THE WENATCHEE REPORT:   UPDATE
THE SEX RING PROSECUTIONS
September, 1995 - December 1995

Preface
This report update includes events in the Douglas-Chelan County areas for the
period between September 
and December of 1995. It is not possible, within the limitations of this
report, to include all relevant 
information in detail. Nor is it possible to review the events set out in The
Wenatchee Report except 
insofar as such a review is necessary for purposes of clarification. 
At the time of this writing I remain on leave of absence as an attorney
employed by Pierce County. I have 
completed this report based on further investigation, readings and
observations of court proceedings. I 
have taken out loans for this purpose and remain unaffiliated with any agency
or organization. 



					Kathryn Lyon
					Attorney at Law
					4909 Shellridge Road N.W. 
					Olympia, Wa 98502

					(360) 866-8157 (Olympia)
					(509) 884-4828 (Wenatchee)

Copyright 1995 by Kathryn Lyon


Permission is granted for non-commercial replication of or excerpting from
this material, provided that 
appropriate notice is included of its copyright status, as above. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	Introduction.							3

II.	The Criminal Dispositions					4

	A.	Disposition Summary					4

	B.	Updated Chronology					6

	C.	Recent Dispositions					9

	D.	Pending Matters						9

        		1. Some Witness Problems				9                             
		2. Lillian and Adrian (Lonnie) Porter			12

	E.	Robert and Connie Roberson				13

		1.  Factual Background: The State				13
		2.  Factual Background: The Defense			15
		3.  Pretrial Motions					16
		4.  The Trial						17
			a.  Some Evidentiary Rulings			17
			b.  Child Witnesses				19
			c.  Gary Filbeck					20
			d.  Detective Robert Perez				21
			e.  Physical Evidence				23

III.	Governmental Responses						24

	A.	Perez/Social Service Agencies/Foster Parents		24
	B.	Local Government					31
	C.	The Media Response					32
	D.	The Interests of Justice: Paul-Noel Chretien			34
	E.	The Status Quo						35

III.	The Search for Solutions						36

	A.	Governmental Investigation				36
	B.	Proposed Legislation					41

IV.	Conclusion							41



I.	INTRODUCTION




Several cases have been resolved, by dismissal, sentencing, conviction at
trial, or entry of guilty pleas 
since The Wenatchee Report was completed in September of 1995. The trial of
Pastor Robert and 
Connie Roberson has concluded. At least one new case, involving an
investigation by Detective Robert 
Perez, remains pending a charging decision.


Yet none of the matters involving the investigation and prosecution of child
sex abuse allegations in the 
Chelan - Douglas County areas are truly resolved. As a conservative estimate,
more that forty children 
remain isolated and separated from siblings and extended family members,
former schoolmates, churches
and other visible reminders of their former existence. Two dozen adults are in
state prisons as a result of
questionable and apparently unreliable investigations. Even those individuals
who have been acquitted or 
who have had the criminal charges against them dismissed have experienced
permanent damage to their 
reputation and to their emotional and financial well-being. 

The community members of the Wenatchee area remain sharply divided. In the
last three months this 
schism has focused itself on the so-called critics, (those who raise questions
about the reliability of the 
police investigations and the resultant prosecutions), and on the local
government (including 
representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors offices, the Wenatchee mayor,
Wenatchee Chamber of 
Commerce officials and other bodies.) Sharp critical concerns are met by
powerful government denials of 
any possible overreaching and by complaints about the corrupting nature of
outside scrutiny. 




As winter descends on Wenatchee this official posture of defensiveness
threatens to devour the serious 
questions at the heart of the sex-ring prosecutions. More and more, the urgent
need for governmental 
investigations becomes apparent. Also apparent is the need for legislation
designed to preserve the 
integrity of the process of investigation of cases of child sexual abuse. 



II.   THE CRIMINAL DISPOSITIONS
A.	Disposition Summary


Approximately 45 adults have been charged in connection with child sex cases
in Chelan and Douglas 
Counties since 1993. Most of these defendants are allegedly associated with
group child sexual activities.
These matters have received a variety of dispositions. Few of them are
pending. 

Felony charges have been dismissed against 13 defendants. Ten defendants were
convicted at trial. Four 
have been acquitted at trial. One case is pending trial. Eighteen people have
entered guilty pleas. Most of 
these pleas were done as Alford pleas wherein the defendants did not admit
commission of the crime, but 
acknowledged there was evidence sufficient to convict them. Of those who pled
guilty, all but a few 
received serious plea reductions in exchange for their guilty plea. 


Almost without exception the Chelan and Douglas County cases had their origin
with Detective Robert 
Perez.  According to a 1989 Wenatchee Police Department Performance
Evaluation,  Detective Perez 
likes confrontation and likes having power over people. Is like a wound up
wire, ready to spring,.  
Appears to have a pompous arrogant approach.   Is developing a reputation of
being a hothead in the 
community.   Appears egotistical.  Appears to pick out people and target them.
(Attached.)


Nearly all of those defendants who pled guilty and most who were convicted at
trial made admissions to 
Detective Perez. However, of those who confessed, most have recanted their
confessions, claiming their 
statements were the product of lengthy coercive questioning.   (See Wenatchee
Report.)  Most of these 
recantations were immediate. All of the people who confessed were poor and
most had profound mental or
 emotional disabilities. Of those who have retracted their statements, many
have done so at great 
peril to the disposition of their cases. Among those who were pending trial
when they recanted, and who 
did so at risk to plea negotiations hinged on willingness to testify against
others, was Linda Miller. After
conviction at trial, Linda Miller received a sentence of 33 years,
approximately three times beyond the 
high end of a standard range of sentence.

Of the many individuals who, after interrogation by Detective Robert Perez,
acknowledged that they had 
observed other adults participate in sex acts against children, only one, Gary
Filbeck has actually testified
against another. Based on Mr. Filbecks willingness to testify, the Chelan
County prosecutor
prison time.) The recommended length of Mr. Filbecks sentence was said to
relate to the quality of his 
testimony. All of this time might be converted to work release, according to
the prosecutors 
recommendation, although Mr.Filbeck is unable to work. The Douglas Co.
prosecutors office agreed to
 file no charge against Mr.Filbeck although he admitted to molesting children
in Douglas County. Mr. 
Filbeck has two prior convictions for child molestation and indecent
liberties. His attorney, David Bohr, 
was former campaign manager for the Chelan County Prosecuting Attorney, Gary
Riesen, in a bid for
 judge.


The results are summarized below. Those individuals who have made admissions
are indicated with an 

asterisk (*). Dispositions since September are indicated in bold face.


DISMISSALS OF FELONY CHARGES
 #183#	Tracy Hockett
#183#	Nobert Macius
#183#	Kathryn Lancaster
#183#	James Buckley
#183#	Donna Rodriquez
#183#	Pam Kimbel
#183#	Robert Devereaux
#183#	Edward Lyle Knowles, Jr. 
#183#	Edward Lyle Knowles, Sr. 
#183#	Karen Lopez
#183#	William Davis
#183#	Larry Steinborn (2) (upon stipulation to revocation of previous suspended
sentence on former sex offense conviction.)
#183#	Susan Everett





CONVICTIONS AT TRIAL
 #183#	Abel Lopez *
#183#	Selid Holt *
#183#	Connie Cunningham *
#183#	Doris Green *
#183#	Michael Rose *
#183#	Manuel Hidalgo Rodriquez
#183#	Carol Doggett 
#183#	Mark Doggett
#183#	Linda Miller
#183#	Ralph Gausvik

ACQUITTALS
 #183#	Honnah Sims
#183#	Traci Hockett (2)
#183#	Robert Roberson
#183#	Connie Roberson

GUILTY PLEAS TO FELONY CHARGES
 #183#	Allan Hughes
#183#	Gordon Page
#183#	Cherie Town *
#183#	Meredith Town *
#183#	Timothy Durst *
#183#	Joyce Durst *
#183#	Laura Holt *
#183#	Randal Reed
#183#	Idella Everett *
#183#	Harold Everett
#183#	Jacob Bendt *
#183#	Larry Steinborn * (1)
#183#	Sadie Hughes *
#183#	Gary Filbeck *
#183#	Sharlann Filbeck *
#183#	Leo Catcheway*
#183#	Donna Hidalgo (after hung jury on previous trial)
#183#	Barbara Garaas

PENDING TRIAL
 #183#	Kerri Knowles


B.	UPDATED CHRONOLOGY: SEPTEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER 1995.

Note:   Former chronology is included in appendix section, attached. 


9/3/95		Chelan County Prosecutor drops all felony counts against Robert
Devereaux in 
		exchange for his plea to misdemeanors of Assault 4 and Rendering Criminal 
		Assistance. Judge Small. Sentenced to 24 months with credit for time served.
and
		no further jail time, 240 hours of community service. No contact with
minors. 

9/14/95		Linda Miller convicted after jury trial of 8 counts of Child
Molestation 1. Sentenced
		on 11/5/95: 33 years. 

9/25/95		Manuel Hidalgo Rodriguez sentenced on 1 count child molestation 1.
Stated They 
		think Im guilty of something I didnt do. If I hadnt lived there this wouldnt
have
		happened.

9/25/95		Dismissal of pending felony charges, Larry Steinborn, in exchange for
stipulation
		of revocation of suspended sentence for former child abuse charges. 

9/29/95		Trial of  Donna Hidalgo results in hung jury. 11-1 split for
conviction on 4 of
		8 counts of child rape and molestation.

9/29/95		(Approximate.)  D.E. placed in respite foster care after acting out 
in Perez foster
		home. Returned to home after testifying against Donna Hidalgo.

10/16/95	Prosecutor announced D.E. undergoing psychological evaluation to see
if she
		emotionally able to testify. Trial of Susan Everett delayed. Prosecutor
concedes
		D.E, had run away , screaming  and  losing control at around the same time
she is 
		expected to testify at trial.

10/17/95	Trial of Kerri Knowles continued after D.E. acts up, place in
juvenile hall under 
		charges of Malicious Mischief and is placed in mental facility. Prosecutor
announces
		her sister, M.E., also place in mental facility. 

10/19/95	Detective Perez executes search warrant on home, mobile home, and
business of
		Adrian (Lonny) Porter and Lillian Porter based on statements of Donna,
Melinda
		Everett made September 20, 1995 that the Porters took videotapes during
alleged group
		sex acts. Porter children taken into custody by CPS in tri-cities area.
(Note: Porter son 
		returned to home on 12/8/1995 and dependency petition dismissed. Judge at
initial 
		hearing voices concern about Wenatchee prosecutions.

10/23/95	State amends information against Robert and Connie Roberson one week
before trial
		to include new victims and counts.

11/2/95		Conviction Ralph Gausvik after Jury Trial. Four counts child molest
1st degree. One
		count child molest 3rd degree. Sentence 12/21/95

11/7/95		Guilty Plea, Susan Everett to one count misdemeanor of Communicating
with a Minor
		for Immoral Purposes. 

