Even though the judge ordered photos of the crime scene, it seems when it “came down to the wire” the state objected to a series of photos being scanned.
The big question is “Why?”
I get it. It’s a lawyer thing. The State Representative is there to protect the State. But I can’t help but think it goes a little deeper than that. We must wonder why they will not open the file. What do they have to hide? What are they protecting the State “from?” And if Jamie Snow is guilty, why not just open all of the discovery?
Instead, they take it to the judge because that’s what lawyers have to do.
So here we are.
The Exoneration Project necessarily filed a motion to scan the photos. McLean County filed a response that Jamie Snow does not have a right to those photos under the current order.
Why doesn’t Jamie Snow have the right to his entire file? All photos, all police reports, EVERYTHING. Why are they so defensive? Ironic, isn’t it?
If you are so inclined, below are links to both motions, along with select quotes.
“However, on April 26, 2016, while the State and counsel for Mr. Snow were reviewing photographs at BPD. the State objected to counsel scanning some photographs in BPD’s possession, including close-up photographs of a red car in the parking lot of the gas station, and photographs showing a dark car that appeared to be in a garage.”
A recent Ground Report article by Bruce Fischer outlines a discussion involving McLean County State’s Attorney Jason Chambers in reference to the DNA testing issue in Jamie Snow’s case.
Definitely worth the read…screenshots and all.
He still doesn’t answer the question, “Why not test the DNA?”
“Jason Chambers manages to rattle off a series of falsehoods all within a single post consisting of 5 sentences. Those falsehoods, along with others seen in the screenshots.
Here is a snippet taken from the screenshots at the link:
Facebook Poster: “If the DNA test cost the state NOTHING and can prove one way or the other why not have it done? I have to agree test the DNA I really do not see any issue not to.”
Chamber’s response: “There is nothing they want tested which would prove innocence at this point. They are requesting one thing to be tested which already was tested. It is not like a sex assault case where they are requesting a sex assault kit be tested to prove exactly whose DNA was involved in a rape. They want to argue that because someone else’s DNA was in the gas station, it must have been someone else, and that is simply not that case.”
Injustice Anywhere, an organization working to correct wrongful convictions, has launched a petition asking McLean County State’s Attorney Jason Chambers to allow DNA testing in the Jamie Snow case.
Jamie Snow was wrongfully convicted in 2000, of a 1991 “cold case” murder and armed robbery of a gas station attendant in Bloomington, Illinois. Snow is an innocent man who remains in prison while DNA evidence goes untested in his case, even though not one shred of physical evidence has ever linked Snow to the crime.
For nearly 8 years the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) has fought DNA testing in this case, despite the fact that the University of Chicago’s Exoneration Project has agreed to pay for ALL DNA testing at NO COST to McLean County tax payers. The petition simply asks Jason Chambers to allow the Exoneration Project to pay for the DNA testing. There is absolutely no logical reason for Chambers to continue blocking the tests. There is no doubt that if this crime had occurred today, that the state would test every single piece of physical evidence collected from the crime scene.
The Injustice Anywhere petition provides detailed information about the Jamie Snow case and also includes an audio message from Snow. Please take a moment to read the petition and listen to Snow’s audio recording. You can click on this link to view the petition: Support DNA Testing for Jamie Snow
We were made aware this week that Jason Chambers has yet again given a blatantly false statement concerning the Jamie Snow case. This is the second time that he has disseminated this lie in a public forum. This time, we do not feel as if we have a choice but to ask for a public retraction. The letter below was sent to Jason Chambers today, the news station (WMBD) was also copied on the communication. We hope he will respond by granting our request. We will keep you informed of any updates.
On behalf of Jamie Snow supporters, we write to demand the immediate public retraction and clarification of a false, misleading, and deceptive public statement made by you with regard to a recent appellate hearing on behalf of Jamie Snow.
“State’s Attorney Jason Chambers says even if there was new evidence, there would still be around 40 people who testified under oath that Snow had bragged to them about committing the murder.”
This statement is patently, objectively false. The state only called 41 people to testify in any capacity at trial, certainly you know this. So are you asserting that Jamie confessed to every single witness the state called at the time of trial except for one?
Similar to disinformation provided to original Snow jury members, you purposely concealed that of the 41 state witnesses who testified at Snow’s trial under oath:
10 were customers, employees, family members of the victim, etc.;
17 were law enforcement or state workers (detectives, police officers, coroner, etc.);
3 were classified as “eyewitnesses,” (though no one saw the crime actually committed and their descriptions of a suspicious person leaving the scene were inconsistent).
“Eyewitness” 1: The state has now conceded that the star witness’ ID was unreliable
“Eyewitness” 2: Has recanted his ID
“Eyewitness” 3: Never identified Snow
The truth of the matter is that there were 11 witnesses who swore under oath that Jamie “confessed” or implicated himself somehow. Not 40, 11. And what you fail to acknowledge is that the entire purpose of Jamie’s current petition, the new evidence that you are glossing over, is evidence that many of these 11 (not 40) witnesses lied. Jamie never confessed to them.
Eleven (not 40) jailhouse informants which include several alcoholics, a convicted sex offender, prisoners desperate for shortened terms, parolees, paid informants and complete strangers – testified that Jamie Snow “confessed” to them, or implicated him in some way.
The majority of these 11 (not 40) witnesses testified while incarcerated. Several of these 11 (not 40) informants had charges pending, and received leniency on those charges after they testified. Most of these 11 (not 40) jailhouse informants presented stories that were not only inconsistent with their police statements; they were inconsistent with each other’s accounting of events.
Mr. Chambers, you selectively ignore multiple sworn witness recantations and affidavits noting tremendous pressure from the Bloomington Police Department. Witnesses were told exactly what to say on the stand and were provided with details that contradicted their initial interviews. Mothers were threatened with the loss of their children. $7,500 in reward money is yet to be accounted for. The very young victim’s mother was even provided with witness phone numbers to add additional pressure.
You ignore the fact that the newest affidavit states that not only did a witness know he was lying, so did the prosecution. You ignore the approximate 17 affidavits submitted by witnesses in which they recant or change their testimonies. And you continue to ignore the remaining numerous pieces of new evidence before the court comprised of critical state’s evidence that was never disclosed to Snow before trial, was never heard by the jury, and was obtained only through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Instead, you choose to make blatant false statements to the press, use McLean County tax dollars to continue to fight appeals, and refuse to perform DNA testing (paid for by the Exoneration Project) that could confirm Snow’s conviction or exonerate him.
Unfortunately, this is not the first instance wherein you, Mr. Chambers, have made false public statements concerning this matter. On March 28, 2014 you made a similar comment on a “VoteJasonChambers” Youtube.com video.
A FOIA was filed on 4/22/14 requesting the names and contact information of “over 40 different people” Snow “bragged about the killing or implicated himself” to, etc. On 4/29/14 Rosalee Dodson, Esq., Asst. Corporation Counsel for the City of Bloomington denied that request in full.
Still, McLean County’s top law enforcement official continues to lie to the press. Maintaining the status quo of your ethically challenged predecessors, you have crossed boundaries set forth in the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. We have posted the relevant rules at the end of this letter for your review.
The State has unfettered access to every detail regarding witnesses who previously claimed Jamie Snow “confessed,” yet continues to publicly disseminate blatant falsehoods with reckless regard for the truth. We overlooked the last instance, but are now forced to demand a public retraction in an attempt to end this libelous and inflammatory abuse of public office.
We further ask that the retraction and clarification be disseminated as widely as the original statement, to specifically include WMBD, the source of the original statement.
Sue Gless Thorne
cc: Jeff Mulligan, WMBD News Director/Operations
Jenny Goodman, WMBD Managing Editor
Paul Cicchini, WMBD Main Anchor
Maria Chandler, WMBD Main Anchor
Jacob Peklo, WMBD General Assignment Reporter
Hannah Hilyard, WMBD General Assignment Reporter
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
RULE 3.6 Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding.
RULE 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
(d) In addition to his or her obligations under Rule 3.6, a public prosecutor or other government lawyer in criminal litigation shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the public prosecutor or other government lawyer would be forbidden from making under Rule 3.6.
(e) The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from making extrajudicial comments that would pose a serious and imminent threat of heightening public condemnation of the accused, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.”
In 1935, the United States Supreme Court described the duty of a federal prosecutor in the following passage:
“…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.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 (1935).”
We would like to first thank everyone who was able to attend the hearing today to support Jamie, the Snow family, and the Exoneration Project. Your support in the courtroom speaks volumes, and we deeply appreciate everyone who was able to attend. I know there were many of you who were unable to attend, but the outpouring of good wishes on Jamie’s social media sites means the world to us! I cannot WAIT to tell him about all of the wonderful posts and hearing attendees – it makes a difference!
A few of us at lunch.
As discussed previously, the court’s primary issue to decide here is whether the successive post conviction petition was unfairly denied. Just to be clear – ALL we are asking for is chance to file this petition which was filed in May 2103 and was denied outright by the lower court – without a hearing.
The Oral Arguments audio is already online, so slap your headphones on and take a listen!
This hearing was held before a panel of three judges: Lisa Holder White, James A. Knecht and Robert J. Steigmann. Each side argued for 20 minutes (starting with the defendant), followed by the State, and ending with the defendant getting 5 minutes for rebuttal.
In reference to the polygraph received obtained through FOIA request – the one NEVER revealed to Jamie’s defense team prior to trial – in which star witness Danny Martinez specifically stated that Jamie Snow was not the person he saw – the State continued to make the weak argument that Martinez was referring to the 1991 line up in which Martinez failed to id Jamie Snow. In the polygraph worksheet notes, it describes the witness airing up his tires, then specifically says: “w says this is not the person he saw.” The State claims the defense is “blowing this up” and turning into something that goes to misconduct by the government. However, there’s no evidence that this note meant anything more than what was written.
Judge Steigmann had an excellent question for the state: So, the witness failed to identify petitioner in the lineup within a few weeks of the crime, and then 3 years later when this polygraph exam is taken, the note in the margin says that Martinez says petitioner is not the person he saw, and…your…description of that is that refers to the lineup?
Thats when things got fuzzy. A lengthy response that didn’t really answer his very straightforward question at all. She still ended with saying that it was a ‘shorthand’ way of saying that Martinez did not ID Jamie in the lineup.
There were also questions by both Knecht and Steigmann concerning affidavits that were previously submitted in which witnesses stated that Martinez and Jamie were acquainted growing up, and that Martinez had told people that he knew Jamie Snow and that Jamie was not the person he saw. The State’s response was basically that there is no evidence that Martinez knew Jamie (and how he looked) during the time of the crime, even if he knew him growing up.
Concerning the affidavit that was submitted by one of the jailhouse informants wives, there were several questions from Stiegmann about why she came forward years later. It was really a bizarre exchange that he simply would not let go of. You just have to hear it yourself, he harped on that issue to the point of absurdity. Not sure anyone knew where he was going with that. Finally, he asked an odd question about whether it we should ‘…stop everything if she came forward in 2025? Tara was like, “Yes.” It isn’t unusual for a witness to come forward years, sometimes even decades later. This is certainly not the first time this has happened.
There was also a focus on the details of the affidavit. Knecht pointed out that the affidavit was unique in that it had so many details such as naming the the detective that put pressure on them, and explaining other details – and that they usually do not see such detailed affidavits.
I do not recall any questions concerning the failed polygraphs by jailhouse informants. Although the State went down the list of jailhouse informants, expressed the leniency they received AFTER they testified. I guess she was trying to make the point that there was no evidence of deals or promises BEFORE they testified. It was another strange event, and I’m not sure how that’s going to work out for them. I just kept thinking what an odd coincidence it was that they ALL received favor on thier cases after they testified.
During rebuttal, Steigmann made another bizarre comment, “…Mr. Snow sounds like a real mope who really did a hell of a job incriminating himself by his behavior…” So, of course, I had to look that one up. According to the Urban Dictionary:
Mope: A person of any race or culture that is: presenting themselves as uneducated (either by mannerisms or the clothing they are wearing). Plural = Mopes Mopes usually are up to no good and may have an extensive criminal record and a limited vocabulary.
Aside from sentencing hearings, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a higher court judge say anything so disparaging in court about a defendant. Perhaps I’m naive, but I seriously think that comment crosses an ethical line. I’m sure Jamie’s daughter didn’t appreciate having her father talked about in such a derogatory manner by an appellate court judge.
In closing, Tara Thompson did a wonderful job of stressing thoughout the arguments that the new evidence must be looked at cumulatively. And that Brady says we must ask ourselves if the new evidence undermines our confidence in the verdict. We say yes, it does.
This time around, we are presenting “Brady” evidence. Which means evidence that was favorable to the defendant, but was withheld from him prior to trial. So what do we have?
