- Dain Sansome, through his attorney James Leuenberger, is preparing
to file a civil lawsuit against the City of Albany, Linn County, Benton
County, and the Oregon State Department of Human Services (DHS). According
to reputable sources, the suit stems from Dain Sansome's false arrest,
and him being, "falsely prosecuted." Although Sansome was
acquitted, the troubles continue for himself, and his family.
The lawsuit is reported
to claim that Sansome and his family had their civil rights violated,
and gross error was made by Detective Glenn Fairall of the Albany Police
Department, who was instrumental in bringing false child sex abuse charges
against Dain Sansome. Despite being found innocent by a jury on December
12, 2013, Dain and his family are still suffering from the immense emotional
distress they were forced to endure for over two years, which according
to Dain, "the effects of my false arrest and malicious prosecution
continue to this day." A close examination of the record in
this case proves that the Sansome’s pain and suffering is a direct
result of Fairall’s cunning lies and incompetence.
who “investigates” cases involving child abuse, responded
to a telephone call on November 13, 2011. The call was made by Sansome's
neighbor, Cori Smith, allegedly claiming she was a "mandatory reporter"
for DHS. According to documents filed several years earlier, Smith had
reported her then six-year-old son to DHS for “highly sexualized
Smith claimed that
she overheard part of what she thought was a filthy conversation between
her two sons, then ages five and eight, and Sansome’s six-year-old
daughter. These children were reputedly playing in a blanket fort in
another room. Detective Fairall proceeded based on this hearsay.
Sansome, a father
of three little girls, then ages one, three, and six, was thirty-three
years old at the time. He is a successful bamboo grower, landscape contractor,
and a hard-working family man, a truly kind-hearted man with a soft
friendly demeanor. He lives in Albany, Oregon on a two acre farm with
his Japanese wife and little girls. Sansome and his wife Suya share
both American and Japanese cultural values, since their family is a
blend of both. Sansome's criminal charges stemmed from occasional bathing
with his young children, which is not uncommon for many Americans and
completely normal for Japanese families.
allegedly failed to accurately verify the report by not interviewing
or investigating Cori Smith, the reporter, before rushing to question
Sansome’s six-year-old child. Needless to say, Detective Fairall
didn't even bother to get a warrant or seek the parent’s consent
before he interviewed the child.
Fairall summoned DHS child protection worker Matthew Stark and interviewed
Sansome's daughter. Enlisting the authority of her teacher, Fairall
interviewed the little girl at her school in Corvallis. Fortunately,
the interview was recorded, which would later benefit Sansome.
Sadly, Dain's young
daughter had her first detailed sex-ed talk from this police detective
A second interview
of the Sansome’s young child was done later the same day at a
local advocacy center, the ABC House. This one was much more intense.
Detective Fairall, an “expert on child abuse,” was unable
to get any disclosure of inappropriate touching. Fairall showed the
girl graphic pictures and anatomically correct dolls. While questioning
Sansome’s daughter for a second time, Detective Fairall, as he
had done earlier, repeated most questions, trying to prompt answers
from the six-year-old, who was playful in nature. His questions were
repetitive throughout the interview, causing the young girl to say,
“I already told you that a couple of times.”
for the defense, along with experts for the State, reviewed the interviews
conducted by Fairall. Their findings indicated grossly improper procedure.
One expert for the
defense, Dr. Daniel Reisberg, Ph.D., Psychologist from Reed College,
located in Portland, Oregon, claimed that Detective Fairall created,
"substantial error" with the questions he asked,
"suggesting to her (Dain's daughter) that she should acknowledge
some form of touching." Reisberg further stated, "...I
do not think we can count these interviews as unbiased,” and,
"I am troubled by the detective's heavy use of repeated questions."
are considered highly suggestive and leading, and are discouraged by
professionals as they likely result in children making false statements
after being asked the same questions multiple times.
M.A. from the University of Maryland, Licensed Psychologist and a nationally
recognized expert on child interviews and allegations of sex abuse,
wrote a scathing report about the problems with Detective Fairall's
interviewing techniques. Here are just a few excerpts from her report:
Fairall’s interviews were interrogations geared towards getting
the young child (name omitted) to affirm her father had sexually abused
her. He (Detective Fairall) had a clear agenda. These interviews violate
everything we know about the proper way to interview a child. He (Detective
Fairall) said 2,254 words, to her 492 (first interview). He said 2,760
words, to her 982 (second interview). The two taped interviews of (her)
leave no doubt that the investigators had made up their minds about
this case prior to the interviews. Alternative hypotheses were never
explored. From the beginning, Investigator Glenn Fairall assumed that,
based on the report from the neighbor, her father was sexually abusing
Dr. Eric M. Johnson,
Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Forensic Mental Health Evaluator, also
weighed in on Detective Fairall’s line of questioning. He stated,
"I continue to be concerned that leading questions were asked throughout
the interview and that all of her disclosures were interpreted to mean
that she was sexually abused." He continued, "I am
concerned, as stated above, that he (Detective Fairall) had a confirmatory
Esther Friedman, "Forensic interviewer"
Perhaps the greatest
concerns of improper detective-work were drawn from the State’s
own “expert,” Esther Friedman, an interviewer who was employed
by ABC House. After reading her report, I found her comments to be clearly
contradicting. She stated in her report, "The interview is (was)
not completely ideal..." Although MANY questions were repeated,
Friedman stated, "Some questions were repeated..."
She followed by concluding that, "No coercive elements were
noted in either interview." Considering Friedman’s analysis
of the interview, she clearly contradicts herself by stating in one
sentence that questions were repeated, then concludes that there were
no coercive elements. This clearly shows the absurd lengths that certain
people with power will go to ruin a kind and loving family, all in the
pursuit of so-called justice.
Please note that
Friedman’s testimony was paid for by the State of Oregon. She
seemingly supported the State in their false prosecution of Dain Sansome.
When an expert witness is hired by the State and that witness fails
to produce a conviction, they are far less likely to be paid by the
State in the future on other cases.
Sansome, who had
been interviewed by Fairall between his daughter’s two interviews,
originally thought that the police wanted information about a bothersome
neighbor. He went with the detective to the police station under that
assumption and wound up in a three-and-a-half hour confession-driven
interrogation. Sansome remained calm, despite being ambushed, intimidated,
and told falsehoods about his child’s communication with Detective
It eventually became
obvious that Detective Fairall was only interested in "bathing"
and pursuing sex abuse crimes. Sansome defended himself, describing
how his girls wanted to be in the tub with him, and how his wife encouraged
it. On rare occasions the children would horseplay and get his attention
by attempting to touch his genitals. When things of that nature would
occur, Sansome would tell his children to stop. His wife, who was separately
interrogated, described to the detective that the children were also
curious about her body in the same way.
ended his interrogation of Sansome by telling him that he found “no
sexual intent,” but wanted a polygraph test just to be sure. Sansome
said he would take the polygraph. In the meantime Sansome was told he
should “voluntarily” stay away from his house and family
until the investigation was “completed," something that should
only "take a few days." DHS case worker Matthew Stark added
they otherwise would “step things up," a thinly veiled threat
of forced removal of the children from their home if Sansome did not
What was to be a,
"few days" away from his family, ended up being over two years,
according to court documents.
After this interrogation
Sansome went to stay with his parents, who, fortunately, lived nearby.
He then contacted an attorney.
The next morning
when Fairall called Sansome about the polygraph, Sansome told Fairall
he had an appointment with his attorney. Detective Fairall went "ballistic,"
telling Sansome he must arrest him. The outburst was on speakerphone
and overheard by both of Sansome's parents. Fairall reportedly sent
out six patrol cars to arrest Sansome. Fortunately, Sansome was already
on his way to the lawyer’s office. Before long, they appeared
at the police station and Sansome surrendered.
Linn Co. D.A.
Doug Marteeny, the man ultimately responsible for Sansome's prosecution.
A polygraph was
completed by a neutral party. The results of the polygraph found Sansome
was "truthful." His responses explicitly denied, "any
form of sexually motivated contact," or any contact "for
the purpose of sexual arousal." After promising to dismiss
the case if the polygraph was passed, Sansome discovered Detective Fairall
had lied. Fairall pursued charges against his promise, by referring
Sansome's case to the prosecutor for a formal indictment. Linn County
Assistant District Attorney George Eder also ignored the polygraph results,
the lack of evidence, and produced an indictment almost immediately.
probable cause affidavit contained errors, lies, and misrepresentations.
In a rage and in an all-out effort to ruin Sansome, Detective Fairall
manufactured four counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count
The Grand Jury tossed
out the rape charge, but indicted otherwise, threatening 20-30 years
in prison. Remember, no one defends you in front of a Grand Jury.
Released on an eighty-thousand-dollar
bond ($80,000.00), further intimidation ensued. Sansome surrendered
his computers. The police forensic technician located multiple images
of little children, actually Japanese cousins, and thumbnail images
in unallocated space, deep inside the computer, which DDA George Eder
portrayed as "child pornography." The images were not, which
was confirmed by Marcus Lawson, J.D., forensic computer consultant,
long-employed by the U.S. Customs Service. Prosecutor Eder eventually
admitted this and no charges of possession were ever filed. Judge Thomas
McHill, nevertheless, allowed the photos to be admitted at trial to
show “intent” and “purpose,” which was meant
to prejudice the jury. This tactic failed.
took place over the next two years. During this time, in order to stay
out of jail, Sansome remained apart from his family. It took several
hearings to force Prosecutor Eder to release police and DHS records.
At another hearing Fairall demonstrated that he neither knew nor followed
the State’s interviewing guidelines. Hearings were also necessary
to contest and show tainted child witnesses, that the children's memories
were distorted and destroyed by the detective’s abusive and egregious
interviews and Cori Smith’s interference. Judge McHill, however,
ordered the children to take the stand and testify, continuing his obvious
attempt to assist the prosecution (something he has done in other criminal
cases as well).
The first trial
date was canceled thirteen months after arrest, canceled by the Chief
Judge at the last minute due to a reportedly congested court calendar
and Detective Fairall's own supposed emergency room visit.
The second trial
date at sixteen months was canceled at the last minute when the defense
realized that date, set by the court, was the beginning of Child Abuse
Awareness Month, an event heavily publicized in the local newspaper.
At eighteen months
the trial started. Prosecutor Eder objected when the defense mentioned
in the opening statement the documented sexualized history of the neighbor
boy. The judge declared a mistrial, which Sansome's lawyer, Steven Sherlag
of Portland, Oregon called totally erroneous.
The fourth trial
date took place at twenty-five months after arrest. The trial lasted
eight days. The jury heard and saw all interviews. Sansome's wife testified
twice that the children’s behavior toward their father was identical
with their behavior toward her, always in a playful manner. Defense
experts testified as to the inappropriate and misleading investigation.
Prosecutor Eder had no credible experts, in fact no evidence and no
crime to present. He simply prosecuted with prejudice and innuendo.
Fairall admitted during trial to making two "mistakes"
in his probable cause affidavit, the document used by the judge to justify
an arrest warrant. During trial Sansome's attorney underscored one of
these falsehoods with the following exchange:
Fairall:I believe I found a mistake in this uh probable cause affidavit yesterday
when I was reviewing it, ah, regarding this session (interview) here.
Sherlag:You found it yesterday? This was relied on by a judge two years ago,
Fairall:That is correct.
Sherlag:Does it help to correct errors in it today? Does it help Mr. Sansome?
Fairall:I can only tell you that when I...
Sherlag:It's a yes or no question; does it help Mr. Sansome?
Fairall:I guess not.
Sherlag:Does it help the judge(s) make a decision as to whether or not Mr.
Sansome is going to be arrested, that a fair and full understanding
of the facts are corrected today, two years later? Yes or no?
supposed to make those corrections before you sign those things under
oath, aren't ya? Yes or no?
Fairall:When I signed...
Sherlag:Yes or no?
Sherlag:Thank you. No further questions.
had just admitted to altering what was said by Sansome on his sworn
affidavit. Detective Fairall had misstated the facts about Sansome in
order to obtain an arrest warrant and indictment. Detective Fairall
had defrauded the court. A unanimous verdict of “Not Guilty"
came quickly. Some jurors later voiced their anger at the prosecutor
and his tremendous waste of time and money.
Sansome lived in
a barn behind his parent’s house for over two years. He could
not return home. He was unable to see his children, even talk with them
for six months, and from then on only with supervised and limited visitations
was he allowed to see them with court-appointed personnel present. Sansome
barely managed to keep his family intact. He had to move his office
and business. His children endured ridicule. They were hurt by allegations
and skepticism, prolonged uncertainty, and confusion. They were also
greatly confused by parents and grandparents who had to remain mute
on everything pertaining to the case.
The system bullied
repeatedly. Prosecutor Eder offered three plea bargains, the first at
three months for two months in jail, five years’ probation, and
a life-long label of sex offender. The final offer was just before the
last trial – no jail time and two years of probation. Would you
risk the chance of twenty-two years in prison or take that plea and
be tracked as a sexual predator for the rest of your life? Could you
afford a costly private attorney, or would you like a public defender
who is usually not an expert on sex abuse or versed in defending against
false claims of child pornography? Sansome, knowing his innocence, felt
he had no choice but to ante up for an outside attorney and refuse all
Judge Thomas McHill
Remember, the State
has limitless resources and no qualms about imprisoning innocent people,
so long as the jury convicts. District attorneys can spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money without accountability or
liability. Judge Thomas McHill said he was obligated to rule for the
State, and later told the courtroom the “process” was more
important than people. In a courtroom most authorities hide behind “qualified
immunity.” Your rights often get violated with little or no chance
of obtaining real justice.
high costs, humiliation, separation from family, a prolonged process
– all these are tactics to lure one, even force one, to accept
a plea bargain. This is nothing more than State-sanctioned bullying
and extortion, and it is effective. How many innocent people are forced
to plea? The statistics don't lie. Roughly 97% of all criminal cases
in the United States result in the person indicted taking a plea deal,
regardless of guilt or innocence. The percentage of innocents who are
wrongfully convicted may never truly be known.
his experience that nearly cost him his life. According to Sansome,
"He (Detective Fairall) certainly wrote to kill (ruin my life)
in his false probable cause affidavit. Two-plus years of chaos and stress,
not knowing what’s going to happen from day to day. Loss of business,
loss of concentration. It felt like a near-death experience. Seeing
my wife, my children, and my parents grieving was very hard for me.
The damage Fairall, Smith, Stark and Eder inflicted continues to this
Note: If you have any information regarding anyone named in this article,
please contact the US~Observer at 541-474-7885, or by email.
According to online info., Detective Glenn Fairall who is a government
employee, has been linked to the ABC House (non-profit
organization that helps convict alleged "abusers") Board
of Directors. The ABC House claims
to be "eligible" to, "receive a percentage of the fines
collected for traffic and criminal offenses..." Is there a conflict
here? It is clear to us that ABC's aiding in government conviction's
helps fund the "non-profit" ABC House.
Subscribe to the US~Observer News Flash Alerts!
to the US~Observer FREE News Alerts!
a subscription to US~Observer delivered right to your mailbox via first-class mail!