Q. Now, Mr. Ofshe, earlier in your testimony you referred about -- you were telling us about this scenario where you have claimed to have obtain a false confession in a case you worked on?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that the case out in Washington State?
A. That's right.
Q. Okay, and in that case the scenario you presented to the defendant in that case that you said you created and he -- he agreed with, that scenario was similar to the allegations in the actual case, correct?
A. No. The scenario was specifically designed to be different from any of the allegations in the case. I invented it to make it in the same area, otherwise it would be meaningless, but I made it specifically different from any allegations in the case and then I verified with one of the people who was supposedly involved in it that in fact it never happened just to double check that in fact it did not happen.
Q. Well, isn't it true that in both instances the allegations involved child sexual abuse?
A. This was a case about child sexual abuse and when I told him the specifics as to a particular event which I made up -I made up peculiar circumstances for that event and he then produced a very detailed confession specific to that event including dialogue and then I verified from one of the victims that no such event had ever occurred.
Q. And isn't it true that in that particular scenario that both daughters of that defendant had testified he had sexually abused them?
A. I don't believe they ever testified to that. I believe they made allegations as to that effect. I don't think their formal testimony was ever taken. They also made allegations to the fact that their bodies were covered with scars which were then subject to examination and -- a court ordered medical examination and there were no scars on their bodies. So they made a lot of allegations, none of which proved empirically correct.
Q. Those were two adult daughters, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay, and also the wife also made allegations that he sexually abused the daughters, correct?
A. The wife was being threatened with having her-
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, could you ask him -- if he has an explanation we can hear that, but would he answer the question on the front end before we go through the five minute---
THE COURT: --Try to answer yes or no and then -then if you need to explain, I'm going to let you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Yes. The wife during the period when she was being pressured by the police and threatened with having her one remaining child taken away from her if she did not come up with accusations against her husband, proceeded to come up with such accusations and some of those accusations included being present at a satanic cult ceremony where blood flowed out of a book and flowed uphill over her arms -- over her body.
I was asked to evaluate her by the prosecution to help them make a determination as to whether or not to charge her or whether or -- or -- whether or not to charge her and it was my recommendation not to charge her.
Q. And in fact her husband had pled guilty to these sexual abuse charges, correct?
A. No. In fact her husband pled guilty to six counts of third degree -- entered pleas to six counts of third degree rape when he was told that if he did not enter that plea---
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, would he be responsive to the question?
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. Did he enter a plea of guilty to charges of rape or sexual abuse?
A. He entered -- yes -- he entered a plea to six counts of third degree rape.
Q. Did he maintain his guilt for a period of five months prior to entering that plea of guilty?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Okay, and isn't it true, Doctor, that he did not decide that he was not guilty until he talked with you?
A. After he talked---
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, could he be asked to respond yes or no?
THE COURT: Yes or no and then---
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Yes, that's technically correct. However, the discussion that I had with him which was tape recorded was not a discussion that precipitated his changing his mind. He changed his mind subsequent to that after he independently began to look at the things that he had confabulated and after the pressures that he had been under during this five month period were withdrawn, after which he had been gotten to enter a guilty plea. So his decision -- his realization that he in fact committed none of these things -- was done independent of any conversation I had with him.
Q. And despite your opinion that his confession was coerced or involuntary in that case, the jury and the court found otherwise, correct -- or the court did?
A. The court found based on statements made prior to the statements that I analyzed -- found that it was sufficient to accept -- or not to accept his request to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial.
Q. So in that scenario with the husband saying for five months he's guilty, with the wife saying that he's guilty, and the two daughters giving statements as to his guilt, you met with him and convinced him that he was not guilty, correct?
A. Incorrect.
O. Well, after you met with him is when he. decided that he was not guilty, correct?
A. A month after he met with me after going through his own analysis of what happened -- after he was no longer being constantly coached by the interrogators, by the psychologists, and by his minister, he realized that the beliefs that he had formed made no sense whatsoever and he realized that he -- he had come to believe something that was not true.
What he came to believe was that he was the leader of a satanic cult that had been in operation for seventeen years, that had killed hundreds of children for which there was no evidence. That's what he came to realize made no sense.
Q. And you testified in his behalf in a hearing designed to get that guilty plea set aside, correct?
A. I test -- that's correct, and the result of that was that the judge chose to maintain the guilty plea based on statements that he had made prior to the matter that I testified about, and that was the justification for not allowing him a trial.
(thanks for the link!)
