If I have heard it once, I have heard it a hundred times from people who have been charged with child sexual abuse and are awaiting trial; "My lawyer is the best in the state," so why aren't they doing anything on my case?

The answer is not difficult, but to understand it, you must first understand how criminal defense attorneys actually handle cases. Obviously, the following is not true or reflective of all attorneys, but for the most part they will usually fall into one of three categories:

The Standard Defense

• The attorney is retained and, shortly thereafter, they file a Motion for Discovery, requesting that the State provide all material the defense is entitled to.

• The attorney may have an associate, or a private investigator they have worked with, interview potential witnesses, take statements or complete other tasks in order to prepare the case for trial.

• The attorney obtains the discovery from the State. Some read it, some don't. Some have their paralegal or associate go over it. Many do not read it when it is received, but they will just prior to trial when they are preparing their client's defense.

• Then begins the waiting game. Many defense attorneys believe that the longer the trial is delayed, the better off the defense will be. Some evidence can change, some can be destroyed or disappear and the memory of some witnesses can fade, even to the point where they may no longer have credibility. In most cases, waiting can be an excellent strategy, so that is usually a normal practice.

• Just prior to the trial, the attorney will review all material and prepare their case. Now, in reality, that makes sense. Say an attorney has all the defense material, but the trial won't even be scheduled for months. It can be a complete waste of time to break everything down so far in advance of trial, especially when some circumstances could actually change so again, this is more or less a standard practice.

• Now, during the time between the client's arrest and their trial, usually most defense attorneys do very little. In reality, there is very little for them to do. They follow a set of guidelines, if you will. They file their discovery motion, they have someone interview witnesses, they investigate the case, they wait for trial and then they prepare. Some very good criminal defense attorneys defend clients in exactly this manner and, in most criminal cases, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach at all. It works.

The High Profile Cases

• Obviously, most cases do not fall into the category of an O.J. Simpson or a Scott Peterson, but when they do, you can expect the attorney to use investigators and associates to gather evidence and then go through everything with a fine-tooth comb.

• You can expect numerous depositions, hearings and a great deal of use of experts.

• You can expect almost a non-stop flow of motions to be filed.

• In short, in high profile cases, the attorney is usually being paid very well. In addition, they are aware that every eye is on them so you can expect a great deal of activity on a daily basis.

The No Defense

• The shame is, in these cases, often attorneys sell a client by giving them a virtual laundry list of things that must be done, things they plan to do but, for whatever reason, nothing really ever gets done.

• It is not surprising that when this is seen, the main thrust of the defense is how to get the client the best possible plea.

Most attorneys will fall into the first category, "The Standard Defense," and, as I have stated, many of these are excellent criminal lawyers. They have found a system that works well for them, they follow it and, more often than not, it works, at least in most cases.

One of the biggest problems is that many clients are not realistic about the time that their attorney can actually apply to their case. Most cases are not high profile cases and most clients do not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. In an average case, the attorney will apply their client's fees and/or retainer to where it can do the most good, but that will normally not include spending days reading boxes of material that was supplied to them by their clients. Simply put, they do not have time. It is not that their clients and their client's cases are not important to them. They are, but again, they are managing a number of cases and usually one is no less or more important than another.

Now, the problem with the above is that, while it may work very well in most criminal cases, it usually does not in a child sexual abuse allegation case. One reason is that emotions are far different, especially with prosecutors, law enforcement and social services. Another reason is, the longer the delay the more time that someone will have available to them to work with, coach or influence the child into either making their initial allegation stronger, giving it credibility or, on some occasions, even adding to their prior allegations.

As I have said, time and again, most criminal attorneys do not have real experience in defending child sexual allegation cases, or at least defending them properly. They may tell a client they have, but in most cases, that is simply not the truth. When a criminal attorney, even an excellent one, attempts to handle a child sex abuse case in the same manner they handle their other criminal cases, it can quickly become a disaster for their client.

In order to honestly demonstrate this, let's take an actual case, break it down, see what was done and what should have been done. Obviously all names and locations have been changed and, let me first acknowledge that the criminal attorney who was representing my client in this case has the reputation of being one of the best in his state.

In this particular case, following a long custody dispute, my client, whom we will identify as Morgan Winstead, was arrested on January 7, 2004, and charged with one count of child molestation and one count of endangerment to a child, specific to allegations that had been made "in behalf" of his 5-year-old daughter. Although I had worked with Morgan well prior to his arrest, On December 1, 2004, some 11 months following his arrest, I returned and completed a thorough analysis of all the discovery that he had been provided with.

Morgan had absolutely no visitation with his daughter from the time of his arrest until August, 2004. From August, 2004 until December, 2004, he was allowed to see her, but all visitations were supervised.

Following my analysis, I prepared a written report and, for the first time in Morgan's case, I was able to positively identify that the allegations that had been made against Morgan were not made by his daughter, but by his ex-wife. My report was based on careful, precise and lengthy research of material, it was not based on emotion or speculation. I would also like to point out that it took days to complete the analysis, examining hundreds of documents and it is very doubtful that any attorney would have even had that kind of time to apply to it that I did.

The following is the report that was prepared, again with the names and locations changed, but carefully examine what was found and then we will look at what was actually done with it.

The following is an analysis of material and documentation specific to the absolutely absurd criminal charges that were filed against Morgan Winstead in Denton, Texas. Said charges then resulted in Morgan's arrest on January 7, 2004.

Based on this analysis, there was never a justification for any criminal charges to have ever been filed. This case is not about child abuse, but rather about a false allegation of sexual abuse that arose from a custody matter and clearly, the mother of the accusing child, Barbara Simpson, manufactured each of the allegations, as is clearly and precisely identified in the following.

