they had neither the experience nor the “political will” to createrna child abuse ease ex nihilo.rnHadfield went on trial in Proo, I’tah, in December 1987.rnThe courtroom was packed with Iladfield’s supporters; amongrnthem was Bishop Keith Burnham. The prosecution’s case wasrnessentially built upon the testimony of the Hadfield childrenrnand the recollections of Barbara Snow. Two physical examinationsrnof the children had failed to provide reliable physicalrnevidence of sexual abuse (which would ha’e been easily obtainedrnin the case of the young girl). Furthermore, there werernno taped or handwritten notes of the crucial therapy sessions inrnwhich the Hadfield children had disclosed the abuse. Snowrnexplained that she had taken “key notes” for the purpose ofrnaiding her memory; she once again insisted that her role wasrntliat of a therapist, rather than an inxestigator. But bv therntime the trial began. Snow had been acting as the state’s chiefrninvestigator for nearly two cars. In order for her testimom” tornbe considered relevant, the court would haye to assume thatrnthe Hadfield children had been abused by their father—whichrnwas precisely the question the trial was meant to address!rnBrad Rich, Hadfield’s attornc’, was caught in a dilemma familiarrnto defense attorneys in child abuse eases: how couldrnhe impeach the child witnesses without coming off as a desperaternbully? The testimony of the Hadfield children wasrnshot through with implausibilities and contradictions. Neitherrnof the children was aware of a birthmark on Alan Hadfield’srngroin that would have been visible during a sexual assault.rnThe Hadfield boy claimed that his father had threatened tornharm both the children and their mother if thcv spoke to an-rnone of the abuse and had coupled his warning with a bribe, inrnthe form of a “three-wheeler” recreational vehicle. But Richrnwas able to provide the court with a receipt proving that the vehiclernhad been purchased by Hadfield as an Easter gift forrnthe family long before it would have been needed as a bribe.rnThe most significant contradiction in the prosecution’s caserninvolved the events of April 9, 1986. During the e’cning hoursrnof that date, Hadfield had been alone in his house with hisrnchildren. His wife was in Salt Lake Citv visiting the Lehirnwoman who was involved in the other abuse-related divorce.rnAccording to his children, I ladfield molested them while thernwatched television. But Hadfield testified that he had beenrnalone in his bedroom watching Dynasty when he receued arnphone call from none other than Barbara Snow. Thus at tliernvery hour Hadfield was supposedly abusing his children, hernwas patiently listening to Barbara Snow complain al^out therntreatnrent she had received from her critics. Hadfield’s testimonyrnwas confirmed by phone records presented to the courtrnby Rich.rnDuring his closing arguments in Hadfield’s trial, prosecutorrnRobert Schwendiman declared that the defense had misrepresentedrnthe contents of the phone record; he referred to bothrnHadfield and Rich as liars. The jury was sent to deliberate—rnonh to be brought back by the judge when Rich protested.rnUpon reexamination the phone record confirmed the defense’srnaccount, and Schwendiman was compelled to apologize.rnThe jurv was then sent back to continue its deliberations.rnBrad Rich did not request a mistrial because it seemed obviousrnthat the prosecution’s case had been so badly perforated thatrnit would not withstand scrutiny—especially when the prosecution’srnlast remark was, in effect, “We goofed.” Furthermore,rnHadfield was neither emotionally nor financially preparedrnto endure another trial. But Hadfield’s trials were farrnfrom finished: 11 hours after hearing the prosecution’s apology,rnthe jury returned with a verdict of guilt on all counts.rnThe guilty erdict provoked gratitude from the state childrnabuse bureaucracy and incredulity from Hadfield’s neighbors.rnShorth after the verdict was delivered a group of eight hundredrnLehi residents held a rally at Lehi High School in order tornraise money for Hadfield’s defense fees. Cullen ]. Christensen,rnthe judge who had presided at Hadfield’s trial, receivedrnhundreds of letters from Hadfield’s supporters urging leniencyrnin sentencing. The abiding support for Hadfield wasrnused by some to indict the entire town. Child psychiatristrnPaul Whitehead, who had exanrined the Hadfield childrenrnat the state’s request and served as an “expert witness” forrnthe prosecution, gave an interview to the Deseret News (Utah’srnlargest daily paper) in which he explained that a satanie ritualrnabuse ring in Lehi was responsible for the ralK and the letterrncampaign: “It’s a close communit and that might explain inrnpart the conrmunitv reaction. But if one accepts the fact, as Irndo, that there are a lot of people iir’oled, then some of themrnhae a nrajor vested interest. To protect one is to protect all.”rnAccording to Whitehead, the response of Hadfield’s supportersrnwas “a natural reaction assuming many people arc involrned. If many were not involved, it’s ‘ery unusual that peoplernwould come to the response to this degree [on behalf of]rnone individual who has been convicted bv eight impartialrnpeople. I vould think the conrmunitv would be upset at thatrnindi’idual.” Whitehead had only his febrile imagination tornjustify his accusations. But Lehi could document abuses committedrnby the state.rnWhitehead declared that “the one common thing thatrnseems to run through all these groups is secret-keeping—collusion.”rnThe discipline of child abuse rings, according tornWhitehead, prevents abused children from speaking out; itrncan even compel children to recant accusations once theyrnhave been made. “There arc lots of forces that keep kids fromrndisclosing, so that’s why you don’t get many kids telling. Thernstudies show that false retractions of true statements are nruchrnmore common than false accusations.” This standard wouldrnlead us out of the empirical realm. Silence could serve as testimonyrnof abuse; an accusation of abuse would be consideredrnself-alidating; and a retraction of a previous accusation wouldrnbe the best evidence of all.rnWhitehead’s collusion theory v’as better applied to the actionsrnof the state and its allies among child abuse professionals.rnE’cry criticism directed at Snow or the state investigators ranrnup against a barricade of begged questions. Whitehead andrnother child abuse “experts” quickly joined ranks to protectrnSnow against criticism—perhaps acting upon the propositionrnthat “to protect one is to protect all.” Both the “experts” andrnthe state repeatedly emphasized the supposedly transcendentrnimportance of sending the proper “message.” The transmissionrnof that message required the services of Alan Hadfield, thernIndispensable Defendant.rnIn ead 1988 Hadfield was sentenced to ten-vears probationrnand six nronths in jail on a work-release program; he was alsornrequired to undergo treatnrent as a sex offender. In deliveringrnthis sentence Judge Christensen ignored the mandatory sentencingrnguidelines—which call for a urinimunr of ten vearsrnin prison for such eases—and applied a little-used incest exceptionrnin Utah State law, which was designed to keep a troubledrnfamily together. But the Hadfield family had alreadyrnbeen dissolved through divorce. Furthermore, the treatmentrn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn