Law&Crime Sidebar - Convicted Pedo Surgeon Wanted to Help 8-Year-Old ‘Explore Her Sexuality’: Ex-Wife

Episode Date: April 30, 2024

Lynn Lindaman, 73, was a pediatric surgeon in Iowa for years. A jury recently convicted him of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old girl at his home. Lindaman’s ex-wife testified that he told her he was helping the girl “explore her sexuality in a safe space.” This comes decades after a prior conviction of sexual assault, but Lindaman was still able to practice medicine. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber digs into how this could happen with former sex crimes prosecutor Sarena Townsend.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get 50% off of confidential background reports at https://www.truthfinder.com/lcsidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Here's a question for you. How is it a 73-year-old pediatric surgeon was able to abuse an eight-year-old after he was already convicted of sexually assaulting a teenager over 40 years ago. Well, he was just sentenced to decades behind bars, and it is a really disturbing story that we break down with former sex crimes prosecutor, Serena Townsend. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Got a pretty nasty story for you to talk about. It concerns a man named Lynn Lindemann, a 73-year-old pediatric surgeon from Iowa,

who was just sentenced to 50 years in prison for sexually abusing an 8-year-old girl. Processed that one for a second, because do you know why he got such a severe sentence? Because it turns out his sentence was enhanced because he had previously been convicted back in 1976 of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old at a gymnastics camp, which of course raises the disturbing and important question of how he became an orthopedic surgeon. We will get to that. But back to the case at hand, yes, he was convicted of second-degree sexual assault for abusing this girl at his home back in June of 2023.

He was arrested the next day, closed his practice, he agreed with the state medical board to stop practicing medicine, went to trial. Lindemann's ex-wife actually testified, testified that he told her that he was trying to help the girl, quote, explore her sexuality in a safe place. My gosh. Took the jury about an hour to come back. with a guilty verdict, not surprising there. Let me bring on criminal defense attorney Serena Townsend,

who specialized in sex crimes prosecutions back of the day before becoming a defense attorney. Serena, thanks so much for coming on. Let me just start right now with the sentence here because I think it's definitely the appropriate sentence, but the way I understand it, second degree sexual assault carries a 25-year prison sentence, a mandatory minimum sentence of 17 and a half years,

But it was enhanced because under Iowa law, since he was convicted back in the 70s of that sexually predatory offense, he now gets this 50 years in prison and has to serve 42 and a half years. What's your thoughts on that? Yeah, it's not uncommon for people who are convicted of crimes to have an enhanced sentence when they've previously been convicted of a felony. Obviously, this is a shockingly horrible situation where his previous felony matches essentially the current. felony, but it didn't have to necessarily. And so, yes, when you are what's called a predicate felon, you are going to be facing an enhanced sentence as opposed to somebody who's committing a crime for the very first time. When you read this headline, by the way, were you shocked?

You're like, nope, I've seen this before. It makes sense, especially when you look at his background. You know, it's maybe shocking to the general public, but as somebody who was a former sex crimes prosecutor, it was sadly not shocking at all. I mean, it has hints of like the Larry Nassar gymnastics coach. Unfortunately, what you do see oftentimes is that people with the inclination to commit this kind of crime, they seem to make sure to put themselves in positions where it's easiest to commit that crime. So you'll see people like that, predators becoming camp counselors, becoming teachers, pediatricians,

members of the clergy even. It happens because they want to be able to have access to those. young children. It's horrible. I hate to ask you, but I mean, first of all, it's one thing for his ex-wife to testify against him, but the idea that he allegedly told her that he was trying to help the girl explore her sexuality in a safe place? What is that? It, to me, reeks of gaslighting in the extreme. It's a way for him to somehow explain what he was doing in some sort of innocent terms that he thought his wife would buy. It almost seemed to to me like he knew he could not deny it fully because the girl was so credible and because

he had obviously been her doctor. And so this was the best he could come up with. And it's not convincing at all. And clearly she was not convinced. I don't know what his defense was if he was trying to strike at the credibility of this child. I mean, when your ex-wife testifies against you and says this, I'm not surprised it took the jury such a short amount of time to convict him. That's right. And meanwhile, there is no such thing as consent when a child is that young. Well, an eight-year-old child literally cannot consent to that type of sexual activity. And so even if he was trying to somehow make it this little girl's fault, which is not even consent saying she's making it up. Ah, yeah, I mean, he could try, but there's really no reason for her to make that up. And that is something I am sure that the jury thought about, albeit quite quickly in their very fast turnaround response of one hour, why would she make that up?

