Justice For Dr. Kennedy

Home Time Line Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Sentencing Conclusions
    Precluded Contributions Links    

 

To read Day Four Of Trial Part 1.pdf click this link.

To read Day Four Of Trial Part 2.pdf click this link.

To read Day Four Of Trial Part 3.pdf click this link.

To read Day Four Of Trial Part 4.pdf click this link.

To read Day Four Of Trial Part 5.pdf click this link.

To read Day Four Of Trial Part 6.pdf click this link.

When you are finished with Day Four click the back button to return to this page.

 

Transcript Analysis

 

Day 4, Aug. 17, 2006

  1. Page 5-13 Spouse of a juror sitting in on trial has the opportunity to influence jury by reporting closed court discussions to spouse.  The court has lost control of the proceedings three times now with regard to the jury.  Mistrial.  No Hobson's choice.

  2. Page 7-22 Angela Andrews states Raymond Hindes' name should be retracted from Sabrina Walker's report.  Selective presentation of the evidence.  Establishing other possible defendants is a right essential to defense.  Without it jury is left with false impression that there was only one possible suspect.

  3. Rebecca Cahill

  4. Page 15-13 The museum had electric automatic doors.  The envelope had to have been placed with the doors were locked and the system was turned off in order for the envelope to be stuck between the doors.

  5. Page 17-6, 18 Cahill states the pictures in exhibit 7 displayed the subjects face.  Did Meyerson see only one of the two pictures in exhibit 7 and she stated on day 3, Aug. 16, 2006, page 109-23 were she states she saw only male genitals.  Envelope contained Republican Party information which indicates she read it.  More than just a cursory examination of the evidence.

  6. Page 20-12 Cahill does not recognize the photographs that have a person's face on at least one of them.

  7. Page 21-24 Cahill does not recognize the papers in exhibit 7 yet she obviously read enough to know they were from the Republican Party.

  8. Donna Millet

  9. Page 32-9 Millet is unable to identify the sticker she found about her father.  Exhibit 1.

  10. Page 33-13 If Millet read the sticker and she peeled it off, why can't she identify which one of the four it is?

  11. Page 33-25 If it upset her why can't she identify the sticker?  They don't all say the same thing.

  12. Page 34-2 "That is the only sticker you ever saw?"  Answer: "Yes."  Which sticker out of the 4 she can't tell you.  The witness has identified nothing!

  13. Page 35-9 Millet doesn't know who put the sticker there.

Claudia Buelina

  1. Page 36-18 Claudia works for R.E.B. Ltd. at 123 Centennial Way .

  2. Page 37-10 Envelope dropped through mail slot.  Perjury.  Day 4, page 47-20.

  3. Page 38-4 Claudia states the letter she received was sent in a Maricopa County Court envelope.  The sender had to have access to such materials.  Bradley Kennedy does not have access to such materials.  Exhibit 8.

  4. Page 38-12 Mail was open on arrival.

  5. Page 39-7 Doesn't remember if it was addressed.

  6. Page 39-18 Was not able to see a face in the picture.

  7. Page 39-22 Claudia would say person in picture was under 18 years of age.

  8. Page 39-25 Claudia does not remember anything that came with the envelope.

  9. Page 42-9 Claudia recognizes the return address on exhibit 8 and as Arizona department of administration.  Perjury.  Day 4, page 38-4.  It is a pink envelope.

  10. Page 42-21 Claudia does not recognize the mobile speed pass receipt.

  11. Page 43-5 Claudia recognizes the three pictures.

  12. Page 44-15 Defense counsel doesn't object to the photos being seen.  Ineffective assistance of counsel.

State vs. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 275, 28, 995 P.2d 705, 711 (App 1999)
Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily an emotional one.

State vs. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 545 P.2d 1046, 1055 (1997)
Improper basis included in motion, sympathy or horror.

  1. Page 46-21 Don't wear anything read and the trial.  Be sedate.

  2. Page 47-20 Letter was found in a backpack, not dropped in the mail slot.  Perjury. Day 4, page 37-10.

  3. Page 48-11 Now Claudia doesn't know the year the mail was dropped.

  4. Page 48-14 Now Claudia is certain there was no backpack.  Perjury.  Day 4, page 47-20.

Mathers Lloyd Willis

  1. Page 54-22 On Nov. 29, 1999 Mr. Willis found mail shoved through the mail slot on the floor at 1855 East Southern Avenue, Suite 104 .  Sterling Threets' office was in Suite 103 .  The delivery boy got the wrong address.  Exhibit 17 and 18.

  2. Page 55-5 Envelope had no address on it.

  3. Page 55-9 The return address had Sterling Threets address listed.

  4. Page 55-23 There were four nude juvenile boys photos inside the envelope.

  5. Page 56-1 There was a letter with reference to Joe Arpiao and C. Shank.

  6. Page 57-9 This evidence was sealed, the others prior to this one were open.  No test for DNA was done on this exhibit.  Chain of custody of evidence is flawed.  Possible evidence tampering, especially in light that none of the photos except one has been identified by witnesses.  Envelope is sliced on bottom.

  7. Page 59-15 Willis identifies the four pictures of exhibit 18.

Chris Arvayo

  1. Page 67-8 Chris recognizes the envelope.

  2. Page 67-20 Chris recognizes the letter.

  3. Page 68-6 Chris recognizes the photos.

  4. Page 69-4 Photos have fingerprint powder on them.

  5. Page 69-15 Jury views photos.  Should not have been allowed, defense counsel should have stipulated.  Ineffective assistance of counsel.

State vs. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 275, 28, 995 P.2d 705, 711 (App 1999)
Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily an emotional one.

State vs. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 545 P.2d 1046, 1055 (1997)
Improper basis included in motion, sympathy or horror.

  1. Page 71-22 Chris makes a statement about another letter.  What other letter?

  2. Page 73-22 Chris touched the photos without gloves.

  3. Sabrina Walker

  4. Page 85-2 I am one was analyzed to 10/13/1999.

  5. Page 85-18 No prints were visible before testing.

  6. Page 85-20 Four labels look like they may have been printed on a computer.

  7. Page 86-7 How do stickers collected at different times come to be stuck on the same evidence page?  Possible evidence tampering, chain of custody broken.

  8. Page 87-9 labels had no prints.  Strange that sticker is that had been peeled off by the people reporting and didn't leave their prints behind.  You'd expect those prints to be there but they are not.

  9. Page 88-10 Sabrina was able to test the backside of items to four prints because it still had the peelable (Avery) backing on part of the sticker.  Item 2 from exhibit 2.

  10. Page 89-16 No prints obtained.

  11. Page 90-17 The labels and exhibit five are not the same as exhibit 2.  They have plastic peelable backing instead of waxy paper backing.  Possible difference in manufacturers or different people involved.

  12. Page 91-1 Sabrina didn't state in her notes which item she got latent prints from.  She got 19 latents off exhibit 5.

  13. Page 91-13 Sabrina's notes showed that she found latent is on 7A and 7B of exhibit 5.

  14. Page 92-17 Fingerprints don't match defendant.  But they do match someone, someone as yet unidentified.  An attempt was made to find the unidentified person through the Name Arizona Type State automated fingerprint ID system with no success.

  15. Page 93-9 Exhibit 53, print card for Joanne Kennedy admitted.

  16. Page 93-18 Joanne's prints are not match either.

  17. Page 94-15 No prints were found on exhibit 4.

  18. Page 94-21 Fingerprints were run through Name Arizona Type State automated fingerprint identification system which includes MCSO officer's.  No match was found.

  19. Page 95-10 Palm prints were obtained in this case.

  20. Page 95-21 This is not an automated detection and analysis program, it is still done manually.

  21. Page 105-10 Fingerprints obtained from exhibit six items 8A, 8G, 45C and D. (MCSO).

  22. Page 107-3 10 Prints lifted on MCSO item 45.

  23. Page 108-23 Prints obtained from item 45 were either not defendants or inconclusive.

  24. Page 109-9 Prints don't match Joanne either.

  25. Page 116-15 No prints obtained on MCSO item 6B.

  26. Page 117-12 19 prints lifted from items 6 8, 7,8, 9 and 10 (MCSO).

  27. Page 117-17 Sabrina was able to exclude defendant from 9 of the 19 prints.  One print came from Lisa Bizios.

  28. Page 118-3 Four prints lifted from item 8.  Two of them or from Lisa Bizios.

  29. Page 118-14 The rest of the prints were inconclusive due to insufficient ridge details.

  30. Page 119-10 10 Prints lifted on the item 45, no prints on 29 and 31.

  31. Page 119-15 Defendant was excluded on the item 45 or prints were inconclusive.

  32. Page 120-2 29 Total prints lifted in this case.

  33. Page 120-7 Out of 29 prints Joanne was excluded or prints were inconclusive or insufficient.

  34. Page 120-14 A hair was found on the back of exhibit 7A.

  35. Page 121-1 The hair from item 7A became item 100.

  36. Page 131-15 Fingerprint report was generated Jan. 21, 2006.

  37. Page 1 34-16 Joanne's fingerprints were already in the fingerprint database because she had a criminal record.

Kelly Boyer

  1. Page 136-22 Boyer called to Roberts house on Sept. 18, 1999 at 9:30 PM.

  2. Page 137-10 Boyer collected several little stickers.  How do we go from one sticker in his daughter found to several?

  3. Page 137-18 The stickers appeared to have been written by a typewriter.  They all had the same information on them.

  4. Page 139-16 Boyer recognizes the items in exhibit 1.

  5. Ken Lignoski

  6. Page 143-1 How does a cop on the beat in the Tonto national forest and unincorporated areas get assigned the investigation of threats against a judge?

  7. Page 143-19 If he was doing a thorough investigation why wouldn't he interview witnesses?  Perjury.  They four, Aug. 17, 2006 page 143-25.

  8. Page 143-25 So he did interview witnesses.  Perjury.  Day 4, Aug. 17, 2006 page 143-19.

  9. Page 144-4 How do these earlier sticker is and letters compared to the type on the ones presently being investigated?  Any differences?

  10. Page 145-24 The investigation turns to defendant when the credit card application entered evidence.  Exhibit 12.  Exhibit 11 is rejection notice.

  11. Page 146-5 What Post Office canceled the mail on the application?  Ineffective assistance counsel.

  12. Page 146-17 Lignoski wrote on the document.  Was the wearing gloves?

  13. Page 147-7 Lignoski rather than be forthright and subpoena handwriting sample our from defendant, stately, was out defendant's knowledge, obtain copies of court documents with defendant signature on them to use for examination and comparison with evidence already in custody.

Georgetown Law Journal
It is now settled that such evidentiary items as voice and handwriting exemplars and other demonstrable evidence may be obtained through the warrant process or without a warrant where "special needs of the government" are shown.

U.S. vs. Dionissio, 410 U. S. 1 (1973)
A signature is not enough writing to compare against the question writing.  Only a handwriting exemplar is sufficient.  Xerox copies are insufficient because they do not contain illustrations of emphasis in the writing strokes an original document contains.

Page 152-22 Defendant was never told he was being investigated.  Four-year pre-indictment delay, presumed prejudice.

U.S. vs. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468
Violation of A. R. S. 13-3559 JoAnne Kennedy did not timely and in good faith report sexual exploitation of a minor and is therefore ineligible for immunity, yet immunity was given.  Selective prosecution.

  1. Page 153-5 Defendants family was not questioned by police because they didn't want to tip defendant often the investigation and they wanted to wait until things turned sour in his family hoping to find someone more willing to talk bad about Brad and under normal conditions.

  2. Page 155-8 Investigation stalled in August 2000 due to lack of evidence regarding defendant.

  3. Page 156-23 Lignoski turns his investigation to the defendant because of a signature on any dental credit card that was not a matched to the defendants signature.  A credit card application that could have been obtained from the defendants in junk mail that had been thrown out with his trash.  We already know the suspect is a dumpster diver from the mobile speed pass receipts thrown out in Judge Roberts trash.

Bruce Tucker

  1. Page 161-25 Tucker's case activity log should have been admitted as evidence.

  2. Page 171-20 Investigation turns to defendant with credit card application.

  3. Page 172-7 Original credit card application was subpoenaed and obtained.

  4. Page 172-18 Judge is receiving unwarranted phone calls.  Yet a phone tap revealed nothing.

  5. Page 173-17 Judge is provided security by MCSO at daughters wedding at taxpayers expense.

 

 

For questions or comments about this web site contact: jcoghill2@cox.net