This man was seen inside the Dome Building 1 1/2 hours after the door had been locked. A corrections employee, Jan Curry, got a good look at him, actually bumping into him, but thought nothing of him being there due to his business-like appearance. She said he was walking from the direction of Michael Francke’s office, and toward the direction of the Parole Board offices. He had never been seen before, and hasn’t been seen since. He was described as:
Late 20’s, early 30’s, 5’10, slender build, dark hair and eyes, well-groomed and very nice looking with his hair neatly trimmed and combed to the side, sporting a neatly trimmed moustache. Smooth, olive-skinned complexion; could be Mediterranean or Hispanic. Navy-blue or black pinstriped suit with a white shirt and tie.
Keep in mind….It’s been 30 years, so the Man in the Pin-Striped Suit is probably in his fifties now, and has changed in his appearance.
The Copy Machine Repairman
The Oregon State Police tried to say the MIPS was a copier repairman named Dennis Plante, who allegedly was there fixing a copier. A corrections employee who saw and spoke to the copy machine repairman disputes that theory, and says the MIPS and Plante are not the same man, although the composite of the MIPS fits the description “EXACTLY” of the man she saw working on the copy machine.
Plante was said to be wearing a brown, tweed-like sports jacket, and the man the corrections employee saw working on the copy machine says he wasn’t wearing anything close to that! Matter of fact, the corrections employee was never even shown a picture of Plante to assist in validating Plante’s assertion he was at the Dome Building that day, nor was she ever called to testify about what she knew of the MIPS. Ironically, the copy machine was left in pieces the night of the murder, and no-one ever returned to finish the job!
An additional call had to be made to get somebody over to complete the job, and Plante wasn’t the guy who showed up! Eventually the State Police eliminated Plante as a possibility of being the Man in the Pin-Striped Suit, and nothing else was followed up on concerning the discrepancy between these two men.
Who is he, and why was he there? Why hasn’t he come forward? We may never know. I’m sure he holds the answers to quite a few questions.
The following text you are about to read was sent to me in January of 2006 from Meg Hanson, the Dome Building employee I spoke of above.
ABOUT ME
My name is Megan Hanson. I worked in the Dome Building for the Parole Board from 1987 to 1990. I held two positions there, first as a Packet Clerk for over 2 years, and second as the Victim’s Assistance Secretary for another year. In my role as Packet Clerk, I pulled materials from inmate files and copied them for Board Review at hearings. I made copies virtually all day, every day. Myself and one other Packet Clerk, Peggy Starnes, were responsible for the large Kodak high-speed copier located just outside the file room.
We performed routine troubleshooting and were the primary contacts for all service calls. It was our responsibility to place calls to the local Kodak service center when an error occurred which we could not resolve ourselves. It was also our responsibility to serve as primary contacts with the repairman.
COPIER REPAIR
Throughout the time I worked as a Packet Clerk, we requested repair service on a somewhat regular basis and became quite familiar and friendly with our assigned repair representative, Mike. We never had to wait more than an hour or two at most before his arrival, and if there were delays, we always received a call. Because making copies for the hearings was time-consuming and critical, the turnaround time for both arrival and resolution was extremely important. Only once during my employ as a Packet Clerk did that service-level fail miserably to meet our expectations and that was Tuesday, January 17, 1989.
JANUARY 17, 1989
I had spent the morning pulling the file materials for the day’s copying. To my knowledge, no other Parole Board employees had used the copier yet that day. Shortly after I began my copying, the copier stopped and an error message I had not seen before was on the readout. I attempted to troubleshoot on my own, but was unable to resolve the issue and made a call to the repair dispatch number.
Several hours went by and Mike had not shown up yet, nor had we received a call. I called the dispatch number again.
In the meantime, both Peggy (the other Packet Clerk) and I were becoming quite irritated. Our workload was such that even a few hours would put us very far behind. Coincidentally, the Eastman-Kodak account rep. for all of DOC and the Parole Board, Bill Enos, was in the building that day. He visited occasionally to socialize with various DOC and Parole Board higher-ups and was also dating the Parole Board’s office manager, Cele Balser, at the time. I knew that he was in the building because he had come through the file room announcing to everyone that he was throwing a going-away party for Scott McAlister that evening after work at Union Street pizza and we were all invited.
Bill Enos was hard to miss… extremely good looking, tall and gregarious. He and Scott were very good friends. Scott would also visit the Parole Board occasionally to talk with various Board members (and to sometimes make inappropriate remarks to the secretaries).
Bill was in Cele’s office and I asked him if he could escalate the request and get our repairman dispatched or let us know what was going on.
MIPS
Finally, after waiting for hours and hours, a repairman we had never seen before (and never saw again) arrived at the copier. It was already almost 4pm, and I was very disappointed because it meant that I wouldn’t get the day’s copying done, and would have double-work the next day. I saw him arrive and met him at the copier to tell him what had happened when the copier stopped working.
I checked up on him about 30 minutes later to see if he was almost done, and he said he was going to have to stay after hours to fix it. I told him I would have to ask for approval.
It was very rare that anyone stayed late, even Board Members, and never before had a repairman stayed after hours. I asked Cele if it was all right that he stay late to finish and she approved. I spoke with the repairman once more before leaving at 5pm, along with most everyone else.
January 18, 1989
About 6:30am I received a call from my supervisor, Cele Balser. She told me not to come into work and said, “Apparently, someone got into the building last night and killed Michael Francke and they’re not letting anyone into the building. I’ll call you when it’s OK to come back to work.” I told my boyfriend about the copier repairman and wondered if he might have seen or heard something. I immediately called the police and told them that they might want to talk to the copier repairman in case he saw or heard something. I gave a complete description of the repairman to the police at that time.
January 19, 1989
We were allowed to return to work. Immediately when I saw the copier was literally in 100 pieces, I knew something was wrong. I went immediately to Cele Balser and told her that I would be calling repair again. I also told her that I would be calling the police. I told her that we needed to find out who the repairman was so that we could tell the police.
I called repair and a short time later, our regular technician, Mike arrived. I asked him who the other guy was, he said he didn’t know who they sent but that it looked like he had taken everything out for cleaning. I believe that Mike then replaced a faulty/worn part and the copier was fixed in under 30 minutes. I was flabbergasted that it had taken him only 30 minutes to fix what the other guy never even completed.
I checked the repair log which was kept in the drawer of the copier and initialed/logged at every visit to see what the man from the 17th had written. He hadn’t even made a log entry, which was standard procedure.
I called the police a second time and told them what had taken place and what I had observed. I gave a second complete description of the repairman to the police at that time – still fresh in my mind from the description I had given the day before.
Cele came to me later, I don’t recall if it was the same day or the next, and said that she had spoken to Bill Enos, and that the repairman had worked for Kodak for 10 years, and I shouldn’t worry about it.
JANUARY 23, 1989
Myself and several other Parole Board employees were interviewed by detectives and I again gave a complete description of the repairman, as did several of my co-workers. The consensus among us all was that the circumstances surrounding the repairman were highly suspicious. I believe this is the police report which was cited in the Oregonian article from 5/27/05 which brought this whole issue to my attention again and prompted me to write to the Oregonian to set the record straight.
DATE UNCERTAIN – FEBRUARY, MARCH? 1989
The police sketch was released and posted on the Parole Board bulletin board. Those of us who had described the repairman gathered around the picture and commented on how accurate a drawing it was – especially considering that we never spoke directly to the sketch artist themselves. We were impressed at how accurately they had captured his likeness – even the length and style of the mustache and hair, as well as his ethnicity.
DATE UNCERTAIN – FEBRUARY, MARCH? 1989
I was interviewed again in person by a detective who took me into an office and showed me pictures of different people to ask if anyone looked like the copier repairman I saw that day. None of them were a hit. All of the people in the pictures were scraggly and looked like felons or associates from what I recall.
Then I was interviewed by another person that same day (I thought perhaps another sketch artist). I recall that there was a second sketch released and that it still bore the same resemblance with some slight differences from the first sketch.
LATER THAT SAME YEAR
Our regular repairman, Mike, was killed in an accident of some kind. I recall delivering flowers to his service.
1991, SHORTLY BEFORE FRANK GABLE’S FIRST TRIAL
By that time, I had moved on to a position with the Department of Agriculture. I received a call from a woman stating that she was with the Public Defenders Office. She asked if I would be willing to testify about the copier repairman I told police about. I told her that I had wondered if anyone was ever going to ask about that and that I would be happy to testify. I told her that I had always felt it was suspicious – especially since we had never seen him before, and we never saw him again. She said that I should expect a subpoena shortly. I was relieved – I wondered why people weren’t making a bigger fuss of the repairman.
I was never subpoenaed.
HOW/WHY I BECAME INVOLVED NOW
Throughout the years, I would search the internet for keywords such as ‘francke murder Kodak’ or ‘francke copier’ and never heard anything.
I emailed Phil Stanford several years ago and he told me that they had ruled out the copier repairman a long time ago.
So, even though my gut was screaming that someone needed to look closer, I didn’t feel as though I was in a position to argue.
Then, on June 16, 2005, I came across the Oregonian article on the internet which completely misrepresented the facts. The article implied that I had identified Dennis Plante as the repairman. It went on to assert that the man Jan Curry identified as the clean-cut, good-looking Man In the Pinstriped Suit and the copier repairman which I had described were not the same person. Nothing could be farther from the truth. She and I both described the same man, in matching detail.
Several things were never established to my satisfaction, which is why I have kept talking about this.
Nobody ever asked me if Dennis Plante was the repairman. Had they done so, I would have told them No. That the man I saw was wearing a dark business suit, was olive skinned, good looking, mustached, only a few inches taller than me, and did NOT wear glasses.
I can understand that when Kodak presented a man who testified that he was there why detectives and lawyers would take it for granted and leave it at that. However, they were never aware that Scott McAlister and the Kodak Rep Bill Enos were buddies, and that the Kodak Rep was romantically involved with the woman who granted the repairman unprecedented and unusual after-hours access to the building, as well as other suspicious circumstances. Under those circumstances, I can understand why they only felt it necessary for Jan Curry to establish whether or not the repairman was the man she saw in the rotunda.
But I don’t understand how they overlooked the fact that all of the Parole Board employees’ descriptions of the repairman so closely matched Jan Curry’s – and none of them said that he wore glasses or a sport coat. It would have been such a simple task to show me a picture, just as they did Jan Curry, just to make sure they had both bases covered.
I won’t offer up my theories about why Dennis Plante would say he was there if he wasn’t. But I do know that he wasn’t the repairman I spoke with on several occasions that day. However, if you believe me and my documented statements to the police, and believe that the man Jan Curry saw and the copier repairman I spoke with are the same man, and that Jan Curry and I both agree that he is not Dennis Plante… then that changes things.
Email thread regarding Oregonian article dated 5/27/05:
Note from Rob:
The following is email correspondence with Meg Hanson and the two lame-ass Oregonian reporters who misquoted her in their article. Naturally they made no attempt to clarify the mistake in their article.
—– Original Message —–
From: meg hanson
To: leszaitz@news.oregonian.com: noellecrombie@news.oregonian.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: Oregonian Article: THE FRANCKE NOTEBOOK: ZAITZ AND CROMBIE RESPOND
I believe a clarification is in order.
My name is Megan Hanson and your article makes specific mention to statements and descriptions I made to police about a copier repairman. I never identified Dennis Plante as the copier repairman. In fact, I have never even seen so much as a picture of the man.
More importantly, both the first and second police sketches of what I understand have come to be identified as the ‘man in the pinstriped suit’ were 100% based on my descriptions and those of my co-workers of the copier repairman. I was, in fact, the only person who spoke with him that day as I was responsible for the copier. When we were allowed to return to work the day after the murder, the copier was still in pieces and the man shown in the police sketches was never seen again.
My point is that it’s extremely misleading and inaccurate to state “A witness, Megan Hanson, told detectives on Jan. 23, 1989, that she saw a copy machine repairman, Dennis Plante, working on a copy machine…”. I have never seen Dennis Plante and therefore, can not and did not say that the repairman I described to police and Dennis Plante were one in the same.
Thank you
Meg Hanson
From: “Noelle Crombie” <noellecrombie@news.oregonian.com>
To: meg hanson
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Oregonian Article: THE FRANCKE NOTEBOOK: ZAITZ ANDCROMBIE RESPOND
Ms. Hanson,
Thank you for your email. I am happy to share with you the Oregon State
Police report, dated 1-26-89, regarding your statements to detectives on
1-23-89. According to that report, Detective Pamela Pederson writes that
you “advised basically that he (Plante) arrived at about 4 p.m. and he
was still working when she left at 5 p.m.” Mr. Plante confirmed with
detectives that he was in the Dome Building from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m.
I am happy to discuss this with you further if you would like to call
me directly. Or you may feel free to speak with an editor.
Sincerely, Noelle Crombie
Noelle Crombie
Oregonian staff writer
503.276.7184, desk
503.816.6630, cell
503-.294.5055, fax
From: “meg hanson”
To: <leszaitz@news.oregonian.com>; “Noelle Crombie” <noellecrombie@news.oregonian.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Oregonian Article: THE FRANCKE NOTEBOOK: ZAITZ ANDCROMBIE RESPOND
Noelle,
Thank you for your reply.
I never even heard the name Dennis Plante until today (I’ve remained out of
touch for some time). I also never saw a picture of him or anything else to
compare his appearance to that of the descriptions I gave to the police.
Those descriptions were of the same man that Jan Curry described. If
Plante’s name is referenced in my statements to the police, it did not come
from me. Your reply has Plante’s name in parentheses – a notation and false
assumption made by the detective I presume.
My point is that your article implies that I identified Plante as the man I
spoke with – the repairman/man in the pinstriped suit – which is absolutely
false. So, since the topic is at issue, and your article attempts to put
the issue to rest – I still believe that it is important to set the record
straight.
Thanks again for your reply
Meg
Note from Rob:
I’m including the following correspondence between Meg and Jim Redden of the Tribune to show how “surprisingly” this story has fallen on deaf ears. Meg brought this to our attention in January, and in Jim’s defense, him and I have discussed it many times since, although Phil Stanford and Kevin Francke have essentially ignored it.
—– Original Message —–
From: “meg hanson”
To: <jimredden@portlandtribune.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Copier man story
Jim –
I don’t know if it was lack of interest or people not questioning their own
assumptions and not having all the facts.
Either way, I always felt that it was important for the detectives or
Gable’s lawyers… somebody… to compare Jan Curry’s eyewitness
descriptions and mine, along with giving both of us the opportunity to state
whether or not Dennis Plante was that man. It also could have considerably
helped Gable’s defense if there were facts and eyewitness testimony that
pointed to someone else and which didn’t require a jury to believe that it
was some vast elusive conspiracy. Dennis Plante did work for Eastman-Kodak
and he bore enough of a resemblance to the man that Jan and I saw for the
detectives (and others) to assume that everyone in the Parole Board got most
of his description wrong. And then they assumed he was telling the truth
about being there (why would he lie?). But they never knew that one of the
Kodak vip’s was close friends with Scott McAlister (who had motive) and
dating the parole board office manager (who gave opportunity). They didn’t
know that, and I completely understand how it would be a stretch for someone
to question the presence of Mr. Plante without that knowledge.
After all these years, when I first saw a picture of him last year, I even
doubted myself for a few minutes. I was expecting to see a picture of
someone who looked absolutely nothing like the man I saw. But there was
that mustache… and Kevin Francke was telling me matter-of-factly that
Dennis Plante WAS the man I saw, and to drop it. I doubted myself for an
instant because I didn’t want to argue with the murder victim’s own brother
who had worked so hard to keep Gable’s innocence at the forefront, and it was
difficult for me to insist that Plante, a stranger, was lying. I’m normally
a shy person, and I strive to avoid conflict. But then I realized that the
only thing that was similar was the mustache. Everything else about Dennis
Plante was completely wrong. But that resemblance to the man that Jan and I
both saw, which even caused me to doubt myself for an instant, was what I
think ultimately allowed detectives and Gable’s lawyer to assume the
opposite – that the mustache was the only thing I got right and that I got
everything else wrong. And they had no reason at that time to doubt Mr.
Plante. So they concluded that the copier repairman was in fact Dennis
Plante, and that he was not the same well-dressed man seen later by Jan
Curry. They assumed, didn’t question and got it wrong.
Thank you for your interest. If I can be of any further assistance, I would
be more than happy to do what I can.
Meg
—– Original Message —–
From: <jimredden@portlandtribune.com>
To: “meg hanson”
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Copier man story
thanks. i just had time to skim the e-mail, but what a weird lack of
interest in your story. let me read it closer and get back to you. – jim
HOW DO I KNOW THAT THE REPAIRMAN WAS NOT DENNIS PLANTE?
You don’t have to take my word for it….
Locate and review all the police reports (and detective notes if possible) from myself and other Parole Board employees who described the copier repairman.
Compare those descriptions of the repairman to the description given by Dept. of Corrections employee Jan Curry of the man she confronted in the lobby at 6:30.
Establish that the descriptions of the repairman match the descriptions of Jan’s “Man In the Pinstriped Suit” and are represented in the composite sketch.
Conclude that the Parole Board employees and the Dept. of Corrections employee saw and described the same man. Repairman = MIPS
Jan Curry’s testimony already established that Dennis Plante was not the man she described. MIPS ≠ Dennis Plante
Compare the Parole Board employee’s descriptions of the repairman (and composite sketch) to the physical characteristics of Dennis Plante.
Establish that several key characteristics of Dennis Plante do not match the descriptions of the repairman.
Conclude that the man described by Parole Board employees as the repairman is not Dennis Plante. Repairman ≠ Dennis Plante
Apply correlative logic to conclude on a second front that Dennis Plante was not the repairman:
IF Repairman = MIPS
AND MIPS ≠ Dennis Plante,
THEN repairman ≠ Dennis Plante
MY EYEWITNESS DESCRIPTIONS:
This is the repairman I saw.
The repairman did not wear glasses.
Dennis Plante wears glasses and always has.
The repairman had olive-skin.
Dennis Plante is not olive-skinned.
The repairman’s hair and mustache were extremely well groomed. (freshly cut and trimmed)
Dennis Plante’s appearance was far less meticulous.
I found the repairman to be very good-looking. (big brown eyes, long lashes, olive skin)
I didn’t find Dennis Plante’s picture to be good-looking at all.
The repairman was wearing a dark business suit and white button-up dress-shirt and tie.
Dennis Plante claims he was wearing a brown sport jacket.
THE WRONG CONCLUSION – 2 individuals
Investigators concluded that Dennis Plante was the repairman because he said he was.
Jan Curry testified that Dennis Plante was not the man she saw in the lobby. Investigators concluded that there must have been 2 similar looking individuals in the building after-hours that night (one would have been unusual enough) who both left the building within minutes of one another (even though only 1 stranger was seen and reported by anyone in the building at that time).
Investigators concluded that Parole Board eyewitnesses must have been describing Dennis Plante and not the other individual. (if this were the case, how could all their descriptions have so accurately described the same man Jan saw without having seen him themselves AND at the same time collectively make such critical errors in describing Dennis Plante?)
Oversights:
Investigators did not establish, by asking Parole Board witnesses the same thing they asked Jan Curry, whether or not Dennis Plante was in fact the copier repairman. They took it for granted because he said he was.
They did not question the discrepancies between Dennis Plante’s appearance and Parole Board witness’s descriptions nor did they find it significant that Parole Board witness descriptions matched the ‘second’ individual’s description more accurately.
Missing Information:
Investigators did not have the knowledge that the copier repair Account Rep. was both good friends with Scott McAlister, was onsite that day, was dating the Office Manager who authorized the repairman to be in the building after lockup, and was personally involved in the dispatch of the repairman. Perhaps if they were aware of the connection to Scott McAlister, they may have looked a bit closer and questioned their own assumptions as well as the credibility of Dennis Plante and Bill, the copier repair Account Rep.
WHY WOULD DENNIS PLANTE SAY HE WAS THERE IF HE WASN’T?
My humble opinion:
If the man Jan Curry saw in the lobby of the Dome Building (not Dennis Plante) at or around the time of the murder – an unnamed good-looking well-dressed man in a dark pin-striped suit – is the man who killed Michael Francke…
And if Scott McAlister and his partner Bill hired that person, got him access to the Dome Building through Bill’s position and communications with the copier repair company, and were able to get him authorized after-hours access by virtue of Bill’s romantic relationship with the Parole Board Office Manager…
It would be necessary for him to assume a legitimate role of a person authorized to be there under ordinary circumstances – a copier repairman. He must also be a close-enough stand-in for an actual named repairman, Dennis Plante, in order to establish plausible deniability. Just a copier repairman doing his job and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps Mr. Plante was extorted, threatened, I don’t know. I do know that Scott McAlister’s involvement in other illegal activities is now a proven fact. But whatever the motivation, Plante’s story is critical to shielding Scott McAlister and Bill from implication.
Providing myself and other Parole Board employees an opportunity to meet Dennis Plante and introduce that testimony at Frank Gable’s trial would have been helpful to Frank Gable and harmful to Scott McAlister. Why go to the trouble of orchestrating and carrying out a plan just to allow witnesses to discredit the cover story essential to concealing one’s own involvement?
Legal Standing for a New Trial
There are 2 substantial causes of action for a new trial, they are “Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence,” and “Coerced or perjured Witness testimony.”
- Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence
Definition: Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt. In many countries such as the United States, if the police or prosecutor has found such evidence, he/she must disclose it to the defendant. The prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence can result in the dismissal of a case.
Example: A victim is murdered by stabbing and an accused person is arrested for the murder. Evidence includes a witness claiming to have seen the accused at the scene of the crime. During the investigation, the police interview another witness claiming to have seen and spoken with another suspicious individual. The witness makes statements to the police claiming the stabbing was by another unknown person, not the accused.
The witness’ statement is exculpatory evidence, since it could introduce reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The police believe the witness’ account is not true or that the witness is mistaken and choose to not follow up on the lead.
The prosecutor is obliged to inform the accused and their attorney of the witness statement even if the police doubt the witness’ version of events.
Relevancy to Frank Gable: My detailed descriptions and accounts of the events which took place on the day of Michael Francke’s murder are exculpatory evidence. Once the police were given the name Dennis Plante, they believed my description was mistaken and chose not to follow up on the lead and question Mr. Plante further. They did not follow up and confirm MIPS/Plante’s identity with me – the eyewitness. The prosecutor was obliged to inform Gable and his attorney of the details of my statements even if the police doubted my version of the events.
Had my testimony and my version been presented at Frank Gable’s trial, it could have introduced reasonable doubt as to Frank Gable’s guilt. Instead, my eyewitness testimony was excluded from the trial because Gable’s attorney had not been given the full details of my statements and was unaware of the significance. The prosecution introduced damaging eyewitness testimony which came from far less credible persons and their suppression of exculpatory evidence did not allow the defense to prepare an adequate defense based on contradictory eyewitness testimony.
- Coerced/perjured Witness testimony
Shorty Harden has since come forward and admitted that his testimony was coerced and that he lied.
The following is the Oregonian article which prompted Meg Hanson to get involved…
Friday, May 27, 2005
THE FRANCKE NOTEBOOK: ZAITZ AND CROMBIE RESPOND
By Noelle Crombie and Les Zaitz
The Oregonian
This week, the Portland Tribune ran a front page story highlighting 10 things not included in The Sunday Oregonian’s report on the
Michael Francke murder. The Trib’s columnist, Phil Stanford, weighed in too, writing about the credibility problems of Cappie “Shorty” Harden, a witness in the state’s case against Frank Gable.
Bloggers at PDX Media Insider and Jack Bog’s Blog also chimed in about the piece.
The Francke case comes with a lot of twists – far-fetched conspiracy theories, a largely circumstantial case, Francke’s crusading brother and his friend, Stanford, who remain convinced that Gable is innocent. The Oregonian assigned us to examine every document we could find and write the most definitive piece to date on the case.
We went into the project with open minds about Gable’s guilt and alternate theories of the murder. In the end, we drew different conclusions than the ones that Stanford and Francke have promoted for so long.
The 10 points raised by Jim Redden in the Trib’s story have been kicked around for years. Our reporting showed that there’s not much there. Most of the information that the Trib says we excluded wouldn’t change conclusions. That’s why we didn’t cover this old ground in the first place.
For the record, though, here’s what our reporting established about the Trib’s 10 points -11 if you include Stanford’s column on Cappie Harden:
Item 1. “Thousands of documents about the investigation” have never been released.
What we found: It’s true that some reports haven’t been released to the public. They include investigative reports that were the basis for the Warden Report and are confidential by law.
However, we obtained unprecedented access to the files of Marion County district attorney and the Oregon State Police on the Francke case. We reviewed tens of thousands of pages of OSP investigative reports, which included material not disclosed to Gable lawyers.
Among those documents are Mike Francke’s travel records, which have been ignored or disregarded by conspiracy theorists critiquing our story. Those travel records are key to undermining a central claim of Kevin Francke’s that his brother and former Department of Justice lawyer Scott McAlister had an altercation in Reno, Nev., that could have provided a motive for the murder.
We also examined all the available Department of Justice files and archives from then-Gov. Neil Goldschmidt related to corrections, Mike Francke’s tenure and the aftermath of his murder. And we looked at detailed follow-up inquiries into the findings of the Warden Report, the independent investigation ordered by Goldschmidt that found no link between prison corruption and Francke’s murder.
Those follow-ups include individual names and allegations about corruption, drug use, etc., and investigators’ findings in each instance. None of the never-before-released information added any evidence to the public record of any link between wrongdoing and Francke’s death.
Item 2. The Warden investigation found some corrections employees to be engaged in “significant illegal activities” at the time of Francke’s murder.
What we found: This is accurate – as far as it goes. The Warden inquiry also concluded that “there are not reasonable grounds to believe that Michael Francke’s death was connected to those activities.”
Item 3. “Oregon State Police reports indicate that Francke was afraid for his life when he was killed.” As evidence, the Trib cites statements from Francke’s underling Dave Caulley about Francke’s shotgun practice; that Francke’s back yard was littered with shotgun shells; and he had a loaded handgun and shotgun in his bedroom.
What we found: Caulley testified about his boss’s shotgun practice, and he repeated the claim in an interview with Noelle. It’s also true that witnesses saw shotgun shells on Francke’s porch and he had a loaded .45 at his bedside.
Whether these are indications of Francke’s fear is debatable.
According to the accounts of multiple friends, coworkers and family members, including Francke’s wife, Bingta, Francke showed no outward signs of being preoccupied by specific threats to his safety.
Francke’s first wife told detectives that her ex-husband was once kidnapped by a pair of hitchhikers in California and escaped. He had always been generally concerned about his safety and that of his family’s, which might account for the guns he kept in his bedroom.
What is clear is that Francke was familiar with and comfortable around firearms. He once told one of his top aides, Richard Peterson, that he “thought Oregon was less well armed than other states.”
In an interview one day after her husband’s murder, Bingta Francke told Detective Tom Mason that her husband “had not mentioned specific threats and he did not seem to be particularly concerned about his safety.”
Francke had been engaged in shotgun practice sometime before his death, apparently because he was getting ready to qualify on a shooting range.
According to a Jan. 22, 1989, interview with two investigators, Peterson said he spoke with Francke the Sunday before the murder.
Peterson invited Francke over to his home to watch the Boston Celtics. Francke suggested that Peterson stop by his house instead since he’d “been shooting some shotguns and he was getting ready to qualify on this range.” In that same interview, Peterson also said his boss never said anything to him about being afraid.
On Jan. 23, 1989, Caulley told detectives the same thing. He said that Francke never “mentioned having been threatened or receiving threatening letters.”
Item 4. Darryl Larson, ombudsman for the Department of Corrections after Francke’s death, told lawmakers that drug trafficking was a problem in state prisons.
What we found: It’s true that Larson said drugs were a problem. According to a report in The Oregonian on Sept. 10, 1990, Larson told lawmakers that “there is very reliable information of use of drugs by a significant percentage of corrections officers in at least one institution.” He also indicated that the activity involved off-duty drug use mainly of marijuana and did not involve trafficking. He said it was easy in a prison environment for guards to become corrupted by inmates offering money to bring in drugs.
Larson offered no information linking drugs in the state prison system to Francke’s murder.
Item 5. No one knows when Francke was killed.
What we found: Circumstantial evidence led prosecutors to establish 7 p.m. as the approximate time of the murder. Evidence pointing to this time includes Wayne Hunsaker’s eyewitness account of hearing a “hurt” sound, Cappie Harden and Jodie Swearingen’s statements about seeing Gable in a struggle about the same time, and the discovery shortly after 7 p.m. of the open car door by prison inmates going to a class and, soon after, by Francke’s co-workers.
Nothing suggests Francke was anywhere but on the North Portico from 7 p.m. until he was found dead.
Item 6. A mystery man seen in the Dome Building around time of Francke’s murder was never identified. He could have been Tim Natividad.
What we found: Much has been made of the mysterious man – also known as The Man in The Pin-Striped Suit – seen in the Dome Building the night of Francke’s murder.
Turns out his identity may not be such a mystery after all.
A witness, Megan Hanson, told detectives on Jan. 23, 1989, that she saw a copy machine repairman, Dennis Plante, working on a copy machine when she left work at 5 p.m. on Jan. 17, 1989, and that he was wearing a “business type suit, which was dark blue or possibly brown.” Plante told her that he would need to work on the machine after 5 p.m. so she called her supervisor to authorize him to stay later.
Plante told investigators that he was in the Dome Building from 4 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. He said he did not see anyone on the lobby as he was leaving. Jan Curry, the Corrections Department employee who told police she saw a well-dressed man in the Dome Building that night, said the person she saw and Plante were not the same man.
But note this: In September 1990, Gable’s defense investigator interviewed Curry and showed her photographs, including one of Natividad, to see if any matched the man she saw. She told them that Natividad did not resemble the man she saw in the Dome Building.
(Kevin Francke thinks Natividad is the real killer. Natividad is dead — he was shot to death two weeks after Michael Francke’s murder by his then wife, Elizabeth Godlove, who is now married to Kevin Francke.)
As part of Frank Gable’s appeal of his conviction, his lawyer, Bob Abel, testified that he concluded the man in the suit was indeed Plante.
Item 7. A former Department of Justice investigator on the Francke case thinks the wrong man was convicted of Francke’s murder.
What we found: That’s correct. Randy Martinak, an investigator, with the Department of Justice, testified during one of Gable’s appeals hearings that “this was the only time that I had ever felt that the wrong person was being charges with the crime.” Martinak was one of the investigators who handled an early suspect in the Francke murder, Johnny Crouse. Crouse confessed to the murder, but he was deemed unreliable and his confession dismissed. During that appeals hearing, Martinak said nothing that could have exonerated Gable.
Item 8. Francke’s car alarm did not go off.
What we found: This assumes a fact not established – that the car alarm was on at the time of the murder. Police pursued this at great length but could not determine whether the car alarm was on that night. What’s clear is that the alarm didn’t go off. Nothing indicated that Francke’s car had been forcibly opened.
Item 9. Many witnesses who testified against Gable told different stories to investigators during their early interviews, including Jodie Swearingen.
What we found: Key witnesses were interviewed multiple times by police, who leveraged each new detail in getting more information from street thugs and ex-cons who lived by a street code that you don’t help police.
Cappie Harden, for instance, gave varying accounts. But once he admitted his participation, the key elements of his story stayed the same. Jodie Swearingen was interviewed repeatedly – more than 20 times – and key elements of her account to police remained the same even though details varied and she later named Natividad instead of Gable.
Mark Gesner initially said he didn’t know anything, but then gave his account of throwing away a bag for Gable (police suspected it contained the murder weapon). Police used polygraphs to sort lie from fiction; some witnesses who said Gable admitted to them he had killed Francke were rejected when polygraphs showed they were lying.
If police were setting up Gable, they would have accepted any statement supporting the case premise. The Jodie Swearingen recant in particular is unbelievable. She changed her story to say she wasn’t at the State Hospital and didn’t see anything – let alone seeing Gable murder Francke. But she told counselors at Hillcrest she was at the scene and saw the crime, and she told friends in Denver about witnessing a murder after she fled the state trying to avoid testifying.
The case against Gable didn’t rest on Harden and Swearingen alone. Other witnesses also testified that Gable had made incriminating statements, one saw him driving away from the scene, and Gable had no reliable alibi to prove his whereabouts that night.
Item 10. “Whether Gable got a fair trial is an issue yet to be resolved.” Cited in his pending appeal is his trial lawyer’s failure to conduct a DNA test on a hair found on Francke’s body.
What we found: Both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed Gable’s conviction on direct appeal.
Subsequently, a Marion County judge rejected Gable’s claim that his defense was constitutionally defective. The Court of Appeals is reviewing that decision.
As for the DNA test, Department of Justice attorneys say the state has the last hair in evidence and would make it available for testing if the defense requested. So far, the defense has not made such a request.
Finally, there is Phil Stanford’s May 24 column, where he writes about the “impossible contradictions” in Harden’s testimony – though he doesn’t identify them.
His key attack is on phone calls. Stanford writes that Cappie Harden testified that Jodie Swearingen called him twice “from a payphone” to get a ride. But that’s not Harden’s testimony. Harden didn’t testify that Swearingen called him twice from a pay phone – only that she called him twice. He never said where she was calling from.
Frank Gable and Francke’s brother, Kevin, have made much of this scenario. They believe Swearingen couldn’t have seen the murder because the closest pay phone was a quarter mile away from the Dome Building at a Plaid Pantry. Swearingen had said she called Harden at 6:30 p.m., half an hour before the murder.
If she made two calls, as Harden testified, there wasn’t enough time for Swearingen to make two trips on foot between the store and the Dome Building, the scenario goes.
On March 12, 1990, Swearingen did tell prosecutors she made a single phone call from a Plaid Pantry at 6:30 the night of the murder.
But the report doesn’t say who she called or why. We pressed Gable on this closely on this point during our second interview, and he said his sole source for the entire scenario was Harden’s testimony.
As for the “lone eyewitness” – as Stanford called him – Harden didn’t volunteer information about the murder until police confronted him with information that he was lying.
He then slowly spun out the story and finally passed a polygraph about his final statement. He testified that he was at the scene that night because he came to pick up Swearingen. Key portions of his testimony were supported by other witnesses.
Wayne Hunsaker, for instance, testified hearing the sound of someone being “hurt” at about the same time Harden said he saw the murder unfold. Earl Childers testified that he saw Gable, wearing sunglasses, drive away from the scene. Gable had told police that if someone had seen him leaving the scene that night, he would have been wearing sunglasses.
Even though she ultimately recanted, Swearingen repeatedly said she saw the murder – and fingered Gable as the killer.
She first told this to her private attorney. In an interview, he told us he arranged for a private polygraph and was convinced by the results that she was telling the truth when she said Gable killed Francke.
State police were allowed to polygraph her to verify that conclusion themselves. When the police polygrapher was convinced, Marion County District Attorney Dale Penn authorized a rare immunity agreement to secure Swearingen’s testimony.
Free Frank Gable 