Craig Michael Wood Preliminary Hearing

May 22, 2014

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Good afternoon:

The preliminary hearing is scheduled to start at 1 pm. I do not believe it will be televised or live streamed, so we are going to follow it on twitter. Unfortunately, that means we will be relying on descriptions of what is happening, rather than watching it ourselves.

A preliminary hearing is not a trial and no jury will be present. Do not expect Mr. Wood to testify because defendants almost never do.

The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to have a judge consider evidence presented by a prosecutor, cross examined by defense counsel, and determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes charged. The rules of evidence are relaxed and hearsay is admissible.

If the judge decides there is probable cause as to each charge, the case will continue.

If the judge decides one or more charges are not supported by probable cause, that charge or charges will be dismissed without prejudice, which means the prosecutor can recharge the defendant, if he gets more evidence.

So, pop some corn, settle back and read the tweets and comments.

Please consider a donation, if you appreciate what we do.

Craig Wood preliminary hearing April 2nd at 9 am

March 15, 2014

Saturday, March 15, 2014.

Good evening:

The court scheduled a preliminary hearing for Craig Michael Wood on Wednesday, April 2nd at 9 am.

Although a judge has already reviewed the lead detective’s affidavit summarizing the evidence against Mr. Wood at his initial appearance after his arrest and determined that probable cause (i.e., reasonable grounds) exists to believe that he committed the crimes charged in the complaint, Mr. Wood has a right to revisit the probable cause issue at a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing is not a trial. The hearing will be before a judge without a jury and the rules of evidence will be relaxed.

The issue the judge must decide is the same. That is whether probable cause exists to believe Mr. Wood committed the crimes charged in the complaint. The difference is that the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing by the prosecution, as opposed to the initial appearance when no witnesses testified and the judge based his decision on reviewing the affidavit for probable cause.

Since hearsay is admissible at a preliminary hearing, prosecutors generally call only a few witnesses. In most cases they only call the lead detective who wrote the affidavit for probable cause. He or she is placed under oath and answers the prosecutor’s questions.

The defense gets to cross examine the witness after the prosecution finishes the direct exam.

Defense counsel know they are unlikely to win a probable cause argument, so they use cross examination to discover potential vulnerabilities in the prosecution’s case and to lock the witness down on any facts that may be favorable to the client’s case.

Therefore, you will often hear the prosecutor object to the relevance of any question asked by defense counsel that is not probative of probable cause.

I have already written about a potential vulnerability in the prosecution’s case regarding the first entry into Mr. Wood’s house. He was not present and they apparently did not have a search warrant. They may have lacked probable cause to believe she was in the house and their safety sweep of the premises may have exceeded the limited scope of a safety check.

Questions regarding that subject matter would likely trigger a relevancy objection, since the sole issue before the judge will be whether probable cause supports the charges, not whether police unlawfully entered the house.

Do not be surprised, however, if the grand jury returns an indictment against Mr. Wood before the preliminary hearing. Should that happen, the grand jury would have already determined that probable cause supports the charges in the indictment and there would no longer be any need for a preliminary hearing.


Donations are lagging. We work hard to keep you informed by filling in the blanks between the lines. After 30 years in the trenches, I am familiar with all of the rules and strategies prosecutors and defense counsel utilize. Experience counts and most of my predictions have been accurate.

Adjusting and fine tuning to dial in the white fear and racist corruption frequencies in the Florida courts took some doing, but I am on track now.

If you appreciate what we do, please make a donation.

We cannot pay our bills without your support.


Theodore Wafer ordered to stand trial for killing Renisha McBride

December 19, 2013

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Good evening:

MSNBC is reporting today that a Michigan judge ordered Theodore Wafer, 54, to stand trial for murder in the second degree and manslaughter for shooting Renisha McBride, 19, to death in the face with a shotgun on November 2nd.

He is white and she was black.

Judge David Turfe said Thursday that based on the evidence presented, Wafer made a poor decision in shooting McBride, and he failed to pursue other “reasonable opportunities to defend himself,” including calling the police for help.

“He chose to shoot rather than not answer the door,” the judge said.

McBride had been drinking heavily earlier in the evening and crashed her vehicle into a parked car approximately a half-mile from Wafer’s house three hours before she knocked on Wafer’s door.

The New York Daily News is reporting:

A witness said McBride was bleeding and holding her head, but that she walked away from the scene before an ambulance arrived. It’s still unclear, at least publicly, what she did between the time of the car wreck and her arrival on Wafer’s porch.

An autopsy found McBride had a blood-alcohol level of about 0.22, more than twice the legal limit for driving. She also had been smoking marijuana.
Her best friend, Amber Jenkins, 18, said they were drinking vodka and playing cards seven to eight hours before the shooting was reported to 911.

Wafer opened the inner door and shot her through the screen door in the face from a distance of about two feet.

Assistant Wayne County Medical Examiner Kilak Kesha testified that her injuries were so severe that he “couldn’t even reconstruct the brain.”

The result of this preliminary hearing is not surprising because she was unarmed and Wafer had admitted to police that he shot her after he opened the door in response to her knocking on it.

The purpose of the hearing was for the judge to determine whether probable cause existed to believe Wafer committed the crimes charged. There was zero chance that the judge would have dismissed the charges on that set of facts.

Defense counsel did what defense counsel all over the country do at a preliminary hearing. They used it to obtain discovery about the prosecution’s case and cross examine their witnesses under oath locking them into their stories.

Defendant did not testify and defense counsel did not put on any witnesses at the preliminary hearing. This is standard operating procedure, so no surprises there. Nothing good can come from locking your client into his story and opening him up to cross examination by a great white shark in a dress before you know if the prosecution has the ace of trumps.

That would be malpractice.

Wafer and his defense team appear to have a choice-of-defense dilemma. He initially told police that he accidentally fired his shotgun. However, his lawyers argued that the judge should dismiss the charges because the evidence introduced at the hearing was consistent with self-defense.

I did not get that impression and neither did the judge. Unless a person is predisposed to believe that an unarmed black female teenager knocking on their door at 4:30 am is a threat and should be shot in the face, and I am talking about white racists, I do not believe the evidence supports a claim of self-defense.

The prosecutor didn’t mess around; She went for the jugular.

Wayne County assistant prosecutor Danielle Hagaman-Clark said it’s “ridiculous” to believe that Wafer was deeply afraid but still decided to open the door and fire instead of first calling the police.

“He shoved that shotgun in her face and pulled the trigger,” Hagaman-Clark said.

And that was the end of that.


This is our 811th post, and 4th today, in a little over two years. If everyone who has not contributed a donation, were to donate $5, we could end this fund drive today.


Colleen Ritzer stabbed to death in faculty bathroom and transported to woods in recycling bin UPDATE 1 BELOW, UPDATE 2 BELOW

October 24, 2013

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Good morning:

ABC News is reporting this morning on Good morning America that police say Chism stabbed Colleen Ritzer to death in the faculty bathroom at Danvers High School around 3:30 pm on Tuesday. Based on a review of videotape and Chism’s confession, police have determined that he transported her body in what appeared to be a recycling bin into the woods behind the school.

After dumping her body in the woods, Chism went to a movie theater and watched Woody Allen’s new film, Blue Jasmine. I have no idea why he selected this film or if he knew what it was about when he chose it. Seems an extremely odd choice for a 14-year-old boy who just stabbed his teacher to death.

His family reported him missing at 5:30 pm. Ritzer was reported missing a few hours later.

Police went to the school to check on her late Tuesday evening and found the bloody crime scene in the faculty bathroom.

Police subsequently responded to a report of a pedestrian walking northbound in the southbound lane of Route 1 around 12:30 am Wednesday morning. The pedestrian turned out to be Chism. He was placed under arrest and transported to the Danvers Police Station where he confessed to the murder.

Chism’s uncle, who resides in Clarksville, Tennessee, describes Chism as a nice kid from a perfect family.

Danvers is located approximately 20 miles north of Boston.

Contrary to reports yesterday, Chism was not arraigned. He had an initial appearance at which the judge found probable cause to support the charge based on a review of the charge and supporting documents. He also denied bail. The next court appearance will be a preliminary hearing, which is scheduled for November 22nd.

The purpose of the preliminary hearing will be to determine whether probable cause exists to support the murder charge based on live witness testimony, as opposed to the more limited document review yesterday. The defense will be accorded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses called by the prosecution.

