The Last Undercover (46 page)
Referencing the 1996 Colorado conviction, Sam admitted he met Thomas McQuade, who also went by “about six other names,” at a court-ordered sexual offenders’ therapy program. When McQuade had to leave the program to begin a prison sentence, “he, in essence, turned the child over to me.” You could almost hear a gasp from those in the courtroom when Sam Lindblad nonchalantly said this.
In describing his relationship with the Colorado teenager who had been “turned over” to him, Sam said he wanted a “platonic friendship” in which “any topic could be discussed.” Jennifer elicited that the topics included pornography and condoms.
Sam wrote in various letters to the fourteen-year-old things like, “[I would] greatly appreciate it if you would destroy this letter when you are done with it . . . so it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands” and “I certainly will do everything in my power to keep you from getting into trouble, if you will do the same for me.”
In his letters to the teenager, Sam asked some provocative questions: “Are you comfortable in the shower at P.E. or quite self-conscious?” “Do you enjoy looking around at the other bodies with you?” “Have you ever gotten handsy with another boy or girl?” “Have any boys or girls touched your penis when you were younger?” “What about an older person getting handsy with you?”
Sam admitted he initiated these questions. He also told the boy to lie to his parents about a proposed outing they were going to have, to see a play. He admitted to sending the letters in envelopes with no return address and on one occasion putting the return address of a local church.
Under questioning by Jennifer, Sam admitted he told the boy he masturbated thinking of the fourteen-year-old and also while thinking of another ten-year-old boy.
Sam admitted to writing, “I do want to see you and touch you. That is the handsy part. I just want to put my hands all over you, in your hair, scratch your back, feel your legs, feel your chest, touch your penis when you have [an erection] or even if you don’t.”
When Jennifer asked if the treatment program he attended with McQuade was his first, Sam replied, “I have had hundreds and hundreds of hours of a variety of counseling and therapy and hypnosis therapy and spent thousands and thousands of dollars. . . . I know that I still have a very strong emotional need for companionship, camaraderie with little boys.”
Jennifer followed up: “Were you cured of your sexual desire for them?” Sam said, no and admitted he still had a sexual desire directed toward boys.
Steering committee member Sam Lindblad did not dispute Jennifer’s assertion that NAMBLA was an “organization whose primary function revolves around sexual behavior.” He admitted he discussed the NAMBLA organization with members of his sex offender therapy groups even though the therapist saw it as a “negative organization . . . sexually.” Even with that warning from the therapist, he admitted to rejoining NAMBLA upon his release from prison.
Jennifer then took him through a series of written promises he made less than three years earlier, following his release from the seven-and-a-half-year prison term in Colorado for the 1996 conviction.
I will take myself out of positions where I can look at children.
I will not be around children to wrestle or horseplay with them.
Wrestling with a child is part of a buildup to a sexual assault.
I know that inappropriate fantasies are the road to assaultive be-havior.
I will not work with any children.
I will not use my jobs to access children.
I will tell adults that I am not trustworthy around children.
Sam admitted to initiating “assaultive touches that were very inappropriate” sixty or seventy times over the course of his adult lifetime, and that he inappropriately touched the same boys more than once. He admitted to inappropriately touching his son “a time or two.” He admitted to having been caught by his wife when he intentionally “tweaked” his son while bathing him and that his wife said, “Don’t ever let that happen again.” He admitted that “repeated sexual contact with young boys” was the reason his marriage ended.
Despite this series of admissions, despite the fact he admitted to placing himself in “high-risk behavior” situations following his release from prison less than three years ago, and despite the fact he admitted to “grooming” boys since his release from prison, he maintained that his intent in going to Mexico was “to have an emotional relationship with a child, but my specific intention was no sexual activity.” Even though he participated in a three-way call with Dick Stutsman and the undercover travel agent in which Stutsman detailed the sexual acts he wanted to perform, Sam denied wanting to engage in sexual activity with the ten-, eleven-, or twelve-year-old he expected to meet in Mexico. Sam claimed that, by his definition, “fondling” did not include sexual contact. “I was eliminating sexual contact, sexual activity from our hoped friendship.”
Every contact I had with Sam was recorded—my contacts in Miami, my phone calls, and the dinner in Albuquerque. In discovery, the prosecution turned over every recording, every e-mail, and every written report. Sam had a chance to review that evidence, as did his attorney. Although parts of the recording that night in Albuquerque were somewhat inaudible, it was possible to make out almost all of the conversation. Certainly, the general nature of even the inaudible portions was evident. Given all this, what followed next was surprising.
