Changing positions a fourth time is not
"new evidence"
Frontline touts "new evidence" uncovered by its own investigation of the case. That evidence consists of nothing more than another change in position by Ileana Fuster, who has changed back and forth so many times that, sadly, another change cannot be considered news. And if we take Frontline at its word, Ileana did not appear through their own investigation at all -- she appeared because she is in trouble with the INS (having lied and apparently entered the country under false pretenses).
There is nothing "new" about this "evidence."
In 1994, Frank Fuster’s lawyer claimed to have "new evidence" in the form of a "retraction" by Ileana. (This would be her third change of position.) Ralph Underwager, a defense psychologist who was discredited so badly in the Country Walk case that the defense replaced him with Dr. Lee Coleman at trial – rushed the statement into print in his now-defunct, self-published journal, Issues in Child Abuse Accusations.
Judge Magistrate Charlene Sorrentino recently reviewed this infamous 1994 statement—given without the benefit of counsel for Ileana or for the state—and found that a careful reading rendered the defense lawyers’ claims of "coercion" and "brainwashing" to be "sheer hyperbole." Even this so-called recantation fails to support most of the claims that the defense made through Frontline. But as Judge Magistrate Sorrentino observed:
"When asked [in 1994] if she had been threatened by the doctors, Ileana responded ‘No.’ [Id. at 373] She also said she thought the sessions with the psychologists were helping her. [Id.] Contrary to the assertion [in Fuster’s reply], there is no mention anywhere in Ileana’s statement of any application of ‘coercion, psychological manipulation and threats." In effect, Ileana did no more than revert to what had been her original position that she had no recollection of the events that had transpired." (Magistrate's Report, p. 72)
Ileana soon recanted the recantation. That word came through the Reverend Tommy Watson, who visited Ileana frequently in jail and maintained contact with her after she returned to Honduras. Reverend Watson visited Ileana in Honduras in March 1995 and she told him "that she had given her 1994 statement because her mother was pressuring her to do so and because she wanted to clear her name." (Magistrate's Report, p. 72) Curiously, for a program with a major emphasis on explanations involving coercion, Frontline overlooked the documented pressures that Ileana faced to disclaim her criminal guilt in 1994.
"They badgered her and badgered her," Rev. Watson told Manny Garcia of the Miami Herald. Ileana signed a letter on March 18, 1995 stating that she was:
"sorry for the embarrassment that I have may [sic] cause to anyone that try to help me in the past. I do not wish to give any other deposition that could be different from the one given ten years ago. Again, Frank Fuster did horrible things to me and I know he did the same to the children, he deserves to be where he is now. I don’t want to be a victim anymore and I wish his attorneys would leave me alone."
But Fuster’s lawyers did not leave her alone. They impugned the credibility of her recantation of the recantation. (Prehearing Proffer [before Judge Leesfield], Fuster-Escalona v. Singletary, p.5 [ July 24, 1995]).
Why didn’t Frontline confront Ileana about the incredible inflation of her story over time? Why didn’t Frontline confront her with the fact that almost nothing she now claims is born out by her own 1994 statement to defense lawyer Arthur Cohen?