Fauxreal opines:  "Alvin B. Lewis, you note, was there.

He knew what was about to happen.  He knew relief for Lisa was warranted.  He also knew what he had to do to get Dalzell's decision reversed.  It took 10 months and a load of cash and clout, but now we come to this.  Even the Third Circuit is allowed to lie." 

Wow, Rainville and friends should get right on that--tell them to follow the money.  No doubt Alvin B. Lewis has invested tons of money and time in buying off the Third Circuit.  Who does that man NOT have in his pocket, and will he stop at nothing to get one innocent kept in prison? The conspiracy grows ever wider. 

You're right she didn't have a chance at a fair trial.  Trials around here are worked out ahead of time at the Hamilton Club.  /sarcasm

Do I think Lisa belongs in prison?  The logical answer is "yes" because she participated in a crime that resulted in the death of another.  What many fail to recognize is that the misconduct by prosecutors, detectives, etc. was not necessary.  The diehards would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend it never happened.

The most dangerous of the trio is now out walking the streets.  If you have young daughters, be afraid.  Be very afraid.

AND AS FOR BOBULA.........THE CONSPIRACY GROWS EVEN WIDER........

IT SURE AS HELL DOES.

WHEN THE THIRD CIRCUIT IS LYING, I WOULD SAY THAT IS PRETTY SERIOUS.

If you think there's something amusing about that obvious fact, which I am able to prove without a doubt, with the Federal Transcripts, well then........enough said.

YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLORS.

hjj 

Oh there you are, Bobula.  So, you can get into the Hamilton Club?  Well, as Mr. Rogers used to say......"Isn't that special!".

Hey and thanks for the update on Alvin B. Lewis!  Alvin B. Lewis WAS the head of the Lancaster County Crime Commission.  Now, it looks like he's got the whole freakin State in his pocket.......and you poo poo his power? I've done extensive research on Alvin B. Lewis and his all powerful wife MARILYN WARE. She's the Chairman of the Board of the largest publicly owned water company in the WORLD.  American Water Works. It may have changed names since 1998, but I doubt it. Thanks to your update on Alvin B. Lewis, this Third Circuit atrocity is making even more sense.

Now, to answer your many questions.  Perhaps I didn't make it as crystal clear as possible, because you seem confused.  There is no word "after" Laurie that is crossed out...the word LAURIE isn't even crossed out, in the original document.  I suggest you go to my site, as much as that idea is abhorrent to you, if you really want answers to your questions.

But first, I want to correct myself.  It was the "church lady" played by Dana Carvey who said, "Isn't that SPECIAL", not the late, great Mr. Rogers. 

The question Lisa asked Yunkin was : DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING LAURIE DEAD?

His answer was: YES, I REMEMBER SEEING (word crossed out) DEAD.

The Third Circuit ERRONEOUSLY claims that LAURIE'S NAME IS CROSSED OUT IN THE QUESTION PORTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.THAT IS A LIE!  Do you understand what a serious lie this is?

It was PROVEN, by experts on BOTH SIDES, Bobula, that there was no graphite, no erasures, ink or otherwise, and no tampering WHATSOEVER, both in 1992 and 1997, in Federal Court.

For you to claim, nobody writes like that.....what the hell are you talking about?  What an ignorant thing to claim. No offense, but I don't think you know how EVERYBODY writes, do you?  The experts, of whom you are not one, testified, after getting samples of both Lisa's and Yunkin's handwriting, testified that they were genuine on this document.  It's part of both State and Federal Record.  The document is real and untampered with.  At least it was before the Third Circuit got ahold of it.  It's unclear whether they read a document or read a report issued by Stengel and crew about the document.

The Third Circuit states that in both places where Laurie's name appeared, her name was crossed-out.  This is a LIE.  We at freelisalambert.com have had this document up for years.

Laurie's name is not crossed out in the question, only the answer.  Someone tampered with this document, but more likely, The Third Circuit mistakenly figured they could lie about it, or not bother to read the transcripts which discuss in detail that relevant question.

It's extremely serious. 

The only place anywhere on the internet that you will find the original document called the "29 questions", is on freelisalambert.com. 

