FOOD FOR THOUGHT PART 41
CASE UPDAT CONTINUED
The prosecution's star witness Richard Mayo, a known thief, junkie and liar, gave several inconsistent statements in this case. In a statement taken by police on July 10th 1980 the night of the incident Mayo stated prior to the shooting he allegedly saw the argument was about a license plate I was suppose to have taken from the victim and her calling the police on me because of it. Then on Wed, Nov 25th 1987, seven years later, he all of a sudden came up with another story about what the argument was about. This time low and behold, the argument was about her talking about the Anderson Murder, the theory of the prosecution's case. Mayo happens to tell a different story every time he is questioned, even at trial, under oath depending on if its the prosecution or defense that is doing the questioning.
One of the problems with the testimony, besides that obvious that he lied, is that he was a cold blooded junkie, (Now deceased) but also the fact that he had to lie to save his own skin. Mayo was one of the last people I left with the Victim when I excited the car, due to being sick from a combination of drugs and alcohol on the day of the murder. Mayo was found hiding behind a parked car a few blocks from the murder scene, attempting to flee and also gave the name of another person when finally apprehended to avoid arrest, Mayo very well could have been the actual killer, or one of his friends he was with upon my departure, Of course, he felt he had to come up with a good story to implicate me and the prosecution was oh so glad to use his perjured testimony to make an air-tight case against me, although even the prosecutor knew or should have known he was lying.
Another so-called eyewitness, Frieda Sambrick, picked the wrong person from the line up, after initially telling the police she saw the actual shooting, She also claimed she lied to police, picking the wrong person from the line-up because she was scared and didn't want to get involved, but later changed her story obviously to help the prosecutor make the pieces of the puzzle fit, saying she knew me for 11 years, since 1969, however in her initial statement to the Norristown police she said she was born in Sweden, taken to England at the age of 6 weeks and did not enter the U.S until Feb 19th 1973, which is important because the murder didnt occur until July 1980, If she didn't come to the U.S until 1973, as she stated in her interview with the police in 1987, how could she have now me in 1969. I certainly was not in England or Sweden in 1969 and as a matter of fact, I had just returned from Vietnam around that no where near where she was at, so her lying testimony is ridiculous to put it nicely. The messed up part about this is, the prosecution co-signed this testimony. Keep in mind, prosecutor's aren't allowed to use perjured testimony and this one did. He knew or should have known it was perjury because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. More importantly,. In the same statement where she acknowledges the fact that she came to America in 1973, she also says she only met me that year, in 1980, which completely contradicts the perjured testimony she gave on the stand at trial where she said she knew me for 11 years. The prosecution used this gimmick so she could rehabilitate herself after picking the wrong person from the line-up, because she is now deceased, if and when I do get a new trial her testimony will have to be read into the record, but this time her statement that she made to the police saying she came to the U.S in 1973 contradicting her perjured trial testimony will also be read into the record. If I had a lawyer that was competent and effective at the time the jury would have known this at trial. No jury has ever been told these facts and would not have been discovered if I had not dug this info out through research of the records and statements etc.
Denise Walker is one of the other women that I was living with at the time of the shooting and another of the prosecution's witnesses, Her apartment is where they found a box of ammo that the F.B.I compared to the slugs taken from the victim and the bogus CBLA test that mislead the jury. The same test that I mentioned previously that turned out to be junk science. The same test the F.B.I agent said the bullets found in the victim and the rounds found at Walker's spot were to a reasonalbe degree of scientific certainty indistinguishable, coming from the same melt. Now, as I stated previously, after the NAS report came out showing this CBLA crap is cold blooded junk science.
Now, to show you the lengths the prosecution went in order to get a conviction and death sentence, by any means necessary, they paraded not only junkie infested witnesses before the jury, but also got the police involved In their unsavory attempt to convict. At the time of the murder Detective Salamone was one of the detectives assigned to the case. He also was a long time friend of Linda Rowden's father (victim's father) and family friend. He made it known to the family that I was not a suitable person to be involved with their daughter. Every chance he got he told them this and It was related to me numerous times from the victim, but it didn't deter her at all, she wouldn't allow her father or any of his friends to pick who she was friends or involved with. But as I previously mentioned this he is a rich white family, that has friends in high places in that area. At my first trial, Det. Salamone was just a police detective with many years on the force, but by the time the second trial come about, he was the mayor of the same town where the trial took place, which gave him undo credibility before the jury. It also may be why the prosecution figured they could get away with allowing this Det,/mayor to insert Hearsay testimony into the trial. This clown created, concocted and manufactured a statement supposedly to be from the victim. Anyway,. He testified under oath that the victim told him I was harrassing her about her giving the police info about the Federal murder I was accused of which just so happens to be the theory of the prosecution's case. Its also oh so convenient, that it can't be challenged because Linda is no longer with us to be cross examined, even if she did tell him that, which is questionable.
What ever happened to the Hearsay rules in our criminal justice system. Does all of that go out the window when there is a white victim and a black defendant. There are plenty of statistics showing how regular a black defendant gets jerked around when there was a white victim. This is another perfect example of that practice.
To be continued. Power to the struggle