OEJ and Kansas Granny, hey there!  I love the Justice Junction message board.  Intelligent discussions are taking place and real information being shared and distilled. OEJ, you are correct that Dalzell was shocked at what was revealed in his courtroom those 3 weeks in April which resulted in Lisa being released, and all parties referred to the U.S Attorney's office for investigation. It's important to understand that the issue of Lisa not exhausting all of her state appeals had been raised in the first day of the habeus hearing. The district attorney at that time, Joseph Madenspacher, had not tried the case.  He had let his assistant take care of it. John Kenneff. Naturally, because Dalzell had granted wide discovery to Lisa's new attorneys, who were from Philadelphia, not Lancaster, they were not intimidated by the investigators there, and they got reports from every source who had anything to do with investigating Laurie Show's murder.

For example, the autopsy report.  There was more than one.  The one obtained by the doctor who performed it, and the one that was altered and used by Kenneff.  The autopsy was not even that important to Stengel.  If I could post the transcripts from Lisa's original trial it truly would shock you.  I read them in Tina Rainville's office in Philly where I spent 3 full days reading everything about Lisa's original trial and her state appeals, which were denied without comment and which she did exhaust. Like I told you before....during the time Lisa was free, the Attorney General invented another State remedy to be exhausted right before the appeals court overturned Dalzell's decision.  That's how determined they were to bury what happened in his courtroom. We will have those transcripts back up on the site within the next week....and they will be more easy to access.....they are a must read.  There is a reason Dalzell called it "the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct in the english speaking world".  It is.  But here's the shocker.....and having lived there for 2 years, I can tell you from experience, what happened to Lisa, happens to hundreds of people in Lancaster! Dalzell didn't know what was going to transpire by granting one girl a chance to prove her claims of innocence.

Even Tina Rainville said that she was skeptical about all the claims Lisa was making.  How could a place be as corrupt as she was saying.......but she listened to Lisa.  Lisa told her where to go to find original documents.   When Tina and her assistants began gathering information, they discovered Lisa was right on every count. It was Lisa who told them that Smokey Roberts had an unedited video of an evidence search where Yunkin's bloody sneaker was found.  It had Laurie's blood on it. Kenneff tried to claim Lisa had worn them that morning. So, when they found it where she told them Yunkin threw them, they edited that part of the video out. 

You see, OEJ, if this misconduct was something Lancaster's finest felt guilty about, because it was wrong and out of the ordinary for them, they would have destroyed their blatant evidence of wrongdoing, the conflicting reports, the destruction of evidence........just business as usual for them.....they were caught like deer in the headlights when Tina Rainville came to town.

They destroyed Yunkin's sweatpants the first day she came to gather files and documents.  Rainville knew immediately that the sweatpants they produced when she asked for those admitted into evidence at Lisa's 1992 "trial", could not be the same. They were not x-tra large, Yunkin's size. They had no blood on them.  They were Lisa's size, now. Stengel bought the theory that Lisa had worn Yunkin's clothes, but now a real judge was going to find out what happened.  You bet these guys were sweating bullets. Lisa's attorneys left no stone unturned when it came to discovery. They were thorough.  They became convinced that Lisa was telling the truth.  Meanwhile, the Lancaster papers were already trashing Dalzell.  Just like they had done with Lisa in the days after Laurie's murder.  Depositions were taken and while the papers were calling the whole thing an "outrage", the ones who convicted her were totally freaking out.  They knew what was coming, and all they could do was trash the messenger, the message was on it's way. They called Dalzell biased before the hearing even began.  I read those articles at the Lancaster Library on microfilm. They were fascinating.  They accused the judge of having a crush on Lambert because she was a "shameless flirt".  Avoided at all costs, was the truth.  The truth that was about to make Lancaster County more than just a place to tour "Amish Country". 

hjj

OEJ, your posts are just getting better and better.  You think I'm bright, but I think you're brighter. Please keep telling more about how you feel.  It's incredible the way you put a thought across. So clearly, so succintly, and I feel you have experiences as well. 

You know what I'm talking about.  I can tell.  Here's what's going on since the restraining order.

The week that I knew I had to get one was precipitated by his following me around the neighborhood wanting to ask me just one more question.  That would end up being, "What happened to the Heather I fell in love with, the one who loved to cuddle, the ....blah blah blah.."  I had explained to him so many times that his comments and behavior and his paranoia about being asked questions about his past, coupled with his insults disguised as "jokes" had all added up to one important fact. I no longer felt safe or comfortable around him. Period.  Things got weirder after that. Much weirder. One day he called me. I was reading a book. He was going to work but wanted to see me.  I went over there. He wanted to have some quickie sex.  I was not in the mood.  It wasn't like he was needy in that department. That part of the relationship was creepily, in retrospect, quite adequate. God, it gives me the creeps to think about how he was so good in that department.  With intentions, not true passion. The whole thing was about him and controlling me. I know that now. Anyway, I went over to his apartment and told him all about the great book I was reading, HOLLYWOOD INTERRUPTED..by Mark Ebner and Andrew Brightbart.  I highly recommend it.  He was so disinterested and kept trying to get me in his bed.  He had one hour to get to work.  I just told him, let's wait till tomorrow, I'm really into this book.  He said nothing, just walked me home.  I didn't hear from him for three days.  He always had insisted I call him at work before I went to bed. I always did. Now, he wasn't picking up his cell phone.  This went on for three days, and it was unlike him.  I know now, it's called "the silent treatment".  Putting you offguard, making you the one trying to figure out what's going on. After three days of no contact, a "friend" of mine came over and said, "You've got to go over there. You've hurt him badly, he's been drunk for three days." 

I looked at her like she was nuts.  She looked at me the same way.  These a-holes will make friends with your friends, and make you look like the nutcase.  She convinced me to go over and talk to him.  I did.  Big mistake.  He was completely drunk, lying on the bed, talking about how my book was more important to me than he was.  He said, this is all your fault.  Then he called me an a-hole.  I left wondering how I ever thought he was worth getting to know to begin with.  I'm not proud of this story.  It says a lot about me as well as him.  Justice Junction has become, unexpectedly, my place to unload. To share what I know. To somehow share knowledge and experiences that might help others avoid these predators. They are everywhere.  Women are gone and we don't even hear about it. If the coroner, like in Lancaster, pronounces a woman dead from natural causes, it's his call. He is the one with the ulitimate power, in many cases. This is so hard to write because what I know about Lancaster is so horrifying. The obituaries in Lancaster are not published online.  Recently, they publish selected ones.  I know why.  When I moved there, of course I read the paper every day.  All three of them actually. I knew of course that all three papers came from the same source, by that time.  But I knew I had to find out how this whole system worked.

For two years, I did nothing but go to the library and read archives of Lisa's case, Christy Mirack's murder, the schoolteacher who was found beat to death, raped and strangled in her apartment exactly one year and one day after Laurie Show's murder. I spoke to her mother when I moved to Lancaster.  She told me her daughter had been dating Robin Weaver.  She begged me not to tell.  At the time, I didn't.  Now, I'm telling you that.  I don't care any longer about saving Robin Weaver.  Christy's mom feared for her safety. The week after her daughter'sbody was found, the investigation stopped.  Now, here's an excerpt from the Federal Hearing, to show you what I'm talking about.  I'll start a new reply because I feel guilty taking up so much space here.  hjj 

Tabitha Buck's testimony in this hearing marked the first time she has testified under oath in a courtroom about the events of December 20, 1991. Previously she testified in a deposition as part of the federal proceeding but was not called as a witness. We discuss Ms. Buck's testimony in this section because it is relevant to Ms. Lambert's involvement in the killing of Laurie Show, it is relevant to the extent it corroborates or disputes essential facts which have been called into question by petitioner, and it is relevant to the core issue of Ms. Lambert's petition: that she is an innocent woman wrongly convicted.

Ms. Buck first met Ms. Lambert and Mr. Yunkin in September 1991 while riding "the loop" in Lancaster.(74) (N.T., PCRA at 6617-18.) Ms. Buck was 17 years old at the time and was attending Penn Manor High School. She, Michelle and Lawrence "hung out" through the fall of 1991. (N.T., PCRA at 6618.) In the fall of 1991, she became aware of difficulties between Michelle and Laurie Show. She recalled Michelle saying that she did not like Laurie and referring to her several times as a "bitch." (N.T., PCRA at 6619.)

On the evening of December 19, 1991, around 10:30 p.m., Michelle came to visit her at the apartment she shared with her mother. Lawrence was outside in the car. Michelle was "very upset" and "went on and on about wanting to get Laurie back. . . ." (N.T., PCRA at 6620.) Ms. Buck described her as "crying and ranting, raving, she was upset." (Id.) Ms. Buck testified, "I asked her what she was going to do. She said, I'll kill her." (N.T., PCRA at 6620-21.) Michelle told Ms. Buck that she wanted her (Buck) to go with her to see Laurie the next morning. Ms. Buck was also told to "wear [her] hair up, to not wear any make-up and not to wear any fingernail polish." (N.T., PCRA at 6622.) Ms. Buck testified that she knew Laurie Show "by sight" because they rode the same school bus when Ms. Buck attended Conestoga Valley High School. (N.T., PCRA at 6623.)

Ms. Buck testified that Michelle and Lawrence picked her up on the morning of December 20, 1991. (N.T., PCRA at 6623.) Michelle appeared to give Lawrence directions from the intersection by the McDonald's on Lincoln Highway. (N.T., PCRA at 6625-26.) Lawrence dropped them off on Oak View Road by a field. (N.T., PCRA at 6626-27.) Ms. Buck understood that Lawrence was going to go to McDonald's. (N.T., PCRA at 6628.) Michelle told him to pick them up in 15 minutes. (Id.) They then walked across the field toward the condominium complex. (N.T., PCRA at 6628-29.) Michelle was looking for the condominium and was not sure of the correct number. She then located the condominium. (N.T., PCRA at 6629-30.) They went to the bottom of the steps and Michelle told Ms. Buck to go upstairs, knock on the door and ask for Hazel Show. She did so and Laurie answered the door. Ms. Buck asked if Hazel was home and Laurie said, "No." (N.T., PCRA at 6630-31.) Michelle told Ms. Buck the night before that Hazel should not be there because she had called and arranged for Mrs. Show to be at a counselor's appointment. (N.T., PCRA at 6631-32.)

