This is not a case of an innocent man being wrongfully convicted. This is the case of a man, who committed some crimes, being convicted of far more than he committed and facing far longer time in prison than he deserves.
A deceptively simple press release from the District Attorney’s office states, “During the jury trial, the victim testified that beginning in 2003, when she was seven years old, and ending in 2008 just before her thirteenth birthday, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Sam.”
But in a case in which nothing was simple, even that simple statement by the DA was not completely true.
The press release continues, “After reporting the sexual abuse to an adult, a report was made to the West Sacramento Police Department which conducted an investigation into the child’s allegations, resulting in the arrest of Nang Sam on February 3, 2011.”
The truth in this case is complex. Something definitely happened between Mr. Sam and the victim. The question is what happened and the answer that everyone involved in this case, which judge, defense and prosecutor all agree on, is that what happened was significantly less than the 36 charges for which the jury convicted him.
Mr. Sam will now likely spend the rest of his life in prison. He faces around a 190-year sentence for the 36 counts, depending on what Judge Mock decides he can do with the sentencing.
Evidence
[A quick note to the reader: In order to protect the victim in this case we are going to be vague on the name, relation, and other factors in this case.]
The critical question is whether the victim in this case was raped repeatedly by Mr. Sam or whether he merely touched her on one or more than one occasion. Members of the family would come forward and testify that the victim claimed to have been touched by Mr. Sam, but never claimed to have been penetrated.
Critical evidence was revealed when the victim took the stand but was unable to recall anything beyond touching.
In an effort to perhaps refresh her recollections or get evidence to the jury, the Prosecutor, Deputy DA Rob Gorman, then played the MDIC (Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center) video recording in which the victim is speaking with a counsellor. The victim explained in detail that the sex acts began at about the victim’s 7th birthday (when Mr Sam was about 19 years old) till about the victim’s 13th birthday. The victim described that at age 10 there was a rape, that one time there was anal penetration and there was a burning sensation.
However, during the break the victim told a support person that half of what is mentioned in the tape is false. This only makes it to the jury once in the form of a question by Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson to the detective on the case, who acknowledges that this in fact happened.
Mr. Gorman then resumed questioning and tried to ask how the victim can describe that there was a burning sensation, perhaps seeking to show that such details would have to be from personal experience only. The victim replied that they got that from the show “South Park.”
Four relatives or people close to the victim would testify that the victim denied most of the most serious charges at the time of Mr. Sam’s arrest.
Two of these people, who had spoken directly to the victim, testified that victim had said that she was touched only. One of these, who had taken the time to explain to the victim the meaning of rape, had said the victim had replied that rape did not happen.
One person, whom the victim stated that she told about the rape, denied that the victim had told her about rape. Another person had confronted Mr. Sam when the allegations first surfaced, and testified that Mr. Sam had broken down and admitted the touching but denied rape.
The defense argued or otherwise implied that an individual close to the victim had an interest in convincing the victim to claim worse crimes than what actually occurred.
One of the young people close to the victim also testified to being told by this person to lie and say that he/she had witnessed rape and that he/she would be given a better life in exchange, including desired material things.
The defense attorney referred to Detective Engle as the detective who can’t detect, made in reference to his admission that once the detective got the answer from the defendant that he wanted, he stopped looking and questioning, and also to the fact that just two week prior to trial, months after the incident was reported and Mr Sam was arrested, that the detective spent two days in surveillance outside the house of a vital witness, looking for the witness and was unable to find the person. The public defender’s office was able to locate the witness during the trial and brought the person in to testify.
Detective Engle said that [follwing the complaint made at the police station]he had sought out Nang Sam and brought him back to the station voluntarily to be questioned.
Detective Engle stated on cross that Mr. Sam was put in a room with secret video and audio recording devices which he was not told of, with the exit doorway locked and the remaining door in the room leading to the police offices, where the detective would have been during the time he was not in the room.
Detective Engle testified that within seconds of the questioning he “knew” that Mr. Sam had committed the crime because Mr. Sam did not react strongly enough to the allegation that he had molested the victim.
The detective said that Mr. Sam denied the allegation about 10 times over an extended period, after which he began to admit it. The defense pointed out that the detective had never been specific enough about what he meant by “molest,” i.e. never distinguishing between touching and penetration.
After admitting that he did molest his sister, Mr. Sam went on to say that he raped her three times when she was age 10. Crucially, he said that he did it from a position behind her – which [would match] how the victim [would describe]it at her MDIC interview.
When asked why he stopped once Mr. Sam had confessed, the detective said “I had gotten what I needed.”
When asked whether he knows that a detective does not decide guilt in a case but rather collects evidence impartially, with a view to presenting it to a jury who decided the facts, he said that he did understand.
When asked if he ever took any further steps to investigate any of the allegations that were made, such as by talking to family members who may have been witnesses, such as talking to the roommate of the victim, such as talking to the friend whom the victim says she confided in about the molestation, he said that no, he did not.
When asked whether he ever reviewed Mr. Sam’s statements with him at a later time to ask him if they were accurate, he said he did not.
DA Supervisors Quash A Deal
The morning of the closing arguments, Judge Mock, Deputy DA Gorman and Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson had a public court hearing, outside the presence of the jury, where matters were put on the record.
Mr. Johansson put the following comments on the record. He said, “Throughout this trial, I’ve tried to proceed in the most honorable and reasonable way” and to try to settle the case on terms that are “reasonable for all parties.”
He said: “I feel this is a miscarriage of justice” that the case was not able to be settled, and that it is now “to go to the jury on many, many life counts given the facts of the case.”
He said that, despite the examination of the evidence throughout the trial, “the case is going to proceed with the very same charges as we started with.”
Mr. Gorman described the alleged victim’s recantations as “[The Victim’s] catastrophic breakdown on the stand.” He said that he had discussed a resolution of the case with two assistant chiefs and mentioned such to assistant chief Mike Cabral, Mr. Gorman’s superior. Mr. Gorman said that he explained his perspective to the assistant chiefs and that “the case should probably resolve” and should “involve a prison term.”
He said he told the assistant chiefs that it is “in the victim’s best interest to resolve the case” and that he “was unequivocal about it.” He explained that an offer of 16 years was turned down by the defendant and that his office was not willing to go below 16 years. He said that his own belief was that 12-14 years would be appropriate, but that was turned down by his office.
The defendant’s proposal of 10 years was too low, from his office’s perspective. He concluded by saying that he had been straight about this matter with the defense and the court throughout the trial.
Judge Mock Goes on the Record
Judge Mock began by saying: “I think it’s necessary that I add to this history.”
He explained that mid-trial he had met with the attorneys. He said, about the prosecutor in particular, that he had “urged him” to work for an “offer which did not contemplate a life sentence.”
The judge focused on counts #21 to #24 as charged, and the dates for them in the charge. He said that, according to the victim’s testimony, she does say that she was raped on numerous occasions and that the defendant “stuck his wiener into my back side” and that it caused a burning sensation which the judge said is evidence of sodomy.
He said that she also said she was raped in her vagina and that, on a “couple of occasions,” the defendant put his fingers in her vagina. He said, however, that she was not able to connect this to any dates or years.
He said that the victim had stated that, during hide and seek when she was 10 years old, the defendant vaginally raped her.
The judge asked what evidence there was that this was on or about the date charged. He said that the term “on or about” is being used very flexibly in these charges.
He said that the defendant admitted during the police interrogation that he raped the victim three times when she was age 10 years.
Judge Mock said that the Penal Code §288.7(B) charges don’t encompass rape, but rather, digital penetration.
He said that he has made no secret that he is displeased with the way the case has been charged. He said that if the case were charged as 36 counts of §288(A), a lewd act with a minor, they would not need to have this discussion.
He said there is sufficient evidence that all is “really inferences,” gesturing with his hands to indicate a hodge-podge of loosely-connected parts.
He said that the four counts charged involve a potential life sentence. He said that, although he cannot consider the sentencing when evaluating whether there is evidence for the charges, he is struggling to put that out of his mind.
He said “I would have to conclude reluctantly” that there is sufficient evidence to support the charges on appeal. He included an instruction about the lesser included charge of 288(A) for counts #21 to #25.
It should be noted here that, by law, the judge can only dismiss charges when there is no evidence. Evidence is at taken in the best possible light for these purposes, and therefore his comments should not be read to indicate that he believes a rape occurred, only that there was sufficient evidence to keep the charge of rape where the jury would serve as the finder of fact.
Judge Mock continued that “an offer of 12 years would have been a just disposition” and “which I believe would have been in everyone’s best interest and in the interest of justice.”
Though that was his wish, he said that “I don’t have legal authority to impose my view of the case on the DA.” In a quiet resolved tone he said: “With regrets, we are going to proceed.”
Closing Comments
Whatever misgivings that Mr. Gorman may have had, out of the presence of the jury, quickly vanished as he forcefully made the case to the jury that they need to convict on all charges.
In his closing, he argued that guilt is found in the MDIC interview. He said to consider the evident distress of the victim when evaluating her in-court testimony, in which she did not admit to anything more than touching.
He went through the counts methodically, and said that they proved that they happened, by using the MDIC interview and Mr Sam’s confession.
He concluded by saying that sex crimes do not happen at half-time in the middle of the field at a sporting event, that they happen in secret.
Mr. Johansson, in his closing, argued that with the accusation of “child molestor,” critical thinking seems to be suspended.
There is no evidence that rape (which he clearly was defining as penetration) was committed by Mr. Sam.
He argued that, during Mr. Sam’s interrogation, the detective was unspecific about what he meant by “molestation.” Circumstances were such during the period of the alleged rapes that they could not have been done without people close to the victim knowing about them.
He pointed out that the claim that all this happened in secret, without witnesses or other evidence, provides nothing for a defendant to fight against.
The defendant, he claimed, was tricked by being told that there were medical results that confirmed rape, when there was no such evidence. The medical results, testified to by the prosecutor’s doctor, were inconclusive as to whether she had been penetrated – with the doctor opining that young children heal quickly. The doctor said that the result were consisted with both the possibilities that the victim had never been penetrated and the victim had been penetrated during her life.
Mr. Johansson further claimed that there was a priestly penitent moment in the defendant’s interview, when the detective told the defendant to get the weight off his shoulders and that it was for the best of his family, after which the defendant began to admit to crimes.
He explained that the victim’s taped interview has to be seen in context, that it was, to some degree, staged and that just prior to the interview the victim had been in the company of people who had influenced the victim to claim rape.
Mr. Johansson explained that the adult to whom the alleged molestation was reported [according to the press release], had convinced the victim to exaggerate claims and to falsely claim that rape occurred. There was evidence to support this, from one other person close to the victim, that the adult asked the person to lie to police and to claim that victim was raped, but the person refused. There was also evidence that that adult had antagonism towards Mr. Sam.
Mr. Gorman, in the rebuttal, argued that Mr. Sam confessed to having raped the victim three times at age 10. He said that he confessed to having done it from behind, which matches what the victim explained in the victim’s taped interview.
He then argued forcefully that Mr. Sam is guilty of each of those 36 charges and that the jury had the duty to convict him.
Mr. Sam will be sentenced on October 7, 2011 by Judge Mock. He faces approximately 190 years in prison, multiple life sentences under the Sex Offender Punishment, Control and Containment Act of 2006.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ok.. 36 counts of inappropriate behavior… sibling coerced sex, of any form, is one of most cultures’ strongest “taboos”. The defendant was found guilty. If you were the judge, David, what would YOU present as the sentence? Probation, with credit given for time served? 10 years? 20 years? other?
The Judge cannot do anything at this point. I agree with the Judge’s comments, I think the case was mischarged, I think he was charged with crimes that he did not commit, I think he was convicted of crimes that he did not commit. I think the judge’s 12-14 years sounds about right. Something happened, I don’t know how many times it happened, but it was not penetration and it was not rape, and I think everyone involved knew that.
I missed the 12-14 years notation.
So a question to everyone with more knowledge of the law than I ( basically David’s entire following), who benefits from this outcome?
As reported by David, at one point, the prosecution and defense were haggling over at most a 2-5 year difference in recommended years of incarceration (two to five years of a man’s life) and now he is looking at life. Can someone please explain to me how this meets anyone’s idea of “justice”?
Again, I can only guess that someone must be benefitting from this outcome. I just can’t imagine who. Surely not the victim, Not the family.
Not the society who will have to pay for this incarceration despite the reported feelings of both the prosecutor and judge that 12-14 years would have been adequate. So who wins in this sad mess ?
The defendant himself admitted to molesting the victim 3 times. (Are you arguing the defendant was somehow coerced? Or that the interrogation was improper?) The defendant was offered a plea deal of 16 years, and refused the deal. (Why? Did the defendant feel he was completely innocent? Even his public defender is not arguing that.) So the prosecution went w the full set of charges, as is the prosecution’s legal right. I’m not really seeing an issue here…
[quote]Can someone please explain to me how this meets anyone’s idea of “justice”? [/quote]
From the child’s perspective, she never has to be afraid of this man again. From society’s perspective, this defendant will never molest another child. What value do you place on the sanctity of a child’s body and the right to be free from molestation? Frankly, I don’t think the 16 years offered by the prosecution was enough – the defendant could be out in 8 years for good behavior…
[quote]The defendant himself admitted to molesting the victim 3 times. (Are you arguing the defendant was somehow coerced? Or that the interrogation was improper?) [/quote]
Yes it believed probably by all involved that this was a false confession.
[quote]The defendant was offered a plea deal of 16 years, and refused the deal.[/quote]
We are not certain he was ever offered 16 years.
No one is arguing that he is innocent.
“So the prosecution went w the full set of charges, as is the prosecution’s legal right. I’m not really seeing an issue here… “
Are you out of your mind? A man who everyone agrees should be going to prison for somewhere between 10 and 16 years is going for life, and you are not really seeing an issue here?????
” Frankly, I don’t think the 16 years offered by the prosecution was enough – the defendant could be out in 8 years for good behavior…”
Really? Apparently you know more about this case than the PD, DA, and Judge.
E Roberts Musser:
Legal right — this idea that someone has the legal right is sort of a suspension of common sense that makes the law dangerous. The law is derived from our sense of conscience and meaning — not the other way around.
The judge clearly has a problem with putting the defendant at risk of that portion of the charges for which there is shaky evidence. That’s his integrity and his conscience troubling him. He’s not just automatically saying, well damn, I’ve got the legal right so no worries! And to hpierce — neither is the judge saying, well that’s one of our strongest taboos so it doesn’t matter, let’s just convict him of everything.
medwoman:
Who benifits from this? I hate to by cynical but I have heard the opinion that criminal law is a business and I agree sometimes. The detective says “I got what I needed” and that’s when he stopped questioning the suspect. He didn’t stop when the suspect was denying the charges and try to investigate it from that angle. He wins. The DA wins because they have a huge grant-winning conviction and a press release that’s useful for winning elections.
The prosecutor, who along with judge and defense agreed that the case should resolve and is in the VICTIM’S best interest… could left the rape charges out of his argument to the jury… but of course, that’s his legal right, which is all we need — not our conscience, right?
I am not sure how anyone involved can live with their conscience. Let’s suppose that the prosecution had offered 16 years. If they offered it, clearly they must have been willing to accept it (regardless of whether you or I think it is enough). So what do we suppose would have happened if the defense attorney had then countered with,” ok, how about 14?” “then the prosecution could have said “15” Defense “Done!”
And everyone goes home happy, except of course the defendant ( who goes off to a richly deserved prison sentence), the victim ( who gets to live the rest of her life with the consequences of both his and her actions since it seems clear she was manipulated by someone into being less than truthful at least once), the extended family who will be affected in some way for the rest of their lives. And all for a process that to me sounds more like a tourist haggling with a vendor over the price of a trinket in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul than it does any semblance of truth and justice! Am I alone in feeling this way ?
[b]So the prosecution went w the full set of charges, as is the prosecution’s legal right. I’m not really seeing an issue here…[/b]
I see some issues
Besides the injustice of the sentence on the defendant-
The taxpayers are punished since they have to pay the bill for housing this person in prison – if it is an incremental 20 years then the cost is over one million dollars. The DA plays games and we pay for it. The idea of transferring the cost of incarceration back to the counties is a positive step as it will contribute to more DA accountability.
Most people agree with Dark Ages opinion of Legal Right. When there is a miscarriage of Justice it reduces the value we see in the System. The System depends on Respect and outcomes like this do not contribute to that.
[quote]Yes it believed probably by all involved that this was a false confession. [/quote]
[quote]No one is arguing that he is innocent. [/quote]
These seem to be inconsistent statements. Please clarify…
[quote]Are you out of your mind? A man who everyone agrees should be going to prison for somewhere between 10 and 16 years is going for life, and you are not really seeing an issue here????? [/quote]
If I were on the jury, based on what I read in your article (I wasn’t in the courtroom), it appears the defendant confessed to molesting this child no less than 3 times. You argue a coerced confession, but don’t give any reasons you believe that. In fact, the defendant’s confession seems to match the victim’s testimony of sodomy. So I am free to draw the conclusion this defendant committed sodomy on a 7 year old child, am I not? (If you think that is an unreasonable conclusion to draw, please explain why.) Personally, a life sentence for sodomy of a 7 year old child seems “just” to me – that is my personal view… so you can call me “out of my mind” if you so choose…
[quote]And all for a process that to me sounds more like a tourist haggling with a vendor over the price of a trinket in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul than it does any semblance of truth and justice! Am I alone in feeling this way ?[/quote]
Actually, I am not overly fond of the plea bargaining process, altho I understand its necessity.
[quote]Most people agree with Dark Ages opinion of Legal Right. When there is a miscarriage of Justice it reduces the value we see in the System. [/quote]
BUT WAS THERE AN ACTUAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE HERE? I’m not seeing it… I guess I have less tolerance for child molestation than others… for personal reasons (let’s just leave it at that)…
To readers:
I’d like to add some important information to the story. This is in response to a comment that the victim will never have to see her abuser again. It raises a question about whether all child sexual abuse cases should be dealt with in the same way. The victim’s identity had been hidden thus far to minimise distress that might be caused to her. But the question of whether there is a better solution for the victim in this case seems too important to let pass. Apologies for this late addition.
The victim is the sister of Mr Nang Sam. Mr Sam and the victim both agree according to evidence, that the last sexual act occurred one year prior to the reporting of the incident to authorites. During that time, sister and brother resided together with other siblings as they had done for the entire period of the allegations – the family did move to another house down the street during the 6 year period — sex acts were alleged at both locations.
Also, left out of the story were vital text messages, from between Mr Nang Sam and “the adult” referred to in the DA’s press release who took the young girl to the police station to report the incident. The jury was given all of them as evidence. The adult is Mr Sam’s sister in-law, is married to his younger brother. In the text messages, which are pretext messages, orchestrated by the detective, the sister in-law asks Mr Sam how he could so such things to his sister. Mr Sam, who is led to believe that it is a private conversation, replies that struggles to live with what he has done and then he is considering killing himself because of it.
The issue which come up then is whether putting the brother away forever is the best solution for the victim. The brother seems genuinely in distress over what he has done. Prison or jail time seems unavoidable but in this case but following that, with the abuser remorseful, having stopped the abuse for a year, is there no potential for a better solution for the victim, abuser and family to try to heal the damage done and move forward? The prosecutor Rob Gorman also makes reference to a resolution in the case being in the victim’s best interest.
[b]”Man Convicted of 36 Molestation Counts …”[/b] was all that showed one my email summary. So, I’m thinking “how will David turn this one into some criminal justice outrage and try to minimize the man’s actions?” as I click on the link. Well, now I know. He’ll try to make it complicated, when the problems are simple. First, sentencing requirements are out of whack. Second, the defendant may have had incompetent counsel.
The complications are an attempt to re-argue the defense case as if every aspect was true, and to claim that the police and DA violated something (although not the law, of course). Little things, like the DA’s news release uses the wrong term (when the [u]Vanguard[/u] committed the same crime), but not accurately describing what the release said (“child molestation”).
To big, unexplained things (like he confessed to something he didn’t do) and major gaps in reporting the evidence:[quote][i]”West Sacramento Police detectives accumulated statements and cell phone information from Sam that ultimately confirmed for the jury the long history of sexual abuse reported by the victim.”[/i][/quote]The DA thought this simple thing (cell phone evidence) was important enough to include; why does the [u]Vanguard[/u] report fail to report it?
Buried in the complicated mishmash of details, but apparently given no weight in the article:[quote][i]”After admitting that he did molest his sister, Mr. Sam went on to say that he raped her three times when she was age 10. Crucially, he said that he did it from a position behind her – which matches how the victim described it at her MDIC.”[/i][/quote]One has to wonder whether the “cell phone information” would tend to further, crucially, be reason for the jury to find him “guilty”?[quote][i]”The critical question is whether the victim in this case was raped repeatedly by Mr. Sam or whether he merely touched her on one or more than one occasion.”[/i][/quote] Not even close to “the crucial question”–suggesting it all boils down to determining this question puts a “she says, he says” label on the case that no one involved seems to believe. Except a couple of his relatives who apparently took no action when she reported his bad conduct to them!
Why would the defense refuse accept a plea that differed by two years (w/good behavior) when facing the likelihood of up to 190-year mandatory sentence(s)? This strange reluctance deserves as much coverage (blame) as the [u]Vanguard[/u] ascribes to the DA’s office. Wasn’t the judge encouraging both parties to talk over the plea, not just the prosecutor?[quote][i]”However, during the break the victim told a support person that [u]half of what is mentioned in the tape is false.[/u] This only makes it to the jury once in the form of a question by Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson to the detective on the case, who acknowledges that this in fact happened.”[/i][/quote]Why would the defense give this issue so little attention? Why wouldn’t the victim be asked to verify whether she said this? Probably for good reason, but it seems a little mysterious.
Without minimizing the seriousness of the crimes Mr. Sam committed, this is an unacceptable outcome. But doesn’t really help solve the real culprit for the miscarriage to fuzz up the account with all the defense attempted “reasonable doubt” arguments. This, however, is the pattern I’ve come to expect.
Elaine:
“Yes it believed probably by all involved that this was a false confession.” “No one is arguing that he is innocent.”
I don’t see the tension here. In the first statement, he confessed to a crime he did not commit – rape with penetration. In the second, he committed a crime, it seems he touched her sexually.
“BUT WAS THERE AN ACTUAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE HERE? I’m not seeing it… I guess I have less tolerance for child molestation than others… for personal reasons (let’s just leave it at that)… “
So you are okay that he was convicted of crimes that he did not commit because you believe that the crime he did commit was worth 190 years?
Just Saying…
You missed a third problem, he was convicted of crimes that everyone involved knows he did not commit, that is why the Deputy DA was willing to go with a 12 sentence rather than a 190 year sentence.
So…
Now we get to you nitpicking my article.
“The DA thought this simple thing (cell phone evidence) was important enough to include; why does the Vanguard report fail to report it? “
The first and obvious answer is that I could not include everything and I was trying to stick to the larger issues as the piece was over 2500 words.
But the text messages never included any kind admission that he raped her and the issue of whether he molested her was not in question.
“After admitting that he did molest his sister, Mr. Sam went on to say that he raped her three times when she was age 10. Crucially, he said that he did it from a position behind her – which matches how the victim described it at her MDIC.”
If you look at the third to last paragraph, I mention it there. But there is no evidence that this occurred, she told others that he never raped her, she told her advocate that she made half the stuff up, and it seems more likely that he falsely confessed. I believe at some point in the questioning that he was shown her video which would explain why there might be a match.
I might go back and talk about the false confession aspect some more because it is an issue that keeps coming up and this is a good example of it.
They may have contaminated their own interview by providing him with info like that. That’s a crucial error that you can read about in Innocence Project Reports.
“Not even close to “the crucial question”–suggesting it all boils down to determining this question puts a “she says, he says” label on the case that no one involved seems to believe. Except a couple of his relatives who apparently took no action when she reported his bad conduct to them! “
You are wrong here on two accounts.
The conversations happened after allegations arose not before.
Second, that is the crucial question and in fact the only legal quesiton because it separates the 10-16 year thinking from the 190 year thinking. That is the legal issue at stake here, I don’t see how you can make the statement that it’s not even close, it’s actually the only legal issue.
“Why would the defense refuse accept a plea that differed by two years (w/good behavior) when facing the likelihood of up to 190-year mandatory sentence(s)? This strange reluctance deserves as much coverage (blame) as the Vanguard ascribes to the DA’s office.”
THat part does not sit well with me either. I think both sides screwed this up. There should have been a compromise here, clearly that is on both sides.
“Wasn’t the judge encouraging both parties to talk over the plea, not just the prosecutor?”
The Judge wanted them to settle this at 12-14 years, and the prosecutor said that he wanted to but that his bosses would not let him do it. To me this is on them more than the defense attorney.
It’s not as is the defense had nothing to offer, they had multiple witnesses that claimed that the girl denied the rape, another who claimed they were pressured by a relative to testify witnessing the rape, and the admission by the girl, off the stand to making it up.
The other clear error by the defense is the failure to play that up more than he did. He mentioned it to the Detective who admitted to it, but never raised it in closing.
“Why would the defense give this issue so little attention? Why wouldn’t the victim be asked to verify whether she said this? Probably for good reason, but it seems a little mysterious. “
I’m with you on that point.
“Without minimizing the seriousness of the crimes Mr. Sam committed, this is an unacceptable outcome.”
I agree with you on this point as well.
“But doesn’t really help solve the real culprit for the miscarriage to fuzz up the account with all the defense attempted “reasonable doubt” arguments. This, however, is the pattern I’ve come to expect. “
this is the point I don’t get from your statement. What do you mean by “fuxxing” up the account with all the defense attempted reasonable doubt arguments?
[quote]“I don’t see the tension here. In the first statement, [i][b]he confessed to a crime he did not commit [/b][/i]- rape with penetration. In the second, he committed a crime, it seems he touched her sexually”[/quote]Sez who?!
[quote][i]”They may have contaminated their own interview by providing him with info like that. That’s a crucial error that you can read about in Innocence Project Reports.”[/i][/quote]Any reason to believe it happened here in Yolo County in this trial?
It seems that the girl has indicated he never penetrated her, the medical examiner did not find evidence that he had, and she told both relatives and the advocate that he had not. I think that’s evidence that he wrongfully confessed here. It seems that the DA and Judge would agree.
EMR
I doubt, no I know, that you are not the only one who has personal experience with child molestation, and I don’t think that you are less tolerant of it than others. What I do believe is that many of us, while not doubting his guilt in molestation, have enough questions about the manner in which information was obtained and analyzed ( or not ) to doubt, granted on the basis of David’s reporting, the justice of the sentence.
1) First, I would question the language competency of all members of the family. Are they all fluent in English? Do they have a rudimentary knowledge of anatomic and medical terms? David raised the question of whether the defendant knew the meaning of the word molest?
This is not a trivial consideration since I have met many women,fluent English speakers, with high school educations and more, to whom basic genital anatomy had to be explained in terms of three holes, the one the pee comes out of, the one the baby comes out of…..and ok, I’m sure you get the point.
2) Elaine, you have said it is legal for police to lie to a suspect to obtain information. How far does this go? Could the detective for instance lie about the meaning of a word to gain a confession? Can he lie about the presence of physical evidence when there is none, for example, could he say that the doctor had confirmed evidence of penile penetration even if he knew that to be false?
3) in your view, does the detective not have an obligation to gather all the pertinent facts, or only those that will secure a conviction? If he need only question long enough to “get what he needs” and if he has lying as part of his armamentarium,how is this substantially different from planting evidence? In my mind, these techniques would amount to planting false ideas in the mind of the defendant which could then be turned against him in ways that he never intended or even understood.
4) This manipulation of ideas has also been a source of “wrongful conviction (please note that I am not arguing for innocence here, only for fairness) in cases of manipulation of children’s memories by “suggestive questioning”. There is certainly at least a suggestion here that there may have been some undue influence on the girl’s testimony
5) What is the expertise of the doctor who did the genital exam on the little girl ? I have been a gynecologist for 25 years and do not consider myself an expert in determining whether or not there has been insertional activity and if so, with what object. I would only trust the opinion in someone specially trained in pediatric and forensic gynecology. This level of expertise is rare and in our area found only at the university level, and even then fraught with the possibility of misinterpretation due to individual variation especially distant from the act as would appear to be the case here. Was all of this presented in court and thoroughly explained to the jury in lay terms ? did he further explain to the jury that while a burning sensation with entry from the back is consistent with sodomy, it is also very common with vaginal penetration? If all of this did not occur, then, I feel the defendant was inadequately represented.
6) I have no sympathy for child molesters, and have been accused of having “a lock them up and throw away the key mentality with this issue.
But there is much that bothers me here. I do insist that a just system will imprison someone only for those crimes of which he is guilty.
Much is made by law enforcement and corrections about victims rights, closure for victims, and victims being and feeling safe. Has anyone asked this child what would make her feel safe, or if she will feel better if her brother is confined to prison? If not, why not ? We allow the victim’s and victim’s families to testify at parole hearings, presumably to prevent premature parole. Would this type of testimony not be applicable here as well, or is it only used in service of prosecution and corrections?
JustSaying, you make the comment that the story claims “the police and DA violated something (although not the law, of course).” But the judge’s comments show that just mindlessly waving the flag of being within the law is not the same as being just — so you and ERM can keep claiming that but judge felt strongly enough that proceeding within the law was unjust as to make astonishingly frank comments on the record about his personal feelings in the case.
“I would question the language competency of all members of the family. Are they all fluent in English?”
This was one of those points that we did not have room to include. The family speaks Cambodian, and it’s worse than that. The elders apparently cannot communicate with the younger generation and in fact, the girl needed a family member to translate in order to even talk to her mother? Now how does that happen? Well it apparently did here.
[quote]Frankly, I don’t think the 16 years offered by the prosecution was enough – the defendant could be out in 8 years for good behavior… [/quote]
Considering you are a lawyer, I find it appalling that you never bother to look up the law when you make these kinds of sweeping statements.
David
“Now how does that happen? Obviously I do not know if it applies to this particular family, but it is consistent with one fairly common familial pattern. The mother and father may not be the designated primary child care providers. It is not uncommon among some societies for both parents to work either very long hours, or at long distance from where the children and designated care givers live. Combine that with some groups marriage pattern restraints meaning that they are required to marry into an “out group” which may or may not share their dialect and you have a ready explanation for why there may be interfamilial communication problems.
Mr Sam is young and will have a very long time to wait for an appeal (at least 3+ years). Meanwhile the dept of corrections will dope him up on strong psyc meds which is dangerious for a person his age. Couple that with the wrongful charges that he is going into prison with followed by the mental and physical torture from other inmates. I say he will commit suicide in a short time. Although what he did was absolutely terrible, his death will devistate the victim and she will carry the burden of guilt for the rest of her life. Meanwhile, the DA will have plenty cash in on with those grants! 36 counts of molestation = cha~ching! $$ –
[quote][i]”…does the detective not have an obligation to gather all the pertinent facts, or only those that will secure a conviction? If he need only question long enough to “get what he needs” and if he has lying as part of his armamentarium, how is this substantially different from planting evidence?”[/i][/quote]medwoman, I’m assuming you’re not serious that you really question your first question, but that you’re implying that the detective is guilty of not meeting that obligation. I’ve seen nothing that suggests that’s true in this case.
Re. your second question, “planting evidence” is a crime. Telling a rape suspect that medical evidence confirms his guilt is not. Innocent people tend to deny having done bad things, but so do guilty people. What a dilemma for the investigator, huh?
Lucky for all of us, investigators are allowed leeway in getting to the truth–knowing that innocent and guilty will respond differently to the the same stimulus.
Faced with with a statement that the suspect’s DNA was found inside a victim, for example, an innocent person would tend to continue denying guilt. A guilty person, on the other hand, might then admit to the wrongdoing (complete with explanations).
Contrary to your suspicion, most confessions are just the beginning of investigations. They lead to more evidence, rather than bringing investigations to screeching halt just because “we’ve got what we need.” That’s pretty much what happened here. The jury agreed.
medwoman, I meant to commend you on the excellent word-of-the-day. I don’t know that anyone else here–with the possible exception of Rich–could have done us this particular service. What with your big doctor bag and all. Thanks.
JS
OK I’ll bite. No way can I even come close to Rich, although I could have in my glory days as an anthropologist before medicine sucked me in.
What is the word of the day?
And is there a prize attached ?
“Contrary to your suspicion, most confessions are just the beginning of investigations. They lead to more evidence”
That’s how it’s supposed to work, but in this case, the detective admitted as soon as he got a conviction, he stopped…
….
Pulled this directly from the article…
The defense attorney referred to Detective Engle as the detective who can’t detect, made in reference to his admission that once the detective got the answer from the defendant that he wanted, he stopped looking and questioning…
When asked why he stopped once Mr. Sam had confessed, the detective said “I had gotten what I needed.”
When asked whether he knows that a detective does not decide guilt in a case but rather collects evidence impartially, with a view to presenting it to a jury who decided the facts, he said that he did understand.
When asked if he ever took any further steps to investigate any of the allegations that were made, such as by talking to family members who may have been witnesses, such as talking to the roommate of the victim, such as talking to the friend whom the victim says she confided in about the molestation, he said that no, he did not.
When asked whether he ever reviewed Mr. Sam’s statements with him at a later time to ask him if they were accurate, he said he did not.
—-
Doesn’t this undermine your point, Just Saying?
We were appalled at the shoddy work this guy had done.
[quote]So you are okay that he was convicted of crimes that he did not commit because you believe that the crime he did commit was worth 190 years? [/quote]
Was he convicted of crimes he did not commit? The defendant confessed to raping the victim 3 times. The victim’s testimony seemed to corroborate that confession. Secondly, common sense tells me that it is not likely a perpetrator of sexual molestation would stop at just touching. If I have evidence indicating penetration did happen, why must I ignore it? Sexual molestation victims “recanting” testimony is very common, much as victims of domestic violence often recant. They love their abuser and feel guilty about having gotten the abuser in trouble…
Secondly, you seem to believe the confession was coerced, but don’t really give any evidence that it was not obtained properly. What specific evidence is there that the confession was coerced?
Thirdly, where am I going wrong when I say that the perpetrator, if given 16 years, could be out in less time for good behavior? As it turns out, for sex offenses they must serve 75% of their time in CA. It varies from state to state, and the laws can be changed from time to time. So this particular perpetrator could have been out in 12 years for committing sodomy on a 7 year old child. Sorry, but I don’t think 12 years is enough for a crime like that… just personal opinion.
[quote]2) Elaine, you have said it is legal for police to lie to a suspect to obtain information. How far does this go? Could the detective for instance lie about the meaning of a word to gain a confession? Can he lie about the presence of physical evidence when there is none, for example, could he say that the doctor had confirmed evidence of penile penetration even if he knew that to be false? [/quote]
The detective can certainly lie about what evidence he did/did not have. I doubt the detective was required to define the word “molestation”. However, the defense is certainly free to point out that discrepancy to a jury. Your point about the language barrier is a good one.
If dmg believes the evidence was coerced in some way, then what exactly did the police do to coerce the confession? How long was the interrogation? Was the defendant given bathroom breaks? Water/food? I haven’t yet seen any specific evidence this confession was coerced.
Okay, medwoman, one more chance: Everyone has some, but every profession and organization has more. Physicians and hospitals (and Spain, famously) use it more than plumbers or professors. It has seven consonants and almost as many (six) vowels, but that evens up when pluralizing?
[quote]Fit out for the dangers of our century
It’s not the time to disarm
Arm against social decay
Anonymity, decadence, neglect
….
Get armed against social cutback
Unemployment, divide
Arm against social terror
It creeps through the veil of democracy[/quote]I intend to use it for the first time in a sentence sometime this week. It comes more easily for you that it will for me, but it’ll be worth it. No prize, just my appreciation for expanding my horizons.
Question: of the potential 190 year sentence, how many years may be attributed soley to the rapes?
Subtract from 190 and whelah we have a large number of years that may be attributed to the other counts.
Now compare that number to the hoped for 10 years, suggested 12-14 years, and expected 16 years.
Six years of abuse… lifetime to deal with being a molest survivor…
A bay area case where a man molested an 8 year old female for about 5 months & no rape, result: 25 – life.
Justice, anyone?
JS
; ) Appreciation is more appreciated than any material prize !
I hope that you will feel well armed with the Word of the day.
One hover, I would like to add to David’s quotes in response to the question that you posed to me about the detectives obligation to complete a full and comprehensive investigation even after obtaining a confession.
“Detective Engle testified that within seconds of the questioning, he “knew”that Mr.Sam had committed the crime because Mr. Sam ddid not react strongly enough to the allegation that he had molested the victim”
Now while I do not know the extent of the expertise of Detective Engle, this statement raises some serious questions for me.
It does not seem that Mr. Engle allotted more that a few seconds to a host of other potential possibilities other than guilt that could have caused Mr.Sam to be relatively less responsive. For example, is Mr. Engle a cross cultural expert in interpretation of facial expressions and body language in Mr. Sam’s ethnic group ? Was Detective Engle fully versed in Mr. Sam’s medical history so as to have ruled out a medical condition such as hypothyroidism which can blunt perceived emotional response or a whole host of mental conditions which can present with a flat affect, or even on a prescribed medication such as propranolol which has the effect of blunting emotional responses so well that it is frequently used by speakers and performers to mask stage fright?
Or did it not occur to him that perhaps Mr.Sam is just not a particularly emotive individual.
So many questions! But it would appear that Detective Engle completely lost any sense of curiosity he may have had once Mr.Sam had said what he had already decided was what he wanted to hear. Thus my question about his obligation, because it simply does not appear to me that he did his job.
Oops, still adjusting to the iPad. One hover was supposed to be however.
[quote][i]”Doesn’t this undermine your point, Just Saying? We were appalled at the shoddy work this guy had done.”[/i][/quote]I don’t think it undermines it much. (Who was appalled? Apparently not the jury.) Here’s why I need to stick with it, having not been at the trial.
Defense attorneys ask questions like these, that elicit unenlightening one-word answers, to suggest wrong-doing or lay foundation to imply inadequate police work and prepare the jury for the defense theory of the case. Most times explanation or clarification spoils the effect.
How much longer would you have wanted the interrogator to extend the session after Mr. Sam made a complete confession that met investigative needs? What can can one deduce from the detective’s answer about knowing his job–what are you implying by including this?[quote][i]”The defense attorney referred to Detective Engle as the detective who can’t detect, made in reference to his admission that once the detective got the answer from the defendant that he wanted, he stopped looking and questioning.” [/i][/quote]This sounds more like an opening/closing/outside nasty insult, not part of defense questioning. It also sounds like a comment intended to disparage the detective’s unsuccessful stake-out (“[u]can’t[/u] detect”) rather to imply he “[u]wouldn’t[/u] detect,” as you suggest. Just saying that context is important, but you were there and can clarify whether the lawyer was responding during his questioning or not.
When you note that the detective replied “no” when asked if he’d investigated “the allegations” (which sound more like the defense theory of the case than “allegations” that were made during the investigation). If so, it likely helped the defense more that the prosecution wasn’t able to rebut “the allegations” by having interviews ready.
So, the detective responds “no” when asked if he later went over the words with the defendant to see if they were “accurate.” So what? Again, this sounds like a way to imply to the jury that the detective somehow failed in his duty by not doing this. Nothing is wrong here; he said what he said in the interview. Who thinks he wasn’t “accurate”?
You imply the [u]investigation[/u] ended with the end of the interview (“stopped looking and questioning”). It’s a little incredible that such a halt would have happened once “he had what he needed” in the interview. Do you have anything other than what you reported to support the implication? I’d be willing to grant you more if you do–it just seems a little incredible that the DA jumped straight from confession to trial without
additional effort to close the case.
No, I wasn’t impressed by anything here except the skillful questioning by the defense attorney. Apparently you and whoever joined you in “all of us” didn’t include the jury. Apparently the detective did his job effectively, notwithstanding the efforts to suggest otherwise. Specifically, what do you think he did wrong?
[quote][i]”Detective Engle testified that within seconds of the questioning, he “knew”that Mr.Sam had committed the crime because Mr. Sam ddid not react strongly enough to the allegation that he had molested the victim”
“Now while I do not know the extent of the expertise of Detective Engle, this statement raises some serious questions for me.”[/i][/quote]medwoman, you raise lots of good questions about the detective’s qualifications to make the snap, self-assured evaluation he claimed. Even if he took the time necessary and had the knowledge necessary, it still would have been a stupid statement to make in court.
A few people sometimes develop special senses with experience, like a Chinese doctor who told us within minutes of seeing our young son for the first time: “This child cannot hear.” We were fortunate to be forced by a move to Hawaii to find someone to replace the pediatrician we left behind.
We knew he was slow to talk, but imagine our joy when he kept flushing the toilet to hear the sounds after some minor surgery changed his young life and helped him “catch up” within a few years. So, I’m a believer in the special sense concept.
Probably Det. Engle doesn’t qualify. But, what harm resulted from him jumping to conclusions. If he actually made such a statement under cross-examination, he handed the defense a gift and his boss an embarrassing headache. Did the case suffer? I’m skeptical. (See response to David, above.)
Determining guilt in the Sam case depended on lots of evidence that convinced the jury, not the least of which was the defendant’s voluntary confession (with information that he had no way to know if he wasn’t involved). Then, there’s the matter of the “pretext call*” that David couldn’t find room for, but that might have contributed heavily as another acknowledgement of guilt. I’d guess the detective’s comment would have made him less credible to the jury. But, no harm no foul.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
*Did this call come before the interrogating (which would have been a better reason for the detective to “know” he looked guilty) or afterwards (which would mean the “asking and looking” did not stop at the time of confession? At least one of these reasonable doubts gets eliminated.
A few comments…
“How much longer would you have wanted the interrogator to extend the session after Mr. Sam made a complete confession that met investigative needs? “
I would have been more interested to see him corroborate some of the statements that Nang Sam made.
I’ve already answered most of the other questions that you pose.
“Did the case suffer?”
Yeah I think the case did suffer, I think the girl ended up being manipulated by others to lie, I think the detective swallowed it up, pressure Nang Sam into a confession, Nang Sam crumbled and admitted to more than he had actually done, and the detective failed to ferrett out truth from embellishment and contributed to the problem by coaxing a false confession.
“with information that he had no way to know if he wasn’t involved”
Like I said, this is not true. All of the information that he needed to make that confession was supplied to him inadvertantly by the detective.
“Then, there’s the matter of the “pretext call*” that David couldn’t find room for, but that might have contributed heavily as another acknowledgement of guilt.”
There is a letter that is supposed to incriminate him, but in the letter he admitted to having done something – which we know he did something – but he did not admit to raping her in the letter.
JS
Loved the story about your son. And agree with you that this almost certainly would not apply to Detective Engel. For me, the issue is not about when he chose to end the confessional interview. It is his admitted failure to seek out contradictory or corroborating information.
I am fairly sure that because of his profession he is probably familiar with the concept of “false” confession, but seems to have decided that since this supported his preformed conclusion, he was done.
Maybe my naïveté is showing, but I would prefer that investigators served as fact finders and evidence gatherers, not as determiners of guilt
Which is how this detective,in his own words, seemed to have perceived his role.
David
JS makes a fair point about what other evidence was gathered after the confession. I suspect that you were unable to include a great deal of information in your article. Since Detective Engle essentially stated that he did no further extensive investigation following the confession, this of course does not mean that such investigation might not have been done by others. Can you elaborate ?
(08-17) 09:41 PDT San Bernardino, Calif. (AP) —
A former Southern California police detective has been sentenced to two years in prison for having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old female relative.
Erik Alvarez was arrested in April after his wife walked in on him having sex with the girl in the couple’s bedroom. Alvarez lives in Upland.
The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ( http://bit.ly/owTvzt) says the 42-year-old Alvarez, who has resigned after 16 years with the Long Beach Police Department, tearfully apologized to his wife and family during Tuesday’s sentencing hearing in San Bernardino.
The judge also ordered him to register as a sex offender when he’s released from prison.
The girl, now 17, told investigators Alvarez began touching her sexually two years ago. She said Alvarez first had sex with her last year, and they had sex about three times a week before the relationship was discovered.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/17/state/n094157D95.DTL#ixzz1W90QOv5Z
Medwoman:
It’s difficult to know what was done after the confession by the DA’s investigators. However, I think the point here is more toward the issue of validity of the confession and also what he confessed to having done.
A lot is made of the notion that confessors must give information that only the perp could have known, but studies now have shown that the confession process itself often gives away that information and as I put earlier contaminates it.
It is concerning that the police would stop at the confession rather than ascertaining that the confession was accurate, that is further bolstered by the notion that he knew he was lying from the start, which biases him toward a guilty conclusion.
The text messages and the letter he sent to the victim both apologized for his acts but stopped short of acknowledging rape meaning penetration, he used more ambiguous terms. That’s an important distinction because we have considerable reason to doubt that he ever had intercourse with her.
I think the belief is that a more thorough investigation may have separated these issues more clearly and could have led police and ultimately the DA to a more accurate charge.
[quote]I think the belief is that a more thorough investigation may have separated these issues more clearly and could have led police and ultimately the DA to a more accurate charge.[/quote]
There is a huge assumption here the defendant did not commit sodomy on his victim. How do you know?
JS: [quote]Determining guilt in the Sam case depended on lots of evidence that convinced the jury, not the least of which was the defendant’s voluntary confession (with information that he had no way to know if he wasn’t involved). Then, there’s the matter of the “pretext call*” that David couldn’t find room for, but that might have contributed heavily as another acknowledgement of guilt. I’d guess the detective’s comment would have made him less credible to the jury. But, no harm no foul.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
*Did this call come before the interrogating (which would have been a better reason for the detective to “know” he looked guilty) or afterwards (which would mean the “asking and looking” did not stop at the time of confession? At least one of these reasonable doubts gets eliminated. [/quote]
BINGO…
Alphonso:
Former Rio Americano Teacher Convicted of Child Molestation
http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=48759&catid=2
“SACRAMENTO, CA — A jury has found a former history teacher guilty of 11 counts of annoying or molesting a child and one count of sexual battery, according to Sacramento District Attorney Jan Scully.
Gregory Rayburn was a teacher at Rio Americano High School during the 2006-2007 school year when prosecutors said he engaged in multiple acts of sexually explicit and inappropriate behavior towards four of his female students.
Rayburn could receive up to one year in the county jail for each count. He will also be required to register as a sex offender.”
ERM
Going solely on the evidence as David presented it, I think it would be a complete guess about what kind of penetration occurred.
If the only thing we have to go on is that penetration occurred from the back and was associated with a burning sensation, my professional opinion would be that it could just as likely have been vaginal as rectal penetration and in the case of a 10 year old girl, could just as likely have been digital as penile penetration and could still have produced a burning sensation. Perhaps enough was presented in court, but the information as presented here is very nonspecific and inconclusive.
Any of you heard of Dwight Abbott? He was accussed of child molestation andis serving multiple lufe sentences and is also an aryan brotherhood member:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-01-29/bay-area/17470595_1_molester-long-standoff-santa-clara-police
“A registered sex offender and Aryan Brotherhood member, Abbott was last seen by law enforcement on Jan. 21.”
What is interesting about him is the books and articles he writes.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=c3939e5170d60b6dfc2b3d7922dfe6bf
“Mr. Abbott describes his childhood as being “unremarkable” and hard to remember before the age of nine when both his parents end up in a coma, victims of a car crash. His aunt, with whom the children are staying at the time of the accident, is considered an unfit guardian. For reasons not given, Dwight is separated from his siblings and sent to Juvenile Hall for what would be a temporary stay that irreparably changes his life.
There he learns that racial segregation is the norm, fighting and sexual assault are a means at establishing a social order and that some of the counselors assigned to look after the wards at best, ignore the violence and, at worst, encourage it.
His third night there, he’s raped by one of the counselors in the shower room and told to stay quiet. He soon snaps and nearly kills one of his younger tormentors with a baseball bat. When his parents, now recovered, come to pick him up he describes the meeting with his father as if it were the first time they had met.
“I watched a puzzled expression come over his face. I recalled that look when dad told me that his eyes told me that I was his son, but that mine had told him that his son was no longer there. . .”
Mr. Abbott, unable and unaided in dealing with the scars and growing anger that ensued spends almost the entirety of his youth in Juvenile Justice system, where the conditions and abuses of his first experience are repeated again and again.
His writing is calm and measured and with little rancor for someone who is so candid about the abuses he’s suffered and inflicted as a teenager in the Youth Authority.
His book is the plea by a lifelong convict to be understood as a complete human, someone who has loved and lost and managed to survive. It is far more effective in exposing the terrible flaws in California’s juvenile justice system than an angry harangue.”
He also wrote this piece:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=8d891240a3f58e424911b89ee2891842
“SOLEDAD, Calif.–More than a year since the brutal treatment of prisoners inside Abu Ghraib was exposed, the Washington Post has reported that the CIA has been operating a secret system of “black site” interrogation centers in eight foreign countries in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Thailand.
Fact is, you don’t have to go far, not to Thailand or Afghanistan, to find a “black site” that appears “beyond the reach of U.S. law.” Get in your car, drive around the state of California, and you will drive by dozens of these sites — the prisons, jails and Youth Authority detention centers that dot the rural landscape. As in all black sites, each successfully defies the law every day, and is rarely held accountable.
President Bush insists that “No one in U.S. custody is being tortured,” despite testimony from some detainees who have been held in these secret prisons describing such techniques as “waterboarding” (prisoners strapped to a board and immersed in water until they feel they are drowning) and isolation in unlit cells, sometimes for years and with no legal access or human contact except for their CIA interrogators. At the same time, Bush has threatened to veto any legislation, like Sen. John McCain’s amendment, banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of prisoners.
All of this sounds so very familiar to those of us who have been attempting to get the federal government to take over the California prison system because of proven corruption and continued abuse in many forms, not the least of which is physical.
I was a pre-teen child inside the Los Angeles County Juvenile Hall. I graduated as a teenager into most of California’s toughest Youth Authority penal institutions. As an adult who’s spent nearly 50 years in our state prisons, I have long personally experienced much of what is now being described as torture of “terrorists” in our custody.
Though not “strapped to a board,” I have been left naked, handcuffed to cell bars above my head, left with only the tips of my bare toes touching the concrete floor, and blasted with water from a fire hose until water filled my lungs and I knew I was drowning.
Once I lay naked upon the concrete, hands cuffed behind my back, a canvas bag over my head for four or five days (I cannot remember), without food or water as my keepers tried to destroy everything that I was…”
“I’ve been confined in a cell that had no lighting, no sink, no toilet and no bed other than a blanket on the floor next to a hole that was my bathroom. I lived in continuous darkness for five years. I received no correspondence, no visits other than from my keepers, who were intent on making me regret I was human. It was inside this cell that I wrote my first book on a roll of toilet paper after finding a guard who would crack open the steel door to allow dim light to seep in three hours each night.
I’m aware of hundreds of deaths from “unnatural causes,” such as strangulation, asphyxiation and blunt-force injuries, that were blamed on “inmates unknown,” when in some of those cases it was the guards who committed the murders. I’ve looked on as guards took a prisoner up to the fifth tier at San Quentin State Prison, handcuffed his wrists behind his back and chained his ankles together, knocked him down to the concrete floor and proceed to drag him by his feet down five flights of steel steps, leaving the inmate horribly bruised and bleeding, impressing upon those who watched from their cells what happens to those who don’t follow the rules.
I’ve been “punished” and placed on a “Rationed Diet,” which consisted of two cups of water and a soybean patty given twice a day for three days (you got a “hot meal” once). This went on for months at a time. I’ve watched men get pulled from their cells and forced to receive a “shock treatment” as punishment for being “uncooperative.”
Over the years, there have been occasional protests regarding this abuse of prisoners right here at home, and there have been the standard denials — “It never happened” — as well as rare admissions when the abusers are caught with their pants down.
Anyone familiar with the California prison system knows that the practices of starving prisoners, beating them, “waterboarding” and murdering inmates continues to this very day. Can anyone take seriously the promises of a government that abuses its own citizens that “no (terrorist) in U.S. custody is being tortured?” Can anyone honestly expect such torture to stop?”
Interesting court case:
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/151/1142.html
“While appellant was in jail, he asked a cellmate, Dwight Abbot, to kill four people when Abbot was released, in exchange for a “couple thousand dollars” and a Mustang automobile. He asked Abbot to kill a young rape victim of appellant’s, whom he wanted killed because she had testified against him. Appellant also wanted Abbot to rape and torture her and tell her why she was being killed. He asked Abbot to kill her parents, because they did not prevent her from testifying against him. Finally, he asked Abbot to kill her girl friend, who would probably be with her when Abbot found the rape victim. Appellant’s conversations with Abbot about the killings extended over a period of time, about two weeks. Appellant wrote a description of these victims; that document was admitted into evidence. [151 Cal. App. 3d 1145]”
[quote]Perhaps enough was presented in court, but the information as presented here is very nonspecific and inconclusive.[/quote]
Yes, and the information is also coming through an anti-prosecution filter…
http://www.nickryan.net/articles/aryan.html
“It was a place for those who had made it. Plate glass and grandeur, reflected in the bright winter sunlight. The posh Pacific Heights neighbourhood was a world away from the street gangs and violence plaguing many American inner cities.
So it must have seemed to Bill Kuenzi on a typically brisk San Franciscan afternoon, January 26 2001, as he unlocked his friend’s third-story apartment door. Until, that was, he heard the screams.
“It was high-pitched, desperate, continuous screaming,” Kuenzi later testified in a Los Angeles court, “of a woman who was obviously being attacked. I knew I had to do something and I tried to call 911 on my cell phone.”
Kuenzi’s phone didn’t work where he was. So he went to the stairs for better reception and began climbing toward the screaming. The cell phone still didn’t work. He continued until he reached the fifth floor. Then fear stopped him. The screaming was coming from the sixth floor.
“I assumed it was a domestic violence situation,” said Kuenzi, a 35-year-old stockbroker. “Or a woman being sexually assaulted. I realised that when I climbed to the sixth floor landing, I would be exposed to the situation, which I knew was violent, and I was scared.”
He had good reason. The violence that Kuenzi feared was not being perpetrated by some enraged boyfriend who might be calmed down, or even a rapist who could be scared off by the arrival of others.
The attack taking place a floor above Kuenzi was being carried out by two huge Canary Island mastiffs. They had been bred as vicious attack dogs by a pair of prison cellmates, members of the white supremacist Aryan Brotherhood — possibly the most frightening prison gang in US history.”
“Part of its modus operandi is to spread fear among the other gangs in the system; the idea is to fear nothing and no-one, to make up for a numerically smaller position with greater violence. They are, in a warped sense, the SAS of the prison world. Murder of another gang member is often the way for an associate (usually in lower order gangs, often called the Peckerwoods) to sign up.
In 1981, two members of the Brotherhood locked up at the federal prison in Marion, Illinois, murdered the leader of a rival gang, the D.C. Blacks, by sneaking up behind him in the shower and then brutally stabbing and slashing him 67 times. They then dragged his bloody, mutilated corpse through a cellblock while white inmates cheered and chanted racial slurs.
“I have walked over dead bodies,” one of the AB assassins in that case later boasted in court. “I’ve had guts splattered all over my chest from the race wars.”
“Someday most of us are finally going to get out of this hell,” said one of the Brotherhood men involved in the killing of the D.C. Blacks leader in 1981. “And even a rational dog after getting kicked around year after year attacks when his cage door is finally opened.”
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2005-02-23/news/life-after-death-row/1
Life After Death Row. From maximum security in Potosi to a bungalow in Maplewood: The odyssey of AB loyal member Rabbit, a.k.a. Robert Driscoll.
Driscoll hadn’t taken the stand during his prior trials, figuring the jury would see him as anything but a sympathetic figure. But this time, faced with the choice of death by lethal injection or death by hepatitis C, he decided to take his chances.
“I got to thinking: ‘I’m in the penitentiary for a guard killing,'” he says today. “‘What difference does it make if the jury knows I done did a robbery here, or done did this or done did that?'”
During his first two trials, prosecutors had played up Rabbit’s AB involvement, painting him as a racist with a penchant for killing blacks and guards. It didn’t endear him to the juries.
But this time, thanks to some savvy defense-counsel sleight of hand, Ahsens and Fusselman were barred from bringing up testimony that linked Driscoll to the Aryan Brotherhood. Rather than the racist killer prosecutors had earlier described, the jury saw a wheezing old man in a wheelchair. And while they may not have been convinced of his innocence, they weren’t convinced he was a cold-blooded killer, either. So they compromised, finding him guilty of manslaughter. Given that he’d already served twenty years in prison since the killing, Rabbit went free.”
“There is no suspicion or skepticism in my mind regarding the authenticity of this particular book. I have no doubt that what Dwight speaks of, happened then, and happens now everywhere in the world. I have done a fair amount of research and study regarding the various disciplinary techniques used in correctional institutions. I’ve also researched some of the facilities that Dwight was contained at, and it is evident that abuse has occured in all these institutions, particularly El Paso de Robles School for Boys. There are several other documented abuses performed by inmates and the guards at other institutions throughout the world.
In the beginning, as I had just started reading the book, it made me slightly uncomfortable. Dwight’s graphic descriptions of the abuse he ecountered during his childhood is not for the ill-minded. However, Dwight makes his purpose clear. That is, to educate and make people aware of the horrors in the youth detention system. This system has failed Dwight, and it continues to fail children in the United States. The system is molding a future for these children. They claim it to be “rehabilitating” society, when in all actuality, they are molding criminals, and exposing them to sickening abuse no one should ever have to encounter.
One aspect of this novel that I especially enjoyed, was Dwight’s values of friendship, loyalty, and most importantly, trust. All which coincide with one another. Dwight describes his relationship with “Stubby”. Their friendship is what really sets the novels plot of survival. They fight for one another, with courage I cannot describe.
I encourage anyone reading this review to read “I Cried, You Didn’t Listen”. The book will ultimately inspire you to reach out to those in need. I’m thankful that Dwight shared his experiences with the world. It must have been incredibly hard. After reading this novel, I decided that I wanted to change my profession to psychology. It has been a true blessing in my life.
Dwight, if you’re reading this, I express my deepest gratitude, remorse, and compassion.”
http://www.amazon.com/Cried-You-Didnt-Listen-California/dp/1904859542/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
Alleged molester arrested after standoff
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-01-29/bay-area/17470595_1_molester-long-standoff-santa-clara-police
“7:29 a.m. — Santa Clara police arrested an alleged dangerous child molester this morning after a long standoff, said police.
San Jose police investigators informed Santa Clara police Tuesday night that Dwight “Sonny” Abbott, who was wanted on a $7 million felony warrant for multiple counts of child molestation, was at a home at 2649 Agate Court in Santa Clara, according to a police spokesman.
The Santa Clara Police Response Team responded to the home around 7 p.m. and confirmed that Abbott was inside. Police then evacuated several nearby residences.
Abbott finally surrendered to police without incident around 1:20 a.m. today after several hours of negotiations.
A registered sex offender and Aryan Brotherhood member, Abbott was last seen by law enforcement on Jan. 21
San Jose Police spokeswoman Officer Catherine Unger said Tuesday that Abbott was considered armed and dangerous and had reportedly vowed “not to be taken alive.”
Officials say a search of his North 13th Street apartment turned up about 30 knives. Witnesses had told police earlier that he was armed with a handgun and may have been using methamphetamine.”
See everyone is human and therenis a reason and a fudnemental understanding why ppl do whqt they do. Sometimes its all they know.
Just because someone mollested or mollests doesnt mean they arent human or a person or capable of joining the brand/ab and sometimes the more ur sodiety/system/inmates make their lives hell the more killers they become. This man has no fear, no inhibition, o worry because u ppl and ur society and ur juvenile system already took him humanity. So what else can u do to him. Nothing. Hes a warrior ,a survivor.
“A snitch, a rat, is the worst thing a person can be labeled in that world, and the code extends not only between inmates, but also toward the authorities. Perversely, it protects the “protectors” who abuse their positions of power. The secrecy is enforced by violence. And if all this fear weren’t enough, there is the overwhelming shame that keeps inmates from talking.
Such is the world Doug Abbott grew up in, and lives in still. At the tender age of 9, Abbott was sent to a juvenile detention center due to an aunt’s negligence after his parents were injured in a car accident. He had committed no crime, yet immediately upon entering California’s system for wayward youth he was beaten, raped and treated like human refuse. Thus began his terrifying education. Abuse lead to more abuse. Repeated assaults and molestations by counselors and by other children, all of it shrouded in secrecy, buried deep in this boy’s psyche waiting to explode.
Eventually it did.
Monsters aren’t made overnight. It takes a lot of work to build one. Abbott, with an assist from co-writer Jack Carter, recounts, in a style as clear and sharp as broken glass, how over and over again he reached out for help, for understanding, and had his trust shattered by those the state had appointed to be his caretakers. With a tone of scouring self-examination, the kind honed through thousands of hours in solitary confinement, he records his impressions and emotions about the years of his youth: The brutal fights for survival and status that counselors supervised instead of breaking up; the repeated escape attempts that always ended when, fleeing back to his parents, he was caught and sent back to even harsher treatment.
The only thing that keeps I Cried, You Didn’t Listen from being a mere laundry list of horrors is the humanity of its narrator. He doesn’t attempt to make excuses for the behavior that kept him going back to the California Youth Authority. He doesn’t need to—putting it in context with the way he was treated, it is perfectly logical. Abbott simply had adapted to his environment, one where physical violence is the basic, ordering principle of daily life.
The book’s most haunting moments vividly illustrate the reality behind those statistics. When he was 14, Abbott and a fellow inmate escaped from one facility where they were being molested on a daily basis by older wards. Abbott recently had witnessed a ward being stabbed by one of the counselors during a riot and lived in constant fear, both of the counselors and his fellow inmates. After escaping, the youths hotwired a car and drove aimlessly, breaking into houses for money and food. They swiftly were caught and Abbott was found with, among other items, a rabbit. “I hadn’t liked seeing it in a cage so small it could barely turn around,” Abbott wrote. At another institution, Abbott and other wards were put hard at work: moving dirt. Laboriously, with shovel and wheelbarrow, they moved dirt from one large pile to another, for no purpose at all other than punishment.
Abbott, now serving multiple life sentences in Salinas Valley State Prison, has written a tale that is a stunning indictment of a brutal and backward system. It’s difficult to shake the feeling, reading I Cried, You Didn’t Listen, that if a child was sane and healthy upon entering the CYA, it would be impossible for him to leave that way. Recent scandals have prompted the renaming and reorganization of the CYA into the Department of Juvenile Justice, and one hopes those responsible for reforming it will take stories like Abbott’s seriously. His tragic testimony remains all too relevant. To understand, first we have to listen.”
And fu musser. U internet coward.
Trybto sqy u cna judge a man like this when u havent experinced an ounce of pain compared to him u coward rublican faggit.
http://www.alternet.org/story/23863/locked_down_and_forgotten/
Locked Down and Forgotten
The worst they can do to me is kill me. Looking around, that would not be such a horrible thing.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When two guards were stabbed in July at the Salinas Valley State Prison, the facility went on “lockdown” — an increasingly common occurrence in California’s state prisons, and one with grave effects on inmates’ mental and physical health. The following edited letter was written July 19 by a 63-year-old inmate incarcerated for life in the prison.
SOLEDAD, Calif.–It is very early this Tuesday morning. I have been having serious difficulty with my sleep, and no doubt that is because it has been so long since I, or anyone else for that matter, have been able to get out of my cell and stretch my legs…and mind. We all are in serious need of some physical exercise, fresh air and mental stimulation. These long lock-downs take their lasting toll.
There may well be an investigation happening, but at this prison there are four, totally self-contained “facilities,” each housing 1,000 inmates. There is absolutely no human contact nor communication possible between inmates of these different facilities. Yet whenever a guard is assaulted in one of those facilities, all facilities are locked down.
During the past week there have been several men who “broke” — acted out — and now sit in solitary confinement. There will, no doubt, be more as we go along. There is no allowance, no quarter given for the psychological and emotional destruction that takes place.
It is surely a right step toward improving this system with the recent decision to turn the health care system over to the feds. Frankly, I had become convinced that (United States District) Judge (Thelton) Henderson was forever only going to bump his gums and do nothing more. Those of us who have been able to discuss it through the air vents and toilets all agree, because of our experience with the CDC, we would be indeed foolish to get our hopes up. Truth be told, there is very little hope left among us here.
Is this 24/7 nightmare created by the actions of custody staff, alone? It is not!
A 20-year-old youngster here has a very large lump on his penis. He saw a “doctor” who told him, “I’m not sure what it is, but it might be a calcium deposit. If it gets any bigger, let us know.” No tests were ordered… It has become considerably larger. He has twice seen this same doctor, and has both times been told to “return if it gets worse.” … Imagine being 20 years old with this sort of problem, and realizing these folks either have no idea what they are doing, or they just do not care.
No matter, the worst they can do to me is kill me. Looking around, that would not be such a horrible thing. Actually, I am one of the better-behaved inmates here, never into any trouble, nor causing the administrators headaches. Yet I, and others like me, are treated no differently than anyone else: punitively. Good behavior does not have its rewards at this prison. Back in the day there was an “honor” cell block set aside in which inmates who were consistently model prisoners were placed to enjoy a quiet, comfortable environment. It gave inmates incentives to remain on their good behavior. It is obvious that if incentives do not exist, prisoners are not motivated.
Frankly, I am near the point of not caring, hardly feeling, as are so many others around me. I am of the mind, for the most part, as long as I have a good, strong cup of instant coffee in the morning, and a Ramen noodle soup for my lunch as I listen to low-playing music in the background, I am better off than most here. Besides, a hundred years from now, who the hell is going to care about any of this? They do not even care now.
Always remember, it will be a merciful day for me when they carry me out of this pit. I will see you on the other side — wherever that may be.
“He returned home an angry and emotionally unstable young man coping with his trauma without help, says Donahue. (While AK Press was reluctant to name Abbott’s crimes, it appears he got involved with white supremacy groups after his time in juvenile halls and is serving time for crimes related to the Aryan Brotherhood.)
Abbott’s book goes far in constructing a person beyond the rap sheet. “To see it through someone’s eyes like that, someone who is a likable character, it’s powerful. Most of the time people envision the people who go to prison as not like them,” Donahue says. “You can identify with Dwight and with what happened to him.”
One of the book’s most basic messages is that “people who go to prison are human. You don’t get that in news accounts, especially from the mainstream media,” Donahue says. “In fact, you get the exact opposite of that message.”
For those involved in the prison system, Abbott’s story is far from unusual. For the uninitiated, there are many troubling passages. “I think that definitely the way that he deals with race and the prevalence of abuse will be surprising to some people. The level of violence he was dealing with as a child was very high,” Donahue says. “And his powerlessness … he had no recourse, he couldn’t report the abuse to anybody.” Once started, a cycle of violence is hard to stop.”
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-02-01/entertainment/17230907_1_aryan-brotherhood-abbott-s-story-prison-system
How can u ppl say someone like this wo lived this life can be judged by u and ur free world?
“Abbott, Dwight Edgar, I Cried You Didn’t Listen: A survivor’s expose of the California Youth Authority. As this moment, a young boy or girl is being physically, sexually, mentally and emotionally mistreated with the walls of America’s juvenile penal system. This abuse comes not only from the children’s peers but from the people whom society has entrusted with the children’s welfare. These scars will brutally scar the tender and impressionable innocents. And, these children will eventually respond to their pain be stealing, raping and murdering. The author was sent to LA County Juvenile Hall after his parents were seriously injured in an automobile accident at age 9. And, many of the other children, ranging in age from 7 to 17, were there because of broken families. Others were criminals. On the day of his arrival, one of the older black boys beat him severely. A counselor looked on. That night, three Mexican boys sexually assaulted a white boy. The Mexicans were all about 15, the white boy was about 7. He’d never done anything wrong before. This story is of that boy, now a man, who was introduced to a world of brutality, rape and perversion at the tender age of 9. He is not listed as an irredeemable. He has robbed, raped and killed. Twin lighting bolts tattooed on his neck confirm he is a one time member in the Aryan Brotherhood, the notorious white supremacist prison gang. This is his unforgettable chronicle that should make anyone who has a child sit up and take notice – before the innocence of their child may be robbed from them.”
Here it is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AzFlDWDbKq8C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=dwight+sonny+abbott&source=bl&ots=X3MejDEQ_N&sig=QjM6uaRdbUQ3S9GjqckGML0sMBc&hl=en&ei=Api8TrCPEqeLiALnvO2pAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=true