THE EVIDENCE AS TO A POSSIBLE SEXUAL ASSAULT

The Grand Jury examined evidence concerning the possibility that Tawana Brawley was sexually assaulted. This evidence consisted of testimony of the doctors who examined her, testimony of FBI experts who analyzed the evidence gathered in the rape kit and other physical evidence secured during the course of the investigation, and testimony from two forensic pathologists who reviewed these FBI reports and the medical reports concerning her condition.

Medical Evidence

The testimony of the doctors who examined Ms. Brawley on and after November 28 has been detailed in prior sections of this report. No semen was found on Ms. Brawley at St. Francis Hospital and no motile sperm was detected on the slides examined at the hospital. As previously noted, there were no bruises, lacerations, tenderness or blood in the rectal area and no evidence of trauma to the mouth or back of the throat. There were no cuts, dried blood, bruising, swelling, deep redness or any other evidence of injury to the vaginal or pelvic area, nor was there any in the surrounding outside skin.

Testimony of the Forensic Serologist

Special Agent Joseph Errera of the FBI, an expert in forensic serology, performed serological tests of the evidence gathered in the rape kit. The rape kit included Ms. Brawley's blood and saliva samples, swabs of Ms. Brawley's mouth, vagina and rectum that were applied to glass microscope slides, and material gathered from under Ms. Brawley's fingernails.

S/A Errera tested the blood and saliva samples and determined that Ms. Brawley's ABO blood group was B and that she is a secretor; that is, her other body fluids would contain factors associated with group B individuals. He examined the materials gathered from Ms. Brawley's fingernails and the specimens from the swabs of Ms. Brawley's mouth, vagina and rectum. He did not find blood, sperm cells or P-30 (prostate antigen), a substance unique to semen, in any of the items examined.

S/A Errera testified that individual physiological factors, such as the stage of the female's menstrual cycle, the amount of her bodily secretions, or the amount of bacteria in her body cavities, can affect the degree to which semen deposited in her body cavities will be degraded or diluted and made undetectable. He testified that the period 48 hours after ejaculation is the optimal time during which to take samples for the presence of semen in the victim's orifices. He further testified that in his opinion there is a very high likelihood that semen would be found in the body cavities of a female if three or more males repeatedly ejaculated into her orifices over a four-day period, and there was no effort to remove the semen by internal washing, and the victim was examined within 48 hours of the last sexual activity.

S/A Errera also performed tests for blood and semen on the clothing Ms. Brawley was wearing when she was found; the black straps, burnt cloth, and black gloves found near or in the bag in which she was found; the bag itself and bags used to package evidence; and the clothing, white cotton-like material, a five-dollar bill found in the white boots (by FBI technicians at the lab), and a stain removed from the wall, all found in Apt. l9A. He testified that in testing for semen on such items, he locates a stain visually with the aid of an ultraviolet light. He then conducts tests on the stain, screening for acid phos-phatase, an enzyme or protein found in semen, and for choline, a chemical substance produced in the male's seminal vesicle and found in semen. If he finds those two chemical substances in the stain, in order to confirm that semen is present, he looks for sperm cells under a microscope, and tests for the presence of P-30. If he either finds sperm cells or detects P-30, he identifies the stain as containing semen. He testified that dry semen stains can last up to thirty or forty years on clothing that has not been laundered and has been stored at relatively cold temperatures in a dry condition.

S/A Errera did not find blood or semen stains on any of the items.

Testimony of the Hair and Fiber Expert

As noted earlier, S/A Michael Malone, an expert in hair and fiber analysis, testified that he did not find evidence of plant material on Tawana Brawley, her clothing, the items found with her, in her pubic combings and the other items he examined. The absence of such evidence is inconsistent with a sexual assault having occurred in a wooded area. S/A Malone provided additional evidence relevant to the question of whether or not Ms. Brawley was the victim of a sexual attack.

S/A Malone briefly explained the transfer theory of Locard. Simply put, it means that if two people come into close contact with one another, there will be a transfer of either hairs, fibers or both. S/A Malone testified that in his opinion if three Caucasian men sexually assaulted a person he would expect a transfer of a large number of Caucasian hairs, especially pubic hairs. He would expect to find this even if the assailants wore condoms.

S/A Malone found no pubic hairs of any kind, other than Ms. Brawley's, on any of the items he examined. He found no Caucasian hairs of any kind on Ms. Brawley, in her pubic hair combings, fingernail scrapings, or in Apt. l9A. He found a single Caucasian bleached blond hair which was several inches long on the black blouse that had been wrapped around Ms. Brawley's head when found. This blouse had fallen to the floor at St. Francis Hospital and was kicked under her stretcher in the emergency room. In S/A Malone's opinion, this blouse was thereby contaminated, and the hair could have been picked up on the hospital floor. S/A Malone found unidentified Negroid hairs in Apt. l9A, and a pubic hair matching Ms. Brawley's in the jeans found in the washing machine. Head hairs consistent with hers were found in Apt. l9A and on the right black ladies' glove found in the plastic bag with her. He found no other significant hairs.

Testimony of the Forensic Pathologists

Dr. Michael Baden, Director of the Forensic Sciences Unit of the New York State Police, testified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. He testified that, based on his experience, in a case where a fifteen-year-old girl is sexually assaulted by three or more men over a period of four days in a wooded area, he would expect to find physical evidence to corroborate the allegations. He would expect to find confirming laboratory findings of body fluids in the orifices involved. There would be trace evidence from the assailants of fibers, hairs, semen, saliva. There would be grass, leaves, soil, pine needles, etc. on the body and the clothing if the attack took place in the woods. There would be some physical injury, such as bruises or marks in the vaginal or perineal area. There might be marks where the victim was punched, handled or squeezed.

Dr. Baden examined the medical records, the relevant physical evidence and much of the testimony presented to this Grand Jury. He stated that he found no evidence consistent with an allegation that Ms. Brawley had been repeatedly sexually assaulted over a period of four days by at least three men in a wooded area. It was his expert opinion that the lack of any evidence of physical injury, of sexual contact, of trace evidence of hairs, fibers and plant materials was inconsistent with an allegation of sexual assault by multiple assailants in a wooded area over a period of four days.

If the allegations concerning what happened to Ms. Brawley had been different, the evidence he would expect to find would be different. If Ms. Brawley had been assaulted only orally, he would not expect to find evidence of semen. However, he would expect some injury to a fifteen-year-old female assaulted by three men. If Ms. Brawley had been forced to have oral sexual activity and then was unconscious for a period of time, it is more likely that evidence of semen would be present. If three men ejaculated into an unconscious person's mouth, it is very likely that the victim would either suffocate or develop very severe pneumonia. An unconscious person loses the gag reflex. Without the gag reflex, foreign materials can go down the windpipe, causing suffocation, or can get into the lungs, causing pneumonia.

Dr. Justin Uku is a forensic pathologist who is currently the Chief Medical Examiner for the County of Erie. He has also served as a medical examiner in Nigeria and New York City. In addition to his medical degree, he has a diploma in clinical pathology from the University of London, has taught in medical schools in Nigeria and is an Associate Clinical Professor in Pathology at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He testified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology.

He testified that, based on his experience, in a case where a fifteen-year-old female is sexually assaulted by three or more men over a period of four days in a wooded area, he would expect to find physical evidence to corroborate the allegations.

He would expect to find evidence of exposure, malnutrition and dehydration. He would expect to find evidence of the assault such as physical injury, scrapes, abrasions, bruises on her arms and legs, a black eye, bruises in the mouth if she was slapped, and bruises and scratches in the pelvic area. He would expect to find seminal fluid in the body cavities and on the clothes. He would also expect to find leaves and soil on her body and clothing.

Dr. Uku examined the medical records, the relevant physical evidence and much of the testimony presented to this Grand Jury. He stated that he found no evidence consistent with an allegation that Ms. Brawley had been repeatedly sexually assaulted over a period of four days by at least three men in a wooded area. It was his expert opinion that the lack of any evidence of physical injury, of sexual contact, of trace evidence of hairs, fibers and plant materials, was inconsistent with an allegation of sexual assault by multiple assailants in a wooded area over a period of four days.

Dr. Uku testified that the evidence he would expect to find would vary depending on the nature of the alleged assault. If the assault had taken place in a house, he would expect to find trace evidence from the house. If Ms. Brawley did not resist the attack, he would not expect scratches but he would still expect some bruises either in the mouth, vagina or rectum. If Ms. Brawley were assaulted only orally, he would still expect to find some bruises because she would have had to been held somehow.

As to the length of time evidence could be expected to last, Dr. Uku testified that even if the attack had occurred on Tuesday night only, he would still expect to find bruises, and scratches to a lesser extent, four days later. He would also still expect to find evidence of semen on Saturday if several men had ejaculated into her Tuesday night.

Dr. Uku concluded that, "The absence of any of the factors I mentioned before on the body would seem to discount that such an assault took place."

THE PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE

Over the course of the period from Saturday, November 28, through Friday, December 4, 1987, Tawana Brawley was seen by at least seven physicians. None of them found any physical basis for her seeming unresponsiveness at the time of her discovery or the physical symptoms she manifested later on, including her limping and inability to walk. Several suggested to the Grand Jury that the cause of these apparent symptoms was psychological rather than physical.

The Grand Jury heard evidence from three psychiatrists. One is an adolescent psychiatrist at Westchester County Medical Center who met with Tawana Brawley, and the other two are experts in forensic psychiatry.

The three psychiatrists testified as to the possible diagnoses which might explain Tawana Brawley's condition on Saturday, November 28, and her subsequent symptoms.

Their testimony included frequent references to psychiatric terminology, particularly the following three terms:

-- Post traumatic stress disorder, a condition in which the patient has suffered a severely stressful event and is experiencing acute anxiety symptoms which are of significant duration.

-- Conversion disorder, a condition in which an individual has a loss of physical functioning that suggests a physical disorder, but is actually a direct expression of a psychological conflict or need. Such a disturbance is not voluntarily controlled and is not explained by any physical disorder that may be present.

-- Malingering, a condition in which the patient consciously and deliberately displays false physical or emotional symptoms.

Tawana Brawley's Meetings with the Westchester County Medical Center Psychiatrist

Tawana Brawley met with an adolescent psychiatrist at Westchester County Medical Center on several occasions during her stay and on several more occasions after her discharge during December and January. This psychiatrist testified concerning the meetings with Tawana Brawley and her family.

At the first meeting on the morning of Thursday, December 3, 1987, Glenda Brawley and Ralph King, who were eager to cooperate, provided all the family history including statements that they had had no difficulties with Tawana Brawley and that Ms. Brawley adhered to their rule that she had to be in the house every night before dark. When asked if Tawana Brawley had ever stayed away for a night without calling, they initially responded that that had never occurred but subsequently said that it might have. (In a conversation with a Medical Center social worker on the same day, Glenda Brawley stated that her daughter had, on occasion, stayed away overnight without calling.)

Neither Glenda Brawley nor Mr. King could tell the psychiatrist much about the incident, other than the way she was found, with her hair cut, feces smeared on her body and "KKK" written on her. Glenda Brawley stated that her daughter was not very communicative, seemed dazed and could not tell her much.

Tawana Brawley responded to the psychiatrist with one or two-word answers, mostly "yes" or "no". She was alert, able to relate and had good reality perception. Other than insisting that she felt ugly since the event, she refused to talk about the incident, although she did say she might talk some day to her cousin or a friend about it. She was fearful of returning to school and the neighborhood because of all the publicity. The psychiatrist felt after this initial meeting that Ms. Brawley may have been malingering or suffering a conversion disorder.

The second meeting was held in the afternoon of that same day, and Ms. Brawley's mood appeared to have improved from the morning. She was sitting up, talking about getting a wig, thinking about the future and, in general, was more communicative than before.

The third meeting was held on Friday, December 4. Ms. Brawley continued to show improvement in her interaction, and the psychiatrist recommended that she be discharged.

The fourth meeting was held on December 7, after her discharge from the hospital. Glenda Brawley was reluctant to leave her daughter alone with the psychiatrist, but agreed to after mild urging. Tawana Brawley, who arrived in a wheelchair, talked about numerous meetings she had had with lawyers and ministers and acknowledged that she knew she would have to discuss the incident at some point but was still reluctant to do so. She was, however, spontaneous when talking about other subjects, especially her brother, cousin and uncle. The psychiatrist's impression was that Ms. Brawley was making a good recovery emotionally, but legal complications were interfering with her adaptation to a bad experience. Ms. Brawley did not appear ready to return to school and a normal social life and did not appear to enjoy the attention she was receiving. She did not want to go back home, preferring to stay with her uncle. The psychiatrist felt Ms. Brawley's inability to walk and move her left arm resulted from a combination of a conscious determination, in which she was motivated to maintain a symptom, and by an unconscious determination, the conversion disorder. The psychiatrist was unable to determine what percentage of either condition actually existed.

The fifth meeting was held on December 11. At this time, Ms. Brawley was walking with a cane. Ms. Brawley told the psychiatrist that she could not talk to anyone without an attorney present, though the psychiatrist was an exception. She stated that she felt her family was in danger, that her whereabouts were supposed to be secret, and that her friends were not allowed to visit for fear of their security. The psychiatrist felt that Ms. Brawley was troubled by the atmosphere of suspiciousness, danger and pending legal actions and would have liked to forget the incident, but felt an obligation to her family to participate. Nonetheless, the psychiatrist felt that, from a psychiatric point of view, Ms. Brawley was making a good recovery.

The sixth meeting was held on December 14. Ms. Brawley was still limping and using a cane but did not want to seek physical therapy. The psychiatrist observed that Ms. Brawley was in a good mood and felt that she was in good shape emotionally and more ready to talk of the incident. However, Ms . Brawley did not want to talk of the experience.

The content of meetings between Ms. Brawley and the psychiatrist and other physicians held after December 15 remain confidential and unavailable to the Grand Jury due to Ms. Brawley's reaching sixteen years of age and her refusal to waive the physician-patient privilege. The exception to this privilege, authorized by section 4504 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of this State, allowed testimony to be given by a physician regarding a person under 16 years of age who may have been the victim of a sex crime. The psychiatrist and the other physicians who have treated Ms. Brawley, in compliance with a court ruling pertaining to this issue, were unable to testify as to conversations, evaluations and diagnoses from subsequent encounters with Ms. Brawley. The ruling allowed testimony as to their visual observations only after her 16th birthday.

The psychiatrist's conclusion regarding Ms. Brawley's condition ruled out post traumatic stress disorder because Ms. Brawley showed no symptoms of reliving the experience. Rather, based on the family history as given, her condition was considered more in the nature of a conversion disorder. The psychiatrist testified that because she did not enjoy the perfect confidence of Ms. Brawley, she could not reach a conclusion as to whether a diagnosis of malingering was appropriate, although she considered that as a possibility. She also felt that since Ms. Brawley was recovering, it did not seem useful from a psychiatric point of view to consider malingering as a diagnosis.

When she appeared before the Grand Jury, the psychiatrist was asked to consider the relevance of two hypothetical situations and their possible effect on a diagnosis. In the first hypothetical, she was asked to consider the effect on her diagnosis if Ms. Brawley had a history of not coming home at night or not coming home when she was supposed to and then being disciplined by being grounded or physically struck by a parent or guardian. The doctor found this a relevant factor which might have given somewhat more weight to a diagnosis of malingering, without ruling out other diagnoses.

In the second hypothetical, the psychiatrist was asked to consider the effect on her diagnosis if, on the same days the psychiatrist observed her using a cane and walking with a limp, others saw her walking or running normally. The psychiatrist stated she would have concluded the limp was not a real one and therefore "at least at that point there was an element of pretense in it." As to the relevance to a diagnosis of malingering, conversion disorder or post traumatic stress disorder, she testified: "It would move me further to a consideration of malingering, without eliminating the possibility that it started as a conversion disorder."

The Grand Jury heard evidence, not available to the psychiatrist at Westchester County Medical Center, relevant to both hypothetical situations posed to the psychiatrist -- whether Ms. Brawley had stayed away from home and been disciplined and whether she was able to walk normally at times the psychiatrist saw her walking with a limp. That testimony is summarized here.

Testimony Concerning Prior incidents of Being Away from Home

When Ms. Brawley was in the eighth grade in Monticello she spent the night at a friend's apartment, according to the testimony of the friend. He testified that they fell asleep watching television. On the following morning, Glenda Brawley and Juanita Brawley came to the apartment, and Tawana, expressing fear, hid in the closet. When she came out of the closet, they -grabbed her, but she broke away and ran out of the apartment.

During the weekend of May 2 through 4, 1986, Ms. Brawley and a girlfriend went to Beacon and remained there because they did not have enough money to take the bus back. On the first night, Friday, the girlfriend stayed at one house and Ms. Brawley stayed at another. On the next day the girlfriend returned home, and Ms. Brawley remained in Beacon. She spent Saturday night at another friend's home. The following day, Sunday, Glenda Brawley picked up the girlfriend, who took her to Beacon and showed her the home of the boy with whom Tawana Brawley was staying. Upon finding her daughter, Glenda Brawley grabbed her by the hair, pulling some of it out, and struck her on the face with her fists. She was struck again in the car on the way home.

On November 7, 1987, Tawana Brawley attended a Sweet 16 party in Fishkill which ended between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. Ms. Brawley and some friends went afterward to a friend's home, and when she returned to her home at 5:00 a.m., Ralph King was waiting for her. She was punished by being grounded and losing her phone privileges. It was apparently this episode to which Tawana Brawley was referring after her visit to David W. at the jail on November 24 when she told Mrs. W. that she was "already in trouble" at home.

Testimony Concerning Tawana Brawley's Limping and Apparent Inability to Walk

The Grand Jury heard testimony from a number of persons who observed Tawana Brawley during December, 1987 and January, 1988 including the Westchester County Medical Center psychiatrist, several investigators, neighbors and friends. Their observations as to her ability to walk normally did not show a consistent pattern.

-- On December 7, the psychiatrist observed her in a wheelchair.

-- On December 8, a friend testified she could not walk and needed assistance bathing and dressing.

-- On December 9, a state police investigator observed her walking without a limp.

-- On December 11, the psychiatrist observed her walking with a cane.

-- On December 14, the psychiatrist observed her limping and using a cane.

-- Also on December 14, a state police lieutenant and an investigator said she "scurried" upstairs at the Brawley home without a limp.

-- In the middle of December, a Carmine Drive neighbor observed her walking without a limp.

-- On December 18, the psychiatrist observed her walking without a cane and limping.

-- On December 21, the psychiatrist observed her limping.

-- On December 28, the psychiatrist observed her limping.

-- At the end of December, a relative testified, she was walking with a cane.

-- On January 4, the psychiatrist observed her walking normally.

-- Also on January 4, a pediatrician at the Westchester County Medical Center saw Ms. Brawley on a follow-up visit and observed her walking with a limp.

-- In the middle of January, neighbors testified, she was no longer limping.

-- At the end of January, a witness observed her limping.

Testimony of the Forensic Psychiatrists

Dr. Ezra Griffith, a psychiatrist, is an Associate Professor at the Yale University School of Medicine and Acting Chief of the Connecticut Mental Health Center. While at Yale, he has served as the Associate Chief and then Chief of the hospital's inpatient service. He is board certified in the fields of general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry and has published in the areas of transcultural and ethnic psychiatry, religion and psychiatry, and forensic psychiatry. In his clinical experience he has evaluated cases of sexual victimization and sexual offenses. He has also done research in certain aspects of conversion disorder. He holds a joint appointment at Yale University as an associate professor in the Department of AfroAmerican Studies.

Dr. Griffith reviewed physical evidence, medical records and testimony before this grand jury prior to testifying as an expert in forensic psychiatry.

He was asked to review the diagnostic evaluations of Ms. Brawley and give an opinion regarding the most likely diagnosis of her condition on Saturday, November 28, and thereafter. He viewed her as having two categories of complaint: first, a stressful experience; and second, medical complaints. Her medical complaints were inability to move the lower limbs, inability to use the left upper limb, paresthesia, or tingling, in the two lower limbs and loss of sensation in certain areas of her body. In addition, when she was first found, she appeared to be unresponsive.

First Dr. Griffith looked for an organic or neurological basis for her medical complaints. The important evidence for Dr. Griffith in assessing the medical complaints were certain eyewitness accounts of her behavior and condition on Saturday, November 28, and afterward.

He noted that Ms. Brawley was seen by an emergency room physician, a resident, a pediatrician and a neurologist. They all concluded there was no organic basis for her medical complaints.

Moreover, he noted, Ms. Brawley was seen on November 28 getting into a bag and then hopping. While seeming to be unresponsive, she resisted having her eyes opened by the emergency medical technicians and she grasped an EMT's hand with both of hers. While there was an apparent claim of paralysis, which began when she was found, she resisted being positioned in the ambulance, cooperated with her examination at St. Francis hospital and was able to place her lower limbs in stirrups. On December 14, she was seen in her home scurrying up the stairs without a limp and on the same day walking with a limp and using a cane when seen by medical personnel at WCMC. A neurologist who examined her at WCMC was unable to find any sensory loss. The neurologist found her complaints of tingling and loss of sensation shifting and inconstant. Consideration of all of these elements led Dr. Griffith to the conclusion that she did not have any neurological or other physical disorder.

Once Dr. Griffith reached this conclusion he began to consider psychiatric evidence. In a case where a person claims to have gone through as serious an experience as Ms. Brawley described, Dr. Griffith testified that there are several diagnostic categories he would consider.

First, he considered the possibility of a severe psychosis where the patient might have hallucinations, be disoriented or delusional. He found no evidence in the testimony of the doctors who treated her to support that diagnosis. Second, he considered a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder. He rejected that diagnosis for three reasons. The character and existence of the stressful event in this case was not certain enough. The expected symptoms were not present: acute anxiety, intrusive thoughts, flashbacks to the incident, dreams. Ms. Brawley's condition improved more rapidly than would be expected in a case of post traumatic stress disorder.

The other two diagnoses he considered were conversion disorder and malingering.

Dr. Griffith diagnosed Ms. Brawley as "malingering her complaints" of unresponsiveness when found and, subsequently, her inability to move the lower limbs, her inability to use the left upper limb, the tingling in the two lower limbs and the loss of sensation in certain areas of her body. Dr. Griffith detailed the evidence that led to his choice of malingering as the diagnosis rather than conversion disorder. Ms. Brawley was seen squatting, getting into a bag and then hopping. This evidence was important because it showed that Ms. Brawley was functioning on a "certain sophisticated level" at the time she was found. For example, a young child, instead of hopping, might attempt to walk in a bag and would trip. While appearing unresponsive, Ms. Brawley took actions which clearly indicated consciousness: she resisted opening her eyes and being positioned in the stretcher in the ambulance. She also held onto a blouse with her teeth and grabbed the EMT's wrist with both hands. While there was an apparent claim of paralysis, she moved her lower body in the hospital for the gynecological examination.

In Dr. Griffith's opinion, there were further inconsistencies between her behavior and her medical complaints. On December 1, she was unable to participate in the examination the gynecologist wished to perform, yet she easily cooperated with the same examination in the hospital a few days before. She claimed areas of sensation loss which were not substantiated by a neurologist. On December 7, a psychiatrist saw her in a wheelchair, yet on December 9, she was observed to get up, walk out of her living room and go upstairs by a state police officer. On December 14, she was observed by the same state police officer and another state police officer scurry upstairs without a limp. Also on December 14, a psychiatrist saw her walk with a limp and a cane, and she was seen by a pediatrician walking with a limp. Dr. Griffith noted that it seemed she walked with a limp when she knew she was being observed. All these observations led Dr. Griffith to the conclusion that Ms. Brawley was intentionally providing false or exaggerated symptoms.

Dr. Griffith also reviewed this case in relation to the phenomenon of false allegations in cases of alleged sexual assaults. A false allegation in regard to sexual assault is "an untrue claim about a sexual experience and victimization,. although it does not necessarily preclude the possibility that something did, in fact, happen to the person. In psychiatry it is viewed as a situation where an individual does something unacceptable, finds it difficult to accept responsibility for this conduct, and then sets up a false allegation which allows that individual to be transformed from what that individual sees as being a bad or guilty person into an innocent person. The person, therefore, diminishes responsibility for the guilt-inducing act.

In this case, Dr. Griffith came to consider the phenomenon of false allegations of sexual assault after he had concluded that the medical, psychiatric and physical evidence seemed not to support Ms. Brawley's allegations and complaints. The allegations of being assaulted over a four-day period by at least three men in the woods seemed not to be supported by the physical or medical evidence. For example, there was no evidence of physical trauma and no medical evidence to support non-responsiveness, claims of loss of activity of the limbs, paresthesia, and loss of sensation.

Dr. Griffith then considered the evidence in light of what are considered the characteristics of false allegations of sexual assault. He evaluated the evidence anew to see if it formed a pattern consistent with the patterns known in cases of false allegations. Dr. Griffith testified regarding the following characteristics of false allegation cases and their applicability to this case.

In false allegation cases, he noted, it is likely that the complainant claims not to know the identity of the offender. There also tend to be multiple assailants alleged, psychologically allowing the person to show that resistance was impossible. The person also may claim to have been overcome by force and to have no memory of the details of the assault. Often, the place of the assault cannot be described. Dr. Griffith found all these elements present in this case. False allegations tend to be either very vague or extremely detailed. Here he found marked vagueness.

In false allegations, he continued, there may be non-severe wounds. Here the wounds are non-existent, in spite of a claim of being assaulted by several individuals. There also tends to be indifference to the wounds, as here where Ms. Brawley refused an offer of physical therapy. There tend to be inconsistencies in the physical evidence. Here, the pants are burned, but there were no burns on the body. Feces was applied to the body but not to the face. The cotton-like substance found in the nose and ears is also inconsistent with the allegation of an assault. The use of a sharp instrument to write on the shoe and then the use of a non-harmful writing instrument on the body is inconsistent with an assault. There is often an absence of laboratory evidence confirming the allegation, as is true here. In addition, there may be behavior following the incident that is inconsistent with a serious trauma.

Individuals who make false allegations often have numerous personal and relationship problems. Dr. Griffith believed there is evidence of that here. In false allegations, the individual may know of other cases of false allegations. Here, the evidence is not clear. /5 Another factor sometimes present in false allegation cases is a previous psychiatric history. There is no evidence of that in this case. In false allegations, the individual is often uncooperative with the authorities since the individual does not want the experience elucidated. The report may be to friends and not to the police.

Dr. Griffith cautioned that the presence of any one characteristic of a false allegation is not enough to determine that a complaint is in fact a false allegation. He stressed that one must consider the totality of the characteristics. It is the totality of characteristics, considered along with the lack of corrobation of the original complaint and along with the medical evidence which does not show an actual disorder, that points toward the likelihood of a false allegation. Dr. Griffith testified that his evaluation refers only to the specific allegation that Ms. Brawley was sexually assaulted over a period of four days by three men in the woods. It says nothing about what might actually have occurred during the four-day period.

Dr. Park Elliott Dietz is a psychiatrist with a subspecialty in forensic psychiatry. He is a Professor of Behavorial Medicine and Psychiatry and Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and School of Law. In addition, he is the Medical Director of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, an academic institute for research, education and services in the areas of law and psychiatry. He is a psychiatric consultant for the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, and a Forensic Psychiatrist for the New York State Police Forensic Sciences Unit.

Dr. Dietz has served as a psychiatric resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania where he was also the chief fellow in forensic psychiatry. He has been an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Director of Forensic Psychiatry at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane.

He has researched and published in the areas of violent crime, legal medicine, sexual offenses and deviations. He was retained by the United States Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. to evaluate John Hinckley in connection with his attempted assassination of President Reagan and to testify at the trial.

Dr. Dietz reviewed physical evidence, medical records and testimony presented to this Grand Jury prior to testifying as an expert in forensic psychiatry.

Dr. Dietz presented his approach to, and evaluation of, the evidence in this case. Whenever someone who is observed to be unresponsive or complains of inability to move his limbs or support himself, the first thing a physician considers is a neurological problem. In this case, the possibility of neurological damage is contradicted by the evidence.

Dr. Dietz was led to reject the possibility of neurological damage by a number of observations made of Ms. Brawley within hours of her discovery. She is seen stepping into a bag and hopping, yet within fifteen minutes, she seems unresponsive to voices and to pain from rubbing the sternum. It is his opinion that there are few biological possibilities that could account for a person going from conscious, willful behavior, like "stepping into a bag, to unconsciousness, back to conscious behavior like sitting up and writing words, all within a three-hour period, without treatment.

Dr. Dietz stated that it becomes clearer that observations made of Ms. Brawley within hours of her discovery form a biologically impossible pattern: while seemingly unresponsive to words and pain, she grabbed the EMT's hands, resisted having her eyes opened and resisted being repositioned on the stretcher. Resisting eye opening and repositioning proves consciousness. It was his opinion, therefore, that unconsciousness could not be the explanation for her lack of response to voice and pain.

Dr. Dietz testified that it is also impossible for a person who cannot walk or stand because of neurological damage to move on a stretcher or to lift or help lift her legs into stirrups. He also said it was impossible, without treatment, to walk within a few weeks after any traumatic form of paralysis. Therefore, in his opinion, her difficulty walking could not be a result of neurological damage.

He next considered whether her seeming unresponsiveness and inability to walk were a result of a conversion disorder or malingering. According to Dr. Dietz, malingering means that a person is pretending to have disabilities in order to achieve a goal, such as relief from responsibility or escape from an undesired situation.

Dr. Dietz stated that, in his opinion, the same observations made of Ms. Brawley on the day she was found, detailed above, show not only that her difficulties were not neurological, but also that she was malingering. He found that those actions were voluntary and within her control. In a conversion disorder, by contrast, the mind is causing the symptoms, outside the person's voluntary control.

There is further evidence of her voluntary control of her symptoms which show that she was malingering, in particular, the discrepancies observed in her ability to walk during the month of December.

Dr. Dietz also testified that factors cited in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders suggestive of malingering are present in this case.

Dr. Dietz considered the phenomenon of false allegations of sexual assaults in relation to this case. He explained that false allegations of sexual assault are designed by the complainant to solve some predicament. The false allegation shifts the responsibility for the predicament from the complainant to someone else. It also shifts responsibility for solving the predicament to someone else, frequently the police. Not all false allegations are complete fabrications. Sometimes a real sexual assault is described differently or exaggerated.

Studies have shown that certain characteristics appear more often in cases of false allegations than in cases of true sexual assaults, though they may appear in true cases. There is no single characteristic or number of characteristics that can be relied on to distinguish the true sexual assault from a false allegation. Nonetheless, there is a pattern that can be recognized that is highly suggestive of a false allegation.

Dr. Dietz believes, based on his own research and his consultation with FBI Supervisory Special Agent Robert R. Hazelwood, the leading authority on false allegations in Dr. Dietz's view, that there are 20 characteristics that have appeared in false allegation cases:

- The story tends to be bizarre or sensational;

- The pseudo-victim injures herself, sometimes seriously, or simulates injury for the purpose of gaining support;

- The pseudo-victim presents herself in such a way that people believe no one would do this to herself;

-The pseudo-victim does not initially report the incident to police;

-A stranger is accused;

-The pseudo-victim claims that overwhelming force was used or that she resisted greatly or that there were multiple assailants;

-The account is either overly detailed or very vague; The pseudo-victim reports having her eyes closed during the attack or that she was unconscious, or passed out, or has no memory of what happened or was drugged, and so cannot provide details;

-The pseudo-victim is indifferent to her injuries; The expected laboratory findings are absent;

-The pseudo-victim is vague about the location of the assault or there is no evidence at the scene to corroborate the complaint;

-Damage to the clothing is inconsistent with the injuries;

-There are escalating personal problems in the life of the pseudo-victim;

-The pseudo-victim has been exposed in the past to accounts of similar things;

-The pseudo-victim's post-assault behavior is inconsistent with the allegations;

-The pseudo-victim is uncooperative with the investigation;

-When the pseudo-victim talks to the authorities, she tends to steer the conversation away from the specific to the unprovable;

-There is writing on the body of the pseudo-victim;

-There is a history of making other false allegations;

-There is a history of extensive medical care.

Dr. Dietz stated that he did not find evidence in the record that Ms. Brawley had made prior false allegations or had an extensive history of prior medical care. Dr. Dietz cited evidence in the record that if accepted by the jury would be illustrative of each of the other 18 characteristics of false allegation cases.

Dr. Dietz analyzed Ms. Brawley's physical appearance when she was found in light of what is known about the behavior of assailants. Dr. Dietz is currently involved in a project with FBI Agent Hazelwood and Dr. Janet Warren of the University of Virginia to study the characteristics of sexually sadistic offenders. Offenders commit sexual assaults for a variety of reasons, some reasons are more common than others and only some reasons account for doing things that are degrading and humiliating to victims. As Ms. Brawley appeared in a degraded manner, Dr. Dietz considered how offenders who degrade their victims behave and why they do it.

There are two principal reasons that offenders degrade their victims. The first reason is anger. Angry rapists often punch their victims in the face and the face is a significant target. There were no injuries at all to Ms. Brawley's face. Even the fecal smearing avoided the face. An angry rapist who chose to smear feces on a woman would smear the face and probably attempt to put the feces in her mouth. More important, however, angry rapists are not known to smear their victims with feces.

The other motive for degradation is sexual sadism. Sexually sadistic offenders can hold their victims captive for periods of time and degrade and humiliate them. They will torture their victims with physical means that leave scars and often kill them. Here, Ms. Brawley was not injured.

Most sexually sadistic offenders operate alone, according to Dr. Dietz. A significant number operate with a partner, but not in a group of three or more.

Dr. Dietz did not see any reason that an offender would put cotton-like material into Ms. Brawley's nose and ears or wrap her head in the black blouse, and did see reasons why Ms. Brawley might do so. The cut hair, if it was cut, the wearing of burned clothing and the fecal smearing can all be seen as non-permanent degradation of oneself.

Dr. Dietz concluded that Tawana Brawley's physical appearance when she was found is consistent with self-infliction and a false allegation. It is inconsistent with known patterns of offender behavior.

THE EVIDENCE AS TO TAWANA BRAWLEY'S PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

In many ways the most striking aspect of this case was Ms. Brawley's physical appearance at the time she was discovered -- her hair matted and apparently cut, racial epithets written on her chest and clothing, and dog feces smeared in her hair and on much of her body.

In addition to our efforts to ascertain Tawana Brawley's whereabouts over the four-day period of her disappearance, to assess her medical condition at the time of her discovery, to determine whether or not she was sexually assaulted, and to assess her psychological condition, this Grand Jury also attempted to determine how she came to appear in the physical condition in which she was found.

Tawana Brawley's Hair

The Grand Jury heard testimony that, in the weeks prior to her disappearance, Tawana Brawley wore a hair weave which was approximately shoulder length. When she was discovered on Saturday, November 28, her hair was described as "short." Witnesses at the hospital described it as matted and caked with feces.

One police officer testified that her hair appeared jagged, as if someone had grabbed it, pulled it straight up and cut it with a knife. A nurse said her hair was uneven and appeared to have been chopped or cut off.

It also appears that Tawana Brawley's relatives believed her hair to have been cut, as indicated by Glenda Brawley's reaction when her sister, Juanita Brawley, called from the hospital, apparently to report on Tawana Brawley's condition. As described by the Sheriff's personnel present at the time Glenda Brawley said, "They cut my baby's hair! They cut my baby's hair!" She was clearly agitated by this news. Glenda Brawley also mentioned the fact of her daughter's hair having been cut to the psychiatrist at the Westchester County Medical Center on December 3.

We note here that two of Tawana Brawley's friends testified that she attached the hair weave to her hair in October of 1987, at which time her own hair was approximately three inches long, short on the top and longer at the back. When wearing the weave, the hair at the front of her head was her own, and the weave caused her hair to appear long in the back. It is not known whether Ms. Brawley was still wearing the weave on November 24, when she was observed to have shoulder length hair, nor is it known whether removal of the weave would have left her hair appearing jagged or chopped, as described above.

Writing on Ms. Brawley's Shirt

FBI Special Agent Thomas Lynch, an expert in forensic chemistry, testified concerning a series of examinations he made of charred material from several sources: the charred face cloth type material found with the plastic bag in which Ms. Brawley was found, the charred portion of the jeans she was wearing when she was found, burnt material found on the carpet inside Apt. l9A, the writing on the pink shirt Ms. Brawley was wearing, material found inside the black ladies' gloves and material found embedded under her fingernails.

S/A Lynch subjected these materials to examination using light and electron microscopes. He made microscopic photographs which the Grand Jurors were able to examine. He also performed certain tests.

The face cloth type material found with the plastic bag Ms. Brawley was found in, the burnt jeans she was wearing and the pieces of burnt material that had been found inside Apt. l9A were all found to be charred cotton fibers which exhibited the same microscopic characteristics.

He noted that charred cotton fibers have "very distinctive" characteristics which make them distinguishable from other fibers, though he noted that all purely cotton fibers have these same characteristics and that cotton from two different sources, such as the face cloth and the jeans, would be indistinguishable from each other.

S/A Lynch also microscopically examined the writing on the pink shirt Ms. Brawley had been wearing when found. He cut out a portion of one of the "K's written on the shirt and by use of a scanning electron microscope and transmission electron microscope determined that the writing on the shirt was made with charred cotton fibers.

He purchased a new pink cotton shirt similar to the one Ms. Brawley had been wearing and, grasping the face cloth, used it to write the letter "K" on the new shirt. He testified that he was "quite surprised at the similarity in color. between writing produced in this test and the writing on Ms. Brawley's shirt. As the shirt was manipulated, this writing faded in a way similar to the way the letters on Ms. Brawley's shirt had faded. Microscopic comparison showed that the two sets of fibers were, in S/A Lynch's words, "incredibly similar" and "very much consistent with each other."

Further tests showed that the writing produced by charcoal briquettes was "totally dissimilar" to that on the pink blouse and, similarly, that charred wood, "could not have been used."

Writing on Ms. Brawley's Body

S/A Steven Grantham, an expert in handwriting analysis, testified that he had examined photographs taken at St. Francis Hospital of the writing on Ms. Brawley's body. He stated that it could not be determined what material was used in the writing solely from the photographs.

S/A Grantham testified that he performed experiments using various items as writing instruments in an attempt to visually duplicate the writing upon Ms. Brawley. He wrote on the torso of a medium skin toned male using a charcoal briquette, a burnt broom stick, an eyebrow pencil, the edge of a burnt cotton towel and the residue of burnt cotton mixed with water. He was able to produce the burnt cotton residue in several ways including by merely grinding the cloth between his fingers and mixing the residue with water which formed a black paste-like substance. He photographed the results of his experiments and compared them to the photographs of Ms. Brawley.

The briquette, burnt broom stick and burnt towel performed poorly as writing instruments and the writing did not resemble the writing on Ms. Brawley. S/A Grantham explained that the eyebrow pencil and the writing with the burnt cotton residue "performed well" in the test. The writing line of both of these items compared well in terms of width and tone with the writing on Ms. Brawley's body. However, both the writing on Ms. Brawley's body and that produced with the burnt cotton residue had a charcoal appearance, whereas the eyebrow pencil produced a shine. The writing with the eyebrow pencil was evenly distributed. The writing observed on Ms. Brawley's body and that produced with the burnt cotton residue were not evenly distributed. For example, he noted that on one of the "K"'s written on Ms. Brawley's body, the outer edges of the letter were highlighted. A similar effect was noted on letters he had written with the burnt cotton residue.

S/A Grantham testified that the writing produced with the burnt cotton residue, when compared with the writing on Ms. Brawley's body, was visually similar with no differences. S/A Grantham was able to write with the burnt cotton residue by using a cotton swab, the edge of a towel, and the knotted ends of cotton towel strips. The size of the knot and the width of the strips determined the width of the writing.

Finally, in an experiment in which the eyebrow pencil was used, the model was able to write on his torso, without using a mirror, the same letters that were written on Ms. Brawley's torso. S/A Grantham testified that the writing instrument used was not important and that the point of this experiment was to demonstrate that it is possible for an individual to write on his or her torso.

Fibers in Gloves and Under Fingernails

S/A Lynch also examined the two black gloves found in the bag in which Tawana Brawley was discovered on Saturday, November 28. The Grand Jury previously heard testimony that the feces were smeared on the palms and came up between the fingers and onto the backs of the fingers as though the person wearing the gloves had pressed down on a mass of the feces. The Grand Jury also heard testimony that head hairs consistent with Tawana Brawley's were found on the right glove, and testimony that the ambulance technicians and hospital personnel observed feces smeared in Tawana Brawley's hair.

S/A Lynch cut off the tips of the fingers of the ladies' gloves found with Tawana Brawley and turned them inside out. He discovered charred cotton fibers inside the middle and pinky fingers of the right glove and bundles of such fibers in the thumb. He found charred cotton fibers in the ring finger and bundles of such fibers in the thumb of the left glove. S/A Lynch examined the fibers microscopically and concluded that they had "exactly similar characteristics" to the fibers from the charred face cloth found underneath the bag in which Ms. Brawley was found.

S/A Lynch also examined fibers which had adhered to the underneath side of fingernails from Tawana Brawley's right and left hands. (Fingernail clippings are a standard part of the rape kit and were taken by the emergency room physician at St. Francis Hospital.) The fibers were charred cotton and in S/A Lynch's words, "the same" as the fibers from inside the gloves. The Grand Jury notes that one of the Sloper-Willen emergency medical technicians noted on her report that Tawana Brawley's hand appeared to be "covered w/ soot" when she was found on November 28.