"THERE IS NO GREATER TYRANNY THAN THAT WHICH IS PERPETRATED UNDER THE SHIELD OF LAW IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE!" (MONTESQUIEU 1742)
PAM WEIGEL HAD E-MAILED US THAT SAND HAD CONSULTED WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL SORRELL ABOUT THE CASE. WE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE AG WOULD ALLOW THIS BEHAVIOR. BUT WE DECIDED TO FIND OUT. I CALLED HIS OFFICE AND MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO SEE HIM. THE MEETING WAS SET FOR DECEMBER 19, 2008 AT 9am. WE ALL STAYED OVER THE NIGHT IN VERMONT BECAUSE THE MEETING WAS EARLY AND WE ARE ABOUT 3 HOURS AWAY. THERE WERE 4 OF US. MYSELF, RONNI, TERRY AND AL TITCOMB.
WE ARRIVED PROMPTLY AT 9am. WE WERE LED INTO A CONFERENCE ROOM WITH A LONG TABLE IN IT. IN ATTENDANCE WERE AG SORRELL, HIS ASSISTANT AND AN OFFICER WHO WAS TAKING NOTES. I HAD ALL THE NOTES, STATEMENTS, E-MAILS, DRAWINGS, EVERYTHING NEEDED TO SHOW TO AG SORRELL. I LAID EVERYTHING OUT FOR HIM TO SEE AND STARTED TO GO OVER EVERYTHING WITH HIM.
I SHOWED THE 1ST STATEMENTS AND THE DIFFERENCES IN THE STATEMENTS TO THE GRAND JURY. I WENT OVER THE WHOLE MEETING WITH SAND AND HIS BEHAVIOR. ABOUT SAND SAYING HE DOES NOT REPRESENT US AND TO GET OUR OWN ATTORNEY. ALL THE WHILE SORRELL SAT THERE JUST STARING AT US, WITH A SMIRK ON HIS FACE. I TOLD HIM ABOUT HOW THEY HAD LIED ON THE STAND AND THAT SAND NEVER CHALLENGED THEIR STATEMENTS, EVEN LED THEM AT TIMES. THEN, HIS ASSISTANT MADE A MOST RIDICULOUS REMARK. HE SAID, "WELL, IF WE CHARGE THEM WITH PERJURY THERE WON'T BE ANYONE FOR A GRAND JURY!" WE LOOKED AT HIM INCREDULOUS! WAITING TO SEE IF HE WAS JOKING. HE WASN'T! I SAID, "ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE POINT? TO DISCREDIT THEM AND THEIR TESTIMONY?" HE JUST LOOKED AT ME!
I SHOWED MR. SORRELL THE DRAWING AND WHERE IT SHOWED WHERE THE BOLASKI'S WERE AND WHERE VINNIE WAS SHOT. I ASKED HIM FOR HIS HONEST OPINION. DOES HE REALLY THINK THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF SELF DEFENSE? DOES HE BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY WAY VINNIE COULD HAVE BEEN SHOT IN THE BACK AS HE WAS RUNNING, "IN FULL STRIDE", AFTER BEING SHOT THROUGH BOTH LEGS, TOWARD THE BOLASKI'S? AND BE SHOT IN THE BACK FROM 30' AWAY? HE JUST STARED AT ME BUT MADE NO REPLY. WE ASKED WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO ABOUT SAND AND THE STATEMENTS BY THE BOLASKI'S. COULD HE LOOK INTO THIS? HE DID NOT ANSWER US. INSTEAD HE POINTED TOWARD THE DOOR AND SAID, "THIS MEETING IS OVER!" AND THEN HE KICKED US OUT OF HIS OFFICE! NO APOLOGIES, NO EXPLANATIONS, NOTHING. AFTER TRAVELING 3 HOURS AND SPENDING A NIGHT AT A HOTEL, HE BOOTED US RIGHT OUT THE DOOR! AS IF TO RUB SALT IN THE WOUND HE THANKED US FOR COMING!! TAUNTED US! WE WERE IN SHOCK. WE CAME TO HIM FOR HELP. WE NEVER EXPECTED THIS!!
WHEN WE GOT BACK HOME I IMMEDIATELY WROTE A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR OF VERMONT EXPLAINING EVERYTHING TO HIM AND ASKED FOR A MEETING TO TALK ABOUT IT. A WEEK WENT BY, THEN 2 WEEKS AND WE NEVER RECEIVED A REPLY. JOSH O'GORMAN, A REPORTER FROM THE RUTLAND HERALD IN VERMONT, E-MAILED THE GOVERNOR TO ASK IF HE WAS GOING TO MEET US AND IF HE WOULD CONSENT TO BE INTERVIEWED ABOUT THE CASE. AN ASSISTANT WROTE JOSH BACK AND SAID THAT THE GOVERNOR WOULD NOT MEET WITH US NOR WILL HE TALK WITH US. AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT GRANT JOSH AN INTERVIEW! JOSH TOLD ME THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THE GOVERNOR EVER TURNED HIM DOWN!
