Charge: rape / Bail: $1,000

----------Details
Date of Incident: February 10, 2003
Defendant: ex-boyfriend of accuser
Accuser: vindictive ex-girlfriend of defendant
Charge: rape / Bail: $1,000

On February 10, 2003, the accuser told her cousin to bring the defendant to her house. All three used drugs together. When the cousin and defendant were leaving, the accuser wanted the defendant to stay.

On February 13, 2003, the accuser was riding and calling around looking for the defendant. She told a defense witness that if she didn't find the defendant that she would have storage for his ass.

On February 14, 2003, (Valentine's Day - 4 days after the alleged rape), the accuser again wanted her cousin to bring the defendant to her house. The defendant had another girlfriend.

On February 17, 2003 (a week after the alleged rape), the accuser went to the police station. She spoke to the tampering detective.

Tuesday. The detective went to the defendant's house. The accuser testified that's when she gave him a towel that she had thrown in the trash, but no towel was presented in court. The detective said nothing about a towel when he testified.

Tuesday. The defendant went to the police station when he heard the police wanted to talk to him. He had to wait. When someone finally talked to him, he was answering questions while they swabbed his mouth. Two or more detectives were present but no one signed the defendant's statement. The defendant left the police station. A few weeks later the accuser signed the complaint. The defendant was arrested. His bail was $1,000.

At the preliminary hearing the accused testified that her cousin was there on the 10th, but at the trial she said he wasn't there. She denied sending him for the defendant. When she slipped and said "when P left" the public defender cut her off. P is her cousin.

At the preliminary hearing the accuser said she was in shock and didn't know how she got to work during that week. She wasn't in shock when she was calling and riding around looking for the defendant. She said she went a whole week before telling someone she had been raped. When the preliminary hearing judge asked her who was the first person she told, she named a co-worker and gave details. But at the trial, she omitted the co-worker and said she told several people before going to the police. Not one of the people she claimed she told came to court to testify for her. Not one of her family members or friends came to court to testify for her or give support. Her cousin testified for the defendant. The statement from the co-worker did not back up what the accuser claimed so she was not called as a prosecution witness. Why did the public defender not summon her as a witness? Why did the public defender not play the audio tape from the preliminary hearing?

The accuser said her cousin knew about it because she used his cell-phone to call her mother. That also doesn't match what she said at the preliminary hearing about waiting a whole week before telling someone. Her cousin said he didn't find out about her claim until after the defendant had been to the police station. That was a week after the alleged incident. He testified that he found out about what she claimed not from the accuser as she claimed but from the defendant's mother after the police was looking for the defendant. The cousin testified that is when he went to see the accuser. Because the cousin impeached the accuser, the prosecutor spoke to the cousin as though it was a crime to testify to what he knew.

The cousin had been staying off and on with the accuser during that time because his lights had been turned off. That set the month. Because the accuser testified that before the 10th she had not seen the defendant since the end of January. He said he saw no change in the accuser's appearance or personality. He sometimes picked the accuser up from work. In his interview with the public defender, he said he thought the accuser would lie in a minute. She wanted him to bring the defendant to her house on February 14, 2003. He stated that he had been giving her some money for letting him stay there and he would buy food. She wanted more money for drugs.

The accuser said herself that she couldn't get the defendant to talk to her unless she gave him drugs. That's why she told her cousin to get drugs and bring the defendant to her house. The judge said the cousin was a drug user. He disregarded the cousin's testimony because it impeached the accuser. He accepted the perjured testimony of the accuser who admitted to using drugs that night. She couldn't remember if she performed oral sex on the defendant that night.

In the interview with the public defender, the co-worker did not back up what the accuser claimed at the preliminary hearing. The public defender didn't even summon the co-worker to further impeach the accuser. But the prosecution put on a patrol officer who had nothing to contribute, who couldn't even remember the name of the person she claimed the accuser gave her. The patrol officer claimed she took a report but she didn't have it with her in the court room.

As you read testimony from the preliminary hearing and trial, you will see that the defendant was going to be found guilty before the court room lights clicked on. It came down to the word of the accuser and the defendant. The defendant had witnesses that impeached the accuser. The accuser impeached herself by making up stories and changing them as she went along. Even before the trial the public defender wrote in his notes that the accuser had been impeached by others and had inconsistences.

The accuser also claimed she was beaten, but had no physical proof of it. She said he ejacualated inside her and she had proof on a towel. But at the trial, she said she couldn't remember if he did. She claimed she was on medication but had no proof of it. She said she was raped but had no proof of it.

In a court of law, more is needed than the accuser saying someone did something illegal to her and then she keeps changing her testimony. And have nothing to back up what she claims.

In Danville, an accuser can claim whatever and don't need to prove her it. No she is not white. But the defendant is a black man. Ever wonder why there are more black people incarcerated than anyone other group. One way or another,

Neither the detective nor the police officer added anything relevant to the state's case. Notice as you read that the accuser said nothing about giving a statement to a patrol officer. She said she left the magistrate and spoke to the detective. So what was the point of having the patrol officer testify unless they just wanted there to be more state witnesses than defense witnesses? I have another theory about that - which will come out if there is a real trial. If the public defender had put on all the witness in the waiting room, there would have been more defense witnesses. The public defender didn't even summon other people who could have been defense witnesses. This shows even more that the public defender was not working in the best interest of his client. The public defender is paid by the state. Perfect setup.

-----The Public Defender
The public defender did not play the preliminary hearing audio tape at the trial. He did not mention the tape in the appeal petition. He also did not include in the petition (among other things):

> witness tampering

> testimony of the accuser impeaching herself. (He wrote in his notes before the trial that the accuser was inconsistant and had been impeached by others but he didn't point any of that out in the petition.)

> testimony of defense witnesses who impeached the accuser. (Anyone reading the petition would think the defendant had no witnesses.

> medical records. No medical records were presented in court. The public defender told me he wasn't allowed to see medical records, yet, he wrote in the defendant's file:

no vaginal tears - no vaginal or pelvic bruising - no cuts - no pictures - no PERK evidence

The dishonorable judge told a reporter after the sentencing that he looked at medical records behind closed doors.

The head public defender resigned. The public defender on this case resigned. The new head public defender also would do nothing.

They are public defenders of what - the old south?

----------The Media
Danville's one and only newspaper was not at the trial. No coverage was given on this case until we contacted the paper. The paper would not print letters to the editor about this case. When I asked the editor why this case was not covered, he said he didn't make assignments or something. The paper interviewed court officials after the sentencing but would not talk to us. The paper also would not print or investigate anything about the tampering detective. The editor asked me why the detective would do that. He's a newspaper man in Danville and he ask why a police officer would tamper with a witness. He also said he read the defendant's statement and he was guilty. You see, that is how things are done here in Danville, behind closed doors and defendants are guilty no matter what is presented in their favor.

A local call-in news show cut me off twice when I tried to talk about the tampering detective. Officials are not allowed to be talked about in the media but anyone else accused of something has their name address and picture used by the media.

The tv talk show hostess is black. The second time I called, I was cut off the air again but she stayed on the line and told me to tell her what was going on. I did, so she gave me the phone number of the stations head office. When I finally reached someone, the guy said something was wrong with the mobile unit. Funny, that's what the other news station said. Now the mobile unit works fine to cover a story about a chicken but not so for a case involving a police detective that tampered with a defense witness. Ever wonder why the police is on the side of the prosecution? And why the media is on the side of the officials? It works that way here.

The black hostess announced on air for me to call her because she didn't have my phone number. I received two calls from friends who heard the announcement. I called the station and left my personal information. A short time later, the hostess had left the show. The guy covering her spot said she left complaining about corruption. I'm thinking she wanted to do a story on what I told her and wasn't allowed to. She probably wasn't even given my personal info.

The media covers stories of corruption and scandal when it involves politicians and celebrities. The stories of ordinary citizens get little to no coverage. Corruption and scandal by Virginia officials isn't a big enough story or the media is still prejudice. Either way, no story is released. The truth must not be told.

This case will demonstrate that the tampering detective is not the only official who intentionally broke the law. This injustice was no mistake. It was planned. You know, how Hitler planned his massive crime of extermination and how the U.S. planned the massive crime of slavery, and Japanese American camps, and the abuse of Original Americans. These horrific events don't just happen by chance, they are planned. The new massive crime is to imprison Americans for profit.

Wake up America. It's past time for the slogans of the United States of America to mean something. If we are FREE & BRAVE & FAIR & EQUAL then we must be FREE & BRAVE & FAIR & EQUAL and do something. If we continue to just turn our heads not wanting to believe that these nasty things still happen and is happening here in America, it will only get worse.

Click here to go read that America has more people incarcerated than anywhere in the world. And that most of them are people of color and the majority of them are black. Wow. Black people in America are 12% of the population but has the majority in being locked up. Most slaves in America were also black. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Did you know that some prisons are privately owned? Prisons have to be filled to make money. And who pays to keep people locked up and away from their families? You do.

Will you or someone you love or know be the next to face corrupt officials. Don't think it can't happen to you. And don't think it just happens to people of color because it is not only racism that fuels the ship of injustice but greed. Prisons have to be filled to make money. Will you be the next one denied your legal rights and sent to prison without a fair trial?