![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stuart Greenberg was a forensic psychologist out of nightmare.
Here's what he said about a woman in a custody case:
This wasn't enough to get him in trouble. Instead, it was considered problematic that "Nor did she know that her ex-husband's lawyer was also an investor, coming on board after Greenberg touted the potential rewards to her. That made them limited business partners — her ex's lawyer and the expert witness who would testify about her parenting."
This strikes me as minor, considering that the business (run by someone else) turned out to be fraudulent and went up in smoke before the trial.
In any case, he did get into trouble with his board eventually -- "In 1990, after an investigation that dragged on for years, the state Examining Board of Psychology filed a devastating set of disciplinary charges against Greenberg. The charges, 18 pages long, alleged misconduct in four cases between 1983 and 1986, including Graden's."-- his professional behavior was so bad that I wouldn't be surprised if he misrepresented Graden's likely treatment of her son because that's how he treated people rather than because of a minor business connection.
He was suspended for four years from testifying in child custody cases. This didn't stop him from over-predicting in a child rape case.
Greenberg's credibility could have been destroyed.... but he threatened to sue the examining board and eventually got the records of the case against him sealed. The judge who was responsible for that, Daniel Berschauer, should probably be investigated.
Remember the Catholic church's claim that they didn't do enough to control pedophile priests because of bad advice from psychologists? Greenberg was one of those psychologists.
His work evaluating priests happened in the 90s, by the way. This wasn't a matter of the sexual revolution.
Unsurprisingly, Greenberg was an abusive boss.
And none of this, not a bit of it, was enough to take him down.
Eventually, he installed a hidden video camera in his office bathroom so that he could snoop on his clients and employees and he got caught. He committed suicide.
I've read the comments at the news story (the most recent comments include an account by Cathy Graden of the damage done to her son and her) and at The Agitator, and no one else has mentioned this weird disproportion.
I'm trying not to be dispirited about the human race, but this lack of good sense is getting to me. I understand that people should have peace and privacy in the bathroom, but how could wrecking people's lives fall through the cracks in comparison?
Here's what he said about a woman in a custody case:
The report Greenberg filed in court eviscerated Graden. It said she posed a grave danger to her son; that she was "probably" sexually abusing him; that she was psychologically unstable and possibly paranoid. Greenberg's report said he had interviewed the boy's day-care provider — and this provider suspected Graden of abuse and said Graden had encouraged day-care employees to beat her son.
In court, testifying, Greenberg described Graden as "quasi-psychotic," but said the diagnosis was tricky, because Graden might appear "quite normal." She would likely deny doing anything wrong to her son, Greenberg said, or alternatively, she "might genuinely not remember."
By the time Greenberg finished, Graden, out in the hallway, had been stripped of all defenses — and without a clue to what had just happened. If she appeared normal — well, Greenberg said she would. If she denied hurting her son — that was part of her disorder. If she challenged Greenberg's work or motives — she was paranoid.
This wasn't enough to get him in trouble. Instead, it was considered problematic that "Nor did she know that her ex-husband's lawyer was also an investor, coming on board after Greenberg touted the potential rewards to her. That made them limited business partners — her ex's lawyer and the expert witness who would testify about her parenting."
This strikes me as minor, considering that the business (run by someone else) turned out to be fraudulent and went up in smoke before the trial.
In any case, he did get into trouble with his board eventually -- "In 1990, after an investigation that dragged on for years, the state Examining Board of Psychology filed a devastating set of disciplinary charges against Greenberg. The charges, 18 pages long, alleged misconduct in four cases between 1983 and 1986, including Graden's."-- his professional behavior was so bad that I wouldn't be surprised if he misrepresented Graden's likely treatment of her son because that's how he treated people rather than because of a minor business connection.
He was suspended for four years from testifying in child custody cases. This didn't stop him from over-predicting in a child rape case.
Greenberg's credibility could have been destroyed.... but he threatened to sue the examining board and eventually got the records of the case against him sealed. The judge who was responsible for that, Daniel Berschauer, should probably be investigated.
Remember the Catholic church's claim that they didn't do enough to control pedophile priests because of bad advice from psychologists? Greenberg was one of those psychologists.
His work evaluating priests happened in the 90s, by the way. This wasn't a matter of the sexual revolution.
Unsurprisingly, Greenberg was an abusive boss.
One morning he came into the office, looking horrible. He told Pickrell he'd had a dreadful night. He described vomiting — "in horrid detail," Pickrell says — while a foot from her face.
When Pickrell advised him to go home, or at least not infect others, Greenberg went into his office, shut the door, and pouted. The next day he told Pickrell she had hurt his feelings, that he was sick and had needed a hug.
Two other women employees described being "weirded" or "creeped out" by Greenberg. One said he rubbed her shoulders; tried to make her go with him, alone, on a business trip to Alaska; and wondered aloud, while shopping for supplies, if other people in the store thought they were lovers.
And none of this, not a bit of it, was enough to take him down.
Eventually, he installed a hidden video camera in his office bathroom so that he could snoop on his clients and employees and he got caught. He committed suicide.
I've read the comments at the news story (the most recent comments include an account by Cathy Graden of the damage done to her son and her) and at The Agitator, and no one else has mentioned this weird disproportion.
I'm trying not to be dispirited about the human race, but this lack of good sense is getting to me. I understand that people should have peace and privacy in the bathroom, but how could wrecking people's lives fall through the cracks in comparison?
