Tuesday, August 3, 2010

I am changing the posts a little bit

I know I was posting the motion for new trial word for word. It takes a tremendous amount of time. I want all to know that our motion in the State court of appeals was denied. We then filed a reconsideration motion which was also denied. We will file for a certificate for the Supreme Court next. I do not know what is going to happen there. My faith in the system actually working properly is gone.

I do not think any of the people who are supposed to be looking at these documents are even reading them. I just don't understand. We are all so disheartened. It is very hard to keep your faith when people just simply don't care about what is right and wrong. We will continue to fight. We pray that Tonya Craft's lawsuit makes some progress and her attorneys get an investigation into this judicial circuit. And of course, Mr. Anderson. His posts make a big difference.

I will continue to get my brother's story out there. But if there is anyone out there who has any suggestions as to which direction we go now, besides the Supreme Court, please let us know. I would like to be able to do anything to get something else going for him and not sit and wait on these people. These people being the court system. I do not think the court systems are at all fair and as I said before, they do not care about right and wrong. It's all about money!!

I will be posting a little more regular around the end of August. I still have vacation and back to school. So I will be busy for a couple more weeks, then it will calm and I can write again. Thanks for all the support and bearing with me.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Back to motion #2

2. The court erred in overruling trial counsel's objection to the testimony of forensic interviewer and to the admission of the tape of the forensic interview, Stacy Long, under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (1985) regarding the introduction of prior consistent statements of a witness (JH and AW) through another witness (Stacy Long). Tr. Tr. 226-230; 244-245.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution consistently sought and succeeded in getting hearsay evidence admitted which consisted of prior consistent statements of a proir witness; hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. In this instance Mr. Levitt objected to the admissibility of the taped forensic interviews of JH and AW because they contained leading questions which were "coached" by investigator Jennifer Cooley and suggested by Cooley through an ear piece, to forensic interviewer telling JH, "it's Brad's fault, we'll get you some counseling" Tr. Tr. 228. At this point Mr. Levitt also objected to the prior consistent statements, and a line of comments by the interviewer which should not be seen by the jury. Mr. Gregor relied on Cuzzort V. State, 254 Ga. 74 (1985) in support of the admissibility of the tape. See Tr. Tr. 226-230. Cuzzort involved a trial where the father was charged with aggravated sodomy to his daughter, who made the same statement when she testified in court. The issue in Cuzzort was whether the mother could testify to the out of court statement of the daughter- the same statement the daughter made in court, subject to cross-examination- or whether the mother's testimony would be hearsay. The Court held that the concerns of the hearsay rule were satisfied since both statements were the same, and the daughter was subject to cross-examination about her testimony and about her out of court statement.

Brown v. State, 250 Ga. App. 147 (2001) expands on the holding in Cuzzort, explaining the difference between the witness expanding on his prior statements and other persons commenting on the same, suggesting a simple answer: "{A} witness' testimony as to what he (the witness) said is not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. In short, the hearsay rule prohibits the witness from testifying as to what another person said; it does not apply to what the witness himself said." Brown, at 148.

In this particular tape, some of which Mr. Levitt pointed out, the forensic interviewer told JH he "did a good job", "you don't have to be ashamed", "it wasn't you, its Brad, Brad's got a problem." 4/18/06 Transcript of JH forensic interview, page 34. Long continues by offering JH counseling, she tell him he's "getting into them girls and stuff". 11/06/08 MNT D. Exhibit 2, Forensic Interview JH, pages 34-35. In other words, she commented on the videotape about JH's-the witness'- feelings, assigning to him shame, rewarding him for his statement by saying "good job", "testifying" that Brad Wade has got a problem. Long's comments on the statements of JH amount to impermissible hearsay, which should have been eliminated from the tape before showing it to the jury. See also, Amy Morton affidavit, as to the leading questions and the problems ascribed by research to questioning such as transpired in this so-called forensic interview. See also, 11/06/08 Tr. 50-69, where Ms. Morton discusses how clinical studies of children's behavior are indicative of abuse and the impact of the structured interviewing process, which ignored all of the informal "interviews" with parents and others.

The same problem appears in the AW interview, with the interviewer making statements which are not statements made by AW- they were made to AW- and which were not subject to cross examination. Cuzzort does not apply to this set of circumstances.

Next will be Number 3.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Continuing with part two Enumeration of Errors

Ms. Morton addressed the Jennifer Cooley report, Defendants Exhibit 17 at the hearing, which indicated numerous reports to Cooley that AW sexually acted out, touched other children, masturbated in front of other children, yet the genesis of this participation in sexual activity was not explored by the forensic interviewer. AW was described in the therapy records as being manipulative, sneaky, had problems with being honest and he liked to please, which should have made the interviewer cautious and diligent, trying to determine whether there was any secondary gain for AW by making these allegations. ( And there was, he was bought a new camper/van)(at 14).

An expert witness was absolutely necessary in this case; clearly Mr. Levitt had no idea about utilizing an expert witness (11/06/08 Tr. 77-81), he had never tried a child molestation case in Georgia 11/06/08 Tr. 68, he never attended a Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( GACDL) seminar Id. at 68, he is/was not a member of GACDL and he has never attended a seminar presented by noted child molestation expert, Doug Peters, Id. at 68. Consulting an expert witness but failing to provide information to the witness so an opinion could be performed, resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. At the evidentiary hearing Mr. Levitt testified that it was "trial strategy" not to call the expert witness. 11/06/08 Tr. 90. The law in the State of Georgia, which it is believed Mr. Levitt did not know, since he only attended DUI seminars as to Georgia law Id. 61, 67, authorized the defense to educate the jury about interview techniques with children, which was not done in this case. Trial strategy cannot be implicated unless the attorney understands the legal implications of the decisions he makes at trial. There is no question that Mr. Levitt first of all, made not effort to secure all of the available evidence and provide it to the expert(it is undisputed that this evidence was disclosed and available upon request. 11/06/08 Tr. 127-132; second, Mr. Levitt did not know he could secure the school records of JH (Id. 62) and did not understand that school records are an indicator of whether or not the behavior of the child witness is consistent with that of an abused child; third, Mr. Levitt clearly had no idea of the laws of the state of Georgia as to anything other than DUI. 11/06/08 Tr. 61, 131-132. The Court should take judicial notice that every competent attorney who represents a defendant charged with child molestation comes to court armed with Doug Peters' manual, upon representing those accused of child molestation, in her briefcase.

I'm getting a little at a time on here. This was an unfinished part from the number 1. Next is Number 2. The whole thing is about 55 pages. I am doing the best I can to get it on here.
Next after the motion is completely on here, I will put the opinion that the state court of appeals wrote to us. We have since filed a reconsideration motion. It is quite hard to believe. I don't expect the reconsideration motion to make much difference. But hopefully we can get a certificate to the Supreme Court and pray they will at least look at the evidence. As the state appeals court seemed to have failed to do, according to its opinion. You will see. Thanks for the continued support from all!! From now on I am going to say this to you all, if you know anyone who can maybe help us, please contact me via email. Or Mr. Anderson has my personal info. But I am asking for any help we can get. God Bless you all and God Bless my Brother, Brad Wade.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Part Two Enumeration of Error

1. Barlow/Goldstein Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of councel by his trial counsel's failure to introduce expert testimony pursuant to Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S.E.2d 416 (1998) for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually utilized. Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1 (2006). The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.

2. Cuzzort Issue. The Court erred in overruling trial counsel's objection to the testimony of forensic interviewer and to the admission of the tape of the forensic interview, Stacy Long, under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (1985) regarding the introduction of prior consistent statements of a witness (JH and AW) through another witness (Stacy Long) Tr. Tr. 226-230; 244-245. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.

3. Rape Shield Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel based on trial consel's failure, (as well as the Assisstant District Attorney's failure,) to know the Georgia law of "Rape Shield Statute" was not applicable to child molestation cases or sexual battery cases, which prevented the jury from considering evidence that impeached the alleged victim's and other witnesses' allegations of molestation by the petitioner, and prevented Wade from presenting his defense, that JH and AW were harboring a reason to falsely accuse petitioner. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.

4. Hall Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to investigate, prepare, and presentlay witness and expert witness testimony pursuant to Hall v. State, 201 Ga. App. pg. 626,411 SE 2d pg. 777 (1991), that would have demonstrated that the alleged victim did not exhibit behavior typical of a sexually abused child, nor did Wade's son, AW, exhibit the behavior of one who had knowledge of his father engaging in sexual abuse of his best friend. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.

5. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to seek disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence, by his failure to adequately prepare and learn Georgia law on child molestation, by underutilizing the forensic expert he hired. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.

Part Three Argument and Citation of Authorities

1. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to introduce expert testimony pursuant to Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S. E. 2d 416 (1998) for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually utilized. Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1 (2006).

Trial counsel, Martin Levitt, hired Dr. Eric S. Engum, who is both an attorney and a clinical psychologist specializing in clinical neuropsychology, to review the 2006 videotape of JH and the April 18, 2007 vidoetape of AW. 11/06/08 Tr. 77. In his handwritten notes, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Motion for a New Trial; admitted at the 11/06/08 evidentiary hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 24, Dr. Engum recognized that this was potential issue, yet there is nothing in the record to indicate that he ever saw the tape. "This interview absolutely should have been provided to this expert (Dr. Engum)", according to the March 27, 2008 affidavit of Amy Morton, LMFT (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist). 11/06/08 Tr. 23-24. This Court certified Ms. Morton as an expert in forensic interviewing and family therapy. There was no objection from the State. 11/06/08 Tr. 14. See Amy Morton Affidavit attached, at page 7. Amy Morton also advised, as follows:

The (prior) interview was also not presented by the defense at trial. In fact, this vidoe is not in the defense file at all. Based on Ms. Long's testimony at trial, it appears that AW's statements in this interview contradicted his statements in the interview nearly one year later and AW's testimony at trial. The expert should have been provided with this tape so that he could evaluate the change in the child's statement in context and comment on the interviewer's technique and issues such as the impact of multiple interviews (both forensic and clinical in therapy) over time and the impact of family/peer pressure. Likewise, the expert should have evaluated the interviews of the other children, Brooke, PW,BW. since they could have been in the home when the alleged incidents occurred, the absence of them witnessing anything could be significant, and their statements to the interviewer might or might not have contradicted other testimony. (See also 11/06/08 Tr. 26)

Amy Morton also suggested other documents which, based upon paperwork in the defense file were clearly in existence, should have been requested by defense counsel, but were not. She difined a forensic interview and its importance, at the hearing. 11/06/08 Tr. 29-30. She also addressed suggestibility and the problems created when forensic interviewer asks leading questions and injects bias into the interview, which impacts the integrity of that process. See 11/06/08 Tr. 30-37. Documents were requested by undersigned counsel and were provided and reviewed by Amy Morton. 11/06/08 Tr. 23-24. Those documents, which were never requested by trial counsel, are:

1. The videotape and Forensic Interview Report of the first forensic interview with AW conducted on April 21, 2006. (Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file. 11/06/08 Tr. 101, 129

2. The videotapes and the Forensic Interview Reports of the forensic interviews with Brooke Wade, PW and BW. (Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file 11/06/08 Tr. 101,129)

3. The Forensic Interview Report for the April 18, 2006 Forensic Interview of AW. ( Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file. 11/06/08 Tr. 101, 129.

4. The counseling records of JH. (Levitt did not adress)

5. The medical records of JH. (Levitt did not adress)

6. The school records of JH. ( Levitt testified that he did not think he could get them 11/06/08 Tr. 82)

7. Notes, audio and video tapes and reports of every interview with AW and JH done by the police, detectives, forensic interviewers or any other party employed by the County or State. (Mr. Levitt relied on the D.A.'s notes, see above)

The documents referenced in the tapes the district attorney's office provided to defense counsel should have been requested, and should have been provided to the expert consulted by the defense, so he would be able to evaluate the case, having a clear picture of what all parties knew and saw or did not see. Futher, the expert could have become aware of the suggestive techniques and the pressure brought to bear on AW, to do the right thing and label his father as one who victimized AW's best friend, JH. Further, the expert could have shown Mr. Levitt how to proterly utilize Engum's expertise to bring this information to the jury, and show the jury that the statements of the child witnesses were unreliable. Under Barlow vs. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S.E. 2d 416 (1998) trial counsel could and should have introduced expert testimony for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually used by Ms. Long or Detective Cooley, specifically to include the possible improper influence of AW and JH by third persons prior to any interview by the State and the failure of Ms. Long to address these issues in her interview. As the Barlow Court noted:

Child sexual abuse cases are a special lot. A major distinguishing aspect of a child sexual abuse case is how the victim came to relate the facts which led to the bringing of criminal charges. A defendant not only should be able to cross-examination prosecution witnesses regarding how they obtained their information, but also should have the chance to present expert testimony as to how such information is ideally obtained.

Citing with approval State v. Gersin, 668 NE 2d 486, 488 (Ohio 1996). An expert could have critiqued Ms. Long's interveiw techniques. Instead trial counsel did nothing to refut the State's witness, who claimed to be an expert, with an expert witness of his own. The absence of a defense expert produced what the Barlow court called an "uneven playing field." At the motion for a new trial hearing Wade demonstrated through expert witness, Amy Morton, that Stacy Long used umproper interviewing techniques and that the techniques used by the Ms. Long often elicit false information. See Defendant's Exhibit 1 to motion for new trial, and cv at pages 23-28; see also at the conclusion of D.MNT Exhibit 1, Amy Morton Affidavit/report, concluding that the interview of JH by Stacy Long is riddled with errors, leading, suggestive questions and her failure to discover whether "JH's allegations were influenced by anything other than his own experience." See also Ms. Morton's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. 11/06/08 Tr. 35-37 (Trial transcript and other documents reviewed by Morton shows that over a period of four to six months, there were actually numerous interviews of JH, as he was questioned by family members who suggested that he may be subjected to sexual abuse, specifically by Brad Wade. There were numerous conversations JH has with others, prior to the Stacy Long interview which were subject to confirmatory bias.) See also 11/06/08 Tr. 37-40 concerning leading questions of Stacy Long during her interviews with JH and AW.)

More to come. This is the entire motion that was filed with the state. We were denied our new trial recently.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010



Bradley Wade was married to Rhona Wade, who is the sister of the young man, JH, who claimed to have been molested by Wade. Two children were born from that marriage, PW and BW, twins, who were two years old at the time of the events which were alleged by the State in this case. Tr. Tr. 44. Wade was previously married to Carolyn (now) Drew, and they had two children, AW and Brooke. AW was twelve and Brooke fourteen when the events alleged in this case were said to have taken place. Bradley and Rhona lived in Wade's Flat Rock, Alabama house, which he owned prior to their marriage, a small two bedroom A-frame in Dekalb County Alabama (Tr. Tr. 31). The master bedroom and bath upstairs were located in a loft area, and the second bedroom and bath was on the main level of the house, where the kitchen, family room and dining room were also located, in an "open" floor plan. Tr. Tr. 71-77. Photos included as Exhibit.

JH was 14-15 years old at the time of the events alleged in the indictment; JH lived with his mother, Kathleen Williams, in Flat Rock, Alabama, but he visited Bradley and Rhona's home often because Bradley had a son, AW, who was 12 years old, who became a close friend of JH's. The homes of Bradley Wade and Kathleen Williams were within 10 miles of one another. AW who lived with his mother, Carolyn Drew, in Wildwood, Georgia. When Wade went to pick up AW, he had to enter the State of Georgia to get to the house in Wildwood.

Parties related to JH, some testifying at trial, were Eric Casey, JH's half brother (pay attention, this will get confusing) whose full blooded sister is Melissa Giles; Christy Wooten, his (JH's) oldest half sister Tr. Tr. 25, who is Rhona Wade's full blooded sister Tr. Tr. 26; MH(minor), his (JH's) full blooded sister with whom JH shares the same father (Randy Holland) and mother. Tr. Tr. 23-25. His (JH's) step-father is Billy Williams, his mother's fourth husband. (That we are aware of)

It was the trial testimony of JH that Bradley Wade was like a father figure to him (Tr. Tr. 40). They wrestled and watched movies together, but most of the time spent at Brad and Rhona's house was spent playing with Brad's son, AW. Tr. Tr. 40-41. JH and AW, Brad's son were best friends, and they saw each other frequently at Brad and Rhhona's home in Dekalb County, Alabama. Tr. Tr. 35-36. In 2004 JH began having seizures. Tr. Tr. 36. He went to the hospital and was diagnosed with epilepsy. Tr. Tr. 36-37. He was put on the medication, Kepra, 2000 milligrams a day. Tr. Tr. 36-38. As part of his treatment for epilepsy, JH was asked by his doctors to keep a diary. Tr. Tr. 39. Because of his medical experience and background, Bradley Wade was involved in the keeping of the diary. See MNT Hearing Exhibit....these are emails between Bradley Wade and the medical personnel treating JH.

At trial, JH made numerous claims of molestation ( touching, masturbation, grabbing privates while wrestling, being asked to masturbate) taking place in Alabama at the home of Bradley and Rhona Wade. According to JH, his sister, Rhona, was in the house at the time these act took place. JH claimed that he and Brad wrestled in the hallway by the back bedroom while Rhona was on the couch in the living room. Tr. Tr. 47-49. JH claimed that when Brad checked his penis in the shower that it was only he and Wade ( Tr. Tr. 49), while AW claimed that he was in the bathroom with JH when Brad Wade entered the bathroom. (Tr. Tr. 161).

In fact, AW recollected that he was in the car with JH and his father when Wade allegedly asked JH to masturbate, and that this took place in Alabama. Tr. Tr. 160. AW claimed it was shocking yet he and JH never discussed it. Tr. Tr. 161. AW wanted JH to be over at his dad's "every chance.....because we were best friends and got along well." Tr. Tr. 164.

JH testified there was no masturbation in the car.

In a 5/22/06 interview with investigator Cooley, Carolyn Drew reported that AW had told her he was in the shower with JH when Brad came in and pulled back JH's foreskin telling JH he needed to clean it. OUTCRY

1. Easter 2006, JH told half brother Eric that Brad made him ejaculate in front of him.

2. Spoke to Eric and Christy the next morning-they asked him a lot of questions; also spoke to Miss Stacy Long.

3. That's all JH told Eric; after that it "Moved on th lawyers and stuff.

The acts which took place in Georgia involved allegations that Wade asked JH to show him his penis, and Wade would grab it to be sure it was clean. According to JH this activity took place on the interstate with Wade as they went to pick up AW at his home in Wildwood, Georgia. Tr. Tr. 50-52. The other acts alleged to have taken place in Georgia involved Wade telling JH to show him his penis while on the interstate. Tr. Tr. 49-58. ( Keep in mind folks, AW lived with Brad and Rhona for 10 months of the year 2005, so how many of those Wildwood trips do you think he would have made??)

JH and AW tried to lock themselves in the bathroom to shower when they were at Wade's house. Tr. Tr. 165. Notes from the Relationship Center, where AW underwent therapy, show that his mother reported that he inappropriately touched his eight year old half sister. AW defended the touching by saying she kicked him in the crotch. He tearfully admitted that he longs to have an intact family and resents his half sister because she has one. AW had been suspended from school five time; he has chronic anger issues. When AW and his sister Brooke, rode back from Indiana with his "cool aunt", Tracy Ezernack, his mother reported to investigator Cooley on 5/22/06, that AW told her "out of the blue" that JH knows a lot about sex and has exposed his penis to AW thinking it was funny. AW also said JH knows a lot about phone sex. Brad had asked Carolyn prior to this, if AW had said anything to her about JH "messing" with him. Carolyn Drew reported that she walked into the bathroom when AW was eight years old and saw him masturbating. Another witness told our (and prior counsel's) investigator(s) that her son, (MINOR) saw porn at the Drew's house with AW, that AW rubbed his penis against a wet dog, and that AW masturbated.

On 11/20/06 the clinical psychologist received a phone call from AW's mother concerning his continued inappropriate touching of his half sister, AD, age 8, by his rubbing her chest and butt for the past year. He also tries to touch his teenage sister's breasts (Brooke), singing a morbid lullaby. At an 11/27/06 counseling session, AW denied inappropriate behavior. See reports and counseling sessions, 11/06/08 MTN D. Exhibits 17,18,19. None of the sexual conduct of JH and AW came out at trial due to the Court's pre-trial ruling that the Rape Shield Statute disallowed it. Evid. Hear. Tr. 137-139.

Although a police report was made in Alabama, the only prosecution of Wade took place in Dade County, Georgia.


Now this is just me talking for a minute here........

Rhona never told the people in the two Alabama counties about seeing anything, but when she got to Dade County, she all of sudden remembered that about "a year prior to the allegations, she got up in the middle of the night and saw Brad kneeling over JH rubbing his back and Brad was naked". She didn't remember this until she got to Dade. And she just turned around and went back to bed and said never said a word about it. She continued to have her brother over 6 and 7 days a week after she supposedly witnessed this. Now people, really???? Can you even believe she said that??? And when asked why she didn't tell this to the Alabama authorities, under oath she said, "they did not keep in touch with me like Jennifer Cooley did".

The Motion for new trial...went to Dade co. and then to State Court of Appeals

Part One
Statement of Proceedings Below

(let me just say this, Len Gregor lied to the Grand Jury to get the indictment. He told them that there would be 2 people testifying against Brad for this that were not. One of them doesn't even know Brad (we have spoke to him since) and the other is Brad's Pastor. Who has supported Brad in his innocence from day one)

Bradley Wade was charged in a four count indictment on March 8, 2007, as follows:
Count one charged with a violation of O.C.G.A. 16-6-4(a) the offense of child molestation, between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, that Wade did commit an immoral and indecent act to JH, a child under the age of sixteen years, with the intent to arouse and satisfy the sexual desires of said accused by touching said child's penis with his hand; Count Two charged Wade with child molestation O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (a), same dates as count one, alleging that Wade asked JH to show Wade his penis. Count Three charged Wade with the offense of child molestation, O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (a) same dates, by asking JH to masturbate in the presence of Wade; Count Four charged Wade with the offense of sexual battery O.C.G.A. 16-6-22.1 same dates, in that Wade did make physical contact with body parts of JH without JH's consent. Wade was convicted on all counts, after a trial by jury which took place in the Superior Court of Dade County before the (using this term lightly) 'Honorable' Kristina Cook Connelly Graham, (who was not even legally sanctioned at the time) on May 14th-17th, 2007. Wade was represented by Chattanooga attorney, Martin Levitt. (who we have recently been told by several atty's that he basically rolled over on Brad). The state of Georgia was represented by ADA Len Gregor.

At the conclusion of the State's evidence, counsel for Wade made an oral motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the following grounds: (1) that the State had not proven its case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (2)that all four allegations consist of one offense, in that in order for the masturbation to take place, JH would have to show his penis and talk about his penis, citing the case of Burrell vs. State, an armed robbery case where the state should have been made to elect counts to go to the jury due tot he overlapping nature of the charges; (3) that the state should elect counts because there is no specificity of dates and it is hard to defend a person and prejudicial to the defendant if he {the victim} says he {the perp} did it three times or fourteen times. Tr. Tr. 376-382. The motion was denied. Tr. Tr. 382. A second motion made on the same grounds was also denied. Tr. Tr. 494-495.

Wade was convicted on all counts of the indictment. {Tr. Tr. stands for Trial Transcript}
Represented by new counsel, Linda S. Sheffield, Wade's sentencing took place on March 6, 2008. (been in county jail this whole time). Wade was sentenced to 20 years to serve 10 years, with Count Four merging with Count One.

Wade filed his Motion for a New Trial in March of 2008. Index to record 62. In August 2008, Wade filed a First Supplemental Motion for a New Trial, after receiving additional information from the files of the District Attorney. Index to Record 106.

The Motion for New Trial of Defendant, Bradley Wade, was heard before the 'Honorable' Kristina Cook Connelly Graham on the 6th day of November, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs in support of their position. Index to Record 135. Post Trial Brief Defendant Index to Record at 136. On June 18, 2009 the Motion for a New Trial was denied. (It took Judge Connelly 7 and 1/2 months to make her decision)

On June 23, 2009 Wade's Notice of Appeal was docketed in the Superior Court of Dade County, appealing, inter alia, from the Order denying Defendant's Motion for a New Trial entered on about June 18, 2009. This is an Order from a final judgment of a Superior Court. The record was not filed with this Court until September 2009. The two sentence Order of Judge Cook Connelly Graham (Index to record 208) was entered during the period of time the file was lost. The file was located in an office previously occupied by Judge Cook Connelly Graham's law clerk, who was out of state caring for her sick mother.


Saturday, July 10, 2010

Sad day....Short post.....

Well, everybody, the state appeals court denied my brother's new trial. We are terribly disheartened. But, we will fight on. We will go to the next level. A level that we had been told would most likely have to happen, but we certainly were holding out for the state to overturn it. They did not. Our next step is the Supreme Court of Georgia. I will continue to post, especially now. I am not going to try to put all of transcripts of Sherry Dobbins after all. It is a lot of information and if I don't do the whole thing and only do certain parts, it would be confusing. I am going to post from the motion for new trial transcript. It is mostly our attorney stating facts.

I am thinking that by putting these interviews on here word for word is confusing some. so I will try to clear things up by putting the motion transcripts and quote laws as our attorney did. It may help to tie up some loose ends for some people as well. Now, I am gonna get a little personal for a minute.

We are so disappointed. I am out of energy for anything today, but tomorrow I will begin my blogging again. Please keep us all, but mostly my brother in your prayers!! I know when the other side reads this, they will be pointing and laughing, and that is fine. But, make no mistake, I will fight to the bitter end for my innocent brother!! This must be the way God has intended this to be, because now our story grows. Bigger and bigger. This is what God wants. We believe that with all of our hearts. My poor mother is devastated, but my brother and I just keep getting stronger and smarter.! When you lay your head down tonight or get on your knees, will you please remember us! To all a good night.

Monday, July 5, 2010

I know it has been a while.....

Hello everyone, I know it has been a while since my last post, but I am no where near finished. I am going to post Sherry Dobbins depositions from about 3 weeks before Brad's trial. It might help to clear up some things for some. Have talked to Mr Anderson a couple of times since my last post and he was telling me some key points to blog about. So I am. We all had a nice holiday, but of course never the same without Brad and his kids!!! Never will be the same with his older kids, I guess. Not for me anyway. But we still miss them all the same. I love all four of them, even if the older two have lost their minds for the moment. It will be interesting to see what happens with them when Brad does come home! We got an email from the appeals court and they said Brad's case would be disposed very soon. I really don't want to put the date on here, for fear it might 'jinx' us. But it is very soon!!! Thanks for all your posts and I will be putting more facts on here, starting with Sherry Dobbins depositions. Hope everyone had safe and fun-filled holidays!!! Oh, and Mr. Anderson called me night before last and we talked about an article that will be published in 'Reason Magazine'. It is a national magazine and the article will be about 3 to 4 thousand words about my brother! We are really excited about it. We don't know what we would do without Mr. William Anderson. Be back soon. God Bless you all!

Thursday, June 24, 2010

continuing with Amy Morton's affidavit

Confirmatory Bias

The forensic interviewer, Stacy Long, failed to adopt a hypothesis testing approach, and instead proceed with a confirmatory bias. This bias impacted the entire architecture of this investigation and opened the doors for multiple investigative errors that included:

Multiple Interviews Over Time

JH did not make a spontaneous allegation of sexual abuse against Brad Wade. Instead, beginning in December of 2005, he was questioned multiple times by his mother, Kathleen Williams, who believed that "something was going on." Despite her questioning him "three or four times," JH denied that Brad was abusing him. Then, on April 16, 2006, after wishing aloud that Brad Wade was no longer part of the family, he was again questioned by his brother Eric. Of course, there is no objective documentation of any of these conversations. Once JH made the allegation, Eric questioned him again the following morning. He was also questioned by Det. Cooley. That interview was not objectively documented, and it should have been. He was then interviewed by Stacy Long on April 18, 2006. Prior to trial, he was deposed, in a most leading fashion, by Brad Wade's divorce lawyer. The possible influence of his family and the multiple interviews over time is potentially suggestive. The forensic interviewer should have made an effort to assess the impact, but she did not.

Failure to Screen for Coaching and Third Party Influence

Despite having been questioned repeatedly, over time, by family members, during the forensic interview, Stacy Long does not ask JH about the nature of these conversations or about what others said to him or asked him. She also fails to inquire about the behavior and demeanor of those who questioned him or about what conversations regarding Brad Wade happened in his presence. The forensic interviewer failed to ask about the family's attitude toward Brad Wade, prior to the allegations, and she should have asked. She also failed to fully explore JH's conversations with Eric on April 16th and 17th.

Failure to Challenge Improbable Elements

JH alleges that some of the incidents occurred in the upstairs bedroom at the home of Brad and Rhona Wade. That upstairs bedroom is an open loft area. He alleges that some of the incidents happened when others were in the house or present. These elements of the allegations seem improbable, but the forensic interviewer fails to ask JH clarifying questions with regard to these details.

Failure to Screen for Potential for Secondary Gain

JH told his brother Eric that he wanted Brad Wade out of the family. JH tells the forensic interviewer that he hopes that Brad will soon be his ex-brother-in-law. While it is possible that the reason for this is that JH was being abused, the interviewer failed to consider or even ask about any other possible reasons why JH might be angry with Brad, such as Brad telling AW to ignore him.

Improper Use of Leading and Suggestive Questions

Stacy Long's interview of JH is replete with leading and suggestive questions, and on a number of occasions, JH changes his answer, following her lead. For example:

Stacy: Ok. JH did he ever try to kiss you?

JH: No

Stacy: Or rub on you in any way or..

JH: Oh, yeah.

Stacy: Tell me about that.

JH: Uh, like, uh, he (inaudible) you know (inaudible) like a friendly kiss or whatever.

Stacy: Ok.

JH: Like, he's do it with BW, PW, AW

Stacy: Ok.

JH: He'd try to do that to me, which I think he did.

Stacy: Ok. When you say friendly kiss, what do you mean?

JH: Just like kissing on the lips.

Stacy: Ok. Alright. so, he tried to do that?

JH: Yeah, I think he did that like, once or twice, holding me down.

In the above series, JH, in response to a very direct question, says that Brad Wade did not ever kiss him, but he quickly changes his statement and includes significant detail. Here's another example:

Stacy: Did he make any comments about the size of it?

JH: Huh u.

Stacy: Ok. (inaudible) In comparison to his...

JH: Oh, yeah.

And, a third example:

Stacy: Ok. alright. And when it happened, what did he want you to do while you were in the car:

JH: Just look at it.

Stacy: Ok. Did he want you to masturbate?

JH: Uh, just that one time I believe.


Stacy: Did he ever touch you?

JH: In the car?

Stacy: Uh huh

JH: Yeah.

And fourth example:

Stacy: Alright. And then at his house. Did it happen in one room or more than one room?

JH: One room

Stacy: What room?

JH: The upstairs bedroom.


Stacy: Ok. Alright. What would you be doing up in the bedroom...not what he was doing, were you up there alone and he came there, were you two up there, like....

JH: I was like, taking a shower.

Stacy: Ok. And then what...what....Brad just came up there or what?

JH: Well. Yeah, I guess so, like. Yeah.

Stacy: He wouldn't be up there when you went to get in the shower?

JH: I think, sometimes.

JH's story seems to expand and grow over the course of this interview, and by the time he is deposed in April of 2007, the story has expanded even further in terms of the number of times athe alleged abuse occurred. Ms. Long's extremely direct and leading questions were inappropriate in a forensic interview and may have tainted JH's answers.

Documentation is Inadequate

All interviews, including Det. Cooley's interview of JH, should have been recorded.


The forensic interview of JH by Stacy Long is riddled with errors and improper technique and represents a missed opportunity to discover whether or not JH's allegations were influenced by anything other than his own experience. As a result, the reliability of JH's statements may have been negatively impacted by improper forensic technique.

I also evaluated the forensic interviews of AW. After initial and repeated denials, after spending time in therapy with a psychologist who expressed a belief that he has been abused though AW never alleged that he was a victim, AW changed his original story to conform to the statements of his friend, JH.

Confirmatory Bias

Confirmatory bias on the part of Stacy Long allowed her to accept AW's second statement as factual while discounting his contradictory first statement. Further, her bias toward confirming the allegations in the case allowed her to inappropriately re-interview AW just days before trial and nearly a year after his initial denial. Further, she failed in this second interview to inquire about whether AW had been under any pressure from anyone to "come forward." There is absolutely no basis for deciding that AW's statements in the second interview are more reliable than his statements in the first interview. I noted the following errors:

Multiple Interviews Over Time

In addition to his two interviews with Stacy Long, AW was also repeatedly questioned in therapy. For example, he was asked to consider what it meant to have a father who was a sex offender. Further, during the year between the two interviews, he had little family support for standing behind his father-even if his statements were true.

Failure to Assess Third Party Influence or Coaching

Before the second forensic interview begins, a man (his step-father) comes in the room and prays with AW. Because the content of the prayer is focused on disclosure, this was particularly inappropriate. The forensic interviewer should have considered the impact of this prayer and talked with AW about how these allegations were discussed in the family and in therapy over the course of the last year. The forensic interviewer missed the opportunity to screen for third party influence.

Failure to Consider Impact of Family Dysfunction

The forensic interviewer should have asked questions designed to assess the impact of family conflict and dysfunction. With a divorce ongoing and the apparent conflict between family members as evidenced by the report to law enforcement regarding threats, it would have been important to understand if and how AW was impacted by the family's opinion of his father.

Use of Leading and Suggestive Questions

Again, in this interview, Stacy Long relies on very leading and suggestive questions. She frequently provided answers in the context of multiple choice and forced choice questions.

Potential for Secondary Gain

The interviewer fails to establish how Brad Wade was viewed by the family. Further, the therapy record reflects that AW was accused of inappropriately touching his younger sister. These two facts could have created a situation where AW thought it to his advantage to "side with his family" against his father. If he was in trouble for his actions with his sister, then it is likely that he would not have wanted to be identified with someone who was arrested for sexual abuse. This forensic interviewer failed to explore any of this with AW.


AW made two contradictory statements. Based on his statements and the inappropriate techniques used here, there is no way to know which statement is accurate. It is erroneous to assume that because one statement better fits the investigator's theory of the case, it is the one that is accurate.

Behavior and Demeanor of the Children

I evaluated the behavior and demeanor of AW and JH as reflected in the records available for review. Based on this review, it appears the despite alleging that sexual abuse was ongoing, JH repeatedly chose to be alone with Brad Wade and repeated denied that he was being abused when he was asked directly. This is not consistent with typical behavior and demeanor of a child who was being sexually abused. Similarly, AW, who allegedly witnessed abuse, made repeated efforts to be with his father, Brad Wade. Even after his father was arrested, the therapy record indicates that he was negotiating with his family for some kind of contact with his father. This is not typical for a child who has witnessed sexual abuse.


The improper and inadequate interview techniques and lack of evidence other than the children's improperly obtained statements makes reliability a significant concern in this case. Further, the children's relationship with the defendant coupled with their overall functioning as reflected in this record is not consistent with the allegations made in this case. Finally, substantial evidence exists that was not made available to the defense expert or the jury in this case. Even with the available evidence, the problems with these two forensic interviews are significant, and expert opinion with regard to these techniques could have been presented at trial.


Since initially preparing this report, I have had the opportunity to review additional evidence and to further review original evidence in this matter. Specifically, I have reviewed:

1) 4/21/2006 Forensic Interview of AW, tape, transcript and forensic report

2) forensic Interview of PW, tape, transcript and forensic report

3) Forensic Interview of BW, tape, transcript and forensic report

4) Forensic Interview of Angela Brooke Wade, tape, transcript and forensic report

5) School Records of JH

6) Medical Records of JH from Children's Health System and Reddy Clinic

Based on my review of these records, it is my opinion that this evidence underscores and exacerbates the problems with the forensic interviews in this case and raises new issues that were not reflected i the trial transcript.

Forensic Interview of AW on 4/21/2006

The statements of AW on 4/21/2006 reflect not simply the absence of accusation of his father, Brad Wade, but his affirmative denial that his father could have or would have done such a thing. At the beginning and at the end of the interview, AW affirms and reaffirms his intention to tell the truth. This is the interview that occurred closest to the time of the alleged offense, before AW was involved in counseling that was "How to get AW to discuss issues pertaining to his father as he appears to be repressing this." The therapy that followed was directed toward that goal and as such could have influenced AW's statements in the second interview.

Additionally, between the first and second interviews, AW was himself accused of inappropriately touching his eight year old half sister. Instead of seeing the second interview in the essential context of the first interview and the intervening suggestive therapy, the jury simply viewed the second interview in a vacuum. This is especially true considering this statement on his "Child and Family Questionnaire" in this therapy file:

How would you describe the child as a person?

(From Parent) "loving, but difficult child, headstrong, likes things his way, manipulative, and sneaky. Has problems with being honest and likes to please others."

When parents are self-reporting that a child has a problem being honest, and that the child likes to please others, it is reasonable to assume that this is a child with whom adults should take special care to avoid influence. Instead, he was interviewed, suggestively, twice, a year apart and engaged in very suggestive, biased therapy in between. In addition:
1) AW says that his dad (Brad Wade) "wouldn't do that."
2) Repeatedly, during this interview, the forensic interviewer's responses to AW assertion that his father could not have done this reflected her confirmatory bias that Brad Wade was guilty. Though AW resists her influence during the first interview, it is this bias that led her to do the second interview at all and then led her to give the second interview greater weight than the first. For example, Ms. Long says, "But what I am going to tell you is your dad has been accused of molesting a teenage guy. Those are your words, okay. Not many teenage guys are going to come out and accuse somebody of that. Okay? Just for the heck of doing it. Okay? Whey would anyone do that?"
3) In addition to stating that he knows that his father would not do this, in the first interview, he also says that he knows the accuser is not "JH."
4) AW wants to see his father and requests to do so during the interview. This is not the action of a child who was fearful of their father.
Forensic Interview of BW(Brad's youngest son)(pay close attention to what Mrs. Morton has to say about this one)
Though BW was only three years old, his forensic interview produced information relevant to the facts of this case, but it was ignored by the investigators. First of all, BW, who lived in a home with six people, or more, at times, and only two bedrooms, gave no indication at all of having witnessed anything inappropriate between Brad Wade and JH. Since he was a potential eye witness, the absence of a disclosure on his part is information that should have been considered when weighing other statements in this case. In addition, reflecting her single-minded bias, during the course of this forensic interview, BW tells Ms Long repeatedly about being touched and tickled in private parts including his "butt" and his "willie" by a boy or boys, but because of her focus on Brad Wade, Ms. Long fails to ask sufficient clarifying questions to allow her to asses whether someone other than Brad Wade had inappropriately touched this child. Later, in a separate interview, Brooke disclosed that AW and JH showered together on more than one occasion. Given this history, it would have been important for this interview to do more than ask one or two follow up questions to try to determine who BW was talking about. This interview was not made available to the jury, and in her report and in her testimony, Ms Long simply says there was "no disclosure" and does not mention the allegations made toward "the boys."
Forensic Interview of PW ( Brad's youngest daughter, twin to BW)
Like her twin brother, PW did not disclose any information supporting the allegations in this case during her forensic interview. Again, the absence of such a disclosure give the crowded household and the proximity of the upstairs bedroom to the rest of the house, is important information to consider in light of the statements of the allegations. She is aware of where it is and is not okay for someone to touch her, so it is reasonable to assume that had she witnessed or experienced inappropriate touching she would've known that it was inappropriate.
Forensic Interview of Angela "Brooke" Wade
Though Brooke Wade did not spend a great deal of time in her father's home, her observations in the forensic interview are relevant to this case. First of all, Brooke pointed to a close relationship between AW and his father and the crowded household as reasons she rarely visited. Other than affirming that her father did go into the bathroom when the boys were showering, she did not provide any information that supports the statements of JH. Instead, she denies having seen any type of inappropriate touching in that home. Further, she contradicts AW to affirm that JH and AW did, in fact, shower together on more than one occasion.
Ok, its me here. I just want to say that the reason Brad would go into the bathroom would be to tell one of the boys to get out and let the other one finish their shower. One at a time. And Rhona also requested he do so. Just sayin.
School and Medical Records of JH
Typically, children who are victims of abuse exhibit some types of symptoms of that abuse. for example, school grades often fall or they may have increased somatic complaints. Not all children respond in the same way, but in the case of JH, there appear to be few behavioral indicators of abuse. For example, according to his school records, his performance was fairly static during the time the abuse was allegedly ongoing, and in a "social history" note in his medical file on 10/23/2006, there was no mention of the allegations. Instead, the file reads, "The patient lives with Both parents together. There are 1 siblings living in the home. The pt. is in the 10th grade. Comments: Doing well in school."
Most if not all of the information referenced in this addendum was not reflected in the transcript of the trial. Much of this information directly contradicts and calls into question testimony given at trial.