11/8/95		Donna Hidalgo. Guilty Plea to reduced charge of incest.  Sentence
1/3/96

11/14/95	Robert Devereaux filed a two million dollar claim against the city of
Wenatchee,
		Police Detective Robert Perez.

11/14/95	(Approximate) Detective Perez twists arm of foster child M.E., throws
her to ground
		 and sits on her. 

11/14/95	Trial of Robert and Connie Roberson begins.




11/27/95	Guilty plea to two counts incest, Barbara Garaas, following
conviction of fianc#233#
		Ralph Gausvik .

11/30/95	Detective Perez grabs arm, bruises foster child, M.E. on morning of
her testimony 
		against Robert and Connie Roberson.

12/4/95		Stay of proceedings by Court of Appeals, Kerri Knowles, following
motion by pro
		bono attorney, Jay Sandlin.

12/5/95		Dismissal all charges: Karen Lopez. Two children no longer able to
testify.

12/11/95	Acquittal on all counts, Robert Roberson.

12/11/95	Acquittal on all counts, Connie Roberson. 


C.	RECENT DISPOSITIONS


Several cases have resolved themselves since September. The resolutions have
been widely divergent. One 
of the factors affecting resolution of these cases has been poverty. For
example, at the trial of Donna 
Hidalgo on 11/29/95  the defense called no medical or other expert witnesses,
nor did it 
employ an investigator. Defense medical experts were not questioned on the
subject of normal variation in 
the genitalia of the female child. 

At the trial of Ralph Gausvik, a two and one half day trial the defense
counsel, a
public defender, did not cross examine chief investigating officer Robert
Perez. Yet the Gausvik residence 
was first pointed out by Perezs foster child, D.E. on 3/13/95 as part of the
Parade of Homes. Again, the
lawyer did not employ medical or other experts or investigators. 

The impact of these convictions and of the 33 year exceptional sentence of
Linda Miller, also represented 
by a public defender, was profound. Several people accepted plea
recommendations who had previously 
planned to go to trial, including Barbara Garaas, fianc#233# of Ralph Gausvik,
Susan Everett (plea to 
misdemeanor) and Donna Hidalgo (before retrial after hung jury).

A stubborn few held out. In the week of December 4, 1995, two cases were
dismissed: Karen Lopez and 
William Davis, bus driver of the Pentecostal Church. On December 11,1995,
after approximately four 
weeks of trial and pretrial motions, Pastor Robert and Connie Roberson were
acquitted of all charges 
against them, a total of 15 counts. 

D.	PENDING MATTERS

	1.   Some Witness Problems:  D.E.


In mid October, 1995, Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Reisen announced that D.E.
had developed various 

emotional problems that left her unable to testify at the trial of Kerri
Knowles. In statements to the 
Wenatchee World, her foster father Detective Robert Perez indicated that D.E.
might be unable to testify 
in the future. Shortly thereafter, Riesen indicated that D.E. would not be
testifying in future proceedings.


 A court document filed in the Chelan County Juvenile Court on 9/22/95,
indicated that D.E. was arrested 
for the crime of Malicious Mischief 2nd degree, committed on September 21,
1995. (3) She was released to
the Campbell foster home.  (Note: The Campbell home is notable as a residence
where a police officer 

observed a foster parent and fosterchildren watching an apparently
pornographic film on television.) (4) 
 D.E. was released on condition that she attend school, have no further
criminal violations and that she be
assigned an attorney not involved in pending cases surrounding the on going
sex crimes. On September 
28, 1995, Mark Peterson of the Barker and Howard law firm, the firm holding
the public defender 
contract and which handles most of the Wenatchee area sex cases, was appointed
as D.E.s attorney. (6)
 
Detective Perez and representatives of the prosecutors office have
acknowledged that D.E. had acted up 
in the Perez home.  On October 16, 1995, Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Riesen
announced  D.E. was 
undergoing a psychological evaluation to determine if she was able to testify.
He said D.E. had run away
 and that she screamed and lost control and displayed other emotional problems
around the times she was 
expected to testify. (The Wenatchee World. 10/17/95.)  D.E. was ultimately
placed in a mental health
 facility. The government further reported that D.E.s sister, M.E., also a
Perez foster child, was placed in 
a mental health facility around this time as well. Finally D.E. and M.E. were
returned to the Perez home. 


(Note:  On December 10, 1995, D.E. was again arrested for Malicious Mischief
and Assault, again at the
 instigation of her foster parents.)

(Note: This pattern of conduct bears a disturbing similarity to Detective
Perez conduct toward a former 
foster child, D.S. (then 14) who in 1992 resided in the Perez foster home. (7)
As in the case of D.E. the 
Perez home was unlicensed at the time D.S. was placed with the Perezes. (8) On
February 27, 1992, Perez 
charged D.S. with stealing his cigarette lighter. D.S. was arrested and
charged with two counts of Theft in 
the Third Degree. (9) He was booked into juvenile hall. On May 7, 1992,
Detective Perez appeared in 
court at a probation violation hearing alleging that D.S. had failed to follow
the rules of the home. D.S. 
was ordered to serve 30 days, with all but four suspended on condition that
further violations would result
 in immediate detention. (10) On May 18, 1992, D.S. was again detained on a
probation violation which 
included tripping another student in a P.E. class, acting inappropriate in
science class, getting an F, 
acting inappropriate in detention and lieing (sic) to Bob Perez, The 25 days
previously 

suspended were imposed. (11) In all D.S. spent a total of nearly 60 days in
detention for stealing a 
cigarette lighter. 


Less than three months later, D.S. was in trouble again. On July 30, 1992,
D.S. damaged the maple dining 
chair of Detective Perez and was charged with Malicious Mischief in the Third
Degree. (12) In his 
statement on plea of guilty, D.S. said I used a knife to carve a scratch in
Bob Perezs chair. I did it 
because I was angry at Bob for falsely accusing me of turning down the oxygen
supply on his fish. I didnt 

do this so I was angry that he accused me. (13) The Perez refused to have D.S.
returned to their home. 
D.S. was ordered to serve 30 days in juvenile confinement until a bed date was
available at Pine Crest 
hospital in Idaho. (14))

	2.  Kerri Ann Knowles

Because D.E. was not available to testify, Kerri Knowles was released from
custody pending trial. Ms. 
Knowles has steadfastly denied guilt of the charges against her. She made no
admission when questioned
by Detective Perez (see The Wenatchee Report). Ms. Knowles believes that these
facts have made no 
difference to her public defender who has repeatedly advised her to plead
guilty. Ms. Knowles, in fact, 
sees little difference between the choices offered her by her attorney and
those offered her by Detective 
Perez. In both cases she was told that if she were to contest the charges she
might serve a lengthy prison 
sentence. In both cases she was told that she might receive a minimal jail
sentence if she were to admit 
guilt. (15) 


In the case of the legal advice Ms. Knowles received from her attorney this
advise is well 
grounded in fact. The crimes of child rape and child molestation carry
potential life sentences.   Many 
defendants have received substantial exceptional sentences. For example Linda
Miller received a 33 year
 sentence and Connie Cunningham was sentenced to over 40 years. Ms. Knowles
has been offered  a 
recommendation of little or no additional jail time if she agreas to plead
guilty to a felony charge. Yet, to 
Ms. Knowles, the choices represented coercion and her lawyers advice
represented his refusal to believe 
her. (16) She steadfastly refused the plea bargain.



On November 4, 1995, at the request of Kerri Ann Knowles, J. Jarrette Sandlin
associated himself with 
Ms. Knowles attorney on a pro bono basis.  On November 29, 1995, Mr. Sandlin
moved to stay the court 
proceedings pending interlocutory review of the trial courts refusal to grant
a continuance of trial. (17)  
In his Declaration in support of this motion, Mr. Sandlin stated that he asked
for the continuance because 
I view this case as being under-represented...not because of a question of
Attorney Barkers competence, 
necessary (sic), but simply because of the massive amount of work that still
must be done for this action to 
be ready for trial. (18)  In particular Mr. Sandlin cited the need to review
at least 300 pages of 
documents,  and interview over 60 fact and a dozen expert witnesses. He stated
that Ms. Knowles had no 
expert witness, which he said to be an egregious lack of adequate
representations. (19)

Further, said Mr. Sandlin, Ms. Knowles might have experienced irreversible 6th
Amendment 
confrontations clause violations because one of the alleged victims might have
been subjected to 
repressed memory therapy. (20)  Mr. Sandlin also argued the need for an
independent investigator, and 
for further CPS records. Regarding the need for records Mr. Sandlin referred
to Perez destruction of notes 
and to the fact that the court had granted the States motion to prevent
testimony of eye witnesses who 
stated the incidents did not occur. Only those incidents which are claimed to
have happened where the 
exculpatory witnesses were not present shall be examined by the jury. This is
a clear violation of the 
defendant-petitioners right of confrontation, and is reversible error. (21)

Finally, Mr. Sandlin referred to the need for several pre-trial motions
including those impacting the ethics 
of the assigned judges statements about media coverage and the ethics of
prosecutors who have informed
Chamber of Commerce members of the status of on-going sex cases.





2.   Lillian and Adrian (Lonnie) Porter

The latest in the series of sex ring investigations appears to be that of
Lillian and Adrian (Lonnie) Porter.
(22)  The Porters and their children, C.H. (d.o.b. 1/4/82) and D.H. (d.o.b.
4/7/80) previously lived at 810
Cashmere St., in the immediate neighborhood of the Everett family. D.E. used
to come to play with their 
daughter, C.H.  D.H. is mildly mentally delayed and C.H. has a history of
lying and making up false 
allegations, many of which have been determined by authorities to be
unfounded. The Porter home is one 
of the residences pointed out by D.E. on the March 13, 1995, Parade of Homes,
where D.E. identified 
approximately two dozen residences where she claimed she had been molested.
(23)

On or about October 19, 1995, Detective Scott of the Kennewick Police
Department and Detective Perez 
executed a search warrant. The warrant authorized search of the Porter home
and mobile home and Mr. 
Porters place of business, for pornographic materials including videotapes of
adults committing sex acts 
with children. The detectives broke down the Porter bedroom door and took away
photographs and 
videotapes which Ms. Porter maintains did not include child/adult pornography.


The warrant was based on statements of D.E. and M.E. made  to Detective Perez
in September, that 
Lillian and Lonnie Porter took turns taking videotapes of themselves having
sex with the Everett children 
and their own children and others. (24)

On October 23, 1995, D.H. was removed from the Porter home and placed in
foster care. (note: C.H. was
already in foster care.) To Ms. Porters knowledge, D.H. has steadfastly denied
that either of the Porters 
have molested him. A DSHS motion for psychological evaluation and for a
culposcopic physical 
examination were denied by the dependency court judge based on insufficient
evidence to justify these 
examinations. Unless they come before me with a motion and more evidence, the
judge is reported as 
saying, nobody is going to touch this boy. (25)



On Friday December 8, 1995, D.H. was permitted to return home. Both he and
C.H. had denied abuse had 
occurred although subjected to Detective Scotts expectations that the abuse
had occurred and to various 
leading questions. (26)  Further, the judge had indicated that she didnt want
to see this case investigated
in the manner of the cases in Wenatchee. 

