The following is a history of a lengthy, but very simple false allegation case that led to a conviction because the defense attorney, who thought he had all the answers, didn't, and as a result of his pride, ego and a lack of knowledge about the case, a family was destroyed. The sad part is, while a wife is without her husband, their children are without a father and the accused sits in jail, that same defense attorney is at home every night, enjoying a hot supper, a warm bed and blaming the conviction on everything else but his ability.

Obviously, all names and locations have been changed in the following, but the facts of the case are accurate.

George West Case History and Summary
October 22, 2006

I will never forget my initial meeting with George West and his wife, Paula three years ago. I had been retained to review the material and documents in his case, a case that had been going on for a year at the time I was retained, and a case where he had been accused of going into a bedroom where two little girls were sleeping and touching them in a sexually inappropriate manner. On August 14, 2003, the Grand Jurors of Holmes County, Maine, indicted George on three charges:

• Count 1 - That on or about the 14th day of July, 2003, George intentionally or knowingly molested "DB," a child under the age of 15, by engaging in sexual contact with her. (Touching her vagina)

• Count 2 - That on or about the 14th day of July, 2003, George intentionally or knowingly molested "DB," a child under the age of 15, by engaging in sexual contact with her. (Forcing her to touch his penis)

• Count 3 - That on or about the 14th day of July, 2003, George intentionally or knowingly attempted to molest "GB," a child under the age of 15, by engaging in sexual contact with her. (Attempted to touch her inappropriately)

After reviewing all material, I met with George and Paula to discuss my findings. During that meeting, I identified certain strategy and made several recommendations, none of which included my participation or involvement. Paula asked why, and I simply said I would not continue beyond the initial analysis. When asked why, I told George and Paula that I did not care for George or his attitude. What I had seen in him was a cold, distant and very impersonal man.

After making that statement, I got up to leave. George left the room and Paula was crying and asking me to stay. As I was at the door, George came back into the room, but at that time, he was not the same person I had been talking with since I got there. He was crying and humble, a complete turn-around.

George said, "I don't know what happened in that room that morning, but everyone has convinced me that I do and that I am lying because I cannot tell them anything." "My own attorney has told me that he is not stupid, that I was in the room and that I did know exactly what happened." "Even Paula's family was confused as to why I could not say what happened." "Only Paula has believed in me and stood beside me." "What you are seeing in me is a year of being told I was a liar and my desire to come up with some story since everyone wanted one so badly."

At that time, I saw George as he really is, not with the mask he had been wearing in an attempt to please everyone by telling them something - something they wanted to hear. As a result, I agreed to stay. We all sat down and began talking.

Shortly thereafter, George and I left his home and returned to his small apartment. Following his arrest, he was ordered out of his house, away from his children and he was being monitored by an electronic ankle bracelet.

At his apartment, I asked him to settle down and explain to me what happened that morning. He tried, but could not. He could not in a second and then a third attempt. After the third attempt, I asked him to stand up and show me. He attempted that, unsuccessfully twice. Then I told him we were going to attempt an experiment.

Now, prior to that experiment and results, you need a slight bit of background.

• In March, 2003, George moved with his family from Frederick, Maine to India where he had accepted a teaching position at the college of medicine. While living in Frederick, George and his family had met the Bruster family, consisting of Sam, his wife Peggy, and their two young daughters, Dorothy and Gwen. They had been friends for about 4 years before George left for India.

• While in India, George planned to return to Frederick to sell his home there and when that was being discussed, the Bruster family, who still lived in Frederick, invited him to stay with them while he was there.

• On July 13, 2003, George returned to Frederick. His wife and children had flown to Miami a week earlier to see her family. Following his 20-hour flight from India, George arrived at the Bruster home late in the afternoon of July 13, 2003.

• After dinner and small talk, everyone went to bed, but as a part of the conversation that evening, Peggy said that she would be taking Sam to work early the next morning. She said there was no reason for her to wake her daughters when she left since she would not be gone long, they would be sleeping, and George would be there with them in case anything happened. She said her car was being repaired and she needed to drive his car that day while he was gone.

• At some point, early on the morning of July 14, 2003, George got up to use the bathroom and, as he was returning to his room, he heard a noise coming from the girls' room. George had two children who occasionally had nightmares and, based on the noise he heard, he thought one of the Bruster girls was experiencing the same.

• The door to the girls' room was directly across the hall from the room George was staying in so he opened the door to the girls' room and felt his way along the wall to the first bed where he could hear one of the girls. He felt the bed, thinking as he reached down that he would be touching one of the girls' heads, but instead, he touched an ankle. At that time, he did not know which girl was in the bed he was standing at.

• George felt his way along the bed until he got to the other end and only at that time did he learn that it was Dorothy when she spoke. He asked her if she had been having a bad dream. First she said yes, then no, then she said yes. As he was talking to her, he sat down beside her, rubbed her back, told her everything was okay and that he was there if she needed him. He asked her if she needed a hug. She said yes, he hugged her, then got up.

• At that time, the other girl, Gwen, began making a noise and George felt his way back around Dorothy's bed, making his way to Gwen's bed. When he got there, he asked Gwen if she was okay. He did not sit down or lay down on her bed, but he did lean against it. He got no response from Gwen and started feeling his way back toward the door when Dorothy asked him where he was going. He told her that he was going back to his bedroom and, again, he asked her if she was alright. She said yes. He told her that he would be in his bedroom if they needed him, then he felt his way out of their room and returned to his room.

• Almost immediately thereafter, George left his bedroom and walked downstairs to get some water. When he got back upstairs, he could hear the girls talking and giggling from their room. He opened their door and told them that they should go back to sleep. They said they were not sleepy. He told them that he would be in his room if they needed him for anything and one of the girls asked him if they could get their presents. At some point, the night before during conversation, George had told the Bruster girls that his kids sent them presents from India and that he would give them their gifts the next day. George told her they could and returned to his bedroom.

