By George P. Hassett
Dr. Carol Allen, a pediatrician for 33 years, had to pause Thursday to maintain her composure when telling a jury about the injuries a 23-month-old girl allegedly received at the hands of a former Somerville police officer.
“I had never seen anything like it before. I was shocked, that’s what I recall about that day,” said Allen at the trial of Keith Winfield, a former Somerville police officer accused of rape of a child.
Middlesex County prosecutors allege Winfield sexually assaulted a 23-month-old relative he was babysitting in October 2005 with a hot object at his home in Melrose. The assault caused serious burns to the victim, which developed over the next 24 to 36 hours and forced her into the hospital for one month.
In court testimony, the mother and grandfather of the victim described her as “playful” and “very joyous” in the days leading up to Oct. 13, 2005. However on that day when she returned from Winfield’s home in Melrose the victim was reserved, tearful and suffering from injuries to her genitals that grew increasingly worse as the night wore on, said the mother.
“She had her head on my shoulder crying all night, she would not leave my side,” she said. “When I changed her diapers I saw the redness and freaked out.”
The child was taken to a hospital the next morning and police were contacted after doctors suspected the girl had been sexually and physically abused. Three weeks later investigators interviewed Winfield at the Melrose Police Department. A recording of the interview was played by the prosecution in court Friday and jurors heard Winfield recount the week he and his wife babysat the child.
“I don’t remember anything out of the ordinary or anyone coming into my house,” he said on the tapes.
Winfield told investigators that on Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005 the day the rape allegedly occurred he was alone with the child for an hour while his wife went to the library. He said he changed the girl’s diaper that day for the first time since she had been staying at the house while her mother worked and noticed a “really red diaper rash.”
“Not what they said her injuries were, just really red that’s the only way to describe it,” he said.
The victim’s mother said that when she called Winfield’s home from work that day her daughter would not respond to her over the phone and stayed silent when asked how she was. By the next day the child was being treated for her injuries.
In cross examination, Winfield’s lawyer Doug Louison questioned the child’s mother and grandparents about old injuries the girl was found to be suffering from when admitted to the hospital after the rape. Doctors found the child broke her wrist two weeks to one month earlier and had two broken ribs that she had injured ten days to 1 month earlier, he said.
“Were you aware [the victim] was walking around with a broken wrist for two weeks?” he asked the child’s mother.
“No,” she said.
“Did [the victim] complain about fractures to two ribs that doctors found were ten days to 1 month old?”
“No,” she said. The mother said she first learned of the injuries on Saturday, Oct. 15, 2005 the day after she brought her daughter to the hospital.
Louison also asked witnesses about other people who had access to the victim’s home the week the rape took place. The victim’s family had been hosting friends from Canada that week who left three days before she showed signs of injury. And in his opening statement Louison told jurors they would not hear any forensic evidence pointing to Winfield, or even a male, as the person responsible for the rape.
“There is no evidence at all pointing to him other than one hour out of the 12 where the doctor said the injuries occurred,” he said.
Winfield joined the Somerville Police Department in 2000. He was placed on administrative leave after city officials learned he was being investigated for the rape. He was indicted nine months later in August 2006. In the trial’s first week a small group of Winfield’s friends and family sat in the front row watching the proceedings. At one point, while a witness described the victim’s injuries, a woman sitting with Winfield’s family began to cry.
Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone said Winfield is ineligible to get his job back even if he is found not guilty. “He is an ex-Somerville cop now,” he said.
Patrolmen’s Union President Jack Leuchter said he hopes Winfield is found not guilty “not on a technicality, but because the jury actually finds him not guilty of the charges.”
“I wouldn’t want to believe anyone I know, especially a fellow police officer, is capable of such a horrible thing,” he said.
[Editor’s note: The Somerville News does not publish any information identifying victims of rape.]
these are very disturbing charges --- and the little girl's previous injuries are also disturbing
Posted by: disturbing | November 13, 2007 at 10:47 AM
This sort of makes you wonder why the mother waited to take the child to the hospital? If she was really "freaking out" why did she wait? and why didn't she go directly to the hospital instead of waiting and then making an appointment to see her doctor? It doesn't make sense. It sounds like this mother is hiding something? but what?
Posted by: Hmmm | November 14, 2007 at 09:07 PM
This doesn't make sense. This child was in the presence of so many people the few days before going to the hospital and they try to pin it on this poor guy who is with her for one hour. It sounds like she is an unfit mother and I hope Mr. Winfield is vindicated. There is plenty of "reasonable doubt" in this case. My prayers are with him and the little girl.
Posted by: Witch Hunt | November 14, 2007 at 09:32 PM
This poor man and his family--their lives on hold for more than 2 years. Are you kidding me? what kind of mother doesn't know her child is suffering from a broken wrist or ribs....both very painful injuries? Someone inflicted these injuries upon the child well before the accused was anywhere near her. They're obviously investigating the wrong person!!!
Posted by: Conerned | November 15, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Why don't you save your brain power for activities other than useless speculation?
Posted by: Election | November 15, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I would just like to say how easy it truly is for someone to point the finger at someone else, especially when they are trying to get the attention off of themselves! Words especially lies, can definitely devastate lives. The truth will prevail and Mr. Winfield I pray with all of my heart will be found innocent of these charges and can go on with his life and live happily with his family whom he loves very much. There is no way that he committed these acts, but I belive that the mother of that child is 100% capable.
Posted by: Could happen to anyone | November 15, 2007 at 11:43 AM
The truth is the mother is a liar. She has always lied to get attention. She cried rape 4 times, to close friends who have all discovered she lied. The mom is a slut and always has been. One of her many boyfriends probably did it and she is covering up. Blaming the only other man in the baby's life. I mean HELLO the cop's wife is sticking by him and his children are completely fine. Broken wrist and ribs and you ignore that. The baby was probably with drawn because of pain she had to endure with a mother that ignores her. Think about it....
Posted by: Mother is a liar | November 15, 2007 at 01:05 PM
The truth is that we don't know the truth about this.
Posted by: Election | November 15, 2007 at 01:16 PM
How about we let the jury do its job instead of trying to jump to conclusions (for or against the defendant) based on a short newspaper article?
Posted by: Ron Newman | November 15, 2007 at 03:30 PM
I know both parties involved. And I can tell you I believe 100% the Winfields are capable of this. THey both have drug problems which i have witnessed personally. Him more than her. He is abusive and angry. Earlier reports say the baby left their house on different occasions with some injury?!?
I couldn't, wouldn't ever imagine a sister could do this to their own blood. You're a sick person!
A baby can walk around with a broken bone and not realize it. My son had a fractured collar bone for 2 weeks before he showed any signs of bruising.
Get a life people. He's a scum bag, she's a scum bag, they both deserve to go to jail.
Posted by: disgusted | November 15, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Funny, I know YOU. And I can tell you that people should not trust what you have to say.
Posted by: Election | November 15, 2007 at 10:41 PM
As a couch potato who ALWAYS watches forensic files type shows, police always miss important evidence and focus singularly on one suspect. I say that because I would want to see the person who really perpetrated this act in jail, not a scapegoated one. If these people are druggies, maybe the burn marks came from a drug pipe?
Posted by: policeprb.missedevidence | November 16, 2007 at 04:40 PM
burns came from a curling iron, according to doctors at trial
Posted by: not a drug pipe | November 16, 2007 at 05:48 PM
I am sure this respected police officer will have no problems down at Walpole. The inmates there respect guys like this and he will be treated fairly and honorably.
Posted by: Bobby | November 16, 2007 at 08:10 PM
Is it true that the mother of the child made 4 false claims to police regarding the fact that she was raped?
There are so many questions to be answered regarding this case. I can't see how the jury found this guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have followed this case from the begining and I can't figure out how the jury came up with this outcome. If Mr. Winfield committed this crime, he deserves to pay the price. On the other hand, if he diddn't, this is a terrible tragedy. Other than pictures of the child's wounds, everything else appears to be circumstantial. Did the jury want to hang a police officer? I feel horrible about what happened to the child but I am still not convinced that Mr. Winfield committed this crime.
Posted by: Is it true that the mother of the child made 4 false claims to police regarding rape? | November 16, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Did you actually attend the trial? Every day of it? I did. "Following" from home is hardly the same thing, and you can't possibly know what information the jury had. It'd be nice to hear from someone on the jury, but since their lives were threatened by the defendant's brother, I doubt that will happen.
Posted by: evidence | November 17, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Mr. Winfield deserves better. He, like Oj and Robert Blake, was 111% innocent. We need more guys like this on the Somerville police. Whatever happened to all that $$$ they (police) supposedly threw out in a desk. Mr. Winfield knew the real story and they are trying to silence him via a conspiracy of lies! SHAME oh the SHAME!
Posted by: Mary | November 17, 2007 at 08:25 PM
this is such ashame I feel so sad for that child dss should really be watching this little girl very close and God knows the truth.And if keth is innocent God knows that to sham sham on who ever
Posted by: irene | July 23, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Wow, I always wonder how threads that are 8 months old get resurrected.
Posted by: Somerville n00b | July 23, 2008 at 02:42 PM