What prosecutors Susanne Cohen, Patty Stevens, William Clayton and their cohorts Lorrain Heath and Judge Andrew Klein did to Mark is biblical . . . .

...I did them no wrong, but they laid a trap for me.

I did them no wrong, but they dug a pit to catch me.

…Malicious witnesses testify against me.

They accuse me of crimes I know nothing about.

...But they are glad now that I am in trouble; they gleefully join together against me.

...I am attacked by people I don't even know; they slander me constantly. They mock me and call me names; they snarl at me.

...They don't talk of peace; they plot against innocent people who mind their own business.

They shout, "Aha! Aha! With our own eyes we saw him do it!"

..."Look, we got what we wanted! Now we will eat him alive!"

From Psalm 35, David (before he was king), possibly written when he was being hunted by King Saul (1 Samuel 24)

Dog's Vomit

The 2007 trial of which Mark was convicted of raping Alejandra and Lorena Lara, was presided over by Judge Andrew G. Klein.       

Judge Klein recused himself from presiding over any other of Mark’s upcoming trials because Klein felt he could not do so impartially or without prejudice. Klein also made awful remarks about Mark off the record, I am told. Clearly this man needed to recuse himself, and thankfully he had the intelligence to do so. 

However, the appeal for the 2007 conviction recently went right in front of this very same man, judge Klein. The same man who recused himself because he could not make decisions in any further proceedings in Mark’s case without bias and his own personal feelings.

So it was no surprise that Mark’s appeal, whom Klein already admitted he could not deal fairly with, was denied. An appeal that introduced new evidence – the cover up of the extensive investigation of  Terry Wayne Smith by Officer Rusty Stuart.  Regardless that the prosecutors Susanne Cohen, William Clayton, Patty Stevens, and task team dics Alex Femenia, Mike Polombo, Mike Mieslish and others hid this report isn’t relevant for purposes of the appeal.  New evidence is new evidence, regardless of how it was found and cases are overthrown and new trials are ordered when there is new evidence this substantial.  

But like a dog returning to its vomit, Mark’s appeal went right back to the very judge who already admitted that his own personal feelings prevented him from being fair in regards to Mark.   

Scarey thing this thing they call our justice system. Seems more like the good ole boy system. 

As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness. Proverbs 26:11

Arizona - Worst State in Country for Making Mistakes in Death Penalty Cases

From the Northern Arizona Innocent Project

A 2001 report issued by Columbia University Law professor, James Liebman, indicated that Arizona is among the worst states in the country when it comes to making mistakes in death penalty cases (A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995). An urgent need exists for students and concerned community members to become involved in cases where innocent people have been unjustly incarcerated.  Read more. . .

State's Closing

As expected the majority of the State’s closing arguments were hyped with crime scene photos of victims to stir emotions and prejudice the jury. What actual “facts” Patty Stevens tried to use were fabricated, along with only halves of testimony to hide the actual facts which exonerate Mark.  As Channel 15 reported, her closing was finger pointing and name calling. Hype, no real or true facts.

Pete Ochoa 
Steven’s played a video clip of witness Pete Ochoa. Ochoa is the man who lied on the stand in drama queen fashion saying that he will never forget the face of the attacker, saying it was Mark. Steven’s didn’t play, of course, the entire video clip of Ochoa’s testimony where he admitted lying on the stand since he really never saw the face of the attacker. Ochoa told not one but two police officers that the attacker had the hood of his jacket covering his head and not only could he not see his face; he couldn’t even tell the police what race the suspect was. 

Any witness other witness or victim who lied on the stand were effectively impeached by Mark's attorneys. 

Surveillance with white van while / crimes stopped
Stevens argued that the crimes stopped after Mark saw a white van parked in front of our house and realized he was under surveillance. The truth: Not a single office who participated in the surveillance testified that they used a white van, nor parked in front of our house. In fact, the lead surveillance officer testified that the last thing they want to do is let a suspect know they’re under surveillance so they would never be as obvious as Stevens stated. Moreover, he testified he was in a flatbed truck parked down the street and that the surveillance was called off after a few days due to “no suspicious activity.” 

As for the crime’s stopping, that statement is just absurd. As if the police are going to call ongoing Baseline crimes after Mark’s arrest, Baseline crimes. The media, at least most of the reporters such as Michael Keifer of the Arizona Republic, only write what the police tell them. So even if the MO is the same as the Baseline crimes, police aren’t going to say that, nor will the media. Further, there is no way every single crime committed in the Valley since Mark’s arrest over the past 5+ years could be compared to the so-called Baseline crimes. With a backlog of cases in the 1000s Phoenix just does not have the resources to do comparisons of every single crime. As Judge Granville stated, making the statement that the crimes stopped “is a bridge too far.” 

The conversation that never happened
Stevens also said in closing that Mark and I had a phone conversation about him knowing he was under surveillance. Five years of daily recorded conversations, 5 years of regular jail visit recorded conversation, nearly 2000 in all, the State did not produce a single recording, not one. The prosecution never produced a recording of that conversation. Because it never happened. Just more noise from a hissing gas bag.

The DNA 
There are myriads of issues with the State’s so-called DNA evidence. Here are some of those issues as previously blogged: 

• Let’s begin with the matter of the only DNA expert who obtained Mark “cannot be excluded” results, is Lorrain Heath of DPS. And btw “cannot be excluded” is the same as “cannot be included.”
• Every single result the City of Phoenix crime lab had EXCLUDES Mark as a contributor. 
• The only DNA expert who told jurors one set of swabs was wet, in a baggie in a glass tube, was Lorrain Heath. She supposedly got results from these wet swabs. Heath’s testimony is in complete contradiction of the doctor and a detective who had both testified those swabs were dried and packaged in a paper envelope the way every other swab in this case was. But changes once in the hands of Heath. Not only is there the obvious swicheroo going on here, there is also the issue of mold developing and DNA degrading on wet swabs stored for 5 months in that condition. 
• In 2007 there were 300 in the database, with the Goudeau Y as the only one. Now 2 more UNRELATED males in the 1,200 Y-DNA database whose DNA are IDENTICAL to Mark’s paternal Y-DNA. Can you imagine how many more identical Y-DNA profiles there will be as this database grows? If there are now 3 UNRELATED males with IDENTICAL Y-DNA profiles, how many more in say 1 million? 
• DNA is water soluble which means it will dissolve or wash away in water. Only Lorrain Heath said she obtained Y-DNA results from a victim who was found face down in a bathtub full of water where she had been for hours. Heath would have a better chance of getting hit by lightening in her lab than she would getting any DNA results in this situation. 
• That every single raw DNA sample swab was destroyed/consumed by Lorrain Heath leaving absolutely nothing for Mark’s lab to test. 
• That once Alex Femania and Lorrain Heath found out Chromosomal Labs would do testing on Mark’s case for FREE, Heath destroyed every other remaining swabs, even those they already had results, needed no further testing. Even DNA extracts were destroyed. 
• The only DNA expert at the so-called Baseline task team meetings with Alex Femenia was none other than Lorrain Heath. No other DNA experts were allowed although there were many, many other DNA analysts involved in the research and testing. 
• And finally, Heath leaves the country shortly after Mark’s arrest.

These are only some of the issues with the State’s so-called DNA evidence

Closing argument today by Rod Carter and Randy Craig, Mark’s defense team.

 

Ofc Rusty Stuart Asks for Protection From PPD

December 2010 letter from Rusty Stuart regarding cover up of evidence in the Baseline investigation by Alex Femenia and other Baseline task team members - http://tinyurl.com/3nookp3

Lunch Wagon Homicide and Red Truck

Prosecutors Cohen and Stevens argued that a red pickup was seen near the lunch wagon the day of the homicides. PPD went to great pains to retain tire marks so the tire treads could be tracked back to the killer. Of course, that never happened. This testimony went on for a bit - I’ll spare you the useless details.

The double homicides were committed February 20, 2006, early in the day. Never mind the description of the truck seen is that of a newer, bigger model, than what Mark owned, that it was also seen later in the day - waaaaaay after the two bodies were discovered, not prior to the murders. If it’s not already bad enough, what’s really interesting here, and I’m using the word “interesting” loosely, is that, yes indeed, Mark did own a small red pickup, unlike the one described by a passerby. But Mark did not own the truck at the time of the murders. It was nearly a month after the homicides that Mark purchased a truck.

So was Mark driving the truck he didn’t own or have access to at the time of this crime??? I know that’s a crazy thing to ask, but how ridiculous and insane is it for prosecutors Cohen and Stevens to completely ignore the fact that Mark didn’t even own a red truck at that time? A simple title check is all it took. Not only can the state not prove that Mark owned a truck, Mark’s attorney’s proved he did not! It was not a hard thing to do.

