Email to Scott Peterson’s new lawyer

Correen,

I note that you have been appointed to represent Scott Peterson.

First, to introduce myself, I have a strong interest in wrongful convictions. I started a social media group to publicise cases ( following adoption by the group ), and as you can see here the group has now had 80 exonerations : https://wronglyconvictedgroup.wordpress.com/featured-and-adopted-case-list/

The case of Scott Peterson was adopted by the group in June 2014, the public website post is here: https://wronglyconvictedgroup.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/scott-peterson/

Since then I have become very familiar with the case, running the Facebook group “Scott Peterson is Innnocent” which currently has more than 5,000 members.

More of my background is here, https://geebee2.wordpress.com/bio/ for example how I won a scholarship to study mathematics at Clare College Cambridge.

Now to the subject of my email, I have been contacted by vital witness, Margaret Main, who was terrorised by convicted serial killer Edward Wayne Edwards in 1971. Not only that, but he later visited her and made an extremely detailed confession on his involvement in the abduction and murder of Laci Peterson, and how Scott was framed by Laci  and Conner’s remains being planted on the shore of SF Bay where they were discovered.

You can read some of what she has told me here:
https://ededwardsserialkiller.wordpress.com/pines-card-witness/

Some important points:

(1) The burglary of the Medinas commenced on the 24th December, when Diane Jackson saw the unidentified three men and a van outside the property. However the burglary continued on 26th December, wit items being passed over the back fence.

(2) Edwards described to Margaret how Laci’s body was planted using a boat ( I believe a Zodiac raft ). In her words:

“He told me about parking the car and walking by the tree, going past the puddle, and taking the walk down to where he could direct how the body was positioned. The raft floated between the two rocks and the body was lifted to the flat rock.”

(3) Edwards also explained where Laci was taken after she was abducted, why she was given a red top ( which accounts for the terrified pregnant woman seen by Tom Harshman had a red top ). I am not publishing these details.

(4) Edwards explained to Margaret how he tricked Laci into letting into her home. Note: there are also anonymous messages left by someone using the username by “I Killed Laci Peterson” suggesting that after abducting Laci (after she returned from walking the dog), Edwards put the dog back in the yard with leash on as a ruse.

(5) Finally Edwards showed Margaret photos of Laci walking the dog, proving that he or his associates must have been stalking her. Thus his confession cannot have been false.

I have found Margaret to be an extremely credible witness, due to knowledge she has concerning not only the murder of Laci Peterson, but also concerning other murders, including the so-called “Zodiac” murders. In 1971 she was forced by Edwards to make the Zodiac Pines Card, and he explained how it encoded his name to her.

I am the author of this website which has information about Edwards and the many people he murdered and framed: https://ededwardsserialkiller.wordpress.com/

I hope this information will helpful to exonerating Scott Peterson.

Please feel free to contact me at any time, whether by this email address, or by Facebook messenger ( https://www.facebook.com/george.barwood/ ), or other means.

Yours Sincerely,

George Barwood

6th August, 2023 

Jeremy Bamber framed by fabricated evidence

When I first wrote about the Jeremy Bamber case, it was not clear to me whether the forensic evidence used to convict him was simply a mistake, or whether it was fabricated. New evidence has since come to my attention which shows it was both – a mistake led to Jeremy being suspected by police, and then fabricated evidence was manufactured to ensure a conviction.

CCRC Watch

First, I want to make some brief observations on the source of some of the most important new evidence. A search for “Dr Michael Naughton” brings up this page from the website of Bristol University, https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/michael-naughton which states that “Dr Michael Naughton is a leading scholar on miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions, activist for innocent victims of wrongful convictions and writer. He has received numerous awards and prizes for his work” and “Michael is the Founder and Director of Empowering the Innocent (ETI), a research and criminal justice system reform project ​(click here).

Empowering the Innocent (ETI) has so far set up two subprojects, CCRC Watch (click here) and False Allegations Watch (FAW) (click here).”

The page has further extensive information about Dr Naughton, making it clear that he is an accomplished scholar with a reputation to maintain.

The CCRC Watch article I will be referring to is https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/is-the-ccrc-implicated-in-36-years-of-deception-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber

The prosecution case

The prosecution claim that Jeremy Bamber murdered his family ( parents Nevill and June, sister Sheila and her twin sons) in the early morning hours on 7th August 1985, and a single moderator(sometimes referred to as a silencer) with Sheila’s blood in it, was discovered by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives in a box in a cupboard on 10th August 1985. While initially it was thought to be a case of murder-suicide, Sheila’s blood in a moderator would prove that her suicide had been staged, and since Jeremy claimed to have been called by his father, stating that Sheila had “got the gun” and had “gone crazy”, he must have carried out the murders and staged Sheila’s suicide.

In addition, the prosecution alleged that red paint on the moderator matched paint on the underside of the Aga shelf in the kitchen, which had been scratched, suggesting a struggle in the kitchen for the gun.

The testimony of Glynis Howard

On 13th August 1985 a sound moderator was examined (with a microscope) by Glynis Howard ( see here for a timeline for the case). She performed a chemical test, the Kastle-Meyer test, and claimed the blood was of human origin, however in fact the KM test only tests for hemeglobin, and cannot distinguish animal from human blood. This mistake was I believe the mistake that first led to Jeremy Bamber being considered a suspect. She did not observe any red paint on this moderator – this is perhaps the first clue that something is wrong with the prosecution case. Her testimony is posted in the comments on this Facebook post her statement to police is here.

Evidence a moderator was discovered by police

Per the CCRC Watch article, on Friday 9 August a moderator (labelled SBJ/1) was ‘dusted’ for fingerprints by DS219 Davidson, as confirmed by him in his interview with City of London Police. This is another clue, how could the moderator be examined by police before it was even discovered? [ Edit, Feb 25, 2023 : it turns out Davidson simply prepared paperwork, and even if there was fingerprint paperwork dated Friday 9th August including the moderator, it is still possible the moderator was added to the items to be fingerprinted before being sent to the lab ]

There is further evidence that a moderator was actually discovered by police on August 7th, in the form of statements made by Assistant Constable Peter Simpson, reported by the press – again see the CCRC Watch article.

Moreover, there is evidence (again from the CCRC watch article) that rather than a moderator being handed in to police by relatives on 11th August, on 11th September 1985, a sound moderator was collected by DC Oakey and handed to DCI Wright SOC Chelmsford. To put this in context, Jeremy Bamber was arrested on 7th September, 1985.

It now becomes clear that a second moderator with damning evidence planted in and on it was injected into the case after Jeremy Bamber was arrested to strengthen the evidence against him, after Glynis Howard mistakenly said the Kastle-Meyer test proved the blood was of human origin. More likely, the blood Howard detected was simply rabbit blood from an earlier rabbit hunting expedition.

Some people

It is my belief that some people just cannot accept most wrongful convictions (as being wrongful convictions), even when the evidence is very clear that someone is innocent, as with Scott Peterson (say) or Jodi Arias (which does seem to be a difficult case for many). Or even Amanda Knox (say).

Nancy Grace would be one such person. Perhaps because she was once a victim of a crime, perhaps for other reasons, I do not know why some, even perhaps many, people have this “guilt bias”. I think it is a fairly natural human disposition, perhaps a result of evolution and natural selection. It is safer to be suspicious of someone than too trusting!

I find it is simply a waste of time discussing a wrongful conviction with these people both my own time and theirs.

So to avoid wasting my time, and theirs, I block them.

I guess there about 20 such accounts. It doesn’t necessarily mean they have been uncivil or rude.

Jeremy Bamber Long Version

On August 7th, 1985 around 7.45 am armed police entered White House Farmhouse after breaking down the kitchen door and found Nevill Bamber, his wife June, their adopted daughter Sheila and her twin children all shot dead.

It was apparently a case of murder-suicide, Sheila had apparently shot the others and then herself. All the doors and windows on the ground floor were secure, bolted and locked from the inside.

Sheila had been diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, and had also been using illegal drugs such as cannabis and cocaine, so it was not hard to believe that she had shot her entire family and herself. The Bamber’s adopted son Jeremy told police that he had loaded the hunting rifle the previous evening to shoot some rabbits, but had not fired any rounds. He had unloaded the gun, but left it in the kitchen.

However, a month later on September 7th, Jeremy’s ex-girlfriend Julie Mugford gave a statement to police claiming that Jeremy had confessed on the day of the murders to hiring a hitman to murder his family. This however turned out to be untrue, the hitman turned out to have a solid alibi, and other details in Julies’s statement were obviously fabricated from false theories and rumours that were circulating. It is clear that Julie changed her story just after Jeremy told her he did not want to see her any more in a fit of jealousy.

