Witness Tampering?

Throughout the Jon Massey Case we encountered multiple instances of highly suspect behavior.

Ruby was allowed to have a tablet at Christmastime in 2012 which she then used to "mysteriously" connect to the Internet (under the supervision of her foster parents). She began contacting a number of witnesses for the defense asking/telling them to not make statements, not testify, etc.

Subsequently one of the individuals, who had signed TWO affidavits expressing her disbelief in Ruby's story, totally reversed her testimony at trial in February 2014.

That tablet also "mysteriously" "burned up" within a week or two of the defense's discovery of Ruby's actions.

In May of 2013 Ruby joined the track team at her school, despite being diagnosed with flat feet and running being a sport that caused her pain, and as a member she traveled to one of her former schools. While there she approached at least one defense witness and told that person to "stop signing statements against me" and "don't testify".

The DA's office sent an "investigator" to "interview" multiple defense witnesses, and the investigator demanded that each witness who agreed to the interview tell everything that they would testify regarding.

When Jon Massey's mother failed to return his phone call within three hours (she had already left a message with the DA's office that she would NOT meet with him), he called the NY State Police claiming to be concerned about her well-being, and sent them to do a "welfare check" on her apartment.

The ADA served a trial subpoena on at least one of the witnesses at 11:30 pm - which was contradictory to protocol.

Most interesting, however, is the actions of the DA herself (not just one of her underlings).

Let me paraphrase this email - it sounds like "We are offering a job to the son of two of your witnesses, but the job offer disappears if those witnesses actually will be testifying".

The email doesn't mention that the same message was conveyed to both parents of the young man in question.

Surprisingly enough, both parents maintained their status on the witness list, because they had both known Ruby for over nine years and had witnessed her behaviors over the years PRIOR to Jon Massey entering the household.

If this case was so "transparent", why all the actions of multiple parties towards defense witnesses that have the appearance of harassment and intimidation?

Time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

A jury is directed to only pronounce a guilty verdict if they are sure "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But what exactly does that mean?

In this day and age of Stepford mentality, we are pressured to conform to current PC beliefs and behaviors, and people are (unfortunately) reluctant to assert themselves.

However the true function of a jury depends not upon going along with the crowd, but with standing your ground and remaining true to your beliefs, regardless of the pressures exerted on you by others.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical  explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com)

When you vote "guilty", can you truly say that none of the evidence could support another theory?

Can you truly say that you held true to your own doubts and beliefs that another explanation held weight and was reasonable?

Can you truly say that you stood up against pressure to vote with the crowd? Pressure to end the case before the weekend? Pressure from the prosecutor or court to not leave a "hung jury"?

And if you had been a juror in the Jon Massey case, what would it have taken to elevate the level of doubt in your mind?

Would hearing from two of the "adult" men that Ruby had been trying to figure out ways to get out from under supervision for MONTHS prior to allegations have helped?

Would hearing from her mother that what incited Ruby into a violent attack against her mother, sister, and Jon Massey was a threat to arrest her 21 year old boyfriend - less than two weeks before the false allegations? Oh, wait, the judge screamed at the mother in front of you and then ordered you cleared from the room and didn't allow you to hear that piece of evidence.

And the judge and prosecutor prevented you from hearing the same story from Ruby's sister. Would hearing it have given you enough doubt?

What if you had known that Ruby had made allegations against multiple people over the years, including her "best friend", and the sons of some well-known local individuals? Would that have made the difference?

I feel sorry for the jurors in the Jon Massey case. Based on what they DIDN'T know, they found an innocent man guilty.

I truly feel sorry for them. Well, most of them.

There has to be a special place for this juror who made the following post on Facebook the day before being chosen for jury duty - most of the conversation is between the juror and her mother.

Almost sounds like a ringer or a plant.

I would hope that when being called to jury duty, this serves as a cautionary tale - the judge and the DA rely on being elected. To get re-elected they need to present an image of being able to convict "bad guys", whether the charges and allegations are true. The more heinous the offense, the more favorable the election publicity.

Don't be a sheeple - think for yourself, believe for yourself, and remember that guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt!

ADAs (Apparently Dumb Attorneys)

The first ADA (Assistant District Attorney) involved in the Jon Massey case was a go-getter.

He had a shining career in prosecuting sexual offenses against minors that was the subject of a very favorable interview in the local newspaper.

The article even documents the inter-agency cooperation between CPS and the District Attorney's office, as it details the use of the Child Advocacy Center - a location used by CPS for interviewing children (and it was used to interview Ruby in the Massey case).

But there was an undercurrent swirling around the ADA. First were the issues involving the first grand jury that heard the Massey case.

Leading up to that grand jury, we have documentation that numerous affidavits and other evidence were sent to the ADA that would cast substantial doubt on Ruby's story, yet he proceeded forward regardless.

Even the DA was concerned about the reliability/credibility of the case, as presented in the discovery from CPS:

There is documentation that this first ADA spent at least two 3-hour sessions with Ruby reviewing her story and working on her testimony before the first Grand Jury, as well as the hours of time spent with other experts and prosecutorial parties - see Numbers Don't Lie!

However the first ADA assigned to the case did a major crash and burn, and left his position at the DA's office in March 2013.

The next ADA filed a motion in the case that definitively states that Ruby's story had been checked and verified as being as accurate and as complete as possible. This would make sense - there were well over 34 documented hours of interviews regarding time, place, and events that occurred with Ruby. The new ADA had access to all of the files and records in the case and so would have been confident of these details enough to put her name to a sworn statement.

Additionally, the second ADA directly witnessed the testimony of the psychologist that was paid by the county to do an evaluation of Ruby, she herself called him as a witness and did the direct examination of this expert. So when she presented the letter below to the judge four days after the hearing ended, it was blatantly disingenuous.

It must be very gratifying to work for the DA's office in our county - you can be incompetent, ineffective, and inept, and still collect a regular paycheck.

As taxpayers, we definitely are NOT getting our money's worth!