Beach, Florida - Guilt is supposed to be determined by
an impartial jury
of our peers. Today, however, guilt is generally assumed upon the
reading of charges and state-authorized and released details in the
local daily paper, national tabloids if you're “worthy” enough,
and/or online on Facebook or Twitter. This poisoning of the jury
pool is a delight to every prosecutor's office across the country.
However, fact is often very different to the state's accounting of
the details and once revealed paints a much different picture, often
resulting in a truth-based perception that the charged person is
not guilty or in other words, innocent.
Now, you will finally
be able to read about “Polo Mogul” John
Goodman's case from a significantly unique perspective based on the
evidence. This is not what the assigned West Palm Beach Prosecutors
and a few deputies have reported to the mainstream media to pass on
to the public. This reporting is the result of months of digging through
evidence, testimony and communication with eye-witnesses and experts.
More-so, when the research began, the presumption was that Goodman
was guilty. What I uncovered was that there is more than enough evidence
to elicit a preponderance of innocence, not guilt; and that unless
the state continually lies about the facts, or the jurists have a vendetta
to convict, Goodman cannot be found guilty. Quite simply, there is
no definitive evidence that can be considered beyond a reasonable doubt
in favor of a guilty verdict, it is quite the opposite. Remember, the
burden of proof is the states, not Mr. Goodman's.
The John Goodman Case:
On February 12,
2010 John Goodman, 47, was returning home from a YMCA charity event,
then a dinner/social
function, when his car suddenly
collided with another vehicle driven by 23-year-old Scott Wilson. The
events that followed tragically ended the life of Wilson, and
have left John Goodman fighting for his innocence - for the second
time in almost four years. The evidence obtained in this case gives
convincing details of how Sheriff's Deputies Ricardo Safford and Troy
Snelgrove, along with Prosecutors Ellen Roberts (retired) and Sherri
Collins allegedly committed crimes - revealing they had lied, withheld
exculpatory evidence, threatened one law enforcement officer to not
testify (would hurt the states’ case), willfully and negligently
destroyed key evidence, obstructed justice, failed to render aid, and
possibly accepted what could amount to bribes.
John Goodman was
originally convicted of DUI Manslaughter/Failure to Render Aid and
Homicide/Failure to Render Aid on March
23, 2012. Legal experts have stated that trial errors “warranted
a new trial” and most likely would have resulted in a successful
appeal, however, juror misconduct was discovered. Having kept John
Goodman from receiving a review by an impartial jury, Goodman secured
the right to a new trial, currently scheduled for Oct. 6, 2014. This
trial is supposed to take place as if the first trial's outcome did
not even exist, and Goodman is once again facing his charges which
carry a reported 30-year sentence, if convicted.
The accident occurred
shortly before 1:00 am on a dark February night. There were no eye-witnesses.
The road conditions were normal, and the
weather was reported to be in the 50's. Visibility was
an issue due to the accident’s rural location combined with a thumbnail
moon. This made it difficult to see, which was expressed by two post-crash
who called 911, and several other responders. In fact, five people
claimed to have not seen Scott Wilson's car initially, as it
was turned upside down, mostly under water in a nearby
Goodman hit his
head as a result of
collision, losing consciousness. When he "came-to" he was incredibly "disoriented" and
concussed by the sheer momentum of the accident. The prosecution
claims Goodman was traveling around 63 mph at impact. The previous
defense claimed "between 49 - 58" mph. Assuming either of
those speeds, impact would cause someone's head to be extremely jarred,
at the very least. Goodman also sustained a wrist fracture, a "questionable
fracture of the sternum" with "soft tissue swelling," and
a laceration and hematoma above his left eye. Goodman was transported
to Wellington Regional Hospital, where he received medical attention
by Dr. Adam Bromberg who confirmed
of the skid marks, Scott Wilson's car spun violently after the collision.
According to the prosecution in Goodman's initial trial, Scott Wilson
a result of drowning. Wilson's car was found just minutes after the
accident by the fourth bystander to arrive on the scene – everyone
else had not seen his car. Approximately 5 minutes later the sheriff's
deputies arrived, but the responding deputies, and fire and rescue
failed to find Wilson until 2:31:52 a.m. Why? It took authorities nearly
an hour and a half after arriving on scene, fully aware of where Wilson's
vehicle was, before his body was discovered. The canal was shallow
enough that the Hyundai Scott Wilson was driving had its back tires
out of the water according to witnesses.
The prosecution has, and will again paint a picture that John Goodman,
whose blood alcohol level was allegedly above the legal limit, was
drunk at the time of the accident; that he was the sole cause of the
crash; that he stood there callously watching Wilson's car sink and
then fled into the night. Case closed, right?
Not so fast.
claim 1st degree vehicular homicide, the prosecution must prove
caused Wilson's death by, “... the
operation of a motor vehicle ... in a reckless manner likely to
cause the death
...” and that, “At the time of the accident, the person
[Goodman] knew, or should have known, that the accident occurred; and … The
person [Goodman] failed to give information and render aid as required
John Goodman was driving a 2007 Bentley GTC when the accident occurred.
During the first trial Goodman's defense claimed that his vehicle "surged" without
him manually employing the throttle, which led to the collision. The
reported speed at impact, by both the prosecution and the defense experts,
clearly suggests that Goodman never "stopped" at the stop
sign. But, according to the state provided 911 transcripts, John Goodman
told 911 dispatch that he had stopped. Could he have suffered a concussion
and not known exactly what happened? Absolutely.
Have you ever been
in a collision at 50+ mph? The likelihood of “trauma,” not
to mention misstated details of events is highly plausible.
So, could a Bentley
surge out of control? After looking at online forums, and many hours
spent talking with people who could possibly
answer this question - I found a logical answer. I talked to a technician
at Carrera (Porsche) Motors. He stated he has "worked on Bentley's
in the past." At first he laughed at the probability that
a Bentley, known as one of the world's most prestigious automobile
could possibly surge. Then, I explained the circumstances. Later, his
laugh became an "ahh!" after he looked further into
the issue. During our second conversation he stated, "there
is an electronic control unit (ECU) or module that has proven to be
this year, make and model when it gets
wet." He continued, "there
are currently 79 Bentley GT's (including GTC's) for sale in the U.S.,
and one of them lists that the ECU needs replaced." He also
stated that this module, if compromised, could possibly cause the vehicle
to "advance uncontrollably."
technician verified that this issue exists, but I was still not
entirely convinced. Next, I went to another exotic
vehicle (vehicle type omitted intentionally) certified technician who
has worked on "hundreds of Bentleys." He explained
in detail the issues that can arise from this particular module failing.
tech informed me that this particular module controls "air,
yes, "ACCELERATION." He stated that Toyota, VW (owns
Bentley), GM, Lexus and other manufacturers have had similar problems.
He continued, "Toyota
has manufactured vehicles where it was estimated that 140 out of every
one million cars would result in sudden
accelerations. Was it unlikely
to happen, yes, but did it happen, yes." Although the cause
of the malfunction in Toyota was different than what has been reported
in Bentley, the result is likely the same, possible surging. Bentley
is obviously nowhere near as common of a vehicle as Toyota, so this
issue is definitely not as common with Bentley, but it still exists,
according the tech.
I was informed by the tech that vehicle manufacturers utilize what
is known as "Technical Service Bulletins" (TSB)
to inform tech's how to fix certain problems. He stated that he has
roughly 200 Bentley's that were the same year, make, and model as Mr.
Goodman's. He said it is common for tech's to print these bulletins
and keep them in a readily accessible folder to refer back to when
servicing each vehicle. He recalled fixing three Bentley's where the
same particular module as Mr. Goodman's was compromised, each time,
using the TSB to accurately fix the problem. But the problem that exists
today - that particular TSB is nowhere to be found online according
to both tech's I talked with. The second technician believes that he
knows someone who has that particular bulletin, but he was fearful
of coming forward with that document, afraid he would never be able
to retain employment in his line of work again. Apparently, Bentley
did go to great lengths to keep this information private, according
to the tech. He informed me that Bentley can also "update
their bulletins, or delete them entirely."
