Posts Tagged ‘FROG GRAVY’

This is related to the Frog Gravy legal case.

This is part one of Kentucky crime lab analyst Ryan Johnson falsely testifying at trial by posing as a clinical expert and delivering information about this prescription drug that is false, misleading, totally unsupported anywhere in any literature on the planet, or a combination of all.

In the next few days, I will upload the rest, and then I will use this testimony as a the basis of a detailed complaint that I plan to file with the accreditation board and other authorities. At that time, I will go into gruesome detail, sentence by sentence beginning with the chemistry and going into information in the clinical literature. I will back each and every claim with the FDA-regulated package insert, the peer-reviewed literature, or a combination of both. I will provide detailed background based in known fact where appropriate, particularly regarding the organic chemistry as well as the clinical ‘effects’ of this drug.

He claims during the testimony (just to provide a teaser), that the lab had no idea it was supposed to look for this commonly prescribed benzodiazepine, and even if it did, the lab had no way of detecting the very presence of it. Problem is, and this is just one of his many problems here, he DID have that request, and he DID at least screen for the presence of benzodiazepines. Even though the lab can and does use outside competent labs for quantification, he did not send the blood to an outside lab, and that is likely because he did not detect the presence of a benzodiazepine in the blood in the first place, so there was no need for the second prong of the test, which would include quantification.

His clinical claims are false and bizarre.

As a result of this man’s false testimony, I was convicted of some crimes that I did not commit, and that includes a DUI with no drugs or alcohol in my blood, and without any bad driving or traffic violations. As a result of his false testimony, there is now a published opinion affirming in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, that contains a great deal of false information and science fiction. If you wish to lose IQ points, give it a read. Here is that opinion.

I will share the entire complaint with every appropriate related link, once I get the whole thing uploaded.

UPDATE: Here is the follow-along transcript for this portion. Second portion is being uploaded to YouTube and a transcript will be available for the whole testimony within a day or so. I will then share with my readers a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the false statements with backing literature.

Ryan Johnson (JOHNSON) is on the stand, under oath.

Chris McNeill (DEFENSE) is the defense attorney.

James A. Harris (COMMONWEALTH) is the prosecutor.

Hon. Judge Craig Z. Clymer (COURT) is the presiding trial court judge.

The testimony occurred on 1-22-2008, and was recorded on videotape. Here is that testimony.

COMMONWEALTH: (unintelligible)… Please, sir.

JOHNSON: Uh, my name is Ryan Johnson.

COMMONWEALTH: And how are you employed, Mr. Johnson?

JOHNSON: Um, I am a Forensic Science Specialist with the Kentucky State Police, um, Central Forensic Laboratory.

COMMONWEALTH: That’s in Frankfort.

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: So you’ve got a four-hour drive to go home, lookin’ at you.

JOHNSON: (chuckles) Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Um. And, just summarize for our jury your training, and your education that qualifies you to practice in our lab.

JOHNSON: Um, I have a Biology and a Chemistry Bachelor of Science from (sounds like Pikeville College), (unintelligible) testing at the Kentucky State Police in Central Forensic Laboratory and I’ve had ongoing education approved for studying drug effects on human behavior, um and, the Society of Forensic Toxicology annual conferences (unintelligible).

COMMONWEALTH: You understand there are two subjects I want to ask you about (unintelligible) right to the blood sample that was sent to you, you can stipulate that there was a blood sample taken from Rachel Leatherman on the night of June 28, ’06, you did a blood test to see if there was any drugs in her blood, is that right?

JOHNSON: That’s correct, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: And your, what you test for came back “no drugs in her blood,” is that right?

JOHNSON: That’s correct, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: Okay. Now. This test that you run for drugs in her blood, does that test for clonazepam?

JOHNSON: No sir, it does not.

COMMONWEALTH: Why is that?

