Was the Defense Attorney Loved by his Young Girlfriend?

The 26 year old girlfriend of a 58 year old Philadelphia defense attorney, prominent for his association with organized crime, was found dead, naked, and face down in his bathtub on Saturday, May 25, 2013.  You can read details of the story here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-found-dead-home-philly-lawyer-article-1.1355062#commentpostform

Defense attorney A. Charles Peruto was not home at the time the body was found, but he did find time to send a text message to a local newspaper about the death of his girlfriend.

A. Charles Peruto text message: “Julia was a beautiful, caring free spirit hippy, who I was blessed to have known. Words can’t express how sad I am to finally have met someone who I believed truly loved me.”

“who I believed truly loved me” – Mr. Peruto is a defense attorney who makes his living by carefully choosing his words, especially those utilized in a written format, such as a text message.  When speaking, we all choose our words in microseconds, but when writing, we are able to spend a great deal more time and care picking the right words.  With these words, Mr. Peruto is telling us he “believed” his girlfriend “truly loved” him.

If he “believed”, he no longer believes.  When did he stop believing?  Before or after her death?  This single word is extremely significant.

The use of the word “truly” to modify “loved” indicates the love is a source of anxiety for the attorney.  Even if she “loved” him, he feels she did not “truly” love him.  For the attorney, there are degrees of love and whatever she felt for him was not the degree he “believed”.  What caused this change in his belief?

“Words can’t express how sad I am” – This sounds fine coming from someone relating their feelings about their recently deceased girlfriend.  However, the remainder of the sentence makes it clear the attorney is not sad about the death of his girlfriend, he is sad “to finally have met someone who I believed truly loved me”.  In other words, he is sad he met someone he thought loved him, then learned she didn’t.  His girlfriend is dead, but his grief is not about her death, but about her feelings for him.  Did her death cause his belief about her feelings for him to change or did this sadness affect him prior to her death?  When did he discover she did not “truly” love him?

“who I was blessed to have known” – The attorney “was blessed” to have known his girlfriend.  He is not currently “blessed” to have known her.  This is significant.  For most of us, we would continue to feel “blessed” to have known our loved one prior to their death and described it in words as “I am blessed”, but for the attorney, this feeling ceased at some point because he describes it in the past.  Did it cease at the time of her death?  Or did it cease before?

What have we learned?

We have learned this defense attorney made an extremely strange comment in text form for publication in a newspaper which makes it clear he no longer believes his girlfriend, found dead under unusual circumstances which suggest homicide, loved him and he is no longer blessed to have known her.

When is Doubt Reasonable?

Chris Harris is on trial for the brutal slaying of 5 members of a family he claimed were his friends.  His defense attorney, Daniel Fultz, theorized throughout the trial perhaps the family’s 14 year old son killed 4 of his family members, then was killed himself by Chris Harris, who was acting in self-defense when he struck the young boy 52 blows with a tire iron.  The brother of Chris Harris testified he personally witnessed the terrible beating of the 14 year old boy, who laid helplessly on the ground.  You can read the whole story here:

http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1039450795/Closing-arguments-continue-in-beating-death-case

What evidence did the defense attorney present to support his theory?  The blood of the 14 year old, which was found in copious quantities throughout the house, including under a bed where he hid from his killer, was found under the fingernails of his slain father.  The defense attorney tried to convince the jury this evidence indicates the father and son struggled.  Or could it be true the father touched his bleeding son in an effort to comfort or protect him in their final moments?

Daniel Fultz, defense attorney: “There’s your reasonable doubt.”

Is our “reasonable doubt” really “there”?

Did the boy who was struck with a tire iron in excess of 50 times kill 4 other people?

Did a grown man need to strike a half-grown boy 52 times with a length of steel in order to defend himself?

Blood evidence shows the boy bled all over the house.  Did the defendant reasonably need to chase the boy around the house inflicting blow after blow?

The defense attorney did give some good advice to the jury.

Daniel Fultz, defense attorney: “Don’t decide the case because you don’t like him.”

The defense attorney is correct.  The jury should decide the case on the merits of the case, which includes the evidence, which demonstrates a 14 year old boy was no match in hand to hand combat with a grown man armed with a tire iron.

What have we learned?

We have learned the jury needs to decide for itself if doubt is “reasonable” or ludicrous.

