Murder or Suicide?

48 Hours detailed a very interesting story this past weekend about a police officer from Wisconsin whose wife was found dead during the final stages of their divorce.

John Maloney’s wife, Sandy, was found charred to death on her living room sofa. She had what appeared strangulation marks on her neck and blunt trauma injury to her head. The case clearly pointed to murder.

The police didn’t have enough evidence however to convict Maloney so they convinced his then girlfriend at the time to try to get Maloney to confess. They wired a room and recorded Maloney interact with his girlfriend.

On the video tape you see a tense stand off between Maloney and his girlfriend. She starts questioning him — asking out right — if he killed his wife. Maloney’s adamantly denies it and his words become abusive. You feel an undeniable anger that is raging inside him. Maloney gets in his girlfriend’s face — too close for comfort — on multiple occasions. He makes you feel like he could tip over-the-brink-of-sanity several times though he never lays on finger on his girlfriend. In the last bit of tape shown on 48 hours, Maloney says that he was at his wife’s house the night of the crime. He says nothing else nor does he admit he killed his wife.

It was this tape that was the biggest blow for Maloney’s case. This is what the Special Prosecutor used to arrest and convict him.

Yet when Maloney is interviewed on 48 hours, and speaks of the crime — he stands firmly by his innocence. He swears he had nothing to do with the crime, and I truly believe him. His facial expressions are genuine and real. He shows emotions appropriately. I think this is an innocent man who has a raging temper.

The case goes to court and Maloney is found guilty of strangulation and setting his wife’s body on fire. Six years go by and then Special Prosecutor Joe Paulus, the prosecutor who tried Maloney’s case was charged and convicted of bribery and income tax evasion. That’s right, Paulus was taking money to fix cases. Cases that were fixed when Maloney was charged and convicted.

At the same time, “Sheila Berry, who had never even met Maloney, took up his cause. Berry is a part-time novelist, part-time investigator, and part-time head of Truth in Justice, a non-profit group that tries to help people it feels are wrongly imprisoned. ” (48 hours)

She uncovered a lot of evidence that Special Prosecutor Paulus never brought up in court. Not only does Berry believe that Sandy Maloney wasn’t murdered, she believed she killed herself.

“She says the evidence was in the basement of the Maloney house, where police
recorded a bizarre scene: two VCRs on top of a coffee table. And from the ceiling, there appeared to be a ligature hanging from a conduit pipe, right down in front of the coffee table.

The autopsy showed that Sandy was very drunk the night she died. Berry thinks Sandy tried to hang herself with the electrical cord: “She made a suicide attempt, at least a gesture, but enough of a gesture to jump off that coffee table and hit her — back of her head.”

Then, as Berry’s theory goes, Sandy tried to clean up in the basement shower. But ultimately, she ended up on the first floor, where she collapsed into unconsciousness on the couch while smoking. It was that lit cigarette, Berry believes, that caused the fire. “There certainly was a big death wish going on,” says Berry. “She did want to die.” (48 hours)

In support of this theory, Berry finds that police discovered multiple suicide notes written by Sandy in the garbage. Suicide notes that were never brought up at Maloney’s trial. The jury never even heard the theory that Maloney’s wife tried to commit suicide.

Berry goes on to find blood evidence to support her story. She also notes that the police were unable to find any blood evidence that linked Maloney to this crime scene. Berry believes that Sandy Maloney drank herself to death and died of alcohol poisoning. It was well known that Sandy had serious alcohol and drug problems.

Sandy Maloney had lost custody of her kids, had lost her marriage and had nothing left to live for. The following day her divorce was to be made final.

The twists and turns in this case are astonishing.

Even worse is what the defense attorney for Maloney did in this case. It was another tragedy for Maloney. He didn’t defend Maloney’s innocence with Sandy’s suicide notes. Oh no. He instead argued Maloney’s girlfriend killed Sandy. Absolute absurdity. Absurdity that helped convict Maloney if you ask me. It makes you wonder where his allegiances were at the time of this trial.