Why would Bentley
do this? Could Mr. Goodman's case be the cause of why this information
allegedly deleted? Could
a $40 million insurance (6 million more paid by another source) payout
to Scott Wilson's family be an incentive to keep this a "hush-hush" issue
with Bentley? Bentley would assuredly have liability if it was ever
Goodman's car surged.
The second technician I spoke with gave very compelling details. It
would be very wise of Goodman's defense to utilize his knowledge to
educate the jurors on all of the very technical information during
the next trial.
will be supplying their own "expert" for
the prosecution during Goodman's upcoming trial. You can bet they will
be doing everything possible to protect their prestigious name.
It has also been
reported that former Prosecutor Ellen Roberts knew that Deputy Snelgrove
had been given information by Bentley that suggested
5 or 6 other people had the same issues that Goodman's defense claimed,
but she reportedly did not disclose this information to the Defense.
Is this withholding exculpatory evidence?
So, what about that Bentley Goodman was driving on the night of the
The new defense
won't be able to examine that Bentley. The defense experts won't
be able to examine it either, prohibiting their ability
to conduct many necessary tests. Most importantly, the jury will not
see the Bentley. They won't see the reportedly problematic $5,000.00
module, which, by the way, was NOT replaced on Goodman's vehicle according
to service records (1, 2). Arguably, the jury won't have the single
most important piece of evidence to help them make an informed decision
cost Goodman 30 years of his life.
Why not just get the Bentley back?
Mr. Goodman's Bentley has been scrapped, sold
for parts and is currently
in the hands of its third owner since former Prosecutor Ellen
Roberts released it from the state's custody. Ask almost any attorney and they'll
tell you that ALL evidence should be preserved pending
any appeals in a criminal case. So, why would a "seasoned" prosecutor
like Roberts do such a thing?
to emails obtained, and witnesses, the state's prosecutor, Ellen Roberts,
had a very close relationship with the Wilson Family's civil Attorney
Scott B. Smith of Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey and Fronrath, sharing
all sorts of information, well before Goodman's first trail was over.
In fact, Roberts retired shortly after Goodman's trial and took
a job with the firm (Scott B. Smith) who represented the
Wilsons. Could that be considered prosecutorial misconduct? Could Ellen
guaranteed a spiff
for her help?
Could Bentley have encouraged Robert's to dispose of Goodman's vehicle?
Could the Wilson's civil attorney have coordinated this? There is no
excuse for her actions when it pertains to getting rid of crucial legal evidence.
cannot tolerate the wrongful destruction of relevant evidence
the foundation of the legal system and destroy public confidence
in our judicial process, which depends on the evidence." --Florida
What about Scott Wilson and his vehicle? Was he really going the speed
limit? How many driving
violations did Wilson have prior to this accident?
Why was his speedometer displaying
120 mph after it was pulled out
of the canal? Why were his headlights in the "off" position?
Could he have had any culpability in the crash itself? Wilson's phone records suggest he may have been preoccupied with his cellular phone at the time of the accident.
SIMPLY, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VALID EVIDENCE TO PROVE GOODMAN OPERATED HIS
VEHICLE IN A RECKLESS MANNER.
Failure to Render Aid
Shortly after hitting his head during the accident, Goodman regained
consciousness. As he stepped out of his car, he stated that at first,
he thought it was a hit and run, as there was no other vehicle in sight.
Visibility was reportedly very poor. He then thought that perhaps he'd
hit a horse trailer being pulled by another vehicle, and it continued,
leaving the scene. He reached for his phone to call someone for help,
but it was dead. This was later confirmed through phone records and
also by responding Deputy Ricardo
His car was totaled and
his phone was dead. Being in the Wellington, Florida countryside
at almost 1 o'clock in the morning, staying on
the dark road waiting for someone to drive by didn't seem to be the
best option. His next thought was, find a phone. Still shaky and disoriented from the
accident, Goodman started walking down a dirt road, having seen what
he thought was a light in the distance. It was later determined to
be a large polo barn. Goodman walked around the bottom level of the
barn, thinking there should be a land-line phone, which is common
in polo barns in case of emergencies. Goodman found nothing.
As he continued
to search, he found stairs that went to the upper level. Finding
door unlocked, he went inside to what he
described as a "man-cave" with a fully furnished office,
a large flat-screen television mounted on the wall, desks, and a shelf
with liquor. Injured and thirsty, Goodman looked for water, but there
was none. He consumed alcohol from the bar in an attempt to ease his
pain as he continued searching for a phone. As he walked around the
upstairs portion of the barn, he saw photos of his friend Kris Kampsen
on the wall, and finally realized where he was. Knowing now there was
no phone, he looked from the balcony and saw another light in the distance.
Goodman left the barn and headed toward this next place where he could
hopefully get assistance.
Goodman approached the light and saw it was a small horse stable,
he continued through the stable unable to find a phone. Next, he continued
walking past the stable, and noticed a small trailer. Goodman knocked
and opened the door. Lisa Pembleton (now Del Mundo) was inside the
trailer, and John asked her if he could use her phone. She was obviously
cautious and startled, as a complete stranger had just entered her
trailer, but she provided her phone. Goodman's first call was to his
girlfriend. He informed her of his accident, completely unaware that
there was another vehicle at the scene. Next, he called 911. It was
reported that 54 minutes had elapsed between the time Goodman left the scene, to find a phone,
and when he made his 911 call.
During his conversation
with 911, Goodman was informed that the Sheriff's deputies were looking
for him. Goodman then flagged down the deputy
as he left Pembleton's trailer. At this time Goodman was informed there
was another vehicle at the scene of the accident.
If you did not know there was another vehicle involved, who would
you call first? During a discussion with others regarding Mr. Goodman
not knowing there was another vehicle at the scene, I was told their
first call would be to a close family member or friend, next would
likely be to insurance, followed by a tow truck and/or 911. I personally
know from past vehicle accidents, my insurance company has always asked
that I contact them first, if the accident is not life threatening.
became the state's main witness after speaking at length with deputies
and prosecutors. She also allegedly had her
legal counsel provided, free of charge, by an attorney friend of the Wilson
family's civil attorney. Conflict? Interestingly, Pembleton also wrote
about the night in question on a blog. She stated, "I had a dream
the week prior of a guy coming into my camper, saying he was in an
accident and needed a phone…" Maybe she did have that dream,
maybe not? Would you give much weight to Pembleton's testimony given these statements?
Meanwhile, there had already been four other civilians who stopped
at the scene. Two of them actually called 911 before deputies arrived.
The first witness was Nicole Ocoro. She was returning home when she
found Goodman's Bentley "crashed on the side of the road." Ocoro
was asked "what did it hit" four separate times during her
call to 911. First, Ocoro stated, "I -- I don't even know;
I just saw it pulled off on the side of the road." Ocoro, again, was
asked twice what it hit before she gave her second answer. She stated, "I
have no -- It looks like another car hit it. There's like (unintelligible)." Finally,
Ocoro stated, "It -- It must've been something else that hit
it because there's a nasty, like -- the inside is all banged up and
wheel is at a slant. Like, it looks terrible."
Ocoro never mentioned seeing another vehicle during her 911 call,
and to this day, states that she never saw Wilson's vehicle before
she left the scene.
Another witness, a young female, who asked to remain anonymous, also
arrived on the scene shortly after the two boys, just minutes before
deputies. She stated she found Wilson's vehicle in the canal, and the
boys called 911 for a second time. This was the first time Wilson's
vehicle was discovered. According to transcripts, the boy who called
was told by 911 dispatch, "I
don't want you going into the canal."
I talked directly to the girl who stated she found Wilson's
She said, "I
was there, they didn't take my information... It still haunts me,
night, because no one helped."
you in fact state to the deputy on the scene that you wanted to
help save the person in the canal?"
of course! Who wouldn't want to try and help? There was a car flipped
you at any time instructed not to try and help?”
It was also reported that one deputy stated he would not enter into
the canal because he was concerned with getting, "pesticide
None of these witnesses were ever mentioned in any law enforcement
report, other than dispatch records. Does that cause concern?
The facts show that the witnesses were likely on scene 8 - 15 minutes
after the accident. Law enforcement was likely on the scene within
15 - 18 minutes after the accident. Since it was determined that Scott
Wilson drowned, wouldn't it be safe to consider that Wilson could likely
have been alive when the witnesses and/or sheriff's deputies first
arrived? And, NO ONE helped him!!! It is outrageous and in my opinion
criminal, that the state is trying to make John Goodman the fall guy
and accountable for something only speculation can imply - claiming
he saw the vehicle, when others, not just having been in a traumatic
accident, did not. The fact is, 911 was informed of it and they advised
the bystanders to do nothing. The police saw it, and did NOTHING. Where
are their criminal charges of failure to render aid?
None of the nine Fire and Rescue responders found Wilson in the canal.
It was reported that one responder put on a wet suit (no mask or oxygen
tank) and felt around the car with his hands. He claimed no one was
in the vehicle. Did they fail to render proper aid? None of them were
charged with a crime, yet they reportedly failed to do their job. Interestingly,
rescue responders, out of the nine on scene, were disciplined. One
responder received a "written warning." The other
received a "written reprimand.""A written
Fire Rescue Public Information Officer Don DeLucia, is the mildest
of punishment for firefighters." Is there a double standard
Other than speculating that Goodman was completely aware of Wilson's
car being in the canal, only one piece of evidence I've seen thus far
erroneously suggests Goodman knew Wilson's car was in the canal before
he left the scene - Deputy Snelgrove's co-authored
article, with animation
attached. According to the article, Snelgrove created an animation
that is "worth a million" words. As Snelgrove reconstructed
the scene, his article stated that "Although this information
and technology was compelling, Snelgrove still wondered how he could
validate the scanner's representation of evidence. He DECIDED that
by overlaying the 2D diagrams on top of the 3D scanned crash scene,
this would provide the VERIFICATION SNELGROVE NEEDED."
Did his reconstruction represent fact, or was it created to allusively
prove Deputy Snelgrove's unfounded assumptions?
It is also important
to note that John Goodman, now almost 51 years of age, had NO CRIMINAL
HISTORY prior to this accident. He has never
had a DUI. He has never had a speeding ticket as an adult, and he had
never been arrested prior to this tragic accident. Does that sound
like a person who fails to render aid? Remember, Goodman had sustained
several injuries himself, and his phone was dead. So I ask, how was
he to help, especially considering he did not know about Wilson's vehicle?
It is an absolute fact that Goodman sought out a phone and called 911
after the accident. At this point, the only logical answer would be
to indict everyone involved, or drop Goodman's Failure to Render Aid
John Goodman had consumed alcohol before the accident. But was he
impaired? He claims that he was not intoxicated, not even close. He
had just wrapped up a charity event with professionals who were likely
gracious givers. Goodman then went to a restaurant and bar for roughly
one hour, before he headed home. When he closed his tab at 12:37 a.m.,
his bill was $212.00. 18 drinks were purchased. The state will argue
that he was intoxicated, based off of this information alone. Goodman
claims to have purchased nearly all of those drinks for friends, 16
of them were shots. That's the only answer that was given to this writer.
So, without speculating, I ask, where is proof otherwise? There isn't.
the manager, the valet crew, the servers, his friends, and the people
whom he didn't even know, won't say he
was drunk. Not one of the witnesses at either establishment where Mr.
Goodman was that night, will testify that he was drunk, or that he "drank
several drinks." Is this because they are all liars? Doubtful.
The state, fighting tooth and nail to get their assertions confirmed,
reportedly threatened the bartender, among others. They continue to
get nowhere. Could this be because Goodman was telling the truth? To
assume different, would again be mere speculation.
According to Goodman he drank at a polo barn shortly after the accident.
He informed Deputy Safford about going to the barn during their communication
while they were driving back to the scene. Deputy Safford not only
denies that this conversation ever took place, he still to this day
denies ever going to Kris Kampsen's barn, where Goodman drank post
Why would Deputy
Safford lie? Could it possibly be due to the fact that Goodman consumed
post crash? Wouldn't that ruin the state’s
alleged .17 blood draw from Goodman while he was at Wellington Regional
Three (1, 2, 3) witnesses have already stated on the record that Deputy
Safford came to the property, where the polo barn was, went to each of their
trailers and woke them up, and asked them questions around 3:30 a.m.
on that day. But Deputy Safford still claims that he wasn't there.
Deputy Safford, Goodman's defense is armed with more than two witnesses
this time. Now, the third witness has been
deposed and confirms what the other two have said all along. More importantly,
own GPS unit from his patrol vehicle(click here to
verify Safford's unit ID, then click here and
scroll down to page 3, for 20100212034458ES, look
at time and location, double
check coordinates here, you
will have to re-enter the coordinates under "
Show Point from Latitude and Longitude")confirms
that he was at the polo barn where Goodman was post crash(see
image below). During Safford's deposition he agreed with
location his GPS indicated he was at that night, except for... the
polo barn. Will he be charged with perjury? Doubtful. It seems that
three witnesses, and a state owned GPS unit are no match for a sheriff's
deputy's word in Florida.
WPBSO - Deputy Ricardo Safford's GPS location - Kris Kampsen's Polo Barn
So why wouldn't Goodman's defense just subpoena the deputies dash
cam or audio/video camera? Easy, right? Well, there are no dash cam
video's. Magically, it is all gone. There is no personal audio or video
from Deputy Safford. It, too, has seemingly disappeared into thin air.
Again, the state of Florida (Deputy Safford) has failed to do something
as simple as preserve evidence. Or, did the deputies have this evidence,
but it didn't confirm the lies they created, so they decided to cover
Finally, the blood draw. Experts for both the prosecution and defense
fought over the admissibility of this evidence. While at the hospital, Deputy Snelgrove's blood draw kit was not
used in its entirety. Instead, a nurse drew Goodman's blood, using
all of the contents from the deputies blood draw kit, except one thing
- the needle. She used a smaller, 25 gauge butterfly needle. This might
not seem like a big deal to a normal person, but it has proven to be
significant. According to many doctors, including Dr. Adam Bromberg
- who by the way was not retained by the defense - this needle issue
presents a big problem. During a deposition, Dr. Adam Bromberg was
asked if a smaller gauge needle could cause hemolysis in blood samples.
Dr. Bromberg replied, "There's
a lot of factors that cause hemolysis in blood samples. Needle size
is definitely one of them."The
destruction of red-blood cells, can cause inaccurate test results,
like a .17 blood draw that the state maintains would be Mr. Goodman's
at 3:30 a.m., almost 3 hours after the accident occurred.
Bottom line, experts state the blood draw procedure was inaccurate,
and Goodman is said to be appealing its inclusion as evidence - something
that could have far reaching effects on Florida law regarding blood
draws. Regardless, If he had consumed everything the prosecution claims,
John Goodman would have been so sloppy drunk upon leaving the bar that
everyone would have noticed, yet not one witness claims he was intoxicated.
So, Goodman had to have had drinks in the barn as he has maintained.
This makes the state's charges of DUI at the time of the accident completely unprovable.
Deputy Snelgrove's Failure to Preserve Evidence
Apparently, not one single photo was taken by Deputy Snelgrove of
Scott Wilson's car upside-down in the canal. Is it not important to
document where Scott Wilson's car was found? According to the prosecution,
it is considered "Hyperbole" to ask such a question.
As Deputy Snelgrove documented Goodman's belongings, he managed to
take a photo of Goodman's bag, along with financial documents that
were found in the back seat of his Bentley. But, the bag and documents
have allegedly disappeared. According to West
Palm Beach Sheriff's office, they were never there.
With a photograph taken showing they
were there, followed by a claim they were never there, it shows the
sheriff's department is perfectly
capable of compulsively lying to obtain a conviction. It's either that or they are completely incompetent. Either way they can't be trusted.
Can Deputy Snelgrove, who can't even account for evidence which he
took photos of, and can't even take photos of other pertinent evidence
be relied upon to conduct an accurate accident reconstruction?
Prosecutor Sherri Collins - Obstruction of Justice?
a bond violation hearing where Mr. Goodman was alleged to have "broken
his ankle monitor," Collins outright threatened former West Palm
Beach Deputy Bridgette Bott "not to testify." According to
Bott, the threats occurred just outside the courtroom and kept her
from testifying in the first hearing. However, an attorney (prior assistant
prosecutor) who has no association with Goodman, also overheard the
conversation and came forward, which allowed for another hearing on
the matter, wherein Bott did testify.
Bott had been working as part of Goodman's court-ordered security
detail and her account of Goodman allegedly breaking his monitor was
significantly different from the other deputy who testified for the
state. According to Bott, Goodman did not break his monitor as the
other officer claimed. Her testimony proved that some members of the
sheriff's department were willing to lie to put John Goodman behind
Goodman was released from jail and his bond was reinstated.
As for prosecutor
Sherri Collins threatening deputy Bott, she walked away scott-free,
whatsoever. Sherri Collins is still
part of the state’s prosecution team for Goodman's upcoming trial.
Deputy Bott has since been suspended by the Sheriff's Department,
and has a pending lawsuit against West Palm Beach Sheriff Rick Bradshaw.
Judge Jeffrey Colbath is assigned to preside over Goodman's upcoming
trial. Is Judge Colbath biased? If so, why? Colbath disallowed the
blog, written by the state's main witness, Lisa Pembleton, from being
entered as evidence for the jury to see in Goodman's first trail. This
was evidence specific to her accounts of that night, yet the jury was
not allowed to see it. Was this because she talked about a dream that
happened before the events unfolded? Could Colbath have kept the jury
from questioning the state's main witness' credibility?
I'm not one
to delve into speculation, but why in the world would Goodman feel
comfortable with Colbath presiding for a second time? Considering
the following statements during Goodman's sentencing, after his original
conviction, it would seem impossible to expect that Colbath could
a neutral referee in any further court proceedings involving Mr.
Sentencing transcript of Judge Jeffrey Colbath:
" I agree
with the jury's verdict... Mr. Goodman was extremely intoxicated.
blood alcohol level verified that... He had an opportunity
to try to save Mr. Wilson... He could have gotten in that canal...
He knew he pushed that car in the canal... He left to try to save himself...
Mr. Goodman seems to me to be the perfect candidate to be a flight
Juror misconduct is the reason for Mr. Goodman's new trial.
Two jurors wrote
to the judge about their "pressure to render
a guilty verdict." This was not disclosed to Goodman's defense
until one of the jurors contacted them directly. Didn't Judge Colbath
have a duty to inform both parties? Again, is this fair? It hardly
Why would one
juror lie during voir dire (jury selection), then vote
to convict Goodman?
This case exemplifies
the saying, "It's hard to imagine a more
stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those
decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Sadly, a life has
been lost, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the Wilson family;
facts still remain... Several people
in charge of handling this case have consistently used speculation
as fact in order to portray Goodman's guilt. Some of those very people
even committed crimes in an attempt to obtain another "win."
One thing is sure, Scott Wilson was failed by some of the same people
that claim Goodman is guilty. Perhaps, had they acted, Wilson would
be here today.
The evidence in
this case justifies a "Not Guilty" verdict.
It is the state's burden to prove Goodman's guilt, and they have failed
miserably to do so.
Editors Note: For
those who still have doubt, or would like to see something that is
not made available through our hyperlinks, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
We will gladly supply you with more evidence.
Subscribe to the US~Observer News Flash Alerts!
to the US~Observer FREE News Alerts!
a subscription to US~Observer delivered right to your mailbox via first-class mail!