Delaware Doctor Accused of Waterboarding Eleven Year-Old Daughter

Dr. Melvin Morse, a pediatrician and author, stands charged in Delaware, along with his wife Pauline, of waterboarding his eleven year-old daughter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Accused: Melvin Morse (l.) stands accused of waterboarding his eleven year-old daughter.
Pauline Morse (r.) is alleged to have been complicit.​

And the case only gets uglier from there.

Dr. Melvin Morse and his wife, Pauline, were charged with several felony counts Tuesday after their 11-year-old daughter told investigators her father had subjected her to "waterboarding" several times by holding her face under a running faucet ....

.... Morse, who has authored several books and articles on paranormal science and near-death experiences, has appeared on shows such as "Larry King Live" and the "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to discuss his research, which also has been featured on an episode of "Unsolved Mysteries" and in an article in "Rolling Stone" magazine.

Morse's Web site ... is strewn with ramblings about God, love, family and death.

At the time of Tuesday's arrest, Morse, 58, was out on bail on misdemeanor charges of assault and endangering the welfare of a child. Those charges stemmed from a July incident in which authorities allege Morse grabbed the 11-year-old by the ankle and, as her 6-year-old sister watched, dragged her across a gravel driveway, took her inside the family's home and began spanking her.

When she was interviewed again Monday, the older girl told investigators that beginning in 2009, her father had disciplined her by what he told her was "waterboarding." State police said the girl was subjected to such punishment at least four times and that her mother witnessed some of the incidents but did not stop them.

Joe Hurley, an attorney representing Morse on charges stemming from the driveway incident, cast doubt on some of the latest allegations.

"Whatever's being described is not waterboarding," said Hurley, who has not spoken to Morse since Tuesday's arrests. "I think that's an attention-getter. I'm not sure where that came from or how that developed."

Hurley said the 11-year-old has some "opposition issues" and had complained to her parents several years ago about being abused by a half-sibling. He said the parents contacted authorities and the half-sibling was arrested, but that the girl confessed months later that the incident never happened and that she just didn't want the half-sibling living in the house.

Melvin Morse was being held Thursday on $14,500 secured bail. His wife was released previously on $14,500 unsecured bail. Both were ordered to have no contact with their two daughters or with each other. They face a preliminary hearing on Aug. 16.

On the same day he was arrested on child endangerment charges July 13, Morse also was charged with terroristic threatening after allegedly threatening in May to kill a 65-year-old man. Hurley said he was told by a deputy attorney general that the terroristic threatening charge, which prosecutors dropped a week after it was filed, involved a New Castle County attorney. A spokesman for the attorney general's office declined to comment.

(Associated Press)​

I'll skip the part about the "imaginary falcon".

Obviously, there are many aspects to this horror story.

In truth, I'm uncertain where to start.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Melvin Morse, Delaware doctor, charged with felony counts for allegedly 'waterboarding' daughter". CBS News. August 10, 2012. CBSNews.com. August 10, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...-counts-for-allegedly-waterboarding-daughter/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

isn't waterboarding legal in US? Guantanamo Bay for example.

Obviously this "father" is mentally ill and so is the mother of this child. I hope they get a nice sentence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ul-says-torture-banned-under-us-internationa/

Is torture illegal under U.S. law?

Yes, under several different portions of the law.

• A provision of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. 2340) that took effect in 1994 makes torture a crime.

The law defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

• A different provision on war crimes addresses torture as well (18 U.S.C. 2441).

The provision reads, "Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. … As used in this section, the term ‘war crime’ (includes) … torture ..."

• Finally, as we noted here, two days after taking office, Obama issued a detailed executive order on torture and related issues.

The executive order said that prisoners "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)." It also specifically nullifies interpretations of federal law on interrogations "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009" under President George W. Bush.

The executive order brings the CIA into line with U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, said said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. This limits interrogators to humane techniques, a standard that already applies as a matter of law to the U.S. military, he said.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't be dense. Open another thread if you want to discuss other issues.

~String

 

I am not sure how one interprets that really. If someone holds a gun to my head, that would seem to be just as likely to induce "severe mental pain" (in the form of a fear of death) as waterboarding, and would be just as dangerous (assuming the gun is loaded). Yet the act doesn't mention physical discomfort being a requirement, so that the anguish is caused by a physical sensation cannot be the delimiting factor.

It may come down to how one interprets "severe" if one is to distinguish almost any act of murder from torture as that definition reads. But if so, that then opens the possibility of waterboarding being insufficiently severe to be ranked as torture.

I wonder if this needs to be interpreted in light of the U.S.'s interpretative statement regardingthe UN Convention on torture, where we states that, as we read the word, "torture" must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and that "mental pain" is limited to prolonged mental harm resulting from the intentional infliction of severe physical pain, the administration of mind altering drugs, the use of other procedures that are also "calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality," or the threat of imminent death (or the death of another person). (Which the U.S. interpreted as not including waterboarding, I believe.)