Polygraph: This is actually a polygraph worksheet that was obtained through FOIA requests from supporters. The actual polygraph is Jamie Snow’s – 1994. In the notes on the worksheet, “Star witness” Danny Martinez says in reference to the suspect that Snow was not the person he saw.
This evidence was never turned over to Snow. In the state’s reply brief, they make a few very thin arguments.
1) They question whether the “28 year old white male suspect” was actually Jamie Snow. However, the state neglected to redact Snow’s name on the second page of the report. Guess they missed this part?
2) The state goes onto concede that “under the assumption Snow was the subject of the polygraph, ” the witness saying the defendant “is not the person he saw” seems like a “shorthand way of explaining that Martinez did not identify defendant in 1991 when defendant stood as part of an in-person lineup that Martinez viewed.” There is absolutely no evidence that Martinez was referring to the 1991 lineup in which he did not identify Snow, or any of the other photo array’s over the years in which he failed to ID Snow.
3) Finally, the state explains that Martinez was NOT a critical witness. “Therefore, the record rebuts defendant’s characterization of Martinez as a “critical” witness against him.” And bolsters Luna’s ID at “a lot stronger than Martinez.” Recall, Luna was the 14 year old boy who ‘closed his eyes and imagined each of them doing it, and Jamie Snow best fit.” One of the few the state didn’t ask to ID Snow in court, and also one that happened to give an affidavit recanting his ID. How convenient to be able to rewrite history, eh? If only the rest of us had those magical powers.
In addition to the above claims, 2 failed polygraphs from jailhouse informants, and an affidavit from one of these informants wives is being presented. As with the above, the state is claiming, had this evidence been presented at trial, it would not have changed the outcome.
Unlike previous arguments before the appellate court, we feel these arguments will be based on Brady material, or material that was not disclosed to the defense prior to trial. And also based on whether or not this new evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial.
We sincerely hope that you will join us at this hearing on May 12th at 11am in Springfield to support Jamie Snow and The Exoneration Project.
Below are the pleadings and responses that will be argued:
Jamie sent a letter to the judge after he was convicted, but before he was sentenced. He tried desperately to have his counsel removed prior to this. And never gave up. But I wanted to share with you an excerpt from the letter he wrote to me with the attachment.
“I’m not even sure I could accurately describe to you my level of despair that I felt when I wrote that letter. I know I was hoarding pills that I’d planned to take that night before my sentencing. I wonder if I ever told you about that? I popped them, as many as I could fit into my mouth, but I just couldn’t swallow them. I didn’t want to do it to my kids. I’m sometimes amazed Tammy that I’ve made it all these years.”
This letter was written to the judge 4 days after his conviction. Pat Riley and Frank Picl (Jamie’s attorneys) stood before the judge and told them they had spent approximately 80 hours visiting Jamie to prepare for trial. Jamie knew that was a lie, and he proved it by the visitor log he asked to judge to review in regard to this matter. It turns out they only spent a total of 23 hours with Jamie. And I believe the lead counsel had spent less than 5 hours with him. When caught red-handed by viewing the log files, they said it was an “honest mistake.” The judge not only forgave them, but kept them on the case – as evident in this news article from April 2001.
I’ve typed the letter out for you below. You can also read the handwritten version here.
As with my last letter please make this a part of the record with this case. I have a few issues I would like to raise with the court.
First I would like to address the witness list problems in this case. Pat Riley came to see me the day before jury selection was first set to begin. He said we needed to get our list together. I asked him when was it due. He told me when we start to pick a jury. But that he was asking for a continuance because of Frank’s back problems. You gave them the delay. I was under the impression, which was given to me by my attorney’s, that the list wasn’t due till’ jury selection. I had some names ready even before I got the transcripts on Christmas Eve. But was following what Pat Riley told me. But in court you said “I” know the rules about discovery. Just for the record I had no idea what the rules were. But I learned the hard way. I learned never to listen to or trust a court appointed lawyer.
Your Honor, I tried to tell you Frank and Pat were not only unprepared, I thought then and now know they were unable to try my case. I knew I was in trouble when the State rested their case and that was the first time Frank ever asked me what any of my witnesses were going to testify to. And as we all know now, Frank didn’t lay the FOUNDATION to call most of my witnesses. I guess just like the witness list, I was also responsible for my lawyer to lay FOUNDATION for witnesses. How in a case like mine does that happen?
You yourself sat in on my co-defendants trial. You had to know they were not prepared. You saw Mark Foster and Billy Hendricks testify about the things Danny Martinez had told them. Also we found another ex-co-worker of Mr. Martinez who also had testimony to give. But I couldn’t call him because of the FOUNDATION problem. One of my jurors said Mr. Martinez was key to them convicting me. If Frank would of called them people, I have to believe the verdict would of, or at least could of, been different.
Your Honor I thought you were in that court room to make sure Justice was served. And to make sure my rights were protected. I thought I had a RIGHT to a fair trial. You forced me to go to trial with two lawyers who NEVER talked to me about my case! Frank says he spent 50 hours with me. Pat says he spent 30. There is no way that is true.
There are log books here at the jail. They are there for people to sign in and out. Also, the time in and out is also logged. I’m sure it probably don’t matter to you. But I challenge you to check into the time they spent with me. They are the lawyers you gave me. And they both lied to you about the time they spent.
I would also like to know what did you do to determine if Pat Riley was able to effectively help me. He had a stroke shortly before you gave him this case. What if anything did you do to make sure his mind had not been affected by the stroke? You did say in court he had the chance to sit in on the first trial. So I’m trying to figure out was it his mental state of mind or complete incompetence that kept him from telling Frank to lay foundation for my DEFENSE.
I know my trial and Susan Claycomb Powell’s trial were different. But the charges were the same. And the state’s case was pretty much the same. One big difference was her lawyer knew how important it was to LAY FOUNDATION when it came to the state’s witnesses like Danny Martinez. But like the witness list, I guess that was my responsibility too.
Justice was not served in your courtroom. I have been convicted for a terrible crime I DID NOT commit. So please make this letter a part of the record. I hope and pray that somebody will take a close look at what happened in Your Courtroom. My lawyers never talked to me. How else do you explain them not laying FOUNDATION to call ¾ of my Defense witnesses. They had no clue. That’s why they didn’t ask the questions. They sold me out. Did you know Frank was friends with Bill Little’s foster father? Talk about a conflict of interest. Pat Riley does not have the Mental Ability to try a traffic case. But You gave him to me. Now that things have turned out the way they did, I have to wonder why.
Also when I asked Frank why he didn’t lay the foundation to call witnesses against Danny Martinez, he said, “What do you want? Nobody bats a thousand.”
I am Innocent. But I guess that doesn’t really matter anymore.
As we weave our way through archived police reports, it’s interesting how the smallest statement can speak volumes.
In Martinez’ 1999 police interview, before Snow’s arrest, Bloomington Police Detective Rick Barkes asked Martinez if he had any questions. Martinez DID have a very important question – why did they give the victim’s mother his phone number?
It’s a valid question, don’t ya think? He felt kind of uncomfortable when she called him. His instincts were correct.
Martinez: And another thing I wanted to say is that I don’t know who called Mrs. Little to have her call meI mean that was I mean, I mean I know that her son was involved and uh I know Easter’s comin around the corner and she’s goin through a hard time right now I mean coulda returned your phone call towards me and you know mentioned something to me…
Det. Barkes: And I, and I, and I did and I tried doin that and I’ll have to take responsibility for thatand I’ll explain to you a little bit later about what transpired there, but I did remember somethin I wanna talk to you about. I wanna show you 3 drawings and what I would like you to do is look at these 3 drawings and tell me if you had to pick 1 of these 3 drawings as being the person you saw now granted 2 of ’em have some kind of a hat on and 1 of ’em doesn’t, but if you had to pick which l would you say, this is the person I saw?
Martinez: The middle 1.
Detective Barkes: Alright and this is the 1st uh that was uh taken actually it’s got those aren’t your initials prolly but it does say D-M and I talked to the person who did the composite and uh he said that stood for Danny Martinez.
This was never explained, and has never been brought up in court proceedings. This issue, among many others, are before current State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, yet he refuses to test the DNA in this case. Wonder why?
A couple of year’s ago, Jamie read Paul Ciolino’s book, In the Company of Giants. Before the book even got started, Jamie was stopped in his tracks by this phrase:
VERITAS VALET VITAE
(The Truth is Worth One’s Life)
I don’t blame him. After all, Jamie was convicted based on false witness identification and jailhouse informants and THAT’S the extent of the evidence against him. None of the physical evidence tested at the time matched him, not a fingerprint, not a shoe print, not a swab of blood. It was the sheer volume of informants that testified against him, saying he “confessed.”
There were people he had been in prison with at one time or another, that Jamie had spent minimal time with. It was (sadly) a running joke in McLean County Jail, “Who’s the next one that’s going to say ‘Jamie told me he did it?'”
The problem is, none of their stories matched. Guess the state didn’t see that as such a problem, because they indeed got their conviction.
One said Jamie said he was at a party down the street, walked up to the gas station and the attendant wouldn’t give him cigarettes. So he went back down to the party, and came back and shot him and took his cigarettes because the kid had a smart mouth. The problem with that story is the owner of the house said there was no party, and his son (who would have thrown the party) was in McLean County jail at the time. Another nifty fact – no cigarettes were missing. Oops. This informant landed up doing about 5 years for a 6th Criminal Felony DUI. He got the 6th when he was out on bond, waiting to testify. This entire “confession” happened when Jamie was on a court writ, and temporarily in another prison for about a week. He hadn’t seen this informant since they were around 1o yrs old. The informant just happened to be a sanitation worker, and passed by his cell – that’s when the “confession” happened. When asked by the Assistant State’s Attorney, Teena Griffin, to identify Jamie in court, he couldn’t point him out. We also recently found out that he failed a polygraph prior to the trial, and that he wrote letters as early as 1994 to the State’s Attorney – letters that were never disclosed to the defense.
Another said there were three of them and they pulled up for gas. But Jamie Snow decided “He didn’t have to pay for gas.” So he went in and shot the guy. He named the other two, both of whom landed up on the state’s witness list. Nice. Suspects ending up testifying against the defendant? How novel.
One of the above named witnesses testified that he passed Jamie the next day in a car, and Jamie said, “Did you read about me in the paper? Gun goes off, kid dies.” That informant has given an affidavit saying that he lied due to police pressure. In truth, Jamie knew this informant had committed a string of burglaries and said, “I read about you in the paper.” And the guy got pissed off and drove off. The other named was never called to testify. Wonder why?
One said that he was coming in from out of town, and he called Jamie to pick him up at the bus station. From prior police reports, we know he was paid $600 for giving information to the police. Jamie “confessed” to him, but on the stand, he testified that he thought Jamie was joking. I think he was trying to play both sides of the law. In any case, Jamie didn’t have a phone or car at the time. So it would be difficult for the whole scenario to have occurred. He has also since given an affidavit.
And yet another said that Jamie confessed to him in County Jail. He has since given an affidavit saying he and Jamie got into a fight over a game of Dominoes in the yard, and he got moved to another pod. He knew he couldn’t get back at him physically, so he sent a flyer to the police, saying he had information about the case.
And we have one who spent time with Jamie in Florida. His testimony doesn’t match his police reports at all. For that matter, none of them do. But this one is sad. He was a registered sex offender. He had been interviewed by at least two independent investigators and he broke down in tears. Apparently, they threatened him very harshly. He was so afraid he wouldn’t sign an affidavit.
There’s so much more, but you get the point. We have uncovered so much new evidence, that two of the above have failed polygraphs, the “star witness” Danny Martinez told police as early as 1994 that Jamie was not the person he saw, that the state had written letters to informants in prison – never disclosed to the defense. It goes on and on.
We want the DNA evidence tested by an independent lab, and have thus far been denied. We want national attention to this case. We want to expose the state’s attorney (now judge) who already has TWO wrongful convictions under his belt. We want to know what happened to reward money which just disappeared. We want people to come forward and tell the TRUTH. That’s all we want – the truth.
Veritas. Valet. Vitae. – Truth is Worth One’s Life.
That’s the theme of the 4th Annual Postcards in the Park. It is so very true. Jamie’s release absolutely depends on people telling the truth. Why is that so hard? We hope you will join us. You don’t have to be present to participate. We are sending postcards this year to Keith Morrison from Dateline. Details are on the Facebook Event page.
And if you want some Jamie Snow schwag, we have it all set up here! Cool VERITAS VALET VITAE t-shirts and wristbands, all under this years theme.
We need your help to support this event, so please buy if you’re able. If not, please share. But mostly, please join the FB Event Page and send postcards to Mr. Morrison.