Morgan and Barbara Relationship Background

• Morgan Winstead and Barbara Simpson began a relationship in California in 1997, were married in 1998 and divorced in 1999. From that relationship, a daughter, Maddison, was born on May 15, 1999.

• Immediately following their divorce, Morgan began to have heated and very serious confrontations with Barbara over his desire to have visitation time with his daughter.

• The day before Father's Day, June, 2001, Barbara told Morgan that she was moving to Texas because, among other reasons, she could not stand dealing with him.

• On several occasions, while Morgan still resided in California, he drove his van, (RV), to Denton to spend time with his daughter. On several of those trips, Morgan actually lived in his vehicle while he was in Denton. His "van" has a top that raises, upper and lower beds, a shower, heat, sink and kitchen and, although adequate, it was a temporary fix at best that at least allowed him to see Maddison. It should be mentioned that, during those times that he was allowed to see Maddison, he kept her at a friend's home instead of having her stay in the van, as has been alleged by Barbara.

• The distance between California and Denton made it virtually impossible for Morgan to have a quality relationship with Maddison so, much to Barbara's surprise, Morgan moved to Denton.

• After Morgan arrived in Texas, problems continued between him and Barbara over his visitation time with Maddison. On May 21, 2003, Morgan was successful in obtaining a Court Order, based on a petition he had filed, Pro Se, asking for more time with his daughter. The Court also ordered Barbara to identify Maddison's home and school address. Barbara refused to do so.

• On May 23, 2003, Morgan sent Barbara a certified letter, asking for Maddison's home and school address, as was specified in the Court Order from May 21, 2003.

• On May 26, 2003, while Morgan was having visitation with Maddison, Barbara telephoned Morgan at his home. Morgan asked Barbara for her or the school's address so that he could return Maddison to her as was specified in the Court Order. Barbara told him she would not give him either address and told him to return Maddison to the Denton Police Department, which he did.

• Morgan was also scheduled to have visitation with Maddison on the night of May 27, 2003. That morning, Barbara telephoned Morgan and told him that she was not going to allow him to see Maddison that night. In that it was his scheduled time to see his daughter, Morgan went to the local police department, they contacted Barbara and she did bring Maddison to Morgan.

• On June 3, 2003, Barbara filed a Motion to Modify, asking the Court to reconsider it's position of instructing her to identify Maddison's home and school addresses for Morgan. Also, that evening, Morgan had visitation with Maddison and returned her to Barbara at the Denton Police Department that same evening.

The Initial Allegations

• At about noon, June 4, 2003, Barbara talked with Morgan on the telephone. She expressed concern over the fact that Maddison had returned home the previous night from her visitation with Morgan, wearing tights, but no underwear. During that conversation, as Morgan recalls, he told Barbara that Maddison did not run around naked while she was at his home and Barbara stated that was not what Maddison had "indicated" to her. Other than expressing some minor concern to Morgan that she was worried about something going on, Barbara said nothing else whatsoever about the subject and she and Morgan discussed other issues. (Here, the document states, "As Morgan recalls." In reality, the conversations were audio taped).

• On June 4, 2003, Morgan talked with Barbara again on the telephone during the early evening, and at no time during that second conversation did Barbara ever mention anything regarding the concerns she expressed during her initial conversation with him that morning.

• In a deposition Barbara gave, she stated that Maddison told her on the night of June 3, 2003, that she and her dad ran around naked and bumped pee-pees, yet Barbara never mentioned that to Morgan at all during either telephone conversation she had with him on June 4, 2003, the day "after" she claims Maddison made her disclosure.

• During Barbara's deposition, when she was asked what she did immediately following Maddison's alleged disclosure, Barbara stated that she calmed Maddison down, put her to bed, wrote down what Maddison had told her and then she went to bed herself. The following morning, Barbara stated that she took Maddison to school, talked with her mother and "eventually" contacted the G.A.L.

• At some point, on June 4, 2004, Barbara left a voice message for the G.A.L., stating that she wanted to talk with him about Maddison's abuse.

• At some point on June 4, 2003, the G.A.L. talked with Barbara on the telephone. According to the G.A.L.'s notes, Barbara told him that Maddison had played the Bunny Game with her father, where they ran around naked and bumped pee-pees, and that it was their special secret. During her conversation and, according to the G.A.L.'s notes, Barbara told him four (4) specific things; Bunny Game, running around naked with her father, bumping pee-pees and the special secret. None of these were ever mentioned to Morgan during either telephone call he had with Barbara prior to the calls Barbara made to the G.A.L.

• Barbara took Maddison to talk with the G.A.L., Al Sexton, on June 5, 2003. Just prior to that meeting, Barbara told Maddison that Sexton might ask her questions about the Bunny Game. When they met with Sexton, Maddison did not want to be alone with him, so Barbara was present during the entire time. When Sexton asked Maddison about the Bunny Game, she told him that she did not want to talk about it, but she did tell him that she and her dad ran around naked, but they were dressed. It is vital here to remember that Barbara, and only Barbara, was present during the entire time that Maddison met with the G.A.L.

• On June 5, 2003, Morgan had visitation with Maddison again.

Analysis of the Allegations

• Allegedly Maddison disclosed to Barbara on the night of June 3, 2003, and that Maddison told her about the Bunny Game she played with her father, where they ran around naked and bumped pee-pees and that it was their special secret. Barbara stated that after Maddison disclosed, she calmed her down, put her to bed, wrote down what Maddison told her and then she went to bed. The following day, she said she took Maddison to school.

• The scenario provided by Barbara does not support, nor even suggest that she is being truthful. If Maddison had honestly told Barbara what Barbara claimed, Barbara would have taken immediate action the night of June 3, 2003, and a part of that action would have been to confront Morgan with "whatever" she had been told. Prior history between Barbara and Morgan is filled with arguments, police reports and even physical confrontations, many over issues that really amounted to very little, yet here, when she "believes" that her 4-year-old daughter "bumped pee-pees with daddy," it was not any major concern. Instead, she put Maddison to bed, then contacted Morgan the following morning.

• As to Morgan's recollection, Barbara did talk with him twice on June 4, 2003. Once at about noon and the second call was early that evening. During her first conversation, she did express concern about the fact that Maddison had come home the previous night with no underwear. That was true. When Maddison had visited with Morgan the night before, the first thing she did was change clothes and, shortly thereafter, she and Morgan left and went to the park. While Morgan was swinging Maddison around at the park, he noticed that she did have on tights, but no underwear. Since they were already at the park and time was drawing near for him to return her to Barbara, Morgan did not take her back home. This event was real and the fact that it did happen is important. Barbara was confronting Morgan with an event that was true and that is the only issue that she discussed with him. Nothing was discussed at all about a Bunny Game, running around naked, bumping pee-pees or a special secret. Morgan told Barbara that Maddison did not run around his house naked and Barbara responded with, "That is not what she indicated."

• During their second conversation, about noon on June 4, 2003, not one word was mentioned about underwear or any of the allegations Barbara later identified.

• History actually determines how a person will react under normal circumstances. In October, 2002, Morgan, very frustrated over not being able to see his daughter, attempted to become involved in Maddison's school activities. The school's director was not pleased and Morgan argued with her that he had a right to see Maddison. Evidently, that was taken as harassment and Maddison was expelled from the school. Immediately thereafter, Barbara filed a "Petition for Order of Child Protection," claiming that Morgan stalks Maddison at her school, got her kicked out of school because the director feared for the safety of the other children and that he tells Maddison to keep their activities secret. She stated that Morgan tells Maddison that Barbara was the reason they don't have any money and he, Morgan, withholds clothing and toys sent with Maddison when she visits him. Barbara stated that Morgan had completely lost touch with reality, does not understand that he is the reason that Maddison had been excluded from school and that he continued to threaten and harass the Center. Barbara stated that Morgan's behavior was unpredictable, that he is an alcoholic who has demonstrated erratic behavior and that he had posted their legal document on the internet. Barbara stated, "I already have custody, but would like sole custody of Maddison Winstead." Finally, Barbara stated that Maddison was seeing a therapist as a result of Morgan's behavior.

• In the above, clearly, Maddison being removed from school was a catastrophic event to Barbara and she reacted by filing her Petition for Order of Child Protection. In that petition, she accused Morgan of everything she possibly could have, again and again, yet when she was told by her daughter, Maddison, that Morgan had molested her, what did Barbara do? She calmed Maddison down, put her to bed, took her to school the next morning and called Morgan to complain about Maddison returning home the night before without underwear. As was previously stated, Barbara's reaction was not reflective of her history, if the allegations were true.

• On June 5, 2003, Barbara talked with Al Sexton, the G.A.L. She "told" Maddison that Al might ask her about the Bunny Game before they got to his office. Al did ask Maddison and she said she did not want to talk about it. Maddison did tell Al that she and her dad ran around naked, but they had clothes on. Al's notes reflect that Barbara did report the allegations to him and that her report was given "nonchalantly." At the bottom of his report, he stated that Barbara was concerned, but not hysterical.

• Immediately after Barbara's visit with the G.A.L., on June 5, 2003, she allowed Morgan to pick Maddison up for his visitation. Barbara stated later, in a deposition, that she only allowed Maddison to visit with Morgan because the G.A.L. told her she had to. Here is a woman that has had no problem at all defying past Court Orders, yet she turns her child right back over to the very man she believes has molested her? Barbara's past history supports that she would have told Sexton, the G.A.L., or anyone else, "That man molested my daughter and the only way he is going to see her again is over my dead body."

• If the allegations had been true, Barbara would have also told Morgan that he was not going to see Maddison again, she did not care what anyone said. In support of this, consider what transpired after the May 21, 2003 Court Order, where Barbara was ordered to provide Morgan with Maddison's home and school address. She flatly refused, told Morgan she would not tell him and told the police that it was an oversight on the judge's part that would be corrected. Then she filed a Motion to Modify. She refused to comply with that Court Order, yet here she sent her 4-year-old daughter right back to the very man that she "believed" bumped pee-pees with her. Absurd.

Maddison's Interviews at DHS

• Maddison was first interviewed at the DHS clinic on June 17, 2003. Just prior to actually beginning that interview, Maddison told the interviewer that she played the Bunny Game, but it was pretend. (What was pretend, the game, or the fact that she said she played it)? The point is, this 4-year-old child knew exactly what she was supposed to tell the interviewer, so she tried to get it in before she forgot. That is not how a typical 4-year-old reacts, unless they are trying to please someone, or not get into trouble for forgetting what they are supposed to say.

• Amazingly, during Maddison's second interview at the DHS clinic on June 24, 2003, she told the interviewer, "excitedly," that she was going get to see her daddy "if she talked about the Bunny Game." She was excited about seeing her daddy and was willing do whatever was necessary to see him, so she was more than willing to talk about the Bunny Game. The problem is, she did not and does not know what the Bunny Game is, so she was unable to. I fully realize that skeptics will say she was afraid or embarrassed to talk about it, but nothing could be further from the truth. She was excited. She wanted to talk about it. She wanted to so she could see her daddy. The fact is, Maddison could not talk about that game because she never understood what it was. The game never existed, except in Barbara's mind. Also, unbelievably, when Maddison was asked who told her about the Bunny Game, she did not hesitate, but responded, "My Mom."

• During the second DHS interview, the interviewer asked Maddison what her mother told her before she came in that day and Maddison said her mother told her she had to talk. That statement was repeated by the interviewer and then verified once again by Maddison, but when the interviewer asked Maddison what she was supposed to talk about, Maddison said, "I don't know." It is absolutely clear that the only possible explanation for this is that Maddison is being coached, told what to say and the only person who could have "made up" the Bunny Game, or told Maddison that she could see her daddy if she talked about it was her mother, Barbara Simpson.

Children Advocacy Interviews - Bob Ratchet

• Bob Ratchet conducted numerous interviews with Maddison at the Children's Advocacy Center, after Maddison had already been interviewed twice at the DHS clinic, but none were either audio or video recorded, based on what he told Morgan during a telephone conversation. Ratchet met with Maddison on 5 occasions from July 15, 2003 through July 28, 2003.

• Ratchet conducted his first three interviews with Maddison and she disclosed nothing. Was he interviewing her or was he treating her at that point? He has already stated that he was simply establishing a "rapport" with her. When any interviewer begins, they must determine their role or the position they plan to take; treating or forensic therapist. When a forensic therapist is attempting to interview a child who has alleged sexual abuse, they are "allowing" the child to disclose. They do not conduct multiple interviews, which serve as a coaching tool and also tell the child, "We are going to keep doing this until you tell me what I want to hear." It is standard procedure for a forensic therapist to video tape interviews, so they can be shared with other parties and thus prevent the child from being exposed to multiple interviews. A treating therapist treats a child where trauma is identified. No role was ever identified or adhered to by Ratchet. He was simply on a fishing expedition.

• Here, Ratchet conducted 1 interview with Barbara, where he was told what the allegations were and then an additional 5 interviews with Maddison personally. As stated, Maddison disclosed nothing during her first 3 interviews with Ratchet, but on the 4th interview, she stated, "Daddy touches her on her whole pee-pee and even her bum." "It makes her sad when he touches her." "Daddy touches her pee-pee in the bathroom in the afternoon." When asked was it daytime or nighttime, she stated, "Nighttime." "We stayed up the whole night." Maddison said this happened a long time ago.

• On the 5th and final interview with Ratchet on July 28, 2003, Maddison stated "Daddy touched her pee-pee with scissors and keys." She said it was "on" her pee-pee. When asked if Daddy had his clothes on or off when he touched her pee-pee, she stated, "On." "It happened when I was a baby."

• Not one word in all of Ratchet's interviews specific to the Bunny Game, running around naked, bumping pee-pees or a special secret. With Ratchet, you have a completely new set of allegations which included none of the "alleged" initial disclosures.

• Ratchet clearly had an agenda. He wanted Maddison to say something and he pushed her until he got it. Obviously, his defense would be, "Oh no, I was treating her." "I did not do anything unethical." The fact is, he did. When Ratchet completed his written report, dated August 1, 2003, under the heading, "Corroborative Reports and Findings," he stated that, "According to Mrs. Simpson and Ms. Worthington, on June 9, 2003, Maddison told the Guardian Ad Litem about the Bunny Game which she plays with her father and described it as the two of them dancing around naked and bumping pee-pees." "She added that it was their special secret." Fortunately, Mr. Sexton, the G.A.L. quickly told Ratchet that Maddison never said those things to him. Ratchet immediately changed his report to read, under the same heading, "Corroborative Reports and Findings," that according to Mr. Sexton, (G.A.L.), Maddison and her mother met with him on 6/5/03. "Ms. Simpson informed Maddison that Mr. Sexton may ask her questions about the Bunny game." "When asked by Mr. Sexton, Maddison did not wish to talk about the Bunny game, but shared that she ran around naked with her father." "When asked what naked meant, Maddison explained that they had their clothes on."

• The problem is, Ratchet sent his original report to the Detective who was investigating the case. That "falsified" report was part of the Supplemental Police Report, dated March 3, 2004 that the defense was supplied through discovery. That was the report the police relied on when they investigated the case. That was the report the police relied on when they interviewed Morgan. There can be absolutely no doubt that the police would have looked at the overall case and Morgan Winstead very differently, had they relied on the facts and not Ratchet's falsified information.

• Yes, when confronted by Sexton, Ratchet did change the one paragraph in his report, but he knew the police had a copy and he never even so much as attempted to assure that the individuals who were investigating the case had honest and accurate information. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

• Further, consider where Ratchet got the information that he used in his report. His own report stated that Barbara "and" Ms. Worthington said Maddison told the G.A.L. on June 9, 2003. Ms. Worthington was not at the meeting between Sexton and Maddison and had no knowledge as to what took place, other than perhaps what she was told and there was never a meeting between Maddison and the G.A.L. on June 9, 2003. The only "written" document anywhere that would even suggest this was what was in Sexton's notes, but that was information that Barbara had given to Sexton, not Maddison. Could Ratchet have had Sexton's notes and gotten confused? No, Sexton sent Ratchet his report and notes. There is only one possible manner in which Ratchet became informed of the information he wrote in his report and that was from Barbara. The problem is, Barbara knew Maddison never said those things to Sexton and she certainly knew that Worthington was not present and had no knowledge. Barbara told Ratchet, Ratchet bought it, wrote it in his report and sent that report, a false report that inexcusably damned Morgan Winstead, to the very people who were investigating Morgan and the allegations. Then, when Ratchet was called on the accuracy of his report, although he changed it, he allowed the "investigator's" copy to stand.

• On July 29, 2003, the day after Ratchet finally got Maddison to "disclose" abuse, he made a report to the Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline and, on August 1, 2003, completed and submitted his "Extended Evaluation Report." Five days later, on August 6, 2003, the G.A.L., Al Sexton, sent Ratchet a fax advising that he had read the extended evaluation report and that he needed to correct the second to the last paragraph about what Maddison allegedly disclosed to him.

• Most unfortunately, a great deal of information specific to Ratchet was lost because of a failed deposition. Morgan's attorney subpoenaed Ratchet, although not under his correct name, and Ratchet simply refused to show up. There was no motion filed to compel him to and the issue was simply dropped. Had that deposition been properly completed, a great deal of information could have been obtained.

Interview Considerations

• Maddison was actually interviewed a total of 8 times, including her first meeting with the G.A.L. Consider that, not once has Maddison ever told anyone anything about the Bunny Game, running around naked with her father, (other than what she told the G.A.L.), bumping pee-pees with her father or that it was her and her father's special secret. The only person who has ever said that has been Barbara Simpson. The "only" person who has "ever" identified "what" the Bunny Game is, has been Barbara.

• Maddison was told prior to her first interview with the G.A.L. that he might ask her about the Bunny Game. She told him she did not want to talk about it. A common belief might be, she was embarrassed to discuss it. Not true. In Maddison's second interview at DHS, she did want to talk about it, because if she did, she could see her dad. Even in that interview, she still could not tell anyone what it was. Recall that in her first DHS interview, Maddison told the interviewer, even before the interview began that she played the Bunny Game, but it was pretend. Also, in he second DHS interview, Maddison said that her mother told her that she "had to talk."

• Carefully analyze what has happened. Barbara talks to Morgan twice on June 4, 2003, but never said anything in either conversation about the Bunny Game, running around naked, bumping pee-pees or a special secret. All of that was later told to the G.A.L. by Barbara. Maddison was even told by her mother that the G.A.L. might ask her about the Bunny game. He did, but she would not discuss it. Shortly thereafter, she meets with the DHS interviewer and, before they even got into the interview room, Maddison told her, "I play the Bunny Game, but it is pretend." That came straight from a child who was coached to tell something and wanted to get it out before she forgot. Then look at the second DHS interview. No luck disclosing up to that point, so suddenly, "I can see my daddy if I talk about the Bunny Game." Maddison was excited. She wanted to see her daddy. She wanted to talk about the Bunny Game. She could not, simply because "she" did not know what it was.

• Absolutely no disclosure of abuse to anyone except what Barbara alleged was told to her, all the way to Ratchet's 4th and 5th interviews and then an alleged disclosure that mentions absolutely nothing about the initial allegations whatsoever.

• Just prior to any alleged allegation, Morgan, acting on his own, Pro Se, had gotten a Court Order allowing him more time with his daughter and instructing Barbara to tell Morgan what Maddison's home and school addresses were. Morgan pushed Barbara, Barbara was furious and enough was enough.

• There is no question that Maddison returned to Barbara following Morgan's visitation with her on June 3, 2003, wearing tights and no underwear. That was a concern on Barbara's part and she voiced that concern, because it was real and it was based on fact, but even that issue was not all that important to Barbara because she and Morgan talked about many other issues.

• Barbara got the "idea" of the allegation either during her conversation with Morgan, or shortly thereafter. She had not "invented" the Bunny Game when she talked with Morgan, therefore, she did not bring it up. She had not "invented" bumping pee-pees when she talked to Morgan, therefore she did not bring it up. She had not "invented" the special secret when she talked to Morgan, so again, she did not bring it up. Barbara "invented" these allegations between the time she talked to Morgan and the time she talked to Sexton. Had Barbara developed the allegations at the time she talked to Morgan, she would have hit him with everything, up to and including the kitchen sink, especially since the Court had just allowed him to have more time with Maddison.

After the Interviews

• Following the initial DHS interview with Maddison, on June 18, 2003, there was a hearing to suspend Morgan's visitation with Maddison until the investigation into the allegations was complete.

• On September 2, 2003, Morgan attended a Settlement Conference. Al Sexton, the G.A.L., explained to all attending parties, including Barbara and her attorney, that DFS unsubstantiated the charges. No one had actually seen that documentation yet, including Barbara, but either Barbara or her attorney agreed to allow Morgan to have an extra over night visit with Maddison, meaning that Barbara was actually agreeing for Morgan to have more time with Maddison than she was required to. There was absolutely no resistance from Barbara whatsoever. She could have easily voiced, "I don't care about the DFS finding." "He molested my daughter and there is no way I am going to allow him overnight visitation with her where he can do it again." Recall that Barbara has a history of even "ignoring" Court Orders when she wants to, but again, not only was there no resistance, she actually agreed for Morgan, the very man she supposedly believed molested her daughter, to have more time with her.

• On November 11, 2003, Detective Potter talked with Barbara. Potter told Barbara that she was the detective now assigned to the case and she asked Barbara if she wanted to prosecute Morgan. Barbara said yes.

• On November 13, 2003, Detective Potter contacted Morgan to schedule a time to talk with him. Since Morgan knew that DFS had non-founded the allegations and since he knew he had done nothing wrong, he did not hesitate in telling Potter that he would be glad to talk with her.

• On November 21, 2003, Morgan met with Detective Potter. She told him that she was not responsible for what the Department of Family Services had done and that she was going to charge Morgan. Morgan told her he had done nothing wrong and would be willing to submit to anything that would help in proving his innocence. A polygraph was discussed and Morgan agreed.

• Once the polygraph was completed, the examiner told Morgan he could not advise him of the results, but the examiner had a conference with Detective Potter. Just after that conference, Morgan was returned to a holding cell and released shortly thereafter, with absolutely no restrictions, whatsoever, on his visitation with his daughter, Maddison.

• Five days later, on November 26, 2003, with Detective Potter's full knowledge, Morgan had visitation with Maddison. He took her to Michigan to spend Thanksgiving with his parents, returned to Denton on November 30, 2003 and then returned Maddison to Barbara the following day, on December 1, 2003.

• Morgan continued to enjoy his overnight and weekend visitations with Maddison. On two occasions, he had Maddison for a week or more and took her to Michigan. It is more than doubtful that anyone, in a position of authority, would have allowed that if they thought Morgan had done anything wrong.

• On December 10, 2003 a Settlement Conference Order was issued. That order stipulated that Morgan and Barbara were to begin co-parenting counseling by February 1, 2004 and the order provided Morgan with more visitation time with Maddison and more access to her school. It also disrupted Barbara's Christmas plans to go to Hawaii with Maddison. In addition, the custody evaluator had completed her evaluation and an oral report was made to Barbara and Morgan's attorneys and the G.A.L. The custody evaluator recommended that Barbara begin counseling immediately and she said that she expected Barbara to level more allegations later. She said that Maddison is not a reliable source of information and does not know the truth. She said Maddison attempts to please her mother by stating what her mother wants to hear, even if it's not true.

• On January 7, 2004, Morgan Winstead was notified by telephone by Detective Potter that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. Morgan voluntarily surrendered to police and was formerly charged.

Morgan's Police Interview and Polygraph

• Following Morgan's arrest, the State provided the defense with discovery. As a part of that discovery was the police report and a statement identifying the fact that Morgan's polygraph test was "inconclusive." In addition, Morgan's attorney told the prosecutor that the polygraph charts were not included in what she had been given. The prosecutor advised Morgan's attorney that there were no reports and no charts produced from the polygraph test Morgan took, however, Morgan's attorney did obtain the charts directly from the examiner. Those charts were examined by another examiner who stated they would have passed Morgan on the test. The examiner who tested Morgan is not a law enforcement officer, but an independent examiner who does testing for the Denton Police Department.

• There are also other supporting factors that would indicate Morgan passed that polygraph test and did not get an "inconclusive." Had Morgan actually gotten an inconclusive on the test, any reputable examiner would have told him that he was having a problem and they needed to resolve it. That is clearly stated in the guidelines of the Texas Polygraph Association of which the examiner, George Hatfield, is a member.

• Also, Detective Potter knew that Morgan was more than willing to talk with her. He had agreed to the interview and agreed to the polygraph. He had not called his attorney. Had he, he would have been told not to submit to the interview and, under no circumstances should he submit to a polygraph. Without legal counsel, Morgan voluntarily submitted to everything he had been asked to do. He had nothing to hide, believed the authorities were honest in their desire to find the truth and was willing to assist them in any way he could. Recall that Detective Potter talked with the polygraph examiner before Morgan left. Again, had the test been inconclusive, that detective would have talked with Morgan again, telling him that they could not determine if he was telling the truth or not.

• Based on the police report, what authorities are now attempting to say is that Morgan had an "inconclusive" polygraph examination. That means they could not determine from that test whether he had sexually molested his daughter or not, but they let him go with absolutely no restrictions on his visitation with his daughter. Detective Potter had the power, if she believed that Morgan was guilty, to take steps to keep Morgan from seeing Maddison, yet she did not. That is like saying, "I don't know if you did this or not, but I am going to allow you to continue to see her, alone, with no restrictions, so you can do it again." In no manner is that protecting the best interest of a child.

Synopsis

• Consider that Barbara is the only person who has ever been able to tell anyone "what" the Bunny Game is. Maddison has never been able to do that.

• Consider that Maddison was subjected to multiple interviews and "disclosed" to Bob Ratchet, only after he failed to get Maddison to say that her father had done anything inappropriate to her during their first 3 sessions.

• Consider that Bob Ratchet had an agenda. He was not going to stop talking with Maddison until he got what he wanted and that is exactly what he did.

• Consider that Bob Ratchet "falsified" information in his report that was given to law enforcement, the very people that were investigating Morgan and the case. Consider that, based on the report Ratchet provided the detectives with, the detectives had to have believed that Maddison told the G.A.L. that "She played the Bunny Game with her dad," "Maddison and her dad ran around naked," "Maddison and her dad bumped pee-pees" and that "Maddison and her dad had a special secret." That was not true and Ratchet never made any attempt to correct his "mistake."

• Consider all of Barbara's reactions to the custody issues she and Morgan were involved in.

• Consider how Barbara handled the initial "disclosure."

• Consider that Barbara allowed Maddison to have visitation with Morgan two days after Maddison allegedly disclosed to her that her father had molested her.

• Consider that Maddison had been interviewed once by the G.A.L. and disclosed nothing. She disclosed nothing during her first DHS interview. During her second DHS interview, conducted on June 24, 2003, Maddison excitedly told the interviewer that she would get to see her daddy, something she had not done since June 5, 2003, if she talked about the Bunny Game. She could not explain it because she did not know what the Bunny Game was, but "someone" planted in that child's mind that she would get to do something she really wanted to "IF" she talked about the Bunny Game. Since the Bunny Game meant running around naked and bumping pee-pees with Morgan, if the allegations were true, the last person who would have wanted Maddison to discuss that game would have been Morgan. There is only one individual who would have coached Maddison in that manner. The one who fabricated the game, Barbara Simpson.

• Consider that at the September 2, 2003 Settlement Conference, Barbara agreed, without hesitation, to allow Morgan to have additional overnight visits with Maddison.

• Consider that Morgan Winstead subjected himself to police interviews and a polygraph, all without benefit of counsel.

• Consider that On December 10, 2003, the custody evaluation had been completed and it was not all that favorable toward Barbara. Barbara knew she would have to begin counseling on or about February 1, 2004. She knew Morgan had constantly gained more ground in his effort to see Maddison and, without question, she had a fear that Morgan would petition the Court for custody. In addition, she knew that the allegations had not produced the results she wanted, at least at that point.

• Consider that Morgan had increased time with Maddison after the December 10th hearing.

• Consider that Morgan enjoyed overnight, weekend and, on several occasions, extended visitations with Maddison where he took her to his parent's home in Michigan, from December 10th through the time that he was arrested on January 7, 2004.

• Consider that absolutely nothing happened between the December 10th hearing and Morgan's arrest on January 7th that would have justified his arrest. No complaints from Maddison whatsoever.

• Consider that the State has no case against Morgan Winstead. Everyone in this case has attempted to get Maddison to say that her father molested her, but this child has never admitted to anything other than what was allegedly disclosed to Bob Ratchet and it would be beyond me how he would have any credibility whatsoever. Regardless, Maddison will never take a witness stand and tell anyone that her father, Morgan Winstead, has ever done anything inappropriate to her. In reality, Maddison has been far smarter than anyone else throughout this ordeal. No one has been able to influence her or turn her against her father. Barbara Simpson and "not" Maddison is the individual that has convinced everyone that Morgan molested her. Some reports indicate that Barbara "believes" that Maddison was molested. That is not true and those reports would change quickly if all of this material is honestly analyzed.

• Considering all the above, why was Morgan Winstead arrested?

• Consider all of the above and you are left with:

  • Barbara was sick of having to deal with Morgan on custody and visitation matters.

  • Barbara is the author of the "Bunny Game," and not Morgan or Maddison.

  • Barbara is willing to do whatever is necessary to resolve her problem with Morgan, even if it means her moving from state to state or having Morgan convicted and put into prison.

  • Barbara has used Maddison as a tool in her efforts to resolve her own problem.

  • Barbara does have mental issues. Any mother who would use their child in an attempt to destroy another individual has problems. There is no question that a proper evaluation of Barbara would disclose multiple issues.

  • No mother, who would even attempt to instill in their child that they were molested, is a fit and proper person to raise that child. In this case, there is abuse, but it is not coming from Morgan Winstead.

  • Only a select few professionals involved in this case have seen it for what it really is; a custody matter, and research has shown time and again that it is vital to carefully examine sexual abuse allegations that come from divorce and custody matters.

  • The only way that Barbara could possibly stop Morgan's continued efforts to either see or gain custody of Maddison would be if Morgan was prosecuted or in prison.

Case Explanation

• As I stated, although all of the names, dates and locations were changed, the information above was taken from an actual case file. I am using it because it is a perfect example of exactly how a very experienced and highly regarded criminal attorney, with an excellent reputation of being one of the best trial attorneys in his state, handled a client who was being falsely accused of child sexual abuse. It is also a perfect example of where the greatest majority of that client's entire defense was easily found through proper analysis of the "discovery" that the State provided to the defense, "discovery" that the criminal attorney never read. It is also a typical example of how many criminal attorneys will allow a case to drag on, something that is usually not in the best interest of the client in a sex abuse case.

• One other issue I need to address from the case was the fact that my client did submit to a police interview and to a polygraph test. When Morgan was initially contacted by the police, he called me and not his attorney. I instructed him to submit to the interview, but also told him to audio tape it, without the detective's knowledge. Morgan also contacted me when he requested to submit to the polygraph. I told him to take the test, but again, as he had done with the detective, I wanted the entire examination audio taped. Obviously no attorney would have allowed Morgan to submit to the police interview or a polygraph and, just because I did in this case does not mean that I recommend this to every client. Every case and every client is different and you cannot handle strategy for all cases in the same manner. In this case, I knew Morgan, I knew his personality, I knew he had already successfully completed a polygraph and I knew enough about Morgan to know how he would respond. The one thing that I did not know was how honest the detective or polygraph examiner would be. The audio tapes covered us well in that area. If the client had not been able to audio tape everything, I would never have allowed him to submit to either the interview or the polygraph. I cannot stress enough that these cases are easily won or lost on strategy, so again, each case must be handled differently and according to the client and their individual personality.

Following Morgan's arrest in January, 2004, his civil attorney, Glenn, referred him to Howard, the criminal attorney that Morgan then retained to defend him. Over time, the majority of the defense work was actually prepared by another attorney in Howard's firm, Paul.

Following Morgan's arrest, someone in Howard's firm, probably Paul, filed a Motion for Discovery. After obtaining the discovery, Paul asked the prosecutor about the availability of a report and the charts from the polygraph test that Morgan had submitted to, prior to his arrest. According to Paul, the prosecutor said that neither a report or any charts existed. Paul was able to secure copies of the actual polygraph charts from the examiner personally and he gave them to Morgan. Morgan gave the charts to me and I had another examiner look at them. My examiner was of the opinion that Morgan had passed the test and that there was no deception. I personally talked with Morgan's attorney, Paul, about my polygraph examiner's analysis and shortly thereafter, I told Morgan that Paul needed to contact my examiner personally. He never did.

As months dragged on, Morgan pushed his attorney to take depositions and finally, Paul agreed and did so. After examining the deposition that had been taken from Morgan's ex-wife, Barbara, it was painfully obvious that Paul was totally unprepared and that he either had not read, or understood, much, if any, of the material that he obtained from the State through discovery. Had he, at the very least, he would have asked:

• On June 4th, what time did you call the G.A.L. and leave a message?

• What exactly did you say in the message you left for the G.A.L.?

• On June 4th, what time did you actually talk with the G.A.L. and, what was the substance of that conversation?

• When was the first time you met with the G.A.L. after your initial contact on June 4th?

• Prior to your meeting with the G.A.L. on June 5th, what exactly did you tell your daughter about that meeting?

• During your meeting with the G.A.L. on June 5th, who was present?

• Exactly what did your daughter tell the G.A.L. during that meeting?

• Almost immediately after you and your daughter's meeting with the G.A.L. on June 5th, you allowed Morgan to pick Maddison up for standard visitation. Why, based on your belief that Morgan molested your daughter? (Barbara's response would have been that the G.A.L. told her she had to let Morgan see Maddison, but that was inconsistent with Barbara's defying even Court orders).

• What did you tell Bob Ratchet at the child advocacy center prior to his interviewing Maddison?

• What specifically did you tell Ratchet about your meeting with the G.A.L. on June 4th, what was said and who was present?

In addition to the deposition taken from Barbara, Paul also deposed 5-year-old Maddison. I won't even comment on the ridiculousness of that.

Aside from the discovery, obtaining the polygraph results and taking Barbara and Maddison's deposition, nothing else has been accomplished on the criminal side of the case. On the civil side, the attorney did previously attempt to take a deposition from Bob Ratchet regarding his interviews with Maddison at the advocacy center. The problem was, the subpoena he issues was for "Tom" Ratchet and not "Bob." Obviously, Ratchet did not show up for the deposition and nothing was ever done other than simply letting it go by the wayside.

Once I completed the entire analysis and provided it to Morgan and his father, they scheduled a meeting with Morgan's criminal attorney, Paul. When presented with the document, Paul read only a few pages, turned it upside down on his desk and told Morgan that it would make a good closing argument.

Morgan left Paul's office and scheduled a meeting with his civil attorney, Glenn. Glenn assured Morgan that he had read the entire document. Not true because he never once commented or apologized about his handling of the prior Bob Ratchet deposition. Morgan expressed displeasure with his criminal attorney, Paul. Glenn told Morgan he would personally contact the main attorney, Howard and find out what was going on. That was not done.

Morgan contacted Howard and told him that Paul did not have enough courtesy to even read what had been prepared and simply said it would make a good closing argument. Howard assured Morgan that was not the way his firm worked and a meeting was scheduled the following day for Morgan to go over the new document with Howard personally. The following day, at the scheduled meeting, Howard did an excellent sales job, but addressed no issue and still had no idea as to what information had been uncovered.

Morgan returned to his civil attorney and again said he was displeased. Glenn asked for a few days to talk with Howard. Weeks went by and there was no contact.

After all was said and done, neither the criminal or the civil attorney knew or understood that Morgan's ex-wife had made the allegations against Morgen and not his daughter, Maddison. Morgan asked both attorneys if there was not some hearing where this could all be presented to a judge and the answer from both was, "No." Howard, the criminal attorney, did tell Morgan that he contacted the prosecutor and "put the case on a fast track." In reality, that could have been done months earlier. The prosecutor has no desire to go to trial. They have no case and are trying to bide time to allow someone to coach or influence Maddison. In addition, at the very least, the criminal attorney could have considered a "Reliability Hearing," or even a "Taint Hearing."

In most criminal cases, it is very difficult to obtain useful discovery on the criminal side. When one is fortunate enough to have a civil case going on at the same time, as in this case, you can use the discovery on the civil side to enhance what may be missed on the criminal side. In Morgan's case, the criminal and civil attorneys have never considered this and had not communicated at all.

Unfortunately, most criminal attorneys who handle child sexual abuse cases, do so in the same manner they handle their other cases; one-step-at-a-time, in a prescribed order. The problem is, way too much gets missed. In defense of the attorneys, they had not been paid massive sums of money, there was no trial scheduled and they were simply going through the motions. They did not have weeks available to them to conduct the same analysis I did. I do find fault in the fact that, once all the analysis was completed, they did not even have enough respect for their own client to even read it.

Morgan's case has dragged on for a year. Nothing has been done on the civil or the criminal side. The State has had more than ample time to allow someone to coach Morgan's daughter and no one realizes at this point that Morgan's daughter has never accused him of doing anything. Yes, the civil and the criminal attorneys in this case are both excellent lawyers, no question, but there comes a time when the welfare of your child and the possibility of conviction would dictate that there needs to be a change.

The title of this Page was, "I Had the Best Criminal Attorney in the State." "What Happened?" The answer is, nothing. Nothing was done to assure that the case did not drag on. Nothing was done by anyone to prevent Morgan's daughter from being coached or influenced to make additional allegations against him. Nothing was done to reunite Morgan with his daughter. Everyone simply went through the motions, as they would in most any criminal case, and not one person ever understood that the allegations that had been made against Morgan did not come from his daughter, but rather from his ex-wife.

Happy Ending

Thankfully, this story did have a very happy ending for Morgan and his daughter. After a number of criminal attorneys were interviewed, one was finally selected. He had no ego and was concerned only with proving that Morgan was innocent. A new civil attorney was also retained as well. After a great deal of effort, Morgan's criminal trial was completed with a "Not Guilty" verdict. Visitation was restored between Morgan and his daughter, a custody evaluation was completed and the "father" was the "ideal" parent for the child to be with. Morgan's 2 and 1/2 year nightmare ended and a mother, who used her own daughter and a lie to get the upper hand in a custody dispute, was exposed. Yes, this story did have a happy ending, but the fact is, the lie could have easily put Morgan in prison for many years and that most probably would have happened had the "Best Attorney in the State," not been replaced.