Ok. That is Amy H. Morton's affidavit. It sums things up in a nutshell!! Back again soon!

Read the post titled Amy Morton's affidavit

I'm not sure why my last post does not come up first when I pull this page up, but, please read the post titled Amy Morton's affidavit. I am going to continue to post this until I get it all on here. She was our expert witness from the motion hearing. But please start there.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

This is the interview with Brad's oldest child, his daughter

This is the interview with Brad's oldest child. She is now 19 years old and married. She was against her dad after Dade Co. got involved. Since the trial she has changed her mind several times. She went and gave a taped interview with our Attorney in Atl. Then a few months later she wouldn't speak to us again. So we really don't know what she thinks at this moment.
This is her interview with Stacy Long.
S: Okay. So you're Angela Brooke Wade?
B: Yeah
S: And you're 15?
B: Uh huh
S: You go by Brooke, right?
B: Uh huh
S: Okay. My name is Stacy and my job is to talk to kids. Big kids, little kids, boy and girls. It's what I do, okay? And_______kids talk to me so I can get information from them, find out what they know. Okay? I know two days ago it all came to whatever and uh what we'll do is just talk a little bit, okay? Brooke you can ask me questions, you can tell me things that you want me to know, that you just want to say, whatever. Okay? When we're in here you can talk to me about anything at all, okay? I don't promise you I have answers to your questions but I'll do my best to get it for you, okay? Uh, all I need you to do is just be honest with me, okay? No matter what the truth is, you just be honest with me and we're gonna be doing a lot better off. Okay? Uh, that obviously the ______stuff, okay? Uh, I'll ask you a lot of questions today. Uh, what I have to do is that I have to clarify to make sure I understand exactly what it is your saying uh and it's because the nature of my job people can say something and it mean a lot different things to different people, okay? So I'm not trying to make things hard on you or anything like that. So I give everybody the same speech, it's the same speech I give everybody. Uh, just be honest with me, uh, use whatever words you want to use. It's not going to embarrass me, I'm not gonna say oh my gosh, I'm not to be doing that over here, okay? I've heard a lot of things. I've heard a lot of things from some very young kids, okay? Uh, so whatever words is fine in here, okay? I promise. Uh, you're not going to get in trouble, you're not getting other people in trouble, uh, if there's anything you need to tell me, okay, that you feel like that may be a question or just information, okay? Uh, it's being videotaped. That's for your protection and my protection and a lot of times it keeps you from having to talk to a lot of different people a lot of different times, okay? Uh, that's released to the_______ and it's part of our case file and other people can't just sit down and watch it just cause they want to, okay? It's a need to know type______. Uh, other than that it's all I can think of right now. Do you have any questions?______ Okay. I know you're well aware of the purpose you are here today. do you want to go right into that or do you want me to start out with some other stuff?
B: (inaudible)
S: Uh, I've already talked to your brother, AW and he's kinda given me the information on your household so I already know that so I don't have to get that from you. Uh, let's see you live in _______so you to school here.
B: Uh huh
S: How, how is school? Doing okay?
B: It's good.
S: God. Lots of friends?
B: Yeah. I guess.
S: So what grade does that make you?
B: Tenth.
S: Tenth. But your grades are good?
B: Uh huh
S: Okay._______I have a __________.__________I don't blame you for _________. Alright, are involved in lots of activities or
B: Ballet.
S: Ballet?
B: Uh huh
S: Do you take that here in ______
B: ( inaudible)
S: Oh, that's interesting. How long have you been doing it?
B: Nine years.
S: Wow. Are you involved in anything else?
B: (inaudible)
S: No? Okay.
B: I_____like every day, every Sunday.
S: Oh really?
B: Yes.
S: Okay. Well good. Now that you say that, I can picture that. You have, I don't know, have that tall.....okay so you're in ballet, alright. Tell me what, why you're come here today.
B: Because they sad that my dad molested or sexually I'm not for sure.
S: Okay.
B: Boys
S: (inaudible) and that's all you know about it?
B: Uh huh
S: Okay. And you're mom told you that?
B: Uh huh
S: Okay. What did you think when mom said that?
B: I don't know. I was shocked. Cause I don't think my dad would do____
S: Okay. Have you talked to your dad?
B: No
S: Uh,
B: I don't talk very much.
S: You don't talk very much?
B: Maybe once or twice a month.
S: Okay.
B: And I'll stay of a Saturday night and go home Sunday.
S: Okay.
B: Because of ballet.
S: Okay.
B: So I can't really go out there.
S: Do you like being up there or would you want to be at your mom's or
B: I'd want to be at my mom's.
S: Why?
B: Because, I don't know, it feels like home (inaudible)
S: Are you the center of attention at mom's or no?
B: Well I get more attention than what I do
S: Okay.
B: Cause of the twins and my brother
S: Okay. That's fine. You can tell me anything at all in this room, okay? Uh, how, how do you feel that you don't get the attention, I mean what happens? Okay, twins, I know their three is that right?
B: Yes.
S: Okay, I can, I can kinda just imagine
(Change sides of tape)
S: What it must be like. Uh, what about, what about your brother. How id that?
B: I don't know.
S: How does he absorb attention?
B: Just cause he, he's just really fights. He always does stuff to try to get attention.
S: Okay.
B: So he's like he's always trying to be like, you know, big and everything and try to , I don't know
S: How do you get along with your dad?
B: Okay.
S: Yall don't have like a strained relationship or anything?
B: (inaudible)
S: Okay.
B: Fine
S: Could it be better?
B: Yeah.
S: How do you think it could be better?
B: I don't know, I just, I just don't really like being around him that much, I mean I love him and everything but I'd just rather not be around him
S: How come?
B: Cause, I don't know.
S: Uh, sometimes________it's just kinda hard to relate, you, I mean is that what it's like or is it, I mean is there more?
B: I just, I figure he got remarried and everything, it's just kinda gone for seven years____seem my dad or my brother and we got along fine, but then whenever he got remarried and they uh (inaudible) the twins and Rhona and us.
S: Okay. Yeah. So how do you like Rhona?
B: She's, I love her.
S: Okay. Good. That's good. Okay. Uh, so shock, then you don't think your dad could do something like this. Uh, most of the time that the situation with these kinda cases come up, you know, it's, you know, people just think, they think anything like that would happen to you know them or somebody that they knew or that you that person would be capable of doing that. Uh, but Brooke the reality of it is uh I interview lots and lots and lots of kids. Okay. And it happens. And I know you know what happens? Uh, it happens a lot and uh a lot of times when people do those type of things, uh, theres a different of situation that, that occurred. Okay? I'm not talking about the act that happened, I'm not talking about the actual molestation or whatever, uh, sometimes people make really, really bad choices that lead into it. Sometimes people make a really bad choice just to do the molestation or whatever it is, okay? Uh, so I mean the thing is that a lot of people think that and a lot of perpetrators think not beforehand that they never would have done something like that. I, I don't know that this happened. That's not my decision to make, okay? I get his information from the kids. Okay? And then there's, an investigation or whatever takes place from there, okay? Uh, but I do this part. Have you ever seen anything that you even remotely questioned and that you, you felt was a little inappropriate but then you thought well that's just me,_______are not that bad.
B: Uh uh
S: Never seen anything?
B: Uh uh
S: Okay. Has your dad ever approached you in any way that was inappropriate?
B: No
S: Okay. Have you ever heard him make comments directly or did you ever overhear anything that your dad said?
B: Uh uh
S: Okay. Uh, you know what pornography is?
B: Yes
S: Have you ever seen any of that in his house or any form?
B: Uh uh
S: Okay. Uh, had anyone ever told you anything about your dad or said anything about it all?
B: (inaudible)
S: Okay. Uh, what about have you ever seen, have you ever seen anything happen in his house that didn't even involve him? That was, you know,____any type?
B: Uh uh
S: inappropriate behavior. Okay. Uh, Alright, what about the bathroom with your dad, have you ever seem him, even on accident without any clothes on, uh, if he was just getting out of the shower or anything like that?
B: Like when I was living with him.
S: Okay. Uh, you remember that when you were little?
B: Uh huh
S: Okay. Uh, what about the other way around. Has he ever seen you without any clothes on or even on accident?
B I'm open, I've only, I've really open, ballet we change back stage and everything so I mean it's nothing for me to just walk through the house going to my bedroom to get some clothes or pajamas.
S: With nothing on?
B: Yeah.
S: And not covered?
B: Yeah.
S: Okay. Okay.
B: Like, you know, Uh, it could, (inaudible) I don't know, I'm sure he had but not, I wasn't like, (inaudible)
S: You were not like parading around?
B: Yes (laughs)
S: Uh, so if he had it's been on a situation where you ran
B: Yeah
S: quickly from the bathroom to your bedroom or
S: okay the bathroom to______
B: Yeah
S: Okay. Alright, any other situation even like that, any_______
B: NO.
S: Alright. Uh, you never heard any inappropriate comments. You've never seen anything with him or any other person that would have been inappropriate toward you, your brother, the twins, Rhona, in front of you, uh, nothing?
B: No
S: Okay. Do you have any suspicions of where this could have originated from?
B: I don't know. I mean I know that Rhona and her family and my dad are arguing. With JH, her brother, their like mad, I don't know if their mad, but their not talking.
S: Okay.
B: And I know like a couple of times my dad, like the boys (meaning JH and AW)had gone upstairs to take a bath and they went outside playing or something and he's be like oh_____cause you know how they just like______all this other stuff.
S: Okay.
B: So I mean some of that, but I don't think dad
S: Was your dad involved in that?
B: Yeah
S: Like mines big or
B: Yeah
S: that kind of stuff
B: I mean but he would go upstairs and the boys would be taking a shower and
S: When you say the boys who
B: JH and AW
S: Together?
B: Yes.
S: Alright, when would that happen? Recently? A couple of years ago?
B: I don't know, I mean like_____year
S: Okay.
B: They were like _______I guess.
S: _____________________
B: Yes.
S: Okay. But JH, is that right?
B: Uh huh.
S: And AW took a shower together?
B: Yes
S: Okay. Why did they take them together?
B: Cause they were______, I don't know. I mean I take showers with my friends if we're in a hurry or something.
S: Okay.
B: But I don't , they're family
S: Okay
B: I don't know. Cause, cause they wanted to.
S: Okay.
B: Cause they have to, I don't know.
S: Okay. Uh, have you ever seen anything between JH and AW that was inappropriate?
B: (inaudible)
S: Alright. Uh, so what do you think about all this?
B: I don't know. I don't know what to think because I can't
S: Well I told AW, I know that two days ago your world was turned upside down and its, if you probably had so many thoughts and emotions that you've already experienced and you may have even more different ones that you haven't experienced come up, okay? Uh, don't be afraid to reach out to someone if you need to talk okay? Uh, you know we don't make the, I don't make the decision you know. Yeah, this happened, or no this didn't happen. I don't do that. I get the information from the kids and I hand (laughs) it to somebody else to let them decide. Uh, and there is still a lot that will have to be done before that decision can ever be close to being made at this point. Okay? Uh, but again don't be afraid to reach out if you need to. Uh, this is not something that you're just gonna want to sit down with your friends and say hey guess what? I mean I can understand that. Uh, at the same time, you know, if there's somebody that you feel comfortable talking to uh go ahead. If there is any information that you feel like, yeah, and you know maybe it's something you didn't think of today while you're talking to me that comes up later, just let your mom know and she can call whoever and you know let them get that information from you. Okay? Cause it's possible that could happen. Uh, like I say you've kinda been in a whirlwind for the past two days and you know once everything comes to settle just a little then things like that can possibly come up for you. Uh, do you have any questions or anything you want to say?
B: (inaudible) ( she asked on the tape if she was gonna see her dad)
S: I don't know uh that. I don't get, I don't make those kind of decisions either. Uh, we can try to find that out. A lot of times, I'm just gonna tell like possibilities are a lot of times different and arrangements can be made, you know, for people to be in that contact when it's okay, uh, I don't know. That's something that we need to ask, I'll ask, I don't think it's_________twins but a similar questions about seeing somebody so we'll try to get that answered for you or get the ball rolling to get and answer for you, okay? Anything else you can think of? Is there anything you want to say? Is there anything Brooke that at the time you just missed it or you didn't really give it a whole lot of thought but now it's like you think that really means something, now that you've heard this. Is there anything that you are questioning?
B: Nothing I can thin of , uh, I wasn't really there much to see
S: Okay.
B: You know
S: That would make sense. Again, don't be afraid to reach out if you just need to talk to somebody and if you feel like you need like a counselor or a therapist or something like that, people are scared to death to ask for that cause there is such a stigma (laughs) attached. Everybody in the world could use somebody like that if the truth be known. Uh, but just don't be afraid to reach out and you know if you have a hard time dealing with it or whatever, sometimes , you know sometimes you need a mutual person that's not going to be on dad's side and it's not gonna be against dad or if you feel________mutual person that you can talk to about what you're feeling and what you're thinking, okay? Not somebody that you need answers from necessarily. Uh, but just_______okay? Anything else you can think of or you want to say or ask?
B: (inaudible)
S: Okay. Let me go check real quick and make sure what I need to do with you guys if you need to stay in that office room or whatever. Okay? Alright. Just hang on for one second.
S: I just need to clarify something real quick for myself. You said JH and AW taking a shower together was your dad, was he there? Did he walk in on them or anything? I know________. Did he go get a shower with them like get in the shower?
B:(inaudible) she shrugs her shoulders and shakes her head
S: Did he go into the bathroom?
B: (inaudible)
S: Okay. Was he in there for about how long or......like to pick up a towel and leave or was he in there longer than that or just about
B: I _________I don't know, I can't give a time
S: Okay.
B: Uh, was he in there the whole time?
S: Okay. Uh, how many times did you notice that JH and uh yeah, JH and AW took a shower together? More than once?
B: Yes
S: Okay, did your dad ever take a shower with them?
B: Uh uh
S: Okay. Did he go in the bathroom where they were taking a shower?
B: (inaudible)
S: You don't know?
B: (inaudible)
S: Okay. Anything else you can think of at all?
B: Not that I'm aware of.
S: Well______can think of too, what I'm gonna do is let you go back to this office where you guys were out and just hang out for a tew minutes and we'll find out if your mom is finished talking______okay?
B: Okay
S: Uh, Brooke I really appreciate it and just hang in there, okay? Alright.

B: I don't kno

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Interview with Brad's youngest son, he is 3 and1/2 years old during this interview

S: What is that?
BW: I don't know
S: You (inaudible)
BW: Mama??
S: Can we leave the door cracked?
BW: I'll be behind you ( inaudible)
BW: Mama!
S: She's gonna stay right here and I won't close th door. Okay?
BW: Mama. I want to go over there
Rhona: I know baby, but listen to me. This is uh like a school grown and Miss Stacy plays the teacher and we want you to (inaudible)
BW's mom was in the room during this entire interview. He would not have it any other way. He was not going to stay in the room without his mom.
BW: Mama!
S: Can I tell you something BW?
BW: (inaudible)
S: Your sister told me how smart you are, can you do that real fast?
BW: No.
S: Please tell me how smart you are. I'll bet you're just as smart as your sister
BW: (inaudible)
S: Here we'll leave the door open this time. Okay. I'll sit right here and (inaudible) okay? While she plays with sister can we come here and play with the barn? She'll be right here. You can see. Okay?
BW: No.
The next several lines are just her trying to win his trust and get him to talk to her. They talk about frogs and shoes and colors, etc. I'm going to start a little further into the inteview as to cut down on typing.
S: Are you a boy or girl?
BW: Boy
S: Of course. Well I got a picture of a boy.
BW: You got a picture of a boy?
S: Uh huh, and we're gonna do is we're gonna name his body parts. Okay?
BW: Oh
S: Okay?
BW: Oh
S: So I'll point to and ask you what it is and you tell me what part it is. What's this?
BW: A head.
S: Head.
BW: (inaudible)
S: What's that?
BW: A body.
S: A body, okay. What's this?
BW: Uh, (inaudible)
S: What is that?
BW: Uh, (inaudible)
S: What is this right here?
BW: Uh, (inaudible) his boobies.
S: Alright, What's this?
BW: Uh, a tummy.
S: A tummy. Now I'm going have to say them so I don't forget, okay? What's this?
BW: Uh a hand.
S: A hand. What part is this?
BW: Uh, a willy
S: A willy. Okay. What is this right here?
BW: A foot
S: A foot. What's this part right here?
BW: Uh, I don't ( inaudible)
S: The back?
BW: Yeah.
S: Okay. What is this right here?
BW: Uh, the butt
S: The butt. Do you have all this parts BW?
BW: No
S: You don't? Huh?
BW: (inaudible) I (inaudible)
S: You do (laughs) okay.
BW: That one.
S: Alright. But do have a butt?
BW: Uh, yeah.
S: So you have a back?
BW: Uh huh right behing there. (pointing to his back)
S: Yes. do you have a head?
BW: Uh, (inaudible)
S: That's it. What about lips? Do you have lips?
BW: Uh, right there.
S: Do you have boobies?
BW: Uh, yes.
S: Do you have a tummy?
BW: Yes.
S: Do you have hands?
BW: Uh huh
S: Do you have a willie?
BW: Yeah
S: Do you have a foot?
BW: Uh huh
S: Alright! So you got all these parts. And sometimes people touch us on our parts don't they?
BW: Yeah
S: Yeah. What about on your hand. Do you ever get something on you hand?
BW: Uh, no
S: You don't? Has anybody helped you wash your hair when you take a bath?
BW: Yeah.
S: Who does that?
BW: Uh, daddy.
S: Daddy does?
BW: Yeah
S: Has anyone else ever helped you wash your hair?
BW: Yes
S: Who? Who elso washes you hair?
BW: Uh, daddy
S: Okay
BW: (inaudible) but mama
S: But mama what?
BW: (inaudible) last night
S: Did mama wash your hair last night?
BW: Yeah
S: Okay.
BW: I can wash my (inaudible)
S: Okay
BW: (inaudible) but she said no and I said yes.
S: Okay (laughs) What about your lips? Do you ever get touched on your lips?
BW: Uh huh
S: Who touches your lips?
BW: Uh, a boy
S: What boy?
BW: The boy who
S: What do they do to your lips?
BW: Uh, uh, they, they touched my lips.
S: With what? What did they touch your lips with?
BW: It was here (pointed to his lips)
S: Okay. What about the boobies? You ever been touched on your boobies?
S: Hey BW have you ever seen anybody else's privates?
BW: Yeah
S: What is a private?
BW: Uh, boy's
S: Boy's what?
BW: We have to color that ( looking at coloring book)
S: Can you tell me where the private is ?
BW: Yeah
S: Point to that boy's private
BW: Why don't we lay him down.
S: Okay. Have you ever seen anybody's else's willie?
BW: Yeah
S: You have? Who's?
BW: Uh, the boys
S: What boys?
BW: The boys that
S: What boys?
S: Just boys?
BW: Yeah
S: Have you ever seen anybody's else's willie?
BW: Uh, that boy's.
S: Anybody besides that boy?
BW: Yeah
S: Who?
BW: Seen another willie
S: ______willie
BW: Yeah (inaudible)
S: What about are girls and boys the same or different?
BW: The same
S: The same. Okay. Alright. Has anybody wanted you to touch their willie?
BW: Yeah
S: Who?
BW: The boys (inaudible) willies.
S: Have you ever seen other people touching willie?
BW: Uh, no
S: Okay. Okay. So tell me who all lives at your house? We don't to talk about the bodies no more. Who lives at your house?
BW: Uh, I have half the bed
S: You have half a bed?
BW: Yeah
S: Okay. That's good. What else is at your house?
BW: Uh, toys
S: Toys?
BW: Yeah.
The rest of the interview talks about who lives at his house and she also asks him where he stayed last night and where his daddy is. He answers, "granny's" and "daddy's at work".
This interview was simply said to have 'no disclosure'.