The status of the Chelan County investigation of possible criminal charges
involving the Porters is 
unknown. It is notable that Detective Perez has investigated his theory of the
videotape connection before, 
in the case of Leo Catcheway although no videotapes were ever recovered nor
admitted, despite Detective 
Perez direct assertions to the contrary. On at least one instance Detective
Perez appeared before the 
media and pointed to videotapes indicating that they represented the visual
evidence of sex rings. (See 
KIRO TV broadcast with Lori Matsakawa)  Yet Chelan County Prosecutor Gary
Reisen has 
announced to the media that no such tapes are know to him.   Detective Perez
made similar apparently 
false statements to the media about alleged, but nonexistant computor disks.






E.  ROBERT AND CONNIE ROBERSON

	1.  Factual Background: State

According to the testimony of Detective Helvey at the trial of Robert and
Connie Roberson, the Douglas 
County Sheriffs Department first learned of the possibility of sexual activity
between adults and children
at the Pentecostal church in early February of 1995. It was at that time that
Detective Perez called 
Detective Helvey and told him of his belief that there was a sex ring at a
church in East Wenatchee. This 
call was not memorialized in records. 

Officially, Detective Perez first learned of the sex ring, when he, along with
two CPS caseworkers, Katie 
Carrow and Russ Haugen, went to the Integra group home facility at Medical
Lake. They were there, 
Detective Perez firmly testified, in order to interview J.T. about an entirely
unrelated matter, when J.T. 
blurted out information about group sex between adults and children at the
Pentecostal Church. Detective
Perez didnt get around to typing his report until March 13, 1995, because, he
claimed, he was busy and
because the  many children J.T. named as victims were all in foster care and
therefore safe. This report 
wasnt provided by Perez to Douglas County, the site of the incident, until
March 23, 1995. (29)

In the meantime, Perez had picked up additional information. On March 13,
1995, Detective Perez and 
CPS caseworkers Katie Carrow and Laurie Alexander drove around in Perez
vehicle with D.E.  Over the
course of the next several hours, D.E. pointed to various locations
(approximately two dozen in all) where
she claimed she had been molested. The locations included the Roberson home
and the Pentecostal 
Church in East Wenatchee. (30)

The following day, over a six hour period, D.E. enumerated the names of her
molesters and the details

of the molestations, all involving group sexual activities between multiple
adults and multiple children. 
The events at the church , the Roberson home and various local residences,
according to D.E., happened 
several times a week. Roberson would touch and do the wild thing with the
girls and Connie would do
the wild thing with the boys.  As Detective Perez drove her home after the
interview,  D.E. pointed to a 
man walking down the street and said, He abused us too. (31)

Linda Miller turned out to be a ready source of information. She walked into a
police station near the 
Canadian border in the town of Tonasket, after she purportedly was trying to
flee, Linda sat in a holding 
cell for several hours after a hold code had showed up on the police computer.
Finally she was picked up 
by Wenatchee Police officers and transported to the office of Detective Perez.
After an interview that 
stretched from around midnight to six a.m., Linda, who had not slept the night
before and who had eaten
nothing, and who claims to have been threatened with life imprisonment unless
she confessed about 
herself and other, ultimately broke down. When she did, she provided
information about multiple group 
sex activities, including events at the Pentecostal church and other locations
involving the pastor and his 
wife. (32)

Detective Perez interrogated mentally impaired and mentally ill Scharl Ann
Filbeck at the station for 
several hours on May 3, 1995. Scharl Ann has claimed that Perez told her she
would never see the light of 
day if she didnt confess, that she would hang if she went to trial, that she
would die in prison. Finally 
Detective Perez elicited disclosures about  sex abuse rings. On May 11, 1995
Detective Helvey of 
Douglas County Sheriffs office interviewed Scharl Ann Filbeck about her
observations at the Pentecostal 
Church. (34)

Detective Perez then interrogated Gary Filbeck, her husband, who is totally
illiterate. After several hours,
Gary Filbeck admitted to observing and participating in sexual abuse at
several locations including the 
Pentecostal Church. Mr. Filbeck described that Robert Roberson would rape
children in front of the 
congregation and then throw his hands into the air and shout, Hallelujah,
there goes the devil! (35)

On March 23, 1995 Detective Perez turned over the notes of his investigation
to the Douglas County 
Sheriffs department. After a day of  reviewing the records and a couple of
confirmatory interviews, 
Douglas County, along with representatives from the Washington State Patrol
Crime Lab, pulled up 
outside the Pentecostal Church and sealed off the area. They secured the area,
drove off the many food
 bank customers and arrested Robert Roberson. The State Patrol scanned the
church for stains and 
removed samples of carpet and wallboard and many other items for analysis. (36
) The results were 
negative for semen.


.	2.  Factual Background: Defense


The defense version of these events differs in several important respects.
Robert Roberson testified that he
disputed the truth of the States allegations that Idella and Harold Everett
had molested their children. He 
claims that when the Everetts were arrested he went to the Prosecutors office
and confronted Deputy 
Prosecuting Attorney Roy Fore who said that Harold had just made a full
written confession. Roberson 
was unconvinced, because Harold was totally illiterate. At that point Robert
Roberson proceeded to gather
documentation and to conduct his own investigation. (37) 

Shortly after the Everett arrest, Roberson was invited to attend a closed
dependency court proceeding. He 
expressed his wish to take in R.E., the oldest Everett son, as his foster
child. This met with the apparent 
approval of the parties and the court, as well as the CPS caseworker.
Detective Perez was present at the 
proceeding because he had been subject to a motion to remove D.E. from his
home by the attorney for the
Everetts.  Mr. Roberson was told he would need to complete a foster care
application. (38)

A day or two later, Roberson was called by CPS caseworker Connie Saracino. She
advised him that 
Detective Perez told her to warn him that if he took any further interest in
the cases, or if he attended any
court proceedings, he would be arrested for tampering with a witness. (39)
(See attached.)  She told 
Roberson not to bother with applying for R.E.s foster care, as that was never
to be. 

For several weeks, Roberson stayed away. Still, at Idellas request, he
attended her sentencing hearing and 
spoke up on her behalf. As he was leaving the hearing he passed by Perez who
stood behind him. Perez 
said, We warned you, Roberson, we warned you. (40)

In the weeks that followed, Robert Roberson kept a low profile but continued
to investigate the child sex 
prosecutions. At last, increasingly concerned, he spoke out at a televised
public meeting and shared 
information from the file of documentation that he had brought with him.
Wenatchee police officers also
attended the meeting.  Robersons name started appearing on victim statements.
Almost immediately after 
the program first aired,  Robert Roberson and his wife Connie were arrested.
(41)
	3.  Pre Trial Matters


Less than one week before the Roberson trial, the Douglas County Prosecutors
Office amended the 
information describing the charges against Robert and Connie Roberson to
include a near clean slate of 
charges and alleged victims: A.M., D.E., M.E., J.T.,  and the five-year-old
Roberson daughter, R.R.  The 
Robersons attorneys were forced to ask for a brief continuance so that they
could interview the children 
and seek discovery of records.  The magnitude of this prosecutorial action on
the Robersons ability to 
prepare for trial was profound. Robersons attorney, Robert Van Siclen learned
of the amended 
information through a local newspaper,  The Wenatchee World. Connie Robersons
attorney, Bill 
Parker, had not received the amended information on the morning scheduled for
trial. The Robersons 
unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the charges against them based on the
prosecutors actions as they 
affected their rights to adequately prepare a defense essential to a fair
trial. (42)




In the weeks before the Roberson trial, considerable national media attention
focused on the events in 
Wenatchee. The pretrial hearings were well-attended by correspondents from
state and national 
newspapers, including The Washington Post. Several national television news
teams were in attendance
as were reporters and camera crews from Inside Edition and A Current Affair. 
Courtroom Television
was scheduled to follow the course of the trial. And then, on November 8,
1995, NBC Dateline did a one-
hour special on the Wenatchee sex ring investigations. 

On the morning of November 9, 1995, Judge T.W. Chip Small announced his
decision to ban cameras
from the courtroom and from anywhere in the courthouse. (43) His decision was
based, he said, on his 
concerns that the media coverage would discourage victims of child sexual
abuse to come forward and 
 thus allow the silent epidemic to continue.  Judge Smalls words, silent
epidemic, were, in fact, a 
quote from the opening commentary of the Dateline piece. Attorney Robert Van
Siclen later asked Judge
 Small to excuse himself as biased and moved for a change of venue,  when
Judge Small released an order 
including this same language. The motion was unsuccessful. 
	4.  The Trial

a.  Some Evidentiary Rulings


Without the benefit of intense media scrutiny, the integrity of the trial took
a turn for the worse. Defense 
motions were routinely denied, State motions, invariable granted. The court
called frequent sidebars and 
discouraged  on-the-record arguments on evidentiary rulings. Among the
evidentiary rulings which 
disfavored the defense was a motion which limited testimony about the
declarant child witnesses, (i.e. any 
acting out, or other negative behavior which might adversely reflect on their
character.) (44)  The defense 
was severely hampered in its use of experts and lay witnesses. Questioning
could not explore such core 

defense issues as suggestibility or the concepts of recovered memory and its
impact on the reliability of a 
childs statements. Judge Small found that such testimony would invade the
province of the jury. (45) A 
child and a CPS caseworker could not discuss personal experiences or
observations of Detective Perez 
using coercive interview techniques in other investigations because Judge
Small , at a hearing outside the
presence of the jury, found their testimony was insufficient to establish a
habit or pattern of prior bad acts 
on the part of Detective Perez (46) and that their testimony was other wise
irrelevant.

Nowhere were the effects of adverse rulings more apparent than in the defenses
use of expert witnesses.
Dr. Lee Coleman, a psychiatrist from Berkeley, California, was called by the
defense to discuss generally
the nature and reliability of medical examinations of child genital organs,
and his interpretations of the 
medical evidence in this case. Dr. Coleman testified at an admissibility
motion outside the presence of the 
jury, that he had never himself performed a culposcope examination but that he
had reviewed hundreds of 
culposcopic slides, read extensively from medical literature, and wrote and
lectured on the subject. His 
testimony was excluded for purposed of rendering an opinion.(47)  Faced with
the fragments of his 
testimony which the court  would allow (the nature of the culposcope
instrument, and limited testimony 
on the range of normal variation in the childs genital anatomy) the defense
team decided not to call Dr
 Coleman to testify. 


 Another defense expert, Dr. Deborah Harper corroborated some of the
prosecutors medical  testimony 
but disputed other testimony. Yet the significance of the medical evidence as
it related to the Roberson
s remained unclear because all of those children except R.R. had claimed to
have been molested in the 
past and R.R. showed no medical findings consistent with abuse.  Still, the
court found the medical 
evidence to be more probative of guilt and prejudicial to the defense.

