The prison mistreatment myth

Referring to him as a "witness," Frontline relied heavily on Stephen Dinerstein to corroborate Ileana’s new claims about her alleged mistreatment in prison. Frontline described Dinerstein as "a witness to Ileana’s story." Fuster’s defense team has long relied on an affidavit by Stephen Dinerstein for the claim that Ileana Fuster was mistreated in prison.

Frontline described Dinerstein as "a private eye." Actually, he has not been a private eye since 1989 when the state revoked all of his professional licenses following a complaint. The infamous 1993 affidavit was written four years after Dinerstein lost his license—and more than eight years after the actual events.

While Frontline apparently accepted Dinerstein at face value, Federal Magistrate Judge Charlene Sorrentino, who scrutinized the Dinerstein affidavit and related evidence submitted as part of the federal habeas petition, came to a far different conclusion in March 2002. Judge Sorrentino reviewed the entire trial transcript and spent three years working on her 124-page decision. This is the first time that the Dinerstein "evidence" has been subject to careful judicial review.

Judge Sorrentino practically scoffed at the claims that Frontline accepted whole hog. As she noted: "Comparison of Dinerstein’s affidavit and the memorandum authored by counsel yields the conclusion that the memorandum significantly distorted and revised Dinerstein’s actual assertions" (Magistrate's Report, p.70). The Magistrate also noted:

Indeed, the grandiose claims that Frontline broadcast about forced cold showers and late night visits by Janet Reno were all manufactured since his 1993 declaration. Not even Ileana’s earlier "recantation"—the one Frontline allowed defense lawyer Arthur Cohen to describe without challenge—supports these extreme claims. Asked by Mr. Cohen in 1994 about her clothing, Ileana rejected the idea that she had been naked. "No I had my clothes on." (See "Statement of Ileana Flores Regarding Florida v. Fuster," Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, Vol. 6, No. 4: p. 193.) When asked about Mr. Dinerstein, Ileana said "he came to see me a couple of times." (Id.) By the time that columnist Alexander Cockburn was accusing Janet Reno of torturing Ileana, however, the Dinerstein visits were being described as twice a week and, as the revisionist story goes, Ileana was naked for months on end.

The few specific statements in Dinerstein’s 1993 affidavit that support the prison mistreatment claim are suspect on the merits. They are contradicted by the testimony of four adults and by some very telling contemporaneous documentary evidence. There are also numerous other reasons to doubt the credibility of Dinerstein’s claims—written eight years after the facts.

Frontline stated that "prison officials have told Frontline the records about Ileana no longer exist." What Frontline did not say is that many records about Ileana’s prison stay still are in existence. Depositions were taken of at least five adults who visited Ileana in prison—none of them Stephen Dinserstein, since it appears that he only visited a few times in the entire year. It appears that Dinserstein visited far less often than all of those individuals whose testimony contradicts his. Frontline overlooked all of that contradictory testimony.

Neither the contemporaneous documents nor the records of four adults who testified at the time support the conclusions that Frontline reached:

1. Fuster’s 1985 motion concerning "cruel and unusual" treatment

Not a single one of the extreme conditions that are being alleged in 2002 are mentioned in the motion that the Fusters brought in 1985 about their alleged "cruel and unusual" treatment.

2. Testimony of Ms. Shirley Blando

As assistant chaplain, Ms. Blando, visited Ileana more often than anyone else. Her testimony of August 1, 1985 provides no support for Stephen Dinerstein’s claims about what allegedly happened in the last two weeks of July.

3. Testimony of Rev. Tommy Watson (Coming Soon)

Reverend Watson visited Ileana at least two dozen times. He never saw any of the alleged mistreatment .

4. Testimony of Jo Anne Berg

Neither did psychiatric nurse, Jo Anne Berg.

5. Testimony of Christina Royo

Neither did the "other investigator "— another adult that Frontline could have interviewed, but didn’t.

6. Ileana’s 1985 letters

   Her letters to Frank complained about petty things. How have such trifling matters turned into "torture" – without journalistic skepticism and inquiry.?

1. Dinerstein’s license was revoked by the State in 1989

back

The claim that the state "made a deal" and needed her testimony to obtain a conviction is erroneous on both counts. The record at the time is clear. The Judge specifically asked Ileana if she had made a deal at the hearing. Moreover, it is clear from intense local reporting at the time that Ileana sought concessions that the State was unwilling to give, particularly about citizenship. Meanwhile, it remains unclear how much Frontline discounts Ileana’s latest change of heart given that her ability to stay in the country—which she apparently re-entered illegally after lying to the INS—is contingent on somehow erasing her criminal record.

The claim that the state "had to break Ileana down" before commencing trial is contradicted by the procedural history of the case. Ileana didn’t decide to testify against Frank until late in the summer of 1985. The state was not only prepared to go ahead with its case months earlier than that—but a rare appearance in court by Janet Reno in early June was to argue against delaying the trial. The state objected to repeated defense motions for continuances—hardly the position they would take if Ileana’s testimony was "vital" to their case. The state wanted to start the trial months before Ileana decided to plead guilty—and a full two months before she met the psychologists, hired by the defense at the time, who have become the scapegoat of the current defense team.

The unquestioned premise of those challenging the Country Walk convictions is that the prosecution decided that it "needed a confession from Ileana" Fuster in order to obtain a conviction. That premise is also contradicted by the fact that Ileana’s testimony was not even presented in the state’s case in chief against Frank Fuster. Her testimony was so peripheral to the state’s case against Frank Fuster that she appeared only as a rebuttal witness.

Ileana did not profess factual innocence at her sentencing

She very clearly admitted that she did the physical acts—but under coercion. She answered the same questions any defendant must answer before entering a plea. Her frequently-quoted statement was a plea for mercy, not a disclaimer of responsibility.

It has been claimed that Ileana Fuster "pled guilty not because she was, but because it was in everyone’s interests, she told the trial court." But her statement must be understood in the context in which it was offered: Ms. Fuster didn’t claim that the acts were not committed, she claimed that she "did not have a criminal mind." Those spinning the witch-hunt narrative always "quote" Ileana’s statement the same way - by truncating her remarks so as to leave out the line that came immediately thereafter, the line that was considered was most prominent when the story was reported. "There were circumstances and that—I was raped at sixteen. I was taken away from my home and my school." (Proceedings of Plea Hearing, State v. Escabona (sic) aka Frank Fuster, Case No. 84-19728, August 22, 1985, tr. 11).

In context, Ileana’s statement in court clearly expresses her lack of criminal intent, not her lack of participation in the perverse acts of a rage-filled man who scared children with masks and snakes and knives, who threatened other people with guns, and whose publicly-observed violence towards included punches to the face and an enraged outburst in court. This view was reinforced when Ileana spoke again at her sentencing on November 26. 1985. As reported by the Miami Herald:

back

According to Frontline: "some say it all began as a love story." But actually, only Frank Fuster says that. And he is lying. Ileana told her mother in prison that the marriage was precipitated by rape. She told three other adults as well. They have corroborated the story. There are additional reasons to conclude that what Frontline considers a possible fairy tale was actually a horror story from day one.

There is considerable evidence that Ileana was beaten by Frank Fuster, that she was scared to death of him (as was his previous wife), and that Frank Fuster was extremely violent. Frank Fuster was observed striking Ileana in the face in 1983. Frank also pulled a gun on Ileana’s stepfather during this time. Fuster also revealed his capacity for blind rage and its effects on Ileana with an outburst of screaming at Ileana during the proceedings that was so powerful that, halfway across the guarded courtroom, it sent her to the floor.

There was also considerable evidence that rape led to their marriage -- evidence that predates the psychologists from "Behavior Changers" by at least two months. Shirley Blando, the assistant chaplain who spent the most time with Ileana verifies that in June – two months before her lawyer called in the psychologists – "she said that he had forced sex on her." "The first time she talked about it with me and Reverend Watson, it was an unbelievable struggle."

In fact, the day she pleaded guilty, Ileana tried to explain to the court that "There were circumstances and that—I was raped at sixteen. I was taken from my home and my school." Frontline edited Ileana’s statement in court to leave this out and, thereby, change its meaning. See how the plea was reported at the time.

back