OEJ, at least one of the opposing views is an "old foe" and can be seen posting at http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/index.php?act=SC&c=1, which is how I found this site.  I'm glad to see some people with no emotional baggage involving this case be able to read the transcripts, etc. and form an unbiased opinion.  Unfortunately, that is not possible for most Lancastrians.  Their little world was tanished by a Federal judge.  Rather than addressing the perjury, witness and evidence tampering issues that he exposed, most choose to kill the messenger.  The corruption in this case was so blatant, even a dumb dog could see it.

There are two problems with ‘Fauxreal’ asserting that Lambert had two PCRA hearings:

Number One: The US Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996. That is a full two years after Fauxreal's falacious assertion that Lambert had a PCRA in 1994.

The AEDPA (a federal law) pertains to Post Conviction Relief Acts. The full text on the passage of that law can be found in the Congressional Record.

Number Two: Lambert did not appeal her conviction to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court prior to 1997. A convicted felon must finish all of the available appeals – including their state Supreme Court – before being eligible for a PCRA hearing.

Lambert's one and only PCRA hearing was in 1998.
==============

Kate, I'm truly sorry for the pain you've suffered through this murder. Thank you so much for being a part of the EMT's who serve communities.

Thank you, Kate, for your reply. I understand your hesitancy to freely talk because of the appeals, but it seems the pertinent information you have been able to share is that Laurie Show was unconscious on your arrival, moved slightly, and had a weak pulse that flatlined before anyone could aid her. Having read of many cases of horrible injury wherein the subject survived, I am unsure what to make of the comment that it was more humane not to try and revive Laurie Show. Not being familiar with the field, can you say who makes these kinds of decisions? Is it more of a decison that the patient will not revive no matter what is done? I understand these very tough decisions are made in the field frequently.

As Dalzell's decison made clear, there is room to debate whether Laurie Show was able to speak to her mother the words, "Michelle did it." What do yo think of Mrs. Show's testimony later that she saw Yunkin in the condominium parking lot the day of the murder which seems to coroborate another neighbor's testimony?

There seems to be no doubt that Lambert had been systematically making life hell for Laurie Show in the months leading up to the murder although there seems to be some doubt about whether a kidnapping plot ever occurred because of the reliability of the witness who claimed this was discussed.

On one side of the debate, Lambert is alleged to have only been harrassing Show because she was in fear of being beaten by Yunkin.

On the other side, It is normally presumed that each individual is responsible for their own actions. So far, I haven't seen anything to indicate that Lambert tried to get out of this most abusive and horrible relationship with Yunkin.

Tabitha Buck is a most illusive figure. There seems to be no rational reason why she was involved in any of this. Her story seems to be that Lambert came to her home with an evil plan, and not really believing her, Buck decided to go along. She did some things, but Lisa did the rest and Yunkin wasn't there at all except to offer a ride to and from the premises. So far, I haven't seen any of her statements concerning the dynamics of the relationships between the three defendants. I haven't seen any statements from any of them that elaborates on this. It seems to me there was more of a relationship between Buck and Yunkin then has been shown so far and Buck seems determined to steadfastly defend him. I don't think we can really approach the truth without understanding the true relationships among the three defendants.

I find it hard to believe that Buck was just pumping iron often with Yunkin and that is the extent of their relationship and that Yunkin was just kind of standing on the sidelines in relation to the problems with Laurie Show. The man is obviously a rapist, and there is all kinds of behavioral evidence of what other types of behavior he would have been displaying. At the very least, he was manipulating the minds of Lambert and Buck and inciting them to violence. Why either one of the girls would allow this to go so far is another question.

There is also the question of the neighbors who lived below the Shows and were home on that day. I would love to read their entire testimony. From what I have read so far, they heard people come up the stairway, heard a thud and some commotion, but did not hear anymore commotion on the stairs until they heard someone leave. If Lisa Lambert fled partway down the stairs and met Yunkin charging up the stairs, surely the neighbors would have heard this. I do wonder why the neighbors did not call police when they heard the commotion upstairs. Just a guess, but it does seem like the sounds they heard above would have been quite out of the ordinary especially since they testified to hearing a scream.

Kate, do you know the response time from the call to the arrival of medical help?

Just a quick thought, but trying to silence heather is against her constitutional right to free speech. Many do not agree with her but she does have the right to say it. I don't know enough to say whether she is right or wrong in her assessment of this case, but she does have a voice and her voice is protected just as all other voices are. I'm not sure who made the comment about Heather having manic depression, but I don't see how this affects the truth about the Lisa Lambert case nor do I think it is appropriate in the discussion.

On December 19, 1991, defendant bought a 50 foot length of rope and two ski hats at the K-Mart in the East Towne Mall. This was established by credible testimony from Mr. Yunkin and through a K-Mart receipt.

Let's be serious, shall we?

Having read of many cases of horrible injury wherein the subject survived, I am unsure what to make of the comment that it was more humane not to try and revive Laurie Show. Not being familiar with the field, can you say who makes these kinds of decisions? Is it more of a decison that the patient will not revive no matter what is done? I understand these very tough decisions are made in the field frequently.

OEJ - The paramedics made the decision to halt further intervention.  It was impossible to intubate the victim and with the severity of the injuries any IV fluids would have left the body via the neck wounds.  Her injuries were severe - large stab wound to one of her lungs as well as the large open neck wound.  We found several more stab wounds after she was pronounced dead.

As Dalzell's decison made clear, there is room to debate whether Laurie Show was able to speak to her mother the words, "Michelle did it." What do yo think of Mrs. Show's testimony later that she saw Yunkin in the condominium parking lot the day of the murder which seems to coroborate another neighbor's testimony?

Upon entering the bedroom, I spoke to a woman hysterically crying on the daybed.  "Ma'am, can you tell me what happened?"  Her response, "This was a set-up, I was lured away.  Michelle did this. I removed the rope from around her neck".  At the time I was confused by what she was saying until I saw the neck injury.  The bedroom carpet had hair, plant dirt and blood everywhere.  While I was with her my partner was assessing Laurie, who moved as he knelt by her head.  I believe Hazel cradled Laurie, and I also believe it possible for Laurie to mouth the words with some whisper to her words.  Hazel arrived home shortly after the attack and Laurie was still alive.  

Hazel saw Yunkin on the complex main road as she passed him on her way to the condo.  He was driving and trying to shove Michelle down in the front seat so Hazel would not see her.  Tabitha was in the back seat. 

On one side of the debate, Lambert is alleged to have only been harrassing Show because she was in fear of being beaten by Yunkin.

On the other side, It is normally presumed that each individual is responsible for their own actions. So far, I haven't seen anything to indicate that Lambert tried to get out of this most abusive and horrible relationship with Yunkin.

It is well known that Lambert hated Laurie Show because of Laurie's brief dating experience with Yunkin.  This hatred led to the harrassment, the aggravated assault in the shopping center parking lot, and eventually to a planned prank that ended in murder 

Kate, do you know the response time from the call to the arrival of medical help?

My crew came on duty that day at 0700.  We left for the restaurant shortly after that and had just sat down when we received a call for an unconscious person.  The address was only five minutes from the restaurant.  I do not recall the exact time of dispatch or our arrival but it wasn't long.  The paramedics arrived shortly after we did. 

 

Kate, do you have an opinion or insight considering your long time interest in the case on what the true relationship was between Tabitha Buck and the couple Yunkin and Lambert?

Selene, what happened in Judge Dalzell's courtroom those three weeks in 1997 can hardly be called "moot". It's as if you are trying to suggest that the gross misconduct, destruction of evidence, perjury, alteration of documents, never happened. I should point out that Kate's posting of what you and she consider to be the only valid court records, are not transcripts. They are the snippets of testimony, perjured testimony, that you have access to.. they have been posted on the internet by the Attorney General's office.

To say those wittnesses and their testimony in Federal Court doesn't matter because you think that hearing was illegal, is ludicrous. I read the transcripts from Lisa's first P.C.R.A hearing from 1994. Did Stengel get rid of those too? He managed to omit entire segments of testimony from the second P.C.R.A . hearing which is why it took a court order obtained legally and out of necessity by Lisa's attorneys to force him to turn those over to them. That should have been done during the first month, or even sooner.

I notice you don't address the fact that the sweatpants worn by Yunkin and owned by him, covered in Laurie Show's blood, were proven in Stengel's court in 1992 to be size x-tra x-tra large, disappeared during the discover phase of Lisa's Habeus Hearing and replaced with a brand new pair size Ladies and with no blood. They had to do that because they suspected that Dalzell would have seen how ludicrous it would be to try and say Lisa wore those sweatpants.

The earring back found in Laurie Show's hair during her autopsy was written down as having been discovered in the report,and was given to Ron Savage or Renee Schuler. It would have had enough DNA on it, to prove that Yunkin was in that condo. The pearl earring that Hazel found and turned over to police, Yunkin admitted to wearing. It's post was bent and most likely Laurie reached up and pulled it out of his ear, the back of it falling into her hair. That is important evidence that was never introduced in any of the trials. If Stengel read the real autopsy report and had seen it's discovery there, he should have enquired about it.

As to what Tabitha lied about in her deposition, and to Detective Geesey, we can only speculate. You have no basis in reality to assume what she ommitted precisely from her version of the truth. It's totally absurd to think that she suddenly after 7 years, is going to tell the truth, which if it was, could have given her a much lighter sentence. She made herself sound like someone innocently thrust into a situation she had nothing to do with. If that were true, she would given that testimony in her own trial in 1992.

What happened in Dalzell's courtroom was real, it happened, and it was in the end totally devastating to Lacaster's judicial and investigative processes. That's why they have spent literally millions of dollars convincing every other appeals judge that it was held prematurely. They had to focus on that because they could not dispute all the physical proof and witness testimony which proved how corrupt Lisa's trial and Laurie Show's murder investigation was.

When I ask you if you have ever read the transcripts from the Federal Hearing, all you can respond with is that they are moot. I couldn't disagree more. If you read them, you would understand why Lancaster has so vigourously campaigned to convince so many that they should simply be ignored. I seriously doubt that Judge Anita Brody even bothered. It is interesting to note that shortly after her decision to deny Lisa's appeal, which included a certificate, I believe she termed it, to proceed to the Third Circuit, an article was written about her by a legal journalist who was there the day she issued her statement. He called her, and this from Philadelphia Magazine, "the biggest idiot sitting on the bench in Philadelphia" I was faxed the article. Naturally, you aren't going to find these details on any site sponsored by Lancaster or the Attorney General's office.

