SPECIFIC FALSE STATEMENTS BY DETECTIVE LILLIENFELD EITHER IN SWORN AFFIDAVITS AND/OR SWORN PRELIMINARY HEARING TESTIMONY
This document details, in 10 groups, over 50 different sworn false statements by Detective Lillienfeld. These statements appear in up to five sworn affidavits and/or within his April 15-18 preliminary hearing testimony. The false statements list begins on page 2.
LISTED BELOW ARE “AREAS” OF LILLIENFELD'S FALSE ALLEGATIONS
I. “Mr. Goodwin provided a 6 twist barrel 9MM pistol to the killers.” …………………… …2
II. “Mr. Goodwin provided a stun gun he purchased at Grant Boys to the killers, after
he removed the serial number.” ……………………………….…………………………...5
III. “Mr. Goodwin was seen in an old station wagon which was linked to him , on
surveillance, near the Thompson home in the days before the homicides.” ……………..7
IV. “Mr. Goodwin confessed to killing Thompson.” …………………………………………..9
V. “There is evidence that Goodwin threatened Mr. Thompson's life.” ……………………10
This particular area, threats, is detailed with specificity because these false allegations have been used to sensationalize the otherwise non-existent “evidence” to link Mr. Goodwin to the homicides. The prosecution has admitted that all evidence is circumstantial. What they don't admit is that it is all fabricated as well.
Because I do not want to overburden you with too much data, I have not detailed herein the 36 false statements in categories VI, VII, IX, and X below. They are available on request.
VI. “There is evidence Goodwin planned to benefit financially from Thompson's death.” ..14
VII. “There is other evidence which suggests Goodwin is guilty.” …………………………...14
VIII. “There was nothing to indicate the homicides were the result of a robbery gone bad.” .14
IX. False statements about the evidence by Detective Lillienfeld…………………………….14
X. Attempts to implicate Goodwin with other false statements……………………………....15
There are also several very high probability suspects who were not adequately investigated and which extensive evidence seems to link to the homicides. Two of these suspects were identified as at or near the crime scene at the time of the assaults, by multiple witnesses. One failed three lie detector tests about being involved in the homicides, and two of them admitted to being involved in the homicides to different witnesses.
Understand that this document is not intended to refute or defend against all of the prosecution allegations against Mr. Goodwin. This is only intended to focus on Detective Lillienfeld's malfeasance.
The available evidence indicates that a decision to target Mr. Goodwin as the key Thompson homicides suspect was hatched on or about 9/28/94 or earlier, between Detective Lillienfeld and Colleen Campbell, Mickey Thompson's powerful politician sister. Ms. Campbell has numerous additional connections, including a 17-year business and personal relationship with the Orange County District Attorney, Tony Rackauckas.
Detective Lillienfeld allegedly “developed” evidence after meeting with Tony Rackauckas and being told he needed have certain elements in the case that would impart venue to Orange County. Subsequent to this Rackaukas/Lillienfeld meeting, virtually all the “new evidence” that was “developed” by Detective Lillienfeld did just that, impart legal jurisdiction to Orange County. All this “new evidence,” venue specific, can be or has been eviscerated by evidence in possession of both the prosecution and the defense. This includes the phony pistol, stun gun, Goodwin on surveillance in an old station wagon linked to Goodwin, and the “new merged business” that Goodwin and Thompson were allegedly fighting over. This evidence was fabricated to give the OCDA a basis to allege that “acts” originated in Orange County on which to falsely base jurisdiction/venue.
A meeting between Detective Lillienfeld, Mr. and Ms. Campbell and a private investigator hired by Ms. Campbell, Bernie Esposito, was held at a Charlie Brown's restaurant on 9/28/94, at bp 26874. No witness statement was produced for this meeting.
All of the following false statements listed are either in sworn affidavits or sworn preliminary hearing testimony by Detective Lillienfeld. Complete evidence supporting this analysis will be provided upon request, along with the references of where to locate each false statement.
• ALLEGATION : “Mr. Goodwin provided his 9MM Smith & Wesson, model 469 pistol which had a 6 twist barrel , to the killers and replaced it with an identical model 469 pistol shortly after the homicides.”
Detective Lillienfeld has claimed to have been confused on this issue, one of only three evidentiary issues used by Detective Lillienfeld in his attempt to “D.A. shop” and have the case prosecuted in Orange County. During the last appeal court hearing, the court was advised that Detective Lillienfeld frequently had cases prosecuted in Orange County rather than L.A.
