My generation trained ourselves. There simply weren’t any programs in this field”. This statement was made by Dr. Mary Lindahl, in the following article forensic-psychology-magazine-article; she is a psychologist that is frequently used by Loudoun CPS and Fairfax County CPS. She testifies quite often in Loudoun, Arlington and Fairfax County. The statement was made concerning the field of Forensic Psychology. Sandra Glenney, assistant Count Attorney for Loudoun depends heavily upon the testimony of “expert” witnesses like Dr. Lindahl. The aforementioned statement “My generation trained ourselves” is not the words of an expert. Sandra Glenney proudly qualifies Dr. Lindahl as an expert witness in the Loudoun County Courts. Dr. Lindahl fails to mention that “My generation trained ourselves” during her testimony. She instead touts her credentials.
Dr. Lindahl has a very close relationship with various CPS agencies in Northern Virginia. In the March 1 2009 edition of “The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse”. In an article written by Dr. Lindahl, Lindahl-Article, she thanked Laurie Warhol, a member of the Loudoun CPS management team. She also thanked several Social Workers from Fairfax County CPS. I mention this to illustrate that there is a established relationship between Dr. Lindahl and CPS agencies in Northern Virginia. This relationship typically results in Dr. Lindahl favoring CPS an the mother during litigation. This in addition the lack of any scientific validity of any diagnosis by psychologists creates a very dangerous situation for litigants. Again, Dr. Lindahl does not mention the lack of scientific validity in her profession. I would advise readers to review the controversy over the latest DSM-V manual.
My advice to any litigant in a civil case in which Dr. Lindahl is an expert witness, especially if she serves as a witness for Sandra Glenney is to have her removed as quickly as possible from the case. Dr. Lindahl has limited knowledge of the research on child suggestibility conducted by Dr. Maggie Bruck of John Hopkins. Dr. Lindahl definitely disagrees with Dr. Bruck’s research. Dr. Bruck’s research is based on some of the most egregious cases of false sexual abuse accusations such as the McMartin Scandal and the Kelly Micheals case. .
Dr. Lindahl is heavily influenced by the scandals of the 80′s and the prevailing theories that existed back then. Unfortunately most attorneys and participant in cases that involve false accusations of abuse are not aware of the cases of the 80′s. As a whole, the profession of psychology has tried to distance itself from this period, as it was a cheerleader for the idea of ritual abuse claims. I am not sure if Sandra Glenney is even aware of the high profile cases in the 80′s. Glenney and Lindahl both have the same belief system, that accusations must be true regardless of the evidence.
The defendant must gain immediate access to Dr. Lindahl’s treatment notes. Glenney will protest this vehemently claiming HIPPA laws, her goal is to hide as much as evidence as possible. They do not want a judge hear the idea of child suggestibility. It is imperative that any psychologist who it testifying on CPS’s behalf be confronted with the data on child suggestibility.
The defendant and their attorney must be aware of the relationship between Dr. Lindahl and Sandra Glenney. The attorney needs to asks very specific questions about the latest research that Dr. Lindahl has read and expose her knowledge of child suggestibility.
Loudoun County CPS workers are poorly trained, this is an understatement. It is documented that investigators and social workers have no required training before interviewing children that are at the center of abuse accusations; this is concerning. It is worth noting that the mental health professionals that testify for the County are very suspect as well.
There are volumes of research concerning child suggestibility; this research is evidently irrelevant to Loudoun County CPS and the management. Ignorance of the research is rampant in Loudoun County CPS and its management team, Laurie Warhol and Ellen Grunewald. The psychologists that the agency uses are even more clueless to the research, this includes Dr. Mary Lindahl, Dr. Eliana Gil, Lisa Hunt and Dr. William Ling. Dr. Ling’s favorite diagnosis is Mood Order N-O-S (not other specified) and he relies heavy on the questionable Rorschach test. The test has the very bizarre belief that how a person views ink on a card can reveal their psychological health. The images can be seen here. If one comes across Dr. Ling, force him to cite studies that prove the validity of the Rorschach, he can’t do it. Child suggestibility research is equivalent to blasphemy to CPS’s chosen psychologists and psychiatrists. They are afraid of it; they do not want the judges to be aware of it.
Lisa Hunt and Dr. Lindahl usually operate as a pair and are favorites for the County, avoid having these two involved in your case.
It is important for a defendant and their attorney to ask very specific questions concerning an investigator’s training and their knowledge of child suggestibility studies. In one case, ex-CPS worker Benjamin Smith was not familiar with a very famous study. Loudoun CPS takes pride in its ignorance. It is worth noting that Mr. Smith concealed every piece of exculpatory evidence that he could. This was done with the full support of his management team, specifically Laurie Warhol.
The expert witnesses should be examined very critically and methodically. Most of the experts that CPS uses are very poorly trained and can be debunked very easily if asked the right questions. The attorney needs to be well versed in the subject matter, the psychologists and the social workers will use words such as believable and credible to bolster their testimony, the defendant must do their own research to be prepared. The alleged experts simply do not know the research; they are counting upon the lack of knowledge by the defendant and their attorney.
Finally it is important to record on tape everything that the CPS worker or anyone associated with the agency says. The agency is inherently untruthful and deceptive.
It has been said before by more eloquent writers than I that religion has no place in politics. This is a very unhealthy partnership and leads to foolish thoughts and actions. With this said, Virginia is a very Southern State. It is inundated with religion and the beliefs that result from this.
Religion typically dampens or attempts to dampen the skeptical nature of an individual; this is problematic. Skepticism spawns questions and questions spawn more inquiry. It is through inquiry that humans learn. Religion takes the opposite approach and asserts that questions indicate a lack of faith. In this aspect religion is very bad for society. In the case of the legal profession or politics, a skeptical person can be demonized as troublemaker. Religion praises belief and discourages skepticism.
Currently, Representative Bob Marshall is asking that the new Attorney General Mark Herring be impeached for not enforcing the ban on same sex marriage in Virginia. This seems like efforts misplaced as Virginia has so many other issues to deal with. Most notably the trial of the former Governor Bob McDonnell is soon approaching. Also there is no agreed upon budget for Virginia as of yet. His efforts seem to be misplaced. Religion normally does this, it encourages its followers to ignore real problems but instead focus on matters of alleged morality.
When this mentality infiltrates someone in politics and the legal profession, specifically the judiciary, the results are disastrous. A religious person in a position of authority will tend to bend toward their religion. Religion eclipses reason and superstition takes hold. The classic example of this is the “Salem Witch Trials”; the judges during those trials were extremely educated but believed inexplicably in witchcraft. This episode proves religion can dull the intellect of even the most educated person.
In the case of judges and attorneys involved in a civil action that involves abuse accusations the beliefs of the participants have incredible importance in the case. The burden of proof in a civil case is so low; it is essentially what the Judge chooses to believe. If the judge is pre-disposed to superstitious beliefs, the defendant is at a disadvantage. In the cases such as abuse accusations, the testimony of mental health profession is very much akin to spectral evidence that was allowed in the Salem trials.
When a religious person is involved in the legal professions or politics, belief trumps evidence.
The current County Attorney, Jack Roberts is retiring. His interim replacement was announced today in the Leesburg Today paper.
We, the citizens of Loudoun can only hope that whoever replaces Mr. Roberts is willing and able to clean up the culture that is pervasive in the County Attorney’s Office now. For some reason, which is a mystery Sandra Glenney stills holds the position of Assistant County Attorney. Sandra Glenney’s actions, which are documented with email and other artifacts, should have been sufficient to remove her from her position. A plausible explanation is that the County Attorney’s office allows this type of behavior. This is only a hypothesis. Nonetheless, her presence damages the Office’s reputation.
Sandra Glenney’s decision to withhold evidence from the Courts and Defense Attorney’s has consequences. To Ms. Glenney it is all about winning cases, never once giving thought to the damage inflicted upon her victims. For some reason Jack Roberts has allowed this to continue for years, maybe the times are changing with his retirement.
A dishonest County Attorney’s office or District Attorney’s Office has a vicious affect upon a community. No one is safe from their actions; people suffer from their actions as well. In the case of Sandra Glenney’s, she serves as legal counsel for the Child Protections Services Agency. Sandra Glenney harms children with her actions. We can only hope the new County Attorney will put the office in order.