on Ms. Zimmerman, one of the therapists who saw many children
Now, I think any competent person doing this type of
work, ah, if they're going to take children to evaluate
for sexual abuse, you got these children coming out of
this same situation, you got three right off the bat, you better start asking yourself,
"How do I handle three children and keep the information separate. Can I be
sure that when I go into an interview, I'm not going to
take what I talked to Jamie about and have it in my mind
when I talk to Brian? Am I going to mix up any of the
information from Brian and use it with Dan?" It's going
to be a tough job. You're going to have to be very
careful to keep those issues very separate to make sure
that you don't take a story this child tells you and just
see if it's true by checking it with this child because
then you're going to transfer it over to this child.
It's a question that doesn't trouble or bother Miss
Zimmerman at all because she doesn't even slow down
taking children at this point. Why should she? They're
all abused. Everyone that comes to see her is abused.
She told, ah, when Miss Hollowell went to her in April,
one of the comments -- and this is from Miss Hollowell's
testimony -- one of the comments Miss Hollowell made was
that she told her, "Gee, I just can't really believe this
about Bob and Betsy. I've known them a long time. I've
known Betsy Kelly. You know, they're well-known people
in the community. I just can't believe it." So what did
Miss Zimmerman do? Did Miss Zimmerman say, "Well, we
haven't evaluated your child yet. We don't know for sure
if anything's happened to your child. We're going to
have to go through this evaluation process. It's going
to take some time. It's going to take some patience, and
we'll see. But don't jump to any conclusions. No. Miss
Zimmerman tells her, "Well, you know, I know about boy
scout leaders who have done this stuff, and I can tell
you about leading people in church and things like that,
have done it." Why is she encouraging? Why is she
pushing the Hollowells, "Don't pay any attention about
how good a folks they are." At the first meeting, she
hadn't done anything with this child yet. She hasn't
evaluated this child. She hasn't questioned this child.
She hasn't gained any information about these parents,
about their home, about this child's background. And
what she's doing is telling them already, "So what if
they're good folks. That doesn't mean that they're not
child molesters." Well, that tells you exactly where
Miss Zimmerman is coming from. It tells you exactly what
her bias is. It tells you exactly what her agenda is.
It tells you what her program is. And she's going to
stay in this case all the way through it...
on Ms. Abbott:
Judy Abbott comes in to the picture some time
towards the end of February or the first of March, the
best we can tell. ... Her contact comes
in in two ways: She has a meeting with the S...., the
S..., the B....., the Smiths some time towards the
end of February, ...
Now, we again do not know anything except what we're
being told, about what went on at that meeting, what Judy
Abbott's role was at that point in time. What we're told
is that she's telling people at the meeting that, ah,
you can't expect anyone else to believe what you believe.
They're going to have come it in their own time. You
don't need to expect any thank you's or apologizes for
What does Miss Abbot know about at this point? Why
is she telling these people that they're on some type of
a crusade, that, "You're going to have to wait, it's just
going to take time to make people believe." ...
Now, Miss Abbott also, by sheer coincidence, ...[attends]
a rotary meeting in Edenton. ... Everybody testified she did not
talk about sexual abuse or anything like that or about
child sex abuse. ... And it's a long
list of people that down the road here were saying when
this gets rolling, it's going to end up with Judy Abbott,
and person after person is going to tell you, "How did
you what -- how did you get in contact with Judy Abbott?
Did it have anything to do with the prosecutors in this
case? Did it have anything to do with any investigators
in this case?" "No, no, no. I went to a rotary meeting
which she spoke and I remembered that she sounded like a
good person so that's where I decide to go." And you got
both crowds that ends up there out of that rotary meeting
where apparently, from what everybody says, she didn't
say anything to give anybody any idea that she knew
anything about sexual abuse.
Miss Abbott, keep in mind, is going to run very much
along the line as Miss Zimmerman. And you're going to
see out of her work a lot of the animal stories about
animals being killed, wild animals, and that sort of
thing. And she's also into the satanic ritualistic
charts and those kinds of things.
Doctor Raskin told you with regard to those charts
that he considered them to be very harmful with a child.
You don't get into this sort of thing with a child.
There's no clear-cut reason to do that. Miss Abbott's
idea of a clear-cut reason to do -- that when you have a
child talking about being in out of space and babies
being killed, that you start using ritualistic charts on
them. Doctor Shopper looked at the work and he says
there's no therapy in it. And what she considers to be
the technique or doing things is just things he's never
on therapists in general
Nancy went to Betsy and Betsy said, "Get an
evaluator. Just please don't go to the people that's
already involved in this case. And she did. She had the
children evaluated at Duke University. She never had her
any problem with her children. These are children,
ladies and gentlemen, that were in the same classrooms at
the day care with the kids in this case.
Debbie Forrest went to Duke and an independent
pediatrician up in Charlotte. She never had any problems
with her child. This is a child that's in the same
classroom in the same day care.
Now, if you can make people's blood kin develop
doubts in that kind of situation, what do you think is
going to happen to people who are not related to them in
any way, who have no reason anymore to support them. And
that's where one of the most important things in the
world we have been is to have had some competent,
professional people who understood what they were doing.
People who generally knew something about evaluating a
child properly in a case where there's been an allegation
of sexual abuse. People who generally knew something
about therapy. People who genuinely knew something about
what to look for. Not people that believe the myth that
their children never tell. ...
Now, if you had those kind of people at that point
in time to look at these children, you'd never had this
case. You've eased the fears of a lot of parents.
You've saved a lot of trauma to a lot of children. Not
trauma inflicted by Mr. Kelly. Not trauma inflicted by
Miss Kelly. Not trauma inflicted by Shelley Stone. Not
trauma inflicted by Robin Byrum. Not trauma inflicted by
Nancy Smith. Not trauma inflicted by Scott Privott. Not
trauma inflicted by any of the scores of people that have
been named as being abusers in this case. A trauma is
inflicted by a process of run-crazy therapists running
around with witchcraft charges and messing with the minds
of little children. ...
The end of May is when they went into the therapy process
in droves. Ah, you know, you get different stores about
how everybody got in touch with the therapist at that
point; the Zimmermans and Abbott, ah, Miss Ambrose said
she was given a list by Brenda Toppin to pick from. You
had Zimmerman, you had Abbott Childers, you had Robinson.
You got a list to choose from of who to go to.
And ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that he
told you like it was. He told you about this process,
not of therapy, but of allegation and accusation
collections of procedures and methods that don't qualify
as therapy, of questions that are damaging or harmful of
never confronting or reality testing a child, of having a
single idea from the beginning to the end about what
Now, maybe if you're in therapy, that's okay. It
doesn't have any harm. Unless the therapy process is
fueling the prosecution process. Unless the therapist is
meeting in September to help them develop charges or to
decide how to charge based upon what they've got in
therapy. It ought not to work that way. It can't work
that way. It was not done rightly in this case.
Now, the therapists, the people that we -- we
looked at their work and we told you about their work.
They didn't come here. They never told you anything
about what they did or didn't do. They didn't answer
questions on either side. And Miss Lamb can say, "Well,
the children told you what went on in therapy, or the
parents told you what went on in therapy." Don't you
have some questions about what went on in therapy? Don't
you have some doubts about what went on? Don't you have
some real reason to be suspicious about what's occurring
where a person makes up his mind without ever seeing the
child, without ever hearing the child say anything? Who
never ever contemplates or thinks about the differential
aspect of the case. Maybe it didn't happen. Maybe this
isn't true. Let's examine both possibilities. It was
never ever done. It was always "draw me the touching at
Little Rascals." It was always "tell me about how Mr.
Bob touched you." And these children were shuttled there
week after week to make statement after statement to a
therapist. And on the way going there they talked to
them about what they're going there for. On the way back
they are talked to about what happened in therapy. Mom
and Dad hug them, say they love them. It's, you know,
its an unusual situation. And you have to judge the
quality of those statements that were brought to you in
this courtroom without ever hearing from those people.
At various times
throughout the evidence, including arguments, we've been
on trial, the prosecutors. Brenda Toppin has been
continuously been on trial, sitting over there. The
therapists have been on trial, the parents, and the
children. Everybody in this case that did anything,
tried to do anything, involving the preparation or
investigation of this case has been on trial.
they actually thought there was a legitimate question
about what was done by any of the therapists, if they
thought that once the therapists got on the stand and
were asked "how did you go about your therapy? How did
you question them? What did you do?" If they thought
that would have shown you that somehow the truth didn't
come out from these children, they would have gotten on
that witness stand under subpoena. And you know that
they had stacks of paper. They had the notes and they
had the reports of therapy. We provided them the notes,
the individual therapy session notes, and reports of
every therapist, for every child. And if there had been
anything different -- you know they went through them.
You know that every witness up here was questioned about
them. You know their experts looked at them. If there
had been anything in there where they could have made any
question in your mind about what the therapist actually
did, they would have brought those therapist in here to
say, "Well, didn't you do this and didn't you do that?
That's bad, that's wrong, that's leading." They could
have done that if they thought it was legitimate. They
could have brought in Laura Kelly, Leslie Smith, Joseph
Smith, Frankie Forrest, Daniel Phillips. All the
children that they have tried to say were okay and
nothing happened to them. They could have brought all
those children in if they wanted to. And I'm not saying
they had to or that they should have. But if there's any
question in your mind about what has or hadn't been done,
they could have done that. They could have brought those
16 people in.
home | join the discussion | forum | bob kelly's trial | readings |
summary | profiles of the defendants | tapes & transcripts | press |
explore FRONTLINE | wgbh | pbs online
New Content Copyright © 1998 PBS and WGBH/Frontline