Now, you seem interested in knowing who Tressa is?  Good question, Bobula, and I'm glad you asked.  First, let me say, that I love Lancaster.  I fell in love with that place the first time I went there.  It's historic, it's beautiful.....the architecture varied and elaborate. The people, aside from those in power, are friendly, hard-working, funny as hell, intelligent, and sick and tired of being railroaded, overtaxed, not allowed to speak at public-issue meetings.....and they are truly disturbed by all the missing/murdered women and children.  I found your response to my posting about the incredible number of posters of lost and missing children to be chillingly bereft of any feeling or concern whatsoever.

When I related the unforgettable moment I had with that 13 year-old girl about those posters, you shockingly called her something to the effect, "a soda-sipping youth".  Honey, you would fit right in at the Courthouse. I truly hope you keep posting here. You are defining exactly the kind of attitude which drew me closer to the citizens of Lancaster, not in power but paying the salaries of those which they are getting screwed by; the ones that aren't admitted into the Hamilton Club.  I see that you proudly are a member.  Thanks for bragging about it. 

About Lisa's assumption that she was having Twins.  Not that this has anything to do with her guilt or innocence.  But I truly want you to know Bobula, that I am nothing, if not, totally and completely familiar with all aspects of the Lambert case.  And the Christy Mirack case, and I know about Dr. Walp, the coroner and all the obituaries I read when I lived there.  They haunt me to this day. So many of them would go like this: "Linda Hess, aged 20, died unexpectedly at home (insert date here) of natural causes.

So, before we get the the twins Lisa thought she was having.  Who was Tressa?  Not that this would elicit any sympathy from you, Bobula, but Tressa was the girlfriend of a friend of Yunkin's. She was being beaten by this guy, just like Lisa.  She was going to leave him and check into the women's shelter in Lancaster.  He couldn't have that, of course, it might ruin his reputation.  So, the boyfriend, name unknown, gave Tressa a "hot shot" of cocaine. She died within minutes.  Was he ever charged? No. If not for Lisa's testimony or questions to Lawrence, nobody would have been the wiser about her.  No investigation was conducted, no suspects, including her boyfriend, were ever charged. She was, as you so aptly and coldly put it, she was "kicked to the curb".  I don't think you understand how much your language reveals about you, Bobula.  Trust me, I remember it well. That description of events devoid of any human emotion. Events involving pain and suffering but described by people like you as if they happened to people you couldn't care less about. And, you don't.  You know, us peons that can't get into the Hamilton Club. Oh, do keep posting, because one thing's for sure. You and I were meant to communicate. And, boy can I handle it. You've never made one comment about my mention of the Mennonite Mafia. They don't care about much of anything except hangin with their kind. Missing women?  Oh, isn't that a shame, said over a martini over at the Hamilton Club. Mostly it's all about which spa you went to that week, which jaunt you made to the Virgin Islands, what outfits you bought at the Bon Ton, or better yet, on your latest shopping trip to Georgetown or New York.

You don't even care about Laurie Show, let's face it.  What you care about is protecting your own.  Like Alvin B. Lewis, like Donald Totaro, like Charlie Smithgall, the list is endless......they don't give a rat's ass about who gets punished as long as it's not one of their own.  Oh, but how you love to hate Lisa Lambert.  Wow, it's like a disease in that town. Her beauty you despise. Her vulnerability you ate for lunch. Her reputation, portrayed by the newspapers never failed to amaze me in it's zealousness.  And yet, not a word about the violent Lawrence Yunkin. And of course, since Tabitha was ordered to not say a word, there was nothing in the papers about her. 

It was all about Lisa Lambert.  The one with no blood on her clothes.  The one who never in a million years would have worn Yunkin's clothing.  In fact, the papers contradicted themselves in so many ways with their articles about her short skirts and makeup, living out of wedlock in a trailer....the only word they never used didn't have to be used. Slut. Anyway, you asked about the Twins, Bobula.  Why, I don't know.  Another feeble attempt to make Lisa out to be a liar. Do you never tire of hating her and defending Yunkin? He's looking for a date, Bobula.  I know how wild you Mennonite women really are.....boy do I.

Here is some of Lisa's testimony from the Federal Hearing.  You know, the one they wish had never happened.  I have never been more glad that I spent the money and time to get them and post them.  They are becoming so much more relevant as this case reveals so much deception.  And in such high places. 

Here Lisa's attorneys are reading Yunkin's letters to Lisa while she and he are both in prison, she still wanting to believe she should cover for him, he still twisting the knife after he stabbed her in the back, just like he slit Laurie's throat. 

I will come back with that post.  I realize these long ones are a little tiring on the eyes.

Thanks so much for your attention to this most important matter of LIES by our second to the highest State Court system.

hjj     

Oh, Bobula....you ask such good questions!  On the day Lambert was released by Judge Stewart Dalzell.....and this was after weeks of testimony which proved the massive misconduct in that case.......Lancaster was already shaking in it's boots.  There were reporters there from all over the country at that point.  The story hit the front page of the Los Angeles Times, for crying out loud. That's how I learned about it. 

Her actual innocence paved the way for the biggest Civil Suit to ever hit Lancaster County.

Should Lisa ever be re-released, she could bankrupt that County.  Do you honestly think her case is unique there?  HELL NO! 

Rainville was inundated with other requests by countless others who had been wrongfully convicted.  If the Lambert case was so un-important, as you suggest, why would Alvin B. Lewis be hired to defend the County?

Your mention of the Kennedy family is pertinent here.  Do you know why we still don't know who really killed John F. Kennedy?  Alvin B. Lewis and Richard Sprague.  They were both the head of the House Select Committe to investigate both assasinations.  Martin Luther King Jr. and J.F.K.  After those two came on board, witnesses began to disappear.  Many were found dead right before they were going to testify.

The Lambert case was never anticipated to be a problem for Lancaster.  Judge Dalzell opened the Pandora's box.  He had no idea what was to become a hearing that exposed the "worst case of prosecutorial misconduct in the English speaking world".  But it did. 

Keeping Lambert in prison means keeping a lid on corruption that is perhaps the worst in the country as far as convictions are concerned.

As for the Mennonite Mafia.  It's not just the secretarys down there, Bobula.

Stengel is a Mennonite.  Most of the Judges are Mennonite.  Most everyone in power in Lancaster is a Mennonite.

Alvin B.?  And his wife, former wife, Marilyn Ware, who never used Lewis in her name, EVER, while I lived there, well, I think he might be, who knows.  I do want to thank you for keeping me up to speed on his new even more powerful position as head of the whole state of Pennsylvania's Crime Commision.

Good Lord.  I doubt we'll be seeing any solved bank robberies in Lancaster anytime soon.

Enough said there.

hjj    

Hey there Bobula, I stand corrected about Stengel.  I was given the wrong information about him.  I lived in Lancaster from 1998 to 2000.  There were different Judges at that time.

Since you say Marilyn Ware-Lewis took her maiden name back and left her ex-husband's off, that would explain why I never read any articles about her which referred to her as Ware-Lewis.

I never meant that all the Judges in Lancaster are Mennonites.  I do know that they are a powerful voice in the Judiciary there. And the Courthouse in general. You've provided information that is valuable.  

I appreciate all the research you have done, so thank you for that.  As for my credibility, I pride myself on the knowledge and research I have done in the Lambert case.  If I am wrong about how many Judges are actually Mennonites, I concede to that. You know a lot more about what's going on there now, certainly than I do.  I'm not worried about being sued by anybody in Lancaster, so please, let's put that one to bed, shall we?  You've made your point, and it is acknowledged.

Now, back to the Lambert saga.  You inquired about the statement taken from Lisa Lambert by detective Solt during which Renee Schuler was present for part of it.  Here's a portion of that testimony he gave concerning what Lisa was wearing on the morning of December 20th,1991. I think it began after midnight so it was actually, as you stated, December 21st,1991, technically.

You were wondering, if I remember correctly, whose handwriting was added at the end of the statement?  It was detective Solt's.

It is important to note that in the beginning of her statement, Solt wrote, then typed later what Lisa said she was wearing which was:  Purple stretch pants, a Bart Simpson t-shirt, white sneakers, and black socks and a black leather jacket. Barley's testimony taken from his statement when he interviewed Yunkin describes the same clothing as I stated above.