JOHNSON: Uh, clonazepam is a chloro-derivative benzodiazepine. Basically, it’s a, it’s a drug like diazepam but they put a chlor, a chlor, a chlorine atom on it, and that ends up, um, making it so that the test that we run, it’s called a liquid-liquid extraction, um, that test is incapable of pulling clonazepam out of the blood. So, it’s a, it’s a issue of, we need, um, the drug actually is, needs to be ran, to test for that drug, needs to be ran on, uh, what’s called liquid chromatography and with the budget the way it is right now we don’t have that instrument.

COMMONWEALTH: Um. (clears throat) Your test would have tested for heroin?

JOHNSON: Uh, we would have detected opiates.

COMMONWEALTH: You would have, would have, your test would have determined whether there was either rock or powder cocaine or its derivatives and (unintelligible) derivatives in the blood…

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: And it came back negative on that.

JOHNSON: It was negative for cocaine and opia…

COMMONWEALTH: (interrupting) No heroin, no opiates, no forms of cocaine.

JOHNSON: That’s correct.

COMMONWEALTH: Can’t tell us about clonazepam.

JOHNSON: I couldn’t tell you if it had clonazepam in it.

COMMONWEALTH: As to her blood.

JOHNSON: As to her blood, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: Okay. Now I’m going to ask you about clonazepam. Are you familiar with it?

JOHNSON: Yes sir, I am.

COMMONWEALTH: Have you read the literature on it?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I have.

COMMONWEALTH: Including not only the, the uh, manufacturer’s um, data sheet, um, but also the other, uh, PDR-type references that describe clonazepam and its effects?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir, the general textbooks that we use are the PDR, which is the Physician’s Desk Reference, um, the Courtroom Toxicology, which is a database of drugs and their effects, um and how, how they can be detected, uh, ranges, and then another book, it’s called, um Drug Effects on Human Behavior, um, it’s just another book to tell us if there is any driving effects…

COMMONWEALTH: (interrupting) And since you don’t have a clonazepam test that you did on her blood, you can’t tell us about any clonazepam levels in her blood.

JOHNSON: That’s correct.

COMMONWEALTH: So I’m going to ask you to answer my questions based on normal dosages, okay?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Uh, within a normal dosage time, okay?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Um. First of all, taken in normal dosages, can you tell our jury whether clonazepam is generally what we would refer to as intoxicating?

JOHNSON: Um, for the most part, it’s considered a potent sedative, which would be intoxicating, yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Potent, does that mean very intoxicating?

JOHNSON: Uh, yes, sir, it’s considered about, uh, according to the recent literature I’ve read, about twenty times more potent than valium.

COMMONWEALTH: Twenty times more potent than valium.

JOHNSON: Yeah, on a milligram-per-milligram basis.

COMMONWEALTH: And, what are the chemically, scientifically, pharmacologically recognized effects on vision of someone who is taking normal dosages of clonazepam?

JOHNSON: It can cause double vision, blurred vision.

COMMONWEALTH: Um, do you know anything about the HGN test?

JOHNSON: Um, according to what I’ve read, uh, the DRE, which is the Drug Recognition Expert, um, they recommend that benzodiazepines does cause HGN. I wasn’t for sure…

COMMONWEALTH: Causes the signs of HGN.

JOHNSON: Yes, um, after reading the literature that we have, it does say that nystagmus, either vertical or horizontal, are present, as a side effect.

COMMONWEALTH: A person taking clonazepam is likely to flunk the HGN test.

JOHNSON: That’s correct, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: And it would also be very intoxicating.

JOHNSON: It is possible, yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Um, you say “possible.” Again, at normal dosages, based on all the literature that you’ve read, thought you said it was a potent, twenty times stronger than valium.

JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Um, the only reason I say possible, is that drugs do tend to have different effects on different people. A certain dosage for a person who is used to taking them might not actually be as potent as a drug, as, one that not been taken…

COMMONWEALTH: That’s not gonna, that’s not very scientific, Mr. Johnson, let me ask you this.

JOHNSON: (giggles)

COMMONWEALTH: Uh, given what you know about clonazepam, uh, if a person were taking clonazepam, would it be unusual if that person were to describe themselves as so whacked out they couldn’t remember?

JOHNSON: Uh, it could be, that would be consistent…

COMMONWEALTH: That would be consistent.

JOHNSON: That would be consistent with um, the things I’ve read about clonazepam, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: In terms of impairment, in terms of motor skills, and particularly those motor skills that we usually associate with being able to drive an automobile, would a person taking clonazepam in normal dosages be impaired?

JOHNSON: According to the pharmacy companies that produce clonazepam they do recommend that, um not driving a motor vehicle while taking the drug until you know exactly how it affects you, um, and from the studies that I’ve read it causes uh, degradation in mental ability to concentrate, uh, the fine motor skills, um, confusion, dizziness are all symptoms of clonazepam…

COMMONWEALTH: (unintelligible and interrupting)…about glassy eyes, is that something (unintelligible) recognized signs of use of clonazepam?

JOHNSON: I don’t recall (unintelligible)

COMMONWEALTH: That’s all I have. Thank you.

COURT: (unintelligible) defense?

DEFENSE: Uh, yes, Judge. (papers shuffling) Um. Mr. Johnson, even if you had found that there was clonazepam in her blood, that still wouldn’t be an indicator that she was quote under the influence of it, would it?

JOHNSON: I couldn’t testify to impairment based on (unintelligible)

DEFENSE: Right. Clonazepam can actually stay in your system for some period of time even after the effect of it wears off, right?

JOHNSON: The effects are usually given at six to eight hours and the half-life of the drug can be up to nineteen, twenty hours, twenty-seven hours.

DEFENSE: So, um, you can’t offer any testimony today about whether or not she was under the influence of clonazepam and/or impaired by the effects of clonazepam, can you.

JOHNSON: I couldn’t say, no, sir.

DEFENSE: Um. Now, you say that you all didn’t have the uh, the equipment to test for the presence of clonazepam in the blood. Uh, but, the Kentucky State Police Lab that you work for, sometimes they do send off materials for testing at other labs.

JOHNSON: Uh, we do use private labs for some things, yes, sir.

DEFENSE: Like, DNA, for example, sometimes, is that correct?

JOHNSON: Um, I’m not familiar with exactly DNA, but I know the toxicology section does do it, sometimes.

DEFENSE: Well, but, again, you’re familiar with some tests that the KSP Lab either doesn’t do or doesn’t have enough staff to do, they do contract out with labs who do do those tests, right?

JOHNSON: (giggling) It has been done, yes.

DEFENSE: Um, so certainly that would have been possible to test for clonazepam.

Tape ends here. Last part of tape is being uploaded, and will also be transcribed for follow-along convenience.

Advertisements

I would like to thank the viewers and visitors to this site, and to say that it is an honor and a pleasure to have viewers from all over the world. I only speak English, but I often try to translate things from other languages using my Google Translate. It is so cool to see visitors from other countries, who are either bilingual or who take the time to translate. Much of Frog Gravy contains regional slang, so translation is no easy task! Thank you so much!

As you probably know, Frog Gravy, the day-to-day incarceration story, is on the clipboard where I am editing it. My first task is editing out the internet stuff, which will take Frog Gravy from 177,000 words down to about 120,000 words. While I certainly hope to publish, I am realistic about the long shot of getting anything published in today’s market.

Three essays are published in the anthology called, This Side of My Struggle, by Editor Nandi S. Crosby, PhD:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_15?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=this+side+of+my+struggle&sprefix=this+side+of+my%2Caps%2C214

A fourth essay, called The bridge of Sighs, won a contest for creative nonfiction, and was published in Kentucky in 2009. That essay is about addiction and is on this site:

https://froggravy.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/the-bridge-of-sighs-original/
If the subject of co-addiction in a marriage interests you, or if the subject of cyber addiction interests you, please give it a read.

Here are some stats for the last eight days. Thank you again!