At that point, Michelle made her way inside. Ms. Buck then described:

Michelle apparently pushed Laurie back some distance. They were, like, in front of the kitchen area or the living room area. And they were holding each other's arms wrestling, like, arguing, yelling. At one point, Laurie, I guess, broke away from Michelle and came toward me and I remember Michelle saying something about don't go, stop or something and -- oh, I did have sunglasses on. I failed to mention that. And Laurie grabbed my face, pushed me somehow and knocked the sunglasses off and Michelle was behind her and she had a knife and they were in the corner there where the door meets the wall, the hinges of the door, I guess.

(N.T., PCRA at 6633-34.)

Ms. Buck then went on to describe Laurie's attempts to escape:

A. . . . Laurie coming at me, moving me. I was right there inside the doorway.

Q. Okay. Do you know what Laurie was trying to do when she came toward you?

A. My guess is she was probably trying to leave.

Q. Okay. And could she leave?

A. She didn't have a chance.

Q. And why not?

A. Michelle was on her.

(N.T., PCRA at 6636.)

Ms. Buck described the knife as a "large kitchen knife" and described how Michelle ended up huddled with Laurie in the corner near the front door. (N.T., PCRA at 6637-38.) Laurie had grabbed the blade of the knife and Michelle pulled it out of her hand. As a result, Laurie's hands were cut. (N.T., PCRA at 6638.) According to Ms. Buck, Laurie then got away and went into her bedroom. Michelle then "grabbed her by the back of her hair when she walked through the door and she cut her hair." (N.T., PCRA at 6637-39.) Ms. Buck recalls seeing Laurie with a phone in her hand and was uncertain about what happened to the phone. (N.T., PCRA at 6640.)

Ms. Buck then went on to describe more of a struggle in the bedroom. When Laurie was on her knees facing the bed, Michelle hit her in the back of the head with the butt of the knife. She hit her more than twice in this way. (N.T., PCRA at 6641-42.) Michelle then handed Ms. Buck the knife and attempted to put a rope over Laurie's head. (N.T., PCRA at 6642.) Apparently, Michelle told Laurie to stop struggling and to cooperate because "it would be a lot easier this way" and then she put the rope over her head. (Id.) Laurie then began to struggle and reached for a pair of scissors. Ms. Buck moved the scissors out of Laurie's reach. (N.T., PCRA at 6643-44.)

Ms. Buck testified:

Q. What happened after you moved the scissors out of Laurie's reach?

A. Michelle told me to cut her throat.

Q. Michelle told you to cut Laurie's throat?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What did you say to Michelle?

A. I said, no.

Q. Okay. Did you still have the knife in your hand at that point?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do with the knife?

A. Michelle took it back.

Q. What happened after that?

A. She cut her leg and told her to stop struggling.

(N.T., PCRA at 6644.)

Ms. Buck then went on to describe Laurie kicking and fighting with Michelle. She testified:

A. Michelle told me to grab her feet, make her stop kicking and I did.

Q. You did that?

A. Yes.

(N.T., PCRA at 6645.)

Ms. Buck described sitting on Laurie's feet and facing away from her. As she sat on Laurie's feet, Laurie was struggling and at some point her feet stopped moving. Then Ms. Buck got off her feet and looked at Laurie. When asked what she saw, she said, "I saw her throat cut." (N.T., PCRA at 6647-48.) She noted that Michelle was sitting next to Laurie, on Laurie's right side. She said that the throat was cut deeply enough that she (Ms. Buck) could see into Laurie's throat and could hear a "hissing, whooshing sound." (N.T., PCRA at 6648.) She then testified:

Q. After you turned around and saw that Laurie's throat was cut and you saw that Michelle was still next to Laurie, did you see that the knife was still in Michelle's hand?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you see Michelle do then?

A. When I looked at Laurie I said, is she dead? Did you kill her? And Michelle said, I don't know and proceeded to further cut Laurie's throat.

Q. Can you describe what she did when she further cut Laurie's throat?

A. She held her chin back with her left hand and cut her throat as though she were cutting bread.

Q. Okay. Did you see how many times that cut went across Laurie's throat?

A. Several times.

(N.T., PCRA at 6649.)

Ms. Buck related that Michelle had the tip of the knife and handed it to her. Ms. Buck put it in her coat pocket, picked up her sunglasses and they left the condominium. Michelle told her to put her hood up and they went back across the complex area. (N.T., PCRA at 6650-51.) She testified that they went down the staircase and headed in the direction toward the wooded area. They walked behind or in a line of trees behind the Frys' condominium, went across a field and toward the road. They ended up along the road in some bushes. Ms. Buck indicated on an aerial photograph of the condominium complex, (Commonwealth's Exhibit 5), that she and Michelle ended up on Oak View Road north of the condominium entrance. She testified that Lawrence was there and picked them up. (N.T., PCRA at 6651-55.) All she recalls about the conversation in the car was Lawrence looking over at Michelle and saying, "Blood?" (N.T., PCRA at 6655-56.)

They then went back to Michelle's and Lawrence's trailer. Michelle and Ms. Buck took showers. She recalls that she took the tip of the knife out of her pocket and tossed it somewhere in a room in the trailer. She borrowed a pair of black stretch legging pants, put on her white sweatshirt and Michelle and Lawrence took her to school. (N.T., PCRA at 6657-58.)

Ms. Buck testified about the cut on her cheek and she believes that she got the cut sometime during the events that occurred in the morning of December 20.(75) (N.T., PCRA at 6658-59.) She recalls that she took her jeans off and borrowed pants because there was blood on her jeans. She left her Miami Dolphins jacket with Michelle and Lawrence because they said they would wash it. (N.T., PCRA at 6659-60.)

On cross-examination, Ms. Buck acknowledged that she lied in her April 1997 federal deposition in that she was not complete in her answers. She also indicated that she was not truthful when speaking to Detective Joseph Geesey when he came to visit her at Muncy in 1997. (N.T., PCRA at 6726.) Ms. Buck testified that there were certain significant issues which she "left out" in her deposition testimony. These were:

(1) she did not talk about Michelle placing the rope around Laurie Show's neck;

(2) she did not talk about Michelle's feelings about Laurie Show;

(3) she did not talk about her sunglasses;

(4) she did not talk about Michelle making the last cut on Laurie Show's throat;

(5) she did not talk about Michelle telling her about the phone call to Mrs. Show the night before. Rather, she suggested that she learned that Mrs. Show would not be in the condominium that morning as they approached the front door;

(6) she left out the testimony about Michelle telling her not to wear make-up and nail polish and to put her "hair up";

(7) she left out the testimony about Michelle handing the knife to her during the attack;

(8) she left out the testimony about Michelle telling her to "cut Laurie's throat"; and

(9) she lied about wearing black stretch pants because she knew that her jeans had blood on them and did not want to admit that. (N.T., PCRA at 6732; 6773; 6732; 6733; 6729-30; 6731-32;6732; 6733; 6732-33.)

When questioned as to why she did not tell the whole truth in her deposition, Ms. Buck testified:

A. Several reasons. One, I was very scared. I had been told for a very long time --

A. I was told not to say anything to anybody for a very long time and I was left under the impression that the more I knew of anything the worse off it would be for me. And aside from that, I was extremely intimidated that day. And I don't expect many people will understand this other reason. But being a lifer and having been incarcerated a lifer for as long as I have now, I would like to see women doing a life sentence go home, get out of jail, and I just couldn't see saying certain things, even against Michelle, if this were going to be a chance for her to go home.

(N.T., PCRA at 6673-74.)

At Ms. Buck's deposition during the federal proceeding, she was represented by R. Russell Pugh, Esquire, of Lancaster. Immediately following the deposition, she wrote a letter to Mr. Pugh explaining that she had been less than completely truthful in her deposition testimony. We reprint the entire letter in the text of this opinion because it sheds light on the extent of Ms. Buck's untruthfulness in her deposition and her state of mind at that time, and it contains an explanation as to her actions. It is also significant to this court that she chose to acknowledge her lack of complete candor in a letter to her attorney without any prompting and before she was ever confronted with any inconsistencies. The deposition was April 4, 1997. The letter bears the date of April 8, 1997:

Mr. Pugh,

I have not been completely honest about what happened. Most of what I've told you is the truth but I've purposely left some things out. Some very important things. I knew how Michelle felt about Laurie. She talked about it all the time. She always said how she wanted to kill her. She would think of different ways to do it and would ask me my opinion. would tell her that her plans would work and she'd laugh. She never followed through with any of them so I truly didn't take her seriously. At first I didn't know who she was talking about when she said 'Laurie' but when she told me her name was Laurie Show and she went to C.V., I made a point to find out who it was. Laurie rode my bus and I avoided her. I never spoke to her. I doubt if she even knew my name.

When Michelle came to the apartment on the 19th, she was upset and wanted to talk. She said she was going to get Laurie because the police were after her for an assault against Laurie. She told me she had called Ms. Show and pretended to be a counselor from school. She said that Ms. Show wouldn't be at home in the morning and she wanted me to go with her. I asked her what she was going to do and she said she was going to kill her. I didn't believe her and I told her so. Then she said she was just going to get her back for dating Lawrence and for calling the police on her. I had never seen Michelle fight anyone--she was all talk so I guess I just figured she was just talking and wasn't really going to hurt Laurie. I told her I would go with her. She said for me not to wear any nail polish or make-up and to put my hair up. She said that way, if anything did happen --there would be no evidence of who was there. Again, I didn't take her seriously.

The next day, I wore an old pair of blue jeans that were a favorite of mine and my white sweatshirt. When Michelle came she asked if I had any sunglasses and I said yes. She told me to bring them. I did wear make-up and my hair was down. She didn't say anything about it so I knew she wasn't serious about what she had said.

When we got to the apartment Michelle told me to put the sunglasses on so that Laurie wouldn't recognize me. I told her she didn't know me anyway but she insisted I wear them. Once we were inside the apartment, all hell broke loose. When Laurie tried to run to the door, she grabbed my glasses and threw them in the corner. She may have scratched me then.

In the bedroom when Laurie was kneeling over the bed, Michelle handed me the knife after hitting Laurie with it. Then she pulled out the rope from under her shirt (jergo) and tried to put it around Laurie's neck. She told Laurie it would look like a suicide and if Laurie didn't give in, then she (Michelle) would get a group of pagans to sacrifice her. Laurie stopped struggling and allowed Michelle to put the rope completely over her head. Then she went for the scissors. When I pushed them away Michelle told me to cut Laurie's throat. I looked at her like she was crazy and I said 'no!' She told me to give her the knife and I did. Laurie was struggling again and Michelle cut her leg. She told her it would be a lot worse if she didn't cooperate. That's when Laurie started kicking again and Michelle told me to grab her feet. In the process of getting her feet down, she kicked me in my mouth.

When I got off of Laurie's feet, I saw the neck wound and heard the air escaping. In my mind I knew that she must be dead but I asked anyway. I asked Michelle, 'Is she dead? Did you kill her?' She said, 'I don't know.' Then she cut Laurie's neck even deeper. I saw her do it. That's when she said, 'Come on. Let's go.' On my way out I picked up my sunglasses and we left.

At the trailer we took showers and Michelle gave me a pair of black stretch pants to wear. My jeans had ripped open on one of the legs and there was blood on them.

Everything else I told you was true. I didn't think she would actually do it and once she did--I was scared half to death. I don't know why I didn't tell you about her calling Ms. Show. I don't know why I didn't tell you about the rope. All I know is that I'm telling you the whole truth now. This is very hard for me to do but I figure--what do I have to lose? I'm already doing Life. I know that I lied under oath at the deposition and I don't know what that will mean now. When I testify in court, I want to tell the truth. I hope that it isn't too late.

I know I've disappointed you. You believed me and I lied to you. I apologize to you for deceiving you. If you want to wash you hands of my case--I won't blame you. Maybe I'll end up dying in prison but at least my conscience will be clear. I know that I had no intentions of harming Laurie and I didn't believe Michelle would, either. But maybe I do deserve this life sentence. If I'm meant to go home--God will let me go and it won't happen without Him.

Again, I am so sorry for lying to you. I'm sorry for lying to everybody including Detective Geesey. I hope that you won't hate me because of it. I feel like the world has been lifted from my shoulders but I know it will be hard for me to face you now. I am so sorry.

