Earth To Rob: Are We All Losing Site Of The Whole Point?

Posted: August 19, 2009 in Francke Case
Ex-Salem wrote:
 
Although sometimes I think we all lose sight of the whole point…. to figure out "what "really" happened".
 
 
Is figuring out what really happened the whole point? The whole point of what? 
 
Discovering what really happened has never been the reason for me creating the website. My reasons for creating the website were to enlighten others to one of the most obvious wrongful convictions I have ever seen. To discover why the case had grown cold. Why had so many years passed with the Franckes and Phil Stanford seemingly giving up on trying to find out what really happened? Why was this injustice allowed to disappear from the public eye? What was the Gable family doing to correct the injustice? The answers are clearly evident throughout the pages of my blog and message forum, as well as in the comments posted at the Willamette Week’s Greg Johnson/Kellcy editorial. Matter of fact I noticed recently that Ret’s comment finally appeared at that editorial. You’ll recall Ret was the retired PDX cop who used to post regularly in Phil Stanford’s column.
 
Ret  writes on Jul 15th, 2008 11:48am

It’s a crying shame that Kevin shut down the MC deputy. But I can totally understand it. He accused me of being a corrupt cop and he doesn’t know who I am. Kevin is in serious need of some heavy duty therapy.

If that deputy reads this stuff, please contact Rob and he’ll give you info on me. I’m a retired PPB detective. Maybe you and I can coordinate some of this stuff. I wouldn’t talk to Kevin either.

 
It was also my intention to inform people how the legal process works in cases such as this. To show there is a taller mountain to climb for wrongfully convicted people in getting out of prison than prosecutors had to climb to put them there.
 
The reason is that even if every rule in the book was violated in gaining your conviction, the rules change once you are found guilty. The standard to be met depends on whether you’re appealling to state court or federal court.

In state court, you must prove "actual innocence." But the standard isn’t that you are no longer shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. It isn’t even that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.  You must prove that no reasonable person would find you guilty.

 
In federal court, even actual innocence isn’t enough. You have to prove something more, such as that your constitutional rights were violated. It wouldn’t be enough, for example, to prove that the crime lab got it wrong. You must prove they knew they were wrong or were reckless in their results. It wouldn’t be enough if you proved Shorty Harden lied on the witness stand. You have to prove the prosecution put him on the stand knowing he was going to lie.
 
Get it yet? Granny did, and she’s the only one. That’s why she put together her piece on third party guilt. The failure of Judge West to allow the mention of Tim Natividad or Johnny Crouse at Frank’s trial was a violation of Frank’s constitutional rights. Here’s an excerpt from the piece Granny wrote which I have posted on the "What’s Happening" page…
 
Welcome to the Frank Gable Story.
 
The Gable case highlights how our ‘adversarial system’ of jurisprudence in the United States is driven by rules of evidence, codified, precedent and common law.
 
For any Oregon defendant attempting to prepare a third-party guilt defense to any criminal charge, the Gable case underscores that such an attempt is fraught with great evidentiary disadvantages, even when a criminal defendant’s very life may be at stake in a capital murder trial. Quaint notion it may be, but what if SOMEONE ELSE is actually guilty other than a charged defendant?
 
Third-party guilt evidentiary restrictions apply to use of such evidence and therefore control such a defense argument at an actual trial. The legal threshold for inclusion of third-party guilt evidence at trial is extraordinary.
 
Herein lies an elephant sized question:
Should a defendant pursuing and investigating a third-party guilt defense be judicially preempted from accessing materials and files regarding other possible suspects or leads, such files and materials which are being purposefully withheld by government agencies from the defense, though the defendant has not yet asked the court to include such files or materials as evidence at trial?
 
Was the trial Court’s ruling arbitrary, as it ignored a presumption of innocence for Gable, while the prosecution labored under no similar, special restrictions in seeking to present evidence later at trial?
 
Indeed, the trial Court in the Gable case appears to have arbitrarily ruled that to view files that may or may not contain vital third-party guilt exculpatory evidence, such value which was arguably unknown to the Court, the defendant must first connect the dots for a third-party guilt defense, without the use of any exculpatory evidence that may be within the files.
Was Gable’s constitutional right to prepare a third party guilt defense trampled?
 
Marion County Circuit Judge Gregory West burdened Frank Gable with a threshold requiring proof of a nexus (regarding the murder) between a dead man, and one who had previously confessed to the murder in order to even view records or materials about the two men that existed in government custody.
 
This burden was above and beyond that required by rules of evidence to include these materials (that might have been found in the withheld files) at trial as evidence.
 
Did this unconstitutionally chill the defendants right to prepare for the particular type of defense he felt was his strongest option?
 
There is a strong likelihood such a burden placed upon Gable by the Court may indeed have been unconstitutional because it arbitrarily discriminated against the defendant, and undermined his right to a presumption of innocence.
 
 
—end of excerpt—-
 
Pretty good stuff huh? Yeah, and it begs the question why someone with that type of intelligence would turn on me over how I was dealing with a jackass like Billy Jack Haynes who was essentially looking for a place to talk about how many times he was poked in the ass by family members as a young boy. Go figure!
 
Now she’s allowing herself to be strung along by the likes of Kevin Francke and Phil Stanford with all their corruption theories. Not that these theories don’t have the ability to possibly lead to the truth of what really happened, but they’ve been tossed around for 20 years already and it’s not something that’s going to prove Frank’s constitutional rights were violated. Quite frankly, it’s something that needs to be investigated by the proper authorities. Not a group of web sleuths behind a computer. If I’m wrong, I’ll still have the satisfaction of knowing those web sleuths were jump-started by a guy who created a website because he cared about people he didn’t even know.
 
I accomplished my goal, and then some. To the point of Frank’s federal appeals attorney flying halfway across the country with one of her investigators to visit me at my home a few months ago.
 
Time will tell whether or not the creation of freefrankgable.com ends up playing a role in assisting in getting Frank Gable’s conviction overturned and new investigations opened up. Time will tell.
 
Advertisements
Comments
  1. Ex-Salem says:

    I agree, figuring out "what really happened" is not as important as freeing an innocent man.I will be the first to admit that time has made me soft and cynical. Hmm, for someone as stubborn as I am, that’s pretty sad.Like I said on the suspended bus driver blog, I could make all kinds of arguments. And it outrages me every time I am reminded how the judge and prosecutor can tell you what to use as a defense. I mentioned it in a previous blog; of course you don’t want the courtroom to become a ‘dog and pony show’, but as long as you are not slandering the innocent, defendant, or “judge” for that matter, you should be able to put reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. Isn’t that part of what a defense strategy is all about???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s