It is very unusual for that type of reply. An aide would always at least reply and say they would look into the matter or any type of reply. But instead we were not contacted at all. Why?
1-27-09. Went to Vermont for the arraignment of Tim Arbuckle. There were about 20 of us. The courtroom was very small and we filled it. Arbuckle was by himself and he was plenty scared. So scared that he asked for police protection. In and out of the courtroom. Neither Sand nor Weigel were there to meet us. While we were standing outside after the arraignment Aruckle waited with his police escort for his ride. While walking out to his car he said that he did not kick Vinnie. That he was innocent. He was trembling. After the incident with Vinnie he was jailed for beating his girlfriend!
When we got home there was already an e-mail from Sand saying he was going to offer Arbuckle a plea deal! Arbuckle has a criminal record 9 pages long! Most for assaults, assault and batteries and violations. But Arbuckle was only charged with simple assault. Now Sand wants to give him a walk on that!
In an obvious example of withholding evidence, Sand had given us the Grand Jury statement of the only witness he was bringing against Arbuckle. A witness who Sand said was the best witness against Arbuckle. I have an e-mail from Sand stating so. This was not a good witness. He is a very poor witness. He said he did not see Arbuckle actually kick Vinnie. That he was too busy making sure his son was alright. He never saw anything to implicate Arbuckle.
The truth of the matter is there were at least 7 good witnesses that actually saw Arbuckle kicking Vinnie. Including Kyle and Cory Bolaski, Ucci, and Blanchard! His "friends" Who offered Arbuckle $100.00 to beat Vinnie! They actually turned on Arbuckle in the Grand Jury! They said they saw Arbuckle kicking Vinnie many times, hard! Also testified to by several other witnesses that also saw it! I e-mailed Sand back and said we do not want a plea deal. We want a trial. Pam W. wrote back saying that he will do what he feels is best. We later received another e-mail from Pam W. saying they will not offer a plea deal to Arbuckle. In a later e-mail, after we found the motion where he suppressed evidence against Arbuckle, he again said he would offer him a plea if he wants to.
A prosecutor must turn over all evidence against the defendant to the defense. This did not happen. In June, we went to a hearing for Arbuckle, that was canceled but we were again not told of. While there I went through the files of Bolaski and Arbuckle in the Clerk of Courts office. I found motions by the defense, dated March 5th, 2009, petitioning the court to depose the witnesses in the grand jury that testified against Arbuckle. Which is her right to have all evidence against the defendant. BUT SAND PETITIONED THE COURT TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE! He can't let those guys on the stand. It will show he held back evidence.
Astonishingly, the court upheld Sand's motion! It denied the defense the right to exculpatory evidence. Worse than that Sand deliberately withheld evidence against Arbuckle! Arbuckle has a lengthy criminal record including assaults. He has numerous violations on his record where in any other state Arbuckle would still be in jail! Shortly after the murder Arbuckle was jailed for beating his girlfriend. Why would Sand allow this man back on the streets? More importantly why would Sand withhold evidence that would put Arbuckle behind bars?
This happened on March 5th. We found out in June. We were never told of this hearing at all! A reporter from the Rutland Herald was there with us. He told me later that Sand walked into the Clerk's office, saw me and turned around and left. Several days later we receive an e-mail from Pam W. saying that Sand wanted us to know that the reason he suppressed the evidence was because he didn't want it out before Bolaski's case. He tells us this 3 months later! Only after he saw us in the Clerk's office! When he knew I would find his motion to suppress the evidence! His explanation does not hold up for 3 reasons, 1.) the defense already has all evidence against Bolaski- 2.) What the witnesses said was already said in the Grand Jury- 3.) Their statements are not detrimental to Bolaski. All the facts support Sand withheld evidence.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF ANY HEARINGS UP TO THIS POINT OR WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED TOO LATE TO ATTEND. THOSE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT AND DROVE 3 HOURS TO ATTEND WERE SUDDENLY CONTINUED WITHOUT TELLING US. BY LAW WE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED OF ANY HEARINGS INVOLVING BOLASKI AND ARBUCKLE. THE FACTS SUPPORT AN OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO KEEP US AWAY FROM ANY AND ALL HEARINGS.
WE NOW KNEW WE WERE COMPLETELY ON OUR OWN. IN ORDER TO FIND JUSTICE FOR VINNIE WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT, ALONE. AND FIGHT WE WILL. WE HAD ONE MORE OPTION. THE STATE POLICE. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE OVER A CASE. SO I WROTE A LETTER TO THE COMMANDER OF THE STATE POLICE TOM L'ESPRANCE . I EXPLAINED EVERYTHING TO HIM AND ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH HIM TO DISCUSS THE CASE. TO MY AMAZEMENT HE CALLED ME AND SAID HE WOULD COME DOWN TO OUR HOUSE TO MEET WITH US! AT LAST. SOMEONE THAT WILL LISTEN. IS THIS THE BREAK THAT WE WERE HOPING FOR? OR WOULD IT BE FALSE HOPE...