NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION State v. Mr. P. (DMC No. 6506) (Mesa Police Department Investigated): Mr. P.’s wife had filed an Order of Protection and claimed that he had sexually abused their daughter. His wife had had problems in the past, and was charged with trying to drug and murder the children. She was placed on probation and given mental health terms. 7 years had passed, and she now made these false allegations. We had Mr. P. take, and pass a polygraph test, and we turned over to Detectives Mrs. P.’s prior history. The Detective in charge of the case agreed to clear all charges.

 

 

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR/CHILD MOLESTATION – State v. Mr. & Mrs. S. (DMC No. 5827 & 5828) (El Mirage Police Department Investigated): Mr. & Mrs. S. took their daughter to the hospital because she had scratched herself and was bleeding near her vagina. Hospital staff accused them of molest, and the police were called. CPS took their daughter away to foster care, and we became involved. We had them both take, and pass a polygraph test and we explained the same to CPS. They got their daughter back and no charges were ever brought against them.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION – State v. Mr. L. (DMC No. 6049) (Phoenix Police Department Investigated): Mr. L. lived in an apartment complex, and was currently on disability when he befriended a neighbor who had a 3 year old daughter. They became friends over time, and eventually he would babysit the neighbor’s daughter while she was out town. Approximately 6 months after he had babysat the daughter, allegations of child molest surfaced. We had Mr. L. take, and pass a polygraph test. In addition, we discovered that the neighbor’s ex-husband was in prison, and had been released about 2 months after Mr. L. had last babysat the child. We conducted a “free talk” with the Detective and Mr. L. at the police station. It became apparent that Mr. L. had given the 3 year old a bubble bath during one of the overnight babysitting sessions. The father (who just been released from prison) was unstable, and made these allegations. The Detective viewed the polygraph results and no charges were brought against Mr. L.

NOT CHARGED | CHILD MOLESTATION – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 6250) (Phoenix Police Department Investigated): Mr. B. was a 71 year old man who had purchased his 36 year old niece a car in exchange for a $5,000 promissory note. The niece quit paying on the note, and after she had her second child out of wedlock she demanded he forgive the $5,000 note, and give her another $5,000 for “molesting me when I was 5”. We had Mr. B. take, and pass a polygraph test. We also provided the promissory note, along with the polygraph results to the Detectives. When they confronted the alleged victim, she quickly discontinued all contacts with police. The Detective ruled “there is no evidence to support an allegation of molest”, and closed the investigation.

NOT CHARGED | 5 COUNTS SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 6552) (Mesa Police Department Investigated): Mr. B. was a 21 year old young man who was dating a 16 year old girl. They slept together and she subsequently became pregnant. Her father was pushing the Mesa Police Department to file charges; however the young lady did not wish them to proceed. Mr. B. and the young lady worked out the issue of custody through the Family Law Court. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office was informed of this new development and they declined to press the 5 counts of sexual conduct with a minor, which had been requested by the Detective.

NOT CHARGED | SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR – State v. Mr. M. (DMC No. 5360) (Mesa Police Department Investigated): Mr. M. and his wife had adopted the alleged victim when she was 5 ½ years old. This was after she had been abandoned by her mother (twice) and put into foster homes. She was now a 17 year old teenager, and she had gotten a speeding ticket, a car accident and was exhibiting destructive behavior. Mr. M. required her to go to church, and just prior to going they engaged in a yelling match regarding her behavior. When she got to church, she made allegations to her elder that Mr. M. had molested her. Detectives conducted a “confrontation call” in which the alleged victim called Mr. M. in order to try and get him to confess to a crime. He denied all crimes, and agreed to meet her at a local Denny’s. He again denied all crimes, and at that point police arrested him. We began representing him, and showed the Detectives that this was all his adopted daughters manufactured allegations. In addition, his wife immediately filed an Order of Protection, cleared out their bank account and began a divorce proceeding. When all of this was presented to Detectives, and they agreed there was no probable cause to forward this to the County Attorney’s Office. No charges were brought against Mr. M.