Amy Morton's affidavit

AMY H. MORTON, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and states on oath the following.

At the request of defense counsel for Bradley Wade, Linda S. Sheffield, I have reviewed the following materials related to the above-referenced matter and have evaluated the appropriateness of the interview techniques used by the investigators. In addition, I have considered whether the behavior and demeanor of JH and AW, as portrayed in the material reviewed, is consistent or inconsistent with typical behavior and demeanor of victims of sexual abuse or witness to sexual abuse.

1) 04/18/2006 Videotaped Forensic Interview of JH by Stacy Long

2) "Supplemental Report #0606," Transcript of the 04/18/2006 Forensic Interview of JH by Stacy Long.

3) 04/18/2006 Videotaped Forensic Interview of AW by Stacy Long

4) 05/31/2006 "Forensic Interview Report" Regarding the 04/18/2006 Forensic Interview of JH by Stacy Long

5) 04/30/2007 Fax Cover Sheet from Levitt & Levitt to Dr. Eric S. Engum Regarding the "Forensic Interview Report"

6) 05/17/2006 Dekalb County Alabama Uniform Incident/Offense Report filed by Rhona Wade alleging, "Threats Made"

7) 05/14-05/17/2007 Trial Transcript of State of Georgia vs Bradley T. Wade

8) 10/18/2006 "Volume II" of Deposition of Rhona K. Wade

9) 04/27/2007 Deposition of JH

10) Calendars, Defense Exhibit # 14

11) Photograph, State's Exhibit # 4

12) Photographs of House, Defense Exhibits # 1-8

13) "My Seizure Diary," Defense Exhibit # 9

14) Information Regarding Keppra, Defense Exhibit # 10

15) Email Correspondence Between Bradley Wade and Angie Elia, Defense Exhibit #11

16) Mental Health Records of Angela Brooke Wade, Including Psychological Evaluation, at The Relationship Therapy Center

17) Mental Health Records of AW, Including Psychological Evaluation, from The Relationship Therapy Center

18) Mental Health Records of AW from the LMJC Children's Advocacy Center

19) Medical Record Release Authorization for JH and One Sheet of Medical Notes for Dates of Service, 01/26/2004, 01/10/2005 and 01/11/2005, Defense Exhibit # 12 & #13

20) 03/2005 Essay, " Commendable Husbands" by Rhona Wade

21) Investigative Summary and Case Notes for Case #0604 4408 by Jennifer L. Cooley

Based upon my review of these records, it is my opinion that the interview methods used with the children in this case did not follow standard and accepted protocols and were inappropriately leading and suggestive. There is substantial risk that the statements of both JH and AW could have been corrupted by the investigative process utilized in this case. The entire architecture of the interviews and the investigative process was tainted by confirmatory bias on the part of the investigators and the forensic interviewer. This bias opened the door for inappropriate techniques that included multiple interviews over time, many leading and suggestive questions and an overwhelming failure on the part of the interviewers to attempt to rule out coaching or third party influence from peers, family, counselors or others familiar with the allegations. Further, this bias led investigators to ignore or explain away inconsistent, contradictory and improbable elements in the allegations and to focus only on the facts that tended to support their theory of the case.

Further, potentially exculpatory evidence related to the forensic interviews was not available for my review, not in the defense file and not presented to the jury at trial. For example, multiple videotaped interviews of children who could or should have been present during the alleged abuse were not included in the file. This evidence included a videotape and related " Forensic Interview Report" of AW on 04/21/2006 that reportedly contradicted statements in an interview more than one year later.

In addition, after reviewing the above records, I find that the behavior and demeanor of both AW, who testified to witnessing abuse, and JH, who testified that he was abused, was in many ways inconsistent with what would be typically expected from children who has such experiences.

In 2002, Bradley Wade and Rhona Wade were married. Brad had been married previously, and fathered two children, AW and Brooke Wade. Brad and Rhona had twins. BW and PW. JH, the younger brother of Rhona Wade, was good friends with AW, Brad's son through the previous marriage. Until December of 2005, JH was frequent visitor in the home of Bradley and Rhona Wade. According to JH, sometime before Christmas of 2005, his mother Kathleen, asked him "out of nowhere" whether Brad Wade was "doing anything" to him. JH denied that Brad was doing anything to him, but Kathleen continued to question him about it, asking him about it on "about four occasions." Around Christmas of 2005 Kathleen Williams (JH's Mother) stopped contact between her son-in-law, Brad Wade and her son, JH. JH said that contact stopped, "Because my mom thought-had a feeling then that something was up.." On April 16, 2006, JH expressed to his brother, Eric Casey, that he wished that Brad was not a part of the family. As Eric questioned him, JH made the first allegation of sexual abuse against Brad Wade, accusing him of a SINGLE incident in the upstairs bedroom of Brad and Rhona's home. Eric questioned JH again the next morning, April 17th. On that same day, Kathleen Williams contacted law enforcement, and Jennifer Cooley also questioned JH, though, Det. Cooley failed to objectively document that interview. Her report omitted critical detail including what questions she asked, where the interview took place and who was present. On April 18th, JH was again interviewed, this time by Stacy Long, forensic interviewer with the LMJC Children's Advocacy Center. During this interview, JH made allegations regarding incidents in Alabama and, perhaps, Georgia (in a car on the interstate). In addition to interviewing JH, on April 21, 2006, Ms. Long interviewed AW, a supposed eyewitness to some of the alleged events. The videotape of that interview was not available for my review, but Ms. Long testified that AW "did not disclose" in that interview. On April 25th 2006, Ms. Long interviewed Brooke Wade, PW, And BW. According to Ms. Long's testimony, these interviews were videotaped, but those recording were not available for my review. According to Ms. Long's testimony, neither child "disclosed." Then, a year later, on April 18, 2007, Ms. Long re-interviewed AW who then alleged witnessing a portion of the abuse alleged by JH. Finally, on April 27, 2007, JH was deposed by Brad Wade's divorce lawyer, Sherry Dobbins. At the trial of this of this case on May 14-17, 2007, despite the fact the Dr. Eric Engum had reviewed the forensic interviews, the defense offered no expert witness to address either the appropriateness of the forensic interview techniques used or whether the behavior and demeanor of JH and AW was typical of children who had witnessed or experienced sexual abuse. On May 17, 2007, Brad Wade was convicted of child molestation and sexual battery.

Critical evidence was absent fro the trial file. Based on my review, evidence critical to a fully formed expert analysis of the forensic interviewing techniques is absent from the trial file. Defense should have obtained, and an expert should have reviewed:
- The videotape and Forensic Interview Reports of the forensic interview with AW conducted on April 21, 2006.
-The videotapes and the Forensic Interview Reports of the forensic interviews with Brooke Wade, PW and BW.
-The Forensic Interview Report for the April 18, 2006 Forensic Interview of AW.
-The counseling records of JH
-The school records of JH
-The medical records of JH
In his handwritten notes regarding the April 18, 2007 interview of AW, in reference to the previous interview, Dr. Engum writes, "Prior interview(Where is it?). Is it exculpatory?" Clearly, he recognized that this was a potential issue, yet there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was ever provided with this tape. All of the interviews and the therapy notes should have been provided to this expert. The interview was also not presented by the defense at trial. In fact, this video is not in the defense file at all. Based on Ms. Long's testimony at trial, it appears likely that AW's statements in this interview contradicted his statements in the interview nearly one year later and AW's testimony at trial. The expert should have been provided with this tape so that he could evaluate the change in the child's statement in context and comment on the interviewer's technique and issues such as the impact of multiple interviews (both forensic and clinical in therapy) over time and the impact of family/peer pressure. Likewise, the expert should have evaluated the interviews of the other children, Brooke, PW and BW. Since they could have been in the home when the alleged incidents occurred, the absence of them witnessing anything could be significant, and their statements to the interviewer might or might not have contradicted other testimony.

Similarly, the school records, mental health records and medical records of JH should have been obtained and at least submitted to the court for and in camera review. Such records may be exculpatory because they may, for example, include documentation of a child making contradictory statements to a teacher, counselor or doctor regarding the allegations. Such records may also provide information regarding the child's behavior and demeanor and impacts an expert's opinion with regard to whether the child's behavior and demeanor is consistent or inconsistent with that of a victim or witness of sexual abuse.
In order to fully and appropriately evaluate the interview techniques in a given case, the expert must examine evidence of each and every interview that was conducted with children who were alleged victims of or witnesses to the incidents alleged in the indictment. Additionally, beginning with the first outcry, the expert must construct a disclosure timeline that includes, as fully as possible, each and every conversation the child had regarding the allegations from first outcry to the present. This did not occur in this case. Based on the record available, Dr. Engim, at the request of defense counsel, did review the April 18, 2007 videotaped interview with AW, the April 18, 2006 interview of JH and the May 31, 2006 Forensic Interview Report regarding the JH interview. The defense arrorney's purpose in asking Dr. Engum to review these interviews is not clear. Dr. Engum is psychologist specializing in neuropsychology. His curriculum vitae is not included in the file, so his qualifications for evaluating forensic interviewing techniques are not apparent. Regardless, his six pages of handwritten notes regarding the two interviews he did review are extremely difficult to read, but throughout he does draw attention to several problem areas in each interview, making reference specifically to the missing tape, the leading questions and the pressure that was placed on AW through the prayer prior to his second interview. Forensic interviewing is a highly specialized skill, and, improperly done, the interviewer can influence the child's statements. Nevertheless, Dr. Engum did not testify at trial.

Before examining the specific interview techniques used in this case, it is important to briefly review the scientific basis for the existing protocols for forensic interviewing. Because of the potential for those who question children to influence the child's statements or their actual memories of personally salient events, testimony regarding appropriate investigative interview techniques with children is admissible in Georgia courts. Experts, attorneys and others involved in the legal system frequently and errantly assume that suggestibility is only a potential problem in investigative interviews with the youngest children. In fact, the most current research indicates that age is but one factor impacting suggestibility and that older children, teens, and even adults can be vulnerable to post-event suggestion. Additionally, formal protocols for forensic interviewing, including those developed by the National Child Advocacy Center in Huntsville, Alabama, address the particular developmental challenges when interviewing older children and adolescents and indicate what techniques are appropriate and which should be used and which should be avoided.
The next several paragraphs talk about protocol in interviewing children. Pointing out key techniques that should be followed, that were not. It cites several different case laws and such.

I evaluated the forensic interview of JH. When interviewing JH, forensic interviewer, Stacy Long, made multiple critical errors. In addition, through his responses, JH revealed that he is easily influenced to agree with the suggestive and leading questions of the interviewer.

I will continue with Amy Morton's affidavit on my next blog. Starting with her pointing out exactly where Stacy Long went wrong.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Now for the investigators role

The investigator on our case was a girl named Jennifer Cooley. She was just like the rest of them. She heard lots of information that supported my brother's innocence, but she chose to go along with keeping it out of Brad's trial.

These are some interviews she did with Carolyn Drew, AW' mother. These interviews were done 4 days after the Stacy Long interview was done with AW. This is Carolyn talking to Jennifer Cooley. Now remember, Carolyn is my brother's ex-wife. She told three different people before this, that she was not getting involved and her kids were staying out of this as well. The Brad she knew would never do anything like this and she was staying out of it.

Suddenly, she changed her mind. Her and Rhona, my brother's wife at the time, now ex, despised each other while Brad and Rhona were married. But they suddenly go close and banded together. My opinion is that Dade Co. had something to do with their new found friendship.

So here is what she told Jennifer Cooley 4 days after AW's first interview. The jury never saw this interview.

I, INVESTIGATOR COOLEY, spoke with CAROLYN DREW (AW's mother) on 5/22/2006. She stated that she had visited her sister-n-law TRACY EZERNACK about a month before the allegations were reported on BRAD WADE. TRACY had followed her back from Indiana with AW and BW(Brad's oldest daughter) riding with her. CAROLYN stated that TRACY was the "cool aunt" and that the children would tend to open up to her.

After TRACY found out about the charges on BRAD, she told CAROLYN about an incident where out of the blue, while they were traveling AW started talking about how JH knows alot about sex and has exposed his penis to AW thinking that it was funny. AW also stated that JH knows a lot about phone sex.

TRACY became concerned and BW was also in the vehicle and was uncomfortable. After seeing their reactions, AW quit talking about it. BRAD had asked if AW had said anything about JH 'messing' with him.

CAROLYN DREW also stated that she had waked into the bathroom when AW was eight years old and saw him masturbating.

Then there is 10 pages of Ms. Cooley's interview's that are missing. So this next part starts later.

I, INVESTIGATOR COOLEY, spoke with CAROLYN DREW on 12/14/2006. DREW came to the Sheriff's Office to sign a release forms for BW and AW's visits to Dr. Hilner, a child psychologist. DREW stated that HILNER has made the statement that there are numerous signs indicating that AW was either abused or witnessed abuse.

DREW stated that several things had occurred in the past few months. DREW'S younger daughter, age 8 had disclosed to her grandmother, LINDA DREW on about the weekend before Thanksgiving 2006, that AW tickles her and one time while tickling her, he was sitting on top of her and ran his hands over her nipples and made a comment that made her feel uncomfortable. AW has tickled her in the past to the point where she wt her pants.

DREW and DR. HILNER asked AW about the incident during one of their sessions and AW admitted to running his hands over (the little girl) nipples, saying that it was 'no different that what everyone elso in the house does.

DREW also stated that AW will rub her butt while commenting "Ooh Momma" and will also grab her and BW's buttocks with both hands commenting on their butts. AW has also grabbed BW"s breasts.

DREW stated that in the past, BRAD WADE had not spent a great deal of time with AW until shortly after Christmas 2005. this continued until around April 2006 when DREW started keeping AW with her during the school week because of problems at school. She stated that BRAD WADE had asked for AW to spend more time with him. DREW also stated that AW appeared to be more upset about seeing less of JH than not seeing his father as much.

I, INVESTIGATOR COOLEY spoke with LYNDA L DREW on 1/2/2007. DREW stated that in December 2006, her granddaughter(the little girl) had been wrestling with AW. They had gotten into trouble. Shortly after, (the little girl) went to stay with her grandmother LYNDA DREW. DREW was discussing with(the little girl) how she almost wasn't able to come stay with her because she had been in trouble. The little girl told LYNDA that she should not have gotten into trouble. AW had told her not to tell or he would hurt her. DREW asked the little girl why AW had told her not to tell and the little girl whispered in DREW'S ear. The little girl stated that AW had run his hands across her nipples and made a comment to the effect of "I bet those things feel real".

On 3/12/2007 INVESTIGATOR COOLEY was contacted by CAROLYN DREW in reference to an incident that had occurred involving AW. DREW stated that she had spoken with her sister-n-law, TIFFANY COBB, on 3/11/2007 and was told that AW had exposed her thirteen year old son, (ZC) to pornography on the Internet and that he had masturbated in front of ZC. AW tried to get ZC to masturbate and AW rubbed his penis against a wet dog.

CAROLYN DREW also recalled AW asking her on several occasions starting in 2006 to look at his penis because it hurt. CAROLYN stated that AW would show her his penis and that it was red and inflamed on 3-4 different occasions. DREW stated that on one occasion it was very inflamed and swollen and she talked to AW about going to the doctor but he was adamant about not going. DREW stated that the redness would go away after a few days.

CAROLYN DREW also stated that AW seemed ready to talk about what had occurred between his father BRAD WADE and JH, and himself. A forensic interview was set up for 4/18/2007.

On April 12, 2007, INVESTIGATOR COOLEY spoke with TIFFANY COBB. COBB stated that during spring break AW had stayed at their house. Shortly after, the COBB's checked the history on their computer and round that visits had been made to a number of pornographic websites. The COBBS confronted their son ZC who told them that AW had showed the porn to him.

ZC stated that approximately a year ago, AW had showed him pornographic websites at AW house on AW's laptop on a couple of occasions.

COBB stated the ZC had told her about AW openly masturbating in front of him as they were watching television or playing PS2, talking about girls, etc. while they were in the living room. ZC stated that AW would start playing with his penis every time. ZC stated that this occurred "a lot" and "anytime they were together". On one occasion, AW asked ZC to pull out his own penis and play with it.

On another occasion shortly after BRAD WADE was charged with Child Molestation, AW and ZC were in the shower washing ZC's dog. AW was naked and ZC was wearing shorts. ZC stated that AW was rubbing his penis on the dog which was soaped up and commented that it "feels good".

Now, these were some of the interviews done by Jennifer Cooley, our lead detective in Brad's case. She knew all of this stuff about JH and AW. They kept these interviews out of court. There was also a interview done with Carolyn Drew that stated AW would lie to please others. This was determined by Dr. Hilner. Dr. Hilner was the doctor that Carolyn made AW go see 'to bring out the truth' about his dad. And after a year of this therapy and constant pounding at AW he finally decided that he had heard his dad say something about telling JH to masturbate in the car. Although, the testimony at trial from JH stated that NO ONE was in the car when Brad would tell him this. But AW testified that he was in the car. Next, I am gonna post what Brad's defense would have been and the expert testimony of Amy H. Morton.

Also, during Brad's trial, his wife at the time, Rhona Wade testified to this. Now she did not tell this to the detectives they went to first in Alabama. She stated that those detectives did not "keep in touch with her like Mrs. Cooley did", so she did not tell them this. She testified to this during the depositions that were done by Sherry Dobbins and at trial. Although, the exact location of where it took place changed from the couch in depositions to the bed during the trial. She stated that she got up in the middle of the night about a year prior to the allegations, and came downstairs to find Brad naked, kneeling beside JH on the couch(then the bed) rubbing his back. Mr. Levitt asked her why she did not take a ball bat or frying pan and knock him in the head? Or at least SAY something to him or someone else and she stated that she loved Brad and just didn't say anything. But she continued to have her brother at their house 3 and 4 days per week after she supposedly witnessed this. Now I ask you, especially you mothers out there, WOULD YOU HAVE DONE THIS???? Would you have let this go on if you thought for one second your younger brother was being molested? The answer is NO! No person in their right mind would have let this go on if this were true. But she testified to it and the jury believed it.