"(T)he fact is that the
boys provided detailed descriptions only after the items were in police custody."

Other testimony

The trial transcript also contradicts Cheit’s suggestion that “both boys gave accurate
descriptions of the inside of (Halsey’s) house.” Here’s A.W., at (674:5) to (674:23):

“Could you tell us how you’d come to get to his house?”
“I don’t remember.”
“But did you go there?”
“Yes.”
“Do you remember what it looked like?”
“It was small. That was the only thing I remember.”
“All right. And could you tell me what type of rooms were in it?”
“There was a bathroom and -- I don’t really remember that much.”
“Was it clean or messy?”
“Messy.”
“How so?”
“There was junk all over the place.”
“Was there a TV in a room?”
“Yes.”
“What room was the TV in?”
“The livingroom.”
And so forth.

Cheit says “On cross-examination, the best the defense could do is stump one boy on the
color of the front door.” Can he be describing this testimony?

“Now what did the house look like?”
“I don’t remember.”
“You don’t remember anything?”
“I remember it was dirty, and that was about it.”
“You remember it was dirty, all right.... Do you remember anything about the door?
“No.”
“Nothing at all?”
“No.”
“Do you remember anything that might have been in the kitchen?”
“No.”
“And do you remember anything about the kitchen?”
“No.”
“Do you remember what color the kitchen was?”
“No.”

A.W.’s testimony limps on for several more pages in this fashion. (730-736). Or is Cheit
describing B.W.’s cross-examination?:

“Do you remember anything about what that front door looked like?”
“No.”
“You don’t remember anything at all?”
“No.”
“When you went through that front door, you were in a room; is that right?”
“Yeah.”
“Do you remember anything about that room?”
“It was dirty, very dirty.”
“Do you remember anything that was in the room, any tables or chairs or any furniture?”
“No.” (956:25 -957:13)
And so forth.

One child was able to show the route to the house on a map -- with a little help from the
prosecutor -- which may be suspicious, but is hardly conclusive.

Cheit says of another witness, seven-year-old L.C., that she “corroborated” the twins’
testimony, and that she said that her “mouth and hands had been taped with duct tape.”

Here is the relevant testimony about the tape:

“Do you remember what he taped your mouth with?”
“Tape.”
“Do you remember what it looked like?”
“Some was black and some was white.”
“Let me ask you, did you ever see anything like this?”
“Yes.”
“What is this?”
“Duct tape.”
“Did you ever see any duct tape with Bob?”
“Yes.” (1014:19 - 1015:5)

It’s not nit-picking, when a man’s reputation and liberty are at stake, to object that duct
tape is grey and that this child had to be prompted to get back on the script. (At 1017, the
prosecutor produces some white tape and she tells him that Halsey put it on “the hands.”)

In a footnote, Cheit adds that “all parties agreed that L.C. mentioned duct tape without
prompting.” Did they? No citation is given for this moment of agreement.

The transcript shows that on the contrary, Shugrue tried twice to make the point that L.C.
mentioned tape spontaneously, and twice the policewoman corrected him: it was she who
introduced the topic:

“Trooper Driscoll.... you also made great efforts that you were going to elicit information from her in her words, in her terms; is that correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“And, in fact, could you tell the jurors where the word “tape” first came from.?”
“I asked her if she remembers seeing tape on the bus.”

The same question is posed a moment later:

“And with L.C., did the word “tape” first come from L.C.?
“I asked her if she remembers seeing tape, and her response was Bob would tape their mouths.” (1661:24 - 1662:15)

The police officer’s report clearly shows that L.C. did not mention duct tape at all, and she
did not mention tape of any kind without prompting:

“This officer asked L.C. if she ever saw any tape on the school van. L.C. said Bob
would put tape on their mouths to keep them quit (sic). L.C. said this was white
tape.... This officer asked L.C. if she remembered any thing else that was on the van -- rope, gun, baseball bat, pictures. L.C. said no, not that she remembered.”

As well, L.C. told the police that Halsey taped the children’s mouths “on the sidewalk or at
the store,” but didn’t mention Nobody’s Road:

The defense questioned whether the children’s testimony had been contaminated, since
their testimony changed and grew more elaborate. But the interviews were not recorded.
In the quote above, L.C. appears to respond instantly with the allegation that her mouth
was taped, as soon as tape was mentioned. However, Shugrue also has this discussion
with the police officer, which suggests that the police reports present only an abbreviated
version of the conversation:

“And when you were talking to (the children).... they weren’t quite all forthright coming through with everything, is that right?
“That’s correct.”
“It took some time speaking with them, didn’t it?”
“Yes, it did.”
“And once you got at ease with them, once you were able to build up a rapport with them, did they then start to tell you even more stuff about what Bob was doing with them?
“Yes.”
“And on the second day, she felt -- did she seem to feel more comfortable with you?”
“Yes, she did.”
“And on the second day, did she tell you that -- did she also remember that not only did he tape her up, but he also tied her up with a rope?”
“Yes.”
“And that was after you had spent some time and she had felt more comfortable with you. Is that fair to say?”
“Yes.” (1663:6-13)

In her first interview, L.C. said she remembered being taped up, and that Halsey would
stop the bus outside the drug store every day to buy cigarettes and beer, which he would
drink and smoke on the bus. In her second interview, she said she remembered being tied
with rope and hit with a baseball bat. By the time of trial, she testified that she and other
children were taken off the bus, one by one. She made no allegations, and she wasn’t
asked, what happened to her when she was taken off the bus.

As always, the children’s supposed reluctance to tell was presented as being emblematic of
their fear of Halsey.

The physical evidence

“The children’s testimony was corroborated in numerous ways by physical evidence,”
Cheit writes. The twins said that Halsey chased them with a shopping cart and lo and
behold, there was a shopping cart found in the small parking area beside Cheshire Lake.
What Cheit doesn’t mention is that the children’s father took them fishing at the lake,
(725:14-22) which was minutes from their home and which was described at trial as a
“very popular fishing spot.” (1226) They were well acquainted with the area and in fact
another little boy on Halsey’s route lived at the entrance to the causeway which spanned
the lake.

But no, to Cheit, that shopping cart spells guilt. So does the “impressive constellation” of
items seized from Halsey’s home: guns, knives, baseball bats, duct tape and rope. This
“constellation” of items wasn’t found in the trunk of his car or in a duffel bag hiddden
under the porch. The knives were in the kitchen and out in the shed. The pistol was in his
dresser, the duct tape was in his wife’s craft room. (In his closing argument, Shugrue also
makes much of the fact that Halsey owned fishing poles.)

While these items might seem commonplace,” (Cheit adds) “the descriptions in some cases
were quite specific.” He mentions in particular two of the knives. Contrary to Cheit’s
remark that the “twins described.... items later found in Halsey’s home,” the fact is that the
boys provided detailed descriptions only after the items were in police custody. In most
cases, moreover, the descriptions were entirely vague and generic -- how do you describe
rope? Duct tape?

Here’s an excerpt from A.W.’s testimony about knives.

“Do you recognize this?”
“Yes.”
“What is this?”
“A knife.”
“Where did you see this knife?”
“In the back...”
“Was it with the other knives?”
“Yes.”
“Bob show you these?”
“Yes.”

And another excerpt:

“Do you recognize this?”
“Yes.”
“Did you ever see this knife before?”
“Yes.”
“What’s on this knife?”
“An elk.”
“An elk?”
“Yes.”

The psychological evidence

According to Mrs. W., the children displayed a number of symptoms -- bedwetting,
nightmares, excessive modesty -- that were indicative of abuse. Cheit thinks the symptoms
presented were alarming, not “normal and innocuous.” He thinks, for example, that it’s
“unusual” for school age boys to add swear words to their vocabulary. However, the
record clearly shows it was only after they “disclosed,” not before, that the children began
to display behavior that any reasonable person would regard as neurotic. It was only after
they had unburdened themselves about Halsey and were in therapy, when they began to
keep air horns by their side at nighttime, so they could summon their parents if Halsey
came through the window. (2021:3) When their parents built a renovation to their home,
they “had to build escape routes into the house so the kids could feel safe to get out of
there in case he ever did come back.” (2018:11-13)

As for Halsey, in fairness to him, Cheit notes that no additional charges came forward
after he was arrested, although the charges were well publicized. And he had been driving
children, tickling them and giving them candy, for twenty years. On the other hand,
“nobody came forward to say what a great bus driver he had been.”

Halsey’s lawyer didn’t put Halsey on the stand in his own defense, but the arresting
officers described his demeanor and his statements. When he was first accused of
molesting the W. boys, he said he didn’t even know who the police officers were talking
about. Halsey also said he didn’t have pornography. He did. (It was adult porn). These
denials sound more desperate than devious. Cheit also writes, “Halsey also made strange,
contradictory claims about his own sexuality.” It’s more accurate to say that Halsey made
contradictory claims about his sexual capacity.1 He told the officers he was impotent. He
later elaborated that he could achieve erection when assisted by his wife. Cheit doesn’t
explain why he finds this “strange.”

---------------------------------------------

1 In the police report, the police used the term “sexual capacity.” Cheit has substituted
“sexuality,” which introduces another shade of meaning.

(continued -- the medical testimony and conclusion)