After Being Acquitted, Father Files Lawsuit

By Joseph Snook
Investigative Reporter

Albany, Oregon – 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 his being “falsely prosecuted.” Although Sansome was acquitted, the troubles continue for him and his family.

The lawsuit is reported to claim that Sansome and his family had their civil rights violated, and a 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, 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 Sansomes’ pain and suffering is a direct result of Fairall’s cunning lies and incompetence.

Detective Fairall, 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 behavior.”

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 on the basis of 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 hard-working family man, truly kind-hearted 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 American and Japanese cultural values, as 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.

Detective Fairall 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 obtain a warrant or seek the parent’s consent before interviewing the child.

Instead, Detective Fairall summoned DHS child protection worker Matthew Stark and interviewed Sansome’s daughter. Invoking her teacher’s authority, 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 — disgusting!

A second interview with the Sansomes’ young child was conducted later that 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 of the questions, trying to prompt answers from the six-year-old, who was playful. His questions were repetitive throughout the interview, causing the young girl to say, “I already told you that a couple of times.”

Several experts 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., a psychologist from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, claimed that Detective Fairall committed “substantial error” in 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.”

Repetitive questions are considered highly suggestive and leading and are discouraged by professionals, as they likely lead children to make false statements when asked the same questions multiple times.

Hollida Wakefield, M.A., from the University of Maryland, a 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:

“Officer 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 how to properly interview a child. He (Detective Fairall) said 2,254 words to her; she said 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 her (child).”

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 bias.”

Perhaps the greatest concerns about improper detective work were raised by the State’s own “expert,” Esther Friedman, an interviewer employed by ABC House. After reading her report, I found her comments to be clearly contradictory. 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: she states in one sentence that questions were repeated, yet 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 its false prosecution of Dain Sansome. When an expert witness is hired by the State and fails to secure a conviction, they are far less likely to be paid by the State in future 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 Fairall.

It eventually became obvious that Detective Fairall was only interested in “bathing” and pursuing sex abuse crimes. Sansome defended himself, explaining that his girls wanted to be in the tub with him and that his wife encouraged it. On rare occasions, the children would horseplay and get his attention by attempting to touch his genitals. When such things occurred, 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.

Detective Fairall 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 caseworker 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 comply.

What was supposed to be a “few days” away from his family turned into 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.

A polygraph was completed by a neutral party. The polygraph results indicated that 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 and the lack of evidence and produced an indictment almost immediately.

The detective’s 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 of rape.

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.

After the release 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, as confirmed by Marcus Lawson, J.D., a forensic computer consultant long employed by the U.S. Customs Service. Prosecutor Eder eventually admitted this, and no possession charges 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.

Multiple hearings 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 that the child witnesses were tainted, 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 the arrest, 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 the court-set date was the start 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 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 to their behavior toward her, always playful. Defense experts testified as to the inappropriate and misleading investigation. Prosecutor Eder had no credible experts; in fact, no evidence or crime to present. He simply prosecuted with prejudice and innuendo.

Detective Glenn 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, right?
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) decide whether Mr. Sansome will be arrested that a fair and full understanding of the facts is corrected today, two years later? Yes or no?
Fairall: No
Sherlag: You’re 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?
Fairall: Yes, Yes.
Sherlag: Thank you. No further questions. 

Detective Fairall had just admitted to altering what Sansome said in his sworn affidavit. Detective Fairall had misstated the facts about Sansome to obtain an arrest warrant and an 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 parents’ house for over two years. He could not return home. He was unable to see his children, or 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 them repeatedly. Prosecutor Eder offered three plea bargains, the first at three months for two months in jail, five years’ probation, and a lifelong 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 he was innocent, felt he had no choice but to ante up for an outside attorney and refuse all plea deals.

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.

Excessive charges, 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 plead? The statistics don’t lie. Roughly 97% of all criminal cases in the United States result in the indicted person accepting a plea deal, regardless of guilt or innocence. The percentage of innocents who are wrongfully convicted may never truly be known.

Sansome described the 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 day.”