Junk Science Meets Junk Interviews

There Needs To Be A New Law To Challenge Past Child Interview Methods As Junk – First Step Taken

Please sign the petition for a new Texas law here

To: Mr. Grayson Coker

Policy Analyst

Senator Joan Huffman

From: Beverly T. and William E. Enoch

Re: A presentation of documents related to why a new law is important to allow current ‘Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol’ the ability to challenge past interviewing methods that were unfair to children and led to false reports and hardships for countless affected families

Greetings Mr. Coker:

We are attempting to provide evidence indicating why a new child interview law would benefit children. As an actual case example of disastrous affects of improper interview methods, we will introduce the challenge the Troupe family has faced since December 10, 1986 when a visit to see a doctor for then eight year old Beverly Troupe led to the conviction of her father, Brian K. Troupe, Sr., on a charge of Aggravated Sexual Assault. Other examples of families who suffered hardships as a direct result of unfair past interview methods may be found in Part 4 of this presentation.

Presented documents will provide evidence that the reason the Department of Human Services (DHS now CPS) was contacted by the doctor should have been due to his “suspicion of sexual abuse” yet he contacted DHS with his final diagnosis that he “determined” Beverly had been “repeatedly sexually assaulted.”

Presented documents will provide evidence that the DHS case interviewer was able to eventually gain agreement from Beverly through the interviewer’s repeated use of the doctor’s documents and his word, both of which had already determined and were reported to DHS by December 11, 1986, that Beverly had been “repeatedly sexually assaulted”.

Presented documents will provide evidence that his information was used as the interviewer’s basis to repeatedly question Beverly during a three-and-one-half-hour interview. Beverly’s “no” to the interviewer’s questions was not respected by the interviewer causing the interview to continue until the results of the interview matched the doctor’s premature diagnosis.

Presented documents will provide evidence that the interviewer even repeatedly questioned Beverly on a matter the doctor had ruled out of his initial report to DHS, but failed to convey his retraction to the interviewer.

*Presented documents may appear graphic to sensitive viewers.*

The ultimate goal is to have the State of Texas pass a law that allows current ‘Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol’ the ability to challenge the former child interviewing methods in court.

The following information presents our argument for requesting such a new law.

Table Of Contents:

Part 1A – Troupe Family Case

Part 1B – Inquiry Into Texas Case Number 35279

Part 2 – Current Child Forensic Interview Protocol

Part 3 – Experts In The Field of Current Child Interview Protocol

Part 4 – Cases of Affects Brought By Past Child Interview Methods

Part 5 – Recanters

Part 6 – Updates

Part 1A Troupe Family Case

Ever since Texas’ Article 11.073 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also known as the junk science law, became effective September 1, 2013, Beverly Troupe Enoch and her family has been trying to find a way to utilize this law to refute the diagnosis provided by the pediatrician who examined her beginning on December 10, 1986 when she was eight years old. To complement Article 11.073, there needs to be a new law to challenge past child interview method as junk when the methods are unfair to the child.

‘Why would Beverly, after over three hours of questioning, change her answer from “no” to “yes” when the interviewer asked her again if her father put his “ding dong’ in her?“‘

‘In Dr. Mujica’s April 2, 1987 trial testimony, he stated that contacting DHS was done “all the time” when there is a “suspicion of sexual abuse” so there could be an investigation. Dr. Mujica, instead, reported that he had “determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”.‘

‘Please note what a psychologist, who specializes in child forensic interviews, said why the three-and-a-half-hour interview that led to Beverly’s accusation of her stepfather is a clear red flag. He said that most children who have been sexually abused tell their interviewer within 20 minutes; if more time goes by, children become more open to suggestion, or invent memories they think their interviewer wants to hear. “We now know adults can be quite suggestive,” he said, “and sometimes they are unaware of it.”‘

‘Helen’s less than one year experience in the arena of child interviews became apparent when she attempted to record an official interview video of Beverly on December 16, 1986. This failed attempt was three days after the official interview on December 13, 1986 where after three and one half hours Beverly began agreeing with Helen’s sexually explicit questions, including the anal misinformation.

A video recording should have taken place on December 13, 1986, the day of the official interview. Not after Beverly was broken and gave up her truth. This tactic is highly unethical.’

Pictured below left is Killeen, Texas Police Department’s (KPD) Officer Joan Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement Report’ containing information from Department of Human services (DHS, now Child Protective Services CPS) social worker, Jeannie Cross. Officer Smith included in her report, which began on December 11, 1986,”Ms. Cross advised that Beverly Troupe, NF, 8 years, had been admitted to DACH on 12-10-86 after blood was observed in her urine and her panties.” Officer Smith continued, “According to Ms. Cross, the father, Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator.” Then, Officer Smith recorded what may be the most bias inducing statement at the center of the case, “Ms. Cross advised that Dr. Mujica examined Beverly and determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”

Pictured below right is a copy of Dr. Munter’s (the doctor who was on-duty in the ER at Darnell Army Community Hospital – DACH) ‘Emergency Care And Treatment Medical Record’ where he stated on December 10, 1986, Beverly had “0 hymen vaginal floor relaxed, gaping no abrasions or lacerations no blood…called Pediatrician D Mujica…” This no hymen statement is where bias that Beverly had been sexually assaulted began. The same enthusiasm placed upon proving sexual assault was not placed on Beverly’s answer as to how she hurt herself.

Dr. Munter’s medical record (below right) also states no blood in urine. However, Jeannie Cross told Officer Smith in document below left, that “blood was observed in her urine…” This appears to indicate an embellishment of Dr. Munter’s medical report by Jeannie.

On December 11, 1986, Dr. Mujica had already “determined” Beverly had been “repeatedly sexually assaulted” and contacted DHS, who then, contacted KPD. This contact by DHS was made even before “further examinations” were to be conducted. A record will be introduced to provide evidence DHS knew “further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86″, the day after DHS passed this premature information on to KPD on December 11, 1986.

DHS’ contact to KPD was made after Dr. Mujica “determined” Beverly “has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” and reported this information to DHS on December 11, 1986.

In Dr. Mujica’s April 2, 1987 trial testimony, he stated that contacting DHS was done “all the time” when there is a “suspicion of sexual abuse” so there could be a proper investigation. Dr. Mujica, instead, reported on December 11, 1986 that he had “determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”.

This premature diagnosis was passed on as factual even before any official investigation was launched. The alleged perpetrator, who Dr. Mujica named and already provided to KPD by DHS, was Beverly’s father, Brian Troupe. Beverly was not interviewed by a DHS caseworker until December 13, 1986. DHS already had her father named as the alleged perpetrator.

Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony provides evidence he contradicted himself by testifying “Based on the initial suspicion of sexual abuse, that’s what we do all the time. Whenever there’s a suspicion of sexual abuse, the Department of Human Resources –Human Services is called and they proceed to investigate–“. Instead of following this protocol on December 11, 1986, his initial contact with DHS that day was a report that he “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”

A PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony’s contradiction to his initial report to DHS is below.

mujica-1987-trial-testimony-stating-contacted-dhs-for-suspicion-of-sexual-abuse-contradicts-his-determination-of-sexual-assaultDOWNLOAD

In Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony, he was allowed to testify, under objection from the defense, to his diagnosis of Beverly displaying a flat effect on December 13, 1986. This diagnosis did not appear to take into consideration that Beverly had had her private parts exposed to him, had just been repeatedly asked sexually explicit questions by the DHS interviewer, told a huge lie on her father, and had been in a strange environment for days being subjected to information brought to her for simply having complained about a burning sensation during urination.

Dr. Mujica did not appear to take into consideration another possible reason why Beverly was so quiet could have been attributed to simple embarrassment. Dr. Mujica also did not appear to consider that Beverly’s complaining of burning during urination landed her where she found herself when he saw her on December 13th and observed her “flat affect” after the interview. Anything she said from that point on could have sent her through the same ordeal again; thus better to remain silent.

In Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony, under objection from the defense, he was allowed to testify to his “flat affect” diagnosis which he skimmed from a magazine. Dr. Mujica, at this point in his career, had no formal education on the subject of flat affect.

To view Beverly’s demeanor as “flat affect” appeared to be another item Dr. Mujica could add to his hypothesis from his December 10, 1986 assumption that she had been “sexually assaulted” when Dr. Munter failed to locate her hymen. By assuming Beverly displayed “flat affect”, Dr. Mujica could then add another confirmation to initial bias.

Would a proper diagnosis of flat affect involve more than Dr. Mujica’s description of what he deciphered from Beverly’s demeanor?

Would a diagnosis of flat affect also take into consideration a number of other criteria? Such criteria that could reveal well rounded out insight into Beverly’s multi-faceted personal nature?

A good way to began learning Beverly’s personal nature and characteristics could have been through interviews.

Before diagnosing Beverly with “flat affect”, could Dr. Mujica have interviewed Beverly, her parents (to learn of her emotional background, not how did she get hurt), her School Educators, her church Pastor and her personal friends?

Another good way to learn some more about Beverly’s nature and characteristics could have been through spending enough necessary time with her.

If he had made a proper report of “suspicion of sexual abuse”, then Dr. Mujica could have been involved in a proper investigation that would have followed a report of “suspicion of sexual abuse”. Such proper investigation never took place because Dr. Mujica reported a diagnosis that he had “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted“.

If there had been a proper “suspicion of sexual abuse” investigation, Dr. Mujica could have spent time with Beverly over several days or weeks in different environments, including her home, school or church to better help him assess his initial evaluation. This way, the interview may not have been tainted with as much bias and Dr. Mujica may not even have observed what he diagnosed as “flat affect”, after the interview.

Why the rush to justice? Based upon Dr. Mujica’s initial report to DHS that he already had “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”, instead of “suspicion of sexual abuse”, records within this presentation provide evidence that it appears DHS and Dr. Mujica considered the case to be closed and no need to investigate.

Would the DHS interviewer have performed a proper investigation instead of a highly suggestive interview had Dr. Mucjica followed protocol to report “suspicion of sexual abuse”?

Could the reason why the DHS interviewer did not perform a proper investigation be due to the fact that Dr. Mujica actually reported to DHS he “had determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”?

A PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony on flat affect pages 467 line 12 – 475 line 20 below.

mujica-1987-trial-testimony-flat-affect-diagnosis-pgs-467-line-12-pg-475-line-20DOWNLOAD

In Dr. Mujica’s December 31, 1986 ‘Voluntary Statement’ to KPD, he never stated whether he even asked Beverly how she got hurt. He had multiple opportunities to ask Beverly herself, the person who could answer that question, instead, he asked her parents. Their guesses at how Beverly may have gotten hurt ended up as questions the DHS interviewer pounded Beverly with during that three hour plus interview.

Within his ‘Voluntary Statement’ and speaking of Beverly, Dr. Mujica “asked her directly if her father was the one hurting her…”

Below is a copy of Dr. Mujica’s December 31, 1986 Killeen Police Department ‘Voluntary Statement’, where he states after the December 13, 1986 DHS interview, he asked Beverly directly if her father was the one hurting her. Dr. Mujica changed what he initially told DHS from he “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” to, “In my opinion, Beverly Troupe has been sexually assaulted.” Then, in his 2011 Evidentiary Hearing affidavit, also pictured below, Dr. Mujica stated, “Nothing I have reviewed or learned since that time has called me to change my opinion that Beverly was repeatedly sexually abused back then.” These two opinions came after Beverly’s December 13, 1986 interview by Helen Paramore. Remember, Dr. Mujica had already “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”, and this diagnosis presented no need for the interviewer to investigate, only to interrogate Beverly until Beverly agreed with Mujica’s determination of sexual assault. Once Beverly was broken, she would go to exaggerate, even to say her father abused her.

Full PDFs of, a) the report from Dr. Mujica that DHS reported to Killeen Police Department stating he has “determined” sexual assault, b) his December 31, 1986 ‘Voluntary Statement’ with KPD stating his “opinion” of sexual abuse and c) his August 4, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Affidavit stating his “opinion” of sexual assault, are below photos showing parts of these documents.

investigative-supplement-report-1986-p.16-1DOWNLOAD

mujica-voluntary-statementDOWNLOAD

affidavit-mujica-2011DOWNLOAD

Dr. Mujica’s premature diagnosis of repeated sexual assault was evidently believed by DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, to the extent she did not perform a proper investigation, but instead badgered Beverly until Beverly succumbed. Had Dr. Mujica reported suspicion of sexual abuse instead of a diagnosis, Beverly, most likely would have received an unbiased investigation.

Dr. Mujica jotted down a premature, “Final Dx. Sexual abuse“, on December 11, 1986 which was one day after he first evaluated Beverly, one day before “further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86”, and two days before the child interview with the DHS interviewer. During that same December 11th day, he managed to convince at least one DHS worker of his final diagnosis. How could an interviewer remain neutral after learning of Dr. Mujica’s final diagnosis of sexual abuse?

Dr. Mujica’s December 11, 1986 ‘Abbreviated Medical Record’ showing “Final DX. Sexual abuse” is below.

Upcoming interviewer testimonies will provide evidence on how the interviewer’s method was unfair to Beverly when the interviewer based her questions upon the “determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” report from Dr. Mujica , not upon, “suspicion of sexual abuse.”

The case still presented problems for filing a Habeas Writ. The current criteria for determining sexual assault are 1) Outcry by the victim 2) Pregnancy 3) A sexually transmitted disease or 4) Perpetrator DNA. This current list includes no mention of injuries, size of the victim’s vaginal opening nor flat affect which were the criteria used by the pediatrician who examined Beverly in 1986 along with her “word”. The only common denominator in the pediatrician’s criteria and current criteria is the child’s word. Why would Beverly, after over three hours of questioning change her answer from “no” to “yes” when the interviewer asked her again if her father put his “ding dong” in her?

By using a potential junk child interview law as well as Texas Article 11.073, past case documents would establish how Beverly eventually came to agree with her 1986 interviewer. There was never an outcry from Beverly, only agreement with the interviewer at the end of a three plus hour interview. The interviewer never stopped the interview after repeatedly hearing Beverly’s negative answers to her repeated questions until Beverly eventually began to answer in the affirmative. Affirmative answers would be in agreement with the pediatrician because he had already “determined she has repeatedly been sexually assaulted.”, and “…the father, Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator.”

Article 11.073 would be utilized to provide evidence the pediatrician practiced junk science against Beverly when she was an eight year old child. A new junk interviews law would be utilized to provide evidence the DHS interviewer practiced junk interviewing against Beverly.

Pictured (above left) is Dr. Samuel A. Mujica, the pediatrician who made a premature diagnosis of sexual assault during an evaluation of eight year old Beverly in 1986 and passed this diagnosis on to DHS Social Worker, Jeannie Cross who then passed the premature diagnosis on to DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore pictured (above right).

After finding herself and her family at a dead end, Beverly knew it was time to further seek justice by getting to the root of the case: confirmation bias. This confirmation bias appears to have began to develop in a hospital patient room when Dr. Munter relayed to Dr. Mujica his opinion of eight year old Beverly not having a “hymen”. It appears upon hearing Dr. Munter’s opinion, Dr. Mujica developed the assumption Beverly was “sexually assaulted.” It appears Dr. Munter’s statement of “no hymen” correlated with sexual assault in Dr. Mujica’s assumption. From that point on, records show, Dr. Mujica sought to prove this hypothesis.

Dr. Mujica’s bias then appears to have transferred onto DHS caseworker, Jeannie Cross, who prematurely contacted KPD on December 11, 1986 with her statement, “it was determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.” Jeannie also went on to state, “the father, Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator.” Jeannie also incorrectly stated, “blood was observed in her urine”, speaking of Beverly, yet Dr. Munter’s report stated there was no blood in Beverly’s urine.

Would DHS worker Jeannie Cross have even contacted KPD had Dr. Mujica followed protocol and instead told her he had a “suspicion of sexual abuse”?

Could Dr. Mujica’s break with protocol by reporting a determination of “sexual assault” be the reason Jeannie contacted KPD before a proper DHS investigation was conducted?

Dr. Mujica’s determination of repeated “sexual assault” (not suspicion of sexual abuse) was passed on to Jeannie Cross. Next, on December 11, 1986, Jeannie, in turn, passed on this diagnosis to KPD. Then on December 12, 1986, Jeannie passed her case file on to Helen Paramore, the DHS interviewer who interviewed Beverly for three-and-a-half hours.

Based upon the premature diagnosis within that case file, not a suspicion of sexual abuse, Helen would not accept Beverly’s answer “no”, as she said Beverly “denied and denied”, because Helen showed she believed the doctor’s premature diagnosis and took over three hours to convince Beverly to believe it too. Although Beverly did not believe the doctor’s diagnosis, she did go on to exaggerate once she saw how pleased Helen became (confirmation bias) after she got the agreement. Beverly’s embellishment from that point on became epic in her attempt to just get back home. She did not return home again until the day of her eighteenth birthdate.

Please note what a psychologist who specializes in child forensic interviews said the three-and-a-half-hour interview that led to Beverly’s accusation of her stepfather is a clear red flag. He said that most children who have been sexually abused tell their interviewer within 20 minutes; if more time goes by, children become more open to suggestion, or invent memories they think their interviewer wants to hear. “We now know adults can be quite suggestive,” he said, “and sometimes they are unaware of it.”

The link to the Texas Observer article where the above information came from is here: https://www.texasobserver.org/recanters-child-abuse-claims-come-undone/

Dr. Mujica had the opportunity to retract his statement to DHS and interviewer Helen Paramore about anal injuries after Dr. Miller’s “further examinations” on December 12, 1986 revealed no injuries. Instead, Dr. Mujica failed to release this important piece of information before the December 13, 1986 DHS interview. Helen utilized this misinformation to introduce it to Beverly, question her about it and eventually was able to persuade Beverly to say yes to it near the end of the three hour plus interview.

The following list are documents included in the copies below:

1. Officer Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement Report’ which states “anal” injuries.
2. Dr. Mujica’s ‘Voluntary Statement’ where he never mentions anal injuries.
3. Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony where he states there is no evidence anal penetration.
4. Helen’s 1986 affidavit where she includes anal misinformation.
5. OBGYN Dr. Miller’s ‘Operation Report’ which never states anything about Beverly’s hymen or anal injury nor agrees with Dr. Mujica’s information he passed on to DHS regarding “anal anterior forchette lesions with marked erythema”. Dr Miller’s ‘Operation Report’ does not show anywhere within it that he agrees with Dr. Mujica’s sexual abuse hypothesis. The report goes on to state, “…after the induction of anesthesia was placed in the low lithotomy position”, whereas the proper position Dr. Miller as well as Dr. Munter, and Dr. Mujica all should have placed Beverly in either “…the supine frog legged position and the prone knee chest position…”.
6. The correct position is explained in the “Medical Findings and Child Sexual Abuse” document.

In Dr. Mujica’s April 2, 1987 trial testimony, when questioned about evidence of anal penetration of Beverly, he answered, “…there was no evidence…that, that happened.”

This April 2, 1987 admission on the doctor’s part came much too late to stop the interviewer from repeatedly questioning Beverly about anal matters which the interviewer received from Dr. Mujica prior to the December 13, 1986 interview.

A copy of Dr. Mujica’s admission of no anal penetration during his April 2, 1986 trial testimony is below from line 18 – line 25. A pdf file is below the copy.

PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony that there was no evidence of anal penetration is below.

mujica-1987-trial-testimony-no-eveidence-of-anal-penetration-pg-504-lines-18-25DOWNLOAD

Dr. Mujica’s failure to alert DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, of the fact he had dismissed his anal information not only led to her repeatedly questioning Beverly on this misinformation, but Helen eventually wrote a December 16, 1986 affidavit which included this anal misinformation. She even testified in the April 2, 1987 trial of Beverly’s father that Beverly brought this information to her. Eventually gaining Beverly’s affirmative on anal misinformation and bolstering confirmation bias that Beverly’s father had done this allowed Helen to author such affidavit.

Never knowing Dr. Mujica had already dismissed all anal matters, but failed to notify her before the interview that he had, Helen repeated her anal misinformation during her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony.

Below are copies of Helen’s 1986 affidavit which included this anal misinformation, her 1987 trial testimony regarding this anal misinformation on page number 606 from line 1 – line 13 and her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing regarding this anal misinformation on page number 267 from lines 7 – line 25. PDFs may be found below these copies.

PDFs of Paramore’s testimony regarding anal misinformation are below. Page and line numbers are the same as in the copies:

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 1986 affidavit is below.

paramore-affidavit-pdf-2DOWNLOAD

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 1987 trial testimony, as evidence Helen questioned Beverly on anal matters, is below.

paramore-1987-trial-testimony-anal-pg-606-lines-1-13DOWNLOAD

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony as evidence she was aware of a “lax anus” is below.

paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-lax-anus-pg-267-line-7-line-25DOWNLOAD

Dr. Mujica’s failure to notify DHS interviewer Helen Paramore that he had dismissed his anal information eventually led to Beverly being questioned about this misinformation in the 1987 trial. Beverly’s testimony came after Dr. Mujica’s testimony where he already had testified there was no evidence of anal penetration. Beverly learned of this anal misinformation during her three and a half interview on December 13, 1986 through Helen Paramore.

Beverly’s 1987 trial testimony provides evidence that she was still questioned about anal matters. This line of questioning is on page 536 line 9 – 543 line 12, page 555 line 23 – 556 line 12, and page 558 line 25 – 562 line 7 of the 52 page testimony and is below.

beverly-troupe-1987-trial-testimony-1DOWNLOAD

The following documents will provide evidence Helen received Dr. Mujica’s determination of repeated sexual assault, injuries and anal information from case documents as well as from Dr. Mujica’s word of mouth, Helen testifies to her knowledge of this information twice within her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony.

Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony states the first person she talked with when she arrived at the hospital was Dr. Mujica is in pages 258 line 4 – 260 line 5. In pages 287 line 20 – 288 line 24, Helen testifies she learned of all case matters both from Dr. Mujica directly as well as through case documents.

PDFs are underneath the copies. Page and line numbers remain the same.

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing provides evidence she received case information prior to the interview is below.

paramore-2011-hearing-received-anal-info-from-mujica-pg-287-line-20-288-line-25DOWNLOAD

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing provides evidence she received case information before the interview.

paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-1st-person-spoke-with-hospital-was-dr-mujica-pg-258-line-4-260-line-5DOWNLOAD

Helen Paramore is not the only person there is a record of being under undue influence by Dr. Mujica’s premature diagnosis and premature report to DHS of having “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”

Nurse Thelma Sherley even writes in her ‘Nursing Notes’ dated December 11, 1986, “Beverly denies upon questioning that anybody has touched or done anything to her private parts but she would not look at me when I was asking her those questions.” These ‘Nursing Notes’ were recorded the same day Dr. Mujica reports to DHS, not that he suspected sexual abuse, but that Beverly “has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”

For Thelma to ask Beverly whether anyone touched or done anything to her private parts is a clear assumption of sexual assault without noting in her ‘Nursing Notes’ whether she even asked Beverly how she got hurt.

To include within her ‘Nursing Notes’ that Beverly did not look at her when she denied anyone had touched her nor did anything to her private parts appears an assumption of guilt or hiding of information on Beverly’s part.

Could Thelma have been displaying bias toward Beverly after it had been already “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” rather than “suspected” of being sexually abused?

Would the neutral and empathetic attitude been to consider Beverly may have been in a highly uncomfortable environment and may have not been in the best of moods?

Would it had been better for Beverly had Thelma not even questioned her on such matters that night of December 11, 1986 at all before the December 13, 1986 DHS interview?

A copy of Thelma’s ‘Nursing Notes’ is below.

Dr. Mujica eventually wrote off his report to DHS of, “anal anterior forchette lesions with marked erythema…” as signs of “constipation” in his ‘Abbreviated Medical Record’.

Below left is Officer Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement” which included anal information and below right is Dr. Mujica’s ‘Abbreviated Medical Record which included constipation.

Dr. Mujica’s statement that Beverly had no hymen was one of three different descriptions of her hymen he testified to in his April 2, 1987 trial testimony. Those three different descriptions are in the copy of that testimony below on page 478 line 16 (“broken hymen”), page 500 lines 5 & 6 (“broken hymen that looks well healed”), page 503 line 13 (“absence of a hymen”). A pdf of his three different descriptions of Beverly’s hymen is below the copy. Page and line numbers are same as above. Would an expert need to cover all bases with three different descriptions of Beverly’s hymen?

A PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony stating Beverly had three different hymen conditions simultaneously is below.

mujica-1987-trial-testimony-on-3-different-hymens-pgs-478-500-503DOWNLOAD

As a DHS employee, Helen Paramore, an inexperienced interviewer, performed the unethical act of delayed videotaping. The current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol includes ethical videotaping of child interviews in almost all cases.

On the day of the December 13, 1986 interview with Beverly, Helen Paramore’s experience consisted of lesser than one year according to her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony where she could not accurately state exactly what her training protocol involved.

Below are copies of Helen’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony regarding her work experience in the field of child interviews. A PDF is below the copies.

helen-paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-experience-pgs-284-line-16-287-line-16DOWNLOAD

Helen’s less than one year experience in the arena of child interviews became apparent when she attempted to record an official interview video of Beverly on December 16, 1986. This failed attempt was three days after the official interview on December 13, 1986 where, after over three hours, Beverly began agreeing with Helen’s sexually explicit questions, including the anal misinformation.

A video recording should have taken place on December 13, 1986, the day of the official interview. Not after Beverly was broken and gave up her truth. This tactic is highly unethical.

Below are copies of Officer Joan Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement’ where she records Helen Paramore’s response to her question about the videotaping on December 16, 1986 and Helen’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony where she confirmed the video was taped on December 16th.

Below is a PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony verifying the unethical delay of videotaping until after the official three and one half hour official interview.

helen-paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-delayed-videotaping-pgs-289-line-16-290-line-21DOWNLOAD

Before the current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol was established, a child who made no outcry of sexual assault could be thoroughly questioned using other person’s guesses of what may have happened to the child instead of allowing the child to tell the story.

The interviewer contradicted herself during her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony stating she “thoroughly questioned the child”, yet also testifying she “let the child tell the story.”

The interviewer, Helen Paramore’s 2011 hearing testimony contradictions are below. A PDF of these copies is below the copies.

PDFs of the above copies of Helen Paramore’s contradictory Evidentiary Hearing testimony are below.

paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-let-child-tell-the-story-pg-266-lines-1-12-1DOWNLOAD

paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-thoroughly-questioned-child-pgs-278-line-17-281-line-17DOWNLOAD

Past interviewing methods allowed the interviewer to suggest the name of the alleged perpetrator to the alleged victim of sexual assault. The current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol does not include suggesting alleged perpetrator’s names or titles.

In Helen Paramore’s 1987 trial testimony, she was asked if she asked Beverly was it her father who hurt her. Helen testified yes to that question and added “several times”. When asked a similar question during her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing, Helen testified, “Absolutely not.”

Copies of Helen’s contradictory 1987 trial testimony (page 607 line 20 – page 608 line 8) and her 2011 hearing testimony (page 266 lines 1 – 12) are below. A PDF of these copies are below the copies. Page and line numbers remain the same.

paramore-1987-trial-testimony-said-she-suggested-fathers-name-pg-607-line-20-608-line-8DOWNLOAD

paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-said-absolutely-did-not-ask-if-it-was-her-father-pg-266-lines-1-12DOWNLOAD

The current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol is designed with the child as priority and “adopt a multidisciplinary approach, known as the Child Advocacy Center Model, which aims to coordinate the needs of all relevant professionals (e.g., medical, law enforcement, child protective services, mental health, victim advocacy and prosecution) through a single interview and location to streamline investigations.” (Cross, Jones, Walsh, Kolko, 2007 – Lillian Rivard and Nadja Schreiber Compo, 4. 2017.

The past interview method employed by the DHS interviewer Helen Paramore never involved corroboration with mental health professionals on Beverly’s behalf. The medical professional had no involvement with the interview other than provide the basis of the interviewer’s questions.

Helen’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony sheds light on how she conducted the December 13, 1986 interview regarding any signs of empathy for Beverly’s state of mind. Beverly just had her private parts exposed to strangers who never even asked her how she got hurt. She was exposed to what had to have been embarrassing sexually explicit questions by the DHS interviewer.

Please follow copies of pages 276 line 7 – 281 line 17 from Helen’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing and look for signs of empathy for Beverly from the interviewer. A PDF is below the copies. Page and line numbers remain the same.

PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony is below.

paramore-2011-hearing-testimony-shows-no-empathy-for-beverly-pgs-276-line-7-281-line-17DOWNLOAD

Officer Joan Smith (name was Joan Robinson at the 2011 Evidentiary Hearing) went on to interview Beverly on December 18, 1986 in order to formulate a ‘Voluntary Statement’. In her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony, Joan Robinson shares with Attorney Janice Baldwin how she was able to walk eight year old Beverly through the process in a “question and answer form…”.

Below is a copy of eight year old Beverly’s ‘Voluntary Statement’ as prepared by Officer Joan Smith (Joan Robinson).

What to look for in the ‘Voluntary Statement’:

1. Language introduced to the child (pussy, ding-a-ling).
2. Signs that multiple choice answers appeared to have been supplied by DHS interviewer to Beverly are: a little bit, all the way, or half way. “Sometimes, he puts his finger in my pussy half way.” “Sometimes, he sticks his finger in my booty and sometimes he puts his ding-a-ling in my booty half way.” Multiple choice answers were resorted to after the child’s “no” to the questions about whether her father put his ding-a-ling inside her was not respected nor did the child make an outcry of sexual abuse.

Officer Joan Smith went on to testify as Joan Robinson in the 2011 Evidentiary Hearing. Joan’s hearing testimony is below:

What to look for in Joan’s hearing testimony:

Signs of a question and answer format used to formulate the child’s statement instead of the child telling a story without coaching.

officer-joan-kdp-2011-hearing-testimonyDOWNLOAD

Dr. Mujica reported to DHS on December 11, 1986 and before the interview, that he found “anal anterior fourchette lesions with marked erythema”. Dr. Bradley Miller’s (Dr. Miller was an OBGYN) further examinations on December 12, 1986 yielded his ‘Operation Report’ which never mentioned this condition. Dr. Miller did not even mention not finding a hymen, yet Dr. Mujica had already passed his “findings” on to DHS on December 11, 1986, before these further examinations were conducted on December 12th. Dr. Mujica never contacted DHS to retract his anal information.

Dr. Bradley Miller, OBGYN, produced notes following his “more thorough examinations”. The OBGYN’s nots are below:

dr-miller-notesDOWNLOAD

Dr. Bradley Miller’s Operation Report is below:

dr-miller-operation-report-dated-12.12.86DOWNLOAD

Then, on December 13, 1986, the DHS interviewer introduced Dr. Mujica’s anal misinformation to Beverly.

Interviewer, Helen Paramore, had her story of Beverly’s answers to her thorough questions from their three hour plus interview notarized on her affidavit dated December 15, 1986.

A section of Helen’s affidavit includes statements about Beverly’s “booty”. Beverly was taken to the hospital because of complaining of burning during urination and nothing anal related.

A PDF of Helen Paramore 1986 affidavit is below:

paramore-affidavit-pdf-1DOWNLOAD

Helen Paramore went on to testify in the April 1st and 2nd, 1987 trial of Beverly’s Father, Brian K. Troupe, Sr. Helen’s trial testimony is below.

What to look for in Helen’s trial testimony are:

1. Stories of how the child may have been injured were provided to the interviewer prior to the interview and used as a basis to question the child.
2. The interviewer’s testimony that she “questioned” the child for hours and she eventually “said yes” after repeatedly having answered “no” to the interviewer’s stories.
3. There was never an outcry, but after the child had been questioned for over three hours, the child eventually gave in and told the DHS worker, “yes”. The child then used all that was introduced to her and embellished that information.

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 1987 trial testimony is below

helen-paramore-1987-trial-testimonyDOWNLOAD

Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony is below.

What to look for in Helen’s 2011 hearing testimony:

A change from her 1987 testimony when she stated she “questioned” the child during the over three hour long interview even asking whether the father was the one hurting her, to her 2011 hearing testimony where she testified her tactic was to let the child tell the story and did “absolutely not” ask if her daddy did this to her.

A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing is below.

helen-paramore-2011-hearing-testimonyDOWNLOAD

Eight year old Beverly was eventually put on the witness stand in 1987 to testify against her father at his April 1st and 2nd trial. Among the questions Beverly was asked was whether her father sodomized her. This line of questioning was based upon the misinformation about anal matters which the DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, wrote about in her December 1986 affidavit. Such misinformation resulted from the pediatrician, Dr. Samuel A. Mujica, not informing the DHS interviewer before the December 13, 1986 interview of Beverly that he had retracted his anal report after the “more thorough examination” was conducted by OBGYN, Dr. Bradly Miller on December 12, 1986. The DHS interviewer repeatedly questioned Beverly whether her father sodomized her, and toward the end of three and one half hours, Beverly started agreeing to all of the interviewer’s suggestions and exaggerated upon these suggestions. Beverly brought this anal misinformation, which was new to her, to court.

Within Beverly’s complete 1987 trial testimony of her father, Brian K. Troupe, Sr., it is noteworthy that her exaggerations about her father washing her vaginal area with a rag full of glass is recorded. It is also noteworthy that Beverly was still questioned about sodomy even though Dr.Mujica, who examined Beverly and made a determination that “she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”, had testified in court right before Beverly, and, when asked about anal penetration, he replied, “…there was no evidence…that, that happened.” Sodomy was on prosecutor Rusty Carroll’s agenda because the DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, had put it there through her affidavit, claiming Beverly told her as much. Even the doctor’s testimony refuting this misinformation did not stop Rusty from questioning Beverly on this misinformation.

A PDF of Beverly’s complete 1987 trial testimony is below. Her questionings about sodomy are recorded on page 536 line 13 – page 550 line 15, page 555 line 23 – page 556 line 12, page 558 line 25 – page 562 line 7.

Within the same PDF below, Beverly’s questionings of glass being the cause of her injuries are recorded on page 543 line 13 – page 550 line 15, page 553 line 11 – page 554 line 19, page 556 line 13 – page 558 line 25, page 558 line 25 – page 562 line 7.

Please take special note of page 557 lines 1 – 22 where Beverly’s exaggeration about glass in the “rag” which her father allegedly uses to scrub her vaginal area appears to baffle the defense Attorney Potter when he attempted to differentiate Beverly’s feeling the glass in the rag versus her seeing the glass in the rag. It would seem unreasonable for a father to place glass inside a wash cloth and bathe his child. Would Beverly’s feeling the glass make more sense as a way to interpret this unbelievable tale than her seeing the glass? Beverly testified she felt it and, on line 12 of page 557 of her testimony, she is recorded to testify, “I seen it.” Unbelievable.

beverly-troupe-1987-trial-testimonyDOWNLOAD

A copy of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s December 22, 2006 polygraph results of having been questioned whether her father sexually abused her is below.

polygraphDOWNLOAD

A PDF of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony Day 1 is below.

beverly-testimony-2011-hearingDOWNLOAD

A PDF of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony Day 2 is below.

beverly-testimony-2011-hearing-day-2DOWNLOAD

The first step was taken to get her junk interviews idea eventually written into law when, on Sunday, September 19, 2021, Beverly sent a message to her Texas State Senator, Joan Huffman, via the Senator’s website contact form.

The next day, Monday September 20, 2021, Grayson Coker, from the Senator’s Office, reached out to Beverly.

This website address may be shared between Texas State Legislators to facilitate review and investigation for the feasibility of a junk child interviewing bill to present to the Governor of Texas to sign.

For updates regarding this legislative attempt of having a Texas law passed that will allow current Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol the ability to challenge interview methods of the past, please see Part 6.

Please follow us on twitter.

Thank you for your time.

w/e/e 10.2.21

If you or a loved one have been wrongly convicted based upon the testimony of a child you believe was coerced or coached, please tell us about it on our contact form.