Do you want to see and hear some of the dirty details of the Father Leo Koppala case that Faribault County Attorney Troy Timmerman and City of Blue Earth Police Chief Tom Fletcher don't want you to know about? You do, huh?
How about we start with an excerpt from the report that Faribault County Attorney Troy Timmerman was trying to illegally withhold from Father Leo Koppal, huh?
On Friday night, June 7th
2013 at approximately 9:55pm, I received a phone call from my mother
(Mary Catherine Stevemer), about a situation that had occurred at her
house . . . My mother had informed me that a legal situation
occurred between Father Leo Koppal and my juvenile [Redacted] (CS) at
her house earlier in the evening and needed some advice as to what to
do next. Report by Mike Stevermer #102. Suspect: Leo Charles
Koppala, DOB: 4/9/1966. Faribault County Sheriff's Office
Supplemental Report. 07/12/2013.
How many people have a grandmother or a mother that would describe an alleged sexual assault on their granddaughter or daughter as a "legal situation," huh? None, right? [Was the teenager upset because she signed a contract (a legal situation) with Koppala?]
Lion News: Father Koppala Framed? Interview With Koppala Defense Attorney Philip Elbert?
In fact, how many police reports or news reports of alleged sexual assaults have you ever read that describe the alleged sexual assault as a "legal situation," huh? None, right?
Did Faribault County Attorney Troy Timmerman co-author or ghost-write Faribault County deputy Mike Stevermer's report? Sure seems that way, doesn't it? It does, doesn't it?
Sure seems strange that Father Leo Koppala would want me to have this data and Faribault County Attorney Troy Timmerman wouldn't, huh? You'd think it would be just the opposite, wouldn't you? You would, wouldn't you?
The motion that was granted states that
the State needs to provide a report from a witness who is a part-time
deputy. … "All officers, part-time or not, report to the
prosecutor," Elbert says. "The law is clear." Elbert
said that the child told an adult who was a part-time deputy, the
same evening as the alleged assault, about what happened. … Elbert
said knowing the exact individuals who spoke and when they spoke
could have a big impact on this case. Ruling favors priest –
Defense entitled to full disclosures, October 27, 2013, by Brock
Buesing - Register Staff Writer, Faribault County Register.
Faribault County Attorney Troy Timmerman has a lot of dirty secrets that he has to hide, doesn't he? He does, doesn't he?
“We have held that when the State
suppresses or fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence, the
good or bad faith of the prosecution is irrelevant: a due process
violation occurs whenever such evidence is withheld.” Illinois v.
Fisher.² 2. 540 U.S. 544, 547, 124 S.Ct. 1200, 1202 (2004). George
R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook
(Thompson/West:2007), Page 145.
Another problem is with the so-called "by the book" interrogation conducted by "quick on the draw" City of Blue Earth Police Chief Tom Fletcher, isn't it? It is, isn't it?
"The issue was whether they can
use Father Leo's statement. My position is they can not," Elbert
said after the hearing. "The reason is, if a person is in
custody and being interrogated by the police, the police have to give
you the Miranda warning and that warning must be understood and there
must be a voluntary waiver of the rights. So my argument is he was in
custody subject to interrogation and did not understand the Miranda
warning so he could not have voluntarily waived his rights." …
They went to Koppala's office. Fletcher said Koppala was not
handcuffed nor forbidden to leave. Fletcher said he read Koppala the
Miranda rights and recorded the conversation. Koppala case: Chief on
stand by Jodelle Greiner - Staff Writer , Fairmont Sentinel. December
17, 2013.
The Reid technique (City of Blue Earth Police Chief Tom Fletcher is illegally withholding the public data that identifies the interrogation techniques he uses, isn't he?) says that you are to interview before you interrogate a suspect, doesn't it? It does, doesn't it?
Where an interview is an exercise in
education, an interrogation is an exercise of extraction. The
interrogation of a suspect presents special problem which we will not
address, other than to make one observation. Many examiners approach
the interrogation of a suspect with the objective of extracting a
confession. This is a capital mistake, as the suspect may be
innocent. The examiner should approach the suspect interrogation with
the same objective as any other form of questioning – to extract
the truth. You are more likely to achieve the truth if you do not try
to impose your preconceptions about the truth upon the witness.
George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook
(Thompson/West:2007), Page 166.
Chief Fletcher knows that the interview portion is used to test the truthfulness of the suspect, doesn't he? He does, doesn't he? Why would Chief Fletcher skip that part in a "He said - she said" situation, huh? Because Chief Fletcher had a preconceived notion that Father Koppala was guilty, right? You have preconceived notions of guilt when you frame someone, don't you? You do, don't you?
Consider that a fact-giver may have
worked so many hours or days on a case that, without any malicious
intent, he may have withheld relevant information or even supplied
unfounded information to the investigator. When an initial
investigator becomes emotionally involved in solving a case, it is
not uncommon for him or her to lose perspective of a truth-seeker and
assume the adversarial role of a prosecutor, attempting to “build a
case” against the person he believes is responsible for the crime.
Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Brian C. Jayne,
Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 4th Ed., page 17.
And I don't know about you but I find it highly suspicious that a teenage girl who had just had a "legal situation" with a priest wouldn't contact her mother right away, don't I? I do, don't I?
Interrogation should not be used as a
primary means to evaluate a suspect's truthfulness – in most cases,
that can be accomplished during a nonaccusatory interview. John
E., Buckley Joseph P., Jayne, Brian C. Essentials of the Reid
Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Page 6.
And I find it really suspicious when I hear that the father is calling up and complaining that his teenage had been subjected to a "legal situation" when there is no documented proof that anyone called him, don't I? I do, don't I?
Consider the typical jury trial. For an
innocent defendant, even a not guilty verdict is a loss. Although the
innocent defendant has “won,” she has undergone arrest and (at
least minimal) incarceration, spent money on premiums paid to bail
bondsman, spent more money hiring a lawyer, withstood the inevitable
public censure and suspicion, undergone the roller coaster ride of
emotion during the protracted litigation, and will ever after suffer
a stain on her reputation. For the innocent defendant, “not guilty”
is a smaller loss than “guilty as charged,” but it is a loss
nonetheless. George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical
Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 65.
And sounds really suspicious when you throw into the confusing mix that Faribault County Attorney Troy Timmerman willfully refuses to investigate the City of Blue Earth's illegal withholding of free electronic data and the attempt to defraud me out a sizeable amount of money, doesn't it? It does, doesn't it?
The client base includes all the people
of the jurisdiction, “all the people of the jurisdiction”
includes the defendant's family-even the defendant himself. The
prosecutor is the guardian of the rights of all the people, which
means his job is to get the right result for the right reason. If he
gets the right result for the wrong reason, he has gotten the wrong
result. George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical
Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 6.
So when it comes right down to it you can't trust the arrest, prosecution or convictions of Father Leo Charles Koppala, can you? You can't, can you?
When you are arrested today, the
federal prosecutors automatically expect that they will be able to
force you to plead guilty – whether you are or not. And their
police agents, especially the DEA, take the same attitude. It is now
quite common to see truly innocent defendants convicted and sentenced
to longer terms because the Government rewards others, often the
guiltiest parties, with shorter sentences in exchange for testifying
against the innocent. Defense attorneys know this – they see it
constantly – and it is slowly corrupting many of them.
To understand how this works you need
to understand that in the eyes of a federal agent, you are guilty. If
he arrests you, or anyone else arrested you, you are guilty. And once
they believe that you are guilty, they will tell as many lies as
necessary to convict you. Now that federal agents, especially DEA
agents, have almost all learned their trade in a judicial system
hamstrung by the sentencing guideline; they no longer think in terms
of genuine proofs when making their cases. They think in terms of how
much pressure do they need to put on the defendant to force him to
plead guilty. They think like this because they expect (with good
reason!) that every defendant will plead guilty. They do not expect
to have to testify; so they are not worried about being impeached on
their lies. And in the occasional case that does go to trial, where
they do have to give false testimony, the agents are usually up
against an appointed attorney who could not afford to do the
investigation and preparation necessary to effectively impeach them. Busted by the Feds: A Manual for
Defendants Facing Federal Prosecution by Larry Fassler, 12th
Ed., page 108.
More to come . . .
Related links:
