Michael SkellengerA 4-year-old child won't have to undergo another psychological evaluation about the alleged rape she endured more than two years ago, a Hamilton County Criminal Court judge ruled Thursday.
As Michael Skellenger's case moves toward a Sept. 6 trial date, his attorneys filed a motion asking one of their experts, Dr. Nancy Aldridge, to perform an independent psychological evaluation on the child.
Police said the rape happened on July 14, 2014, and came to light the next day when the then-2-year-old told her grandmother that Skellenger hurt her. She was taken to the Children's Advocacy Center, where a nurse practitioner found bruising and hemorrhaging.
But in their motion, Skellenger's defense team argued the child's initial statement to her grandmother "is very different than many other reports to counselors and even to the maternal grandmother."
Because the case involves a victim of an alleged sexual assault, the Times Free Press will not print her name or a description of the assault.
As the defense pointed out in Judge Tom Greenholtz's courtroom, nobody ever performed a forensic interview of the child, which is policy at the Children's Advocacy Center. A forensic interview is a structured conversation with a child to determine as much accurate information as possible about the possible trauma. One of its many functions, as the defense stressed, is to clarify information that would either corroborate or refute the child's allegations altogether.
"We're not just talking about an event two years ago, but an ongoing event, a false belief the child has been under," said Jonathan Wilson, one of Skellenger's two attorneys.
Wilson said the state's expert was not qualified to perform a forensic interview, which would ferret out the truest details of what happened. It was also necessary, he said, because the child's medical report contained no evidence of physical sexual abuse. Furthermore, he said, the child's grandmother, who initially reported the assault, was present during some therapy sessions.
Prosecutor Leslie Longshore defended these arguments by calling, among other witnesses, Juliet Thomas, one of the child's mental health therapists since the incident.
Thomas said the grandmother was not allowed to speak or influence the therapy. She also argued that another evaluation - with a stranger - would only heighten the girl's anxiety.
Greenholtz ultimately sided with the defense, saying he wouldn't grant the forensic interview unless there was good cause to believe it would yield beneficial information.
"If the point of the forensic interview really is about discussing how the alleged false memories were reinforced, the defense and Dr. Aldridge can do an analysis of [the current] evidence," he said.
During the next court date, scheduled for Wednesday, attorneys plan to address a pair of motions about the victim's statements to medical personnel and her grandmother, and whether they can be admitted during the trial.
Contact staff writer Zack Peterson at zpeterson@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6347. Follow on Twitter @zackpeterson918.