Key excerpts from defense brief (with links to document)
[Document links omitted in Fidonet version]
Ms. Berson testified that she needed to encourage Michelle to disclose
by directing the conversation toward her having been hurt at Ms.
Polly's and having a secret. (Tpp. 821-829) Her techniques included
suggestions and leading questions. (Tp. 841) It was Ms. Berson who
introduced the suggestion that it was "Pat" who hurt Michelle. (Tp.
840)
..Ms. Berson used anatomical dolls to elicit statements. She told
Michael that Michelle was afraid of defendant. ... Ms. Berson asked
Michael if the defendant wore a costume or a mask. She asked him about
the devil, and about candles. She asked him about singing or chanting.
(Tp. 796) She was interested in finding out if the children had been
involved in Satanic ritual. She claimed to have had "previous
experience" with such matters. She asked questions designed to elicit
information about ritualistic abuse, Satanic symbols, etc.
[4] Michael allegedly talked about "white powder" and "black poison."
(Tp. 794) He said that the defendant put ketchup on a dog to make it
look dead. (Tp. 797) Michael also allegedly talked about having to
drink a dog's pee, and having to drink Zachary's pee. ... Dr. Margaret
Young testified as an expert in human and animal behavior. Dr. Young
described the phenomenon of "submissive urination" by dogs. ...
The District Attorney was John Twisdale. Ms. Hill's lawyer was Thomas
Locke. ..Mr. Twisdale ran for re-election in the spring of 1990. His
opponent in the primary was Tom Locke.... Mr. Twisdale was defeated by
Mr. Locke... In June, 1990, Mr. Twisdale told Attorney Richard Rosen
that he thought defendant and Ms. Hill might both be innocent. (Dunne
Tp. 31) Nonetheless, in July, 1990, the charges against Sonya Hill
were reinstated by Mr. Twisdale in violation of the plea agreement.
(Rpp 14, 36)
Commentary on decision
Why is this so outrageous? Here the appeals court lets this conviction
stand despite the fact that the psychiatrist (Dr. Mark Douglas
Everson) testified that it was his professional opinion that Pat
Figured molested the children. This is normally forbidden because (1)
it usurps the jury's function as the fact finder, and (2) it is plain
junk science. See Everson's description of how he obtained one
disclosure from his testimony in another trial. This also describes
the SRA aspects of the case. According to the defense appellate brief,
a social worker had already extracted SRA accusations before Everson
saw the child.
The appeals court justifies this travesty claiming that it did not
make a difference because there was overwhelming evidence of the
Figured's guilt. What did this evidence include: children's stories
which are corroborated. What is this corroboration? The fact that they
made accusations to the therapists and their parents. This would be
less of a problem, had it not been that the accusation included
bizarre and uncorroborated things such as adults dressed as devils,
drinking dog urine, and burning a Bible. And these professionals
appear to believe this. Unfortunately, according to Hill and her
family key videotapes of the initial interviews with each of the three
children disappeared from the prosecution's hands.
The other corroboration is the medical signs (anal dilation) which are
found in about 1/3 of nonabused children. And the fact that on rare
occasions he had lunch with his girl friend at her mom's house (where
the daycare was).
Another item that seems bizarre is that the defendant's response "Who
Brooks?" when told that he was being charged with statutory rape was
explained to the jury to be one "which tends to show that the
defendant may have admitted a fact relating to the crime charged in
this case." Why is this bizarre? Brooks Hill was Figured's
girlfriend's (Sonja Hill) daughter (now age 17). Figured was not
charged with raping her (although Sonya Hill was charged with holding
her while Figured raped her). Apparently the preschoolers must have
said that she was part of the satanic rituals. And who else would
Figured think he was most likely to be accused by?
She denied being abused [News and Observer, July 6, 1993, page B1] by
either and even testified for the defense. (aside, can anyone cite a
case where someone testified for the defense at the trial where their
alleged murderer was convicted?) Sonja Hill pleaded no contest to some
minor charge and received a 10 year sentence.
Jonathan G. Harris  Associate Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering,  MIT Rm 66-450
25 Ames Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
harris@mit.edu (617)253-5273  Fax 252-1651
Jonathan G. Harris  Associate Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering,  MIT Rm 66-450
25 Ames Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
harris@mit.edu (617)253-5273  Fax 252-1651
[end forwarded posting]
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------