| Subject: Food for Thought |
Author:
Elli
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05:58:26 04/08/02 Mon
I want to thank you all for your posts both positive and negative. They give me an idea on how people are viewing the case. I'd like to address some things here about the trial. Clubhouse is right when he says the basis for the appeal will come from the over 350 sidebars. These are all recorded into court record and become public record after a trial. Geoff made it a point to make sure every reversable error was recorded. There was not one or two but dozens during the eleven days of trial. Are any of you out there privy to what was said during those sometimes long and boring conferences. I have been informed about many of them so I'm in a position to make a better call on what will happen. Geoff did hope to find an unbiased jury, but that was only after Judge Dunnelon refused to consider a change of venue. What choice did Geoff have. We knew after the jury had been chosen that it would be an uphill battle. I was told to always be positive when making statements and I was. Clubhouse was also right when he said that it was Charlie Roberts trial from day one, but not because Ralf was guilty. The trial was biased from day one. Charlie kept repeating what a violent person Ralf is but where was his proof? Did he show hospital records of Nancy's injuries? No. Did he provide police reports from the incidents when Ralf alledgedly beat Nancy? No. Did he bring in witnesses who actually witness Ralf beating Nancy? No. So what did he have? Well there was Nancy's allegations that Ralf beat her, but then she never went to the hospital nor called the police when these alledged beatings occurred. They only appeared when she wanted something or wanted to punish Ralf. Even on July 10th the day that she says Ralf chased her with a knife you won't find a police report for that incident. Did you know that Nancy was on the phone with a deputy shortly after she left the house that morning. Did she say arrest that man he chased me with a knife? No she did not because she hadn't thought up that story yet. You might then say, but she testified under oath so it must be true. Would it surprise you to know that we provided the court with numerous court documents showing that Nancy had repeatedly lied under oath. Why were these documents not presented during trial? Judge Dunnelon ruled they were not allowed. So what other proof did Charlie Roberts show to prove that Ralf was violent? Well there was the testimony of Lynn Beals. Beals testified that she worked with Nancy form October through December of 1998 with Nancy and she said Nancy told her Ralf beat her daily and that all she got for Christmas that year was a beating. Beals further testified that she saw bruises on Nancy every day. Damaging stuff isn't it. But then we told Geoff that was impossible and he checked into her and Nancy's work record. Guess what we found? Beals had not worked with Nancy all those three months like she claimed. She had worked a few days with Nancy during the last part of October into the first part of November. She was not even working with Nancy in December. Her statments about a Christmas beating were purely fabricated. She committed purjury plain and simple. When Judge Dunnelon was presented with these facts she ruled the testimony would stand. Next Charlie Roberts came up with Sarah Blankenship, the bartender at Johnney's. Her entire testimony was a lie from start to finish. Have any of you read her first statements to the police, and private investigators? Have you read her statements and depositions to both the prosecution and defense? I would venture to say that you have not. In her earlier statemants she makes no mention of Markus, but states that Ralf arrives with me but leaves with Nancy. Since that was impossible we weren't worried about her testimony. But, I guess as trial approached it became clear to the prosecution that her testimony would not fly the way it was, so it changed. Now Markus was there, and Nancy was not. Because if Nancy was there then it would spoil Charlie's accusation that we tricked poor unsuspecting Nancy. After all, Nancy thought Ralf was in Germany, so how could she pick him up at the bar. Do any of you see what was happening here? Ralf was being railroaded. Did you know that Nancy had a conversation earlier that day with Mr. Miles, the man who made the 911 call. I'm not surprised if you didn't, because that testimony was not allowed. Would it surprise you to know that Nancy said that her and Ralf would soon be back together, and that it was all just a misunderstanding. Everything would be fine once I was gone. Why didn't you hear that? Because Judge Dunnelon rulled it out. It wouldn't fit with the prosecution's case. Not exactly the statments made by a woman fearing for her life. We had witnesses originally to testify about Nancy's abusive nature, one of them her friend from childhood. Why didn't we call them? Again the judge ruled we could not, they were hearsay. And what were the testimony of Beals and Blankenship if not hearsay. I could go on and on about how biased this trial was but I think you get the idea. As for Ralf's appeal, I do know that many times appeals take years, but that is mostly because people cannot afford an appeals lawyer and one has to be appointed. These lawyers are so overworked that it can take years for them to get to a case. I'm working so that does not happen with Ralf. With a private Lawyer we can get the appelate court to look at the case much sooner. It's not the court that is overloaded so much as it is the court appointed lawyers caseload. So expect a new trial within 18 months, if not sooner. I assure you that I will find a private lawyer to take Ralf's case. I found Geoff and I will find an appeals lawyer.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
