A CNN investigation into the destruction of rape kits in dozens of law enforcement agencies across the country found that police trashed evidence in hundreds of cases before the statutes of limitations expired.
One agency stood out for the volume and variety of investigative shortcomings that led to destruction – the Springfield Police Department in Missouri.
Police there disposed of at least 108 rape kits since 2010 while there was still time to prosecute the cases.
Said one expert, Carol Tracy, a Philadelphia attorney who has evaluated sex crimes investigations nationwide: “I was appalled by what I saw in Springfield’s cases — little to no investigation, blatant disregard for victims, a true lack of understanding of trauma.”
Meet our experts
Experts in policing, trauma, DNA and the law reviewed these investigations. Hover over the photos to learn more about them.
MO | SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPT | #12-0021201
Child: ‘Uncle hurt my pee-pee’
Evidence never tested
Juvenile victim
Kept 2 years
Not tested
Prosecutor declined
None
On May 23, 2012, a Springfield, Missouri, mother tells police that she brought her young children to a park to meet her brother, who took the kids for a walk. When they returned, the mother saw her 4-year-old daughter’s shorts were wet.
reported just after left she observed back right shorts pocket to be wet and she questioned about it. stated shorts were not saturated but said, "It was more than just a spot."
She asks her daughter what happened. She says the child replied: “I didn’t potty, mom. The bathroom door did it. Uncle went to the bathroom.”
“But how did your pants get wet?” the mother asks. She smells the shorts. They do not smell like urine. She says her child starts to cry and says, “Uncle hurt my pee pee in the bathroom with the red roof.”
The officer notes that police did not attempt to locate a crime scene because of “heavy foot traffic in the park.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“Police should secure this scene and try to corroborate the red roof detail. Was there security video at this bathroom area? By going to crime scene, you can also help corroborate the child’s experience — what did she see in the bathroom? Does that match up?”
As the 4-year-old sobs, the mother asks again what happened. She tells police this was the girl’s reply:
She stated she again asked and advised, "He touched me." and she asked "With what?" at which time replied, "With his fingers."
The mother asks, “Did he touch you with anything else?
She says this was her answer:
and she replied "He touched me with his pee pee." as she began to sob even harder. stated she then asked "Did get hurt?" and replied, "Yea, Uncle did it."
The mother confronts her brother. She says he told her: “I can’t believe you’re accusing me of that.” She tells him it’s hard to believe the child could invent such allegations.
said "Why would a four year old girl make that up?"
The mother then drives to a hospital where her daughter struggles to have a bowel movement. The child says, “My bottom hurts.” When asked why, the girl answers, “Cause Uncle (redacted) put his finger in my bottom.”
The sexual assault nurse examiner tells police that the 4-year-old disclosed that she was touched in her “genital area” by her uncle and that the uncle had touched her younger brother’s “pee pee.” The nurse does a “cursory examination” of the girl and does not see any “obvious bruising, bleeding, or tearing” of the child’s anus or vaginal area. The nurse notes a bruise on the child’s elbow and completes the swab portion of a sexual assault kit with the understanding that the girl will be further examined at a child advocacy center the next day. The nurse gives police the kit, a sample of the girl’s urine and her shorts with the wet spot.
A child services caseworker performs what police describe as “cursory” interviews with both the girl and her brother. Police write, “Neither child disclosed any information about the incident” to the caseworker.
The next day, a child forensic specialist interviews the girl. She says that her uncle touched her “pee pee” with his hand. The 4-year-old is “unable to describe if she was touched on top of her clothing or on bare skin.” Asked if anyone else was touched by her uncle, the girl says no. She answers no when asked if anyone could see her uncle when he touched her.
During the interview, FI Klockslem had identify parts of the human body on both a male and female anatomical drawing. While identifying various parts, identified a "pee pee" as a vagina.
The girl is examined a second time. A medical provider documents “a small area of redness… inside the anal opening.” The report says the redness “is not specific for sexual contact though sexual contact is not excluded.”
The interviewer is unable to question the girl’s little brother, police write, “due to his development and not being able to understand his speech.”
A sexual assault exam is performed on the brother “with negative results.” It’s not specified in the police report what “negative results” means.
Police ask the mother to attempt a tactic typical in these cases — a phone call with the uncle to see if he will admit to anything or give police an investigative lead. She agrees, and tells investigators that her brother, who works in her father’s business, “never had a history of this type of behavior” but has behaved violently in the past.
reported has a history of domestic violence as a result of his attempting to "run over" their father and ex-wife.
She also says he barricaded himself inside a home with his children and that a SWAT team had to enter by force and take him into custody.
She says that she was sexually abused as a child but does not know if her brother was abused.
Over the next few weeks, the mother doesn’t show up for appointments to call her brother with police on the line and stops returning investigators’ calls.
believed her family would not be supportive in this matter and made mention that they have been calling her repeatedly. She said she did have a good support system of friends who would assist her.
“You have mom with an unsupportive network who might very well be scared of her brother. Maybe it’s not that she’s ‘uncooperative.’ An investigator who knows that this is the history of this suspect has to take mom’s not returning calls in context.”
Police try to contact the uncle several times by phone, and he fails to show up for two appointments to be interviewed at the police station. They contact the uncle’s probation officer who tells them when he will be in court. So, on or about July 11 — more than a month and a half after the sexual abuse was reported — police show up at court and ask the uncle to accompany them to the police station for an interview.
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“As an investigator, thinking strategically about the suspect interview, I want to let the suspect explain his version of the event but also confront him with the possibility that the stain on the shorts is going to be tested, the forensic exam kit is going to be tested. I would ask him, ‘What are those tests going to show me?’”