 

How Did the Suspect’s DNA End Up on the Strangled Victim’s Neck?

Why does the District Attorney believe successful businesswoman Kelly Soo Park strangled model Juliana Redding?

1) Park’s DNA was found inside the victim’s apartment on the neck of the victim’s dead body.

2) Park’s DNA was found on the tank top of the victim.

3) Park’s DNA was found on the victim’s stove knob which was left on with a candle burning nearby after the killer fled the scene.

4) Park’s DNA was found on the victim’s cellular phone.

5) Park’s DNA was found on the interior of the victim’s apartment front door.

6) Park’s fingerprint was found on the victim’s plate inside the victim’s apartment.

You can read the details here:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_23308522/jury-deliberates-case-maxim-models-santa-monica-slaying

And here:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-model-murder-trial-prosecution-20130522,0,7182557.story

How does Park’s defense attorney, George Buehler, explain the overwhelming DNA evidence found at the scene of the murder in the victim’s apartment, a place the suspect claims never to have visited?  He claims the victim and the suspect had a mutual acquaintance, had both visited his house, and the victim accidently brought some of the suspect’s DNA home, which months later, appeared on all of the key areas of the investigation, like her strangled neck and clothing, the inside of her door, and her stove knob.

George Buehler, Defense Attorney:  “Could she have brought with her from the house to her apartment a towel, an orange plate that had been touched by Ms. Park when she was in that house?”

“Could she” – even the defense attorney cannot give his own ludicrous theory enough weight to imply “she did”, but instead asks if she “could”.

“an orange plate” – The suspect’s fingerprint was found on a plate in the victim’s apartment.  The defense attorney would like the jury to question if the victim truly owned the plate in her apartment.

What have we learned?

We have learned ridiculous lies are lies, even if they are entertaining as works of pure fiction.

We have learned ludicrous is a line defense attorneys will cross.

Is DNA Evidence Foolish?

During her trial for the May 2008 strangling of a 21 year old female model, Kelly Soo Park’s attorney attempted to sway the jury away from believing in DNA evidence.  You can read the whole story here:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-model-murder-trial-defense-20130522,0,143797.story

George Buehler, Defense Attorney:  “The D.A.’s case rests entirely on DNA evidence.  Don’t be fooled by the DNA evidence.”

“The D.A.’s case rests entirely on DNA evidence. “ – This is a statement of fact.  The District Attorney is prosecuting a murder case against the defense attorney’s client and has DNA evidence to support the charges.

“Don’t be fooled by the DNA evidence.” – The attorney is admitting the “DNA evidence” makes his client appear guilty.  Why does the “DNA evidence” make his client appear guilty?  Because his client’s DNA was found on the neck of the strangled victim.  How does the attorney explain his client’s DNA being found on the neck of the strangled victim and all over her apartment including on the knob of a stove left on and the victim’s cellphone?

George Buehler, Defense Attorney, told the jury his client’s DNA may have been transferred from the home of a man both the victim and suspect knew and which the victim had last visited months previously.  The attorney would have us believe his client’s DNA transferred to the neck of the victim shortly before she was strangled.  Is this notion ridiculous?

George Buehler, Defense Attorney:  “Is it more far-fetched than the idea that this woman, a successful businesswoman who has no relationship with Juliana Redding, would show up on a Saturday night and commit these heinous acts?”

“Is it more far-fetched” – Yes, the idea his client’s DNA transferred from items from a friend’s home which the victim had not visited in months and just happens to affix to every surface which is key to the investigation is more far-fetched than the” idea” maybe this woman had a reason to kill the victim.

What have we learned?

We have learned DNA evidence is powerful and defense attorneys are scared of it.

We have learned there is no idea so ridiculous a defense attorney will not present it to a jury.

We have learned this defense attorney has no defense for his client and can only beg the jury to ignore the evidence presented by the District Attorney.

Is the Doctor a Suspect in the Cyanide Death of his Wife?

Attorneys earn their living through their judicious use of words.  Attorneys tear their opponent’s cases apart by arguing about the specific meaning of words.  The legal profession uses a distinct vocabulary, where many words and phrases have one meaning and one meaning only.  Examples include “suspect” and “person of interest”.

A “person of interest” is someone the police believe is tied to an investigation, but may not be the perpetrator of the crime or there is not enough evidence to prove they are the perpetrator of the crime.

A “suspect” is a person the police believe is the perpetrator of the crime and evidence exists to support their belief.

A criminal defense attorney understands the difference between these two definitions.  So what does it mean when an attorney pretends he does not understand the difference?

A Pennsylvania doctor is person of interest in the cyanide poisoning death of his wife.  The doctor has hired a team of attorneys even though he has not been named a suspect in the case.  The head of his defense team participated in a media interview in which the attorney feigned ignorance of the difference between “suspect” and “person of interest”.  You can read the story here:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/husband-of-doctor-poisoned-by-cyanide-hires-defense-lawyer/

Bill Difenderfer, Attorney: “We don’t even know if he’s going to be charged with anything at this point. Hopefully, he won’t be.”

Reporter: “But he has been described as a suspect?”

Bill Difenderfer, Attorney: “Well, you know, you know that.”

Reporter: “Your client is a suspect in this case?”

Bill Difenderfer, Attorney: “I’m sure, what do they call that, person of interest or suspect. Yeah, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”

“We don’t even know if he’s going to be charged with anything at this point.” – The extra phrase “at this point” indicates discomfort and links the statement to the time of the statement, this may not apply in the future.  “We don’t even know” – There are many things the attorney doesn’t “know” and it is an unhappy place to be.  “if he going to be charged” – The attorney would have us believe the doctor, with no knowledge of potential charges being filed, retained a defense team.

“But he has been described as a suspect?” – This is a specific, but poorly worded, question.  The reporter is asking the attorney if the police have named the doctor a “suspect” because “suspect” is a very specific term which means the police believe the doctor murdered his wife.

“Well, you know, you know that.” – The attorney attempts to deflect the question by not answering the question and stating the reporter already know the answer.  The double use of “you know” indicates extreme agitation or nervousness.

“Your client is a suspect in this case?” – The reporter asks the same question in a different way, still seeking confirmation from the attorney.

“I’m sure, what do they call that, person of interest or suspect. Yeah, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.” – As we know, the terms “person of interest” and “suspect” have far different meanings which are known to a defense attorney, yet this attorney claims his client is both a “person of interest” and a “suspect”.  He goes on to claim there is no doubt, but we know there must be doubt because a person cannot be both a “person of interest” and a “suspect” in the same case.

“what do they call that” – The attorney would have us believe he is not familiar with common legal jargon in the criminal defense profession.  If so, the doctor may wish to consider retaining a new defense team.

“I’m sure” – what is he “sure” about?

What have we learned?

We have learned any defense attorney who appears unaware of the difference in meaning between “person of interest” and “suspect” is lying to us for a sinister purpose.

We have learned defense attorneys who allow their anxiety to be heard in their choices of words during a public statement may not be the best choice for dealing with the media.

We have learned doctors who hire defense attorneys prior to being named a “suspect” expect charges to be filed against them.

Did the Doctor Kill His Wife?

A Pennsylvania doctor is under investigation in the recent death of his wife, who passed away after collapsing in their home.  You can read the details of the story here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cyanide-poisoned-doctors-husband-person-interest-lawyer/story?id=19203325#.UZpL_KvD-Uk

The doctor’s attorney made some interesting comments to the press which we will now examine.

Attorney William Difenderfer:  “There’s no question he’s a person of interest and that’s really all I can go into now.”

“There’s no question he’s a person of interest” – This is a statement of fact.  There are no indications of discomfort or lies.

“that’s really all I can go into now” – The word “that’s” expresses a discomfort with the topic accompanied by an attempt to distance the speaker from the statement.  The use of the extraneous word “really” enhances the distancing effect of “that’s” and highlights the speaker’s discomfort with the remainder of the statement.  This is not “all I can go into now”, there is more he could go into, he chooses not to do so and makes a weak assertion as to why he will not.

Attorney William Difenderfer:  “He’s under investigation, as any case like this would be, and that’s about all we know from the standpoint of the government and he has retained me and we have some experts on board too.  We’re looking into things as well.”

“He’s under investigation” – Another statement of fact.  The doctor is a “person of interest” and “under investigation”.

“as any case like this would be” – The attorney attempts to deflect attention from his client with the words “any case”.  The doctor is “under investigation” in the first portion of the sentence, now the attorney changes the object of “investigation” to the “case”.

“that’s about all we know from the standpoint of the government” – The attorney conveniently supplies us with the verbal signpost for lying, “that’s”.  “About all we know” means “we know” more, otherwise the attorney would not need to qualify what they do know with “about”.  The phrase “the standpoint of the government” tells us the attorney and his client know far more, but the government doesn’t.  What does the attorney and doctor know which the government does not?  Are the attorney and the doctor hiding this information from the government?

“we have some experts on board too” – Both the defense team for the doctor and the government have “experts” – more than one each.  What are they “experts” in?  How will they affect what the government knows?  Why does a “person of interest” need a defense team which includes “experts”?

“We’re looking into things as well” – What “things” are they “looking into”?  Are they the same “things” the government is investigating?

Attorney William Difenderfer:  “We’re going to anxiously defend the case at this point.  I don’t want to even get in on a debate with this case now until we see what the commonwealth does.”

“We’re going to anxiously defend the case at this point” – The word “anxiously” is interesting because it means the attorney is nervous about defending “the case”.  He is not “vigorously” defending, he is anxious and distraught about defending.  The phrase “at this point” indicates there will be a point when “we” will not be defending “the case”.

“defend” – Why is the attorney defending a “person of interest”?  In the mind of the attorney, “the case” has already moved to the stage where his client is a charged suspect.

“I don’t want to even get in on a debate with this case now” – This is a statement of fact, the attorney does not want to “debate”.  However, he will “debate” in the future, when it is not “now”.  The question is why does he not want to debate “now”?  The attorney is not interested in truth, but in “debate”, which he will use to distort the truth to the advantage of his client.

“until we see what the commonwealth does” – The attorney is waiting for the government to bring charges against his client.  We can infer the attorney possesses information concerning the involvement of the doctor in the death of his wife which he will not reveal until doing so serves his client’s interest.  There is truth which is known to him, but hidden to others.  The truth which is hidden is also harmful to his client, otherwise the attorney would have no reason to hide it.

What have we learned?

We have learned Attorney William Difenderfer is anxious about defending the doctor.

We have learned Attorney William Difenderfer believes his client will be going to trial, as evidenced by the assembly of a team of experts.

We have learned Attorney William Difenderfer should not give press statements if he desires to keep his fears about successfully defending his client a secret.

 

Attorneys Claim Cleveland Kidnapping and Rape Suspect Offended by Media Coverage

As new details continue to emerge about the extent of the long-term physical injuries and damage caused by incarceration inside his Cleveland home, kidnapping and rape suspect Ariel Castro believes the three women he held captive for a decade are unfairly characterizing him to the media.  You can read more details here:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20700403,00.html

Attorney Jaye Schlachet: “He is a human being, but what is offensive is that the women and the media want to demonize this man before they know the whole story, and I think it’s unfair and not equitable.”

“the women and the media want to demonize this man before they know the whole story” – the attorney is stating “the women” do not “know the whole story”.  Do you believe “the women” do not know what happened in Ariel Castro’s house during the last ten years?

The attorney is also stating “the women” want to “demonize” Mr. Castro.  Have you read or heard or seen any media statements by “the women” which “demonize” Mr. Castro?  Since none of “the women” have granted the media an interview, this statement is lie.

“what is offensive” – the attorney claims the desire of “the women” and “the media” to “demonize” Mr. Castro is offensive.  Holding three women captive and denying medical care to a six year old little girl must not reach the level of “offensive” for this attorney.  No matter what Mr. Castro’s attorneys state, the facts are “the women” and the girl were all extremely malnourished upon their rescue by police.  Some would find this “offensive”.  The attorney is attempting to change the scale of Mr. Castro’s crimes from horrific and inhuman to merely “offensive”.

“I think it’s unfair and not equitable.” – The attorney admits only the attorney thinks “it’s unfair and not equitable”.  Others will think differently.  Others will find assigning responsibility for his monstrous actions to Mr. Castro to be fair, but perhaps not equitable as the three young ladies whom he imprisoned will never regain the years he stole from them.

What have we learned?

We have learned the attorneys for Mr. Castro desire to reduce the severity of his crimes in the public view by attacking the victims and the media, neither of which are responsible for abducting, imprisoning, raping, and abusing multiple women.

We have learned there is a “whole story”, but Mr. Castro’s attorneys will not tell us what it is even though they will chastise the media for reporting what is known at this time.

Is Ariel Castro, Suspected of Kidnapping and Imprisoning 3 Cleveland Women for 10 Years, a Monster?

Three women from the Cleveland were rescued earlier this month from a house where they claim to have been imprisoned by the owner, Ariel Castro, for a decade.  Statements to police which have been released both officially and unofficially indicate the women were all abducted, held in the house against their will, starved, beaten, chained, raped, and psychologically tortured.

Circumstantial evidence in the form of statements by Ariel Castro’s relatives, including his daughter and two brothers, friends, and neighbors continues to mount, all of which paints a picture of a man hiding secrets which now seem to be revealed as the kidnapping, imprisonment, and torture of the three rescued women.

Today, Ariel Castro’s attorneys declared he would plead Not Guilty.  They went even further by claiming Ariel Castro is not a “monster”, insinuating he may not have held the three women against their wills.  You can read the details here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ariel-castro-loves-daughter-lawyer-article-1.1344639

We will examine a few of the attorney’s statements in detail:

In reference to a six year old girl also rescued from the house and identified as the daughter conceived and delivered in captivity by one of the kidnap victims:

Jaye Schlachet, Attorney: “I can tell you that Mr. Castro is extremely committed to the well being and positive future for his daughter, who he loves dearly.  And if people find that to be a disconnect from what he’s alleged to have done, then the people will just have to deal with it. We just know how he feels about his little girl.”

“We just know” – Even if we could accept the statement about Mr. Castro’s extreme commitment to the welfare of his daughter who he required be born in a baby pool in the living room rather than at a hospital with adequate medical care and never once took to the pediatrician for a check-up, we must ask how the attorney “just” knows how Mr. Castro feels.  Did Mr. Castro tell him?  If so, why the need for the word “just”, which indicates discomfort on the part of the attorney with this statement?

“positive future” – What is “positive” about a future in which the little girl grows to adulthood imprisoned in a house with no educational or social opportunities as she watches her mother slowly age and die from enforced malnutrition?  Until she was rescued by police, we can be “positive” this was the “future” for Ariel Castro’s daughter.

Craig Weintraub, Attorney: “The initial portrayal by the media has been one of a ‘monster’ and that’s not the impression that I got when I talked to him for three hours.  I know that family members who have been interviewed by the media have expressed that as well.”

“Initial portrayal” – this wording indicates the media no longer portrays Ariel Castro as a “monster”.  Apparently, this attorney is no longer reading or watching media reporting of facts, which is not a “portrayal” as these are facts, as the case against Mr. Castro continues to grow and the details revealed continue to shock America with their hideousness.  Or this attorney is admitting the reporting by the media is not a “portrayal” at all.

“that’s not the impression” – the word “that” indicates a need by the speaker to distance himself from his statement, which is an indication of a lie, fabrication, or exaggeration.  “Impression” is a word which leaves a lot of wiggle room as an “impression” is not a statement of fact, but of opinion.  The attorney is not stating Ariel Castro is not a “monster”, but rather Mr. Castro does not seem like a monster during a conversation of three hours.  The women who spent ten years imprisoned and chained most likely have a different “impression” of Mr. Castro.

“I know that family members who have been interviewed by the media have expressed that as well.” – What did “family members” express?  Did they express Ariel Castro was a “monster”?  If “family members”, people who have known Ariel Castro their entire lives, believe he is a “monster”, why would we give any weight to the opinion of an attorney who spoke with him for a mere three hours and has a vested interest in the public believing Mr. Castro is not a “monster”?

What have we learned?

We have learned Ariel Castro spoke with his attorneys for multiple hours and they are not willing to make a statement he is not a “monster”, but can go only so far as to state he does not seem like a “monster” during the short time they have personally known him.

We have learned the media is not responsible for the public believing Ariel Castro is a “monster”.  Ariel Castro and his actions including the preparation of prison areas inside his home and the abducting of three women and the imprisonment of his own six year old daughter are responsible for the public’s label of “monster”, the media simply reported these facts.

We have learned family members who know Ariel Castro better than anyone else in the world believe he is capable and guilty of these actions.