Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Sarah » Tue May 15, 2012 1:28 am

We would like to send out a press release on this case.

One thing we need help with to get it started is to compile media contacts. This is a Nevada case so we need email addresses for the major Nevada TV and Newspapers. We also need the contacts for anyone who has written about this case in the past. We also need the address for Nevada representatives.

Please help compile this contact list. Just add contacts to this thread.

If you have any ideas for a press release post them here also.

Thanks
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Tue May 15, 2012 8:13 am

Stephen Jackson (sjackson@8newsnow.com) has written about this case in the past. He has been very helpful in the past, and has given his notice at the station to persue his law degree. He may be able to supply you with some more names and email address. Also Colleen McCarty has done several on air stories about the case. cmccarty@8NewsNOW.com

Geoff Dornan has featured stories on prison and parole issues. gdornan@nevadaappeal.com

Anjeanette Damon works for the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, and channel 4. adamon@mynews4.com

John L Smith works for the Las Vegas Review Journal. John L. Smith
smith@reviewjournal.com
Phone: (702) 383-0295

Also
Carri Geer Thevenot, Reporter: courts
CGeer@reviewjournal.com
Phone: (702) 384-8710

Channel 13 Action news
Programming (Local, Syndicated, ABC Network) - Roselia Hernandez rhernandez@ktnv.com

Fox News
Craig Huber, Web Managing Editor craig.huber@kvvu.com

Jason R. Latham, Assistant News Director jlatham@kvvu.com

And last but not least, here's a list of all the television stations in Nevada.

3
(2) KSNV City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Sunbelt Communications
Web Site: http://www.mynews3.com/
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 27.7 kW
Subchannels: 3.1 KVBC/NBC, 3.2 Untamed Sports, 3.3 Antenna TV

5
(9) KVVU ID: "FOX 5"
City: Henderson, NV
Owner: Meredith Corporation
Web Site: http://www.fox5vegas.com/
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 86 kW
Subchannels: 5.1 KVVU/FOX, 5.2 Weather

8
(7) KLAS City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Landmark Communications
Web Site: http://www.lasvegasnow.com/
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 30.1 kW
Subchannels: 8.1 KLAS/CBS, 8.2 LATV

10
(11) KLVX ID: "Vegas PBS"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Clark County School District
Web Site: http://www.klvx.org/
Station Info: Digital Educational Full-Power - 105 kW
Subchannels: 10.1 KLVX/PBS HD, 10.2 KLVX/PBS, 10.3 Create

13 KTNV ID: "Action News"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Journal Communications
Web Site: http://www.ktnv.com/
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 30.5 kW
Subchannels: 13.1 KTNV/ABC, 13.2 Mexicanal

15
(16) KINC City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Entravision Communications
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 1000 kW
Subchannels: 15.1 KINC/Univision, 15.2 Telefutura

17 KEEN-CA TLN ID: "KEEN 17"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Total Living Network
Web Site: http://www.tln.com/
Station Info: Class-A - 145 kW

19 KHDF-CA City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Una Vez Mas
Station Info: Class-A - 150 kW

21
(22) KVMY ID: "MY LVTV"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Sinclair Broadcast Group
Web Site: http://www.mylvtv.com/
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 630 kW
Subchannels: 21.1 KVMY/My Network TV, 21.2 Estrella TV

25 KTUD-CA Independent ID: "Vegas TV"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Greenspun Broadcasting
Web Site: http://www.vegastv.com/
Station Info: Class-A - 150 kW
Subchannels: 25.1 KTUD HD, 25.2 KTUD SD

26 KBBB-LD Off the Air City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Telecom Wireless, LLC
Station Info: Digital Low-Power - 10 kW
Subchannels: 26.1 KBBB

27 KELV-LP City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Entravision
Station Info: Low-Power - 43 kW

30 KEGS-LP Independent City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Mako Communications
Station Info: Low-Power - 150 kW

31 KNBX-CA Independent City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Mako Communications
Station Info: Class-A - 1.33 kW

32 KMCC Vasallovision City: Laughlin, NV
Owner: Cranston Acquisition
Station Info: Digital Full-Power
Subchannels: 32.1 Vasallovision (Spanish)

33
(29) KVCW ID: "CW Las Vegas"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Sinclair Broadcast Group
Web Site: http://www.thecwlasvegas.tv/
Station Info: Digital Full-Power - 1000 kW
Subchannels: 33.1 KVCW, 33.2

35 KVTE-LP Local Programming ID: "Vegas 35"
City: Las Vegas, NV
Owner: Mountain Ridge Holdings
Station Info: Low-Power - 150 kW
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Thu May 17, 2012 2:18 pm

This is a great list Yem. Philip said he would start writing the PR.

I'm excited for the forum to take action on this case. I really hope we can help and can bring more attention to the case.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Thu May 17, 2012 3:14 pm

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

I am sure that with our combined efforts, we can bring more attention to Kirstin's case.

The recent filing by the Justice Institute highlights what we are facing, and I think it's a great media hook, but I'm not a marketing person so with that caveat,

Shouldn't it be newsworthy and catch peoples attention that the Nevada Supreme Court isn't even following their own rules? That they deny Amicus status to organizations not on rule of law or legal precendent, but on some law professors opinion in some dusty legal tome buried in a law library?

I think it's important. Do you think other people will feel the same way?
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Thu May 17, 2012 3:25 pm

Yes, it will have to be explained easily though.