• A few minutes later, Dorothy and Gwen came to George's bedroom and asked to see their presents. George gave them the gifts, then showed them what he brought for their parents, then he played an audio tape he brought from India for the girls.

• After listening to the tape, the girls said that they were hungry. George was too, so they all went downstairs to get something to eat. The girls helped George set the table and they helped him get the breakfast ready, then they all sat down and were eating when their mother got back home. During breakfast, the girls were seated, one on each side of George, and both were acting normal, seemed happy and were very talkative.

• After breakfast, Peggy Bruster talked with George about her brother who had been in prison in Brazil for some time and about her nephews who had been living with her father, but had to go back to Brazil because he didn't want to take care of them. She told George that it had been a very stressful situation for her and her family for the past several months and that it had put a big strain in their daily life. Peggy stated she was upset with her father and George asked her why she didn't bring her nephews to Maine. She said that she wasn't sure if that would work out. Peggy was very stressed and George talked to her about saying some prayers that morning for her difficulties with her situation. She said she would later.

• After breakfast, both the Bruster girls wanted to play their musical instruments for George while their mother was looking for some auto registration and insurance information for him. George sat in the living room while Peggy was in the office. Gwen played her violin for George and then Dorothy played the piano for him in the formal living room. When Dorothy was playing, Gwen was in the other room with her mom and when Gwen was playing, Dorothy was with her mom in the office. Then Gwen showed George some damage her violin had sustained and explained how it had been damaged.

• Peggy found the auto information, gave it to George and he began to make telephone calls about registration and insurance and about having his stolen driver's license replaced. George was on the telephone for about 15-20 minutes while the girls were with their mom alone.

• After George got off the telephone, he talked with Peggy some more about the information on the car and directions to get to the places that he needed to go. Peggy called her insurance company for some rates and gave George the information.

• During the course of that morning, George had been back and forth to his bedroom several times getting documents. Finally, after obtaining the insurance information, he went back upstairs to his bedroom to say some prayers and to get ready to leave and take care of his car. He changed his clothes and sat down to pray when Peggy knocked on his bedroom door and he invited her in. George asked Peggy if she wanted to pray, assuming that she was there based on their earlier discussion. At that point, Peggy told George that both daughters, Dorothy and Gwen, told her that George had touched them inappropriately. George could not believe what he was hearing. He told Peggy that he had gone into the girls' bedroom when he heard them having a nightmare, that he made sure they were okay, but that he had never done anything inappropriate to them.

• Peggy told George that her father had molested her when she was young, he never apologized to her and that she had never forgiven him for it. She said she wasn't sure what happened and she said they needed to talk to the girls and find out what was going on.

• George and Peggy went back downstairs to talk to the girls. Peggy asked Gwen when George went to her room. Gwen said it was at 4:00 o'clock. Peggy was surprised and asked Gwen if she was sure. Gwen said she was. Peggy told her that she and her father were home at that time so it couldn't have been at 4.

• George told the girls that he was going to leave. According to Peggy's deposition, Dorothy became visibly upset and said, "Mommy, he won't do it again." "He won't do it again." "He didn't mean to hurt us." Also according to Peggy's deposition, George told the girls, "I would never do anything to hurt you." "I love you like my own children." "Whatever you think I did, I would never do anything like that."

• George asked the girls if they wanted him to leave and both girls said, "No." He asked them what they did want and both said they wanted his, George's, children to come to Maine sooner so they could play.

• After their conversation with the girls, Peggy said she was not there that morning so she didn't know what had happened. She told George she needed to take the girls to swimming class and that she would be back by 9:00 a.m., so they could talk about it and try to figure out what might have happened.

• George waited for the mother until after 9:00 a.m., and then he called her and left her a message in her voice mail telling her that he was leaving to take care of some things. George returned to the house when he finished his errands. No one was there, but he got a call from Peggy telling him that she would be back home in half-an-hour, so George left, went to get something to eat and then he returned to the house.

• When George arrived back at the house, Sam opened the door and he and George went into the living room to talk. At that time, George told Sam that he did not do anything to his daughters. Sam said he was between a rock and a hard place. He said he believed George when George said that he had not done anything inappropriate, but he didn't know how to handle this. George told him that he knew this was a very difficult situation for him and that he didn't know what he would do if he were in Sam's shoes.

• George told Sam that he did not feel comfortable staying there. Sam said he wanted them to work things out because he didn't want to see 8 lives ruined. At that point, Peggy came downstairs and said that she had talked to George's wife, Paula and told her what was going on. Peggy said she asked Paula and her kids to come and stay with them while they worked this out.

• George was at the Bruster house talking for about an hour. He got his cell phone turned back on and with Sam's help, loaded his car with his personal belongings. As he was leaving, Sam gave George a check for about $3,200.00. George asked him what it was for and Sam said that he and his wife wanted to buy the furniture George left in his house when he moved to India.

At this time, George's attorney believed that George knew exactly what happened in that bedroom that morning and since George could not, or would not explain it, then he must have done something. Even some members of Paula's family were concerned over why George had no explanation for what happened.

Now, back to the experiment. I blindfolded George, spun him around and said, "Now, show me what happened in that bedroom that morning." The first thing George did was to reach out and hit me in my crotch. Certainly he did not mean to do that but, as I said, he was in the dark and disoriented. I watched George as he felt his way along a wall and around the room. The final result was, it was so dark in that room, he had no idea what he was touching.

For the past year, George had been told by his attorney, "I was not in that bedroom, you were." "You know what happened and you just need to go ahead and tell the truth."

