Thursday, April 10, 2014

THE GROUNDS --WHY FRISCO TEXAS MAN'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED AND THE DIRTY DETAILS OF WHAT WAS DONE TO HIM BY THE POLICE AND A CORRUPT BY THE POLICE (AND CORRUPT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS).

GROUND ONE:

Tampering of police certified audio/video tape



FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:

1) Audio from video evidence was discovered and confirmed by multiple forensics experts to have been tampered with. The 4 seconds in Greer's lapel mic was to erase Applicant’s explicit warning to the perceived burglar [whom Applicant called out by name], which would demonstrate with absolute certainty that Applicant did not know that the person on his property [Greer] was a police officer and acted in accordance with Castle Law.

2) Office Greer stated later on the audio video evidence “I don’t think he could see me, though. Have Dispatch call the Reporting Party to call him and let him know it's the (expletive) Police”.

3) In addition, there is a 5 minute blanked out spot in the Claussen video.


4) Applicant discovered the tampering of the evidence by having the two police certified
audio tapes analyzed by several experts in order to have undisputable proof, that is “experts checking experts”.

5)Furthermore, no gunshot is heard on the lapel mic and even though the audio (after tampered spot) is back on, it is not heard. This has been proven by syncing the car audio with the lapel mic audio. This proves that Officer Greer was farther away from the residence than the car because the gunshot is heard on the car audio.

6) An audio engineer was able to enhance the sound from the car audio and retrieve the missing 4 second spot that was tampered with and prove that Applicant was calling out to the perceived intruder and acted in complete accordance with Texas' Castle Law Note: Applicant's son was also the bogus 911 caller who needed his father out of the house in order to take the items needed to complete a car purchase the following day. In fact, he did just that with the assistance of police who invited him into the home once applicant was arrested, despite Applicant's express directions not to allow him into the home. Son is serving sentence for stealing applicant's identity and other items with the help of police).
7) Finally, Greer testified that he never turns off his mic. A beep occurs just prior to the blank 4 second spot. The National Center for Audio Visual Forensics stated clearly in an email that a beep occurs whenever the mic is turned off. Had Trial Counsel been effective, he would have clearly made the point to ask Greer why a beep occurred there if he never turned off his mic. This illustrates that the altering party knew the idiosyncrasies of the L3 Mobile Vision Software, but did not know that Greer's future testimony regarding his routine would contradict tape


GROUND TWO:

False testimony given by Frisco Police Officer Scott Greer and 911 operator Delanna Copeland,


FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:
1) Delanna Copeland violated proper police protocols when she did not question 911 caller's authenticity/motives when she did not question why his stated location differed from his actual location.
2) Greer was wearing a lapel audio transmitter, Lapel audio tape and car audio/video evidences that Officer Greer did not:
(a) park in front of the home,
(b) have his lights on,
(c) wait for backup,
(d) nor did he announce himself as a police officer when he entered Applicant’s property and approached Applicant’s home.
(e) have a warrant nor consent to enter Applicant’s property,
(f) have probable cause to do so,
(g) note any exigent circumstances present, and
(h) note problems. He stated in Police Report that Applicant was watching TV and drinking a beer (meaning no problems observed).
3) The audio recording further evidences that Applicant did not know that the person on his property [Greer] was a police officer. Officer Greer falsely testified that Applicant knew he was a police officer and intended to shoot at him. Officer Greer falsely asserted that he could see the muzzle fire from the gun held in the Applicant's hand .
5) In contradiction to his testimony in court, Officer Greer expressly states on the lapel mic that, “I don't think [Applicant] could see me” and asks to “have dispatch call the [reporting party] to call [Applicant] and let him know it’s the [expletive] police”

6) Due to recent forensic experts looking at the evidence, it is clear that Officer Greer was nowhere near the Applicant’s door when the gun was shot as the gunshot was not recorded on Officer’s lapel mic audio, but WAS recorded on the car audio which was 100+ feet away. Officer Greer falsely testified that he was in front of the door when the gun was shot. The tampered spot was a 4 second spot BEFORE the area where the gunshot should have been recorded and the sound comes back on in time for it to have been recorded-however the gunshot is not where it should have been.
7) A Forensic expert has now been able to enhance Applicant's warning to perceived burglar from the CAR audio. (This is the 4 second spot that was erased/tampered with from the lapel mic audio). This also proves that Applicant was acting in accordance with Texas' Castle Law. This warning has been confirmed by another expert.


GROUND THREE:

False report given by court appointed authenticator, Herbert Joe regarding the audio tape


FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:

  1. Report did not state the evidence of tampering.
  2. Joe’s report did not synchronize the two audios properly and detect that Officer Greer's testimony was false considering the scientific impossibility of him being where he said he was that is, near Applicant’s door.
  3. Further, Joe’s report did not state that Officer Greer expressly mentioned that Applicant did not know that the person on his property was a police officer.
  4. The report also did not state that no gunshot was audible from Officer Greer’s lapel audio transmitter and that the audio recording only picked up static, not the sound of a gunshot. The gunshot was recorded in the car audio 100+ feet away and WAS recorded on the car audio.
  5. Joe's report did not state why his report was so radically different from the text messages originally sent to Counsel Raphael DeLagarza and Applicant.


GROUND FOUR: Ineffective Counsel sabotaged Applicant's defense

Trial counsel sabotaged Applicant's defense by not questioning and investigating tampered evidence, multiple breaches of police protocol by 911 dispatcher and Officers, did not point out and argue that Greer's recorded statements on the audio that evening impeached his testimony on the stand when he stated that “I don't think he could see me though” and “Have Dispatch call the RP (reporting party) and have him call him and tell him it's the (expletive) Police!”. Counsel did not challenge State's failure to provide all evidence prior to trial. Trial counsel sabotaged Applicant's defense, was hostile to defendant, did not adequately question or have confirmation of strange spots on audio examined, took police dismissive attitude that the 4 second erased spot was “a glitch”, and sabotaged defense of client, by not questioning and investigating into the same. Counsel failed to obtain relevant testimony, evidence, & analysis, and a serious, competent defense strategy as agreed to in front of the Judge and question the tampered evidence (and evidence never provided) has resulted in the jury finding the Applicant guilty. Counsel acted with malice and contributed to a successful malicious prosecution by the Ass't. DA. Counsel had a conflict of interest with head Detective's family. Counsel stated to Applicant's Daughter and Ex-Wife that he never takes these types of cases and only did so because of the Judge's insistence. Applicant has now discovered evidence presented in the trial court was tampered with. Proper analysis of audio/video tape by MULTIPLE experts proves that false testimony was given by Officer Greer regarding Applicant’s arrest and the court appointed authenticator, Herbert Joe also gave a false report on the audio/video tape.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

  1. Counsel deliberately misled Applicant by stating the sound on lapel mic recording was a gunshot, when it was static background noise and not the sound of gunshot.
  2. Trial counsel ignored the fact that Joe’s initial texts to previously counsel, Raphael Delagarza were different from the final report.
  3. Applicant’s counsel failed to question about the 5 minute blanked spot where there is no audio in the Claussen Video.
  4.  Counsel failed to question Joe about the syncing of the lapel & car videos and investigate the missing gunshot on the lapel mic, which would have proven that Greer was not where he said he was and that no assault occurred.
  5. Applicant’s counsel did not challenge the State’s failure to provide ALL evidence to Applicant before trial. In fact, to this day, much evidence has still been withheld despite the Attorney Generals directive to turn it over to Applicant.
  1. Counsel ignored Officer Greer’s multiple breaches of police protocol. Counsel failed to question the credibility of the 911 emergency dispatch caller which evidenced that the caller while stating he was out of state was, in fact, in Fort Worth, Texas.
  2. When Prosecutors showed a timeline “showing” that communication for several hours occurred with Applicant, Applicant asked counsel to object because it was not supported by forensic evidence, Mark Ledbetter told his Client to “Shut the (expletive) up”.
  3. Counsel did not point that Greer's recorded statements impeached his testimony when he stated that “I don't think he could see me though” and “Have Dispatch call the RP (reporting party) and have him call him and tell him it's the (expletive) Police!”
  4. Applicant’s counsel further accepted the position during questioning at trial that the erased portion of the recording was a glitch, rather than tampered evidence. Counsel failed to ask Greer why a beep occurred prior to blank 4 second spot if he never turned off his mic, thereby proving that the altering party knew the idiosyncrasies of the L3 Mobile Vision System, but did NOT know (at time of tampering) that Greer's testimony regarding his routine would contradict the beep and blanked out spot.
  5. Counsel failed to obtain witnesses, experts, analysis that could have assisted in a competent defense. Counsel failed to provide the court with police reports of the police assisted theft that occurred after Applicant was arrested.
  6. Counsel refused to raise Applicant's strategy of defense even though he confirmed his agreement (to the court) to utilize this strategy. It is for this reason and this reason only that Applicant agreed to have him represent him.
  7. Counsel failed to introduce Son's arrest and incarceration record, Multiple threats and text to “leave his stuff outside” as support for the state of mind of the Applicant.
  8. Counsel failed to point out the fraudulent, retroactively altered “original” indictment and ask why would an indictment time-stamped almost 18 months prior to the Motion to Amend with the exact same font and phraseology, need to be “amended”?
  9. Counsel failed to point out that in no way, is Applicant responsible for the bogus 911 call made by his son to 911, or 911 Operator and Police making no less than five (5) critical errors in their duties which led up to the event.
Post a Comment