Manufactured evidence in Bob's capital murder trial!!!
click on the pictures to see a big version in a new window
The evidence proving the manufactured evidence was discovered over a period of time so we will present it to you in the same way we discovered it. When we refer to an EXHIBIT please go to the photo nearest to find the exhibit in question. We have included ten (10) different laser prints from the Houston Police Department as exhibits to assist you in seeing the full extent of the manufactured evidence.
During Bob's trial prosecutors argued that an envelope found OUT on his dads desk (in his office at the house) BY ITSELF was placed there by his father the day of the murders because he expected Bob at the house the night of the murders to discuss a business deal that was mentioned on the outside of the envelope. Please see EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3 for the envelope in question.
It is the envelope on the right side of the desk by the adding machine. Two (2) of these three (3) photos (We are not sure as to which two) were shown to Bob's jury. Bob's father and he had a meeting about five (5) months before the murders to discuss Bob's father loaning him money to buy a windshield business. Bob's father wrote down notes from this meeting on the outside of this envelope. The business ended up being sold to someone else a few months before the murders so the loan, meeting, etc. were a moot point at the time of the murders.
During Bob's trial prosecutors tried FIVE (5) TIMES to get the envelope entered into evidence before the Judge finally let it in. In their closing arguments prosecutors told the jury that the envelope being out on the desk the night of the murders meant Bob's father was expecting to come by the house, and that this supported his roommates story that he had gotten everyone over to the house the night of the murders saying he wanted to talk about the business deal. The jury obviously fell for this argument because they asked to see the envelope during their deliberations on Bob's guilt or innocence. After being convicted the jury again asked to see the envelope during their deliberations on his punishment. During Bob's first appeal the appellate court said the envelope being out the night of the murders proved Bob's dad was expecting Bob over, and that it corroborated his roommates story. As you can see the prosecution successfully used this envelope to TRY and place Bob at the scene of the crime the night of the murders.
On Bob's second appeal he was appointed his current attorneys and he told them the first time they came to see him that the envelope had to have been planted because the business had been sold a couple months before the murders and there would have been no reason for it to have been out on his dads desk. Bob's attorneys filed an open records request with the Houston Police Department under a new open record act that had just gone into affect. They were able to obtain copies of police reports and police crime scene photographs. Bob's attorneys also filed an open records requests to see the District Attorneys file in his case. Sitting in the District Attorneys file was a copy of EXHIBIT #4.
If you look at EXHIBIT #4 you will see that the envelope is NOT out on the desk as it was in EXHIBIT #1, 2 and 3. Because of the fires in the house soot covered everything on the top of the desk. The desk pad in the middle of the desk used to be white - so did the adding machine. You can see soot on the walls of EXHIBIT #1. If you look at the base of the adding machine in EXHIBIT #3 you can just make out a white line where the soot didn't cover the white desk pad beneath the adding machine. Now, compare that white line to the white line at the base of the adding machine in EXHIBIT #2. You can see the line is now about an inch wide, bigger then it was in EXHIBIT #3. The adding machine had been bumped or intentionally moved back slightly between the time the two photos were taken. In EXHIBITS # 1, 2 and 3 you notice a small smudge mark in the soot on the desk pad just to the left of the envelope. If you compare those EXHIBITS to EXHIBIT #4 you will see that there is NO smudge mark in the soot on EXHIBIT #4. We also noticed that IF the envelope had been out on the desk top as in EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3 before the fires started then soot would NOT be on the desk top under the envelope since the envelope would have blocked the soot from hitting the desk top during the fires. There would have been a white outline of the envelope on the desk top where the envelope had been if the prosecutors argument had been correct. If you look at EXHIBIT #4 you will see the soot covers the ENTIRE desk top, there is NO white outline in the soot where prosecutors claimed the envelope was during the fires. This could ONLY have meant that EXHIBIT #4 was actually the way the house looked the NIGHT of the murders when the fires started, and NOT EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3. Therefor the envelope was NOT OUT on the desk BY ITSELF the night of the murders. The night of the murders the police took a crime scene video to preserve the crime scene before anything was moved or collected into evidence. Bob's attorneys took the crime scene video and had a still made of the spot where the video passed over the top of the desk. EXHIBIT #5 is the still photo.
If you look at the adding machine, small book and the lamp for points of reference you can see that the envelope in EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3 is NOT present in the crime scene video taken the night of the murders. It was obvious to us that EXHIBITS #4 and 5 were taken the NIGHT of the murders and that the envelope was NOWHERE to be found! Going to the police reports we found that an officer Halling had been the only officer taking still photos the night of the murders. We also found that officer Halling had collected evidence the night of the murders but had NOT listed the envelope as an item she took into custody. In fact, NOWHERE in her report does she mention and envelope being out on the desk the night of the murders. In the police reports we also saw that an officer Verbitsky had taken the crime scene video the night of the murders. He did NOT take any still photos the NIGHT of the murders. He did NOT take any evidence into custody the NIGHT of the murders.
We found a police report from officer Verbitsky that said the day AFTER the murder (Nov. 14) he was called back to the crime scene to collect additional evidence. Verbitsky's report says he photographed the envelope out on the desk and then collected the envelope into evidence. Now knowing there had been two (2) different officers taking still photos of the crime scene on different days we had to determine with certainty who took which photos of the desk. Bob's attorneys requested copies of the contact sheets and a copy of the envelopes they came in. Contact sheets are copies of the negatives. We received one set of negatives in an envelope with officer Hallings name on it dated the NIGHT of the murders, Nov. 13, 1992. In those contact sheet we found the negative to EXHIBIT #4! Officer Halling took the EMPTY desk photo the night of the murders. Just to be absolutely sure we looked at the other four negatives on the negative strip with the empty desk photo. In photos on either side of the empty desk negative there were negatives which contained a body. The bodies were removed from the house the NIGHT of the murders so the empty desk photo (EXHIBIT #4) had to have been take the NIGHT of the murders! Looking through the rest of Hallings negatives from the night of the murder we saw that there were NO photos of the desk showing the envelope out on it as in EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3. This also shows that Halling did NOT take those photos the night of the murders. In the envelope with officer Verbitsky's name on it the date was the day AFTER the murders. (Nov, 14, 1992) In Verbitsky's envelope we found the negatives for EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3.
We also found a couple of negatives of close up shots of the envelope out on the desk. These negatives prove that Verbitsky took the photos of the envelope out on the desk, and that it was the day AFTER the murders! During Bob's trial officer Halling was called to the stand to discuss the photos she had taken the night of the murders. Halling was handed a stack of photos by prosecutor Jeanine Barr (Currently a Judge) and asked if the photos fairly and accurately depicted the crime scene the way she found it the NIGHT of the murders. Two (2) of the exhibits, EXHIBITS # 1, 2 and 3, were in the stack presented to officer Halling. Halling said that YES the photos in the stack represented the way she found the house the NIGHT of the murders. Of course we now know this to have been a LIE since Halling did NOT take those two (2) photos (exhibits #1, 2 or 3) the NIGHT of the murders, that Verbitsky took them the day AFTER the murders. The prosecutor then went on to pull the two (2) photos of the envelope out on the desk from the stack of photos Halling had just identified and asked her if she had looked at the documents on the desk, specifically about the envelope on the desk. Halling claimed that she had not looked at the papers on the desk the night of the murders. Since the prosecutor brought the photo of the envelope out on the desk directly to Halling's attention during the trial it is obvious that Halling identifying those photos as her own was NOT a mistake. Had it been a mistake Halling would have immediately told the prosecutor that those photos of the envelope out on the desk were NOT taken by her the NIGHT of the murders. (Especially since Halling took the photo of the empty desk the NIGHT of the murders, EXHIBIT #4)
Instead of correcting the prosecutors error Halling simply said she did not look at the document. Officer Verbitsky did NOT testify in Bob's trial. The law back during Bob's trial said that defense attorneys did NOT get access to a police officers report until the police officer took the stand. Since Verbitsky did NOT testify Bob's attorneys did NOT have access to Verbitsky's police report. Had Bob's attorneys had access to Verbisky's police report during my trial they would have seen that Verbitsky, NOT Halling, took the photos of the envelope out on the desk. (EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3) Verbitsky took the crime scene video the NIGHT of the murders but instead of calling him to the stand to discuss the video the prosecution called another police officer to identify it. This was again an effort by the prosecution to keep Bob's attorneys from gaining access to the very revealing police reports of officer Verbitsky. It should be noted that the envelope DID have soot on one side of it and none on the other side of it. For this reason we searched all of the negatives to determine if we could find a photo of the envelope out anywhere in the house and we could NOT. It should also be noted that homicide Sergeant Ross and homicide Sergeant Atchetee were in charge of the crime scene the NIGHT of the murders and the day AFTER the murders. In fact according to police reports Ross called officer Verbitsky to the house the day AFTER the murders to photograph and collect the additional evidence, which included the envelope out on the desk. We took all of the information we had gathered to this point and filed Bob's appeal. We asked that the Judge grant us an evidentiary hearing where we would be allowed to get several police officers and both prosecutors on the stand to find out why they had presented false evidence to Bob's jury. The State denied all of our allegations and asked for a hearing as well so they could clear up the matter.
An evidentiary hearing was held on Nov. 3, 1998. In the Evidentiary Hearing Verbitsky testified that he, and NOT Halling, had taken the photos of the envelope out on the desk (EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3) the day AFTER the murders. Verbitsky also said that he took the crime scene video (still photo in EXHIBIT #5) the NIGHT of the murders BEFORE any evidence was collected or moved. Verbitsky also said that Halling was the ONLY officer to take still photos the NIGHT of the murders. Verbitsky said he took still photos the day AFTER the murders when he was called back out to the crime scene. Halling testified that she did NOT take the photos of the envelope OUT on the desk (EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3) as she CLAIMED during Bob's trial. Halling said she did NOT lie, that she had been MISTAKEN! Halling agreed that she took the photo of the EMPTY DESK (EXHIBIT #4) the NIGHT of the murders. Halling admitted that the photos of the envelope OUT on the desk did NOT accurately depict the scene as she had found it the NIGHT of the murders. Halling stated that the photo of the envelope OUT on the desk ACCIDENTLY got put into the stack of photos she incorrectly identified as her own. Of course Halling did NOT correct the prosecutor when this accidental photo (and of course there were two accidental photos. Not just one) were brought directly to her attention by the prosecutor! When Bob's attorney asked Halling: "In any case, whether intentional or unintentional (about her lying), is the testimony that you gave was, in fact, calculated to mislead the jury about the position of the envelope and in fact did mislead the jury ; is that correct???" Halling responded: That's CORRECT." Halling went on to admit that her testimony WASN'T TRUTHFUL. (albeit a mistake she claims, not intentional) ROSS testified that she had been the lead investigator, along with her partner Atchetee, the night of the murders and the following day. Ross claimed her partner Atchetee found the envelope. Ross said she was in the office when Atchetee found the envelope but that she did NOT see him find it. ATCHETEE testified that HE found the envelope!!! Atchetee said it was NOT found OUT on the desk BY ITSELF as the photos show. (EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3) Atchetee said the desk was EMPTY when he first looked at it. (As per EXHIBIT #4) Atchetee said he saw the stack of papers under the turtle paper weight (Left hand corner of the desk in EXHIBITS #1, 2, 3 and 4). Atchetee claims he PICKED up the stack, THUMBED through the papers, FOUND the envelope with my name on it, REMOVED the envelope from the stack, and then PLACED the envelope ON the desk BY ITSELF to be photographed and collected into evidence. Atchetee said the envelope was NOT the top item in the stack. Atchetee also said that he did NOT find any other papers in that stack that he thought had ANY value to this case. Atchetee said he did NOT tell Verbitsky where he really found the envelope, that he just showed it to Verbitsky sitting on the desk and told him to photograph it and to take it into evidence. Atchetee did NOT mention the envelope at all! When asked how the envelope could have soot on one side of it if it had been in the stack of papers on the desk Atchetee had NO idea.
The following exchange occurred between Bob's attorney and Atchetee when Bob's attorney was trying to find out if Atchetee had TOLD either of the prosecutors that he found the envelope in that stack of papers: Q: "I'm referring to later discussions that you may have had with representatives of the District Attorneys office who were preparing the case for trial. Was it (where he really found the envelope) discussed with them at some subsequent time?" A: "I'M SURE IT WAS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED THAT IT WAS IN THE STACK OF PAPERS. I took it out because I felt it was important." Q: "You would have informed --" A:"YES, SIR, I WOULD. I WOULD HAVE TOLD SOMEBODY THAT'S WHERE I FOUND IT." Q: "When you say you would have told somebody, you would have told one of the prosecuting attorneys?" A: "YEAH. I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TOLD CHUCK (ROSENTHAL). He was kind of running the show there. He was involved in it. WE NEEDED TO TELL HIM EVERYTHING." Q: "To the best of your recollection, you did?" A: "YES" Q: "To the best of your recollection, you did tell him everything?" A: "YES. I WOULD SAY THAT I DID." BARR testified that Rosenthal was the lead prosecutor in Bob's trial and that she was second chair. Barr said when she presented those two (2) photos (EXHIBITS #1, 2 or 3) to Halling during Bob's trial she did NOT realize that two (2) officers had taken photos of the crime scene. But in the next breath she admits she read the police report of the Verbitsky during her preparation for trial. Of course Verbitsky's report states that he took photos as well. Barr claims that she did NOT realize that there was a photo that showed the desk EMPTY and other photos that showed the envelope out on the desk BY ITSELF. Barr admits she should have seen the discrepancy but did not. ROSENTHAL testified that he was IN the office the night of the murders but did not pay much attention to the desk in question, that he was paying more attention to the other desk in the room that had a computer on it. Rosenthal said the envelope had a date on it of 6-92, five (5) full months BEFORE the murders! Rosenthal said that prior to trial he had at his disposal supplemental police reports from HALLING, VERBITSKY, ATCHETEE and ROSS. Rosenthal also said he had access to ALL of the photos taken the NIGHT of the murder by Halling and ALL of the photos taken the day AFTER the murders by Verbitsky. Rosenthal said he DID notice that some of the photos taken by police showed the envelope OUT on the desk BY ITSELF and another photo did NOT show the envelope out on the desk.
Rosenthal said prior to trial he SEGREGATED OUT the photos he WANTED to show the jury from those he DID NOT want to show them. (Bob's jury NEVER saw the EMPTY desk photo!) Rosenthal said he made NO effort to determine who took which photographs or if the ones he intended to use accurately depicted the crime scene the night of the murders. When asked specifically about whether Atchetee had told him before trial that he found the envelope IN the stack of papers under the turtle as opposed to OUT on the desk by itself the following took place: Q: "You (Rosenthal) discussed the envelope with Atchetee before trial, did you not? A: "Most likely I talked to him about what he was going to testify to." Q: "Did he tell you that that envelope was NOT discovered in the location (OUT on the desk BY ITSELF) depicted in the photograph?" A: " I'M SURE HE DID NOT. I PROBABLY DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION." Q: "And you don't recall him volunteering it to you?" A: "NO." A few minutes later after several objections by the state the following occurred when Rosenthal was confronted with the fact that Atchetee had just finished testifying that he told Rosenthal where the envelope was found: Q: "If he (Atchetee) testified otherwise, would you say he was mistaken?" OBJECTIONS BY THE STATE.... Q: "Are you certain that Atchetee did NOT inform you that the envelope was discovered in a location other than that depicted in (EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3)?" A:"I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT HE DID NOT."
Rosenthal said he WAS aware that photographs had been taken the NIGHT of the murders as well as the day AFTER the murders. Rosenthal AGREED that it would have been important for him to know which photos were taken which day. He said he is NOT sure how the photos he picked to show my jury did NOT accurately depict the crime scene the NIGHT of the murders. Rosenthal said it did NOT occur to him that the photographs of the desk with the envelope out by itself were NOT part of the original crime scene photos. Rosenthal claims he did NOT compare the pictures to each other. Rosenthal said he did NOT look at the crime scene video to see which photos of the desk were taken the night of the murders even thought the crime scene video was certainly available to him. Rosenthal admitted that he was In ERROR when he told my jury that the envelope was found OUT on the desk BY ITSELF. Rosenthal said he was MISTAKEN when he presented the false evidence, that he did NOT do it DELIBERATELY. The state was careful to get each witness to say that them presenting false evidence was a MISTAKE (even though they all had access to ALL of the photos, ALL of the police reports, the police crime scene video, and the actual officers who were at the crime scene doing the investigation), they just didn't double check what they presented at trial. The state was also very careful to get each and every witness to say that the envelope was STILL found ON the desk, even though it was NOT found OUT on the desk BY ITSELF as they claimed during Bob's trial. The state argued the envelope was still important even though it was really found IN a stack of papers, since it was still on the desk. The state argued that Bob's father was still expecting him over to the house the night of the murders since the envelope was ON the desk at all. Of course this is a ridiculous legal argument since the envelope (ACCORDING to Atchetee) was NOT the first item in the stack, and that he did NOT find ANY other item in the stack that he though was important to this case. If you look at EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3 you can clearly see that there are a number of items in that stack of papers under the turtle paperweight. NO jury or Judge in their right mind would believe that just because something was SUPPOSEDLY found in a stack of otherwise unimportant papers on a desk, that the owner of the desk was expecting someone over to the house the same day simply because that ONE item had something written on it about that person.
This argument was obviously done to try and limit the culpability of the police and prosecutors who presented the manufactured evidence to Bob's jury. It is worth nothing that we did NOT know prior to the hearing what the EXCUSE the state would use for presenting this manufactured evidence would be since they did NOT put it in their brief. This was obviously done to limit our ability to attack their claim as to where they say the envelope was really found. During the actual hearing itself Bob told his attorney that Atchetee had LIED when he said he found the envelope IN that stack of papers. It was obvious to Bob by looking at EXHIBITS #1, 2, 3 and 4 that the stack had NOT been moved at all, NOR had the soot been disturbed. Bob's attorneys agreed but as a comparison of EXHIBITS #1 2, 3 and 4 will show it was not totally clear in the before and after shots of the stack that the stack had not been moved. We went back to the photos we had from the crime scene. Exhibits #6 is a photo of the room in question as the photographer was standing in the hallway looking into the room.
The desk at the bottom left hand side of the photo is the desk in question. If you look at the desk in EXHIBIT #6 you will see part of the stack of papers with the turtle paperweight on top of it, although some of the stack is still out of view. Exhibit #6 was taken the night of the murders just as EXHIBIT #4 was. This was one more photo of the stack that we used to compare to EXHIIBITS #1, 2, 3 and 4. It was still not quite enough proof. Bob had his attorney go back to the crime scene video and have a still made showing the stack in question. EXHIBIT #7 is the still photo he had made of the stack the NIGHT of the murder from the crime scene video.
You can see the turtle and some of the white lines of papers in the stack. It is another photo to compare with EXHIBITS #1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, but is still not absolute proof. Our main problem with proving that Atchetee had LIED about finding the envelope in that stack was that EXHIBIT #4 did not show enough of the stack the NIGHT of the murders to give a really good comparison to EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3 which were taken AFTER Atchetee CLAIMES he flipped through the stack and pulled out the envelope. One day Bob was flipping through the negatives he had gotten from the police looking for anything he could use to show Atchetee had LIED during the hearing, Bob came to the negative for EXHIBIT #4. Bob kept thinking that if it just showed more of the stack we could prove Atchetee had LIED. EXHIBIT #8 is a blow up of the negative we had gotten from the police department!
If you will look at EXHIBIT #4 you will see that the desk is CUT OFF at the handles to the drawers on the left hand side of the desk, hence the stack is CUT OFF as well. If you will look at EXHIBIT #8 you will see that the negative shows the corner of the desk out to the edge of the drawers, and shows a lot more of the stack! Bob had his attorney file another open records act requesting the police give us an enlargement of the negative in EXHIBIT #8 that included ALL of the desk and stack in the left hand corner. EXHIBIT #9 is the blow up photo the police sent to us.