Let me say it again. Prosecutors spent good time at trial going over tire mark forensics and testimony that a red truck was seen at the scene knowing full well that Mark did not own a truck at the time. 

I seriously think Cohen and Stevens are mentally insane. How else can this illogic be explained?? Scary, unstable people whose perception is based on what they think they can just utter in court despite complete lack of evidence, reality, and actual facts. These are dangerous people who will say and do anything to try to secure a conviction, regardless of how wrong and contrary the evidence.

Prosecutors Lose, May 31

At a May 31 hearing, the State argued that they should be allowed to say in opening argument that the crimes stopped after Mark’s arrested. Seriously? As if PPD would attribute any crimes to the Baseline crimes after Mark’s arrest. Judge Granville agreed and said their motion was “a bridge too far.” Prosecutors will not be allowed to say that in opening argument, nor during trial.


Note: Let’s not forget one month after Mark’s arrest, Terry Wayne Smith was arrested for beating up an elderly man at a bus stop, and has been incarcerated ever since.

Jury of Peers??

Jury selection wrapped up last week and Mark’s attorneys did manage to get two people of color. Not exactly a jury of Mark’s peers, but Mark’s attorneys do feel that this group consists of some intelligent people, unlike the jurors in the 2007 trial.  Mark’s then attorney, Corwin Townsend, used an old defense attorneys’ strategy of choosing less than intelligent people thinking confusion leads to acquittal.  We all saw how that trial turned out.  Better to have smart people who understand the evidence, or lack of, for what it is.


Last week during the jury selection process it was discovered during questioning that one gentleman proved to be well versed in DNA. Needless to say he was quickly striked by the prosecutor Susan Cohen and Patty Stevens. Speaks volumes as the State’s case hinges pretty much entirely on so-called DNA evidence, yet they don’t want any jurors who really understands DNA. They couldn’t get rid of that guy fast enough.

Opening arguments are scheduled for June 6. 10:00 AM.

PLANTING EVIDENCE AND COVER UPS Through anonymous sources at the Phoenix Police Department Mark's defense team was notified of another viable suspect, Terry Wayne Smith, which PPD had tried to cover up by sitting on this information since 2006. They even went as far as converting it from the usual electronic format into Word. A Word document in the PPD's electronic retrieval system is virtually impossible to retrieve.

An extensive investigation was done on Smith by a gang squad officer and it was determined he is responsible for the BK crimes. Police reports show he's even admitted to some of the crimes.

So what does PPD, prosecutors, Suzanne Cohen, Patty Stevens, and William Clayton, Andrew Thomas, police chief Jack Harris, Mayer Phil Gordon, and other city officials do? They attempt to cover up the evidence! Had it not been for internal anonymous PPD sources, Mark's defense team may have never learned of this cover up. But the team did and filed a subpoena for the extensive 100+ page police investigation on Smith and unscrupulous prosecutors, Cohen and Clayton, were forced to produce the 3-ring binder in court, March 20, 2009. Only after being caught and forced! In an attempt to CHA, Cohen remarked in court "we have no position on this." In other words, now caught in the act of hiding clearly exonerating evidence for Mark, she felt that if she took NO position, that her hide might be saved from the actions of her malicious behavior. But wait! Cohen also said at the hearing that the TWS report was not exculpatory. In another desperate attempt of trying to save her skin Cohen prattles on that she just got the TWS report.

So which is it Cohen did you just get it? Do you have no position on it? Or is it not in Mark's favor so you didn't feel compelled to turn it over? And BTW it's not the prosecutor's decision whethere discovery is exclupatory or not, it's up to the judge. So ALL DISCOVERY must be turned over regardless of what the prosecutor thinks.

Prosecutor Suzanne E. Cohen (coyote ugly, unscrupulous,
immoral, and bucking for a judge position off the back of Mark Goudeau)

Now the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) has revealed that there are more cover ups. Again from anonymous sources within Phoenix Police, that it is highly likely evidence was planted in Mark's case. In this letter to Joe Arpio from PLEA President, Mark Spencer, there are even comments from lieutenants and sergeants in the Violent Crimes Bureau referring to Mark as a N--R! CLICK HERE to view Police Supervisor's comments on "planting evidence."