Dr. Samuel A. Mujica-Trenche’s Premature Diagnosis of Sexual Abuse Set In Motion a Trail of Bias. There Needs To Be A New Law To Challenge Past Child Interview Methods As Junk – First Step Taken
Please sign the petition for a new Texas law here
To: Mr. Grayson Coker
For State of Texas Senator Joan Huffman’s Office
From: Beverly Troupe Enoch and William E. Enoch
Re: A presentation of documents related to why a new law is important to allow current ‘Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol’ the ability to challenge past interviewing methods that were unfair to children and led to false reports and hardships for countless affected families
Greetings Mr. Coker:
We are attempting to provide evidence indicating why a new child interview law would benefit children. As an actual case example of disastrous affects of improper interview methods, we will introduce the challenge the Troupe family has faced since December 10, 1986 when a visit to see a doctor for then eight year old Beverly Troupe led to the conviction of her father, Brian K. Troupe, Sr., on a charge of Aggravated Sexual Assault. Other examples of families who suffered hardships as a direct result of unfair past interview methods may be found in Part 4 of this presentation.
Presented documents will provide evidence that the reason the Department of Human Services (DHS now CPS) was contacted by the doctor should have been due to his “suspicion of sexual abuse” yet he contacted DHS with his final diagnosis that he “determined” Beverly Troupe had been “repeatedly sexually assaulted.”
Presented documents will provide evidence that the DHS case interviewer was able to eventually gain appeasing agreement from Beverly through the interviewer’s repeated use of the doctor’s documents and his word, both of which had already determined and were reported to DHS by December 11, 1986, that Beverly had been “repeatedly sexually assaulted”.
Presented documents will provide evidence that his information was used as the interviewer’s basis to repeatedly question Beverly during a three-and-one-half-hour interview. Beverly’s “no” to the interviewer’s questions was not respected by the interviewer causing the interview to continue until the results of the interview matched the doctor’s premature diagnosis.
Presented documents will provide evidence that the interviewer even repeatedly questioned Beverly on a matter the doctor had ruled out of his initial report to DHS, but failed to convey his retraction to the interviewer.
*Presented documents may appear graphic to sensitive viewers.*
The ultimate goal is to have the State of Texas pass a law that will allow current ‘Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol’ the ability to legally challenge the former child interviewing methods in court.
The following document based information presents our argument for requesting such a new law.
Table Of Contents:
Part 1A – Troupe Family Case
Part 1B – Inquiry Into Texas Case Number 35279
Part 2 – Current Child Forensic Interview Protocol
Part 3 – Experts In The Field of Current Child Interview Protocol
Part 4 – Cases of Affects Brought By Past Child Interview Methods
Part 5 – Recanters
Part 6 – Updates
Part 1A Troupe Family Case
Ever since Texas’ Article 11.073 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also known as the junk science law, became effective September 1, 2013, Beverly Troupe Enoch and her family has been trying to find a way to utilize this law to refute the premature diagnosis provided by the pediatrician who examined her beginning on December 10, 1986 when she was eight years old. To complement Article 11.073, there needs to be a new law to challenge past child interview methods as junk when the methods are unfair to the child.
‘Why would Beverly, after over three hours of questioning, change her answer from “no” to “yes” when the interviewer asked her again if her father put his “ding dong’ in her?“‘
‘In Dr. Mujica’s April 2, 1987 trial testimony, he stated that contacting DHS was done “all the time” when there is a “suspicion of sexual abuse” so there could be an investigation. Dr. Mujica, instead, reported that he had “determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”.‘
‘Please note what a psychologist, who specializes in child forensic interviews, said why the three-and-a-half-hour interview that led to Beverly’s accusation of her stepfather is a clear red flag. He said that most children who have been sexually abused tell their interviewer within 20 minutes; if more time goes by, children become more open to suggestion, or invent memories they think their interviewer wants to hear. “We now know adults can be quite suggestive,” he said, “and sometimes they are unaware of it.”‘
‘Helen’s less than one year experience in the arena of child interviews became apparent when she attempted to record an official interview video of Beverly on December 16, 1986. This failed attempt was three days after the official interview on December 13, 1986 where after three and one half hours Beverly began agreeing with Helen’s sexually explicit questions, including the anal misinformation.
A video recording should have taken place on December 13, 1986, the day of the official interview. Not after Beverly was broken and gave up her truth. This tactic is highly unethical.’
Pictured below left is Killeen, Texas Police Department’s (KPD) Officer Joan Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement Report’ containing information from Department of Human services (DHS, now Child Protective Services CPS) social worker, Jeannie Cross. Officer Smith included in her report, which began on December 11, 1986,”Ms. Cross advised that Beverly Troupe, NF, 8 years, had been admitted to DACH on 12-10-86 after blood was observed in her urine and her panties.” Officer Smith continued, “According to Ms. Cross, the father, Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator.” Then, Officer Smith recorded what may be the most bias inducing statement at the center of the case, “Ms. Cross advised that Dr. Mujica examined Beverly and determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”
Pictured below right is a copy of Dr. Munter’s (the doctor who was on-duty in the ER at Darnell Army Community Hospital – DACH and first examined Beverly) ‘Emergency Care And Treatment Medical Record’ where he stated on December 10, 1986, Beverly had “
0 hymen vaginal floor relaxed, gaping no abrasions or lacerations no blood…called Pediatrician D Mujica…” This no hymen statement is where bias that Beverly had been sexually assaulted began. The same enthusiasm placed upon proving sexual assault was not placed on Beverly’s answer as to how she hurt herself.
Dr. Munter’s medical record (below right) also states no blood in urine. However, Jeannie Cross told Officer Smith in document below left, that “blood was observed in her urine…” This appears to indicate an embellishment of Dr. Munter’s medical report by Jeannie Cross.
On December 11, 1986, Dr. Mujica had already “determined” Beverly Troupe had been “repeatedly sexually assaulted” and contacted DHS, who then, contacted KPD. This contact by DHS was made even before “further examinations” were to be conducted. A record will be introduced to provide evidence DHS knew “further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86″, the day after DHS passed this premature information on to KPD on December 11, 1986.
DHS’ contact to KPD was made after Dr. Mujica “determined” Beverly “has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” and reported this information to DHS on December 11, 1986.
In Dr. Mujica’s April 2, 1987 trial testimony, he stated that contacting DHS was done “all the time” when there is a “suspicion of sexual abuse” so there could be a proper investigation. Dr. Mujica, instead, reported on December 11, 1986 that he had “determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”.
This premature diagnosis was passed on as factual and the verdict, even before any official investigation was launched. The alleged perpetrator, who Dr. Mujica named and already provided to KPD by DHS, was Beverly’s father, Brian Troupe. Beverly was not interviewed by a DHS caseworker until December 13, 1986. DHS already had her father named as the alleged perpetrator.
Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony provides evidence he contradicted himself by testifying “Based on the initial suspicion of sexual abuse, that’s what we do all the time. Whenever there’s a suspicion of sexual abuse, the Department of Human Resources –Human Services is called and they proceed to investigate–“. Instead of following this protocol on December 11, 1986, his initial contact with DHS that day was a report that he “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”
A PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony’s contradiction to his initial report to DHS is below.
In Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony, he was allowed to testify, under objection from the defense, to his diagnosis of Beverly Troupe displaying a flat effect on December 13, 1986. This diagnosis did not appear to take into consideration that Beverly had had her private parts exposed to him, had just been repeatedly asked sexually explicit questions by the DHS interviewer, told a huge lie on her father, and had been in a strange environment for days being subjected to information brought to her for simply having complained about a burning sensation during urination.
Dr. Mujica did not appear to take into consideration another possible reason why Beverly was so quiet could have been attributed to simple embarrassment. Dr. Mujica also did not appear to consider that Beverly’s complaining of burning during urination landed her where she found herself when he saw her on December 13th and observed her “flat affect” after the interview. Anything she said from that point on could have sent her through the same ordeal again; thus better to remain silent.
In Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony, under objection from the defense, he was allowed to testify to his “flat affect” diagnosis of Beverly Troupe, based on his perception of writings he skimmed from a magazine. Dr. Mujica, at this point in his career, had no formal education on the subject of flat affect.
To view Beverly’s demeanor as “flat affect” appeared to be another item Dr. Mujica could add to his hypothesis from his December 10, 1986 assumption that she had been “sexually assaulted” when Dr. Munter failed to locate her hymen. By assuming Beverly displayed “flat affect”, Dr. Mujica could then add another confirmation to initial bias.
Would a proper diagnosis of flat affect involve more than Dr. Mujica’s description of what he deciphered from Beverly’s demeanor?
Would a diagnosis of flat affect also take into consideration a number of other criteria? Such criteria that could reveal well rounded out insight into Beverly’s multi-faceted personal nature?
A good way to began learning Beverly’s personal nature and characteristics could have been through interviews.
Before diagnosing Beverly with “flat affect”, could Dr. Mujica have interviewed Beverly, her parents, her School Educators, her church Pastor and possibly her personal friends to learn of her emotional background?
Another good way to learn some more about Beverly’s nature and characteristics could have been through spending enough necessary time with her.
If he had made a proper report of “suspicion of sexual abuse”, then Dr. Mujica could have been involved in a proper investigation that would have followed a report of “suspicion of sexual abuse”. Such proper investigation never took place because Dr. Mujica reported a diagnosis that he had “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted“.
If there had been a proper “suspicion of sexual abuse” investigation, Dr. Mujica could have spent time with Beverly over several days or weeks in different environments, including her home, school or church to better help him assess his initial evaluation. This way, the interview may not have been tainted with as much bias and Dr. Mujica may not even have observed what he diagnosed as “flat affect”, after the interview.
Why the rush to justice? Based upon Dr. Mujica’s initial report to DHS that he already had “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”, instead of “suspicion of sexual abuse”, records within this presentation provide evidence that it appears DHS and Dr. Mujica considered the case to be closed and no need to investigate.
Would the DHS interviewer have performed a proper investigation instead of a highly suggestive interview had Dr. Mucjica followed protocol to report “suspicion of sexual abuse”?
Could the reason why the DHS interviewer did not perform a proper investigation be due to the fact that Dr. Mujica actually reported to DHS he “had determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”?
A PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony on flat affect pages 467 line 12 – 475 line 20 below.
In Dr. Mujica’s December 31, 1986 ‘Voluntary Statement’ to KPD, he never stated whether he even asked Beverly how she got hurt. He had multiple opportunities to ask Beverly herself, the person who could answer that question, instead, he asked her parents. Their guesses at how Beverly may have gotten hurt ended up as questions the DHS interviewer pounded Beverly into appeasing submission with during that three hour plus brute force interview.
Within his ‘Voluntary Statement’ and speaking of Beverly Troupe, Dr. Mujica “asked her directly if her father was the one hurting her…”
Below is a copy of Dr. Mujica’s December 31, 1986 Killeen Police Department ‘Voluntary Statement’, where he states after the December 13, 1986 DHS interview, he asked Beverly directly if her father was the one hurting her. Dr. Mujica changed what he initially told DHS from he “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” to, “In my opinion, Beverly Troupe has been sexually assaulted.” Then, in his 2011 Evidentiary Hearing affidavit, also pictured below, Dr. Mujica stated, “Nothing I have reviewed or learned since that time has called me to change my opinion that Beverly was repeatedly sexually abused back then.” These two opinions came after Beverly’s December 13, 1986 interview by Helen Paramore. Remember, Dr. Mujica had already “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”, and this diagnosis presented no need for the interviewer to investigate, only to interrogate Beverly until Beverly appeasingly agreed with Mujica’s determination of sexual assault. Once Beverly was broken, she would go to exaggerate, even to say her father abused her.