Did I read that Kirstin has had the same judge for everything? I think that is a rather big deal imo.

If Amanda Knox had to face judge Massei again for her appeal there is no way she would have gained freedom.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Thu May 17, 2012 5:04 pm

Phil Mause just emailed me and he doesn't think it a good idea for now. I'm certainly not the expert on the best way to do these types of things, so I bow to his expertise.

Yes, Nevada law is written so that you keep going back to the same judge for district court. the Supreme court is different, it's a three judge panel, and not always the same three.
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Merlinovich » Sun May 27, 2012 2:01 pm

Sarah wrote:Yes, it will have to be explained easily though.

Did I read that Kirstin has had the same judge for everything? I think that is a rather big deal imo.

If Amanda Knox had to face judge Massei again for her appeal there is no way she would have gained freedom.


I had a good thorough read of the 365 pages "writ of habeus corpus" that was filed in May 5, 2010 and I must say that the (Justice Institute?) author(s) have made quite a substancial extra work of additional reasons that Kirstin Blaise Lobato is totally innocent.
See http://justicedenied.org/lobato_habeas.pdf. However the evidence (and lack of it) from both trials to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt, should have been more than sufficient for both the first and second trial, to prove innocence, not just to get an acquittal "beyond reasonable doubt".

Commenting on the judge Vega which resided on both the first and second trial, certainly committed some more errors as a judge in the second trial that would have had some influence to Blaise's ability to prove her innocence. And Blaise did have to prove her innocence. There was actually no proper instructions to the jury of the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" concept, and the prosecutors were allowed to fabricate several different definitions of that concept during presentations. Massei made the disgrace of affirming that "it must have been blood" about the infamous "bloody footprints", when the presumptive luminol test was, but the confirmatory test was negative, the end conclusion is simply - it is not blood! Massei did this in the motivation report of the Amanda/Raffaele first trial even against the testimony of Stefanoni who said correctly that it was therefore not blood, inventing (false) evidence right on the spot. In the Blaise case the same thing happened, the prosecution argued that since the two presumptive tests for blood in Blaise' car were positive for blood, it didn't matter that the confirmatory test for blood was negative. It also didn't matter that the victim's DNA was not found in this supposed blood, which is another confirmation it was not blood from the victim.

The above document reasons on 79 grounds why Blaise is being held unlawfully, or in other words why there was a miscarriage of justice. These are meticulously argued in the 365 pages, quite a monumental task on pro bono basis as far as I understand. Many expert witnesses have submitted evaluations on a pro bono basis.

Among interesting facts I found:
1. There was semen in the victim's rectum, which according to prosecution had been severed by Blaise with her pocket knife. I wonder how Blaise managed to introduce the semen?
2. The blood spatter analysis showed that the victim could not have been hit with a baseball bat that Blaise had in her car for protection, because the highest blood spatting was 15 inches high, consistent with the victim was lying down when it happened.
3. The bloody footprints leading away from the crime scene, which were size 9 (Blaise if size 7, and US male size 9 corresponds to female size 10), it was argued by the prosecution, could well have been made by somebody else unrelated to the murder. However, 2 new footprints were found on the cardboard the victim was lying on, which had been made with no blood on the shoe, and would therefore have to be made before the murder, so this makes it very unlikely that the footprints with blood on them leading away from the murder with the victim's blood on, could made by an innocent person. The 2 first shoeprints were later partly covered in blood. That makes it all but impossible that they had nothing to do with the crime, but the prosecution argued without being contested by the defense, that the latter bloody footprints might have been put by someone unrelated to the murder.
4. The victim had raped and sodomized Dianne Parker one week before the murder. There is a compelling case that a group of Mexicans that were Dianne's friends were outraged of this rape and the rape of one of their girlfriends, and they perhaps committed the murder. Many of the wounds on the victim and the sodimizing, black eyes etc. match the wounds on Dianne Parker in the reported rape, and Dianne was fearing for her life when Duran Bailey (the victim) would find out she reported the rape to the police. Perhaps the Mexicans claimed eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. The 7-9 Mexicans "disappeared" one week after the murder adding to the suspicion they had something to do with it.
5. The principal investigator Tom Thowsen apparently committed perjury in the second trial numerous times about wheat he had been investigating (for instance on point 4).
6. Two expert testimony shows that the murder had to have taken place 2-3 hours before discovery, not 18 hours before as the prosecution argued, because of the cockroaches found nearby (15 in a half-empty beer can) and there were no bite marks from them or from rats, which is pretty unlikely from being a whole day in the sun, where also other insects would quickly have preyed on the dead body. If the murder happened 2-3 hours before discovery, instead of 18 hours, it would completely exonerate Blaise in the police time-line. Of course they could have made a different time line, because they rejected all the numerous testimony that Blase was in Panaca from the 2.nd to at least the 9.th. of July, when the murder happened the 8.th. of July.
7. The teeth found at the side of Bailey could not have been battered out with a baseball bat because of being essentially intact, with a baseball bat they would have been broken, at least some of them.
8. The main defense lawyer Schiek made an indifferent defense effort, for instance submitting too late expert witnesses so they would be rejected by prosecution because of the lateness, or not bothering to make the necessary objections when countless innuendo and outright lies from the prosecution in their opening and closing arguments were allowed to stand uncommented.
9. The hearsay exclusions. Blaise told numerous witnesses before the murder she was charged for, how she was in an attempted rape around 25.th. of May 2001 and how she made a cut to the attackers penis with her pocket knife when he tried to rape her, and then she quickly ran away. This was the only reason in fact that the police at all got interested in her as a suspect, because she admitted to cutting that penis 5 weeks before the murder, to numerous people, which essentially was why the police learned about the incident. The police didn't have a single shred of evidence against her, nor any testimony she was there or had a quarrel with Bailey, or even knew him, all they had were those testimonies. It is therefore double irony that they managed even in the second trial to block those testimonies for being "hearsay" - it was their only evidence! Still, in the 25 minute interview that took place when they arrested her, where she talked assuming they were talking about the incident the 25.th. of May, was shown in court, without telling the they were talking about 2 different things, 2 different incidents. That interview ended when she said that it was more than a month ago. The police had not told why they were there, that they were investigating a murder.
10. The bleeding from Bailey showed that he received the rectum damages while he was still alive, which totally negates the extra conviction that Blaise got on sexually assaulting a dead body. The crime didn't happen, nobody is guilty of sexually assaulting Bailey after his death.

Point no. 9 above is basically why I think Blaise should have waived the fifth amendment and testified to all of this in the second trial. It was the only way to get a focus of the jurors on the blatant miscarriage of justice that was going on around that essential "confession" which was a confession to a different incident. The prosecution was successful in completely minimizing the essential facts of the two incidents. You simply can't confess to a murder before it happened, so those 8 people that she told about the incident of 25.th. of May, was simply essential to acquittal in my opinion. So be it that the prosecution could have had a field day on her childhood traumas of being raped by her mother's boyfriend, about her amphetamine drug use (that she consistently stopped before the murder 8.th. of July 2001, proven by a blood test showing her free of amphetamine at that moment). Never mind she would have to describe literally how she slashed that penis with her pocket knife. Because it wasn't the same penis, and that would have been clear I think if she had testified.

Another aspect that perhaps has been forgotten a bit about the second trial, is the blatant lies that the prosecution was able to tell in court, uncontested by defense:

Opening Statement falsehoods: http://justicedenied.org/kl/habeas/exhibits/75_opening_statement_falsehoods.pdf

Closing Statement falsehoods: http://justicedenied.org/kl/habeas/exhibits/76_closing_argument_inaccuracies.pdf

These complete fabrications (whether knowingly or not) is the main reason Blaise was convicted once again, in the second trial. Mignini's conspiracy theories pales to the unfounded speculation going on. Apparently they didn't have to prove a single evidence, it was enough to imagine what could have happened, without having to prove a single detail of their long story. Everything that the prosecution promised to show in the opening statement, but did not show at all, is dumbfounding. I have to admit I can't point to a single evidence the prosecution presented that was of importance. Yes the blood in the car would have been important, if it had been true, etc. etc.

I wonder though if there is still a pondering on the part of the Supreme Court of Nevada (who turned down the first conviction, but unfortunately let the same judge preside in the second trial), whether a new appeal should be allowed, or is there anything going on in the Blaise case?
User avatar
Merlinovich
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:41 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:24 am

Sarah wrote:We would like to send out a press release on this case.

One thing we need help with to get it started is to compile media contacts. This is a Nevada case so we need email addresses for the major Nevada TV and Newspapers. We also need the contacts for anyone who has written about this case in the past. We also need the address for Nevada representatives.

Please help compile this contact list. Just add contacts to this thread.

If you have any ideas for a press release post them here also.

Thanks


Sarah,

I spoke with Stephen Jackson from 8 News Now and he advised if you would like the emails of the media contacts list he has, you should just email him and he will provide. Please hurry because he's only there for a few more weeks and then he's leaving to go to law school. His email is in the post below your original post.

Michelle
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:22 pm

YEM wrote:
Sarah wrote:We would like to send out a press release on this case.

One thing we need help with to get it started is to compile media contacts. This is a Nevada case so we need email addresses for the major Nevada TV and Newspapers. We also need the contacts for anyone who has written about this case in the past. We also need the address for Nevada representatives.

Please help compile this contact list. Just add contacts to this thread.

If you have any ideas for a press release post them here also.

Thanks


Sarah,

I spoke with Stephen Jackson from 8 News Now and he advised if you would like the emails of the media contacts list he has, you should just email him and he will provide. Please hurry because he's only there for a few more weeks and then he's leaving to go to law school. His email is in the post below your original post.

Michelle



Thanks Michelle,

I contacted Stephen Jackson and he sent me the list. Thank you.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:00 pm

I'm having a hard time getting an answer. Please help.


Hans wrote this:
"Judge Valorie Vega’s rulings that allowed witnesses to testify that Lobato told them about the rape attempt, but Judge Vega refused to allow those witnesses to testify that she told them about it before Bailey’s murder on July 8."

Could I please get some clarification? Vega denied allowing them because of hearsay right? Why did she allow them to testify that Lobato told them about the attempted rape. Could someone please explain.

What I need to know is during the trial - what did the 8 witnesses get to testify to and what not?
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:55 pm

Sarah wrote:I'm having a hard time getting an answer. Please help.


Hans wrote this:
"Judge Valorie Vega’s rulings that allowed witnesses to testify that Lobato told them about the rape attempt, but Judge Vega refused to allow those witnesses to testify that she told them about it before Bailey’s murder on July 8."

Could I please get some clarification? Vega denied allowing them because of hearsay right? Why did she allow them to testify that Lobato told them about the attempted rape. Could someone please explain.

