SPM Responds (Part 8.c)

Continued from part 8.b

That’s where the plot began. Let’s skip a page where we see Oncken joining Andrews with the same idea:

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 14 of 31 pgs. 87-88)

Chip: I do have a witness to represent they are the movies that are titled, that there’s nothing in them, et cetera, et cetera.

Judge: Well, the movies are what the movies are. You don’t need a witness to testify that they’re movies.

Chip: The copies I have, I don’t want there to be a question about Authenticity, Your Honor.

Judge: Okay. Well - -

D.A. Oncken: Bottom line, there has been no testimony from the child that she watched the entire movies and that she even saw those parts. Defense didn’t establish that in the child’s testimony.

Judge: Well, but, okay, common sense, she said she watched the movies. I mean, do you seriously want her to come in and say “I saw this part and not that part”? Is that what your plan is?

            I mean, she said she saw the movies. That means she saw the movies. That’s what common sense language grammar means, she saw the movies. So if they want to offer the movies on their theory, I think they’re entitled to do that.

            The question is do you want to watch them before he offers them to see if you have any objections to them? Yes? No?

D.A. Oncken: I think we have to, Judge.

Judge: Okay. Bring the jury out. They get to go home, obviously.

            It sounds like the judge was on our side in this situation. He got dead on the D.A.’s ass for even thinking of such a stupid plan. But that’s why he got on their ass. It would have been stupid to have the child say she only saw certain parts. It would have shown the jury how this child could be manipulated to say anything they wanted. The judge was like a coach, making sure the D.A.’s didn’t do anything that would lose the game.

But, at this time, they don’t know that “Scary Movie” has the specific act of oral sex. Let’s go to the next day, after the judge and D.A.’s have seen the movies. (Note: Scary Movie is identified as Exhibit 7, Scream is exhibit 8, Scream Two is Exhibit 9, and I Know What You Did Last Summer is Exhibit 10.)

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 4-5)

Judge: All right. In the recess from yesterday, the Court, under duress, watched these movies. Defense 7, 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety. It will take some time, I’m sure, for the Court to recover from that event, but in any event I did watch each of the movies in their entirety.

            And has the State watched the movies as well?

D.A. Andrews: Unfortunately, yes.

Judge: What says the State as to exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10?

D.A. Andrews: As to 7, we would object as the witness, at least on the record, did not indicate she had seen the movie. Her mother indicated they put the movie in, saw that it was innapropriate and took the movie off. So, I actually don’t think that the record reflects that the witness viewed “Scary Movie.”

Chip trusted the D.A.’s to ask Jane Doe if she saw the movie. She said she did. But since it was done outside of the courtroom, (Off the record), they’re using that against him. The judge agrees with the D.A. and is going to allow them to question the child on the stand. Everybody’s knows what’s going to happen; the little girl is going to come in and say she only saw part of the movie. Chip is so furious he can barely keep his cool. Remember, the jury is not there to see this.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 16-18)

Judge: Well, my suggestion is I’m admitting 8, 9, and 10. The jury can start doing that and then we can get whoever we need to get up here to clear up - - whatever was seen on Defense Exhibit No. 7 and go from there.

D.A. Andrews: And are we going to do that outside the presence of the jury?

Judge: Yes

D.A. Andrews: Okay.

D.A. Oncken: So you want the - - just for clarification, Judge, you want the child so that either the State or the Defense can ask the question specifically about the movie “Scary Movie”; is that right?

Judge: Right.

D.A. Oncken: Is that what we’re limiting the question to?

Chip: I have no intent to ask her anything. I thought we cleared this up yesterday when the Court asked the State - - the State called me and unequivocally told me she had seen “Scary Movie”.

D.A. Andrews: That’s what she said to us.

Chip: Well, what are we doing here?

D.A. Andrews: Well, after we talked to her, sent her back to school, we talked to mom.

Judge: So, why are we afraid to ask her the question?

Chip: Exactly, I trust - -

Judge: Why are you afraid to ask her the question?

Chip: I’m not, Judge. This is a waste of time. I’m getting the runaround after the Court gave a perfect directive and Ms. Andrews followed it and I trust her, just like I trust you.

Judge: Well, I had no reason to believe she may have only seen a portion of the movie until this morning.

Chip: Yes, you did. You made the statement yesterday when Ms. Oncken made the objection about we don’t know what part she’s seen or not seen. And you said the Court - - and we could go back in the record - - I trust - -

Judge: So, I can’t change my mind is that what you’re telling me?