Given the confession, there is no reason to suppose that the court might not find probable cause.

Chism probably provided police with an explanation regarding why he killed Colleen Ritzer. If he did, they are not disclosing what he said. That is pretty much standard operating procedure at this point. For example, they likely would want to wait until the autopsy and forensic testing have been completed to determine whether the evidence supports or conflicts with his statement.

I suspect they are waiting to see if sperm is detected on any of the oral, vaginal and anal swabs obtained during the autopsy. If so, the next question will be whether the lab can detect a DNA profile for the male contributor and, if so, whether it matches Philip Chism.

UPDATE 1: Reuters is reporting that Philip Chism used a box cutter to stab and cut Colleen Ritter to death.

UPDATE 2: NBC News is reporting new details of the crime today:

A law enforcement source told NBC News on Friday that Ritzer’s throat was slit from the back with a box-cutter in a second-floor bathroom at the school. Her body was wheeled out of the school in a recycling bin, dumped in the woods and covered with leaves, the source said.

Philip Chism, a freshman, was charged as an adult with first-degree murder and has been ordered held without bail. A surveillance camera caught the suspect following Ritzer into the bathroom and then leaving, covered in blood, the source said.

The suspect changed his clothes at some point and went to the movies and to Wendy’s, the law enforcement source said. Investigators found both the suspect’s and Ritzer’s phones smashed, the source told NBC News.

Students said that Ritzer had asked Chism to meet with her after class on the day of the murder. The second-floor bathroom, where blood was found, was to remain closed Friday.

Apparently, Chism sat through the movie, so my theory in the comments that he may have purchased a ticket to the show intending to use the stub as an alibi may be wrong.

He only had 40-45 minutes after the murder to transport her body to the woods, change clothes, and make it to the theater.

I don’t know where he lived and am assuming that he did not go home to change clothes.

The box cutter and a change of clothes nearby suggest that he went to school intending to kill her. Whether or not he did, he apparently had no specific idea about what to do after the movie and his dinner at Wendy’s.

FBI arrests three suspects in Boston Marathon bombing case

May 2, 2013

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Three college friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have been arrested and charged by complaint with federal felony offenses for their conduct after the bombing.

CBS News reported yesterday that,

Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev were charged with conspiring to obstruct justice by concealing and destroying evidence. A third man, Robel Phillipos, was charged with lying to investigators about the visit to Tsarnaev’s room.

Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev have been accused of going to Tsarnaev’s room on campus after the bombing and removing a laptop computer and a backpack containing fireworks from which the explosive gunpowder had been removed. One of the young men attempted to dispose of the backpack by throwing it in the garbage. FBI agents recovered it from a landfill. They also seized the laptop.

The three young men were in federal court yesterday for their initial appearances.

In a court appearance Wednesday afternoon, Tazhayakov and Kadyrbayev waived bail and agreed to voluntary detention. Their next hearing is scheduled for May 14.

CBS Boston reports that federal Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler admonished Phillipos in court, telling him to pay attention and not look down during the proceeding.

After the hearing, attorneys for the three spoke to the press briefly.

Harlan Protass, Tazhayakov’s attorney, said his client “feels horrible and was shocked to hear that someone he knew at UMass-Darmouth was involved with the Boston Marathon bombing.”

“[Tazhayakov] has cooperated fully with authorities and looks foward to the truth coming out in the case,” Protass said.

Robert Stahl, Kadyrbayev’s attorney, insisted his client had nothing to do with the bombing and has been cooperating with investigators.

“Mr. Kadyrbayev did not know that those items [reportedly taken from Dzhokhar’s dorm room] were of any evidential value,” Stahl said.

Whether the three young men had any foreknowledge of the bombing and did anything to assist their friend remains to be seen. As I have previously said, complaints in federal felony offenses are used to provide a legal basis to hold people until a grand jury returns an indictment.

The hearing on May 14 will be a preliminary hearing to determine whether probable cause exists to support the charges in the complaint. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler will preside over the hearing. An FBI agent will testify for the government regarding the factual basis for probable cause and defense counsel will have an opportunity to cross examine the agent.


Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,


The Full-Text Preliminary Hearing [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

February 5, 2012

Note: Written by Crane-Station and reblogged here with permission.

Compare Lying Deputy Eddie McGuire’s under-oath testimony to the Paducah McCracken County Kentucky grand jury
to his under-oath testimony in this hearing.

This document is in the public domain, and it is transcribed from the official court-reporter transcript. I left out the discussion at the end, which was about the bond. McGuire’s lies and inconsistencies are so numerous that I have supplied emphasis at some of the points, to direct your attention to some of them. These added emphases are in italics and parentheses.

Don’t worry. It gets better. As his memory improves drastically with time, McGuire tells a fresh set of lies, stories and made-up facts under oath at the suppression hearing…and the again at trial!

For another look at the grand jury lies, and other lies at suppression including the hidden exculpatory blood test (photos included) that he lied about go here. You may also want to visit this site, and look up the excellent series of seven ‘Killer Cross That Never Happened’ articles, to get a feel for the extent of McGuire’s perjury in the various hearings, all in court under oath.

In these various hearings about the same case, all after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God, the only fact that McGuire is consistent with, is his name. In this hearing, for example, he contradicts himself several times within the same hearing. He makes up some asinine scenario about me being unhandcuffed but nonetheless under arrest, and running around the parking lot at night, at the hospital.

Lying under oath is a felony that carries a one-to-five year maximum sentence, unless you are a lying deputy lying under oath in Paducah, Kentucky.

Perjury involves materially false statements with the intent to deceive.

Wiki Perjury:

Suppression transcript to follow at some point.

Also of note: He lies through his teeth about what the 911 caller said in the 911 call, and he lies about what dispatch told him, and we have the full-text transcripts to proove that he lied and we will be sharing these, as usual, for everybody on the planet to enjoy.

#KentuckyJustUs and #BlowItOutYourAssDickheadMcGuire

The Full-Text Preliminary Hearing [Frog Gravy legal case]

The witness, DEPUTY EDDIE MCGUIRE, after first having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Olsen?


Q: Sir, would you state your name?

A: Eddie McGuire

Q: Mr. McGuire, how are you employed?

A. I’m a deputy with the McCracken County Sheriff’s Department.

Q. What information do you have for this Court regarding the charges that have been lodged against Rachel Leatherman, specifically the tampering with physical evidence and the first degree possession of a controlled substance?

A. On 6/28 of ’06 at approximately 8:19 p.m., we received a complaint of a Buick LeSabre with Washington plates possibly trying to obtain tar heroin in the area of Queensway Drive. I responded to the complaint. I stopped a vehicle at Cairo Road and U.S. Highway 60 upon locating it. The officer—the subject was arrested for DUI. She was transported to Lourdes Hospital for a blood sample.

(note: If you are not already aware, the blood sample was negative for both alcohol and drugs, and the photos of these exculpatory blood tests are posted in my flickr stream, as well as in several posts relating to the legal case. I knew the blood was negative. I wanted the blood test. Not only did I have nothing in my possession, but even if, hypothetically, I had, I had no motive whatsoever to try and hide anything. My blood was clean.)

Sometime between the time I put her in my seat and the time we got to Lourdes, she placed a small baggy of a suspected controlled substance in my back seat and also dropped her watch down the same crack of the back seat. I immediately obtained the controlled substance, along with the watch, and she was charged with possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence.

Q. Did she make any statements regarding the drugs that had been dropped in the back seat and the watch?

A. She said it wasn’t her drugs and that hundreds of people come through my back seat.

Q. What did she say about the watch?

A. She said it accidentally fell off her wrist.

Q. And the drugs and the watch were located in the same area?

A. Same crack.

Q. In the same crack. Prior to that, how do you know that she was the one that placed that there?

A. On the day prior, or the two days prior, I go and–it was my days off, and I actually vacuumed my seat out at this time. And she was the first one that had been in my back seat since that day.

Q. So this is something that routinely happens, so you guys are aware of that?

A. All the time.

Q. You check these cars?

A. Right.

Q. Have the–the substance that was found in the car, do you have any idea what it is?

A. It’s suspected to be crack cocaine.

(Note: Nothing had been sent to the lab for testing at this time, except for my blood. Why did he not immediately send the substance for testing, at the same time he sent my blood for testing? Why did he wait for more than a month, after the grand jury returned an indictment on the “gonna be crack” before weighing, field testing for crack, or sending the sample to the lab for testing? We believe that he did not yet have the “suspected” crack cocaine. We believe that he later diverted a small quantity of the drug from the evidence unit.)

