An American Tragedy:  Falsely Accused     Falsely Imprisoned  

My fellow citizens, my name is Richard H Oehler. I am a retired family doctor. Today I would like to relate to you a story that could affect your family at any time. A true tragedy. Listen carefully for these few minutes and then reflect if you would like to have your family destroyed by this type of justice. On Dec 7, 2011, Keith Allen McMullin was charged with child abuse. A crime he did not commit. Case # 12-00400  Clackamas County Oregon Circuit Court.  The charge: He had raped his accuser 2-3 times per week over the past 18 months. She was a 13 year old girl. The last sexual penetration had occurred the day of the report or 10 days earlier depending on which version of her story was accepted. She was examined by a certified nurse practitioner and found to have a normal hymen. This should have ended the story. The case should never have been presented to the grand jury. This did not happen in Clackamas County and probably would not in your county either. Remember the accuser’s testimony. Age 11 to 13, she was raped at least 100-150 times, yet had a normal hymen.  A medical impossibility! How could this case have gone to trial and result in a conviction? I would especially invite any jurors in this case to listen carefully to testimony you were not permitted to hear and the false testimony you were given. Then decide if you would still vote for conviction.

.

Let’s examine the case a little closer. This is a list of those involved plus of course the accused and the accuser. Think of all the money wasted because these people were incompetent to do their jobs.  It will be millions by the time this is finally resolved. But even worse, think of the human misery caused this man, his family, and our community. This type of so called justice is happening all over the US and possibly world wide.

DHS department of human services  In this state child protective services comes under this head. Paid for by our tax dollars.

Office of the District Attorney  This office determines if a case will be presented to the grand jury which usually decides that the case will be tried. They only have the DA’s view of the facts. Paid by our tax dollars. 

Defense attorney  In this case appointed by the court because the defendant did not have funds to employ his own counsel.  Paid by our tax dollars

Appeals attorney  paid by our tax dollars to review cases for judicial error

Circuit Court Judge appointed by the Governor and paid by our tax dollars

Witnesses  Any called as experts are paid by our tax dollars.

Police  This agency should collect evidence to prove the charge or help exonerate the accused.  Paid by our tax dollars.

Grand Jury and Trial Jury  Ordinary citizens called off the tax roles. Considered public service, minimally paid by tax dollars. Completely reliant on the truth being told in order to reach an honest verdict.

The McMullins had been foster parents to 29 children over 13 years. So DHS had been in their home and interviewing them and the children many, many times. They had adopted 4 children and taken parenting advice and classes through DHS for many years. All without any significant problems. When the accuser made her charge, DHS immediately believed her story and agreed with the charge.

Police No immediate investigation was done and no protocol followed.  The officer assigned to the school system did not know that there was a protocol to follow.

DHS referred the girl to the Children’s Clinic in Oregon City for a sexual abuse evaluation.  The exam was conducted 6-16 days after the last sexual penetration alleged by the accuser. The story was believed without question by the “medical expert” and all the abuse team experts in the system who interviewed the accuser. On the basis of a maximum of 1 hour and 45 minutes exam and interview time with the accuser and input by all the others who interviewed this girl for times ranging from a few minutes to a couple of hours, the “medical expert” submitted a 19 page report. No input was received from the accuser’s family doctor or from the counselor the accuser was seeing for issues with her mother. Nor was any input considered from her family. In my opinion, this was a very one sided 19 page report all based on the statement of the accuser by a supposedly unbiased team of experts.

DHS had in their files at least 1 episode of the accuser lying to them before this accusation. After the accusation they had accumulated at least a couple incidents of her lying before the case ever went to trial but this information was withheld from the jury during the trial.

The DA presented the case to the grand jury which accepted his advice that the case should be scheduled for trial.

 Take careful note that all persons involved in this case thus far are recognized as having some expertise in the area of child abuse and sexual assault. I do not expect that all persons involved in all court cases will have a lot of medical knowledge but certainly anyone working in the child abuse field should have enough knowledge and more importantly common sense to know that an 11-13 year old petite child will not have a normal hymen after being sexually penetrated by an adult male 100-150 times over an 18 month period.  If they do not have that minimal understanding of human anatomy, they have no business being involved in a case or testifying as an expert in a case that will potentially send a person to jail for life. Yet it appears that all these experts in child abuse arrogantly believe that they are all qualified to decide life and death issues for citizens of this state even though they lack the basic understanding of human anatomy and reproductive physiology at issue in this case.

Let’s now move to the trial.

First came the accuser’s testimony that she was raped with vaginal penetration 2-3 times per week over an 18 month period.

The next day began by one of the jurors telling the judge that some members of the jury had had difficulty hearing some of the most important testimony of this trial. Did the judge see that the jury would be furnished a typed copy of the testimony?  He did not. Did the defense attorney request such a copy be made available to the jury? She did not.

Several witnesses were called over the next couple of days who testified they believed the story told to them by the accuser. Each was asked about the demeanor of the accuser. Remember none of these witnesses were trained in psychiatry and the expert witness called by the prosecution even stated that demeanor was of no value in this type of case.. None had seen the accuser except for a few minutes to an hour or two at most. When the defendant wished to have witnesses testify to the truthfulness and demeanor of himself and his accuser, the court denied it.  His witnesses had been closely associated with the accused and/or accuser for many days to over 30 years not just a few minutes. The judge ruled that these witnesses were not reliable and could not testify.

The prosecuting attorney, an assistant DA, told the jury that there was no physical evidence in this case and the case would be based on testimony as evidence. This is an obvious lie. There was definite physical evidence, the accuser’s normal hymen. In her closing statement the asst DA again lied stating the defense attorney and I quote “talked about the fact that there is no tearing to the hymen on the accuser. This is a myth. This is a myth, and that’s what the medical expert sat up here and told you. It isn’t normal for there to be any physical findings on a teenager. Why? Because this is what our bodies are designed to do. Ladies and gentlemen, we are designed to have sex with each other.”  End of quote. This was quoted exactly from the trial transcript except I substituted “the accuser and the medical expert” instead of using their names.   The prosecuting attorney also stated that this was not CSI etc. It most definitely was like CSI, but none of the child abuse experts involved in this case appeared capable of analyzing the evidence correctly.

The “medical expert” in this case was a certified nurse practitioner who testified under oath that she was as qualified as an MD to do her job. She further cited that she was licensed for 30 years and had spent the first 27 years mainly as a surgical nurse. She was probably a very good one. She then decided to become a child abuse expert. She further cited as her qualification to be an expert witness that she had been asked to speak at various training seminars for other child abuse workers. These seminars were attended by national as well as international participants. Think of that. Frightening, but it emphasizes why all of these so called child abuse experts are so medically ignorant. A person ignorant of medical facts can only teach ignorance of medical facts.

It was also during this most critical testimony that several jurors complained 3 times that they could not hear. Finally the judge rearranged seating and the trial blundered ahead. No provision was made or requested for the jury to be furnished a transcript of what they had failed to hear. So the jury failed to hear the two most critical testimonies in this trial.  

The expert then testified under oath that she had done a complete exam of the accuser in this case and with input from the team of child abuse experts who testified in this case she had written a 19 page report. She had found a normal hymen in this accuser who had testified that she was sexually penetrated 2-3 times per week for at least 18 months. The expert documented this normal hymen with a video camera designed for such an exam.  This “medical expert” then testified that in this case and others like it, she EXPECTED the hymen to be NORMAL. She cited a study by Nancy Kellog, MD as supporting her expert opinion. The study was of 36 pregnant girls with intact hymens. All were examined from 2 weeks after the last reported sexual penetration up to the time of delivery. Those examined within 1 month of the last sexual penetration were found to have CONCLUSIVE evidence of being raped. Remember the accuser was examined in less than 1 month of the last alleged penetration  She had a NORMAL HYMEN!14 of the 36 given a longer time to heal were still found to have abnormal findings but which did not prove conclusively that rape had occurred. Not at all the conclusions implied by the medical expert’s testimony to the jury in this case. None of the girls in the study had been raped repeatedly as the accuser had testified happened to her in this case. The medical expert further stated that pregnancy was proof that sexual penetration had occurred. This statement has no direct bearing on this case except it is further proof of this so called expert’s lack of understanding of human reproductive physiology.