And I'm sure she gave enough detail for it to smack of credibility rather than a lie. Now, Lindeman, he declined to speak after the sentencing. He pleaded the Fifth Amendment until all legal actions are commended. completed his attorney, Lucas Taylor said in a statement. We're obviously disappointed in the jury's verdict. However, we believe the court erred in some of its rulings and look forward to pursuing an appeal. I'm not surprised. And we talk about this a lot, right? We're sometimes defendants who are after their convictor after their sentence. They choose not to say anything because they don't want to jeopardize their appeal. I'm not surprised on there. I don't know where you think this might go

if he has a chance of an appeal, of a successful appeal. You see anything on the outside, on the outset? It's probably the only smart thing he's ever done was to keep his mouth shut. He already tried to say something that put him in jeopardy to his ex-wife. And so I'm sure his lawyer told him, just please stop talking. That's the best thing he could do. Of course, everybody is entitled to justice and entitled to an appeal if the court erred. But it does seem like this is a relatively straightforward case, and I'm not so sure that he would have the ability to actually overturn this conviction. It's a pretty disgusting case, to say the least. You've got to be careful who you surround yourself with, who you let into your life.

Do you even know? Do you really know? It's a scary thing to think about. But that's why I want to talk to you about our incredible sponsor who may be able to help you, truthfinder.com. They have a service that can provide actual safety for you guys. And why do I say that? I say that because TruthFinder is one of the largest public records search services in the United States. Their goal is to help people like you learn about the people in their lives.

and here's how it works. You go on their website, TruthFinder.com, and you type in a name. Type in any name. Let's say your new neighbor. Let's say your new neighbor's me. Jesse Weber.

Okay, make it easy. You type in my name, and within minutes and a paid subscription purchase, you can access unlimited reports that could include information like phone numbers, location history,

criminal and traffic records, including possible arrests and criminal convictions. I don't have those, but you get the idea. Now, TruthFinder has been partnering with law and crime for a while. Now, we actually use it

to research some of the cases that we've been covering here on Sidebar, but in general, it can just help provide peace of mind when you do these unlimited public record searches. Also, you know what's really useful? Is that from within the report, you can search an address to see registered sex offenders that may live in that area, too. That's the point. Unless you use Truthfinder, you may never know the reality about the people around you. Also, I should tell you truth finder, incredible resource to use when just reconnecting with people. Long-lost friends, family

members you haven't spoken to in a while. You can use Truthfinder to help track down these people's information. It is a great tool. Now, here's the kicker. Right now, you can get 50% off of your first month of confidential background reports. Just go to truthfinder.com slash LC sidebar. Let's talk about the event from the 70s, because that's the big thing here. I'm going to lay it out and then we'll talk about it. So Lindemann, my understanding from that conviction in the 70s, he was offered a deferred judgment at that time, gets to stay out of prison so long as he follows probation terms, broke that deal when he was found guilty of assaulting this eight-year-old girl. How does one like him become a doctor after that, right?

That's the question. So according to the Des Moines Register, apparently Lindemann wasn't required to reveal that he had this case from the 70s when he applied for a medical license back in 1987. That is since changed. That's my understanding. Now it seems that all misdemeanors and felonies, even if there is a deferred judgment, has to be disclosed to the state medical board. Serena, does any of this make sense to you?

It's scary that there wasn't already a rule in place that required him to self-disclose, but I am glad that the law has changed in order to force people to, you know, disclose these kinds of convictions, even in a deferred prosecution type of situation. I mean, why was there? Why was there a deferred judgment problem? Does that make strike you as odd, too? I know this is from decades ago, but is that weird? You know, sometimes these cases resolve.

that way because a child doesn't necessarily want to take the stand or the prosecution wants to not expose that child to that process. There's a lot of reasons why cases resolve in ways that the public may not be very supportive of, but there's a lot that usually goes into thinking about what the best resolution is. I guess he was also relatively young back then and maybe they thought they would just give him another chance. Maybe the evidence was relatively weak because it was a he said, she said, there's a lot of reasons why cases end in that way. But that being said, even if there's no law that he had to self-disclose that previous conviction before becoming a doctor, I would have expected a better vetting process by the

medical community before allowing this individual contact, almost exclusive contact with children. Let's explore that a little bit. Are you saying with the proper two diligence they could have found out about this deferred judgment? I think that they should have. I don't know exactly what access they had, but I do think that if you are going to, quote, unquote, graduate your physicians into a position where they're going to be dealing with young children, the most susceptible population potentially, that there needs to be enhanced vetting on their part. Have you seen this situation before where somebody has had this previous history and they're hired in a position to treat people like this? I mean, look, the Larry Nassar case, I don't remember off the top of my head,

but I don't think he had a criminal history before everything happened. But the question is, and obviously he was kept there way too long because there was already reports of his behavior. That's a separate question. But somebody who has the previous criminal conviction, have you seen cases where they are allowed in a position to commit more sex crimes? I haven't personally seen that, which is why this is so striking to me. But that being said, I have represented a young woman who was sexually abused by her physician, and the signs were always there. And that's what I'm also trying to get at.

This guy who's in his 70s, there's no doubt in my mind that other people, whether it be colleagues or patients, have made complaints or have said something's off about this guy. And I do think that his employer needs to be held accountable for continuing to employ him or for putting him in a position to allow him to continue behavior that was probably happening. to other kids before this even came, became public. Now, here's the kicker. Here's the kicker. We talk about them maybe not having notice of this.

Let's talk about Sherry Moller. So she's the victim from that 70s, that 70s incident. Reportedly found out in 2020 that Lindemann was actively practicing medicine to her surprise. So she apparently files a complaint with the Iowa Board of Medicine. The board didn't revoke Lindemann's license. She reportedly was told that the complaint. was confidential. The Des Moines Register reported that a spokesperson for the Board of Medicine said that the complaints and investigative files, they are not released to the public due to confidentiality

provisions in Iowa law. The letter that she reportedly received from the board said, quote, after careful review of the investigative materials obtained in this matter, the board voted to close this matter at this time without taking public disciplinary action against Lindemann, although this may not be the outcome you were seeking. you can be assured that your complaint was investigated, and the board reached its decision after full review of the investigative record. Now, Mueller did not stop there. No, for years, she attended public meetings of this medical board,

trying to get them to do something with Lindemann. She claims nothing was done, nothing happened. So she reached out to other associations like U.S. track and field. They had listed Lindeman as the president of the Iowa chapter at one point in time, but apparently in 2022 he was deemed to be ineligible to participate. participate in U.S. track and field. She also contacted Drake University Athletics, who after they were notified, they announced that Lindemann has had no involvement with the Drake relays or associated events. And at the time, all of this became public

about Lindemann, Stephanie Bond, the communications director for the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals released a statement, quote, Iowans can be assured that every complaint is thoroughly evaluated to determine if a physician violated Iowa law or the administrative code. The board takes its responsibility to regulate the practice of medicine and protect the safety of all Iowans very seriously. Sharina, what? Absolutely shameful. Shameful that this woman had to carry the entire justice on her own back and still fail

because nobody listened to her. It does not matter that a box was checked, that they did an investigation or that, you know, they're not necessarily entitled to all the details of what had happened to her because his conviction was sealed or whatever else they want to say. It is their responsibility. They're not the police. There are certain laws that the police and law enforcement have to uphold. Certain things in court that are allowed into evidence and not allowed into evidence in order to protect people's rights. That's very different from just the public interest in keeping people safe, especially children. It is shameful that this poor woman who was herself abused by this doctor really was

shouting from the rooftops about this and nobody listened where is the responsibility where is the oversight it is shameful she told the Des Moines register I'm pissed the fact that it happened since I've been begging and petitioning the medical board to revoke his license just sickens me this was preventable there didn't have to be another victim if they would have done their job the one job that they have to protect the public that child would not have been put in harm's way now with that there is a lawsuit because miss Mueller filed a law lawsuit against Lindemann under a 22 law, my understanding, that in some cases, it eliminates the statute of limitations, the time bar for victims of child abuse to come forward. So she alleges in the lawsuit that back on July 10, 1975, that Lindemann was treating her back.

That's when he sexually assaulted her. This caused her mental health, emotional issues, carried into her adult life. This case is scheduled to go to trial in 2025. Talk to me about how strong you think that lawsuit would be. Good for her. Good for her. I hope she wins all the money. That lawsuit is going to be rock solid considering this newest conviction.

And I think she should go forward with a lawsuit. And I think this girl who was, you know, recently, more recently abused, should absolutely go forward with a lawsuit as well because they were on notice about this doctor because of the first victim. God knows how many other children were exposed to him, and it could have been prevented. So I wish her the best of luck. I do think, thankfully, that the window was open for these lawsuits, because it is true. Why would she think anybody would take her seriously in a lawsuit back then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s if nobody was listening to all of her complaints at that time?

Now that maybe people or the courts are a little bit more willing to listen to what had happened, in the past. We reopened that window for adult survivors and let them sue for acts that happened to them long ago. Good for her. She should take advantage of that time. And I do hope and wish her the best of luck. Sickening case. Really, really sickening case. Serena Townsend, thank you so much. You were terrific. I really appreciate your insight. Thank you. And that is all we have for you here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber.

I'll speak to you next time.