From: Lori Handrahan [mailto:lorihandrahan5@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 5:0 !" To: #mary.mayhe$@maine.

go%# Cc: #&te'hen !ic(ering#) #*eilleu+, ,athy#) #"ala-y, .e'.ichard# Subject: /W: 0es'ard con%ersation.

Commissioner Mayhew, I hesitate to send as I do not want to overwhelm but I am concerned about Dan Despard and do hold him personally responsible for the nearly 3 years of sheer hell Mila has been put through. Had Mr. Despard substantiate Spurwin the entire court process would not have happened and Mila would have been protected from the start. Mr. Despard is directly responsible for not substantiating Spurwin . Ms. Devoe and !olly Campbell had a long and frustrating meeting with Mr. Despard at this time, where he simply repeated, nearly word for word, Mr. "a#man$s version of events and used this as %ustification for DHHS to do nothing to protect Mila. I am sure &eslie Devoe and !olly Campbell would be happy to recount this meeting with you'should you re(uire their assistance. )f Mr. !ic ering$s two interview with Mr. Despard, both recorded, here is the paragraph that I find very concerning* I asked Despard if Malenkos past criminal violent behavior and a lack of that same behavior by Handrahan had any bearing on their investigation. Despard stated that those things may be applicable in a divorce court but the standard the DHHS goes by is do the things that are alleged cause the child harm or could they cause the child harm. Despard does not think you can make the case that someone who may be guilty of domestic violence could be a danger to the child if the two parties involved in the domestic violence act are not together. Despard and I discussed other aspects of this case and it came down to him that the Maine Supreme udicial !ourt three times ruled against Handrahan. I commented that it was my opinion that the court dropped the ball. Despard laughed and stated that I was a braver man than him to go against the courts." #his flies in the face of all the national and state Child !rotection guidelines, manuals, protocols, and law. If the Head of Child !rotection doesn$t now this+ what ind of culture is supported within Child !rotection,

"ith gratitude and hope that Mila will soon be protected and a normal childhood and healing process can begin.

From: &te'hen !ic(ering [mailto:ste'hen'2@my1air'oint.net] Sent: &unday, "ay 15, 2011 2:11 !" To: Lori Handrahan Subject: 0es'ard con%ersation.

I'm not sure if there is anything here or not.

April 13, 2011. Wednesday

12:45pm, I attempted to contact Dan Despard. 1:22pm, I attempted to contact Dan Despard. 2:30pm, I was contacted by Dan Despard. He related the following information. Despard stated that he can ta e information from me, but he cannot discuss any child protective case with me unless I am a party. I told him that I was not a party to the case but I was wor ing for Mila and her mother. He stated that he could listen to any concerns that I may have and follow up on them. He stated that he would have to tal to Handrahan herself if he were to do more than that. I briefly told Despard about my bac ground in child abuse investigations and how I came to be wor ing on this case. I told Despard that I had reviewed the volumes of court documents, transcripts, e'mails and other information and decided to approach the investigation as if everything that Handrahan had told me was not true. I told him that my plan was to wor through the evidence and conduct my investigation as if I was starting fresh on a cold case. I told Despard that, as I told -licia Cummings as well, that allegations that come out of situations li e this are inherently unreliable and that is how I went into this investigation. I told Despard that once I got into the investigation I noticed that there were credible disclosures given to credible people whose %ob it is to ta e the disclosures. I as ed Despard if he had listened to the recording of Mila.s most recent disclosure to her mother. Despard stated that by statute he was not allowed to discuss any details of the case with me. He ac nowledged that he new that I was wor ing for Handrahan and he stated that he was aware that Commissioner Mayhew had invited Handrahan to contact him if she was at all dissatisfied at the way they were handling the case or if she had any new allegations. He stated that he can ta e information on that or any specifics of why she is dissatisfied with the investigation. I told Despard that Handrahan was dissatisfied with how the investigation was handled. I told Despard that I could not ma e any comments about /eth 0awcett as I don.t now her. I did tell him that I was aware that 0awcett.s initial interview of Mila only lasted 12 minutes and she did not get a disclosure. I told him that I was aware that her second attempt was made with !olly

Campbell and she did not get a disclosure but Campbell was able to after 0awcett left. I told Despard that they new about a third interaction between 0awcett and Mila when Mila made the statement upon seeing her mother that her father had not touched her with his penis again. I told them that I was aware that 0awcett heard the e#change that included the word penis but did not follow up on. I told Despard that I was aware that with this latest allegation that -licia Cummings spent appro#imately 32 minutes with Mila at the daycare and did not get a disclosure. I told Despard that I was familiar with the seven steps of fact'finding interview protocol and I have tal ed to Deb!oole about the sub%ect. I told Despard that is my belief that it ta es a lot more than 32 minutes to build a rapport with a child. I told him that these were some of the things that I saw that were deficient in the investigation. Despard (uestioned me if !oole had told me that it ta es more than 32 minutes to build a rapport with the child. I told him she did not. I told Despard that !oole went over the outline of how the protocol wor s and should be administered. I told him that it was my opinion that this protocol is not a lot different from how I was taught to interview children. I told him that it was obvious that the methods had been refined and that there were some things that are not done anymore because they don.t wor . I told him that my interaction with !oole was via e'mail. I told him that my main reason for contacting her was to (uestion her about the as ing of leading (uestions to test the veracity of a child. I e#plained to Despard that !oole told me those (uestions were designed to ma e sure the child new what a certain word meant when as ed a (uestion or if the child new that word. I e#plained to Despard that my point was and also I believe the point that Handrahan made to them before I was involved that not enough time was spent with Mila building a rapport before any (uestions were as ed. I told Despard that another thing about this investigation that I (uestioned was how did Spurwin $s findings get ignored. I told Despard that when I wor ed these cases Spurwin $s findings were the gold standard and I went so far as to as current detectives that are still wor ing these cases and they confirmed that is still the case. I told Despard that I could not understand how something li e this could happen. Despard as ed me if I read the most recent law court opinion and I told him that I had. I told Despard that these decisions were part of the problem with the case. I told Despard that the problems with this case occurred long before the law court got involved. I ac nowledged to Despard that Dr. &arry 3icci.s report was not conclusive, but I also pointed out that is typical of Dr. 3icci.s reports when he can.t find physical evidence of child abuse. I told Despard what I did not understand is how 4oyce "ient5en$s assessment, that she put into a report, that she put into an affidavit and testified to in court that Mila had been abused and that the father should not have unsupervised visits. I told Despard that I listened to the most recent allegation that was recorded by Handrahan. I told him that Handrahan briefed me on the events that occurred befor the recording was made. I told Despard about Handrahan$s discovery that Mila was wearing a heavily soiled diaper after she was pic ed up from the daycare. I told Despard about Handrahan contacting the school and being told that Mila often comes to school wearing a diaper and it.s not their responsibility to change diapers at a Montessori school. I told Despard that I had previously interviewed a former wor er at the daycare who related that Mila often comes to school wearing a diaper that had not been changed and also having hair that had not been brushed. I ac nowledged to Despard that these

things in and of themselves may not seem that bad, but in my e#perience with my own children, my granddaughters and having lived in the daycare that it certainly is not normal. I told Despard that it was on the same ride home when Handrahan noticed the bump and bruise on Mila.s head. I told Despard that li e any parent she as ed her child how she got the bruise. I told Despard that it was after Mila began telling her that her father had hit her that she got the digital recorder out. I told Despard that as you listen to the recording that you can tell from Mila.s tone of voice that she had been as ed the same (uestion already. I told Despard that I found the recording to be credible. I told Despard that this was not a coached statement. I told Despard that -ttorney 4osh 6ardy also listened to the recording and he found it to be credible. I told Despard that I as ed -licia Cummings if this case would be referred to Spurwin . I told Despard that Cummings told me that there was no need. I told him that much of the problem rested in the court room and with the %udge.s decision to believe that Malen o side of this case and not the Handrahan side. Despard stated that for him to be able to do anything I would have to concentrate on what his department did improperly or did not do properly. He stated that he has no influence over the %udiciary. I told Despard that I was aware of that. I told him my concern was that the reason people are doing the %ob properly is because they are dissuaded by a court opinion that has no bearing on whether a child has been abused or not and the fact that Malen o$s attorney threatens to or actually does sue anyone that assists Handrahan as she tries to protect her child. I related my e#perience with Malen o$s attorney to Despard. I told Despard that if -licia Cummings had spent more time with Mila and in a more neutral setting she probably would have gotten a disclosure. I told Despard that I felt that Spurwin should be utili5ed in this case. I pointed out to Despard that a child with a not on their head and a bruise along with the child telling her mother that her father hit with pan is believable. I told Despard that I did not believe that coaching passes the straight face test in this incident. Despard as ed me what my complaint was. I told Despard that I felt that the Department of Health and Human Services did not do their %ob up to their training and their ability. Despard as ed me specifically what the wor er did not do. I told Despard that that his casewor ers did not spend enough time with the child and did not conduct the interview in a neutral setting. I told Despard that ta es more than 32 minutes to build a rapport with an adult, let alone a child. I told Despard that he could agree or disagree with me but that is been my e#perience. I told Despard that I had participated in training that was put on by and attended by Department Human Service personnel. Despard pointed out that that training was in the past and that is why they are using Deb !oole$s protocol now. He e#plained that !oole is a researcher and has e#amined thousands of children in her lab. Despard stated that as it is his and the DHHS$s belief that !oole is the best source of training when it comes to forensic interviewing of young children. He stated that he does not believe !oole would agree with my assessment that 32 minutes is not enough time to do a sound interview of a child. I told Despard that I thought !oole would agree with me. I told Despard that some children are different than others and you might well be able to get to a child in a short period of time. I added that there are some children that could ta e hours to get to that same level. I told Despard that I spent an hour with Mila and felt that I had built a pretty good rapport with her but did not feel it was good enough to initiate an interview.

I told him that I planned to try again on another date but since the disclosure was made and Malen o was notified he is decided to eep Mila from her mother. I pointed out to Despard that his actions are classic abuser actions that are designed to eep the child away from anybody that the child might disclose to. I told Despard that I doubted that !oole or anybody has a boo that states rapport building ta es 72 minutes, introduction to case ta es 8 minutes and the disclosure should ta e 72 minutes. Despard ac nowledged my point. Despard as ed me what else in this case that DHHS did not do or did improperly. I told Despard that I was reasonably sure that Cummings has not loo ed at the medical reports or the photographs that were ta en when Mila went to the hospital in 9llsworth. Despard appeared to write this information down. I told Despard that I was sure that Handrahan probably pissed off %ust about everybody that.s become involved in this case. He stated that was irrelevant to him. He stated that he believed that this was probably the most important case that I was presently wor ing on and pointed out that his department is currently wor ing on :,222 open cases at this time. Despard stated again that he wanted to now what Handrahan$s specific complaint was as it pertained to this case. He stated that he would absolutely follow up on those complaints because he wanted to ma e sure that every assessment is done in as complete and sound of manner as possible. I e#plained to Despard that Cummings interview at the Montessori school was not a neutral or safe setting. I told Despard that I was aware that the owner of that school is hostile towards Handrahan and the child is aware of that hostility. I told Despard that my information about the Montessori school owner came from the woman herself. I told Despard that I was aware that the first time Mila made an allegation that Handrahan brought Mila to the Department of Health and Human Services office for an interview. I told Despard that I was aware that the forensic interviewing program that was instituted ten years ago in Hancoc County has a special room set up that loo s li e a normal, inviting living room to do the interviews. I told him I thought it was appropriate for 4oyce "ient5en to conduct another interview in a setting that Mila was comfortable with an already comfortable at. I told Despard that I wor ed a lot of cases with the Department of Health and Human Services were petitions were brought and I was aware that children were ta en into custody for a lot less evidence than what this case is presented with. I told Despard that my motivation was not to trash anybody in his department. I told Despard that my motivation was not to help &ori Handrahan. I told Despard that my motivation was the same as the reason that he goes to wor every day and that is to protect children. I told Despard that I was aware that some cases fall through the crac s I told him that sometimes there.s a good reason for it and sometimes there isn.t. I told him that regardless of how he felt about how Handrahan may have alienated some people I am certain that it has affected others perceptions of this case. Despard agreed that that was a possibility and he stated that he will loo for that as he evaluates this case to the e#tent that it impacts the (uality of wor done by DHHS. He stated that I was correct about the reason he comes to wor and added that there is a lot of information that he has that he would li e to discuss with me but he is not allowed to.

I told Despard about Handrahan$s complaint about how the Delvecchio matter was handled, the inconsistent information from 4im /eougher and how Muriel &ittlefield responded to Handrahan$s complaint. Despard stated that he could not comment on that. Despard stated that he would as me to consider if I really thought that DHHS, the Maine Supreme 4udicial Court, the Maine District Court and other law enforcement agencies are all in some sort of collusion to eep this alleged abuse (uiet. Despard told me to imagine the energy that something li e that would ta e. I told Despard that I did not believe in conspiracies or collusion. I told him that what I believed in was ineptness and incompetence. I told Despard that I new that people would attempt to cover up those shortcomings %ust as vigorously as someone involved in an actual conspiracy. I told Despard that how the methamphetamine in Mila.s urine was handled was a good e#ample. I told Despard that Handrahan was told that they could not accept the sample because a police officer did not ta e it or was present when it was ta en. I told Despard that I learned from the lab, the same lab that his agency uses, that you can.t fa e or alter a urine sample by placing methamphetamine in it to ma e it loo li e it came out of the person.s body. I told Despard that I thought it was unreasonable to thin that Handrahan too the collection it from !olly Campbell, went into a restroom with her daughter, collected the sample and returned it to Campbell within three minutes and she somehow falsified the test. Despard stated that he was not aware of this and (uestioned if Campbell was wor ing in her official capacity for the -ttorney ;eneral.s )ffice. I told Despard that Campbell was acting as a friend and not as a member of the -ttorney ;eneral.s )ffice. I told Despard that Chip "oodman from MD9- was notified about this situation and could not imagine a situation where a child would have methamphetamine in their urine. I told Despard that "oodman initiated investigation and during the investigation he spo e to Sgt. Steven "ebster of South !ortland !olice Department. I told Despard as a result of that conversation "oodman learned from "ebster that Handrahan was a <nut %ob.= I told Despard that after that conversation the investigation stopped. I told Despard that the reason Mila was being tested had nothing to do with methamphetamine. I told Despard that the reason for the test was because Malen o had been caught fro shoplifting. I told Despard that Handrahan had learned from either !olly Campbell or &eslie Devoe that child molesters often use cough medicine to subdue them. I told Despard that Handrahan was loo ing for what ever drugs might be found in cough syrup not methamphetamine. I told Despard that this investigation was stopped short, not because of any legal issues, but because of the well orchestrated plan by attorney "a#man to defame and discredit &ori Handrahan. Despard stated that he is never spo en to "a#man but said that he has e#changed a couple e'mails with him a few years ago. I told Despard that I had information that "a#man spent time at his !ortland office. Despard stated that he had been told that as well. Despard stated that if that actually happened he would have gotten a report from the manager of that office telling him that. Despard stated that he has received a lot of written information stating that he is doing Michael "a#man.s bidding. Despard stated that he recalled sending an e'mail to "a#man and Handrahan$s attorney. I told Despard that every time "a#man wants to ma e a point he encourages people to contact Despard as he nows everything going on with this case. Despard seem to be surprised with that information and added that he doesn.t thin he.s even spo en to Handrahan on this case. He stated that it is possible that he has spo en to Handrahan but does not recall it. Despard admitted that he has loo ed at this case including all the involvements of his

department. He stated that he has done this to a greater e#tent than he would most cases. He stated that he has his own conclusions. He stated that he could assure me that "a#man has not influenced him or the people that wor for him. I told Despard that the only problem I could see with "a#man is that he does his %ob very well. I told Despard that I meant when somebody li e "a#man does not have a case or his case is wea they go after the person who initiated the case. I told Despard that this is usually law enforcement but in this particular situation it is &ori Handrahan. I told Despard that I had reviewed some of the trial transcripts and I noted that "a#man.s behavior in court that was ignored by the %udge would have landed him in %ail in the part of the state that I normally wor in. I told Despard that if a child in Marie >elly$s %urisdiction and showed up with methamphetamine in their urine that there would be a petition consisting of a half a page of information and that child would be ta en from custody of the person responsible for the child. Despard as ed when the methamphetamine allegation was reported to DHHS. I told him that I believed it was sometime after -pril of 1272. Despard as ed if it was reported to Marie >elly. I told him it was reported to his !ortland office. Despard stated that he could not find where any such report was made. I gave Despard information I had about Malen o$s violent bac ground including the assault in Macedonia as well as the assaults and threats against Handrahan prior to the divorce. I told Despard that is my opinion that Mila is in %eopardy. Despard recapped what we discussed. Despard stated that one of the complaints was that DHHS did not spend enough time building rapport with Mila before (uestioning her. Despard stating that one of the complaints is that the photographs and medical reports had not been e#amined yet. Despard stated that he did not now what he could do about my contention that the Montessori school was hostile towards Handrahan. I told Despard that my biggest problem was the fact that his agency and the court ignored Spurwin .s assessment. Despard stated that the law court ruled on the scientific value of the process. Despard stated that is why they use Deb !oole.s protocol now so they won.t have problems li e what Spurwin had with this case. Despard stated in general terms that when you have a preschool child involved in a bitter custody dispute you have to be very careful with suggestibility among other things. Despard stated when an interview is conducted and the child fails the suggestibility tests it would be counterproductive to conduct another interview. Despard stated that from a forensic interviewing point of view when a child has already failed suggestibility tests and then you conduct another interview with leading type (uestions you are going against methods that have proven scientific value. Despard stated that with the sta es being so high he is proud to say that his department has lin ed up with the researcher that assures that DHHS.s protocol relies on methods that have scientific reliability. I as ed Despard what happened with this most recent disclosure. I told Despard that it was my understanding that Mila did not fail the suggestibility test and according to -licia Cummings, Mila new right from wrong and the difference the truth and a lie. I pointed out to Despard that Cummings interview did not result in Mila saying something different or something that was suggested, but that she

said it did not happen at all. I as ed Despard how may times does a child that has been abused say that during the first interview. Despard countered with how many times do children say whatever during the first interview. Despard and I discussed the merits of old interview methods compared to new interview methods with him ma ing the point that old methods are no longer applicable. I told Despard that the e#ample I had given him also met !oole.s approval as well. I gave Despard a history of some of the things that happened during the divorce proceedings in court with psychologists and ;uardian ad litem.s. Despard stated that he had his hands full with his %ob at the Department Health and Human Services and he did not have the time to even thin about what a court may have been out of line, or law enforcement agency may have been out of line, or a Montessori school may have been out of line. Despard stated what he can do though is say to himself, <"ow are that many people so off the mar here.= Despard laughed and said %udges, attorneys, police chiefs. Despard stated that is what he says to himself. He stated that is what he wonders about. Despard stated that for him it all comes bac to whether or not DHHS is doing everything the way they.re supposed to do it based on the information that they have. I as ed Despard if he was sure enough about his opinion that he was comfortable with Mila staying with her dad. Despard as ed me if I meant if he was sure enough that his agency had done everything that they could. He stated that he would not have made this phone call to me if not for his desire to be sure. Despard stated that he is aware that the casewor er on this case is on vacation and he is instructed the supervisor to get all the information that Handrahan believes is needed to ma e a proper assessment on this case and not to wait until the casewor er returns. Despard stated that he was aware that I went to the attorney general.s office in preparation for a 6itle 11 petition. Despard agreed that I should have gone to the attorney general first as the law says that I have to. He stated he was not aware that I had been given that information by the --; that it was not necessary. Despard stated that he would ma e sure the medical records and photographs were gathered but he can.t say that there would be another interview with the child. I as ed Despard if Malen o$s past criminal violent behavior and a lac of that same behavior by Handrahan had any bearing on their investigation. Despard stated that those things may be applicable in a divorce court but the standard the DHHS goes by is do the things that are alleged cause the child harm or could they cause the child harm. Despard does not thin you can ma e the case that someone who may be guilty of domestic violence could be a danger to the child if the two parties involved in the domestic violence act are not together. Despard and I discussed other aspects of this case and it came down to him that the Maine Supreme 4udicial Court three times ruled against Handrahan. I commented that it was my opinion that the court dropped the ball. Despard laughed and stated that I was a braver man than him to go against the courts.

6he conversation ended with Despard assuring me that any materials that needed to be collected or any other wor that needed to be done would be done before -pril 12. I as ed Despard if he would consider another interview of Mila where the interviewer too the time to build rapport. I suggested using an interview method that included misinformation so that Mila could correct them. Despard agreed that was an accepted method but recalled I had disapproved of Delvecchio using the same method. I told Despard that was a different situation where the child gave a clear disclosure and there was no obvious reason to as that type of (uestion. I ac nowledged that Delvecchio stated that she was troubled by Mila$s demeanor but her same demeanor had not been an issue on previous disclosures. I told Despard that everything surrounding that addendum was suspicious. Despard stated that he will ta e care of things that he previously discussed. PICKERING INVESTIGATIONS, Ste!hen ". Pi#$ering %& 'ee#h (i)) Roa* ')ue (i)), +aine ,-./0,120..210%1 ste!hen!03myfair!oint.net !i#$ste4e1-3yahoo.#om C