These are the letters that I most want you to read. I’m proud of them. They differ from the originals only as noted (some accidentally omitted words, for example), except for the fact that I elongated some dashes to make them more visible, and removed some hyphens to un-break some words. Those, in turn altered the spacing. I also removed selected headings and salutations, because they were not important.
Eric Lind
Red Rock Mortgage
34 No. Main Street
Kanab, UT 84741 3-29-06
So what has been achieved, Eric Lind? What benefit came to the world, through all of this, for the sake of your crossing your little arms, squeezing yourself into a dense little mass, and listening to yourself making tough deals? Who won, and what is it exactly that they won? What did you make the world safe for, is what I mean to ask? What did you enrich? What principle did you uphold? What domain did you protect? What ideal did you promote?
Perhaps I should leave this rhetorical appeal at that, but I just cannot to do so. For you destroyed one life, in your rabid determination to deny him justice, and in doing that you made justice impossible to the one you claimed to be hell-bent to protect: By prosecuting one man’s misdemeanor as a first degree felony in one case you generated circumstances that made it necessary to let the (putative) perpetrator of years worth of heinous 1st degree felonies go free in another. And at those facts alone we must take pause. Yes, about all that we must ask some trenchant questions.
Like whether you are proud of yourself? Like whether it was worth that price, for whatever you derived? Like whether those two diminished lives were ever even really in the equation?… Yes, tell me– tell us all– just what was it you derived, through all of this? What psychology, what pathology, what greed was justified in you? Or if it was not for your sake that you did all this, then tell us for whose sake it was that you were acting? Just whose ends did you really represent, in this carnival of misdirected persecution? Did you ever intend to get a conviction in that other case at all? Or did that other perpetrator (Leon Wilson) have the right affiliations? Was this just a smoke-screen, in other words?
Yes, do tell: what were those ends, that having met, you then just waltzed off the stage? Set me free here, for I grapple to understand. Tell me why a person who pretends to the lofty ideals of protecting the unfortunate would so cavalierly walk away from his elected position of public trust– hardly a year after his reelection to that post– and without having done that at all? Perhaps the answer is that you’re just a hobbyist, Mr. Eric Lind. Yes, perhaps that’s it: that you wrecked havoc on so much of worth just for the experience of feeling what it was like. Aha! So I answer my own question.
Well if that was the case then you can take heart. You must not be shamed, is what I mean to say. That’s because people like you cannot be shamed. Shame is a human sentiment, you see– and human emotions sprout no roots in the soil of psychopathy.
But what might have happened differently, one is tempted to inquire, had you charged something that bore some reasonable relationship to what seemed to have occurred– and to what the evidence (the real evidence, that is) had indicated had occurred: instead of these escalated, disease-driven charges? How might the outcome have been affected then– for all of us- one is tempted to ask?
And all that being asked, there is still one indictment left to make. That is because people like you have a tendency to hide behind glib phrases, such as “I had no choice”, and “I was just doing my job”…(No, not “doing my job”, mind you, but “…JUST doing my job”– as though that adverb somehow parlays the ensuing claim into some sacrosanct realm…) Fine: so you had no choice. Well gee: I guess I had no choice either.
But you need to hear this, Eric Lind– if you endeavor to rejoin the human race: it’s that there is a word for people who perpetrate atrocities while hiding behind glib phrases. The word is evil. It’s not a legal term, of course, so I suggest you look it up.
II 11-25-06
Alas, it seems that in my delay– in my prudence about sending off that correspondence too hastily, I have discovered that it was but a warm up. I see that I have not really asked some of the most important questions, is what I mean to say. I was too cryptic. So now I will ask those new questions, while elaborating upon some of the original ones too.
But first: I’m enclosing a little photograph of myself for you. It will surely fit nicely into what must by now be an ample album of your collection of destroyed lives. If a larger photograph suits your purposes better, just let me know, and I will provide it for you. No, really– take it: you deserve it– for another job well done.
Meanwhile, tell me, Eric Lind: are you are most proud of the convictions you got by parlaying misdemeanors into 1st degree felonies? And did you gloat most when you’d suborned perjury and manufactured evidence towards that end? What index did you use, Eric Lind- what formula did you employ- to derive the maximum satisfaction? Or did all destroyed lives score equally, upon your depraved slate? Then tell me whether it was extra sweet when you got to pretend there was trauma to your victim, where there was none, and to use that claim to excuse your efforts to prevent the accused from testifying? Or perhaps the greatest joy came from adding late charges with no justification at all, as blackmail, and with no constraints upon you to pretend that that was justified too? Did you giggle with delight then, Eric Lind? Did you cackle as you pretended everybody else was driving these prosecutions except yourself– and that therefore you didn’t have any choice– or any responsibility? Hell, you had immunity and impunity to do anything you wanted, didn’t you? And that’s exactly what you did, wasn’t it?
Tell me this also: when you claimed that you were following the desires of a mother– who was guilty of a related crime, flowing from the same episode, and who therefore had no entitlement to have her wishes respected– was it orgasmic for you? To ignore that legal admonition too, I mean, and to empower her anyway (or pretending to be doing it for that reason, at least)? Gee, you got to pretend your way through one legal hurdle after another, didn’t you, prick– with your little arms crossed?
Oh yes– those little crossed arms: I remember them well: the ones you crossed so tightly that day as you guaranteed me that my young “victim” would testify that she’d said “ ‘No, no– I don’t want to go’– three times”, as you leveled your Aggravated Kid-napping charge. Yes, I remember it with crystal clarity… Nice move. Bravo! Well now that it’s over it’s safe to tell me: do you regard that as the high-water mark of this dis-eased prosecution, or do you have another candidate for what you’re proudest of?
Wait, wait, for we’re not done here yet, asshole. I still have not inquired about your employing of a poorly considered law that allows a b misdemeanor plus a b misde-meanor to become a 1st degree felony? Shucks, even there you were just doing your job, right? I mean, the law was there for garbage like you to use, right? And no one can pass moral judgment upon the nefarious methods of some piece of s— who is “just doing his job”, and using the allowances available to him, right? After all, you were a good man, doing a hard job– and zealously protecting the children, weren’t you? Oh yes, that’s right.
But gosh, Eric Lind– you missed an opportunity there. You could have resigned for good and honorable reasons then– instead of for defeated and phony ones later on.
It’s bittersweet for me to ponder at this late date that among all the major players in this drama, faced with moral dilemmas, that I remain the only one who had the moral courage to do the right thing. Oh and I’m still paying for it, aren’t I, you corrupt bastard?
Personally, I think you’re a criminally psychopathic son-of-a-bitch, Eric Lind- and that you belong in prison. Concluding that, then, my question is: are you a natural psychopath, or do you induce your psychopathy chemically? If it’s the former, never mind, for you’ll probably get away with it forever. But if it’s the latter, then beware- for one day you may find yourself confronted with a step in a recovery process that calls for making restitution to your victims. I fear for you then, because glimpsing the insurmoun-table wall of depravity looming before you then, I suspect you’ll just decide to kill yourself.
It is not my wish that you do that however. Instead, my wish for you is that you undergo years and years of profound emotional suffering. That is not just to wish ill-will upon you, however. Not at all: for what I wish for you is that in that era of torment is that you have an epiphany– an awakening– a realization– and decide there that what you really want is to become a member of the human race– instead of just being a cancer upon it.
Very Truly not Yours– but not for your lack of trying,
0031600040 (my case number)
P.S. I await the day when you people pretend that this would have never gone this far if only I had “said” this and that at such and such a time– and to also pretend that I had had some sort of opportunity to do so… Don’t bother.
P.P.S. Your constitutional argument was idiotic, by the way. You got lucky there.
********************************************
Hon. David L. Mower
Sixth District Court
76 No. Main St.
Kanab Utah 84741
John R. Burton
(etc.)
2-8-07
Dear Judge Mower,
Well my PIA period is officially over (barring some 11th hour shenanigans on Prosecution’s end), and so it is time– under the safety of freedom– for me to ask the questions I dared not broach while the terms of that PIA were in effect.
Having abandoned my very naïve ideas about justice, fairness, and the law being accessible and comprehensible to the common man, I have turned my attentions to an-other (putative) embrasure of the legal arena: another lovely-sounding little straw man called “Remedies. It is from that mythological realm that the following questions draw their substance.
You see, as a layman, I believed that anything touched by ideologies, doctrines, and theories of law were bounded by a fundamental symmetry: by a balancing and com-pensating principle called Remedies, whereby a wronged party could seek redress of his grievances in the legal arena- and that this redress extended even to (perhaps especially to) those abuses promulgated by the transgressions of the legal juggernaut itself.
In plainer English, I labored under the naïve illusion that anything a person suffered in the legal system that seemed egregiously unjust could be appealed/addressed through reasonable means. But what a simpleton I turned out to be! Sheesh! Perhaps you are laughing at my misguided foolishness even as you read these words.
As a matter of fact, my experience was that “remedies” is every bit as illusory as is…well…say, the idea that a Prosecutor had to have either a new understanding of the evidence, or new evidence itself, in order to prevent late charges from being something other than blackmail. But that is just an example, which I do not seek to elaborate upon at this moment– though that dog will surely have its day too. In fact, I resolve not to clutter up this communication with any appeals to the more abstruse philosophical questions of law either- limiting my comments to more nuts and bolts happenstance (though the issue of what a “right” really is if conflicting/contradictory rights are given to conflicting inter-ests does weigh sorely on my mind: a Pandora’s Box I doubt either of us dares to open)
So let me jump in now with both feet. I’ll start with questions about the law itself:
What are my remedies against a law that allows a b misdemeanor, aggravated by a b misdemeanor, to be parlayed into a 1st degree felony? This would be the Utah Aggravated Kidnapping Law, in case you have forgotten, which permits an unlawful detention, aggravated by an “attempt” to commit sexual abuse on a minor– even where utterly consensual– to be prosecuted as a 1st degree felony.
That answer, of course, is easy: a person can risk conviction, and immediate incarceration as a flight risk, hope for an appeal, and hope the higher courts acknowledge the draconianism of such a law. So to my opening question, I already have the answer.
But let me direct my inquiry to more reasonable remedies: one’s that don’t require that I risk these things in order to get justice… I didn’t have any there, did I Judge?
Okay: what about the fact that that AK law had conflicting and irreconcilable standards for both aspects of the aggravated crime? Yes, I have brought this up with you before, and I await your enlight- enment. And what about the fact that where the Legisla-ture had formerly defined the important terms– such as “detained”– they had seen fit to expunge such minutiae from the modified law, which I also sent to you. Gee, Judge, what are my remedies against a Legislature which passes any g—-m muddle they see fit, with-out mindfulness to any potential constitutional conflicts…and without any fidelity to their own expressed purposes, in the very construction of these laws: laws devoid of clear or sensible language (or even literate spelling, for God’s sakes)? Well gosh, Judge Mower; the view from here is that I neither have nor had any remedies against that outrage either.
(Sure: I could write letters, and perhaps persuade a future session of the Legislature to change that law…Well big deal! What good does that do me- or the others already convicted by such laws? And how would “changing” one awful law address the culture of whatever it is that would motivate and allow such a law to be passed in the first place?)
The bottom line is that I cannot hold that “august” body responsible for anything they do, can I? In other words, I have no remedy there either, do I?
Okay, I will move boldly forth now– to the Prosecutor, with his stable of allowances and entitlements (and self-proclaimed lack of real discretion). OK: what remedies do I have against his evil disease? I’ll start with that which I alluded to earlier, namely, the idea that a Prosecutor can add charges up until the trial itself. Fine. But that smacks of blackmail, and so is on the surface an appalling allowance. Nevertheless I can imagine circumstances under which it seems reasonable: like if new evidence– indicative of more serious circumstances, for example– came to light. Or if a new understanding of the evidence congealed in his (tiny) mind, then that might be reasonable too. But unfortunately, so far as I can tell, there do not seem to be any formal standards for when– or whether– a Prosecutor can do this (add late charges). Indeed, blackmail pure and simple seems to be sanctioned here. Blackmail with no remedy, right Judge?
(My first Attorney didn’t know the rules for adding charges either, of course: But he later suggested that the two standards that I just articulated might be the true ones. Ha! With that in mind, then, I penned a letter to the Utah Bar, asking for clarification of what the circumstances/standards were. Well a certain Sharadee Fleming there responded, telling me that she could not answer that question, because that would be giving me legal advise. Well how absurd is that?… So I replied to her, saying that that would be like her coming into the restaurant where I work, and asking me where the bathroom is- and having me decline to tell her, because that would be giving her medical advise!)
All humor aside, Judge, I am now asking YOU if there are any standards for ad-ding late charges- or if the Prosecutor can exercise his allowances and perpetrate out-and-out blackmail like this? DOES ANYBODY KNOW THE ANSWER? Is there an answer?
Let me proceed on the assumption that one or the other of those standards must be met, though. Then let us say that the Prosecutor would claim– if indeed he were anywhere expected to justify his late addition, which I doubt– that he was adding it because new evidence had come to light. Okay. But how do we know that, aside from his claim? How do we know that evidence is “new”, that is to ask? And what if that “new “evidence falls on its face in a trial- or at a Preliminary hearing (as it did in my case)? Why then should the charges he added as their consequence of this new and faulty evidence be allowed to retain any of their power– as they did in my case– and as I have presented to you before?
And does that “new evidence” clause- or claim, or illusion– also apply to any evidence the Prosecutor simply makes up out of whole cloth? Gee, Judge, if Prosecutors are “allowed” to manufacture evidence after an arrest as part of their “core function”, then wouldn’t that manufactured evidence be utilizable towards adding those late charges too– if indeed, there is any sort of actual requirement at all? And if the new evidence is presented in the format of threatened testimony- but that testimony is not given (or is even contradicted) does the Prosecutor have any responsibility to do anything but claim (pretend) “gosh: well I thought that it was true”? If there is any accountability at all, that is to ask?
Okay then: so what if it is “a new understanding” which is required, before the Prosecutor can add a new charge? Fine… But how does a person dispute another person’s claim to a “new understanding”? Or is it the same old smoke and mirrors non-standard?
In my case, Unlawful Detention was charged early on, by a Prosecutor who told my first Attorney that he COULD have charged a 1st degree felony, but had decided on a 2nd degree one instead…But much later on he charged that 1st degree one anyway: (AK- supported by that Unlawful Detention charge). Gee: that certainly puts the lie to a claim to a “new understanding”, doesn’t it– that he both admitted he knew he could do it and put one of its planks in place? Hello! It doesn’t matter though, does it– because we can’t make either of them admit that that exchange happened can we? Nor would it matter if we could– would it– since there is no actual standard, right? Uh huh: it appears that even if there is an actual standard, it is really nothing more than a lovely sounding but toothless phrase designed to gull the public into believing that fair standards are in place.
So bollox to Eric Lind’s new understanding- and to his new evidence… But I don’t have any remedy there regardless, do I? The evil Prosecution gets to hold all the cards- and even worse- to be enabled in anything he wants to do, doesn’t he? And who is it that enables (and enabled) him? Sorry– but you need to look to yourself, Judge Mower.
(An aside, since this did not occur in my case: Clayton also said you’d probably allow late charges to be filed once, but not twice, because doing that twice would appear retaliatory. Huh? Is that true? If so, why wouldn’t once be recognized as retaliatory too? C’mon, Judge- why enable this blackmail at all? Surely you see through it? Or is this a “compromise”, of some sort?… PLEASE: anybody- but anybody- can “compromise”.)
I’ll take a break here to go a somewhat different direction. It concerns one of the claims Lind supposedly made, which was that he could not have charged this as a misdemeanor because– as an out-of-state resident– he could not have controlled me that way. Well the very idea of that raises some interesting questions. Like whether the SOB really believed this was a misdemeanor to begin with? But nothing in the Code of Ethics for Prosecutors says anything about filing charges proportional to the evidence, does it? Thus, even under those circumstances, I have no remedy, do I?
(But more than that: if a Utah resident fled the state under a misdemeanor charge, he could be charged with inter-state flight, could he not? Is the case that that cannot be charged to an out-of-stater? Fill me in here, and tell me what is normal- for dealing with misdemeanors for non-residents. Is there an equal protection issue here? Or does equal protection OF the law not include equal protection FROM the law? Yes, that’s probably it. Besides: nobody cares, right? But why couldn’t Utah enact a law similar to the inter-state flight law, for non-residents who refuse to come back? Lacking such a law, why does the accused bear the burden– for laws that have NOT been passed?)
Oh, but let me continue with my question about the Prosecutor. You see, I still need to ask what my remedies are against a DA who does not turn over all the exculpatory evidence… Well if it is in the form of reportage– by the victim– about circumstances– and is therefore not “hard” evidence, then all he has to do is pretend he did not know it, right? Of course that’s right. On the other hand, your definition of “detained” nullified its importance anyway, didn’t it? So I don’t have any…well, you know my question by now.
Well what if the victim herself– or her improperly empowered mother– came forth and admitted these things now- and charged that the Prosecutor had known all of them since early on? Neither of these would make a bit of difference to anything, would they?
This segues nicely into another matter I have brought up with you before, Judge: it’s the matter of that indefensible late charge yielding a final charge (via your hand) which is in excess of what the rabid Prosecution itself charged. You let that AK float around until it settled on a Kidnapping charge whose wording contradicted the wording of the charge even a diseased Prosecutor had applied- and which was arrived at via that indefensibly muddled law I lambasted earlier. Why did you do that Judge? And what remedy do I have? What reasonable remedy, I mean?… But I already know the answer.
More than that, though, you fabricated a critical definition out of whole cloth- and in doing so, you invented a second-degree felony. Yes, you invented it. Oh, it may have had the same title as an extant law, but it was unique- when you got done with it– and it was indefensible. You made up a law, Judge. Your definition made a muddled tautology out of the statute too, which skirted issues of consent… And then I would have had to face you for the denouement of the case based on the law you had invented. How much faith should I have had? And what remedy did I have there? Remedy: ha ha ha ha ha!
(One might argue– as Wally did to me- that Utah Case Law says that if an actor moves a victim to a place where “the crime” is easier to commit that detention is established. But that standard applied here is baloney too, as that “assumption” was based on a “forcible” crime, where force might fairly be assumed. This case was very different, because in this case, NO force was alleged, and the “forcible” charge was correctly dismissed. Thus your version of the law was neither in conformity with actual nor case law. Why didn’t you know the law, Judge? It was kind of important, don’t you think?)
Ergo: you blew it Judge– and in so doing you generated enormously unjust cir-cumstances for me. But I had– and still have– no remedies, do I? Oh yes- except for the scenario I laid out earlier… of hopefully appealing to a higher court– from prison.
Moreover, since the DA is allowed to manufacture evidence, and suborn perjury, then gee whiz– I’m screwed on those counts too, aren’t I? Nor is there any such thing as a Civil Rights Violation by those evil bastards, is there?…They have immunity against the most appalling acts, don’t they? Gosh: and it’s “their job”, anyway, isn’t it?
Hey: what about “abuse of prosecutorial discretion”– like that Nifong prick in the Duke U. case is facing? Ha! Who am I kidding? Nothing can be “proven”, here, and there are no standards anyway, right? And who would enforce it if there were? You? I doubt it.
By the way, why did that son-of-a-bitch Lind really resign from his position? One must concede that the timing was either suspicious or selfishly irresponsible, after just 11 months.
Okay: let me move on to other arenas of abuse sans remedy:
How about a City Police Officer slamming my head down against his patrol car– as the victim herself attested– and failing to do and report critically important things– as was revealed at the Prelim? Gee, what remedy does a person have against this uncalled for brutality, for starters? Besides absolutely none.
(Sure: I could have made a complaint within a year– TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF– which would make their own ruling about the abuse (yeah: right)– while the accused officer himself is helping make decisions about the severity of the prosecution to be pursued against me. Sure: that would be a smart thing to do. Anyway, that process seems outrageous, doesn’t it? But I don’t have any remedies, do I Judge– and that concern probably isn’t within your purlieu anyway, is it? So it’s all just fine, isn’t it?)
Next, we have a mother– guilty of a related crime, flowing from the same episode– (CPS wrote Cora up for child abandonment, did it not?) being empowered to decide what SHE wanted to happen to me too. That was not justifiable either, was it? Oh but I don’t have any remedy there either, of course…Right? Great, great system you’ve got there.
HEY: What about a transcript that the Prosecutor bastard deftly held up until late January, for my long delayed March 1st trial?*And what about the fact that that document has acknowledged omissions in thirty-two places, as well as having entire very important dialogues omitted? What about that, Judge? What are my remedies there? Oh silly me: imagining they might exist…and imagining that any administrator of “justice” cares…
*(Besides, I’m sure this was every bit as “allowed” as were the intimidating pictures of manufactured “scratches” on the victim (gee: these couldn’t possibly have been made by the victim’s mother who was allowed to transport her daughter to the hospital, could they?), and the “accidental” sending of a blank video-cassette in the original Discovery period… right? No doubt).
Now, what about a Lawyer who- on the night before the most important day of my life– sprang on me that he has to be done with my trial by 2:30? What should I have done there, Judge? Don’t tell me: ask for a continuance, right? Balls. And what about the State Court that supposedly mandated his presence the following day? “They “don’t grant continuances even for trials in progress”, my Lawyer asserted. Great!… Well if that’s true, what are my remedies for a State Court that has such lack of regard for defendants that they would mandate– and cause– such a circumstance? Can I sue them? Sure I can.
Did I really ask what my remedies might be? There I go again…A dreamer, huh? Well my world is a good one that bears defending, Judge. But then, I was not allowed to.
OK: what are my remedies for that idiotic constitutional argument that you agreed with, Judge? Please tell me why you agreed with such a stupid argument– which amounts to saying that a Prosecutor can torture any definition into any unrecognizable shape as long as some part of his gerrymandered umbrella still covers a region that might be applicable. It was idiotic and outrageous, and yet you agreed with it Why? What were you thinking? And what should I have concluded, by that point– about your likely verdict in an actual trial, given all that had come before? And what are my…. never mind. What I mean to ask is: what REASONABLE remedy did I have? I still know what the answer is.
Oh but these questions are all after-the-fact barkings, aren’t they? And besides– and most importantly: nobody, but nobody has any responsibility for anything that happened here except the accused, right? Me, in other words. Every disproportionate act that followed can be ascribed to my responsibility (If I hadn’t done W then X, Y, and Z would not have happened, right?) But baloney to that rationalized, Enabler’s-fest too. To people of good will, responsibility and action are not necessarily the same. There must be proportion. And I was never offered a punishment that bore any reasonable proportion to the offense, was I? So balls to some pronouncement that I “refuse to take responsibility” too.
But by embracing the Enabler’s ideology, everyone else had carte-blanche to tri-angulate their diseases off of me to any extent, right- justified by their glib phrases about MY “responsibility”? Oh, why did you help people get away with this behavior, Judge?
Okay, I’ll go a slightly different route now. It’s called “Who Can I Sue?”:
Can I sue the City of Kanab: whose librarians were supposedly taking responsibility for a mentally “incompetent” girl, but who couldn’t be bothered to protect her– or to protect me from her?… Can I sue the city whose DA egregiously violated my civil rights, and whose cop brutalized me? Can I sue the DA himself– for Civil Rights Violations, or for Depraved Indifference? Oh no, I can’t sue any of them– can I?
How about the State of Utah: for negligent draconian enabling, failure to define terms, failure to give reasonable constitution scrutiny to their laws, and for compelling my Attorney to render less than adequate defense? Oh, no, I can’t sue them either, can I?
Why even go on with this? Obviously everyone else is immune to the consequen-ces of their actions aren’t they…Except for me I mean: I’m responsible for everything..
I’m including my contact information, but my money says you’ll be as mute as every other vested interest I’ve contacted in this diseased, draconian drama (except for Sharadee Fleming, that is). Cowards like Glenn L. Way couldn’t be bothered, for example. (Now there’s a paragon of “responsibility”). Not that I’m suggesting you’re a coward too, because you DID make the courageous call- and the correct call– about that Forcible Sexual Abuse malarkey the psychopath Eric Lind was pushing at my prelimi-nary hearing: you made the call that Corissa was NOT mentally incompetent. I remember it, and I do credit you for it. But you supplemented that with an appalling call, right on it’s coat-tails, that all but negated the importance of that call. Then you later agreed with that “constitutional” idiocy. I just could not maintain my flagging faith after that. In any event, I await your reply, with 90% confidence I won’t get one. That being true, I must proceed with my other related projects. That’s a shame too, because if I thought I might get one I would wait.
One such project to watch for is www.NabbedinKanab.com, coming in the Spring of 2007Until then, Judge, I’m…
Very Truly Yours,
John R Burton
Case# 0031600040
P.S. How did you feel when you signed the paperwork that let Leon Wilson walk? Did you even think about me then? Did the injustice even occur to you then: that the man who should have been charged with a misdemeanor had his life destroyed while the alleged perpetrator of years worth of heinous felonies got to just waltz away? What were your thoughts about that Judge? What phrases crossed your mind then? I really want to know.
*****************************************************************
1-23-07
Dear Cora Singer,
It is difficult to imagine that you’ve forgotten me, but for formality’s sake I feel compelled to re-introduce myself. I am John Royce Burton, and I am the man who was involved in a legal entanglement involving your daughter Corissa almost four years ago.
Well, actually those entanglements are still not at an end, so perhaps I should characterize them as entanglements which commenced almost four years ago, but which still have not ceased to severely impact my life.
As I said to you at the last legal hearing– the one at which I agreed to take a plea in abeyance– that I sought a dialogue with you in the future, but that I would not force myself upon you in order to engage it. I do therefore hope you do not regard this commu-niqué as a violation of that pledge…I probably wouldn’t even be writing you now, but inasmuch as so many things have come to light since that long-gone day, I feel driven to seek enlightenment on several nagging points which still cause me great consternation. These are aspects of the affair I still lose sleep over: mysterious things that I am still at-tempting to unravel, and which I believe you alone can cast some light upon. So I am writing you this one time– and won’t contact you again without your encouragement.
But I do need to know that you have received this– or I will be tempted to try again.
As you know I have admitted that this entanglement was unworthy of me, and that it never should have occurred. I also extended to you a sincere apology, to which you revealed that you “forgive” me. That was a meaningful event for me. But I regret that I did not have an opportunity to meet with you much earlier on in this ordeal, to explain what had happened.
I actually thought there was a chance for such an exchange the first time I ever saw you in court- in Sept. of 2003– while our Attorneys were meeting together outside. You came in and our eyes met and I sensed you were a good-hearted person before I even realized who you were. Unfortunately right then the Bailiff distracted me by announcing both that Corissa was late for court and that someone named “Leon” was driving her there that day. I think you can understand why that disclosure would have been unnerving for me at that time, for it left me wondering whether it was the very same Leon whom Corissa had accused– who might at that very moment be suborning perjury– and who might also have had some special relationship with the court- that they referred to him by one name.
Surely you can also understand why I gave no explanation to Mark Fisher either, after having been arrested for “Child Kidnapping”, having my head slammed upon my car for no cause at all, and having overheard his plans to tow my car for phony reasons. To me, Mark Fisher had signaled from the outset his utter disdain for truth and justice.
Then came the scratches…
I had never been in trouble with the law before- and all those things alerted me to expect enormous dishonesty, persecutorial disease, and nefarious intent.
And there was still more to come…like “No, no, I don’t want to go!”…
In any event, my first Attorney had already told me I should not try to contact you or speak with you at any time… so I might not have spoken to you then regardless. But maybe if I had done that anyway, things would have turned out differently for all of us.
Having said that though- and without diminishing the depth or sincerity of my feelings, I have some things still to express.
You see, I am trying very hard to understand why you would have supported this prosecution to the extent that you did. I say this gingerly, and not without already know-ing the answer to some extent. That is to say, I certainly understand why a mother in your position– believing a strange man intended to harm his daughter– would have lobbied for a very severe punishment indeed. So at the outset, I can understand your reaction.
The problem I am having with understanding all this, though, is that that maxi-mum (LIFE) penalty I could have understood your early zeal for was not sought initially- when it was understandable- but was only added months later, after such a time as Cori-ssa’s continuing revelations of the circumstances should have lent you a new understan-ding of the events. That is to say, the most outrageous charges were leveled against me only after such a time as Corissa’s own disclosures should have led a reasonable person to say “Wait a minute: none of that sounds like the behavior of someone who aimed to hurt my daughter”- as well as “It sounds like HE didn’t come on to HER at all”…
Perhaps that assertion antagonizes you- but it is predicated upon your own testimony- proffered much later– in which you claimed that Corissa eventually tells you the truth about things…
I don’t know any other way to say these things to you.
Flash forward to March of 2004, and to the Preliminary Hearing at which those most serious charges against me were thrown out- thank God. Well as much as I was ela-ted by that outcome I was troubled by your continuing zeal to send me to prison for life in spite of that outcome. It’s not that I think you should have thrown your hands up and said “forget it”- not at all: rather I mean that if it is indeed true that Corissa eventually tells you everything then that hearing should have provided you with several additional questions to probe Corissa with- to get the truth about. Perhaps now you see what I m getting at.
At that hearing my Attorney asked your daughter whether she: 1) Rubbed my shoulders utterly without provocation while asking me if “a woman” had ever done that for me before; 2) Pursued me running outside the library as I was leaving and asked if she could drive my car; 3) Repeatedly asked if she could drive my car and at one point even attempted to start it; 4) Unexpectedly grabbed my crotch without encouragement, precedent, or provocation; 5) Told me she loved me; 6) Claimed her father had raped her; and 7) Admonished me to not “tell anybody”, before running down the hill. In addition Wally asked whether I had started to climb the hill in advance of her, to which she shrieked, to alert me that she couldn’t keep up with me– and at which point I took her hand to help her to climb (#8). (I am certain that I was not aware of that limitation until that moment.)
If what you say is true, then you now know that each of these things happened exactly like that. What is more, all of them are important information for judging the events that transpired then- yet none of them were ever admitted to me or to my Attorney.
My main reason for revisiting all these questions is to underscore my conclusion, which is that any young victim’s mother would have asked her child about those things after the hearing- if indeed they were the first time she had heard them- to ascertain whe-ther there was any truth to any of them…And you see it is my belief that you did exactly that– assuming you had not learned the truth about them beforehand. So if what you say is true– that Corissa eventually tells the truth- then I cannot understand how your assess-ment of the circumstances and events which took place would not have radically changed after that hearing– and after those disclosures– if it had not already done so before…
Surely a man who intended to hurt your daughter would not have said “You’re scaring me”, for example– in response to her declaration of love. (Wouldn’t I have said “I love you too”, for example– and thus become better poised to “lure” her?) And what exactly was my motive for hurting her supposed to have been? And why- after signing in at the library– for the dozenth time– and after being seen around town for several weeks — and known to many people, including the Fire Commissioner– would I have thought I could get away with such a thing?.. Surely you came to realize that explanation made no sense!
So the “intending harm” scenario could not have persuaded you, it seems to me: that as more and more was revealed in a piecemeal fashion such a scenario would have frayed around its edges Yet it appears that even after being disabused of the likelihood of that that you continued to promote and support a prosecution that aimed to send me to prison for the rest of my life. I would very much appreciate an explanation of why you did that. I very much want to understand what lied behind this zeal…
(I always believed that you were entitled to an explanation of where Corissa and I were going as we ventured up the hill- though often times that was in spite of yourself.)
