PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Saturday, November 20, 2010


In an attempt to get at the truth, I've been pursuing the tactic of obtaining information from Linda Wiegand's supporters and then I have turned around and read information by those who opposed her.  Right now I am going to discuss the worst that I can say about Linda Wiegand based upon what her enemies have to say about her.  Again, keep in mind that I am neutral here.  I'm just letting you know what is out there--like it or not.

According to Louis Kiefer and Harold Stevens, Tom Wilkinson's attorneys, Linda Wiegand actually sexually abused the children, not Tom Wilkinson.  Apparently, they state, on January 27, 1993 not long after Wilkinson's arrest, the Vermont State Attorney's Office notified Mr. James Adams, the SRS caseworker who was assigned to investigate the case, that Wiegand's nephew (her sister's son) had complained to his father, Craig Martin, that Wiegand had sexually abused him.  Adams responded by calling Mr. Martin on February 2, 1993 and requested an interview.   Martin, however, wasn't willing to allow Mr. Adams to speak with his son and insisted that no abuse had taken place.

After talking to Craig Martin, Mr. James Adams contacted Dr. Stephen Balsam, the psychiatrist who had verified that Tom Wilkinson had sexually abused Benjamin and Jonathan Wiegand.  Adams conveyed to Dr. Balsam the information that Craig Martin's son, Linda Wiegand's nephew, had stated Linda Wiegand sexually abused him.  Adams asked Dr. Balsam whether there was any possibility that Linda Wiegand had coached her children to make false accusations against their father.  Dr. Balsam confirmed that he didn't believe either story.  Yet, as we know, Dr. Kenneth Robson had also indicated that he thought there was evidence that Linda Wiegand had coached her sons.

Then just as Mr. James Adams was investigating these allegations, to make the story even more complicated, Linda Wiegand's mother, Carol Morrisey, spoke to Dr. Balsam and told him that she believed that Linda Wiegand herself might be sexually  abusing the two children.  Apparently, when he was given this information, Dr. Balsam advised Ms. Morrisey not to speak to SRS about it.

There are also additional considerations that call into question Linda Wiegand's story regarding the sexual abuse of her children which are as folows:  1.  Upon examination, there were no physical indications that the children had been abused.  How is it possible that children could be abused with repeated anal penetration and yet there are no physical signs that it happened?; 2. Dr. Stephen Balsam concluding that the boys had been sexually abused after meeting them twice.  This does not strike me as the kind of careful and detailed examination that would be required in order to obtain accurate results; 3.  Dr. Balsam drew his conclusions without ever interviewing Tom Wilkinson himself; 4. The children made statements to the effect that their mother had told them to say what they said.  Granted, these statements were, as stated, ambiguous at times and unclear, but they are, nonetheless, troubling.

Finally, some of the greatest accusations against Linda Wiegand come from members of the Patriot's Movement in the United States which originally fully supported her.  One of these people, Clayton R. Douglas, describes Linda Wiegand as follows:  "From the evidence we have reviewed, including much of the documentation provided by Linda, it is just as possible it was Linda who was the abusive parent!  It was Linda who failed to discipline the children, who refused to attend court proceedings, who ignored court orders, who kidnapped the children from their home and it was Linda who has consistently lied about the situation and events, all the while continuing to raise money for herself, not the boys.  There is a story here, but it is a story about a possessive, self-centered woman who cares little about her children's well-being and is willing to resort to lying, cheating, stealing and kidnapping to keep the chidlren she is unwilling to share with anyone else."

So, what do you think so far?  Is this true, not true?  Let us hear from you!


  1. Ok! That's ONE vote for Tom!

  2. I would like to know how this case turned out, from everything I have read there has been no follow up on this story for years.

    I do not dismiss this story outright, having met people with severe dissociative disorders stemming from this type of abuse.

    The best way to crack a psyche is sexual abuse at an early age and yes there is ritual abuse and mind control programing as well as a large powerful network covering up these crimes.

  3. I had heard that the children eventually decided to return to the mother. I have no proof of that, however. I am also well aware of the difficulty that our family courts have in dealing with the issue of sexual abuse. They appear unable to handle such cases effectively. I'm not blaming, just observing.

  4. Their mother Linda still has an extridictable warrant for her arrest held by the Suffield Police Department. Anyone with information about her whereabouts should call the Suffield Police at 860-668-3870.

  5. I can't imagine this old warrant would have any valule in 2012 long, long after the case is over and the final judgment put into place. Are you aware of any outstanding charges against Linda? If there were, I'm sure that the CT Courts would have done something about it. The fact that they haven't seems to indicate that any legal charges against Linda are finished and done with.

  6. It's fairly common when a mother tells a child to tell the truth, or to tell their teacher something he told her, or the doctor, that the child says "My mommy told me to tell you." It's a mother's job to support her child's truth, and to support the child in telling his story to those who can help. How ridiculous to think that 30 hours of detailed graphic testimony by TWO children to doctors and law enforcement, in age-appropriate terms - FILMED - could be coached.

    Recantations are almost certain when children are forced to live with their abusers. THEY MUST RECANT FOR THEIR SAFETY. It doesn't mean the abuse didn't happen.

    For me, what is overwhelmingly clear, is the pattern of behavior from the (step)father, his atty, and the courts, was in no way consistent with an innocent man. Innocent, good fathers would never react to their own sense of shame about false accusations in this way. A good man would do EVERYTHING to understand why his child was acting out sexual abuse - DESPITE the embarrassment. He would work with the mother and hire real experts - not quacks like IOL pedophile priest darling Robson - to get to the bottom of this bizarre behavior, AND TO HEAL THE KIDS. Did Wilkinson do that? Nope. Instead, he, with the help of the courts, TERRORIZED the mother, did God-knows-what to the kids, and felt justified in doing so because of the shame the evidence coming to light brought him. Even his supporters focus(ed) on his sense of shame and embarrassment, and never on how to help the kids heal from the extreme form of trauma they were exhibiting TO EVERYONE.

  7. Only around 4% of child sexual abuse cases show any kind of physical artifacts. The lack of physical evidence does not rule out sexual abuse. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  8. I think what outsiders to CT family court don't understand at all is the methods used by those on the Fatherhood Initiative bribery bankroll. In my own case, the Family Relations moron, who has zero qualification to perform interviews with children, and the therapist whose whole career has been based on the fabricated and thoroughly debunked PAS, as a matter of course ask extremely LEADING QUESTIONS to the children. I know of several cases where Robson not only asked leading questions, but also used threats when interviewing children. That practice negates every single statement made by children in this setting. Add to it the threat they are facing of returning to the "care" of their rapist, and they are smart enough to know what they are supposed to say for their own safety.

    When they fish for any nugget of something from the child they can use for their PAS agenda, whatever turns up is used as "evidence" of coaching by the mother - when in reality COACHING *IS* THE METHOD OF PAS INVESTIGATION. If you read Gardner's drivel it's right in his own words. Whatever you find, it's the mother's fault because intergenerational intimacy is really perfectly fine and is just misunderstood.

    This is nothing more than a smokescreen to generate confusion in sex abuse cases. All "information" that stems from PAS interviews, accusations, or theories is unreliable and therefore does not belong in any intellectually rigorous review of a case.

  9. I know exactly what you are talking about when it comes to interviewing. In my custody evaluation the psychiatrist even reported how he didn't get the answer he wanted from my child so he suggested a different answer and was then satisfied that he got the answer he liked. How ridiculous it is for a psychiatrist to be so arrogant about the fact that he believes he is beyond accountability that he even reports on the bad things he has done in an evaluation he wrote himself!

  10. Here's the follow-up:

    The case was closed in a 1999 decision that dismissed all claims by Wilkinson against the social workers involved. You can read the entire decision at URL:

    Of particular interest is the footnote in that decision that states verbatim:

    "Plaintiffs also advanced several claims against Dr. Balsam, including gross negligence and malpractice. Plaintiffs report that they reached a settlement with Dr. Balsam and that he was dismissed as a defendant in this action by stipulation entered on October 28, 1996."

    Given that doctors rarely settle a malpractice claim unless the claim is supported by strong evidence against them, I think it's rather likely that Balsam screwed up.

  11. I am not sure it is true that doctors rarely settle a malpractice claim unless it is supported by strong evidence. I'd like to be sure that is true. Plus, in this case, I'm sure everyone including Dr. Balsam was just sick and tired and ready to be done with it.