There are so many facts to this case, you can only wonder what the truth is. But when I watch John Maloney speak about this case, I believe he is telling the truth. His facial expressions are consistent with what he is saying. I get a deep sense he didn’t kill his wife.

I believe John Maloney truly deserves another trial but the current Special Prosecutor doesn’t believe John Maloney. He still believes Maloney killed his wife regardless of the new facts– and Maloney continues live out his life-sentence.

I think this a big injustice. A tragedy.

Gang Rape Conviction

Back in November, I discussed a rape case that went to trial in Orange County, California and ended up as a mistrial. You can read about it here.

Today, Court TV is reporting that the re-trial ended up with a conviction for all three teens. You may recall the story as one of the boys was the son of a senior law enforcement officer. They were convicted of gang rape — and each is facing 16 to 18 years in prison.

I am relieved.

When I watched the boys and the rape victim tell their stories, it was clear to me who was lying, and it wasn’t the rape victim though she had a shady past.

Justice was served in this case. Thankfully.

“A Sack of Lies,” he says

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, archbishop of northern Genoa, Italy, spoke out to the world last week calling best-selling novel, The DiVinci Code, “…a sack full of lies against the Church, against the real history of Christianity and against Christ himself.”

I was intrigued by this.

Isn’t The DiVinci Code a novel? A piece of fiction?

Where am I going wrong here?

Author of The DiVinci Code, Dan Brown, answers some questions here, if you have interest.

According to Dictionary.com:

Novel means: A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

Fiction means: 1). A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact. 2).An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

So where does Cardinal Bertone come from calling a piece of imagination that is not necessarily based on fact a lie?????

Is anyone else scratching their head on this one?

No one ever represented this book as the truth. People have wondered if it could be true — which is a totally different thing.

I personally have not read the book, but I will say that I think is a sign of the desperate times in the catholic church. Since so many priests have been accused and convicted of sexual abuse in the past few years, I suspect the support for the catholic church has dried up dramatically, and hence money is not flowing like it used to — to support these men of the church.

Perhaps this is why Cardinal Bertone spoke out with such nonsense? Perhaps that is why he asks catholics and all christians to not buy this book? Because he fears he will loose more money?

I can only speculate.

Knowledge is power — regardless of whether the knowledge is good or bad. I have to completely disagree with Cardinal Bertone.

We were all given a mind, and he should support using it!!

Schiavo Shivers

Since this is such a hot topic, I decided to weigh in with my opinion. This opinion is not based on watching video of the Michael Schiavo or the Schindlers to determine who is lying. While I did see one clip of Michael Schiavo, I was only able to detect that he is angry — which could support the truth or a lie.

I doubt there is anyone in this country who hasn’t heard of the Schiavo case. Over the last few days, I have tried to turn away from the media reports because the pain of this story is so difficult to palate.

I am a firm believer that if I were seriously disabled to the point I couldn’t do anything but lay in bed, helpless, I would want to be put out of my misery. I say that strongly now, yet I don’t have the fervor to put this in legal paperwork. I just can’t do it because I am NOT that confident. This is my absolute truth.

On the other hand, if I were lying in bed in a vegetative state, and my parents saw life in me and they wanted me to live — and my husband fought to have me die by removing a feeding tube — I KNOW I’d turn over in my grave. And I tell you, I trust my husband with all my heart and soul. I love him dearly.

However, as much as one man can love me, no one will EVER love me more purely than my parents. EVER. Maybe as much, but NEVER MORE. Parents are the most likely people to do right by their child – even in the harshest of circumstances. Husbands and wives can be motivated for other reasons. It’s a harsh statement to make, but a true one — one that no woman or man can ever deny.

Of course, in contradiction, parents can have motives but the most likely of motive is they are unable to pull the plug because it will cause too much pain…because they care too much.

So with that thinking, I set out to read the case facts. I wanted to find out the history of Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers. I wanted to see their motives: Are they based on love and compassion? Are they purely out for Terri or are there other circumstances? I have not followed this case closely so I needed to do some research.

I want to find that Michael Schiavo is a kind-hearted and compassionate soul. I want to know that he passionately loves Terri and that he is acting with compassion in doing what is best for her. I want to see Terri on video to see if there are any responses from her. Is she conscious? If she is unconscious in a bed and totally unresponsive, I will have to wonder if the parents can’t let go. I also want to see the Schindler family.

Sadly, after what I have read and watched on the web, the case clearly presents itself if you look closely.

It appears to me, as an outside observer who is ironically pro-choice, that this is a battle of wills in which Michael Schiavo will not back down. This isn’t about what is best for Terri.

It took Michael Schiavo seven years to even mention that his wife supposedly told him that she did not want to be kept alive if she required life-support.

Seven years!!!

It wasn’t until after he filed a medical malpractice suit — and won over a million dollars on behalf of him and Terri — that he REMEMBERED. It was at this point, and conveniently at this point where he stood to inherit a large sum of money set aside for her care in a trust fundthat he wanted the feeding tube removed!!

You can only guess he wanted her gone to get his hands on the money. Why the sudden change of heart??

My skin is crawling.

How could he live with her on a feeding tube for seven years and never remember her wishes then?

This speaks loudly that Michael Schiavo cares for himself first — and then for others — only when it is convenient. Worse, it makes Michael Schiavo suspicious and not trustworthy. His motives are tainted. Money is involved.

Terri Schiavo isn’t on “life support” as I would consider life support. She is on a feeding tube, but she can breath on her own. She doesn’t need help. She just isn’t able to eat by herself though her parents state with training (which they say Michael Schiavo has never allowed) they believe it is possible she could eat on her own.

Michael Schiavo has also at multiple times denied Terri visitation from her parents even when they were deemed to be no danger to her. How has this ever been to Terri’s benefit? I see it as a move that hurts Terri and her parents. This outrages me. It shows serious anger towards the Schindlers and a lack of care on behalf of Michael Schiavo for Terri.

I then look at Terri Schiavo myself in videos– and while I see a person who is severely disabled — I do believe she is there in some way. She does seem to respond to her mother in the smallest of ways. Of course, you can argue these are just reflective responses. It certainly isn’t clear. To me, it appears that it is a major struggle for Terri to respond, but with will, she is able to do so with looks, moans and slight movements. If Terri were my daughter, I could not give up hope seeing her as she in these videos.

It is important to note that neurologists differ on their opinions of Terri’s ability to respond. The brain is not well enough understood for anyone to be accurate in what Terri actually perceives.

The Schindlers have asked Michael Schiavo if they can be appointed as her guardians. They have told him they don’t want any money that he can keep it all — to just let them care for their daughter — and he refuses time and time again.

Watch some video of Terry here. Click on Multimedia and then on the right side of the screen, you will see links.

You can read more facts here from Dartmouth College/University of Miami.

Time and time again, I see cold, cruel and mean behavior on behalf of Michael Schiavo. I don’t see him caring for Terri by doing what is best for her. I see him doing what is best for him. Over and over again. If anything, the Schindlers may have too much love in their hearts.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
http://reports.tbo.com/reports/Schiavo/
http://www.terrisfight.net/

Opinion on Robert Blake

Several people have asked me to give opinions on what I think about Robert Blake. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any video of him talking in so long I can’t remember when it was. I searched the web and tried to find some footage, but I am clearly unable too. The old footage has expired and been removed from the web. I am bummed so I thought I’d tell anyone out there, if you happen to find footage of him talking about the murder, let me know!

When I was searching, I did find and recall that I watched ABC’s 20/20 with Barbara Walters sometime ago — when she interviewed him. I don’t remember anything about the interview in particular, but I do remember I had formulated a “strong” opinion back then — and opinion that I didn’t believe Blake. I remember being confident about it.

In my search for footage, I did read little tidbits about the murder case and several facts really stand out as inconsistent and disturb me. They are:

  1. “Blake said he left her in the car while he returned to the restaurant to retrieve a handgun he had left behind. He told detectives he was armed because his wife feared someone was stalking her.”

    Isn’t this odd?? This statement jumped out at me and screamed more than any other. I had to stop and figure out why. After some thought, I did.

    If Blake is being honest and Bakley really was truly afraid that “someone” was “stalking” her, wouldn’t he or she have insisted that she go back with Blake to the restaurant?

    If you were afraid of someone was “stalking” you, wouldn’t you have done that??? Wouldn’t he have done that too??? This shows inconsistency in his story. He didn’t act like a person who was protecting someone else.

    HOWEVER, if you were afraid of Blake, you wouldn’t necessarily follow him back to the restaurant, would you? Perhaps you would wait in the car like Bakley did.

    I believe what Blake did was take the truth that Bakley was afraid of him, and twisted it and used it against Bakley by saying that she had some unknown “stalker” that she feared when in fact she feared him!!

    If he believed she had a stalker, the prosecutor should have asked him — then why didn’t you have her go back to the restaurant with you? You were carrying a gun for her sake — not yours as you suggest. Why didn’t you, Mr. Blake??

    In another odd twist, Blake considered Bakley a “celebrity stalker” when he met her. Those were his own words. The use of the word “stalker” is a bit haunting considering he used it in his defense (above).

  2. Isn’t the timing of this just miraculous? What are the odds! He happens to forget his weapon — his self-protection for him and his wife — his gun — haphazardly in the restaurant when they are supposedly afraid of some stalker.

    Then once he realizes it, he leaves his fearful wife alone in the car while he goes to retrieve it while at the exact same time (or within minutes of when) — someone ELSE shoots her.

    It’s important to note that the gun used in the killing wasn’t the one he went to retrieve.

    What are the odds of this happening? Also, more importantly — who takes their gun off when wearing it for self-protection and forgets about it? When there is supposed fear? This doesn’t make ANY SENSE.

  3. I have found four separate people who all speak of Blake approaching them to knock Bakley off when reading about this case. Two people were stunt men, one was a retired police detective and another was a co-star. I could doubt one person, maybe two if their reputations were exceptionally shady but I can’t discount three or four people — people who I am guessing didn’t know each other. It shows a pattern.

    Even more, I would have a real hard time discounting Welch, the retired police detective.

    In light of four people speaking of Blake’s desire for her to be killed, I ask myself: What was their relationship like? Was he loving and affectionate? Was his behavior inconsistent with what these four people said or consistent?

  4. It is clearly consistent with the pattern of the four people speaking out against him. Blake did not like Bakley at all. He despised her for outsmarting him and trapping him into becoming a father. I found part of the 20/20 interview in text. Bakley acts off-balanced here — another concern. He makes it clear he is beyond outraged that he was fooled by a woman. He loathes her for it to the point I remember how scary he looked on 20/20 — frightfully scary. I am remembering his facial expressions. I feared the man.

  5. Blake offered Bakley $250,000 to get out of his life after learning about the pregnancy– yet Bakley refused. Then Blake offered to marry her and let her and the baby live on his property if she agreed to rules –rules which if she broke — they mutually agreed would allowed him to take full custody of the child. More than that, when he married her, he told her whoever breaks the marriage agrees to give up the child. He was trying everything in his power to set her up to fail him so he could claim victory. Victory was that he got the child and got rid of her.

    This was a relationship between two very ugly people, let me tell you. Bakley was known to marry men just for the money. I think I read somewhere Blake was her 10th husband. It’s chillingly evil!

    Blake was an incredible control freak and he did everything in his power to break Bakley into giving him the child and getting the heck out of his life. Just sadly, she continued to stay strong and outsmart him — and he couldn’t cope with it.

    I see a logical outcome building here…rage. Pure rage, and Blake shows that in his ABC 20/20 interview from the text I see (it’s only a small portion unfortunately). It jogs my memory. Worse, I believe Blake shows outrage for another reason. He is fuming mad that his gun trick still made police question HIM!!! He thought he could outsmart people too — like Bakley — and it wasn’t working at that point! He was furious. He hated Bakley all the more because of it.

  6. Even more odd: Blake always went to his favorite restaurant and had the valet park his car. He even sat at the same table every time he went. However, on the night of the murder, he didn’t do his “usual”. Why???

    Instead, I read he parked his car behind a dumpster that fateful night. And he forgot his gun when he left– how convenient — at the exact same time when someone happened to kill Bakley. Uh, huh.

    More odd again is that on the night of the murder, at the restaurant, Blake introduced Bakley as his wife to staff for the first time. He had never done this before. The staff didn’t know he was married!

    Why did he do that — this night??? Perhaps so they would remember him when he came back into the restaurant — to make sure he had a rock solid alibi?? Chilling.

    These behaviors are NOT NORMAL, and NOT CONSISTENT in anyway. The truth is always consistent. Always.

  7. The staff at the restaurant that night speaks of Blake in the bathroom vomiting. He doesn’t deny it. He did…why?? Was he nervous? What was he nervous about???? He wasn’t sick — everyone knows that.

    Was he afraid his plan might not go off as expected???

In looking at the pieces, here is what I think happened. Blake was lonely and desired the affection of a woman. He met Bakley. He knew of her questionable past, but was more tempted in pleasure than self-respect — and enjoyed her company. He played with danger and danger trapped him, as logic would expect.

Bakley framed Blake with the hopes to get money by having his child. Blake thought in their hot and heavy trysts, he could trust her and convinced himself he could, so when she violated him by getting pregnant, he was outraged.

He schemed and plotted, and finally decided he was going to outsmart this beast-of-a-woman who outsmarted him! That was his original game plan. That’s when he offered her money. Then when that didn’t work, he decided to marry her with a contract that gave him everything — or so he thought – and her very little. Furthermore, Bakley had to agree that no friends or family could ever visit her at his estate. Ever.

He enticed Bakley into it by offering her and their daughter a place to live on his estate separate from his own quarters — at no charge. She took him up on it — but didn’t break any of the rules to the point he could get her out of the contract. He was stuck AGAIN. He was stuck paying for a woman who continually fueled him and most importantly made him feel inadequate! And he couldn’t take it.

Clearly, he wanted to her out of his life. Four people speak out openly about this. What do they have to gain by doing so? It doesn’t make them look good — that’s for sure. Even worse, Bakely’s family says she spoke to them, too, about his threats — but was she too greedy to “get away” in self-preservation? Perhaps she knew she’d loose her daughter after all of her scheming and couldn’t accept that either?

Blake tried to hire four people we know about to supposedly kill her. I suspect he successfully hired a fifth. I believe he convinced someone else out there to kill her — in a much planned event. And when it happened, he once again became outraged when the police pointed a finger at him. I keep seeing his insanity during the ABC 20/20 interview. More and more flashes of it are coming back to me. I don’t remember words, just expressions of rage.

But Blake got off. I believe because there wasn’t any concrete evidence though I am convinced from what I have read there was definitely reasonable doubt. However, more than all of this, our justice system doesn’t rely on the truth, it relies on which of the two attorneys can make a better case — and convinced the jury that their side is believable.

It appears, in this case, the defense truly was a better salesman then the prosecution and so Blake, like OJ Simpson, gets to walk free.

Did you ever notice neither man has ever insisted the police focus on finding the “real killer”? That’s what an innocent man does…

Articles I used to write this piece:
http://www.courttv.com/news/blake/background_ctv.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6968006/
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/blake.jurors/index.html