Professor John Yuille, a psychologist, was called by the defense to testify
about factors affecting the 
reliability of childrens disclosures. Based on the judges previous rulings,
the defense did not attempt to 
elicit statements rendering an opinion on the specific methodology used in
this case. Instead the testimony 
was offered in a general way to establish factors affecting the reliability of
the interview process and how 
they might bear on the facts at hand. Judge Small permitted only limited
testimony, not permitting 
Professor Yuille to cross into the areas of suggestibility,  memory or of
cross-contamination of childrens 
statements after they had been interviewed by police in the presence of each
other, because that would be 
invading the province of the jury. (48) Professor Yuille testified briefly,
the quality of his testimony 
effectively emasculated by the judges rulings. 


Central to the defense theory was the argument that the cases in Douglas
County had originated in Chelan 
County and they had all been contaminated by the methods employed by Detective
Perez. Prosecutors 
Steve Clem and Eric Biggars strenuously objected that the investigations were
entirely distinct and the 
defense was merely trying to shift the focus from the abuse of children to the
controversial methods of 
Detective  Perez. Defense attorney Robert Van Siclen argued that most of  the
child complainants, with 
the exception of R.R., had made initial disclosures about sexual abuse to
Detective Perez. However, 
Judge Small ruled that only J.T. and D.E. had made their very first
disclosures to Perez about the 
Robersons.  Because the testimony of D.E. wasnt offered, either in person or
through hearsay, the nature 
of Perez questioning of D.E. was barred as irrelevant. (49)  As to A.M. and
M.E., counsel was allowed to
establish only that Perez was a foster parent and the dates and frequency of
his contacts with A.M. and 
M.E., as well as Perez background and experience in conducting interviews.
According to Judge Smalls 
ruling, J.T., who first made disclosures about the Robersons to Perez, was the
only relevant one, where 
Perez could be questioned about his interview methodology. 


In a motion outside the presence of the jury regarding questioning of Perez,
defense attorney Bill Parker 
spoke to the judges ruling. I think this is just getting so absurd to me when
what youre saying is

because theres no taped interview we cant go in and ask questions about the
interview because thats 
misleading to the jury. Now if we had videotapes or if we had audiotapes or if
we had an accurate record 
of these interviews, you know, that would probably come into evidence...I
believe the defendants are being 
denied a fair trial by not being able to go into how these interviews were
done, going all the way back to 
the beginning when police and CPS were involved with these kids. (50)


Judge Small responded that The court still believes its being generous in
allowing questioning about 
even the other contacts or anything else because its such a tenuous thread to
attack the credibility of an 
eyewitness that comes before the jury...And to suggest that somehow an
investigation of another case 
somehow taints what things theyre saying on the stand is tenuous at best.
(51).

	B.  Child Witnesses


Of the many dozen children that D.E. and others claimed were victims of abuse
at the Pentecostal Church
only five were named as victims at trial. Of these, two (D.E. and M.E.) are
Perez foster children, and 
A.M. was their friend. Also named was J.T. (a child with severe mental
limitations and predisposition to 
fantasize), and the Robersons five year old daughter, R.R.  Of these children,
two, (A.M. and J.T.) 
testified abstractly, marking on drawings the locations where they had been
touched and the part of the 
anatomy they had been touched with. A.M. acknowledged that she had described
the same type of 
touching, in the bathroom as she was pulling up her panties, about another
individual. J.T. initially 
pointed out his assailant as defense attorney Van Siclen. He testified that
the acts occurred at a time when
he was out of town in a group home. 

C.M. testified with specificity, about her molestation and that of others, but
she was not named as a 
victim. C.M. admitted in cross examination that she and her sister, A.M., had
made a false allegation 
about sexual abuse in the past. 

M.E. provided a variety of details about orgiastic sexual molestation
perpetuated by 20 to 30 adults on 
several children at the church. She described that the children had been tied
up and blindfolded and raped 
multiple times on multiple occasions. This testimony differed in several
important respects from her 
previous statements which were made in the presence of her sister D.E. to a
police officer and a CPS 
caseworker. 

In rebuttal, the defense brought in several children who had frequently
attended the Pentecostal church 
and who M.E. had named as victims or witnesses. All of these children denied
any knowledge of sexual
                
activities and said that they would report abuse if it had happened to them.
Many of the children said that 
they had not been questioned by the police. 

D.E. didnt testify at all. Nor were her hearsay statements introduced.
Instead, all testimony about her was 
introduced through eyewitnesses and medical evidence. This ruling left the
defense in the difficult posture 
of having no means of dealing with the factors of bias or credibility that are
normally inherent in our 
rights of confrontation. Worse, the defense had no opportunity to explore her
very problematic 
relationship with Detective Robert Perez, since her testimony was not
introduced in any manner. 

R.R. firmly denied that her parents had molested her. However, under
Washington law because she is a 
child under the age of ten, the State may attempt to introduce child hearsay
as substantive evidence. (52)
The court so ruled, allowing her foster mother, her therapist and an
interviewer from the prosecutors 
office to introduce such ambiguous evidence as a stick drawing by R.R. of R.R.
lying on top of her father 
(a drawing which bears remarkable similarity to a photograph introduced by the
defense which depicts 
R.R. asleep on a sleeping fathers chest, a photograph which hung over the
couch in their home.)  Also 
introduced as hearsay was R.R.s statement that her father had kissed her with
his tongue in her mouth, 
and an observation by her foster mother that she was lying on an older foster
girl and moving her body 
rhythmically while she watched t.v.   When asked what she had been doing. R.R.
said she had been 

humping which she said her father had done to her. R.R. did not define the
term. Also introduced was 
the hearsay statement by R.R. that her father had tied her up so that her rear
end was in the air. 

On cross, the defense established that these disclosures were elicited in the
days after a court had ruled 
that R.R. would be removed from foster care and placed in relative placement.
The frequency of therapy 
was stepped up at that time and R.R. was shown books with explicit drawings
about sexual acts to 
facilitate her comfort level in making disclosures. The foster parent
testified that R.R. had been too 
perfect when she first came to her home but she had become normal after being
around her nine or 
more foster children from troubled families. 


The defense was not permitted to inquire into the specific nature of the
childrens therapy. For example, 
the defense could not establish whether the controversial  repressed/recovered
memory technique was
 used.  Yet C.M. said she had previously denied being molested because I
pushed it so far down inside of 
me I didnt remember it at first.  On cross, she said therapy had helped bring
her memory back - I used 
to be closing doors said the 12 year-old-girl. Now Im opening them.

	C.  Gary Filbeck

Although Chelan County prosecutor, Gary Riesen, testified at the Roberson
trial that Gary Filbeck 
was very credible, that question was debated by counsel.  Mr. Filbeck is
illiterate and , under 
questioning, said he didnt know what a lie is and was unfamiliar with the
months of the year. His 
testimony diverged from his previous police statements, (ritualistic rapes at
the alter followed by shouts of 
Hallelujah, there goes the devil!) (53) and he said his view of Robersons
activities was blocked by 
Robersons body.

Although Filbeck was apparently unable to articulate the nature of his plea
agreement, the arrangement 
was brought out through the testimony of Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Riesen.
Although Mr. Filbeck 
had two previous convictions for sexual offenses against children, he was
offered an exceptional sentence 
downward (under 12 months) which he could serve in work release, although Mr.
Filbeck is unemployed.
This arrangement was agreed upon because Mr. Filbeck was perceived as a
valuable eyewitness. 
	D.  Detective Robert Perez

Detective Perez testified on December 7, 1995, that he was in his 12th year
with the Wenatchee Police 
Department. Although he stated he was licensed as a foster parent at the time
D.E. was placed in his home 
on March 23, 1995, foster care records indicate this is not the case. Although
Perez testified that he 
graduated from the police academy in 1993, he acknowledged his training in
investigating child physical 
and sexual abuse was limited to a three day course in 1994, put on by the
Washington State Criminal 
Justice Training Commission. He testified that he could not recall any
specific training regarding 
interviewing children. He did however learn about child interviews in a
general way at the three day 
course in 1994, which was conducted by CPS supervisor Tim Abbey, a Chelan
County Prosecuting 
Attorney, the Chelan County coroner, a Wenatchee Police Officer and a defense
attorney. Detective Perez 
acknowledged that he hadnt done any further study on the subject, had not read
or reviewed any articles
or treatises on sexual abuse, and wasnt aware of any training manuals or
protocols on the subject. 


Although Detective Perez testified that among the major rules of a child
interview are: to avoid leading 
questions; to avoid telling a child the specifics of what another victim or
suspect said; and to avoid 
violating the childs personal space by standing or hovering over the child,
this methodology sharply 
differs from statements of children and adult observers of the Perez interview
methodology. (See,  The 
Wenatchee Report.) At motion, outside the presence of the jury, K.A., a
juvenile, testified that Perez had 
told her what he believed to be true: that  named people had molested her . He
picked up the telephone 
and told her he would have her mother arrested  in ten minutes if she didnt
tell. Former CPS caseworker 
Juan Garcia testified that he had observed an interview where Perez threatened
a child and confronted the
 child with information he believed was true. The testimony of K.A. and Juan
Garcia was deemed 
inadmissable on relevancy grounds.

Detective Perez testified that he went to see J.T. on March 3, 1995, at the
Integra facility in Medical Lake,
Washington along with CPS caseworker Katie Carrow and her husband and CPS
caseworker, Russ 
Haugen. The interview began at 10:45 A.M. and ended at 2:40 P.M.  Detective
Perez did not take notes, 
but he obtained copies of Ms. Carrows notes and then threw them away. 

Detective Perez wrote his report on March 11, 1995, eight days later and did
not otherwise report the 
disclosure in writing in accordance with statute.  Perez denied that he had no
knowledge of sexual abuse 
occurring at the church on that occasion, although this may be inconsistent
with the testimony of 
Detective Helvey of Douglas County Sheriffs Department. Perez testified that
he did not believe the many 
abuse victims named by J.T.  as being abused at the Pentecostal church,  were
in danger because they were
 already in foster care.

Detective Perez testified that a week after M.E. came to live in his home, he
and his wife Luci took her 
and D.E. to Disneyland. He said he has bought her various toys and gifts, and
that the family lives in a 
home with a pond and an in-ground swimming pool. D.E. and M.E. by contrast
lived with their parents in
 a tiny home under circumstances of extreme poverty. 


Detective Perez testified that within the last few weeks he and his wife
attended a meeting with M.E.s 

guardian ad litem, her case worker and her counselor regarding difficulties
M.E. was experiencing in the 

Perez home.  He acknowledged that in the opinion of some of those present M.E.
was not happy in his 

home. When asked if on occasion M.E. wanted to move out, Detective Perez
responded, certainly.



In response to defense questioning, Detective Perez testified that on November
30, 1995, he grasped M.E.
by the arm, causing a large bruise on her biceps, just hours before she was
expected to testify against the 
Robersons. Detective Perez further acknowledged that, weeks earlier, he had
twisted M.E.s arm behind 
her back, thrown her to the floor and straddled her. He denied he did this as
a form of discipline.


