Smiling Faces Sometimes

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Eyewitness to Murder

Let me begin this post by introducing you to Paul Bergrin. We will talk more about him over the weekend and who he really is. Paul Bergrin is NOT GUILTY and he needs your assistance. Please read on...


There is only one living eyewitness to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray. That witness tried to tell a list of agents and police officers, including Special Agent Shawn Brokos, what the shooter of his stepson looked like. That witness testified in Paul Bergrin's first and second trial and offered a clear description of the man that murdered Kemo.

The problem was that the witness's description of the shooter did not fit the government agenda. There had to be a cover-up. Why? Let's face it: Kemo was an informant and those responsible for his safety failed miserably. Rather than allowing the public anger to be focused on the parties deserving it and paying out a major settlement to the family of Kemo, they had to pretend it never was.

And then there was the trial of William Baskerville. Anthony Young testified in that trial as well and as a result of his false testimony and claim to be the shooter, Baskerville was convicted. Let's not pretend that William Baskerville was the only person in Newark that Kemo set-up for SA Brokos. The truth is much the opposite. Kemo set-up 17 other people as well - I have a list of all the names. Chalk-up one more vindictive prosecution and conviction by a jury fooled with misinformation and outright lies.

Anthony Young was sentenced to 30 years for shooting Kemo Deshawn McCray, but what the government neglected to mention to the jury in the Bergrin trial, is that Young will receive a substantial assistance letter for his testimony. Anthony Young expects to walk out of prison a free man with a new life in WITSEC before this year is over. Anthony Young owed people on the streets of Newark a serious amount of money, so he needed the protection. Young crossed the wrong people and did have reason to fear for his life, but in exchange for protection he had to tell a story. The government needed a flexible witness, willing to say whatever had to be said to get those convictions.

The one living eyewitness to Kemo's murder is Johnny Davis, his stepfather. A list of other witness accounts reveal that Young is a liar. Numerous recorded calls prove that Young is a liar. I thought we were all clear on that, but the jury failed. They ignored the eyewitness testimony of Johnny Davis and then they followed-up by ignoring the important testimony of Ben Hahn, Rashidah Tarver, and Anthony Young's original statement to SA Brokos when SA Brokos was called by the defense in this trial.

Let's have a look at the testimony offered by Johnny Davis, the only living eyewitness to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray, to the jury in this last trial. Mr. Davis testified on January 30, 2013, and his testimony is in Volume 7 of the trial transcripts:

Direct examination of Johnny Davis

From pages 1430-31:

Q. Okay. Did you tell the police department any reason
why you picked that photograph out, the one --
A. Because the kid was tall, muscular, and black,
dark-skinned, and had shoulder-length dreads, and he was the
closest thing I can come to identifying as the shooter.


Cross examination of Johnny Davis

From page 1466:

Q. You didn't hear any -- you know what you heard, you
know what you felt, obviously.
A. I grew up here.
Q. Yes, sir.
And when you turned around, when you made a
decision to turn around, there's no doubt in your mind you
saw a man with shoulder-length dreadlocks; correct, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. A dark-skinned male; correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Heavyset; correct?
A. Yes, I did.


From pages 1469-70:

Q. And you never saw anybody with a New York Yankee hat,
obviously; correct?
A. Obviously, no.
Q. And the man that you saw, you were able to see his
hair clearly, so he didn't have a New York Yankee hat
either; correct?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Now, there came a time that day when you said you
spoke to the detectives; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted the person caught, obviously, that shot
your son and killed him in front of you; right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you told them that the man -- they asked you for a
brief description so they could put out a bulletin to catch
the person; correct?
A. They could ask for a description.
Q. And you told them that it was a black male,
shoulder-length dreadlocks, and he went that way; correct?
I mean, that's essentially what you said because they --
A. That's all I could give them.
Q. And you gave it to them very fast; right?
A. No, I did not. They took me to the precinct and they
sat me and grilled me long enough so I can give it to them.
Q. Well, before you went down to the precinct, they
talked to you while you were at the scene?
A. No, they didn't talk to me at all. They sat me in
there, they treated me like I was one of -- they treated me
like I was one of their criminals.
Q. One thing that you did, you were honest with them in
this one statement; correct?
A. I was very honest with them.


From page 1474 - Defense investigators visit to Mr. Davis in 2011:

Q. So at the time that you gave the statement, Mr. Davis,
sir, you were trying to be as open and as honest as humanly
possible; correct?
A. If someone come to you and tell you that someone is in
jail for 30 years for killing your child, and you look at
their papers and you find that that might not be the killer,
because, you must understand, I said, black hair, dark skin.
Q. And dreadlocks, correct?
A. And dreadlocks. I said nothing about light skin. I
didn't say nothing about brown skin. I might be -- might
not have it all swift up there with the books and the
whatever, but I do got my brains and I do understand what
I'm looking at.
Q. Yes, sir.
So you were being as honest as humanly possible;
right, sir?
A. Yes, I was.


From page 1477 - Mr. Davis is shown a photograph of Anthony Young

Q. And Anthony Young was not the man on March 2nd of
2004.
A. I don't know Mr. Young. I can't determine what he --
who or what he was. So I don't know.
Q. But this is not the man who shot your son?
A. No, he's light-skinned.


Anthony Young is light-skinned and bald, but to make the story fit, Young claimed to be wearing a New York Yankees hat on the day he shot Kemo, presumably to explain away why the only eyewitness to the murder saw dreadlocks. SA Brokos needed the story to fit. Was the jury out to lunch when Mr. Davis testified, or what?

The government has no concern for truth whatsoever. Their only concern is flushing Bergrin down the proverbial toilet and watching him suffer for years while he fights this vindictive prosecution. The statement in a recent (August 16, 2013) motion says that Paul Bergrin is just too late with the impeachment evidence of the numerous call recordings:

"Initially, Bergrin’s reference to 33,000 Title III intercepts is misleading. While that is the entire universe of calls intercepted during the Hakeem Curry investigation, only a small fraction pertain to Bergrin. Significantly, moreover, Bergrin was represented by counsel when the Government produced in discovery all of the intercepted calls on July 1, 2009. As a matter of agency law, notice to Bergrin’s then-counsel (as agent) was notice to Bergrin (as principal). See In re Kensington Int’l. Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 315 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 9(3) (1958) (“A person has notice of a fact if his agent has knowledge of the fact”)). Thus, as a matter of law, Bergrin has had constructive knowledge of the contents of the suppressible calls since July 1, 2009."

"In fact, Bergrin’s counsel knew the contents of the December 4, 2003 calls a mere four months after having received the intercepted calls in discovery. In urging the Government not to seek the death penalty, Bergrin’s counsel argued, “Remarkably, the electronic surveillance never picked up any hint of the meeting described by Mr. Young or that McCray had been targeted at that time for death.” Letter from David A. Ruhnke, Esq., Nov. 30, 2009, at 11 n.10."

In fact, I have searched the file for months in each direction and there is no such, "Letter from David A. Ruhnke, Esq., Nov. 30, 2009, at 11 n.10" in it. This is more spin and lies from the government in this case. Paul Bergrin is not aware of any such letter if there was one.

The Court refused to offer defense witnesses immunity and as they were all too aware that the government was waiting to lurch, to hang-on to any word or sentence that they could possibly use against them, they chose not to testify. Do you blame them? I don't - I could personally attest to the fact that the government is scary is this case. They have painted the picture and they dare anyone to dispute it.

I have been informed that U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh will not allow Paul Bergrin to respond to the government's last motion dated August 16, 2013 and has already ruled in favor of the government in reference to Bergrin's Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 8, 2013. I was told that the ruling sounds like the government wrote it, but sorry - I won't be purchasing crap like that clearly biased opinion in PACER any longer. If you want to read the ruling, you'll have to pay for it yourself.

Consider this my demand for independent judicial review of both the Paul Bergrin and the William Baskerville cases and trials and for a DOJ investigation into a pattern of misconduct in the Newark U.S. Attorney's Office.



NOTE: SENTENCING WAS RESET FOR MONDAY 23 SEPTEMBER 2013 @10AM TO ALLOW PAUL BERGRIN TIME TO RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING 5 LIFE TERMS FOR THIS INNOCENT MAN:

Bergrin Status Conf 26 August 2013


Images: Paul Bergrin in his U.S. Army uniform © 2013 Beth Bergrin. I am not aware of the date the images were taken, however, this is the first time either has ever been published anywhere and you must obtain permission from Beth Bergrin to use these images anywhere for any purpose.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is sentencing still scheduled for next week? And this is all good for a strong appeal. The Judge was obviously going to throw out the reconsideration. Was there any mention of all the recordings they retrieved from BOP?

Vicky Gallas said...

Sentencing is still scheduled for Monday, the 26th of August, 2013 at 10am. That won't change.

I really hope it's good for a strong appeal. I didn't read the judge's opinion. I think it's free in PACER so I'll go grab a copy before noon and link it on the documents page, but I have no desire to pay for it. Am done paying for their twisted thoughts about Paul.

On another note, I really need to knock out the captcha thing here - can't even see one of the words. lol

Anonymous said...

Stay strong Paul, take that book that they will throw at you and smile, and just know you will walk these streets again, like you helped me to do.

Anonymous said...

Wow. That opinion was ridiculous. Any rational person could translate that as if your innocent you waited too long to file a motion. What a spit in the face. I hope Paul comes around on appeal. This is unreal.

Anonymous said...

Vicky it may sound nuts but you should post every important false testimony the government used in this case it's a sad day for our society here in Newark mr bergrin did so much for all walks of life( legally) whites,blacks, poor and rich he also was involved in intercity restriction and did i mentioned he served this country with his life and this is how his piers treats him. Like i stated in the past vicky the conviction rate is 99% so imagine the appeal ratio for new trial or really free on all counts you ask me, they had a hard on for mr bergrin and i don't believe in goodbyes i'll just say this if it anyone built for next fight (appeal) is mr bergrin so i hope and pray he go's ham on that process and walk free and love and live life again.

Vicky Gallas said...

On appeal issues: Certainly there are plenty, but reread one of my first posts on this blog and think back to what the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals did to the unbiased U.S. District Judge William Martini.

On the 99% conviction rate: That may be true, even in relation to defendants going to trial. If it is, it's only because there's a pattern and practice of Brady and Giglio violations in the Newark U.S. Attorney's Office that's rubber stamped by a select group of judges and washed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. See my post dated 25 August on *that*.

Anonymous said...

Paul will turn around on appeal if we have a genuine system that's created by the people for the people.