 

Brief notes

Note the phrase, "under color of law". A random person who pulls a gun on you is not torturing you.

Also note the phrase, "within his custody or physical control". A police officer threatening you with a gun in order to make you stop doing whatever you're doing long enough that he might arrest you is not committing torture. If, however, he pulls that gun on you once you are secure his custody, the torture question is applicable.

After WWII, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. During the Vietnam War, the United States prosecuted its own soldiers for waterboarding. The intervening decades saw the United States prosecute police officers for waterboarding.

And then ... President George W. Bush. Suddenly, history and judicial precedent mattered none. The Bush administration wanted to torture, so they started inventing all sorts of bizarre legal rhetoric to justify it.

Still, though, our neighbor's question about the legality of waterboarding in the U.S. seems a bit broad. That our military, paramilitary contractors, and intelligence agents have asserted the right to waterboard international terror suspects held in facilities abroad is a far cry from the question of whether or not a pediatrician in Delaware waterboarded his eleven year-old daughter.

 

Man, I wonder what the hell that girl did to deserve getting punished so bad . . . . And I wonder what's with the insidious government and media spin?

 

upon clarification:

He also was charged with assault for dragging her and spanking her. The mother is charged for watching it happen and both are charged with conspiracy.

I think felony charges are overkill. The daughter will likely lose her home, her neighborhood and friends, and countless opportunities. The parents may never get to see her again. This alone would seem extremely harsh.

Zero tolerance for child abuse makes the emotional content of the story skew the objective factors. Was a felony committed? Many readers may assume that this is simply a matter of law. However, it is ultimately purely discretionary. Each decision by the police, prosecutor, judge and jury, and the courts of appeals is strictly a matter of judgment. Strike out, and you're out, no matter what the law says.

If the tables were turned, and the child had done something heinous, this child might be tried as an adult. Officials, and the media, play on the emotional response of the public too much. Some or all of the key law enforcement and court officials are no doubt up for reelection and this case will probably overshadow the rest of their political ads.

Justice is a double edged sword. Strike too hard, and there is self-inflicted gash on the rebound. Simply stated, there cannot be justice without temperance. At first glance, without seeing any more details, I think these are perhaps only misdemeanors.

In any case, the girl should be given every kind of support so that her life opportunities are not crushed. I see no evidence of serious injury or danger. If the child is not actually afraid for her life, she should be allowed to go back home. The family should be given a chance to heal. Perhaps a live-in guardian could be provided to offer the public a sense of security. On the other hand, if she is substantially traumatized and does not wish to go home, then by all means place her in a foster home or with trusted relatives.

I doubt that any of this will happen. I suspect that the parents will meet the full force of the law, and the girl will probably suffer inordinately from the estrangement and loss of her home and neighborhood, the opportunities she had even during the times her father was being cruel.

 

Those chickens have yet to come home and roost, but I refuse to acquiesce to the nonsense that this event is anything even remotely in line with what was done after 9/11.

Well, and if there needs to be a "trump card" it's obviously the fact that we're discussing -- of all things -- HIS F*CKING DAUGHTER!

At least BTK had the decency to avoid torturing his immediate family.

As my friend says, "See, Dan, this is why hookers end up dead in the desert! Don't push me!"

~String

 

1) I'm supprised that torture is defined by your laws as only referring to state agents, some of the serial killers I have seen would definitely applie and obviously do for "special circumstances" but I do wonder why the difference

2) I did wonder if they were charged with torture when I read first post to throw in the face of bush's comment that "it's uncomfortable but it's not torture" and so ok

3) most importantly is a small "side issue" glossed over in the artical. Why is dragging a child across ashfelt by the ankle a "mistermeaner child endangerment and abuse". THIS ALONE should have been should have been a full charge of child abuse

 

I suspect at this point, there's enough "meat" for the prosecutors to really fuck these two up. I mean, there's some crappy things about the USA to be sure, but based on federal and state laws, these two parents are screwed, blued and tattooed.

~String

 

I was wondering how the little girl knew to call it waterboarding. The press says it was because that was how her father referred to it to her. Perhaps if he had never used that term this story would never have gotten traction. The family might have had a chance for therapy without the harsh punishment. Right now the chances look slim. Even if he somehow miraculously squirms out of this mess, he will probably lose his medical license, and the girl's chances of going to Harvard or Johns Hopkins probably just went out the window. Yet the prosecution will paint the parents as the source of all evil when in fact the legal system gives not one whit about the harsh reality - that harming the parents also harms the child.

 

This and That

There are probably others. The law in consideration and the source page it was derived from discuss torture in the war on terror.

