Rhonda says ya’ll had a great visit! That’s awesome. Everyone was so excited to meet you and now you know what some more of the family looks like. Well, if the face to face didn’t scare you off I guess nothing will! Don’t worry about me; I’m adorable which is why I’m married to a hot chick. She walked me through the protocol so when I can get up there I’ll know what to do when I come in. I have no idea right now when that time might be but I have added visiting you to my bucket list!
As far as being reckless, I don’t know anyone who wasn’t in their younger years. Every Pennsylvania state trooper out of the barracks in my home town knew me by name. My bad habits were fast loud cars and all the associated nasty behavior that come with it. Racing, drinking, etc. I’m an old married 63 year old now but back then a “juvenile delinquent” like me is who you kept your daughters away from. The family pet too, if I was on my motorcycle. Just kidding…I had my own dog. I paid so many fines the District Magistrate knew my car by sound. Her name was Donna Combs. She even said once,” I heard you drive by my house last night. That was you wasn’t it?” It was me. Apparently, having the only Camaro with straight Thrush mufflers, made me unique. In an over regulated state like PA, you are actually breaking the law if you modify your car in any way at all. Loud pipes then equaled altered exhaust which carried a nifty $50 fine…and that was in 1975!
Moving right along, attached please find pictures of your bike!
I hope you like it. It’s a CX500C very much like the one I am just finishing and just slightly smaller than the green bike I sent pictures of before. She’s got 39,000 miles on her but for these Hondas that’s nothing. She started right up when I went to look her over. These are the bikes Honda made into the long distant Silverwing Interstates, back in the 80’s, because of the smoothness of the engine. I love these sideways V-twins because they do a “torque roll” like a car with a V8 engine, when you rev it up! This old gal is super solid with a good tank and nice mechanicals. It runs smooth and the only thing the engine does need is a valve adjustment. No biggie. I’ll be going over the motor to make sure it doesn’t leak and everything that needs to work actually does. The valves are set up just like a car with overhead rocker arms. I will be rebuilding the carbs which is also easy to do…well, since I have a manual specific to the model it is. Considering I’ve done two sets in the last two years that’s a piece of cake. I already have two brand new black wall tires and rear brake shoes for it.
Right now it is fairly bare bones, as you can see in the pictures. As it sets, it is a very good place to start. All the main pieces you need are there and with it basically down to the frame you can do all kinds of different things. I should have the “Miami” bike (as I’ve come to call it since it’s ocean mist blue) done completely in less than three weeks. As soon as it is, I will start tearing yours down for reworking. Rhonda is going to be the “historian”, taking pictures as we progress, and we’ll be sending update pictures and notes with my letters.
So now it’s up to you to make some decisions! Naturally you don’t have to decide them all at once.
What color or colors do you think you might like?
Do you have any designs you like? (flames, graphics, etc.)
What style of handlebars? (Ape hangers, straight drag bars, pull backs)
Handlebar styles to choose from.
Rise tends to indicate the height of your hand position from where the bar mounts to the upper triple clamp.
Ape hanger handlebars with 14” rise
Drag style handlebars with 4 inch “dogbone” risers
Standard rise (about 6”) handlebars
What style seat? (single solo, full length factory style two up)
Solo seat on my “tail dragger”
Full length two up (riders)
What style frame?
Bobber (cut off right behind the seat like my green bike
Full length (will have to be for a full length two up seat)
What style tires? (white wall or black wall)
There ya go, just a few simple questions! Naturally, you don’t have to answer them right away.
Let’s start with the basic question, since that’s the one I need to start the rebuild from the ground up. What style frame would you like, bobber or full length? Once I know that I can make some suggestions on how we should set her up.
There you have it, the beginning! If you wish let me know what items I can send to help you make decisions. Pictures of the military bike and the Miami bike show a bobbed frame versus a full length frame and a solo seat versus a full length seat. They should help you decide the style. After that, I can send some color patches to help you decide what color you might like.
I hope you find this exciting because I’m wound up tighter than an eight day clock! I have no idea what the hell that means but my dad always said it when he was wired for 480. He always said that when someone else was freaked out. My dad was one of those guys who would do shit like test an electrical circuit by lightly touching it with his fingers. He did it one day in the furnace room when the blower motor wouldn’t kick on. Unfortunately, it, being a steam generating coal furnace, had sweated a puddle of condensation. Dad had been standing in it when he touched the wires. Dad used a test light after that. Amazing that he didn’t end up drooling in his cereal with some of the shit he did like that. He worked as a service technician for the PA Gas & Water Company and was a trained electrician. I think that was his moment of over confidence followed directly by his moment of humility. He was a cool guy and thought Rhonda was the best thing that ever happened to me. He started drooling in his cereal shortly after that statement. Mom loves Rhonda too.
Mom is in her late 80’s and still runs around like a B-B in a rubber room. Wide open throttle. They celebrate her birthday every year by removing another buckle off her straight jacket. Just kidding. She would kick my ass if she heard me say that. I used to prank call her. She’d answer the phone and I would say shit like “Is this the lady who dances topless at birthday parties?” There would be a moment of silence…and I could hear the wheels turning…followed by a “You little bastard, talking to your mother like that!” and then she’d laugh so hard she’d snort! Gotta have some fun. She too loves Rhonda to pieces.
OK back to bike stuff and some questions you asked me. The longest distance I’ve ridden at one time is about two hundred miles. I have not ridden across country like many of my friends but one of these days soon I plan to ride the 8 hours to PA to see an old friend of mine. I ride to work every day if it isn’t raining in the morning. I don’t care if I get wet riding home. When I lived in Dubuque, Iowa a group of us got together every Thursday after work and rode for about 150 miles. We’d ride somewhere and eat dinner/supper and then ride home. Sometimes I didn’t get back until about 9:00 and I’d have all these little bug wings sticking on my vest. Rhonda would almost gag when I told her it was free protein and that I’d been eating em’ for 50 miles! Since moving to NC, I really like to get up in the “twisties” of the Blue Ridge Parkway. When you get out, WE HAVE GOT TO RIDE THE PARKWAY. It is amazing. I’ll take a few days of vacation and we can ride it through several states…none of which are Illinois!
You asked me why the military (green) bike doesn’t have a front fender. I wanted it to have a little chopper “flavor”. It makes the front end look longer and “back in the day” the chopper rarely had a front fender as to accent that long front stretch. Yep, when the road is wet I get a free shower! I got away with leaving the fender off because it actually has a fork bridge. That is the part that keeps your front forks from flexing. You need that when riding fast so the steering stays solid. The CX500 like yours and my Miami bike actually use the front fender as a fork bridge so we need to either leave the front fender on or fabricate a fork bridge to run between the forks using the fender mounting holes. I see some guys take the front fender off on these old 500s and don’t bridge the forks. All I can think is “it’s just a matter of time” and they’ll look soooo cool ricocheting off a damned pine tree. Ignorance ain’t bliss in building scooters. Scooter is my favorite term for a motorcycle. I refer to myself and other riders as scooter tramps. Another old school term which tends to raise eyebrows with some folks. When I get that reaction I want to say “Well, I could have said motorcycle whore!”
OK Jamie I’m closing for now. Want to get this letter to you so you can get back to me with what you want. I am really ready to get started on this! I know there will probably be some lag time between our communications but that’s OK. I am also rebuilding my 1985 Nighthawk at the same time so I’ll just move back and forth between them. Attached are the pictures of different styles I mentioned.
Take care and keep the faith, brother!
Please join us on Saturday, August 1st from 11:00am – 2:00pm at Miller Park in Bloomington, Illinois for the 5th Annual Postcards in the Park to support Jamie Snow’s innocence, and gain awareness about this egregious injustice!
You DO NOT have to be at the actual event to participate! We STILL need your help. This year we will send postcards to McLean County States Attorney Jason Chambers, award winning filmmaker Joe Berlinger, and award winning investigative journalist from the Intercept, Jordan Smith.
Please join the Facebook event site here: https://www.facebook.com/events/448403238651585/
We will respectfully ask Jason Chambers, McLean County States Attorney, to reopen this investigation, test the never before tested physical evidence, grant discovery, and to please quit using McLean County tax payer funds to fight this wrongful conviction.
We will ask Mr. Berlinger and Ms. Smith to please do an investigative story on this case. Both are very well respected in their fields, and Jamie’s story needs to be heard on a national level.
We will have postcards for everyone to write messages at the park and will also release a balloon for each year he has been wrongfully convicted.
All supplies will be provided. Just bring yourself, your kids and friends! Please join us and tell you friends!
If you CANNOT ATTEND, please still SEND A POSTCARD to the addresses below:
104 W. Front St.
Bloomington, IL 61701
Please ask him to discontinue opposing DNA and discovery motions. Respectfully ask him to reopen the case. THANK YOU!!
ATTN: Jordan Smith
114 4th Ave. 18th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Please ask her to do an investigative piece on this case. We certainly have enough material for about 20 stories! 🙂
ATTN: Joe Berlinger
435 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
Please ask him to consider doing an investigative documentary on Jamie Snow’s case. Pick a topic! snitches, state misconduct, faulty eyewitness ID, Ineffective Counsel, first officer on the scene in prison, trial lawyer went to prison…it goes on and on.
You can view this year’s designs here:
Thanks everyone. We’re growing every year, and it will not happen without your support. Thanks for sticking with us, and please keep spreading the word!
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.
McLean County States Attorney
104 W. Front St
Bloomington, Illinois 61701
RE: WMBD Quote – Retraction Request
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
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.
In a WMBD story published May 13, 2015 at: http://www.centralillinoisproud.com/story/d/story/convicted-murderer-seeks-new-trial/37624/b10eRV3HM0OLfGLdrU7Dzw, you were quoted:
“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:
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!
