|
Brian Chevalier is an innocent man. Here is why.
On September 2, 2010 Brian passed a polygraph test on the exact issues (“victim’s” testimony) that were used to convict him.
1.“When you were at the Jaffrey Pizza Barn, did you have a gun with you?" NO
2. "When you were at the Jaffrey Pizza Barn, did you push Eileen's face against the steering column or wheel?" NO
3. "When you were at the Jaffrey Pizza Barn, did you hit Eileen in the face?" NO
4. "When you were at the Jaffrey Pizza Barn, did you do anything to prevent Eileen from driving away?" NO
It was her testimony about these “facts” that lead to his conviction.
Almost 300 convicted people have been freed based upon new evidence, DNA. 44 of them in one state. The polygraph is not good enough in the eyes of the Court. Neither is statement analysis yet both are used daily in law enforcement. In NH if a paroled sex offender fails a polygraph he can go back to prison. If the test is good enough to put someone back in: WHY NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO GET SOMEONE A NEW TRIAL.
The Prosecutor’s duty “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. “ _________________________________________________________________________________
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone .
————————————————————————————————————————-
Also worthy of note. From her written statement: "My husband departed and left my daughter in my charge. Luckily she and Brian are fond of each other "
We = John Healy Private Investigator, Retired State Police Lt. Dan Dumaine, former Keene Officer, Private Investigator and Former State Representative Justin Nadeau, Esq. Attorney _______________________________________________________________
An analysis of the victim’s written statement (Please see further down for details) showed that it was a highly deceptive statement. _______________________________________________________________
HISTORY:
I teach Statement Analysis. I was given a copy of the statement of the victim while teaching a class. It was obvious, immediately, that it was a highly deceptive statement. It was due to my analysis of the statement that we contacted Brian. HE DID NOT COME TO US, WE WENT TO HIM.
These links will take you to the data I hope you will read.
Statement Analysis is used widely in Law Enforcement, the Military and Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies. It is taught at the NH Police Academy, the FBI Academy and around the world. I have taught it for many years.
My class has been presented at:
The Vermont Criminal Justice Academy NH Police Academy (Advanced SCAN) Vermont Bureau of the ATF Warner, NH Police Dept. Weare, NH Police Dept. Vermont Attorney General Vermont Defender General Bennington, Vermont Police Department And many other venues
TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM DURING THE TRIAL.
The real story from Brian. Consensual meeting and sex Changes in her story. There were MANY. My letter to the media for Brian ____________________________________________________________________ Please take a look at two sentences written by the victim herself.
“Brian XXXXX surprised me from behind an other internal door of the basement “
Later, at the end of the statement she then tells us:
“My estranged husband was not pleased that I had violated his homestead by permitting Brian in. “
In her own words she slips and tells us she permitted him in. As you read her statement look at page 4 line 48 and the text that follows. Note how often you see the word “we”. This word forms a voluntary partnership with another person in everyday usage. There is no “we” after a rape or violent attack.
Her testimony from the trial transcript: She was asked a question about being held against her will and the phone messages.
“Two cordless handsets had caller ID on them and he had walked me out into the other room where the answering machine was SO he could listen to see what kind of message was coming through SO if it’s somebody looking for me or someone that I might be expecting to come over.”
She does not say there was a message or that he listened to one. She said he could have…………if there were one. If there were a message she would have told us he listened AND she would have told us the content. Investigation revealed there were no incoming messages. She never states that there was a message or that he listened to one. She expressed possibilities. Wishful thinking. In her written statement, which is long and extremely detailed, she makes no mention of this. All she says is:
“Prior to his 11:00 PM curfew he had phoned his parole officer”
Even though not admissible in Court the polygraph and Statement Analysis are used as a tool everyday in law enforcement. Neither tool was applied here. When they are applied things change. ____________________________________________________________________
DUTY OF THE POLICE AND PROSECUTOR……………………..and all of us.
Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). “………….. Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256 (1967) (Justice White, concurring and dissenting). “ Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain and present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we must also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The state has the obligation to present the evidence. He need not present any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecutor’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth”.
The Police and Prosecution did nothing wrong in this case. However in light of the doubt cast by this new evidence they should not oppose, rather they should support, a new trial.
Dan and I arrested a lot of people during our careers. But this is all about JUSTICE. We feel we have an obligation to pursue JUSTICE and we are asking for your help by granting us some of your valuable time.
___________________________________________________________________________
|
