.

The Adams study pointed out that if examined within 72 hours of the last alleged assault, 69% of adolescent girls had evidence of the assault.
According to this study Ms Smith would be wrong 69% of the time.

The Slaughter study found and I quote: “Tearing of the hymen was the only finding that was significantly related to age, occurring almost four times more frequently in the younger age group.”
According to this study Ms Smith would be wrong 4 times and right 1 time.

Would you want to be in jail with your life in jeopardy on the basis of  Ms Smith’s expert testimony?

Not one of the studies directly addressed the issue in this specific case.  The accuser alleged that she had penile vaginal penetration for at least the past 18 months. She still had a normal hymen.

Not one of the experts in this case seemed to wonder about the small number of cases in the Kellogg study. According to Ms Smith and Ms Borgman all sexually active young women have normal hymens so the study should have had at least 100 to 500 cases as did the other studies. Instead it had 36 cases BECAUSE having a normal hymen is the exception not the usual finding in pregnant young women.
How many of the young women were having regular relations and how many were victims of one assault? This very important issue was not part of this study. So Ms Smith appears to have reached her own conclusions not even addressed in the study. Why did she so testify? I would expect an expert to be very sure of facts when testifying in a case of this magnitude. After all Keith’s life was at stake.

In view of the literature emphasizing the importance of immediate examination to find abnormalities in victims who allege assault, why was the exam put off for several days?

Why was this not considered important by Ms Smith or Ms Karabeika?

The questions could go on and on, but Ms Smith lied under oath about definite facts that she as an expert should know so any statements she makes should definitely be questioned.

Why was there such a rush to sentence Keith McMullin for a crime any competent lawyer or judge should have known was a bogus charge? Judge Jones knew medical questions were present before sentencing. Why not do the obvious and check on some of the previous cases and with a real medical expert before pronouncing his potential death sentence?
Why is such blatant incompetence by legal professionals condoned in our courtrooms?

These legal experts could have used these studies to inform themselves before ever entering the court room. There was headline news a year or two ago about Dr Death. He was a trained surgeon. He got in trouble by doing operations he was not trained to perform. I see no difference between him and these lawyers. All three are probably well trained lawyers. Why not use common sense to intelligently research a case involving well documented medical facts before choosing to sentence a man to death in prison for a crime they had to know he did not commit?

During our life experience we are fooled for two reasons:
1)      We believe things which are not true. or
2)      We refuse to believe things which are true. 
Both factors were present in this case.

Thanks for your kind attention. Keith McMullin IS INNOCENT.  His case is a true American Tragedy.

Now PLEASE contact your elected persons on all levels of government. Until you and I act, these atrocities will continue in every county courtroom in the United States.
You cannot expect that most politicians will do the right thing unless pressured by their constituents or unless they see some personal advantage gained by their action.

Studies discussed:

Kellogg, Nancy MD Genital anatomy in pregnant adolescents: “normal” does not mean “nothing happened”

Adams, Joyce MD Genital findings in adolescent girls referred for suspected sexual abuse

Emans, S. Jean MD Hymenal findings in adolescent women: impact of tampon use and consensual sexual activity

Teixeira, Wilmes MD Hymenal colposcopic examination in sexual offense

Slaughter, Laura MD Patterns of genital injury in female assault victims



















Thursday, February 20, 2014



                                                                                    20 February 2014

Hi, my name is Richard Oehler. I’m a retired family doctor, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin in 1961. My purpose today is to present a plan to create an American tragedy. Sounds crazy. Just pay attention for a few minutes and see if this scenario might apply to you and your community. After my experience of the past year, I believe it is common throughout the US.

1. First you need to select a horrible crime such as child sexual abuse. This allows some child advocates to lose all perspective of right and wrong. They see an abuser behind every tree. The mere accusation of abuse is enough that some of the zealots have suspended the right to a fair trial.

2. It is helpful to live in a state where your Governor cares more about admitted murderers than he does about honest honorable citizens. Oregon is one.

3. You will need a legal system willing to act with ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence to convict innocent citizens.

4. Next you need a medical witness and witnesses from child protective services who claim expertise in child sex abuse but act ignorantly and incompetently and exhibit no common sense.

5. Also present must be people who are friends and neighbors who know about the case but do nothing because it does not involve their family. Remember for evil to triumph, good people must sit by and do nothing. You never know when you or someone you love might become the next victim of this type of justice.

To learn more about this case here are the references.

State of Oregon vs Keith Allen McMullin
     Case# 12-00400 Clackamas County Oregon

Google: freedomforkeith.blogspot.com

Thanks for helping Keith. I know without any doubt, he is innocent. The medical facts prove it to anyone who has any medical knowledge and experience doing pelvic exams. This is not new science. This is not a matter of opinion. Physicians have known the facts  for at least a century.

Richard H Oehler MD
oehlerdick31@gmail.com


Monday, February 17, 2014




Keith Allen McMullin   case # 12-00400 Clackamas  County Oregon
Google: freedomforkeith.blogspot.com

Substitute your name or the name of your husband, son, father, or brother for Keith. Would you support the Judicial process followed by these witnesses and these lawyers?

On 27 January 2013, Keith was handcuffed and taken to jail for a crime he did not commit.

Why was he convicted?
  1. Christine Smith lied under oath. She knew or should have known that her convicting statements were false. She claimed the same expertise as an MD to do her job.
  2. Judge Jeffrey Jones lied. He is an experienced judge. He complimented the two                                       attorneys on their professionalism during this trial.
  3. Stacey Borgman lied during her closing statement Both she and Judge Jones knew or should have known that the medical testimony against Keith McMullin was false.
  4. Heather Karabeicka furnished literally no defense from the false charges. She knew or should have known that there were cases that had already addressed the lies put forth by the prosecution. Both Ms Borgman and Judge Jones as experienced jurists should have known the content of these same cases.
  5. DHS sex abuse experts all contributed to Christine Smith’s 19 page report. All vouched for the truthfulness of the accuser, Angela McMullin. Ms Karabeika did not object to this vouching. Judge Jones had instructed the attorneys against such vouching but allowed the prosecution to do it anyway. He denied the defense the same opportunity.

Here is an extract from a 7 page evaluation of this case by an experienced attorney, Ryan Scott.

V. Analysis of this case   
A. The medical testimony
To some extent, I am going to blend together my observations about both appellate issues and issues for post-conviction relief, in part because they are tied together.
But the part I want to focus on first is the testimony of Christine Smith of the Children’s Center. She is a nurse practitioner who “evaluates and treats children of suspected child abuse.” Her testimony was fairly typical testimony in these types of cases. She conducts a medical exam to determine if there is any indicia of sexual abuse. In a case like this, where a young complainant is alleging hundreds of incidents of rape, a jury would expect to hear about physical injury. When there is no physical injury, someone like Ms. Smith is able to reassure the jury that a normal exam is consistent with the allegations.
She started off by discussing the Kellogg study. (Tr 311) That study is routinely cited by state’s witnesses as proof that rape of adolescents can still result in normal medical findings. In fact, Ms. Smith relied on the Kellogg study to claim that she would expect, despite the allegations in this case, the physical evidence would be normal (i.e., no evidence of sexual trauma).
I want to stress that the Kellogg study should not have come as a surprise to the defense counsel, or any defense counsel who handles these types of cases. It is a study frequently relied upon by the state’s witnesses, and if a defense attorney had never had such a case before, it would have been entirely appropriate to obtain the testimony of Ms. Smith, or someone who has filled a similar role, in order to find out what studies the expert witness would be relied on.
If the exam shows an absence of evidence, why is it admissible? The state would likely argue admissibility for two reasons. First, it would be admissible to rebut the defense allegation that lack of physical findings is evidence of a lack of abuse. This would be legitimate grounds under State v. Perry, 347 Or 110, 218 P3d 95 (2009). The second reason the state would give is that, even if defense counsel did not make an issue over the lack of physical abuse, it would still come in to counter a possible inference by the jury that lack of physical evidence equaled the absence of abuse. See State v. White, 252 Ore. App. 718, 719 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). If uncontested, this evidence is very useful to the prosecution. A typical juror would expect multiple counts of pre-pubescent rape would result in some physical findings of abuse. The absence of any physical findings could be a great weapon in the hands of defense counsel. But a witness like Ms. Smith can blunt the effectiveness of such an argument.
That is, unless the defense attorney is prepared. There are two things every defense attorney should do in a case like this. (1) Get a defense expert and (2) better understand the science and medical issues better than the state’s witness.
And the science is available. Ms. Smith told the jury that she would only expect a “normal” exam, based primarily on the Kellogg study, which involved 36 subjects. An effective defense attorney could have countered with studies of her own:
Teixeira, 1981, Of 500 patients examined for sexual abuse, 62% had hymenal
ruptures.
Hobbs and Wynne, 1986, 35 victims of anal sodomy, half confirmed by confession,
ALL had fissures and abnormal anal dilation.
Hobbs and Wynne, 1987, evaluated 337 children, 58% girls had findings.
Adams, Ahmend and Phillips (1988) found 57% with Hx of penal rectal
penetration had positive physical findings.
Muram, 1989(a), 16% of (prepubertal) girls reporting digital assault and 86% of
girls reporting genital-genital contact had definitive or specific findings."
Muram, 1989(b) reported…in 18 cases (post-pubertal girls) where perpetrator
admitted vaginal penetration, 61% had physical findings.
Kerns & Ritter, 1992 of 22 patients with perpetrator confessions of penile vaginal
penetration 82% were abnormal. Of 13 patients of allegations and confessions of
only digital vaginal penetration 39% were abnormal.)
Emans, 1994, of 100 sexually active adolescents, 81% had “complete clefts” in the
lower hymen between 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock. Compared with 5% of 100 nonsexually
active girls.
Slaughter, 1997, study of 213 assault victims. If seen within 48 hours, 92% had
evidence of genital trauma. Of 81 adolescents alleging penile penetration, 100% had
physical findings if seen within 48 hours. 55% had evidence if seen within 72 hours.
Edgardh, 1999, Of 59 adolescent girls reporting penetrating abuse, 59% had deep hymenal clefts or vestibular scars.
Heger 2003, Of the 75 girls with history of vaginal penetration or trauma, 47 (62.6%)
were found to have trauma to the posterior forchette and/or fossa navicularis. [digital
or penile]. Hymenal trauma was found in 37 (49.3%) of 75 girls who reported
penetration. [digital or penile] Perihymenal trauma was found in 39 (52%) of 75
cases [of penetration]
Moreover, the state’s expert does not have to be familiar with those studies in order for the defense counsel to ask her about them in cross-examination. See State v. Morgan, 251 Or App 99 (Or. Ct. App. 2012)(“ OEC 706 does not require that the witness being cross-examined be personally familiar with a learned treatise if its reliability is established in another authorized way.”)
This could have been a brutal cross-examination. And not just because there are studies that plainly contradict the Kellogg study. The Kellogg study was deeply flawed, and defense counsel should not have let it go unchallenged. Though Ms. Smith talked about some aspects of the study, in fact the study showed 36 pregnant adolescents (small sample w/ estrogen effect at highest); it was totally dependent on photographs (to see many scars, doctors must run Q-tip along hymenal skirt) ; it had 22% inconclusive reviews and it involved no consideration of enlarged hymenal openings.
In other words, Ms. Smith could have been completely discredited as a witness, if the defense attorney had done the research that every defense attorney should do before a trial based on allegations like this. Instead, the cross-examination of Ms. Smith was largely toothless. It did not bring up any of the studies above. It did not bring up the flaws in the Kellogg study. It allowed Ms. Smith to say again she expected normal findings. It failed to meet minimal standards for what a cross-examination of witness should be.
In addition, it would have been very valuable for the defense to have its own expert on whether there would be “normal” physical findings. One of the best in the country is Dr. Stephen Guertin, and he has flown to Oregon specifically to testify on this exact issue. Had Dr. Guertin or an equivalent expert testified, and had defense counsel educated herself on the science, the jury would have believed in the high likelihood that evidence of abuse would have been present. Instead, the jury was led to believe the opposite. This was grossly inadequate lawyering.
B. “Consistent”: impermissible “vouching” evidence
There was another issue involving the testimony of Ms. Smith which is somewhat more ambiguous legally. She was asked if she noted any inconsistencies in the complainant’s disclosures. She said she did not, and she expounded at length on significant and insignificant consistencies.
There is a well understood rule that “[no] witness, expert or otherwise, may not give an opinion on whether she believes a witness is telling the truth.” State v. Middleton, 294 Or at 438. Lawyers refer to this as “vouching.” That is, one witness is vouching for the credibility of another witness.
I believe Ms. Smith’s testimony regarding “consistency” of the statements was improper vouching. It violated the judge’s pre-trial order that one witness may not testify about the credibility of another. This was indirect testimony on credibility and it should have been objected to. It was not.
I describe this as being more legally ambiguous is because of a case called State v. Viranond. It is an opinion from the Oregon Supreme Court that upheld a conviction when a detective was allowed to testify that a witness’s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements.
The relevant portions of the opinion are also ambivalent. Let me quote the relevant part:
Instead, defendant contended (and continues to contend) that testimony commenting that certain statements were consistent with one another serves no real purpose other than indirectly to bolster the credibility of the witness who made those statements. We disagree. As noted, a witness may repeat the same lie multiple times. We think that, in the context of the specific objection that counsel was making, testimony that the witnesses' earlier statements were consistent with their trial testimony merely established that the witnesses told the same story, true or false, more than once. In support of his contrary position, defendant relies on a Washington Court of Appeals case, State v. Stevens, 127 Wash App 269, 275-76, 110 P.3d 1179 (2005), in which that court concluded that characterizing the statements that two victims separately made to police as "consistent" with each other "would suggest that the victims were truthful and accurate." As we have explained, we do not share that view, at least as to the facts presented here: consistency has no necessary connection with veracity. We find the Washington case unhelpful.
Of course, we do not deny that the prosecutor's hope in offering Napieralski's testimony was that it would turn out to rehabilitate Henderson's and Burgstahler's credibility. That was what the testimony was supposed to do. However, that fact does not make Napeiralski's testimony inadmissible. See Middleton, 294 Ore. at 435 ("Much expert testimony will tend to show that another witness either is or is not telling the truth. * * * This, by itself, will not render evidence inadmissible."). Moreover, the express purpose of OEC 801(4)(a)(B) is to rehabilitate a witness's credibility after an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. That purpose cannot be achieved without some review of witness's previous statements, either in painstaking detail or in more cursory form. The trial judge did nothing more than enforce the rule of evidence according to its own terms. That was not error.
State v. Viranond, 346 Or 451, 460-461 (Or. 2009)
This case is not necessarily fatal to my argument that Ms. Smith’s testimony was improper. First, the case does limit itself to the facts and rationale of that case. It does not say that an opinion that testimony is “consistent” is always admissible.
More importantly, in Viranond, the detective’s statements that the testimony was consistent was permissible given the evidentiary rule “prior consistent statements”.Here, that rule of evidence does not apply. Ms. Smith’s testimony was solely for the purpose of vouching for the credibility of Angela. It served no other purpose, and if not that, then it would not be relevant. It completely violated the rule against one witness giving an indirect opinion on the credibility of another.
Again, though, Viranond does complicate it. And I could spend ten or twenty pages distinguishing between this case and the Viranond case. The problem is, defense counsel did not object to this testimony at all. Therefore, in order to win on appeal, it would have to win as plain error. And the Viranond opinion offers just enough ambiguity that admission of this evidence might be admissible. If it might be admissible, it is not “plain error.” If I were writing the brief, I might bring it up as plain error, but not all appellate attorneys would.
There is some good case law in which convictions are reversed because of vouching, even when the vouching is unobjected to. State v. Hollywood , 250 Or App 675, 677-80, ___ P3d ___ (2012) (court’s failure to strike evidence that violated Middleton rule was apparent error even though the impermissible testimony was not a direct response to prosecutor’s question).
It is also possible that this could be an issue in post-conviction relief. In my opinion, a reasonable defense attorney should have objected to this line of evidence. But it is complicated and it would require a smart PCR attorney and a smart PCR judge.
The potential for PCR relief increases when you note that Amanda McVay was also allowed to testify about what is or is not an “inconsistency.” (Tr 379) Again, no objection. But I want to stress that the big hurdle is persuading the PCR judge that these circumstances are quite different than Viranond, and that the opinions about consistence – not admissible in this case under the prior consistent statement rule – only are offered to convey belief in the truthfulness of Angela McMullin. There could be no other rational purpose, and that testimony should have drawn an objection.
In fact, we see the “consistency” being used for this purpose, in the prosecutor’s closing argument. Not only does the prosecutor rely on the state’s witnesses as memory experts (an expertise for which no foundation has been laid), but she uses their statements about consistency in order to minimize minor inconsistencies and claim the absence of any big ones. This is a concrete example of how the state’s experts were used to vouch for the credibility of Angela.”

Why did Judge Jones allow this to vouching to occur? He refused to allow Mr McMullin the same opportunity.
Why did Ms Karabeika not object?

Why did Ms Karabeika not avail herself of this information before entering the courtroom where she knew what the testimony of Christine Smith was going to be?
Why did this experienced judge and prosecuting attorney use and allow to be used testimony both had to know or should have known was false?
Keith McMullin’s life has been put in jeopardy because of these vicious lies. Just in the last few days 2 convicts were murdered in prison by fellow prisoners. Both were sentenced for sex offenses. 
Are these false witnesses, the judge,and the two attorneys ready to face charges as accessories to murder if the same thing should happen to Keith?

Would you like to be in prison because of the actions of these so called defenders of your constitutional right to a fair trial?

What are you doing about it?

 Contact the media, your elected representatives, and do your best to make this case go viral.


Richard H Oehler MD
6831 SE Brownlee Road
Portland, OR 07267
oehlerdick31@gmail.com