Frontline is a presentation of the documentary consortium.
Three years ago, Frontline went to Edenton, North Carolina,
to investigate one of the largest child sexual abuse cases in the country.
It's about sexual abuse of little children, preschool-aged children,
and it's also about abuse of trust.
If I couldn't trust a daycare owned by my best friend for my child to be safe in,
then I knew that I probably wouldn't be able to trust much of anything else.
Last night, in part one of Innocence Lost, The Burdick,
Frontline told the story of Bob Kelly and his wife Betsy
and what their friends and neighbors believed they and others had done.
Everything that I'm telling you is coming from my child.
Betsy participated and physically and sexually abused these children, just as Bob did.
In America now, if you want to get even with a man, all you do is accuse him of a sex crime.
Defendant Bob Kelly's trial included the testimony of witnesses,
The screaming. I will hear the children screaming.
investigators,
This is a male doll.
and parents.
I asked him if Mr. Bob touched him on the bottom, and he said yes.
After an eight-month trial, the jury was divided.
You really couldn't put your finger on it,
but you didn't have anything but circumstantial evidence.
Tonight on Frontline, in the conclusion of Innocence Lost, The Verdict,
the children testify.
He would say he would kill my mommy and daddy.
Well, he put his penis in my private.
The jury struggles.
There was a lot of hostility that if you did not agree,
they looked at you like you were the village idiot.
He was not honest. He was contaminated.
Didn't follow the judge's instruction.
And the other defendants face their own trials.
Part of me wants to take the plea.
There's always that bad side of it that I've pleaded guilty to something I didn't do.
Tonight, the conclusion of Innocence Lost, The Verdict.
With funding provided by the financial support of viewers like you
and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
this is Frontline.
The Verdict
The town of Edenton lies on Albemarle Sound on the North Carolina coast.
It's an old colonial town founded in the early 1700s,
a town of about 5,000 people.
Church-going, conservative, proud of its history and tradition.
This is the oldest courthouse in North Carolina,
and it's probably one of the oldest contention houses in the state.
It's probably one of the oldest continuously used courthouses in the United States.
Okay, come on, we'll go up and see a teapot.
Once the unofficial capital of North Carolina,
Edenton and its citizens fought for their country,
for independence, and the Bill of Rights.
They were legislators and lawyers,
and one of them, James Iredell, was appointed to the first Supreme Court by George Washington.
His words in defense of the law are etched in stone on the wall of the new courthouse in Edenton.
It's a court where the rules seem relaxed and the case is unsurprising.
We have a court every Tuesday, any particular Tuesday any better than any other.
Alice Twitty is the court clerk.
She's worked here for 25 years in a job she loves.
But for the last four years, she's sat only a few feet away from the files of the worst criminal case in Edenton history.
The records of her daughter, Elizabeth Betsy Twitty Kelly.
Betsy is a defendant in one of the largest child sexual abuse cases ever,
with 90 preschool children allegedly abused by seven people in the Little Rascals daycare,
which she owned with her husband, Bob Kelly.
Bob Kelly's trial opened in August 1991.
It would last eight months.
At the same time, Scott Privet, a video store owner and a friend of Kelly's, was in jail awaiting trial.
Robin Byram and Don Wilson, two daycare employees, were out on bail awaiting trial after spending over a year in jail.
By the time of Bob's trial, Betsy had been in jail for almost two years.
All her requests for reduction of bail, which was close to two million dollars, had been denied.
Her family was unable to raise the money.
Neither her sister, Nancy Smith, nor her father, Warren Twitty.
We're a family, a very close family.
I imagine we're close in a lot of families.
Yes, sir?
Warren Twitty had been a successful businessman in Edenton, but things hadn't gone well since the case started.
I had to sell stuff that I was going to use for retirement.
I had some holdings that I had in some buildings and some things that I had set up on a plan for retirement I've had to liquidate in order to pay my attorneys, as far as I have paid them.
There were other losses, too.
People don't come in my office like they used to. They want to come out and have a chat with me. I ask my opinion.
In politics or anything. I used to be very active in politics, but I don't get asked to participate in anything since this has come up.
I think you know when you're being isolated. I think you feel it, you see it, and you know it.
Feeling isolated, the family clung together. With Laura, Betsy's daughter, they waited for Betsy to come home.
And they worried. With so much time gone by, if her bail were reduced, would they still have the money to pay it?
Then, in the middle of Bob Kelly's trial, in September 1991, Betsy had another bail hearing.
I'd been told so many times that this was going to work. This was going to be the time. This was going to be the good time.
And it never was. I just didn't know if I could go through all of that again.
To see my family, the tiny spark of hope that this might be the time.
The collapse of communism has taken place since he signed this order. And I submit to you, Your Honor, that it is common sense
that when one is put in a prison cell, presumptively innocent, grown up in the American system of justice,
believing in the right to a speedy trial, believing in the right to confront her accusers,
and she sits for two years and she watches prisoners sentenced and leave, and she sits there.
And the purpose of Vaughn, Judge McClellan, with all due respect to everybody, is to see to it that the defendant shows up.
It's not to punish someone. And she's been punished enough until she has a chance to meet her accusers
and hear from a jury whether or not she deserves to be punished. Thank you, sir.
My attorney kept telling me, no matter which way it goes, we're going to be okay and we're going to get through this.
So that was my attitude. And I was trying to focus on Judge McClellan's face and not let anyone see me get emotional about anything.
And I was so conscious of not letting my emotions show that I just lost what I was supposed to be focusing on.
And had my attorney not grabbed my hand and started squeezing my hand, and the tighter he squeezed,
I began to focus on what Judge McClellan was saying.
The present requirement that she post bond in the penal sum of $1,779,000 is unreasonable and continuingly punitive in effect.
The judge reduced the bond to $400,000, which he believed the family could afford.
And I looked at my attorney and I said, but we can't do that. He said, oh, yes, we can, and we will.
It's fine, Your Honor. The Judge Brown conditions?
Yeah. The other condition?
That's fine, sir.
Fine.
It just never really sunk in that I could possibly be going home.
All stand, please.
I left women's prison at 2 o'clock on Wednesday, so 2 o'clock today will be two days.
And it's been good, very good.
I want to make the very most of every moment because I've missed so much.
I see that going across the bridge. And where did you see the flag?
I've been outside a lot. I've seen a lot of family, friends. I've eaten.
Mostly I've spent time with Laura, and we've spent time outside walking and enjoying being together.
And what did you make on the spelling test?
88.
How many did you miss?
Well, I missed neighborhood in the sentence, a neighborhood.
Twice? Just plain neighborhood. How did you spell neighborhood?
N-E-I-G-H-O-O-B-R-H-O-O-D. What's he supposed to be?
It's wonderful. It's nice. It's beautiful. It's soothing. It's the wonderful therapy that I need.
Neighborhood. Neighborhood.
I've caught myself in the last two days looking around to see if anybody was watching me,
which for the last two years someone's always watched me do everything.
And I just had that feeling somebody was going to say, no, you can't do that. No, you know you can't do that.
And that's just wonderful knowing, yes, I can. Oh, yes, I can do that.
Yet, Betsy said she didn't really feel free.
I would not ever feel free if any of us were to win on technical matters.
It has to be proven that we are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It never happened, and that has to be proven.
But at Bob Kelly's trial, the prosecution, who wanted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that abuse did happen,
was going to play their strongest card, the children.
We were not allowed to film them or their mothers.
So the children's names and faces have been changed, and their testimony, which is public record, will be read by actors.
For reasons of time, the testimony has been excerpted and abridged.
The children were questioned by the prosecutors, Bill Hart, Nancy Lamb, and H.P. Williams,
and cross-examined by the defense attorneys, Mike Spivey and Jeff Miller, in front of the 12 jurors.
Jamie was three when the abuse allegedly occurred and five and a half at the trial.
Okay, did you like that school, Jamie?
No? Why not? Because a lot of bad things happen?
Can you please tell us what those bad things were?
Well, he stuck a knife in my butt.
What did it feel like, Jamie?
It hurted.
Jamie, do you have names that you call your private parts?
No.
Do you know what your private parts are?
No?
Okay. Do you know what a ding-dong is?
Yes.
What's that? It's something that nobody touches?
All right. Jamie, did Mr. Bob ever do anything to your ding-dong?
He sucked on it.
Did he ever make you do anything to his ding-dong?
Yeah, he made me suck on his.
Did he ever do anything else to you with his ding-dong?
No.
How did that make you feel when he made you suck on his ding-dong, Jamie?
Very bad.
Do you remember where you were when that happened, at Little Rascals?
Are you afraid of Mr. Bob, Jamie?
Yes.
Why are you afraid of him?
Because I'm afraid he'll get up and get me.
What did he tell you he would do if you told about all this stuff?
He would say he would kill my mommy and daddy.
Did you believe him?
No.
Ellen was four and a half when the abuse allegedly occurred,
and seven and a half at the trial.
Can you tell me, Ellen, one bad thing that Mr. Bob did to you
that you didn't want him to do?
Well, he put his penis in my private.
Are you talking about your front private?
Yes.
How did that feel, Ellen, when Mr. Bob did that to you?
Not good.
Now, was there something else that Mr. Bob did to you that you didn't like,
besides putting his penis in your privates?
Yes.
Can you tell me something else that he did that you didn't like?
Put a pencil in my private?
How did that feel when Mr. Bob put a pencil in your private?
Yucky.
Now, did Mr. Bob ever put his penis anywhere besides in your privates?
Yes.
Can you tell me where?
In my bottom.
Did you want to tell your mama about what was happening to you there?
Yes.
But did you ever tell her why you were still going there?
No.
Why didn't you ever tell your mommy, even though you wanted to?
Because Mr. Bob said that he would kill my mommy and my daddy and me if I told.
Did you believe him?
Yes.
Both of the jurors described their reactions.
Juror David Williams.
Tears come out of my eyes, and I have grandkids also,
and I can tell when a child is telling the truth.
I know when a makeup story, I know when it's true.
I've been around long enough.
I love kids, and like my own.
But I can tell when one is telling the truth.
Susie was four and a half at the time of the alleged abuse,
and seven and a half at the trial.
Do you remember anything else that Mr. Bob did to you that you didn't like at Little Rascals?
He put his penis in my, um, honey.
Did that happen one time, Susie, or more than one time?
More than one time.
Do you remember what times of the day, if it was more than one time that it happened?
Juror Dennis Ray.
Without the children's testimony and getting up and seeing their actual demeanor,
there was even some cases where the children, during cross-examination, corrected the defense attorneys.
They would say something like, did this happen?
And the child would say, no, that's not what happened. I told you this is what happened.
They were very concise in what they were saying.
Andy was just four at the time of the alleged abuse, and seven at the trial.
Do you remember Miss Betsy? Do you remember who she is?
I didn't for a while, but since you mentioned it, now I do.
Okay. Tell me about Miss Betsy. Did you like her?
No, sir. Okay. Why didn't you like Miss Betsy?
Because she did bad things? What kind of bad things did she do?
She would touch kids where she wasn't supposed to.
And the only thing, and the only thing good she would do is just take the kids to dancing lessons when they had to go.
It was actually the first time that I had ever heard the children talk about this.
It was difficult, very difficult to look at these children that you loved and you watched grow up.
And you were with every day.
And to hear them say things that made no sense, that were certainly not true, it was frightening.
Having to listen to everything every day in that trial and to accept what was going on, things they were saying.
She would also hear for the first time from former friends how they had come to believe that she, her husband, and her employees were abusing their children.
Susan had been a good friend and a staunch supporter of the Kellys.
She had three children in the daycare. Only one was testifying in the case, Bridget.
When the police came to interview Bridget very early on, Susan told them she had no reason for concern.
And she complained that Officer Toppin was trying to lead her child.
She kept her children in the daycare until the week it closed.
Then she sent Bridget to a therapist, Judy Abbott, to be evaluated.
After the first therapy session, Judy Abbott gave her a book to read to her child every night called Patty the Rabbit.
What was Patty the Rabbit about?
It was just about a little rabbit that went to like a daycare center and there was a rabbit there that everybody thought was nice but he really wasn't.
And he did things to the children and then asked them to keep secrets.
And then little Patty started having a lot of problems sleeping and had a terrible feeling in her stomach.
And a little fairy told her if she would tell her mom and dad, it would help her feel better inside.
And did you begin reading that story to your daughter?
Yes, ma'am. When would you do that? At nighttime when we would put them to bed.
Bridget listened to the story but did not disclose abuse.
The next week, Judy Abbott gave Susan another book, Tilly the Kitty.
It was very much like Patty the Rabbit, except that it featured a little kitten, a big bad yellow cat, and a beautiful kitty fairy who said,
My little Tilly Kitty, you are in the light of love.
Do not be afraid of Mr. Big Yellow Cat.
He can't hurt you when you have the light of love.
The light of love keeps you safe.
You can be safe because the power of the love light helps you to tell and tell and tell when you are not happy and you feel icky inside.
Remember, you are only unsafe when you don't tell someone about those icky feelings.
Icky secrets can hurt you.
The power of the love light can make you safe and strong.
Go for it. Tell, tell, tell.
You have the super power of the love light.
Wow, don't you feel better?
Bridget heard the story and still did not disclose abuse.
The third therapy session, Judy Abbott gave Susan a third book to read to Bridget.
Susan also began to question the child more intensely.
She was asked by the prosecution to describe some of the conversations she then had with her daughter, which led to the child's final allegations of abuse.
I brought her into my room and I was rocking her and I was explaining to her that sometimes people weren't always what you thought they were.
And I asked her if she knew of anybody that had fooled mommy like that and she said, yes, Miss Betsy, Mr. Bob and Miss Shelley.
And then she went on to say that Miss Shelley had tinkled on the floor.
She was then asked about another conversation a day or two later.
She got very silly and as she did every time that she started talking about the daycare and she said Miss Shelley had tinkled in the road.
What did you ask her then?
I don't know that I said anything other than probably the road because I thought this was just the strangest thing I'd ever heard.
And she said in a really hysterical way, the railroad.
After a few more sessions of questions and answers, Bridget finally made her sexual disclosures.
It's just wild. She is jumping from the sofa to the coffee table, just hysterical.
And she's pulling down her pants and she's saying, Mr. Bob used to do this in front of us all the time.
And she's pulling her pants down.
And then she said, he used to spank his wee-wee and he touched all the children's bottoms, mine too.
And then she sat down on the couch and she lifted her leg up and she started rubbing her vaginal area.
And she said that they used to do this at daycare.
And what else did she say?
She said that Mr. Bob had a gun at daycare and that he used to make them shoot people.
This was the first of Bridget's allegations.
By the time she would testify in Bob Kelly's trial two and a half years later, she would make many others, including...
Mr. Bob put sand in Bridget's eyes in the playground.
Mr. Bob pulled Bridget's hair.
Mr. Bob had another little boy stick his finger into Bridget's vagina and hiney while Bob took pictures.
Mr. Bob made another little boy put his penis in Bridget's vagina and in her mouth while Bob took pictures.
Bob and Betsy dressed up like witches and stood at the doorway and scared the children.
Betsy stuck a knife into Bridget's baby sister's eye while Shelley laughed.
Betty Ann dressed up like a witch and screamed at Bridget's baby sister while Shelley laughed.
Betsy stuck a knife into a bird in the backyard of the daycare and threw the bird into the woods.
Betsy threw a cat into the fire behind the daycare and burned it up.
Dawn danced naked in the daycare.
Bob shut Bridget up in the kitchen cabinet.
Bob put his finger in Bridget's vagina and hiney while the other children were in the kitchen eating their snack.
Bob peed in Bridget's mouth while the other children were in the kitchen eating their snack.
Most of Bridget's allegations did not end up as charges, including her allegation that Bob and Betsy killed babies.
She was asked about it by defense attorney Mike Spivey.
Well now you told Miss Judy that they killed babies at the daycare, didn't you?
Yes.
Okay. And where did that happen that you saw babies killed?
I can't remember.
Okay. Who killed the babies?
Sometimes Miss Betsy or Mr. Bob.
And how did they kill them?
With a gun.
Okay. Did they shoot them?
Yes.
Did you really see the babies shot?
Sometimes.
Sometimes you did?
Yes.
Okay. And now did you see Mr. Bob shoot the babies or did you see Miss Betsy shoot the babies?
Both.
Okay. What kind of a gun did they shoot the babies with?
Some kind of black gun. It was a little, real little.
All right. Was it loud when they shot the babies? Did it make a loud noise?
Yes.
And did the babies bleed?
Yes.
After the babies were dead, what did they do with them?
I can't remember.
Okay. Now is that the truth, Bridget?
Yes.
Are you sure it's the truth, Bridget?
Yes.
Now you understand you were taught in court school about telling the truth, right?
Yes.
And that everything you say has to be the truth, right?
Yes.
Okay. Now is it the truth about Mr. Bob and Miss Betsy killing the babies?
Yes.
Did they really kill babies?
Sometimes.
Sometimes. Well now when you talked to Miss Judy, you didn't tell her that happened at the daycare, did you?
No.
You told Miss Judy it happened in outer space, didn't you?
Bridget, isn't that what you told Miss Judy, that Mr. Bob and Miss Betsy killed the babies in outer space?
Yes.
And you told her that you went to outer space with Mr. Bob and Miss Betsy in a hot air balloon, right?
Yes.
Did you really do that?
It was a spaceship.
Okay. It wasn't a balloon. You went in a spaceship?
Yes.
Is that the truth?
Yes.
Is that the truth like all the other things you told us?
Yes.
And these are things that Miss Judy helped you talk about, didn't she?
Yes.
The jurors tried hard to make sense of the testimony.
It's hard to believe that most of this happened when a child was two and a half, three, three and a half years old.
And this is something that we were really amazed at to the point that these children were so consistent over their stories.
And the little inconsistencies that they had, like one of them said, he rode in a spaceship.
And then during the examination of the testimony, we found that they had went to the circus the Wednesday, I think, before that.
And the child had ridden on his favorite ride, it was a spaceship ride.
So things started making sense.
Not to all of the jurors, Roswell Streeter was disturbed.
These kids saw a lot of things.
I mean, flying in the outer space and the hot air balloons.
I mean, in my opinion, it's the same kid that said Mr. Bob stuck a finger in their rectum.
That's the same kid that said that.
That said, you know, they've been to outer space.
And he shot babies at the daycare.
You know, in my opinion, the jury spoiled, looked at all of that, not just the kids said Mr. Bob did that.
Juror Roswell Streeter is a 27-year-old industrial technician.
He is married and the father of Erica, who is two and a half years old.
I mean, the majority of the jurors, they, you know, was a child saying Mr. Bob stuck his finger in me.
I mean, that could be taken at face value.
But all the bizarre stuff, riding on a hot air balloon, being carried in outer space, you know, if, why couldn't everything be taken at face value if that's the way we're going to do it?
Roswell says that he couldn't stop thinking about the children's testimony.
In my opinion, when the children stood up in court, or they sat in court and testified,
it's no doubt in my mind that them children believed that something had happened.
But the point is, well, that I'm concerned with, did it happen?
I mean, what did they say? How did they say it? How did the children come about saying it?
How many interviews did they have before they said anything? That's what I was mainly concerned with.
Round and round we go.
I have a two and a half year old, and we're dealing with children.
And we're dealing with kids that things that supposedly happened to them happened three years ago.
Here we are, here we are. How are you today, sir?
Baby, will we thank you?
These are not the little rascals' children.
But this was the age of the children when the alleged abuse occurred.
Over the course of three years, they were questioned by parents, therapists, the police, and the district attorney.
How would it affect their memories?
When you continually question a child about sexual events,
it's not difficult to produce statements from the child that are inaccurate.
Dr. Philip Esplin is a child psychologist who has had 20 years' experience with abused children.
Consulted by the defense, he is one of the few professionals who has had access to all the files in the little rascals' case.
Theoretically, if I said, did Bob put his finger in your butt? Did it hurt when he did that?
Did you feel bad when he did that? Bob was a bad person for doing that.
Bob's been put in jail for doing that.
Ultimately, there's a substantial risk the child is going to come to believe,
genuinely believe, that Bob in fact put his finger in his butt, when in fact he may not have.
And that can be produced as a byproduct of the questioning sequence.
How did it make you feel when he stuck his finger in your bottom, Neil?
Bad? Did you tell anybody about that?
No. Why not? I don't know.
Juror Mary Nichols was concerned.
Children at that age, I went back to how old these children were in the beginning.
And having children of my own and grandchildren, children are easily led to say things.
And I just could not go along with what they were saying.
Mary Nichols says that she was concerned that the state was constantly rephrasing their questions and leading the children.
The prosecutor, Nancy Lamb, questioned Bridget.
Now, Bridget, did Bob ever put his private anywhere? I can't remember.
Okay. Do you remember whether Bob ever put it in your private?
Objection to the leading judge. Overruled.
I can't remember. Okay. Do you remember telling... Did you go see a lady named Miss Judy?
Yes. Did you talk to her about some things that had happened to you?
Yes. And you still go see Miss Judy, don't you sometimes?
Yes. And do you remember telling Miss Judy that Bob put his private in your private?
Yes. And did that happen to you?
Yes. How did that feel? Bad?
The defense lawyers, who felt that the children were being led by the prosecution, were powerless to stop it.
I think it's very clear they were led. There are a lot of instances where the child would say no, and the prosecutor would in essence correct them.
And say, well, didn't you tell Miss Judy that it happened? And the child would turn around and say, oh, yes.
Yeah. I heard your objections to the leading questions. But the judge, he agreed with them.
Apparently.
Bobby had just turned three at the time of the alleged abuse, and was six and a half at the time of the trial.
Did you have to lay on top of Bridget?
Yes, sir. And when you were laying on top of Bridget, where was your private?
I forgot. Do you remember telling Miss Judy that you had to put your private next to her private? Objection. Overruled.
Did you have to do that, Bobby? No, sir. What did you say? No, sir. Did you say no or yes? Yes, sir. That's the truth now. Yes, sir.
The defense attorney, Jeff Miller, explained.
The law is in direct contrast to the science. The science says that younger children, particularly preschool children, are the most suggestible age group of children.
And that it's very dangerous to ask them leading questions. The law says that because of the young age, it's appropriate to ask leading questions.
So we have that conflict of the psychology or the science and the law that leads to these kinds of issues in these kinds of cases.
The dangers of leading a young child were demonstrated by Andy's testimony.
Do you remember, Mr. Bob, whether Mr. Bob ever put his penis in your mouth? No, ma'am. You don't remember that? No, ma'am.
Did Mr. Bob ever put his penis in your mouth and you didn't want that to happen? Objection. Overruled.
You said what now? Yes, ma'am. And did he do something when he put his penis in your mouth? No, ma'am.
Did you tell your mother about that happening to you? Yes, ma'am.
And do you remember a time where you ever had to do anything to Mr. Bob's hiney with your mouth? No, ma'am.
Do you remember telling Dr. Betty that one time you had to lick Mr. Bob's hiney? Objection. Overruled.
Did that happen? Did you ever have to do that, that you didn't want to do it? Yes, ma'am.
That turned out to be a false charge. The real charge was Bob Kelly licking Andy and not the other way around.
The prosecution had made the child admit to something that was never charged. Consequently, that charge was dropped.
But more than anything else, what bothered some of the jurors was that even the simplest charge had no physical evidence or eyewitnesses to support it.
It just doesn't make sense. There was maybe 50 or 60 children at the nursery.
Somebody had to bring those children there. Somebody had to pick them up. If there wasn't but 25 or 30 people bringing them, did they never see anything going on?
They never saw anything wrong? Nobody in the town ever saw anything wrong? It just doesn't make sense.
I was lying awake at night with this on my mind, worrying about it and worrying about what to do.
And just if I just had one thing that would convince me that he had done these things and I couldn't come up with it.
Nobody saw anything. Yet these children went out on boats all the time. They rode around through the town. They went all kinds of places.
But nobody saw them. How did they do it?
Because Edenton lies on the waters of Albemarle Sound, there are boats everywhere.
Many of the children's parents and friends had boats. And boats figured prominently in the children's allegations of abuse.
What about going on a boat with Mr. Bob? Do you remember that? Yes. Tell me about that.
Well, he pushed me in the water and he said there's a shark and he really did that at night time. He tricked us and it was fake.
Okay. You said that Mr. Bob pushed you in the water? Yes.
Each child had his own boat horror story. While Jamie was pushed into the water by Bob at night,
Brad saw Mr. Bob throw another little girl into the water and he, Brad, dived after her and saved her.
Brad was four at the time and he had attended Little Rascals only occasionally.
What happened to Kathy? She got thrown in the water with Mr. Bob threw her in the water.
Okay. And what did you do when he threw her in the water?
I saved her. Okay. How did you save her, Brad? What did you do?
I swam. Okay. Was the water deep? Yes. Okay. But you could touch bottom? No.
Andy's experience on the boat was the most vivid. He was surrounded by sharks.
Was Mr. Bob on the boat when the sharks were circling around it? Yes, sir.
Did he say anything about the sharks? No, because one of his friends had those sharks for a pet and had them
and that friend was with him and he let them go.
Okay. Now, which one of Mr. Bob's friends kept those sharks as a pet? Scott Privet.
He did. Where did he keep the sharks? He kept them in his salt water pond.
He had a pond behind his house and he put lots and lots of salt in it so the sharks could live.
Okay. And when he took the sharks out there so they could circle around the boat,
how did he get them out there so they could circle around the boat?
He picked them up and put them in his big aquarium and took them out to the sound and let them go out and surround the boat.
Now, how did he catch them again to get them back to his salt water pond?
Because he has this machine that can go out in the water and gets it.
It's a boat machine and he drives it out and it was a boat and had machinery on it and the machinery got it
so he could pick the sharks up and he made it and he made it and he invented it.
Okay. Scott Privet invented that machine to catch the sharks. Yes, sir.
And you saw it catch the sharks out there, Andy. Yes, sir.
Is that the truth? Yes, sir. Are you sure? I'm sure.
Juror Marvin Shackelford, a 54-year-old factory worker, said he was perplexed.
The children, they told me that Bob Kelly put them on a boat, carried them out in the water,
and there were sharks swimming out there.
He said, Bob Kelly took one of the children and threw them overboard
and this two-year-old child said he had an old boy to save him.
It sounds like a fairy tale. It didn't make any sense to me.
It all seemed to sound like something that two or three or four-year-old young would dream up
and they believed it all.
Did you believe it all? Everything? Everything.
Yes, because at once it sounded like a fairy tale,
but a child that's three or four years old, they can't get it all out.
They try to tell you the best of their knowledge, and so I believed them.
What was the hard evidence? That's a good one. What was the hard evidence?
As jury as a whole, I think, taken from arguments during the liberation that the children said,
the children said those things, they said Mr. Bob did this, that, and the other to him.
If you want to take that and call it hard evidence, in my opinion,
you're going to probably get the same outcome as what happened with Bob, a guilty verdict.
That was the hard evidence? The children?
Yes, it had to have been. In my opinion, it wasn't. The evidence wasn't there.
I didn't see any hard evidence. In my opinion, I did not see any hard evidence.
I didn't see any physical evidence.
I saw children get on the stand and say Mr. Bob did these bizarre things to them.
In my opinion, at that time, that they testified, they believed that.
I always would go back to what happened at the start of the allegation.
What was going on with the children then? What did they say then?
What were their parents saying then? Some of the parents said their kid was fine.
They didn't want to hear this nonsense.
Months later, everybody in Edmonton concerned with the day girl, ready to hang her.
That's strange. I guess you call it hysteria.
However it happened, the parents ended up believing that their children had been abused
by many more people in Edmonton than just the seven defendants.
Peggy Brooks testified how she notified the police when her son told her that he was abused by a passerby.
Do you recall an incident that occurred in November of 89 where you were driving down the street
and a black man crossed the road carrying some balloons and got in your way?
Yes, I do. I remember that.
And you basically called him a stupid idiot or something to that effect?
I had to stop the car for him to cross the street.
Inconvenienced you.
And your son was in the car with you on that occasion, is that right?
Yes, he was. We were going to school.
After you made the remark about the man, your son then told you he was one of the people that did bad things, didn't he?
Yes, he did.
What kind of bad things did your son tell you this man had done?
He told me he put his peepee in his bottom.
Did you report that to the police or the prosecutors?
I'm sure I did.
If you believed and prosecuted every person that these children claimed abused them,
you would have had more than 30 defendants out of the town of Edenton who committed some form of abuse against these children.
And somewhere somebody drew a line and said, we believe what they say about these seven,
and we don't believe it about everybody on the other side of the line.
And all I can say for those people on the other side of the line is they're mighty fortunate,
because it could have just as easily been them as it was these seven.
Peggy Brooks also testified how her child suddenly announced that he had been abused by Nancy Smith, Betsy Kelly's sister and Peggy's good friend.
We had had a therapy visit and were on the way home, and just out of the blue, he said,
we have to get Miss Nancy in jail too, Mama.
And I said, what did Miss Nancy do?
And he said, you know, the same things.
I said, well, you need to tell me what she did.
And he said, she karate chopped me.
And I said, she did?
Did she do anything else?
He said, yes.
I asked him if she hurt his private parts.
He said, yes.
And I said, can you tell Mama what she did?
And he said, she hurt me.
And I said, you need to tell me how she hurt you.
Did she hurt your pee pee?
And he said, yes, she hit and kicked my pee pee.
And I said, did it hurt you?
And he said, yes.
And she hit and kicked my bottom too.
And I said, she did.
Did she do anything else?
She put her finger in my bottom.
Mama, is Miss Nancy your friend?
And I said, no, son.
I used to think Miss Nancy's my friend, but apparently she's not.
The children, they name over 20 people.
I mean, the kid says Nancy did something to her.
And the same kid said Betsy did something to him.
Why is Betsy charged and Nancy's not?
I mean, it's very confusing.
It's still confusing to me today.
I mean, some people go to jail the rest of their life and some don't.
You know.
Oh, nice one. Do it one more time.
Nancy is Betsy Kelly's sister.
There was a point after the seven people were arrested that there was a rumor in Edenton
that he was going to, he being Mr. Hart, was going to pick up two more people.
And I had my bags packed.
Yes, ma'am, I did.
And it was a night I don't want to live through again.
My husband was on the phone calling everybody we knew in case we needed bail money.
It was terrible. It was terrible.
It was a horrible night.
But nobody ever came.
Put your arms down. Let me see your pretty face.
It's like almost everything I've been taught to believe in in this country has just been trashed.
Scott Privet has been in jail for three and a half years, awaiting trial.
Three and a half years.
It's hard to comprehend sometimes that I've been locked up that long.
Named by the children, Privet has been waiting to see what evidence they have against him.
They can't have any evidence against me. It's impossible.
They might create some evidence, you know.
But as far as having anything real, no, because I didn't do anything.
I've never been into place again. I keep telling people that and they just go, well, I'm shocked.
I said, here, I'm shocked too. For three and a half years I'm shocked.
Well, I don't know. If they got evidence, I want to know what it is.
They didn't have any evidence on Bob Kelly's trial, did they?
Whatever Scott Privet thinks about the evidence, it was enough for Bob Kelly's jurors to convict him on 99 charges out of 100.
There was only one charge that the jury would find for the defendant and against the state.
Bob Kelly was charged with having sex with Dawn Wilson in front of the children
and with having sex with his wife, Betsy, in front of the children.
The witness was Suzy, seven and a half years old at the time of the trial.
When you saw Mr. Bob doing something to Miss Betsy, did you see him put his penis somewhere?
Yes. Where did he put it? In her front and back private part?
And when you saw him do this with Miss Dawn, can you tell me what you saw him do to her?
Kiss her? Okay. And then what did he do? Put his penis in front and back part?
And when he put his penis in her front part, did they stay still or did they move?
Move?
The jury would find Bob Kelly guilty of having sex with Dawn Wilson
and not guilty of having sex with his wife, Betsy. They explained.
She wanted this daycare so bad, I don't believe she would have jeopardized this in front of the children.
I don't think she would have lowered herself down to the standard of having a sexual relationship in front of the children,
right there in that daycare. I think she was fighting for it, she wanted it,
and she just had to do the best she could.
Betsy Kelly, she was a hardworking woman, and I believe she's innocent.
Really, I do. I really do.
That came to me, you know, she wasn't that all bad lady. She was pretty good.
But didn't the children say that she had sex in front of them?
That Betsy Kelly, the children, said something about,
I just got a feeling that's all, that Betsy Kelly didn't do all this.
To this day, I really don't understand how did I go along with that.
I mean, I really don't understand how I did that.
We, the jury, felt that Bob Kelly was not guilty of having sex in the courts with his wife in front of the children.
But the same kid said that Dawn had, but we, as a jury, came up with a guilty verdict on that.
And that, it was hard. It was very hard for me. It was easy for some, but it was very hard for me.
The parties have the right to argue to you.
After seven months of testimony, the time came for the two sides to present their main points.
Please now give your attention to the arguments. First, for the state, Ms. Lamb.
For the state, the children's allegations of abuse and the detail in which they described it,
the children's behavior at home, which the state claimed was consistent with sexual abuse,
the fact that the children had knowledge of sexual matters far beyond their years.
For the defense, the suggestibility of children who were exposed to constant questioning about sexual abuse,
the fact that most conversations with the children were reconstructed at a later time,
the lack of any physical or conclusive medical evidence,
the fact that when first questioned, all of the children denied being abused,
the fact that many of the charges were implausible.
Bob Kelly's case was finally in the hands of his jurors.
Please be kind enough to allow the jury to answer first and take a record.
At the end of all the testimony, this is how some of them felt.
I just did not feel that this could have happened, not the way they presented it.
Oh, if they had said a little something had happened, I could have understood that.
But not when you went into all this stuff.
All the evidence is the work of the children, and I believe them.
The only thing they have proved is that he slapped that one child, and he admitted doing that.
He tried to call the child's parent and apologize, but she wouldn't have said it.
She said, nurses, you're going to deal the pay for this, and he did.
The man is not guilty of what he was charged with.
There's no way.
When I walked downstairs for the start of the liberation, Bob Kelly was not a guilty man.
A lot of events took place and indetermined my vote as guilty.
Innocence Lost, the verdict, will continue after a short break.
We now return to Innocence Lost, the verdict.
The jury was in deliberations.
The atmosphere was very, it was very intense.
It was emotional.
It caused me a lot of problems I'm still dealing with now.
And it was one sided.
There was a lot of hostility that if you did not agree, then you could see the hostility.
If you didn't go along with them, then you felt like you were sort of ostracized from the others.
The majority of the jurors were dead set against having a hung jury.
It was us, it was our decision, and we were determined we were not going to be a hung jury.
We wanted to come out of there with one verdict or another.
If he was innocent, I'd rather for him to come out innocent.
If he was guilty, I wanted him to come out guilty.
We felt like this was sending a message to the children.
We were sending a message to Bob.
We were sending a message to somebody else that we could not make up our minds as a group on our own decision.
I was told that we wanted a unanimous decision.
So that meant that we all had to agree on everything.
Their task was difficult.
From the start, the prosecution opposed their taking notes.
Now they had to review seven months of complex testimony.
The trial progressed and went on and on and on and on.
It was very difficult to keep up with it.
You kind of let things run together.
You think, well, the children's testimony, you try to relate it to the parents' testimony,
and then you try to relate it to the different other individuals that's been on the case.
And it's hard to keep up with it.
At the beginning of the liberation, I was so excited.
I said, well, I'm here, I'm serving now.
And I felt like I was the best juror in the world.
I became very, soon became very confused.
I couldn't figure out what did I miss during these eight months of testimony.
I could not figure it out.
It was like I was in a totally different courtroom than majority of the jury.
And it made me feel very inadequate.
Mary Nichols said that she felt just as frustrated.
I kept thinking that the ones that were so sure that he was so guilty,
that had been that way all along, that they knew something that I didn't know.
And I wanted to know, well, what is it?
What is it that you know or that you heard that I didn't hear?
But I never found out.
It all sounds just like something about two or three-year-old youngin'
and some grown dumb parents would dream up.
You heard what the youngin' said, and I believe the youngins'.
I told them, I said, you ain't proved nothin' in that thing in the world to me.
I said, you have got to have, I said, you're messin' with a man's life.
I said, you just got to have some proof.
But they're still the same way, still the same way.
The evidence was there to show you.
All you had to do was look at it and listen to those kids and the reaction,
and we all made a decision that he was guilty, 100% now.
Once I heard the actual things that went on from the time these children
started talking to the time up to present, the evidence was there.
I didn't believe that.
But when I said I didn't believe it, then sooner or later they would get to the point
that they looked at you like you were the village idiot.
So you just shut up. You didn't say anything.
Nor did they say anything when in the middle of the deliberations
the juror suddenly announced that he had been sexually abused as a child
and had never told anyone.
This was in spite of the fact that he, along with other jurors,
had been asked during jury selection if he had been sexually abused.
He said no.
For Roswell, it was an incident that affected his decision.
It was a concern to me that none of the children went home
and so to speak slipped up and said, Mom, guess what happened today?
Dad, guess what happened today? I saw this today.
Mr. Bob did this down a sexual line.
It was a concern to me that none of that happened.
I didn't get that out of testimony.
Nobody said anything about that.
Why didn't, out of this number of children,
why didn't one of them even come home and say that?
That was one of my arguments.
We had a jury stand up and say that they were sexually abused as a child
and didn't tell anyone.
And during my arguments, the jury referred back to it as an example to me.
Hey, Roswell, look, one of your buddies right here, you know, he said,
happened to him when he was a kid, he didn't tell.
The juror was David Williams.
A couple of the jurors told us that you told them that you were abused
when you were a kid and you didn't tell anybody.
Yes, I was.
I was an older lady.
Yesterday, Dad kept.
She was a babysitter.
I didn't ever tell.
I was very little, about three.
I remember that day just like it was yesterday.
And that was what, 44 years ago, 43 years ago.
So I still remember.
And those children will remember.
But they can also remember us too, the ones who tried to help.
They did fight for them.
They couldn't fight for themselves.
They needed help, so we did it.
Roswell Streeter knew that there were things taking place in the jury room
which should not have been allowed.
But he says he was torn and confused, and he went along.
Did the jury follow the judge's instructions?
In my opinion, no.
We brought in a red book.
The red book, yes, a magazine.
There was an article in there about a pedophile.
The article was brought in to deliberation and discussed.
Well, it was written on the board and went through the testimony.
Things about Bob or concerning Bob from the testimony that ran consistent with the article.
So in so many words, we diagnosed Bob Kelly as a pedophile.
Red Book Magazine came out in April 1992 with a story by a self-confessed child molester
in which the author tells mothers how to protect their children from people like him.
The article gave the characteristics of the sexual pervert, the pedophile,
and warning signals about how to recognize one.
We went by the red book and found a definition in so many words,
and then we tried to find out what kind of man is this.
So we studied and we carefully, studied very carefully,
and there were ways, it helped all of us to make our own, make our decision.
Why would you read an article in a magazine and agree with what it said,
but disregard the testimony of a doctor with all kinds of credentials?
None of us were trained in things like that.
Just because we read a magazine article or read a book, we weren't trained in things like that.
Nobody had no right to base a man's life on that.
Did anybody know that you're not supposed to bring a Red Book Magazine to the deliberations
and you're just not supposed to do that?
To be honest with you, I think everybody kind of knew that, you know,
the structure would not use outside information.
I think everybody in there should have known that because the judge made that clear.
To be honest, I don't think anybody thought I'd be sitting up here telling you about a Red Book.
So what happens during the deliberation, most cases you never hear anything about.
The jury went home every night, but they were not allowed to do any research on the case,
especially not to go to Edenton.
We had asked the judge previously to go and he had denied it, and we weren't sure why he denied it.
So the two times I went was right toward the deliberation
because I wanted to get a clear, precise way of the town, way the town was,
because they had talked about going on the walks with the children and going to the waterfront.
And so I wanted to see it for myself. And so I went.
They were not honest.
No, they were not honest. No.
They were not honest. They were contaminated.
It was not fair.
I didn't follow the judge's instruction.
Hey, I'm guilty too. I can say I was honest in my answers to being selected for the jury.
I was very honest in not being prejudiced, not being contaminated.
I sat and listened to everything.
I was very honest until I was influenced that my vote be guilty.
I was very honest up until that point.
And, you know, hey, I'm human. I can say I made a mistake.
By the third week of deliberation, they were drained and exhausted.
My health was not good. I shouldn't have been there.
But I was willing to do what I thought was right until it just got to the point where I couldn't.
Mary Nichols was not alone. Marvin Shackleford also worried about his health.
It's the first time in my life I've ever been on a pressure like that.
And I hope it's my last time.
They sat down and argued with every one of us trying to make us change our mind to a guilty party.
And it's like I said, I haven't had one heart attack.
And I sat there and argued and fuzzed until I started hurting my chest.
And I knew that I wasn't sitting there having a heart attack.
So I finally agreed just to get out of there.
I don't believe justice served on a man. I really don't.
Roswell Streeter also felt the strain.
I was totally wrecked during deliberation. I was totally wrecked.
My fellow jurors, you know, just made me feel inadequate.
I was like I must, I was lost.
You know, I was like everything that I thought I was hearing is,
and putting it all together to see the whole picture of what I thought happened in Edenton
was direct opposite of what majority of the jurors felt.
And you know, like I repeat, these are people I respect.
You know, I've been with them almost a year.
I mean, we ate lunch together.
We shared our family experience together. And these people I really respect.
So to come into deliberation and I'm just 180 from majority of the other jurors,
it was a big let down.
I mean, I struggled with anxiety, stresses, and I was very much confused.
It was the 12th day of deliberation when Mary Nichols went home feeling drained.
She said she couldn't sleep.
I sat in law, knocked on the door, and he came in and says, how are you?
I said, well, I'm not sure how much more I can take of it.
I said, I'm at the point where I just don't feel like that I can go on much longer.
And he told me, he says, you go in there in the morning,
and you tell the foreman that you're not going along with it,
that you all will have to go to the judge and talk with him
or that you'll have to make some other arrangements.
You'll have a hung jury.
But don't keep putting yourself through this torture.
And he sat there and he talked to me for an hour and a half.
So the next morning I went in, and when I, of course, we voted every morning.
And then when we started to talking about it, and I said,
well, there was a lot that I still did not feel comfortable with.
And when I did that, one of the other jurors,
who had been so sure all along that he was guilty,
said, let's go back to the very beginning and go through all the evidence.
Well, I had heard all the evidence in the courtroom.
I had listened to a lot of it in that deliberation room,
and I couldn't see that that was going to do any good.
So it ended up that I was just tired.
And somebody said, let's put an end to this.
Let's get it over with.
And I went right along with it.
He was guilty.
He was guilty on all the last charges.
And that was the end.
We the jury, as attempted by our figures below, unanimously find the defendant guilty of first degree sexual offense,
guilty of taking indecent liberties with a child,
guilty of crime against nature.
Is this your verdict?
So say you all.
Yes.
We the jury unanimously find the defendant guilty of first degree sexual offense,
guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty of first degree...
The words echoed over and over in a Farmville courtroom, Robert Kelly Jr., guilty of child sexual abuse.
Tears and hugs.
Parents call this a win for the children.
I hate you!
How you doing, girl?
Hi, Grier!
Let's go get something to eat.
Come on.
It's the worst nightmare anybody could ever live through.
And sometimes you wonder why, why God's let you live through it.
Why not just put an end to it a long time ago?
The effect of Bob Kelly's trial on Betsy and the other defendants was not lost on his jurors.
This trial was probably the mainstay for the rest of the trials.
If we had found Bob innocent, there would have been nothing to convict anyone else on,
because the main primary person in this investigation and in this charge was Bob Kelly.
So if we found him innocent, the other charges and the other people would probably have been just thrown out.
So it was our consensus that if we found him guilty, then probably somewhere down the line,
somebody's going to start saying the truth about everything.
Roswell Streeter also kept thinking about the trial.
If they don't go about it, I think about the trial.
I think about why can't I stop thinking about this trial?
You know, think about it, you know.
And I know that I'm hiding, you know, my verdict sheet hides the truth.
And it's on my conscience. I have a conscience.
And I think about Kelly, Kelly's family, think about little Laura Kelly, think about the other defendants, you know.
You know, the lie which my signature says is how is that going to affect those other defendants?
And you know, I play that trial through my mind every day. That's what I'm dealing with.
Because it would affect the other defendants.
In my opinion, it will. It sure will.
For sure?
Yes, it sure will. It sure will.
I'm getting ready, said little Bouncewell. I'm getting ready for school.
Bob Kelly's verdict would affect all of them.
Dawn Wilson is 26 years old and a single mother.
She served 17 months in jail.
She had been free on bail for 10 months when the verdict was announced.
But not me.
I went home and stayed up all night crying and drinking coffee and worrying about what was going to happen next.
About who they were going to go after next and everything.
Oh no, his lunch is not ready.
In fact, the prosecution would pick Dawn as the next defendant to bring to trial.
Here it is. But where's Spikey?
But then three weeks before her trial date, she was called to her lawyer's office with her father to discuss the prosecution's offer of a plea bargain.
As I said, you would be eligible for parole immediately.
You would have served approximately a year and four or five months waiting trial.
Because of the amount of time that you had already served in prison and the fact that you received a 10-year sentence, you would be eligible immediately.
Now, parole is a discretionary matter.
Obviously, there are pros and cons on both sides of the issue.
The biggest risk obviously is that if you were tried and found guilty, then you face potential mandatory life sentences in prison.
The reverse of that is you would be pleading guilty to something that you have maintained all along that you did not do.
What about Elizabeth?
If I go and I plead guilty about her, everybody saying that her mother was a child abuser and stuff, just worry about how she would feel.
Sure. And that should be one of your main considerations.
Potentially, somebody or some agency could come along and say, well, you've admitted that you have committed these acts with young children and could try to remove Elizabeth from your care and custody.
And were it not, I think, for the Bob Kelly case and the results of that, then to me it wouldn't be much of a choice.
You couldn't stand up and say, I did something I didn't do, particularly something of this nature.
If it were not for the risk that something like the Kelly case.
Can you get me with no time?
I can't.
Even though he's offered what he's offered.
You're asking me, can I get a better deal for you than that?
The only thing he's ever said to me in response to that was, I can only consider that if she cooperates.
You don't know anything, you can't cooperate.
So at this point, since you can't offer him what he wants, then I take him at his word when he says he can't offer you a type of plea where you wouldn't serve any more time.
Dawn had told us before that she had always believed that she'd been arrested the first time because the prosecution thought she'd cooperate and tell on the others.
I don't know how I feel that they arrested the last three of us just so that we could talk to them, tell them what they wanted to hear.
I mean, taking me away from my baby at 19 months old, taking a robber from hers and he was three months, putting pressure on us so that we would talk to them and give them what they wanted.
Whatever the prosecution's strategy, in fact, the defendants were not all good friends.
Dawn and Betsy were never close.
You would think that the longer we stayed together, the stronger we would become with each other, but it didn't work that way.
Because she was so bitter and so angry, she felt that I was the reason she was there.
And I thought there were times that she would have said anything, and it would have been a lie, and she would have had to have dealt with that.
But yes, there were times that I thought someone could offer her the opportunity to talk and she would have her freedom.
She would take it.
Betsy is convinced that for her, there's no choice.
There is only one plea that is acceptable to me, and that is if the state of North Carolina will come to me and say they're sorry, they made a mistake, and let's put this all behind us.
I'm not going to lie and say that I'm guilty because I'm not.
So in my opinion, there is no plea bargain.
Her statement is about visits in December.
Jeff Miller and Mike Spivey, Bob Kelly's lawyers, have worked on the case longer than anyone.
Some people can't accept the idea that sometimes from a practical standpoint, you can be pragmatic and say it's better off to plead to something you didn't do, because you'll get a better deal.
You'll suffer less.
It's very easy to sit on the sidelines and say, oh, I'd stand my grind forever.
They'd never make me plead guilty to something I didn't do.
You can't say that until you actually have to make that choice, and it's a real choice.
It's one that's going to have real consequences.
He says that he has great sympathy for Don's dilemma.
These people's lives since 1989 have been brought to a total standstill.
So I think certainly that you come to a point where you say, you know, I need to bring this to an end, no matter how I've got to do it.
Don had four days to consider the plea.
I feel like I'm being put on the spot, being forced to make a decision that I don't want to make or can't make.
Part of me wants to take the plea so that I'll have that last time and it'll all be behind me.
You'd have to stand up in court and admit your guilt.
That's hard to do.
I could be home in less than a year, two years, or three.
But then there's always that bad side of it that I've pleaded guilty to something I didn't do.
The biggest risk, obviously, is that if you were tried and found guilty, then you face potential mandatory life sentences in prison.
Losing my freedom, that scares me.
And not being able to see my daughter, then not having her there or waking up with her and doing our little things together.
Don and Robin Byram were the closest in age.
They both had babies and they were cellmates.
I just thought I'd get your opinion.
I don't know, Don.
I stayed up, cried myself to sleep.
I felt I was banging my head up against a wall at times.
You just got to ride it out.
I mean, do you honestly want to say that you're guilty?
No, you're not.
I'm just... it's like I'm between a rock and a hard place. I don't know.
The only thing is if you take it, though, we fought as long as we have now.
No matter what, you're never going to be able to prove to people that you were innocent if you admit your guilt.
I'm not going to plead guilty. I'd have to live with that.
And my child would have to live with it.
There's a chance if I have a trial that the jury will see my innocence and then I won't have to go back at all.
I'm going to take that chance.
But what if I get a jury like Bob's and I'm there for the rest of my life and I'll be in prison and look at my grandkids grow up?
I believe it's all going to work out. If you pray hard enough, it's all going to work out, Don.
God's not going to let us sit in there the rest of our life.
Bob might have to sit in there another year, but he's going to get out.
Don's plea bargain was on all their minds.
To be able to say, if I take this plea bargain, I will only have to go back and do it a year and then it's over.
Then I can be out and I'm free.
But to me, that's an exceptional price to pay for freedom.
And really, do you have freedom when it's over?
Betsy and her daughter Laura went to live away from Edenton.
It's not anything like it used to be. It's not like Edenton. You can't just walk down the street and say, hi, remember me?
You can't do that.
Ow!
I have a friend. It's a boy. Not a boyfriend.
But now that I went over there, because I have a doctor there and I went over there to see the doctor.
And I didn't play with him because I didn't want to because I knew that he was going to ask me why I wasn't there.
I didn't get out of the car when the bus came.
I just waved to the bus driver because I didn't want to get out and everybody say, there's Laura.
Like, she's been here through K through 3. Now she's gone.
Under the terms of her bail, they live with Betsy's aunt.
Their days consist of school, home, and every Saturday, a visit to prison to see Bob.
Lately, Laura has begun to give me great opposition about going.
She doesn't say, I don't want to go see daddy. She says, I don't want to go.
I don't want to ride all that long way. I'd rather stay here and play.
I don't want to go to ride in that elevator. I'm scared of that elevator. And they're all excuses. And I know that.
When you go into the jail, when they have bars, it's like you have to sit out there and you can't do anything.
There's a glass. There's a speaker. You speak through it. You put your hands on the glass. You say goodbye.
It's sad, but what's there to cry about? I mean, you have nothing to say.
You just go on with your life. It really doesn't bother me.
Laura, Laura's good. But Laura's very angry.
Lately, she's also been exerting a lot of that anger at me. She's tried on many occasions to hurt me.
And she's succeeded.
Do you know why the parents have so mad at her? What do you think of it?
Well, my daddy always told me to tell the honest truth. And you know that the parents are telling a lie.
They know that they're telling a lie. They know that they're not saying the right things.
They know that they just want to get me mad. Because they don't know that I'm mad.
But I am because it's not fair that they could have a family and I can't. I can't have a family.
Now, Laura says she wants to live at her Aunt Nancy's house, afraid that the family she does have, her mother, might soon be taken away.
We picked her up from school and said, Laura, you've got to come live with us because they put your mother in jail.
And she's not going to let that happen to her again. And she sat here and seen her daddy go to prison.
And she knows that there's a possibility you're going to. And she's not going to let us do that to her the second time.
Just go and pick her up and say, they sent mom to prison, Laura, so you've got to come live with us.
This time it's going to be her idea. And she wants to stay with you. I know she does.
I know because that's what she says. But she knows that there's a good chance she can't do that. And there's no reason for it.
There's very little Betsy can say to comfort her daughter, since her future is so uncertain.
I have to wonder, why do you think that my trial is going to be any different than that?
I mean, first of all, there are lots of reasons. You have a different lawyer. It will be tried at a different time.
But it's basically the same facts.
Basically the same facts, but you're going to have all of the people that are a lot of the people going to testify will have testified before.
Maybe we'll have them on record. We'll be able to compare their testimonies.
But the biggest difference is to me and what gives me the most hope is that you were not the focal point of the last trial.
But every time they talked about Mr. Ball, they talked about Ms. Betsy.
But you were not the focal point of the last trial. Your husband was the focal point of the last trial. Your husband is a man. You're a woman.
You made a very good witness. The jury acquitted your husband on the one count that involved you.
And I believe that jurors have a much easier time convicting men in these cases than they do women.
I sat there. I listened. I believed. And then suddenly everything just went bizarrely out of control.
But the other thing you have to remember too is you're going to have 12 different jurors.
And we don't know who they'll be, but we know they'll be different.
And they could be worse. They could be a lot better. You don't know.
And the thing that's so frightening is that it all turns on them. I mean, from what we've heard about Bob's trial,
they disbelieved a lot of what the kids said, believed part of what the kids said, and convicted Bob.
In most juries, if they disbelieve half of what a witness says, they won't convict somebody.
You may get a more traditional jury that won't convict you if they can't believe everything the kids say.
Yes, it would be a whole lot nicer if Bob had won, because we wouldn't have to worry about our trial.
But the fact that he didn't doesn't make me believe less for a minute that you will win.
But when his client leaves, Joe Cheshire is a lot less sanguine.
This trial is the scariest trial I've ever had.
I've tried political corruption cases, murder cases, rape cases, automobile accident cases.
I've tried almost every kind of case you can try in criminal law.
And this case is the scariest case for just exactly what I've said.
You have people testifying, and you know that a large portion of what they say is absolutely impossible, that it cannot be true.
And then you have a jury that has demonstrated that they're willing to accept a small part of what they say and reject the rest and convict someone.
That's an awfully hard thing to combat, because generally what a trial lawyer does is try to impeach somebody's credibility.
That is, show that they're not telling the truth in some area so that you can impugn the importance of the rest of their testimony.
Well, here that's obvious, and yet they convicted him.
Joe Cheshire's fear is notwithstanding. Some of the defendants try to remain optimistic.
Shelly Stone worked at the daycare.
She spent a month in prison before being released on bail and went to live in the country with her two daughters and her husband, Romer.
He says they believe in the system.
You know that Dawn has been offered a plea, and she's thinking about it.
If Shelly were to be offered a plea, what would you say to her?
I said no, no, never.
I will not let her do that. If she does and she argues with me, of course she might win out, but I'm not going to go along with it.
I'm not going to go. If there's anything in my power to say no deal, no deal, because she just hasn't done anything.
She's a great woman. I wish I could say enough about her. I just can't.
Shelly and Dawn had become very close.
If I take the plea, how would you feel?
Dawn, that's a hard question to answer.
I mean, that could be me asking you the same question.
How would you feel, knowing you're innocent?
If it was me doing this, and they came to me, and I was asking you, how would you feel if I took the plea bargain?
Many nights, I said to myself, why don't I just go to Bill Hart? Why don't I just go to H.P. Williams and say, what do you want to know?
I'll give you whatever you want to know, and I'll ruin my life and ruin everybody else's life.
Many nights, I woke up and said, when's it all going to end?
Am I going to ever, ever be able to lead a normal life like I did before all this?
I know you're young. I know you want children.
I've got all the children that I'm ever going to have.
But I don't want you to mess up the fact that you've never seen your child grow up.
And if it meant that you had to take the plea bargain to be with your little girl, I can understand that.
Almost four days have gone by.
I don't want to be taken away from my daughter again, because it would be unfair to her and me.
I don't know what to do.
The next day, she had made up her mind.
I guess it was more like last night, yesterday sometime.
I came home and just sat quietly by myself, nobody around, nobody to disturb me on the TV, no telephone, nothing.
And just sat and thought. Just decided then, Hart wants somebody to plead, and it's not going to be this child.
Hart wants somebody to plead, she said, and it's not going to be this child.
Mainly for myself, because I want to prove my innocence.
And for Liz, but I don't want her to have to go through life if I had taken that plea and somebody says, well, your mom pleaded guilty.
And somewhere in her life, somebody's going to give her a hard time about that.
And I would rather for somebody to say, well, your mom fought for her freedom and for her innocence.
And for you.
I'm going to go on there November the 2nd with a fighting attitude and a winning attitude.
You want to see that piece?
Yeah. I really do feel more at ease with everything.
I feel like I can face the world, whatever it brings, I can handle it, I can deal with it.
No hesitations?
No hesitations.
No second thoughts?
No second thoughts. No.
Not once, none whatsoever.
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes, this honorable court for the county of Proquemines has now resumed its sitting for the dispatcher of its business.
God save the state and this honorable court.
Good morning to you all.
Dawn Wilson's trial opened on November 2nd, 1992 in Hertford, 15 miles from Edenton.
While the jury was being selected, Dawn was offered another plea bargain, whereby she would have to serve a maximum of only 10 months in jail.
She turned it down.
The case would be prosecuted by Nancy Lamb and Bill Hart.
Dawn's defense attorney would be Bo Simmons.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case is about abuse.
It's about sexual abuse of little children, preschool-aged children, and it's also about abuse of trust.
Dawn's lawyer also addressed the jury, telling them what he believed the state's case would be.
As I have said, the state's case will be nothing more and nothing less than what these children between the ages of 6 and 11 come into court, take the witness stand, and tell you happened, and specifically what my client, they say, did to her.
That's what the state's case will be. It will rise or fall on that evidence.
Dawn took the stand and denied the charges.
One of those charges, Dawn, is that you put your finger in the vaginal opening of Lauren's in the day, KSO. Did you do that?
No, sir.
Another offense now pending against you is that you put your finger in the vaginal opening of Lauren's.
Dawn was charged with seven counts of abuse involving four children.
No, sir.
One of those seven charges is that you engaged in intercourse with Robert Kelly in the presence of Beth at the day care center. Did you do that?
No, sir.
The children's parents were there, just as they'd been before.
So were the children, four of the twelve from the previous trial with similar testimony, except less of it.
There was Ellen.
She stuck a needle in my privates. Do you remember what the needle looked like? No.
There was Melissa.
She licked Mr. Bob's penis.
Do you remember whether Mr. Bob's clothes were on or off when she did that?
No, sir.
Then came Suzy.
He touched what on Miss Dawn?
Her front private part. And when you saw this happening, were Mr. Bob and Miss Dawn standing up, sitting down, or lying down?
Lying down.
And John.
John, when you went to Little Rascals, did you ever have to do things with Miss Dawn that you didn't like having to do?
Yes?
Tell us what you remember having to do with Miss Dawn.
Lick her?
Where did you have to lick her, John?
On her front private?
The trial lasted less than two months.
The prosecutors addressed the jury, summing up their case.
First, Nancy Lamb.
Perhaps the saying has crossed your mind. You can't judge a book by its cover.
This defendant has tried to portray herself to you as a sweet, innocent young mother of a little girl that she loves very much who could not possibly do the things these four children have said she could do.
Oh, poor Dawn. Oh, poor, falsely accused Dawn.
She made a concerted effort to make sure that you saw her interacting with that daughter in front of you, as you would file into the courtroom after her resets.
And she would be at the table, not out in the courtroom, back up at her table hugging her daughter.
Do you think she did that because she loves her daughter?
She did it to build her facade, her cover.
Don't be fooled by the cover of the book, sweet, innocent Dawn.
Open it. Look inside. That's what we've done for these months.
And what you see and what you have seen and what credible, believable evidence shows is that this book is about smut.
The state's case was now clearly based on the word of the children.
This case rises and falls on what the children said.
And there has been nothing presented to show that you shouldn't consider these children as persons, that you shouldn't consider them to be eyewitnesses to these crimes.
Ladies and gentlemen, these children did see things.
They did go through the things that they've talked about, and they did their level best to come in here in court and sit in front of this crowd and talk about it.
And the truth is that this defendant is guilty of each and every one of the charges that are pending before you at this time.
Dawn's lawyer, Bo Simmons, talked about the lack of evidence.
There's not one shred of physical evidence to support what the children said.
There's no pictures, there's no videos, there's no fingerprint evidence.
There's nothing. There's no physical evidence to support it.
You remember these children, none of these children ever said anything about Dawn prior to the therapy process.
And I went through with you yesterday and I showed you with each of these four children how many months it was into that process and how many sessions they had had before they ever mentioned Dawn Wilson's name.
He asked the jury to remember that many things the children had said could not have been true.
We know everything these children have said can't be true.
What is the criteria? How do we know when they say something about Dawn Wilson it's true, but we know when they say something else it's not true.
How do we make that decision? How are we supposed, as jurors, to sort out fact from what we know to be fiction?
And Ms. Lamb, how dare you question her love for that little girl?
That's the one thing that's genuine in this whole case is how she feels about that little girl right there.
And for the state to come up here and question that is unthinkable.
At the end of the closing arguments, and just before the case went to the jury, Bill Hart made a dramatic gesture.
I'm just going to add that to Mr. Simmons' pot, because that's evidence too. Now none of that could have been evidence.
What he added to that pot were the therapy reports.
On his questions. And let me explain that a little bit.
He explained to the jury that the reason he could put the therapy notes in evidence without calling the therapists to the stand was because Mr. Simmons asked the witnesses about them.
And by that, legally opened the door to their admission into evidence.
Unless we call the therapist to say, yes, these are my notes. These contain the things that the child told me in therapy.
The therapists themselves had never taken the stand and never been questioned.
Without calling them, we couldn't have done that except that Mr. Simmons asked about them.
When Dr. Philip Esplin heard what happened in the courtroom, he was appalled.
If I was the layperson looking at those therapist's reports, and I did not know all the other information I know,
I believe that more likely than not I would have concluded that something of a sexual nature had happened to the children.
Dr. Philip Esplin is a child psychologist with 20 years experience treating abused preschool children.
He was asked by the defense to stand by to testify in Don Wilson's trial to respond to the therapists.
He had spent weeks reviewing their notes.
There were several things that bothered me a great deal.
The first thing that bothered me was that there was not adequate documentation and preservation of exactly what occurred in the therapy sessions.
As a psychologist, I believe it's impossible to understand the context of children's statements unless you electronically record it.
There's no other way to do it.
The reports were mostly paraphrased summaries of sessions.
Often a one-hour session would be summarized in less than half a page.
Conversations that appeared as if verbatim had no audio or videotape to back them up.
Words like child stated, child indicated, child disclosed abuse, child confirmed are used consistently.
I would be very curious about what happened to produce the information that was represented in the notes.
They don't tell us anything about how the information was obtained.
I see a lot of evidence that the investigative procedures were fundamentally flawed and used methods that were highly suggestive
and that could easily result in the children's acquiescence.
There were methods like therapist Judy Abbott showing children satanic symbols to see if they recognized them,
giving parents reading material to read to the children,
and therapists giving children homework assignments to repeat allegations to their parents,
encouraging the parents to have a nightly questioning session with the child about the alleged abuse.
And they pushed those children and they pushed the parents to push the children,
and what that resulted in was incorrect information.
I mean, we know some of it was incorrect. There's no question about it.
Information like Bob dressed like a clown and robbed the jewelry store on Main Street.
John was locked in a freezing refrigerator and proceeded to eat the food.
Toddlers were thrown into deep water. Body parts were lying around little rascals. Babies were murdered.
How could the kids have come to say certain statements which we know were not true?
How did those come about? Now we're left with trying to decide which statements are more believable.
And that's risky business.
The jury was out for five days.
It was the familiar and nerve-racking waiting game.
The jury came in several times asking the judge for clarifications.
The last time they came in on December 20th, it was sudden and unexpected.
Their verdict was unanimous. Don Wilson was found guilty on one count of first-degree sex offense
and four counts of indecent liberties.
What evidence did the jurors find?
Hard evidence? No. I don't believe there was hard evidence.
Not in this type of a case. There was just none. I didn't see any.
Only two of Don's jurors agreed to talk to us. They said they saw no hard evidence,
and significantly they were not convinced by the children's testimony.
I needed something other than the children saying it happened to them.
The children were unable to remember what had taken place so many years earlier.
So they relied on the therapy reports.
Without the therapy notes, I don't think I would have been able to obtain a guilty verdict.
Just due on the lack of evidence.
If I didn't have the therapist's notes, my verdict would have been totally different.
I could not have gone on just what the children said.
I personally needed something more than just what the children said.
I needed something to back them up.
Your verdict would have been? Not guilty. My verdict would have been not guilty
if I didn't have the therapist's notes.
I needed the therapist's notes to help make my decision.
So prosecutor Bill Hart's legal maneuver had paid off.
The jury was able to take the notes into the jury room without anyone to refute them.
If I was a member of the jury and had some question after the testimony
and then had reviewed the therapist's records, I would have convicted the defendant.
Do you think she did it? No.
Do you think she's guilty? No.
Don Wilson was sentenced to life in prison.
She was taken directly to the state prison in Raleigh, North Carolina,
to begin serving her sentence.
She will be eligible for parole in 20 years.
The jury will be able to take the notes into the jury room without anyone to refute them.
If I was a member of the jury and had some question after the testimony
and then had reviewed the therapist's records, I would have convicted the defendant.
Do you think she did it? No.
Do you think she's guilty? No.
The martial law of the jungle.
The Jaguar of the jungle, the jaguar of the jungle
leaves behind the
and in our heads
support of viewers like you, and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Frontline is produced for the Documentary Consortium by WGBH Boston, which is solely
responsible for its content.
For videocassette information about this program, please call this toll-free number, 1-800-828-4PBS,
or write to PBS video 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
This is PBS.
For a printed transcript of this or any Frontline program, please write to Journal Graphics
Incorporated, 1535 Grant Street, Denver, Colorado, 802-03.
To order by credit card, call 303-831-9000.