Let us pause for a moment and analyze this testimony in this case. The medical expert has testified that in her expert opinion she expects the hymen of a petite 13 year old girl to still be normal after 100- 150 sexual penetrations by an adult male penis. Does this mean that she would also expect that all adult sexually active females will have normal hymens after 18 months of sexual intercourse?  Why did not anyone from this team of sex abuse experts contributing to this 19 page report object to this absurd conclusion? Was it ignorance, arrogance, incompetence, or malice? The expert stated that she was as competent as an MD to do her job.  ANY physician graduated from an accredited medical school or osteopathic school who would testify that they expected a petite 13 year old girl would still have a normal hymen after 100- 150 adult male penetrations over an 18 month period should have their license to practice medicine revoked. Let me rephrase that statement. ANY physician graduated from an accredited medical or osteopathic school who would testify that they expected a petite 13 year old girl sexually penetrated 2-3 times per week over 18 months by an adult male penis would still have a normal hymen should have their license to practice medicine revoked.  ANY ONE, I repeat, ANYONE testifying that a petite 13 year old girl would still have a normal hymen after 100-150 adult male penetrations over an 18 month period is lying and is certainly not an not an expert.

The defense attorney was appointed by the court to represent the accused because he was too poor to afford his own.  Approximate cost of a trial attorney is reported to be 150-200,000 dollars. How many of you could afford that? The defense attorney was reported to be an experienced attorney and certainly was. She was on the list to be appointed as a circuit court judge herself. It sounds great for the accused to be represented by counsel like her.

 However, let’s look at her performance. She told him that his chance at trial was 50-50. With her as counsel, it should have been 100% for acquittal. Here are some reasons why.  As an experienced attorney she should have known that the judge was not going to allow him to present witnesses supporting his truthfulness or reflecting negatively on his accuser’s truthfulness. Therefore, she should have strenuously objected to the testimony of all witnesses except the medical expert. After all, the prosecutor said there was no physical evidence. Therefore, these witnesses had nothing to contribute to this case except to tell the jury that they believed the accuser. They had no knowledge of the case except what the accuser had told them. Anticipating the judge would deny this objection, this experienced attorney should have known that her main chance of winning her client’s freedom had to be proving the medical witness was not credible and her testimony was false. How would this be accomplished? The defense needed a qualified medical or osteopathic physician to testify that no 13 year old petite girl will have a normal hymen after being raped 2-3 times per week over an 18 month period. Did she call such a witness? No, she did not.

 Even lacking such a witness she could have questioned the medical expertise of the so called expert by asking detailed questions about her training and experience as an abuse expert. I was scheduled to be a character witness for the accused The defense attorney had my statement that I knew her client was innocent because it was medically impossible for a 13 year old petite girl to have a normal hymen after being raped repeatedly by an adult male. Had this attorney met with me, an experienced physician, before hand, I could have helped her formulate questions to ask the medical expert about the study she quoted and on which she based her expert opinion. Her training, her experience, and her knowledge of human anatomy and reproductive physiology could have been probed. As the attorney met with me for the first time about a minute or two before I might be called to testify, she stated that she wanted me to only answer the questions she would ask me and that I was not to volunteer anything. She stated that if I would not agree to do that, she would not call me as a witness. In other words, withhold the truth which would exonerate her client or she would not call me as a witness! I said that I would be testifying under oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. I also said, if I stated that I knew he was innocent of this medically impossible charge, the prosecution might object but the jury would know that there were questions about the medical testimony. I had the definite feeling that his attorney did not want to upset the judge even at the expense of her client’s losing his freedom.  A week later, after the sentence was pronounced, I approached the defense attorney and asked her for the name of the author, the title of the study, or the journal in which it was published so I could look it up. She replied that she didn’t know off the top of her head. When I asked if I could call her office later to get the information, she said that she had to go, turned on her heel, and walked away. It became apparent to me that she very possibly had never read the study. Any responsible attorney would have had that study almost memorized and have been ready to question the expert about the study. When I later found out she was on the list to be appointed a judge by the governor, it only strengthened my feeling that this defense attorney had a serious conflict of interest. As a matter of interest, this attorney has now been appointed to be a circuit court judge by the governor. Frightening. What are the ethical and moral standards to be appointed a judge?

When I talked to the appeals attorney reviewing the case for appeal, she stated that even if lies were told during the trial, it might not be a basis for appeal. If the defense attorney does not object to testimony, even if the testimony is false, there may be no basis for appeal! This is considered justice in US courts. I understand that a guilty person who pleads innocent, will lie about his case. However, I did not expect that the State would present lies as evidence to convict a person who is innocent. This puts a huge burden on an innocent person who does not know the law or medicine to prove his innocence when he is depending on his counsel to do the ethical, moral, and competent thing. If a gun were presented as evidence of a crime which the police had planted and then testified that it was the weapon used by the innocent accused, everyone would be filled with righteous indignation.  This case is no different. The accuser has an intact normal hymen, a medical impossibility.  The prosecution presented false testimony that this fact does not exonerate the accused. They have planted evidence in the minds of the jury.

The judge in his wisdom did not see fit to assure that the jury heard testimony or was furnished with a transcript of the testimony they did not hear before advising them that they should rely on their memory of testimony they could not hear from the two most important witnesses in this case and on their common sense to reach a verdict. Remember the abuse experts used no common sense and they had heard or read the testimony to be given by the medical expert. How did the judge expect a jury with out any medical understanding except the lies presented to them by the State, to somehow use common sense? He also apparently made the decision that a 10-2 vote was all that was necessary to put a person away for life.

 He then at the sentencing phase congratulated the attorneys on their professional conduct. He further stated that he had received 33 letters in support of  Keith McMullin and had carefully considered them all. Interesting. He had received 33 letters from people prepared to testify that they knew Keith McMullin to be truthful and his accuser to be a known liar. He also had my statement that I knew the accuser’s story to be medically impossible. What this judge was really saying was I don’t believe you 33 solid citizens, but I believe this known liar.

Just a follow up on this case. The accuser, having been trained by DHS and the legal system that her lying will be believed, has now accused another person of rape. I predicted in writing, this would occur but did not expect it to happen so soon,. So we now have the second case of what may become a serial accuser. What a disservice to this young girl struggling with life’s issues.

Governor, you are the leader of our state and a physician by training. You appoint judges. I wrote you 5 times pointing out the medical problem with this case. Your office finally responded and said that when he applied for clemency my letter would be on file. It is not clemency Keith McMullin is seeking. It is justice.

Oregon Board of Medical Examiners This so called medical expert is passing herself off to be as qualified as a physician to testify on medical matters about which she is obviously not trained. She has done great harm to a man and his family by this deceptive assertion. Certainly you should have an interest in the clinic where she works and what type of medicine is being practiced there.

.

Oregon Bar Association Is there no interest in the conduct of attorneys in Oregon by your organization?

Committee on Judicial Fitness Are there no standards for judges to sit on cases involving life time sentences? This individual judge is not the only problem. The system with no quality control over judges is the problem.

In conclusion, if justice is the goal of our court system and this case, the judge, attorneys, and witnesses will step forward and correct this false conviction by telling the truth. However, my prediction is that my credibility will be attacked and court procedures will remain more important than justice. Injustice will continue and innocent persons will continue to be falsely imprisoned here and nationwide.

.

The challenge in attacking my credibility will be in getting a qualified doctor of medicine or osteopathy to testify that they EXPECT the hymen of a petite 13 year old girl to be NORMAL after being penetrated by an adult male penis 2-3 times per week for 18 months and that they think the whole hymen business is a myth and all sexually active girls and women have normal hymens because the female body was designed to have sex.

Child abuse is a horrible crime. The overzealous, mindless prosecution of innocent persons is equally horrible. The suppression of evidence that could have proved this man’s innocence is terrible. But the lying about evidence that would have exonerated him is even worse. This case is no different from the witch trials of the sixteen hundreds after which a number of persons were hung. This type of trial is being conducted through out our country in the 2000’s and has resulted in multiple false convictions.

Thank you for your attention to this presentation of the truth.

 Richard H Oehler, MD

oehlerdick31@gmail.com

If you have any interest in this type of injustice, please forward this to any and all who will listen. Especially any news media who purport to cover stories of importance.