Our guest writer and friend of the family continues. If you missed part one, it is here.

When the allegation emerged in early 2012 that their 5-year-old granddaughter had been molested in their home, Luke’s parents were stunned. They couldn’t believe Luke would do such a thing and couldn’t think of a time when it might have happened. He was hardly ever home when the grandchildren were there, and he was never alone with them. Whenever he wasn’t involved in school, sports, or church activities, he was helping his father on renovation projects at customers’ homes. Children both younger and older than Luke were constantly in the Heimlich home, and no hint of inappropriate behavior had ever arisen from any of them.

The report of abuse came from the girl’s mother, who had recently lost a custody dispute with Luke’s older brother. Luke unequivocally denied the accusation, and his parents had every reason to consider him trustworthy. After agonizing family discussions, the girl’s father took her to a Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC). This was probably unavoidable, no matter whom he initially believed. Failing to report an allegation of child abuse could be grounds to remove both children from his custody.

To a falsely accused person, the mission description on CAC’s website is not reassuring: “Children’s Advocacy Centers are child-focused, child-friendly facilities where children and their families feel safe enough to get the help they need to stop abuse and begin the process of healing.” It goes on to describe CAC’s role in helping law enforcement increase the number of successful prosecutions. The priorities include no mention of seeking the truth.

We have come a long way from the child sex-abuse hysteria that swept the country 30 years ago, when interviewers goaded young children into making allegations that sent innocent people to prison all over the country. But recent research in several countries, including the U.S., has shown that forensic interviews of young children still include too many leading questions, even after interviewers have been trained in best practices. Research results are described starting around the 20-minute mark in the following video, which was produced at Abertay University in Scotland.

Youtube video here.

Cornell University has done extensive research on the suggestibility of children and the accuracy of their memories. The following video, narrated by Dr. Stephen Ceci, shows how hard it is to figure out whether young children are describing things that actually happened. Nine minutes into the video, Dr. Ceci recounts a situation in which he would advise his own son to plead guilty even if he was innocent.

Youtube video here.

In March 2012, Luke was officially charged with molesting his niece. His parents met with a lawyer, who outlined the immediate steps they should take and the options they would have next. Luke’s mother recently showed me her handwritten notes from their first meeting with the lawyer. At the top of the page is “Arraignment – plea not guilty.” The rest of her notes outline all the documents they would need to procure and the procedural steps they would have to take during the coming weeks. At the bottom of the page, she wrote, “2 paths: 1) trial or 2) plea bargain.”

In most states, including Washington, juveniles are tried by a judge instead of a jury. Luke’s lawyer gave him a grim prognosis for his chance of convincing a judge he was innocent. The pain of that experience is still visible on the face of Luke’s mother when she recalls the words that were directed at her son: The judge won’t believe you, and people will hate you for making a little girl talk about this. The lawyer was probably right, but the mother’s heart was broken. A vigorous defense of their son would have little chance of success, and their 6-year-old granddaughter would be harmed in the process. A plea bargain seemed to be the only reasonable option, which is the same conclusion reached by nearly everyone in this situation. About 95% of all criminal court cases end with a plea agreement.

Luke’s lawyer recommended Washington’s Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA). This includes a program of therapy and a 2-year probation sentence, which would enable Luke to live at home, attend his regular school, and play on his sports teams. By the scheduling conference at the end of April, Luke’s parents had decided on this option, and a “Plea & Sentencing” hearing was set for July 30.

On the appointed date, they met with the lawyer just before entering the courtroom. When he showed them the plea agreement with GUILTY printed at the top of the page. Luke’s parents refused to allow it. Until that moment, they somehow thought their son would be pleading “not guilty.” For months they had been referring to their handwritten notes to make sure they didn’t miss a step in the process. The top page was from the first meeting with the lawyer, when they wrote “Arraignment – plea not guilty.”

People familiar with legal procedures know arraignment happens early in the process, but many of us could easily suffer from the mistake Luke’s parents made. I recently searched the Pierce County website to see if the Juvenile Court provides helpful information about SSODA procedures. There I found this FAQ page, which describes exactly what Luke’s parents thought would happen.

https://www.co.pierce.wa.us/faq.aspx?TID=131

What will happen at arraignment? “On the day of the hearing, the youth will plead ‘not guilty’ to the offense …”

Wait. What happens after that? There’s nothing about a “Plea & Sentencing” appearance, a guilty plea, or a confession. It looks like the kid pleads “not guilty” and magically goes straight to SSODA probation. God help the kids and parents who try to navigate the labyrinth with this for a guide.

Luke’s lawyer asked for a continuance, and the plea hearing was rescheduled for August 27, with a potential trial date on September 18. After four weeks of agonizing over impossible choices, Luke and his parents returned to court. As millions of people now know, Luke signed the guilty plea, including a “confession.” Just above the signature line on the state’s standard plea agreement is a box titled: “The judge has asked me to state in my own words what I did that makes me guilty of this crime.” For a sexual offense a lawyer’s typical boilerplate statement is, “I admit that I had sexual contact.”

When I first looked into Luke’s case, I was shocked he had been forced to “confess.” In Washington State, as in most other states, a defendant is entitled to continue asserting his innocence even if he agrees to plead guilty (commonly known as an Alford plea). I eventually learned a 2006 amendment to the adult criminal code took away the right to an Alford plea specifically for a SSODA sentence. The adult criminal code shouldn’t apply to a juvenile, but it seems to be applied in practice. Based on statistics maintained by the National Registry of Exonerations, youth under 18 are three times more likely than adults to submit false confessions. When a 16-year-old boy “confesses” under these conditions, I’d have to say it was coerced.

Of the many falsehoods that have appeared in the media, one of the most damaging was the statement by the girl’s mother that Luke “accepted the plea the day before her daughter was set to testify” (Sports Illustrated 5/16/18). That has been repeated and retweeted countless times to reinforce the image of Luke as a guilty boy who caved at the last moment to avoid a harsher sentence.

Since there are no public documents available to refute that statement, I will reference the 6/8/17 Oregonian article: “The guilty plea eliminated any need for ‘further interviews of the victim or her testimony at trial’ prosecutors wrote.” What further interviews? If the girl had been scheduled to testify the following day, her interviews would have already been done. The point of the plea agreement was to spare her from all of that.

It is long past time for the media to start connecting the dots and ask the girl’s mother a few hard questions. I suggest starting with this one: “Why on earth did you encourage the Oregonian to publish this story instead of pleading with them to spare your daughter from such horrendous exposure?”

There was one bright prospect Luke and his parents counted on through all the challenges and indignities of the next several years. If he faithfully did everything asked of him, he could return to court at the end of August 2017 and have his juvenile record sealed. As promised in Washington State law, “Thereafter the proceedings in the case shall be treated as if they never occurred.” RCW 13.50.260(6)(a)

Luke was less than three months from the finish line when the sky fell on him.

The Sports Illustrated article includes this statement about the Oregonian’s reasons for breaking the story: “Top editor Mark Katches cites competitiveness, public safety and the surfacing of a criminal record of a public figure as factors in his decision to run the piece.”

Before accepting a guilty plea in August 2012, the judge should have turned to Luke’s parents and added a caveat: If your son succeeds beyond your wildest dreams and becomes a target of opportunity for the media, then forget the promise of a clean slate in five years, because the confession we extract from him will be broadcast to the world and will follow him to his grave.

The projected pitching matchups:

OSU – LHP – Luke Heimlich – 15-1, 2.42 ERA, 142 strikeouts in 111 ²?₃ IP
MN – RHP – Reggie Meyer – 8-3, 2.62 ERA, 67 Ks, 103 IP

OSU – RHP – Bryce Fehmel – 10-1, 2.77 ERA, 54 Ks in 97 ¹?₃ IP
MN – RHP – Patrick Fredrickson – 9-0, 1.73 ERA, 63 Ks, 86 IP

OSU – RHP – Kevin Abel – 3-1, 4.13 ERA, 77 Ks in 52 ¹?₃ IP and 5 starts
MN – RHP – Jake Stevenson – 1-1, 5.52 ERA, 15 Ks, 29 ¹?₃ IP

Go Beavs!

Below is the story of Luke Heimlich, from a guest to this blog and family friend of 35 years. It is very long, but worth the read to anyone at all open-minded or curious.

WHAT I SEE IN THE LUKE HEIMLICH STORY

Luke Heimlich’s parents have been my dear friends for 35 years. Since the Oregonian exposed Luke’s juvenile record last year, I have watched in dismay as countless thousands of people have commented on the case, with most of them heaping condemnation on Luke. I am continually amazed that none of them see what I see in the Oregonian story.

I was sexually molested by two teenage neighbor boys when I was five years old, which profoundly impacted me in ways I didn’t fully realize until decades later. There was only one incident, I wasn’t physically injured, and I never told anyone until I was in my forties. Yet 60 years later, I still remember every devastating detail of the abuse.

In the Heimlich story, the girl’s mother said her daughter “doesn’t really remember everything that happened.” Wouldn’t the mother be relieved and thankful that her 11-year-old daughter doesn’t remember being molested? Wouldn’t she do everything in her power to make sure her daughter is shielded from anything that might trigger bad memories? Apparently not. Instead, she cooperated with a journalist preparing to expose her daughter’s reported trauma to the world.

The girl lives in a small town where the family is well-known, and the Oregonian article made her last name obvious. Court documents from the mother’s divorce and subsequent loss of custody are public records that can be accessed online. Did she fail to comprehend this would reveal her daughter’s identity to hundreds of people in the community and to anyone in the world with access to a search engine?

Certainly the reporter had to know, and his story included explicit details from the prosecutor’s charging statement, which would retraumatize the girl if the allegations were true. Sure enough, immediately after the article was published, the girl was questioned about it by some kids in her school. When I was 11, if the sexual abuse I had suffered were publicized in a way that prompted my classmates to discuss it and question me, that would have damaged me more than the original offense.

Juveniles in Washington State are denied certain legal rights that adults have. The supposed justification is that the court will look out for “the best interests of the child.” When the alleged victim and the accused are both juveniles, the best interests of the older child are sometimes sacrificed in an effort to protect the younger one. Luke sacrificed his future to spare his niece from having to undergo “further interviews … or her testimony at trial” (as the Oregonian quoted from the prosecutor’s statement). Now the girl is 12, and by all reports she is happy and thriving in her father’s care, with no sign of lingering effects.

I don’t believe Luke molested his niece, but the Oregonian has abused her in a manner that will have long-term consequences. How will she feel five years from now, when she realizes her uncle’s bright future was destroyed and her grandparents have suffered years of anguish because of something she said when she was six and doesn’t remember? I think she will eventually figure out who has acted in her best interests, but by then the damage will be done.

Part two, after I asked for some follow up information.

As I stated in a previous post, Luke Heimlich’s parents have been my friends for 35 years. Ever since the Oregonian/OregonLive exposed Luke’s juvenile record a year ago, he has been engulfed in an unrelenting tidal wave of condemnation. Much of the reporting and almost all the social media commentary has been based on incomplete, misleading, and/or outright false information.

I don’t know how a human being can survive what Luke has been subjected to. The past year has demonstrated that the world is more heartless than I could have imagined and that Luke Heimlich is the most courageous person I have ever known.

Enough is enough. It’s time to go back to the beginning and outline the facts that can be established based on public records and/or multiple witnesses. In the county where Luke’s family resides, divorce and custody documents are public records that can be accessed online. The following facts are supported by those records, which can be located with a simple Google search. I will refrain from providing the internet link, because the documents reveal the children’s names. Never mind that the June 2017 Oregonian story exposed the daughter’s identity so effectively that she was immediately questioned by some kids in school (an abomination I hope the reporters and editors will never live down).

This is where the story begins. I will outline the events of later years in subsequent posts.

2009
Luke’s older brother divorced his wife. The divorce was finalized in December. There are two children, a son and daughter, and the parties agreed to a parenting plan that included 4 days a week residing with the father and 3 days with the mother. School holidays were to be split between the parents. Based on higher earnings, the father was ordered to make child support payments to the mother.

2010
In February or March, the ex-wife moved from Washington to California, leaving both children with their father. Subsequent court documents indicate she made weekend visits to the children once or twice a month during the rest of the year.

JANUARY 2011
The father petitioned the court to grant him primary custody, and he asked for his child support payments to be eliminated. He attached a parenting plan that called for the children to live with him full-time during the school year and divide school holidays between the parents. The plan allowed for weekend visits from the mother twice a month.

FEBRUARY 2011
The mother submitted her response, which is difficult to interpret. It consists of a form with checkboxes to indicate whether she admitted or denied the “allegations” in the 22 subsections of her ex-husband’s petition. (I hesitate to use “allegations” here, because it’s a loaded word, and the petition doesn’t contain anything I would describe as an allegation. I use it simply for accuracy, because it’s the term printed on the response form.) The mother also checked a box requesting that the father’s petition be dismissed. She attached a proposed residential schedule calling for the children to live with her during the school year and split holidays between the parents.

MARCH 2011
The father submitted his reply to the mother’s response. He asked the court to deny her request for the children to reside with her. In consideration of the fact that she would bear more travel costs, he offered to continue child support payments at a reduced amount. The court subsequently issued an order approving the father’s plan on a temporary basis.

APRIL 2011
The court scheduled a settlement conference for a date in September and notified both parties.

MAY 2011
The father submitted a list of primary witnesses who would testify in support of his petition. The list includes his father and mother, as well as one of his sisters and her husband. There is no record of a witness list from the mother.

AUGUST 2011
The court issued an order modifying custody and approving the father’s parenting plan. The mother apparently capitulated. The court order bears her approval signature, which is dated in July.

The settlement conference scheduled for September was subsequently cancelled. The public record also shows a trial date scheduled for October, and it was cancelled.

DECEMBER 2011
Both children went to stay with their mother during the school holiday. After that visit, the mother told her ex-husband their daughter had described being molested by Luke.

According to media reports, the timing of the alleged abuse progressively morphed from one date span in 2011 to multiple date spans 2009-2011, and finally to a single incident during a new date span stated in Luke’s eventual plea agreement: February to December 2011. There are no public records I can use to verify this information.

The May 2018 Sports Illustrated cover story about Luke includes this statement: “The mother insists that a custody dispute had no bearing on the accusations, saying that she never raised concerns about Luke and her daughter in custody proceedings.” The mother’s statement is incompatible with the timeline of events.

The basis for the father’s January 2011 petition for custody was articulated in a sentence that starts as follows: “The children have been integrated primarily into my family…”

We will never know what actually happened during the girl’s holiday stay with her mother at the end of 2011, but one thing is perfectly clear. That was the end of the “integrated” Heimlich family.