Footnotes to Text

Conspired against him

In Fuster’s own words: "..referring to this group of families, yes. They have 100 percent lied." (L. v. Escalona, Case No. 84-32827. Deposition of Frank Escalona; October 31, 1985, tr. 77). "And regards to Mrs. L., yes, she also lied, even though she is not suing. She also lied." (tr. 77) And "Joanne M. plotted against you because she had designs on your affections? A: I am one hundred percent sure." (tr. 91).

---------------------------

Freda testimony

Whittington declaration

1983/1

1983/2

1983/3

Dr. Cleary letter

Result Sheet -- Penicillin Sensitivity

---------------------------

That is why the two tables that summarize the clinical and laboratory have a column labeled "Basis for Identification." As indicated below, the basis was unknown in three cases and unspecified in another ("biochemical tests" is a non-specific description). Virtually all other cases involved oxidase tests and gram stains.

Tables 3 and 4 from 1988 Whittington

Here is Fuster’s original explanation for going to the doctor and receiving antibiotics two weeks before his arrest:

Later Fuster added: "I don’t know what a canker sore is. I know — I know what I had on my penis was that I had hurt it with my zipper and I suffered a big pain. I know that’s what I was but the doctor choose to use my blood for additional tests." The results of those tests are described in court records as "borderline." Whatever the result, it was strong enough that Fuster was received penicillin. The strain of gonorrhea for which his son tested positive also tested "sensitive" to penicillin treatment.

When he was tested by the state weeks later, he had already taken the very medication that would eliminate the disease found in his son’s throat. Given the coincidence of Fuster taking that medicine in July and the ludicrous quality of his explanation, his failure to test positive in August 1984 was hardy exonerating evidence, although some have asserted otherwise.

Following his conviction, Fuster dropped the story about sores on his penis. Since then, when explaining his decision to see Dr. Lopez two weeks before his arrest, Fuster said "The purpose of visiting him was to check myself for diabetic."(L. v. Escalona, Case No. 84-32827. Deposition of Frank Escalona; October 31, 1985, tr. 248)

Why didn’t Frontline press Fuster on his shifting but still implausible explanation how he ended up taking penicillin and how he "hurt" his penis (if he still acknowledges that he originally went to the doctor for a "hurt" penis.)

---------------------------

From the part of the proceedings on Thursday August 22, 1985 that Frontline ignored entirely:

Judge Newman then went through all of her constitutional rights and asked several more questions before concluding that Ileana Fuster "freely and voluntarily entered into this plea" of guilty. (Proceedings of Plea Hearing, tr., 8)

Mr. Von Zamft, Ileana’s lawyer, then added: "For the record, I would stipulate that the information and evidence educed (sic) at trial would have constituted a prima facie case." (Proceedings of Plea Hearing, tr.9)

---------------------------

Striking Ileana in the face

There is testimony about a Halloween party 1983 where others adults witnessed what happened when Ileana told someone that Frank was carrying a concealed weapon. According to Mirabel Alvarez, Frank Fuster "turned around and told her, why do you say anything? And then he just started beating her with his fists in her face." Her estimate: "20 times" (State v. Fuster, Deposition of Mirabel Alvarez, August 6, 1985, tr. 14-15).

Fuster, who denied ever scaring the children with masks or even ownig such a mask went to the party "as a monster. He had a mask" (tr. 21).

Rape led to their marriage

Evidence from the Revered Tommy Watson has since confirmed that Ileana’s "first confession of Frank Fuster’s rape of her, torture of her, stalking of her" came "before the court appointed psychologists ever talked to her. The testimony of the assistant prison chaplain, Shirley Blando, testimony corroborates this account.

So does the testimony of Jo Anne Berg, a psychiatric nurse who visited spoke to Ileana two or three times a week in late June and July (tr. 24). In the middle of July Ms. Berg was present when: "Ileana shared with her mother – for the first time – her initial contact with Frank, when she was raped." Question: that was her word? Answer: Yes. (tr. 25-6) She later testified that Ileana "admitted that he had hit her, and that he had not allowed her to go to school, and that he had forced her to take care of children." (tr, 22)

Michael Von Vamft also wrote a memo on July 10, 1985, before the psychologists ever met with Ileana, indicating that "things she was afraid to speak to me about" including being ‘forced to have sex", "beatings," "fear for her life" –"an obviously battered wife." [Quoted in Hollingsworth, 1986, pp.325-8]

---------------------------

Defense motion at hearing on cruel and unusual punishment

Testimony of Shirley Blando

Testifying on August 1, 1985, Ms. Blando, who saw more of Ileana during this period than anyone else, said absolutely nothing about the horrors that Stephen Dinerstein alleged eight years later.

Ileana’s major struggle, it was apparent to Ms. Blando, was coming to terms with Frank had done to her. As Ms. Blando put it:

"The very first time she talked about [Frank raping her] with me and with reverend Watson, it was an unbelievable struggle. I have never seen such a struggle in a person like that before – such a struggle to get something out." (tr. 78)

While Ms. Blando confirmed the unusual arrangement whereby Ileana had a television in her cell – special treatment that others did not have (tr. 89). But there is no mention of Ileana being naked or deprived of anything she wanted, except increased access to the phone. By all contemporaneous accounts, Ileana Fuster practically had the run of the facility. She used the sun deck frequently, she had a television in her cell, and she went to see Ms. Blando whenever she wanted.

Testimony of Reverend Tommy Watson

(deposition of Reverend Watson to be added soon)

Jo Anne Berg, a psychiatric nurse, visited Ileana four times while her mother was also visiting. According to Ms. Berg: "Ileana shared with her mother—for the first time—her initial contact with Frank, when she was raped." Mr. Berg was then asked: "Was that her word, ‘raped’"? Her answer: yes (Deposition of Jo Ann Berg, August 1, 1985, tr. 35-6).

Stephen Dinsterstein claimed in his 1993 affidavit that "during the last two weeks of July 1985" is when Ileana’s condition "deteriorated so badly she could hardly move and was very slow, to respond to any questions" (Dinerstein, para. 26). But Christina Royo, an investigator for the State attorney, also investigated Ileana’s conditions two in the last week of July. She spoke to the Shift Commander Sergeant Spears, to Vivien Castellano from Social Services, and two officers (Kavanaugh and Jordan) assigned to the third floor of the Ladies’s Annex to the Metropolitan Dade County Jail.

Evidence from these sources demonstrated that Ileana "floated around the women’s annex most of the day," had "her own television" in her cell, had "more recreational time than any other inmate," and that she "spent most of her time with Shirley Blando [the assistant chaplain who remains quite loyal to Ileana but whose sworn testimony does not corroborate even the mildest defense allegations about prison mis-treatment]. Deposition of Christina Royo, State v. Escalona (Case No. 84-19728)(August 1, 1985), tr. 6.

The letters between the Fusters in the weeks before their motion for alleged "cruel and unusual" treatment are filled with nothing that emerged on Frontline. For example:

Linda Dinerstein’s own phony "coercion" argument

The credibility of Stephen and Linda Dinerstein, who worked together at the Classic Detective Agency, is further called into question by their coincidental claims for total disability just a few years after purchasing their policies. Both ended up in litigation with their insurers. Moreover, Linda Dinerstein tried to claim that she was "coerced" into accepting a settlement after the insurance company threatened to expose fraudulent insurance practices. The court found that the evidence indicated insurance fraud and denied the "coercion" claim:

"The legal consequences of filing a statement of claim with misleading information are set forth in Section 817.234 of the Florida Statutes Annotated. n11 Section 817.234, therefore, prohibits the filing of any statement of a claim with an insurance company which contains false or misleading information, and also requires that each claim form bear the following warning: "Any person who knowingly and with intent to defraud any insurance company or other person files a statement of claim containing any materially false information, or conceals [**18] for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto, commits a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime." F.S.A. @817.234(b). The evidence here indicates that Ms. Smith . [f/k/a/ Dinerstein] continued to submit claim forms to Paul Revere with Dr. Cahn's signature several months after Dr. Cahn had stopped treating Ms. Smith. n12 Therefore, Mr. Faracci's threats of criminal prosecution were legally justified, and the same will not provide a basis to rescind the Release. Id."

Source: Linda B. Smith f/k/a/ Linda B. Dinerstein v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, 998 F. Supp. 1412; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22560; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 606 (1997) at 1418.

Dinerstein's false claim that the state altered the videotapes

As recently as April 1997, Frank Fuster claimed that Mr. Dinerstein "accumulated evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, such as the alteration of the 72 hours of video tapes." Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Fuster v. Singletary, p. 21. This alleged evidence never materialized and Fuster’s lawyer, who filed an amended complaint on behalf of Mr. Fuster, quietly "abandoned the argument incorporated in one of the claims of the initial petition that the videotapes of the victim’s testimony had been altered by the state." (Magistrate’s Report, p. 4)

Nathan (Summer 1993, endnote 2) reported that:

No matter how one chooses to interpret this admission, if it is true, it is obviously relevant to the case. Why, then, did Dinerstein leave all mention of these alleged statements out of his 31-paragraph statement for the defense in November of 1993, a few months after he apparently told Nathan about these seemingly significant statements?