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.
(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.
(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.”
On previous letters I showed you how credible this child was, how she could be used to say just about anything they wanted her to. (Go to SPM Responds (part 8.b) , SPM Responds (part 8.c) , SPM Responds (part 8.d) , SPM Responds (part 12.a) , and SPM Responds (part 12.b) )
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.
(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?
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?
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?
Q. Could you show me how he did that?
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?
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?
Q. And could you show me with the panties to the side what part he was licking you on?
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?
Q. Has anybody ever done anything like that to you before?
Q. What did you do – other than being shocked, what did you do?
Q. Okay. Now, did he say anything before he did that?
Q. He didn’t. And what did it feel like when he was licking you?
Q. Wet. And did you feel anything else?
A. His slobber.
Q. His slobber. Anything else?
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?
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?
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?
Q. And you said that after he stopped doing it he told you not to tell?
Q. Was he talking very loud when he said that?
Q. Was he whispering?
Q. Okay. And did he say anything?
Q. Did he say anything else to you then?
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?
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. And did you feel anything else?”
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.