At trial, the prosecution case rested mainly on a silencer that was found by relatives in downstairs cupboard. Blood found in the silencer was alleged to be human and compatible only with Sheila, implying that the silencer had been on the gun when Sheila was shot.

However in March 2000, DNA tests showed DNA in the moderator was not compatible with Sheila’s DNA, undermining the prosecution case.

The Criminal Case Review Commission concluded that “if the evidence about the blood in the sound moderator could not be viewed as having the significance attached to it at trial, then the rest of the evidence would not be sufficient to maintain a conviction” and referred the case to the Supreme Court.

However the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, concluding that the DNA results could be simply due to contamination, and did not invalidate the earlier blood type results.

Apart from the blood in the silencer, the rest of the prosecution case was very weak and made little sense. Jeremy’s car had been parked outside his home all night, and no tracks were detected on muddy tracks he could have used to travel to and from the farmhouse in the middle of the night from his home four miles away. Travelling by road would entail passing many houses, and a substantial risk of being seen.

In addition, Jeremy had called police to tell them Nevill had called, saying Sheila had gone crazy and had got the gun. He had tried to call back, but the line was engaged. It was clear that if Nevill had called Jeremy, then surely Sheila was responsible. But conversely if Sheila had not shot herself, it was clear that Jeremy had to have murdered his family ( or possibly hired someone as Julie claimed ). By calling police, he effectively framed himself, if there was solid evidence that Sheila had not shot herself.

It was also difficult to see how anyone could have staged Sheila’s suicide. The gun was positioned under her chin, and there was no sign of a struggle. Why would she have meekly sat still, given her mother was lying shot dead a few feet away near the entrance to the master bedroom? She had also been shot twice, making it even more unlikely she would have sat still while her suicide was staged.

There is even evidence that Sheila was alive long after 3 am, implying that she must have shot herself. There was no livor mortis visible seven and a half hours later.

Following the 2002 appeal, a withheld report was found showing that the blood in the silencer could in fact be animal blood. This possibility was never known to the jury, and is a much more plausible source for the blood found in the silencer.

[ Article not yet finished, is under development ]

Are Planned Murders Common?

I was trying to find some statistics, I just found this

( US murder statistics for 2017, broken down by circumstance )

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.xls

The total murders is 15,129.

Of these, Felony type total is 2,236 ( these are murders committed while carrying out some other crime, most common sub-category is robbery ).

Unknown is 6,077. “Suspected felony” is 153.

Of the rest ( 6,663 ) the most common subcategory is “Other Arguments” ( 3,224 ), then “Other not-specified” (2,008). There are various specific “Argument” categories, e.g. “Argument over money or property” ( 199 ), “Brawl due to influence of narcotics” ( 129 ), “Brawl due to influence of alcohol” ( 118 ).

So the common circumstances are an argument or murder while committing some other crime ( felony murder ).

I believe these figures suggest that most murders are not planned.

Original Poll which caused me to look for data here

Is Jeremy Bamber Guilty?

Around 3.26 a.m* on August 7, 1985 police received a call from Jeremy Bamber. He told police “You’ve got to help me. My father rang me and said “Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy and has the gun.” Then the line went dead.”

Police responded to White House Farm where his father lived, where they met Jeremy. Around 7.45 a.m. police entered the house and found Jeremy’s father Nevill, mother June, sister Sheila and her twin sons Nicholas and Daniel, age six, all shot dead.

Police initially believed that Sheila had shot herself after killing her parents and children : Sheila had a history of mental illness and drug abuse, and although Sheila had been shot twice, one of the shots would not have been immediately fatal. However, on September 29 Jeremy Bamber was arrested and charged and on 28 October 1986 he was convicted of all five murders.

* There is some controversy over the timing of Jeremy’s call, logs suggest Nevill called at 3.26 a.m. and Jeremy’s call was at 3.36 a.m. however this is uncertain, and this issue does not affect my assessment of the case very much.

The prosecution case

The prosecution case was that Jeremy ( henceforth “JB” ), travelled to White House Farm in the middle of the night, committed the murders, staged the scene to make it appear that Sheila shot herself, made a call to his home ( leaving the receiver off the hook ) and then cycled home and called police. JB told police the call from his father was at 3.10 a.m. and apparently believed British Telecom would have a log of the call ( although this was not the case), so he had only 15 minutes to return home. The prosecution argued that this was possible if he used a bicycle and paths and tracks to make the trip home, but this seems very questionable, as no bicycle tracks could be detected, in spite of the paths and tracks being muddy due to wet weather.

Prosecution evidence

The prosecution case rested principally on two elements.

Blood in the moderator

Firstly, a moderator was found in a downstairs cupboard, and forensic evidence allegedly showed that Sheila was shot with the moderator on the gun. Since Sheila could not have placed the moderator in the cupboard after shooting herself ( she was found in an upstairs bedroom ), that would rule out murder-suicide.

However the flake of blood found in the moderator could have come from a combination of June and Nevill’s blood, or even rabbit blood ( the rifle was used to shoot rabbits). Moreover DNA tests performed in 2000 instead of supporting the conclusion that the moderator was on the gun when Sheila was shot, actually contradicted that conclusion. Instead of Sheila’s DNA being found in the moderator, the DNA tests showed June’s DNA and an unknown male, possibly Nevill.

Julie Mugford

Secondly, Julie Mugford, JB’s fiancé at the time of the shooting, testified that JB had practically confessed to her. But Julie’s story changed, and JB’s confession appears to have been based not on the true facts of the case, but rather must have been concocted by Mugford, who had multiple motives to lie, as will be explained in more detail below.

Why Julie Mugford’s testimony lacked credibility

On the day after the killings, Julie made a statement to the police. She said Jeremy telephoned her at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of the killings. She said that he “sounded disjointed and worried” and he said “There’s something wrong at home.” She had been sleepy and had not asked what it was.

Then on September 1st, Julie called Liz ( a friend and one-time-lover of JB ) in floods of tears wanting to meet up. Julie tells Liz that JB has said he doesn’t want to see her any more. Then, apparently in a fit of jealousy, Julie said JB hired a hitman to kill his family. Liz suggested she should tell the police, Julie refused, suggesting this was just a casual lie or rumour intended to express her jealous anger at JB.

Over the next week, Julie continued to refuse to go to police despite the urging of Liz, but eventually after pressure from Liz and Malcolm ( Liz’s ex-boyfriend ), on September 7th, one month after the shootings, Julie told police that JB, on the same day as the shootings, said that he hired Matt McDonald to shoot his family. However, Matt had an airtight alibi, and was released.

See here for details on the complex story of Julie’s story changing ( the jury never knew the whole truth ).

Socialising with a murderer?

Besides the fact that Matt had an airtight alibi, one reason to doubt Julie’s story is that it would mean that she had been socialising with JB, remaining his girlfriend, spending two week-ends with him, even though she knew he was responsible for the murder of his own family. The appeal ruling ( see link below ) states:

110. …On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant’s mood during this period as “very happy”. After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.

111. Miss Mugford spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with the appellant in Eastbourne. The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating
out.

It seems impossible to believe that Julie could have carried on her relationship with JB, knowing that he was a child murderer. But why might Julie have lied?

Motive for Julie to lie

Julie was angry

Shortly before Julie went to police, her relationship with JB went sour. She heard him arranging to meet another woman. So anger at being scorned for another woman would be one motive for her to lie.

Julie could have feared prison

However, it appears Julie had a much stronger motive to lie. Julie may well have been talking to Ann Eaton, and heard of the discovery of the moderator in the cupboard. Under Ann’s influence, she may have started to think that JB was responsible for the shootings, or that JB might be charged with the murders. Her friends had made statements that the time of her call from JB was earlier than 3.30 a.m, making it appear that she was lying about the call time, and could be charged with being involved or obstructing justice.

Therefore she may have been thinking : “JB did it, and I am going to prison even though I did nothing wrong. I hate him, he’s evil…. I am going to save myself, I am not going to prison for what HE did.”

This would explain why she might lie, throwing Jeremy under a bus.

Where did Julie’s story come from?

In Julie’s changed statement, Nevill was shot seven times. However this was untrue, he was actually shot eight times. What is especially telling is that the press had reported Nevill was shot seven times. The obvious inference is that Julie used what she read in the papers, rather than JB being the source of the information.

In Julie’s changed statement, the kitchen window was the means of exiting the farmhouse, a theory of Ann, but at trial it turned out that this was impossible.

Finally, Julie said JB told her “Sheila Caffell had been told to lie down and shoot herself last”. This, besides being being wildly implausible ( who would do as they told when told to shoot themselves? ), was contrary to the forensic evidence, which showed that Julie was shot twice in a sitting position, and then fell back.

Thus the content of Julie’s revised statement was not credible for multiple reasons, and we can infer it came from rumours and false press reports, not JB.

Why would Jeremy confess at all?

Finally, why would JB make such confessions at all? He could never gain anything from making these statements, there was no reason for him to confess to such a terrible crime. If he was capable of the cold-blooded murder of his own family, surely he could keep that secret from Julie for a day.

Evidence of Innocence

Besides the very doubtful prosecution case, there are several reasons to believe JB innocent.

(1) JB had no history of violence ( and this was a very extreme crime ). No diagnosis of psychopathy. Nothing in his past to suggest he could carry out such a terrible crime, the murder of his family, including young children.

(2) Sheila showed no sign of Livor Mortis at 10:30 a.m., meaning she could not possibly have died around 3 a.m.

(3) How could JB realistically have staged the suicide, how could he get Sheila to sit still , holding a Bible, while he got ready to shoot her? And do that twice?

(4) How can deep scratch marks on the arms of Nevill and June be accounted for? How could that possibly be staged.

(5) How does his plan make any sense? Why risk the trip to the farmhouse in the dark, why call the police and rule out all alternate suspects except Sheila?

In Summary

To summarise : Julie’s testimony was not at all credible, and no rational jury could depend on it as proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the prosecution’s bicycle theory was impossible, and the theory that Sheila was shot with the moderator on was shown by DNA evidence to be wrong, his appeal should have been upheld, and there is every reason to believe he is innocent.

Documents

JeremyBamber2002AppealRulingDownload

For more information about the case see here.

“I Killed Laci Peterson” messages.

Here is my interpretation of the some of the last messages left by “I Killed Laci Peterson”, starting from Easter 2006. Remember that “thee” in these messages refers to the writer (Edwards), “thou” refers to us, or perhaps more specifically people who think Scott murdered Laci. I will not attempt to translate every sentence by IKLP, I will select some sentences from some messages. My translations are in bold.

363. Happy Easter
Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:22 pm [skov says 2:22]
Fore today these words from thee brings. In thous world the birds
must sing. But for thee it will soon turn dark. Laci was not taken from
in the park. Thou fools who believe Scott set her free. Have no idea
what makes up thee. She answered the door. Turned taken to the floor.
Out through the side. There she did not die. More than days did pass. It did not happen fast. Fore thou has it all wrong. The one not where he belongs. With each day which goes by. Closer the wrong one will die. A mark given not at birth. Seen by three from upon this earth. Look far to the west. Can thou pass the test. Or is thou so dumb. Afraid thee will come.
FreeBird

Translation:
Laci was not abducted in the park. You fools who believe Scott murdered Laci have no idea who I am. Laci answered the door. Laci turned, and was pushed to to the floor. Laci was taken out the side door. She was still alive for more than a week.

372. Mon May 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Fore there to be the perfect crime. Thee must find another to do the
time.
FreeBird

For a murder to be perfect, I have to frame an innocent person.

384. Thu May 18, 2006 2:05 pm Post
Fore if thou breaks the code with FreeBird inside. Thee will tell thou where all others now hide. Thou is not very close. Not by photo of a boat. If thou asks why. Turn eyes to the sky. If thou is so slow. Thou will never know. Thou makes fun of thee if it will. Not laughs will stop thees amazing thrills. Zodiac had four but there were many more. Contact made from within the front door. Thous belief of her walk. Is basic stupid talk. Thou never leaves from within. No one witnesses thees sin. When of a state of no attention. It is how thee starts the detention. Travel in plain light. Right in thous sight. Thou never thinks twice. Thee appears so nice. If thou only knew. How much thee laughs at you. The most obvious of all alludes. Passes by right in front of you. Thou has so y wrong guesses. Thee listens learns and progresses. Thou who count not look for thee. Is why thou makes it easy to be free. A last note to thou stuck on a boat. Thee stands on another deck and simply gloats.
FreeBird

Laci was first assaulted within the front door of her home.

398. Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject:
Fore use the can out the door. Fence hides thou from seeing more. A lovely drive to a safe place. Days we stay as thou blows the case. Pray for mercy thee not heard. Thou unable to say the right words. Not hours or days. Time for thee to play. Come a time thee is bored. Not fun with thou anymore. With a superior plan in mind. Decide where to make the find. Why thou continues with this. Thee finds others not to miss.

Laci was driven to a safe place. She was held for more than a week as the Modesto PD wrongly suspected Scott and ignored other witnesses. I made a new plan, and decided where to plant Conner and Laci.

401. Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject:
Fore puddles not of blood. Gates open before the flood. Closed before thee leaves. Thou explain what not seen. Theory by thou is so wrong. Now know why thee not found. Oxygen not left in the air. Right to life not spared.
FreeBird

Dock gates were opened before the tide came in, and closed before I left. There was no oxygen left for Laci to breath, she was killed.

402. Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject:
Fore thee laughs at thou. Stand and take a bow. Thou not know when I arrive.
Thou not know who is alive. Down by the dock. Look up at the clock. Thou find the time. Thee then shows the sign.
FreeBird

Unclear, but “Down by the dock.” could refer to a dry dock or similar.

Original discussion here.

See https://wronglyconvictedgroup.wordpress.com/2019/10/16/laci-peterson-setup/ for more.

Also: ( added July 2020 )

388. Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject:
Fore as the sun comes to light. Thee seeks what not put up a fight. Tap on the door. Pushed down to the floor. Unable to speak. Bound hands and feet. Open the cupboard doors. Thee search for smores. None to be found. Smack while she lays on the ground.

Her dog is let free. Let out by the hand of thee. Thou all fools who are wrong. Thee let the dog be gone. None have a clue. Fore you are all fools.
FreeBird

Laci’s abductor let the dog out.

384. Thu May 18, 2006 2:05 pm Post
     Fore if thou breaks the code with FreeBird inside. Thee will tell thou where all others now hide. Thou is not very close. Not by photo of a boat. If thou asks why. Turn eyes to the sky. If thou is so slow. Thou will never know. Thou makes fun of thee if it will. Not laughs will stop thees amazing thrills. Zodiac had four but there were many more. Contact made from within the front door.
     Thous belief of her walk. Is basic stupid talk. Thou never leaves from within. No one witnesses thees sin. When of a state of no attention. It is how thee starts the detention. Travel in plain light. Right in thous sight. Thou never thinks twice. Thee appears so nice. If thou only knew. How much thee laughs at you. The most obvious of all alludes. Passes by right in front of you. Thou has so many wrong guesses.

People who think Laci was abducted while walking the dog are stupid. Laci didn’t come out of her house to confront the burglars. Nobody saw Laci being abducted. Laci wasn’t paying any attention when she was abducted. Edwards was “in plain sight”, Laci never thought twice about letting a “nice old man” into her home. People following the case are making wrong guesses.

FBI misconduct

Points for Dianne Feinstein

Two witnesses have come forward, with information about a serial killer known to the FBI, Edward Wayne Edwards.

Based on their information, J. Edgar Hoover allowed Edwards out of Federal Prison to terrorise innocent people, carry out assassinations, and frame innocent people.

The FBI are refusing FOIA requests for information on Edwards ( who died on death row in 2011 ), even though information about Edwards is highly relevant to people still in prison, and even on death row in California. See https://ededwardsserialkiller.wordpress.com/fbi/

One witness is Margot Burns. Edwards confessed multiple murders to her.
See https://ededwardsserialkiller.wordpress.com/pines-card-witness/
She met Edwards in 1971, and John Gotti at a time when Gotti was meant to be in Federal Prison.
Instead, Gotti was able to carry out an operation against the “Brown Berets”.

The other witness is Margene Morrison. She was terrorised by Edwards, who told her how J. Edgar Hoover was impressed by Edwards.
See https://ededwardsserialkiller.wordpress.com/margene/

Please can you take the appropriate action. This would appear to be a legitimate subject for investigation by Congress, as it concerns unconstitutional ongoing activity by the FBI.

Truth Finding

Justice is rooted in “finding the truth”.

Generally we cannot be sure of the truth, but have to make do with what is “probable”. The ultimate aim is to find two overall best hypotheses : one is the “defense case”, the other the “prosecution case”. There may be alternatives within such hypotheses. We then have to assess the probability of each hypothesis, taking all the evidence into account. We may use slightly “gray” logic, where evidence may be said to render a hypothesis “unlikely, but still possible”.

Hypothesis formation is important. Sometimes the most difficult part of figuring the truth out is finding the correct hypothesis, and not overlooking some possibility.

We have to watch out for false assumptions or inferences. Such a

1. All confessions are true
2. Nobody is ever framed
3. Documents are never forged
4. There are no random coincidences
5. Innocent people don’t lie
6. Police officers never lie
7. Police officers never plant evidence
8. People are rational – that is they do things which help themselves, they are “motivated”.
9. Experts never make mistakes.

Nevertheless, such assumptions/inferences are still normal when forming hypotheses to be tested and when evaluating hypotheses. We need to carefully consider especially whether actions are rational, and if they are not, whether the irrational “mistake” is reasonable or unreasonable, plausible or implausible.

If we call the prosecution hypothesis P and the defense hypothesis D, we will ultimately have one of the four possibilities below:

• P is possible and D is possible => Not guilty, although we are not sure.
• P is impossible and D is possible => Not guilty, we are sure.
• P is possible and D is impossible => Guilty, we are sure.
• P is impossible and D is impossible => Something is wrong. Either we missed a hypothesis, or made a false assumption/inference,

The rest of the article is examples to illustrate how this works, taken from cases I know well.

Examples of how hypothesis formation can be difficult

The difficulty of finding a correct hypothesis : this is difficult both for prosecutors and for innocent defendants. An example would be the Scott Peterson case when defense attorney Mark Geragos formulated a defense theory that was wrong, with regard to the time when Laci Peterson was abducted. He failed to take note of the time when Laci was seen walking the dog, and also the observations of the postman. It was also difficult to figure out the motive for why Laci might be abducted, or why someone would choose to frame Scott by planting the bodies near where he went fishing.

Often the process of forming a correct hypothesis is iterative, and the hypothesis has to be modified to take into account new evidence. Sometimes this may be difficult : for example, how should the apparent coincidence of a burglary in the Scott Peterson case be accounted for?

Examples of false assumptions / inferences

Point 1 : Numerous examples of false confessions exist. They are so common it is hardly necessary to give examples, but I will name Jeffrey Deskovic and Brendan Dassey.

Point 2 : Although cases where people are framed are not common, they do exist. Scott Peterson is such a case – the bodies of the two victims were planted in order to cast suspicion on Scott Peterson.

Point 3 : Edward Wayne Edwards forged numerous false documents, even going so far as to forge a fake birth date, five years later than his actual birth date.

Point 4 : Random coincidences do happen. For example Amanda Knox switched off her mobile phone on the evening that Meredith Kercher was murdered. It could be seen as suspicious, but there was a reasonable innocent explanation.

Point 5 : Innocent people do sometimes lie, sometimes because they think some circumstance ( such as an extra-marital affair ) will look bad, or because they are ashamed or think they may not be believed if they tell the truth ( Jodi Arias would be an example ).

Point 6 : Police officers do sometimes lie, an example would be the Debra Milke case.

Point 7 : Police officers do sometimes plant evidence, an example would be the Steven Avery case.

Point 8 : People sometimes act in an irrational way, especially when they are angry – perhaps because someone is not acting the way they want. An example would be Travis Alexander charging at Jodi Arias, even after she pointed a gun to keep him away. However if a hypothesis depends on a person acting in an irrational way, it’s likely wrong, especially if the irrational behaviour is over a long period of time.

Point 9 : “Junk science” ( experts making mistakes ) is very common. One example is the case of David Camm where experts testified blood spatter had to be from a gunshot when that was not the case.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” –Richard P. Feynman ( see Quotations ).

Trump’s Impeachment

A blog on Trump’s impeachment.

President Trump has been caught putting an investigation into Joe Biden’s son, and some other party political issues in Ukraine dating back to 2016 ahead of the pressing need to provide military aid to keep Russian-backed forces at bay, as laid down by Congress.

Key points:

Taylor said he heard from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that on September 1, Sondland told Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak that the military aid to Ukraine was dependent on Zelensky’s pursuit of the Burisma investigation. Taylor cited Sondland telling him in a call that Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce he would order the two investigations, thus placing Zelensky “in a public box”. Taylor quoted Sondland stating “everything” including military aid and a Trump–Zelensky meeting was contingent on that announcement.

( From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#William_Taylor )

I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the president’s views on Ukraine,” Holmes said. “In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the president did not give a shit about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland agreed that the president did not give a shit about Ukraine.”

“I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated, the president only cares about ‘big stuff,'” Holmes continued. “I noted that there was ‘big stuff’ going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant ‘big stuff’ that benefits the president, like the ‘Biden investigation’ that” Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani “was pushing.”

Sondland, who did not mention this call in either his initial October deposition and or in subsequent written testimony he gave this month, will appear publicly before impeachment investigators on Wednesday.

From https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/state-department-official-testifies-he-s-never-seen-anything-trump-n1085426

Lt Col Vindman told the US House intelligence committee that he had been concerned by the president’s demands to investigate Mr Biden.

“It was probably an element of shock that maybe, in certain regards, my worst fear of how our Ukrainian policy could play out was playing out,” he said.

“It was improper for the president to request – to demand – an investigation into a political opponent, especially [from] a foreign power where there is at best dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation and that this would have significant implications if it became public knowledge,” he told the committee.

He had reported the “inappropriate” discussion to NSC lawyers “out of a sense of duty”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50480987

Sondland testified that there was an explicit quid pro quo. “I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ ” Sondland said. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/sondland-impeachment-testimony-implicates-giuliani-pompeo-trump-ukraine-quid-pro-quo.html

Impeachment inquiry: Five key moments from Sondland hearing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50493440

Additionally, Cooper testified that regardless of the reason the Trump administration held back the aid to Ukraine, the simple act of withholding the funds without first getting Congressional approval is against the law, specifically, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). The ICA precludes the president or other government officials from impounding, either permanently or temporarily, federal funds that Congress has designated to be spent for a specific purpose.

Source

Impeachment Testimony Bombshell ‘Systematically Eliminated the Republican Defenses of Trump’

Impeachment Testimony Bombshell ‘Systematically Eliminated the Republican Defenses of Trump’

Timeline

The phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy was on July 25.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-transcript-read-ukraine-president-phone-call-transcript-pdf-released-today-joe-biden-crowdstrike-2019-09-25/

“At least one week before President Trump spoke by phone with newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late July, he instructed his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold off on releasing nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine that had already been appropriated by Congress, CBS News has confirmed. “

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ordered-delay-military-aid-to-ukraine-shortly-before-call-with-its-president/

Trump lifted the hold September 11 ( wikipedia )

Discussion on Nov 20

In her opening statement, Ms Hill – the former top Russia experts to the White House – accused other Republicans of sowing doubt about Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country – and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” she said.

She urged lawmakers not to promote “politically driven falsehoods” that cast doubt on Russia’s interference in US elections.

“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves,” she said.

During Ms Hill’s testimony, Democratic lawyer Daniel Goldman asked her: “So is it your understanding then that President Trump disregarded the advice of his senior officials about this theory and instead listened to Rudy Giuliani’s views?”

“That appears to be the case, yes,” she replied.

In her later testimony, she warned that Mr Giuliani had been making “explosive” and “incendiary” claims about Ukraine.

Impeachment inquiry: Trump ‘promoted discredited Ukraine theory’

Discussion on Nov 21

Even host Steve Doocy seemed somewhat taken aback by Trump’s claims and responded by asking him, “Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?”

Trump’s sourcing was weak, to put it mildly.

“Well, that’s what the word is,” he said.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/22/20977752/trump-fox-friends-crowdstrike-ukraine-impeachment-conspiracy-theory

or https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/trumps-rambling-fox-friends-appearance-read-as-admission-of-guilt-on-comey-firing-ukraine-call/

Two White House budget officials resigned in part out of frustration with President Donald Trump’s order to freeze U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, a senior budget official told House impeachment investigators.

Mark Sandy, whose closed-door deposition transcript was released Tuesday, said the initial concerns about the hold on military aid caused at least two officials within the Office of Management and Budget to resign.

One of those officials, a lawyer, stepped down over concerns that the hold was violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which sharply curbs the executive branch’s authority to alter congressionally appropriated funds; another resigned over “frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/democrats-trump-budget-ukraine-aid-074016

BBC Timeline ( 27 November )

Intelligence Committee Report ( December 3, 2019 )
News | Executive Summary