The Injustice That Has Befallen Daniel Acker   

  - 2 -

1                        All.

2                        Second of all, if it’s hearsay it’s still hearsay

3                        No matter what report it’s in.

4                        Mr. McDowell: That’s an exception, your Honour.

5                        Mr. Long: It’s not an exception. What rule?

6                        What Law?

7                        Mr. McDowell: rule 803. It goes through and it

8                        Talks about exceptions, business records, and things that

9                        Officers rely on. State of  mind of the cictim. State of

10                   Mind of the officer when he responded to that call.

11                   Mr. Long: How is a dispatchers report the state

12                   Of mind of the victim?

13                   Mr. McDowell: What that officer knows is part of

14                   His investigation. And also what that person was told,

15                   What that suspect was told, as she was jumping out of

16                   The car as they we’re leaving. It’s state of mind of the

17                   Victim.

18                   Mr. Long: The witnesses who were there have already testified.

19                   Mr. MCDowell:  This impeaches the other witnesses.

20                   The COURT: Okay, What we’re going to do, the court

21                   Is not going to allow any hearsay in. You will have to object.

22                   Mr. Long: I do not even want the question being asked.

23                   I do not even want him asking the question. That puts it

24                   In front of the jury.

The prosecutor not only falsified evidence, he went all out oto prevent the truth from being put before the jury as to the true cause of Markie’s death. You can clearly see typed above how strongly he opposed to the truth that is in police and dispatcher reports, and the fact that several police officers heard this statement come over their radio – this is why they responded with a code 3, lights siren and the hole nine yards.

The dispatcher put out over the radio that the female was trying to jump out of the truck and the male subject pulled her back in. The dispatcher was repeating what Thomas Smiddy – nine and Markie’s neighbors were telling him as they watched us drive off. Mr. Smiddy is the man that made the first 9-1-1- call to the police dispatcher at 11:45 AM. But when my trial started one year later the 9-1-1- tape recording of the call with Mr. Smiddy’s voice on it saying she is trying to jump out and Dan pulled her back in – got erased along with the 9-1-1 call Mr. Ferrell made reporting a body in his driveway. That is right this very; very important phone call recording telling the police about a person taking another person and the truck running off both sides of the road – with Markie trying to jump out and Dan pulling her back in NO LONGER EXISTS. How convenient – you see the tape would say the same thing today as it did the day it was recorded. The jury would hear Mr. Smiddy’s voice making this statement and this recording would not have the loss of memory – one year later as you will see Mr. Smiddy does. The D.A. went all out to make sure this evidence did not get in front of the jury – so he either erased the tape or had someone do it. Either way – with the recording erased all the prosecutor has to now do is get the witnesses to forget what they saw. But now the only problem he has is all the paper work concerning what different people wrote in at less seven different reports having to do with Markie trying to jump out of a moving vehicle. So he goes all out to make everything in regard to her prior attempts to jump hearsay and by it being hearsay it can not be put in front of the jury.

Let’s look back at page 15 line 24 – Mr. Long: I don’t even want the question being asked. I don’t even want him asking the question. That puts it in front of the jury (That she is being watched trying to jump out of the truck & I pull her back in) This is hand written in at less seven different reports and the jury did not get to hear a single speck of the truth written in these reports.

Now with just those three lines above if it is not clear how adamantly apposed to having the truth put before the jury the prosecutor was and how low down and outrageous his statement are then the truth is not in you.

Now before I go on with these outrageous statements and arguments made by the prosecutor, I would like to say – I fI  had money to hire good efficient attorneys, the prosecutor would not have been allowed to get away with this – because a good attorney would have aggressively challenged the prosecutor and Judge railroading me – they would have had this in all the newspapers on TV as well as the Radio. But the BIG fact is if I had money this case would have never went to trial and my trial attorneys would not have waited until the second day of my trial to ask for the name of the dispatcher.

Page 43 of the trial records line 18. Mr. McDowell: And that Mr. Hill used all that information in his report – investigation and in what he was doing when he was going tout there to the ecene. The COURT: All right anything else? Mr. McDowell: We’d also like to know the name of the dispatch person so we can impeach him. The COURT: We can probably get the name of the dispatch person.

As I said, “If I had money my attorneys would not have waited until the second day of trial to ask for the name of the dispatcher”. They would have not only had his name – they would have made him a big star in the media from day one. And like I’ve already stated this case would have never went to trial. But because I am poor and I had such ineffective assistance of counsel my trial attorneys did not do much - if any - pre-trial investigation.

Back to page 43 line 1-8- Frank Long – the prosecutor is making this statement: Witnesses who have already testified, Mrs. Smiddy. It can be offered for no other purpose than to try to impeach either of the Smiddy’s testimony, who came and testified in this case and were cross-examinated directly on that, and who have said they didn’t give any information about somebody trying to jump out of the vehicle. So obviously, it’s being offered to either impeach them on for the – TRUTH OF THE MATTER – I could not believe what the prosecutor said. To say I was and still am elated is an understatement. Now I need to point out that these outrageous – ridiculous – statements and arguments are being made out of the juries presents. The jury does not hear these outrageous and ridiculous argument the D.A. is putting on to Judge Robert Newsom, for reason not to allow the truth to be put before the jury. He ever lies in this statement as he clearly states that the Smiddy’s in their testimony – didn’t give any information about somebody trying to jump out of the vehicle. Now that is a lie – Mrs. Smiddy wrote in her police report – she was trying to get out – he was swerving all over the road – the dispatcher wrote in his report – Mr. Smiddy also advised that while driving off the girl looked like she was trying to get out. Police Officers and other people wrote the same in their reports – for an example Officer Hill, wrote in his investigative report – Dispatch advised that – while driving off the female subject tried to exit the vehicle and the male subject jerked her back in. Just before arriving – dispatch radioed back and advised that there is a white female laying in Mr. Seddell Ferrell’s driveway – being the closest officer to that location I continued on – My point should be very clear as to the D.A. telling this all out lie – by saying the Smiddy’s didn’t give out any information about somebody trying to jump from a vehicle. What I can not understand is, why didn’t my attorney jump up and say – objection – that is a lie and ask for the testimony of them to be read. The fact is, my attorneys did very little to challenge anything the prosecutor did all throughout the trial. Let’s look back at the middle of the page lines 9 – 17. On line 8 he goes on to say anyway it is hearsay. From line 9 on – (Long) We don’t even know from what he’s offered where that information came from. It’s pure hearsay and it’s – doesn’t become admissible. Mr. McDowell: Your Honour, the information came from the dispatcher. It says so in Mr. Hill’s report. We would like to ask Mr. Hill, where he got that information. We would think that Mr. Hill can – Mr. Long: We’ll agree that it came from dispatch, Judge. If it is accurate is one thing.

It helps to fully understand the law 8 how it works to understand & fully see all of this. With this in mind I will walk you through what the prosecutor did. First I will point out to you the lie he told, when he said, We’ll agree that it came from dispatch, Judge. Now the question is why – why did he just lie and admit to it. Here’s the answer: - To keep my attorneys from exercising my right to ask Officer Hill, where he got his information – about a female subject trying to jump out of a vehicle and the male subject jerking her back in. You see I have the right to ask an Officer where he got his information. And when my attorneys do that hey can establish the predicate to this evidence and then I could bring in all the witnesses that has knowledge in regard to Markie, Jumping out of a moving vehicle – put before the jury and ask them about it. When the D.A. lied he opened the door for these witnesses to be questioned before the jury. The D.A. shuts the door by agreeing where the information came from but again if I had money he would not have gotten away with this – because I would have had attorneys that would have said: We do not confirm to the D.A.’s lies and stipulator as we have clearly established the need to verify this information in front of the jury from the person (S) that has it in there report and that person at the present time – on the stand is Chris Hill. They would have went on to say that the prosecutor opened the door and now

that the door has been opened we have a constitutional right to verify the source and the validity of the information. They would have also had in all the media that the prosecutor attacks the accuracy of the 9-1-1- dispatcher. And if the information about a person trying to jump out of a vehicle is not reliable then how could they rely on the accuracy of the location. But my attorneys say nothing and the Court Judge Robert Newsom, denied me the opportunity to put the truth before the jury. The second critical evidence that was not even attempted to be put before the jury is what I have already talked some about and that is the two people in the red car that was going pass me and Markie when she jumped out of the Utility Truck.

On page 8 the prosecutor is asking Officer Hill if he found a female at the first house he stopped at on CR 3519? Line 18 A. NO, sir. The first place I stopped was the first house on the right on 3519. There were some people that were in the driveway there. I pulled up there just briefly long enough for them to tell me they hadn’t called me. Now we will go to page 65 – 66 where My attorneys asked, Q. What did you do after you left 1537? A. Pulled into the driveway of the first residence on the right where some people were in their front yard. Q. Who were those people in front of their house at that residence? A. I did not get their name. I found out initially that they were not the ones that called the Sheriff’s office and I left. Q. Did they know anything at all about what was going on? A. I didn’t listen. Q You stopped. Did you ask them anything? A. I ask them if they called the sheriff’s office. They said, NO, we – Q. They said NO. We what? A. I didn’t listen to it after that. As soon as they said no, I wasn’t worried about it. They weren’t the ones that called me so I had no business there so I left. Q. They were outside their house in the front yard on their driveway? A. The driveway. They were just going from their vehicle to the house Q. They had just drove up? A. Yes Q. They weren’t inside the house; they were outside? A. Correct. Q Was there another house between – how far did you have to drive down the road from that house to the dairy barn? A. I don’t recall. It was probably a couple hundred yards or so, less than an 8^th of a mile.

Before I break down the questions and testimony you just read, there are some questions I would like answers to and for you to think about – as you read the break down of Mr. Officer Hill’s testimony. To me the BIG one is: WHY WERE THESE TWO PEOPLE NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURY?? Why didn’t my two attorneys ever talk to those two people? How does anyone know what those people could have seen? Now what makes these questions so BIG to me is that I told about these two people – they were the two people in the red car going by when I turned my head to make sure they did not hit the Utility Bed Sticking Out from the cab – and that is when Markie opened the door and jumped out. I gave my statement long before any police report came in. I said as the red car with two people in it passed me in front of the Ferrell Dairy she opened the door and jumped out. I gave this statement while Officer Hill, was still at my Mother’s house with the Utility Truck waiting on a wrecker. The prosecutor as well as my two attorneys and the investigators I gave my statement to all knew about these two people – because I told them over and over – how when I slowed down for the red car to pass by us on the one lane oil road – Markie suddenly and unexpectedly jumped out – WHY DIDN’T ANYBODY EVER GO BACK OUT TO THAT HOUSE AND AT LESS ASK THESE TOW PEOPLE THESE QUESTIONS: If I had money my attorneys would have at less went back out to that house and ask these few questions; did you pull into your driveway just prior to Officer Hill, pulling in it? If the answer is “Yes” – then the next question would be: did you drive by the Ferrell Dairy? If the answer is “Yes” – then the next question: Did you pass a vehicle by or near the Ferrell dairy? If the answer is “YES” – then continue on – these two people are eye witnesses.

What right do my attorneys or anyone have, to have denied me these two witnesses? My attorneys did more to hurt me than they did to help me. In fact I would have been better off without attorneys at all!! I do not believe that these two court-appointed attorneys did any pre-trial investigation. It looks as if they only read some of the police reports a day or so before my trial began. This is why I feel that they ask these next few questions. Q. You didn’t see them in the car so you don’t know; is that right? A. There was more than one. I can’t remember if they were getting out or getting in but there was car doors open. Q. Are you aware of anybody that ever went back and talked to those people? A. I’m not sure if anyone did or not.

In breaking down Mr. Hill’s testimony about these two people I will put it in the context of the relevance to the two minute time frame and how counter productive these testimonies of these two people would have been for me.

Although the two people themselves were never brought before the jury or even questioned the knowledge of these two was brought out in Mr. Hill’s testimony. But the direct bearing or the extreme significance of these two people was never pointed out in anyway to the jury.

As we look at this testimony – I ask that you keep in mind that one minute and forty-five seconds of the two minute time frame has been totally accounted for by Mr. Young’s and Mr. Ferrell’s testimony! So all is left is 15 seconds. We first heard of these two people on page 8 of Mr. Hill’s testimony, when the prosecutor asks him what he found at the first place he stopped at on county road 3519. – Hill states – he stopped at the first house on the right where some people were in the yard. Officer Hill, clearly said he was there only long enough for those people to tell him they did not call him. On pages 65 through 67 – My attorney asks Mr. Hill, time and time again about his contact with those two people and Officer Hill, told him over and over that he did not talk to them – he did not ask them what they know – he does not know of anybody ever asking them what they know – nor does he know of anyone ever going back out there to talk with them. He was asked if he told anyone about those two people – he said that Corporal Anglin heard about them over the radio. He said that is their job, they listen to the radio all the time. Now my attorney asked these questions. “Was he the only person you advised about those people? A. As far as I can remember, Yes. Q. Because they could have been possible witnesses to something couldn’t they? A. It’s possible. Q. It’s possible that they could have driven down the road from the south and seen something; isn’t that right? A. Yes, it is.

Now the prosecutor is hearing these questions and the answers and he knows these two people were in plain eye sight of where the body was on that road. So the prosecutor asks this leading question. Q. Mr. Hill, did they indicate to you in any way that they knew anything about a body laying on the side of the road? A. No. Q. What did you tell them you were doing? A. I pulled up. I was going code three; lights, siren, whole nine yards. I pulled up. They were astonished. I said, y’all called the police or the Sheriffs office or anything like that? They advised, no. No, we don’t know anything. He even said just before this lie – that it is possible they could have seen something. It is possible they drove south on that road. Now if this was possible why would those people say – “WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING”. Hill, stated that when they said “NO WE – HE DIDN’T LISTEN AFTER THAT”. If he had, then maybe he would have heard them say “NO WE JUST DROVE UP”.

Now if I had money my attorneys would have called these two people as witnesses as the first witness when they put up my defense side of the case – these two people would have been eyewitness testimony for me for all but the first 15 or so seconds of the intire two minutes. I was in plaine view of these two people, and Mr. Young, for at less one minute – Mr. Ferrell testified that I was nowhere in sight for at less forty-five seconds of “THE WHOLE TWO MINUTES -- FROM THE FIRST CALL AT 11:45 AM. UNTILL THE SECOND CALL AT 11:47 AM. – My neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Smiddy watched me and Markie drive off – Markie trying to jump out – swerving all over the road from one side of the road to the other – they went on to say Markie, tried to jump but Dan pulled her back in – he turned and went towards – Mahoney that was the last we saw. The Smiddy’s are on the phone with the 9-1-1 Police dispatcher telling the dispatcher what they are witnessing as they are witnessing the actual incident. This conversation was the 9-1-1- recording that somehow got erased – inorder for the prosecutor to make the truth of what happened became ruled as inadmissible hearsay by Judge Robert Newsom.

***************As you can see the prosecutor gets his way.**********************

I will briefly go over mine & Markie’s two neighbour’s testimony. Most of what they testify to is based on their opinion after the prosecutor gave it to them and not the truth. Mr. and Mrs. Smiddy, shows how easy it is for a prosecutor to get people to lie in a capital murder trial. How easy it is to get people to have an advantage memory for the prosecutor and a abate memory for me.

Starting with the prosecutor showing a picture of Markie to Mr. Smiddy. A. It most certainly could be, yes, sir. Q. I think you and I looked at it before and you told me she was a little heavier in that picture than what you remembered her being? A. Yes, sir. – Okay so now we know that the prosecutor has gone over the picture and all of what he wants Mr. Smiddy to testify to. This is why mr. Smiddy can’t remember any thing other things happen that day, but he does remember that he made the call to the 9-1-1 dispatcher at 11:45 AM. – but he can’t remember what he told the dispatcher. He can remember watching me and Markie drive off while talking to the dispatcher and the time he made the call but he can’t remember hardly anything he told the dispatcher as he witnessed what he was seeing – which was Markie tried to  jump out and Dan pulled her back in – he was swerving all over the road. Really readers isn’t it extremely convienient that there is no longer a 9-1-1- tape with Mr. Smiddy’s voice on it saying she is trying to jump out and Dan pulled her back in!!?

1. We started receiving the first call per a call

2. from a subject that said there was a body at 11:47.

3. Mr. Fergurson: 11:47. That would be Mr. Seddill

4. Ferrell?

5. The Witness: Yes, Sir, Ferrell.

6. mr. Fergurson: Well, the first call came in at

7. 11:45. That was Thomas Smiddy?

8. The Witness: Yes, sir.

9. Mr. Fergurson: the second call was Sedill Ferrell.

10. That’s 11:47. And Officer Hill arrived on the

11. scene at 11:51.

12. The Witness: Yes, sir.

13. mr. Fergurson: Does it show when Officer Anglin

14. arrived?

15. The Witness: Yes, they arrived at the same time.

16. Mr. Fergurson: Both the same? Within a minute of

17. each other?

18. The Witness: Yes, sir.

19. Mr. Fergurson: That’s all I’d like, your Honor.

20. The Court: Any further questions?

21. by Mr. Long:

22. Q. Your clock is it a stamp clock that you stick

23. it inside the clock and stamp it?

24. A. No. It’s a computerized clock. We time stamp it on our time slips.

I have just printed out word for word the 9-1-1- police dispatchers testimony. I will now print two pages of Mr. Smiddy’s testimony.

1. Q. You went to the phone immediately and called the Sheiff

2. Sheriff’s Office?

3. A. Yes, sir.

4. Q. And you believe that to be around 11:45?

5. A. Yes, sir.

6. Q. Now when you were talking on the phone did you

7. look out the back of your house from where your phone was?

8. A. No, sir. My phone was in the living room. I looked

9. out the living room window to the side of the trailer

10. house.

11. Q. I’m just trying to picture how you could see the county

12. road going up to 1537 because it was my understanding a

13. minute ago that he was swerving all over the county road;

14. is that correct?

15. A. Yes, sir. The county road sets here and the trailer

16. houses are like this. Mine is the last trailer, on the

17. very first trailer house as you’re coming in. So from

18. my trailor house, looking out a window to this side,

19. I can see everything there – the church, other houses,

20. other people’s property. Everything.

21. Q. Good.

22. Now at this point you’re on the phone with the

23. sheriff and you’re watching him dirve away?

24. A. Yes, sir.

25. Q. And your telling the Sheriff which direction on

Next PAGE

1. the dispatcher at the sheriff’s office which direction

2. he’s going?

3. A. Yes, sir.

4. Q. Did he go of the road on the county road?

5. A. On the county road before he got to the farm road?

6. Q. Yes, sir.

7. A. Yes, sir.

8. Q. He went off the road there.

9. Q. Now do you recall whether or not he stopped at

10. the stop sign when he came to the Farm to Market Road?

11. A. I’m going to say I don’t remember.

12. Q. But he turned left; is that right?

13. A. Yes, sir.

14. Q. Now, if my memory serves me correct, when you come to

15. the county road you have to make either a left turn or

16. you have to make a small turn to the right before you go on

17. down and continue on the county road; is that correct?

18. There’s a little jog there?

19. A. Well, you have to go across to the right.

20. Q. It’s not straight across the county road

21. like on most roads?

22. A. No, sir.

23. Q. Now, when he was coming down the county road he

24. was accelerating and moving pretty quick, wasn’t he?

25. A. I don’t recall.

You see mr. Smiddy can remember things that are stationary such as roads – what he can see out his living room window ect. …. But he can not remember how fast I was going – if I ran the stop sign – telling the dispatcher what way I went after I turned on telling the dispatcher that Markie was trying to jump out and Dan pulled her back in. Although he can remember that I was swerving all over the road. The reason he can remember that I was swerving all over the road is – the prosecutor has instructed him to remember this – because the prosecutor is painting a picture to the jury – abstracting – and white washing the truth, as he leads the jury to believe that I was swerving all over the road because I was strangling Markie - when actually I was swerving all over the road in the process of pulling Markie back in the truck and preventing her from jumping out and possibly hiring herself.

The jury did not get to hear any of the prosecutors ridiculous arguments as he white washed the true cause of Markie’s death – all the jury was allowed to hear is bits and pieces of the white washed misleading theory of the D.A.’s – they were not allowed to hear arguments such as:

13. Mr. McDowell: What that officer knows is part of

14.his investigation. And also what that person was told,

15.what that suspect was told, AS SHE WAS JUMPING OUT OF THE

16.CAR AS THEY WERE LEAVING. It’s state of mind of the

17.victim.

18.Mr. Long: The witnesses who were there have

19.already testified.

20.mr. McDowell: this impeaches the other witnesses.

21.The COURT; Okay. What we’re going to do, the court is

13.not going to allow any hearsay in. You will have to object.

14.I don’t even want the question being asked.

15.I don’t even want him asking the question. That puts it

16.in front of the jury.

My Attorneys have a written statement by Mrs. Smiddy, Taken on March 12, 2000 about 15 minutes after the first call came in. they used it to refresh her memory – she wrote at the bottom of her statement – Marguetta was trying to get out of the Utility Truck as it swerved all over the road. What I do not understand is – although they gave the statement to her or the stand to refresh her memory they did not summit the statement into evidence. What really stands out to me is just how obtuse my attorneys were all through out the trial. They sat through the testimony of these two neighbours of mine and Markie’s as the prosecutor lead them, and when clearly given the opportunity to show and bring out the truth they sat on their hands.

One can clearly see in the testimony of these two neighbours as well as all the state’s witnesses – that this entire trial was a deceptive, camouflaged forest of LIES – to not just obscure, but to totally hide the TREE OF TRUTH!!!

Let’s look at Mrs. Smiddy’s testimony on page 186 with my attorneys asking these questions. Q. Do you remember now telling officer Cosme, she was trying to get out of that car as it spun out through the ditch? A. Yes. Q. Is that the truth? A. I assumed that she was trying to because she was not wanting in there; I mean from what I could see him leaning towards the middle of the truck and swerving all over the road. On Page 191: – Q. And the statement that you made that she was trying to get out of the truck as it went through the ditch you didn’t mean that?  A. No. I didn’t. I don’t remember if the door was open or anything like that. Mr. McDowell: Pass the witness, your Honour. This man calls himself my attorney!! Now Officer Chris Hill’s and Victor Cosme’s police report – states what she said in them. – The dispatcher radios out that she – the female subject is trying to jump out of the truck – several police officers heard this and wrote it in their reports. So why didn’t Mr. McDowell ask these questions instead of passing the witness – and ask: Why did you just say you can’t remember if the door was open? Did you assume the door was open on March 12, 2000 when you were telling officer Cosme what you saw just 15 minutes earlier. How could the dispatcher that is five miles or so away – from your home – be sending this information out over the radio – that Mr. Smiddy also advised that the female tried to jump out and Dan pulled her back in. Was the dispatcher assuming too?? Is he clairvoyant? Maybe you are a super assume (er)? What was going on that made you assume? How can you assume a door is open? If you’re looking at it – it – is either open or closed – right? But he does not ask any questions – no – he passes the witness!

There are three things the jury heard Mr. and Mrs. Smiddy testify to, and they are all favourable statements for me. The thing is the jury did not listen to or give any merit to any testimony that was favourable to me.

They both said that I walked over – picked Markie up – he never said a word – not to them and not to Markie, - The question was asked – Did he ever threaten her? No. He did not say a word. Did he have a weapon? No. – They both say that I do not have on a shirt. Now in Mr. Young’s testimony he told the jury that I had on a faded shirt – it looked like it may have been a pull over shirt (Page 207) Mr. Young seen the shirt just like he saw me pull Markie out of the truck. He ASSUMED IT. Now the third thing is that they both testify to – they could see me turn left onto county road 3519. Now here again in Mr. Young’s testimony on page 200 the prosecutor states: That after coming around the curve onto 3519 it is straight all the way to 1537. Mr. Young, said – pretty well straight all the way to 1537. Now Mr. Smiddy is on the phone with the dispatcher telling him that I am going from the ditch on one side of the road to the ditch on the other side of the road and Markie is trying to jump out – Dan pulls her back in and he goes pass the stop sign and turns left on 1537. So this means while he is talking to the dispatcher he has me in his view for at less ten seconds. And when I turned onto 3519 the car that passed me in front of Mr. Ferrell’s Dairy – as Markie jumped out – had to have already came around the curve and that means they had the Utility Truck in their view at or near to the same time as Mr. and Mrs. Smiddy. I am in plain view from the second I drive out of my driveway until Mr. Young said I got back in my truck and drove off. None of these people testified that they saw me run over Markie, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. The jury heard absolutely nothing to support the prosecutors RIDICULOUS THEORY. I was changed with Capital Murder – and in Texas that makes a person guilty unless they have money and can prove they aren’t.

The next testimony I will go over with you is from Dr. Gonsoulin. She is the person that performed the autopsy,. Her testimony starts on page 198 where she says, she is now employed with the medical examiners office in Houston, Texas and before that she was with the medical examiners office in Dallas, Texas for one year. Now when she is telling about all of her training she does not say anything about what my attorneys bring out near the end of her testimony on page 273.

Q. Doctor, you’ve never signed below the top line before? A. No. Q. And you signed at the top line on this document because you were still in fellowship right? A. Yes. Q. You hadn’t finished or completed all your training to be a medical doctor? A. That’s correct.

Now this woman is testifying in a Capital Murder – Death penalty - case and she was still in training when she performed the autopsy. After she finished her training she went to work in Houston. So my question is “Do Binds of the Same Feather Flock together”?

I will print out some statements from news papers to help us understand the testimony of this forensic scientist, at less that is what they are called in the news paper.

This is form the Houston Chronicle Saturday March 29, 2003. the lab’s scientists have testified as expert witnesses in hundreds of criminal prosecutions. The lab was shut down in December after an independent audit cited it for lack of adherence to accepted scientific protocols, an inadequately trained staff and poor working environment. Just think Mr. Gonsoulin had less than six month on the job training when she performed the autopsy on Markie.

In this same paper the head line reads, “LAB CHIEF’S”            TESTIMONY IN § CASES QUESTIONED: In this article listen to what Dr. Elizabeth Johnson the former head of the DNA lab of Houston, Texas MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE said, “THEY INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD” “And in all cases I’ve been involved in, they always mislead in favour of a conviction”. Now the article I have just quoted her – is about Jim Bolding the now DNA Chief. Now his testimony in three cases has turned out to be false. “Jim Bolding”, the DNA chief of crime lab, declined to talk about his testimony”.

Let’s look at an article in the El-Paso Times. It states that Christy Kim, a 21 year veteran as a DNA analyst was indefinitely suspended nine month after a teenager was released from prison when retest by a private lab discredited Kim’s work. Article taken from the USA Today, April 28, 2003, Fort Worth: A senior Forensic Scientist fired April 19th; DNA testing at the lab has been suspended since October. There are others – West Texas – Oklahoma – But my point as clear, in the three above: The Chief DNA analyst – A senior Forensic Scientist – A 21 Year Veteran – these people are in leadership positions and these people are the ones doing the training. Now think of Mr. Gonsoulin that was still in training when she performed the autopsy on Markie. Think of “GARBAGE IN -- GARBAGE OUT”.  And then think about if this person can present these false conclusions as true facts while in training she can all throughout her career.

In the Houston Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2003 there is an article about crash-scene research. They talk about 10 trauma centres that have linked together to document and research impact injury patterns. The emergency crews on given a list of things to look for and they are taking photos from crash scenes to help document how injuries occurred – what types of injuries occurred from vehicle rollovers on hitting things such as a pole. The Doctors say the more information they have about the crash scene and the more they understand patterns of injuries, the better we can treat people. A police officer recommended that a lady go to the Hospital, but she did not want to go. But because of what the police officers had recently learned from crash scene studies – the risk of liver injuries from the type of crash she had. She went to the Hospital and they found that she had a lacerated liver and abdominal bleeding. At the end of the article one of the doctors doing the research stated, “We now have a clear conversation about the crash, and not just the blood pressure”. The doctor said when they know the TRUTH about how a crash occurred the better they can look for and treat the injuries. This same principle applies – when the forensic medical examiners know the TRUTH about how a person died, then they can more accurately define the injuries and on the cause of death. In short when the police and prosecutor lie – gibe false on misleading information to the medical examiner – the medical examiner will go all out to confirm the autopsy report to that false information. That is why Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, made the statement that “They intentionally mislead in favour of a conviction”.

This is why I will start the testimony of Ms. Gonsoulin, with the argument heard outside the presents of the jury on – information given to her by the police – that she said, she used in forming her opinion. I will also point out how adamantly opposed the prosecutor is to have this information put before the jury and he gets what he wants. Before this report is over you will understand, why he gets everything he wants.

Starting on page 251 and reminding you that this testimony is being heard outside the presence of the jury.

The Court: Did you ever get this marked? Mr. McDowll; I don’t think we did. The Court: this is something that was in her notes, I believe, of something admitted earlier. Mr. McDowell: Yes. We were going to offer Defendant’s Exhibit 13. The Court: Mr. Long, have you had a change to look at that? Mr. Long: No. Mr. McDowell: those were notes she said she relied upon in forming her opinion. The Court: Right. There’s three pages, I believe. Mr. Long: They want to put in that the decedant (Page 252) was known to the Hopkins County Sheriff’s office from previous arrests. She was at a durg lab last week. How does that have any relevance at all, Judge? Mr. McDowell: She said she relied on it in her findings. Mr. Long did that play any part in your findings? The witness: We take all investigation information and consider it in light of autopsy findings. But -. (I have to stop right here).

I need to take you back to page 216. Now on this page is testimony by the good Ms. Gonsoulin in front of the jury and these questions are being aksed by the D.A.

Q. Now when the case came in you weren’t told it was “strangulation” on to look for “strangulation” or any particular cause of death, were you? A. No. Now right here my attorneys hear her and they have all her notes that she used in forming her opinion and they can see she just lied. The D.A. wants to make sure the jury heard so he asks: Q. You just examined the body and then made a determination as to what you find? A. Yes. Q. I mean, you weren’t particularly looking to find somebody who had been strangled; that’s what you found when you cut the body open and did your examination? A. Correct. – This is a lie she told with the help of the prosecutor in front of the jury. Now I will take you back to page 252 where she admits out side the presence of the jury to this lie. I will also ask you to pay attention to how the Judge is working with the prosecutor – bringing his attention to – places he wants him to object.

The COURT: Do you have an objection? Mr. Long: My objection is it is irrelevant and immaterial hearsay matters and it’s prejudicial to the deceased. Has no bearing, no relation to the case what-so-ever. Now the question is: How is it hearsay, when it is a police report about an arrest at a drug lab? Remember any and every time the prosecutor does not want something in front of the jury, he calls it hearsay!! Let’s go on with this page: The COURT: Are you looking at page two at this time? Mr. Long: I’m looking at page two of what I assume is three pages. The COURT: Look at the third page before you finish your objection. Mr. Long: It also has information here that the suspect states that she jumped out of the truck, which is absolutely pure hearsay. Now wait a minute – how is my statement about what I witnessed with my very own two eyes hearsay! This is my statement out of my mouth about what I saw for a fact. In what LAW is that HEARSAY! I have looked and researched the Law and I can not find any where that this is the Law. What I found is a person can testify to what they have direct knowledge of. What I saw with my own eyes is not hearsay. But the prosecutor can put on a ridiculous theory with absolutely NO proof and that’s ok? Continuing – The COURT: What’s the page one? Mr. Long: Page one is just evidently their notes related to the way the case came in to them – where it came from, incident of the location, found dead. And actually there’s some information on this that’s inaccurate. It’s obviously again hearsay information that’s on here.

The prosecutor is clearly saying there is things that are not accurate on the three pages Ms. Gonsoulin has testified to that she used in forming her opinion. This is even more of a reason to have these three pages put before the jury. The medical doctor clearly states that she used these inaccurate notes which inreturn caused her to reach an inaccurate opinion in her conclusions. When you get faulty data at the beginning of anything it will come out faulty on the other end – garbage in- garbage out. – I will rpint the bottom of page 253 and the top of 254 and then go into her testimony on the injuries. Mr. McDowell: So we’ve offered it. We offer it. The Court: Would you like to make a record that you’ve offered it. – That you’ve tried to offer it? That’s – you wanted to? Mr. McDowell: Yes. – Let me ask you to look at Defendant’s exhibit 13. There are three pages Ma’am. If you could just kind of look through it. Did you rely on all of that information in reaching your conclusion in this matter? The Witness: I considered it. Page 254 Mr. McDowell: You considered it all. Okay. Thank you. We’d offer it. The Court: And for the record only, the Court will hold it for any other matters but it’s not to come before the jury. I know I have spent a lot of time on this matter but it is very important that we understand what is in the medical examiners head as she is performing the autopsy. I will start with Ms. Gonsoulin’s testimony on page 201 where she states she could see several external injuries to the body, head, a large abrasion to the hip and a large laceration on the lower leg. These she states look to be post-mortem or perimortem. She goes on to tell what those two words mean. “Post-mortem refers to injuries that are received to the body after death, after the heart has stopped beating. Perimortem are injuries that occur around the same time of death when there is very low blood pressure in the body”. On page 202 the D.A. asks her to tell what internal injuries there were other than the head and neck. She states that the sack around the heart was torn open. There were several lacerations on gaping wounds of the heart. The main artery that supplied the rest of the body with blood, a segment of that artery in the chest was torn in two pieces. There were some haemorrhages in the soft tissue. And there were some rib fractures. The liver was extensively lacerated, what we call pulpification, where the tissue was just battered and the right clavicle was fractured. On page 203 – 204 and the top of 205 – The D.A. asks about the picture of the lower right leg. A. As you can see this is a significantly deep laceration. It goes through the skin down to the deep fat, down to the muscle, the calf muscles. On the top of page 206 - Had this been received when the decedent had significant blood pressure – there would be lots of haemorrhage. There would be redness. (there are multiple reasons why Markie’s calf did not bleed hardly at all as well as other aspects to consider). The biggest aspect of all is she died of an instant death and dead people do not bleed. – Other aspects to consider are there are pictures of Officer Jace  Anglin pulling Markie’s clothes up – down and all around as officer Shakleford takes pictures of Markie’s injuries. In one of these pictures taken by Shackleford – Officer Anglin, is pulling Markie’s warm-ups down tighly into the large laceration on her right lower leg – as he turns her body from side to side taking pictures of the large brush burn abrasions on Markies body. Markies warm-ups were above the laceration on her lower right leg at the time she sustained it or her warm-ups too would have been lacerated and they are not. – Then during the process of Shackleford and Officer Anglin rolling Markie around – pulling her clothes up – down and all around – as they took pictures of her injuries – Officer Anglin pulls her warm-ups down over as well as into the laceration on her calf – I obtain a coloured picture of this Officers right hand on her leg attached to her warm-ups – pulling her warm ups into as well as over the laceration. Therefore her warm-ups got pulled down over the laceration – long – after – her death – yet prior to the medical examiner receiving her body. The medical doctor states: on page 227 line 18: There was not a significant amount of blood in the warm-ups in this area. Leading her to believe that the leg laceration was received perimortem. – She considered this contaminated evidence in forming her opinion and prior to my trial the news media

capitalized on there not being any blood in the area of the cut on her right leg – this played a major role in her forming her opinion and final conclusion.

I know that Ms. Gonsoulin is still in training, but she ought to at less have a little common sense. She needs to go outside – get a water hose, turn the water on and have another person stand about 8 – 10 feet behind her and kink the hose. The very instant the hose is kinked the water will stop. There is water still in the hose between her and the person doing the kinking and the end the water would come out of. You see when there is NO PRESSURE there is nothing to push the water out of the hose. It’s the pressure that forces the water out the end of the hose. She stated on page 202 that “THE MAIN ARTERY THAT SUPPLIED THE REST OF THE BODY WITH BLOOD, A SEGMENT OF THAT ARTERY WAS TORN IN TWO PIECES”. That would be the same as if the person kinking the hose would cut it in two. I will explain how this leg laceration occurred later with a picture of the trucks utility bed. The only other times this injury is talked about at all is by the prosecutor – my attorneys never mentioned it – on the bottom of page 223 top of page 224. Q. They’re looking at the pictures of this laceration – it appears that there’s a chink of the leg cut out but actually that’s not the case, is it? A. No. Q. The portion that’s pulled down that far it’s just pulled down; it’s not, there’s no skin missing from there? A. It’s just a separation of the skin and the fat underneath the skin from the muscle. You don’t have any information or could you tell how that cut happened to her leg? A. NO. – Before we move on I’d like to briefly explain why Markie has this large laceration on her right lower leg – as well as why the laceration appears to have a section missing – when actually it’s just separated. This injury to Markie’s lower right leg is a very KEY injury that is 100% proof that she jumped out of the Utility Truck and the sharp bottom edge of the trucks Utility Bed caused this injury as well as the separation of the laceration – you see as her right leg turned up under the Utility Bed skinning the Hyde off the top side of her right foot, chewing a hole in her sock – the utility bed’s sharp bottom edge was cutting into her lower right leg – the friction and other opposing forces were pulling her lower leg in a downward direction as the top half of her body was being pulled in an upward direction – as the truck twisted and ejected her body all at the same time separating this lower leg laceration.

MY TOW GRAT ATTORNEYS – DO NOT ASK ONE QUESTION ABOUT THIS KEY (PROOF) INJURY.

The very next question - on page 206 - the prosecutor is asking about the head area and, were they post-mortem or perimortem. But the D.A. does not ask questions about all the internal injuries to the heart, liver, lung and arteries. He does not ask one time how they occurred!

As she was telling about the injuries to the head – on page 208 she states – “Well, on external examination on palpating or pressing on the face you could feel bones that were broken in the face, which I didn’t actually examine the front facial bones”. Well I would say she didn’t do a complete autopsy just on that statement alone, but this is even more obvious after going through her testimony.

The prosecutor goes into questions about the neck that Ms. Gonsoulin will say how she things they happened – which is she does not know all she can say is – there is blood in the tissue of the neck.

On page 209 the D.A. Q. Let’s talk about the injuries to the neck. There was haemorrhage, what we call superficial and deep musculature, of the neck, the strap muscle of the neck, which means that there was enough blood pressure to produce bleeding when the neck was injured. There were also what we call contusions or bruises on – each side of the windpipe on the trachea. These injuries indicate that there was a significant amount of pressure around the neck, usually constriction, which was introduced while the decedent is still alive. Usually constriction – this is all she states, are injuries to the neck. Remember what Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, Said on page 31 of this report, “THEY INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD2 she also said, “in all cases I’ve been involved in they always mislead in favour of a conviction”. This is what the prosecutor asks for in these words: Q. “And, if you would, describe the injuries that you observed in the neck area?” In those words I did not see were he said only the injuries that we can lie about and say were caused by strangulation. But then he didn’t have to because they had already talked about this before she got on the stand. She already knows what the D.A. wants her to say and when to say it. The jury will not get to hear about the massive breaking on the base of her skull. The braking of the axis - The c-1 – she broke her medulla obligate. She had all these injuries, but Ms. Gonsoulin – as you can see only stated the injuries she could lie about and say were caused by strangulation. She has pictures that were taken layer by layer. The skin on the outside of her neck is unmark able – there is no sign of strangulation on the outer surface of her neck – nothing – not a scratch – not a mark – nothing. Now because there are no marks on her neck she can not very well lie and say how she would like to say she was strangled. – Manual – by hands or ligature – which is with a rope or cord or something tied around the neck. Think about just now preposterous this really is – when we know I was driving a five speed – one ton Utility Truck. I have to steer with one hand – turn – shift gears – turn – shift gears the road curves to the left. So I had to shift gears at less five times not counting the times I had to down shift. So where did I get the third arm and third hand. It’s already been well established that I did not have time to strangle Markie. Now we clearly see I do not have a hand that is not being used on the vehicle. But because the prosecutor has this really ridiculous theory, I will break down his testimony and show you just how preposterous it is.

Picture 43 she states: shows the most superficial layer of muscle in the neck. In this picture there’s faint haemorrhage here and some that shows up here every so – slightly. Even after they move the outer skin – the best she can say is faint, - FAINT and SLIGHTLY.  Picture 44 – The strap muscles are coming down this way. There’s an area of haemorrhage here, just a small area of haemorrhage in the lower portion of the strap muscles, the carotid and the jugular artery, and there’s some haemorrhage associated with that on both sides.

On page 213 she makes this statement: in her testimony and I want to point this out so we can have a good understanding of how blood gets in tissue – that she says was caused by strangulation. A. Right, because there is not enough blood pressure to introduce the blood into the tissue. Now she is saying this about the reddish – purple area of the haemorrhage in the neck and it had to be before death, she says because after death there is not enough blood pressure. She is clearly saying that it is blood pressure that introduces the blood into the tissue.

Apparently Ms. Gonsoulin is very singular minded. If she has no knowledge of different types of pressure. Blood pressure is not the only kind of pressure – for example a poston in a cylinder creates pressure – being as she is a woman and a so called medical doctor maybe she could at less think of a person getting a shot in the arm and how the fluid is induced into the tissue. Pressure – the fact is the tissue does not know from where the pressure came from. Pressure – is – pressure. She needs to think about what she said on page 226 – line 4: “Consistent with an impact of great force, “Yes”. And when all the injuries to her neck are taken into consideration we can see how this great force caused the pressure from the centre of her neck out wand. This is why the injuries are more severe in the centre of her neck completely fading away before reaching the surface of her outer neck – which is unmark able. Her neck was the cylinder and the force (Truck’s Utility Bed) piston as Markie’s head hit the road and her body with great force collapsed like an accordion on her neck and head. It was this great force that caused the mortal injuries to her head and neck. And this happened a split second or so after the injuries to her chest, hop, thigh and leg. But they were all incurred within a few seconds at the most and all Markie’s injuries were incurred as a result of her jumping out of my work Truck – feet first – her warm-ups hanging on the door latch causing her to not clear the Utility Bed and being hit by the Bed – Flipping her from an upright position to a prone position – to a downward head first angle – like being pile driven in a wrestling match – without the cushion – multiplied by the force of the one ton truck’s Hard – Blunt – Sharp Edged – Utility Bed at speed. Now isn’t it reasonable to think or believe that Markie, could have received these neck injuries by being pile driven into the road by the force of the Utility Bed – pile driving her head first into the road – or  - is it more reasonable to believe that she could have been strangled to death in two minutes – her necks outer surface unmark able – I’m driving a five speed Utility Truck – four two foot long florescent tube shaped bulbs – the kind that very easily explode laying unbroken on the front seat – her little tiny necklace that she is wearing – unharmed – not to mention the 9-1-1- calls and other evidence that was either destroyed or forgotten – turned into inadmissible hearsay in regard to Markie, being seen attempting to jump out of the Truck at speed – or the denied money and time to have Markie’s finger nail clippings tested for my DNA – The D.A. and the judge will not allow me to have these fingernail clippings of Markie’s tested because they know she was not strangled or murdered in any way, form or fashion. Had she been strangled I would have scratches on me and Markie would have my DNA under her finger nails – her neck would have been scratched or at less marks – wouldn’t that be fair to say? – You’re the jury – things are not so because I say or because the prosecutor says – nor are they so because Ms. Gonsoulin says. Things are only so when you whole heartedly – open minded – realistically – seek the truth – weigh it out – pray and ponder on it.

There are many questions My attorneys should have asked and comparisons they could have given – like the water hose example on getting a shot in the arm, but most assuredly they should have paid attention to what the witness said when the prosecutor asked these questions. All throughout the trial they missed opportunity after opportunity to get evidence before the jury. Just as they did on page 258, when they ask this question: Q. so if the medulla obligate, the brain stem, was torn because of a fall from a vehicle – mr. Long; Again I’m going to object. There’s been no evidence of a fall from the vehicle. The Court: Sustained. Mr. McDowell: your Honor, we’re able to ask this expert witness hypothetical questions like that. Mr. Long: sure, based on the evidence. Now right there Mr. McDowell should have said: This witness herself has given testimony when the D.A. was asking her these questions, like on page 215 line 16 – 19: She states, consistent with the kind of blunt force injuries you see in motor vehicle accidents or accidents where people FALL out of cars or just the body scrapping against something with significant force. And again on page 216: A. It was more constricted rather than blunt force received from FALLING FROM A VEHICLE. Then they could have said, this woman has already given testimony about what is or is not consistent with FALLING OUT OF A VEHICLE. Therefore the defence has the right to ask questions about what may or may not happened to a person if they fall out of a vehicle going forty miles per hour. As that was the hypothetical question they were trying to ask. To show the jury how ridiculous this prosecutor is. I will print a few more lines of what he said. Mr. McDowell: We can ask expert witnesses hypotheticals. Mr. Long: If it’s based on the evidence. Mr. McDowell: No, sir, we can ask them hypotheticals. Mr. Long: You can ask how far it is to the moon but there has to be some evidence about it. Now you have to admit that is very ridiculous. And it is even more so because the D.A. asks this hypothetical question on page 226: Q. Consistent with somebody being either hit or impacting with a blunt object, possibly a tire or vehicle? There is absolutely no evidence that she was ran over by or hit by a tire. Although there is evidence she was not ran over or hit by a tire. In my testimony – in Mr. Young’s testimony as well as the states forensic science expert testimony – who testified on page 159 – line 18 – 23 – that he looked over her clothing with a microscope and there is no indication that she was ran over.

Ms. Gonsoulin’s final conclusion – trial testimony – Pages – 273 – 274 – State:

1. The COURT:            MR: McDowell

2. RECROSS EXAMINATION

3. BY MR. McDowell:

4. Q. Doctor, you have never signed below the top line

5. Before?

6. A. No.

7. Q. And you signed at the top line on this document because

8. You were still in fellowship, right?

9. A. That’s correct.

10. Q. You can’t completely finished all of your

11. Training to be a medical examiner?

12. A. That’s correct.

13. Q And in your finding you said it is likely that the

14. Decedent was strangled, right?

15. A. Yes.

16. Q. You picked that word likely?

17. A. Yes.

18. Q. And probably you picked that word, too?

19. A. Yes

20. Q. And that’s because you don’t know for sure?

21. A. I don’t know for sure that she was dead or near

22. death, which I believe that’s probably what you’re

23. Referring to.

24. Q. Correct.

25. A. I couldn’t say for sure that she was dead or

NEXT PAGE

1. whether or not she was near death at the time that she was 

2. dumped from the vehicle according to my decision. And I

3. used the word likely that the decedent was strangled and

4. probably dead to connect the two concepts.

5. Mr. McDowell: thank you ma’am

6. No further questions.

7. The Court: Mr. Long.

8. Mr. Long: but it’s your opinion she was strangled

9. either manually or with ligature and that she died from

10. that and blunt force injuries from impacting with

11. SOMETHING?

12. The witness: Yes.

13. Mr. Long: no other questions.

14. The court: Mr. McDowell.

15. Mr. McDowell: Nothing further, your Honor.

16. the Court: All right. You may step down. Thank

17. you very much.

18. Folks, we got our money’s worth today. We’ll

19. start again tomorrow morning at 8:30.

20. Now remember the admonitions of the Court. Don’t

21. talk about the case. Don’t listen to anything about the

22. case. Don’t watch anything on television…

23. (JURY ADMONISHED AND RELEASED FOR THE DAY)

24. THE COURT: can the doctor be released?

25. Mr. Long: We’re happy to let her go, your Honor.

Now I ask you to think – intently – on all the ramifications of being ran over by a tire or tires of a one ton fully loaded Utility Truck? It is imperative that we know and understand all the dynamics of all the injuries that Markie, received when she jumped out of my Utility work Truck. Remembering that things are not so, because I say they are this way or that way. Things are only so when you seek the truth by the preponderance of the evidence and pray. Only when the truth is in you can the truth be made known unto you. With this in mind lets first look at the injuries in comparison to being ran over by a tire. “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit…..”

The prosecutor’s theory “Strangled – pulled out of the truck – placed her on the side of the road – got back in the truck and ran over her “HEAD”.

She has the large laceration on her lower right leg and road – rash on the top side of her foot. Now no one can say how she could receive these injuries by being laid on the road and ran over. Further more no one has ever said or even – ask the question of how she was supposedly lying on the road when she was supposedly ran over, this is because she was never ran over had she been the D.A. would have asked these questions to conform with which ever side she would have had to have tire tracks crossing her body (there are none – she was not ran over). Looking at the autopsy pictures you can clearly see that none of her injuries could have been made by a tire.

There are all these massive internal injuries in her chest area that were caused by opposing forces as well as the sudden impact with the road – in order to have the tearing. So if a body were to be laying on the road way how fast would the truck have to be going to hit the body and cause all these massive internal injuries that Markie, had? If a one ton fully loaded utility Truck were to hit the body with only the tires – with the speed needed to cause this massive internal damage to the chest – would it not have cut the body into – or at less left some kind of tire marks on her? How far would I had had to backup to obtain the speed needed to cause all these internal injuries? Now I hope you understand why I ask you to think intently on all the different ramifications of being run over by a tire or tires. The BIG question here is, why were those questions never asked or WHY was the prosecutor not mandated by the jury to prove his theory? It is the prosecutor and only the prosecutor who bears the responsibility to prove the decedent was strangled and ran over!

We still have this huge problem with the neck and head injuries. Now if she was ran over – and as you will see by the prosecutors closing arguments – put her head in front of the front on back tire and ran over her. Ran over her head – then why is the right side of her face unmarkable? Why did she have an abrasion on her chin and left eye? How could the tire of a one ton fully loaded truck go across her head in any way form or fashion and not do any damage to her teeth or the right side of her face? In fact how could running over her head cause – road rash on the top side of her foot – large laceration on her right lower leg – abrasion on her hip 13 inches in diamature – massive pulpification to her organs? How could placing her head in front of a tire cause any of her injuries to her body?

On page 258 my attorneys tried to ask Ms. Gonsoulin a hypothetical question. Q. If someone falls from a vehicle going forty miles per hour and beaks or tears their medulla obligate, there’s going to be instantaneous death; isn’t that right? Mr. Long: My objection is, it assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes that there was a fall from a vehicle. It assumes that the vehicle was travelling forty miles an hour. Hypotheticals are fine if they are based on the evidence or being asked by the prosecutor. The judge did not allow the question to be answered.

My attorneys did nothing. Now if I had money my attorneys would have stated: That is what we are doing now, Judge, we are putting on evidence to show the speed needed as well as how the injury occurred. This defendant has the right to put on hypotheticals in light of what he said happened. They would have asked the court – the prosecutor – just where is the evidence that she was ran over. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, THAT SHE WAS RAN OVER?! – WHERE IS IT? Mr. Young and everybody else have testified that she was not run over. Mr. Young, clearly stated that Mr. Acker did not run over her. – The States forensic science expert clearly stated that he looked over her clothing with a microscope, and found no indication that she was ran over. I took the stand as the very last witness and testified that I did not run over Markie. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE MR: LONG? WHERE’S IT AT – I WANT TO KNOW!!!???? In fact when you were asking Ms. Gonsoulin about the significant fractures to her head you ask: Q. Consistent with somebody either hit or impacting with a blunt object, possibly a tire or a vehicle? Her answer was: Yes consistent with impact of great force, yes. The word impact implies to object colliding (to come together with great force). The word “tire” does not imply to any such thing.

What is an impact of great force? To answer this we will look at just how Markie received her injuries and what were the forces that created the impact of great force. I do not know for sure how fast I was going when she jumped out – my attention was not on my speed – I was moving along fairly fast – especially to be on a one lane oil road – that is why I took my foot off the gas as the car with the two people in it was coming towards us.

For the sole purpose of comparison I will use the speed of fifty miles an hour. I do not know the precise forces of a one ton fully loaded Utility Truck travelling 50 mph so hypothetically speaking if I was going 50 mph when she jumped out – caught in the wind draft at 50 mph in the opposite direction then this could have created a force on her internal organs at 100 mph. that would mean for this same force to hit her by running over her body or her head laid out on the road, I would have had to back off far enough to get the Utility Truck up to 100 mph if not more. Now I ask you to study the next four following pages which is a picture of the truck and injuries.

(Mortal – blunt – force – trauma, and photos)

Page 44 – 63