Monday, June 12, 2017

Darrell Jones' Motion for New Trial Takes Another Unexpected Turn as State's Lead Forensic Expert Takes a Powder.

22 June 2017 Update -- It gets worse. Here is my email regarding the ORDER that the Plymouth DA's Office is attempting to skirt. They were basically supposed to give me a copy of a contract or invoice relative to the purported Expert Witness Jason Latham....  you know, the bloke who failed to appear last week. 

So they respond tersely "we have no invoice."

Good Day Attorney Murray: 

I believe you can see that this is not a Good Faith moment on either end for the Commonwealth: 

If they don't have an invoice or a contract then they were masquerading in Court this month. And if they *DO* have a contract then I need to get it because it is not work product nor is it privileged. There has to be an RFP and related documents discussing the Order or Magnitude, etc. etc. that spells out some form of Contract for Pete's sake. 

It can't be any clearer than that. Please direct the Plymouth DA's office to provide a full, complete and LAWFUL response. I was born some day but it wasn't yesterday. 

Respectfully submitted, 


Darrell Jones moves for new trial in Massachusetts as forensic experts show how Brockton MA cops falsified evidence. The State's forensic expert failed to appear. The Court has ordered the original witnesses to the 1985 case to come to court on 13 July 2017. That will be interesting because I want to see Detective Smith maintain his posture about how that tape came to be altered when the prostitute had just stated "the little guy had the gun..." when in fact there was no little guy. They were 6' ad 6'1" respectively. 

 Then in comes Sergeant Bilko.... that's because Smith crash edited the prostitutes' statements over the existing original Bilko tape and excised that parts he didn't want people to hear. That is my opinion, supported by expert testimony.

You all may recall seeing a certain Plymouth Prosecutor running from KingCast cameras last year on this case involving a man who claims that he has spent thirty (30) years behind bars for a murder he did not commit.  
Many of us find it inexplicable how such a fundamentally flawed case could make it not only to trial but get sent to a Jury and on to a conviction for murder using only the alleged identification from prostitute Terie Lynn Starks. The alleged identification shown to the World was arguably the result of a tainted photo array. 

All images in the photo array except for Mr. Jones were neighbors of Ms. Starks, and, further, the State failed to show her images of other possible suspects.  Here is the colloquy between the Court & Attorney Lisa Kavanaugh as the case takes another turn to the bizarre.

 Before you read it, know that in the thumbnails to the left the DOC/EOPSS were ORDERED to provide a thorough rationale to me that could in any way support their refusal to provide me the payment arrangement between the Commonwealth and expert Jason Latham of DME Forensics

Counsel:  This information is indeed relevant to the scope of this hearing today:

Court:  What you are looking to show is that some of the people in the array were known to Ms. Starks. Does it go further than that? 

Counsel “It does. The other arrays [shown to other people] included others who the police had identified as suspects.  She was not even given the chance to identify them." 

Court:  "There is no factual dispute as to that."   

Counsel:  "At trial none of this was exposed.   We have filed a Motion to Exclude testimony of Commonwealth’s Expert.  The Expert who had prepared the report was inexplicably gone from the lab. They then found the technical reviewer. This is entirely inappropriate given the role that this individual plays in this case.”  

Counsel for the Commonwealth attempts to explain this phenomenon as they sought to have a technician testify: 

"Jason Latham had done the work. We had a phone conference with him on the 31st. They are required to have peer review. He was going to finalize it. I received a phone call from him later that day. He was on verge of tears. 

His wife had called him with a family emergency and he said he could not complete it. I was not given any other details. The next morning I received the report. Then last Monday I received a call from the President indicating that Mr. Latham had taken a leave from the company. I just assumed it was related to the matter the week prior. 

There was not time for him (the technician) to generate his own report. He has not reviewed the original VHS tape reviewed by Mr. Latham.  He may assist and help in cross examination and may be cross-examined." 


Attorney Barter chimed in regarding the Motion in Limine:

"We know that the tape reviewed by Mr. Latham was not even the tape used at trial:

It is tantamount to an autopsy of a mannequin as opposed to one on the victim of a homicide." 

Marisa T. Dery was called as expert witness for Mr. Jones. She basically testified that the edits to the tape were not accidental and that there were at least two distinct activities that rendered the tape in the condition as we now know it. Here is the colloquy between Ms. Dery and Counsel for Mr. Jones:

Dery:   He said he was playing it then he pushed record by accident then when he saw his mistake he corrected it. There were two over recordings not one as he stated. The over recording was when he placed the interview over it.

Counsel:  So there were two over recordings not one?

Dery:   Correct

Was it an original?

It was not an original tape because it was placed on top of Bilko … it’s sort of the reverse of what he said. You had Bilko then the original was used to make this.


OK so when Attorney Barter walks out of the Courtroom I'm sitting there slack jawed:

"Counsel, anything the technician has to say... is derivative and is basically hearsay. What else can he testify to other than general business practices, which gets them nowhere."

As I finish my sentence we both look at each other and he says "That's my point."

Good because I thought I was going crazy. On this issue the Court indicated that it would allow his testimony but also noted that he may entertain a Motion to Strike.

KingCast:  With all condolences as warranted for Mr. Latham and his family, I just want to know how much the taxpayers got fleeced for this nonperformance, right. I am entitled to know that, and I will sue for that if necessary.  We are all entitled to know that much at least. Stay tuned for video and better stills as the hearing continues tomorrow in Fall River at Bristol County Superior Court.

PS:  I suppose the $64,000.00 question is this: Will the prosecutor's office sue for specific performance or unjust enrichment or any other contractual rubric(s)?  Because otherwise it's just another case of public fleecing in my humble opinion.

PPS:  There is a tussle about the scope of this hearing given the new test articulated by Commonwealth v. Rosario. 

Attorney Kavanaugh: "Under Commonwealth v. Rosario (SJC 12115) – a confluence of factors demonstrates that Mr. Jones is entitled to a new trial. Not a single witness came into court and identified Mr. Jones.  This videotape was THE evidence against Mr. Jones.  Detective Smith was the lynchpin and the use of the attorney (Elias) was all [dispositive]."

Note:  Lisa Kavanaugh was co-counsel in Rosario. Perhaps her word should carry substantial weight in this instance, no?