Immediately after I removed the blindfold from George, we sat down and he explained, "No, I did not turn on any lights." "You don't want to wake the household and you don't want to wake the girls if they are asleep." "You just want to make sure they are okay." "I opened the door and felt my way along the wall until I came to a position where I thought the bed was." "I came to the bed and, at that time, I did not even know which kid was in it, but I reached down, thinking I would be touching a head or shoulders." " I was trying to feel my way so I could sit down and not sit on whoever was in that bed." "Instead of a head, I touched an ankle, so I knew I was at the wrong end of the bed." "I felt my way along the bed to the head and asked was she okay." "Only when she spoke did I know that it was Dorothy ." "I sat down, took her hand in mine and asked was she having a nightmare." "First she said yes, then no, then yes." "I took her hand in mine, held it and asked her if she would like a hug." "She said yes, and I hugged her." "I got up, felt my way to the end of her bed, found Gwen's bed, leaned over on it and asked was she okay." "She did not respond and I left the room."

For the first time in a year, based on the experiment with the blindfold, George realized that it was so dark in that room that he had no idea what he touched, aside from Dorothy's ankle and her shoulder area. As he felt his way from the foot of her bed to the head, did he touch her in any manner that would have been considered inappropriate? He did not know and could not have known.

Just as the experiment with the blindfold ended, Paula arrived and for the first time since he had been accused, George was honestly able to explain to her what had happened. He did not need to "make something up" because he had been told he did know. He simply told the truth; "I do not know, but I do know I never intentionally touched either girl in the manner they would have you believe." I saw a complete change that day in both George and Paula. It was if a huge weight had been lifted off their shoulders.

One of the recommendations I had made was that George go to Atlanta and complete the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest, an evaluation that would be completed by Dr. Abel personally. George told me that he had intended to take the "Abel" in Frederick, but that he had failed a polygraph test so they would not give him the Abel. At that point, I had complete confidence in him and in his ability to successfully complete the Abel and a "proper" polygraph, so George approached his attorney with that request. His attorney told him that he would file a motion requesting permission for him to go to Atlanta, but that he did not want to file it with the trial judge. A motion was filed with another judge and it was denied. I was not surprised at all. The motion simply said George wanted to leave Maine for 4 days with no explanation.

I wrote another motion, requesting the Atlanta trip, but I explained the trip in detail, including what it was for and where George would be staying while he was in Atlanta. I sent that motion to George and he gave it to his attorney. His attorney did use the motion, but it was very obvious that he was upset over having anyone else telling him what to do or how to do it. The attorney then filed the motion with George's trial judge, something he said he did not want to do. There is absolutely no question that when the attorney filed the motion, he believed that George would go to Atlanta, fail the testing and the trial judge would then be aware of that. The message was clear, "Fine, you want to do it your way, go ahead." "Go to Atlanta, fail everything and everyone is going to know." Again, that did not surprise me because that was the same attorney who, for a year, had been telling George he knew exactly what happened in that bedroom that morning and he needed to be honest about it.

George and Paula did go to Atlanta and George successfully completed a polygraph and the entire Abel Assessment and returned to Frederick. The trip was a blessing beyond what words can describe. Paula said that was the first time she had seen George smile in a year.

After George returned to Frederick, I told him not to even mention the testing to his attorney to see if his attorney would ask him about it. He did not and about two weeks later, when George was responding to an email from his attorney, I told him to go ahead and put in it, "Oh, you never asked, but everything went perfectly in Atlanta." The attorney never responded, but the next day I received a call from the clinic telling me that Paul Ruston had contacted them about George's testing. They would not release any information to him because there was no release signed. I advised them that Ruston was George's attorney.

During my analysis of all material George had, I discovered some amazing information in a deposition that was taken from Sam, the girls' father, about 8 months after the allegations had been made against George. In that deposition, Sam stated:

• In response to the question, What problems was Dorothy having?, "She was having some very serious attitude challenges, extremely -- I guess you would say rebellious, compared to her previous behavior. Very angry. And she was saying that it was an accident, he didn't mean to do it, things along those lines."

• "And then one day, Detective Jacobson called - - it would have to be in the next week and said, just so you know, that this is not his first occurrence." "There are, and I don't remember the number, however, many previous occurrences where he been accused of things, and he said that a number of them involved minors."

• "He didn't say how old they were or anything." "He said some of them involved minors." "And he told me some number, but he said - - for some reason, the number five is coming to mind."

• "And so I came upstairs right after that phone call and called Gwen over and sat down and talked to her, and I said, now, the detective just called and Mr. George was previously accused at least five times of doing something to people that he should not have been doing." "And she said, okay."

• "And then Dorothy eventually came over, and I told her the same thing, and she said, so it wasn't an accident."

• "Yeah, because they were very angry, defending him for what he had done to them." "They were defending him, and then when I - - when we found that information, I passed that on to them, and they said, so it wasn't an accident." "Dorothy said that." "That was her quote, "it was not an accident"."

When Sam shared that information with his daughters, it would actually have "tainted" their entire belief system and, following that, it would have been impossible for George to have ever received a fair trial, as it would be impossible to ever determine if the girls were giving facts to events that actually happened or information based on what had been suggested to them. Clearly:

• Sam Bruster's daughter, following her disclosure, was "very angry", saying what George had done was an accident. She was rebellious, "compared to her previous behavior." "The girls were "defending" George for what he had allegedly done to them."

• Detective Jacobson told Sam that George had previously been accused and that a number of minors had been involved. Detective Jacobson had given information to Sam Bruster that was not accurate. In 1991, George was accused of inappropriately touching several females while working in his Medical practice. There were 4 individuals. George's Medical license was suspended and criminal charges were filed against him. He was acquitted on all charges in 2 cases. There was a hung jury in one case, with 10 for acquittal and 2 for guilty and it was never retried, and one case against him was dismissed. George reached an agreement with the Medical Board to have his license restored. The allegations made against him were based on money the accusers expected to collect through a civil action, but following the criminal trials, the civil suits either went away or were never filed. George continued to practice medicine in Frederick from 1994 until 2002 when he moved to India.

• There is only one possible explanation for Sam to have then passed that information along to his daughters and that was he and Peggy were tired of hearing their girls defend George when "they" knew he had molested them "regardless" of what they were saying.

• When Sam told his daughter what Detective Jacobson had told him, his daughter's immediate comment was, "So it wasn't an accident."

• Until the Bruster children were "influenced" and/or tainted by what Detective Jacobson told Sam, "they believed that what George had done was an accident." They were angry because the "adults" did NOT want to hear them defend George, but the girls knew they were telling the truth.

• For either girl to have made the statement, "So, it wasn't an accident," clearly means an outside source "changed" or "altered" their belief, their thinking and ultimately, their testimony.

• There could be no better example of "tampering" with a witness, yet none of this information had been seen nor was it important to anyone.

• During trial, both parents testified that after the initial disclosure they never discussed the allegations with their daughters. Not only was that a lie, it was never addressed by the defense at trial. The father clearly stated in his deposition that his daughters had defended George some 10 days after the allegations were made. That would not have been possible had the parents not been talking to the girls and "attempting to tell them that what he did was wrong."

Children can become angry, rebellious and upset when they are trying to tell adults something that adults do not care to listen to or believe. In reality, the adults are calling the children liars. Children become upset when they yell and yell, but cannot get anyone to listen. In this case, getting those girls straightened out, getting them to understand what a bad man George was and getting them to understand that he should not be trusted was easily taken care of when Sam told them George had done the same thing to "other" minors. It worked perfectly and that is proven by the girls' response, "So, it wasn't an accident." Clearly, until Sam told his daughters what he had been told by Detective Jacobson, both of his daughters HONESTLY believed that what George had done to them "was an accident." In reality, it was totally dark in their room and there is no way that George, either then or now, had or has any idea or recollection of what he did or did not touch in that room that morning.

Another very interesting fact came from the deposition taken from Sam. He said his daughters were very sensitive to light, so not only were there shades on the windows of the girls' bedroom, but they had also installed "day shades," to keep all light out. That room was pitch dark, based on Sam's own testimony.

This is a very rare case when both the accused and the accusers are all telling the truth. That would have come out at trial quickly had these girls' "minds" not been tampered with and had they not been influenced by Sam, passing on the information Detective Jacobson had told him.

Obviously, an argument to the above would be that the girls are not capable of determining what is and what is not an accident, however, consider this. Nothing happened in that bedroom that morning that was of a concern to either girl. That morning:

• When George was in the bedroom initially to check on the girls, nothing happened that caused either girl to say stop, don't, or express any concerns whatsoever.

• When George opened the door to the girls' bedroom a second time to tell them to go to sleep, they were awake, laughing and they asked him could they come to his room and get the presents his children had sent them from India. Had George done anything to either girl that had made them the least bit uncomfortable, they would have been quiet, so as not to attract his attention. They would not have been laughing and certainly would not have wanted to go to his room.

• The girls went to George's bedroom, got their presents and listened to a tape George brought from India.

• The girls went downstairs with George, helped him prepare breakfast and were sitting at a table, on either side of George, when Peggy returned from taking Sam to work.

• Everyone talked at breakfast and following breakfast, the girls played their musical instruments for George.

• Both girls and their mother had all been in and out of the room where George was and no one's actions were abnormal. George had actually been back and forth to his bedroom several times, but the last time he went to his bedroom, Peggy went to him and accused him of inappropriately touching her daughters. George said he checked on the girls, but that he had never touched either of them inappropriately. He asked Peggy to go back downstairs with him and talk with the girls. They did and, at that point, the girls appeared nervous and upset. There was only one thing had happened between the time those girls were happy and playing their musical instruments for George and their mother making the allegation she did, and that was that the girls had talked with their mother, a mother who claims she was molested herself as a child. George asked Dorothy why she was upset and she said it was because he was going to leave. George asked the girls if that was what they wanted and both of them said, "No." No one will ever know what was said between Peggy Bruster and her daughters that morning, but whatever it was, it changed the demeanor of both girls drastically. Understanding the series of events is critical. The girls were normal, laughing, playing instruments and happy. They talked with their mother and following that conversation, they were visibly upset. Were they upset because George had done something inappropriate? No, that is not possible since they "defended" him for a week after the initial disclosure and continued to defend George until Sam told them, "He had done that to other minors." In reality, the "Taint" actually began when the girls talked with their mother that morning.

• Obviously, Peggy could not have believed anything had happened because, instead of staying with her daughters and consoling them, she took them swimming.

• In reality, the girls were "Tainted" by their father's statement to them, but, as I said, they were also "Tainted" based on their discussion they had with their mother that morning. Based on their actions of "defending" George following the "disclosure," it was not the girls with the problem, but the parents. The only explanation for their change in demeanor after they talked with their mother that morning was, Peggy was making what happened into something when the girls knew it was nothing.

When the above was discovered and broken down, George and I discussed it and he went to his attorney and explained it all to him. The attorney called the investigator in who had taken the deposition from Sam and neither she nor the attorney found anything wrong at all with the "Taint" issue.

Based on a number of issues, including George trying unsuccessfully to get his attorney to see the problem in the deposition taken of Sam, George and Paula decided it was in their best interest to retain another attorney. They did, one that had successfully defended an accused child molester, but after learning that he was nothing more than a used car salesman, they changed attorneys again. Everything seemed to be going well until there was a hearing on various motions, including a "Credibility" Motion, specific to the "Taint" and the attorney could not even explain or argue even one of the motions "he had prepared."

As that motion hearing was about to take place, I was sitting in the back of the courtroom, directly beside the accusing girls' parents. The defense attorney was asked three times by the prosecutor what they were there to argue and he could not respond once. When the judge came in, the defense attorney, in a loud and threatening manner said, "Your Honor, I want to know who those two men are in the courtroom and what they are doing here?" The judge quickly told the attorney that it was an open courtroom and that, following the hearing, he could ask the men if he chose to and they could tell him if they chose to, but he was not going to disrupt the courtroom like that. I cringed because I was one of the two men he was referring to and it would have been an extreme embarrassment if I would have been forced to identify myself, especially sitting right beside the parents of the accusing children.

During the hearing, the judge said he was ready for oral arguments. The defense counsel stated he had nothing to say other than what was in the motions. The judge simply said, denied, denied, denied, denied and denied. Following the hearing, George told the attorney that I was one of the two men in the courtroom. Needless to say, he was surprised and told George to apologize for him. Yes, I had met him personally. Just prior to George retaining him, George, his wife and I all met with him to determine if he would have any problem working with me. He said no, he would welcome anything that was beneficial to the defense. I had no further contact with him following that initial meeting, once he had been retained.

As a result of the hearing fiasco, George retained another attorney, one who advertises that he "specializes" in false allegation cases. Again the defense was going no where and after George had the opportunity to observe that attorney at another trial, he quickly decided to again change attorneys and did so. George went back to his original attorney, but this time, George was not the same person he had been three years earlier. He knew his case inside and out and he was positive with himself and with his defense. His former attorney agreed to take the case and the communication between him and George was excellent, at least up until trial.

Just after George's first attorney agreed to take his case again, I talked at length with Gloria, the female attorney in the law firm. She was actually one-half of the defense team in the case. During our discussion, she clearly stated that she had no confidence in the Abel Assessment or in Dr. Abel personally. She stated she had seen him testify and she was less than impressed. I told her I had been in the same courtroom she was and further explained that Dr. Abel had not been prepared by that defense attorney at all. I also told her that what Dr. Abel had testified to in that case was not what he was supposed to testify to and explained the evaluation he had actually done. Regardless, she was adamant that none of the Abel Assessment for George could be used, however, during trial, the defense did decide to present it to the judge and, it is my understanding that now, they are attempting to use the fact that it was not allowed as a basis for a new trial. Also, during my conversation with her, we thoroughly discussed what had happened the morning the allegations were made. I told Gloria that if she really looked at all of the evidence, information and statements that had made as to exactly what happened that morning, that nothing said was consistent with how a pedophile would act, such as stopping when he touched a child and there was no objection. Gloria stated it would be very beneficial to have a behavioral expert testify on behalf of George, based on my comment. Gloria had my full report, the same report that I had prepared previously for Dr. Abel, prior to George's evaluation, and I told her that if there was anything I could do to assist, I would be more than happy to do so. Following that conversation, aside from an email where I sent her issues she could possibly use for opening and closing statements, I had no other communication with her, nor any other attorney representing George.

During the time that George had his second and then his third attorney, and after many re-writes, a "Taint Motion" was finally prepared and filed, arguing that the girls' testimony had been tainted, based on the fact that their father told them George had "done the same thing to other minors." When we began discussing the "Taint" motion with his second attorney, he had no idea what the New Jersey, Michaels case even was, much less a "Taint' motion but, as I stated, after many re-writes, the motion was finally prepared and filed by George's third attorney. When that motion was denied, another attorney, who was not involved in George's criminal case, filed a motion with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial judge had erred by not granting the defense a hearing to examine the taint issues. The Court of Appeals rejected the motion and it was then filed with the Maine State Supreme Court. After a great deal of time, that Court also rejected the motion and my desire was to have it then appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court. That was never done because George was told the time for doing so had expired.

As George's trial approached, a decision was made to go with a bench trial, as opposed to a jury trial. George's attorney told him he knew the judge and was completely comfortable with him. I told George that a bench trial, in these cases, could be more in his best interest than a jury trial. There are good arguments for a bench trial and for a jury trial. With a judge, you have 1 person deciding and with a jury, you normally have 12 people. A problem is, while, yes, there are 12 people in a jury and only one judge, many times a jury operates and reacts strictly from emotion where a judge, hopefully, would have been on the bench for a number of years and would assess the evidence and facts without emotion. Again, going with a bench trial would depend entirely on the defense counsel knowing the judge and knowing that the case would be decided fairly and based on the facts and the evidence.

Since George's attorney had made several derogatory comments to him about me personally, we decided that it would be best that I not attend trial and I did not. As to the derogatory comments the attorney made, he told George that the initial report I had prepared was a total waste of time. I might add, the report was the same report that I had prepared for Dr. Abel, prior to George's evaluation, and which contained the very defense that the attorney either could not, or refused to see at all three years earlier, yet the very defense the attorney ended up attempting to use at trial.

The State put their case on first and then the defense. There were three charges and at the end of the State's case, the defense asked for a dismissal. The judge denied the motion, but said that he would have dismissed the "attempted" charge, but since it was connected with the other two, he could not and he stated that he did find credibility in the girls' testimony.

When the defense put their case on, George testified. After the defense and the State had questioned him, as he was about to get off the witness stand, George's attorney asked, "Judge, don't you have some questions for him?" The Court said yes, and the judge asked questions that were very unnerving to George. One was, "You remember touching the ankle and you remember touching her head, why don't you remember touching anything else?" Being afraid, because he believed he had to supply an answer to the man who had his life in his hands, George responded that he just had no memory of that. The question implied that George did remember touching certain areas, but was not telling the truth when he said he did not remember touching anything else.

When the defense completed it's case, and just prior to closing arguments, the judge made the statement that the prosecutor needed to go back to her boss and work out some type plea agreement. Clearly, he was saying if you do not take a plea I will convict you. Although there was speculation as to what he meant, that was the only reasonable explanation.