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.
Media about this hearing:
The Pantagraph: Snow makes new bid for hearing on DNA testing
Please join us on Tuesday April 28 at 8 PM CDT, for the first show on IA’s new format.
Jamie’s case will be back in Appellate Court on May 12. We will discuss the arguments that will be heard during the hearing and provide an overall update of the case.
Please visit our show page to listen in. All live shows will also be available on our show page archive. So if you miss the live broadcast, be sure to catch the podcast at your convenience.
Jamie Snow was wrongfully convicted in 2001 for the 1991 murder of William Little, a gas station attendant in Bloomington, Illinois. Jamie is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in Stateville prison in Joliet, Illinois.
Jamie Snow has proclaimed his innocence from day one. In the years following his conviction, new information has come to light clearly showing that police misconduct and bad lawyering sent the wrong man to prison for William Little’s murder. Jamie Snow is innocent.
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:
I’ve really been struggling with this, because it’s weird. Let me explain.
Jamie’s successive post conviction petition was denied in January, but we didn’t know about it. When Tara (EP attorney) had a conference call with the judge, she was very curt. She said she would rule by mail, and that she was really busy, and would rule when she could.
Fast forward to Postcards in the Park. We talk at length to a newspaper reporter, and she inquires with the clerk the following Monday about an update on the case. They inform the reporter there was a ruling in January – reporter then calls Tara and informs her of the status.
Okay, ONE failing to notify might be a mistake, but TWO denials without notification??? Houston, we have a problem.
Thing is, the McLean County Clerk’s Office doesn’t have an online docket system, so you have to call for updates, which I DID. And they NEVER told me there was a ruling. Notice anything screwy about the last few entries in this docket?
Was the state notified of the denial? If so, they allowed us to stand out in front of the courthouse in March 2014, with Jason Chambers looking down at us from the window, KNOWING it was denied, and not informing us? Did they allow us to stand in front of the press at Postcards in the Park in August 2014, and still failed to inform us of the denial?
So…we had to appeal to the 4th District, and they allowed a late appeal.
It’s very interesting that the successive pc included critical newly discovered evidence in the form of an ISP police report in which Danny Martinez told police in 1994 that Jamie Snow was not the person he saw as well as polygraph results from two jailhouse informants that prove they failed, and the state put them on the stand anyway.
Where we stand:
DNA motion is still before McLean County.
Federal Habeas is in abeyance.
Yeah. we’ll keep ya posted.
This video outlines much of the new evidence discovered SINCE the trial in the Jamie Snow case. It’s important to understand, the jury was NEVER presented with this evidence.
Please let me know if you have questions!
Thanks for watching.
Please join us on Sunday, August 3rd from 11:00am – 2:00pm at Miller Park in Bloomington, Illinois for the 4th Annual Postcards in the Park to support Jamie Snow’s innocence, and gain awareness about this egregious injustice!
You do not have to be at the actual event to participate! We STILL need your help.
Please join the Facebook event site here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1494543540759633
This year we will send postcards to Keith Morrison of Dateline in an effort to have Jamie’s story told on a national level. We will have postcards for everyone to write messages at the park and will also release a balloon for each year he has been wrongfully convicted.
All supplies will be provided. Just bring yourself, your kids and friends! Please join us and tell you friends!
If you CANNOT ATTEND, please still SEND A POSTCARD to the address below asking Keith Morrison at Dateline to visit FreeJamieSnow.com and review the case for consideration of a Dateline investigative report.
SEND POSTCARDS TO:
NBC News: Dateline
ATTN: Keith Morrison
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
OR: Social network the crap out of him 🙂 Let him KNOW we would like a REAL investigation on the Jamie Snow case!
Thanks everyone. We’re growing every year, and it will not happen without your support. Thanks for sticking with us, and please keep spreading the word!
Check out last year’s message from Jamie after the 3rd Annual Postcards in the Park:
Don’t forget to join the event site! https://www.facebook.com/events/1494543540759633
In 2001, Jamie Snow was wrongfully convicted for the 1991 murder of a gas station attendant during an apparent armed robbery at the Clark Super 100 Station located at 802 E. Empire St. in Bloomington, Illinois. Jamie was home with his family on the other side of town when the crime occurred. He is currently being represented by the University of Chicago’s Exoneration Project. This is his 17th year residing in Stateville Prison in Joliet, Illinois.
3/31/1991: THE NIGHT OF THE CRIME
At 8:16pm on March 31st, 1991 a silent alarm was triggered at the gas station. The first officer to respond was Jeff Pelo. He parked south of the credit union on the street, and approached on foot.
At that time, Officer Pelo observed an older car, blue, with a male putting air in the tires as he was watching the front of the station. He didn’t see any movement inside. He ran the license plate number of the blue vehicle that was on the lot, but the database was down. At that time he observed the male walk from his car towards the station, stop and look back towards his car, turn and walk toward the station some more, stop and turn around and go back to his vehicle, get in it, and drive off the lot. He can’t recall whether he backed up or did a u-turn, but he did state the vehicle drove west bound on Empire street afterwards, and that he (the officer) started walking across Empire Street on the east side of the lot as he was watching the gas station. As he was doing this, a pickup truck with 2 white males pulled up and started to get out of their truck. He told them to get in the truck and go across the street, and they became a little argumentative. That’s when he noticed a tennis shoe sticking out from behind the counter. He then ordered the 2 to get in the truck and go across the street and wait, and drew his weapon. He then cleared the store and found the attendant lying lifeless on the floor.
Officer Williams arrived at the scene at almost the same time as Officer Pelo. Officer Williams was in his car, parked northbound on Linden, watching the front of the station as well while Pelo approached on foot. He heard Pelo call in the license plate over the radio, and did not observe any movement inside the store. There was only one door, one way in or out of the station. Neither officer saw anyone leave or go into the station. Both officers explicitly stated they observed no movement inside the station.
Note: As you will see below, and what’s critical to understand, TWO police officers were watching the store, as well as “star witness” Danny Martinez, the entire time. An important point, because Martinez would eventually testify that he came “face to face” with the suspect as he was walking towards the store, and nearly ran into him.
Four “Eyewitnesses” were identified the night of the crime: Gerardo Gutierrez, Carlos and Juan Luna, and Danny Martinez. I use the term loosely, because no one actually saw the shooting occur. Below is an overview of these witness, what they claimed to see, and their testimony. Although there are many more inconsistencies than what are explained below, this should give you an overview of what the state pinned their conviction on in this area.
1) Gerardo Gutierrez reported that around 8pm he pulled into the station for gas, and as he was pumping the gas he saw a man inside the station and it appeared he and the attendant was arguing with someone. He entered the station to pay for his gas, and as he handed the attendant his money, he reported the attendant’s hands were shaking so badly that he dropped the money that was being exchanged. After Gutierrez went home, he heard about the shooting at the gas station and returned to the station to speak with police about what he saw. That night police put together a composite drawing of the suspect based on Gutierrez’ description and it was released the next day.
Gutierrez described a man with an earring and a fresh injury on his chin, so fresh he said he could still see holes in his skin from the stitches. In the early morning of the crime, he identified a mugshot from photo books as the suspect. He also called police a few days later and claimed he saw the same man again in Peoria, Illinois. Gutierrez never picked out Jamie, not through the line up, nor photo sessions over the years that included multiple photos of Jamie.
2) Carlos and Juan Luna were the second witnesses. Both were young teenagers who lived across the street, a few houses down from the Clark station. They claimed they were looking out the window to see if a family member named Gloria Luna was at work – they were thinking of going to get candy. They claimed they saw a man come out of the station face forward opening the door with his left hand. Carlos said the man had on a black coat down to his ankles, and the coat was unbuttoned. He stated the man looked like he was holding something under his coat but could not see what it was. It was later determined that these two boys were 212 feet from the station. Carlos gave a statement saying he didn’t think he’d be able to ID anyone, and Juan said he thought maybe he could. Neither boy was able to help to complete a composite drawing that night, the composite sketch artist determined that neither boy could provide enough details of the mans face. He was later asked during the trial if he knew Danny Martinez (the last witness). He answered yes, and also testified that he did not see Martinez at the scene. From where Martinez was located, Juan and Carlos Luna would have had to look through Martinez to see the suspect come out of the door.
3) Danny Martinez was the “star witness” in this case. He was the man that was putting air in his tires as the police officers arrived on the scene. He stated that he pulled into the station parking lot to get some soda pop and air up a low tire. He said that while he was down putting air in his tire he heard two sounds and thought his car was backfiring. He said he saw a man backing out of the station with a tan windbreaker type jacket on that came to his waist. And that the coat was zipped all the way up and the guy had his hands in his pockets. In the first police report, Martinez stated that as the man was backing out of the station he got up from his position and started towards the station. He said it sounded like his car was about to die so he stopped, turned and looked at his car, decided it would be okay, and when he turned back around he saw the man out of the corner of his eye rounding the corner on the east side of the station heading north. Although Martinez did assist in the development of a composite, it was starkly different from the one developed by Gutierrez.
Police chose to release Gutierrez’ composite to the public. On the night of the crime, , Martinez picked two suspects out from a photo array and stated, “It’s between these two.” Below in the report, the detective noted that Gutierrez affirmed that mugshot BP6395 was the suspect. We do not know how these suspects were cleared.
Note, these photo’s were only recently obtained through FOIA request, they were not used in Jamie’s trial.
6/21/91: THE LINEUP
On 06/21/91 an in person lineup was conducted in which Jamie participated as #6. Martinez asked for #3 and #4 to move forward, and said that #3 looked like the person, but was not positive.’ At this time, Carlos Luna was the only witness that picked Snow out of the line up; however, he failed to identify him from subsequent photo books. In his testimony, he said, “I just imagined everyone of them doing it and he came to mind and he fit the picture.” Luna has since recanted his identification in a sworn affidavit.In Luna’s affidavit, he stated, “As a 14 year old boy I thought the police had caught the right person, because of this I identified Jamie Snow.” There were 6 people in the line up, where would he have gotten the idea that Jamie Snow was the “right person” unless it had been suggested to him?
ADDITIONAL PHOTO ARRAYS
On 10/22/91 another photo book session was conducted with Danny Martinez. Again, he did not pick Snow, but picked another photo.
Additionally, on 11/03/93 a photo book session was conducted in which he did not pick anyone.
(We have consistently been denied FOIA requests to obtain the photo arrays used in the 10/22/91 and 11/03/93 viewings. They were not presented at trial.)
THE 8 YEAR LONG INVESTIGATION
During this time, the victim’s family is putting tremendous pressure on the police department to solve this crime, as they should have. They used the media to keep pressure on the BPD and distributed thousands of flyers. In addition to the $2,500 Crimestoppers reward, an anonymous donor donated $5,000. This fund was separate and asked for tips to be sent to a P.O. Box.
(We are currently fighting for this information through FOIA, we have thus far been denied any accounting for the reward distribution.)
In December of 1993, a completely different composite sketch was released to the public.
The first sketch showed a white man with a ball earring in his left ear, a mustache and a scar on the left side of his chin. He was described as being 22 to 25 years old and 6 feet 2 inches tall.
The second sketch released in late 1993 shows a man described as being 5 feet 8 inches tall, with no mustache and no mention of a scar.
So the suspect lost the chin scar, earring, facial hair, and 6 inches of height.
Initially, they eluded to perhaps there were two suspects with this release. However, in subsequent reports, they used the new composite only. It’s also important to note here, that Snow never had a chin scar, nor had either of his ears ever been pierced. Although neither composite looks like Snow, the new one released more closely resembles Snow’s characteristics.
A blurb from the local newspaper, The Pantagraph, illustrates police spokesman Ogg’s irritation with releasing another composite:
According to the Pantagraph, police spokesman Ogg said the FBI teaches police to stick to one composite drawing during a homicide investigation, and Bloomington police followed that guideline until yesterday.
He said releasing the second composite drawing was like putting “the second-string offense” into a game when the first-string doesn’t get the job done.
Investigators believe the two witnesses who helped Sanders make the drawings saw the same person. But Ogg said it is possible the witnesses were describing two different people. The witnesses were not with each other near the station.
9/7/1994: Jamie Takes a Polygraph
So, they moved forward with the second composite created by Danny Martinez. The victim’s family continued to put tremendous pressure on the state. And in 1994, Jamie Snow agreed to take a polygraph about this case. the first one he took on 7/28/94 was inconclusive. He took another one on 9/7/94 which he passed.
At that time, Lead Detective Charlie Crowe told Jamie that he believed he didn’t commit the crime, but that he thought he knew who did. Jamie told Detective Crowe that he had no idea who did it, and would tell him if he knew.
NEW EVIDENCE: We obtained the polygrapher worksheet from the Illinois State Police through FOIA containing the worksheet from the polygraph taken on 7/28/94. In it, Martinez told police that Jamie was not the person he saw. This was in 1994, and was never disclosed to defense counsel before trial.
It’s hard to read, but start at “Where” Polygraph Sheet here
802 E. Empire
Easter Sunday —- 8pm shot ———————— tray stolen – $60-$70 neighbor @ station
putting air in tires – hears 2 pops – sees a man back out
looks @ turns & leaves on foot –
Says this not person he saw –
Same Clark Sta robbed 3 mos before on 12/90
also implicated in Freedom Oil 2-3 weeks before
March 1999: Martinez and Officer Pelo are interviewed again within two days of each other
Each with completely different accountings of events. This was shortly before Snow’s arrest. These interviews were taped. Snow only heard Pelo’s tape when he went pro se in 2004 and received discovery. This tape was not used at trial.
o Pelo Taped Interview (3/2/99): PDF
Pelo states several times in this interview that he never saw anyone around Martinez, and he never spoke to Martinez. He is asked this over and over, and it is repeated several times in this interview. It was never used in court. Even though the interviews were taped only 2 days apart, they did not use the police officers interview, but did use Martinez’ interview in court, even though his witness ID is very questionable.
Suggestive Tactics Used by Bloomington Police
In the Martinez 1999 taped interview (before Snow’s arrest) Detectives mentions by name “Jamie Snow” 5 times in 8 questions. (This goes to the “suggestive tactics” from the Innocence Project recommendations)
o PAGE 9:
Detective Katz: Ok. Do you know a person by the name of Jamie Snow?
Martinez: Oh no. I never met the person, but I’ve heard the name around town.
Detective Katz: You’ve never seen his face that you’re aware of?
Martinez: That I’m aware of I have never seen his face.
Detective Katz: You just heard his name.
Martinez: I’ve seen I don’t know if uh Detective Crow had shown me pictures of him or uh if uh he was one of the guys in the lineup that I had uh, uh done but uh otherwise I as far as my memory…
Detective Katz: If a person walked in here light now you would not be able to tell me if that’s Jamie Snow or not?
Detective Katz: Ok.
Detective Barkes: So you, prior to this incident happening at tire Clark station you didn’t know Jamie Snow from Mary Blue?
Detective Katz: So you would have never told any police officer or any detective or anybody that would have asked you about this person that you saw at the gas station you wouldn’t have said well that’s, it could have been Jamie Snow because I know Jamie Snow.
Martinez: That’s correct, but with me I know people by their faces but not by their name.
Detective Katz: Ok did you know this face?
Martinez: No. Not at all.
In the Martinez 1999 taped interview (before Snow’s arrest) Detective Barkes admits to giving victim’s mother the witness’s telephone number.
o PAGE 14:
Martinez: And another thing I wanted to say is that I don’t know who called Mrs. Little to have her call me I 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 you coulda returned your phone call towards me and you know mentioned something to me…
Detective Barkes: And I, and I, and I did and I tried doin that and I’ll have to take responsibility for that and I’11 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 havs some kind of a hat on and 1 of ’em doesn’t, but if you had to pick which would you say, this is the person I saw?
The Indictment and Arrest
Jamie Snow and Susan Claycomb were indicted in July 1999, and arrested in September 1999. The indictment was primarily based on the testimony of Jailhouse informants. Danny Martinez was not called to testify at the indictment, although he would later become the key eyewitness in the case.
Susan’s Claycomb’s trial was held first. Claycomb was charged with the same charge as Jamie, Murder/Intent to Kill or Injure. The state’s theory was that Claycomb drove the getaway car. It is important to note that while Claycomb was awaiting trial, she was repeatedly offered a deal (probation) if she testified against Jamie in his trial, and admitted that she dropped him off at the gas station. Claiming innocence, she would never agree to testify against Snow. She would be tried first and of acquitted of all charges.
July/August 1999: Mark Foster and a Private Meeting with Danny Martinez at the State’s Attorney’s Office
As previously mentioned, Martinez was not called to testify before the grand jury in the indictment of Snow and Claycomb. He was actually put on the defense witness list after speaking to Susan’s investigator, Mark Foster prior to Susan’s trial. Once he was put on the defense list, the state had Martinez come into a private meeting shortly before Susan’s trial began. It was at that meeting, Martinez (finally) identified Snow from a PICTURE of the lineup Martinez had attended in June of 1991. After that meeting, Martinez was put on the state’s witness list.
Mark Foster testified in Claycomb’s trial that Martinez clearly stated that photo array’s he viewed over the years did not include the person he saw, that he would absolutely recognize the person he saw if shown a picture, and that the person he saw in the paper (Jamie Snow) was not the person he saw at the gas station that night. The excerpts below are from Mark Foster’s testimony in Claycomb’s trial. Unfortunately, Foster did not testify at Snow’s trial.
Q: By July 13th of 2000 did – did Mr. Martinez convey to you that he’d had an opportunity to see the picture of James Snow in the paper?
Q: Did he say anything about that?
A: He said that was not the person that came out of the Clark station.
Q: He told you it was not the person?
Foster would go on to testify that Martinez told him specifically that Jamie Snow was not the person he saw coming out of the gas station.
7/13/2000 – Martinez first meeting with Foster. Martinez said Jamie Snow was not the person, the person in the paper was not the person.
7/28/2000 – Martinez told Foster the detectives showed up and showed he identified a person from a photo in the line up.
Q: Would you tell me what happened?
A: I went back to Mr. Martinez’s residence after speaking to Mr. Skelton to clarify just a very few things that we wanted answers to. I told Mr. Martinez prior to arriving at his residence on the telephone I needed about five minutes of his time. During the conversation Mr. Martinez again spoke to me, stating off the record, that detectives showed up and showed him a photo lineup and he had made an identification of a person in the lineup.
Q: He said the detectives had shown up?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: Did you ask him to elaborate on that?
A: I asked him to elaborate about making the identification. I didn’t make him elaborate on the showing up part, no.
Q: What did he say with regard to the identification?
A: He said that he identified a Jamie Snow as the person he’d saw at the Clark Station that night.
Q: What did he say about – did you ask him about his changing of identification?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did he ask you for any information about the case?
A: He did not directly ask me for information about the case, no.
Q: What did you two talk about?
A: Once he had told me that he had identified Jamie Snow in the photo lineup, we talked mainly about that.
Q: And he didn’t give you any answer as to why he had a complete change in his identification?
A: During the conversation he stated to me several times that it was his understanding that the State had quite a bit of evidence against the people that were in jail so he must have the right people. But he didn’t come out and directly state that that was the reason he changed his mind.
In reference to Martinez’ demeanor in the second meeting:
Q: How would you describe Mr. Martinez’s characteristics at the second meeting, if they were at all different from the first time you met?
A: Mr. Martinez had clearly, my impression with him, had clearly changed his thought on the amount of information the State had on the case.
Q: Why would you say that?
A: He repeated to me several times, not just once, that, and he formed it in a question to me was, well the State must have a lot of information or they would not be in jail. And when I didn’t respond to that question, he would state it again after we’d talk about something else, he’d bring it back up, that the State must have the right people or they wouldn’t be in jail.
8/10/2000: Met with Martinez for a few seconds. Martinez was upset with him. Would not talk anymore, did not speak with him again.
Q: And what came up during that conversation?
A: At that time I had a very brief conversation with Mr. Martinez, and he stated to me that he was upset with me.
Q: He was upset with you?
A: He was upset because he had learned that some of the information he thought was off the record I had relayed to the defense.
Q: Did he talk to you then?
A: At that time he actually had children in his vehicle, so we agreed to talk at a later date.
Q: And have you talked to him since?
A: No, I have not.
Danny Martinez becomes the Star Witness
Martinez would testify a month later in Susan Claycomb’s trial. Although he stated to Foster “detectives showed up and showed him a photo lineup” at which time he identified Snow, he testified in Claycomb’s trial that he identified Snow in a meeting on July 18, 2000 at the State’s attorney’s office. Additionally, he testified that he had recognized Snow from the newspaper article on the day of Claycomb’s and Snow’s arrest approximately 10 months prior to the private meeting at the state’s attorney’s office, but that he only told his wife.
Martinez Testimony – Claycomb Trial
Q: Now, did you recently, talking about approximately a month ago, around July 18th of 2000, have a chance to see a photograph of the lineup that was presented to you nine years ago?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And was that the first time you’ve seen that lineup again since the day you went to the jail and saw them?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And where were you at when you saw that lineup photograph?
A: I was here at the McLean County.
Q: Okay. And who were you with at that time?
A: I was here with yourself and Detective Crowe. I mean, I’m sorry, Detective Katz.
Q: And was Mr. Reynard also there?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And at that time were we doing trial preparation interview?
A: Yes, yes, I had came in.
Q: And did you then ask to see that photograph of the lineup?
(Why did he ask to see a picture of the lineup?)
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: And when you looked at the photograph, were you able to recognize anybody in that photograph?
A: That’s correct. That was…
Q: Showing you what’s marked as People’s exhibit number 11, ask if you recognize what that photograph is.
A: Yes, that’s the photograph of the lineup I saw.
Q: And is that the same photograph you saw just for the first time again last month in July?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Here in my office?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And as you sit there and you look at the photograph now, are you able to identify anyone in that photograph as the person that you saw there at the Clark gas station coming out of the station back on March 31st, 1991?
Q: Who are you able to identify?
A: Number six.
Q: And how are you able to identify and recognize number six?
A: By the eyes and the facial.
Q: Now, before you had seen this photograph last month, had you seen any other photographs of the person that you saw and you thought you recognized them?
A: That’s correct, the photograph that was in the Pantagraph.
Q: Okay. And do you recall when that was?
A: No, I don’t. I think is when they had arrested somebody for the – for this incident.
Q: And so you saw a photograph of the person arrested in – for this incident?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And when you saw that photograph in the paper, did something stand out at you at that point?
A: Yes, it was the eyes.
Q: I’m going to show you what’s marked as People’s exhibit number 36, ask you if you recognize what that is.
Q: What do you recognize that to be?
A: The person that was at the gas station that night.
Q: And do you recognize having seen that photograph before or a copy of that photograph?
A: Yes, right.
Q: Okay. What do you recognize that to be? Where have you seen that photograph before?
A: I saw the photo of him in the Pantagraph.
Q: Do you recognize this picture to be a copy of the picture that was run in the paper when he was arrested?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And at that time what drew your attention were the eyes?
A: Were the eyes.
(He never said anything in any report over the years about Snow’s eyes being remarkable.)
Q: Now, Mr. Martinez, when you were in my office about a month ago and you saw that lineup photo for the first time, did anyone in the office ask you to identify anybody or ask you to pick anybody out?
A: No, as a matter of fact I even asked you for the – if you had a copy of the lineup that I saw back in 91. And you said you did. And I saw the lineup, and I said this is the guy, this is the guy, isn’t it, this is the guy. I noticed right away.
(Again, why did he ask for a picture of the lineup?)
Q: And did any of us within the office answer your question when you said this is the guy, is this the guy?
A: I’m not sure if – if you did or not. And I – but I just kept saying this is the guy, isn’t it, this is the guy.
Q: Do you have any notion of a level of certainty you have when you look at People’s exhibit 36, the photograph in the newspaper and People’s exhibit number 11, which is the photo lineup photograph –
Q: — that the person you picked out is the person you saw at the gas station?
A: That’s correct.
Q: What is your level of certainty?
A: About 85 percent.
(In Snow’s trial, he would say he was 100% certain)
Q: Mr. Martinez, from the time that you first spoke to the police and told them what you had seen at the station, which was on March 31st of 1991, and over the next year or two, did you have an occasion to meet with Detective Crowe and view various photographs?
Q: And were you ever able to positively identify anybody from those photographs?
A: No, not really.
Snow’s Trial – Martinez Testimony
Q: Now, a few months ago, I believe back in July, did you have a chance to see a photograph of the People that were in that in person lineup?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Okay. And was that the first time you’d ever seen a photograph of that in person lineup?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Where was it that you were at when you saw that?
A: It was here in your office.
Q: Okay. And when you saw that photograph, whose idea was it to look at the photograph? Did anybody ask you to look at the photograph?
A: No, it was – I had asked if you had a picture of the lineup at that time and you said you did. And I asked you if I could see it and you went and had gotten a picture for me.
Q: Okay. Now, would it be fair to say that we were doing trial preparation when we were meeting in my office?
A: That’s correct.
Q: When you saw the photograph that I handed to you did you recognize anyone in that photograph?
A: Yes, when I looked at the photograph I recognized the person, the number six in that picture, and I said this is him, isn’t it, this is him. I know this is him. And I had mentioned to you, I said this is him.
Q: So you did, in fact, recognize somebody in that photograph?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And that would be number six. Is that correct?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Im going to show you what’s marked as State’s exhibit number 11, ask you if you recognize what that is?
A: That is the photograph that I had asked for in your office.
Q: Okay. That would be a photograph of the lineup of the individuals you saw in person?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Now, prior to your viewing that photograph in my office July, 2000 –
Q: — had you seen a photograph of that individual before?
A: Yes, I had. I saw a photograph of a picture in the Pantagraph that was posted when they had arrested the gentleman for the incident.
Q: I’m showing you what’s marked as State’s exhibit number 36, ask you if you recognize that?
A: That’s correct, that’s what I saw in the Pantagraph.
Q: Okay. And does that photograph fairly and accurately depict the photograph that you recall seeing in the Pantagraph?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Shortly after that person was arrested?
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Now, when you saw the photograph in the Pantagraph, what was it that caught your attention at that time?
A: It was the eyes of the person in the photograph that caught my attention.
Q: Now, as you looked at the photograph back in July 2000 and as you see the defendant here in this courtroom today, do you have any idea in terms of how sure you are that this is the person that you saw?
A: Yes, I was 85 percent sure, but now I’m 100 percent sure.
(How does his memory actually improve over time?)
Q: Now, were you shown photographs of people by the police over the first year, year and a half after the murder occurred?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And were you ever able to positively identify anyone from those photographs?
(The night of the crime, he identified two suspects and said, “It’s between these two.”)
Q: When was the first time that you saw the person that you saw at the gas station on March 31st, 1991 and you said to yourself, that’s them, I know that’s the person? When was the first time that ever happened?
A: That was at your office when I saw the photograph of the lineup.
(Woops, he messed up. He said it was upon Snow’s arrest in September 1999 from the paper.)
Q: And even though you might have not have said anything, had you also noticed it in the Pantagraph that you talked about?
(Fast recovery for Teena, but he said he told his wife.)
A: That’s correct, yes, that’s correct.
Q: Did anyone in my office on July of this year, excuse me, July of 2000, ever ask you to make an identification of anyone in the lineup or tell you to pick anyone out of the lineup?
Q: When you saw that picture in the paper and recognized the eyes, you thought this was the one, did you tell anybody about that?
(Yep. Another recovery – get him to say he told his wife.)
A: No, the only person I told was my spouse.
Q: So the first time you told anybody connected to this case about it would have been in my office in July?
A: That’s correct.
Susan Claycomb had a private lawyer who did an excellent job defending her, and she was found not guilty, based on the fact that they would have had to prove Snow committed the crime. In fact, Jamie’s public defender was paid thousands of dollars to sit in on Susan’s trial, and didn’t use all of the evidence presented in her case.
In Snow’s co-defendants trial, Martinez testified that he was “85%” sure who he saw was Snow. In Jamie Snow’s trial, Martinez testified that he was “100%” sure who he saw was Snow.
In 2004, Jamie went pro se, and received his discovery while in prison. That is the first time he heard the 1999 Pelo interview. It was not used in his case.
After being contacted by Snow in 2007, Pelo wrote Snow a letter stating “You are correct. I did not see anyone inside the Clark Station nor did I see anyone backing out of the station, nor did I see Martinez come face to face with anyone in the parking lot. I did see Martinez walk toward the station after he paused to look back at his car there was no one around him.”
Pelo’s letter to Jamie: LETTER_Pelo_10-1-07.pdf
And finally, Pelo submitted a written affidavit affirming these facts.
Pelo’s affidavit: Aff_Pelo_11-18-09.pdf
In 2008, The University of Chicago’s Exoneration Project accepted Jamie’s case.
Please continue to explore this website, ask questions, we will answer.