Twenty-four hours earlier, this judge thought it was absurd when the D.A. suggested that the child may have only saw parts of the movies. Now that he knows what’s on “Scary Movie” he’s allowing the D.A.’s to do their dirty deed.

            This is just one example of how these people worked together. This went on while the jury was somewhere else thinking these D.A.’s were heroes, this little girl and her family were saints, and the judge was as honorable as his title read. But what happened behind their backs told the story of who these people were.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 15 of 31 pgs. 27-30)

Judge: Okay. We’re outside the presence of the jury. I have requested the complainant and her mother come to court to clarify the testimony as it applies to Defense Exhibit No. 7, which is the movie titled “Scary Movie.”

            The State having objected so, therefore, again being outside the presence of the jury, State call their witness for purposes of this hearing outside the presence of the jury.

D.A. Oncken: The State Call (Jane Doe).

Judge: All right, welcome back, (Jane Doe). We need to ask you a few more questions. Ms. Oncken.

D.A. Oncken: Thank you, Judge. Hi, (Jane Doe), how are you today?

Jane Doe: Fine.

D.A. Oncken: Okay, I want to ask you a couple of questions about some movies that you’ve watched. Specifically about a movie by the name of “Scary Movie”. Do you remember that movie?

Jane Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: Yeah. And you remember when you watched it?

Jane Doe: No.

D.A. Oncken: Was it a long time ago?

Jane Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you remember who you watched it with?

Jane Doe: I watched it with my dad, my mom, my brothers and my cousin, (G).

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And do you remember if you watched the whole movie or part of the movie or do you remember?

Jane Doe: I only watched a little bit of it.

D.A. Oncken: And why did you only watch a little bit of it?

Jane Doe: Because they said I couldn’t watch the movie because they said it was too nasty.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And your dad said that?

Jane Doe: I’m not sure.

D.A. Oncken: You’re not sure who said it?

Jane Doe: No.

D.A. Oncken: Okay. Was it an adult that said it or a kid?

Jane Doe: Adult.

D.A. Oncken: Adult. Okay. And the only two adults that were there were - -

Jane Doe: My mom and dad.

D.A. Oncken: Do you know how long you watched the movie?

Jane Doe: About five minutes.

D.A. Oncken: About five minutes. So, not long, huh?

Jane Doe: No.

D.A. Oncken: Anything else, Judge?

            If the jury had been able to see how easily this child’s testimony could be changed-up, I wouldn’t be in prison today. You’re going to see that she did watch the entire movie. You’re going to see what is most amazing about this ordeal, and that’s that this child really believed this event happened.

            Not to stray from my point, but another disturbing reality is how her chemistry with the D.A. on this “about-five-minutes” story, is eerily similar to their chemistry on the assault story.

Criminal Trial

(Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 pg. 93)

D.A. Oncken: Okay. And how long did he lick you.

Jane Doe: About a minute.

D.A. Oncken: About a minute.

Jane Doe: Yes.

D.A. Oncken: Yeah. And what did he do when he stopped?

Jane Doe: He told me not to tell nobody.

D.A. Oncken: He told you not to tell nobody.

Jane Doe: Yes.

Now that we know her story changes during her civil disposition, we know that this, too, was made up. And whoever did whatever they did  to orchestrate these stories, should seriously go hang themself. And I’m sorry that you have to read my personal feelings, but I guess it helps as I revisit this trial. For that matter, I’m sorry you have to read the graphic nature of this bullshit assault. In my up-coming letters, you’ll see everything this child said about this alleged crime. Most remarkably, you’ll see how, according to her story, this assault would have been impossible to commit.

            The question right now is, how do I know that Jane Doe really believed she sat with her cousin, (G), her parents, her brother and only saw five minutes of “Scary Movie?” It’s because Chip didn’t give up on this. He kept pushing the issue till he forced an error.

            The “five-minute-story” stageplay had been impressively put together in less than twenty-four hours. But with any rush-job, the likelihood of mistakes increases.

            The mission was clear: Have the child say she only saw the first five minutes. The mission was accomplished, but how it was accomplished must have not been important to anyone. To me, to you, to the judge and possibly to the D.A., it appeared that the child had been told to simply lie. You’ll see how having that belief put a banana peel on the judge’s path.

Continued in part 8.d