I will add that there are any number of reasons why there are no public records of prosecution to confirm the story.
In order to file a complaint, you must be able to name a defendant. She may not know the name of the person who impregnated her. There may be more than one person who could have impregnated her and she's not sure who it is…
I will add that there are any number of reasons why there are no public records of prosecution to confirm the story.
In order to file a complaint, you must be able to name a defendant. She may not know the name of the person who impregnated her. There may be more than one person who could have impregnated her and she's not sure who it is. She may be afraid of disclosing the person's identity (think Mom's boyfriend or her dad.) She may not be willing to say that she "had sex" with anyone. (We had a case in my town several years ago where the defendant was caught on Walmart security cameras assaulting boys and the boys denied any such thing had happened to them-- even after they saw the video.)
If the person who impregnated the girl is a minor, the case would go to juvenile court where the proceedings almost never get into the public domain.
It may be that law enforcement is waiting for DNA samples from the fetus in order to try to identify the person who impregnated the child.
What I'm saying is that just because so little about the case has made it into the public domain does not, given the circumstances, make the story less plausible if you are familiar with how these cases work.
Scott, my understanding is that Kessler was not checking for a police report or court records, but for a report to child welfare services, which would be filed regardless of whether there was an arrest, a prosecution, or a named perpetrator.
In fairness, I can see why most people would find the story implausible: they don't live in a world where grown men, or anyone else, rape little children; nor do they toil in the field of child sexual assault, as I do.
What really does infuriate me is when people like Ms. Young and others opine with such assumed authority in such a public manner on things about which they know so little.
I have spent time in ERs on a few occasions (minor stuff). On a few occasions one would see a young woman and lots of whispering. Was it about no insurance? Or a pregnancy? Or both. I never knew but... unless the columnist wants to visit an ER undercover she might want to learn to keep her mouth shut.
Honestly, I find it ironic. Ms. Young and Mr. Kessler (and many others) accused the original reporter of sloppy journalism because they wrote the story based on a single source. But it seems pretty clear to me that the journalist critics themselves did virtually zero research to see if such a story could be true.
I mean how hard could it be to pick up the phone and call, say the Cuyahoga County DA's office and ask to speak to one of their prosecutors who specializes in child maltreatment cases for strictly background general information and explicitly not about any specific case?
When I was in fulltime practice reporters would call for that information and I ALWAYS took it as an opportunity to educate the reporter, to help them make sure they were looking for information in the right place and keep their facts straight.
I was counsel for FCCS in the ‘80s, and you and I both know they can’t confirm anything. What was inexcusable to me is that the doctor confirmed the procedure and the journalists pooh-poohed that.
Cathy, if a report to CPS (Child Protective Services) was required under the circumstances, and I assume it was, I would be astonished if the laws of the applicable states would make such a report discoverable to anyone without a "need to know"-- law enforcement, social services, possibly the courts, the appropriate prosecutor's office. It would most definitely NOT be available to the press-- ie, the general public. Even as a prosecutor I often had to go through "back channels" to get reports from CPS on a child or family that landed on my caseload.
Bottom line, no reporter could-- or should-- get access to those reports. That Kessler, you or any other journalist was unable to does not at all mean that they don't exist.
Let me please add here that it really torques me off when people who don't really understand much about that on which they are venturing an opinion in such a public manner as you and Mr. Kessler do so without trying to talk to someone -- like me-- who has some familiarity with what amounts to some relatively specialized knowledge.
Scott, I think you are right on. And I appreciate your sharing your specialized knowledge and experiences. From my vantage point, there are multiple very good reasons why this story couldn't be fact-checked or verified in the typical manner. Additionally, I taught elementary and middle school for fourteen years, and girls beginning menstruation at nine/ten was not at all uncommon. If I read correctly, Mr. Kessler followed up with only the largest jurisdictions in Ohio, but why would we assume the case comes from one of them?
Scott fully nailed it. I’m literally shocked that Cathy continues to argue about this. If you doubt the story Cathy, do the work to disprove it. Do the work to understand the potential issues that Scott is highlighting. Dont continue to bring up random issues, ask him to explain it, then ignore his explanation
But once again, no one is asking for a copy the report to be made available to journalists. All that would be needed is to say "Yes, this case is under investigation. We have no further comment." In fact, it sounds like the response Kessler (or his staffers) got was "We don't have such a case," not "We can't comment."
I really appreciate your work in this difficult field, Scott, as I'm sure we all do. But I notice that none of your examples include a pregnant 10-year-old. And again, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just very unlikely.
You really fought hard to defend a lie. This is not a good sign. And given how new the story really way - you should have let the matter go. Now that the story has been proven true you need to go back to your desk and think of all those who lied to you. It was not the pro-abortion folks by the way.. but the gleeful folks thinking that they had a gotcha moment.
Also add in that the Dr in Indiana can't disclose who the patient was, or any other identifying details - HIPAA. Kessler's reporting ("declined to identify") implies that Bernard had a choice in the matter. She didn't. She could easily lose her license to practice.
Let's also understand why these non-disclosure laws exist - so that these victims names don't get plastered all over the internet and follow them for the rest of their lives.
And yet you made a conclusion in the article about this. You have no idea whatsoever and are just a culpable as the people you are criticizing for spreading misinformation here.
I will add that there are any number of reasons why there are no public records of prosecution to confirm the story.