What I need to know is during the trial - what did the 8 witnesses get to testify to and what not?


That's tough Sarah, because each of them testified a bit differently and the objections came in at different times. The transcripts hold the key to what you are asking.
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:02 pm

Press Release – Injustice Anywhere

116,000 Call For DA To Allow DNA Testing In Kirstin Lobato Case

Six Innocence Groups Support Kirstin Lobato’s Innocence; Case Pending Before Nevada Supreme Court.


Kirstin "Blaise" Lobato was wrongfully convicted in 2006 for the murder of Duran Bailey, which occurred in Las Vegas in July 2001. Lobato came to the attention of the police because of statements she made regarding a traumatic incident in which she had to fight off a man attempting to rape her. This incident occurred in May 2001, one month prior and several miles away from the location of Bailey's murder.

In an act of pure negligence, the police interpreted Lobato's statements about the May 2001 rape defense as a "confession" to the July 2001 homicide, which actually occurred six weeks later on July 8. This so called confession led to Lobato's wrongful conviction in 2006. In addition, Judge Valorie Vega refused to allow eight witnesses to testify that they were told about the incident a month before the murder, incorrectly calling the testimony hearsay.

The Justice Institute, Proving Innocence, and the Worldwide Women's Criminal Justice Network jointly filed an amicus brief to the Nevada Supreme Court in 2012 on Lobato's behalf. An amicus brief is a document filed by an outside party in the effort to provide additional information to the court in order to help aid in their evaluation of a case. These documents also become part of the official case file.

Lobato is also supported by the Innocence Project, the Association in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted, and Injustice Anywhere. In addition, 116,000 and growing have signed a petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/justice ... ise-lobato) urging Las Vegas District Attorney Steven Wolfson not to file any opposition to Lobato's appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, and to request that he allow the Innocence Project to conduct DNA testing and re-testing of crime scene evidence that could gain Lobato her freedom.

Lobato's Habeas Corpus petition (a petition for the court to review new evidence) includes affidavits of numerous expert witnesses including renowned entomologist Dr. Gail Anderson who concluded that the time of death was late in the evening and could not have been as early as contended by the prosecution. This would mean that the crime had to occur at a time when the prosecution conceded that Lobato was in Panaca 170 miles from the crime scene as verified by numerous eyewitnesses.

In addition to Lobato's rock solid alibi, she also passed a polygraph administered by highly-respected Ron Slay whose work is frequently used by prosecutors. Additional proof verifying Lobato's statements was provided by eight witnesses who gave affidavits to the police that Lobato discussed her attacker's failed rape attempt a month prior to the July 8 homicide, proving that her statements had absolutely nothing to do with Bailey's murder. The petition asks that these witnesses be heard.

Another expert, twenty six year FBI veteran William J. Bodziak, concludes that shoe prints imprinted in blood on cardboard and leading away from Bailey’s body were made by men’s size 9 athletic shoes, and could not have been made by Lobato’s men’s size 6 shoes. Forensic scientist George Schiro determined that Bailey’s killer made the shoe print impressions, thus excluding Lobato.

Kirstin Lobato's case has been described as "the Hope Diamond of wrongful convictions" and is the clearest case of a wrongful conviction that can be found. There is absolutely no forensic evidence linking Lobato to the murder of Duran Bailey. In fact there is no evidence of any kind. It is becoming more and more apparent that there is simply no conceivable way she could be guilty of this crime and that it serves as an important test case on whether our system of justice can really correct its most obvious mistakes. The Nevada Supreme Court will hear arguments and rule on her Habeas Corpus petition later this year.

Please visit http://www.injustice-anywhere.org, www.justice4kirstin.com and www.justicedenied.org to learn more about this case.


For more information contact:
Michelle Ravell
Phone: 702-321-3277
Email: justice4kirstin@cox.net

Or,
Injustice Anywhere
injusticeanywhere@yahoo.com



Kirstin Lobato Press Release.docx
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:21 pm

Excellent job Sarah. Thank you for your time and effort on Blaise's behalf. We appreciate it.
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:31 pm

YEM wrote:Excellent job Sarah. Thank you for your time and effort on Blaise's behalf. We appreciate it.


:)

Philip Mause wrote most of it, we also added some things Hans suggested.

I hope it will help.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:28 pm

Justice Advocates Seek New DNA Tests in 11-Year-Old Murder Case
June 22, 2012

"The Innocence Project has come forward to pay for the tests. Injustice Anywhere, an organization that pushed for the release American college student Amanda Knox from an Italian prison has also taken up Lobato’s cause." :magic:

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/06/22/justice-advocates-seek-new-dna-tests-in-11-year-old-murder-case/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:10 am

I made sure I mentioned Injustice Anywhere, Justice Denied, Change.org, AIDWYC, etc.....

Gotta get all the publicity we all can from every source.
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:48 am

The “All Time Champ In Wrongful Convictions”?

http://montanacorruption.org/2012/06/23/the-all-time-champ-in-wrongful-convictions/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:01 am

Thanks for posting that. I commented and thanked them for their support
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:09 am

YEM wrote:Thanks for posting that. I commented and thanked them for their support


Could you get people to comment on this article also?

