Defendant's son implicated in child sex assault
Photo 
Leon Laudie
ELKHORN — The defense attorney for a Walworth County man accused of sexually assaulting a young girl he knows said the defendant's son could have been the one who committed the crime.
Leon L. Laudie, 45, of Lafayette Township, is on trial for 20 counts of possession of child pornography and one count of sexual assault of a child younger than 13.
A separate trial will be scheduled for 10 counts of being a registered sex offender photographing a minor without consent.
Defense Attorney Donna Kuchler said the child, who reportedly told her mother the defendant touched her butt, is not a reliable source of information.
"This is a child that really doesn't know the truth," Kuchler said Monday. "Maybe she has an imagination."
During her opening statement Monday, Kuchler said Laudie's son could have been the one to sexually assault the girl. The confusion, she said, could have happened because the girl calls both "Uncle Lee."
The defendant is a registered sex offender, and has been convicted of touching five girls between the ages of 4 and 8 between 1982 and 1991.
Kuchler said her client is under strict supervision.
"He isn't allowed to be left alone with children. When he is at the house with (the girl), they have never left my client alone with (the girl)," Kuchler said.
"The adult son, who comes down to visit from time to time, has been left alone."
A search of the defendant's computer revealed 20 pictures of the victim, according to court documents. Some of the pictures show her without clothing, and at least one shows the defendant without his pants.
"After the interview and search warrant, she has a physical exam done by two sexual assault nurse examiners," District Attorney Phil Koss said. "There is some evidence of injury, but it s not necessarily from sexual contact.
"Interestingly, she went crazy; she wouldn't allow them to have an internal exam."
Koss presented a video statement of the child and called her as a witness Monday, the first day of the trial.
On the witness stand, the girl looked at pictures of Laudie Sr. and Laudie Jr. and identified the defendant as the one who took pictures of her. Kuchler repeated the procedure, and the child identified the same man.
But Kuchler maintains the child is not sure about what she says.
"You will see that the child had a lot of difficulty," Kuchler said. "She didn't know the difference between a truth and a lie. She could not be reliable to relay information."
The case was first reported after the child's mother pinched the child's buttocks as a way to cheer up the girl because she had been sick that day.
According to the mother, the girl said, "Uncle Lee takes pictures of my butt."
In a later interview with a Walworth County social worker and a sheriff's detective, the girl identified both her vaginal and buttocks areas as her butt.
Laudie Jr. was not in court Monday, but Koss said he would testify in the coming days.
The trial is scheduled for five days.
Jul 15, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
What I want to know, is why was a girl in a house with a man who had been convicted of multiple counts of molestation with girls her age and younger?
Were her parents not aware of this? Why would you even be surprised? What kind of moron leaves their kid with a convicted sex offender?
And even if they weren't "alone" in the house, they were together long enough alone in the house, for him to take pictures of her naked. Were they just hoping he would miraculously not be attracted to little girls anymore? What the hell did they think he was doing while alone with her? Apparently she was around him
+ enough to have a nickname for him. "UNCLE LEE??" How adorable. It makes me sick.
This is so stupid. As parents you need to ALWAYS be aware of who your kids are with and around. Especially at that young of an age. If you know someone is a child molester, and you leave your child alone with them, for anything longer than 2 seconds, any abuse is partially your fault, IMO as a mother.
As for that attorney, that is a very evil human being. I understand reasonable doubt, but any person with a soul knows he is guilty. Especially because of his prior convictions. She is doing this for the money, and the attention. What kind of monster could look at a little girl, who had been hurt like that, and call her a liar. Just Horrible...
Jul 15, 2009 at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
rooster...that looks nothing like Michael Moore, and what does he have to do with this article? Way to bring nothing to the table.
*
As one poster pointed out, children typically don't know the difference between one part and another. I can't believe the attorney would even suggest the child is lying and has no credibility. This turd lost his credibility the first time he was convicted of molestation. At this point, I'd prefer to see him have to prove his innocence than to see the prosecution prove his guilt. I have absolutely no sympathy for child molesters. I believe they can't be rehabilitated and they should never, ever, be allowed a second chance, no matter how well they are supervised.
Jul 15, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
What is interesting about a child not allowing a pelvic exam?? I'm not a child and I don't enjoy it at all and still get "nervous".... What a bunch of morons!
Jul 15, 2009 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
for a second i thought it ws michael moore. just a look a like.
Jul 15, 2009 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Interestingly, she went crazy; she wouldn't allow them to have an internal exam."
I'm not sure which one is worse - the idiot defense attorney or the scum on trial.
What an assinine remark!
Jul 15, 2009 at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
This child must be quite young. 5 years old or younger? My youngest grandchild would perhaps relay an occurrence this way. She's NOT confused, but simply has a young child's vocabulary. Small children can't just make this stuff up. They either need to have seen something or experienced something.
This guy sounds like scum to me. And his attorney is just as bad.
Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
The basis SHOULD be made of what the child IS capable of and allow her describe what she is capable of saying to explain what happened. It doesn't take rocket science to know that certain people are not able to just make this crap up.
I had a former client sexually abused. In reading THOSE court documents, I grew to understand that she was a victim of the accused party. She is not capable of describing what she described in court.
Jul 14, 2009 at 9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
From reading this article, it doesn't seem like the girl *doesn't* know the difference between truth and lies, but it seems as though she can't clarify different things. Such as her indicating that both her vagina and butt are called a "butt." She may not be lying, she just doesn't know that each area has a different name. I don't know the whole story, I'm not part of the family, but this is just my two cents.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.