In order to file a complaint, you must be able to name a defendant. She may not know the name of the person who impregnated her. There may be more than one person who could have impregnated her and she's not sure who it is. She may be afraid of disclosing the person's identity (think Mom's boyfriend or her dad.) She may not be willing to say that she "had sex" with anyone. (We had a case in my town several years ago where the defendant was caught on Walmart security cameras assaulting boys and the boys denied any such thing had happened to them-- even after they saw the video.)
If the person who impregnated the girl is a minor, the case would go to juvenile court where the proceedings almost never get into the public domain.
It may be that law enforcement is waiting for DNA samples from the fetus in order to try to identify the person who impregnated the child.
What I'm saying is that just because so little about the case has made it into the public domain does not, given the circumstances, make the story less plausible if you are familiar with how these cases work.
Scott, my understanding is that Kessler was not checking for a police report or court records, but for a report to child welfare services, which would be filed regardless of whether there was an arrest, a prosecution, or a named perpetrator.
They’re confidential, and not just in Ohio. Journalists are supposed to research laws like that.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/
I hope Bulwark readers can count on an apology and retraction.
Well, that would be nice.
In fairness, I can see why most people would find the story implausible: they don't live in a world where grown men, or anyone else, rape little children; nor do they toil in the field of child sexual assault, as I do.
What really does infuriate me is when people like Ms. Young and others opine with such assumed authority in such a public manner on things about which they know so little.
I have spent time in ERs on a few occasions (minor stuff). On a few occasions one would see a young woman and lots of whispering. Was it about no insurance? Or a pregnancy? Or both. I never knew but... unless the columnist wants to visit an ER undercover she might want to learn to keep her mouth shut.
I'm glad they caught the guy.
Absolutely!
I said the same thing. We should probably not hold their breaths.
Honestly, I find it ironic. Ms. Young and Mr. Kessler (and many others) accused the original reporter of sloppy journalism because they wrote the story based on a single source. But it seems pretty clear to me that the journalist critics themselves did virtually zero research to see if such a story could be true.
I mean how hard could it be to pick up the phone and call, say the Cuyahoga County DA's office and ask to speak to one of their prosecutors who specializes in child maltreatment cases for strictly background general information and explicitly not about any specific case?
When I was in fulltime practice reporters would call for that information and I ALWAYS took it as an opportunity to educate the reporter, to help them make sure they were looking for information in the right place and keep their facts straight.
No, they did much worse than that.
They - for all intents and purposes - said the Ohio doctor was lying.
"It's was single sourced! There's no report available to the public! It must not be true!"
The ONLY logical conclusion from that line of thinking is that the doctor WHO WAS QUOTED/SOURCED was lying.
I was counsel for FCCS in the ‘80s, and you and I both know they can’t confirm anything. What was inexcusable to me is that the doctor confirmed the procedure and the journalists pooh-poohed that.
Cathy, if a report to CPS (Child Protective Services) was required under the circumstances, and I assume it was, I would be astonished if the laws of the applicable states would make such a report discoverable to anyone without a "need to know"-- law enforcement, social services, possibly the courts, the appropriate prosecutor's office. It would most definitely NOT be available to the press-- ie, the general public. Even as a prosecutor I often had to go through "back channels" to get reports from CPS on a child or family that landed on my caseload.
Bottom line, no reporter could-- or should-- get access to those reports. That Kessler, you or any other journalist was unable to does not at all mean that they don't exist.
Let me please add here that it really torques me off when people who don't really understand much about that on which they are venturing an opinion in such a public manner as you and Mr. Kessler do so without trying to talk to someone -- like me-- who has some familiarity with what amounts to some relatively specialized knowledge.
Scott, I think you are right on. And I appreciate your sharing your specialized knowledge and experiences. From my vantage point, there are multiple very good reasons why this story couldn't be fact-checked or verified in the typical manner. Additionally, I taught elementary and middle school for fourteen years, and girls beginning menstruation at nine/ten was not at all uncommon. If I read correctly, Mr. Kessler followed up with only the largest jurisdictions in Ohio, but why would we assume the case comes from one of them?
Scott fully nailed it. I’m literally shocked that Cathy continues to argue about this. If you doubt the story Cathy, do the work to disprove it. Do the work to understand the potential issues that Scott is highlighting. Dont continue to bring up random issues, ask him to explain it, then ignore his explanation
But once again, no one is asking for a copy the report to be made available to journalists. All that would be needed is to say "Yes, this case is under investigation. We have no further comment." In fact, it sounds like the response Kessler (or his staffers) got was "We don't have such a case," not "We can't comment."
I really appreciate your work in this difficult field, Scott, as I'm sure we all do. But I notice that none of your examples include a pregnant 10-year-old. And again, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just very unlikely.
You really fought hard to defend a lie. This is not a good sign. And given how new the story really way - you should have let the matter go. Now that the story has been proven true you need to go back to your desk and think of all those who lied to you. It was not the pro-abortion folks by the way.. but the gleeful folks thinking that they had a gotcha moment.
Also add in that the Dr in Indiana can't disclose who the patient was, or any other identifying details - HIPAA. Kessler's reporting ("declined to identify") implies that Bernard had a choice in the matter. She didn't. She could easily lose her license to practice.
Let's also understand why these non-disclosure laws exist - so that these victims names don't get plastered all over the internet and follow them for the rest of their lives.
Thank you for your comment, I agree.
And yet you made a conclusion in the article about this. You have no idea whatsoever and are just a culpable as the people you are criticizing for spreading misinformation here.
Thank you for your comment, I support it.
Don't really 'Like' this Scott but can't argue with your point. It's a sad commentary on our society.