Below are some VERY interesting Quotes from Previous News Articles about Judge William Groff (the Judge who ruled that in New Hampshire, it is perfectly LEGAL to harbor, protect, and cover-up child molesters, and NOT warn any other Parents or Children about the molester):
_______________________________
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20010524/NH_008.htm
Thursday, May 24, 2001
Judge: French kissing is not sexual contact
NASHUA (AP) -- French kissing doesn't amount to sexual contact under New Hampshire law, according to Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge William Groff.
Last week Judge Groff dismissed a felony sexual assault charge against a city teen-ager, finding that sexual assault laws don't cover kissing with the tongue.
The young man faced a charge of felonious sexual assault, involving a 6-year-old girl.
State law defines sexual contact as intentional touching of sexual or intimate parts.
The tongue, Judge Groff ruled, is neither sexual nor intimate.
Judge Groff's ruling doesn't set a binding precedent, but it can be cited by lawyers to support arguments in other cases.
Roland Simard, 18, originally was charged with eight felony sexual assault charges, alleging he sexually assaulted two girls, who were 5 and 6, between September 1998 and December 1998. He was 16 at the time, but was certified to stand trial as an adult.
Mr. Simard was tried on three charges, all involving the older girl, and was convicted on only one -- the French kissing charge.
Prosecutors dropped the other charges before the trial in February, largely because the younger girl was reluctant to testify, court records show.
Mr. Simard's lawyers argued he was entitled to a new trial on the French kissing charge, but also argued it should be dismissed for failing to allege a crime. Mr. Groff agreed on both points.
Mr. Groff's ruling recalled another of his decisions in a sexual assault case more than 10 years ago, involving the legal definition of sexual penetration.
In 1989, Mr. Groff overturned convictions of a Lowell, Mass., man who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy in Nashua because the boy used the word "bum" rather than "anus" in his testimony. Because of the potential ambiguity of the word "bum," Mr. Groff found that the boy's testimony wasn't enough to prove sexual penetration.
___________________________________________________________
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/6_2_e1.htm
Portsmouth Herald
Judge's narrow ruling overlooked the crime
Superior Court Judge William Groff's decision that French kissing doesn't meet the state law's definition of sexual contact strains credibility.
That decision, plus an earlier one by Judge Groff involving a young boy's use of the word "bum" instead of "anus" in his testimony, shows how difficult it is to prosecute sexual assault cases involving children.
The French kissing case involved a 16-year-old boy and a 6-year-old girl. He was charged with kissing the girl on the lips and inserting his tongue into her mouth. Foisting one's tongue into another's mouth is a most intimate act, we'd say, and it's usually done for sexual gratification.
State law for the purpose of convicting someone of sexual assault defines sexual contact as "intentional touching of ... sexual or intimate parts, including breasts and buttocks ... which can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification."
It also defines "sexual contact" as "the intentional touching whether directly, through clothing or otherwise, of the victim's sexual or intimate parts, including breasts and buttocks."
Groff must be a strict constructionist. He reasoned that the tongue is neither sexual nor intimate. He wrote, "A tongue is not related to sexual relations, nor is it private. A tongue is displayed daily by the average person in speech and other conduct."
"To accept the state's definition of tongue as an 'intimate part,'" Groff wrote, "would result in a person potentially committing a felonious sexual assault by touching a person's tongue with a finger."
The judge further reasoned that French kissing can't be considered sexual contact under state law "even if done without consent and even if done for the purpose of sexual gratification."
The rationale may seem convoluted but it stands unless the Supreme Court were to rule otherwise. No decision has been made on whether to contest the ruling.
In his 1989 decision, Groff set aside a jury verdict convicting a 35-year-old man of aggravated sexual assault because the 12-year-old boy in his testimony wasn't precise in defining into what part of his buttocks the defendant had inserted his fingers. The state Supreme Court later upheld Groff's action, which had come under heavy criticism.
It's difficult to second-guess a judge, but Groff seems to be a stickler for definitions of sexual assault as stated in state law, without allowance for interpretation.
Perhaps he reasons that sexual assault convictions are so severe in nature that only strict adherence to the law as written and narrowly defined serves the ends of justice and guarantees due process for defendants.
But it does appear this approach makes for peculiar decisions, such as the one that says that a teen-age boy French kissing a 6-year-old isn't sexual assault.
Groff may have felt that the law was vague on this point, but his decision further adds to the confusion.
— The Nashua Telegraph
________________________________________________
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/therapists.htm
Reuters reported that in MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, Superior Court Judge William Groff set a national precedent by ruling that recovered memories of sexual assault cannot be used as evidence at a trial. One case involved accusations of rape against a 51-year-old teacher, John Monahan. The "victim" claimed she was 13 years old at the time of the rape, though she did not remember the incident until she underwent therapy. The other case involved accusations by a woman against her father, 58-year-old Joel Hungerford. She claimed he raped her on the eve of her wedding in 1991, but she did not recall it until after a year in therapy. The judge said in his opinion: "The phenomenon of memory repression and the process of therapy used in these cases to recover the memories have not gained general acceptance in the field of psychology and are not scientifically reliable."
________________________________________________
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state/0823_porn.shtml
Porn case confession thrown out
Judge: Gagnon wasn't informed of rights
Thursday, August 23, 2001
NASHUA
NASHUA - A judge says an eighth-grade teacher's confession that he secretly videotaped pupils undressing and later threw the tapes away cannot be used during his trial.
Superior Court Judge William Groff ruled Tuesday that the police failed properly to inform Paul Gagnon, 44, of his rights before getting a taped confession.
In that confession, Gagnon, a former teacher at Nashua Catholic Regional Junior High School, said he had about 50 videotapes, according to testimony during a hearing earlier this month in Hillsborough County Superior Court. Gagnon also told detectives he had thrown out the tapes and cameras with the trash, court records show.
According to court records, the police found 119 videotapes, three video cameras, various child pornography, female undergarments and other items in a Dumpster outside the school.
Gagnon's lawyer, Eric Wilson, called it a major victory on one charge of destruction of evidence, which grew out of the items found in the trash after Gagnon learned police had been notified.
However, Groff said police searches of Gagnon's home and car were legal. Gagnon still faces 31 charges of possession of child pornography that did not involve pupils at the school.
Assistant County Attorney John Harding declined to comment on the rulings, but said the case would continue. The trial is scheduled for September.
Gagnon was arrested after pupils found a camera hidden in a room in which they changed for class skits.
Gagnon's lawyer argued that the police never read Gagnon his Miranda rights, informing him he had the right to a lawyer and that anything he said could and would be used against him in court.
Gagnon read a copy of the Miranda rights and said he understood them, but that waiver was limited to a written statement he made denying knowledge of the video camera at the school, according to court testimony.
When detectives questioned him further, he admitted using the camera to videotape children surreptitiously, court records show. When detectives later told Gagnon he would be charged with a felony and then taped his confession, they needed to read Gagnon his Miranda rights again but didn't, Groff ruled.
__________________________________________________________
Man convicted of sexual assault without church testimony
07/27/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Judge William Groff ruled that Blackstock can't be sentenced under the state's "three strike's" law although he was convicted of three counts of rape. However, he could face an enhanced minimum sentence of 15 years for each charge because of his earlier conviction in Rockingham County.
Earlier, Groff found that elders in Blackstock's Jehovah's Witness congregation could not be made to testify about Blackstock's statements to them. He cited the "religious privilege" rule, which holds that religious leaders can't be required to disclose a confession or other statements made in confidence in their capacity as spiritual advisers. Prosecutors wanted to subpoena a minister and elders from Blackstock's congregation to testify about meetings at which they discussed the allegations.
_________________________________________________________
Meaning of girls' 'privates' disputed
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff[email protected]
In a 1989 case, the Supreme Court upheld Groff's decision to overturn the sexual assault conviction of a Lowell, Mass., man, because the victim testified that the man "stuck his fingers in my bum." The court found the word "bum" was too ambiguous to prove sexual penetration.
[...]
Blackstock's case already has produced other noteworthy legal rulings.
Before the trial, Groff ruled that Blackstock couldn't be sentenced under the state's "three strikes" rape law, because he committed all of the alleged offenses before he was charged with any of them. Some judges have interpreted the law differently, and the state Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue.
In another pretrial ruling, Groff found that elders in Blackstock's Jehovah's Witness congregation couldn't be made to testify about his statements to them because of the "religious privilege" rule, which holds that religious leaders can't be required to disclose a confession or other statements made in confidence in their capacity as spiritual advisers.
_________________________________________________________
Judge: Sisters may pursue church case
Item 2496 • Posted: 02/26/2003 • Weblogged by Religion News Bloghttp://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/rnb/archives/00002496.html
The Telegraph, Feb. 26, 2003http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
Groff ruled that the girls can’t sue the church for allegedly violating a state law that requires people to report suspected child abuse, because the law doesn’t allow such claims. However, he ruled that the elders’ alleged failure to report the abuse or take other action on their mother’s concerns can be used as evidence of negligence.
Groff ruled that “any reasonable person” would have understood “the overwhelming risk of harm” from sexual abuse, and “the magnitude of that potential harm.”
“This rendered the elders’ conduct unreasonably dangerous in view of the horrific consequences to the plaintiff by not taking steps to report the abuse or properly counsel the plaintiff’s mother,” Groff wrote, assuming for argument’s sake that the elders did conceal the abuse.
“The prevention of sexual abuse of children is one of society’s greatest duties,” he continued. “Clearly the social importance of protecting the plaintiff from her father’s continued brutal sexual abuse outweighs the importance of immunizing the defendants from extended liability.”
The Watchtower Society had argued the church couldn’t be held responsible for a failure to protect children from a parent’s abuse. The society also argued that allowing the suit to proceed would violate the constitutional protection of freedom of worship.
Groff disagreed, finding that religious beliefs don’t excuse people from obeying state laws, including the law requiring people to report suspected child abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses also claimed the elders to whom Berry’s mother reported the abuse were ministers of the church, and that state law protects the confidentiality of communications between the elders and members of the church – just as a priest can’t be forced to testify about matters disclosed during confession.
Groff found that issue requires further hearing, to decide whether elders were, in fact, ministers and whether their conversations with Berry’s mother should be considered confidential. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for March 17, but is expected to be postponed, Gardner said.
Groff ruled in the church’s favor on a similar issue in a criminal sexual abuse case involving a Hollis man convicted of sexually assaulting several girls. In that case, Groff found that elders in the man’s congregation couldn’t be forced to testify about disclosures the man made while the elders were investigating abuse charges.
________________________________________________________