The uncle says while in the park he needed to use the bathroom so he told the children to hold the door open so he could “make sure they were safe” while he used a stall. The girl told her uncle she needed to use the bathroom but he told her to wait, and they walked back to the mother. After the girl tells her mother what happened, the mother confronts her brother but he denies touching the child.
He states that both he and the girl’s mother were under the influence of bath salts, an illegal synthetic drug, and that the girl’s mother asked to meet him at the park so he could help her “shoot up.”
stated he was confronted by about the disclosure made by and he denied touching to and encouraged to go to the hospital to complete an exam to prove innocence.
During the interview, stated he was under the influence of bath salts when he arrived at Park but stated he remembered all the events of the incident.
In the police report, which is not a transcript of the uncle’s interview, it’s not clear if detectives directly ask the man if he touched the girl or her brother. He agrees to a lie detector test, then calls saying he needs to reschedule. Police attempt to do that on several occasions but he never shows up.
Based on the uncle’s statements about the mother using bath salts, police report her to the Missouri Child Abuse and Neglect hotline.
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“A report is made to child welfare against the mother based on the allegations of the suspected rapist on the same day as the report of the rape. The report might have been necessary but the manner in which it was communicated to the child’s mother is critical. Presumably a child welfare investigation against her ensued so why on earth would she come to the scheduled appointments? She could have been at risk of losing her child and being criminally prosecuted for child abuse or neglect.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“These offenders can be highly manipulative. One of a number of strategies sex offenders use is to discredit the reliability of the victim and witnesses. The mother and the suspect talk about exchanging phone calls. Those communications could have been examined but there’s no documentation to show that they were.”
Nicole Gorovsky
Former Missouri prosecutor
“You should not stop investigating a report of child sexual abuse because you don’t have readily cooperating adults around that child. Your job is to protect the child. You work with social services to remove the child from the caregiver if you need to. You don’t have the child fall at the mercy of a caregiver who happens to back away from the police.”
On August 16, 2012, about three months after the sexual assault report, a detective writes that the suspect hasn’t completed the polygraph exam and reviews the case with a Greene County prosecutor who declines to file charges. The prosecutor writes:
The child’s rape kit and wet shorts are never tested.
Nicole Gorovsky
Former Missouri prosecutor
“No corroborating evidence? Yeah, only because you didn’t test it. If the suspect’s DNA is on the victim anywhere near her genitals, game over for the suspect. This is an incomplete investigation. The prosecutor should have asked to view the tape of the child’s interview. Did the interviewer ask the child if the suspect touched any part of her body? It’s critical to view that and not just go by what’s written in the police report.”
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“I just can’t believe the prosecutor is rejecting the case due to lack of corroborative evidence but they’ve got potential evidence they never tested. It’s absurd.”
Abbie Newman
Registered nurse and attorney
“This is a child who has made several clear disclosures of abuse that has just happened. For child cases, this is rare. Usually, there’s a delay in disclosures so there can be no excuses for not testing this child’s rape kit. None.”
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“The mother and child’s account were consistent but they don’t test the kit or the shorts? Clearly they believed the account of the suspect over the child or mother. This one really got to me. It is outrageous. There was evidence to test and corroborate.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“This case bothered me a lot. I saw this in a couple Springfield cases that I looked at — the suspect says they didn’t do it, case closed. No evidence tested? This is a 4-year-old. Four-year-old children who make disclosures like this — these are really critical cases. I want to know what that stain on the shorts is. How the shorts and rape kit aren’t tested is unimaginable to me. Evidence should have been tested and maintained.”
The case ends when Springfield police mail the victim’s mother a letter dated August 20, 2012, saying that the prosecutor declined the case.
Nine days later, on August 29, a detective requests that the property room destroy evidence, including the child’s untested rape kit and her unanalyzed shorts.
The kit remains in storage until it is destroyed on October 16, 2014, about two years and four months after the reported assault. Police also destroyed their copy of the child’s interview and the only record of the suspect’s interview — records that state retention guidelines advise be maintained, according to Gorovsky.
Police recording / Disposal approved; Evidence / DVD OF INTERVIEW WITH
Papers, notebook, print / Disposal approved; Evidence / STATEMENT OF RIGHTS FORM
Police recording / Disposal approved; Evidence / DVD OF CAC INTERVIEW WITH
“I was stunned by what I saw destroyed in this case. They also destroyed the interview with the alleged perpetrator — that’s tremendously shocking to me. The uncle admitted using drugs and also described what he did with the child and why, and that could later be seen as his modus operandi — especially if another person alleges the uncle assaulted them and describes it happening in similar circumstances.”
In August, Missouri enacted a law requiring police to retain rape kits for 30 years in cases that have not been adjudicated. At the time of this case, there was no evidence retention law that would require police to keep the child’s rape kit or other physical evidence. And, sexual offenses involving minor victims could be prosecuted for 30 years after the victim reached 18. However, if the victim was penetrated with anything — a finger, a penis, an object — then there was no time limit to prosecute, said Gorovsky.
At a minimum, the girl had until she was 48 years old to pursue a case against her uncle, according to the statute of limitations. [Missouri law changed this year so that there is no statute of limitations to prosecute sexual offenses perpetrated against victims under 18].
Marci Hamilton
CEO and academic director, CHILD USA
“This child was robbed of decades she should have had to bring her perpetrator to justice. The police should not have destroyed her rape kit. She should have been able to take possession of that kit in her adult life and make her own decision about her case.”
Dr. Steven Berkowitz
Child psychiatrist
When victims reach adolescence, often that is when memories of abuse surface and she has to wrestle with symptoms of trauma. She may realize that no one cared and no one did anything.
Destruction of the child’s and suspect’s interviews by police could make it difficult to ever bring a case, experts said. A defense attorney could argue that police cannot be trusted to properly investigate a crime if they have improperly destroyed evidence.
It is important to preserve exactly what a child says at the time abuse is reported. Attorneys often argue that a child cannot be relied upon to accurately testify years or even months after alleged abuse because long-term memory is not fully developed. A primary record — like the DVD of the girl’s interview in this case — is critical. A police report cannot be substituted; it is inadmissible in court because it is a subjective recitation of events.
The Greene County prosecutor who declined this case, Ami Miller, is now an assistant United States attorney in Missouri. CNN provided written questions and explained experts’ criticism to her and US Attorney’s Office spokesman Don Ledford. He said Miller declined to discuss the case, and cited the US Attorney’s Office policy against talking about investigations or confidential internal deliberations that result in accepting or declining a case for prosecution. The office follows the same policy regarding past cases prosecutors worked on while employed elsewhere, he said.
CNN asked Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson if he thought the kit and shorts should have been tested.
“Perhaps that could have been sent off,” he answered. “I do know that the mother became uncooperative in this case. And we try to empower victims. And when victims don’t want to cooperate anymore — then we don’t force them to.
“Now, with regard to whether the kit should have been kept or not, certainly it might have been helpful. ‘Cause what if mom changes her mind, right? You have a very long statute of limitations.”
Of the prosecutor who declined the case, Patterson said, “Perhaps she didn’t ask enough probing questions during the case review.”
Investigator Chelsea Taylor did not respond to CNN’s attempts to reach her through certified mail, social media and phone calls. Police Chief Paul Williams emailed a reporter after those attempts were made and requested all questions be directed to him.
CNN asked Williams why the rape kit was destroyed before the expiration of the statute of limitations and why it was not submitted for testing.
He did not say why the kit was destroyed. At the time of this case, he said, the department did not submit kits for testing if cases were not going to be prosecuted.
Williams said that the prosecutor’s decision to decline charges tied the police department’s hands. “If a prosecutor declines charges and doesn’t ask for any further investigation, doesn’t say ‘If you do this, this and this’ — if it’s pretty much we have an uncooperative victim, there’s really nothing else to do with that case,” Williams said.
“With a child victim, if you don’t have the cooperation from the parent or the guardian to move forward, there’s really nothing for us.”
CNN alerted Chief Williams to the additional interview records that the department destroyed. He was unaware that happened, he said, and after looking into it, told CNN that the interviews “were inadvertently and improperly destroyed.”
CNN’s review of this case “brought to light a gap in our department policy, which is being revised,” he emailed.
He said he obtained a copy of the child’s interview from the advocacy center that conducted it, which keeps copies forever. The police do not have another copy of the suspect’s interview, Williams said.
On July 21, 2009, police in Springfield, Missouri, are called to a home where they find a woman who is visibly bruised and scratched. She says that a man entered an apartment through a window while she was sleeping. He punched her repeatedly and threatened to kill her if she didn’t stop screaming. She tells an officer that the man cut a hole in the crotch of her pants and raped her.
said that cut a hole in her pants at the crotch and she showed me the cut. said that yelled at her to take her britches off and then said that he would kill her. said that beat her. did have a large red mark and bruises on her left cheek.
Patrol officers confiscate a bloody tissue that she says she used to wipe herself after the rape. Photos are taken of the apartment, including a bent window screen.
While I was there I noticed that the screen covering the apartment window was bent at the top. I photographed the window. i removed the screen which came out of its frame easily. The inside window then just slid open.
An ambulance takes the woman to a hospital for a rape exam. A patrol officer photographs the woman’s injuries: a bruise and red mark on her face, a fresh scratch on her wrist. A doctor describes her internal injuries.
I was able to take photographs (with and without scale) of the bruise and red mark on face. I also photographed a small fresh scratch on the inside of her right wrist. said this scratch was from . clothes were collected and bagged for evidence. I collected the bag after it was sealed and marked. I also took custody of the rape kit after it was sealed and marked. I was told by Dr. Barker that had superficial abrasions and a superficial laceration in her deep vaginal area along with some blood.
“The victim in this case had pretty extensive injuries.”
A victim advocate helps place the woman in a rehabilitation center so she can detox.
The day after the woman reported her rape, a detective is assigned to investigate, and does two things: The investigator mails a letter to the victim’s address informing her that if she doesn’t contact the detective for a follow-up interview, the case would be suspended, a term that means the case will be left open. And, the investigator contacts the rehab center and speaks “with personnel,” asking that the victim call. The investigator also notes that staff at the center cannot confirm that the victim is a patient there.
Ann Burdges
Former sex crimes investigator
“The letter should not be used, period, in sex crimes cases, but it’s incomprehensible that an investigator would take that action without there being any investigation done. It’s unacceptable and offensive.”
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“That makes me crazy…that you have 10 days to make up your mind. [That’s] just completely unnecessary. And it just shuts down any possibility of [a victim] coming back.”
On August 28, 2009, five weeks after the woman reported her rape, the detective does not leave open the woman’s case. Instead, she closes it, calling the victim “uncooperative.” The detective acknowledges in her report that the suspect’s identity is known but there’s no indication in the case file that police tried to interview him.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“The police had the suspect’s identity. He should have been interviewed.”