The United States Code is ... well, on paper, it's taller than you are. That is to say, the USC printed out is over 200,000 pages. Title 18 of the USC pertains to federal criminal and penal code.

Figuring out torture statutes at the state level is a bit more complicated.

• • •​

Aye. It should be easy enough to recognize that "Guantanamo Bay" has nothing to do with everyday American citizens living within the boundaries of the nation. Then again, perhaps we, as Americans, are so ingrained in the presuppositions that delineate "common sense" that we expect too much of others.

I'm not too worried about the digression into TWAT, as the point has been reasonably answered, and it's hard to figure out what to say about the relevant issues. At present, Dr. Morse and his wife simply stand accused. And, as YourEyes suggests, it seems quite obvious that Dr. Morse is suffering some sort of mental illness. Aside from expressing our horror at the thought of waterboarding one's children, we're going to have to see how this case progresses. To wit, one wonders if attorney Hurley has any substantiation that the girl later recanted the sexual molestation claim, or if that's just what his client told him. You know, the client who sees imaginary falcons. I have not gone to Morse's website—which I omitted by ellipsis from the third paragraph of the topic post quote—in large part because I don't want to see it. The AP describes it thus:

On his website, Morse describes in bizarre and rambling language his struggles with legal and family problems stemming from his first marriage and how he was told by an imaginary falcon to move "quickly in the dark of night" to the East Coast, where his destiny lay and where he could find rich soil for his "BIG IDEA" to grow.

Morse does not directly describe his "BIG IDEA" but says it took him years to think about and write down, that it came from children, and that "it made a lot of people cry."

"People from all over the world asked him to come and talk to them about his BIG IDEA," he wrote, often using the third person. "He noticed that most of these people had a child who had died."​

Okay ... deep breath.

(Click.)

Okay. The website is largely incomprehensible. If I spend enough time trying to figure it out, my brain might simply explode.

So, yes, it would seem Dr. Morse is bonkers. I cannot say, though, that he is so far gone that he cannot countenance the difference between right and wrong.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Melvin Morse, Delaware doctor, charged with felony counts for allegedly 'waterboarding' daughter". CBS News. August 10, 2012. CBSNews.com. August 11, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...-counts-for-allegedly-waterboarding-daughter/

 

Hi, Bells. I respect your opinion but I disagree. I never said the authorities should ignore a child abuse case. I only meant that there should be a clear boundary between misdemeanor and felony abuse.

My initial reaction is that the system will probably not look to the child's best interests, and, because of the sensational use of the term "waterboarding" the rest of the story has probably been blown out of proportion.

There is no call for dragging a child by her ankles. I do not condone that or putting her face under a faucet. However, I do not think it should be equated with assault with a deadly weapon, bank robbery, rape or murder, for which the term "felony" normally applies.

I don't think that putting her face under a faucet is necessarily dangerous. It's mean, but I don't think it carries the threat of danger that we associate with parents who starve their children or lock them up in closets and cellars. Obviously it can be extremely dangerous, particularly if the father was having psychotic fantasies of killing her. None of this is evident, though, so, unless that were to come forward, I would hope that the felony conviction won't stick.

Similarly, dragging the child by the ankles could cause injury or not. It's also mean, but before calling it injury there should be some medical report about the extent of scrapes or bruises. As far as I can tell the press has not offered any evidence of her injuries.

I am not a fan of stiff punishments. I think they are harmful to the victim in domestic cases, counterproductive to the goals of justice, and unnecessarily cruel to defendants. In this case the girl's present and future welfare should come first. But also, I would hope the parents do not go prison until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the child either sustained sufficiently serious injury, or else there was actual imminent danger of serious injury.

You ask, rhetorically, why waterboarding is classified as torture. I seriously doubt that what the father did is even close to the way prisoners were tortured in Guantanamo. The headlines have sensationalized this by using the father's own terminology "waterboarding" which was his way of describing punishments in which he held or put her face under the faucet. Water up the nose is mean and scary but does not constitute serious injury. It's entirely possible that, as a pediatrician, he was watching for any signs of choking or aspirating water. If it were to come out that he did this in a severe way, I would change my opinion in a heartbeat. As I recall, the Guantanamo victims were so severely traumatized that they gagged and vomited and put at or near the stroke level with blood pressure and heart rate. I'm having trouble seeing how putting her face under a faucet compares to this. Obviously it could come out that he also caused her to vomit, and put her near stroke level as well. In that case, then yes, I would probably agree that it's at least tantamount to torture, and very well could constitute torture and could warrant felony punishment. I'm just leery of this. Again, I'm having trouble with the dishonesty of the headline. I'm reserving my outrage for something that meets the minimum definition of responsible journalism.

Being mean should not constitute a felony. I also don't think people should be convicted in the press, especially when there is evidence that the story has been exaggerated like this. Here I think we need to dial back our outrage when it's evident we are being played.

Obviously I would advocate for felony punishment if there were credible evidence that any serious or life threatening injury were perpetrated. It would also be helpful to know: under what conditions would the father react this way? Presumably he did not just have a clot in his brain or a drug reaction that would render him so irrational, but what was it? There is his side of the story, if he gets to tell it. So far all we have is hearsay. Is he a monster, or did something cause him to react this way (referring to the dragging). I would want to know how far he dragged her, what was being said, what provoked it, and, if she saw a doctor, what were the extent of any bruises or scrapes. Same with the faucet. How long was her face in the water? What was said; what provoked it? Did she have labored breathing or hypoxia? That kind of thing.

For me, it's not a question of right or wrong, since it seems sufficiently wrong without any more details. It's a question of severity of the wrong. You may not make that distinction. You may find that regardless of the severity, it's appropriate to lump him into the same class of a more serious crime, particularly if you think he has the potential of committing a more serious crime. I don't trust the legal system enough to advocate for that. I think criminal justice is too politicized to expect a punishment that fits the crime, or to be able to fairly assess a person's potential for violence.

My reason for defending his medical license is that it's not clear that this has anything to do with the way he addresses pediatric care. Going berserk and being outrageously mean to his daughter does not necessarily mean he is incapable of treating his patients with the utmost of responsible care. Obviously, if it were to come out that he had ever done anything wrong to a patient, or if there is sufficient evidence that he is actually a monster or psycho, he should not be allowed to practice medicine.

But suppose this is the extent of the story: dad was mean, but not as mean as the press would have us believe, and upon losing contact with his daughter and losing his medical license, she ends up in some more abusive life, a ward of the state, comes out of it depressed and unable to cope, where, in the alternative, an intervention is done, the dad is rehabilitated, the family heals, she gets her life back and down the road she gets to choose between Harvard and Johns Hopkins - which, I suspect, was once the parents dream when the decision to bring her into the world (he was 47) was made, back when they were probably nicer people.

 

Wtf, I don't even know how to express my reaction to the idiocy in your post. All I can think is you have been spending to long reading the old testimate where women and children are treated worse than a persons cattle. You do realise that an ANIMAL treated like that would get you jail time yet you think it's ok? Let's make this clear for you, children are NOT slaves, they are NOT property, they are PEOPLE with rights and they are in the vulnerable people group so they NEED extra protection from government. You want to see her get a chance to go to Uni, great you have 3 choices for that 1)throw these tortures where they belong in a 6*6 cell and transfer ALL there assets to a trust to pay for her, 2) realise that education is a RIGHT and should be funded out of taxation ANYWAY for EVERYONE, 3 (my preferred option) BOTH

 

Asguard, are you addressing me?

 

Asguard,

I see now you said "Uni" so you must be addressing me.

I'm surprised you think my response is idiotic. It's rather strange to relate my remarks to the Old Testament. I have never offered anything here at Sci to advocate for the Bible, nor would I ever want that to enter into a case for criminal justice.

As I mentioned above, I do not see evidence that this constitutes a felony. Generally there must be serious physical injury or actual imminent danger of serious injury in order to get a felony conviction. There may have been; in which case I would change my opinion in a heartbeat. (How is that idiotic?)

As I said to Bells I do not condone either dragging a child or putting a child's face under a faucet. All I said was that this would appear to meet the misdemeanor level of offense. We can pull up the Delaware statutes if you're interested in pursuing the legal question, which was the thrust of my argument.

My second issue is with the dishonesty of the press. The headline is wrong and should be retracted. The journalists should lose their jobs before the doctor does. He may well deserve to lose his license but only with sufficient evidence. The press has already convicted itself - in my mind at least. I'm surprised you don't see that.

 

So you don't see mental health as "a serious injury" guess you have never seen your classmate in year 9 hang himself from a bridge leading to school where his girlfriend will be the first to find him (sure he didn't plan Abby to be the one to find him) because of how bad his home life was? This was a straight A student I might add who could have been anything he wanted, gone to any Uni he wanted

 

Asguard,

Your language is a little unclear to me. I'm having trouble relating the terrible story you're telling to this case of child abuse.

When I said "serious injury" I was referring to serious physical injury on the person of the child. This would normally be the required proof before getting a felony conviction.

I'm not sure the extent of psychological abuse under the normal felony definitions. Obviously prolonged psychological abuse, such as in a case that cripples the victim with her own mental health problems, would seem sufficient to convict. I haven't seen any evidence of that in this case.

For these reasons I would not put the parents in a 6 * 6 cell. I would reserve the hell holes for the worst and most cold blooded of monsters. I'm just not convinced these parents meet that definition.