The Lorain Head Start Scandal was a series of events beginning in the 1990s and in some ways, continues to this day. On the surface, it was about a small group of children that claimed to have been sexually abused, but over time it expanded to be about so much more. So … Much … More. Although, maybe not in ways you would expect.
We all love a good plot twist in films and television shows – something that makes you want to start the program again now that you can see everything in a different light. It’s rare for this kind of thing to happen in real life but that’s exactly what happened here.
1993-1994
On May 7, 1993, a mother burst into the Police Department claiming that her four-year-old daughter had been sexually abused by her bus driver, Nancy Smith, and a previously unknown male named “Joseph”. She had a lot of details, including other children who had been abused and specific details on what had been done to them.
A police officer had been assigned to the case and set about verifying this information. He interviewed witnesses, including the children (and their parents). He would later tell people that had one piece of evidence that these kids had been abused, he didn’t see it. However, before he could officially close the case, his supervisor pulled him from the investigation and put someone else in charge.
This new officer started from scratch, reinterviewing all of the impacted families and looking at each case with fresh eyes. It wouldn’t be long before they felt they had enough evidence to arrest Mary Smith and Joseph Allen on some truly despicable crimes.
After a lengthy trial, both individuals were found guilty.
So … it’s good that we took some scum of the earth off the streets and put them behind bars, right?
…? Right?
Something Wrong?
Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen consistently said a few things from day one.
First, they both said that they didn’t know each other. They weren’t friends. In fact, to the best of their knowledge, they had never even seen each other before.
Secondly, Nancy was adamant that she would never hurt a child. She was a mother and the thought of something like this happening to any child gave her the chills. She had never abused a child. She had never touched a child in an inappropriate manner. She couldn’t do such a disgusting thing.
Now, I have personally seen quite a few people who had just been convicted of a crime say “Nope, it wasn’t me. I’m innocent” even when there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt.
But, in this case, there was no evidence that suggested, let alone proved, that Nancy and Joseph were friends, let alone kindred spirits who would or could abuse children together.
In fact, there was little direct evidence that these crimes had occurred. To call the evidence produced at trial “circumstantial” might be a slight understatement.
According to Smith, there were a lot of things about the trial that weren’t fair. First off, she and Joseph Allen were tried together, instead of separately as she had tried unsuccessfully to do before the trial even began. While the charges against them both were a little different, the judge denied the request commenting that trying them together would mean that these children only had to testify once about how they had been traumatized, not twice.
During the trial, Mr. Allen’s criminal past was brought up and most experts agree that this was the largest nail in his coffin. Mrs. Smith’s lawyers commented that this criminal history was also a major factor in her conviction as well – even though there was no evidence that linked Smith and Allen, except for these allegations.
Looking at cases like this in retrospect is a bit different than looking at things during a trial. By now, we know what worked (or, at least what worked to gain a conviction) and what didn’t. Lawyers have to put on their best case (or their best defense) and it’s not like they can go back after the fact and say “Had I known this defense wasn’t going to work, I’d have done something differently.” Well, unless something had gone terribly wrong. (And even then, it’s not always a given.)
Lawyers for Smith and Allen both tried to make the case that not only was the trial not fair – so was the police investigation – and I have to say that it sounds like they made some interesting statements. Makes me wonder … WWOBD?
What Would Olivia Benson Do?
Sigh, yes, I know Olivia Benson is a fictional character that has been the focus of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for 26 seasons (and counting). But, I would like to think that her team probably wouldn’t have done anything investigators did in this case.
(Besides, Olivia Benson didn’t even appear on our screens for another five years after this verdict, so … technically … she didn’t even exist yet.)
From what I hear from multiple sources, investigating crimes against (or involving) children is never an easy task. On a very basic level, while children are developing physically, they’re developing mentally and psychologically, too. The way the world is presented to us at that age is often black or white. “It’s wrong to tell a lie.” … “You can trust people in authority, like your teacher or your bus driver.” … “If you sit when Daddy tells you to sit, you’re going to get a peanut butter cookie.” (No, wait, I think that last one is my dog. Scratch that.)
In a now-classic moment of The Judge Judy Show, the honorable judge calls a small child to the stand. She starts by asking the boy if he knows the difference between the truth and a lie. The boy answers and gives a basic definition of truth and lie. She then grabs a pen off her desk and holds it up, asking that if she called this object an elephant, would that be the truth or a lie. The boy, obviously, says that’s a lie. At the end of the exchange, the judge asks, “If I were to tell you that the judge in this case was a young, beautiful woman, would that be the truth or a lie?”
No matter how the boy would answer the question, it proves the same point. Had he said, “Sorry, judge, but you’re not that young (or that beautiful), therefore that statement is a lie,” he’s kind of telling the truth. (No offense, Judy … er, um, your Honor, Miss Sheindlin, say, is it getting hot in here?) However, if he says that this statement is true, is he really telling the truth, or is he saying what he thinks the judge would want him to say, even though it may not (technically) be true.
Which is what happened. (And honestly, Miss Sheindlin, if you’re reading this, this is part of the reason why we just love you so much. You aren’t mad at me, are you? … Please don’t be! … sounds of nervous laughter).
The fact that the boy answered the question the way an adult wanted it to be asked illustrates the point that many make about children testifying in courtrooms – that they shouldn’t.
During Nancy and Joseph’s trial, the largest source of evidence was from the children. Some testified in court giving examples of things they said happened to them, a lot involving “adult things” that they clearly didn’t understand.
Other times the evidence came from parents, who did not witness the events (obviously) but talked about hearing the child say these things happened, or testifying about other events that they believed wouldn’t have happened had the children not been abused in the way the prosecutors wanted everyone to believe.
The Appeals
In the years that followed, both Smith and Allen tried unsuccessfully to appeal their verdicts.
From the outside, once lawyers for Smith and Allen began to talk about irregularities in both the prosecution and the defense, it’s fairly easy for us laypeople to sit back and say something like, “yeah, that doesn’t sound fair” or “no way that should have happened” and yet … it did.
One of the major issues was in how (and what happened when) the children were interviewed. Legally, there was some issue over some materials (such as the videotapes of the interviews, or the videos of the children selecting Nancy and Joseph in the police lineups) that easily could have resulted in a much different trial result had they been turned over to the defense before trial. In some cases, these “discoveries” were not made at all, in other times they were just minutes before they were alluded to in court, which all but prevented the defense to adequately study them, let alone just listen to them.
Judges are very reluctant to throw out a verdict after it’s been made, and probably for good reason. If we made it easy for anyone convicted of a crime to get a new trial if they don’t like the results of the last one, we would probably have non-stop trials morning, noon, and night. It is worth noting that this is true for both sides of the coin – should a trial end with a not-guilty verdict, we’re not going to want it to be easy for the prosecutor to request a new trial.
For us non-lawyers, the number of irregularities and questionable decisions by the police, the prosecution, and the judge make the whole trial look unfair and certainly made us question whether or not Smith and Allen were guilty of the horrible crimes they were convicted of.
Even some in the legal community agreed with that, not that it helped much. In order to get a new trial – they would have had to prove something majorly unfair, and within certain legal limitations had transpired.
And then, that exact kind of thing happened.
The Plot Twist?
Before I continue, please allow me to apologize and explain something. While I have used the names of Nancy Smith and Joseph Allan, I stopped there. Some of you may think this isn’t fair – that I’m just referencing people without naming them – but this story involves a lot of children and they don’t deserve to get caught up in this kind of thing. Even were I to name the parents, it wouldn’t be too hard for anyone to say, “Hey, I know a Karen McAsswipe, I bet it was her daughter who …” so, yeah, we’re not going there.
The mother who exploded into the police station on May 7, 1993 was a very interesting character who was central to a number of important developments in the story.
In most cases, she was portrayed as a bit of a tiger mom who would do anything to defend her children and keep them safe. Most people saw her behavior at the police station that day as a frustrated mother, scared that those in authority weren’t protecting her child. What else could she be?
During the initial investigation, Tiger Mom was often getting underfoot of detectives. They would find her at the houses of other children who rode the same bus, talking to other mothers. If her girl had been abused, she wanted to make sure other girls weren’t. Or, if they were, someone was going to have to pay.
Other times, in public meetings, she would ask leading questions of the other parents. She would then help them remember things their daughters had said, then pressure them to take this information to the police. A few times, they seem to have asked her to stop, saying it was jeopardizing their investigation. She’d calm down for a very short time, but to her, the fact that nobody had been arrested yet, when she handed them their entire case on a silver platter – well, that just meant the cops weren’t doing their job and she was going to do everything she could to fix that.
When her daughter was first interviewed by the police, she stated that her bus driver didn’t touch her. Nobody touched her. But, her mom was there, holding her hand, telling the investigators that she was just scared. The mad man had clearly threatened her. So, with a little coaching from her mom, she finally told the police the same thing her mother already had.
At several points, Tiger Mom’s daughter (as well as all the other children) kept changing their stories, and Miss Tiger was always there with some explanation, some excuse. The child was seeing someone at a distance. The child was scared to tell the truth. The child was confused.
Her behavior continued throughout the trial, and after.
After that, she calmed down some … but never really stopped.
Then a lawyer defending Nancy Smith got a call that changed everything. It was another relative of Tiger Mom and the abused girl. He’d remained silent too long. Tiger mom had claimed her daughter had been assaulted before until it was proven that nothing happened. And now it’s happening again. And many of the details were surprisingly familiar.
The Exoneration
By 2009, a lot had happened. By now, The Innocence Project has gotten involved and they were helping in every way they could. A new trial was granted and nearly every aspect of the case was suddenly put under the microscope.
Exoneration was going to have to wait. For now, freedom was going to come for Nancy during a trial to reduce her sentence. They managed to get her sentence reduced to a time that was less than what she had already served. So, at least she could go home now.
At long last (you know, a couple of decades after this long saga began) Nancy finally got her day in court. Her Innocence Project lawyers argued her case very convincingly. But, so did the State’s lawyers.
It’s hard for courts to admit when they’re wrong, not that they ever actually do this. But, after much consideration … Nancy Smith was granted a new trial. Everyone already knew that the State was not going to put Nancy on trial again, although they all but admitted that the children’s identifications had been manipulated, there were too many facts that didn’t line up, and the exculpatory evidence was growing at a rapid basis.
Besides, the court of public opinion had, thanks to several determined journalists, already begun to shift.
Wait – What About Tiger Mom?
The one topic I haven’t touched on yet … Did the mom lie about her daughter being abused? And if so, why?
The predominate theory is that this was all about a payout.
In other words, if she could get someone to believe that a facility that was supposed to protect kids allowed a predator to enter their midst … she would sue the facility and everyone in volved. It was easy money.
The only thing is – she couldn’t do it alone.
As far as I am aware, the jury is still out on who all was involved, and what everyone stood to gain. But, we’re pretty sure we know who the biggest of the players were. For example, someone in the police had to be helping. Remember how the first detective was just about to close the case saying that he couldn’t find any evidence of abuse, only to be replaced by a new detective who ultimately brought charges? Yeah, that suddenly makes sense now.
Apparently, Tiger Mom had tried it once before the Head Start case, although it didn’t seem to work out as well as she had wanted to.
What brought her downfall again was that, in much more recent history, she tried it again. The stories were just too similar, and too many people had a good memory.
If you think this last plot twist was a bit much, just wait. There’s one final twist.
New allegations have since surfaced that Tiger Mom’s daughter had in fact been abused. Not by Nancy Smith or Joseph Allen – but by another family member entirely. And, she wasn’t the only one.
When I think about this scandal, there are now so many things that are so difficult to wrap my head around. The thought of an innocent person like Nancy Smith spending two decades of her life behind bars for a crime she didn’t commit, a crime for which there had never been any evidence that she had been involved in anything – it’s unconscionable. And if it turns out that Tiger Mom ruined a number of innocent lives, just for some free money – while also ignoring any signs that her child was in fact being abused by someone else, someone close to her – I really want to think that there is a very special place somewhere very warm for her.
This case has been successful at one thing, at least. It’s caused us (and the legal community) to re-examine the way children are treated in the courts as witnesses or as victims. The criminal justice system isn’t perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. And I know there are those who want to use this case to demonstrate why children should never be allowed to testify, but personally I think that’s pushing things a bit too far. I do agree, however, that children should only testify to corroborate other evidence, but only at times when no other course of action is viable.
No child should ever be the main source of evidence presented at trial. But, that’s just my opinion.
Maybe someone wiser than I can come up with a better solution.