At the bottom of the photo you can see the actual teeth from the film where the camera pulled the film through the camera. If you will compare EXHIBIT #4 and EXHIBIT #9 you will clearly see that much more of the desk and stack shows up in EXHIBIT #9 then in EXHIBIT #4. Now, compare the stack of papers under the turtle in EXHIBITS #6, 7 and 9 (ALL taken the NIGHT of the murders) with stack of papers under the turtle in EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3 (ALL taken the day AFTER the murders, AFTER Atchetee says he pulled the envelope out of the stack and put it on the desk). COMPARE not only THE soot on top of the stack but: THE location of the turtle on the stack; THE stack in relationship to the corner of the desk; THE stack in relationship to the black file holder along the wall, THE individual papers in the stack as shown by the white lines at their edges; etc. It is VERY clear: that the soot has NOT been disturbed; that the turtle has NOT moved; that the stack has NOT moved; that the papers in the stack has not moved; etc. It is NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE to PICK UP that STACK OF PAPERS AND PAPERWEIGHT (with soot on it) FLIP through the stack, PULL out envelope and replace the stack EXACTLY were it was, LOOKING just like it did, WITHOUT moving the turtle, WITHOUT disturbing the soot, etc. We challenge anyone to show us how this occurred. Bob was still trying to find additional evidence that would prove the state had Atchetee LIED during his hearing. Please see EXHIBIT #10.
Bob did not originally have a color copy of this photo, he had a really bad zerox copy of it. One day Bob was flipping through his stuff from the prosecutor file and found this photo again. Bob could barely make out any details but he could see that they were filing cabinets that had been brought out to his parents driveway. Bob also knew that the police had gone into his dads files the day AFTER the murders to get some folders for the family attorney who was in a wheelchair.
When Bob looked at the black and white copy of the EXHIBIT #10 he saw what looked like an envelope laying down at the bottom of the top left drawer, near the front of the drawer. Bob asked his attorney to locate and send him a color copy of this photo. Boy was Bob surprised to find that what he thought was an envelope lying down in the drawer was actually an OUTLINE in the soot of an envelope!!! REMEMBER that we told you before that the envelope had soot on one side of it but not on the other. In Bob's black and white copy of this photo he could not tell that there was soot on the front and insides of the drawer. By looking at EXHIBIT #10 you can see that this drawer had to have been in a room where there was a fire since the front drawer is very discoloured from its original white and since soot was actually forced inside the drawer itself. The other drawer on the ground next to it is lily white with no apparent soot inside it. We believe that Atchetee went to Bob's families house the day AFTER the murders knowing that he had not been found (Bob was out of town for the weekend). We think he went into a number of files that morning to get the files the estate attorney needed. We think he saw that envelope sitting flat down in the drawer in EXHIBIT #10. We think he then removed it and saw that it had Bob's name on it so he took it and placed it on the desk to be photographed (see EXHIBITS #1, 2 and 3) and collected into evidence. We also know that Atchetee went into the files BEFORE Verbitsky was called to the house to photograph the envelope OUT on the desk BY ITSELF. We don't know if he was planning then to use the fake evidence against Bob, or if the decision was made later on, possibly by prosecutors.
We do know that the state of Texas presented FAKE evidence in Bob's trial in an attempt to place him at the scene of his families murders. We also know that officer Atchetee LIED in Bob's hearing, when he said he found the envelope IN that stack!!! We don't know if he was asked to lie by the state but we would find it hard to believe that he would perjure himself without being asked to do so. ALL he had to do was tell where he REALLY found the envelope. (but then they would have to have admitted they were wrong and Bob would have gotten a new trial) Instead they LIED and helped the state to argue FALSELY that the envelope was found ON the desk even through it was IN the stack of papers. The state had access to ALL of the photos and negatives we have shown you here today when they were preparing for the hearing so surely they will not claim it was another MISTAKE!!! One thing is for certain, the photos the police took themselves do NOT lie! What has happened is that the LIES and COVER UP that took place in Bob's trial when the prosecutors presented manufactured evidence to Bob's jury had been substituted for additional LIES and COVER UP in the hearing we had. The state was obviously trying everything it can to keep from having to admit what they did, even if it means a police officer lying on the stand during Bob's appeal. The state was fighting tooth and nail to keep the courts from giving Bob a new trial. This evidence by itself does not prove his innocents but it proves that BOB DID NOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL !