It should be realized the "interpretation" of the medical evidence, (or lack
thereof) in this case, is the same "interpretation" already being used in
Juvenile cases.





--- On Wed, 3/18/09, VOCALIOWA@... <VOCALIOWA@...> wrote:
From: VOCALIOWA@... <VOCALIOWA@...>
Subject: [witchhunt] father wrongfully convicted of abuse of his 17 year old
daughter
To: Witchhunt@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 6:57 PM












Witchhunt@yahoogrou ps.com <Witchhunt@yahoogrou ps.com>



Wrongfully accused adoptive dad.



Jeff and June Rumelhart



America's Most Wanted are: Jeff Rumelhart, age 11 and Paige age 13. Who can
provide rescue?



Another family is in current severe difficulty. Its not because they have
abused their children. DHS has found that they can use the intake mechanism set
up for abuse cases and shuttle the family directly into Juvenile Court. The
Juvenile court can act in total secrecy and do precisely what they please. When
the mother complained, a gag order was imposed. Judge Constance Cohen is the
Juvenile judge. Ann Soroka is the social worker. The director of the Iowa
Department of Human Services, Eugene I. Gassow is a resident of Rhode Island and
works in Iowa.



This story is a complete turnaround from the kind of unfortunate child
protection cases on AMW. This story shows how a system, carefully constructed
to protect those who are vulnerable to abuse, and how such a system can be
eroded and misdirected and set to destroy otherwise healthy families. To the
degree this deliberate misconduct on the part of public officials and child
protectors is destroying families, it also must be shown that it represents a
severe misuse of public funds which may be in short supply to protect those who
face real abuse issues. False allegations of abuse can harm everyone in its
path. "When accusation becomes guilt, that day freedom ceases." Margaret
Thatcher.



When 17 year old, Ashley found that house rules were bothersome, she cried
"rape". Her accusations amounted to 500-1000 times over a 5-6 year period. Her
adoptive father was an electronics network instructor at DMACC. Jeff was placed
on administrative leave without pay and ordered not to be in the presence of
children under ge18. His minor children were ordered immediately into foster
care. His accusing daughter was put into state supported independent living in
Carlisle, Iowa, where parental rules are not necessary. Now she belongs to the
state. She was enabled in her further accusation by state sponsored therapist,
guardian ad litem, and a therapist.



The father's arrest was in March 2008. He did not come to trial until February
2009. The record of the trial shows absolutely no basis upon which a criminal
charge can rest. The prosecutor ignored all kinds of evidentiary procedures and
presented expert witness after witness even when the witness knew nothing about
the case. The prosecutor participated in the investigation, a violation of the
Brady bill. Medical evidence showed absolutely no evidence of a crime. This
paid witness, told the jury that it did not mean that a crime had not been
committed. Jessica Sleiter stated that the hymen of a pubescent child can
repair itself or grow back in 72 hours. This foolishness came from a nurse
practitioner in a state sponsored regional child protection center. What it
implies is that the accused can be sent to prison if the medical report shows
damage and can be sent to prison if the medical report shows no damage.
Gotcha!



There are a number of very important facets to the case which need close
attention. The most critical one right now is a man who awaits sentencing on
April 7, 2009 for up to 35 years. The husband is gone. The children are in
foster care. The mother faces termination of her parental rights. She was
recently laid off of medical job because of her involvement in the system. She
intends to go public with her story. She has contacted the Iowa legislature.
Members of the general assembly are permitted to examine DHS records.



I video taped the 5 day trial under extended media coverage. I have shown some
of the trial on local cable television. John Harvey 515 282-2672 I cannot
speak of the Juvenile part of this case because, like the mother, I was given a
gag order. When I asked for the written order I was refused. I was told that
it would be in writing in the transcript of the session. (This, of course, is
secret to everyone)



============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ======



The state filed five charges of child sexual abuse against Jeffrey Rumelhart, a
44 year old electronics network instructor at DMACC. The charges involved a 17
year old adoptive daughter. The defendant on February 26, 2008, was found
guilty of all counts.



At first glance, it would appear that the defendant must rise to prove a
negative - that is, to prove something did not occur. Evidence was given that
ninety percent of the 500 to 1000 sex acts were committed in the middle of the
night in the computer room on the ground level of a four level home. The alleged
acts were from the age 11 and progressed from back rubs to fondling, to oral sex
and vaginal sex including "doggie" style deep penetration performance. Jeff
Rumelhart pled not guilty to all counts and refused to play the plea bargain
game. Rumelhart was totally cooperative with all attempts to search his home
including the dropped ceiling, his computer and DNA swabs when requested. There
were no tangible items of evidence removed from the home.



With the defendant's plea of not-guilty, the burden of proof fell on the state
to prove every element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In opening
argument it was shown that the case is basically the child's word against he
father's word. However, the prosecuting attorney pointed out "But, we have the
condom!" The condom was considered the key evidence for the prosecution.



At 11:36 AM on February 26, 2009, a jury of 12 was charged with deliberating the
case. They were given 43 jury instructions. They were served lunch in the jury
room. Apparently they were able to reach an early tentative decision as to
guilt. In approximately one hour 40 minutes, the jury took out time to ask the
judge to explain the difference between second degree guilt and third degree.
They were told to read their manual. In an estimated additional three and one
half hours, just prior to 10 AM on the next day the jury notified the court
attendant that they had reached a verdict. It took nearly an hour to assemble
the parties. The verdict was read. The defendant was immediately handcuffed
and ushered to Polk County Jail without bond.



The are some of the overwhelming doubts which should have been sufficient to
ensure justice.



Doubt marker 1 (A 17 year old child who alleged to have been abused almost
every day for five years without detection)



The 17 year old accuser told her secret of hundreds of sex acts nearly every
day. The matter was not secret in 2005 when the Richard Erickson, her
biological father reported child sexual abuse to authorities. Upon
investigation the child denied that she was being abused. Her tale of abuse
started each time with her adoptive father arising from the bed he shared with
his wife on the fourth level of the rural ome. He was said to have descended
three flights of stairs to take his adoptive daughter from her waterbed shared
with a younger sister. According to the prosecution, he would take her to his
computer room, lock the door and commit sex acts. It was said that his descent
on the stairs sounded like a herd of elephants. His dog followed him everywhere
in the home and would scratch the door if it was locked. Three children
testified about the very close relationship between the Husky and her master.



One must give attention to whether hundreds of such night time ventures could
have been taken without a single detection. A reasonably prudent person would
not accept this preposterous account at face value unless supported with
substantial collateral evidence. Justifiable doubt is present regarding the
defendant's stealth movements around the house. This is reason to discount the
accusations and to rule not-guilty on this set of doubts alone.



Doubt marker 2 (Father was said to hide condoms in a ceiling space)



The alleged victim said that the defendant would use a condom during the sex
acts. Ashley told authorities that the adoptive father would push up a ceiling
tile and extract a condom from a box. Upon investigation, detectives found a
thick layer of dust indicating that nothing had been placed there. Certainly
nothing could have been removed from that spot without detection.



The accuser has advanced an accusation which failed the validity test. If the
child is inconsistent with her account which is verifiable, should doubt arise
regarding those parts for which validity tests are not available? The dust
speaks soundly with solid evidence regarding the believability of the accuser.
A serious problem with validity on important pieces of the accuser's story is
justifiable cause to discount her accusation and to rule not-guilty.



Doubt marker 3 (Key evidence was the condom)



On or about January 23, 2008, between the hours of 9 and 10 PM, according to the
statement of the alleged victim, her adoptive father had sex with her.
According to her story, this was said to be in exchange for his agreement to fix
her car. This was not a stealth venture during the night. This was when all
family members were awake. The prosecution stated, for some reason this time he
chose to tie the end of the condom and later toss it in a ditch in rural Polk
County. The child said he drove mother's van and headed for Wal Mart in Ankeny
to get a battery for her car. She did not know whether they drove north or
south. She recounted that her father threw the condom out of the left side of
the vehicle, nearly missing a mail box with the van. At this time she grabbed
the steering wheel to regain control. Later, in March, the child was
accompanied by three friends on a condom walk, approximately 4 miles southwest
of the Rumelhart home in
Elkhart. On NE 38th just 528 feet south of a farmstead driveway, the child
with great exuberance, found the condom. Matt "top dog" Davenport, a Polk
County detective arrived at the scene about one half hour after the civilian
detectives arrived. There were several versions of who was present, where and
when. Davenport picked up the condom and placed it in a paper sack. He failed
to seal it. He said he took digital pictures of the scene. He reported that the
images did not come out. It must be noted that this lead detective did not call
for a competent photographer to return to the scene to get the pictures to
complete the official evidence mission. Davenport, the lead detective, reported
that he did not know that there was an evidence protocol.



The deterioration of the latex condom appeared to be greater than that expected
for such a product. The weather exposure was barely two months from the January
23, 2008. The utter failure of the detective to observe a strict protocol,
clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of the evidence to have been planted or
otherwise subject to contamination. The evidence sat on the detective's desk
until he managed to get a DNA swab from the defendant. At that point both items
were delivered to the state lab in Ankeny in the same sack. More significant
than what was alleged to have been found, was the absence of evidence. There
was no evidence of female DNA on the condom submitted to the state lab.



There is no legal principle which would permit one to conclude sexual activity
based on a failure to observe an appropriate protocol for evidence gathering and
securing; the presentation of a grossly deteriorated condom found in a remote
ditch by the accuser, and failure to display female DNA evidence. In any case,
the origin of the condom is without proper foundation. We have only the tale
told by the accuser. That tale is inconsistent in that it told about where
condoms were hidden - the investigation did not support the accuser's tale.



Following disclosure of the child's accusations of sexual abuse, it took
Davenport about two weeks to launch a search for the condom. In violation of
Brady provisions, Davenport's search for this essential exhibit was commenced
only after Polk County Assistant Attorney Steven Foritano had requested that the
lead detective Davenport pursue the item. The first move made by lead Detective
Davenport in the launch to discover the condom, was initiated when the Detective
called Eula Burton to transport the child to the scene. Despite the fact that
the child said she did not know whether she had traveled north or south from her
Elkhart home two months prior, testimony indicated that the child directed
Burton to the precise spot and the accuser found the condom within minutes. A
prudent juror would exercise caution regarding testimony of the accuser and her
ability to locate a condom.



As impressive as a report of a DNA analysis might be, the report does not
replace or repair significant defects of the key evidence.



The detective reported that he did not know that there was an evidence protocol.
The product arising from the activities of a bungling public official is not the
stuff of which good evidence is made. Knowledge of the location of the condom
was in the sole hands of the one making the accusations. The evidence was
compromised, the evidence was not sealed, the evidence sack had more than one
case number on it and the location from which it was taken was not properly
documented. The evidence was not delivered to the crime lab until two weeks
later.



One must not send a man to prison based upon evidence incompetently gathered by
the accuser, where the chain of evidence was severely compromised and where the
crime scene was not competently preserved and documented. Sufficient evidence
requires more than an impressive DNA test evaluation. Scrupulous attention to
protocol is a part of a responsible prosecution and a proper judicial system.
Somehow this condom was given to the jury as a basis to find Jeff Rumelhart
guilty of sexually abusing his child.



The deterioration of the latex condom appeared to be greater than that expected
for such a product. The winter exposure was barely over two months from the
January 23, 2008 date. The utter failure of the detective to observe a strict
protocol clearly shows the vulnerability of the evidence to be planted or
otherwise contaminated. The evidence sat on the detective's desk until he was
motivated to get a DNA swab from the defendant. At that point both items were
delivered to the state lab in Ankeny. More significant than what was alleged to
have been found, was the absence of evidence. The lab report showed there was
no evidence of female DNA on the condom.



There is no legal principle which would permit one to conclude sexual activity
based on a failure to observe an appropriate protocol for evidence gathering and
securing; the presentation of a grossly deteriorated condom found in a remote
ditch by the accuser, and displaying no female DNA evidence.