The department mails the victim a letter saying, “due to your failure to cooperate with the investigation, your case is now cleared and no further action will be taken on this matter.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“Best practice would be if the victim is reluctant to engage in the process any further, you inform that you want them to receive help and support. It should be something that’s documented in the report. Not, case closed, 10 days, we’re done.
“A patrol officer verifies that the pants were cut. The sexual assault nurse examiner documents evidence — a vaginal tear. Some officers get frustrated when they don’t have anything to corroborate an account. And in this case, they do, but there’s no effort to help a reluctant, frightened victim through the system.”
On August 16, 2011, the detective requests that the property room destroy the untested sexual assault kit and other evidence; this does not require her supervisor’s approval, according to police documents. The untested kit is destroyed on October 4, 2011, about two years after the woman reported being raped, even though there was no statute of limitations at the time on the crime listed in the casefile: forcible rape. The shortest length of time to prosecute any felony sex offense was three years.
Former Detective Maggie McDowell, who handled this case and retired from the department in 2014, declined to speak with CNN.
Police Chief Paul Williams said he could not speak for McDowell.
“I would certainly have to talk to the investigator and say, ‘Why did you choose to send a letter at that point?’ My notes are that the victim never contacted the investigator ever. We were never able to get in contact with her again,” the chief said.
Williams told CNN that when victims are uncooperative “the prosecutor absolutely is not going to proceed.”
CNN observed that McDowell did not note any attempt to pursue and interview the suspect.
“Once again, if you do not have a victim, you wait 30 days, and you can’t find the victim or the victim is not contacting you, not wishing to pursue it, I can see why she [McDowell] would close it out,” Williams answered.
The chief said that investigators were encouraged to discern if cases were “going anywhere” — meaning they were going to be charged or a victim was readily engaging with an investigator. That was, in part, a way the department managed its caseload because there were not enough investigators on staff to handle reported crimes
McDowell, who was not the only detective working sex crimes, shouldered 124 to 164 sexual assault cases a year between 2009 and 2014, according to the department. Williams was unable to provide numbers for 2012. In 2015, Springfield’s primary sex crimes detective carried a load of 208 sexual assault cases, the chief said.
Law enforcement professionals who have overseen sex crimes units told CNN that a detective working major crimes should handle fewer than 100 a year.
On October 7, 2011, Springfield, Missouri, police are summoned to the hospital where a woman tells them she was doing meth in a house with a man who became “paranoid” that she was stealing from him and “went crazy and raped her.”
She gives a description of him and a name.
She said she was with a male named . She described as being a white male, approximately 19 years of age with red hair.
“I want to see an advocate involved in this case right now. This is a victim in full-blown crisis — she’s an addict and she’s saying she’s been raped. She needs to be wrapped in services.”
Ann Burdges
Former sex crimes investigator
“Best practices delineate the importance of a victim advocate early in the response. This particular case file doesn’t reflect any protocol inclusive of victim services.”
The woman undergoes a rape exam, and police collect her rape kit, blood and urine samples as well as her clothing. Police then drive her to the station.
The case is assigned for follow-up to one of the department’s sex crimes investigators, who interviews the suspect and the victim.
The suspect denies having sex with the victim on the date she says he raped her. He says he had been in a relationship with the victim and they had broken up, and the victim came by his residence because she wanted methamphetamine.
said he loaded a "rig" (needle) with methamphetamine and gave a shot. He said he gave her a lot because he was pissed that she kept asking. He said it was not enough to harm her, just get her really high.
He said she started “tripping and hallucinating,” talking about “blue men in the attic who raped her.”
Police collect head and pubic hairs from the suspect and swab his mouth and penis to obtain his DNA to see if it could possibly match material found in her rape kit.
But none of this evidence is tested, including the victim’s rape kit, according to the case file.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“When a suspect denies sex, an excellent way to know if they are lying is to test the rape kit.”
Nicole Gorovsky
Former Missouri prosecutor
“He denies [sex]. Testing the rape kit could have made all the difference in showing whether he was lying.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
"I don't see any analysis by the detective. What did the sexual assault nurse say? What does that report say? Were there injuries? The suspect denied sexual contact. That's beautiful, right? They usually say it's consensual but not here. So I'm going to test that kit to see if his DNA is on it."
That same day, the detective meets with the victim, and the woman describes her tumultuous life. She tells the detective that she’s been living in a homeless shelter and met her estranged father on Facebook. And she admits to using meth and plans to go to rehab.
The detective responds:
I explained the whole investigative process and court process with . told me she was going back to live with her father and they were taking her to a drug rehab inpatient program today. said she wanted to get help and put this incident behind her. said she did not wish to pursue this investigative process.
“Let’s not overwhelm someone who’s already overwhelmed and start talking on day one about the court process. Let’s investigate. Let’s make sure victims feel emotionally, physically and psychologically safe so they can engage with us.”
The detective writes that the victim “said she wanted to get help and put this incident behind her.”
Rebecca Campbell
Psychology professor, Michigan State University
“After trauma, the hormone response tends to keep the body elevated for about five to six days. And in those five to six days, it can be very difficult to sit down and really think. Then we ask them to make this huge decision about reporting and possible prosecution?”
The detective then gives the victim a “decline to prosecute” form. The woman signs and dates it the same day she reported being raped.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“This woman is in crisis. She should not be signing a decline waiver on the same day she reported her rape. I think there’s a hidden intent in those waivers. Detectives use them to get cases off their plate. We should be backing off, giving the victims some time to take care of themselves and providing that support.”
Nicole Gorovsky
Former Missouri prosecutor
“I hate decline waivers. They’re used by the police to just close out a case. ‘Let’s just take someone in an emotional situation and hand them a decline waiver.’ Shouldn’t happen.”
