A while
back I wrote you a letter called “The Neverending Letter Part One” which mainly
probed an argument that Incandesio had with one of our critics. They were
debating a situation that occurred in my civil trial. That same letter showed
how the child’s story made a significant change from what she said in criminal
trial as to what she said in civil trial. I meant to write an immediate follow
up letter but I’ve been so caught up in the tasks of releasing The S.O.N. that
I haven’t got around to it till now. Let me remind you of how the child’s story
changed, and then I’ll go from there.
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. And did he stop after
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 anybody?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Civil Trial
(Court Transcripts
Volume 4 of 9 pg. 49)
Their Lawyer: How long – was it just, like, one lick
or was it a long time or what?
Jane Doe: It was one lick.
Their Lawyer: And is that when he left after that one
lick?
Jane Doe: Yes.
Their Lawyer: And then, you went to use the restroom?
You remember that?
Jane Doe: Yes.
__________
For the record, I
didn’t do this for one second or one thousandth of a second. I did not commit this
crime. But what’s important to know is that, till this day, she’s sticking to
the “one lick” story as opposed to the “about a minute” testimony. Also, right
before the civil trial began, during her deposition under sworn oath, she told
my civil lawyer that the assault happened for “one second.”
The reason this is a game
changer is because the “one lick” testimony destroys the story she said in
criminal trial, the same story that convinced a jury I committed this
unthinkable act, and the story that left me with forty-five years in prison.
There’s two scenarios that may
have cause this profound change. Either she feels that “one lick” makes her
story less of a lie, which possibly helps her deal with her own guilty
conscience, or, she simply forgot what she said in the criminal trial.
Our beloved critic repeatedly
said that I was “afraid” to show you the girl’s original story. He said because
she was “believable”, because she was a “credible witness”, and because her story
made “logical sense.”
I showed you on a previous
letter her medical history, how she was seen for “sleeplessness/insomnia,
headaches, and possible hallucinations...” How she was prescribed
antidepressant medications, Elavil, and was diagnosed with photophobia and
phonophobia. All this was discovered eight months before she spent the night
with my daughter, and claimed I did this thing. And, with all respect, had I
known this child suffered from all these mental disorders, she would not have
been spending the night with my baby.
But our critic was right about
one thing, her story was believable. It convinced twelve jurors that I did this
crime. And with the judge noticeably on the D.A.’s side, using his power to
assist them, well, that didn’t help justice prevail either. The most
significant claim our critic made was that Jane Doe’s story made “logical sense.”
One problem with that is that we’ll never know what her first version of this
“assault” was, which is the most important version to know. The investigating
officer, a rough-looking white woman named Ruiz, said that the equipment used
to record Jane Doe’s first interview malfunctioned. Ruiz also said that Jane
Doe’s mother’s first outcry witness statement was too hard to read so she
(Ruiz) tore it up. If you believe such coincidences, more power to you. But
it’s obvious to me that the child’s first statement wasn’t good enough for a
possible conviction, and neither was her mother’s first statement. Something
didn’t make sense, and the family was sent back home for a few days to get
their shit together. (Go to SPM Responds (part 4.a) and SPM Responds (part 4.b))
I can’t be sure whether the
system knew Jane Doe’s story was bullshit, or they just wanted to believe it so
bad that they helped make it believable. It was a well-rehearsed spectacle,
seven months of rehearsals to be exact, and I’ll show you the evidence, in
this letter, using court transcripts, of how this family was rehearsing
with the D.A. But one thing about lies, if you look close enough, you’ll find
cracks. Some cracks are microscopic, but some can be as wide as rivers.
Let me say that Jane Doe’s
performance on the stand was long and drawn out. There’s pages and pages of
questioning that pertain to what she did that day, where she ate, what she ate,
what school she went to, what sports she liked to play. They did this lengthy
sequence of true events so that when they finally got to the bullshit, it would
blend right in with all the truth. I’ll show you everything about this trial,
how they said I touched her inappropriately, how they said I told her I would
buy her anything she wanted. It’s so easy to see the mistakes in their
testimony, the proof of their rehearsals. As I continue to write these legal
letters, I’ll cover every aspect of this trial, every attempt they made to make
me look guilty. I use the word “they” because what came out of that child’s
mouth was a team effort, and I’ll prove it. Like I said before, I was killed by
a thousand ant bites, and I’m going to show you every bite, one by one. I’ve
got absolutely nothing to hide, and everything to reveal. Today, I’m taking you
to the biggest ant bite of all. I’m going straight to the aggravated sexual
assault, the very act I was charged with, and found guilty of. Here’s the story
I was supposedly too afraid to show you, and I apologize, ahead of time, for
the graphic nature of this testimony.
Criminal Trial
(Court Transcripts
Volume 11 of 31 pgs. 90-95)
(D.A. Oncken questioning Jane Doe)
Q.
Okay. And how did he get – how did he get – how did he get from Carly’s side of
the bed to your side of the bed?
A. He
walked around.
Q. He
walked around the bed?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. And what did he do when he walked around to your side of the bed?
A. He
got on his knees and he pulled down the cover, he pulled up my shirt and he put
my panties to the side and he licked me.
Q. What
was he licking you on?
A. On
the private part.
Q. Your
private part. And, (Jane), could you show me on the doll, you said that he
pulled – he did what with your shirt?
A. He
pulled it up
Q.
Okay. Could you show me with the doll?
A.
(Indicating)
Q.
Okay. And then – and then what did he do?
A. He
pulled my panties to the side.
Q.
Okay. Could you show me how – this doll has panties on, right?
A. Yes.
Q.
Could you show me how he did that?
A.
(Indicating)
Q.
Okay?
MS.
ONCKEN: Your Honor, if the record could reflect the witness is pulling the
panties of – on the anatomical doll away from the female sexual organ of the
doll.
THE
COURT: The record will so reflect.
Q. (By
Ms. Oncken) Do you want to hold it? Okay, so he pulled it like that. Did he
hold it like that?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. And you said he was standing or what was he doing on the side of your
bed?
A. On
his knees.
Q. On
his knees at the side of the bed. And when he had the panties pulled to the
side like that, what did he do?
A. He
licked me.
Q. On
your private part?
A. Yes.
Q. And
could you show me with the panties to the side what part he was licking you on?
A.
(Indicating.)
MS.
ONCKEN: Your honor, if the record could reflect the witness has pointed to the
female sexual organ of the anatomical doll.
THE
COURT: The record will so reflect.
Q. (By Ms. Oncken) And, (Jane),
what was he licking you with?
A. His
tongue.
Q. His
tongue. And what did you think when he was doing that?
A. I
was shocked.
Q. You
were?
A. Yes.
Q. Has
anybody ever done anything like that to you before?
A. No.
Q. What
did you do – other than being shocked, what did you do?
A.
Nothing.
Q.
Okay. Now, did he say anything before he did that?
A. No.
Q. He
didn’t. And what did it feel like when he was licking you?
A. Wet.
Q. Wet.
And did you feel anything else?
A. His
slobber.
Q. His
slobber. Anything else?
A. No.
Q.
Okay. And how long did he lick you?
A.
About a minute.
Q.
About a minute. And did he stop after about a minute?
A. Yes.
Q.
Yeah. And what did he do when he stopped?
A. He
told me not to tell nobody.
Q. He
told you not to tell anybody?
A. Yes.
Q.
Well, now, let’s back up just a minute. When he was licking on your private
part where were his hands?
A. One
of his hands were where my panties were and the other I don’t know.
Q. You
didn’t see where the other hand was?
A. No.
Q. And
you said that after he stopped doing it he told you not to tell?
A. Yes.
Q. Was
he talking very loud when he said that?
A. No.
Q. Was
he whispering?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. And did he say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did
he say anything else to you then?
A. No.
Q. What did he do after he said
that and after he stopped licking.
A. He went to his studio again.
Q. So, he got up off the floor –
from kneeling on the floor and then went to his studio?
A. Yes.
__________
After
the jury heard these detestable details, they were staring at me like I didn’t
deserve to breath. They were totally smitten by the girl’s story, and who can
blame them? The slobber she felt, the shock she felt, the one hand on her panties
and the other where she couldn’t see. “How would a nine-year-old even know oral
sex existed if this didn’t happen?” they must have thought.
On
a previous letter (go to SPM Responds (part 12.b)) I showed you the pornographic material this child had access to. I showed you
the testimony of how her mother caught her younger brother and older brother
trying to watch a porno.
When
the D.A. asked her mother if she had a talk with her kids about the incident,
she said, “No, I was embarrassed.”
When
the D.A. asked , “And do you know where Jane Doe was when they were caught
trying to put that in?”, her mother responded, “I don’t recall.”
D.A.: She wasn’t in the room was
she?
Mother: I don’t believe so.
__________
How can you not be
absolutely sure whether your baby girl was in a room where her brothers were
trying to watch a porno? And why would you be embarrassed to talk to your kids,
you’re a grown-ass woman? These are babies (her youngest son was about
five-years-old at the time) “caught” trying to watch poisonous shit. On the
other hand, think about that for a moment.
To be embarrassed about
something, there must be something to be embarrassed about. Something
was on that screen, those kids saw something. Why else would she have been
embarrassed?
The jury should have been able
to use this incident in assessing the situation, but, if you’ll read my
previous letter on this, you’ll see how the judge wouldn’t allow Chip to tell
the jury they could consider this evidence in their decision process.
If you’re new to this blog, go
back and read how this courtroom operated, how this judge operated. Every
attempt Chip made to explain the environment Jane Doe was raised in, was hid
from the jury.
The “slobber” testimony caused the
most gasps in the audience, and in the jury box, and was probably the most
impactful detail in her story. It was a detail the D.A.’s brought up multiple
times during the trial.
Now that she’s saying it was
“one lick”, her first story makes no sense, unless I just spew excessive saliva
on her for one second. Why would anybody do that?
I don’t know what went on behind
closed doors, I don’t know how these pieces of shit operated, but I showed you
how easily these people could twist and turn this child’s testimony. By the end
of this letter you’ll see clear and convincing proof that this story was
bullshit, but, for now, let’s probe a few things.
Notice how Jane Doe knew exactly
what to say when the question was asked, “And what did it feel like when he
was licking you?”
“Wet.”
“Wet. And did you feel anything else?”
“His slobber.”
__________
Her answers were
automatic, she sounded like a programmed robot, and that’s probably why the
judge wouldn’t allow any news cameras in my trial. They had something to hide,
and that something was all the underhanded shit that went on. But it’s in these
transcripts, and that’s a beautiful thing.
Jane Doe, also knew what to say
when the D.A. asked, “Well, now, let’s back up just a minute. When he was
licking on your private parts where were his hands?”
“One of
his hands were where my panties were and the other I don’t know.”
That question and answer was to
imply to the jury that I was masturbating while assaulting her, but, of course,
she couldn’t see that because she was allegedly laying on her back on the bed,
and I was allegedly on my knees on the side of the bed. Later in the trial, I
remember the D.A. pointing at me, saying, “That man who masturbated while
assaulting Jane Doe!”
Damn, that’s a whole lot to do
during a one lick assault. That’s why I tell you, the story she’s sticking to
now, destroys the story I was convicted of.
Continued in
Part 2.b
