Monday, December 20, 2010

Part 9: Is The District Attorney Honest?

      Since late 1984, Private Investigator Ira Robins has worked to defend Laurie Bembenek and to that end has developed so much evidence that everyone who reviews those materials knows that she never received any semblance of a fair trial. But, instead of admitting that an innocent person may have been convicted, the former District Attorney, E. Michael McCann, actively worked to derail any chance she might have had for a fair trial. And now, a representative of the new District Attorney, John Chisholm, has publicly stated the District Attorney’s offices stands by the integrity of their prosecution of Bembenek. That, even after he never responded to Attorney Mary Woehrer’s written request for a meeting to discuss the facts surrounding the wrongful conviction of her client. What’s wrong with that picture?

      Over the years, Robins delivered dozens of sworn affidavits and letters (Exhibit 9-1) to McCann.  Some of those affidavits contained the information proving the prosecutor had used false information and evidence to convict Bembenek.  Affidavits with evidence concerning the nude activities of the police officers, the false reports of Detectives Elfred Schultz and Michael Durfee, how the wig was really placed in the plumbing, the concerns of the Medical Examiner about police interference at the scene and planted evidence, and myriad other facts were created by Robins and many individual witnesses. Robins also created many reports for McCann. But McCann’s only response was that “Robins has no credibility.”

      On one occasion in 1990 McCann told the media that he had never spoken with Robins. When Robins became aware of McCann’s Statement he immediately requested an appointment to speak with him. McCann told Robins “There will be no meeting if you notify the media.” Robins complied with McCann’s warning and did not notify the media. Inside McCann’s office Robins told McCann about each and every piece of evidence and information he had collected. He also provided a list of suspects. Although McCann’s court reporter was present with her stenographic machine he told her to “Just make some notes on a legal pad.” Obviously, McCann did not want a transcript of Robins’ information. After almost 3 hours Robins walked out of McCann’s office and found reporters from all of the radio, television and print media waiting outside. When questioned, Robins honored McCann’s request and stated, “The District Attorney will be reviewing the matter.” and made no other statement.  An hour later McCann told the media “Robins has given me nothing new or of any importance.” If McCann thought for one minute that he had just gotten rid of Robins, boy was he wrong.

Exhibit 9-1
Click on the image to enlarge.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Share your thoughts here.