With the full knowledge that Sandra Glenney is retired, it is absolutely necessary not to let people forget her tactics. From withholding DNA testing evidence, blocking access to therapists notes and allowing people to freely perjure themselves without challenging their testimony. The Loudoun County Judicial System must move forward and not backslide to the tactic’s employed by Sandra Glenney.
I am fully aware that Sandra Glenney is no longer an employee of Loudoun County. Her fingerprints still remain. Her strategy leveraged alleged expert testimony, her experts scrape the bottom of the barrel. I will say it again and again, no reputable therapists would ever testify for Loudoun County Child Protective Services.
Your attorney will need to prohibit the introduction of hearsay testimony. Why do this, simply because Glenney’s expert will speak for your child. This will be through the prism of her chosen therapists. You nor your attorney will have idea whether or not the therapist statements are truthful.
http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_1_4.htm
Other changes in legal procedures are even more far reaching. The recent tendency to permit younger and younger children to testify by relaxing or amending the requirements for competency, and/or the use of closed circuit television (Spiegel, 1986) are two examples. Another is the recent tendency of prosecutors to bring cases to criminal court which in the past might never have been pursued. Even more disturbing is the stretching of hearsay laws, which now make admissible certain testimony from parents or professionals and/or the use of proxy testimony by an adult in the event the child is found not to be competent. In most cases, however, it is the adversarial process itself which is most problematic for the expert witness.
It is very possible for your case to proceed without your child ever speaking a word in Court. Your attorney must stop this. Your attorney must be aggressive and willing to fight. Your child will be interviewed countless times by Glenney’s chosen expert.
We all know Sandra Glenney was extremely dishonest and her experts surpassed that dishonesty.
264 Downloads
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 05-05-2022 22:39
This a useful document concerning evidentiary issues in child sexual abuse cases. It specifically applies to the Little Riscals Case in Edenton, NC. Please read the whole document.
271 Downloads
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 28-01-2022 23:40
The attached study details how an interviewer (police, parent etc..) can influence a child. It demonstrates who a small child can change his or her answers due to interviewer bias. The interviewer’s bias has a tremendous impact on the child.
343 Downloads
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 06-12-2020 13:09
The crux of Sandra Glenney’s case revolves around psychotherapy, the goal of psychotherapy is to extract disclosures. That is her strategy, that is it. Behind the scenes, scientifically speaking, memory encoding is taking place. Glenney and her companions have no understanding of the science. Believe me, Sandra Glenney is scientifically illiterate as well as he therapists. Any serious therapists would not associate themselves with Glenney but the undesirables will for the paycheck.
The therapists that employed by Sandra Glenney are akin to a witches coven; no one can get it and you must conform to their beliefs. Have you ever wondered why Sandra Glenney tries so hard to appoint the therapist in a case or recommends a certain therapist. The below snippet will explain why.
As said many times before, in the absence of any physical evidence. Sandra Glenny will then rely heavily on her chosen therapists. Her chosen therapists are inclined to think one way, that way is that abuse occurred. The below article concerning the Little Rascals Case highlights the issue.
http://loudouncps.org/mdocs-posts/thoughts-from-the-little-rascals-case/
On page 5 of the article, the author, Dr. Moisy Shopper, makes the following statement.
The name children were sent to predominately four therapists. The therapists were not only overzealous and in certain ways, inadequately trained, but proceeded in an unethical fashion with the children. Reporting frequently to the district attorney’s office , they provided more names of children and adults and more specific allegations of abuse. These were not spontaneous name and allegations, but data specifically and persistently introduced by the therapists. The personal and familial issues were that the children brought into the so-called therapy were ignored. When the therapists addressed these issues it was done in a most simplistic and unhelpful way. The overall effect of the therapy was to instill fear in child and parent. From my review of the therapists notes of the 17 children, it was clear to me that the therapists were not involved in treating these children psychotherapeutically, but were in effect, agents of the prosecution in preparing children to testify falsely with credibility. Significantly, those parents who took their children to therapists in other communities or avoided these four therapists had no allegations of sexual abuse and their children were symptom free. In contrast, the children who provided stories of sexual abuse became increasingly symptomatic over time and their behavior become more disturbed.
This segment of the document fits Sandra Glenney perfectly, her therapists work for her. They have no interest in the well being of the child. They are looking for abuse. Please note that statement that the parents who took their children to other therapists did not have the same diagnosis.
Among the inner circle of the Loudoun County legal realm, especially within the governmental positions there is an unspoken code that you tolerate incompetence. Essentially Sandra Glenney and Judge Horne worked for the same boss, the government of Virginia. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers.
In theory Judge Horne should be unbiased and autonomous but he was anything other than. The question is, was he coward or incompetent. Let’s take a look at what happened when Sandra Glenney suggested that Dr. Joyanna Silberg become involved an alleged sexual abuse case.
As mention several times before, Sandra Glenney chooses therapists that have a less than stellar reputation and questionable tactics. Primary among them is Dr. Joyana Silberg, who has questionable tactics. She has been identified by the watchdog group Grey Faction, as a therapist to be wary of. Either Sandra Glenney is so desperate to win cases that she is wiling employ therapists of dubious reputations or she believes what they are selling. neither one is a good scenario.
Below are example of cases where her testimony was disallowed due to its biased nature.
Holt v Holt (No. 1064, September Term, 2017), 2018
Dr. Silberg’s testimony was deemed to be biased and suffer from “tremendous analytical gaps,” and was deemed by the court to lack credibility.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3430551134760014963&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47
Marks v Schenk (No. 807, September Term, 2016), 2018
This case was a custody dispute over a child that was alleged by his mother to have been sexually abused by his father. The mother showed many signs of erratic and unstable behavior during the case, and Silberg would be her “staunchest advocate” throughout. The judge in this case had numerous complaints about Dr. Silberg’s own behavior, stating that she “compromised her professional boundaries,” lied to the court, and went beyond her authority in discontinuing court-ordered visitation by the father.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?scidkt=10092161310836718585&as_sdt=2&hl=en
