Continued from Part 4.aCriminal Trial
Court Transcripts Volume 11 of 31 Pgs. 185-186
D.A.: Now, on that particular day, did you watch the interview that Fiona Stephenson did with (Jane Doe) by the closed-circuit TV system that they have set up?
Ruiz: Yes, I did.
D.A.: Okay. So, who was in the room when- - when (Jane Doe) was interviewed that day?
Ruiz: In the room?
D.A.: With her.
Ruiz: With (Jane Doe) was (Jane Doe) and Fiona Stephenson.
D.A. Okay. They were the only two in there?
D.A.: And you watched by closed-circuit; is that right?
Ruiz: Yes, I did.
D.A.: And you obviously observed it that day and subsequently reviewed the videotape, is that correct?
Ruiz: Numerous times, yes.
D.A.: Okay. And from what (Jane Doe) told Fiona, was that consistent with what she had told you just three days before?
Chip: Objection, your Honor, hearsay.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer that question.
Ruiz: It was absolutely consistent with everything (Jane Doe) had told me.
D.A.: All right. Now, pursuant to that interview that was done of (Jane Doe) on that day, did you also take the typed statement from the mother on that day?
This time Ruiz typed the statement herself. She watched the child’s interview, then got with her mother to type a statement that was consistent with what the child said. And that, my friends, is how a story is fabricated.
So, just for clarity: Ruiz didn’t like the child’s original story so the audio decides not to work. Ruiz makes no mention of having to get new equipment, or even having her current equipment repaired. Why?
Because there was nothing wrong with that equipment. Anyone can take the audio off of a videotape and I wouldn’t doubt if either Ruiz, or the D.A., has pulled this same ploy in other cases.
They, also, didn’t like Mary Doe’s original statement so she was described as being too upset and too uneducated to write a proper statement. What they did like was the fact that this family was accusing SPM of an unthinkable crime. The fact that their story didn’t make sense was a problem they could work with. “We’ll just give them three more days to get their shit together and then build our case.”
Throughout my book you’ll see a pattern of these people shaping testimony so that it’s beneficial to their case.
Let’s go to Chip asking Ruiz about the video equipment.
Court Transcripts Volume 12 of 31 Pgs. 22-23
Chip: You discovered that same day that the video was faulty, right?
Chip: Now, out at Mykawa Road there are several different interview rooms, aren’t there?
Ruiz: Only one that has video equipment in it.
Chip: Back up now. There’s a few other divisions out there, aren’t there? The Homicide Division?
Chip: Okay. The interview room adjacent- - there are other divisions that do business out at Mykawa Road, right?
Ruiz: Robbery and Burglary and Theft.
Chip: Okay. And they have interview rooms, also?
Ruiz: I don’t know.
Chip: Okay. It’s your testimony to these ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you don’t know if there’s any other video equipped interview rooms out there?
Please let me take a second to point out the lies this woman fixed her mouth to say:
First, she says there’s only one room that has video equipment in it.
Then, she says that she doesn’t know if the other crime divisions have interview rooms.
Then, she confirms both lies by admitting they do have other video equipped rooms, just not available to her. The “not available to me” was another lie.
Chip was asking these questions because the family only lives five minutes from Mykawa Road. Ruiz could have simply called them back to re-do the interview.
As far as the other interview rooms not being available to her, what are they going to say, “No, we don’t care what SPM did to that girl. Our equipment is for people who steal polos at the mall.”? Come on, man. Any cop would do backflips to help this woman convict me.
She’s lying and there’s a reason she’s lying. She’s trying to hide the fact that she was buying more time for this family to get their story straight.
So your question was do I believe my conviction was the result of a conspiracy? My answer is that I don’t think it started that way. I believe an unfortunate child said something that could possibly reflect something that was going on in her life. But there’s other possibilities. During the trial, she testified that she “wasn’t so sure” if an assault even took place. She said she didn’t know if it “could be a dream, or something like that.” The fact is I don’t know why she said I did this. I don’t know if it was a dream, or a lie, or something someone told her to say. Her medical records mention “possible hallucinations” but I can’t say what happened. Supposedly her story changes from touching to oral assault during an interview that nobody will ever be able to hear.
I do know that instead of seeking the truth, the system decided to take a bullshit story and make it believable. They abused their power.
In this book I’m writing, you’ll be amazed as to the extent they went to convict someone they so badly wanted to destroy.
Was I a good person? Not really. Was I a good husband and father? I don’t think I was. Did I rap about baking cookies for your grandma? Well, that depends on what kind of cookies. It also depends on whether your granny is a crackhead. But am I the person the state wants you to believe I am? The answer is no. And I’ll continue to answer any question you have, so that you’ll know, too.