Michael Kirk's Misrepresentations on WashingtonPost.com

Michael Kirk, producer and director of Did Daddy Do It? answered questions through WashingtonPost.com on April 25, 2002. In the course of one hour, Mr. Kirk misstated the facts about Country Walk and/or Frank Fuster at least five times.

Michael Kirk's errors:

1. Wrong about the public records of Fuster's manslaughter conviction

Mr. Kirk twice misstated the nature of Frank Fuster's conviction in New York. First, Mr. Kirk said: "Frank's life story is one of occasional outburst of anger and at least once, violence (he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in a road rage incident.)"

But Fuster was charged with two separate felonies: homicide and reckless endangerment. There was nothing remotely "involuntary" about the charges or the disposition of his case. Frank Fuster pleaded guilty to First Degree Manslaughter after killing an unarmed man with two shots from a rifle he then pointed at an off-duty police officer.

When challenged online about whether Frontline checked the criminal records before allowing Frank Fuster to claim that the killing was an "accident," Mr. Kirk replied:

"Yes, obviously we read the charges against Frank Fuster. I've been a reporter and a producer for 30 years, and know that documents and charges and charge sheets and everything else are often more one-sided when used by police and prosecutors to file charges than they turn out to be when adjudicating the case."

Mr. Kirk once again referred to the disposition as "the involuntary manslaughter conviction." How could anyone who viewed these documents (1, 2, 3, 4) conclude that Frank Fuster was convicted of involuntary manslaughter?

[It is also difficult to understand why Mr. Kirk described Frank Fuster as having demonstrated violence "at least once." Martha Fuster's deposition is filled with evidence of violence and fear. So are the depositions of several other adults who were threatened by Fuster or saw him hit Ileana. Indeed, a simple reading of court records that Mr. Kirk claims Frontline checked would reveal enough of a pattern of violence to wonder why someone would chose the words "at least once."]

2. Wrong about Noel's statements in 1984

According to Mr. Kirk: "The most that [Noel] ever admitted, which we showed being extracted from him, is that maybe when he was asleep, his father put his penis in Noel's mouth."

This statement is not only false, it demonstrates that Mr. Kirk has little familiarity with the contents of court documents in the Fuster case. Noel made explicit and detailed disclosures to Dr. Simon Miranda, who interviewed him in late November 1984 for the guardian ad litem in the case. The transcript of the entire interview is reproduced on this Web site, largely as a demonstration of how Alexander Cockburn and others (including Frontline) have fallen for Noel's revisionist story without bothering to check it against the original transcript.

3. Wrong about Noel's alleged "recantations."

Mr. Kirk also claimed that Noel "denied the allegation" "ever since" being interviewed by the Bragas. That statement is proven wrong, of course, by the Dr. Miranda interview in November.

The claim that Noel has adamantly denied the abuse ever since is also proven wrong by the Noel's actual statements. Consider what Noel said at the "Salem Conference" in 1997. See if you can find any words in this rambling statement that constitutes a denial? Then read his 1992 civil deposition where he expresses nagging uncertainty about whether he was abused.

4. Wrong about the doctor who performed the STD test on Noel.

Asked about the gonorrhea evidence, Mr. Kirk said: "An appeals court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, had found in the Grant Snowden appeal that the gonorrhea test in that case, taken at the same lab, performed by the same doctor, was unreliable."

There are three separate misstatements in this sentence. Actually the Fuster and Snowden cases involved different doctors and different diseases. Moreover, the 11th Circuit never decided that any STD test was unreliable. Read the entire decision in Snowden and see that Mr. Kirk created this argument out of whole cloth: http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/94-4303.man.html

[Dr. Judith Lederhandler performed the test in Noel Fuster's case; Dr. Dorothy Hicks administered the tests in Snowden.]

5. Wrong about Ileana's lie detector results

Mr. Kirk was asked, "Why wasn't a lie detector test given to one or either of them, or given to them now?" To this question, Kirk incorrectly responded, "Ileana took polygraphs. The results were inconclusive and inadmissible."

Ileana was administered two polygraphs prior to her guilty plea, and while their results were not offered as evidence during trial, neither test was deemed inconclusive in their examiners' reports.

On June 21, 1985, Ileana was administered her first polygraph. The following relevant questions were asked during the examination:

The examiner's remarks on this polygraph reveal that Ileana's answers to questions 1-4 were indicative of truthfulness, however, the examiner remarked that Ileana's answers to questions 5-8 (those centering on Frank abusing the children) were indicative of deception. (Hollingsworth, 321-322)

[Text of examiner's report from Ileana's June 21, 1985 polygraph (Hollingsworth, 321)]

The only one of Ileana's answers in this first polygraph that was considered "inconclusive" by the examiner was that to question 9. There is no indication at all in the examiner's report of this exam that any of her other answers were inconclusive.

On August 21, 1985 Ileana was administered a second polygraph. The following relevant questions were asked during the examination:

Of Ileana's answers to questions asked during the second polygraph, not one was deemed inconclusive by the examiner. Ileana's answers to all but question 3 were indicative of truthfulness; the examiner reported that Ileana's answer to question 3 was indicative of deception. (Hollingsworth, 419-420)

[Text of examiner's report from Ileana's August 21, 1985 polygraph (Hollingsworth, 419)]