If you have been granted access to the unredacted posts please follow this link.
If you decide to read Satan’s Silence, which I recommend, you will read how the State of Florida subjected my 17-year-old young wife from Honduras to mental and physical torture, to coerce her into changing her not guilty plea and to testify against me. Since Ms. Nathan has a higher level of credibility, I am limiting my disclosure to the same information that you could confirm with her book. Ms. Nathan had the ability to interview some of the staff members from the Dade County Jail for Women, as well as Dr. Michael Rappaport (Phonetic), Psychologist, from Behavior Changers, who was hired by Iliana’s own attorney, Mr. Michael Lee Von Zamft, and by Janet Reno, to hypnotize Iliana in order to induce her to stop claiming that we are 100% innocent of every charge, which was her position for over ten months.
The physical torture consisted in keeping her naked in a very cold cell with the lights turned on 24 hours per day In sleep deprivation as a result of those conditions and as a result of the guards waking her up constantly. Also the denial of the required medical care for pains and for skin rashes.
The mental torture consisted in being incarcerated without having committed any type of crime in being constantly insulted in being on the daily news for over one year accused of horrible crimes that never existed in being subjected to show her naked body to everyone passing by her cell, men and women. And from time to time, Janet Reno took her out of the jail in the nighttime to take her to eat in nice restaurants, and then returned her to her cell. According to the records, Dr. Rappaport had to conduct 34 hypnotic sessions with Iliana to alter her brain’s memories to the point required to turn her into an effective witness for Janet Reno’s prosecution team.
Dr. Rappaport had success in manipulating Iliana’s thought system into projecting as facts many insane imaginations of sexual and non-sexual nature, some of which were so unnatural and crazy, that the prosecutors declined to use in my trial. Actually, Iliana took the lead among all my enemies and became Janet Reno’s star witness against me. Not only she accused me of abusing the children, but of abusing her as well. Four of the six juror that decided the outcome of my trial told a reporter from the Miami Herald that without the statements from Iliana, they would have voted for a not guilty verdict.
Iliana was allowed to call me when we were first arrested. I had access to a telephone in my cell for about four hours every day. She was also allowed to visit me at ICT (A JAIL) about once monthly. So she was able to keep me informed about her conditions at the Dade County Jail for Woman. Those privileges ended soon after Dr. Rappaport entered the picture. When Iliana informed me that her attorney had urged her to accept a ten-year plea bargain offer, I told her to refuse it and she agreed. I told her to fight against the lies against us. Again she fully agreed. We had the same conversation two more times with the same identical conclusion. Had she honored her commitment to defend the truth, both of us would have defeated Janet Reno.
I asked her to fire Michael Von Zamft, and after that we were not allowed to have further communication. One day [REDACTED] informed me that she had accepted the deal of ten years. I got sick. I cried in my cell. But could I have blamed her? One day we were allowed to sit next to each other while waiting to attend a court hearing, and she tried to establish communication, however I remained in silence, mostly because, if I had spoken, it would have been to induce her to do what I considered as the right thing to do, to take her case to trial. But I was scared to be the cause of she receiving a life sentence. I was scared to misguide her. Therefore, with my silence I let her follow her intuition without my interference. It was a very painful moment that has perpetually lingered in my brain. Even now, about 36 years later, as I write these statements, I feel my tears rolling down my face.
In order for Judge Robert Newman to accept Iliana’s guilty plea, he had to ignore his spiritual duties and his moral duties: the laws of the State of Florida and the Florida Rules of Court. He wasn’t acting on behalf of the truth and on behalf of justice. Instead, Mr. Newman was serving his ego’s personal agenda. This is a fact because Mr. Newman heard Iliana’s statements, clearly placing him on notice that she is innocent of all the charges against her. And above all, because Judge Newman knew that when Iliana declared that she is totally innocent, she was declaring the truth.
But Mr. Newman didn’t care about the truth. Instead, he was anxious to accept Iliana’s coerced and involuntary guilty plea to help Janet Reno accomplish her victory over the truth, over justice, and over the United States Constitution legal rights to due process of law. Not only that, Judge Newman knew that the laws of the State of Florida strictly prohibited him from accepting a change of plea from a not guilty plea to a guilty plea, from a defendant that had been subjected to mind altering psychological manipulative hypnotic sessions. Judge Newman’s duties were to reject Iliana’s illegal and false guilty plea, and to either have the bogus case against her dismissed, or to set a day for her trial and make sure that she received a just and fair trial. Legally, Iliana has a valid claim of manifest injustice, which is a fundamental error that can be raised at any time and could move to relinquish her guilty plea and demand a trial by jury. I bless her human experience with God’s LOVE
TO BE CONTINUED.
Francisco Fuster Escalona