Photographs that Frontline failed to mention
Frontline described Frank Fuster as "living the American dream" when he was charged with child sexual abuse in August 1984. But Frontline does not mention the sickening photos found among the items that were recovered from his house, which had been cleaned out shortly before his arrest. Among the few photographs recovered were two that demonstrated Frank Fuster’s perversity in such graphic form that they will only be added to this site after devising some kind of age-screening and consent form. But these photos were described in Jan Hollingsworth’s book and they are contained in the official record of the case.
First, there was "a nauseating recent photograph of [Fuster’s son] sitting on a toilet, the floor around him smeared thickly and thoroughly with excrement. [The son’s] expression was pained." (Hollingsworth, 1986, p. 176). When asked about this stomach-turning photo, Fuster said that he "happened to have the camera handy" and "I took a picture of my son to show it to him when he gets older." [State v. Fuster, September 26, 1985 (Part I, tr. 4465 re State’s Exhibit No. 37)]
This photo is significant beyond anything it suggests about the kind of person who would take a picture in such circumstances. It also adds to the credibility of the children’s testimony. The state's star witness, Justin C., discosed "games" that involved smeared feces (Jane Daugherty, "Day Care Videotapes Released, Kids Describe Sex at Country Walk," Miami Herald (December 21, 1984), p. 14.) The defense psychologist at trial, Dr. Lee Coleman, testified that these passages were examples that invited the "very real possibility that it’s fantasy." The photo, of course, demonstrates the reality of Frank Fuster’s fascination with feces. This ugly proof about the reality of Frank Fuster’s life was whitewashed and then bleached by Frontline.
Another one of the "family photos" found in Frank Fuster’s home was "a rear view of a woman at the Fuster’s sink, alongside [their son]. He had been posed lifting the back of her skirt to reveal her panties, which were heavily soiled with what appeared to be menstruum or feces." (Hollingsworth 1986, p. 443)
These photos reveal a side of Frank Fuster that would make many people favorably impressed by Frank Fuster rethink their position. They apparently helped lead Nathan (1991, p. 89, fn.2) to add a caveat that does not appear in her later writings:
"This is not to say that no plausible evidence of child sexual abuse existed in Country Walk; indeed, it appears that the husband [Frank Fuster] perpetrated sadomasochistic assaults against the wife (who was legally a minor) and possible against the younger children, including abuse involving the use of urine and excrement.""
Source: Debbie Nathan, "Satanism and Child Molestation," ch. 5 in James Richardson, et. al., eds., The Satanism Scare (New York, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991).
Did Frank Fuster "do it"? Even the most published critic of the Country Walk case seems to say yes. The question remains: why did Frontline's "documentary" omit all of that evidence from this hour-long program?