[peggys123]

What does it matter who I am? Will that give me better answers?

[ScottGem]

What does it matter who I am? Will that give me better answers?

It might. If we understand your interest in this, it could affect our advice.

[peggys123]

I do not see that you need to know who I am or my interest. This is what happened and I just want to know if that or what is procedure for atm deposits. Is it done under camera or employee(s) verifying each other. What happens to the deposit after it has been deposited.

[JudyKayTee]

Your questions have been answered and answered and answered in general, not with specificity because we don't know where you are or which bank you are asking about - information which you don't want to share.

At this point if you want very specific, targeted info, you need to consult with an Attorney and share.

I know the procedure at Bank of America very specifically. After that it's just conjecture that all banks operate in the same fashion.

Your level of irritation makes me believe the whole story isn't being posted here, and that includes prior arrests, convictions, legal problems.

I think it's time to close this adventure.

[ScottGem]

As Judy said, your questions were answered about bank procedure. If you don't want to explain your part in this you don't have to, but it limits how we can help any further.

The case as you described it doesn't make sense. Any decent lawyer should have been able to get this dismissed for lack of evidence. Or at least gotten a not guilty for reasonable doubt. Bottom line is we find it hard to believe your story and your being secretive about your part in it increases our suspicions.

[peggys123]

I know it is hard to believe. It is still hard for me to believe.

[peggys123]

Thank you for explaining. What is your relationship to this person. MOTHER Was this person represented by counsel? Yes A Public Defender

To convict someone of bank fraud, without a) the testimony of the bank employees (both of them) or b) video evidence of opening the envelope doesn't make sense. I can't believe a prosecutor would prosecute such a case nor a judge or jury convict.

So I suspect there is more to this story then you are telling us or are being told.

I also could not believe this case was prosecuted. Conviction was on circumstantial evidence

Here is a Link to a story. I have posted in the comments under ( finally ) not the jewellery story

Jewelry store owner disappointed by burglar's sentence | Paxton Record

[ScottGem]

I also could not believe this case was prosecuted. Conviction was on circumstantial evidence

First, I'm so sorry for your loss. I think I understand how frustrating and saddening this all must be for you.

However, as has been said before, all we are hearing is your side of this. And it makes no sense that a jury convicted him on such evidence. Without seeing a transcript of the trial we have only your side of it. I can't fathom how his defense attorney failed to get his dismissed based on what you have said.

But I'm also not sure what else you want from us. We have agreed with you that a conviction based on what you have told us makes no sense. I would advise to appeal, but apparently it is too late for that.

I hope your suit succeeds though I'm sure that will be small comfort.

[peggys123]

Thanks. I do have transcripts now and that is some of what is in transcripts. The judge does say that the jury agreed that enough circumstantial evidence was produced to jury for them to find him guilty and denied post trial motion.I thank you for your answer all who answered.

[ScottGem]

Thanks. I do have transcripts now and that is some of what is in transcripts. The judge does say that the jury agreed that enough circumstantial evidence was produced to jury for them to find him guilty and denied post trial motion.I thank you for your answer all who answered.

Our criminal justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. That also means a person has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence should not be enough unless it leads to no doubt. I know, had I been on a jury and no evidence was presented to prove the envelope was empty, which is what you are telling us, I would never have voted to convict. Had I been the defense attorney, I would have hammered home the reasonable doubt doctrine and I would have kept asking why no direct evidence was presented to prove the envelope was empty.

But that doesn't help you any at this point. In fact, it may make you feel worse. And I apologize for that. I really don't know what more to say to you. The only thing I can think for you to do at this point is to go to the media. Try to get an investigation as to why the prosecutor chose to prosecute such a flimsy case, why the defense attorney didn't mount a better defense, how a jury could convict on such flimsy evidence and whether your son's death is linked somehow to this apparent miscarriage of justice.

Maybe that will help you get the closure you seem to need.

[peggys123]

First, I'm so sorry for your loss. I think I understand how frustrating and saddening this all must be for you.

However, as has been said before, all we are hearing is your side of this. And it makes no sense that a jury convicted him on such evidence. Without seeing a transcript of the trial we have only your side of it. I can't fathom how his defense attorney failed to get his dismissed based on what you have said.

But I'm also not sure what else you want from us. We have agreed with you that a conviction based on what you have told us makes no sense. I would advise to appeal, but apparently it is too late for that.

I hope your suit succeeds though I'm sure that will be small comfort.

Without seeing a transcript of the trial we have only your side of it.

Here is some of what is in transcripts. I appreciate that you have answered all questions. No envelope. No witnesses to empty envelope

Sending 1 more attachment was only able to upload 5 max

[peggys123]

First, I'm so sorry for your loss. I think I understand how frustrating and saddening this all must be for you.

However, as has been said before, all we are hearing is your side of this. And it makes no sense that a jury convicted him on such evidence. Without seeing a transcript of the trial we have only your side of it. I can't fathom how his defense attorney failed to get his dismissed based on what you have said.

But I'm also not sure what else you want from us. We have agreed with you that a conviction based on what you have told us makes no sense. I would advise to appeal, but apparently it is too late for that.

I hope your suit succeeds though I'm sure that will be small comfort.

Here is one more page

[ScottGem]

I'm in shock. It certainly looks like the defense attorney made the right arguments. My one question is whether these arguments were made in front of a jury and what instructions were given to the jury in terms of reasonable doubt.

But again, this really doesn't help you does it? Does it make you feel better that someone else is shocked at the judge's actions or the jury's verdict? If so then I hope I have made you feel better.

But there is no point in an appeal, and it has no bearing on the wrongful death suit,

[peggys123]

I'm in shock. It certainly looks like the defense attorney made the right arguments. My one question is whether these arguments were made in front of a jury and what instructions were given to the jury in terms of reasonable doubt.

But again, this really doesn't help you does it? Does it make you feel better that someone else is shocked at the judge's actions or the jury's verdict? If so then I hope I have made you feel better.

But there is no point in an appeal, and it has no bearing on the wrongful death suit,

I'm in shock. It certainly looks like the defense attorney made the right arguments. My one question is whether these arguments were made in front of a jury and what instructions were given to the jury in terms of reasonable doubt.

But again, this really doesn't help you does it? Does it make you feel better that someone else is shocked at the judge's actions or the jury's verdict? No it does not. I could feel something not right at trial. The judge is resident where trial was done. Small town and I am sure everyone knows him. I know the judge knew not enough evidence. The jurors were also from same town or next town. He had no chance I think. I just wonder why the PD did not object to the hearsay or why the PD did not demand that witnesses who opened envelope be subpoena. He mentions this stuff in his closing statements.

What would make me feel better is if this never happened and my son was still here.
Here are the jury instructions

3 more pages to follow

[peggys123]

I'm in shock. It certainly looks like the defense attorney made the right arguments. My one question is whether these arguments were made in front of a jury and what instructions were given to the jury in terms of reasonable doubt.

But again, this really doesn't help you does it? Does it make you feel better that someone else is shocked at the judge's actions or the jury's verdict? If so then I hope I have made you feel better.

But there is no point in an appeal, and it has no bearing on the wrongful death suit,

Rest of pages

[Fr_Chuck]

First I have stayed out of this conversation to this point, I have to say that, most of the reason is that some things are believed or taken as fact. Only your bank knows its procedures, but in general, depending if it is at a bank or not at bank, but at a bank, two employees normally go into the machine and take the items back into the secure area of bank, ( and fill machine with cash) At other locations, this is done by armed security, normally only one employee is working with the cash, and the other is watching for security.

There is a trust factor within the banks, and most people find it more believable that someone will lie about making a deposit at a ATM ( this is a common thing to happen) Than someone would pick that one deposit to steal money from, and not any others.

The facts would lead to a conviction, in my mind, with a jury. ** that was their choice of a jury or judge trial.

They prove that a deposit was recorded by using the defendants PIN used at machine, to show he was the one that logged on, and by use of the camera showing their face at machine. The log in information shows what was done at machine.

The banks records showing that no money was found is taken as proof or truth. Most juries are going to accept this, because of standard business practice.

The defense attorney could have (if they did not) the person who got money from machine, the clerk who opened it, all on the stand to question them. They could have questioned or gotten bank records of other missing money, or also, bank records of these people to see if there was any money transfers that matched. Or if deposits where made same day of exact amount to another account by error.

* I do not know what defense attorney did or did not do, but all of this takes money and I am not sure, how much money was available for defense.

Next, if he made the deposit, he could have shown a history of making the same type of deposits. Did he make regular deposits in cash at a ATM, if so, was it about the same amount every week ?

But in general, it all comes down to belief, they jury did not believe this person made the deposiit, They may also look at age, jobs, character , any prior crimes and more when looking at this.

[ScottGem]

What would make me feel better is if this never happened and my son was still here.

I know that would, but its not going to happen. Nothing anyone says or does will do that. I feel for you and your loss. But rehashing the failures of the judicial system in your son's case is not going to do you any good. You might want to consider bereavement counseling to help you deal with your loss.

In looking over the transcripts, it appears that the defense attorney didn't make a rebuttal case, but simply relied on the lack of hard evidence to sway the judge and/or jury. If that's the case, I think that was a mistake. He should have subpoenaed the bank records and employees. As Chuck said, a jury would probably be predisposed to believe a bank, even without proof. If the bank testified that their tally was short the amount of your son's deposit, the jury would be likely to believe it without evidence to the contrary.

[Fr_Chuck]

I have been in dozens of trials, and I have testified in courts. The thing with trials, is that often a jury will assume the person is guilty because police arrested them. Also some things are also accepted as fact. People want to believe and want to trust institutions, A example, as a police officer when I testify what I say, normally holds more value.

[JudyKayTee]

FrChuck hit that nail right on the head. I have had witnesses to accidents change their eye witness statements when they find out that the Police reported something to the contrary. Yes, the "average citizen" perceives the Police to be truthful than the public in the cases I investigate.

I am fequently on AMHD stating that the Police are after the fact witnesses and not the authority on how the accident happened.

Small matter concerned to this but I testified in a case where a loose dog ran into the road and was the cause of a serious auto accident. The dog owner's insurance paid part of the settlement.

The problem? That homeowner's dog was deceased at the time of the accident, the owner had proof, all testimony was that the people did not own a dog - the dog involved was a stray. My investigation and surveillance showed no dog.

The Judge didn't believe the evidence.

[peggys123]

After the trial my son was found guilty. I feel this was a conspiracy. I did tell my son before trial that maybe we should hire attorney instead of the public defender. My son said the public defender told him this is a BULLxxxt case do not worry about it.

This PD could have done the right thing for my son. I think he ignored things that would have found my son not guilty

PD put on a good show in the motions and the closing statements yet does not ask that witnesses be produced,or a video or even a notarized statement.

The public defender,the prosecutor ,the judge, and the bank vice president, I believe new that a envelope was deposited and they new it was not empty. The envelope was not empty.

The cash deposit was a large amount and if it was a blank envelope the ATM I think would have rejected deposit because it would not be thick enough.


Someone else did this crime and it was not my son.

I know the bank is lying about the deposit. I have been told that deposit was made and the bank did not receive a empty envelope.

I honestly think that this lead to the death of my son at the jail.

His death stops appeal and his death stops truth about this case. Is what they thought