Ann Burdges
Former sex crimes investigator
“Asking a victim to sign anything when they are possibly under the influence of a controlled substance is very concerning. I do not believe any victim should ever have to sign a decline to prosecute form, especially not on the same day as the assault.”
On October 28, 2011, 21 days after the woman reported being raped, the detective clears the case. Five months later, the woman’s untested rape kit is destroyed.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“Unfortunately it’s been common practice that when a victim declines, police destroy evidence. That shouldn’t be happening. Kits should be maintained for the length of the statute of limitations.”
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“I’m not sure that woman would have the capacity to decline if she’s been shot full of meth. Victims should not be given declination waivers. I see no reason to destroy rape kits, given today’s technology.”
The detective who handled this case, Maggie McDowell, declined to speak with CNN. She retired from the department in late 2014. She was one of the agency’s primary sex crimes investigators for years, Springfield Police Chief Paul Williams said.
Before CNN began a 2017 interview and asked questions about how rape investigations were handled by McDowell and other detectives, Williams praised McDowell. He said that he had asked her to speak with CNN and she declined. He paraphrased what she told him.
“She said, ‘Chief, as you recall, you would never have a more passionate and tenacious, empathetic investigator than I was when I was assigned to that unit as a survivor.”
Her assault gave her a “really different perspective” as a detective, Williams said, adding she did “a fantastic job.”
Chief Williams explained that officers working rape cases and other crimes had to “triage” — meaning they were encouraged to work cases in which victims were readily cooperative or cases that were going to be prosecuted.
CNN asked why the rape kit wasn’t tested, especially considering that testing it might have shown that the suspect was lying when he told police that he did not have sexual intercourse the victim.
“Victim declined right? Didn’t want to pursue anything?”” Williams answered. “So we’re back to the triaging of…But [police are] not submitting it for testing without a willing victim.”
Asked if it was appropriate to give the woman a prosecution declination waiver the same day she reported being raped, Springfield Lieutenant Culley Wilson, who was present for the interview, responded. He said McDowell probably “asked [the victim] several times, ‘Are you sure you wanna do this? Are you sure you wanna do this?’” he told CNN. “Why would you let her decline the same day, and not do anything further? [The waiver] is to show, you know, and I’m speaking for [McDowell] but this is what I’d do. [McDowell] probably talked to her, said, ‘Are you sure you want to decline?’”
As to whether McDowell could have given the victim a little more time, Wilson said, “Yeah, maybe a little more time. But we’re second guessing.”
Williams agreed with Wilson.
“If a victim is adamant — and we don’t see this very often, if at all — then [the waiver] is an option. And she [the victim] wants to do it,” the chief said. “Now, could she change her mind later? Absolutely.”
CNN reminded the officers that the victim’s untested rape kit was destroyed five months after the woman reported being raped.
Williams responded: “Could that be characterized as too soon? Yes.”
On June 27, 2010, an intoxicated woman tells hospital workers in Springfield, Missouri, that a man picked her up, drove her to a hotel and raped her vaginally and anally. The woman either cannot or will not provide the man’s name or the name of the hotel, police write.
The woman had arrived at the hospital by ambulance hours before she disclosed being raped, after a caller notified authorities around 5 a.m. that the woman and an unknown man were arguing in the street. Medical workers inserted a catheter and used a sterile solution in and near her vagina. After she says she was raped, they worry that their action may have erased evidence.
The woman is “medicated to calm her down” and, before losing consciousness, she consents to a rape exam. Medical workers believe they can “complete most of the kit.”
A nurse also notes something unusual about the victim’s shorts.
As I collected the clothes, Mizell told me that when she removed the clothes from , she noticed that her shorts were inside out and on the wrong way.
“Is it possible that she was also drugged? Her shorts were inside out. This suggests something happened. Maybe that’s why she was so agitated.”
The woman’s clothing is taken as evidence. She is unable to give a full statement to police.
A sex crimes detective is assigned to the case the next day. The detective notes that the victim’s phone number is not listed on the report so the detective goes to the victim’s address.
No one responded to the door when I knocked. I left a business card on the victim's door asking her to contact me for a follow-up interview.
“I’d want to interview the ambulance drivers. Where did this person come in from? Then I’d do a canvas at that location. Let’s say she’s picked up in a hotel parking lot. Go back to the hotel and ask who saw what. There is no documentation of that.”
Also on the same day the detective is assigned to work the case, the investigator mails a letter to the victim giving her a deadline:
The letter indicates if the victim refused to contact me within 10 business days from the date of the letter then the case would receive no further follow-up investigation.
“This is not the way you build rapport with a victim. Can you imagine getting this letter in the mail? It all but guarantees they will not participate in a case.”
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“I have never heard or seen investigations that require the 10 business-day limit to conduct a further interview. It is heavy handed and clearly does not understand anything about trauma.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“They send this 10-day letter. So where is the victim? Maybe they’re still in the hospital. Maybe they’re in an alcohol treatment program. And the police are going to close the case? We’re just going to close the case and then destroy the kit? This looks like a shortcut to get this case off the investigator’s desk.”
On July 29, 2010, a month after the victim’s hospitalization, the detective suspends the case, meaning it is left open in the event new information emerges. Yet the detective asks that the property room destroy the untested kit and other evidence on August 17, 2011, a request that does not require a supervisor’s approval.
The untested kit is destroyed on October 4, 2011, less than 16 months after the woman reported being raped, and before the expiration of the statute of limitations on the offense police list in the case file.
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“There obviously were problems with the rape kit so the evidence might not be usable, but the only way to know is by processing it.”
Maggie McDowell, the detective who handled this case, retired from the police department in 2014. She declined to speak with CNN.
Chief Paul Williams addressed questions about the timing of McDowell’s letter and the date the investigator closed the case by saying that the department gave this victim enough time. Investigators were urged to determine in about 30 days whether cases were moving forward.
“I mean, the initial 30-day time frame to — I mean, we have… enough cases to work on. It was suspended. It’s not like it’s — can’t be reopened at some point, should the victim contact [the department again]. And that could absolutely happen,” Williams said.
CNN asked why a kit would be destroyed in a suspended — or open — case. Williams responded by saying, “Good question for [McDowell].”
The kit wasn’t tested because the victim was uncooperative, Williams said. He said he did not know if McDowell or any investigator communicated with the hospital or asked the hospital to alert police when the victim was awake and able to speak.
Since 2010, the department destroyed at least 108 rape kits before the statutes of limitations expired. 81 of those kits were untested, and at least 27 were tied to cases marked “suspended,” indicating that the investigations were open.
CNN emailed some of those cases to Chief Williams and the investigations commander, Vance Holland. They declined to review them.
On August 2, 2010, youth services workers tell a Springfield patrol officer that a 17-year-old runaway’s grandmother has brought the teen to a juvenile detention center in Springfield, Missouri. One worker interviews the teenager because there is concern she is exhibiting “depressed behavior.” A few days earlier, the girl had fled a mental health facility with another resident, whose name is given to the officer.
The workers tell the officer that the girl said she had used synthetic marijuana, ecstasy and hydrocodone and had been raped. They drive her to a hospital where she undergoes a forensic exam.
The officer begins questioning the teenager as she sits on an examination table.
She says that on August 2 at 1:30 a.m., she was hanging out with a person whose name is redacted in the case file. They walked to an area that the victim says is near two streets, which she names. They meet up with the suspect, the officer writes, and go into a house.
The victim tells police that she was in a bedroom with the suspect, and the two began consensually kissing and touching. Then she says he rolled on top of her and raped her:
A few minutes late, the suspect rolled on top of her and pinned her against the bed. As she was laying on her back, the suspect held her down and penetrated her vagina with his penis. told the suspect several times to stop, but the suspect refused to stop.
He continues to assault her for 45 minutes and ejaculates inside of her, the teen says. When he leaves the room, she says, she goes outside and tells a woman on the front lawn that they need to leave.
The teen goes to a place where she takes a shower, then she and a friend drive around with another man who is not identified in the report. She later is picked up by her sister and her sister’s boyfriend at a store after they see her there.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“These people should have been interviewed.”
The girl says she does not know her assailant’s real name but describes his height, weight, race, the clothing he was wearing and hairstyle. She says he has a tattoo on his back. She details the exterior and interior of the house where she was raped, including the color of the sheets and comforter.
described the exterior of the house where she was assaulted as a white house with red curtains and with a set of stairs leading to the front door. She recalled the house having a front lawn, but no fence surround the front lawn. She also stated the house was located behind a Dairy Queen ice cream shop.
The girl twice tells police that she wants to pursue charges. When a detective assigned to the case asks how long it has been since she had sex, he writes that the girl “admitted she had consensual intercourse earlier in the day” but she does not know that person’s last name.
(Police routinely ask victims about recent sexual partners to eliminate them as a suspect if their DNA is recovered from a kit during testing.)
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“When we see ‘admitted’ type of language in reports, you see that bias creeping in. They don’t believe her.”
The investigator writes that the girl also “admitted” to being high on drugs when the assault occurred.
admitted she was under the influence of marijuana dipped in embalming fluid, Hydrocodone, ecstasy, K2 and drinking alcohol when the assault occurred. She was not "passed out" but she was "really out of it." did not think could have mistaken things as consensual.
We discussed several investigative techniques we routinely use to solicit information from suspects. did not like the idea of a investigative pre-textual phone call to the suspect. She admitted she had reported several similar cases in the past.
“This information matters if she was incapacitated by these substances, and I see no documentation in this report that she was. She was able to clearly, in detail, describe where she was assaulted down to a detailed description of the inside of the house. I don’t think they were concerned about her being incapacitated by these substances. I think they were trying to say, ‘Look at all the bad things she’s done.’ This victim was being honest with the police. That only speaks to her credibility but yet it’s being used against her.”
The detective explains to the victim that he can orchestrate a phone-call that she can make to the suspect with him listening, an investigative technique police routinely use. She “did not like the idea,” he writes, adding, “She admitted she had reported several similar cases in the past.”
He and the victim drive to the area of the alleged rape but she’s unable to identify the house.
A detention worker tells the investigator that the teen has a history of running away and alleging that she was sexually assaulted.
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“This girl was sexually assaulted sometime in her life. Were we getting her any help? Best practice is to have a victim advocate there who can talk to this person because what’s happened — it’s just going to start destroying her.”
There’s no indication in the detective’s report that the suspect is located or interviewed, or that other witnesses are interviewed. Police take the case to the Greene County prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor declines to file charges on September 23, 2010, noting there is “no independent evidence (injury/witness) to corroborate victim’s account.”
Nicole Gorovsky
Former Missouri prosecutor
“That’s what the rape kit is for — corroboration. But they didn’t test it. A prosecutor should have told the police, ‘Do more investigation, try to find the suspect, interview him and test the evidence.’”
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“The police should not have presented this to a prosecutor. They haven’t even tried to find a suspect. This is an incomplete investigation.”
That same day, the prosecutor signs a form and checks a box indicating that the Springfield police “should release/destroy the evidence.”
41. The Springfield Police Department Should ☐ Retain the evidence for further use ☒ Release/Destroy the evidence
There’s no indication in the case file that the victim was notified that the case ended that way. A 17-year-old is considered an adult under Missouri statutory laws, said Gorovsky.
An email from the detective contained in the case file shows he authorized the destruction of property on September 28, 2010, about two months after the teenager reported being raped.
Her untested rape kit was destroyed about two weeks later, on October 15, 2010.
When this crime was reported, there was no statute of limitations for forcible rape — the offense police listed in the case file. The shortest statute of limitations for any felony sex offense was three years.
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“Destroying the rape kit is just completely unacceptable. Why [destroy it?] Even if it didn’t help with this prosecution, they never tested it. It could have linked to another crime. It could have been useful if this guy attacks someone else.”
In an interview at police headquarters, Springfield Chief Paul Williams initially defended how this case was handled.
He cited the prosecutor’s decision to decline the case because of “no independent evidence and credibility of the victim.”
“She reported seven rapes in the previous two-year period,” Williams said, “and was heavily on the influence of marijuana, K2, hydrocodone, ecstasy and alcohol during the incident in question, and also admitted to having consensual sex prior to this allegation.”
Lieutenant Culley Wilson, who was present for the interview, disagreed with the chief.
Wilson said he felt police handled the case poorly. “I don’t like this case. I don’t like how it was investigated.” It needed “a more thorough investigation. We could have done a better job.”
CNN asked Wilson what he thought should have been done in this case. Before he could answer, Chief Williams interjected:
“My reading of this was the investigator had some credibility issues with the victim and chose not to pursue it and fully investigate it. And that absolutely shouldn’t happen. We should have investigated further.”
The chief conceded police should have tried to find the suspect.
Rod Noble was the investigator in this case. He did not respond to CNN’s efforts to reach him by mail and phone, and after those attempts Chief Williams asked CNN to direct questions only to him.
CNN requested records pertaining to the girl’s previous reports. Between 2007 and 2009, when she was 13 to 15, she described being raped, prostituted and having what she perceived to be consensual sex with adult men. Documents indicate that child welfare authorities were involved at times and that prosecutors declined charges on at least three occasions.
CNN asked Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson whether his office requested that Springfield police test the rape kit in the 2010 case before rejecting it for prosecution.
Patterson said it was impossible for him to know what the exchange was between the officer and prosecutor.
CNN asked why the prosecutor approved destruction of the untested evidence less than two months after the victim reported being raped.
In a written response to CNN, Patterson said, “Due to a number of obstacles presented in this investigation, including a lack of corroborating evidence, the investigating officer and the consulting assistant prosecutor made a determination that further investigation of this case would not make it prosecutable regardless of the results of the rape kit. The evidence, therefore, was marked for release or destruction.”
He continued, “The Greene County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is constantly reviewing best practices, and all assistant prosecutors who handle sex offenses are trained to instruct the law enforcement agency to retain any and all rape kits.”
In the early morning hours of July 15, 2009, a woman tells Springfield, Missouri, police that she was raped by a man she knows as “Mo” the day after she met him. She says he locked the door, grabbed her by the arms and threw her on a bed and held her down.
She said she could not move and told me she was "yelling" at MO. said MO then took her pants off, then her underwear, and then her shirt. She said MO undressed and "pulled my legs apart roughly and pushed it in." I asked her to clarify this and she said that MO had penetrated her with his penis. She stated he was not wearing a condom. stated this went on for about 15 minutes saying she was yelling "no" at him.
She gives a detailed physical description of “Mo.”
described MO as being a dark skinned black male around 22 years of age. She said he was around 6'1 inches tall and weighed over 200 pounds. thought MO was wearing a black "Scarface" t-shirt and black shorts.
The officers speak with a witness who says he knocked on the door and that the suspect, who the witness also knows as “Mo,” answered. “Mo” told the witness, “Just gimme 20 more minutes.” The witness was able to get the door open and said he saw “Mo” without clothes on and the woman, who also was naked, crying. She ran to get dressed in the bathroom and then fled outside. The witness provides police with a physical description of “Mo” and confirms that his name is David.
Police note that the victim spoke with her mother about the sexual assault.
The victim submits to a rape exam; police collect the rape kit and then accompany the victim back to the apartment to gather more evidence, including a bed sheet and clothing.
Several people at the scene tell an officer that they know “Mo” but not his last name and that he might live in a specific apartment building.
That information is conveyed to a dispatcher who tells the officer that three men named David live at that address. It appears that at least one man might have fit the description of the suspect; he is not contacted, police note.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“Patrol is doing an excellent job getting a lot of detail and working the case. But there’s only so much patrol can do before they have to hand a case over to a detective.”
Close to midnight that same day, police respond to a 911 call from the woman saying that the suspect has returned to her home. She tells police that he banged on her door and, because she didn’t know who it was, she opened it. She quickly shut the door and called 911. “Mo” continued to bang on the door and shouted:
told me continued to "bang" on the door and shouted, "Open the door you fucking cunt".
After about five minutes, Mo left. When police arrived they found urine on her door.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“I’m sure this victim was terrified. A safety plan should have been put in place.”
A safety plan could involve obtaining a protective order, asking law enforcement to patrol the victim’s neighborhood or helping her access emergency shelter.
Springfield Police Major Vance Holland, the department’s investigations commander, told CNN he did not know for certain if a safety plan was offered to the victim because it’s not noted in the report and it’s “often not documented, especially if a victim declines those services.” He said it is standard procedure to connect a victim with an advocate and services at a shelter in these kinds of cases.
Police take photos and collect a sample of the urine on the victim’s door.
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“Test this urine, test the rape kit. It’s that simple. I want to test that urine because it can corroborate the victim’s history, statement, narrative.”
An officer also checks the area for the suspect but does not locate “Mo.”
On July 16, the day after the victim reported her rape, a detective is assigned to investigate the rape. The detective writes that she calls the woman and leaves a message and also mails the victim a letter warning that unless the victim contacts the investigator within 10 business days, the case will be closed and not investigated further.
I also sent a letter to the victim asking her to contact me for a follow-up interview. The letter states if the victim did not contact me within 10 business days from the date of the letter, then the case would be closed and receive no further investigation.
“This 10-day letter tactic is used sometimes by police for non-violent offenses — someone’s car is broken into. It shouldn’t be used in any sexual assault case. This is not how you build rapport with a victim who has just endured sexual trauma. What is the message to the victim?
“This type of response will guarantee that the majority of victims will not participate in the investigation. It tells me (the detective) is trying to get this case over quickly.”
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“I have never heard or seen investigations that require the 10 business-day limit to conduct a further interview. It is heavy-handed and clearly does not understand anything about trauma.”
On July 30, 2009, the detective notes that she calls the victim a second time and leaves a message asking the woman to let the investigator know if she does not wish to pursue an investigation.
Then on August 13, 2009, less than one month after the victim reported her rape, the detective closes the case. The detective writes:
Articles of evidence have not been submitted to the Missouri State Highway Patrol for forensic analysis due to an uncooperative victim.
The final line in the detective’s report lists the suspect’s possible name, his race, date of birth, Social Security number and last known address.
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“There’s no investigation. The detective is like, ‘She doesn’t call, we close the case. My day just got a lot easier.’ Getting a letter that says, ‘do this or else’ shows no recognition that victims who have experienced something like this need to feel safe before they can engage in the process. Victims who are raped have lost control of the most personal decision we make — who we choose to be intimate with. They want some control back.”
Retired Sgt. Joanne Archambault
Former sex crimes investigator
“The detective has just about everything needed to at least try to find this suspect. This detective is telling me here that she didn’t care about this case. She was getting it off her desk as soon as possible.”
Carol Tracy
Director of the Women's Law Project
“This was terrible. There were witnesses that were not fully interviewed. There’s no reason not to test the rape kit.”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“So much could’ve been done in this case, including testing the kit. You have all kinds of corroborative evidence in text messages — the victim was calling for help. No background or criminal history documented. There was a limited effort to identify the suspect.”
The victim is informed of the end of the investigation into her rape with a letter which tells her that her “failure to cooperate” resulted in no more work being done on her case.
Ann Burdges
Former sex crimes investigator
“This is so blatantly offensive…‘due to your failure’ is alienating to anyone much less someone who has presented willingly as a victim of a crime, endured an uncomfortable exam, evidence collection, questions, details. [The police] blame, shame the victim for not meeting a ridiculous deadline. Such actions and demeanor powerfully convey, ‘This is not important, you are not important, I’m busy, the end.’”
Tom Tremblay
Former police chief and current trainer
“They don’t seem to understand they’re making victims uncooperative with these letters. This particular letter doesn’t say ‘Contact us at a later date if you’re ready. We want you to get help’ — that’s the trauma-informed recommendation. There’s none of that. That letter conveys, ‘Case closed. I’m done.’ Why would a victim ever think they have the right to call back?”
The detective files a request with the property room to destroy the victim’s untested rape kit on August 16, 2011. The request does not require the detective’s supervisor to approve, according to police documents. The kit was destroyed on October 4, 2011, about two years and three months after the reported rape. Police listed “rape” as the offense in the case file. At the time of this case, there was no statute of limitations on forcible rape in Missouri and the shortest statute of limitations for any felony was three years.
Maggie McDowell, the investigator who handled this case, retired from the department in 2014 and declined to talk with CNN.
Police Chief Paul Williams said there was no pressure from anyone in his administration to close cases to move them off their desks. The 10-day letter is a department-sanctioned tool that investigators should use only as a last resort to get a victim of any crime to engage after an officer has tried other means to reach them. There is no written policy outlining when and under what circumstances it can be sent, he said. Williams told CNN that its use in sex crimes is “rare.”
CNN emailed Williams nine cases that ended in kit destruction in which McDowell mailed the letter soon after inheriting cases, some on the same day, did little else to investigate and then closed cases when victims had not answered her.
Williams declined to review the case files.
CNN asked Williams why the kit or urine was not submitted to a lab for analysis and why McDowell did not appear to do anything to pursue the suspect.
“I can understand how that happened,” he responded.
Around 2009, investigators were encouraged to wrap cases in 30 days because the department didn’t have enough sex crime investigators to handle the volume of assaults that were reported.
“The 30-day protocol was absolutely in place. We were lowest staffing ever,” Williams said. “You have a stack of cases, and you’re trying to spend time where it’s most appropriate. And if you wait 30 days and you haven’t heard from a victim, I can certainly see how the case would have been suspended at that point.”
McDowell did not suspend — or leave open — the case. McDowell cleared the case exceptionally, meaning she ended the investigation.
To properly clear a case exceptionally, law enforcement has to identify an offender, know that person’s location, gather enough evidence to support an arrest and then encounter a circumstance out of law enforcement’s control that prevents an arrest and prosecution. When law enforcement exceptionally clear a case, it implies that officers have done everything possible to solve a case.
“That would be an incorrect classification on that one,” Major Vance Holland said. “It should have been suspended.”