Outside of the presence of the jury, Defense Attorney Robert Van Siclen argued
that Detective Perez 
conduct involving force against M.E. was in direct violation of the provisions
of the Washington 
Administrative Code governing corporal punishment by foster parents. Among the
conduct prohibited by
 WAC Title 388 are physical restraints which could be injurious including a
large adult sitting on or 
straddling a small child, sleeper holds, arm twisting, etc. (attached)


At hearings held on the record in the presence of the counsel and the judge on
December 6 and 7, defense 
attorney Robert Van Siclen and investigator Larry Daly spoke of a taped
interview which Mr. Daly had 
conducted on December 5 with a young friend of M.E.s.  The girl said M.E. had
told her that Perez had 
also thrown M.E. to the ground and kicked her and this and other such acts had
occurred on multiple 
occasions.  Mr. Van Siclen said that D.E. had encountered similar abuse and
theres no question that 
she has run away  from the Perez home. He argued strenuously that given this
information the defense 

ought to be able to inquire into D.E.s situation and what led her to be
withdrawn as a witness 
approximately one week before trial. He pointed out that he had information
that D.E. had tried to run 
away, at which point she was withdrawn as a witness. He also pointed out that
Perez had formerly testified 
that he had removed her temporarily from his home, or threatened to do so on
occasions close to the times 
she was expected to testify, because she had acted out. (See e.g.,  testimony
at the trial of Honnah Sims)


We should be able to put into our argument the fact that if he wanted her to
disclose, she did so. That she 
had a reason to stay in that home, and that is that she had never seen a home
never seen...the kind of 
material things in life that they could provide, and therefore there is a
motive for this to get where it is... 
and thats the tie-in.  The court, however, found that concerning D.E., the
information had issufficient 
probative value to be admissible because she was not testifying nor were her
statements being introduced. 


Mr. Parker added that the defense should be able to inquire into Detective
Helveys interview with D.E.
where she said she hadnt been at the church, which would tend to establish an
alibi. The motion was 
denied. 



Prosecutor Steve Clem objected to the relevance of the testimony about Perez
acts toward M.E. How do 
those two incidents show that Melinda did not tell the truth?

Judge Small responded. It seems like we have a child who is in foster care
with an individual that she 
knows is a policeman. She knows this policeman investigated at least J.T.s sex
abuse allegations against 
these particular defendants. Shes called to testify against these particular
defendants, and her dad is an 
officer...not just a police officer, but the officer that got the first
disclosures against these defendants. It 
seems like theres some bias potential there that the child doesnt want to tick
off Dad when she testifies, 
even without this physical confrontation. And then if we add that to the
equation, now she really doesnt 
want to tick off Dad because he gets physical with her when she does tick off
Dad, to use the vernacular. (56)

	e.  Physical Evidence 


A forensic technician with the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab testified
that during a 13 hour search
of the Pentecostal church numerous items including carpet were analyzed with
laser equipment and 
infrared lights, and several sections of carpet and wallboard were removed.
Although stains, possibly 
organic in nature, were analyzed, the tests were negative for the presence of
semen. Deputy prosecuting 
attorney Eric Biggar argued that the type of abuse these children had
experienced was consistent with the 
fact that Roberson at no time ejaculated. (But note, this argument is
inconsistent with Gary Filbecks 
statement to police where he described observing Roberson ejaculating and then
remarking , Thats to 
wash the devil away.) At closing argument, Prosecutor Steve Clem argued that
the technician had 
testified that stains on the stage near the alter might be bodily fluids.
Maybe the people that go to this 
church urinate on the stage, he speculated, shrugging. 







III.    GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES


A.  PEREZ/ SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES/ FOSTER PARENTS


In his closing argument at the trial of the Robersons, defense attorney Bill
Parker said, (w)ere not trying 
to say Bob Perez is a demon and hes heading this whole thing up, but were
trying to show you there are 
unholy alliances. Parkers words made clear that he was pointing to the
relationship between law 
enforcement, Childrens Protective Services and others. The trial of the
Robersons indicated this 
relationship in limited ways. For example, a CPS case worker defended the fact
that a police officer 
interviewed one child (M.E.) in the presence of another (D.E.) and then went
on to interview D.E. about 
the same subject matter. A clear affiliation between various members of the
child care industry was 
established. For example, the foster parents and counselors indicated they
communicated regularly with 
CPS workers on subjects including the childs progress with disclosures. CPS
caseworkers, in turn were in 
regular and frequent contact with law enforcement. Both Detective Perez and
CPS caseworker Katie 
Carrow acknowledged such unusual practices as failing to timely report,
according to statute, J.T.s 
disclosures at the Integra facility. (57)

In an article in the Tacoma News Tribune of November 5, 1995, foster parents
Debi Cawdery and 
Mickey Reyes-Vogan (foster parent for a period of time of the Robersons
daughter R.R.) voiced their 
support for the methods used by Detective Perez. The foster parents formed
their own group, the Purple
 Ribbon Brigade to support police and prosecutors. Members hand out purple
ribbons (chosen because 
purple is Perez favorite color), support rallies, circulate newsletters, and
write letters. My concern is not 
for the accused, not for the perpetrators, Ms. Reyes-Vogan was quoted as
saying, I take care of the 
kids...No one wants to hear ugly things. No one wants to believe that this
lovely little community has a 
bunch of perverts living in it. 


But the flow of information about the relationship between law enforcement and
social service agencies, 
therapists and foster parents was highly restricted at the Roberson trial. The
nature of the affiliation 
between the Wenatchee Police Department and social workers was better
illustrated in recent interviews 
with former Wenatchee Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
caseworkers. According to 
former Wenatchee CPS supervisor Juana Vasquez and former CPS social worker
Juan Garcia, this 
relationship was especially troubling as it concerned Detective Perez  and
certain  senior DCFS caseworkers.  (58)


According to these sources, around the time that Detective Perez rotated into
the position of detective in 
charge of sex crimes, he started hanging out around the DCFS office. He
attended daily staffings where 
children and families were discussed. He was allowed free access to
confidential files and to new cases in
 the in-basket. He freely discussed these cases and families in staffing and
informal conversations in the 
halls of DCFS.



In order to intervene and remove a child from his parents there must be
something more than a dirty 
house or a parents mental limitations. (59) Indeed, DCFS is required by law to
work with mentally and 
physically disabled parents in order to preserve the family unit. In order to
justify the level of intervention 
necessary to separate a child from his family, a referral must reach a certain
level on the scoring matrix. 
In fact, something more than a minimal score at intake is required before CPS
can even investigate. (60)



Juan Garcia states he overheard several conversations in which senior DCFS
caseworkers discussed cases 
of poor and otherwise limited families with Detective Perez. (61) The CPS
staff members discussed their 
frustration at being unable to investigate under the scoring matrix. They
discussed with Detective Perez 
their theories that these people were likely abusers. According to Mr. Garcias
observations, Perez  would 
agree with the caseworkers theories and assure them that he would take care of
the investigation. Such 
was the situation with many of the families which made up the core of the sex
ring investigations in its 
early days in 1993 and 1994. Mr. Garcia said he observed Detective Perez refer
to the poor and disabled as 
wierdos, child molesters and poor white trash. (63)  Mr. Garcia said he saw
Perez read a referral 
provided to him by CPS caseworker Dean Reiman. Perez then said I remember this
family. I know they 
are perverts.  Mr. Garcia recalls speculation between Detective Perez and
social workers about the 
possibility of group sex activities, long before any such investigations were
made official. According to 
Ms. Vasquez and Mr. Garcia, Detective Perez fit neatly into a waiting niche at
the DCFS office. 



According to Ms. Vasquez, Detective Perez injected himself into the equation
in other ways. At a time 
after sex ring investigations had firmly taken hold, several children were
scheduled to be taken for genital 
physical examinations, according to CPS procedure. (65) According to Ms.
Vasquez, such procedure is 
followed even under circumstances where the child has been previously
molested. The policy apparently 
accords with an understanding that examinations might detect anatomical
changes due to more recent 
injury. The appointments had been scheduled, approved by Ms. Vasquez on behalf
of the department in 
her then capacity as CPS supervisor, and cleared with Sergeant Taggart of the
Wenatchee Police 
Department. Immediately before the scheduled exam, Detective Perez intervened.
 Ms. Vasquez
was told, specifically ordering that the physical exams were not to take
place. (66) Ms. Vasquez was 
unable to determine Detective Perez reasons for his interference, but was
forced to defer to his demands. 


Its an unholy alliance, Steve Lacy, attorney for Robert Devereaux was quoted
as saying in an article in 
the Seattle Times of November 26, 1995. My contention is CPS and the police
have so closely 
cooperated in Wenatchee that they can no longer separate their roles.


Perez viewed his role differantly. Most of them had nothing to do but collect
month welfare checks and
try to figure out ways to entertain themselves, Perez was quoted as saying in
the same November 26, 
1995 Seattle Times article. Unfortunately, they decided to entertain
themselves by having sex with their 
children and other peoples children. Perez was said to have speculated about
the women in Wenatchee. 
After arresting Gene Town he started to wonder about what his wife was doing
at the time. He questioned 
her and she confessed. Im no better than any other investigator, Perez was
quoted as saying. I just asked 
the next question.

Perez   speculations admittedly took him further than the poor and the
disabled. In the November 26, 
1995  Seattle Times article he described his theories about Robert Devereaux
which arose after 
Devereaux divorce left him as a single foster parent. My suspicion started
with a gut feeling. Perez is 
quoted as saying, He brought a child into the police station. He wanted me to
tell this child she shouldnt 
have sex with her boyfriend. But the way this came across, it wasnt so much
that he was doing it as a 
concerned foster parent, but that he was jealous. (Note: Robert Devereaux
alleges he brought the teenager 
to the police station because he was concerned she had been raped and medical
tests supported this 
concern.  According to Mr. Devereaux, Perez had refused to investigate because
the girl had been 
drinking and couldnt recall the details of the incident.   Detective Perez
ignored Devereaux request to do 
a DNA analysis of the alleged suspect.) (67)



Detective Perez told the Seattle Times reporter:  Then I would see him out
driving in his car and it 
would appear more as a social relationship than a parent-child relationship. 
Perez admitted that hed 
made a joke in a restaurant that Devereaux would let girls sit on his lap and
he would teach them how to 
drive by showing them his stick shift.  When you have your lunch breaks, your
time off, you blow 
steam off...You say things that in regular circles would make peoples hair
curl or turn gray but it doesnt 
mean anything...All I said was I hope Im still working in detectives when and
if a child discloses and 
says something happened.



The relationship between Detective Perez and  the Division of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) is 
well-illustrated by the state response to Detective Perez admissions at the
Roberson trial that he used 
force against M.E.  This admission was only made possible by virtue of defense
motion in chambers and 
after strenuous objection by the Douglas County Prosecutors Office.  
Detective Perez himself, through 
his attorney, Patrick McMahon, resisted the defense subpoena as improperly
served.  Mr. McMahon 
argued that Detective Perez testimony was irrelevant to the Roberson
proceedings because the Roberson 
case was a Douglas County matter and, because Detective Perez was subject to a
lawsuit in a separate 
proceeding not involving these defendants,  his testimony might violate
attorney-client privilege.



On December 6, 1995, the day before Detective Perez testified, defense
attorneys and their investigator, 
Larry Daly told Judge Small that a girl had done a taped interview with Daly
late the previous night. The 
girl said she was a friend of M.E. who had told her that she had been badly
bruised by Detective Perez the 
morning she was supposed to testify. The girl added that his kind of thing had
happened before and that 
just a few days earlier Perez had thrown M.E. to the ground and kicked her.
Based on Dalys assertions,
 Judge Small, over the prosecutors relevancy objections, agreed to set up a
joint interview of M.E., 
involving a representative of DCFS, law enforcement, the prosecutors office
and the defense.  Detective 
Perez was not to be advised of this meeting, for purposes of protecting M.E.
and the integrity of her 
statements. (68)



At the interview, attended by eight adults from these various agencies, M.E.
said that  Detective Perez had 
grabbed her arm with force. She showed a purple bruise.  She said he had done
this because she was 
acting like a butt, by playing up and refusing to go to her room.   M.E. said
that at some recent but 
indefinite time, Perez had twisted her arm behind her back and thrown her to
the floor, straddled her and 
sat on her.  She said this hurt her. (69)



Under oath, Detective Perez acknowledged he had done these things, but denied
they were forms of 
discipline. Detective Perez denial was an apparent attempt to avoid admissions
which might violate the 
standards of corporal punishment by foster parents which are set out by law.
(70) (Attached.)  Detective 
Perez did not explain why, as a 220 pound man over six feet tall, such means
were necessary to restrain a 
13 year old girl.  

Washington Administrative Code 388-73-046(2) provides that (d)iscipline shall
be fair, reasonable, 
consistent and related to the individuals behavior. Cruel and unusual
discipline, discipline hazardous to 
health, and frightening or humiliating discipline shall not be administered.


Washington Administrative Code 388-73-048(1)  provides that corporal
punishment is prohibited.  
 However under section (2)  The use of such amounts of physical restraint as
may be reasonable and 
necessary to:

(a)	Protect persons on the premises from physical injury.

(b)	Obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous object,

(c)	Protect property from serious damage, shall not be construed to constitute
corporal punishment.


Yet the statute is clear. Section (4) provides: Physical restraints which
could be injurious are not to be 
used.  These include but are not limited to: A large adult sitting on or
straddling a small child, sleeper 
holds, arm twisting, hair holds, and throwing children and youths against
walls, furniture, or other large 
immobile objects.


In chambers Robert Van Siclen argued that Perez actions were violations of
criminal statutes and WAC 
code and that immediate actions should take place to report these violations.
He indicated that M.E. might 
be in danger and that Perez actions might be consistent with Perez behaviors
toward D.E. who had 
recently run away from the Perez home.



The official government response was immediately defensive of the actions of
Perez. In view of Perez 
admissions and the presence of a CPS caseworker at the interview of M.E., the
response was surprising.  
Although Chelan County Deputy Prosecutor Roy Fore made the statement that it
would be inappropriate 
of him to say whether any further action would be taken against Perez, Perez
attorney Patrick McMahon 
muttered, Theres nothing to it, moments after he and Perez left the courtroom.
 He accused the defense 
of trying to shift their focus from the abuse of children to an attack on
Perez.  Of the defense attorneys, 
McMahon said, they want to point the finger at a detective who had nothing to
do with the case. 
(Seattle Post Intelligencer, December 8, 1995.)



More surprising was the position of  the Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS), the agency 
entrusted with the licensing of foster homes and the investigation of
complaints of abuse.  Kathy Spears, a 
spokesman for DSHS based in Olympia, said that her agency saw nothing in Perez
testimony that would  
prompt an investigation.  After investigating we have found that the defense
attorneys allegation of 
abuse, which was not made by the foster child, is unfounded and we believe the
children are safe in their 
foster home, she said. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, 12/8/95)  This response,
she said, was based on an 
interview of M.E. by several officials who concluded the child had not been
physically abused.



Wenatchee Child Welfare Services (CWS) Supervisor Steve Warman was among eight
adults who take 
part in  the interview ordered, after defense motion, by Judge Small. Mr.
Warman took the position that 
M.E. never said she was abused but instead was acting like a butt and that he
(Perez) had asked her to do 
something and she refused and was calling him names.  Detective Perez had then
grabbed her arm and 
forced her to her room.  We dont consider a little bruise from grabbing her
arm and putting her in her 
room abuse. Thats not abuse, and we dont consider restraining a child when
theyre out of control abuse 
either. The latter comment was apparently referring to the straddling
incident. (The Wenatchee World. 
December 8, 1995.)



Although Mr. Warman agreed that M.E. said that Perez had forced her to the
ground and sat on her at 
times, this was done, he claimed, to restrain her and it was therefore
justifiable (a position inconsistent 
with the plain language of the WAC.)  Warman also acknowledged that sometimes
M.E. wanted to leave 
the Perez foster home. (The Wenatchee World,  December 8, 1995.)  Questions of
the inappropriateness 
of M.E. residing at the Perez home had previously been discussed at CPS
staffing, as acknowledged by 
Perez in his testimony on December 7, 1995.


It was a matter of interpretation, according to Warman. Not so, said Larry
Daly, investigator for the 
Roberson team. She said it hurt, it hurt, it was painful, and Ive got to tell
you something, thats abuse, 
said Daly. (Wenatchee World,  December 8, 1995.)  Although Warman and two
others who were present 
at the interview, Douglas County Detective Dave Helvey and school counselor
Nick Hostrom, interpreted 
Perez actions as reasonable restraint, Daly said that in the usual case the
child would be immediately 
removed from the home and there would be a police investigation.  Helvey
strongly disagreed, saying, If I 
were to go out as a patrol deputy and found this exact same situation in a
home in Douglas County, I 
would not arrest either parent...Ive got kids, and in my opinion,  Bob and
Luci (Perez) show amazing 
patience. (Wenatchee World, December 8, 1995.)



Hostrom, a school counselor, agreed.  Ive been through many of these and I
wouldnt have even reported 
this one....I just feel really ticked off that (M.E.) had to go through this
whole scenario.  Tim Abby, 
Wenatchee CPS Supervisor, added that the Washington Administrative Code
permits foster parents to use 
physical discipline if necessary to control a child or prevent the child from
harming herself or property.  
(Wenatchee World. December 8 1995.)



Based on the official position that she was safe,  M.E. was allowed to remain
in the Perez home along 
with her sister  D.E.  But more recent developments indicate that not all is
well in the Perez home.



On Sunday night, December 10, 1995, D.E., an 11 year old  girl,  was arrested
after an alleged incident at 
the Payless parking lot in Wenatchee. Luci Perez reported that D.E. was out of
control, had climbed onto 
her car and ran over the roof, leaving a small dent. She had also kicked her
sister, M.E.  D.E. was taken to 
juvenile court and cited for Malicious Mischief in the Third Degree and
Assault in the Fourth Degree.
 (71)  Although Perez was not named as present in the Affidavit of Probable
Cause,  his code number 
came over the police scanner as reporting the incident and calling for backup.
D.E. was released to the
 Perez home at a hearing in juvenile court on Monday, December 11, 1995.


B.   LOCAL GOVERNMENT 


The position of defensiveness toward police actions is reflected at various
levels of the local government.  
Part of the recent governmental response has been to pull away from the
concept of labeling the crimes as 
sex rings.  In separate telephone interviews, Douglas County Prosecutor Steve
Clem and Douglas 
County Sheriff Dan LaRoche told me there were no sex rings nor group sexual
activities with children in 
East Wenatchee. (72)  All but one of the cases were tried as simple acts of
incest. Wenatchee Chamber of 
Commerce President/CEO responded in a Chamber of Commerce publication, that
contrary to the Wall 
Street Journal, the Chamber is not promoting sex rings all over town.  This is
a term coined by the 
media.  This position is unconvincing given the unequivocal language of many
police incident reports.



Detective Perez recently told the Seattle Times (November 28, 1995), Look,
there was a sex ring. OK?  I 
did the work...my work is tight. Im proud of my work.  Further: Anybody naive
enough to think 
Wenatchee is the only place this happens is in for a shock...Id love to say
this is a bunch of baloney, but I
 know there are people, all across the country, who are doing the same
disgusting things to their children
 and others children.


This seems to be the position of the Wenatchee Chamber of Commerce, which has
created a task force and 
has been inviting police and prosecutors and the local media to weekly
meetings. The apparent purpose of 
these meetings is to allow board members and media to become better informed
on the governmental 
perspective toward the investigations and prosecutions. In a Chamber of
Commerce publication, Gil 
Sparks, Chairman of the Board comment, (T)his has been an extremely busy, but
productive month for 
the Chamber. Our community task force has been effectively handling the
avalanche of media inquiries 
about the various sex abuse cases...At the last board meeting, the board
reaffirmed its commitment to 
continue the Chambers efforts to present Wenatchee in the most accurate light
in response to this media 
barrage of misinformation.





President/CEO Melanie Shaw added: Most of you are aware that during a time of
unprecedented media 
scrutiny, your Chamber of Commerce has worked diligently and proactively for
the past 8 months on 
behalf of a balanced and accurate media portrayal of our community. When we
began this effort, the 
national media had branded us a city with extraordinary, wide spread child
abuse issues unique to small 
town America. More over (sic), we were a city in total denial over this fact.
Now the media has decided 
that no children in Wenatchee have been harmed. Rather there is a grand
conspiracy reaching across 2 
countries, through 2 police departments, 2 sheriff departments, 2 independent
prosecutors offices, all of 
our judges and medical experts, and permeating the entire jury pool - a witch
hunt.



Our position has remained constant throughout these wildly varying
accusations; that child abuse is a 
national tragedy with statistics that show it exists across our country in
large and small communities 
alike; that our judicial system, with its multiple, independent layers of
checks and balances, is the 
appropriate place to determine guilt or innocence in these matters, and that
ultimately Wenatchee is a 
community that is willing to deal head-on with tough issues. We are not in
denial!  Our community will 
take care of these children whose well being has and will continue to impact
the very fabric of our 
town...(W)e acknowledge that 18 individuals have either plead (sic) guilty or
been found guilty by a jury 
of their peers and that it is of paramount importance for our community to be
concerned for the victims of 
these crimes...We are confident that our judicial system was carefully
designed by our forefathers to 
ensure that such wide spread corruption (a governmental conspiracy) could not
exist...Yes, Chambers of 
the 90s do more than stand on the sidelines and cheer, no matter what is
happening to the players on the 
field. We are there in the game, side by side, with you.


C.   THE MEDIA RESPONSE


The local newspaper, The Wenatchee World, was quick to pick up and support the
local governments 
position of resistance to outside scrutiny and intervention. In an editorial
on October 8, 1995, Tracy 
Warner remarked that Commissioner Earl Marcellus, the lone member of local
government who has been 
vocal in his criticism of the governments investigation, (o)ur sagebrush rebel
county commissioner, a 
longtime friend of one of the accused, seeks a criminal investigation of local
police by the federal Justice 
Department. This is the same department whose director ordered the Branch
Davidians gassed because 
she feared they might abuse children.  Mr. Warner went on to comment on the
outside media coverage of 

the Wenatchee sex cases. This is no longer a system where justice is sought
from juries of impartial 
citizens who fairly weigh the testimony and evidence. We are approaching a
system where justice belongs 
to those with the most effective public relations campaign, those whose
friends gather the most signatures 
on petitions or are able to bring the most pressure to bear on politicians
both sympathetic and timid.  
Nevertheless Warner acknowledges as troublesome the fact that Perez lives with
his chief witness and 
acknowledged that some stories are inconsistent, some seem too fantastic to
believe. Video or audio 
recordings, could answer many questions. And most certainly the Child
Protective Services bureaucracy 
is a pathetic mess.


Warner cited the statistics of guilty pleas and convictions and expressed
skepticism about 
critical claims that all the guilty pleas, confessions, and incriminating
statements are the product of 
devious and coercive police. This, from some of the same people who tell us
not to believe abused children 
because their stories are too wild.



Steve Lachowicz, The Wenatchee Worlds Assistant Managing Editor announced the
position of the 

World on November 12, 1995, to print explicit and graphic descriptions of
medical evidence, so they 

(the readers) can better evaluate the truth of various charges - those against
both the alleged molesters and 

against the various media...Whats really terrorizing is that so many national
journalists (and I am forced 

to use the term loosely) have failed to get so many of their facts straight,
ignoring  credible evidence of 

abuse presented in numerous trials...The stream of twisted, one-sided reports
might have our newsroom 

laughing every morning were we not so busy shaking our heads in depressed
dismay at the conduct of 

some of our peers.




Starting with a well-researched and strongly written editorial by Dorothy
Rabinowitz which appeared in 

late September, 1995 in The Wall Street  Journal,  an article which was
described in The Wenatchee 

World as tabloid journalism, the outside media began to take a serious look at
the events in Wenatchee.

 The national media coverage of the Wenatchee cases has come from such
reputable sources as The 

Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the London, Independent,  Time and
Newsweek

 magazines, CNN, and various television newsmagazines including NBC Dateline. 
All of these sources 

have reported on the serious critical concerns about the Wenatchee sex ring
investigations and 

prosecutions.  They have also accurately reported the position of the
government, including the conviction

 rates and the official versions of the events.  All have done apparently
thorough journalistic
 
investigations, including review of  police documentation, observations of
court proceedings,  and 

interviews with individuals including those government agents who will agree
to speak to them.  It is 

difficult under these circumstances to justify criticism of, for example, the
incisive and articulate factual

 coverage set out in a series of articles by correspondent William Claiborne
of  The Washington Post, as 

irresponsible or twisted journalism.




Neither representatives of local government nor of The Wenatchee World, who
have come out as critical 

or outside media coverage, can articulate a motive which would justify these
media sources to risk legal 

action for inaccurate coverage.  Local criticism may fail to recognize the
distinction between objectivity 

and partisanship.



D.  THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE:  PAUL-NOEL CHRETIEN


Concern about the Wenatchee sex cases sparked the personal and professional
interest of Paul Noel 

Chretien, a U.S. Justice Department attorney from Washington, D.C who wrote an
article which appeared 

in the November 29, 1995 Wall Street Journal.  Mr. Chretien wrote: there are
good reasons that most of 

the mass child sex abuse convictions of the 1980s have been reversed.  But
this news apparently hasnt 

reached Wenatchee, Washington, where dozens of men and women are accused of
child sex abuse in a 

series of bizarre prosecutions...  Mr. Chretien offered the opinion that
because the allegations are so 

abhorrent, states often overreach and prosecute even when they have no proof. 
 In addition, many 

prosecutors do not know about the overwhelming scientific evidence
demonstrating the inherent 

unreliability of testimony extracted from our children. Faulty news coverage
of mass child abuse cases has 



also fueled the fires of wrongful prosecution.  All of these factors have
played a role in the Wenatchee 

prosecutions.  Mr. Chretien added that (t)he current child abuse prosecutions
in Wenatchee combine the 

flaws of past trials with two new twists: Investigators do not videotape or
even retain the notes they take of 

their interrogations of children, thus making it impossible to trace how the
children made their 

disclosures.  Even more ominously, many defendants have been charged only
after publicly criticizing 

earlier prosecutions.




In an interview which appeared in The Washington Post the following day, Mr.
Chretien revealed that he 

had offered his pro bono services to the Robersons because he believed they
had been wrongfully indicted. 

I think the cases in Wenatchee are outrageous, and a lot of attorneys here
feel the same way, Mr. 

Chretien was quoted as saying, and added that when obviously innocent people,
are indicted, you have 

to step in and do something.  




Mr. Chretien has provided  pro bono assistance to the defense in another state
criminal matter in 

Massachusetts.  The States behavior in that case, that of the Amiraults,  has
been  widely criticized by the

 national press.  In a telephone interview with this writer after the Roberson
verdict was read, Mr.

Chretien said, Im pleased that justice is done and I hope the prosecutors
learn from the verdict.



E.  THE STATUS QUO


Public expressions of concern have been registered throughout the national
media. But how does that 

impact the governments activities in Wenatchee?  To all appearances, not at
all;  it is business as usual.

I have no second thoughts about any of the cases I have investigated. Not one,
Perez was quoted as 

saying  to John Carlin, correspondent from the London  Independent.  The
criticism against me has 

been generated by a handful of people in this area who have been either
suspects or who have been 

convicted.  When asked about a possible federal investigation, Perez was
quoted as saying, That would 

be fine. Theres nothing to hide here. Im very satisfied. Ive made a major
impact on the lives of these 

children.  (Independent, November 19, 1995.)



IV.  THE SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS

	A.  Governmental Investigation.


As the events unfold in Wenatchee the need for a governmental investigation
becomes more apparent. The 

acquittal of Pastor Robert and Connie Roberson cannot be perceived as an
indication that a system of legal 

checks and balances is working effectively in Wenatchee.  As the result of
what might be a seriously 

flawed investigation, the Robersons have suffered irreversible personal,
professional and financial losses.  

Significantly, the Roberson victory does nothing for the many persons who
might have been wrongly 

convicted because of a coercive and unreliable investigation.  Nor does it
repair the many family ties 

which have been severed by the governments actions.




The representatives of the local government will entertain no criticism of the
methodology used by its law 

enforcement officers and appear to have demonstrated an arrogant disregard for
their responsibility 

toward the interests of justice.




An investigation of this matter might best be done at the federal level
because of many serious potential 

conflicts and inadequate remedies at the state level. The following is
excerpted from a letter which I 

mailed to The Honorable Janet Reno, United States Attorney General on December
4, 1995, and sent, as 

conformed copies, to Washington State Governor Mike Lowry, Washington State
House Speaker Clyde 

Ballard, Washington State House Majority Leader Dale Foreman, Washington State
Attorney General 

Christine Gregoire, Richard Roberts, Chief, U.S. Department of Justice, and
U.S. Attorney James P. 

Connelly.  It has become inescapable to many of the citizens of the state that
there is a critical need for a 

thorough governmental investigation into civil rights violations and criminal
misconduct which may exist 

within the structure of DSHS and law enforcement agencies in Chelan and
Douglas Counties. It is 

imperative that such an investigation be done in a manner that is fair and
effective.  It is my concern and 

that of many citizens that a fair and effective investigation would be
difficult to achieve at the State level 

due to actual and/or apparent conflicts of interest.  The Washington State
Attorney Generals Office 

represents the interests of its client, the Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS) and its 

subdivision, including Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and its
components Childrens 

Protective Services (CPS) and Child Welfare Services (CWS).  Further, there is
a serious question of 

whether adequate remedies are available at the State level, should the
Washington State Attorney 

Generals Office find evidence of civil rights violations or of criminal
wrongdoing.




An analysis of the Washington State Attorney Generals investigation into the
OK boys Ranch may be 

illustrative of these concerns. I have attached various materials which
suggest that:




.A 1988-1989 performance audit of OK Boys ranch conducted by Art Cantrall of
Operations 

Review/DSHS isolated serious and extensive problems at the ranch, ranging from
physical assaults to 

forced sex acts between residents of disparate ages. The audit suggested that
staff were aware of and 

sometimes encouraged these acts and concluded that the ranch was not in
compliance with its contract 

with DSHS. The OK Boys Ranch remained in operation.



.It has been alleged that DSHS, which licensed the ranch, altered files before
turning them over to 

attorneys for boys bringing suit against the ranch. Former ranch licenser Ed
Putnam claims that in 1993 

he twice wrote to DSHS Secretary Jean Soliz to tell her of intentional changes
to the ranch records. 

Neither Ms. Soliz nor the Department responded to Mr. Putnams concerns.




.In late 1994 and 1995, Martin Dickson, an investigator, contracted with DSHS
to review the happenings 
at the ranch. Although Ms. Soliz states that DSHS relied on the 1992
assertions of the OK Boys Ranch 

board of directors that they had the problems well in hand, Mr. Dickson has
made assertions that this was 

not the case.  Instead, he has been quoted as saying, Washington Attorney
General Christine Gregoire 

underplayed the involvement of ranch directors, whom, he believed, were well
aware of the extent of the 

problems.  Mr. Dickson has further claimed that the Attorney Generals Office
interfered with his 

investigation, for example preventing him from reviewing the actions of high
level DSHS employees.  The 

Attorney Generals actions, according to Mr. Dickson, delayed the investigation
and caused the statute of 

limitations to expire against certain ranch staff members and DSHS employees.




.On November 13, 1995 Attorney General Christine Gregoire announced that an
investigation into actions 

at the ranch had produced criminal charges against three people.  She
described the ranch as a jungle of 

pervasive physical violence and sexual abuse...DSHS failed to protect kids
entrusted to its care...most 

disappointing of all, DSHS failed to react to warnings.  However, no DSHS
employee nor anyone on the 

board of the OK Boys Ranch was charged, due, in Attorney General Gregoires
words, to deficiencies in 

the law.


.These legal deficiencies are described in a Memorandum and Report dated
November 13, 1995, and 

directed to Attorney General Gregoire by Greg Canova, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Rebecca Roe, 

Special Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Schwarts, Assistant Attorney
General. (Portions 

attached.)  The investigation focused primarily on actions between 1990 and
the facilitys closure in 1994. 

Notable among the finding of the report are the following:

	(1)  The scope of potential charges against DSHS personnel was narrowed to
two offenses: 

Failure to Report, and Criminal Mistreatment in the Second Degree.  The report
does not provide 

guidance as to what the Attorney Generals Office relied on in eliminating
other offenses. The scope of 

potential charges was further limited by a ten-year statute of limitations for
felony crimes committed by 

public officers, and by a two year statute of limitations on the misdemeanor
crime of Failure to Report.