Based on the judge's statement about the plea, we realized the case would be won or lost based on closing arguments, so George and I worked at great lengths to prepare issues for the closing, to assure that all bases were covered. George gave the information to his attorney. Some of the points we addressed were used, but they were a far cry from the information the attorney had been given. Instead, he argued that the child witnesses were "credible," but were not "reliable." They were neither.

The day following the closing arguments, the judge found George guilty on two counts and dismissed one. He gave no explanation whatsoever, but recall he had already said he found credibility in the girls' testimony. Following the trial, we learned that judge was up for re-election, something no one had brought up or discussed prior to trial. Obviously, we have no way of knowing what did or did not influence the judge, but, based on the evidence, it was unreasonable for any fact finder to convict.

George was not guilty of anything, the verdict was not supported by the evidence and there was absolutely no credibility in either girl's testimony, so either one of two things happened - one, the judge did not want newspaper headlines to read that he had acquitted a child molester when he was running for election or, the defense did not present George's case properly or adequately. There is no other explanation.

Issues we wanted covered and explained to the Judge

• When the judge personally asked George, "What did you touch when you were in that room and, you remember touching an ankle and you remember touching a shoulder, but you do not remember touching anything else?", we wanted to have it explained:

  • That morning George's main issue, his main concern, was the child and making sure that she was okay.
  • After hearing noises that made him think one of the girls was having a nightmare, he did go into their bedroom.
  • No, he did not turn on any lights! He did not want to wake the household. He did not want to wake the child, or children if she, or they were asleep.
  • George felt his way along the wall in the darkness.
  • He knows he felt his way to the bed.
  • When he did get to the bed, he knows that he reached down and touched what he thought was a child's head, neck or shoulder area and it turned out to be an ankle.
  • He did not even know which child it was at that time.
  • He knows that after feeling an ankle he felt his way along the bed until he came to the head of the bed and the head of the child.
  • He knows that he reached down again and touched the child.
  • He knows he hugged the child.
  • He knows that he asked the child whether she had a bad dream, and only when the child spoke did he know it was Dorothy.
  • He knows that after he hugged Dorothy, he got up, felt his way to the other bed, checked on Gwen and then he knows he left the room.
  • That was all that happened that morning in that bedroom. There was absolutely nothing that happened that morning in that bedroom that put George in a position of thinking, "Oh, I need to remember exactly what I touched, how my hands and arms were or anything else." When things happen to us that are significant, many times we recall every detail, but usually we do not remember those things that are just normal.

• George will never know what he did or did not touch in that room that morning. It was totally dark. When a man reaches for what he believes to be a head and touches an ankle, he is clearly unable to see anything. When the judge asked George the question as to why he remembered touching some things and not others, George responded that he had no memory of it. I asked George why he just did not say, "Other than what I have said, I have no idea what I touched." George said the judge's questions caught him off guard, unnerved and scared him. He said the man who had his fate in his hands was looking for some answer and he felt like he needed to tell him something. The fact is, George just did not know. One thing is sure. There was absolutely nothing that happened in that bedroom that morning that caused either child any problem.

  • Neither girl yelled stop, no, don't or quit.

  • Neither girl gasped.

  • Neither girl expressed any verbal concern at all.

  • Neither girl cried.

  • Neither girl told him to get out.

  • Neither girl panicked.

  • Neither girl was in any manner visibly upset.

  • Neither girl displayed any signs of fear about anything.

  • Neither girl called out for her sister.

• Any girl the same age those girls were, who was purposely touched on her vagina, or her private area, is going to know that is not right and it is going to scare them. It is impossible to believe that a girl who was touched in her "private" area would not have been in an absolute panic, gasping, crying or in some manner making some form of objection. That was never done. Not once. The only testimony that could possibly lead anyone to believe anything was wrong was that, "The second time George went into that bedroom, the girls were in the same bed because they were afraid." Was that the truth?

  • The only reason George opened their bedroom door a second time that morning was because he heard the girls laughing and talking and he told them they needed to go back to sleep.

  • Had George touched either of those girls in the manner everyone would have you believe, then they would have been scared. They would have been quiet. They would not have done anything that might cause him to come back into their room. They would have been in a bed with the covers pulled tightly over them, quietly waiting for their mother. They may even have pushed something against their door to try and keep him from getting back in, but none of that ever happened.

  • Regardless of who asked or how it came about, the girls went to George's bedroom to get their presents and they did. Amazingly, one of the girls even said she still has that present. That, in itself, does not suggest that she had any problem with George at all. Not only did they get their presents, they sat and listened to an audio tape George had brought back from India.

  • After getting their presents and listening to the audio tape, the girls went downstairs with George. They helped him with breakfast and they were sitting there eating when their mother got home. If those girls were afraid, number one, they would not have been downstairs with George. There is no question that at that time the girls knew their parents were not at home. They were alone with George in that house and they knew it. They would not have wanted to even be in the same room with him had he done something sexually inappropriate to them. They had the choice of being with him or being in their own bedroom and, there they were - sitting beside him, eating, when their mother got home.

  • Consider the position the girls were sitting in while they were eating. One girl was on each side of George at the table. While that may sound insignificant, it is not. If one of those girls was really scared, or even remotely concerned, she would have been sitting at that table with her sister between her and George as a form of protection. That did not happen. Those girls were completely comfortable because nothing had happened that morning at all to upset either of them, yet at trial, they testified that "They did not trust him," and the fact finder determined that was "credible"?

• Now, consider another aspect, something that was never brought up, discussed or argued. Suppose the allegations were true and that George had gone into the girls' bedroom with the intention and the desire to touch either or both girls in a sexually inappropriate manner. There is no doubt at all that George was at Dorothy's bed. There is no doubt that he sat on it. There is no doubt he hugged her, but in all the testimony presented, what did not happen?

  • A child molester wants to touch a child sexually. That is what they are about. They may test the water, so-to-speak, to see what they might be able to get away with, but their objective is to touch that child sexually and to do it in a manner where they are not caught.