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/06/22 ... rder-case/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:12 am

Also Samantha Stone wants us to be sure to let her know if the IP is sending a representative so that she can make sure they get footage. Her email address is Samantha.stone@cbsradio.com. You probably already have it.
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby Sarah » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:21 am

YEM wrote:Also Samantha Stone wants us to be sure to let her know if the IP is sending a representative so that she can make sure they get footage. Her email address is Samantha.stone@cbsradio.com. You probably already have it.


IP? Innocence project?

I don't know if they are sending anyone.

Injustice Anywhere probably doesn't, unless David Kamanski is able to go.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - Press Release

Postby YEM » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:47 am

Yes, sorry. Innocence project. I've spoken with and emailed so many people in the last few days, I'm having a hard time keeping all the conversations straight, but someone told me that they were sending a representative to the petition delivery for the press conference.
YEM
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Sarah » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:03 am

Innocence Project letters to DA Steven Wolfson and Judge Valerie Vega

http://www2.8newsnow.com/docs/ip_wolfson.pdf
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Sarah » Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:38 pm

Great Summary of the Kirstin Lobato case.
By Hans Sherrer, Justice Denied

http://justicedenied.org/lobato/lobato.htm
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby MichaelB » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:37 am

Appeal from Denial of Post Conviction Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Dec 12 2012

http://justice4kirstin.com/Reply_Brief_ ... .27.12.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby RoseMontague » Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:55 am

MichaelB wrote:Appeal from Denial of Post Conviction Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Dec 12 2012

http://justice4kirstin.com/Reply_Brief_ ... .27.12.pdf


Reading the grounds shows how much of a railroad job from hell this conviction is. I do think the conclusion in the brief lacks a summary along these lines.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Sarah wrote:Great Summary of the Kirstin Lobato case.
By Hans Sherrer, Justice Denied

http://justicedenied.org/lobato/lobato.htm

A bit hard on the eyes (yellow on orange) but a nice quick introduction. It would be good if it set out the entire prosecution case before demolishing it. It's easy to come to a case like this and think it's only about one thing: her account of cutting a man's penis during an attempted rape. She kept a baseball bat in her car, he may have been beaten by such a thing, and she had some kind of drug dependency, which is not elaborated. I assume there are also supposed to be similarities in her description of the location of the incident and that where the victim was found. Yet another TOD controversy, this one very surprising. You would think there could not be such a wide margin for error where the body is found within hours of death.

Can anyone relate the ruling on hearsay to common sense? It's almost worse for the jury to hear that she told everyone about the attack without also hearing when it was than not hearing about it all. Presumably the Nevada Supreme Court thought there was nothing wrong with it. Wonder why.

Is there a Massei-like 'story'? She drove to town with her foot on the pedal early on 08 Jul to buy the drugs from whom? The victim? Was he a dealer? They transacted the business in the dumpster area, he got fresh and she did for him with the bat, went over the top cutting bits off him and then drove back, foot on pedal again. Is that the idea?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Norm51 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:20 pm

Great to see you on board here Clive. There is plenty wrong in Nevada but you will discover that as you probe and you won't have to look far. This is a great day for Blaise - you being here. I'm just writing her now. The problem with this case is that there is little action on it. Everyone including the powers that be in Nevada know she's innocent. They have just stated that they don't care what the DNA would prove - they are hanging on to their win and not allowing anyone to come between the win and the truth. Where do you go from there? You say unbelievable in the 20th century in a country that claims to be fair and just? Yep - it is - unbelievable.
Norm51
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:18 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:40 am

Norm51 wrote:Great to see you on board here Clive. There is plenty wrong in Nevada but you will discover that as you probe and you won't have to look far. This is a great day for Blaise - you being here. I'm just writing her now. The problem with this case is that there is little action on it. Everyone including the powers that be in Nevada know she's innocent. They have just stated that they don't care what the DNA would prove - they are hanging on to their win and not allowing anyone to come between the win and the truth. Where do you go from there? You say unbelievable in the 20th century in a country that claims to be fair and just? Yep - it is - unbelievable.

It's unbelievable in the 21st century too! :)

Norm have you any idea where I can get hold of the judgment rejecting her appeal? That would be the one before the habeus process started. I am sorry I don't have the full legal timetable in my head but I understand after her second trial she appealed and lost and it's the rejection of that appeal that I would like to read. I haven't been able to find it so far. I would like to understand the legal reasoning why it was OK for evidence to be given that Kirsten had told others about fighting off the guy who tried to rape her but not evidence of when she told her story.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:06 am

I got the answers to my question about the overall nature of the case against Lobato from the ruling on her first appeal, which is here:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-c ... 03868.html

Supreme Court of Nevada 03 Sep 2004 wrote:At some point in mid-July 2001, Lobato, a resident of Panaca, Nevada, informed her former teacher and counselor that an older man attacked and attempted to sexually assault her during a recent visit to Las Vegas.   She claimed to have cut off the attacker's penis.   Some time later, LVMPD Detective Thomas Thowsen learned of Lobato's claim and proceeded to Panaca to interview her.   Upon introducing himself to Lobato, Detective Thowsen stated he understood Lobato had been attacked in Las Vegas and been forced to defend herself.   Lobato did not respond to this statement.   In response to a statement by Detective Thowsen that he “knew she'd been hurt in the past,” referring to his knowledge that Lobato was molested when she was six years old, Lobato began to cry and said, “I didn't think anybody would miss him.”

Detective Thowsen then administered warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona,2 after which Lobato provided a recorded statement.   She indicated that she had been assaulted previously in Las Vegas, that she used her butterfly knife to defend herself, and that she cut the man's penis, but she did not know if she completely severed it.   She also stated that she managed to escape and left the assailant lying still on the ground and crying.   When asked if she hit the man with anything other than her knife, Lobato stated “No, but it's poss-I have a baseball bat that I keep behind my seat or had a baseball bat.” 3  Lobato was vague about the exact date and details of the incident, claiming she was high on drugs.   As a result of the interview, the officers placed Lobato under arrest.

...

Detective Thowsen testified at trial concerning his investigation of the homicide and Lobato's statements.4  Several witnesses testified for the State regarding other statements made by Lobato to the effect that she was attacked while in Las Vegas and used a knife in self-defense.   These accounts varied concerning the extent to which she inflicted injuries upon her assailant-that she severed her attacker's penis, that she simply slashed the organ, or that she stabbed him in the abdomen.

Korinda Martin, an inmate at the Clark County Detention Center, testified to Lobato's boasts that she was in jail for murder and had forcibly amputated a man's penis and placed it “down his throat.”   More particularly, Martin indicated that Lobato expressed some worry over blood that might be found in her automobile because she had struck the man in the face and made a series of statements to the effect that she had picked up the assailant, “Darren,” with whom she was acquainted, on a public street to purchase methamphetamine;  that she was high on drugs;  that “Darren” wanted to engage in sex with her and that she refused;  that she stabbed him at least eight times in the rectum when he was lying still at the scene;  and that, while the man never tried to force her to submit to his sexual advances, she was going to play the “poor me” act and claim that Darren had attempted to sexually assault her.   According to Martin, after the State added the sexual penetration charge, Lobato boasted that what she had done was overkill, but that “Darren” deserved it.


Lobato succeeded in her appeal on the ground that evidence showing Martin had attempted to deceive the court in order to secure her own release from imprisonment had been incorrectly excluded.

Still looking for the second appeal.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:40 am

I found this:

http://justicedenied.org/kl/lobato_v_nv_02052009.pdf

I could use an OCR version if anyone knows how to do that as it's a PDF you can't copy and paste from. I note with astonishment, though, that the decision only addresses two out of nine of her challenges to her conviction at the second trial, the other 7 being dismissed without reasons being given. Can this possibly be lawful? I seriously doubt it. Why did they bother giving any reasons at all? And how can one assess the decision if it is not reasoned? Anyway, one of the 7 for which no reasons are given is no. (3) in the footnote on p.2 that her constitutional rights were violated by the refusal to allow witnesses to testify about her statements. This is the one I am most interested in.

Did she appeal further to the US Supreme Court or move directly onto Habeus Corpus? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate the answer.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:01 am

OK, I found the HC petition filed in May 2010 and if I understand correctly there was no appeal higher than the Nevada SC prior to the filing of this petition.

http://justicedenied.org/lobato_habeas.pdf

It's a monster. Is 'IAC' inadequacy of counsel or something like that?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Canto » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:58 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:I found this:

http://justicedenied.org/kl/lobato_v_nv_02052009.pdf

[highlight]I could use an OCR version if anyone knows how to do that as it's a PDF you can't copy and paste from.[/highlight] I note with astonishment, though, that the decision only addresses two out of nine of her challenges to her conviction at the second trial, the other 7 being dismissed without reasons being given. Can this possibly be lawful? I seriously doubt it. Why did they bother giving any reasons at all? And how can one assess the decision if it is not reasoned? Anyway, one of the 7 for which no reasons are given is no. (3) in the footnote on p.2 that her constitutional rights were violated by the refusal to allow witnesses to testify about her statements. This is the one I am most interested in.

Did she appeal further to the US Supreme Court or move directly onto Habeus Corpus? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate the answer.


I use some software in my everyday life that does a great job converting PDFs into MS Word files. Would you like me to take a crack at it?
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:06 am

Canto wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I found this:

http://justicedenied.org/kl/lobato_v_nv_02052009.pdf

[highlight]I could use an OCR version if anyone knows how to do that as it's a PDF you can't copy and paste from.[/highlight] I note with astonishment, though, that the decision only addresses two out of nine of her challenges to her conviction at the second trial, the other 7 being dismissed without reasons being given. Can this possibly be lawful? I seriously doubt it. Why did they bother giving any reasons at all? And how can one assess the decision if it is not reasoned? Anyway, one of the 7 for which no reasons are given is no. (3) in the footnote on p.2 that her constitutional rights were violated by the refusal to allow witnesses to testify about her statements. This is the one I am most interested in.

Did she appeal further to the US Supreme Court or move directly onto Habeus Corpus? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate the answer.


I use some software in my everyday life that does a great job converting PDFs into MS Word files. Would you like me to take a crack at it?

Thanks very much Canto, that would be helpful. Maybe you could mail it to me at cwismayer@dotmac (replace dot with . of course)? Even better would be an OCR of the habeus corpus petition (777 pages - eek)

I have read the 79 grounds for relief in the habeus corpus petition and I'm still none the wiser about the particular application of the rule against hearsay, unless the problem was a failure by counsel at trials 1 or 2 to argue the point, but if it was then I don't yet see which ground addresses that point.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby PhanuelB » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:58 pm

Clive:

I have OCR'd versions of the transcripts for the second trial. I used an online service and it worked absolutely perfectly for about $30. Worth every penny of it.
PhanuelB
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 5:46 am

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:40 pm

PhanuelB wrote:Clive:

I have OCR'd versions of the transcripts for the second trial. I used an online service and it worked absolutely perfectly for about $30. Worth every penny of it.

