CO-DEFENDANT FORBES’ SUPPRESSION HEARING:
On October 12th and 13th, 1979, before Judge Marutani, Robert Forbes gave testimony under oath to the alleged out-of –court statement. He affirmed that he never mentioned the name Francis Oneill and furthermore that it was Officer McGinley who placed the name in the statement. McGinley threatened his life and that was the only reason why Forbes signed the statement and read it into a tape recorder. He went on to state that he felt if he did not do as he was told, he would be killed. Forbes did admit at this hearing that he was triggerman. The court placed an “X” where ever my name appeared in the statement. Exhibit D
THE ONLY EYEWITNESS- A FUGITIVE:
November 20th, 1979, George Lawrence was arrested by the Pennsylvania state police as a fugitive from Mongomery County, wanted for armed robbery, but was mysteriously released. Lawrence's Statement
On March 7th, 1980, detective Lubiejewski and George Lawrence had a conversation concerning yet another of his fugitive statuses, this one being from the state of New Jersey, where Lawrence was arrested and convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to ten years. He had subsequently escaped from prison and was presently on the run. Detective Lubiejewski “suggested” he turn himself in. Perhaps to avoid an embarrassment on the stand, Lawrence turned himself in to Detective Lubiejewski three days later, on the day that jury selection began. Lawrence's Statement
JURY SELECTION:
It’s proved impossible to obtain an unprejudiced jury for my trial. Jury selection began March 10th 1980 and continued through April 6th, 1980. Even then, prejudiced jurors were impaneled. For example: one elderly woman, who was selected and sequestered with four other jurors, told the court that the other jurors were discussing the case in violation of the courts order. When asked if she had a fixed opinion of the defendants, she stated “yes, look at him with that long hair, he’s guilty”. No further inquiry was made and no one was removed from the panel. I later attempted to argue the remarks showed prejudice, but the court ruled that because my attorney never objected before the jury was sworn in, my claim was waived! When I filed for the transcripts of the proceeding, it was reported that the transcripts of jury selection had disappeared. The court claimed the issue was waived because my attorney failed to object prior to the jury being sworn in. One must wonder how this was humanly possible when there were no transcripts to determine whether objections were or weren’t made. Exhibit F