I'll come back with some testimony which will all be on my site in it's entirety by next week.

Thanks.......hjj

Although Stengel had no physical evidence whatsover to convict Lisa of first degree murder and used Yunkin's lying statements largely, to convict her....I thought it relevant to post what those statements consisted of and the detective who took them. It is important to note that Lisa Lambert told investigators where to find Yunkin's sweatpants, and sneakers.  Otherwise, they never would have been found.

I'm glad to see some posters supporting Judge Dalzell here and understanding that the selected posting by Lancastrians who think Lisa guilty are simply that...."selected".  I guarantee you, that's all you are ever going to read concerning the Lambert saga, the transcripts are absolutely not available in their entirety.  Consider that.  It's the key to understanding the deception that was only uncovered by Dalzell.... The following testimony is by Detective Barley. Rainville is asking about Yunkin's statement given on December 20th,1991 the night he was arrested.  And the one that was used, weeks later on February 5th, 1992.  After he had been coached.  Also remember his new attorney, Douglas Cody, son of the editor of Lancaster Newspapers Inc. had told Lisa he would defend her, simply to get her story so they would know how to coach Yunkin.

Q. Det. Barley, I'm showing you what is Petitioner's Exhibit 481.  This is the report that you typed up and then, as you claim in this court, thereafter destroyed your notes?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. I will read it for the record: "Detective Savage asked Yunkin what Michellle and Tabitha were wearing that day.  Yunkin stated Michelle was wearing PURPLE PANTS WITH FLOWERS, A BART SIMPSON T-SHIRT AND A LEATHER JACKET."  This is what Yunkin told you on December 20th, 1991, isn't that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q.  Then, do you recall in another report you wrote on February 4th and 5th, Yunkin told you that Michelle had on HIS SIZE X-TRA LARGE SWEATPANTS, A FLANNEL, AND SOME TYPE OF SWEATSHIRT? (this is what Yunkin in fact was wearing that day)

A.  I----(pause, no response)  Yes, ma'am, I see it here. (witness looking at his report)

Q. So, on February 4th, Yunkin changed his story about what Lisa Lambert was wearing on the day of murder?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Dalzell:  And you knew it, didn't you?  Because you took the statement on the 20th of December that was just read to us, and you were there when he said that.

Q. (Rainville).  Were you at Tabitha Buck's preliminary hearing on February 5th?  (the same day Yunkin gave his coached statement about Lisa wearing HIS CLOTHING, which she did not, and he proves it here with Barley's testimony, and all documents in Rainville's hands. Documents never seen by Stengel in 1992)

A. Was I at Buck's preliminary hearing?  (Pause)  Not that I recall.

Q.Did anyone tell you that on February 5th when Yunkin was asked what Lisa Lambert was wearing below the waist, he said, "I dont know".? (if this sounds confusing, it's because Yunkin gave his "new" statement AFTER appearing as the key witness at Tabitha's preliminary hearing)

A. No.

Q. This is the prosection's star witness and no one ever said that to you?

A. To the best of my recollection , I don't recall that.

Q.  Now, you also testified at Lisa's trial in 1992 that when you were at the river search,(looking for Yunkin's bloody sneakers, after Lisa told them where they could be found, because she watched him throw them there in the Susquehana)....that you were looking for sneakers that you understood were in a pink trash bag, is that right?

A.  Yes, ma'am.

Q. And you testified at Lisa's trial that you did not find any trash bag when you searched the river, wasn't that your testimony at her trial?

A. Yes, ma'am. 

Q.  And that was a flat-out lie?

A.  Not at the time, ma'am.  When I testified to that, I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THE BAG THAT WAS FOUND AT THE SEARCH.

Q.  You went to the river looking for a pink trash bag.  You already answered yes.  Do you want to change that answer?

A. No, I went down looking for a pink trash bag, yes, ma'am.

Q. And it is your testimony here today that you were mistaken that there was a pink trash bag....?.(the unedited video shows Barley finding the trash bag and the sneaker, then waving off the cameraman, Smokey Roberts. The video presented to Stengel is 4 minutes shorter, and the finding of trash bag and sneaker is gone; Dalzell saw both versions, thanks to Lisa's attorneys)

A. Well, at the time when I answered that question I had completely forgot about the pink trash bag or I would have told (Lisa's attorney, Shirk) him about that.

Q.  Okay.  So you forgot about the pink trash bag.  Let's just accept what you are saying is the truth.  You forgot about that pink trash bag at Lisa Lambert's death penalty trial in July 1992, that is your testimony, right?

A. That's correct. 

Q. We'll assume that is a true fact.  But you would have put it in a report somewhere that you found it at the time, wouldn't you?

A. Officer Reed was the one in charge down there.  He was doing the report on what was found, etc.  (I strongly urge you out there to read these transcripts next week in their entirety on my site....if for no other reason than to watch these guys turn on each other. It's truly amazing; Officer Reed took the stand at the SECOND P.C.R.A. hearing....and plead the fifth ammendment 59 times.....it was amazing. I watched as they brought him out in shackles. When the video was played, he looked at the ground the whole 8 minutes it was played, the unedited version.  He had already cooperated with the F.B.I., which is why he plead the 5th to every single question. He is now serving prison time for the rape of his stepdaughter)

Q. So, you didn't do a report on what you found at the river?

A. I did not, no.

Q. Did you take notes?

A. No, Officer Reed was taking notes.

Q. Now, you forgot in July of 1992, as you testify here today under oath in Federal Court, about this pink trash bag, but mysteriously you remembered it at the time of your deposition, is that right?

A.Yes, I was-----(pause, no response)....Under questioning.  I remembered it at that time, I did.

Q.  And you also knew at that time that the week before, the videotape of the search had been turned over to us; you knew that, didn't you? (she's referring to the unedited version with him clearly seen finding the trashbag and the sneaker, then waving off the camera)

A.I had no knowledge of that, ma'am.

Q. So at what point between 1992 and 1997 did your memory suddenly come back to you about the pink trash bag?

A. I completely forgot about it until I got subpoened and I started to try to place everything together as to what happened. And it wasn't until the very morning of the day before of my deposition that I recalled that trash bag.  (go ahead and laugh here, everybody in the courtroom did, spectators, that is.  Not Dalzell, not the witnesses, mostly the reporters)

Q. You remembered it the day before your deposition, is that your testimony? 

A. The day before the deposition , yes, ma'am.

Q. And you realized at that time that your testimony at Lisa Lambert's death penalty trial was incorrect?

A. (pause, no response).....Pardon?

Q. And you realized at that time that your testimony under oath in Lisa Lambert's death penalty trial was incorrect, you realized that the day before the deposition?

A. The day before the deposition, yes, ma'am.

Q.You realized that you testified wrongly and that someone had been convicted. Did you think, "Oh, my, I better call the Judge right away and let him know my testimony is wrong?"

A. No, ma'am, I did not. 

Q. And it is also your testimony, it was your testimony in the deposition, that in the---when you found the pink trash bag it was determinedd it was empty and no one picked it up; is that your testimony?

A. I did not pick it----I checked it.  It was empty.  As I said in my deposition also, the trash bag was imbedded in some ice, and it appeared it was there for quite awhile.

Q. Well, the rope was imbedded in ice, was it not?  (this is the rope found by a houndog after being given Tabitha Buck's sweater to scent. The houndog owned by Alan Means, found the rope near where Yunkin's sneaker was found...it was the rope Tabitha used to wrap around Laurie Show's throat, while Yunkin slashed it)

A.The rope, to my knowledge, no.  I don't know.

Q. Dalzell: As far as you know, the rope was never found? 

A. The rope was found, yes, sir.

Dalzell: Oh.

The rope was not found by a dog, was it? 

A. As far as I know, it was found by a searcher.

Dalzell: By a searcher?

A. As far as I know.

Dalzell: Not by a dog though?

A. I don't know if it was a searcher or the dog that found it.  It was shown to me by Officer Reed when it was found.

Q. Officer Reed, the same Officer Reed who is currently on suspension from the force, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. For raping children, that is the allegations that are pending against Officer Reed?

A. I haven't heard that.  (yeah, right. Like those charges weren't already known to half the city of Lancaster, at that point....for the record....he had already been suspended for filming pornographic acts with his secretary with a videocamera seized during a drug raid) Kate, care to try denying those charges....all on the front page of your favorite newspaper monopoly...hey they know what sells papers!)

Q. Now, when you testified in your deposition that nobody picked up the pink trash bag, do you want to change that testimony before you watch the unedited videotape?

A. I said I didn't.  I don't know if anybody picked it up or not.

Dalzell: As of right now, do you want to change your testimony that somebody did pick it up, in fact?

A. It's possible somebody did.  (in the video it's HIM that is shown picking up the trashbag)

Dalzell:  As of right now,do you want to change your testimony that somebody did pick it up, in fact?

A. It's possible somebody did.  I am not aware of it if they did that........

Dalzell: (who has already seen the unedited version is giving this guy every chance to redeem himself before the truth is shown before him......Selene, if you think this testimony is irrelevant, God help you when it comes to the Constitution.  Kate, you weren't a witness at this trial, for good reason. You have no credibility....and if you do then you might be Kathleen Harrison. Can you confirm that?  I have her testimony right here.  If that's not you, then what did you testify to?  You can call me any diagnosis you aren't qualified to determine, but like OEJ pointed out, it means nothing when talking the facts of this murder and subsequent "so-called trial".)  This isn't talkback, Kate....and do tell.....when were you called as a witness?  I've read all the transcripts....all of them. If you are a medical technician, when did you testify?  You admit you never were there for any testimony because you say as a witness you weren't allowed to. You are totally allowed under any law, State or Federal to tell what you testified to.  Either put up or shut up, as they say. I'm tired of your patronizing statements about my mental state, which you know nothing about and which are cheap shots easily recognized. At this point, there is no proof you were there, that you testified, or anything else.  It's my word against yours. Just because you were there that morning.....and it was 10 minutes before any medical personnel were there that morning, by the way, doesn't mean you know who the true killer of Laurie Show was. Listen carefully here Kate, as Barley is given every opportunity to tell the truth. But doesn't, nevertheless.

Dalzell:Your testimony under oath is that you don't remember anybody picking up a pink trash bag, right?  That is your testimony, yes or no?

A.  I honestly don't recall.

The unedited version of the videotape was played the next day in Dalzell's courtroom.  Stengel allegedly didn't know it existed.  Of course, Stengel had to deal with these two videos at that second, I repeat, second P.C.R.A. hearing......and I was there for Smokey Robert's testimony. You won't find Selene or Kate, posting that transcript, to be sure. They want you to think it never even happened! The absurdity of that mindset is obvious to most of you, thank God.

I was there that day and Rainville asked Smokey to bring his log of filmed searches. Stengel had already watched Robert Reed look at the floor while the unedited version was played.  He igored it.  He actually tried to say that Robert Reed's taking the 5th ammendment to every question was because he was "mad at the Commonwealth".  He didn't bother to explain why.

Stengel asked Smokey to produce that page of his log.  Smokey said it was "missing".  Stengel ordered him to return with that page the following day.  He never took the stand again.

hjj

 

Fauxreal wrote: This isn't talkback, Kate....and do tell.....when were you called as a witness? I've read all the transcripts....all of them. If you are a medical technician, when did you testify? You admit you never were there for any testimony because you say as a witness you weren't allowed to. You are totally allowed under any law, State or Federal to tell what you testified to. Either put up or shut up, as they say. I'm tired of your patronizing statements about my mental state, which you know nothing about and which are cheap shots easily recognized. At this point, there is no proof you were there, that you testified, or anything else.
=================================

I went to the site Kate put a link to and looked for posts (of which there seemed to be hundreds) made by yourself. No one accused you of any mental state. YOU, yourself posted that you are bi-polar. Kate merely reiterated what you had posted about yourself.

As for talking about testimony if you might have to repeat if you are called back to any future court proceedings, it is wise to keep silent. Whether or not it's "legal" I don't know. But it is totally understandable that one might want to keep silent to prevent injury to a pending appeal. And Lambert's appeals are certainly still pending.

Regarding your statement that "I've read all the transcripts....all of them.", that is a fabrication because you've already posted that you cannot get copies of Judge Stengel's court proceedings.

Direct and circumstantial evidence linking Lisa Lambert to this crime?  Correction.  There was no direct evidence linking Lisa to this crime. 

As for Tabitha Buck, here from the Federal Hearing transcripts.  You know, the ones that never happened?

Mr. Greenburg is asking the questions here.  He, Selene, is Lisa's current attorney.  The one you ignorantly suggested i send the transcripts to?  This is from the transcripts, Selene.  Why on earth would you be stupid enought to suggest I send transcripts from the hearing he presented for the Petitioner, Lisa Lambert?  I have no idea.  He and Tina Rainville were attorneys for Lisa Lambert. At the Federal hearing and beyond. Obviously I'm not going to send him the transcripts from the trial he questioned witnesses at, right?  That would be like me telling you to send Stengel the transcripts from Lisa's original trial....  

Q. We have another preliminary matter, unfortunately, your Honor.  As we were here yesterday

 working out we thought the details concerning Tabitha Buck, her attorney was simultaneously faxing a motion to quash a subpoena to us.  I don't know if the Court has even received that.

Dalzell:  There was nothing in the fax machine.

Q. Based on, among other things, the fact she is in prison beyond the hundred mile subpoena power;which strikes me as a peculiar argument since she is in custody; and by it's terms refuses to produce her for trial.

Dalzell:  Wasn't it Madenspacher's subpoena?

A.  We had subpoenaed her for April 3rd for the deposition.

Tabitha Buck was, in effect, a last-minute addition to the cast of characters here.  We were not anticipating that she was going to testify; she has always refused to testify.  Mr. Madenspacher, and again I assume at the time correctly told us he did not anticipate new people at trial other than witnesses whom we had been discussing.  The witness list includes Tabitha Buck that the Commonwealth turned over, and THREE OF HER ATTORNEYS;ONE OF WHOM, HER PRESENT ATTORNEY, PURPORTS TO BE TESTIFYING AS TO WHY SHE HAS AGREED TO TESTIFY.;AND THE TWO OTHERS ARE LISTED AS TESTIFYING TO CORROBORATE HER STORY.  And I assume that term was used loosely, because the only way they could actually corroborate her story would have been if they were in the Show condominium on the morning of the murder. But I assume they are going to testify to something but I don't know what they are going to testify to.  Yet, the motion to quash filed YESTERDAY claims attorney-client privelege.

Dalzell:  Oh, no, no, no.  You can't have it both ways.

Q.  I agree.  But the problem we have here is that--I mean, someone is being jerked around.

Dalzell: It sure sounds like it.

Q.  I don't know if it is us.  I don't know if it is them.

Dalzell: First of all, the record should reflect I have received nothing, whether by fax, telephone, hand delivery, nothing.  So this is all new to me. I had a writ prepare to bring Tabitha Buck down, and I was told it was unnecessary, just yesterday. So, who wants to address for the Commonwealth?

Madenspacher: We are under the exact impression that we are ready for the depositions of Tabitha Buck, tomorrow. (the date of this testimony is April 2nd, a Wednesday...1997)

Greenburg:  Have you received the motion to quash?

Madenspacher: No.

Totaro(Madenspacher's assistant): Your Honor, I don't know if this would shed light, but I received a call from her current attorney, Russel Pugh, yesterday evening at 10 P.M.  He was aware that she was being brought to Lancaster for a deposition.  He indicated that he had no problems going through with the deposition, that he would also be present.  He did not express any problems or concerns to me at that time with regard to her----

Dalzell:  This is 10 o'clock last night?

A.Totaro, 10 P.M. last evening, correct.  We have not received this fax-----

Greenburg:  We received this fax on April 1st, 1997.

Dalzell: Well, maybe it is moot.  Since you are going to be dealing with Yunkin this morning, (forcing him to give blood which was ruled on due to the blood on Laurie's ring) Yunkin resisted, by the way, refused to cooperate.  Dalzell ordered him to give the blood and that's what he refers to here) Mr. Greenburg, would you give a copy of that motion to quash to Mr. Totaro, which apparently the Commonwealth hasn't seen, and maybe the left hand can meet the right hand?

Madenspacher:  Like I said, the discovery-----I mean this is the first time the Court has ever had to intervene in discovery.  We always tried to work things out. 

Dalzell: And I am most grateful to you for that. 

Just a little more about Tabitha Buck and her many attorneys scrambling to use her in any way that benefits the Commonwealth.  By the way, Selene, Kenneff testified that Russsel Pugh approached him also with the offer of Tabitha's mysterious and heretofore unheard testimony, ludicrous on it's face, regardless, but only if relief were warranted.  Kenneff testified that he left that option open. Be sure to read his testimony this week when back on my new improved site.    

Interesting, isn't it, that the only testimony you can post here on Justice Junction or anywhere for that matter, is what Stengel and Fisher allow you to see?

hjj        

Here is an iInteresting footnote in Judge Brody’s (the judge who upheld Lambert’s P.C.R.A. hearing) court decision of April 1, 2003, which reads:
----------------------------------------
(Page 64)

“Lambert believes the police framed her. Part of the basis for this conspiracy theory is Lambert’s allegation that three officers of the East Lampeter Township gang-raped her on June 17, 1997. The PCRA court found that other than Lambert’s own statement, there is no proof the gang rape occurred.”

{---cut for brevity on this post---}

“Lambert’s counsel even subpoenaed Bowman’s bank records for a three month period in 1991, including a period during which the alleged gang rape took place and Bowman asserted he was honeymooning in Virginia with his wife. But at oral argument on Lambert’s motion to compel the production of these bank records, Rainville informed the court that Bowman was no longer being accused of rape.”
============================

{---"Rainville" was Lambert's attorney in front of Judge Dalzell---}

According to Judge Dalzell's illegal and moot court proceeding, Officer Bowman was undeniably guilty of gang-raping Lambert and part of the conspiracy to "frame" her.

But move forward in time to Lambert's 1998 PCRA hearing in front of Judge Stengel and *POOF!*, that allegation is dropped like a hot rock.

Anotherone4truth.....thanks for your post.  Most people who understand the corruption in Lancaster either don't live there, or are in prison themselves for crimes they did not commit. Or, even worse, never bothered to read the Federal Transcripts. When Selene states they are irrelevant, it takes your breath away. She might as well say that she never saw the films about the Halocaust, therefore it must not have happened.  It's a little disturbing. That sort of mindset. Those of us who were there in 1997, understand full well why Lisa was released. 

Lisa Lambert is by far, not the only one who has been railroaded there. Her case got the light for the search for truth shined on it.  What was discovered horrified everyone who was there for that testimony. Dalzell, contrary to what Kate and Selene would have you believe, was not biased. What would he have to gain by setting Lisa free?  What he got was the biggest smear campaign he could imagine. Why?  He threatened to expose, and did, through their own words, the way investigations are conducted in Lancaster County. It was in fact Stengel who had everything to gain by being allowed to "retry" Lisa.  He needed to get his tarnished reputation. There was nothing unbiased about allowing him to do that.  What would have been unbiased is another Judge, unfortunately, if that Judge was from Lancaster the same thing would have happened.

It's what made Lisa famous all over again.  It was terrifying for Lancaster's authorities.  

Notice how Kate and Selene have nothing to say about the switched sweatpants, the missing earring back.....I haven't even covered the 29 questions yet.  It is thoroughly covered on my website, freelisalambert.com. We should have everything back up this week. I truly hope you read what Dalzell uncovered.  It speaks to all of us.  Our right to a fair trial.  Our right to defend ourselves with evidence....the destruction of which was proven in his court, and should have been punished severely. As you know, officials rarely get punished for these crimes. It goes on everyday. 

Thanks for listening.  I'll be back tomorrow. 

hjj    

 

Gosh, fauxreal, I think you are getting your stories mixed up.  You say this here:

 

"One more thing, Kate.  You state I was talking to reporters and anyone else who would listen to me at the P.C.R.A. hearing?

That is just plain, wrong.  The reporters came to me to talk, and in addition, I told nobody I was going to be there for those hearings.  I resent your mischaracterization of me in that regard.

My website had been launched the week before the hearing, as in P.C.R.A. number two.

I was approached by a reporter from the Intell who wondered who I was.  Mark Johnson, to be exact.  He asked me if i was the woman from Calfornia who launched the website in defense of Lisa Lambert?  I said, yes, but asked how he could know that.  "Because you are the only one here we don't recognize".

 

But when you told this story before on Lancasteronline.com, it was supposedly someone from Philly who said this:

Then, a man turned to me and said "Are you the gal from California who started the website for Lisa Lambert?" "Heather Johnston?" I looked at him in amazement and said, "Well, yeah, but how could you possibly know that?" It was Rich Henson from the Philadelphia Inquirer whom I had spoken to on the phone at some time. He said, "You are the only one here nobody can identify". That seemed funny to me, but the next day was even stranger."

 

So which is it?  Or is it all fiction?

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- Edited by bobula at 01:15, 2004-10-11

Ah, Kate....well, if you testified at the Federal Hearing, and were treated horribly by the Judge, let me go to where I have your so-called testimony.  You are claiming here you realize, that you are Kathleen Harrison.  She's the only woman who testified at the Federal Hearing that had anything to do with medical personnel. 

Kathleen Allison Harrison, sworn.

By Rainville:

Q. Miss Harrison, can you tell us how you came to be at the Show condominium on December 20th?

A. I was dispatched from the Joe Meyer's restaurant on Lincoln Highway East at approximately 7:15 in the morning to 92 Black Oak Drive for an unconscious person.

Q. You are not sure about the time, that is your best recollection?

A. No, it is approximate.

Dalzell: It was about 7:15.

Q. And you followed Ken Zeyak into the apartment,is that correct?

A. Actually, I followed Zeyak and Barry Leed.

Dalzell: Were you in a different vehicle?

A. No, we were all in the same vehicle.  I had to switch equipment.

Q. Can you tell me what medical training you had as of December of 1990?

A. I had been an EMT for 15 years, I had been in nursing school for a year and a half.

Q. What, if anything, did you learn about the carotid artery in EMT training?

A. It is a major supplier of blood and oxygen to the brain.

Q. In the 15 years that you had been an EMT as of Dec. 1990, had you been occasion to take pulse on a carotid artery?

A. During CPR, yes.  That's how you establish responsiveness during CPR.

Q. And from 1977 on you volunteered about 100 to 150 days a year running with the ambulance, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And for the five years between 1977 and 1982 you also volunteered and worked on a rescue crew with the fire company?

A. Yes.

Q. And in all of your work, it was important for you to know where the carotid artery is, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You were called to the Show condominium for an unconscious person report, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q.An unconscious person to you indicates someone who is not conscious, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Someone who has no pulse, is that right?

A. (pause)  As I stated during my deposition, that is how it was dispatched, that is not necessarily what you find when you get to the scene.

Q. When you got to the scene, the police were not there yet, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q.  The only person other than Hazel Show were the two medical people on your ambulance, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. When you got into Laurie Show's bedroom, you saw a woman lying on the bed hysterical crying, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q.  You also saw at some point that the phone line had been snapped, is that right?

A.After everything had been said and done, yes.

Q. And after you left the bedroom, you saw some bloody handprints on the hallway wall, is that right?

A. I believe it was the hall leading to the front door that I saw some blood.

Q.  No one ever asked you about whether you had made any of the bloody footprints?

A.  I was asked prior to Tabitha Buck's trial.

Q.  On December 20th 1991, no one asked you?

A. Nobody asked me.

Q. And no one asked you from December 20th until the end of Miss Lambert's trial that you had made any of those footprints?

A.  No one.

Q. You are confident of that?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Now, prior to Tabitha Buck's trial you met with Detective Savage, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And he asked you about a bloody handprint on the closet door?

A. He asked me about blood on the closet door.

Q. And he used the term handprint, didn't he?

A. He asked if it was my handprint on the closet door.

Q. And you told him that you did not make that stain on the door?

A. That's correct.  I did not touch the door.

Q. And to your knowledge you told him that no one in your crew touched the closet door?

A. That's correct.

Q. As far as you know, no one in the medical crew touched the closet door?

A.  When I was in that room, that is correct.

Q. Now, when you spoke to Det. Savage prior to Tabby Buck's trial, when Det. Savage asked you about the blood stain on the closet door, he told you that it was initials written on the door by the victim, is that right?  (Laurie Show wrote the initials T and B in her own blood, and this was found by an outside invesigator, an expert in blood evidence)

A.  I do not recall the interview with Detective Savage.  (That's interesting, Kate, you seem to recall everything else so clearly)

I only recall him showing me pictures and we discussed the blood on the door and the carpet, but I don't recall him saying it was a handprint or initials. ( read a few statements up where she says, "he asked me if it was my handprint on the closet door")

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I were to show you your deposition?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. I would like to show you page 31 of your deposition, lines 1 and 2.

Dalzell: Does that refresh your recollection, Miss Harrison?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Do you recall now that Det. Savage did in fact tell you that the stain on the closet door was initials written on the door by the victim?

A.  I recall him saying that they were initials.  But as to whether I could make them out on pictures,(they're called photographs)  I could not make them out.  (not to worry, Kate, an expert in blood evidence made them out quite clearly, as you know)

Q.My question is, you recall that Savage referred to them as initials. And you recall that he referred to them as initials.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you looked at the victim, you assessed her condition, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you remember looking at her leg because there was a cut on her leg, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. What, if anything, do you remember about a telephone?

A. I don't remember any telephone in the room.

Q. There was no telephone wrapped around her leg?

A. Correct.

Q. You are confident of that?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to your deposition, you met with KEN BROWN, AN ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? 

A. Correct.

Q.  At that meeting, Mr. Brown asked you whether anyone had moved Laurie Show's body that morning, is that correct?

A.  That is correct.

Q. And when Mr. Brown asked you that, you told him no, no one moved the body?

A.  I didn't recall at that point.  I had not recalled at that point.

Q. You did tell him that as far as you knew the body had not been moved, is that right?

A. At that point I did not remember it being done.

Q. And then he showed you a report by Det. Savage, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q.  Where  OTHER ANOTHER MEDICAL PERSON HAD SAID THAT THE BODY WAS MOVED, IS THAT RIGHT? (Rainville wasn't shouting, I'm highlighting key points in Kate's testimony)

She was treated "horribly", remember? 

A. Apparently I had said the body was moved when i met Detective Savage.

Q. Do you remember saying to Det. Savage that the body was moved?

A.  I didn't remember it that day.

Q. So your only recollection of that is from the actual police reports that Mr. Brown showed you that morning?

A. Yes.

Q.Now, you looked at Laurie Show's neck wound that morning, is that right?

A. Briefly.

Q. And you saw that the left carotid artery had been totally severed.

A. Yes.

Q. I would like to show you what has been marked as P-514.  Is this the wound you saw that morning?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Can you tell from this photograph whether the carotid artery is severed?

A. Yes, you can.

Q. Could you please point out to Judge Dalzell where the carotid artery is in this photograph?

A.  Right here.

Dalzell: Thank you, Miss Harrison.  (He's treating her horribly, isn't he?!)

Q. You could also see Laurie Show's thyroid, is that right?

A. I recall seeing her esophagus and her trachea.

Q. You saw that her trachea was severed?

A. Yes.

Q. You saw that her esophagus was severed?

A. Yes.

Q. You saw that her larynx was severed?

A. There was so much blood, I couldn't really make it out clearly.

Q. When you first saw Laurie Show, she looked dead to you?

A. YES, SHE DID.

Q. You never saw her move when you were in that apartment?

A. I NEVER SAW HER MOVE.

Q. You saw no muscle twitches?

A. No.

Q.. You saw no goose bumps on her body?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. She wasn't breathing, you determined that?

A. Correct.

Q. Her wounds at the time you looked at them were no longer bleeding, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q.She had no discernible pulse?

A. No discernible pulse.

Q.  At the time you touched her, her body was lukewarm?

A. Yes.

Q. She was dead.

A. Yes.

Q. When you spoke to Det. Savage prior to Tabby Buck's trial, did you tell him that Laurie Show  was dead when you got there?

A.  (pause, no response).....I told him it looked like she was dead when we walked in the room.

Q. I am going to show you a report prepared by Det. Savage P-377 is the Petitioner's Exhibit. Detective Savage is the one you spoke to, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you recall speaking to him prior to Tabby Buck's trial, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you see this line here?  I will highlight it here for you:  "She stated that she is sure Laurie Show was alive when she initially entered".  Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. You never said that to Det. Savage, did you?

A. (pause, no response)  I did say that to him.

Dalzell: I thought you just said when you walked in that she looked dead.  (folks, meet Kate Harrison...this must be that part when she feels she was treated so "horribly', imagine that. A search for the truth.....truly horrible. She contradicts her own statements, then cries, "it's so horrible!"....

A. She looked dead. But she had moved at one point.  (oh, now she had moved. Go up a few notches to read what she first said)

That is why I thought she was still alive because she had told my partner-----because my partner had said she had moved.

Dalzell: And you said that you were sure she was alive?

A. I said she looked-----

Q. Is that what you said to Detective Savage, that you were sure she was alive?  This is very important.  Is that what you said, that you were sure she was alive?  Please, you are under oath.

A. (Pause, no response)......I can't totally recall my conversation with Detective Savage in August of 1990.  (Excuse me Kate, the murder happened in December of 1991, so your conversation happened in August of 1992) Gosh, Kate, thanks so much for revealing yourself finally after all these years, when I asked you repeatedly if you were Ms. Harrison,and you refused to answer. Finally, I understand the horror of what you saw that morning.  What's worse is the horror that Savage forced upon you.  And which you so willingly lied about. Dalzell's search for the truth, clearly here in your own words...becomes troublesome for you.

Dalzell:  So you are not sure whether you told him that you were, quote, sure, close quote, that she was alive?

A. No.

Dalzell:  O.K.

Q. And the only recollection that you have that you even might have said that is from the document I just showed you, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. You talked to Hazel Show that morning when you were in the condo, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You asked her what had happened, is that right?

A. That's correct.  When I walked in the room, Hazel was lying on the bed crying.  I said, "Ma'am, can you tell me what happened?".  Her immediate response was, "This was a setup. They lured me away.  Michelle did this."

Q.  And she never said how she knew that Michelle had done it?

A. No, she never said that.

Q. She never told you that Laurie spoke to her before she died?

A.No, she never told me that.

Read the rest of Kate Harrison's testimony from the Federal Hearing, where she claims she was treated so horribly.  Never happened.  Sorry, Kate.  Thanks for finally admitting who you are.
It only took you about 4 years to reveal that.

It's clear why, at this point.  Kate's full testimony can be read on freelisalambert.com from the first day of testimony which was Monday, March 31st, 1997.

Thank you all, and good night.  See ya tomorrow.

hjj