Thanks PhanuelB. I have had a lot of help from Canto. I'm nowhere near in a position to read trial transcripts yet. I still want to understand the legal pinciple (if any) behind excluding evidence of when KBL told the story of fighting off an attack.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby PhanuelB » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:32 pm

Clive:

I don't know how they deal with hearsay in the UK. In the US, it's tricky. Bottom line is that there was a legally incorrect application of the hearsay rule which excluded the testimony of four witnesses in the second trial who were prepared to testify that Kirstin had told them the same story at times prior to the murder that she later told to investigators. There are eight witnesses in all with relevant "prior statement" testimony; four of them testified at the second trial; two of them were asked about the prior statements but were instructed by the judge not to answer based on a sustained hearsay objection by the prosecution. The OCR'd transcripts are really helpful because you can search on terms like "hearsay."

In one of the appeal documents, the defense did properly argue why the judge had erred in this decision, but it was dismissed in a footnote by the Nevada Supreme Court. The defense is now arguing that the testimony should have been allowed under one of the exceptions, but the better argument is that the proposed testimony was not in fact hearsay. I haven't seen any motions or memorandums of law dealing with the question. In the transcripts it talks of a bench conference that lasted only two minutes to discuss the issue. I don't entirely understand why the defense isn't pushing the issue harder. Maybe Erasmus44 knows.

I discuss the hearsay issue quite a bit in the Groundreport article I've written about the case.
PhanuelB
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 5:46 am

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

PhanuelB wrote:Clive:

I don't know how they deal with hearsay in the UK. In the US, it's tricky. Bottom line is that there was a legally incorrect application of the hearsay rule which excluded the testimony of four witnesses in the second trial who were prepared to testify that Kirstin had told them the same story at times prior to the murder that she later told to investigators. There are eight witnesses in all with relevant "prior statement" testimony; four of them testified at the second trial; two of them were asked about the prior statements but were instructed by the judge not to answer based on a sustained hearsay objection by the prosecution. The OCR'd transcripts are really helpful because you can search on terms like "hearsay."

In one of the appeal documents, the defense did properly argue why the judge had erred in this decision, but it was dismissed in a footnote by the Nevada Supreme Court. The defense is now arguing that the testimony should have been allowed under one of the exceptions, but the better argument is that the proposed testimony was not in fact hearsay. I haven't seen any motions or memorandums of law dealing with the question. In the transcripts it talks of a bench conference that lasted only two minutes to discuss the issue. I don't entirely understand why the defense isn't pushing the issue harder. Maybe Erasmus44 knows.

I discuss the hearsay issue quite a bit in the Groundreport article I've written about the case.

I have seen the footnote and already expressed surprise that a point of appeal can be rejected without reasons being given. I would also like to know what erasmus thinks.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby PhanuelB » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:58 pm

Clive:

Here's a relevant link:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/publi ... sIID=27064

The other case numbers are 49087, 59147 and 40370. Full transcripts are also available on her website. In Kirstin's case the relevant legal documents are very much available online. I'm having trouble understanding the progression of the case. As best I can tell they are in the Nevada Supreme Court now because they believe insufficient arguments were made earlier by previous inadequate legal counsel. I don't think they'll get anywhere with the Nevada Supreme Court. It needs to go to the Federal level ASAP.

See p 24-26 in doc 07-26130 in case 49087.
p15 of 08-02419 in case 49087.
P12 of 09-04717 in case 49087
p6 of 09-08396 in case 49087
p6 in 09-03802 in case 49087.
PhanuelB
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 5:46 am

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby PhanuelB » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:44 pm

As best I can tell the Nevada Supreme Court rejection of the hearsay question is in

P2, 09-03216, Case 49087
PhanuelB
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 5:46 am

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Merlinovich » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:53 pm

PhanuelB wrote:As best I can tell the Nevada Supreme Court rejection of the hearsay question is in

P2, 09-03216, Case 49087


Of all the complaints from Kirstin Lobato's lawyers of an inappropriate handling by Judge Vega, the third is vital to the case:
(3) the district court violated her constitutional rights by refusing to allow witnesses to testify about her statements;

This is vital because the prosecution has no other evidence than her own "confession" (which was not taped), and the testimony from other friends of her what she "confessed" to them. Absolutely vital testimony. A direct testimony to these witnesses of the "confession" is not hearsay by any stretch of common sense - especially if it occurred before the murder took place! Of course any details of these witnesses would reveal the details don't match the actual murder at all.

The Nevada Supreme Court has gone totally bonkers. Their comment on page 2 about 7 vital objections from which (3) in my opinion is the most important: "We have considered these issues and conclude that each of these additional challenges fails."
What kind of crap is that? In a footnote??? Even Massei has not gone as low as reasoning without giving any reasons! Instead they go on page after page insisting on why detective Thowsen and others could testify on the luminol test was positive when confirmatory tests were negative :batshit crazy:: Would any US laboratory today stand behind such a shoddy handling of evidence? If there is no confirmatory test, there is nothing!

They have the audacity to confirm in a sidenote "However, based on Lobato's admission, there was substancial evidence that she committed the murder". That is totally hilarious, especially in the context of denying 7 witnesses the right to retell what she told them. And since there was nothing taped of the admission from the original arrest, detective Thowsen and others could invent any story they liked about the so-called "confession" which was of course an admission of another instance entirely, with the only resemblance being the stab to the groin area, and the location 10 miles(?) apart in Las Vegas, while it happened weeks apart.

It is obvious their argument is "We alone know best". That is the way to uphold a police state, where you are guilty because you were arrested. I note that the Nevada Supreme Court has judge Vega as one of the signers of this disgraceful document, even though she was ordered completely out of court in the first trial, she still can reside or co-reside the appeal trial and the appeal of that appeal.

That is why the US justice system is broken. Because cases like that happens, and are practically irreversible since they will see (or can see) the same biased judges on appeal.
User avatar
Merlinovich
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:41 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:00 am

The Hearsay Issue As I See It
I am going to state some general principles and I must start with the observation that the law varies considerably from state to state and I am not familiar with Nevada statutory or decisional law. On the other hand, many of these principles are so widely accepted that they are very likely to be valid in every state.
The issue is whether the testimony of the witnesses who swear that, on various dates prior to July 8(the date of the homicide she is charged with) they heard Kirstin Lobato describe being attacked in Las Vegas and defending herself with a knife by slashing the attacker in the genitals. The testimony is critical because if the testimony is true then it tends to establish that her similar statements made after July 8 could not possibly refer to the July 8 incident. The hearsay rule generally prohibits the introduction of testimony concerning out of court statements when the testimony is introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in the out of court statement. The major reason for it is that it deprives the party in opposition of the opportunity to cross examine the individual who made the statement and probe its veracity.
It has been my position that the statements in the Lobato case are not technically hearsay because they would not be introduced to establish the truth of what Kirstin Lobato said. At first blush, this may appear odd. Isn't the purpose of introducing the statements to show that she was telling the truth when she described the earlier incident? In reality, it is not. The only purpose for introducing the statements is to show that those statements and the latter statements after July 8 do not refer to the July 8 homicide. In this regard, it really isn't essential that the statements be true. For example, let us assume that Kirstin Lobato had an hallucination and as a result made these statements - 8 times before July 8 and several times after July 8. Or let us assume that Kirstin Lobato was exaggerating or lying when she made the statements. Even in these cases, the fact that she made the same statement prior to July 8 would be relevant as evidence that the statements after July 8 did not describe the July 8 incident.
For example, suppose I start now telling everyone I know that "I shot the President" and repeat the statement many times over the next few months. Then in June, Obama is shot and after that event, I continue saying "I shot the President." The fact that I made the same statement before he was actually shot as I then made after he was shot tends to show that the statement does not refer to that event. Maybe I was involved in the JFK assassination, maybe I am delusional, maybe I am just making it up to get attention - but it is not evidence of my involvement in the current crime.
Because it is not hearsay, it should have been admitted as evidence and it would have been extremely persuasive evidence refuting the prosecution's only evidence against her.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Kirstin Lobato - DOCS / Press Release

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:41 am

erasmus44 wrote:The Hearsay Issue As I See It
I am going to state some general principles and I must start with the observation that the law varies considerably from state to state and I am not familiar with Nevada statutory or decisional law. On the other hand, many of these principles are so widely accepted that they are very likely to be valid in every state.
The issue is whether the testimony of the witnesses who swear that, on various dates prior to July 8(the date of the homicide she is charged with) they heard Kirstin Lobato describe being attacked in Las Vegas and defending herself with a knife by slashing the attacker in the genitals. The testimony is critical because if the testimony is true then it tends to establish that her similar statements made after July 8 could not possibly refer to the July 8 incident. The hearsay rule generally prohibits the introduction of testimony concerning out of court statements when the testimony is introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in the out of court statement. The major reason for it is that it deprives the party in opposition of the opportunity to cross examine the individual who made the statement and probe its veracity.
It has been my position that the statements in the Lobato case are not technically hearsay because they would not be introduced to establish the truth of what Kirstin Lobato said. At first blush, this may appear odd. Isn't the purpose of introducing the statements to show that she was telling the truth when she described the earlier incident? In reality, it is not. The only purpose for introducing the statements is to show that those statements and the latter statements after July 8 do not refer to the July 8 homicide. In this regard, it really isn't essential that the statements be true. For example, let us assume that Kirstin Lobato had an hallucination and as a result made these statements - 8 times before July 8 and several times after July 8. Or let us assume that Kirstin Lobato was exaggerating or lying when she made the statements. Even in these cases, the fact that she made the same statement prior to July 8 would be relevant as evidence that the statements after July 8 did not describe the July 8 incident.
For example, suppose I start now telling everyone I know that "I shot the President" and repeat the statement many times over the next few months. Then in June, Obama is shot and after that event, I continue saying "I shot the President." The fact that I made the same statement before he was actually shot as I then made after he was shot tends to show that the statement does not refer to that event. Maybe I was involved in the JFK assassination, maybe I am delusional, maybe I am just making it up to get attention - but it is not evidence of my involvement in the current crime.
Because it is not hearsay, it should have been admitted as evidence and it would have been extremely persuasive evidence refuting the prosecution's only evidence against her.

Thanks erasmus

My understanding in this case is that the hearsay evidence was admitted but not the part about when she made the statements. I agree and understand that it's not the truth of what she said that counts but the fact she said what she said, so it's not hearsay at all, but what I don't get is how the court hived off that part of the evidence that deprived it of value and may even have made things worse.
Clive Wismayer
 


Return to Kirstin Blaise Lobato Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest