1. From: Stephen Pickering [mailto:stephenp2@myfairpoint.net]
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 3:50 PM
To: DCrocker@mekids.org
Cc: Dan.Billings@maine.gov; Mullen, Micki; mary.mayhew@maine.gov; mark.r.dalton@maine.gov;
rebecca.austin@maine.gov; Lori Handrahan; Judy Potter; moflatley@gmail.com
Subject: Ombudsman report concerning Lori Handrahan, Mila Malenko and Igor Malenko.
November 25, 2011
Mr. Crocker,
After our conversation I realized I should not have called you so soon after quickly reading
“your” report. I had not read the entire report before I called. I was so shocked at the
misrepresentations that I saw in my quick scan I felt the need to call you immediately. My
mistake. Clearly you and your office have no idea how to conduct an impartial investigation.
By impartial I mean gathering and reporting all information regardless of who it contradicts or
supports. If that were the only problem with this report it would not be quite so egregious but
you have also included information that is wrong. Even the most novice of an investigator or
researcher could have gotten right.
You told me in that conversation that you did not do the investigation and do not know the basis
for all the conclusions but you added that you stand by the report. I am aware that it has already
been pointed out to you that Maureen Flatley is not a doctor and Mila’s last name is Malenko not
Handrahan. That may seem insignificant but as you were quick to point out to me that a
defensive attorney would suspect that I coached Mila when you did not have the courage to tell
me that is what you thought, an attorney would also attack the report based on these glaring and
obvious mistakes.
I went through the report carefully and noted what I know or believe to be inaccurate. You will
need a copy of “your” report to follow along.
Ombudsman Report
Part 1.
1. My understanding is that Mila disclosed to Lori in a non interview setting. I believe she
disclosed to her nurse in a non interview setting as well as Polly Campbell. The only interview
was with Joyce Wientzen of Spurwink. This is as normal a beginning of an abuse investigation
as it gets. Based on the Ombudsman standards, all such cases would be tainted.
2. I can not speak to this as well as Lori but I have read some of the record and reports. The
clinicians found similar traits and responses from both Lori and Igor but his symptoms were
deemed the result of stress from the divorce were and used against Lori but for Igor it was
"understandable stress." Why not the other way around? Lori will be able to cite page,
paragraph and report on this issue. It is clear from more than one full mental health evaluation;
no one has ever given Lori a diagnosis of being mentally ill on any level. Not even Dr.
Kabacoff's one and only report to the court.

2. 3. She immediately reported the allegation of sexual abuse to Attorney Altshuler who told
her she could not report it herself as it would damage her divorce case. She followed his advice
as Judge Moskowitz had already said that Lori had a "problem with reality." Altshuler told her
someone else had to hear the disclosure. Over the next ten days Lori placed Mila in situations
with credible people who could hear a disclosure if one occurred.
I don’t know what the problem is with a child under three being naked at a beach or doctors
office. (On 10-10-11, I was at Herring Cove Beach on Campobello Island, New Brunswick. I
observed a woman with what appeared to be a three years old girl who was nude from the waist
down playing in the sand. I have the contact information for the woman.)
4. Not much to say except that I am aware that DHHS can and has in other cases challenged
family court decisions about a child’s welfare. This blanket statement that the court must always
be right is disingenuous.
Part 2.
1. The injury was not during a competition. It was my understanding that the injured party
was a teammate and the injury was the result of a rage and not incidental contact. There is a civil
judgment that neither Igor nor his family has honored. The ombudsman arrogantly applies the
same judicial standards we enjoy in the United States to a court system in an Eastern European
country that at the time was on the verge of a civil war and known for corruption and genocide.
2. Lori will have to address this.
3. I can not speak to this other than my response to # 2 in Part 1.
4. Lori will have to address this.
5. I could be wrong but I think that Leslie Devoe did the assessment. There was also a
friend that was with them in Budapest that witnessed his rage. I think the DV conviction against
Igor, to which he plead guilty via a nolo contendre plea, as well as the two Protection Orders for
Abuse in place protecting Lori and Mila from Igor’s abuse are all also evidence of violence. Lori
can elaborate.
I believe most clear thinking people involved in the investigation of sexual abuse in the computer
age automatically consider the possibility of child pornography especially when the subject has
access to the Internet.
It is hard to imagine that anyone who heard Ricci’s and Wientzen’s testimony would have come
up with any other conclusion other than a finding that Igor sexual assaulted Mila. Again the
ombudsman is being less than honest with the facts. Wientzen made it clear in her report and in
her subsequent affidavit that Igor was an abuser.

3. Part 3.
1. Lori would have a better response to this.
2. Lori would have a better response to this.
3. If you talked to the Overseers, the people who testified at the hearing or people who
knew the facts of the allegations they might not consider the result a factor. The point is they did
little or no investigation and relied on the word of the very people they were investigating.
You feel the need to point out that Lori has enlisted help from anyone who can help her but no
mention that waxman pays for every aspect of his client’s case and told Lori that he would use
his vast family fortune to fight her.
Part 4, Anita St Onge.
It says that St Onge found no problems with the ombudsman previous investigation but it does
not say what she did or who she interviewed. Would that not be the same as a prosecutor telling
the court that he has reviewed the case and the suspect is guilty with out presenting evidence?
Part 5. March 2011 Physical Abuse Allegation
If their definition of intense pressure is credible people questioning their response then it is
accurate. It would seem that DHHS does not like to be challenged.
The meth and child porn issues were brought up in the 5-31-11 meeting with Mayhew, Smith
and Despard but there was no specific request to investigate. They missed the point completely.
The main issue was the injury to Mila’s head. The child porn information was mistakenly
introduced by a presenter at the meeting and was never intended to be an issue. The meth was
introduced only as another example of what Mila has been subjected to. I discussed the meth
issue with Despard on April 13 of 2011 and he took no action then. He actually said after the
meeting that this day was the first time he heard anything about the meth. Mayhew gave me this
information. I told her that my conversation with Despard was recorded and it appears that he is
a liar.
I know it seems a little thing but you signed off on this report and stood by it’s accuracy but Lori
picked up Mila on March 25, 2009 not March 29, 2009. It’s been my experience that attorneys
look for errors like this to discredit the whole report and investigation. The usual statement is, “If
these mistakes are here what other mistakes are in the investigation.” It usually works.

4. The ER people called it at hematoma. She may have used their words later but she told me it
was a “bump and bruise”. Just what I saw and described the next day.
Mila said her father hit her with a metal pan. DHHS’s “expert interviewers” may have assumed
it was a kitchen cooking pot but that might not be accurate in Mila’s mind.
Lori did not turn on the recorder until after she noticed the bruise and not until after Mila told her
what happened. She recorded it as she was getting Mila to repeat what she had said. Everyone
who wants to discredit Lori says this is evidence of coaching. She had a recorder with her
because I told her to. Had she been actively thinking that something was going to happen on
every visit with Igor she probably would have had it on. If she thought the bruise was more than
a child’s boo-boo she would have had it on. It was not until she realized what was happening
that she thought of the recorder. She was just happy to be with her daughter and not looking for
evidence to use against Igor.
The diaper information is true and I had previously confirmed the diaper info with former school
worker, Carol Goodwin and later with Lori’s mother.
1. Mila only made conflicting complaints after DHHS gave Igor and waxman a 24 hour
notice of the complaint. Wouldn’t coaching be more likely in that situation?
2. True. Even Goodwin did not have a problem with Malenko but she did not have a
problem with Lori either. Goodwin did have a problem with Mila’s diapers and the matted hair.
The school director told me that her knowledge of Lori was what Malenko told her and the
Internet. It appears that she did not notice all of Lori’s accolades found on the Internet and the
news accounts of Malenko’s criminal activity on the very same Internet.
3. I would have to check the medical report but I believe they called it a hematoma. No
disclosure, no referral. What’s unusual about that?
Part 6.
1. Not sure what they are talking about.
2. Again with the hematoma. She did not use that word until the ER did. She saw a bruise
and probably would have done nothing if Mila said she had bumped her head on the table.
Part 7.
Since when does a PhD in Sociology make you knowledgeable about intracranial bleeding? I
find it interesting that the ombudsman allows for the possibility that Igor did hit her but it was
not serious and Lori’s actions indicate that it was not serious. The injury was in deed not serious
but the reported reason for the injury certainly was. Considering that DHHS is an agency that
abhors corporal punishment.

5. 1. I will defer to the report.
2. We all know that ER photos are not perfect. The point is that there was a bruise and it
was documented by the ER staff. Even I know the difference between a light green bruise and a
reddish birth mark that has nearly faded from view as Mila gets older.
3. Again, no disclosure, no referral. What’s unusual about that? The rest of this line is so
poorly written that I can not understand what it says. It appears that they contacted the ER
doctor to confirm that he did not think the healing bruise was the result of abuse. It looks like
they had a response in mind before they made the call. I want to meet the person who can look
at a bruise and tell me how it happened by the look of the bruise alone. Most doctors will tell
you that they can’t accurately date a bruise let alone say how it happened with out independent
information from the victim or a witness.
4. Did DHHS research what Lori called “arnica” or ask Igor if he was familiar with the
herbal ointment that the ombudsman referred to as a drug. The following is a portion of the
information available on arnica. I did not see the word drug anywhere associated with this.
Medicinal uses
Arnica montana has been used medicinally for centuries, however there are no scientific studies
that prove the medical effectiveness.[1] The roots contain derivatives of thymol,[3] which are used
as fungicides and preservatives. Arnica is currently used in liniment and ointment preparations
used for strains, sprains, and bruises. Commercial arnica preparations are frequently used by
professional athletes.[4]
The thymol derivatives concentrated in the plants roots have been clinically shown to be
effective vasodilators of subcutaneous blood capillaries. In one double-blind trial, Arnica
montana was found to be equally effective as the more expensive diclofenac for accelerating
wound healing after foot surgery, but was less effective than the same drug for pain relief.[5]
However, Diclofenac does not promote wound healing as it is an anti-inflammatory drug and
hence this comparison is not useful[citation needed]. A study of wound-healing after surgery to treat
varicose veins found a trend towards a beneficial effect of reduction of pain and hematoma
following surgery.[6]
5. There is no definitive evidence of when the assault occurred other than since Lori last
saw Mila. So it is quite possible that Igor had plenty of time to apply arnica. Lori stated that the
bruise was covered by a head band that was on Mila when she picked her up. Lori did not see
the bruise until she removed the head band to groom Mila’s hair. The ombudsman assumes that

6. Igor always tells the truth and certainly would admit to DHHS if that he had assaulted his
daughters if he in fact had.
It’s interesting that they were looking for an overnight cure claim for arnica. Does DHHS know
when the assault actually occurred? Again, Lori did not use the word hematoma until the doctor
did.
Part 8.
True. DHHS refused to investigate the meth allegations. I personally told Despard about it on
April 13, 2011 but on May 31, 2011 he claims it was the first he heard of it.
Malenko does have a criminal record and anyone with cash in hand can go to the court and ask
for it. Lori will have to address whether DHHS was notified about the shoplifting of cough
medicine while Mila was with him. The DA and then police knew about it.
The reports I have read indicate that Mila said that her father blew “mith” in her face not meth.
Another indication that DHHS did a half hearted job in verifying the information they were told.
1. DR Baum’s report says “If the child indeed told her mother that the father blows “mith”
in her face....” I saw no where in his report where he said Mila was likely exposed to her father’s
drug use. He said it should be investigated.
2. MDEA did not refuse to investigate. MDEA Agent Chip Woodman investigated quite
vigorously until told negative information about Lori by South Portland Police Sergeant Steven
Webster. Strong likelihood is not the standard for a criminal conviction. It is beyond a
reasonable doubt. The continuity issue is an appropriate consideration for denying prosecution.
In a civil matter it is a different standard. The lack of contact between Campbell and Lori during
the collection of the sample was approximately three minutes. Campbell told me the sample was
warm when given to her by Lori. People imply that Lori falsified the sample but they give no
example as to how. S/A Woodman knew what the continuity issues were when he began the
investigation. No one has accused Lori of a false report but everyone feels strongly that it is.
Same with the assault. She is accused of coaching and making a false report but no one as
investigated or charged her with the crime. DHHS went so far as to unsubstantiate that Lori was
causing emotional abuse to Mila by making false reports. Which is it?
3. I talked to Dr Simone. She told me that inferior street meth could have l
methamphetamine in it. She acknowledged one over the counter medication, a Vick’s Inhaler as
a possible source but Malenko stated that Mila does not use one. The other source was a
prescription medication for Parkinson’s disease. She stated that the substance in Vick’s is not l
methamphetamine but is the same thing. The NMS lab indicated l methamphetamine not
something like it.
4. True. Subsequent test were performed after a three hour ride and plenty of time for the
meth to metabolize out of the body.

7. 5 a. There is nothing to say it was not Mila’s urine but the word of her mother that it was.
Campbell did not indicate that anyone but Lori and Mila went in and out of the bathroom. So
Lori either ingested meth and gave the sample herself or she found a meth user to give her a
sample and she was able to keep it warm and put it in the kit provided by Campbell. (Mila’s last
name is Malenko not Handrahan.)
5 B. Why does it have to be street meth? It could very well been Bath Salts. Dr Simone
acknowledged that just because she had not seen any Bath Salts cases in the area in 2010 it did
not mean it was not there yet. By its very nature “street drugs” could have anything in them. Dr
Simone acknowledged this. I believe that is why there are imitation schedule drug laws on the
books.
5 C. I don’t know when or how it has been proven that Lori has made false allegations about
Igor. I know of several that have been proven true. One being the DV assault. DHHS has only
unsubstantiated the allegations. That means they could not prove it or they did a sub standard
investigation
When I discussed this case with Deb Poole, the architect of DHHS’s new interviewing protocol
she stated “I bet you would like to get a look at his computer.” She said this only knowing the
sexual abuse allegation and the fact he was from Eastern Europe. It is okay for someone like
Deb Poole to have this “gut feeling” and not Maine’s expert in child sex abuse examinations.
There are conflicting stories of what was done or not done by MCCU and that needs further
investigation before any report like this is signed off on.
Lori did not want to discuss the child porn as she did not have any personal knowledge of its
existence. She was given reasons why it was probable and evidence from an IT Specialist in
Macedonia that said it was likely. The information came up inadvertently in the May 31 meeting
and if anyone was paying attention it was quashed immediately and not discussed again. DHHS
chose to investigate information that was brought up as an aside with no basis to go further. It
certainly was not made as a complaint by Lori. She was prudent not to discuss issues she had no
solid knowledge of.
The fact that DHHS did not find any evidence of Malenko’s criminal record is proof that they do
not know how to investigate or purposefully avoided information that would reflect poorly on
Malenko. I don’t know why Lori did not provide records of Malenko’s arrests and convictions
and I would be very surprised if she did not. It is DHHS’s responsibility to get that information
when conducting an investigation. Always has been. The first thing they did was request a
criminal record check on any case I was involved with DHHS.
I don’t know what period of time DHHS is referring to that a private investigator observed
Malenko but I only saw him in court one day along with everyone else and that was less than an
hour.
1. Mila was not subject to several interviews before Spurwink interviewed her.

8. 2. At four she disclosed to her mother and then was allowed to stay with the alleged abuser
for a lengthy period of time that would allow for coaching a recantation.
3. True. But there is no evidence of coaching. Spurwink said so. The same holds true for
Igor’s allegations of false reports.
4. I’m not sure what DHHS requires for objective evidence but I have seen them do a lot
more with a lot less. Please explain what about RN Polly Campbell is not a “medical
professional”?
Igor did make a formal complaint against Lori for subjecting Mila to emotional abuse by making
false allegations against him. DHHS unsubstantiated it.
1. There has been no “relentless” recording of Mila. The only person to expose her to a
visible recorder was Chris Call of DHHS. Lori resorted to the recording of Mila and many other
people involved in the case because people did not believe her and officials denied giving her
specific information. I have recorded nearly everyone in this case. So if I’m concerned that
someone will try to discredit me with my reputation for honesty and integrity what chance does
Lori have without making recordings?
2. Pelvic exams? Correct me if I’m wrong but a pelvic exam involves the insertion of a
speculum in the female’s vagina. The ombudsman really believes that has happened. I’m aware
that Dr Ricci did a minimally intrusive vaginal examine per DHHS’s request and there was
another similar exam at a doctor’s office after Mila disclosed that the injury near her “bikini line”
was caused by her father. Repeated?
3. Lori took one urine sample from Mila. As suggested by a medical professional. The
follow up tests were suggested by S/A Chip Woodman of MDEA. A child traumatized by
peeing in cup. I would think most children would think it fun unless they had to do it in front of
an audience. There’s the problem. Lori protected her child from the trauma of having to pee in a
cup in front of a stranger.
4. This is the most egregious assumption on the part of the ombudsman. Igor’s right to
decide when they can’t agree does not apply to the court ordered visitation schedule. That is
final and set in stone as it were. He, more importantly, his attorney, who Rebecca Austin, of
DHHS, is on record as saying that waxman is the biggest problem in the case, has interpreted
that part of the decree in order to control when and under what circumstances Lori can see her
daughter. Check the law. That’s called contempt of court and more importantly for DHHS’s
point of view, parent alienation.
Lori had been subjected to e-mails from Igor stating that if she tried to see Mila he would have
her arrested and at the same time got e-mails from his attorney asking why she was not seeing
her daughter. Lori was exercising her court ordered right to see her daughter. She contacted the
police. The court order does not give him the ability to decide how visitation is to occur. The
court order does that for both Lori and Igor. He has no right to order supervised visits. DHHS

9. knows this. What were the inappropriate actions? She spoke to Igor. He ran away and called
his attorney. She knocked on the door and called out to her daughter who responded. If anyone
acted inappropriately it was Malenko for not allowing a daughter to see her mother.
5. This is so ridiculous it is difficult to respond. Igor does not have the right to defy a court
order. There is no need for Lori to have to be supervised. If there were, the court would have
ordered it. They have not.
I will not speak for Maureen Flatley (not Dr Flatley) but I believe that she was speaking about a
specific DHHS worker about a specific and limited situation. Not the overall investigation and
involvement of DHHS.
I am curious who did the investigation as you stated that you only signed the report and could not
verify where some information came from or who gathered it. There are so many errors,
fabrications or mischaracterizations not to mention obviously biased opinions. This report
should never have been released. Then only up side is if waxman uses it as is, it would most
certainly be discredited and undermine his case against Lori.
Mr. Crocker, you may have noticed that when I was not sure of the information in this rebuttal I
said so. You may have noticed that the information I was sure of I gave you the basis for my
knowledge. There is nothing in “your” report to indicate to me that an actual investigation was
done. You quoted people you did not interview. You addressed reports you obviously did not
read and you made statements that were inaccurate or false.
I am sure on some level you are an intelligent man and with that in mind you may want to take a
long hard look at what you have done and consider resigning from the Ombudsman’s office.
Sincerely,
Steve Pickering
PICKERING INVESTIGATIONS, LLC
Stephen J. Pickering
93 Beech Hill Road
Blue Hill, Maine 04614
207-266-7297
stephenp2@myfairpoint.net
picksteve74@yahoo.com