	(2)  Regarding the crime of Failure of Report, the Attorney Generals Office
acknowledged that 

it is readily apparent that several incidents involving OKBR residents were
known to DSHS but went 

unreported to law enforcement. Of 308 incidents from 1990 onward out of which
only 37 were reported 

to CPS the inquiry was narrowed, based on the statute of limitations, to
approximately 10 incidents. In 

finding that DSHS was not criminally responsible the Attorney Generals Office
cited proof problems, i.e. 

in establishing that incident were non-accidental or that injuries resulted
from the incidents, confusion 

about reports made outside the CPS chain, emotional and/or physical
unavailability of some potential 

witnesses. The report further cited statutory vagueness or inadequate
definition of such terms as 

department, sexual abuse, and physical injury.


	(3)  In analyzing the crime of Criminal Mistreatment in the Second Degree,
the Attorney 

Generals Office stated that the language of the statute requires proof that a
person entrusted with the 

physical custody of a child commit the acts upon which the crime of Criminal
Mistreatment is based. 

DSHS, they concluded, could at most be charged on a theory of accomplice
liability, which, in turn 

requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that any individual member of DSHS to
be charged possessed 

knowledge of the underlying criminal offense and committed an overt act in
furtherance of it. DSHS as 

an organization should have done a better job the authors concluded. There
was, however, no evidence 

to support the contention that a specific individual, acting with such
knowledge and responsibility, 

discharged their duties in a manner that would establish accomplice
liability...


	(4)  The Attorney Generals Office further based its recommendation on the
fact that DSHS, as a 

state agency/organization cannot be subject to criminal prosecution. 
According to footnote 1: DSHS is 

neither a person nor a legal entity amenable to prosecution as defined in RCW
9A.08.030.  Despite 

significant evidence that DSHS may well have failed significant legal duties,
as a non-legal entity in the 

context of criminal law, it cannot, as an organization, be charged with a
crime.



Washington  Governor Mike Lowry expressed public frustration at the results of
the boys ranch 

investigation. Stating Im  outraged,  Governor Lowry turned materials over to
the Washington State 

Patrol, a body not experienced in such investigations, for further review.



.Attached is a copy of a declaration dated June 16, 1995 and signed by Dr.
Maclay Armstrong and James 

Luark which describes statements made to them by DSHS Secretary Soliz that
DSHS employees and their 

supervisors habitually alter, secrete and destroy DSHS records and files the
moment they become aware 

that an investigation of their actions is being conducted.




Former Wenatchee DCFS Supervisor Juana Vasquez has already successful brought
a racial 

discrimination suit against the State of Washington and DSHS.  It is my
understanding that the State was 

represented in this action by the Washington State Attorney Generals Office.
The suit had no apparent 

effect on the conduct of the individual DCFS caseworkers in the Wenatchee
office, who are themselves 

individually immune from civil liability.  Recently, lawsuits were filed by
Ms. Vasquez and other former 

DSHS employees against DSHS, which presumable will be represented in these
actions by the Washington 

State Attorney Generals Office.




An investigation into governmental activities in Wenatchee is long overdue.
There are serious and 

compelling reasons suggesting that Washington State is limited by profound
conflicts involving the 

Attorney Generals Office and by the inadequacy of remedies which it deems
available to it. It is my 

opinion and that of many concerned Wenatchee residents that only a federal
investigation will validate or 

negate the serious claims of civil rights violations and criminal misconduct
by State and local government 

entities including DSHS.










	B.  Proposed Legislation




The events in Wenatchee underscore the need for legislation designed to
protect the integrity of the child 

interview process. At a minimum there is a need to preserve a childs
statements, to ensure compliance 

with protocols governing interview methodology, and to ensure that
interviewers are appropriately 

trained.




A proposed legislative solution by John H. Hill, Director, Pierce County Department
of Assigned Counsel, 

calls for a multi-system task force to include centralized, videotaped
interviews conducted by trained 

personnel according to interview protocols. (Attached.)  The proposal is
similar to a task force project 

conducted in San Diego, California, which was viewed as successful by
prosecutors and child social 

service agencies.  The advantages of multi-system videotaped interviews would
include reducing trauma 

to children by decreasing the number of interviews, and preserving the
accuracy of their statements. A full 

discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of videotaping, as
well as a review of related 

social science studies can be found in The Wenatchee Report.



Other proposals by Washington State Representative Val Stevens are attached.  
Legislation rendering 

government agencies and employees subject to civil and criminal liability  for
failure to accord with laws

and  industry standards are also essential. (See, e.g., AB 1355, a California
bill, attached.)



V.   CONCLUSION



We must learn from the events of Wenatchee or risk a repetition of these
events.  Many Wenatchee 

residents believe themselves to be in the jaws of a monster. The monster is a
perhaps well-meaning 

government which has failed to regulate itself through a system of checks and
balances.  The solution is 

not to turn to the courts for the resolution of problematic cases which flow
from unreliable investigative 

techniques. If that is the lesson we take from the Roberson acquittal we have
not learned its lesson well, 

Courts do not have jurisdiction over the, truth, and juries cannot be expected
to distill the truth from the 

rubble of contaminated evidence. Nor should a just result turn on matters of
personal finances as has been 

repeatedly and without exception been the case in Wenatchee. 




Wenatchee must be subjected to continued and unrelenting scrutiny until the
truth has revealed itself in 

some meaningful way.  New and better means of preserving the integrity  of
investigations must be 

developed.  The government must be made accountable.  It is only then that we
can expect to achieve 

justice.
	




































			SOURCES

1.	Testimony of Deputy Prosecutor Gary Riesen at trial of Robert and Connie
Roberson

2.	Article,  Wenatchee World, 6/25/91.

3.	See, e.g., Order Assigning Attorney, filed 9/29/95; Juvenile Department
Notice of Arrest Offense, 	filed 9/22/95, all regarding D.E.

4.	Intake Summary for Referral, Child Protective Services, dated 3/23/95
stated the following: 
	When Officer Jones, Wenatchee Police Department placed (M.H.) at Paul and Dee
	Campbells on 3/21/95 at 2 A.M., he went into Campbells house and noticed
	Dee Campbell and two male foster kids, watching sexually explicit film, a
couple
	engaging in sexual intercourse, totally nude.  Officer felt this was not
appropriate
	if downright bizarre.

5.	Order Assigning Attorney, filed 9/29/95.

6.	Ibid.

7.	See Foster Care Packet, Robert and Luci Perez, re: D.S., 1992.

8.	Foster Care Packet: Robert and Luci Perez, including Licensing File
Checklist, 1994.

9.	Information, Chelan County Superior Court, Juvenile Department re: D.S.,
filed 3/10/92.

10.	Order on Show Cause Hearing regarding alleged probation violation, D.S.,
filed 5/7/92.

11.	Juvenile Minutes filed 5/18/92 re D.S., Statement of Juvenile on Plea of
Guilty filed 5/19/92.

12.	Information,  re D.S., filed 8/3/92.

13.	Statement of Juvenile on Plea of Guilty, dated 8/20/92.

14.	Order of Disposition, filed 8/20/92.

15.	Interview Kerri Knowles, 11/21/95.

16. 	Ibid.

17.	State v. Kerri Ann Knowles, Defendant Petitioners Motion to Stay Court
Proceedings,
	dated 12/1/95.

18.	Ibid, at p. 3.

19.	Ibid.

20.	Ibid.

21.	Ibid, footnote 2, p. 8 (Emphasis original.)

22.	Interview with Lillian Porter, 11/26/95.

23.	Wenatchee Police Department Incident Report, 3/13/95, Det. Perez.

24.	Interview with Lillian Porter, 11/26/95.

25.	Ibid.

26.	Interview with Lillian Porter, 12/10/95.

27.	Interview with Lillian Porter 11/26/95.

28.	Various media coverage including broadcasts by Lori Matsakawa King TV
News.

29.	Testimony of Robert Perez. Note: See also reporting requirement of RCW Ch.
26.

30.	Wenatchee Police Department Incident Report, Detective Robert Perez,
undated.

31.	Ibid.

32.	Wenatchee Police Department Statement of Linda Joyce Miller by Detective
Robert
	Perez, 3/25/95.

33.	Wenatchee Police Department Statement of Scharl Ann Filbeck by Detective
Robert Perez , 
	5/3/95.

34.	Douglas County Sheriffs Office, Detail Incident Report, 5/30/95.

35.	Wenatchee Police Department Statement of Gary E. Filbeck, 5/2/95,
Detective Perez.

36.	Douglas County Sheriffs Office. Detail Incident Report, 5/30/95.

37.	Testimony Robert Roberson 12/8/95, also various interviews with K. Lyon.

38.	Ibid.

39.	Ibid, Also see CPS Service Episode Record re: Connie Saracino, attached.

40.	Testimony Robert Roberson, 12/8/95; Interviews K. Lyon.

41.	Interview K. Lyon

42.	Pretrial Motions, 11/6/95.

43.	See Washington General Rule 16, Cameras in the Courtroom.

44. 	See Washington Evidence Rule (ER) 603, Evidence of Character. ER 404.

45.	E.R. Rule 702, 703, 704. ER 702

46.	ER 404(b)

47.	ER 702, 703, 704.

48.	Ibid.

49.	ER 401, 402

50.	Motion in Chambers,  12/6/95. Transcript.

51.   	Ibid.

52.	RCW 9A.44.120

53.	Wenatchee Police Department Statement of Gary Filbeck, 5/2/95, by
Detective Perez.

54.	See also, interview of J. Garcia, K.A., as set out in  Wenatchee Report.

55.	RCW 26.44.030.

56.	Transcript of Testimony 12/7/95, in Chambers.

57.	RCW 26.44.030.

58.	Various interviews by K. Lyon with Juan Garcia, including 10/17/95;
11/16/95; Juan Garcia 
	Videotaped IV 8/15/95; Videotaped Interview Juana Vasquez 8/15/95; 10/18/95.

59.	See RCW Ch. 26, fully discussed in The Wenatchee Report.

60.	Ibid.

61.	Interview Juan Garcia, various, including 10/17/95; 11/16/95; 8/15/95 .

62.	E.g., Town, Holt, Everett families.

63.	Interview Juan Garcia 10/17/95.

64.	Ibid.

65.	Interview Juana Vasquez 10/18/95.

66.	Ibid.
	
67.	Taped Interview Robert Devereaux 9/6/95.

68.	Verbatim Transcript of proceedings., 12/6/95.

69.	Vertatim Transcript of Proceedings, 12/7/95.

70.	WAC 388-73-046, Discipline; WAC 388-73-048 Corporal Punishment.

71.	Notice of Arrest Offense, filed 12/11/95. Affidavit of Probable Cause
filed 12/11/95.

72.	Phone Interview Douglas County Sheriff Dan Laroche, Steve Clem, 10/17/95.