This portion of Solt's statement under questioning by Ms. Rainville is most interesting.

Q. Detective, if you would turn to page 7 of the statement, you can either use the statement or the screen, now. The last answer that Lisa supposedly gave is: "The reason I was so scared, when I walked out I had different shoes, socks, a red flannel shirt and black sweatpants"

Bobula, can you see how completely ridiculous this is?  We are now supposed to believe that Lisa Lambert murdered Laurie Show, then changed clothes before walking out of the condo?

Q. When you heard Miss Lambert say that, Detective, you had no idea what the point of that sentence was, correct?

A. No.

Q.And at that point your testimony has been that you were just writing and she was just talking, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't even think at that time, is your recollection, that what she said here about her clothing was different than what she had said previously in her statement, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you didn't think at the time, according to your testimony, that it was difficult to understand this sentence that I read, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. It essentially doesn't make sense, correct?

A. I don't know what context you are talking in.

Dalzell: Well, here is what she is getting at.  At the end of the statement she says she is wearing radically different clothes than what you took down at the beginning of the statement.

A. As it continues on, I think it, to me, makes sense-----the reason she was so scared, she is talking about Tabby having blood on her hands as she continues on.

Q. I thought you said reading it today you have no belief what it means.

A. I am confused.

Dalzell: You are under Oath.  I really want you to tell the truth. If you don't tell the truth, you understand that is perjury, don't you?

A. I understand, sir.

Q. Do you want me to read you your deposition answer?

A. Fine.

Q. "As you sit here today and read that sentence, can you understand what it means?"

Your answer: "As I sit here today I'm going to say No."  This is your testimony, isn't it?

A. That is what I said, Yes.

Dalzell: Is that your testimony today?

A. I think as you read it in totality, it does make sense on what is going on. She is explaining why she was scared.

Q. You didn't tell me that at your depositon.

A. I said, as I sat there and read it then it didn't.

Q. You asked no follow-up questions after she made this alleged statement, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Even though is was totally inconsistent with two prior statements that you recorded that evening concerning what Lisa said she was wearing, correct?

A. That would be correct.

Q. There came a time when you had Lisa Lambert sign the statement?

A. Yes

Q. And you were present at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And it is your testimony that you asked her to sign across each page, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had her use a red pen, correct?

A. Yes.

Q.And your explanation for that is that you always use a pen contrasting with the ink you were using if such a pen was available.

A. Correct.

Q. And your reason for doing that, you told me, is that it is very obvious to a jury that the statement was signed if it happens to be in a contrasting color, correct? You don't remember that the red pen you gave Lisa to sign with was a felt-tipped pen, do you?

A. No.

Q. You can't remember any other situation in which you used a felt-tipped pen for the signing of a statement?

A. That's correct.

Q. The truth is, Detective, that you had to use a red felt pen because you knew that it would impossible to detect later whether the signature was written on top of or underneath the statement, didn't you?

A. No, sir.

Q. The truth is, Detective, that you started the handwriting on page 6, with some innocuous questions that are typically in a form about whether she was treated well or had anything to eat, so you could continue on on the next page and then have Lisa sign a page that was largely blank, didn't you?

So much for Solt's so-called statement.

hjj      

OEJ.....hey there, I've been missing you!  My friend Orville had some very nice things to say about you the other day.  He called you intelligent and very nice.  I agreed heartily.  Just thought I'd pass that along.  Actually, he said, "very intelligent".

I am so very impressed that you made it through Charles Larson's testimony.  It was detailed and lengthy and yes, most definitely proves that Laurie Show could not have spoken. She was bleeding profusely from the back and neck for over 12 minutes, maybe up to 15, depending on which report you read. The main relevant fact lies within the major arteries that were all severed, the vagus nerve, carotid, all the way to the hyoid bone. I was there the day he testified at the 1998 P.C.R.A. hearing and Stengel just looked bored and alternately irritated. Michael Baden testified as well and made it very clear that Hazel's testimony about "cradling" Laurie,which by the way, she never told anyone about until Savage convinced her two weeks later, to say that, could never have made the severed cords simply go back together making Laurie's speech possible. Baden testified that these cords in the head and neck are like thin baloons once the blood is gone, which it was by the time Hazel arrived, and cannot just reconnect themselves as she suggested with her "cradling" theory.

Larson's testimony and Baden's testimony, coupled with the fact that Hazel Show never told anyone on the scene that day or for the next week or more, that her daughter ever spoke to her, telling her who killed her, proves, without a doubt that it never happened.  Hazel's hatred for Lisa Lambert was no doubt intense, but what is truly sad is that man who killed her daughter, Lawrence Yunkin, had also brutally raped her daughter, and had the true motive to keep her quiet.  Which he effectively did. Hazel Show lost all credibility when she changed her story in 1998, one year after her dramatic insistence on telling the truth, even stopping the proceedings to do so.  She has known all along that Yunkin lied about everything. She found his earring on her floor, something investigators should have seen the first day.  They didn't even bother to collect hair samples, and you know full well, as anyone would, that in her struggle with Yunkin, surely she managed to pull out more than a few hairs as she yanked that earring out of his ear. No doubt, he was behind her, ready to draw the knife across her throat when she reached up in a vain attempt to stop him, pulling out the earring in the process. That's in fact why the earring BACK was found in her hair during the autopsy.  That also was never produced at trial, and disappeared from the evidence room which Renne Schuler was in charge of.

What is amazing to me at this point in time is the outrageous number of absolute lies are in the Third Circuit Court's latest opinion. It's truly shocking that Judges of that stature think nothing obviously of making major false statements while professing to have examined the evidence in great detail. It's totally insane that they should be able to get away with this. 

Here's a little something I found today which is on my site but which I will post here because it further incriminates Lawrence Yunkin.

This is from the 3rd day April 2nd 1997 at the Habeus Hearing:

Dalzell: Before we resume our testimony this morning, I would like to address a matter of importance to the Court and to the parties.

We received on Monday a motion for sanctions from the petitioner regarding the blood sample of Lawrence Yunkin and the DNA found on Laurie Show's ring. (both Yunkin and Buck had extensive scratches on their faces, Lisa had none)

We had afforded the Commonwealth the opportunity to respond to that motion. We had hoped to receive it before Court, and we have not received it in writing. So, what I would like to do because the matter is of such, transcended importance to what we are dealing with here, that I will afford the Commonwealth the opportunity to respond to what the Court has found to be the exceedingly disquieting statements in Miss Rainville's affadavit.

Madenspacher: Thank You, Your Honor. I do have the written response. I understood the Court wanted it by today.

Dalzell: Why don't you respond, if you will, because I think we need to take some action right away. And the reason I am anxious to hear from you is because I know you take your obligations under Rule of Professional Responsibility very seriously and you have done so. At least so far as I have seen here.

Madenspacher: Regarding this thing regarding the DNA, Your Honor, the Court recalls in the original order the Commonwealth was to arrange to have the ring sent to Cellmark for testing for possible DNA samples.  We did that. We took the ring, packaged it up, sent it down to Cellmark, we paid for the analysis and we got the results back that there was sufficient DNA material from the blood on that ring for comparisons. A copy of that report went to the police a copy went to me and a copy went to Miss Rainville.

And I think the very date that we got the report, if not the day afterwards, Miss Rainville and I were in discussion as to what we were going to do regarding this. And at that particular time the question came up to get the blood of Lawrence Yunkin to have it for comparison.

At that time I said I would see---I will find out where he is and I will try and make some sort of contact with the state prison.

Well, he's in the State Correctional Institution in Dallas, PA., and I had a member of my office call up there to get a contact person and to find out what procedures would be necessary to have the blood drawn. I thought this was a relatively routine type of matter.

Dalzell: Yes, the stipulation and the order from February 29th and I approved it. (so, that's a full month the Commonwealth had to get the blood)

Madenspacher: That is correct. Since then, it has always been my position that Yunkin should give blood.  The problem started to develop, when Miss Rainville's firm contacted the prison. Finally we thought we had the date that was all going to be set to draw the blood, there was a witness from Rainville's firm to be present.

Then it came up that now, that he was refusing to have......

Dalzell: Yunkin was resisting.  (gosh if he was never in the condo, what's the problem?)

Madenspacher: Correct.

Dalzell: So therefore we agreed it would be done against his will.

Madenspacher: Correct. I sent a memo to Ms. Rainville on February 25th 1997.

Rainville: We never got a copy of it.

Madenspacher: It is a query. What if Yunkin refuses? I thought that was always a problem.

(if Madenspacher always thought it was a problem, then he obviously always thought Yunkin was guilty. There's no reason not to give blood if you're innocent)

And I explained to her that people in prison for 10 to 20 years, (more like 8 as it turned out)

oftentimes aren't really afraid of the contempt power of the Court, and that is something that should be taken into account. But, we did get the hold-down order at that point. And, again I consented to that. Then, for some unknown reason, I have not been in contact with the prison. The prison is really out of my hands. I have no control over what the state prison system does.

Dalzell: Well, except, Mr. Madenspacher----I understand you are saying that to me in good faith.  But I have to interrupt you there, because you are representing the Commonwealth here as well as the District Attorney's office.

Madenspacher: That is correct, Your Honor.

Dalzell: And the Commonwealth, the record will reflect, has itself appeared through the Attorney General's office in this very proceeding, but it has been content to let you defend the Commonwealth's fortunes here.

What I found exceedingly disturbing was the prepostorous notion that---attributed to Dan Perlman of the Chief Counsel's Office of the Dept. of Corrections , who seems to take the position that the DOC is some seperate juridicial entity as though it is not part of the Commonwealth of PA, as though it is not subject to the authority of the Attorney General, which you and I both know is simply untenable as a position.

Mr. Madenspacher, I don't hold you responsible for that, I want the record to be clear there, I used to be a lawyer too. We can't always choose our clients. And your client has not helped you here. It didn't escape my attention that you were able without my intervention to get Tabitha Buck into Lancaster tomorrow. So I assume that same power would permit you to get Lawrence Yunkin in Lancaster tomorrow for a blood test. And he will submit to a blood test.

Now, if Mr. Perlman and others in the DOC insist on taking the position that he took in Miss Rainville's affadavit I will have no choice under Rule 37 but to make a preclusive finding that is the appropriate sanction here. But it is such a matter of transcended materiality to this case that I would only make that preclusive finding as a last result if the Commonwealth forces me into that position.

I can't imagine a graver evidentiary issue before me at this point.  It is just so obvious. 

Mr. Totaro can use my chambers, to make arrangements with Mr. Perlman, to get Yunkin to Lancaster, wherever Tabitha Buck is going to be, to have the blood taken.

It will take about two weeks to cook the DNA, right?

Rainville: Well, actually, Cellmark, as a favor to me, I pleaded and begged them, their normal processing time is over a month. And they said, "We'll try, but we can't promise two weeks",and that was really a stretch for them.

Dalzell: I appreciate that. They can't repeal the laws of chemistry and physics,that is how you do DNA testing.  So, if we get the blood tomorrow, two weeks from then we are still on trial.

If we get the blood tomorrow, I will not adjourn this phase until I get that evidence.  I can't think of anything more important that I am going to hear than that.

Now, Mr. Madenspacher , you can tell your colleague that if the CW does not produce the body of Yunkin for blood sampling, that the Judge will make a finding that the blood on the ring was Yunkin's. And I know you don't want me to do that.

Madenspacher:  I will make every effort to do that.

Dalzell: So with that, I will direct the CW to produce the body of Lawrence Yunkin for taking of a blood sample, even against his will tomorrow, at a site that Mr. Madenspacher and Miss Rainville will agree upon. Fair enough?

Miss Rainville: Fair enough. Thank you Your Honor.

We have another matter, unfortunately.  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.  Based on, among other things, the fact she is in prison beyond the hundred-mile subpoena power, which strikes me as peculiar argument since she is in custody and by it's terms they refuse to produce her for trial. We had subpoenaed her for April 3rd deposition. 

I'm sorry that went on so long, but I thought you might find it interesting.  Tabitha did in fact give her deposition, but her attorney, quickly after, issued a letter explaining that she gave perjured testimony and he would not allow her to testify.

I don't know if Yunkin ever gave blood or not.  I'm going to look through this mountain of transcripts, It's about two feet high on the floor below me, but I honestly cannot recall reading anymore about it.  The fact that he refused to give blood pretty much sums it up.

The prosecution's star witness indeed.  And how about the Department of Corrections even refusing to give him up?

Hey Bobula, go ahead and attack my credibility on those all important matters like how Marilyn Lewis Ware does or does not hyphenate her name. If I got it wrong how many Judges in 1998 were Mennonite and whether Stengel is or not.....knock yourself out.  I think the credibility of those who chose to protect the real killer of Laurie Show, not to mention the credibility of the 3rd Circuit Court which I've already caught and proven have made 2 (and there's more) major falsifications of MAJOR FACTS is a little more relevant.

Good for Marilyn Ware that she dumped that Sleeze ex-husband of hers.  Can you tell me, with your excellent research, just what year old Alvin B. Lewis became the Head of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission?  Perhaps he had a hand in convincing Mr. Perlman, head of the DOC in keeping, or attempting to keep Yunkin from giving blood.  Just a thought. 

hjj      

OEJ and Anotheronefortruth......you ask such GOOD QUESTIONS!  You gals are really smart!

OEJ, I am totally impressed with the way you distilled that day long testimony into a few paragraphs that are the essence of what he testified to. I wish you could have been there while Stengel sat in his cushy chair barely paying attention. It was not that way in Dalzell's courtroom the year before. As you can see by the amount of questions Dalzell asked himself, he wanted to know the truth, and in the end, he found it. 

Anotherone4truth......You are right about Yunkin giving blood at the custody hearing, the paternity hearing, I believe came later. The custody hearing,  I believe was held in 1994 or 1996.  I read those trancripts in Rainville's office in 1998, when I first moved to Lancaster.

I flew into Philly, and checked into a hotel after asking her if I could just read the transcripts from Lisa's original so-called trial in 1992.  She and her staff were most gracious and said I could read anything I want involving Lisa's case. At that point, It had all been produced at the Habeus Hearing, and was part of the public record.

She brought out into the room about 10 full boxes of transcripts, police reports, photographs; it was nothing less than astounding how much information is involved in this case. And the money, taxpayers money, that has been spent keeping Lisa in prison and protecting Yunkin, because that is the position prosecutors chose to take in the beginning, bargaining with a murdering liar, and they have had to protect that position all the way.

I spent 3 solid 8 hour days reading these transcripts.  It was then I came upon the custody hearing.  Lisa's family all testified, as did Jackie Yunkin.  The Yunkin's wanted visitation rights to Kirsten, Lisa's daughter, claiming Yunkin was the father.  They kept delaying the Judge's orders to get a blood sample from Yunkin. This fact came out when Lisa's mother Judy Lambert, gave testimony saying that they had requested time and time again for proof of paternity from Yunkin by analyzing his blood, but he had refused even then. 

Kirsten's blood had already been drawn.  As for Yunkin's biological father.  That is the million dollar question.  I hadn't known, until I read those transcripts, that Yunkin was adopted. There was almost nothing in the papers about Yunkin during the weeks and months after Laurie's murder.  Lisa, however was in the papers every single day, practically, and her life, both facts and fallacy became the talk of the town....

At any rate, in these custody transcripts, I got to the part where Jackie Yunkin testifies as to why she thinks she should have partial custody of Kirsten.  Wow.  That woman is a pistol just waiting to go off.  Talk about a short fuse.  I wish I could remember the Judge's name...I believe it was Hummer. Lambert's attorney asked Jackie at one point, if Yunkin was adopted.

She said yes.  The next question was: Who is Yunkin's biological father?  She didn't get far with her answer, and here's what happened.

Jackie said the following words: Lawrence Yunkin's biological father is Lawrence.......

At which point the Judge said and loudly according to the courtreporter...."STOP RIGHT THERE!"....and Jackie didn't utter another word to that question.   The Judge continued talking though.

"YUNKIN'S BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS NOT AT ISSUE HERE AND YOU WILL STOP THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING IMMEDIATELY".....

Boy did that just jump out at you while reading those transcripts.  So, we know Yunkin was named after his real dad, but his true identity is something the Judge clearly did not want on record.  I asked Lisa about this and she said, "Jackie Yunkin won't tell anybody who Lawrence's real father is, and it's the deep dark secret of the family, and always has been"  Apparently not even Lawrence knows who his real dad is. In her book Overkill, Lyn Riddle had an interview with Jackie who said when asked the following.

Lawrence Yunkin's biological father saw him on the day he was born in Coatesville, PA. March 12, 1971 and a few times after. The twenty-five year old steelworker wasn't ready for a family, not even the blue-eyed boy with hair so blond it hardly looked like it was there. He had married the boy's mother Johnie Mae Haines when he was twenty two and she was eighteen.

I should point out that Lyn Riddle's book is full of both facts and lies.  It is selective to an extraordinary degree with regard to trial testimony.

Now, back to the custody hearing transcripts.  Naturally, when I read how the Judge stopped Jackie from saying Yunkin's biological father's last name, I eagerly read the rest of the testimony. 

Lisa's mother went into great detail about how she had let the Yunkin's have supervised visits with Kirsten at a local playyard that was privately owned and enclosed behind a fence. She related how, when Jackie kept insisting that Judy Lambert let them have her on weekends, unsupervised, and Judy Lambert refused, Jackie would pound her fist on the picnic table where they both sat and yelled "Well then we'll take you to court, damnit!".....Kirsten was absolutely terrified of Jackie Yunkin and eventually began to cry uncontrollably when it came time for another horrid "visit" with the Yunkins.

Judy Lambert and Leonard, her husband had sole custody of Kirsten, and were not required to let the Yunkins visits at all.  As Jackie became more incensed, and Kirsten terrified of her, the visits stopped.  Soon, the Yunkins filed the lawsuit aiming for custody of Kirsten.  The lost the case. At the end of the hearing, the Judge issued a ruling.  The Yunkins are not allowed anywhere near Kirsten for the rest of her life. Yunkin was not ruled out as the father, but it was sketchy on the paternity issue because he kept refusing to give blood.  Much like he did in the segment I posted above.  The sample he gave at that was destroyed before the Habeus Hearing.  Obviously, Weaver and Bowman have always steadfastly refused to give samples of any kind so outraged that they would even be thought of as rapists.  Yeah, right. 

The most shocking part of Judy Lambert's testimony at this hearing was how she described Yunkin's brutal treatment of Lisa and his penchant for "little girls". If you read the 29 questions, in fact, in one of them Lisa asks him: "Have you ever cheated on me, except for all the little girls?".  Lawrence Yunkin is a child molester. He has never been convicted of this, but Lisa and others have testified watching him pull down his pants and fondle girls as young as 11 years old.  One girl he gave a ribbon to and made her tie it around his erect penis. Once Lisa was no longer afraid of Yunkin, and far beyond his spell, she felt safe to describe what life with him was really like.

The Judge took all this into account and listened carefully.  While Jackie was on the stand, she brought cancelled checks in as evidence that Lawrence was making "child support" payments from his prison account to Lisa's parents, in an effort to make it look like he was a caring father who loved this girl.  Lisa's mother pointed out that the checks did not begin coming until after the Yunkin's filed for custody.  Lisa reminded the Judge that Lawrence's parents had wanted her to get an abortion, even offering to pay for it.  This was in the beginning of her pregnancy.  The few checks Lawrence sent, came from money his parents had sent him in prison.  Yunkin's parents even sent Lisa checks in prison the first few weeks she was incarcerated after Laurie's murder, until Kenneff told them to stop. At Yunkin's attorney's insistence.

So, who is Yunkin's biological father?  Maybe Bobula can check that out for us. 

It's definitely a very important clue.  And without a doubt, a well-kept secret. 

I took Savage's testimony, he was the last witness, and Alvin B. had coached him well, to bed with me last night.  In it, is some very disturbing and relevant facts about another sweet young girl who was murdered one year and day after Laurie Show. 

Christy Mirack.

I'll be back in a bit with that testimony.  It's really interesting and very informative.

The Lisa Lambert case is about so much more than most people know. 

Savage, Bowman, Weaver, Kenneff, Schuler, Chief Glick, these guys are not just bumbling rinky-dink hayseed investigators.  It's a little more serious than that, I'm afraid.  

hjj