1. "T" citations refer the Trial Transcript. Note that pages 772 - 2563 contain testimony of state witnesses. "S" citations refer to the sentencing transcript. "NA" citations refer to the non-accuser transcripts that Appellant has moved to submit in the record.
2. Page limits prevent us from illustrating the path from one parent to the next that produced accusations in the order in which the parents learned of them. Page limits also prevent us from discussing in sufficient detail other critical facts, such as the use of influence to elicit accusations and the interviewers’ disregard for the pressure put on complainants to make accusations and that 41 other of Mr. Fiek’s students who were interviewed made no accusations and directly contradicted the complainants claims. For every example that we provide, we could present many more. We have submitted herewith a motion to provide the Court with additional documents, including a diagram that reveals the spread of accusations. We have also filed a motion to submit a brief of appropriate length so that we may provide in the detail necessary to consider the facts of the case.
3. For a discussion of these tactics and their effects, see, Ceci & Bruck, The Suggestibility of the Child Witness: A Historical review and Synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-439 (1993); Ceci, & Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony. American Psychological Association Press: Washington, D.C. (1995)[hereafter, "Ceci & Bruck"]; Rosenthal, Suggestibility, Reliability & the Legal Process, Developmental Review, vol. 22: 334-369 (2002).
4. That Zach knew the purpose and content of the meeting belies the claim that he could not have heard about the accusations from anyone. His accusations came only after he went with his parents to the church that night.
5. See, Ceci & Bruck (supra) and Rosenthal (supra).
6. Telling a child what friends said (peer pressure) has been condemned by the research literature for its influential power. Raising the topic also directed Joseph to a conversation of abuse by Mr. Fiek. Even if Ms. Phelps did not expressly tell Joseph what to say, her methods are known to corrupt the child’s memory and recall ability. See, Ceci & Bruck, pp. 146 to 152, supra.
7. Ms. Phelps testified that she applied no influence to Joseph to elicit accusations. Joseph’s testimony disproves that. Assuming that she testified without guile then, she was unable to recall the pressure she used to elicit accusations. Other parents were likely to be similarly unaware. See, Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Prentice Hall, Inc. Division of Simon & Schuster. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. (research proves that adults may recall the major ideas or content, but not the exact words, or sequence of interaction between speakers); Bruck, Ceci,, & Melnyk (1999). "The effect of interviewer bias on the accuracy of children’s reports and interviewer’s reports." Biennial Meeting of the Society for Child Development. Albuquerque, NM.; Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur (1999) "The accuracy of mothers' memories of conversations with their preschool children." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
8. Only when a complainant made a statement contrary to the parents’ or investigators’ theory of guilt was he challenged. Never did an interviewer attempt to confirm or disprove anything supporting their a priori belief in molestation. Tapes of non-accuser interviews are replete with challenges to their statements and answers. Barring Mr. Fiek’s introduction of these tapes or their content kept the jury from knowing this.
9. All of these things – praise for certain statements, creating a negative stereotype, stating that bad things happened and reinforcing accusations - have been proven to generate false reports. See, Ceci & Bruck; Rosenthal, R., supra pages pp.339-342.
10. Note that like Ms. Phelps and the other parents in this case, Ms. Baker became so quickly invested in the notion that her children had been molested, that she ignored the fact that during classes, she sat outside the room and sometimes in the room to watch the classes.(T. 1660) Mr. Baker also sometimes watched the classes. (T. 1689-1690) During all of this time, neither parent suspected anything inappropriate.
11. Ms. Vogel introduced the idea of improper touching, challenged his negative responses, persisted in her hypothesis of abuse, and accepted his resulting accusation without question. Her method has been condemned for its corrupting capacity. See, Ceci & Bruck; Rosenthal, supra.
12. Repeated questions and repeated interviews in which the same questions are asked are another of the methods proven to corrupt children’s memory and recall ability. Further, Mr. Hall’ preconceived bias toward Mr. Fiek’s guilt, even prior to accusations, is evidenced in his refusal to allow for the possibility that Will’s denial of abuse was an accurate statement. See, Rosenthal, supra.
13. "The term "interviewer bias" characterizes interviewers who hold a priori beliefs about the occurrence of certain events and, as a result, consciously or unconsciously mold the interview to elicit statements from the interviewee that are consistent with these prior beliefs. Studies have documented that interviewer biases can result in the generation of false reports from children. Rosenthal, supra, at 338-339; Ceci & Bruck, pp. 87-105.
14. Again, the jury was kept uninformed about these denials and contradictions.
15. Because the trial court prohibited Mr. Fiek from introducing the transcripts of the interviews of the 41 children who would not accuse Mr. Fiek and who contradicted the accusations of the 23 complainants, and because the defense was not permitted even to mention those interviews, the jury was unaware of this information and Mr. Fiek’s ability to cross-examine the complainants was denied. Error II, infra.
16. Page limits prevent a discussion of accusations made by all of the complainants.
17. Bizarre accusations include ridiculous ones that illustrate the desire to satisfy demands for accusations. For example, Sam Davis said that Gunther was not a Christian because he crossed his fingers behind his back when he prays. (T. 1456)
18. The state’s presentation of the videotaped interviews of the complainants was additional hearsay that added to the number of accusations and the number of times they were heard.
19. Space limitations prevent citation to the voluminous research literature that disproves the experts. Upon request, we will provide far more citations and the actual publications. For a review of the research, however, see, Ceci& Bruck; and Rosenthal, supra.
20. The Rolader court noted that "the crux of the question presented is…whether the State, as the proponent of evidence presumptively barred by the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause, has carried its burden of proving that the [child’s] incriminating statements … bore sufficient indicia of reliability to withstand scrutiny under the Clause." Rolader, 202 Ga.App. at 140, citing, Wright, supra.