Statements made by former Warren County employees revealing years of suspicion that ex-Sheriff Edward Bullock had a perverted interest in young boys carry potentially heavy weight in civil litigation against Bullock and the county, according to legal experts.

The experts, including one with experience in similar lawsuits, agreed the county appears vulnerable as the statements indicate those in a position of authority knew -- or should have known -- Bullock may have been preying on children but took no steps to prevent it.

"It's very significant that people would come forward," said Jeffrey Fritz, a Philadelphia-based attorney who represented numerous victims in the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn State. "It's the smoking gun."

Anthony Bocchino, a law professor at Temple University and civil procedure expert, agreed.

"One would think they could make out the claim against the county without too much trouble," he said.

Allegations resurface

Bullock, now 86, took over the sheriff's office in 1982 and ultimately left in disgrace. He resigned in 1991 amid charges he tried to curry sexual favors from an undercover New Jersey State Police trooper at the Phillipsburg Mall.

Bullock, formerly of Phillipsburg, pleaded guilty to a charge of official misconduct and served nine months in the Hunterdon County Jail.

He faded from the public eye until 2012, when allegations of sexual abuse were made in a tort claim, a legal notice generally filed leading up to a civil lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in April 2013.

Spurred by the civil action, prosecutors launched a criminal investigation and a grand jury indicted Bullock in February on three counts each of aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. Prosecutors say he began sexually abusing the victim, a then 10-year-old boy, in December 1986 and the abuse continued for more than a year.

Bullock, who now lives in Ocean County, New Jersey, has pleaded not guilty to the charges and remains free on $100,000 bail.

Together, the charges and civil lawsuit have brought renewed focus on Bullock's tenure as sheriff and county officials' handling of a scandal involving him then.

In a three-part series published earlier this month in The Express-Times, former Warren County officials told the newspaper they had suspicions about Bullock dating to the 1980s, and a former freeholder said he privately raised concerns then that Bullock might expose the county to liability.

In statements to a private detective working for the plaintiff -- the transcripts of which were obtained by the newspaper -- a former sheriff's officer also expressed a belief there was a "general knowledge" of Bullock's alleged behavior, yet "no one seemed to care" and it became a running joke among staffers.

'Problem in the sheriff's office'

Bocchino, who said he knew of the case based only upon media reports, called the claims "incredible."

"Given the facts laid out in articles, it doesn't seem like there's much question there was a problem in the sheriff's office there," he said. "It's incredible to me. This whole story is incredible to me that this was allowed to go on."

A secretary for Bullock's attorney, Brian White, declined comment on the lawyer's behalf and Jerald Howarth, the attorney representing Warren County in the civil litigation, did not return a phone message.

Mark Crawford, director of the New Jersey Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said the parallels are stark between what is alleged to have happened in Warren County and previous high-profile sexual abuse scandals involving the Catholic church, Penn State and the Boy Scouts.

People are often hesitant to be a whistleblower, particularly if the person is in a position of authority or is well respected within the community, Crawford said. There can be additional concerns over bad publicity being brought upon the organization, he said.

"Whenever you have an institution that has a vested interest in keeping a reputation, people tend to look the other way," Crawford said. "Instinctively, they try to protect their own reputation, so to speak, instead of doing the right thing.

"It appears this may be one of those examples," he said.

Kenneth Lanning is a former FBI agent, who worked in the agency's behavioral science unit, and authored the book, "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis." He said cover-ups or cases of people looking the other way often come down to two factors: ignorance and damage control.

"These are two predominant ones that seem to explain why so many organizations do such a poor job of dealing with this," he said.

'Nice guy' molesters

Lanning said he does not know the facts of the Bullock case but could speak generally to molesters and their victims.

According to Lanning, sexual predators come in various forms. But unlike an abusive family member or a stranger who kidnaps a child, the hardest type of abuser for people to understand -- and the one who often gets away with it the longest -- is the "nice guy" acquaintance, he said.

They can be priests, babysitters, teachers or coaches -- people who are around children frequently and develop a relationship with them and their families.

"It's all very troubling for people because they want to believe these predators are dirty old men wearing raincoats with hunchbacks and pockmarks rather than to believe he's someone who was likeable and works with kids," Lanning said.

In statements to a private detective working the civil case, one former sheriff's officer said Bullock would send her to the deli to buy boys cigarettes. Another officer said he would take boys fishing and buy them "whatever they needed."

Lanning said abusers often are able to manipulate and "groom" their victims, spending time with them, taking them on trips and showering them with gifts and attention.

Often, he said, the nicer someone is, the longer they get away with their crimes.

"If the acquaintance is in a position of authority then they have added leverage," Lanning said. "Any adult can do this to any child but being in a position of authority makes it a little easier."

Civil case stayed

Currently, the civil litigation facing Bullock and Warren County has been stayed until the criminal charges against the former sheriff are resolved.

Fritz, who previously served as president of the National Crime Victim Bar Association, said that is not unusual. But regardless of how the criminal proceedings play out, it's unlikely the civil case would be negatively impacted from the plaintiff's perspective.

If Bullock were to be acquitted at trial, the verdict would not be allowed to be introduced in the civil proceedings, Fritz said. On the flip side, "if (Bullock's) convicted, he's automatically liable," he said.

Bucchino said he believes a conviction could influence the county's decision about whether to fight the civil case.

"I think it would impact it in the sense that one would think the county would then settle the case," he said.

While he made clear he does not know Warren County's position on the matter, Fritz said it is possible county lawyers may contest the suit based on New Jersey's statute of limitations.

New Jersey has no statute of limitations for criminal sexual assault of victims less than 13 years old. But a civil complaint is more ambiguous.

According to the state Child Sexual Abuse Act, a complaint must come two years after a victim makes a "reasonable discovery of the injury and its causal relationship to the act of sexual abuse."

"If the county is saying it's too late to bring the case, and I would expect them to make the argument, whether the requirements are met under the Child Sexual Abuse Act would be decided by a judge before it reaches a jury," he said.