Red Brief Analysis by page.

2. “But his arguments are unconvincing.” The state's hardened inability to be convinced by the truth does not alter the truth. A history of big whopper lying is undeniable and people who love to lie get good at it. There is no necessary relationship between a testimony that is clear, detailed, and spontaneous and an honest testimony. The jury was inexpert at determining lies and reacted to the history of lies inappropriately.

Dr. Little's “testimony was scientifically valid.” A false claim proven by the court's reversal of State v. Southard. Scientific validity requires more than a professional guess.

3. Dr. Little would not have changed his diagnosis based on the history. A sign of professional incompetence and admissibility should have been denied based on the same test used to reverse State v. Southard.

A truly reasonable trier of fact would notice there was no actual evidence of crime presented, only circumstantial evidence that the alleged victim had visited the defendant's house.

4. State's statement of facts baits reader with undeniable facts on page 4,

5. then switches to unproven allegations in pretense as fact starting on page 5. A jury's acceptance of lies as fact does not make them actual fact. There is no evidence the defendant ever touched the alleged victim inappropriately. The defendant kept no pornography for his granddaughter to watch, it was kept there by her dad Tom Jr. without the defendant's prior knowledge. The vaudeville act invented and promoted by the DA does not constitute fact or a representation of fact, only a portrayal of a speculative scenario. An explanation of the birds and bees using new terminology does not constitute sexual contact.

6. State's statement of defendant's warning does not include a statement of the defendant's actions. Annie's regular routine to ask each child if anything wrong or bad to them followed by more intensive questioning in Annie's bedroom repeated 3 times could tend to scare a known liar into another lie. The transcript shows the alleged victim turned white before stating anything about her grandpa. That itself to a reasonable reader appears to be coaching by fear due to the severe change of routine. Annie told the alleged victim or her childhood experience then allowing Annie to reassure and praise the alleged victim's bravery during the police interview reinforced the alleged victims fabrications paralleling and ingratiating her to her adopted mom.

7. Dr. Little's congratulatory remarks may indicate bias in his diagnosis.

Answer: the trial court acted improperly to admit the testimony of a proven liar whose lies were documented by people with equal or better professional credentials than the diagnostic physician and because her testimony was further tainted by coaching.

Police questioning of the alleged victim did not follow established protocols for such cases.

8. It appears a 104 hearing on reliability was missing from this case.

Dr. Little's comment that it isn't unusual for parents to complain about their child lying the “whopper” nature of this child's lies was omitted. Not all parents get in trouble because of their child's lies as Tom Jr. did.

9. Dr. Little's diagnosis in the absence of physical evidence and claiming oppositional defiant disorder begs the question of Dr. Little's competency. Oppositional defiant disorder involves intentional y opposing the will of a parent and/or other authority figures. That opposition can include lying about her entire testimony.

The state requests the initial brainwashing of the alleged victim asking three times in the alleged mother's bedroom in addition to the habitual daily request about inappropriate touching be not characterized as an interview. Any questioning of one person by another is an interview, like when one has a job interview.

10. The state alleges brainwashing interrogation as Annie did to the alleged victim should be done by society to discover and stop patterns of sexual abuse. Yet one source claims 60% of sex abuse cases under Mondale's law result in false imprisonment. So the state wishes to increas that error rate instead of correct it? The AG is engaging in social engineering irrelevant to this case.

11. The alleged victim was self-coached in the details of intimate sex by watching pornography in oppositional defiance to her grandfather's wishes. From that knowledge the alleged victim fabricated lies to fit her stepmother's weird desire expressed by her daily questioning on inappropriate sexual contacts. That's how she was able and motivated to fabricate with sufficient detail to fool Dr. Little. 

Boldness in a liar leads them to not easily change their stories. For a liar to get her dad Tom Jr. in trouble and have that act reversed could indicate she was looking for another victim to assert power over which became the defendant.

The question on rehearsing was not followed up by example to prove actual knowledge of rehearsing.

12.

13. A smart liar would never admit personal guilt. In a TV interview of a prisoner who denied shoving a shiv into his DA observed by the entire courtroom and his own attorney the prisoner said he wasn't even there but in his cell. It appears the AG needs instruction on detecting lies as the excerpt presented bears no proof of truth by the alleged victim.

14. Reference to Judge Brownhill appears inappropriate.

15. Answer: the state did not adequately limit the testimony of the state's expert per State v. Southard.

State failed to adequately limit expert testimony by Dr. Little.

16. State cites State v. Southard which was reversed. Scientific validity implies proof and there was no proof of a crime at all therefore no scientific validity exists. Those who claim validation and verification in the absence of actual direct evidence are unprofessionally engaging in pseudoscience.

The reversal of State v. Southard is the basis on which this court can conclude the trial court erroneously admitted Dr. Little's testimony.

17. The trial court improperly denied defendant's motion for acquittal because the evidence was tainted, circumstantial, and scientifically invalid.

A court reviewing facts only in the light most favorable to the state is systemic bias against the pursuit of truth.

The argument that the state presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror begs the question of the juror's reasonableness and bias by a juror going to the DA's church, and other juror's experiences with sex abuse argues for a finding of a tainted thus unreasonable jury.

“evidence does not prove abuse directly” is true, “it does corroborate C's testimony about defendant's conduct” false, having sexual relations with one's spouse in other rooms of a house than the bedroom is normal conduct, “and where it occurred” is only true in the sense of the alleged victim's awareness of a location, not that any crime occurred.

18. The existence of pornographic tapes does not provide evidence that the defendant sexually abused the alleged victim. The use of a commercial advertising phrase “the good stuff” does not establish the defendant sexually abused the alleged victim.

The assignment of time frames which were denied by the jury implies time frames allowed are potentially in error. The trial court abused its discretion by allowing multiplied charges when the alleged victim only claimed two which the DA coached into 20 during the trial. The court abused its responsibility to truth and justice by denying the motion for acquittal.

The testimony of Dr. Little is inadmissible by State v. Southard and the testimony of alleged victim C is inadmissible by her history of extraordinary whopper lies.