|Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:55 pm: |
Continued from here.
|Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 6:57 pm: |
"Yeah, I'm sure we were presented with all the evidence and investigative techniques on Inter-National Television."
Dave, are you suggesting otherwise? Are you really telling me that you're claiming the LADA's office covered-up evidence that could have convicted O.J.? Do you have evidence of this or are you merely speculating? I do know that audiences worldwide were privy to information that the jurors weren't allowed to consider during deliberation. This was definitely a problem that many fail to remember; worldwide audiences actually knew more about the case than the jurors did. If you want to blame the LADA's office of incompetence and Lance Ito of subjectivity, you're not going to find much argument coming from me. But if you're saying that they covered-up the smoking gun that would have convicted him, then allow me to tell you that such an action is a criminal one, and I don't buy it.
Dave, let's not discuss the O.J. trial in this thread, okay? There's a place for these discussions elsewhere on the board. If you must bring it up, then let's do it there. The reason I replied to your comparison here is because it relates to Howard's theory in that what is being suggested in both instances, if in fact they really happened, is that a crime has been committed.
Howard, you can't do what you are describing your ex-brother-in-law did without committing a crime. Are you aware of that? If so, and you haven't reported it, then you are a conspirator in this crime as well. I'm not trying to bust your chops here, but I hope you understand the gravity of what I'm telling you. If your attorney tells you otherwise you should remove him from the payroll and hire a new one who knows what they are talking about. It's perfectly legal for a DA's office to disclose evidence that they've uncovered to other agencies that are looking for the same individual for different sets of crimes. Then these other agencies can decide whether or not they want to prosecute or not. Look at the Ted Bundy or Keith Jesperson cases, for example. Conversely, if a DA's office conspires to cover-up evidence by not disclosing it to an agency that has a vested interest in the same individual, they've committed a crime, perhaps a number of crimes. This is a fact, Howard, and if you can get a lawyer to go on the record claiming that it isn't, that's something I definitely want to see. So, given the legal route versus the illegal one, why in the hell would anyone risk their reputation and career on the latter? Because Davis was such a bad guy that they wanted to make sure that some other DA's office wouldn't screw it up for them? Howard, that defies common sense, basic logic, and believability. However, if you believe that is what happened and have any evidence of it whatsoever, then it is incumbent upon you to report it to people that matter, not the members of this message board or potential readers of your book. If it were me, I'd start with the Attorney General of California and work UP from there; if there's any truth to what your ex-brother-in-law told you, somebody is going to listen eventually.
My son is doing fine, Howard, thanks for asking. I'm sorry to hear about your mother and wish you both all the best.
|Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
Howard, I understand what you're saying, but it makes no legal sense to me that a judge would overturn a prior murder conviction (Shea and Hinman) if Davis was found innocent of the Z murders. Prior cases are not to be introduced into a trial, as each case is to be tried on it's own merits and they would also prejudice the jury; guilt or innocence in one case should also not be reflective of guilt or innocence in another.
Saving $2,000,000 makes no sense either, since the cost of such a trial would have nothing to do with LA but rather the 3 jurisdictions (4 technically; Solano Co Sheriff's, VPD, NSD and SFPD) 400 miles north. No only that, it's nonsensical for LA to think they're saving money if they put Davis away for good and then let those 4 jurisdictions continue to spend money for decades on an investigation that had technically already been solved. Then there's also the CADOJ, the FBI and so on who would also be wasting money as well. So, in this one instance of thoughtfulness on the part of LA, they would have caused all those agencies and jurisdictions to spend easily ten times that amount to solve a case that already was.
|Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
BTW, Howard, this does not reflect on you but rather your source.
|Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 5:49 pm: |
Scott, sorry, I didn't realize this was a personal thread. I'll try to be good.
|Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
We did indeed make several attempts to contact the authorities-detectives-officers-attorneys,etc.-ove r the years,including Dan Lungren when he was AG.
We were told that there was 'interest.'We had a contact close to AG L.
We kept up our requests,etc,for some time since we learned they were interested in obtaining more informtion and the like.
After some time we were told he and his Office did wish to pursue the case.
It's off me from a legal standpoint according to my attorney.I had two good attempts with the two private detectives with CII contacts as given,and the elderly detective with SAC contacts and all of them were not able to get the entire case file-zero.
I tried the DNA testing through Dave Peterson's FBI contact,a personal friend,but he told Dave,'it was halted at the top'or words to this effect.
This was very disappointing as we were promised that it was to be done.It took a very long time to get my Davis file of writing samples with flap/stamp DNA potential back-even after repeated requests.
|Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 6:55 pm: |
I have spoken to my attroney this morning and he is to meet with Michael K.Agopian this evening and share my account some of which I have not shared publicly with him.
He is a criminalist and had worked at the DOJ in the past.I know he has many connections so I hope we can meet.He among other things is now teaching.
My attorney has again confirmed that all of the information as given to me is "certainly possible" given the facts in the Southern CA cases.
He called it "blow back"when one case can affect or legally impact the status of another case.
He realizes it was their fear or concern-not so much that this and that was going to happen for certain-that caused them to keep the best hand dealt to them (it was strictly by 'chance'or as they "came across" the personal items of this "male member" of the Manson Family-they were not investigating the Z case at all-and were not expecting to find what they did-this was yet another reason to bring in this "expert"as he knew Z case details,etc.;also, the defense would have a legal field day requiring them to prove a connection to the evidence)at that time with ample opportunity to bring about other circumstances in the future should they have to.
Considering the fact CM witnesses were utilized by the DA in their case against Davis they certainly got him by a legal thread (my source said they "barely" got him on the charges of two murders)which could have unraveled at any time.
Let's put it this way.Some witnesess are coached,shall we say more than others,especially when the evidence is weak and they know the guy is guilty inspite of a lack of supporting evidence.This is an historical fact.Innocent people are sent to prison even for murder!
That jury must be convinced and sometimes they get overzealous.We all know,if we have studied past cases carefully, this is true.