Blog #1 (10-19-2014)

  • Hello dear interested persons.  I will use this first blog to briefly introduce the documents in the legal document section and give you a bit of background information about the case so you can put things in context.  An array of documents are presented so you true crime buffs can see evidence of justice gone wrong for yourselves.


    My case involves a coerced guilty plea.  Coerced guilty pleas are a common story.  Courts tend to uphold them because they don’t want to call into question the foundation upon which the vast majority of criminal convictions are obtained.  As a result, the courts bend over backwards to make excuses for upholding guilty pleas extorted from criminal defendants.


    In my case, I ended up taking a plea bargain offer only after my arm was twisted as a result of the threat of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and the state court’s refusal to allow substitute counsel.  Counsel’s flip-flopping on whether I had a defense and his failure to prepare for trial, combined with the state court’s refusal to permit substitute counsel were decisive.


    To abort the anticipated disaster at trial due to counsel’s lack of preparations and abandonment of the defense, I opted to take a plea bargain offer – to 2nd degree murder – and was additionally used by the prosecutor to convince my co-defendant to take a similar offer.


    My criminal case is “wierd” to start with – just on the facts alone.  My co-defendant and his brother’s affidavits in the legal document section provide some information and historical background on events circumstantial to the case (as does my former spouse’s affidavit), but they do NOT address my perspective and state of mind or how I viewed the unfolding situation at the time.


    Adding to the wierdness of my case is the fact that, due to unusual circumstances, I partly bombed my own defense prior to arrest in the case by falsely inculpating myself (while falsely exculpating my co-defendant) for my co-defendant’s actions.  At the time and as a result of my co-defendant’s statements to me, I believed my then-husband’s life was in mortal danger from my co-defendant’s “associates.”  I further believed that if I took the blame for my co-defendant’s misdeeds and got him off the hook that this would provide me the leverage I needed to convince my co-defendant to get the threat against my husband’s life called off.


    What I didn’t know at the time was that there was no threat against my husband’s life and my co-defendant’s claim to the contrary was just more of his manipulative, story-telling hog-wash.  I didn’t find out the truth until after the damage was already done and I had falsely inculpated myself with several letters conveniently “discovered” by police.


    In fairness, it may have been those bogus and highly dubious false inculpatory letters I wrote (falsely exculpatory to my co-defendant) that served to prompt police and prosecutor agents to manufacture a false circumstantial case in the effort to secure convictions (particularly since they feared my co-defendant might get off otherwise) – but falsify the case they did, as revealed by analysis of facts, information and documents.  An analysis I did not undertake myself for more than a decade after conviction.


    The false circumstantial theory of the case (its existence is born out by the record, important parts of which are included in the legal document section) used for prosecution was sufficiently persuasive to turn counsel against me; he abandoned any trial preparation and conducted no investigation – not even of the state’s case (other than to procure whatever documents he was given as discovery), he repudiated the existence of an obvious defense that he himself had first advised me appeared applicable, and he sought to coax my agreement to false information he obtained from the prosecutor’s discovery.


    Proof positive that state agents manufactured a false circumstantial case for use in prosecuting me and my co-defendant (and for which reason none of the details of that case match up with the actual case facts as set out by my co-defendant’s and others affidavits or my own writings on the subject) is that they bungled it in a major way.  They bungled their own frame job so badly that they actually created false “exculpatory” evidence placing me and my co-defendant in constructive custody of Mexican authorities at the time of the victim’s death.


    Naturally, since defense counsel wasn’t paying any ATTENTION to the details of the state’s case or undertaking any significant analysis or investigation, this critical point went straight over his head and he was never alerted to it.  Nobody is denying that a crime occurred, only that the crime that occurred isn’t the one the state said occurred.  A crime to which I had a legal defense and was denied the opportunity to present at trial as a result of the state’s coercion and undue influence vis-a-vis use of its false evidence and falsified documents in the case.