Several people have suggested to me that upon learning that Corissa was a minor, and suspecting that her understanding was less acute than I had formerly realized, that I should have rushed her back to the library: that would have been the “common sense” thing to do, they like to say. But to me that would have been the morally cowardly thing to do. Corissa had just told me that she’d been raped by her father, and in a way that led me to believe that nobody else but me knew. (Any feeling person- having heard the path-os in her voice then would have been very moved and concerned). Then she told me other things that confused that declaration, which I was attempting to sort out as she uttered that she loved me. Imagine how confusing that was- and how heartbreaking!…
In response to that I said “You’re scaring me”, and to that she laughed. I was very relieved that she had laughed too… But had I rushed her back to the library then, I would have been both turning my back on a God-given responsibility AND betraying her feel-ings. It seemed more humane to spend some time ascertaining the truth about this rape, and also talking to her about her misplaced feelings…. THAT could have been a positive ending, then… I also knew she intended to meet you in an hour, and if I gleaned important information to impart to you– or others– then I had planned to do it at that time.
But our conversation could not have taken place in the car, as Corissa was so determined to try to drive it that she’d become obsessed: nor did that environment strike me as conducive to the discussion I envisioned. In short, I still defend our “hike” together as the right thing to do at that time, and under the circumstances. After all, it was me she’d revealed those things to, for whatever reason– and I was qualified to deal with the situation. And why, exactly, should I have thought the police were coming, given all I’ve revealed?
It means that faced with moral dilemmas I remain the only one who did the right thing. Mark Fisher didn’t. Eric Lind certainly didn’t. Leon didn’t. You didn’t. And Judge Mower didn’t. Oh but I’m the one who keeps paying and paying and paying, aren’t I? I’m the one who went through months of suicidal ideation, enormous physical stress, bank-ruptcy, and “counseling”. I’m the one who lost my car and checking account, and had to travel to Thailand to get an operation. I’m the one who has ongoing health concerns as a result, and who is still hugely in debt despite the bankruptcy. I can’t even get an ATM card anymore. What do you think about all that? Is that justice? Are you pleased by that?
I would also very much appreciate an explanation of why you supported a prosecution that endeavored to paint Corissa as incompetent– for surely you do not believe that yourself… Too many things militate against the idea that you hold such a view: from the fact that you left her in the Library and could not be found when trouble occurred, to the fact that she was held culpable for incorrigible behavior by the juvenile court during the same extended saga. And wasn’t she involved in some job-training program too? Why was that? She even claimed she could drive, and I believed her. In fact I had no doubt.
Clearly then, not only the Juvenile Court Judge but Judge Mower himself obvi-ously regarded Corissa as competent. So did I- and so did you, I believe. Yet you contin-ued to promote a potential lifetime sentence for me on the basis of Corissa’s “mental incompetence”– even after gleaning the truth about the totality of events and the degree of her assertive participation. And no: I’m not saying her aggressive initiations excused me in the circumstance, and I never did say that: but they do heavily mitigate it. Plus you yourself apparently held that this was not sexual abuse, according to Corissa’s testimony.
And Corissa was not detained EVER– in any way: psychologically or physically.
Another thing several people have said to me is “Surely you perceived that some-thing was “wrong” with her– as though that fact alone should damn me, somehow. Well the answer is that I did believe that “something” was “wrong” with Corissa, but not to the extent that it rendered her anywhere close to incompetent. She seemed a suitable companion to me, and the idea of a hike seemed fun…Your own reporting is that her strongest skills are social. Well hello: what skills do you think I saw, in dealing with her?
Moving into new territory: if you really forgave me, as you said, then why was this case pursued at all? The continuing enormously disproportionate prosecution does not resonate with me as a consequence of “forgiveness” I am trying hard to understand.
And I would much appreciate an acknowledgment that this was way out of proportion.
All that being asked, and commented upon, there is still an entire arena of issues here which drove me to write to you today. That is that I am aware that all the charges against Leon Wilson were dropped– and that eventuality tortures my mind. I am trying very hard to understand this. You see, I cannot reconcile the fact that the prosecution attempted to send me to prison for life for what surely should have been charged as a misdemeanor, whereas all charges were dismissed against another man who– in a position of trust, no less– perpetrated years worth of the most heinous atrocities against a girl starting when she was eight- and all of them felonies. This I cannot reconcile. So please tell me: how do you regard this outcome? Are you disappointed– or elated? Angry- or relieved?
Perhaps you “forgave” Leon Wilson too, though if that’s the case I must say that I would have much preferred that style of forgiveness. Barring that, then, please explain to me how this circumstance really came about? And tell me if you’re at peace with the result? Is it okay with you that I had to face such enormously exaggerated charges-and have my life destroyed– for a misdemeanor– while Leon Wilson got to just walk away? Is he somehow better or more worthy than I am?
And speaking of walking away: what do you think of the —————- DA who walked away from it all before bringing Leon Wilson to justice? I really want to know.
I have considered the theory that dismissing charges against Leon was the plan all along: that I was just the dupe, somehow. Hmmm… Was that the case? I’m just asking…
I have also considered the idea that you were not really the driving force behind the prosecution: that that diseased little man Eric Lind was responsible for it, and that you really had no choice but to go along. Well I really wish I could believe that… Unfortuna-tely that delusion cannot hold water, after having heard Corissa’s testimony at that fateful preliminary hearing. Darn. (And why did she have a fit after being interviewed by him?).
You see, her claims to having heard voices saying “No, no, I don’t want to go”– as I recall them and as they are recorded on my transcript- were expressed in such a way as to render any claim to their veracity absurd. It is also absurd to believe she could have made them up herself. What is really true is that those claims could only have been implanted as a result of subornation…and rehearsal. Furthermore– and unfortunately– I don’t believe any effort to elicit such lies from Corissa could have occurred without your help.
This upsets me greatly. Why would you help a truth-challenged mentally handicapped person to tell lies?
And why– after testifying that she felt free to leave at any time– and that the hike was her idea (both true)– would you have supported this diseased and evil prosecutor in his charge of “kidnapping”?
Finally, what is the truth about the scratches? Who made them– and when? And how early on did the psychopath Eric Lind know they’d been manufactured?
Gee: It seems that my sins pale by comparison with those of the prosecution.
So I am asking you for answers. But more importantly, I am asking you to contact the court and the new DA and admit that several extremely important pieces of evidence (Disclosures 1-8 above) were withheld from the Defense. Then, armed with the evidence I SHOULD have been provided with before, I seek to gain a new trial– for the b misdemeanor “Unlawful detention” that I should have been facing, after the preliminary hearing (and which I was not guilty of, as you know)- instead of this baloney “Kidnapping” charge (that for some reason Lind never charged me with…Gee: why didn’t he?).
Rest assured that these things– the admissions, and the answers– are all I want from you, in case you suspect additional motives… You never sought monetary damages from me…(Not even the modest fees– why not?) Nor do I have any such designs on you.
In any event, this request ought not require too much of your time– nor any more testimony by Corissa. But whatever time and energy it does require will be resources well spent- in the causes of truth and justice.
If you do these things, perhaps with time I’ll be able to forgive you too! And who knows: perhaps the charge against me would even be dismissed– just like Leon’s were!
Finally, you impressed me as a spiritual person (you did mention prayer). If you belong to a church you might ask your Pastor’s advice about all this. I am confident that I know what a man of God would advise you to do. But of course I would hope you would know what to do on your own.
If you have any questions or comments of your own I hope you will not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
*******************************************************
Dickie Robinson
Librarian
Kanab City Library
100 No. Main St.
Kanab UT 84741
3-18-07
Dear Dickie Robinson,
My name is John Royce Burton. Perhaps you remember me. It has been almost four years since the day I met Corissa Mumford in the library there in Kanab and stumbled into a series of circumstances that culminated with the County Attorney attempting to send me to prison for the rest of my natural life.
The reason I am writing you today is two-fold: One good, one bad, as they say. One is to take you to task for the less creditable aspects of your own behavior, both concurrent with and stemming from that the events of that day– and with some heartfelt questions about them. The other is to share with you an interesting benefit that did accrue to me as a result of the extent to which your revelations were, indeed, creditably honest.
My instincts told me that you were a good-hearted and decent person, and I still believe that. (Interestingly, my instincts said the same thing about Cora Singer too, and even about Mark Fisher– so you might understand when I tell you now that my instincts are still being re-examined. Perhaps I’ll still find that I’m right about you– and all of you– but enough about that, lest you think I am attempting manipulative flattery).
I’ll start with those things that I feel critical about, and about which I still seek an understanding.
First was your claim that after I had left the library, while Corissa remained inside, that I lingered outside of it for about “ten minutes”, as though I were waiting for Corissa. You see, I am trying very hard to understand what forces came to play upon you that led you to so cavalierly testify to such a thing. The truth is that I left the library as Corissa and you were conversing, and that she bolted out of the library running to catch up to me at the completion (?) of your exchange. Had I been outside the library when you began your conversation, then I would not have been able to hear the following exchange:
You, to Corissa: “So how’s it going in there?” *
Corissa: “Fine– but my computer hates me”.(At that point I left the library.)
I heard her comment as ironic, by the way, and it sounded very much like something I myself might say: adult irony, that is: not some “incompetent’s” blather. But that is not my point. My point is that unless your exchange with Corissa- in which she putatively claimed that I “liked her like a girlfriend”– lasted ten minutes, then I could not very well have been outside of there for ten minutes… Yet you claimed that that was so. Why?
I think the difference between waiting outside for ten minutes vs. walking toward my car after a very brief hiatus with the intention– and belief– that I’d be leaving alone is the difference between predation (arguable even then) and something much more benign.
*(And don’t I wish you’d asked “So how’s it going in there Corissa?”, instead. That might have alerted me to different circumstances. Or maybe not. You see, having been in there so many times, I thought that she was the stranger, and that I was the one you knew! … I’m not really sure that would have mattered to anything, though, since she represented herself as an adult, invited me on a hike, came with me of her own volition, and seemed a suitable partner for that purpose…but it is… well…a curious twist.)
The second thing you maintained that caused me to ripple with disbelief was that Corissa always chose the same computer when she came into the library. Well I had been in there a dozen times, and each time I had had my computer assigned to me… Did you mean to say that she requested a particular computer, or rather that she had chosen it? And why would she have been assigned the computer next to me, under the circumstances? Remember there was nobody else but us using the computers then…I’m confused.
It was interesting for me to note two things, when I last visited the Kanab Library, in November of last year. First was that computers were still being assigned, but by handing out some sort of card now. I guess that’s really of minor interest, though– but it’s as if the “assignment” has been made more official, or something. Why was that necessary?
The other thing I noticed was that the Children’s Room was located in the front of the library, close to the viewpoint of the Librarians themselves. The reason that is of such interest to me is that the main reason I’d gone into the library that November day was to see if there really even WAS a children’s room- which was important, given that Corissa had claimed that I had followed her into it. You see, I always imagined that if there had really been a Children’s Room, that it was in that recess between the lounge chairs and the magazine racks, at the rear of the library…But instead that area appeared to be some sort of storage room, to my great surprise! It means that all these years I had believed she’d claimed I’d followed her into a place that didn’t even exist…unless this “Children’s Room” had once been located there- in that recess- and that you had moved it, during the ensuing years. Is that the case? Or was there always a Children’s Room– but at the front?
(To this day I’ve never been in either of those rooms, in case you’re wondering).
Before I reveal the beneficial circumstance I promised to tell you about, I have to ask why you would have let Corissa go outside to talk to some strange man, if indeed you were acting as her guardian? Sorry, but I just have to ask this…and if you weren’t acting as her guardian– and she is incompetent– then doesn’t that suggest that she had no guar-dian that day: that an incompetent had been abandoned at the library, who then unwitting-ly initiated circumstances for which I should have gone to prison for THE REST OF MY LIFE– on the basis of her “incompetence”?
Said one other way: if Corissa was incompetent maybe I should have been warned that she was incompetent– because it was not clear to me!
Or was Corissa Mumford only incompetent with regards to ME?
I doubt very much that I’ll get an answer about this, so I’ll leave it at that for now.
No I won’t: I can’t. You see, I also wonder if– had I believed Corissa was incompetent, and had I believed she needed some sort of guardian, and believed furthermore that that was you– whether I would have thought I had an implied consent to go somewhere with Corissa nonetheless- since you didn’t stop her when she followed me outside and asked to drive my car, having been conversing with you just before that. But heck: that’s really irrelevant, isn’t it– since I hardly thought she was incompetent? But it’s easier to send an outsider to prison until the end of time than to examine our own roles, isn’t it?
I guess that was just my long-winded way of inquiring to what extent the rest of you have examined your own behavior of that day and concluded that your behavior was less than ideal too…and that the responsibility equation was rationalized in your favors…
This whole prosecution was enormously evil, Dickie, and I suspect your participa-tion in it in the manner in which you partook did not represent you at your best. Why did you help these people tell these horrible lies– and to pursue this out-of-all-proportion-to-reason prosecution– toward the goal of sending me to prison for the rest of my life? What were you thinking? What pressures were you under? I would appreciate some insight here.
Okay, now the good news:
During the darkest days of this persecution, I started to unravel, and I imagined that I had indeed lured Corissa from the library, told her to get into the car, scratched her, drove her away kicking and screaming- while I cackled- and…well you get the picture. Those fantasies emerged after Eric Lind threatened me with perjured testimony, in which Corissa had supposedly protested “No, no– I don’t want to go”, as I drove us away in my car… And I knew that had not happened– but stress does amazing things to our minds.
Anyway, as I started imagining all manner of things that had not happened, it was your revelation that Corissa “makes things up” that helped me to save my own sanity. I realize you later wished you had not revealed that, but it in fact serves as a didactic lesson about the power of the truth to counter and overcome the power of lies! When we tell lies we unleash powers we cannot control- and the same is true of truth. That’s what I believe, anyway. And truth is stronger– but we must have faith in it… So I’m sorry if you lost your faith. But had you not told the truth then I might be in the nuthouse as I write these very words…So thanks for telling the truth-even though, unfortunately, you later regretted it!
That was not well explained, but it was an extremely complex mental dynamic, not easily clarified. Just know that your disclosure saved me in the face of this great evil.
I don’t know what else to say to you. I believe in my heart of hearts that you are a nice person, but I am extremely disappointed in you. I don’t know what to do with those feelings, or how to reformulate a self-protective but still embracing conception of people that I can live with: how to reconcile my new found suspicions of the types of people I might have heretofore just instinctively trusted. I don’t want to be bitter. Any suggestions? If you can help me with any of these things, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
NOTE:
One problem with my letter to Dickie (DR) is that it sounds like I might have at one time believed Corissa had indeed reported that she had said “No, no…”, etc. On her own, I mean. But I never did believe that. Thus, coming to believe she had made that up would not have freed me…So my claim was poorly expressed, and even inaccurate.
What had really saved me was Dickie’s report that I had left the library before Corissa, after I started to wonder whether that belief had been my own self-delusion. Yes, I think that’s right. Obviously at this moment I am not sure. But what I said to Dickie was satisfactory for these purposes. My greater point was made, that is.
My mistake might even have its own unexpected boon- as in if DR sees that I’m not claiming EL put Corissa up to it. Hell- I don’t know what these people’s relationships with each other are. But if this goes right for me, somebody will eventually crack.
Not me though– that peril is passed.
****************************************************************
11-27-07
Dear Mark Fisher,
Well now it’s your turn for a letter. Perhaps you wondered if you would get one too. I debated whether I should bother, you see, since in the end you weren’t really one of the big guns in this debacle. As I saw it, you could push for certain results, but whether or not those results came to fruition was not really in your hands. Yes, you could have adamantly insisted on certain courses, but even if those courses were followed you did not get to make the final call that steered it there. In other words I saw you as a cog in a wheel.
Ah, but it was you whose idea it was to charge Aggravated Kidnapping, wasn’t it? At least, that was what Eric Lind claimed was true. One cannot really know, though, can one, since Eric Lind was very deft about pretending he was not responsible for his actions even while reciting mantras about the unimpeachability of mine. Besides, even if you had insisted on that course, it was he who had the power to (say)* yes or no.
But I have already commented at length on that man’s weakness and phoniness, and need not repeat those comments here.
This one is for you, as I have said, because I have some questions for you too.
I am writing this in a cozy nook, as the Holiday season closes in, and as I contem-plate that this would have been probably the third of fifteen or more holiday seasons I would have been spending in prison, if you had had your way. That for what should have been charged as a misdemeanor, no less.
To get to the meat of the matter, at the time that you arrested me every fiber of my being—every instinct—told me that you were not a bad man. And now—well over four years later, I still cannot shake that perception, despite all evidence to the contrary. So perhaps we were both suffering from skewed perceptions then, as I recall that you knew with all your instincts that I had been arrested many times. Ha! And to think I had never been arrested until that day…
So I am faced with the task of trying to reconcile your brutality, your dishonesty, your persecutorial mien, and your chicanery with my perception of you, Mark Fisher.
By the brutality part of my charge I’m sure you know immediately what I mean. I mean the slamming of my head against my car, in a circumstance in which I offered no resistance whatsoever. (I recall then that I also told you I hadn’t heard something you’d uttered into my left ear as you were cuffing me and you snarled at me like a rabid dog. I wonder how you felt later when you learned that I really don’t hear out of that ear.)
By the dishonesty, of course, there’s the failure to mention that Corissa had defended me as her friend before you had arrested me. Obviously the implications of that are remarkable—certainly in terms of what you should have then gone on to ascertain, having heard her consent being given.
Perhaps you should have established Corissa’s age too, before arresting me for Child Kidnapping. But to stay with my point, further dishonesty was evinced when you testified in court—and under oath—that you could not recall whether you’d arrested me for a first degree felony or for a B misdemeanor. Please. How do you reconcile lying under oath with your conception of your God? And how do you not remember which of these things you’d arrested a suspect for? This might help: how about the fact that force is not allowed in the case of a B misdemeanor. Reasoning backward you should have concluded that since you’d brutalized me that it couldn’t have been a B misdemeanor you’d arrested me for, right? Not that you really forgot.
Chicanery? That would be the towing my car for suspected non-payment of taxes. What was that? But that you had no reason to suspect such a thing is hardly to the point.
Now that I‘ve scrolled through those things let’s get to the bigger sin. Yes, I mean the leveraging of a 1st degree felony because I would not give a felony plea to this misdemeanor. What is the matter with you? What disease do you suffer from, Mark Fisher?
Perhaps you’d become too involved in this case—too close to it, that is. Was that the case? Did you lose some necessary distance, or something, that you would act so poorly? Or was the denouement of this case really about prosecuting me ridiculously harshly just to protect yourself from the misconduct charges you should have been facing: the false arrest, the brutality, the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence (well maybe you don’t have that last obligation personally, but you sure helped Eric Lind suppress some of that, didn’t you?), the lying under oath, the failure to even take important photographs, for crying out loud…
I could digress upon other aspects of this too, but I think the main points have been covered. I guess it all comes down to wondering how you rationalized all of this?
Something to think about as you wrap yourself in your cozy holiday cheer.
I welcome a response at any time.
Sincerely,
P.S. of course the question remains about everybody’s relationship to Leon Wilson here. It appears that letting him off the hook was part of the equation all along. Why should I believe differently? Boy, it sure seemed imperative to push my prosecution along while his case languished for four years and then got dismissed. How do you reconcile that?
*omitted, accidentally