Full PDFs of, a) the report from Dr. Mujica that DHS reported to Killeen Police Department stating he has “determined” sexual assault, b) his December 31, 1986 ‘Voluntary Statement’ with KPD stating his “opinion” of sexual abuse and c) his August 4, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Affidavit stating his “opinion” of sexual assault, are below photos showing parts of these documents.
Dr. Mujica’s premature diagnosis of repeated sexual assault was evidently believed by DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, to the extent she did not perform a proper investigation, but instead badgered Beverly until she finally succumbed after over three hours of Paramore’s sexually explicit suggestions and relentless questionings. Had Dr. Mujica reported suspicion of sexual abuse instead of a diagnosis, Beverly, most likely would have received an unbiased investigation.
Dr. Mujica jotted down a premature, “Final Dx. Sexual abuse“, on December 11, 1986 which was one day after he first evaluated Beverly, one day before “further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86”, and two days before the child interview with the DHS interviewer. During that same December 11th day, records show he appears to have managed to convince at least one DHS worker (Jeannie Cross) of his final diagnosis. How could an interviewer remain neutral after learning of Dr. Mujica’s final diagnosis of sexual abuse and that a police report to that effect had already been filed, by her office?
Dr. Mujica’s December 11, 1986 ‘Abbreviated Medical Record’ showing “Final DX. Sexual abuse” is below.
Upcoming interviewer testimonies will provide evidence on how the interviewer’s method was unfair to Beverly when the interviewer based her questions upon the “determined that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” report from Dr. Mujica , not upon, “suspicion of sexual abuse.”
The case still presented problems for filing a Habeas Writ. The current criteria for determining sexual assault are 1) Outcry by the victim 2) Pregnancy 3) A sexually transmitted disease or 4) Perpetrator DNA. This current list includes no mention of injuries, size of the victim’s vaginal opening nor flat affect which were the criteria used by the pediatrician who examined Beverly in 1986 along with her “word”. The only common denominator in the pediatrician’s criteria and current criteria is the child’s word. Why would Beverly, after over three hours of questioning change her answer from “no” to “yes” when the interviewer asked her again if her father put his “ding dong” in her?
By using a potential junk child interview law as well as Texas Article 11.073, past case documents would establish how Beverly eventually came to appeasingly agree with her 1986 interviewer. There was never an outcry from Beverly, only an appeasing agreement with the interviewer at the end of a three plus hour interview. The interviewer never stopped the interview after repeatedly hearing Beverly’s negative answers to her repeated questions until Beverly eventually began to answer in the affirmative. Affirmative answers would be in agreement with the pediatrician because he had already “determined she has repeatedly been sexually assaulted.”, and “…the father, Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator.”
Article 11.073 would be utilized to provide evidence the pediatrician practiced junk science against Beverly Troupe when she was an eight year old child. A new junk interviews law would be utilized to provide evidence the DHS interviewer practiced junk interviewing against Beverly.
Pictured (above left) is Dr. Samuel A. Mujica, the pediatrician who made a premature diagnosis of sexual assault during an evaluation of eight year old Beverly in 1986 and passed this diagnosis on to DHS Social Worker, Jeannie Cross who then passed the premature diagnosis on to DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore pictured (above right).
After finding herself and her family at a dead end, Beverly Troupe Enoch knew it was time to further seek justice by getting to the root of the case: confirmation bias. This confirmation bias appears to have began to develop in a hospital patient room when Dr. Munter relayed to Dr. Mujica his opinion of eight year old Beverly not having a “hymen”. It appears upon hearing Dr. Munter’s opinion, Dr. Mujica developed the assumption Beverly was “sexually assaulted.” It appears Dr. Munter’s statement of “no hymen” correlated with sexual assault in Dr. Mujica’s assumption. From that point on, records show, Dr. Mujica sought to prove this hypothesis.
Dr. Mujica’s bias appears to have transferred onto DHS caseworker, Jeannie Cross, who prematurely contacted KPD on December 11, 1986 with her statement, “it was determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.” Jeannie also went on to state, “the father, Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator.” Jeannie Cross also incorrectly stated, “blood was observed in her urine”, speaking of Beverly, yet Dr. Munter’s report stated there was no blood in Beverly’s urine.
Would DHS worker Jeannie Cross have even contacted KPD had Dr. Mujica followed protocol and instead told her he had a “suspicion of sexual abuse”?
Could Dr. Mujica’s break with protocol by reporting a determination of “sexual assault” be the reason Jeannie Cross contacted KPD before a proper DHS investigation was conducted?
Dr. Mujica’s determination of repeated “sexual assault” (not suspicion of sexual abuse) was passed on to DHS’s, Jeannie Cross. Next, on December 11, 1986, Jeannie, in turn, passed on this diagnosis to KPD. Then on December 12, 1986, Jeannie passed her case file on to Helen Paramore, the DHS interviewer who interrogated Beverly for three-and-a-half hours.
Based upon the premature diagnosis within that case file, not a suspicion of sexual abuse, Helen would not accept Beverly’s answer “no”, as she said Beverly “denied and denied”, because Helen showed she believed the doctor’s premature diagnosis and took over three hours to convince Beverly to appeasingly agree to it too. Although Beverly did not believe the doctor’s diagnosis, she did go on to exaggerate once she saw how pleased Helen became (confirmation bias) after she got the agreement. Beverly’s embellishment from that point on became epic in her attempt to just get back home. She did not return home again until the day of her eighteenth birthdate.
Please note what a psychologist who specializes in child forensic interviews said the three-and-a-half-hour interview that led to Beverly’s accusation of her stepfather is a clear red flag. He said that most children who have been sexually abused tell their interviewer within 20 minutes; if more time goes by, children become more open to suggestion, or invent memories they think their interviewer wants to hear. “We now know adults can be quite suggestive,” he said, “and sometimes they are unaware of it.”
The link to the Texas Observer article where the above information came from is here: https://www.texasobserver.org/recanters-child-abuse-claims-come-undone/
Dr. Mujica had the opportunity to retract his statement to DHS and interviewer Helen Paramore about anal injuries after Dr. Miller’s “further examinations” on December 12, 1986 revealed no injuries. Instead, Dr. Mujica failed to release this important piece of information before the December 13, 1986 DHS interview. Helen Paramore utilized this misinformation to introduce it to Beverly, question her about it and eventually was able to persuade Beverly to say yes to it near the end of the three hour plus interview.
The following list are documents included in the copies below:
- Officer Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement Report’ which states “anal” injuries.
- Dr. Mujica’s ‘Voluntary Statement’ where he never mentions anal injuries.
- Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony where he states there is no evidence of anal penetration.
- Helen’s 1986 affidavit where she includes anal misinformation.
- OBGYN Dr. Miller’s ‘Operation Report’ which never states anything about Beverly’s hymen or anal injury nor agrees with Dr. Mujica’s information he passed on to DHS regarding “anal anterior forchette lesions with marked erythema”. Dr Miller’s ‘Operation Report’ does not show anywhere within it that he agrees with Dr. Mujica’s sexual abuse hypothesis. The report goes on to state, “…after the induction of anesthesia was placed in the low lithotomy position”, whereas the proper position Dr. Miller as well as Dr. Munter, and Dr. Mujica all should have placed Beverly in either “…the supine frog legged position and the prone knee chest position…”.
- The correct position is explained in the “Medical Findings and Child Sexual Abuse” document.
In Dr. Mujica’s April 2, 1987 trial testimony, when questioned about evidence of anal penetration of Beverly, he answered, “…there was no evidence…that, that happened.”
This April 2, 1987 admission on the doctor’s part came much too late to stop the interviewer from repeatedly questioning Beverly about anal matters which the interviewer received from Dr. Mujica prior to the December 13, 1986 interview.
A copy of Dr. Mujica’s admission of no anal penetration during his April 2, 1986 trial testimony is below from line 18 – line 25. A pdf file is below the copy.
PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony that there was no evidence of anal penetration is below.
Dr. Mujica’s failure to alert DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, of the fact he had dismissed his anal information not only led to her repeatedly questioning Beverly on this misinformation, but Helen eventually wrote a December 16, 1986 affidavit which included this anal misinformation. She even testified in the April 2, 1987 trial of Beverly’s father that Beverly brought this information to her. Eventually gaining Beverly’s appeasing affirmative on anal misinformation and bolstering confirmation bias that Beverly’s father had done this allowed Paramore to author such affidavit.
Never knowing Dr. Mujica had already dismissed all anal matters, but failed to notify her before the interview that he had, Paramore repeated her anal misinformation during her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony.
Below are copies of Paramore’s 1986 affidavit which included this anal misinformation, her 1987 trial testimony regarding this anal misinformation on page number 606 from line 1 – line 13 and her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing regarding this anal misinformation on page number 267 from lines 7 – line 25. PDFs may be found below these copies.
PDFs of Paramore’s testimony regarding anal misinformation are below. Page and line numbers are the same as in the copies:
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 1986 affidavit is below.
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 1987 trial testimony, as evidence Helen questioned Beverly on anal matters, is below.
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony as evidence she was aware of a “lax anus” is below.
Dr. Mujica’s failure to notify DHS interviewer Helen Paramore that he had dismissed his anal information eventually led to Beverly being questioned about this misinformation in the 1987 trial. Beverly’s testimony came after Dr. Mujica’s testimony where the pediatrician already had testified there was no evidence of anal penetration. Beverly learned of this anal misinformation during her three and a half interview on December 13, 1986 through Helen Paramore.
Beverly’s 1987 trial testimony provides evidence that she was still questioned about anal matters. This line of questioning is on page 536 line 9 – 543 line 12, page 555 line 23 – 556 line 12, and page 558 line 25 – 562 line 7 of the 52 page testimony and is below.
The following documents will provide evidence Helen received Dr. Mujica’s determination of repeated sexual assault, injuries and anal information from case documents as well as from Dr. Mujica’s word of mouth, Paramore testifies to her knowledge of this information twice within her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony.
Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony states the first person she talked with when she arrived at the hospital was Dr. Mujica is in pages 258 line 4 – 260 line 5. In pages 287 line 20 – 288 line 24, Paramore testifies she learned of case matters both from Dr. Mujica directly as well as through case documents.
PDFs are underneath the copies. Page and line numbers remain the same.
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing provides evidence she received case information prior to the interview is below.
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing provides evidence she received case information before the interview.
Helen Paramore is not the only person there is a record of being under undue influence by Dr. Mujica’s premature diagnosis and premature report to DHS of having “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”
Nurse Thelma Sherley even writes in her ‘Nursing Notes’ dated December 11, 1986, “Beverly denies upon questioning that anybody has touched or done anything to her private parts but she would not look at me when I was asking her those questions.” These ‘Nursing Notes’ were recorded the same day Dr. Mujica reports to DHS, not that he suspected sexual abuse, but that Beverly “has been repeatedly sexually assaulted.”
For Sherley to ask Beverly whether anyone touched or done anything to her private parts is a clear assumption of sexual assault without noting in her ‘Nursing Notes’ whether she even asked Beverly how she got hurt.
To include within her ‘Nursing Notes’ that Beverly did not look at her when she denied anyone had touched her nor did anything to her private parts appears an assumption of guilt or hiding of information on Beverly’s part.
Could Sherley have been displaying bias toward Beverly after it had been already “determined she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted” rather than “suspected” of being sexually abused?
Would the neutral and empathetic attitude been to consider Beverly may have been in a highly uncomfortable environment and may have not been in the best of moods?