2012-03-04 to Today site views

Country Views

United States 235
Australia 10
Germany 8
United Kingdom 7
South Africa 6
Canada 5
Philippines 5
Turkey 4
Brazil 2
New Zealand 1
Egypt 1
Poland 1
Republic of Korea 1
Denmark 1
Argentina 1
Romania 1
Singapore 1
Indonesia 1
India 1
Russian Federation 1
Iceland 1

Camera’s back!!

Rose and Heart: jail art
jail art by CraneStation on flickr

Lillies: jail art
jail art by CraneStation on flickr

For information about a new release book titled This Side of my Struggle, that has three Frog Gravy essays in it, go here.

Frog Gravy is a nonfiction incarceration account.

Frog Gravy has graphic language.

This post is not comprehensive. One could probably write an entire book on prison inventions, slang and situations, particularly if the setting is in the South, where colloquialisms are priceless.

Jail and prison terms, divided into categories and used in sentences, followed by explanations:

Cigarettes

Pheening, jonesing, popping the socket, striker, squares, break ’em down, smokin’ the bible, phone card, posting up, who’s on the camera

Inmate 1: Bitch. These Camel Menthol Wides. You can break ’em down and get thirty for twenty squares, and get an extra phone card. I’m pheening for a cigarette right now.

Inmate 2: You ain’t alone. I been jonesing all day for one. Loan me your striker so we can pop the socket and get this done.

Inmate 1: While you’re rolling the bible I’ll post up and watch the hallway. Who’s on camera.?

Inmate 2. It don’t make no damn difference. Ain’t no cameras in the cell.

Two inmates crave a cigarette. They plan to remove the tobacco from a Camel Menthol ‘Wide’ cigarette and roll it into a page from the bible. They also plan to sell some of the rest of the harvested tobacco for phone time. One inmate will stand watch, because cigarettes and smoking are not allowed. A striker is a paper clip, that is placed across the prongs of the TV plug-in to create a spark so that the inmates can light the cigarette.

Conflict resolution statement

bitches got me fucked up, got me bent, skanky, clitty litter, ho, clock out, beat the breaks off her, you feel me, set her face apart

Inmate 1: These bitches got me fucked up with somebody else. Motherfuckers got me bent. Let another bitch call me a skanky clitty litter ho. I’ll clock out and beat the breaks off her. I’ll set that bitch’s face apart.

Inmate 2: I know that’s right.

Inmate 1: You feel me?

Inmate 2: Slap the taste right out that bitch’s dicksucker!

Inmate 1: Bitch ain’t got no mutherfuckin’ teeth. Taste is all she got left to slap out. I got this.

Inmate 2: Peace up. A-town down.

Inmate 1: I know that’s right.

Someone has insulted inmate 1 by commenting on her body odor and calling her a whore. Inmate 1 tells inmate 2 that the person delivering the insult must have mixed her up with somebody who will not fight back, and that if it happens again, Inmate 1 will physically beat up the offending inmate. Inmate 1 solicits agreement from Inmate 2. Inmate 2 agrees and they part ways. A-town is an endearing slang term for Atlanta, a city that some consider to be a pretty cool place. ‘Dicksucker’ is a common prison/jail slang term for mouth.

Random colloquialisms

1.

My public pretender is about as useless as a cat with side pockets .He ain’t got sense enough to pound sand down a rat hole.

Inmate comments that her court-appointed attorney is not doing any meaningful work in her case.

2.

Inmate 1: Earlier at work in the kitchen I was sweatin’ like a whore in church, but now it’s colder than a well-digger’s ass and a banker’s heart. Can we tell the guard to put the heat on?

Inmate 2: That guard couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel.

Inmate 1: Heh. Yeah. Plus, she’s uglier than the east end of a horse headed west. She’s so ugly you’d have to hang a pork chop around her neck to get a dog to play with her.

Two inmates return to the cell from work in the kitchen and find the cell to be cold. They decide that it is unlikely that the guard, who is very unattractive, will put the heat on in the cell.

Request for transfer to another cell

off the chain, drop a note, vet, crazy slip

Inmate 1: This cell is off the chain. I’m gonna drop a note to the vet for a suicide cell.

Inmate 2: The vet won’t do nuthin.’ Better drop a crazy slip.

Inmate 1 tells Inmate 2 that she wants to transfer to an isolation suicide watch cell because of the chaotic atmosphere in the current cell. She wants to submit a request to the medical department. Inmate 2 tells Inmate 1 to submit a request to the mental health department because the medical department will ignore the request.

How to make paint and makeup in a jail that bans everything except certain types of religious materials

Joyce Meyers magazines are the most versatile for manufacturing jailhouse makeup for court appearances and for adding color to pictures that inmates draw for their families.

-Find the color you want.

-Rub a tissue onto stick deodorant, and then rub the magazine color. The ink will transfer to the tissue.

-Use less ink for subtle makeup, and more ink for pictures.

-Canteen Fireballs make cheek color when nothing else is available if you are really pale from never having recreation in the outdoor cage. Substitute red M and Ms if you do not have Fireballs.

– No-shank pen ink on a toothbrush can is sometimes used for mascara.

-No-shank pen ink cut with water is sometimes used for eyeliner.

-Menstrual pads are sometimes used for earplugs, eye coverings, and for the manufacture of tampons, which are not allowed in jail.

-Toothpaste is the most versatile substance in the cell, and it is most commonly used to affix photographs to the wall.

-paper scraps and toilet paper scraps mixed with water can be used to make dice, dominoes and chess pieces.

-‘Homemade’ tampons can be used (Remember: I’m just the messenger here) for hair rollers.

-Jail-issue underpants, wrapped just right, look like a do-rag.

-Elastic threads from socks make hair ties.

Ways to communicate with the cell next door

-Pick up the phone and tap on the wall. Some inmates tap codes on the wall.

-Talking under the door is common.

-Some report that you can flush the water out of the plumbing pipes, and talk through the pipes or tap on the plumbing.

-‘Fish’ things back and forth by running a cable cord with something attached under the door.

Being paraded into court on a chain gang

Here in McCracken County, when you are in jail and you have a court appearance, you are handcuffed and chained to other inmates. The chain gang is paraded across the street and into the courtroom like an orange outlaw centipede, and this goes for people who have not been convicted of anything.

Once in court, you are all seated together, and the court-appointed lawyer says something like, “Your Honor, my client, Mr. He-Sure-Looks-Like-A-Guilty-Criminal is here today, on the line.” The lawyer won’t turn to face you or look you in the eye. he simply waves his thumb in your general direction. Anybody in the passing public can swing by and see what you look like, on a chain gang.

McCracken bends over backward to be insensitive about who you are chained to. A friend of mine in jail was chained up with the man who beat her toddler son to death while she was at work one day.

How to make paint in a jail that has colored pencils

-Shave some of the lead and crush it.

-Put the lead into a bottle cap with a drop of water.

-Microwave 30 seconds.

-Stir in a couple of drops of shampoo with an empty lip gloss applicator, and apply the paint with the applicator.

Pinnochio
Image by Onion under Creative Commons on flickr.


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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/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?

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY 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?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY 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.

BY MR. KAUTZ:

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.

REDIRECT BY MR. OLSEN:

(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.

Spartanburg County Jail Portrait Series

Spartanburg County Jail Portrait Series by David Blackwell under creative commons on flickr.

Nokes: What do you want?
John: What I’ve always wanted. To watch you die.

and

Father Bobby: [about sermons, before the boys are sentenced] This is one of my favorites.
Young Lorenzo ‘Shakes’ Carcaterra: What is?
Father Bobby: “Whatever you do to the least of brethren, you do to me”.

above two quotes are from Sleepers, by Lorenzo Carcaterra

Also:

This bird-killing-and-enjoying-it guard is bespectacled and boyish looking. He was probably bullied. So now he’s just getting a little action himself, although in a chickenshit way, because we are inmates. Behind razor wire, we must restrain ourselves from delivering a good ass-ramming to the guards, and he knows this, and so, he walks around the ball field with that stupid grin and Nazi mindset, figuring out how he can bolster his own weakness by picking on defenseless people. He does this full time.

Med Line: Frog Gravy 40

and

In the hallway, the homeless man in isolation screams, between obscenities, to the pepper spray SWAT team, “You’re racist!”

“I’m not precious,” says the guard, and I assume he meant to say, ‘I’m not prejudiced,’ because he says, “I don’t like nobody.”

The Hole, The Chair, And The Holding Cell: Frog Gravy 17
.

Frog Gravy is a nonfiction incarceration account.

Inmate names are changed.

Frog Gravy contains graphic language.

McCracken County Jail, February 2008

It is three o’clock in the morning, and a couple of female inmates next door, as well as Meg, in this cell, are on the floor, on their bellies, taunting and tormenting Harry, who is mentally ill and housed at the end of the hallway in an isolation cell. They shout, at maximum volume, “HAAAAAAARRRRREEEEEEE!!! Want some puuuuussssyy, Harrreee?!”

Harry shouts, “HELP! Somebody! Please! HELP ME! Let me out, please Helpmehelpmehelpmehelp.”

Harry’s repeated requests for help reveal, on its face, Harry’s profound lack of understanding of his own surroundings.

I am on my bunk, listening. I cannot help Harry. If I try to intervene, the bully inmates bullying will turn their rage onto me. If I do not try to intervene, they will continue to prey on Harry.

I do not intervene, and I am ashamed of myself. I do not intervene, because I am afraid that I might hurt someone.

I have never seen, nor will I ever see, during my stay in McCracken County Jail, the pathetic man we call Harry. None of us knows why he is locked up.

If the guards were to take Harry out of his cement tomb for recreation in the outside cage, we would have witnessed it, because we watch the hallway that leads directly from his cell at the end to the outside cage at the other end. We never see Harry go to rec. Christie, who had been here for seven months on my arrival had never seen him during that time either.

On my bunk, I try to think things through, although the noise is distracting. There must be thousands and thousands of Harrys locked up everywhere. Harry the person is no longer Harry the person. Harry is a bait ball in a cement cell at the end of the hallway. He is as defenseless as a child. The apex predators are hungry to hate, and they feed on Harry constantly, kicking the steel door, shouting insults every time they pass by, picking what’s left of Harry and then picking some more.

I often wonder if Harry is somebody’s father. Or son. Was he ever loved? Did Harry ever matter, to anyone? Was Harry a veteran, psychologically crippled by tours of duty? I do not know.

Why are the Harrys out there picked up, locked up, and then alternately ignored and picked on? The bullies use Harry almost exactly as they would a bar. They wander by and use him when they need him, and when they’ve had their fill, they belch, toss the glass, and move on.

There are rumors that Harry has spread feces onto the walls on the cement tomb. Perhaps this is the only thing left for Harry to do, to tell himself that he still exists.

I wonder also about Harry’s mental and physical treatment care plans. This jail has a social worker who oversees the medical needs of the mentally ill inmates. While there may be a nurse practitioner or an off-site physician signing off on the care plan and the medications, all initial requests for such must go through the social worker gatekeeper first. The sad thing is that Harrys own profound disability at the moment prevents him from filling out the initial request form on his own behalf.

This jail is not at all unique. Jails are the new ground zero for Eighth Amendment violations of the mentally ill, as I see it. Harrys are warehoused, untreated and abused everywhere.

There should be a zero-tolerance policy for inmates tormenting their fellow mentally ill inmates. If I were the jailer I would post signs everywhere: You torment Harry and you go to the hole, to sit and think about your bullying. Signed, The Jailer. But, it is not meant to be. Rather, Harry is shelved jailhouse prey and nothing more.

What will eventually happen to Harrys everywhere? On my bunk, I wonder these things.