A Witch-Hunt

What and who started this “Witch hunt?”

Witch-Hunt: …the hunt for evidence of wrongdoing of innocent people to purge/convict them simply becuase they are blammed for something which usually involves a moral panic or mass hysteria. Further involving a bureacratc malfeasance and malicious politicization of our justice system.

Britanca

“In acrimonious divorce and child custody disputes emotions are tense and tempers flare. Buoyed by litigious attorneys, each side engages in strategic maneuvers to gain the greatest legal advantage. Sometimes a parent, fearing a loss of control or custody over a child, crosses the ethically acceptable bounds of legal warfare. An unfortunate but all too frequently used tactic by mothers is to accuse the father of sexually molesting their child. The mere accusation is sufficient to strip the father of all his custody rights and launch a criminal investigation. Even when no evidence is found to substantiate the allegation, family law courts typically “err on the side of caution” and award full custody to the mother. While national statistics reveal that the majority of all child sex abuse reports are legitimate, when such claims are made by a mother in the context of custody litigation, an estimated 77% of allegations are determined to be unfounded (Tong, 2002).A false child sex abuse allegation made during child custody litigation is a destructive legal stratagem.”

The Nuclear Option: False Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes (2008)
–Jake Morphonios

Presented below is an excerpt from the Zerbarini v. Zerbarini divorce motions in Fayette County, GA which include statements and facts from the Trial record and Motion for New Trial record that shows the very origins of this “witch-hunt.”

“The availible exculpatory and impeachable evidence shows that Ms. Zerbarini concocted a subterfuge and wrongly targeted Petitioner in acts for which he was not responsible. (Motion for New Trial-(MNT). dated 11-9-18, pages 143-154)., ALL of the alleged victims (including Petitioners own children) were connected to Ms. Zerbarini. (See Entire Trial Transcript; T. 590-592, 777-783, 797-801, 876-879, 964965; MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 37-40, 101-114, 121-127; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 70-74, 119-124).

Petitioner married his wife Lynne in February, 2002 and Petitioner had a great relationship with his children. (T. 1149-1151). Ms. Lynne Zerbarini was molested as a child and without justification, was extremely suspicious that her own children were being molested by Petitioner. (T. 1156-1158). In approximately 2011, Ms. Lynne Zerbarini began to question their children regarding Petitioner touching their private parts because Ms. Lynne Zerbarini wanted to ensure that what she encountered as a child would not be repeated with her children. (T.1158-1159). In 2012, Ms. Lynne Zerbarini falsely accused Petitioner of touching their child inappropriately. (T. 1158-1159). In March, 2014, Ms. Lynne Zerbarini again falsely accused Petitioner of touching their children in an inappropriate manner. (T. 1159-1161).

On May 2, 2014, Petitioner was in a conversation, via text, with Ms. Kim Curtis in a flirtatious manner. (T. 1161-1166; See Defendant’s Exhibit Number 7). Ms. Lynne Zerbarini was able to read these inappropriate text messages and thereafter, threatened divorce. (T. 1166-1169). Ms. Lynne Zerbarini did not speak with her husband for the next week and a half, except to tell Petitioner that she was obtaining a divorce, moving to New York and taking the children with her. (T. 1196-1171). Petitioner replied that he would fight for custody of his children and that the children would remain in Georgia. (T. 1170-1171). In June, 2014, Petitioner’s daughters told him that their mother repeatedly asked them the same questions, to wit: whether Petitioner touched their private parts. (T. 1171-1172). Petitioner denied ever touching any of his children in an inappropriate manner and denied watching pornography with any of his children. (T. 1172-1175). Petitioner vehemently denied inappropriately touching any child in an inappropriate manner. (T. 1147-1149, 1155-1156, 1184-1187, 1196-1198).

It was Ms. Lynne Zerbarini who poisoned all of the alleged victims against Petitioner by coaching and biasing these children or their family members into making false allegations against Petitioner by asserting, on multiple occasions, that Petitioner was a child molester. (T. 1074-1090, 1385-1401; MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 37-40, 7488, 101-114, 121-127; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 119-124). In fact, at trial, an expert testified that it was possible that Ms. Lynne Zerbarini prodded her children to unleash false claims against Petitioner. (T. 1385-1401).

Dr. Maggie Bruck, (T. 1271-1328) is a recognized developmental psychologist, professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University and an adjunct professor at McGill University in psychology. (T. 1328-1330). Dr. Bruck was accepted as an expert in the field of child sexual abuse disclosures. (T. 1341-1344).

Dr. Bruck explained that Ms. Lynne Zerbarini’s constant questioning of her children over a period of time regarding whether Petitioner molested A.Z. in the presence of the other children, coupled with Ms. Zerbarini’s ill feelings toward Petitioner, would have led to fertile ground for false allegations against Petitioner . (T. 1385-1390). Dr. Bruck opined that Z.S,’s outcry was wrought with problems because the outcry witness, Ms. Christine Smith (sister-in-law of Ms. Zerbarini), who had bias against Petitioner, believed that Petitioner touched children inappropriately and the forensic interview occurred two (2) weeks after this alleged outcry and within those two (2) weeks, Z.S. was on vacation with Ms. Lynne Zerbarini and her children. (T. 1390-1395). Dr. Bruck opined that T.Z.’s outcry would have been improperly influenced by Ms. Lynne Zerbarini questioning T.Z. for years concerning Petitioner’s supposedly molesting her as well as the fact that Petitioner and Ms. Lynne Zerbarini were divorcing and her mother harbored hatred towards Petitioner. (T. 1395-1397). Dr. Bruck opined that A.Z. continued to be questioned by Ms. Lynne Zerbarini and always denied any improper contact by Petitioner and at the forensic interview, denied being touched by Petitioner and then was placed in counseling and this environment was too suggestive and wrought with potential false allegations. (T. 1396-1400). Dr. Bruck opined that M.Z. would have been influenced by this same poisonous environment and suggestibility that Petitioner abused his sisters. (T. 1400-1401). Dr. Bruck opined that L.B.’s outcry was suspect because the outcry was eight (8) years later and the supposed touching mimicked the allegation that she heard concerning another supposed victim. (T. 1401-1406). Dr. Bruck explain that M.B. was bathed in a suggestive environment when discussing whether Petitioner molested her. (T. 1406-1408). Dr. Bruck declared that J.S. would not remember being molested when she was four (4) years of age and thus, that testimony was probably a false memory. (T. 1419-1422).

At the Motion for New Trial hearing, Petitioner called Ms. Lynne Zerbarini as a witness.  (MNT. dated 12-13-18, page 70). Ms. Lynne Zerbarini testified that she married Petitioner  and they have four (4) children, to wit: M.Z., A.Z., T.Z. and J.Z. and she  transported her children to be forensically interviewed in Troy, New York. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 71-74). Ms. Lynne Zerbarini wrote a detailed sworn statement memorializing the events relevant to the abuse accusations made against Petitioner and same was provided in Discovery to Petitioner’s trial counsel. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 74-78, 133-142; MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit 9). Critically, Ms. Lynne Zerbarini claimed that in July, 2014, T.Z. outcried that Petitioner had licked her “toilet spot.” (MNT. dated 1213-18, pages 83-88, 102-106, 111-113, 119-124). Ms. Lynne Zerbarini explained that she then spoke with her niece, Z.S.’s family members as well as another alleged victim’s family members about Petitioner’s supposed improper touching. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages  88-104, 133-142). It has been established that all of the abuse accusations began with Ms. Zerbarini poisoning these children and their families against Petitioner. (MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 143-154; MNT. dated 12-13-18,  pages 88-106).

Ms. Lynne Zerbarini stated that she reported these acts of molestation to Officer Judy. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 88-106). Yet, Officer Judy testified at the Motion for New Trial hearing that on July 21, 2014, Ms. Zerbarini never reported that there was any act of child molestation committed on her child, but instead, that Ms. Zerbarini solely claimed to Officer Judy that she simply had a suspicion that Petitioner molested her children but had no evidence that same occurred and there was no actual outcry by any of her children. (MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 37-40, 5665, 74-88, 121-127; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 102-106, 111-113, 119-124; See MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit 8). Specifically, Officer Judy memorialized his July 21, 2014, conversation with Ms. Zerbarini in his contemporaneous police report and swore that Ms. Zerbarini had no outcry of molestation from any of her children and only speculated that Petitioner was molesting their children because Petitioner “creeps her out,”  and that Ms. Zerbarini had no evidence as to why she believed that any molestation to her children had occurred. (MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 59-61, 8283; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 83-88, 102-106, 111-113; MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit 8).

This non-presented competent evidence would have provided original, non-cumulative testimony that Ms. Zerbarini coached her children and concocted the sexually deviant evidence and that these children adopted their mother’s cries/lies as Ms. Zerbarini claimed that on July 17, 2014, T.Z. outcried that Petitioner “. . . licked [her] toilet spot,” yet four (4) days later, told Officer Judy that no such outcry ever occurred.  (MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit 9, page 3 of 6; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 83-88, 102-106, 111-113; MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit 8). This poisoning of these children was Petitioner’s sole defense at trial but said evidence never made its way into the Courtroom solely because of Petitioner’s trial counsel’s deficient performance by failing to subpoena these critical witnesses. (MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 33-152; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 102-106, 111-113, 119-124).

The Respondant, Ms. Zerbarini started this “witch-hunt” with a statement which could easily have been impeached since Ms. Zerbarini’s July 21, 2014, statement to Officer Judy was wholly inconsistent with her claim that on July 17, 2014, four (4) days earlier, T.Z. came forward with a specific cry of abuse committed by Petitioner, (MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 37-40, 101-114, 121-127; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 82-88, 102-106, 111-113; MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9, pages 3 of 6). Without calling Ms. Zerbarini and Officer Judy as witnesses, none of this critical, exculpatory and impeaching evidence was introduced at trial and the jury was uninformed and wrongly kept in the dark and prevented from properly evaluating whether Petitioner committed any of these crimes. (See Entire Trial Transcript). The failure to call these available witnesses also adversely limited the expert’s testimony when explaining that Ms. Zerbarini potentially coached and influenced the children. (MNT. dated 11-9-18, pages 143-154.)