The use of the condom as evidence poses a sweeping multitude of significant
problems. The serious deterioration of the condom cannot be adequately
explained by its exposure in a ditch from January 23, 2008 to its discovery on
or about March 23, 2008. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the condom
was thrown in the fall of 2007 or on January 23, 2008. One must ponder how a
child would be able find the condom so rapidly. Of the four civilians traveling
to the crime scene, it was Ashley Rumelhart who lone reported finding the
condom. Evidence shows that no attempt was made to follow any sort of protocol
regarding the condom. (except "don't touch it). At no time was the evidence
sealed and locked in a cabinet. It was placed in a paper sack where it rode
around in his vehicle and sat on his desk until sometime later when swabs were
taken voluntarily from Jeff Rumelhart and tossed into the same sack and
delivered to the state crime lab. A condom
with no female DNA conveys absolutely nothing to a jury whose single focused
task Is to evaluate guilt or innocence in a sexual abuse case. The state knew
the condom had no female DNA on it when it moved to trial. This is outright
undeniable fraud on the court. There is no legal principle which would permit
one to conclude sexual activity based on a failure to observe an appropriate
protocol for evidence gathering and securing; the presentation of a grossly
deteriorated condom found in a remote ditch by the accuser, and displayed no
female DNA evidence.



A DNA lecture by an expert witness is admittedly, an impressive report. A DNA
analysis adds absolutely nothing to the science in this case. It shows that
substance taken from a condom matches DNA cooperatively submitted by the father.
It cannot be asserted that this condom had been involved with sexual contact
with any female because no female DNA was present. It cannot be assumed that
the female DNA was missing because of exposure. There was no evidence entered
to show that the female DNA would be totally venerable to the elements. It
would be perfectly appropriate to consider that no female had contact with this
condom. The DNA testimony and report does not replace or repair significant
defects of the key evidence.



There is no verifiable independent support for the presence of a condom bearing
only Jeff's DNA. The DNA may have been planted in much the same way as done in
a popular movie called Crush. This movie was shown at the Rumelhart home. The
accuser testified that she did not see the movie. While it is not direct
evidence and one cannot connect the dots, it is one way of explaining how the
condom, bearing her adoptive father's DNA appeared a few weeks later by the
accuser.



If the ditch had been full of such condoms, a prudent juror could not possibly
connect the discovered item with any statutory misconduct.



Doubt marker 4 (Accuser determined that no one would believe her story. She
enlisted a younger child Courtney Dorothy, to lie in court.)



The 17 year old accuser believed that other people would not believe that she
was a victim of sexual abuse. She convinced a 14 year old friend at Sunshine
Open Bible Church to tell authorities that she had overhead the adoptive father
proposition his child. If the accuser is so unsure of her believability,
certainly all others must exercise great caution in their evaluation of that
evidence. Courtney Dorothy told the jury that before defense could get her
scheduled for a deposition, she decided to tell the prosecution the truth.



Doubt marker 5 (A child's genital exam for which no medical evidence of abuse
is documented, is no longer a valid defense to one accused of child sexual
abuse!). Jennifer Sleiter, a nurse practitioner on staff at Regional Child
Protection Center at Blank Children's Hospital, told the jury that the results
of a full detailed genital examination revealed no medical evidence that sexual
abuse occurred. She went on to say that following puberty the hymen elasticity
is sufficient to grow back in 72 hours. The state was attempting at this point
to prove its case by the absence of expert highly technical magnified
observation. The accused faced an accusation in which the hymen was torn or
broken or missing, the prosecution would claim victory. If the opposite is true
the prosecution would claim victory.



Here are a few categories in which doubt was abundantly present. The jurors
failed to recognize overwhelming cases in which doubt should have been
encountered, deliberated and a verdict brought forth which reflected the way our
jury system empaneled with 12 reasonably intelligent individuals.



John Harvey Court Room TV recording



17 hrs Extended Media Coverage



1102 21st Street VOCALIOWA@MCHSI. COM



Des Moines, Iowa 50311 (515) 282-2672



Might it be possible for HSLDA to do an amicus on this case on



retrial. PCR or appeal?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]