Q. And has it been sent to the lab for analysis, or has it been placed in evidence?

A. It’s in evidence.

Q. Okay. So it will be available to be tested?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea approximately how much it was? Was it just a little bit?

A. Just a very small baggy.

Q. And was it not field tested?

A. It was tested for heroin since that was the suspected–

Q. Okay.

A. –complaint at the beginning. It tested negative for heroin.

Q. That occurred here in McCracken County?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. OLSEN: Thank you, Deputy.

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz?


Q. The initial call about a person in this vehicle trying to purchase heroin, is that from a known caller?

(Note: In the full-text statement from the caller, there is no mention of heroin or any other drug. The statement appears word-for-word in the Court of Appeals opinion affirming.)

A. Yes. I have a statement from the caller.

MR. OLSEN: Objection. Before we go any further, it would be easier for me if you’d just limit him to specifically asking about the drugs that were located in the car. I mean, it’s clear that that would be a suppression issue; who called, where they called from, whether they were known.

So I object to that or any question related to anything like that.

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz?

MR. KAUTZ: Judge, on direct, this officer testified as to—

THE COURT: Well, I’m not making any determinations based on any of that evidence. All I’m making my determination on probable cause is based solely upon the charges– the felony charges that are pending before me. So the other information is really not relevant.

MR. KAUTZ: So you’re—

THE COURT: I’m granting–I’m sustaining the motion.

MR. KAUTZ: His motion. All right.


Q. You pulled my client over based upon a call?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the caller make any reference to anything other than heroin?

A. No. He said that she was obtaining to buy tar heroin–was trying to buy heroin, find someone to buy tar heroin.

Q. Okay. Now, you–I take it the caller gave a description of the vehicle and the license plate number?

A. Yes. Said it was a dark blue Buick LeSabre with Washington plates.

(Note: Driving While Not From Here, only worse: Driving While From The West Coast, God Forbid.)

Q. All right. And that’s the vehicle you found somewhere down around Cairo Road?

A. Down on 60. On Cairo and 60 is where I initiated the stop, yes.

Q. And when you activated your–did you have to activate your emergency–

A. She pulled over before I activated my lights.

(His nose just grew another foot. His previous sentence was “I iniated the stop, yes.”)

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz, I’m not sure what this has to do with probable cause on the possession or tampering charges.

Q. And so–and so when you approached my client, did you arrest her on a DUI? Is that what happened?

A. Yes.

Q. Suspicion of DUI?

A. Right.

Q. Relating to alcohol or drugs?

A. Drugs. She had a beer in the car but we performed a PBT, and she had–she had very little alcohol.

Q. And what, is any, grounds did you have to believe she was using drugs?

A. Using drugs?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that it?

A. And just very fidgety, very nervous acting. But I actually stopped her with the suspicion that she possibly had some on her. When I stopped her, I asked her to step out of the vehicle, and her pants and her zipper was unbutonned. So I suspected that she possibly tried to hide some on her.

So I called for a female officer to search her because I knew I wouldn’t be able to do a thorough job of actually searching her, but the officer did not find anything at that time at the side of the road.

Q. And that’s when you made a decision to go ahead and arrest her on a DUI?

A. On DUI, yes.

Q. Based upon her fidgetyness and nystagmus?

THE COURT: Mr. Kautz, we’re not going to get into the DUI.

Q. When you arrested my client, did you search her vehicle?

A. Yes, sir. She gave me and Deputy Walters consent to search before I ever arrested her for DUI.

Q. And nothing was found?

A. Nothing was found in the vehicle other than a beer.

Q. And nothing was found when the female deputy searched her at your request?

A. Correct.

Q. Who was the female?

A. Officer Dawes with the police department.

Q. Gretchen Dawes?

A. Gretchen Dawes, yes.

Q. Conduct a thorough search as far as you could tell?

A. As far as I could tell, yes.

Q. I take it my client was never back in her vehicle after Gretchen Dawes searched her?

[break in tape recording]

Q. …to your…

A. Yes.

Q. –back seat?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you had searched–cleaned out, vacuumed your car–

A. Yes, sir.

Q. –two days earlier?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when did you next come back on duty?

A. This was my second day back on duty.

Q. And basically–

AA. Nobody was in it the day before. I hadn’t arrested anybody the day before or that night. She was the first person I arrested that week.

Q. All right. How can you be sure that the–am I correct that the drugs were, like tucked between–

A. There’s a crack where the seat belt comes up in it.

Q. Sure.

A. And the seat belt wasn’t pulled through it, but it was–I moved the seat, and you could see it where she had–she actually picked up her watch whenevr we got back in the seat when we came back out of the hospital, and the crack was sitting right beside where her watch was. Right there–

(Lie alert! He said, earlier in this very hearing that he “immediately” retrieved the so-called baggy. Also, I asked him to retrieve my watch. He has a lot of trouble with that dilemma, and he has quite a bit of difficulty keeping his lies and stories straight, even in this hearing, as you will see.)

Q. Are you saying–

A. –by the seat belt buckle.

Q. Was it crammed down in the little gap?

A. Right, right next to her watch.

Q. So, I mean–

A. [Unintelligible]…down there, as well.

Q. In the crack?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. So you couldn’t just–the seat comes in and out, obviously, easily because it’s detached for the purposes of searching. And I just moved the seat back, and it was sitting right there.

Q. You couldn’t see it if you were standing outside the car looking in?

A. Right. I don’t believe you could.

Q. So, basically, are you telling me that the watch and the substance that you believe to be cocaine were found, what, right next to each other?

A. The watch was, I believe, sitting on top of it.

Q. Okay. And how can you be sure it wasn’t there before, the crack cocaine?

A. Because no one had been in there before her.

Q. Well, did you take the seat out when you vacuumed the car?

A. Yes.

Q. Took the whole seat out?

A. The whole seat comes out, yes. The back seat is not attached to anything. You can just pull it directly out. I can pull it out and sit it next to my cruiser and vacuum underneath the seat.

Q. And this is the way you usually do it?

A. That’s the way I always do it.

Q. Physically, I mean, take it all the way out?

A. Yes, yes at the car wash.

Q. The–so you transport to the hospital?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. The videotape was running?

A. Yes Yes.

Q. No audio–you didn’t turn the camera around to–

(Note: On the audio, later in the tape, I demand twice that McGuire field test and lab test the substance immediately. This is audible.)

A. No.

Q. –look at her?

A. No.

Q. The videotape was running out there at the scene, too?

A. Yes, yes, sir.

Q. Audio?

A. The audio was working inside the vehicle. Between the time I arrested her, I left the video running from the time I got to Lourdes and the jail just to tape any statements that she was going to make. So that’s available.

(The Commonwealth buried them. They did not want my clear, concise statements to see the light of day. That’s the beauty of YouTube. I can make the tape available myself. It is so long that it exceeds YouTube limits, so I will have to figure out how to do this.)

Q. So you didn’t see her as you were going to Lourdes making any moves that would be consistent–

A. She was cuffed behind the back, so…

Q. So you–but you didn’t see her–

A. I didn’t–

Q. She didn’t make any movements that caused you to believe at that point that she might be trying to hide something?

A. No.

(Check the grand jury transcript. He lied about this too.)

Q. Okay.

A. It was a suspicion all along that she had something in her possession based on the original complaint.

Q. Did you find the watch and the item believed to be crack before or after you went in the hospital?

A. She made the statement that she had dropped something when we were getting out of the car. She said either “Something’s in the back seat,” or, “I dropped something.”

Q. Her watch?

A. And so I suspected that she had at that time, but I didn’t retrieve it at that time. I secured the vehicle, locked it, and we went into Lourdes because I was getting ready to get a blood sample.

Q. Okay. And she submitted to the blood test?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you went back outside, that’s when you looked for what she said she had dropped?

A. Right.

(Not what he said earlier under oath in this hearing.)

She went around to the opposite side of the vehicle that she was at the first time. When she was transported to Lourdes, she was directly behind me in the seat. And when we were walking out of Lourdes after she gave me the blood sample, she went to the other side of the car, and then she immediately reached in.

When I unlocked the door, she reached in and picked up the watch. And that’s when I looked and the cocaine was down there. The crack cocaine.

Q. But she had told you even before she went in that she had dropped her watch–

A. Right.

Q. –and wanted your help to get it?

A. She said that she had dropped something or something had–“Something’s in my seat,” or something like that. I don’t remember her exact words.

But that–whatever she did say is going to be on the video–audiotape?

A. If it picked up, because she was standing outside the car.

Q. Okay. Now, once you found what–you say she basically retrieved the watch?

A. Yes. Because I had to uncuff her because of the blood test, and I never cuffed her back.

Q. Because she was being cooperative?

A. Right.

Q. –she basically said “That’s not mine. I got nothing to do with that”?

A. Right.

Q. Did she also mention that it wouldn’t make any sense for her to ask–for her to tell you–for her to ask for your help in finding something if she had hidden some coke?

A. I believe that’s on the tape.

Q. Okay. And that doesn;t make a whole lot of sense, does it?

A. That’s what I would say if I was–had just dropped cocaine. She was trying to talk me out of charging her with–

Q. All right. If you had dropped cocaine and your watch, you wouldn’t have asked the officer to help you find your watch though, right?

A. No. She got my (sic) watch. She grabbed the watch in hopes that I wouldn’t check the back seat. She picked up the watch as soon as she got in the car.

(Oh, okay. Now I’m not outside the car like he just said two minutes ago. Now I’m in the car.)

Q. All right. So no statements, admissions, confessions, anything like that?

A. No.

Q. She basically–

A. She denied it.

Q. Okay. Based upon the fact that she denied possessing the substance–the baggy, is it just a little corner?

A. It’s just a small–very small, maybe a gram.

(He was off by a factor of ten. It was 0.144 grams, about one-tenth of what he claims, but nice try for someone who most likely didn’t have a so-called ‘baggy’ yet.)

Q. Have you preserved it in such a way that it could be dusted for prints?

A. It’s possible that it could. It’s a very small baggy.

Q. Do you intend to cause it to be dusted for prints?

A. I can attempt it.

Q. Would you mind doing that?

A. Sure.

Q. Okay. Do you have somebody at the sheriff’s office that knows how to do that?

A. I could probably ask around.

Q. Okay. And if somebody at the sheriff’s office–

A. We can always send it to the lab and request fingerprints be obtained.

Q. And you’ll be willing to do that?

A. Yes, sir.

(McGuire never dusted for prints. He never asked around. He never requested that a lab dust for prints. No prints were ever obtained. Because my prints were not present on any sort of baggy. He lied when he said that he would attempt to get any prints.)

Q. Okay. The evidence that you’ve given today is all of the evidence that you know about that would connect–that would connect my client to either of these crimes?

A. Yes, sir, I believe so.

MR. KAUTZ: That’s all I have.


(I actually really like Kevin Olsen. I’m not faulting him at all, but check out this recovery here that he pulls right out of his ass. It’s brilliant: ‘The old Oops I Dropped Something. Thing.’ Yes, Mr Olsen! That thing! Everybody in the world does the old oops-I-dropped-some-drugs-officer-can-you-help-me-find-them-please.)

Q. Just let me break it down very simply.

Prior to her getting into that car, nobody had been in the back seat since you had cleaned it?

A. No, sir.

Q. And then she tried to the, “oh, my goodness, I dropped something” and blame whatever you found, the drug stuff, on somebody else. Did she make the comment that it could have been anybody–

A. Yes.

Q. –that there had been other people in your car?

A. She said there have been hundreds of people come though my back seat, I believe.

Q. She did not know that you had just cleaned that car?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And that occurred in McCracken County.

A. Yes, sir.

In the beginning (and BTW, he flashed a tiny crumb-like substance in front of me in the dark. I do not remember seeing a “baggy” that night. He ignored my demands that he field and lab test it immediately.) I initially thought that another person may have stashed or dropped something. Now, unless someone can evidence-based convinced me otherwise, I believe it was McGuire. Also, after this happened, I spoke with a person who used to work in the same department many years ago who I will not name, and he/she told me that they find all sort of stuff in the backs of cop cars- guns, even…and they have no idea how some of the stuff gets there.

Also, here is an article about cops planting stuff, where the cops themselves admit to it.

%d bloggers like this: