An implausible account of an alleged incident may constitute an incriminating statement

Former Penn State star quarterback and now star witness Mike McQueary testified At a hearing on December 16th that he believes he saw Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a locker-room shower in 2002. The defense has attempted to defuse his testimony by reconstruing Sandusky’s behavior in the shower as a form of education in basic hygiene.

According to a text on investigating sexual assault, an implausible account of an alleged incident may constitute an incriminating statement. “When confronted with an accusation, some suspects will attempt to explain the evidence with a convoluted portrayal of the event. The more complex an explanation, the less likely it is to be true, and the more likely the investigator will recognize the suspect’s explanation as an attempt to explain away unfavorable facts.”
see: Successfully Investigating Acquaintance Sexual Assault
A National Training Manual for Law Enforcement
The National Center for Women and Policing
May 2001;  http://www.womenandpolicing.org/

Star witness describes Penn State shower scene
By Laura Dolan, CNN
December 16, 2011

Former Penn State star quarterback and now star witness Mike McQueary testified Friday that he believes he saw Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a locker-room shower in 2002.

McQueary testified that he walked into a locker room and felt “embarrassed” as he heard someone in the shower. “I looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry with a boy in the shower,” McQueary told the court.

McQueary said he heard rhythmic, slapping sounds, like that of skin on skin.

He said Sandusky was behind the boy and the boy was up against a wall. He said he believes Sandusky was sexually molesting the boy but he did not see insertion and did not hear protests. He said he believes the two were engaged in intercourse but he cannot be sure.

Karl Rominger, Sandusky Lawyer, Suggests Accused Penn State Coach Was Teaching Hygiene Habits
The Huffington Post
Chris Greenberg
December 15, 2011

Sandusky’s defense attorney, Karl Rominger, spoke on behalf of his client during an appearance with ABC27 News. Rominger suggested that Sandusky could have been showering with boys — something that he has repeatedly admitted to — in order to teach them “basic hygiene skills” rather than for any sexual purpose.

“Some of these kids don’t have basic hygiene skills,” Rominger told ABC 27. “Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body.”

When pressed about his showers with the young boys accusing him of sexual assault during an interview with NBC’s Bob Costas, Sandusky made no mention of any such instructional purpose, instead admitting to “horsing around” during showers with the alleged victims.

 

Posted in Pedophiles, Penn State | 1 Comment

Year after year, Penn State missed opportunities to stop Sandusky

Penn State Culture Explained Away Sandusky
December 13, 2011
Huff Post College

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — The warning signs were there for more than a decade, disturbing indicators that Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was breaching boundaries with young boys – or maybe worse.

Yet the university’s top administrators kept allowing, even encouraging, Sandusky to invite some of those boys into campus sports buildings – locker rooms, showers, a sauna and a swimming pool – where prosecutors now say he fondled, molested and sexually assaulted some of the most vulnerable in the place known as Happy Valley.

Too many, from the university president to department heads to janitors, knew of troubling behavior by this revered, longtime coach who founded a charity for children with hardscrabble backgrounds. But at this school whose sports programs vow “success with honor,” the circle of knowledge was kept very limited and very private.

Year after year, Penn State missed opportunity after opportunity to stop Sandusky. Secrecy ruled, and reaction to complaints of improper sexual behavior was to remain silent, minimize or explain away – all part of a deep-rooted reflex to protect the sacred football program.

The fact that so few say they knew is all anyone needs to know about the insular culture that surrounds Penn State – a remote and isolated community in a central Pennsylvania valley, a university cloaked in so much secrecy, in large part, because it is exempt from the state’s open records law, and a football program that has prided itself on handling its indiscretions internally and quietly, without outside interference.

Prosecutors say the only thing that stopped Sandusky, who retired a year after a 1998 allegation was not prosecuted, was when he was accused elsewhere, a decade later, of sexually abusing a freshman at a local high school where Sandusky had volunteered to help coach the football team.

Read more

Posted in Pedophiles, Penn State | Comments Off

Abuse Survivor Martin Moran Responds to Penn State Abuse Scandal

Condemnation, Compassion, and the Complexity of Abuse
Beacon Broadside
December 09, 2011

Today’s post addresses the recent media surrounding revelations of childhood sexual abuse at Penn State and elsewhere. The author is Martin Moran, whose memoir The Tricky Part, was first published by Beacon Press in 2005, and was adapted from his one-man play of the same name, for which he won an Obie in 2004. Moran makes his living as an actor and writer in New York City. He has appeared in many Broadway and Off-Broadway plays, including Spamalot, Titanic, Cabaret, Bells Are Ringing, and Floyd Collins, and is currently playing Dr. Dillamond in the National Tour of Wicked. He is also at work on a new one man piece scheduled to be performed off broadway in Fall of 2012.  

TrickypartSix years ago I wrote a memoir. It was about forgiveness, growing up Catholic, sex. It was an attempt to make sense of the chaos of having been molested as a kid (over a three year period) by a camp counselor many years my senior. I wrote a thoughtful book full of mercy. It went out into the world and I felt relief, gratitude. I felt I’d arrived. Somewhere. Sainthood. Peace.

I have since learned that there are moments I will be knocked to the dirt. The complexity, the half-life of sexual abuse is endless. The most recent and, for reasons I’m still unraveling, most potent sucker punch has come in the form of Penn State.

The media was already at fever pitch when, on 11/11/11, I opened the door of my hotel room to find at my feet, in huge and murderously red-colored print across the front of a complimentary copy of USA Today: “Victim Number 1.” My stomach heaved.

I didn’t want to peek but I peeled open the pages to learn that this headline was a reference, not to Sandusky’s first apparent victim, but to the brave young man (nameless in the news for now) who has been the first to step forward. Who has, with the help of a counselor, a lawyer and (I pray) his family, spoken up and brought his case, his story, to the police. Not yet twenty, this boy was described in USA Today as a hero who, because of his courage, has finally put a stop to a string of horrible crimes. Ended the ‘conspiracy of cowards,’ the countless officials at Penn Sate who remained silent.

I stepped back into my Des Moines Hotel room and fell into a chair. The tears came fast and furious.

*  *  *

On a spring afternoon two years ago I was at my desk, which overlooks the playground of a public elementary school. The kids were out for a sky blue recess, their jackets tied around their waists or tossed to the foot of the fence.  I was in the midst of writing a story about a trip to Italy. I kept looking out the window at the swirl of chirping students and the next thing I knew I had crossed to the phone in our living room. I had dialed 411 and asked for the number of a Southern California police station.

“Please hold for the Golena Sheriff’s Department.”

“Oh. OK.  Thank you operator.” Lord, it was happening. I pressed the receiver to my ear.

Golena. I am guessing it is a small town. Rural. Never been there. It is the last place that I know he resided. Where, perhaps, he still resides to this very day.

It rings twice.

“Hello. Sheriff’s office.”

The voice is female and I’m instantly relieved. Whatever it is I want to say, it seems it will be easier saying it to a her.

“My name is Martin Moran and….”   

My heart is throwing a tantrum: Hang up! This is stupid. And now the brain is off like a shot:  You’re fifty years old for God’s sake! What in the world are you afraid of? The derision of a sheriff? Disturbing Bob’s life? Do you think he could hurt you still, threaten you?  This is fucking Stockholm Syndrome kid.

“Hello?”

Breathless, I am little boy twelve and man of fifty at once.

“Yes. Hello… I am calling… I think someone may reside in your town who molested me when I was a kid. I wanted to be sure, if he’s still living, that you were aware of his… him.”

I’m relieved at how matter of fact I sound. This feels like manly progress of a sort.

“Was he ever convicted?” she asks.

“Yes, Ma’am.  In Colorado. In the Seventies. Not by me, though.”

Someone else did that brave work, I think, but don’t say as I try to quell the voices that chide me: Coward. Wimp. Co-conspirator.

“His name?

“Robert Kosanke.”

And there it is. His actual name. I said it aloud to the lady sheriff and I am writing it here now on this cold December of 2011.  In the 2005 memoir I used a Kafkaesque Robert C______. Aesthetically I loved the mystery of the blank. I felt (still do) this rendered the tale more eternal, universal. Somehow, without the weight of his real name I felt freer, less encumbered in composing the interior story of a soul, in recreating memories from thirty years before. And the publisher’s legal department felt it prudent to make slight alterations to avoid any possible litigation. Fine. It was not a book, after all, focused on blame but on a journey toward understanding.  So good, let’s not sully the page with his fucking name.

 “Still checking, the lady sheriff says.” I hear the clicking sound of what must be her fingernails at the keyboard. I am picturing a small suburban street, a ramshackle house with a truck in the drive, up on a jack, missing a wheel, tools scattered in a driveway, weeds creeping through cracked cement. I picture him gray and slow and bent as he was when I found and confronted him at a Vet’s hospital in 2002. I picture him asking a neighbor boy to help fix a tire on the old truck. Asking the kid to come on inside for lemonade. And, please God, a cop car pulling up to arrest things.

“Oh,” she says. “Yes…yes he does live here.”

So he’s alive!  I had Googled him more than once, searching for an obit or something to pop up that spoke of his demise thinking this would be the final curtain, a welcome closure. But I had (have still) never found a thing.

“We know where he is,” she continues, with a kind of Perry Mason twang. “He is a registrant.”

“What’s that?”

“He’s required to register with us periodically. It’s part of his agreement. He is current, I see.”

“ So you’re aware, I mean, able to–”

“Yes sir. We keep a strict watch on him.”

God, I pray that’s true.  The relief I feel! Someone is doing the job. The job I never did.

Before I hang up she says,  “Thanks for your call, Martin. Take good care.”

Her voice is replete with wisdom, with kindness. Or so it seems and I feel my eyes water, my throat tighten as I think: She understands. Understands everything.

It took me more than thirty years to call the cops.

Back at my desk, I kept lifting my gaze to the window, the schoolyard. Fourth graders, I guessed. Maybe fifth, leaping every which way.  They take turns at coming out for recess. The various ages have distinct qualities of play: Kindergartners all high-pitched cries, flailing limbs. With seventh and eighth graders coordination, deeper shouts and zinging projectiles. I find I often guess at the ages, at the lives of these growing, precious creatures. Sending out a wish that they safely find their way in their own time toward their authentic selves.

It knew it was the ache, the persistent niggling at the back of my head. It was an ancient guilt that brought me to the phone. A duty long deferred? A stab that says:  Marty, if you’d blown the whistle way back when, others may have been spared. How many did he go on to seduce in the months and years I remained frozen in silence. This thought kills me.

* * *

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Edmund Burke.

My shame is ancient. Intractable. Shame that I allowed it to happen in the first place. That I gave in and over to the wild, confusing pleasure of sex with him. It was a relationship of sorts and I remained terrified, frozen in the bond of it. Until I dug down and wrote a book that I know added an honest voice to the paralyzing complexity of childhood sexual abuse. “I never took legal action” I have heard myself say to various questioners. “I took dramatic action.” Still the shame of not having smacked or strangled the guy will sneak up and I have to remind myself again and again that I was a kid and that along the way I have done my best, that it has taken countless steps, year by year, to unravel the damn thing and move toward speaking out, toward healing, toward forgiveness. Mostly for myself.

The recent revelations (They keep coming, don’t they? They are so many) in the issues of USA Today that I held in my hands a few weeks ago made me weep crazily for about a thousand reasons. You may have wept too and or certainly cried out in disbelief, confusion or righteous anger. Yes ‘interests’ were probably being served; grown men trapped in some insane male bastion (Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox Jews, now Football) remained quiet as kids were being violated. There are inexcusable actions and non-actions.

As I sat in that hotel room clutching that oh so American newspaper, I wept for the courage of Victim Number 1. For all the victims. I wept for the apparent sickness of the accused. I wept at my own faults and frailty. But I also wept and weep now because that newspaper I held insisted on painting a black and white tale of monsters and victims, of cowards and heroes. It’s how we like our stories. It’s how we judge and keep human events at a distance. It is terribly difficult to ponder how real and how close, how human and how common what happened at Penn State is. At the fear and greed and desire that can shatter our ethics. Our hearts.

Somewhere between all the black and white, the heroes and victims in the sad story of Penn State, is the gray of frightened human beings caught up in a world of hyper-masculinity and voiceless secrets. It calls for our condemnation. Somehow, it also calls for our compassion.  How else might we learn to talk and so truly learn from these horrific events?  To be truly aware of each other’s human plight?

Posted in Pedophiles, Penn State | 2 Comments

Why did Sandusky’s wife ignore a young boy’s cries for help?

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote recently of the psychology of normalcy bias, which causes us to act as though abnormal things are normal if the abnormal makes us uncomfortable. He explained how “motivated blindness” prompts us not to see what is not in our interest to see.This is one explanation for why Sandusky’s wife may have turned a blind eye (and blind ear) to the plight of the children who claimed to have been raped in her home.

Why did Sandusky’s wife not come to help?Wife: Dorothy Sandusky, wife of the ex Penn State coach, claims he is no danger
Mail Online
Dec 10 2011

The ninth alleged victim said in sworn testimony that he suffered abuse at Sandusky’s hands for years, often in the basement of the coach’s house.

The victim said Sandusky made him perform oral sex and anally raped him. During one assault, he screamed for help knowing that Sandusky’s wife was upstairs, but no one ever came down to help him.

It’s not the first time Dorothy ‘Dottie’ Gross Sandusky’s name has come up in the allegations.

She is reported to have attempted to call one of Sandusky’s  victims prior to his testimony before the Grand Jury. She left a message on Victim 7′s phone saying the matter was ‘very important’ but the man did not return the call.

Posted in Pedophiles, Penn State | 1 Comment

Cries for Help Went Unheeded in Sandusky’s Basement

Alleged victim says cries for help from Sandusky basement went unheeded
By M. Alex Johnson
msnbc.com   12/7/11

One of the new alleged victims in the sexual harassment case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky told a grand jury that Sandusky’s wife ignored his screams for help while Sandusky raped him in the basement of their home.

The young man, identified in the new complaint as Victim No. 9, who is now 18 years old, said in his testimony that Sandusky attempted to rape him at least 16 times, sometimes successfully.

“I took it at first he was just a nice guy, like he went to church every weekend, his kids come over every once in a while and stuff,” the young man testified. “And after a while, like, he got used to me and stuff and started getting further and further wanting — to touch feely.”

The presentment says the contacts eventually “escalated to sexual assaults.”

New grand jury presentment (.pdf — includes graphic details)

According to the grand jury report, victim 9 testified that while staying with the Sanduskys he was instructed to sleep in the basement, where Sandusky forced him to into oral and anal sex. On at least one occasion, the victim testified, he screamed for help, knowing that Sandusky’s wife was upstairs, but no one ever came to help him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

What Does a Child Molester Look Like?

Answer: Like anyone.

One of the public’s most dangerous assumptions is the belief that a person who both appears and acts normal could not be a child molester. We want to believe that normal-appearing, well educated, middle-class people don’t molest children.

Sex offenders are well aware of our propensity for making assumptions about private behavior from one’s public presentation. In fact, as recent reports of abuse by priests have shown, child molesters rely on our misassumptions to deliberately and carefully set and gain access to child victims.

According to Dr.Anna Salter, Ph.D., a foremost expert in sex offenders, “a double life is prevalent among all types of sex offenders . . . . The front that offenders typically offer to the outside world is usually a ‘good person,’ someone who the community believes has a good character and would never do such a thing” (Salter, 2003, p. 34).

In her years of work with sex offenders, Dr. Salter has found they commonly employ a variety of tactics which allow them to gain access to children while concealing their activities. For instance, many seek responsible positions that place them in close proximity with children. They also tend to adopt a pattern of socially responsible and caring behavior in public. Many have practiced and perfected their ability to charm, to be likeable and to radiate a façade of sincerity and truthfulness. This causes parents and others to drop their guard, allowing the sex offender easy and recurring access to children.

In fact, Dr. Salter has found that the life a child molester leads in public may be exemplary, almost surreal in its righteousness.

In her book, Dr. Salter presents the following description written by a child molester who had used his position as a church choir director to gain access to boys.

“I want to describe a child molester I know very well.  This man was raised by devout Christian parents.  As a child he rarely missed church.   Even after he became an adult he was faithful as a church member.  He was a straight A student in high school and college.  He has been married and has a child of his own.  He coached Little League baseball.  He was a Choir Director at his church.   He never used any illegal drugs.  He never had a drink of alcohol.   He was considered a clean-cut, All-American boy.  Everyone seemed to like him.  He was a volunteer in numerous civic community functions.  He had a well-paying career job.  He was considered “well-to-do” in society.   But from the age of 13-years-old he sexually molested little boys.   He never victimized a stranger.  All of his victims were friends.  . . I know this child molester very well because he is me!!!!”

Soon after writing this, the author of this confession was released on parole.  Upon release, he quickly infiltrated a church where he molested children until he was again caught and returned to prison” (Salter, 2003, pp. 36-37).

Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children. New York: Basic Books.

Posted in Pedophiles, Penn State | 1 Comment

NYT’s Interview with Sandusky

In this interview, Sandusky suggested that the children reached out to him for wrestling and hugging. He paints himself as the victim of the police who misunderstood his motives.

Center of Penn State Scandal, Sandusky Tells His Own Story
The New York Times
By Jo Becker
Published: December 3, 2011

 Sandusky, in a nearly four-hour interview over two days this week, insisted he never sexually abused any child, but he confirmed details of some of the events that prosecutors have cited in charging him with 40 counts of molesting young boys. Sandusky met all of the boys through the charity he founded, known as the Second Mile.

Sandusky is quoted as saying: “They’ve taken everything that I ever did for any young person and twisted it to say that my motives were sexual or whatever,” Sandusky told the Times. “I had kid after kid after kid who might say I was a father figure. And they just twisted that all.”

 Mr. Sandusky said he regularly gave money to the disadvantaged boys at his charity, opened bank accounts for them, and gave them gifts that had been donated to the charity.

Prosecutors have said Mr. Sandusky used such gifts as a way to build a sense of trust and loyalty among boys he then repeatedly abused.

Asked about his physical interaction with children who were not his own, Sandusky said that aspect of the relationships “just happened that way.”

“I think a lot of the kids really reached out” for wrestling and hugging, he said.

 

Posted in Penn State | Comments Off

Victim One’s Mother Alleges that School Tried to Dissuade Her From Reporting Sandusky’s Abuse of Her Son

Penn State Scandal: Mother Of Alleged Jerry Sandusky Victim Claims Mistreatment By Son’s School
Huffington Post
Ryan D. Buell
11/22/11

According to this interview with the mother of Victim One, the first victim outlined in the Grand Jury indictment of Jerry Sandusky, she pulled her son from Central Mountain High School.

The article notes that on Nov. 7, Pennsylvania State Attorney General Linda Kelly praised Central Mountain High School for “doing the right thing” in the Sandusky matter. The indictment states that the school immediately called the police when it was informed of the abuse

Mother One said that that description of the school is false and that she removed her son from Central Mountain in part because of the school’s reluctance to take action.

According to both Victim One and his mother, the assistant principal and varsity football coach Steve Turchetta of Central Mountain High School authorized and granted Sandusky access to the boy, despite a lack of parental permission or notification. When the boy disclosed sexual abuse to the school counselor, some of which happened inside the school, the mother of Victim One says that the school tried to dissuade her from notifying the police.

She then took her son to see a psychologist who filed an abuse report.

According to Mother One, the psycholigist called the principal at the high school to inform her that Sandusky was now the subject of an abuse investigation and therefore could not be allowed near the school or Victim One.

Posted in Penn State | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

First lawsuit filed against Sandusky in Penn State child sex scandal

First lawsuit filed against Sandusky in Penn State child sex scandal
By the CNN Wire Staff
November 30, 2011

 A 29 year-old man is suing Penn State University, its former assistant football coach and a charity the coach founded after Jerry Sandusky allegedly sexually abused him more than 100 times, according to his attorney Jeff Anderson.

The lawsuit targets that organization, Sandusky and Penn State University, pointing to what it describes as an “institutional concealment” and “institutional failure” which allowed the former coach to “thrive and prosper.”

Anderson told reporters Wednesday that the alleged victim has come forward in an effort to protect other potential victims.

The alleged abuse of the man, identified as “John Doe A,” was not disclosed in the grand jury report, said Anderson, and indicates the alleged victim was 10-years-old when he first met Sandusky.

“I never told anybody what he did to me over 100 times, at all kinds of places, until the newspapers” reported the alleged abuse, Anderson quoted the alleged victim as saying in a written statement.

Posted in Penn State | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off

Does a Pedophile Abuse All The Children He Has Close Contact With?

Yesterday (November 21, 2011), Brian Williams on Rock Center interviewed a 24 year old man, Frankie Probst, who met Jerry Sandusky through his Second Mile Charity.

See: Jerry Sandusky Scandal: Frankie Probst Says Ex-Penn State Coach ‘Took A Liking To Me
November 21, 2011, Huffington Post

In the interview, Probst states that as a 10-year-old, Sandusky took a special interest in him. According to Probst, he was first eager for Sandusky’s attention, viewing him as a father figure. Later, Probst ended the relationship due to Sandusky’s clingy behavior and boundary violations. Probst stated that, over time, he began to feel that Jerry Sandusky seemed to need to be with him even when it was inconvenient for Probst. In addition, there was physical behavior that Probst found disturbing. Frankie remembers Sandusky showering with him and says there was one occasion where Sandusky put his hand on Frankie’s upper thigh. Probst stated that he removed Sandusky’s hand and stopped returning his calls.

It is important to remember that the fact that Jerry Sandusky did not abuse one specific boy does not mean that he did not abuse others.

As Sandusky himself said in his November 15th interview on Rock Center: “I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped,” Sandusky said. “There are many that I didn’t have – I hardly had any contact with who I helped in many, many ways.”

The testimony of a string of children who had contact with an accused sex offender who were not molested is a common defense strategy for the accused. The success of this strategy is dependent on acceptance of the popular myth that child molesters can’t help their behavior and therefore abuse impulsively and indiscriminately.

Obviously, robbers don’t rob every store they shop in. Likewise, sex offenders don’t offend against every child they befriend. Although sex offenders may feel driven to molest children, they rarely do so indiscriminately.

Interviews with sex offenders reveal that most are selective, picking victims who are vulnerable to be exploited because they come from troubled families. Children with involved, attentive parents are usually passed over. Instead, molesters target lonely, troubled children with few adults to whom they can turn. They often gain the child’s trust and devotion by befriending them and showering them with attention and gifts. Only later and only if the child responds well to the grooming process, do molesters start making “innocent appearing” sexual overtures. The offender will then methodically escalate this type of activity until he desensitizes the child enough to engage in more overt sexual behavior.

Probst’s statement that he removed Sandusky’s hand and avoided him afterward shows that Probst was not the vulnerable, passive child that pedophiles tend to seek out. When a child indicates from his or her own behavior that he or she is not going to readily accept an adult’s advances, pedophile’s tend to look for a less assertive victim. Especially when the child abuser has ready access to other children.

Some children tend to “freeze” when confronted with unexpected behavior from an authority figure. If they are unable to grasp what is going on and unable do anything about it to change it, they may go immediately into a freeze response. This doesn’t mean that they want the advance, but merely that they don’t know how to react or are too frightened and confused to respond. A pedophile uses the tendency for some children to freeze in response to trauma to their advantage by slowly escalating the level of contact. Because the child kept the initial secret, the child may view themselves as responsible for the more overt abuse when it occurs. Later, the child may not only fail to disclose it; they may even deny it if asked directly whether it happened.

In the life of any pedophile, there may be many children where boundaries are tested and the response of the child discourages the pedophile from escalating further. The failure to abuse one child, should never be construed as evidence that another child is lying when they say they have been abused. Instead, the boundary testing should be appreciated as potential evidence of the alleged abuser’s grooming process.
For more information see:

Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect. 19, 579-94.

Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders. New York: Basic Books.

van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Towards a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35( 5), 401-408.

Posted in Pedophiles, Penn State | 1 Comment