In response to Jennifer’s query—“[Isn’t it true that] in fact, you never mentioned during the first conversation you had with Robert about the trip that you had any concerns whatsoever about the legality of the trip”—Sam lied. He stated, “I said very specifically, ‘I do not.’ My words were, ‘I very strongly believe in NAMBLA’s tenet that states, “We do not advocate any breaking of the law” ’ . . . and [the undercover agent] responded, ‘Well, you certainly don’t have to do anything you’re —’ wait. ‘You don’t have to participate in anything that you don’t want to. You don’t have to participate in any activity that you choose not to.’ . . . And I realized then, that means I can choose not to break the law, and I realized, I guess that’s the first good advice I’ve gotten from Robert.”
Jennifer followed up that answer with another question: “And was that conversation recorded?” Then she asked, “Have you listened to the recording of that conversation?” Sam said he heard that conversation on the recording, and then he took the lie further by saying he heard himself say on the tape, “I am very concerned about living up to the tenets of NAMBLA of doing . . . of not . . . NAMBLA states, ‘We do not advocate breaking any laws’ . . . and then I said, ‘Robert, I’m not sexual with men, women, or boys,’ and he [the undercover agent, me] looked at his watch and hurriedly got up to leave the area.”
I thought I was done testifying, but Sam’s lies forced me to take the stand one more time to rebut his testimony. The conversation he said took place never happened, except maybe in his wishful thinking. I listened to the tape of the January 6 meeting at least six times and even helped transcribe parts of it. Sam lied. Did the jury believe him? Had he raised a reasonable doubt? Only time would tell—the time it would take for them to deliberate.
Both sides rested their respective cases. It was now time for the closings, the chance for the prosecution and defense to discuss the evidence and explain to the jury what it all meant. Even though the jury is cautioned that the attorneys’ comments are not evidence, and that they should decide the case on only the evidence presented, the impact of a closing argument can sway a jury.
Because the prosecution has the burden of proving the case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” they get two opportunities to speak to the jury: the opening argument and the closing argument. In between those two presentations, the defense has its opportunity.
Tom O’Brien gave his opening argument, detailing the evidence and describing how each element of both counts as charged in the indictment had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His opening was matter-of-fact but made our case.
Sam’s attorney presented his closing. There is an old adage taught in law school: when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when they aren’t, pound the table. The attorney pounded the table, loud and long. I wasn’t the least bit convinced but was unsure if possibly one or more jurors bought his theory that Sam’s only desire was to cuddle on the beach and read stories. I carefully watched each juror. Several often looked away, as if they couldn’t take another discussion point from the lawyer. Several looked angry. But “reasonable doubt” meant that one juror, though not completely believing the defendant, might buy enough of his story, enough to be uncertain. I was hoping and praying that wouldn’t be the case and that Tom, who had one more chance to speak with the jury, would settle any lingering misgivings about a guilty verdict.
I was not disappointed. Tom gave the finest closing argument I have ever heard. It was almost TV-perfect. Not once did Tom refer to any notes; he spoke from the heart—that of a father who never wanted Sam Lindblad to walk the streets again as a free man. Whether his eloquence was necessary, I’ll never know, but Tom resolved any doubts that Lindblad’s attorney raised. I was confident that as the jury left the courtroom to deliberate, they would return with the verdict I was seeking.
Judge Manella recessed at noon, allowed the jury to break for lunch, and asked them to return to deliberate. By 2:30 they had a verdict: guilty on both counts.
I fought hard to contain my emotions. Following the announcement of the verdict, the two alternate jurors, who were now sitting in the gallery, came up to me, congratulated me, and thanked me for “going undercover.” Never had I received a higher compliment. For almost four years, I poured myself into this investigation. This verdict validated all of that effort.
When Lindblad was later sentenced to thirty years in federal prison, it was the best ending I could possibly imagine for my last undercover.
Bob Hamer spent twenty-six years as a “street agent” for the FBI, many of those years in an undercover capacity. In assignments lasting anywhere from a day to more than three years, he has successfully posed as a drug dealer, contract killer, fence, pedophile, degenerate gambler, weapons dealer, and white-collar criminal.
Bob has worked undercover against such diverse groups as La Cosa Nostra, the Sicilian Mafia, Mexican Mafia, Russian Mafia, Asian organized crime groups, and Los Angeles–based street gangs. His successful infiltration of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) resulted in the arrest of what one defendant called eight members of the “inner circle.”
He has received numerous awards throughout his career, including the FBI Director’s Award for Distinguished Service, four United States Attorney Awards for Distinguished Service, and numerous letters of commendation including one from then U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani.
Now retired, he is a member of the Writers Guild of America and the Writers Guild of Canada and has written for TV. He also worked as the technical advisor for
The Inside
and
Angela’s Eyes
and has consulted for
Law & Order: SVU
and
Sleeper Cell.
He appeared as a guest on
The Oprah Winfrey Show
to discuss his role in the NAMBLA investigation.
A Marine Corps veteran and law school graduate, he is married and has two children.