  • There was not one word of testimony from anyone that George was told "No," "Don't," "Stop," or that there was any action on the part of either child that would have even been a signal for him to stop so, if he was touching her, why would he stop? If he was touching her inappropriately and she did not object, there would be no reason for him not to continue touching her. That would have been a child molester's dream. Touching a child with no objection.

  • There is no question that George sat and hugged Dorothy, yet as he sat there hugging her, with his arms around her, there is no testimony saying, "He rubbed my back and his hands went down anywhere." That would have been the perfect opportunity for George to have rubbed anything he wanted had that been the reason he was in that room.

  • Not one of George's actions that morning was that of a child molester. There was not one objection and not one concern from either girl in that bedroom. There was not one sign of fear.

  • The allegation was made that George had Dorothy hold his penis. At trial, clearly Dorothy kept referring to it as his "thumb" and not his penis, but again, if Dorothy was holding his penis, why would he have wanted her to stop?

  • George was in the girl's bedroom for only a matter of moments, yet they would have you believe that he touched her vagina, under her panties, and that he had her hold his penis. Had that been going on, again, without objection, he would have remained in that bedroom much longer. There was not time for that to have happened.

  Regardless of what testimony was at trial, it was alleged that George touched Dorothy's "private." "Private" is "NOT" the word that either child uses for their vaginal or rectal area. Both girls refer to their vagina as "mo-mo." Had George touched that area, that would have been the wording either of them would have used and it was never said.

  After "disclosing" to their mother, Dorothy and Gwen were both interviewed on July 17, 2003, by Pam Blessing, an interviewer with Child Help. During that interview, Dorothy said that George touched her. When asked "where," Dorothy pointed to her stomach area, not her vaginal or rectal area. Following their interview, in Pam Blessing's written report it stated that George rubbed Dorothy in her vaginal area, not something Dorothy had ever said. When confronted with that on the witness stand, Pam Blessing simply said "she made a mistake."

  During trial, Dorothy said George touched her under her panties, yet that avenue was never pursued by defense counsel. Following trial, the defense attorney said they did not want to ask that for fear that Dorothy might say he touched her in her vaginal area. We know that Dorothy calls her vaginal area her "mo-mo" and that term was never used. We know that when Dorothy was interviewed by Pam Blessing at Child Help, when asked where she was touched, she pointed to her stomach, so that line of questioning should have been pursued and she should have been asked where his hand was in her panties. In addition, defense counsel never asked either girl "What their private consisted of." Could George have touched the waistband of Dorothy's panties as he felt his way along the bed, trying to get to the head of the bed? Absolutely, but it certainly was not intentional and, given how dark that room was, he would have had no way of knowing what he did or did not touch, but one thing is for certain. Regardless of what he touched, it was not significant to even cause Dorothy to gasp or pull away.

  During trial, George's wife, Paula, testified as to an occasion where she entered the bathroom where one of the girls was in the shower and that child became hysterical that Paula was even in the bathroom. During her closing argument, the prosecutor admitted that one of these children was in a panic when she was in the shower and Paula entered the bathroom. The prosecutor stated, "Yes, she was afraid, she did not want Paula to see her naked," but that was not the same concern she had the morning George was in her bedroom. That is absurd. If George had touched anything that would have been of concern to either child, she would have gasped, moved, yelled, said stop or done something. When we put our hand on a hot stove, reflex actions cause us to move it. We do not have to think about it. The same holds true with a child who is touched sexually. It will be a shock and there will be some reaction. That morning, there was none at all. No objection whatsoever, and that is not the action of the same girl who panicked in the shower because she did not want to be seen naked.

  What happened that morning in the Bruster house was not any concern to George - it was not a concern to either girl, strictly based on their actions of going to his room, eating breakfast with him, playing their instruments for him. There was no fear and there was no problem, that is until the adults got involved and, even that initially was not a problem. A mother, who really believes her daughters were sexually molested, especially a mother who claims to have been molested herself, would have held those girls - comforted them - made them feel safe. She would not have taken them to swimming lessons and dropped them off where they were alone. Not after something that traumatic.

  Amazingly, neither girl had any distinct memory of the alleged "molesting" that morning, but one did remember that she did go swimming that morning and, not only that, she remembered that she got a second place. Why did she remember that? It was significant to her and it was important. What happened earlier that day at her home was not.

  During testimony the statement was made by one of the girls, "How could he do it to 5 others on purpose and then it be an accident with me?" She had a specific number and the knowledge that he had done it to "5" others "on purpose." There could be no clearer example of a "Taint" and again, the "5" and the "on purpose" were significant.

  Interviewing and questioning a child who makes an allegation of abuse is such a delicate matter. Done properly, it requires a real professional so that the child's memory is not altered. Look at even a perfect example here during trial. When the prosecutor was questioning Gwen, on page 92 of the trial transcript, the prosecutor asks, "Did he apologize for doing what he did?" "Did he apologize for hurting you?" Then consider her testimony after that question. Neither child had mentioned "hurt," and the prosecutor's words actually injected that into that child and she responded accordingly.

  The evidence supports that anything that happened that morning amounted to nothing until it was blown way out of proportion by the adults.

  Without question, George is one of the finest men I have ever had the pleasure to have known. I have known him and his family for three years and if I had to pattern a perfect "father," he would be the mold I would use. I have never seen such a simple case become so complex, nor have I ever seen a clearer example of an unjustified conviction.

  Does real child sexual abuse happen? Yes, it does. Do false allegations of child sexual abuse happen? Yes. And finally, can something innocent get so out-of-hand that it becomes an allegation of child sexual abuse? Again, yes, and that is exactly what happened in this case.

  An innocent man has been convicted, taken from his family, locked up and his family is desperately looking for answers, a wife without a husband at home and children without a father. Yes, there is an answer and the answer is simple. Someone dropped the ball somewhere, destroying innocent lives in the process.

  For months, I argued "Taint" and no one listened. At this point, I am saying that, more than likely, this case will only be resolved by getting the facts into the hands of an unbiased Court and probably through something like a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I am reminded of two prior cases, one in Bakersfield, California and the 1995, New Jersey case, Margaret Kelly Michaels. Margaret Kelly Michaels was convicted of child molestation in New Jersey. All her appeals were denied and she was told there was nothing she could do. Another innocent person, convicted of child molestation, sitting in prison. Thank God, one caring attorney was willing to "think" outside the box. After a great deal of effort that amazing attorney, who believed in Margaret Kelly Michaels, prepared the most incredible Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It was so powerful that it not only reversed her conviction, but the case against her was dismissed as well. That case has now become one of the main cornerstones for many successful defenses in false allegations of child abuse cases around the country and from that case, the "Taint" Hearing was born. All it took was one caring and dedicated lawyer who believed and was willing to work. I had the opportunity to hear Margaret Kelly Michaels speak at a conference years ago. She is a fine young lady and more thankful than words can express that someone believed in her, refused to give up and fought until her nightmare ended. The Michaels' conviction was reversed on many issues, including leading questions when interviewing children, suggestive questioning, failure to video tape interviews, improper interview techniques, verbally rewarding children when they said what the interviewer wanted to hear, negative reinforcement when the children said something the interviewer did not want to hear.

  As I said, from the Michaels' case came the "Taint" Hearing. In some states, it is referred to as a "Credibility" Hearing, but it means the same - it is impossible to determine if a child is giving an account of something that really happened or if they are making statements based on information that has been "given" to them.

  In the Bakersfield, California case, the Kniffin family had been convicted of child abuse and also had exhausted all appeal efforts. Again, one caring attorney took the case and prepared a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I had the honor to speak with that attorney about the case and was equally honored when he agreed to send me a copy of the entire petition he filed, a petition that resulted in the Kniffin's conviction being reversed and their case dismissed. The point is, when someone is told that there is nothing that can be done, that is by no means always the case. All it takes is one person who believes and is willing to fight.

  In this case, why was what Sam told his daughters never considered as "tampering" with a witness? During trial, the girls' testimony was filled with statements saying "They did not trust George." The evidence and testimony of events of that morning do not even remotely suggest that either girl believed they did not trust George, yet the "fact finder" found the girls' testimony to have been "credible"? That simply is not possible so, again, either the facts were not argued properly by the defense or the judge paid no attention to the overall evidence presented, but regardless, now an innocent and good man, who has done nothing, sits in prison. As I stated previously, the parents even testified that they never talked with their daughters about the allegations and the judge even accepted that. It never occurred to him that the only reason those girls "defended" George for 10 days following their disclosure was that they were "talking" to their parents. In this case, there were actually three clear examples of a "Taint." The first happened during the discussion those girls had with their mother when they initially disclosed, the second was when they were "arguing" with their parents and "defending" George, and the third was when their father told them George had done the same thing to 5 other minors.

  In an effort now to file a motion for a new trial, the defense attorney is bringing up a number of issues that have been given to them by the family. All these issues should have been addressed and brought out at trial, and asking a trial judge to reverse himself will be nothing short of a miracle.

  In this case, there could be no clearer example of a very simple case and a simple explanation going badly because it was mishandled. Regardless of how good anyone wants to believe George's defense was, it was not adequate and it could have been. George knew the facts of his case inside and out. Each day when trial ended, he commented to me there had been several incidents that day where defense counsel asked his assistant to find something specifically that he was looking for, but it was George who went to whatever document he was looking for immediately. George knew his case and George was fully prepared. Unfortunately, his attorney was not.

  Since the State Appeals Court and Supreme Court have already denied the Taint Motion and refused to overturn the lower Court's denial on a hearing, I would expect this case to have to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court before any success is seen. Clearly, the conviction in this case was not supported by the evidence. In reality, there is enough evidence in this case, not only to reverse the conviction, but to dismiss the case as well, but while waiting, an innocent man sits in prison.

  Since I began defending the falsely accused in 1989, three of my clients have been convicted. In each case, the defense attorney was a high profile, ego strapped, know-it-all who had to do things their way. Each had a great deal of arrogance, but very little knowledge of the case itself, and each relied on their "reputations" to carry the defense. It failed and not one of them had the slightest bit of remorse following trial. I cannot warn anyone falsely accused enough to be careful of your attorney. You are betting your very life on them. That is the reason that, after 17 years of defending clients all over the world, my expert's page identifies only 6 attorneys and each is a hard working, care-about-their-client lawyer who believes there was no place for ego when they were trying to save a life.

  Now, back to this case. What was the answer? How could this conviction have been prevented? The clients and I have discussed bringing in an outside attorney, one that I had previously worked with. The attorney that I was suggesting was one of the most caring and thoroughly detailed people imaginable. He knew that he was the one that would have been responsible for presenting the case, but he also knew that no one understood the facts more than the family and I did after we had devoted three years of our lives to it. He would have welcomed our participation, something my client's defense attorney never did. After a great deal of discussion, both the client and I decided against changing attorneys, one because of finances and two, for the fact that my client did have a very easy defense and that he was being represented by what was considered to be the "best criminal defense attorney" in that area. Obviously, in hind-sight, bringing in the outside attorney would have cost the client far less in the long run and I sincerely believe that my client would have been acquitted and at home with his family, not sitting in prison waiting to have his conviction reversed.

  As of November 10, 2006, I am happy to report that two of the nation's most brilliant, accomplished, respected and caring appellate attorneys will become involved in this case. Watch this site for updates as we continue fighting and keep this family in your prayers.

  Main Page

  False Allegations

  Wrongful Conviction

  Services we Offer

  Contacting Us

  Site Map