    My theory of how the false circumstantial case came into existence, as well as the gist of it goes like this:


    1)   Police/prosecutor agents procured a copy of the victim’s ATM statement showing withdrawals from the account on 11/8/84.  Misconstruing the statement’s “transaction/sequence” numbers adjacent to the withdrawals as early morning (5:49 – 5:55 a.m.) “clock time,” the state agents decided to allow this to be the focal point for a presumptive murder/robbery (motive) and accordingly adjusted all OTHER facts and information (or at least as much as they could get away with altering at a late stage) to conform to this false and fabricated presumed theory of the crime.


    2)   To conform the facts to the false theory of the crime necessitated the re-writing of police notes of     witness interview statements to eliminate witness accounts of circumstantial events that would conflict with the false theory of the case – and there were many witness reports that, had they not been altered or falsified as to the dates/times of events, would have totally discredited the police/prosecutor false theory of the case.


    3)   Not only did the SDPD falsify their own internally generated homicide investigative reports, but they procured false “official” documents from Mexican authorities (and we know how credible they are) altering the date of arrest and setting it twenty-four hours before it occurred in fact.  (See the certified translation of original MX documents with arrest date given as Nov. 8, 1984).  The police record has some documentation that says the arrest took place in Mexico on 11/9/84 and other documents that show an 11/8/84 date, but there was no quibbling at the preliminary hearing when the 11/8/84 date was introduced through intentional and unintentional false testimony by witnesses to the arrest.


    Note: The big deal about the arrest date alteration is that the false circumstantial case theory “required” it so as to eliminate any dispute by other witnesses who might suspect that their written statements had been altered as to the circumstantial event dates they originally reported or that they were being coached to give testimony as to false dates for events.  Had the police witness interview statements been accurately recorded and or had the preliminary hearing witnesses given accurate testimony on the various circumstantial events, then the prosecution’s theory of the case as a robbery-murder transpiring at some time close to the ATM withdrawals made at “5:49 to 5:55 a.m.” on 11/8/84 was dead in the water.


    Numerous witnesses had given police accounts of circumstantial events demonstrating that the victim was alive and well throughout the day up into the late evening of 11/8/84 and that he was by no means behaving as any “victim” and therefore was not the likely subject of a robbery, much less a murder.  Moreover, those same witnesses’ (unaltered) written statements and testimony would also have established that me and the co-defendant were not in Mexican custody at the time claimed (mid day on the 11/8/84).  By backdating all these witnesses statements reported in police interview notes and getting them to change their testimony as to the dates of circumstantial events and sightings of the victim in the presence of me and/or my co-defendant and eliminating all such reports for the date of 11/8/84, all potential reports capable of discrediting the false ATM robbery-murder circumstantial theory were eliminated.


    As it turned out, the one key report that did not get falsified was the deputy coroner’s report (Dan Matticks) – and this bears on establishing the time of death for the victim as occurring not earlier than very late on 11/8/84 and during a time when me and the co-defendant were allegedly in custody of Mexican authorities.  At the time of the case, neither Matticks nor anyone else had made a time of death estimate based on the post mortem conditions, and the testimony by the pathologist who claimed the body was embalmed (obscuring signs by which time of death might be established) was ambiguous at best.


    In any event, neither me or my co-defendant were in Mexican custody at the time of the victim’s death, contrary to the state’s false exculpatory evidence placing us seemingly in their custody.  However, if you wish to examine how the San Diego District Attorneys office officials are still attempting to get the story twisted at each and every parole hearing (the tale grows taller with each new telling by the DA’s office), check out the Feb. 14, 2014 letter to BPH and my rebuttal thereto contained in the legal documents section.  An index of documents is included for reference, with several of the declarations containing a number of the disputed police witness interview reports or disputed police generated documents (much of which I have not addressed in detail here due to the need for brevity.


    The BPH related documents pertain to my ongoing issues with the Board of Parole Hearings, who after 30 years (and 20 years of hearings) have never once given me a fair parole hearing – we can talk more about that in another blog.  Thank you for allowing me to share.  Your audience in this matter is much appreciated.