Sincerely, Tabitha F. Buck

i want to start tonight thanking oej and heather both for the compliments.but i want you to know i have only read down to where tabitha bucks story starts will go back later.yes oej i do know what you and heather are saying intregards toabusive men and battered women.i have had my experiences with con men.and i dont mean the ones locked up in a jail or prison i mean the ones that con theirway into your life by telling you what you want to here.presenting theirselfas being something better than they are.and i have been burned a time or to.as for my analitcal mind is just how my mind works.i have been a avid reader all my life i joke around saying i was bornreading for i truly do nt remember learning.and i read a wide variety of topics.not bragging or anything but i do have a bit of higher education.in the social scientististpsychologal field. i have always been intrigued by humane behavior. what makes one do what they do.im also a people watcher.sitting on the side observing whats going on around me.and if something interest me i read any and everything about it. for i belive if something is affecting you the more knowledgeyou have on it helps you get through it or over it and increases likelyhood of it happening again.andmy life has been touched by domestic violence no ive never been hit by a man.and let anyman im with know right of the bat i f he ever hits me it wonthappen but once.and he better not sleep for i have read the burning bed.men like that unconsellly know which women they can get away with battering and the ones they cant.i have several close friens that are battered women hence my interest in it. one is now dead. one is now disabled for life.one is my baby sister.that has been through a couple abusive relationships.and is currently with a man that is emotionally abusive to her. but she doesnt see it. and hey he doesnt hit her  so she thinks hes the best thing ever.now in these friendships i also knew the abuser. and they really not so bad kinda nice guys once you know them.they have their good side.the abuse in these relationships.vary in degree from maybe a black eye or busted lip to having to be put inhospital.as for the men hes not reported. or if he is ranges from slap on the wrist to a night in jail . in the case of my disabled friend he killed himself when he heard the sirens coming.so in my life i have let friends use my house to hide out at i have helped them pack up everything they ownbefore he gets home. their stuff was packed m loaded up and moved out before he knew what was going on.so i have read extensively on domestic violence, i have also lived in the drug world.mostly as an observer.my firs husband drank and drugged. he wasnt an down and out junkie or skid row bum. some of his friends wasand when they all got together to party i was there but being more of an obsever than articapant lots of times the drunker and higher they got the less they knoticed me so i heard how they talked about their wives or women in general. i see drugs as the downfal of our society.in my way of seeing things they are the tools of evil.in the damage they do.not only to the user but to the family to the innocent bystander.the criminal system has been a big interest to me.as a matter of fact when i decided it was time to go up and get an education sochange how i was livingback then.i thought of becoming a police officer. but decided id have to bust most of my friends.and being to chicken to be a street levelcop chasing speeders and the miner law breakers. not for me i mean these guys get shot. now if i could staert out as a homacide dective .would have been diffrent.my interest in murder and serial kllers i belive started when a very small child my great grandfather read true dective magines. and i flipp through them looking at the picyures reading the headlines ect.and wondering how could a person do something like that to another person.so i go looking for answers in books.iknow a lot about a few things and i know a little of a lot of things.an heather i especially want to hank you on coplimenting on my writing. since english never was my thing was boringtome school was set up as half grade from structer other from reading conprehension. so i always made fs on one and as on the other so grades averaged out to passing.so i never was good at the correct grammer and punction of writing.but cant understand aboiut my spelling since i usually won the spelling bees in school.i just type how i talk.im a better talker than writer. lots of times i have problems getting what i want to sayacross to others i belive because i talk better when i can use my hands and expressions to convey to others what im trying to say.so being a educated person  i feel self consciences about my writing abilities. im thinking you all are saying gosh i wish she wouldlearn how to spell ect. how did she get through school and get the job i had prior to my becoming disabled. i wish i could blamemy writinf deficitson my disability but i cant was this way before.reason i have no paraghraps is if im passiant about what im saying.i tend to talk faster.and cant type as fast as i talk even though ive had three time peroinds in my life of typing classs.i could type two handed. but since my disability. i noew basically only have one hand. have lost the use of other. so i type one fingered.i also have like a short circuit in eye on affected side. its like my eye sees whats there but the brain doesnt interpret what eye is telling a short in the nerve pathway.which tends to cause a little dyslexciatype errors. my brain cant keep upwiyh my mind sometimes and tendency to wander.cant put to much going in it at once.i feel as if you all are saying gosh i wish she would use a dictaniry or spell check. but truth is dictionary takes forever to look up every other word.and im too lazy to do it.computers is one of those things i know little about.i usually lose my page doing spell check.i figure i get my point across and thats what matters.so thank you lsadies you are a lsdy oej arent you.or are you a male. thanks either way.and yes heather i know about atlanta texas . i started going to school there in thrid grade.eas an outsider then and i quit school in 12 grade was still an outsider.if you werent born there or if your parents wernt from a certain family or class yoy nrvrer fit in.but atlanta was my home for many years.still call it home eventhough ill never live there again.im am very passant over the butts case. because i considered gerrie one of my close friends.when i first met her jessica was still in pampers sucking a bottle but walking around. atthat time gerrie was dating my brother in law.and for several years she sat beside me at work.we shared many a heart to heart talk. and many joints. when i was going to collage i got in the habit of stopping by her house before i went on to my house hers was on theway to mine.i feel i knew gerrie real well i knew her fears  her hadheadedness. her hopes her dreams. her disapointments.but i know there are others that knew her better than i did..no i am no genus. by far.sometimes i am a rebal with a cause. and heather i dont think your crazy feeling the way you doabout the women being killed.i knoe exactly what youare saying.one of the how could a person do that toanother person isthe way women are treated as disposable products in this country.how little a womans life means to someone.to just be thrown away like a piece of garbage. so i think one of my causes isto try to restore her dignatity that is taken from her through the act of murder. not just gerrie jessica and mackydeebut all women.this needs to stop  now. nowi am one of those thatclashed with mr, jones about his connecting the butts to otherdeaths in atlanta mostly because i felt he was saying gerie was working for drug task force.and that just isnt true. bso no comnnection to the bad sam.but i never looked at kevin being the link no t gerrie.could be something there is food for thought..now if anybody wants to know more about anexity and panic disordersdepressionor strokes i consider myself somewhat of an expert on those subjects.have put in hours of research reading on those topics.lol

Selene, you are quite clearly wrong about Lisa's P.C.R.A. hearing.  She had already endured one of those fruitless journeys in 1994.  Check your facts.  I know your posts are coming straight from the Attorney General's Office.  Mike Fisher should have been jailed for allowing perjury to take place in that courtroom.

It doesn't matter if you think Dalzell held an illegal hearing, which he didn't, the fact is, the testimony took place. You are trying to act as if it never happened.  Do you understand how absurd that is?  Does it change the fact that documents, evidence, police reports, evidence search videos, were altered, destroyed, disappeared from the evidence room. This was all proved in Federal Court,Selene. Of course, Lancaster wanted to somehow claim the whole thing never happened. This isn't never never land, dear. It happened. Tabitha and Yunkin weren't called as witnesses by Madenspacher. Why?  Because they are both liars. Their own attorneys said so.  Even Tabitha in that soap opera testimony of hers, which was shocking but not that surprising....after Dalzell's exposure of Lancaster's judicial system, she was the only ace in the hole they had left. You don't think she got any relief for that testimony? Prove it.  Even Kenneff said in 1997 to Dalzell that they had considered relief for Tabitha, but first had to weigh their options.       

The federal hearing, selene, was real, legal, and all the documents and reports conflicted with one another. Your own posts are revealing indeed.  Notice how Yunkin is never mentioned in the harassment part of Stengel's decision.  It's a total lie that he merely dropped the girls off.

And you know that. Kathy Bayan saw his car that day and told Savage.  He told her to forget about it, because they already had Yunkin outside the complex. Hazel shocked everyone when she insisted at the Federal Hearing that she needed to speak immediately, after hearing Savage lie about Yunkin never being in the complex. Should I post that too?  Let's start with Officer Bowman, John is his first name.

By the time Madenspacher was supposed to put on his case against Lisa Lambert's claims, his own employees, officers, detectives, even experts like Dr. Mihalalkis who changed his testimony on the stand after declaring to Lisa's attorney that Laurie Show never could have spoken, and in return got a 15,000 raise had all been made non usuable. Even Tabitha couldn't help them now. Her own attorney said she had lied. Even in her dramatic and only testimony, she admits she lied.    These are facts that selene and kate want you to ignore.  Selene even thinks they never happened, because she falsely claims that the hearing was illegal. Selene, if the hearing had been illegal, it never would have been allowed to go on for three weeks. Think about it. What was truly illegal was the second P.C.R.A. hearing that followed the Federal Hearing. Only then was Stengel forced to deal with all the destruction of evidence, false testimony, disappearing evidence, falsified autopsy report, etc. etc. etc. Here's what happened to Bowman.

Dalzell: Be seated everyone except whoever wants to address the Court.

Madenspacher: Thank you, your honor. We have two witnesses and the Petitioner is going to object to these. They are fair objections your honor.

The first one is Mrs. Bowman who is John Bowman's wife. She would basically testify that she was in Virginia Beach with her husband(on the night he was raping Lisa Lambert) but she, we have a faxed copy of a cancelled check that was, that indicates that a purchase was made during that time period. I mean we---we only learned of this last night, your Honor, and that's why I say they have a legitimate objection.

Dalzell: Because she was on your witness list.

Madenspacher: Correct, your Honor.

Rainville: Your honor, in Mr. Bowman's deposition on February 21st, I asked him where were you on June 17th, 1991? It was the night before his deposition, your Honor will recall that the big meeting happened at the Police station regarding what would be said with regard to the gang-rape.

Dalzell: Yes.

Rainville: I think it's absolutely inexcuseable that two months later on the morning without any notice we're provided not even the original document but a faxed document, and if I may.

First, it's irrelevant, as all the checks are written on June 18th, but it appears from the backs of the checks, if those are indeed the backs from the same checks, that...

Dalzell: Oh my.

Rainville: that the checks were not cancelled until July 17th.  And since that's almost three weeks to a month later, my only explanation is that the backs don't belong to the fronts or that if indeed those checks were sent on the 18th, they must have been sent through some very slow mail service.

Dalzell: Do you see Mr. Madenspacher what she is talking about? 

Madenspacher:  The bank sent these out, your honor.

Rainville: If the bank sent these out, they have had two months to get the original documents.

Remember that John Bowman said in his deposition he had "no idea" where he was on June 17th.  He suddenly remembered he was on his honeymoon, and scrambled to get evidence of this which obviously even Madenspacher was embarrassed about. 

This testimony took place on the last day of the Habeus Hearing.  Madenspacher had 3 witnesses, one of which they didn't bother putting on.  Where was Tabitha now?  Where was Yunkin?  The state could not put them on.  They both had already perjured themselves.

As to Selene's now quite helpful proof about how the state made their case against Lisa, cutting the deal of the century with Yunkin....."he was never in the condo complex"...even Tabitha was allowed to lie about that in 1998.  But, Selene, perhaps you missed this moment in Philadelphia.

Madenspacher is questioning Hazel Show. 

Q. Tell us what you observed when you were driving up that road to the condo?

A. As I testified to the other day, I remember that I saw a brown car with Lawrence in it and he looked directly at me and the expression on his face was that of a child caught in the cookie jar. And, I saw him push a blond-haired person down in the front seat, and a dark longer-haired person was in the back seat.

Q. Other than Wednesday back in the Judge's chambers, this is the first time you've ever testified regarding that, correct?

A. Back in 1992, Detective Savage had come over to go over some information and he had told me that a neighbor lady, (Kathy Bayan) had notified him that she thought she saw a brown car with three people leaving the condo.  When he said that, it jogged a memory of a brown car and i said: "I think I saw a brown car". Then he was telling me that all the other witnesses had Yunkin outside of the complex, on Oakview Road.  He told me not to dwell on it.

Dalzell:  Mrs. Show, can you see on this map of the complex the "x" up there? That's where Mrs. Bayan said she thought she saw Yunkin's car, what we now know is Yunkin's car. Is that where you saw his car?  That you now remember?

A. Yes.

Selene, and Kate.  So much for Stengel's decision that you thankfully put up here on Justice Junction.  Even Hazel Show makes them not only false, but she was told by Savage to "forget what she saw".  It wasn't jiving with his falsified reports.  He even told Dalzell he thought Ms. Bayan was disturbed.  At the 1998 retrial, Stengel thought he may be right.  Good God. 

Tell the truth and get called disturbed.  I truly can relate to what Kathy Bayan endured.

But I won't let Selene or Kate pollute what took place in Federal Court.  You can't put the cat back in the bag, Selene, by falsely claiming the Habeus Hearing was illegal.  Lisa's original trial was the one that was proven illegal.

By the way, since her original trial in your opinion was so just, how about getting those righteous and rightfully obtainable under normal circumstances, transcripts up on this site. Up on any site for that matter.  Just find the court reporter, Selene, and you can buy them from her.  I have read them.  Have you?  It wouldn't cost much.  It only took Stengel 7 days to spare Lisa from death. What a noble deed. Where was Tabitha then?  Any answers? 

Those transcripts would horrify anyone reading these posts.  I suspect you know they will never ever in a million years be made public.  Oh sure, you've got Tabitha's testimony.  The only time she said a word on any stand, period. Anybody with a brain about defendants who don't testify in their own behalf,knows why. If they are guilty, as she is, they don't make good witnesses.  But if her perjured and beyond dramatic testimony were true, why didn't she testify at Lisa's original trial?  

Only freelisalambert.com has all the testimony from the Federal Hearing.  I bought them myself from the court reporter. They are tax-payer funded publicly available documents. I had no problem purchasing them whatsoever.  Thats as it should be.  When in Lancaster, I once very politely just asked to read them and was told, "You have no right to that information, now get the hell out of here!".  Think I'm lying, Kate.  You go down there and try to not buy them, just read them.  Perhaps you have. If so, your continued belief in Lisa's guilt means only one thing. You haven't read the Federal transcripts.  If you haven't, you don't know what this case is really about.  For Selene to act as if it never happened is like something out of Peter Pan. 

Trust me, dear readers of all these newbies eager to defend a justice system they refuse is corrupt to the core, you won't see any unedited transcripts posted from Lancaster.  Just the excerpts they want you to read.

hjj     

And Selene, about the transcripts.  I wasn't talking about the public wanting them, I'm talking about Stengel not releasing them back in 1998 after the P.C.R.A. hearing was concluded. Complete farce that it was. 

I was living there at the time Selene, I suspect you are not from Lancaster.   Or Philadelphia. Tina Rainville and Peter Greenburg, her husband had to get a court order to obtain the transcripts for themselves, understand?  You have no idea what you're talking about.  Stengel refused to turn the transcripts over to Lisa's attorneys.  Why?  There is no reason.  The transcription takes place daily and should be available within 2 working days.  Stengel wouldn't turn them over for 6 months!  Check your facts, dear.  When a higher court ordered him to turn them over, whole sections of testimony were missing.  It made front page news in Lancaster and Philadelphia.

Plus, you are wrong about transcripts being made public, and not if there is an appeal.  Perhaps Pennsylvania is that way.  I wouldn't be surprised.  The point that is relevant is this.  Court hearings conducted under the law, have nothing to hide from anybody, especially the public.  We fund the courts and they are designed to protect our Constitutional Rights.

If they have something to hide, then what is it?  Nothing was hidden from anybody in Dalzell's courtroom. Lancaster County releases only those portions of transcripts they want you to read. It's totally ridiculous.  Were you there when Robert Reed plead the fifth ammendment 59 times when asked about his participation in the investigation of Laurie Show's murder?  I was.

Where are those transcripts Selene.  For you to call Tina Rainville's litigation sloppy, claiming she didn't even ASK FOR THE TRANSCRIPTS makes you truly look ignorant. The transcripts were not only asked for back in 1998, a higher court had to be called in to get them.  Go back and do your homework before you go insulting Tina Rainville.  Read the Lancaster newspapers from the spring of 1998.  You'll find what I'm talking about.  Until then, stop spewing baloney. Stengel should have had those ready the first week after the second P.C.R.A. hearing.   Instead it took him 6 months and a court order. And you call Tina Rainville sloppy? Get a grip.

Or, continue.  I'll be here to challenge you.  Let me know when you get those transcripts. 

I find it amusing you say they aren't available if a case is on appeal.  Not in Federal Court, dear.

hjj

And one more thing I noticed after reading all the "selected" portions you were allowed to post.

That was the second P.C.R.A. hearing for Lisa in front of Stengel, not the first!  Lisa endured the first one in 1994. I read those transcripts, Selene.  Stop calling that a fabrication. 

I resent that comment, vigorously.  Stengel was not the perfect candidate to preside over a hearing that itself was in dispute.  If he was so sure of his verdict, why not let another judge decide?

Stengel being the judge after Dalzell exposed his original verdict based on the "worst case of prosecutorial misconduct in the english speaking world", to be the one to give Lisa another chance, was completely ludicrous.  The whole nation laughed about that one. Read the articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Of course the original judge is going to defend his first wrong conviction. I was there for his verdict.  It took up a whole newspapers worth of copy.  It was nothing but a denial of the perjury he allowed to take place. A denial of the corruption that shocked the outside world.  

I've got all the testimony here, Selene.  So, by all means, you post what you've got, and I'll do the same.

hjj