|
|
|
| ||
 |
|
|
|
Friday, April 3, 1998
He finds for couple jailed for sex abuse
By ANDREW SCHNEIDER The first comprehensive judicial review of the Wenatchee sex-abuse investigations has ended with harsh criticism for police, state social workers, therapists and the main accusers. Whitman County Superior Court Judge Wallis Friel did not mince words in a 64-page report on the controversial cases he issued yesterday. In it, he concluded that Harold and Idella Everett probably would not be found guilty if tried again on more then 6,000 charges of child rape and molestation. Friel had been asked by the Court of Appeals to preside over a rare, seven-day fact-finding hearing to examine whether the Everetts' legal rights had been violated. Attorneys for the couple have asked that the convictions be overturned, but the higher court needs more information before making a ruling. The higher court asked Friel to specifically examine the actions of Wenatchee Police Detective Bob Perez and Child Protective Services workers, and to determine the validity of a videotaped recantation of accusations by Melinda, one of the two principal accusers. Evaluating the truth of Melinda's recantation was perhaps Friel's most daunting task. On June 2, 1996, Melinda, who had run away from her foster home, was videotaped by Spokane television reporter Tom Grant in the home of Chelan County Commissioner Earl Marcellus. The child said Perez forced her to lie about being molested. Perez, CPS and their defenders maintain Melinda was forced to recant. As recently as last month, she herself said one of the men she accused, Pentecostal Church Pastor Roby Roberson, had threatened her if she didn't recant. In comparing Melinda's demeanor on the tape and on the witness stand in his courtroom, Friel didn't believe that she had been forced to retract. "Melinda's recantation was believable," Friel wrote, adding that he "finds it to be a truthful statement." The judge noted that the taping was the first statement ever given by Melinda when she was not under the direct control of Perez, CPS caseworkers or therapists. "She is proof that a 16-year-old can be totally dominated and manipulated beyond belief," Friel wrote. Friel stressed that his decision applies only to the Everett case. Yet his criticism is targeted at Perez, the CPS workers and therapists, and Melinda and Donna, the two sisters who were the accusers or corroborators in almost all the cases. Friel's findings confirm many allegations of wrongdoing made by dozens of the 43 people prosecuted, 16 of whom remain in prison. The conduct of the controversial investigation was the subject of a five-month Post-Intelligencer investigation published earlier this year. "The importance of Judge Friel's decision on what he learned about the investigation and prosecution of these cases cannot be overstated," said Robert VanSiclen, an Auburn lawyer representing Harold Everett. "It is crucial to the Everetts. But it is also vital to document what actually happened to dozens of other people swept up in this nightmare, many of whom are still in prison." The judge seemed incredulous when he learned that Perez remained a foster parent of Donna and Melinda while investigating cases in which they were the chief accusers. Though Perez and state Department of Social and Health Services officials insist there was no conflict in his role as detective and foster father, Friel thought otherwise. "(Perez) completely ignored the fact that ... the foster daughter was the accuser and star witness in his police work during the day," he wrote. This relationship, the judge added, was one factor in Perez's lack of attempts to investigate the girl's reliability as a witness. And "Perez used his relationship with Donna as a weapon," Friel wrote, noting that Perez, while trying to get the girl's mother to confess to abuse, told her, "I have one of your daughters and I'll have the other." Friel said it "is unbelievable" that Perez "does not realize that the obvious conflict of interest ... The child witness was the core of the case." "This does not speak well for the believability and credibility of Donna's initial allegations," the judge wrote. He gave "little credibility" to Donna's testimony at the hearing and said it "was definitely not convincing." Friel wasn't shy about criticizing Perez's methods both in "using improper interrogation techniques" when getting Donna and Melinda to accuse their parents - Idella and Harold Everett - and others, and in getting Idella to confess. "It has become obvious during this hearing that Detective Perez was able to get the women of the Everett family to say whatever he wanted them to say," the judge wrote. The judge also noted Perez's scant training as a sex-abuse investigator and lack of knowledge about how to interrogate child witnesses. On the stand, Perez testified he always followed proper questioning techniques, including never asking leading questions, never pressuring the children and always carefully documenting interviews. "The court finds otherwise," Friel wrote. He said Perez did not take or keep proper records because "he did not want anyone to know the methods by which he obtained evidence from his witnesses." Nor did the detective's anger at those who questioned his work escape the eye of the 66-year-old jurist. "Perez's actions seem designed to create an atmosphere of fear among people who had an interest in the case," Friel wrote. He cited Perez's "angry reactions to allegations of his conflict of interest and his assuming the role of policy-maker at DSHS." Documents show that Perez guided, if not controlled some CPS decisions on the selection of therapists, foster parents and medical exams for many of the children. He said in the Everett case alone "three incidents of vicious retaliation create questions regarding the fairness of the entire investigation." Friel did not sugarcoat his concern about CPS therapists and caseworkers "circling the wagons," to prevent the accused and their lawyers from questioning their accusers. "Prevention of fair interrogation and access to the accusers, and the brainwashing of those who disagree with them, thwarts the judicial process in the same manner as improper interrogation procedures," Friel wrote. The judge described CPS' use of therapists and counselors as "witness-managers" working on behalf of prosecutors. Richard, 17, the Everetts' oldest child, testified that he was forced to go to a DSHS-hired therapist, Rodney Daut, who repeatedly pressured him to make abuse accusations. "What passed for therapy were shouting matches during which Mr. Daut attempted to convince Richard he should admit to molestation under the guise of helping him rid himself of some mental malady of which Richard was unaware." The judge called Daut's refusal to believe Richard's consistent denial of any abuse "incomprehensible." Cindy Andrews, another therapist who treated the Everett children, failed to respond to a subpoena to testify at the hearing, but was still a topic of discussion. Andrews and Daut were given the Everett children as patients after Perez angrily insisted they be removed from other therapists who did not believe the children had been abused and "would be bad witnesses." Sarah Doggett, 19, whose parents are in prison awaiting a new trial, testified that Andrews pressured her to tell of abuse, saying it would help her sisters if she did so. Melinda, who first told Andrews no abuse had occurred, eventually recalled that she had been molested as early as age 2. Several hours of the hearing dealt with Idella Everett's confession. Evidence showed that the woman has an IQ so low that she did not understand what was happening to her or the significance of what she was signing. In testimony, she said she signed the confession Perez had typed for her because the detective said she could go home and nothing would happen to her children. Friel calls Idella's testimony "believable" and that she signed the false confession in the belief it would protect her children. "Mrs. Everett's explanation is certainly more plausible than the alternative, which would be that she signed the confession so that she and her husband would spend lengthy terms in prison," Friel added. Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Riesen said yesterday he was surprised at the scope of Friel's findings. "It appears that he looked at the hearing as a trial, which was not what we expected," Riesen said. "I didn't fully explore all the evidence we would have if it were a full criminal trial." Friel, in an interview yesterday, said he didn't go too far. "I understand why (Riesen) might feel that way, but I didn't go past what the evidence showed," Friel said. Riesen said he can't make a decision on whether to retry the Everetts until the Court of Appeals determines how it will rule. Friel said he doesn't know when the court will act. "Wheels grind slowly in appellate court, but they have already heard the arguments and I as pretty clear in my decision, so it may move rather swiftly. You never know," Friel said.
INSIDE SEATTLEPI.COM
 OUR AFFILIATES
Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
| |||||||||||||