Would it had been better for Beverly had Thelma Sherley not even questioned her on such matters that night of December 11, 1986 at all before the December 13, 1986 DHS interview?
A copy of Sherley’s ‘Nursing Notes’ is below.
Dr. Mujica eventually wrote off his report to DHS of, “anal anterior forchette lesions with marked erythema…” as signs of “constipation” in his ‘Abbreviated Medical Record’.
Below left is Officer Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement” which included anal information and below right is Dr. Mujica’s ‘Abbreviated Medical Record which included constipation.
Dr. Samuel A. Mujica’s statement that Beverly had no hymen was one of three different descriptions of her hymen he testified to in his April 2, 1987 trial testimony. Those three different descriptions are in the copy of that testimony below on page 478 line 16 (“broken hymen”), page 500 lines 5 & 6 (“broken hymen that looks well healed”), page 503 line 13 (“absence of a hymen”). A pdf of his three different descriptions of Beverly’s hymen is below the copy. Page and line numbers are same as above. Would an expert need to cover three bases faltering on three different descriptions of Beverly’s hymen?
A PDF of Dr. Mujica’s 1987 trial testimony stating Beverly had three different hymen conditions simultaneously is below.
As a DHS employee, Helen Paramore, an inexperienced interviewer, performed the unethical act of delayed videotaping. The current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol includes ethical videotaping of child interviews in almost all cases.
On the day of the December 13, 1986 interview with Beverly, Helen Paramore’s experience consisted of less than one year according to her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony where she could not accurately state exactly what her training protocol involved.
Below are copies of Helen’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony regarding her work experience in the field of child interviews. A PDF is below the copies.
Paramore’s less than one year experience in the arena of child interviews became apparent when she attempted to record an official interview video of Beverly on December 16, 1986. This failed attempt was three days after the official interview on December 13, 1986 where, after over three hours, Beverly began appeasingly agreeing with Helen’s sexually explicit questions, including the anal misinformation.
A video recording should have taken place on December 13, 1986, the day of the official interview. Not after Beverly was broken and gave up her truth. This tactic is highly unethical.
Below are copies of Officer Joan Smith’s ‘Investigative Supplement’ where she records Helen Paramore’s response to her question about the videotaping on December 16, 1986 and Paramor’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony where she confirmed the video was taped on December 16th.
Below is a PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony verifying the unethical delay of videotaping until after the official three and one half hour official interview.
Before the current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol was established, a child who made no outcry of sexual assault could be thoroughly questioned using other person’s guesses of what may have happened to the child instead of allowing the child to tell the story.
The interviewer, Helen Paramore, contradicted herself during her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony stating she “thoroughly questioned the child”, yet also testifying she “let the child tell the story.”
The interviewer, Helen Paramore’s 2011 hearing testimony contradictions are below. A PDF of these copies is below the copies.
PDFs of the above copies of the interviewer, Helen Paramore’s contradictory Evidentiary Hearing testimony are below.
Past interviewing methods allowed the interviewer to suggest the name of the alleged perpetrator to the alleged victim of sexual assault. The current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol does not include suggesting alleged perpetrator’s names or titles.
In Helen Paramore’s 1987 trial testimony, she was asked if she asked Beverly was it her father who hurt her. Paramore testified yes to that question and added “several times”. When asked a similar question during her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing, Paramore testified, “Absolutely not.”
Copies of Helen Paramore’s contradictory 1987 trial testimony (page 607 line 20 – page 608 line 8) and her 2011 hearing testimony (page 266 lines 1 – 12) are below. A PDF of these copies are below the copies. Page and line numbers remain the same.
The current Forensic Child Interviews Protocol is designed with the child as priority and “adopt a multidisciplinary approach, known as the Child Advocacy Center Model, which aims to coordinate the needs of all relevant professionals (e.g., medical, law enforcement, child protective services, mental health, victim advocacy and prosecution) through a single interview and location to streamline investigations.” – Cross, Jones, Walsh, Kolko, 2007 – Lillian Rivard and Nadja Schreiber Compo, 4. 2017.
The past interview method employed by the DHS interviewer Helen Paramore never involved corroboration with mental health professionals on Beverly’s behalf. The medical professional, Dr. Samuel A. Mujca-Trenche, had no involvement with the interview other than provide the basis of the interviewer’s questions.
Paramore’s’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony sheds light on how she conducted the December 13, 1986 interview regarding any signs of empathy for Beverly’s state of mind. Beverly just had her private parts exposed to strangers who never even asked her how she got hurt. She was exposed to what had to have been embarrassing sexually explicit questions by the DHS interviewer.
Please follow copies of pages 276 line 7 – 281 line 17 from Helen’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing and look for signs of empathy for Beverly from the interviewer. A PDF is below the copies. Page and line numbers remain the same.
PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony is below.
Officer Joan Smith (name was Joan Robinson at the 2011 Evidentiary Hearing) went on to interview Beverly on December 18, 1986 in order to formulate a ‘Voluntary Statement’. In her 2011 Evidentiary Hearing testimony, Joan Robinson shares with Attorney Janice Baldwin how she was able to walk eight year old Beverly through the process in a “question and answer form…”.
Below is a copy of eight year old Beverly’s ‘Voluntary Statement’ as prepared by Officer Joan Smith (Joan Robinson).
What to look for in the ‘Voluntary Statement’:
- Language introduced to the child (pussy, ding-a-ling).
- Signs that multiple choice answers appeared to have been supplied by DHS interviewer to Beverly are: a little bit, all the way, or half way. “Sometimes, he puts his finger in my pussy half way.” “Sometimes, he sticks his finger in my booty and sometimes he puts his ding-a-ling in my booty half way.” Multiple choice answers were resorted to after the child’s “no” to the questions about whether her father put his ding-a-ling inside her was not respected nor did the child make an outcry of sexual abuse.
Officer Joan Smith went on to testify as Joan Robinson in the 2011 Evidentiary Hearing. Joan’s hearing testimony is below:
What to look for in Joan’s hearing testimony:
Signs of a question and answer format used to formulate the child’s statement instead of the child telling a story without coaching.
Dr. Mujica reported to DHS on December 11, 1986 and before the interview, that he found “anal anterior fourchette lesions with marked erythema”. Dr. Bradley Miller’s (Dr. Miller was an OBGYN) further examinations on December 12, 1986 yielded his ‘Operation Report’ which never mentioned this condition. Dr. Miller did not even mention not finding a hymen, yet Dr. Mujica had already passed his “findings” on to DHS on December 11, 1986, before these further examinations were conducted on December 12th. Dr. Mujica never contacted DHS to retract his anal information.
Dr. Bradley Miller, OBGYN, produced notes following his “more thorough examinations”. The OBGYN’s nots are below:
Dr. Bradley Miller’s Operation Report is below:
Then, on December 13, 1986, the DHS interviewer introduced Dr. Mujica’s anal misinformation to Beverly.
Interviewer, Helen Paramore, had her story of Beverly’s answers to her thorough questions from their three hour plus interview notarized on her affidavit dated December 15, 1986.
A section of Helen Paramore’s affidavit includes statements about Beverly’s “booty”. Beverly was taken to the hospital because of complaining of burning during urination and nothing anal related.
A PDF of Helen Paramore 1986 affidavit is below:
Helen Paramore went on to testify in the April 1st and 2nd, 1987 trial of Beverly’s Father, Brian K. Troupe, Sr. Helen’s trial testimony is below.
What to look for in Paramore’s trial testimony are:
- Stories of how the child may have been injured were provided to the interviewer prior to the interview and used as a basis to question the child.
- The interviewer’s testimony that she “questioned” the child for hours and she eventually “said yes” after repeatedly having answered “no” to the interviewer’s stories.
- There was never an outcry, but after the child had been questioned for over three hours, the child eventually appeasingly gave in and told the DHS worker, “yes”. The child then used all that was introduced to her and embellished that information.
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 1987 trial testimony is below
Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony is below.
What to look for in Paramore’s 2011 hearing testimony:
A change from her 1987 testimony when she stated she “questioned” the child during the over three hour long interview even asking whether the father was the one hurting her, to her 2011 hearing testimony where she testified her tactic was to let the child tell the story and did “absolutely not” ask if her daddy did this to her.
A PDF of Helen Paramore’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing is below.
Eight year old Beverly was eventually put on the witness stand in 1987 to testify against her father at his April 1st and 2nd trial. Among the questions Beverly was asked was whether her father sodomized her. This line of questioning was based upon the misinformation about anal matters which the DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, wrote about in her December 1986 affidavit. Such misinformation resulted from the pediatrician, Dr. Samuel A. Mujica, not informing the DHS interviewer before the December 13, 1986 interview of Beverly that he had retracted his anal report after the “more thorough examination” was conducted by OBGYN, Dr. Bradly Miller on December 12, 1986. The DHS interviewer repeatedly questioned Beverly whether her father sodomized her, and toward the end of three and one half hours, Beverly started appeasingly agreeing to all of the interviewer’s suggestions and exaggerated upon these suggestions. Beverly brought this anal misinformation, which was new to her, to court.
Within Beverly’s complete 1987 trial testimony of her father, Brian K. Troupe, Sr., it is noteworthy that her exaggerations about her father washing her vaginal area with a rag full of glass is recorded. It is also noteworthy that Beverly was still questioned about sodomy even though Dr.Mujica, who examined Beverly and made a determination that “she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted”, had testified in court right before Beverly, and, when asked about anal penetration, he replied, “…there was no evidence…that, that happened.” Sodomy was on prosecutor Rusty Carroll’s agenda because the DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore, had put it there through her affidavit, claiming Beverly told her as much. Even the doctor’s testimony refuting this misinformation did not stop Carroll from questioning Beverly on this anal misinformation.
A PDF of Beverly’s complete 1987 trial testimony is below. Her questionings about sodomy are recorded on page 536 line 13 – page 550 line 15, page 555 line 23 – page 556 line 12, page 558 line 25 – page 562 line 7.
Within the same PDF below, Beverly’s questionings of glass being the cause of her injuries are recorded on page 543 line 13 – page 550 line 15, page 553 line 11 – page 554 line 19, page 556 line 13 – page 558 line 25, page 558 line 25 – page 562 line 7.
Please take special note of page 557 lines 1 – 22 where Beverly’s exaggeration about glass in the “rag” which her father allegedly uses to scrub her vaginal area appears to baffle the defense Attorney Potter when he attempted to differentiate Beverly’s feeling the glass in the rag versus her seeing the glass in the rag. It would seem unreasonable for a father to place glass inside a wash cloth and bathe his child. Would Beverly’s feeling the glass make more sense as a way to interpret this unbelievable tale than her seeing the glass? Beverly testified she felt it and, on line 12 of page 557 of her testimony, she is recorded to testify, “I seen it.” Unbelievable.
A copy of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s December 22, 2006 polygraph results of having been questioned whether her father sexually abused her is below.
A PDF of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony Day 1 is below.
A PDF of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s 2011 Evidentiary Hearing Testimony Day 2 is below.
The first step was taken to get her junk interviews idea eventually written into law when, on Sunday, September 19, 2021, Beverly sent a message to her Texas State Senator, Joan Huffman, via the Senator’s website contact form.
The next day, Monday September 20, 2021, Grayson Coker, from the Senator’s Office, reached out to Beverly.
This website address may be shared between Texas State Legislators to facilitate review and investigation for the feasibility of a junk child interviewing bill to present to the Governor of Texas to sign.
To sign the Troupe-Enoch petition asking Texas Legislature to form a bill that would allow current Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol the ability to legally challenge past methods that were unfair to children, please visit Change dot Org here.
For updates regarding this legislative attempt of having a Texas law passed that will allow current Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol the ability to challenge interview methods of the past, please see Part 6.
Please follow us on twitter.
Thank you for your time.
If you or a loved one have been wrongly convicted based upon the testimony of a child you believe was coerced or coached, please tell us about it on our contact form.
Part 1B Inquiry Into Texas Case Number 35279
To listen to a voice recording of Beverly Troupe Enoch’s Testimonial Inquiry into this case, please start the media player directly below.
Wrongful Conviction of Brian K. Troupe, Sr – Bell County Texas Cause Number 35279
Posted on April 14, 2015 by Enoch
Retro Medical, Interviewing Method and Bias Revealing Presentation of Texas 1986/1987 Cause Number 35279
Suspected Child Sexual Assault Victim Beverly Troupe
A Retrospective Testimonial Inquiry
September 16, 2013
Beverly Troupe Enoch and William E. Enoch
Current Scientific Data lists as indicators of sexual contact to be presence of perpetrator DNA, a venereal disease, pregnancy and or mainly the “alleged” victim’s confirming testimony. These same indicators are currently called upon by child sexual assault experts during investigation of suspected child sexual abuse.
Currently, some pediatricians may not feel adequately prepared to perform medical evaluations related to certain medical conditions and suspected sexual abuse of children. Nine hymen types require experience and knowledge of the hymen. One recent study evaluated practicing physicians’ medical knowledge of child abuse and maltreatment. Using a 30-question survey, the results found an overall average score of 63.3%; these findings highlight the need for increased education in child maltreatment. This recent study underscores how much less physicians knew about properly investigating child sexual abuse in the 1980’s.**
Thus, the witchhunt.
New Texas law dealing with Medical Junk Science passed Autumn of 2013 will be paramount to this case.
Overview of Case No. 35279 Brian K. Troupe, Sr.
Brian K. Troupe Sr. pictured here during an interview with Maurice Chammah of Texas Observer. Photo by Tamir Kalifa
On the evening of December 10, 1986, I, Beverly Troupe Enoch, the alleged “victim” in this case, was taken to Darnall Army Hospital Medical Center in Killeen, in Bell County Texas, for the second time that day, after complaining of burning during urination. The Pediatrician handling my external pelvic examination, Dr. Samuel A. Mujica, prescribed sultrin cream, which is used to treat infections of the vagina and cervix. (Vaginal infections are known to also cause vaginal lacerations) According to his December 31, 1986 Killeen, Bell County Texas Police Department (KPD) Voluntary Statement, 1987 Narrative Summary, 1987 court testimony as well as his hearing affidavit, Dr. Mujica concluded and reported to DHS on December 11, 1986 that I had been “sexually assaulted”. 3 Dr. Mujica never showed my parents any “injuries” in the very beginning, he just told my parents of the “injuries” and no pictures were taken before going under anesthesia. The Darnall Army Hospital has no official Medical Report completed by Dr. Mujica of the so-called external pelvic exam on file.
According to Dr. Samuel A. Mujica (now Mujica-Trenche), pictured below,
Dr Samuel A Mujica-Trenche, the Pediatrician who made a premature diagnosis of sexual assault in the Troupe case. Please read how in this inquiry.
his years of experience as “military physician” at the time of this case varies from “five years”, according his April 1, 1987 trial testimony 7, to less than three years according to his August 4, 2011 Affidavit 8.
According to Dr. Mujica, when stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, the base he was stationed at before serving at Darnall Army Medical Hospital in Killeen, Texas, Dr. Mujica claims he was “Pediatrician in charge of the child abuse committee.” 9 Upon search of Fort Leonard Wood files, I found that there is no record of a child abuse committee ever operating at that base.
- Medical Report December 10, 1986 Munter (MD) reports injuries and no hymen.
- Medical Report of the more thorough exam on December 12, 1986 Miller (OB/GYN) reports “injuries”. No mention of any condition of hymen or sexual abuse. Miller also states that he used a natal and a Patterson speculum when performing the examination.
- KPD Voluntary Statement December 31, 1986 Pg 1 “The next day, December 11, 1986, is when “we” tested her with the Toluidene Blue and this is when I told the parents that she had been sexually abused.” Mujica had already contacted DHS, who then contacted KPD on December 11, 1986 to report that Beverly Troupe had been “sexually assault”.
- Narrative Summary Pg 2 January 13, 1987 Pg 2 “Final Diagnoses” “1. Sexual Abuse.”
- Trial Transcript April 1, 1987 Scanned Pg 486 “Yeah. That point, once I told him that I was even more concerned because I had just found all these lacerations on the outside that it was definitely – I told him it was definitely – she had been definitely sexually abused.”
- Affidavit Hearing February 23-24, 2011 Mujica in absence (August 4, 2011) Last Pg “I still believe, as I testified at trial, that Beverly Troupe was sexually abused over some period of time, and that her parents provided no reasonable explanation for the injuries that she suffered.”
- Trial 1987 Scanned Transcripts Pg 454 Carroll “How long have you been on active duty as military physician, Captain Mujica?” Mujica “Five years.”
- Affidavit August 4, 2011 Mujica “I entered the United States Army and in 1984, completed my Internship and Residency in the area of pediatrics at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. I was first stationed at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri from 1984-1985 as staff pediatrician and then moved on to the Department of Pediatrics at Darnell Army Community Hospital in Killeen, Texas in 1985. I completed my Army commitment there in June 1987.” Date of trial 1987 minus 1984 as date of completing Internship and Residency in the area of Pediatrics, thus becoming a “military physician” equals no more than three years.
- Trial 1987 Scanned Transcripts pg 457 Mujica “Just primary function as a staff pediatrician, take care of the nursery, pediatric clinic. At that location I was in charge of the — I have a hard time with this – child abuse committee mostly. Pediatrician in charge of the child abuse committee at Fort Leonardwood.”
A Killeen Police Department Investigative Supplement Report (offense report) authored by Officer Joan Smith, documents her receipt of a report filed by DHS caseworker, Jeannie Cross, on December 11, 1987, stating it “had been determined” that I “had been sexually assaulted” and the “alleged perpetrator” was my father, “Brian Troupe” 2 pg 16. This premature offense report was filed one day after I was admitted on December 10, 1986 and two days before the first DHS interview of me that had taken place on December 13, 1986.
On December 11, 1986, Jeannie Cross also told Officer Smith “that further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86.” We find it odd that Officer Smith never documented such a report as an oddity, in that I was already determined to have “been sexually assaulted”, yet, “further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86.” 2 pg 15
I believe that Dr. Mujica became biased when he learned that a co-worker, Dr. Munter whom was not a pediatrician, did not locate a hymen on me. 3 I believe that Dr. Mujica’s motive to pursue no other option for my alleged injuries other than sexual abuse, was to systematically prove his premature determination that I “had been sexually assaulted” to be correct. I also believe that Dr. Mujica and Dr. Munter did not have me in the correct positions in order to locate my hymen. I believe Dr. Mujica and Dr. Munter were not familiar enough with the fact that different girls will have different shaped hymens (at least nine) and there was possibility that my hymen had been overlooked. 5 & 6 Dr. Mujica’s “expert” descriptions of vaginal “injuries”, “no hymenal membrane”, “broken hymen” and “broken hymen that looks well healed” were each regarded as true as coming from the “Army Captain” the name the prosecutor called Mujica in court. Instead of each description being true, I believe Dr. Mujica was simply attempting to cover all bases to appear correct. Dr. Mujicia instead only contradicted himself and proved he was no child abuse expert in 1986.
The three State exhibit photos used as “evidence” at trial were external photos taken by Killeen Police Officer Joan Smith AFTER I had been sedated by Dr. Bradley Miller, an OB/GYN, and AFTER Dr. Miller concluded my internal exam and while I was still sedated. Miller never testified in court, however, under an objection by Counsel, Dr. Mujica was allowed to testify as to the procedure Dr. Miller performed and Miller’s findings of “injury”. Dr. Miller’s Operation Report never made a referral to the condition of my hymen, however, and Dr. Miller’s Operation Report was never presented in court. 4
According to Dr. Mujica’s own testimony, he stated that he first was able to really speak with me on December 13, 1986. 1 This means, upon learning of a tear in my urinary tract, Dr. Mujica did not even ask me how I got hurt. Dr. Mujica never conducted any sufficient history on me to learn of possibilities of self-inflicted injury or emotional character, but pursued sexual abuse only and that in earnest. Dr. Mujica finally spoke to me after I had been in an unfair, biased, three and one half hour highly suggestive interview/interrogation with DHS Caseworker, Helen Paramore on December 13, 1986. After CPS worker Ms. Paramore’s interview, Dr. Mujica’s first concern for me was who was hurting me, not how I got hurt.
According to Dr. Mujicas’s December 31, 1986 Voluntary Statement, he asked me the leading question if Daddy was the one. 17 2nd pg
I believe that the CPS, interviewer, Helen Paramore, became biased, based upon her pre-interview knowledge of Dr. Mujica’s premature report to DHS that it had been “determined” that I had been “sexually assaulted ”, the medical terminology Dr. Mujica used, the graphic description of the “injuries” and the naming of an alleged perpetrator as Brian K. Troupe, Sr. as found in the KPD Investigative Supplement. 15 & 16 I believe Helen Paramore then became convinced that I had been sexually assaulted by Daddy because of this premature information of sexual assault came from a “Professional” “Army Captain” “Doctor”, all names of which was referred to Mujica.
Dr. Mujica reported anal injury on the Investigative Supplement Report/Offense Report filed on December 11, 1986, 14 pg 15 but didn’t mention this information in his December 31, 1986 KPD Voluntary Statement 1b, but never retracted this information to DHS. Based upon her knowledge of Mujica’s premature report to DHS, Helen Paramore was able to introduce this information to me during our three and a half hour interrogation on December 13, 1986. After coercion on the anal information, I went on to testify to this in court, a few months later, and Daddy was charged also on this same anal penetration lie, even though Mujica had retracted it on his Voluntary Statement to KPD many days after the initial Paramore interview with me.
Per KPD Officer Joan Smith, the more thorough internal exam was supposedly scheduled for 11 am on December 12, 1986. Even though the exam took place one hour earlier than the time Joan Smith was told by Dr. Mujica it would start, my examiners did not notify or wait for Joan Smith to arrive to take photos. State Exhibit Photos used in the 1987 trial were taken by Joan Smith AFTER my internal pelvic exam had concluded and these were external photos. Dr. Mujica, however, when asked later at trial to tell the court what is depicted in the photos, Dr. Mujica goes on to relate his internal agenda using external photos. 13 pg 13 What Dr. Mujica described in court is based upon these external photos. 11 & 12 (Mujica failed to mention to the court that Beverly was under sedation and in a highly relaxed state)
These very same external photos, taken after my examination, were referred to by prosecutor Rusty Carroll during the 1987 trial when asking Dr. Mujica to describe the photos, as though they depicted events “during the operating procedure”. 16 Dr. Mujica never corrected Rusty Carroll to truthfully state that these photos were actually taken after the examination.
Dr. Mujica used certain terms for his premature report to DHS of my being “sexually assaulted” 2 pg 17, which started the investigation, yet on his December 31, 1986 KPD Voluntary Statement and his August 4, 2011 Affidavit, Dr. Mujica used uncertain terms, ie, “in my opinion”.
- KPD Voluntary Statement December 31, 1986 Mujica spoke with Beverly Troupe on December 13, 198 a) “I went to see Beverly the evening of the 13th and she seemed to much more relaxed and talked much more. Before, she would not answer any questions and wouldn’t look at you when you talked to her. This was the first time that I could really carry on a conversation with her and I asked her who was hurting her and she said her father.” b) “He said the rectum also seemed to be too relaxed, but it was difficult to say because she was under sedation and this may have caused the relaxation.”
- KPD Investigative Supplement Report December 11, 1986 Pgs 15 alleged injuries, 16 “Brian Troupe is the alleged perpetrator, 17 determination of “sexual assault”
- Medical Report December 10, 1986 Dr. Munter
- Operation Report, of Dr. Brad Miller December 12, 1986, never mentioned anything about condition of Beverly’s hymen or never stated anything about sexual assault.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen Hymen types x 9
- http://youngwomenshealth.org/hymen.html Hymen types x 4
- KPD Voluntary Statement December 31, 1986 Mujica “there was no hymenal membrane”
- Narrative Summary January 13, 1987 Mujica “absence of a hymenal membrane”
- Trial Transcripts Scanned April 1, 1987 Pg 463 “That night what was observed, you know, right away is that she did not have a hymen.”
- Trial Transcripts Scanned April 1, 1987 Pg 478 “She had multiple small abrasions of the introitus and around the hymen, around the broken hymen.”
- Trial Transcripts Scanned April 1, 1987 Pg 500 On Mujica Describing State’s Exhibit Photo Number One “Okay. There is also broken hymen that looks well healed.”
- Trial Transcripts Scanned April 1, 1987 Pg 503 On Mujica Describing State’s Exhibit Photo Number Three External Vaginal, yet Mujica describes something internal “It depicts the dilation (Mujica failed to mention Beverly was under sedation and in a highly relaxed state) of the vaginal entrance that compares the one as a sexually active adult and the absence of a hymen.”
- KPD Investigative Supplement December 12, 1986 Pg 13 Photos taken by KPD Officer Joan Smith AFTER Pelvic Exam were used as State’s Exhibit Photos Pg 13 “At 10:55 a.m., I arrived at Darnall Army Community Hospital and went to the second floor pediatric clinic. I was then given directions to the surgical unit where I contacted Dr. Mujica and Dr. Brad Miller. Their examination had been concluded, but Dr. Miller did show me several lacerations around Beverly’s vaginal OPENING and these were photographed.”
- KPD Investigative Supplement December 11, 1986 Pg 15 Description of injuries includes “Anal anterior forchette. Lesions with marked erythema. She has a lax vaginal opening and no hymeneal membrane.” According to Mujica’s KPD Voluntary Statement December 31, 1986, “He said that the rectum also seemed to be too relaxed, but it was difficult to say because she was under sedation and this may have caused the relaxation.” Dr. Mujica retracted the anal appearance reporting in his December 31, 1986 Voluntary Statement to KPD Officer Joan Smith, but he never corrected his premature reporting of “Anal anterior forchette” to DHS, leading Helen Paramore to introduce to and question Beverly, on December 13, 1986, about penetration of the anus during the three and a half hour interrogation.
- On the offense report, it was also stated by Cross, the first assigned DHS worker, that I had blood in my urine. Mujica’s narrative Summary and Munter’s medical assessment states otherwise; that the urine culture was normal.
- Trial Scanned Transcripts 1987 Pg 502 Carroll “Okay. Now State’s Number 3 (photo) again, can you identify that as being a fair and accurate depiction taken again DURING (caps ours) the operating procedure you described on Beverly Troupe?” Mujica “It is except for the abrasions that I noted with the toluidine blue dye.”
- Voluntary Statement August 31, 1986 2nd pg Leading question on identity of alleged perpetrator Mujica “I asked her directly if her father was the one and she confirmed it.”
By December 13, 1986, a caseworker, Helen Paramore, who was employed by Texas Department of Human Services, was contacted to interview me to see if sexual abuse had ever taken place. Helen Paramore had worked for DHS for less than one year by the time she conducted the interview of me. Her education in this area by December 1986 was limited to basic DHS caseworker training. 8
Dr. Mujica “determined” that I “had been sexually assaulted” and this premature information was made known to Helen Paramore, the CPS worker at the time, when she received the case file from her co-worker, Jean Cross, who already contacted KPD and filed an offense report. This is all before Helen Paramore interviewed me. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- KPD Investigative Supplement December 11, 1986 Pg 17 “Ms. Cross contacted this office to report that an 8 yr. old female had been admitted to Darnall Army Community Hospital after it was determined she had been sexually assaulted.”
- KPD Investigative Supplement December 11, 1986 Pg 16 “According to Ms. Cross, the father, Brian Troupe is the alledged perpetrator.”
- Hearing Transcripts February 2011 Scanned Pg 258 on December 12, 1986 “And who was the first person you made contact with about the case?” Paramore “I talked to a Dr. Samuel Mujica.” Pg 288 Brian Troupe’s Defense Attorney, Janice Baldwin asks Paramore “Now, you testified a few minutes ago that there was a relaxed anus. That you – the doctor’s report said that there was a relaxed anus; you remember that?” Paramore “Yes.” Baldwin “Okay.” Did the doctor himself tell you that or did you read it in a report?” Paramore “Both.”
- Affidavit December 15, 1986 First Pg “On 12/12/86, I received a referral concerning a child, Beverly P. Troupe.”
- KPD Voluntary Statement Mujica December 31, 1986 “ Helen Paramore from DHS came to talk to Beverly this afternoon, but she was still too sleepy from the sedation, so Helen didn’t talk to her.”
- Hearing Transcripts February 2011 Scanned Pg 256 Helen Paramore received the case file from co-worker Jeannie Cross
- KPD Investigative Supplement Report December 11, 1986 Pgs 15, 16 Mujica’s description of “injuries” was known to Paramore via a report from Mujica to DHS/Jean Cross to KPD. KPD Officer Joan Smith was advised by Jeannie Cross “that further examinations would be conducted on 12-12-86.”
- Hearing Transcripts Scanned February 23, 2011 Pg 255 Helen Paramore’s Experience Paramore “I was employed by the Division of Family Services…Less than a year.” Pg 284 Paramore …”…Training and whatever time I had.”
I believe that Helen Paramore’s motive from that point on was to establish Dr. Mujica’s determination of my having “had been sexually assaulted” as factual.
Helen Paramore, stated on the cover sheet of the Psychological Evaluation dated January 6, 1987 1 and her December 15, 1986 Affidavit 2 that I was “difficult to interview” and that my “story changed over time”, in which, I agree that it was because I made up several stories each time when I had been interrogated by each person that would ask me the same questions. How difficult can it be for me to simply just say if I had been abused or not? I adamantly denied that anyone hurt me after I had been asked numerous times by Helen Paramore. 4, 5
I told Helen Paramore that I had to say that Daddy hurt me because Helen Paramore made threats that I would not return home with my parents and that Daddy was the name that Helen Paramore had chosen to cause me to put blame upon. I also stated before I agreed to blaming Daddy about the sexual abuse, I told Helen Paramore “I can’t tell you because I’ll get into trouble” because that was a way that I showed when I did not want to answer a question; especially if it included telling a lie.
I initially told Helen Paramore the truth: I had hurt myself by climbing on the monkey bars while at school, on a swing rope because I slid down the rope and then I pinched myself between the legs in the genitalia, and by stopping myself from falling out of a tree, in which, I had fallen hard upon a branch between my legs.
Helen Paramore conducted a three and one half hours of brute force interrogation. Helen Paramore would not accept the truth of my initial “no”. I therefore, agreed with Helen Paramore’s suggestions, in which, Paramore suggested Daddy as the perpetrator to me, and I exaggerated from that point on. Helen Paramore stated that I was “in denial” and “finally admitted”. 3,6,7,8
By 1987 trial time, Prosecutor Rusty Carroll had a difficult time getting me to answer his questions on the witness stand. 8
1. Psychological Evaluation of Beverly Troupe December 1, 1987 “difficult to interview” and that my “story changed over time”,
2. Affidavit of Helen Paramore December 15, 1986 story changed
3. Affidavit Helen Paramore December 15, 1986 First pg “the child adamantly denied that any one had hurt her.”
4.Trial Transcripts Scanned Helen Paramore April 1, 1987 Pg 603 “And she adamantly denied and denied.”
5. Affidavit Of Paramore December 15, 1986 “The child finally did admit to this worker whom the perpetrator was. The child stated that it was my dad.”
6.Trial Transcripts 1987 Scanned Pgs 607-608 Brian Troupe’s Defense Attorney Ted Potter “Ma’am, you questioned this child from five thirty until approximately nine?” Paramore “That’s correct.” Potter “Three and-a-half hours?” Paramore “We talked a lot of that time. It wasn’t all questions.” Potter “Okay.” Three and-a-half hours talking and questioning; is that correct?” Paramore “That’s Correct.” Potter “And it’s toward the end of that time that, in your words, she finally admitted that it was her father – or her dad; is that correct?” Paramore “That’s correct.”
7. Habeas Hearing Transcripts February 2011 Scanned Pgs 280-282 Baldwin “…you say she finally admits that something happened after you had thoroughly questioned her. Is that — would that be a true statement?” Paramore “Yes.”
8. 2011 Hearing Transcripts Pgs 236-238
In her 2011 Hearing Testimony, Helen Paramore stated her tactic was to let me tell the story, 1 but Helen contradicted this statement when she said she thoroughly questioned me. 2
Helen Paramore , in her December 15, 1986 Affidavit, 2nd page, lists the numerous leading questions she asked me. 3
1. Hearing Transcript February 23, 2011 Scanned Pg 266 Baldwin “Okay. So basically, your tactic was to let her tell you the story of what happened?” Paramore “That’s correct.”
2. Hearing Transcript February 23, 2011 Scanned Pg 279 Paramore “I thoroughly questioned her after I had already established a rapport that was not – it was not putting her through investigatively questioned.”
3. Affidavit December 15, 1986 Paramore states numerous leading questions during her three hour plus interview/interrogation of me.
Helen Paramore also states in her 1986 affidavit that I “was taken to the ER with complaints of sexual abuse”. The medical records state otherwise; I was taken to the ER because of burning of urination. These tactics turned my feedback at the time into exaggerations and constant change of storytelling.*
*Trial Transcripts Scanned April 1, 1987 Pg 602 Leading Question and Exaggerated Answer Paramore “I had questioned her about cuts; she just stated that she sat on some glass in a swing and that it had gone through her clothing and cut her.”
I know Helen Paramore did not conduct a fair interview of me, thus threatening me until I agreed with all of Paramore’s suggestions. Current research finds that when a child adamantly denies that she has been sexually abused, the interrogations should end, not have dragged on for two to three more hours. Some eight-year-olds find it difficult to distinguish things that take place on “the day before yesterday” or “last week” as was asked of me in my 1987 testimony. Really, can one be in “denial” when something never happened to be in denial of to begin with?
Helen Paramore’s conclusion of sexual assault was reached after this three and one half hour unrecorded initial interview/interrogation of me at Darnell Army Hospital Medical Center on December 13, 1986. Helen Paramore’s suggestiveness was a classic case of coercion which conditioned my mind and I eventually perjured myself in court and sent Daddy to prison. Helen Paramore is indeed guilty with infecting an eight year old with suggestive sexual language and brute force interrogation. In my opinion, Helen Paramore should be tried for coercion, causing me to perjure myself in the 1987 trial of Daddy.
After the December 13, 1986 highly suggestive and coercive interview, Helen Paramore, on December 16, 1986, recorded videotapes of me stating that I had been sexually assaulted by Daddy. According to the KPD Investigative Supplement Report /Offense Report, the first video tape did not produce the result Helen Paramore was looking for. 1 & 2 The videotape that was made by Helen Paramore (DHS) was recorded on December 16, 1986, three days after the first initial unrecorded interview on December 13, 1986. This delayed videotaping is highly unethical
- KPD Investigative Supplement Report December 15, 1986 Pg 11 Per KPD Officer Joan Smith “I then contacted Ms. Paramore, by phone. She advised that the taping had not gone well and that another was scheduled for this date.”
- Hearing Transcripts February, 2011 Scanned Pgs 290, 291 “Then I contacted Ms. Paramore by phone. She advised that the taping had not gone well and that another was scheduled for this date.”
By the time of the videotaping on December 16, 1986, Helen Paramore had already initially interviewed/interrogated and coerced me into turning against Daddy on December 13, 1986. I was the only child out of four children, who was removed from the home. Daddy already had been arrested and did not return home again until seventeen years later. I did not return home until I was eighteen years old.
In Helen Paramore’s 1986 affidavit within this document, she states she removed me from the home to “ensure my safety”, 1 but in her 2011 habeas corpus hearing testimonial transcripts 2 & 3 within this document, Paramore stated a different reason being that my mother allegedly stated that “she did not want her”.
There are several contradictions with Helen Paramore’s 2011 testimony.
- Affidavit December 15, 1986 Paramore “But it is not the child’s welfare to remain at home.”
- Hearing February 24, 2011Transcripts Scanned Pg 272 Regarding the reason Paramore removed Beverly from the home is because of what Beverly’s mother is to have allegedly said, per Paramore, “I don’t want her”
- Hearing February 24, 2011 Transcripts Scanned Pg 308 Regarding the reason Paramore removed Beverly from the home is because of what Beverly’s mother is to have allegedly said per Paramore “…for that decision. And one of them was that she did not want her in the home – she didn’t believe her.”
Daddy was eventually convicted of Sexual Assault of a Child and was originally sentenced to 50 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Daddy was offered a plea bargain, but he did not accept it because he did not do the crime that’s in question. He still, to this day, maintains his innocence.
As of this writing, Daddy has filed three separate Writs of Habeas Corpus seeking release from state custody as he claims his innocence. After his conviction, Daddy filed an appeal in 1987, then three Writs of Habeas Corpus to seeking to set aside the conviction. (In the year 1993 an ineffective counsel against the defense attorney of Potter was filed via writ of habeas; it got denied. Ted Potter, in the year of 2010, resigned his position as an attorney and he no longer practices law).
Daddy was released on parole on January 27, 2005. Daddy still maintains he is innocence. He and I still seek to have his conviction set aside. Daddy has been separated for years from me by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, even to the very day of this writing.
I, in March of 2006, found an Attorney who agreed to assist with the third Writ of Habeas Corpus in behalf of Daddy. I was present at the 2011 Habeas Hearing and recanted my 1987 testimony, stating that Daddy never abused me and he is innocent. None of the allegations that are stated in the Investigative Supplement Report (offense report) are true. I know that all of the accusations that I stated in 1986, were all made an in effort to return home to receive Helen Paramore’s promise to me if I cooperated. I passed a polygraph test regarding these allegations on December 22, 2006.* As of today, September 23, 2013, Daddy and I are living under a State of Texas order of “no contact”.
*Polygraph Beverly Enoch, December 22, 2006, Texas Polygraph Consultants, 9801 Westheimer, Suite 302, Houston, TX 77042 Passed
The 2011 Writ of Habeas Corpus, Daddy’s third, was denied.
To this day my father, Brian Troupe, and I are held apart because of the state of Texas’ beliefs even though I KNOW Daddy did not sexually assault, abuse or molest me in any form, fashion or way.
Dr. Samuel A. Mujica was a pediatrician in 1986 at Darnall Army Medical Hospital in Killeen, Texas, whom, at this time, had less than four years experience as a pediatrician based upon calculations which can be made using his August 4, 2011 affidavit. It was Dr. Mujica, who assisted Dr. Miller who, at the time was an OB/GYN, with my pelvic exam on December 12, 1986. Dr. Mujica never set the record straight when he was referred to as conducting the internal exam. Mujica prematurely reported me as having been “sexually assaulted” by December 11, 1986, before the more thorough internal pelvic exam scheduled for December 12, 1986, DHS interview or any in depth history of me. Dr. Mujica’s alleged external pelvic exam findings (there is no evidence from the Darnall Army Hospital that Dr. Mujica ever did such exam externally of the pelvic region anywhere on file) were of a superficial laceration and abrasions on the introitus, gaping vaginal floor, and the absence of a hymen. Dr. Miller’s findings were of a superficial laceration on the labia majora and lacerations on the introitus. Dr. Miller never mentioned gaping floor, absence of a hymen, or large introitus. On Dr. Miller’s medical report, he never stated sexual abuse. The “injuries” that Dr. Mujica reported to DHS, his opinion of my having a “flat affect”, a hymen which he didn’t understand and my parents inability to answer how I was hurt, were the reasons for Dr. Mujica’s final diagnosis of me was “sexual abuse”. Dr. Mujica went so far as to demonstrate his “expert” ineptness in his Narrative Summary assuring that sexual abuse was happening “at least once a week”.* Ludicrous! No photographs were taken upon admittance to hospital. Court exhibit photographs were taken AFTER the internal pelvic exam was completed and while I was sedated which was performed by Dr. Brad Miller on the 12th of December.
*Narrative Summary January 13, 1987 First Page Mujica “The absent of hymenal membrane and laxity of the vaginal canal indicates the penetration has occurred frequently, at least once a week approximately for an indefinite period of time.” Again, ludicrous!
In retrospect, on December 11, 1986, Dr. Mujica never should have made a determination of sexual assault and passed this premature and false information on to DHS. This determination effectively swayed DHS Caseworker, Helen Paramore, from treating and interviewing me in a respectful, fair and unbiased manner. Also, Dr. Mujica had less than four years experience as a pediatrician when he administered the initial toluidine blue test. Dr. Mujica attributed the results of his toluidine blue test to be actual child sexual assault. Neither Dr. Mujica nor his co-workers were actual medical Child Sexual Assault Experts. Dr. Mujica never checked on my behalf to know if the CPS Case worker, Helen Paramore, was indeed an experienced DHS Child Sexual Assault interviewing Expert and not the less than one year rookie she actually was. Dr. Mujica never researched my emotional history before diagnosing me as being sexually abused. Dr. Mujica’s efforts, although appearing to be in my best interest, at best, any alleged injuries were inconclusive for sexual assault and never should have been declared as conclusive in court to convict Daddy.
In his August 4, 2011 Affidavit 1 filed after the February 2011 Habeas Hearing, Dr. Mujica wrote he felt the same way as in 1986/87 about his diagnosis of my being sexually abused. Given current scientific research, in my opinion, Dr. Mujica should not be practicing Pediatrics while holding onto this outdated mentality. It is apparent Dr. Mujica simply wants his premature diagnosis to stick. This new evaluation is evidence which shows Dr. Mujica was definitely not qualified as an expert in the area of child sexual assault in 1986 when he prematurely and falsely diagnosed me as having been “sexually assaulted”, and is not an expert in the area of child sexual assault today.
Dr. Mujica not only did not conduct an emotional history of me, he also did not know my vaginal size before his examination of me on December 10-12, 1986 to be in position to say in 2011 that I had a distended vaginal canal. Dr. Mujica would need to know my vaginal size before I arrived into his “care” in order to know if it had become distended. Dr. Mujica, in 1986/87 referred to my vaginal canal as being lax, but in his 2011 Affidavit, he referred to my vaginal canal as being distended. 2
- Affidavit Mujica August 4, 2011 “I still believe, as I testified at trial, that Beverly Troupe was sexually abused over some period of time, and that her parents provided no reasonable explanation for the injuries that she suffered.”
- Affidavit Mujica August 4, 2011 “Perhaps some sort of trauma could explain the absence of a hymen, but an accident could not explain why Beverly had a distended vaginal canal.”
In retrospect, Helen Paramore received the report from Dr. Mujica that I had “been sexually assaulted”. It’s apparent Helen Paramore chose to help prove the professional Dr. Mujica correct. Helen Paramore had minimal experience in 1986 in interviewing an eight year old child in the arena of suspected sexual assault. Also, Helen Paramore did not utilize help from someone more experienced in child sexual assault to interview me. Helen Paramore’s “interrogation tactics” reflected that her mind was already made up that I had definitely been “sexually assaulted”.
Helen Paramore was far from qualified to handle such a case. No recording was made of Helen Paramore’s initial interview of me. The first videotape of the interrogation was made in the DHS headquarters three days later, on December 16, 1986, after the initial interview of Helen Paramore with me on December 13, 1986 that lasted three and a half hours. This is highly unethical to record after the initial interview. Helen Paramore even had to make another videotape stating because the first one “did not produce results in which we were looking for”.
The other videotape that was actually made, but, per Rusty Carroll, the tape was never given to the Prosecutor or the Defense attorney for the 1987 trial was found hidden in the back of a DHS cabinet and resurfaced in 1994 by Ray Halstead, my caseworker at this particular time. 1 & 2 In the testimonial transcripts of the 1994 habeas corpus hearing, Rusty Carroll states that he never received the video tape before trial. Rusty Carroll claims that in 1994, DHS worker, Ray Halstead, found and turned over the videotape to Rusty Carroll of the DA’s office. 3
1. Affidavit Rusty Carroll November 17, 1993 Carroll’s acknowledgment of videotape
2. Affidavit Rusty Carroll May 18, 1994 Per Carroll discovery of videotape by DHS Caseworker Ray Halstead in the back of a cabinet at DHS offices.
3. Hearing Transcripts April 21, 1994 Pg 10, 11 Carroll cross examined by Bob Odom, Brian Troup’s Attorney (Now Assistant Bell County DA)
Possible suppression of evidence:
1. 1987 Trial Discovery: KPD Investigative Supplement/Offense Report listed the videotape; Carroll stated that he was aware of the videotape, but did not view the tape until 8 years later.*
*Hearing Evidentiary Transcripts April 21, 1994 Pg 10 “Yes. I had an offense report that indicated that this lady Helen Paramore, who worked for the welfare, had made a video tape, but I had never seen the thing until yesterday.”
2. Carroll never showed the Offense Report prior to the trial that mentions the videotape, to Potter, who is the defense attorney, with Carroll claiming that “that’s not my style”*
*Evidentiary Hearing Transcripts April 21, 1994 Pg 11
3. Carroll volunteered to keep the videotape in the office of the D.A. in the 1994 habeas hearing.*
*Evidentary Hearing Transcripts April 21, 1994 Pg 13
4. As of this writing, the videotape is now denied to be in existence. 1 & 2
a) Bell County District Attorney office of Henry Garza Letter from Bob Odom, Assistant DA dated August 15, 2012 “We have again searched our files and have not located the videotape you have requested. It is my understanding that you have made this request multiple times and have been advised that the information you have requested is not in the possession of the District Attorney’s Office. That has not changed. We have no way of determining where it might be, or even if it still exists. We are not withholding it from you. We simply cannot send you what we do not have.”
b) Bell County District Attorney office of Henry Garza Letter from Bob Odom, Assistant DA dated August 23, 2013 “Our records indicate that you have made the identical request previously, as has your mother, Ms. LaVern Troupe. We have previously advised you that we cannot locate that videotape and that it is not in the possession of the Bell County District Attorney’s Office. I have once again checked and that situation has not changed. I fully understand that the transcript you furnished contains a statement by former prosecutor Rusty Carroll that the tape would remain in our possession. Mr. Carroll has long been gone from this office and no longer practices law. I am unable to determine how long he may have kept the video or what may have happened to it. I can assure you, however, that this office does not have it.
As I advised you by letter a year ago, we would gladly send it to you if we had it, but we cannot send you what we do not have. Simply put, there is no place else to look. Repeated requests will not change that situation. Please be assured that we are not trying to keep it from you. We cannot locate it or even determine whether or not it still exists.”
5. Photographs used to convict Daddy are claimed to be no longer in existence. According to Shelia F. Norman, Bell County District Clerk, “the photos were never submitted into the District Clerks office as exhibits”. 1, 2, 3
a) Bell County District Clerk Letter from Shelia F. Norman, District Clerk, dated August 14, 2013
b) Bell County District Clerk Email from Veronica Renfrow, dated April 26, 2012 “I have researched the exhibits vault along with the original court file and found that there was never any photos filed with the Bell County District Clerk’s Office.”
c) Bell County District Clerk Email from Jennifer Hoelscher, Bell County Deputy District Clerk dated May, 14, 2013 re-confirm answer from Veronica Renfrow of “no photographs have been filed with the Bell County District Clerk’s Office in this case.”
Based upon the findings within this retrospective inquiry, a fourth Writ of Habeas Corpus will be filed with the intent to secure the release Daddy from state custody.
Daddy, the entire Troupe family and myself are seeking legal information to help us make a decision on our next step. We believe we need to file new Writ of Habeas Corpus. Attached is a summary of previous Writs of Habeas Corpus on file. We need to know if we can utilize as new evidence:
1) Retroactive finding of the 1987 trial’s medical “evidence” as inconclusive of sexual assault based upon current medical research on child sexual assault.
2) Retroactive introduction of bias by Dr. Samuel Mujica after his co-worker passed information that Beverly Troupe had no hymen, thus, Dr. Mujica conducted insufficient history of Beverly to discover any cause of “injuries” other than sexual abuse. Dr. Mujica then prematurely relayed information to DHS that Beverly Troupe had definitely been sexually abused.
3) Retroactive introduction of bias by DHS Caseworkers after being prematurely informed by Dr. Mujica that Beverly Troupe had been “sexually abused”. Being convinced because of this information coming from an Army Captain Pediatrician, Caseworkers did not conduct a fair interview of Beverly Troupe and would not accept anything but agreement from Beverly Troupe. All allegations were suggested to Beverly Troupe by Caseworker Helen Paramore, who had intimate medical information and the name of “the alleged perpetrator”, Brian K. Troupe, Sr., before the interview. An unethical videotaping of my interview was made three days after the initial interview.
State of Texas Supreme Court as remedy to introduce 2011 Habeas Hearing points of error:
1) Judge Joe Carroll signed the Habeas Corpus denial, however, he was not present during the hearing, of which, he signed his name.
2) Dr. Samuel Mujica-Trenche, the 1987 trial medical witness was allowed to submit an affidavit in lieu of his appearance in person at the 2011 Habeas hearing.
3) Utilize the above points of error to allow Beverly Troupe Enoch to recant as well as present current medical research to refute 1987 medical findings.
4) Utilize the 2013 Texas Junk Medical Science law and current experts in the field of Child Sexual Assault to present current criteria for determining CSA versus 1986 methods to retroactively overturn Daddy’s wrongful conviction.
Whatever help we may obtain to overturn this wrongful conviction
1987 trial court testimony transcripts for Dr. Samuel Mujica, DHS Caseworker Helen Paramore, Brian Troupe, Sr., Lavern Troupe and Beverly Troupe, 2011 Habeas Corpus Hearing transcripts, affidavits, Darnell Army Hospital medical reports and Killeen Police Department Reports are available upon request. These legal transcripts and documents highlight numerous inconsistencies in Dr. Mujica’s and DHS Caseworker, Helen Paramore’s testimonies. By simply “connecting the dots” in this information, a pattern of bias, ignorance, deceit and injustice can be concluded. Trial Defense Counsel never called any expert medical or psychological witnesses to refute these inconsistencies.
On Paramore’s 2011 Hearing Transcripts testimony page 266, when Paramore was asked if she told me to say my daddy did this to me, she stated “absolutely not” and if she ever suggested a perpetrator, she stated “no” in her 1987 Trial Transcripts testimony pages 607-608 when she was asked the same question by Potter, the defense counsel, she stated that she had “several times”.
Also on Paramore’s 2011 Hearing Transcript testimony page 292, Paramore was asked how many investigative interviews she did for me. Paramore responds by stating “I had the one in the hospital…..and the anatomical correct dolls”, but in her 2011 Hearing Transcript testimony page 306 she was asked again if she had a doll with her while she interviewed me in the hospital, she stated “no”.
Another inconsistency of Paramore’s is when she stated that “it showed a very, very lax anus”, although she was never asked about the anus; in Mujica’s 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 504, Mujica refutes her testified statement when he was asked by Potter that if there was anything large like the size of a man’s penis had been inserted anally, Mujica stated that there was no evidence. It is also stated on Mujica’s December 31, 1986 Voluntary Statement that was written to the Killeen Police Department (KPD) that Dr. Miller told Mujica “it was difficult to say because she was under sedation and this may have caused the relaxation”. (WOULDN’T THE VAGINA AS WELL BE DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT VIA SIZE BECAUSE OF THE SEDATION?!)
The December 11, 2011 Investigative Supplement page 15 that DHS filed with KPD stated that the anus had “forchette lesions” and the report stated that there “was blood in the urine”, but again, in Mujica’s 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 504 Mujica refutes this statement about the anus. Munter’s assessment, Mujica’s Narrative Summary on the 1st page, and Mujica’s 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 460 states that I had a normal urinalysis. (Please keep in mind that the Bell County District Attorneys contrived this case off of all of the documents that are mentioned of this program).
On Mujica’s 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 13, Mujica testifies that he did an “exterior” (outside) genitalia pelvic exam on me on December 11, 1986; that this particular exam is the initial toluidine blue that he did, that he conducted. On his December 31, 1986 Voluntary Statement he wrote “we tested her with the toluidine blue and this is when I told the parents that she had been sexually abused”; the December 11, 1986 Investigative Supplement Report was filed the same exact day that Mujica did the alleged external pelvic exam; in 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 479 he states that Miller did a sedated internal (which was the more thorough exam according to the December 11,1986 Investgative Supplement Report page 15 and Mujica’s 1986 Voluntary Statement 1st page). He also stated that I had a “more thorough pelvic examination”. On the December 11, 1986 Investigative Supplement Report page 17 it is stated that “it was determined she had been sexually assaulted”. So one day before the last exam that was more thoroughly completed, sexual assault had been determined.
Mujica states that there were internal lacerations in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 486 that he’d found, but he stated in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 463 that he only the exterior genitalia. He confirms this statement in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 481 when he was asked if he was able to use in “on the inside of the vaginal area”. Mujica states that “I wouldn’t have. I wouldn’t do that”. Mujica testified that “she was found to have lacerations in the inside of her vagina, also” and that he “could see numerous lacerations” on the inside of the child toward the bottom of the 1987 Trial Transcript pages 480-481. He also testified in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 486 that he had “just found all these lacerations on the outside”, but he stated in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony pages 477-478 that he saw “a laceration” and an “inch and a half long laceration”. Mujica’s January 13, 1987 Narrative Summary 1st page reports that a “laceration, superficially, which ran longitudinally beside her left labia majora that he could see via toluidine blue test (a toludine blue test is used only done on teenagers who have been raped; the test is not made to diagnose sexual abuse on small children).
Mujica states “distended” in his August 4, 2011 Affidavit 1st page, “laxity of the vaginal canal” in his January 13, 1987 Narrative Summary 1st page, and “gapping “(gaping) in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 464 all in reference to what my vaginal canal looked like. He stated such statements about the vaginal canal all at different times and they all have different meanings.
In his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 463, Mujica testified that I “did not have a hymen. In his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 478 he stated that I had a “broken hymen, but in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 500 Mujica said that I had a broken hymen that looks well healed. It appears that Mujica obviously just did not know what the status of my hymen had been, and simply put that he was trying to cover all bases.
I was taken to Darnall Army Hospital on December 10, 1986 twice, once in the morning and once in the evening. In Mujica’s 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 461, Carroll asked Mujica “you did you not see her the first time she came to the emergency room. Some other Doctor did; it that correct? Mujica answers back “that’s right”, but in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 505 when Potter asks him “did you see the child the first time the child was brought in”? Mujica states “that is true”.
On Mujica’s December 31, 1986 Voluntary Statement 1st page, Mujica states that “on the distal third of the vagina, there was evidence of some lacerations there”, but in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 568 he was asked ”you said from your testimony there were no outside or distal lacerations; is that correct”? Mujica answers back “that is true”.
On Mujica’s December 31, 1886 Voluntary Statement 2nd page, Mujica states “in my opinion, Beverly Troupe has been sexually assaulted. The injuries that she has could not have been self inflicted or inflicted in child to child play”, but in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony pages 514-515, Mujica was asked “in your opinion, Doctor, could any of these injuries that you found on Beverly be the result of either self-inflicted injuries or received as a result playing with other children? Normal childhood play”. Mujica testifies “some of the injuries, yes. Not all of them”.
On Mujica’s August 4, 2011 Affidavit 1st page, Mujijca testifies that he graduated in the year of 1984 by stating “…and in 1984, completed my Internship and Residency in the area of pediatrics…… I was first stationed at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri from 1984-1985 as a staff pediatrician…”(On Mujica’s Patient’s Choice website ( http://www.patientschoice.org/Dr_Samuel_Mujica_Trenche/profile )the date of his years experience is listed as having 28 years and was updated and copyright in the year of 2013. You do the simple math) but in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 454, he testified that he had “5 years experience” (this is in the year of 1987 when he states this) and that he “started an internship in pediatrics…. And right after that, completed the residency in pediatrics in 1981 at the same place”. In his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 457, Mujica, testifies that “from 1981 to 1982 I spent a year as staff pediatrician at Fort Leonardwood, Missouri. It now appears that Mujica embellished his years of experience while under oath to turn his less than three years experience as a rookie pediatrician into a five year expert. This information from Mujica via his August 4, 2011 affidavit could not be cross-examined during the February 23, 2011 habeas hearing.
Mujica also testified in his Trial Transcript testimony page 457 that he was “in charge of the child abuse committee mostly at Fort Leonardwood” (Remember he testified that he was employed at Fort Leonard Wood in the year of 1981-1982, but in in his August 4, 2011 affidavit 1st page, he stated “I was first stationed at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri from 1984-1985 as a staff pediatrician”.
I was given Sultrin cream, which is a cream that is used to treat infections within the vagina. Mujica was asked by Carroll, in his 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 513 of Mujica’s 1987 testimony, if “infections ever cause lacerations like those you found on Beverly”? Mujica answers “no, sir”( See medical sheet that mentions that I had been given Sultrin cream and then revert to the research papers regarding lacerations and sultrin cream).
Mujica who is a pediatrician and Miller who was an OB/GYN, were not qualified in the year of 1986 to be child sexual experts, as they would not be considered experts to this day based upon Mujica’s August 4, 2011 affidavit page 6 where he states “Nothing I have reviewed or learned since that time has caused me to change my opinion that Beverly was repeatedly sexually abused back then”, as well as based upon current scientific criteria for determining child sexual assault.
Dr. Mujica, when asked by Rusty Carroll, in the 1987 Trial about lacerations, didn’t correct Carroll to say there were no lacerations in the area Carroll asked about. Dr. Mujica simply started talking about abrasions in the area Carroll asked about. 1987 Trial Transcript testimony page 482 Carroll “…how long those ‘lacerations’ been there? In other words, were they fresh, were they healing, were they old? Do you know? Mujica instead of correcting Carrol to say there were no lacerations inside, Dr. Mujica went on to relate “The ‘abrasions’ in the inside seemed to be very recent. Abrasion is a very small tear of the skin. Very small. Minimal. And usually those kind of tears, you know, they heal very fast. The bigger the wound, the more time it takes to heal. Those things you’re going to see, obviously. The toluidine blue showing those lacerations, you know, those small abrasions, the healing – – as long as there’s healing going on, there is a chance of picking it up with the toluidine blue. With the toluidine blue it probably put everything in about three weeks.” Dr. Mujica interchanges laceration and abrasion, as if to say they mean the same. However, earlier in his 1987 Trial testimony page 476, Dr. Mujica was asked if could tell the medical difference of a laceration and an abrasion and Dr. Mujica stated, “Yeah. A laceration is usually described for mostly a lesion of the skin that reveals an open wound, mostly. It’s a very small open wound – – it can be small or very large. An abrasion is mostly an irritation of the skin, but the skin is not open to reveal the tissue that is underneath the skin. Just an irritation of the, you know, the surface of the skin.” By Dr. Mujica not correcting Carroll in his use of the word laceration, Dr. Mujica enhanced the severity of “injury”, thus keeping his premature diagnosis of child sexual assault intact.
Special thanks to the people who are trying to help the Troupe Family overturn Daddy’s wrongful conviction:
Jodi Callaway Cole
Texas Innocence Project
And all other supporters who I’ve failed to mention here.
“No weapon formed against you shall prosper.”
Song “No Weapon” Plays Throughout Scrolling of References and Credits
Carroll, Rusty 11.17.93
Carroll, Rusty 5.18.94
Mujica, Dr. Samuel A. 8.4.11
Paramore, Helen 12.15.86
Investigative Supplement Killeen Police Department 12.11.86
Medical Report Munter, Dr. 12.10.86
Medical Report Miller, Bradley 12.12.86
Narrative Summary Mujica, Dr. Samuel A. 1.13.87
Shelia F. Norman, Bell County District Clerk – No photos available
Bob Odom, Bell County Assistant DA – No videotape available
Beverly Troupe 12.22.06
Beverly Troupe 1.6 , 9 &12.87
**Hymen types – Some pediatricians may not feel adequately prepared to performed medical evaluations. Nine hymen types require experience and knowledge of hymen types. One recent study evaluated practicing physicians’ medical knowledge of child abuse and maltreatment. Using a 30-question survey, the results found an overall average score of 63.3%; these findings highlight the need for increased education in child maltreatment. Case Study of the Medical Evaluation of the Sexually Abused Child: Lessons From a Decade of Research – Shireen Atabaki and Jan E Paradise, Pediatrics 1999;104;178
Trial April 1st -2nd , 1987
Hearing April 21, 1994
Hearing February 23rd – 24th, 2011
Mujica, Dr. Samuel A. December 31, 1986
Narration by Beverly Troupe Enoch
Written by Beverly T. and William E. Enoch
Song “No Weapon” performed by Fred Hammond
For transcripts, contact Beverly Enoch firstname.lastname@example.org
Complete previous Writs of Habeas Corpus available by request.
Please donate to:
National Center for Reason and Justice
Texas Voices for Reason and Justice
Part 2 Current Child Interview Forensic Protocol
According to The U. S. Department of Justice’s September 2015 ‘Child Forensic Interviewing: Best Practice Guidelines’, “A forensic interview of a child is a developmentally sensitive and legally sound method of getting factual information regarding allegations of abuse or exposure to violence. This interview is conducted by a competently trained, neutral professional utilizing research and practice informed techniques as part of a larger investigative process.”
The ‘Child Forensic Interviewing Best Practices’ is in the file below:
“Most current Child Sexual Assault (CSA) investigations in the U. S. adopt a multidisciplinary approach, known as the Child Advocacy Center (CAC) Model, which aims to coordinate the needs of all relevant professionals (e.g, medical, law enforcement, child protective services, mental health, victim advocacy and prosecution) through a single interview and location, to streamline investigations.”
“There is a universal agreement among researchers and professionals across protocols that many recommended interviewing techniques are beneficial to children’s accurate and plentiful accounts (e.g., using open, non-suggestive questions)…”.
“According to present data, almost all forensic interviews are videotaped.”
Quotations are from ‘Self-Reported Current Practices in Child Forensic Interviewing: Training, Tools and Pre-Interview Preparation’ in the April 2017 Behavioral Sciences & the Law by Authors Jillian Rivard and Nadja Schreiber Compo in the file below:
Part 3 Experts In The Field of Current Child Forensic Interviews
Interrogations and investigative interviews (role of rapport building; effects of conducting interviews through language interpreters) 2. Child forensic interviews, child suggestibility and decision-making in child abuse cases. 3. Prediction of negative outcomes in clinical and forensic settings (examples: predicting early discharge in the military or criminal recidivism among juvenile delinquents).
Murray, A. A., Wood, J. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Psychopathic personality traits and cognitive dissonance: Individual differences in attitude change. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 525-536.
Billings, F. J., Taylor, T., Burns, J., Corey, D. L., Garven, S., & Wood, J. M. (2007). Can reinforcement induce children to falsely incriminate themselves? Law and Human Behavior, 31, 125-139.
Schreiber, N., Bellah, L. D., Martinez, Y., McLaurin, K. A., Strok, R., Garven, S., & Wood, J. M. (2006). Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study. Social Influence, 1, 16-47.
Wood, J. M., Nathan, D., Nezworski, M. T., & Uhl, E. (2009). Child sexual abuse investigations: Lessons learned from the McMartin and other daycare cases. In B. L. Bottoms, C. J. Najdowski, & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Children as victims, witnesses, and offenders: Psychological science and the law (pages 81-101). New York: Guilford.
Wood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., Nezworski, M. T., Garb, H. N., Wildermuth, J., & Allen, K. H. (2010). Validity of Rorschach Inkblot scores for discriminating psychopaths from nonpsychopaths in forensic populations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 22, 336-349.
2. Maria Keller-Hamela outlines ‘The Child Interview. Practice Guidelines’ in the file below:
3. Elizabeth Neail and Sherrian Carthy outline ‘Investigative Interviewing in Child Sexual Abuse Cases INSTRUCTOR GUIDE’ in the file below:
4. National Children’s Advocacy Center. (2019). National Children’s Advocacy
Center’s Child Forensic Interview Structure. Huntsville, AL: Author, outlines ‘Child Forensic Interview Structure’ in the file below:
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau outlines ‘Forensic Interviewing: A Primer for Child Welfare Professionals’ – July 2017 – in the file below:
Part 4 Cases of Affects Brought By Past Child Interview Methods
‘Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study’ by Nadja Schreiber, Lisa D. Bellah, Sena Garven and James M. Wood – 2006
In the 1980s and early 1990s the United States witnessed an outbreak of
bizarre ‘‘daycare abuse’’ cases in which groups of young children levelled
allegations of sexual and Satanic abuse against their teachers. In the present
study, quantitative analyses were performed on a total of 54 interview
transcripts from two highly publicised daycare cases (McMartin Preschool and
Kelly Michaels) and a comparison group of child sexual abuse cases from
a Child Protection Service (CPS). Confirming the impression of prior
commentators, systematic analyses showed that interviews from the two
daycare cases were highly suggestive. Compared with the CPS interviews, the
McMartin and/or Michaels interviewers were significantly more likely to (a)
introduce new suggestive information into the interview, (b) provide praise,
promises, and positive reinforcement, (c) express disapproval, disbelief, or
disagreement with children, (d) exert conformity pressure, and (e) invite
children to pretend or speculate about supposed events.
Case study is in the file below:
Journal of Applied Psychology ‘More Than Suggestion The Effect of Interviewing Techniques From the McMartin Preschool Case’ by Sena Garven, James M. Wood, Roy S. Malpass, John S. Shaw – copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association – in the file below:
Paul Parks’s daughters testified he molested them and after finding out years later they had sent him to prison, they recanted their testimony:
Magazine articles on affects brought by past interviewing methods:
The Texas Tribune article, ‘Case of “San Antonio Four” Set to Enter its Final Act’, by Maurice Chammah – March 19, 2015 1pm cst is below:
Texas Monthly article, ‘The Girl Who Told the Truth’, by Michael Hall – March 2018 is below:
Part 5 Recanters
Part 6 Updates
On December 14, 2022, the Troupe-Enoch Family’s petition surpassed 100 Signers just in time to prepare to send it to our Texas State Senator, Joan Huffman’s Office in an attempt to show Texas State Senate we and our petition Signers are serious about getting a bill passed that would allow current Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol the ability to legally challenge past interview methods that were unfair to children.
In September, 2022, Troupe-Enoch Family started a petition on Change website asking all who review our case and sign our petition to have Texas State Legislature to present a bill for signing to the Texas Governor that will allow current Forensic Child Interviewing Protocol the ability to legally challenge past interview methods that were unfair to children. To review and sign the petition, please visit the Change site here.
On August 1, 2022, Beverly received notice from a law firm representing Dr. Mujica demanding she cease and desist online reviews of Dr. Mujica and retract posted “false” statements. Her voice was not heard in 1986 when she said “no” to the DHS interviewer, Helen Paramore’s, questions of whether her father abused her and endured a 3 1/2 hour brute force interview, where near the end of that time, Beverly starting agreeing with Helen. Beverly’s voice will be heard now.
The pediatrician, Dr. Samuel A. Mujica, who made a premature determination of sexual assault in the case of Beverly Troupe Enoch, when she was his patient as an 8 year old, has now contacted an attorney after finding Beverly’s unfavorable online reviews regarding his actions. His premature determination left the child interviewer only room to interrogate Beverly for over three hours until Beverly started agreeing and exaggerating to appease the interviewer, in a futile attempt to just go home. She didn’t return home until her 18th birth date. Beverly’s agreement to the Interviewer’s questions led to her father being convicted of aggravated sexual assault and Beverly trying to clear up this tragedy over the years since.
As of September 20, 2021, Beverly Troupe Enoch and William E. Enoch are in contact with the Office of Texas State Senator, Joan Huffman. The contact was made in an attempt to ask Texas Legislators to investigate the possibility a law to be passed for the current method of interviewing children to have power to challenge past child interview methods in court. A new law would be “Junk Child Interview Law”, similar to Article 11.073 of Texas’ Code Of Criminal Procedure, also known as the “Junk Science Law”.
By using a potential junk child interviews law as well as Texas Article 11.073, past case documents would establish how Beverly Troupe Enoch eventually came to agree with her 1986 interviewer. There was never an outcry from Beverly Troupe Enoch, only agreement at the end of a three plus hour interview. The interviewer needed the child to be in agreement with the pediatrician. Article 11.073 would be utilized to prove the Pediatrician practiced junk science against Beverly Troupe Enoch when she was an eight year old child.
This entry was tagged Bell County, Brian K. Troupe, CPS false sexual abuse case, Keith Hampton Attorney, Killeen, National Center for Reason and Justice, Rusty Carrol, Samuel A Mujica Trenche, Sr, Testimony of Beverly Troupe Enoch, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, TX, witch hunt, witchhunt, Writ of Habeas Corpus, wrongful conviction. Bookmark the permalink.