The L.A.D.A. refused to prosecute because, as Detective Lillienfeld himself testified at the Grand Jury, “Mr. Garcetti didn't feel we had reached the proper level of investigation as far as obtaining enough evidence to proceed with a criminal filing at the time,” after he personally presented the case to L.A.D.A.
The allegation regarding the 9MM pistol was a knowing false statement sworn to on the witness stand at the preliminary hearing (PH), in multiple affidavits, in other government documents and to the press. At bp 32780 Detective Lillienfeld's own ballistics test on 7/26/01 showed that Goodwin's pistol could not possibly have been a murder weapon. (Exhibit 4 )
In 1988, the original investigators eliminated pistols which Mr. Goodwin owned as follows:
• 5/23/88, it was established that the murder bullets were 6 twists, bp 054, (exhibit 2.)
• 12/16/88, Dep. Dwight Van Horn wrote a memo that eliminated all 9MM Smith and Wesson (S & W) pistols with three-digit model numbers, including the model 469 and 659 pistols that Mr. Goodwin had in his collection, (exhibit 2.)
• Detective Lillienfeld interviewed Dep. Van Horn on 5/9/97 and made a list of possible murder pistols at bp 26472. It did not include three-digit S & W pistols since they had been eliminated (exhibit 5.) No S&W pistols were listed as possible murder weapons. Smith & Wesson has verified that no 9MM weapon with 6 right twists was manufactured by them prior to 1989 (The murders were committed on 3/16/88 and Goodwin bought his model 469 in 1984).
• About three weeks after Detective Lillienfeld interviewed Dep. Van Horn, on 6/2/97, Detective Lillienfeld interviewed an ATF Agent and confirmed that Mr. Goodwin originally owned a model 469 S & W and bought another S & W, a stainless steel model 659, ten days after the homicides, exhibit 6, but the original investigator notes for that interview have disappeared.
When Detective Lillienfeld typed this interview on 6/13/97 (see the date at the top of that page), he changed the model 659, the new pistol, to a model 469 and also falsely stated that it had a 6 twist barrel, at bps 413-4, exhibit 6.
This was later used to say that Mr. Goodwin gave his original 469 to the killers and replaced it with another “identical” model 469. (Exhibit 18)
• On 6/13/97, Detective Lillienfeld also typed his 5/9/97 interview with Van Horn and falsely inserted that the model 469 S & W 9MM pistol had 6 twists, and that matched up to the murder pistol, bp 391, (exhibit 7)
The FBI ballistics book confirms that S & W never made a three-digit 9MM pistol like Mr. Goodwin owned (either model) in anything but 5 twists. See appropriate FBI Manual pages in exhibit 21.
• On 7/26/01, Detective Lillienfeld ran his own ballistics test on the allegedly identical pistol, (bp 32780 in exhibit 4) , and confirmed that it was a 5 twist, which absolutely eliminated it as a potential murder weapon.
• Nonetheless, 18 days later, Detective Lillienfeld used the false pistol allegation as the lead item to put Mr. Goodwin in a line up, (bp 25144, exhibit 14).
• And, less than a month later, on 8/22/01, Lillienfeld and Senior Assistant District Attorney Brent went through an elaborate charade about the pistol in front of the Grand Jury with the malicious intent of implicating Mr. Goodwin in the crime. At pages 1014-1019, they questioned gun store owner, Randy Garell, about the pistol Goodwin had bought from him in 1984, making innocent conversations Goodwin had had with Mr. Garell sound suspicious.
• After this re-confirmation that Mr. Goodwin's pistol could not be the murder weapon, as his pistols were both 5 twist barreled, Detective Lillienfeld lied numerous times that Mr. Goodwin's pistol was a probable murder weapon, including multiple times at the preliminary hearing, (preliminary hearing transcript pages 134-6 and 218-21, exhibit 3), and in both the December 2001 arrest and search affidavits, exhibits 14 and 15.
In spite of all of the above evidence, Detective Lillienfeld made the following specific false statements about the pistol:
• “Mr. Goodwin's 9MM S & W pistol had six right riflings characteristics like the murder weapon.” Bps 25197-200, exhibit 15 and 25307-10, exhibit 16.
• “Because I don't have Mr. Goodwin's weapon, I can't eliminate it as possibly being the murder weapon,” preliminary hearing transcript (PHT) 220:4, exhibit 3. He made a similar misleading statement at PHT 219:9, exhibit 3 also.
This was then used by Assistant D.A. Brent as a key part in the argument to bind Mr. Goodwin over at the PH, (PHT 329:6, exhibit 3).
• “Mr. Goodwin bought an identical model 469 pistol to the one he bought four years earlier, on 3/26/88, ten days after the homicides,” PHT 135, exhibit 3, plus the search and wiretap affidavits at exhibits 15 and 16.
As of 7/5/01, Detective Lillienfeld had this allegedly “identical” pistol in his own possession and it both:
A) Showed it was a non-identical model 659, and
• His own ballistics test on 7/26/01 showed that the pistol was a 5 twist, making it impossible to have been a murder weapon in the Thompson homicides. (See Exhibits 4 and 11)
The search affidavit in exhibit 15 was prepared after this, yet Detective Lillienfeld went on and on with multiple layers of false statements, including that it was a 6 twist pistol. (See exhibit 15.)
• To further implicate Mr. Goodwin, Detective Lillienfeld also falsely stated at PHT 136:6-17, exhibit 3, that, “Mr. Goodwin did not ever list the pistol he bought on 1/30/84, a list prepared after he bought this gun, in his later bankruptcy.”
But the list that Detective Lillienfeld produced to support this false statement had a date right at the top of it, on the first page, showing that it was produced on 1/26/84, four days prior to the pistol purchase . See bp 30380, exhibit 12, produced post-preliminary hearing.
The above false statements were used at various places under oath more than a dozen times after Detective Lillienfeld knew they were untrue. (See exhibit 20 for a listing of the various places these false statements were used.)
• ALLEGATION : “There is evidence that Mr. Goodwin bought a stun gun at Grant Boys, and provided it to the killers from his Orange County home, after removing the serial number which was on the butt plate.”
There is no basis for the statement that “there is evidence” for any of the prosecution's stun gun allegations:
• The prosecution admits that the crime scene stun gun had not been used on the victims, or their watchdog, at any time during the commission of these murders. Detective Lillienfeld theorizes and assumes that Mr. Goodwin allegedly gave this stun gun to the killers for them to incapacitate one of the victims during the murders for his gratification inasmuch as he allegedly hated Mr. Thompson so much he wanted Thompson to see his wife die. However, no one contends that Goodwin was actually there to see this.
• There is no evidence from the original investigation that the stun gun found at the scene had a battery in it or even was operative.
• There is much stronger evidence that Thompson purchased this stun gun and one was seen in his car prior to the murders.
• The “sighting” of a stun gun at Goodwin's home allegedly occurred about two years before the murders, and 15 years before the witness “recalled” this.
• Defense evidence proves absolutely that the crime scene stun gun could not possibly have belonged to Goodwin. And, that information given to investigators by the stun gun manufacturer's representative showed that:
• They never sold this make/model of stun gun to Grant Boys.
• This make/model of stun gun did not have a serial number.
Thus, Detective Lillienfeld knew or certainly should have known this when he swore to the contrary in official documents, on the witness stand and gave this false information to the press.
SUPPORTING STATEMENTS FOR “GOODWIN PROVIDED THE STUN GUN”:
1. One of Detective Lillienfeld's primary premises linking Goodwin to the crime scene stun
gun was that the butt plate was missing from it and, he alleged, Goodwin had removed this to eliminate the serial number . (See PHT page 141-2.) However, the defense has now verified that most stun guns, including the crime scene unit, do not have a serial numbers.
Detective Lillienfeld has an exact match of the crime scene stun gun in his possession, so he knew ahead of making these prejudicial false statements that there was no serial number on these stun guns. See bp 076, item #34, for confirmation of this stun gun in Detective Lillienfeld's possession. Detective Lillienfeld has repeatedly refused to allow the defense to see this stun gun.
The defense investigator, a 28-year L.A.P.D. homicide detective veteran (Jack Holder 949 494-7805), now retired, confirmed with the manufacturer's representative who had been interviewed by investigators in 1988 that he had verified to them that the crime scene stun gun did not have a serial number.
2. “Mr. Garell, proprietor of the Grant Boys (a sporting goods store), said that he recalled
selling an identical stun gun (to the picture of the one Detective Lillienfeld showed him) to Michael Goodwin.”
At page 1011 of his Grand Jury testimony, with Detective Lillienfeld present, Mr. Garell testified under oath that most of the stun guns he sold were different than the picture shown to him, and that he did not recall selling one to Mr. Goodwin, although he may have sold one to Mr. Goodwin, just as he “may have” sold one to any other customer.
In October of 2003, Mr. Garell was again interviewed, this time by the defense investigator. Garell repeated this information and confirmed that he has never told Detective Lillienfeld or anyone else that he sold Goodwin an “identical stun gun” since he was reasonably sure his company never carried this make of stun gun.
The merchandise “buyer” for Grant Boys, a high-level employee who was there in 1988, who was responsible for stun gun purchases, also cannot recall having purchased that brand of stun gun. He has some very important “telltales” showing that he would have recalled this purchase had he made it.
The manufacturer's representative (the manufacturer is no longer in business) stated that he never sold any such stun guns to Grant Boys nor did he ever ship to any store in Southern California and that he told this to investigators in 1988.
3. Detective Lillienfeld lied at PHT pages 163-66 that he had only said “identical stun
gun, etc.” in the wiretap affidavit since he, Lillienfeld, prepared that before Mr. Garell's Grand Jury testimony.
However, Detective Lillienfeld also put this exact same knowingly false quote in his December 2001 search warrant at bp 25198. This affidavit was filed months after Mr. Garell's Grand Jury testimony (8/22/01), which Detective Lillienfeld sat in on .
4. “Ms. Seidel (the ex-Ms. Goodwin), said she had seen a stun gun similar to the one at the
crime scene in Mr. Goodwin's possession” (via a photo Lillienfeld allegedly showed her). She denies this and stated that a photo of a stun gun was not shown to her.
5. “Ms. Seidel told me that they kept the stun gun in a nightstand drawer.”
That is a provable false statement by Detective Lillienfeld. The Goodwins did not have nightstands with drawers, they had tables. A photo at bp 29068 proves this
6. Detective Lillienfeld falsely stated, “Ms. Seidel would not allow me to tape the interview with her.”
Detective Lillienfeld never asked about this and Ms. Seidel says she would have opted to have the interview taped, given her fear that Lillienfeld would fabricate things that she actually did not say.
7. Detective Lillienfeld lied at the preliminary hearing when he said, he “did not know the make of the stun gun.”
At bp 26699 he, in fact, had written in his own handwriting, prior to the preliminary hearing, details of the make, model, manufacturer and distributor. This information was available as long ago as 1988-9, at bps 36136-41 including the notation, “purchased from Adrays”. The manufacturer information is also noted at bp 71, way back in 1988.
In addition, Detective Lillienfeld put in his sworn affidavits that there was a follow up investigation with the stun gun's manufacturer, and U.S. Customs. How was that done if the manufacturer was not known?
The defense believes that the “purchased from Adrays” above indicates that Thompson bought the stun gun there.
III. ALLEGATION: “There is evidence that Mr. Goodwin was seen near Thompson's
home on pre-crime surveillance a few days before the homicides in an old station wagon.” T he defense can prove this was built on fabrications by Detective Lillienfeld. On request, I will provide a binder with evidence about this section, Binder #107.
SUPPORTING STATEMENTS FOR LILLIENFELD'S ALLEGATION THAT GOODWIN WAS SEEN ON SURVEILLANCE:
1. Detective Lillienfeld swore that , “After viewing the photo board less than 30 seconds, Mr. Stevens pointed to the photograph of Michael Goodwin and indicated that he looked similar to the man he'd seen in the car that day with the binoculars.” Mr. Stevens said nothing like this, but, rather, showed extreme uncertainty and equivocation over a long period of time. He eventually said that 4 of the 6 men in the “six pack” photo array might be the “suspect.” Lillienfeld told Mr. Stevens he would get the men who were in the “six pack” photos to participate in the line-up.
The defense finally received copies of the “six-pack” photo array about 20 months after the preliminary hearing, in December 2003. It appears that none of the men in the “six pack”, other than Mr. Goodwin, were in the line up. Thus, Mr. Goodwin being the only one in both the “six pack” and the line up stood out like a sore thumb. Detective Lillienfeld had promised Mr. Stevens he would get the people form the “six pack” to be in the line up, but he did not.
But, by that point it was too late anyway. Mr. Stevens had already told Lillienfeld he had seen Mr. Goodwin on a television show about the homicides. But Detective Lillienfeld cut Stevens off on this, ignored/hid it/ and amazingly, used Stevens' comment, “I think I saw something on this guy here (#3, Goodwin), ” [on the television show] to say that, “Stevens immediately picked Goodwin.”
This is particularly stunning in light of Lillienfeld also telling Stevens, in a recorded interview five days later, “It would be totally unfair to him, (Goodwin) if you saw his picture on TV prior to you going to the line up.” But Lillienfeld also hid this until after the preliminary hearing and never advised the Judge about it either.
• “ The line up witness said that the person that was in the station wagon in front of their house had “brownish-reddish hair” (like Mr. Goodwin's). The witness clearly said blonde hair only. Detective Lillienfeld has contended, on the witness stand, that the word “blonde” was actually “short-hand” for “brown…”. However, his partner wrote the word “blonde,” meaning “blonde” since that is what how the witness described the “suspects” hair.
• “Anonymous witness (Goodwin's ex-employee) was aware of an old station wagon with Arizona plates owned by Kathy Johnson's (a.k.a. Kathy Weisse or Kathy Downs) boyfriend ” (similar to the station wagon that the line up witnesses said they saw Mike Goodwin in near the Thompson home several days prior to the homicides). Her recording proves she did not say this .
This is easily provable as an intentional false statement by Detective Lillienfeld. On 4/11/01, in a recorded interview, the witness told him that she had seen a truck, not a station wagon. Six days later, Detective Lillienfeld wrote that she had told him station wagon in a formal witness statement for this witness. Lillienfeld also sat in on this witness' Grand Jury testimony on 7/10/01, where she again stressed truck, not station wagon.
Yet just one month later, Detective Lillienfeld committed perjury on the station wagon issue in his August line-up affidavits.
Detective Lillienfeld found on 10/23/01, in an interview with Kathy Johnson, that her boyfriend in fact did own a truck, not a station wagon . But after this, Detective Lillienfeld still persisted that Kathy Johnson's boyfriend probably owned the suspect station wagon in two additional sworn affidavits; the arrest affidavit and the search affidavit in early December 2001.
• “Mr. Stevens said that the passenger in the station wagon was a white male.” Mr. Stevens said he could not recall the race of the passenger, even though he had been quizzed on this previously by Detective Lillienfeld and so states.
• Detective Lillienfeld falsely told Mr. Stevens that the photo he showed Stevens of Goodwin had been taken eight to ten months prior to the date that Stevens felt he saw Goodwin, so as to convince Mr. Stevens that Goodwin's hair could have grown long enough to be the longer length of the “guy in the station wagon” Stevens allegedly saw.
In fact, the photo was taken just three months prior and it would have been impossible for Goodwin's hair to grow long enough for him to be the “guy in the station wagon with the longer hair, sticking out from the watch cap he was wearing”.
IV. ALLEGATION: “There is evidence that Mr. Goodwin confessed to arranging the
Thompson homicides.”
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR LILLIENFELD'S ALLEGATION THAT GOODWIN CONFESSED:
• “Diane Seidel said that Mike Goodwin had admitted his involvement in the homicides to her .”
Both Ms. Seidel and another witness that sat through this interview, at Seidel's insistence, verify that Detective Lillienfeld never asked a question regarding “confessions” and she never made such a statement. She has later confirmed, in a sworn declaration, that Goodwin never said anything that would indicate to her that he had involvement in the Thompson murders. Ms. Seidel also quoted in her Grand Jury testimony that she had no information to indicate that Goodwin may be involved in the Thompson homicides and that Detective Lillienfeld threatened her with prosecution in the Thompson homicides if she would not agree to falsely implicate Mr. Goodwin.
V. ALLEGATION: “There is evidence that Mr. Goodwin threatened Mr. Thompson's life.”
Because alleged threats have been such an exaggerated/fabricated part of the case against Mr. Goodwin, I will provide additional background information about the alleged threats.
We are able to refute completely the alleged threat witnesses such as Kyle Dickerson, Greg Keay, Kathy Weisse and Bill Wilson. However, they are not elaborated on herein because this document is focused on false statements by Lillienfeld alone, not false statements others told and/or false statements that Lillienfeld persuaded others to tell. The false statements by the witnesses above about threats can be seen in defense document #30 should it be appropriate to this investigation. Document #30 focuses on the threat allegations only at the preliminary hearing. It is compelling in showing that the alleged threats by Goodwin to Thompson did not occur.
A top-level LASO report, after nine months of intense investigation in 1988, stated very clearly that no verification of Goodwin threats to Thompson could be found;
“Thompson alluded to threats but never talked specifics.”
An unbiased, thorough investigation will show that the alleged Goodwin threats were completely investigated in 1988 and the theory was discarded by authorities. Threats only again surfaced nine years later when Detective Lillienfeld and Ms. Campbell worked together with friendly and compliant witnesses to falsely re-allege the threats. And, the following facts undermine this new allegation of threats:
• Of the seven witnesses used by the prosecution to allege Goodwin threats at the preliminary hearing, only one of those, Wilson, appears to have reported one alleged threat to authorities in the first nine years of investigation, prior to their interview with Lillienfeld.
• In 1988 authorities disregarded Mr. Wilson's allegations of the threat.
• The earliest witness statement for every one of these witnesses who claimed to have given an early threat witness statement has disappeared, or never existed to start
with . There is no record and not even a mention of any of the five witnesses statements who claimed to have originally given one.
• At least half of the 27 witnesses who Lillienfeld used to allege threats at various places in his sworn statements , have a relationship with Thompson's sister, Colleen Campbell.
• 19 of these 27 witnesses who Lillienfeld says told him about threats either did not say what Lillienfeld said they said in their written witness statements or no witness statement exists for that interview as is cited by Lillienfeld.
It appears that the sensationalism of “death threats” has been used to shore up the malicious prosecution of Mr. Goodwin. The alleged threats are very easy to fabricate, with it also being very difficult to verify, with hostile witnesses, (i.e. Colleen Campbell and her associates), whether the witness was really told about threats or not by Thompson. The facts indicate that many of the witnesses are not telling the truth or that Lillienfeld is not telling the truth about what they told him.
Most importantly, as of the date of the homicides, no one had reported any Goodwin threats to Thompson to authorities. And, the one available writing by Thompson infers that no threats from Goodwin occurred. (See that writing in exhibit 17 to the Threats Binder #108 which I will present to you on request.)
But, Thompson had told at least two witnesses:
“Please be on the lookout for suspicious persons. I testified in a drug trial (his nephew Scott's, who was killed in a drug deal), and someone has been threatening me.”
Subsequent to the Thompson homicides, most witnesses who Lillienfeld says told him that Thompson told them about a threat, nine plus years after the Thompson homicides, originally reported, on more than one occasion, that they had not been told of threats by Thompson or anyone else who would know.
A perfect example is Thompson's lead lawyer, Dolores Cordell, who originally reported,
“…during her conversations with Mickey Thompson, he never expressed to her any concerns for his safety…” , bp 369 in the “Murder Book”, in exh. 6.
Ms. Cordell also authored at least two other documents showing that she had not heard anything about threats. Those are in exhibits 7 and 8 in Binder #108.
There is substantial other evidence that Goodwin did not threaten Thompson, that others were threatening Thompson, but that Thompson told some people that his threats were coming from Goodwin and that later Lillienfeld and Colleen Campbell embellished these rumors to build the appearance of threats.
Lillienfeld produced key exculpatory evidence illegible (too light and too dark respectively) at bps 26428 and 26430. When the defense later demanded and received these documents legible, they said:
“All death threats implied, never actually said it was Goodwin,” this was by Michael DeStephano, a top Thompson manager who was with Thompson daily. The statement was made on or about 3/16/88, the day of the homicides. And,
“People tried to bait Goodwin to make threats against Thompson and he never would.” (Interviewee unknown.)
Bp 26431, right after these pages, has never been produced legible and we feel it may be very exculpatory. Detective Lillienfeld made a hand-written note on it, “No better copy available”.
Jeanne Sleeper, who was around Mr. Goodwin more than anyone except Mr. Goodwin's wife Diane during the Thompson association and litigation, said to investigators:
“Michael Goodwin never made a death threat statement, even when __?___ ” at bp 34330.
Diane Seidel, the ex-Ms. Goodwin testified to the Grand Jury decisively that she never heard Mr. Goodwin threaten Mr. Thompson and she never heard anything from Goodwin that indicated he may have been involved in the homicides. She insisted this was the truth, even when Lillienfeld threatened her with incarceration and alternatively offered her a large bribe to falsely implicate Mr. Goodwin. Those violations by Lillienfeld are addressed at pages 133-140 of Ms. Seidel's Grand Jury testimony on 3/29/01.
Others who were regularly around Goodwin testified under oath that Goodwin did not threaten Thompson. Although some witnesses replied that Goodwin was angry about the situation, no one said it rose to the level of rage or hate which would lead to a vicious double murder. Goodwin felt his problems arose for the most part from the bankruptcy professionals. Knowledgeable people who had been around Mr. Goodwin at the time of the homicides confirmed this under oath to the Grand Jury. Mr. Goodwin did not speak with those witnesses about that subject or anything to do with their anticipated Grand Jury testimony prior to their Grand Jury testimony.
SOME OF THE SPECIFIC SUPPORTING STATEMENTS FOR LILLIENFELD'S ALLEGATION OF THREATS:
• “Sable Reeves told me, (Detective Lillienfeld), that the Thompsons told her of repeated death threats from Mr. Goodwin and that if anything happened to them, Mr. Goodwin would be responsible.” However, Ms. Reeves' taped interview with Detective Lillienfeld said just the opposite; she specifically told Detective Lillienfeld that Thompson had not told her of threats and that he did not fear Mr. Goodwin. See pages 8, 9 and 14 of her transcript, in exhibit 13.
• “Penn Weldon told me that Goodwin told him that he would get Thompson and get even, using those words .” The witness statement does not contain anything like this statement. And, the crucial original 1988 witness statement for this witness noted as “cleared” at bp 578 has conveniently disappeared. Lillienfeld also substantially embellished this witness' statement between the handwritten original notes and the formal typed statement.
• “Don Chamberlain told me, (Detective Lillienfeld), that Thompson told him that Goodwin had been giving him death threats and that the threats had decreased.” Mr. Chamberlain did not mention Mr. Goodwin's name, he only said, “ex-partner” (Thompson admitted in documents that he had 20 partners), and Chamberlain said the threats had stopped.
• “In June 1997, Dolores Cordell told me, (Detective Lillienfeld) , that she had been told by Mickey and Trudy Thompson on many occasions that Michael Goodwin had threatened to kill them.” But A) there is no interview in June of 1997 or in 1997 at all between Detective Lillienfeld or any investigator and Dolores Cordell, B) there is no threat noted ever in any Cordell interview with Detective Lillienfeld or anyone else, and C) at bp 369, Ms. Cordell confirmed that Thompson had never told her about threats by Mr. Goodwin. There were many other places that Ms. Cordell made similar statements which confirm that she was never told about threats by Thompson.
There are more than a dozen other material false statements I can cite by Detective Lillienfeld related to alleged threats.
The following witnesses were sworn to by Detective Lillienfeld as having given him threat evidence in their witness statements, but either no witness statement was produced for the interview cited, or the interview did not say what Lillienfeld said these witnesses said about threats:
Phil Bartinetti Mike DeStephano Sable Reeves
Colleen Campbell Charlie Englebart Sherry Jo Reynolds
Gary Campbell Jennifer Gracey Marty Tripes
VI. ALLEGATION: “There is evidence that Mr. Goodwin planned to benefit financially
from Mr. Thompson's death.”
There is no evidence whatsoever to support this allegation. However, there is extensive evidence to refute it.
Further, there is ample evidence in the possession of the prosecution that Goodwin and Thompson had arrived at an agreement to pay this judgment on March 12 th , 1988, in the week prior to the homicides.
There is no way any reasonable person could have imagined they would save money by Thompson being killed. Thompson and Goodwin had reached a payment agreement which would have allowed Goodwin to keep his business, his home and over $1,000,000 net after taxes, after all Goodwin's bills were paid 100%, including Thompson's judgment.
VII. ALLEGATION: “There is other evidence which suggests that Goodwin is guilty.”
This is patently false. There is no evidence linking Goodwin to these crimes
VIII. ALLEGATION: “There was nothing to indicate these homicides were the result of a robbery gone bad.”
See bps 33428 and 32798 where two key eyewitnesses, Anthony Triarsi and Dr. Lance Johnson, initially felt it was a robbery. One of these is a key 911 call. Also see bps 36776 and 36919 for other credible robbery leads. All these were produced post-preliminary hearing.
Thompson evidently bought $500,000 worth of gold just before he was killed; he told a lot of people that he was doing that, and the gold disappeared. See bps 33191 plus defense document #6, Robbery Interrupted , and the recent Lee Haslam statement.
With the unsavory type of people with whom we can show Thompson was doing business, and the evidence indicating that Thompson may have owed a large sum to loan sharks, plus him broadcasting this gold purchase, a robbery is highly probable.
Most witnesses reported that the bicyclists leaving the scene had bags, satchels or cases (Hackman transcript) over their shoulders that are only explainable by them carrying something away. See bps 23, 114, 310, 396, 603, 32660 in AMERICA'S MOST WANTED, and 34940. There are more.
IX. FALSE STATEMENTS REGARDING PRODUCTION, WITHHOLDING,
AVAILABILITY AND LEGIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE BY Lillienfeld
Lillienfeld testified that witness interview tapes did not exist for four specific preliminary hearing witnesses when he testified at the preliminary hearing. Tapes were produced four months later for all four of these witnesses, all four of which contradicted Lillienfeld's sworn testimony and sworn affidavit statements for these witnesses.
X . EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION AND FABRICATION
The defense can prove more than a dozen examples of intentional evidence tampering by investigators, including evidence fabrication and destruction of material evidence. Here are three examples:
• Investigators, presumably Detective Lillienfeld since he was lead investigator, knowingly copied two extremely exculpatory parts of witness statements so that they were completely illegible. Later, when the defense requested and got these copies, some of the text could be read showing that the evidence was very exculpatory (bps 26428 and 26430). These documents were 1988 investigator notes stating that Goodwin had not and would not threaten Thompson.
One of them specifically contradicted a Lillienfeld sworn statement about a witness telling him about threats in his arrest affidavit.
There are other pieces around this that still have not been produced in legible form, including bp 26431. In fact, there are over 150 pages of illegible evidence which Detective Lillienfeld has refused to produce in legible form.
This has to be intentional. It is not easy on a modern copier in good condition, to produce things solid black or so light as to be illegible without manual input.
Realizing that the nature of some documents may make them difficult to copy legibly, the defense conducted a study and discovered that the incidence of individual “illegible copies” increased by 1800% when comparing documents accumulated from prior to the date Detective Lillienfeld officially took over, 5/5/97, versus after he took over (1 illegible page per 400 legible pages versus 1 illegible page per 22 legible pages).
• Investigators, presumably Detective Lillienfeld since he was lead investigator, removed the three signature pages from the single most exculpatory document of the case, the Non-Discharge Agreement, and hid those signature pages in another box 55 boxes apart. This made it appear that the document was never signed and Detective Lillienfeld testified at the preliminary hearing that it was not signed for months after Thompson's death.
However, these documents, together, in their proper order, actually proved that it had been signed just 13 days after the homicides . The signatures of both Michael and Diane Goodwin on this agreement to pay the judgment prove Goodwin's intent to pay and to use his wife's separate property assets as payment.
3. Investigators, again presumably Detective Lillienfeld since he was lead investigator, intentionally scrambled a 201 page group of documents which contained the most exculpatory documents of the case, including the non-discharge agreement discussed above. Within this 201 page group of documents is evidence to conclusively disprove ten of the statements made by Detective Lillienfeld and/or the prosecution in support of their speculative motive allegation about Goodwin.
In addition to these three items, there are at least nine other instances of provable evidence tampering, destruction of evidence or fabrication of evidence. I have those precisely detailed, including evidence exhibits if/when you wish to see them.
Again, a dozen of these instances of fabrication/destruction are detailed in binder # 105. END
Thirty-six of the false statements are redacted for now to shorten this document.
“Bp” is the reference to documents produced by the district attorney to the defense.
The exhibits cited are in the velobind pistol package we will present to you on request. Additional exhibit references will also be provided on request.
Disappearing original investigator notes (OINS) are a hallmark of this investigation. We have a precise study done, which confirms that over 200 sets of OINS are missing for witness statements. This report is available to you on request.
This was in the December 2001 search affidavit at B5/25194:2 and D6/25303:16 in the March 2001 wiretap affidavit.
That there were two tapes of two different interviews with Mr. Stevens was hidden by Lillienfeld until four months after the preliminary hearing. At that point, 30 undisclosed witness statement tapes were produced. Ten of these witness statement tapes materially contradicted what Lillienfeld testified to under oath for those witnesses.
Jim Davis, Kyle Dickerson, Greg Keay, Penn Weldon, Kathy Weisse, Dep. Williams and Bill Wilson. The names in bold are missing their confirmed early witness statements. Davis and Dickerson evidently were not even interviewed for the first ten years.
Even though Wilson reported this one alleged threat to authorities, they discarded that in the report cited above, on 12/14/88, and it does not show up in any other documents until Lillienfeld came on board nine years later.
Of these five, no witness statement has been produced for any of them for the first nine years of the investigation, except for Wilson, who has one witness statement produced for August 1988, but his earliest alleged witness statement is missing. He claimed in his Grand Jury testimony at page 936:18, to have made a report to authorities the day of the homicides. That report does not exist and there is no record of it. In addition, official reports made by the authorities following that indicate that this report was not made, or if it was made, it was discredited by the authorities themselves.
And, all of the witnesses used for threats except two, Weisse and Wilson, have been spoken for by Lillienfeld in his sworn affidavits or Prop 115 testimony at the preliminary hearing. We have not yet interviewed any of them to see if they really said what Lillienfeld said they said. Their witness statements indicate that in most cases they did not say what Lillienfeld attributed to them.
His nephew Scott, Colleen Campbell's son, was convicted in 1976 of killing a VAGOS Motorcycle Club associate, Aubrey Wix, in Colleen's home, in a drug deal that went bad.
The D.A. who prosecuted Scott said that:
“He felt the entire family was in the narcotics business,” and “He felt that Colleen and/or her husband helped clean up after the killing. (The body was then hidden for five days .)”
Six years later, Scott was killed by a VAGOS in another drug deal. Mickey Thompson testified in that trial against the VAGOS member and complained about receiving the death threats above. In addition, the D.A. who prosecuted Scott's killers made numerous comments that he felt the killings were linked. Nonetheless no investigation of this shows up in the discovery that has been provided.
Since Thompson did not want to admit to the nefarious types with whom he was doing business and who were threatening him. |
