During the trial a series of letters sent by the defendant to the witness for the state Kim Kistler, as well as letters sent from her to him as well were entered into evidence and used in the trial. NONE of the letters were denied! IN other words the witness for the state got on the stand and admitted to writing the letters to the defendant, and the defense never offered an objection to the authenticity of the letters. There were a lot of letters that never made it into the trial. On one hand the defendant only turned in the letters that KIM KISTLER herself instructed him to turn in. (Written in the letter) Kim however turned in every letter that she thought could be twisted and used to help her. Including one letter that she only turned in HALF of it. Since the other half hurt her. But that will be discussed in detail later. First we will look at the letters that the defendant turned over to his lawyers at the request of Kistler. They were entered into evidence as "Defense Exhibits #13, #14, #15, and #16. We’ll start with the dates they were written, two of them were done on 3/4/97, one done on 3/5/97 and one on 3/23/97. #13, and #16 on the 4^th, #15 on the 5^th and #14 on the 23^rd. The first letter to be discussed is the one marked as defense #13, it was written by Kim to Francis on 3/4/97. "Frankie, hello glad to see you decided to write me back. I just got your letters this morning. 4 pages wow you got a lot off your chest, now didn’t you. I’m really sorry to hear that your trying to forget me, I can’t do it to you, impossible. (To date the defendant has not heard a word from Ms. Kistler in several years! Not so impossible.) Baby

I will never quit loving you, I hope you understand. Please don’t think I’ve lied to you all this time my feelings for you are deep and for real. I’ve never loved anyone as much as I love you Frankie. I had a lot of bad feelings towards you, I’ve written you so many cuss you out letters, but I couldn’t send them well more like wouldn’t I did not want you to hurt as bad as me. On top of all this I didn’t want you to go through more pain. I never got any letters from you except the first one, and I thought you didn’t care. Start sending all your letters to Gail or Deb to send in here. I think the DA is snatching them as they come in maybe , I don’t know. Well now you think I have OTT on my visitation list? Huh? Well I guess you are misinformed honey! That’s incorrect, he’s not! I think they are trying to piss you off like they did me! (OTT is a reference to an old boyfriend that the defendant had discovered Kim was still having an affair with even AFTER she got pregnant with his child, his name was MARK OTT, and after the defense asked the prison for a copy of Kistler’s visitors list, sure enough he was on the list and head in fact visited her, as well as was exchanging letters with her shortly after she was arrested! (So it turns out he was not "misinformed" as she suggested). They showed me supposedly part of your statement that you gave them that said you’ve been fucking Gina our whole relationship! Is it true? Or the 5 girls in new jersey they claim you fucked every day of the week, how about that one? (Gina is a girl both the defendant AND ms. Kistler were having affairs with so Ms. Kistler had firsthand knowledge of the relationship since SHE WAS IN THE SAME BED AS the two parties confirmed taking part in the relationship as well! For the record Gina took the stand in the trial and informed the jury that the relationship between here and Kim and Frank ended when she moved out of the same house as them. As for the 5 mystery girls from New Jersey? No one EVER came forward and admitted any relationship. Nor did the defendant at any time tell the police he was having affairs with any girls in New Jersey or Gina, after she moved out! (This "statement" will be discussed in the next update, but there was never one made by defendant!) Or the one were you claimed that Brianna is not your baby? ( Brianna is the child that the defendant and Ms. Kistler had together. When the defendant learned of her affairs behind his back and realized the "time frame" for her to become pregnant came real close to the time he was in jail he started to suspect that she was lying and asked for a DNA test! When he saw a photo of the girl however there was no need for one since she looks just like him. He however never withdrew his request for DNA testing for two reasons. One he wanted to be 100% sure, and two, it was a stall tactic in his civil case to try to keep his parental rights to his child. The list goes on! Lies, Lies, Lies! But you know what? I’ve finally smartened up! They are lying like crazy to me every chance they get and I am not going to be railroaded anymore, if you know what I mean. Let them go ahead and do what they feel they must, they scared me, intimidated me, and even told me everything to say at your hearing. Saying that they’d give me a deal, hanging the kids over my head like a piece of meat and its bullshit! Just wait till the trial, they got one hell of a shocker coming from me in store. Don’t tell anyone or you’ll ruin the surprise! I really cant wait to see their fucked up faces when they think their "prize" witness lets it all rock their fucked up world. Have faith in me baby, im not gonna let us burn for something we didn’t do. You know how it feels being we’re in the same boat, having life and death thrown in your face, believe me they used the scare tactic of the death penalty on me too! Why do you think I’ve done what I did? Our baby and my kids need to too much for me to die on them! So now im telling the truth! Im going to spill the beans on how I lied in my statement and at the preliminary. They re not using me as a puppet anymore....." LET YOUR LAWYER KNOW THAT THEY FUCKED ME UP SO BAD WITH THEIR THREATS AND INTIMIDATION THAT THEY EVEN TOLD ME TO SAY THAT THEY DID NOT TELL ME WHAT TO SAY AT THE PRELIMINARY............. ".... Tuesday the 25^th of February, before your hearing they had me at the DA’s office all day long going over what they wanted me to say, and in the middle of it they set it up to have the kids come in and visit with me for 1 hour. When the kids left Brandon, ( her son) walked out first, he hugged and kissed me told me that he loved me and said he had to go now because he did not want me to see him cry. As he turned to leave he turned around once more and tears of pain were streaming down his cheeks. Then Brittany did not want to leave me. ( her daughter) she stood there and held onto me like she did not want to let go. I just looked at my sister and said please help her. Karen said lets go brit and she slid away and held onto my sisters’ legs and hid her face. Karen had to pick her up and carry her out. As she left, she said mommy I will never stop loving you, and cried her little eyes out. Brianna was just so adorable I did not want to let her go. ( The baby her and defendant had ). Frankie do you understand how that crushed me? (Interesting side note, Karen the for mentioned sister? Once the trial was over, she would then deny Kim and defendant ALL and any access to their baby! The lawyers for the defendant had to threaten her with court in order for her to bring the baby in the one and only time she ever did to see the defendant, thru a piece of glass! Since the defendndant was no help to the police, he did not get the "favors" of a contact visit that Kimberly had gotten. Karen would eventually sue the defendant and Kim in court for custody of their baby. Kim would give up that fight (and the defendant with no lawyer in his corner, would lose his rights to be his childs parent). "Once they were done, the da just played on my emotions, I was hurting so bad they took the opportunity to fuck me up again by saying, "do you ever want to see your children again?" It totally killed me. They went on to say that id probably get all the charges dropped if I testify for them and say everything they want me to."...."im sorry for letting them brainwash me and scaring me into telling a lie, "..." I started telling them back in November when they first questioned me that I was at home with you until you left for Jersey, then went to bed and woke up when you called, and they stopped me right there and hounded me for 20 hours Frankie. They had me all messed up and before I knew it they were asking me all these questions and I just started agreeing with them after they said so many things about you to make me so angry, hurt confused and scared. "... " they are the most untrusting back stabbing bastards to roam the earth. "....." they told me to give them everything you send me and I am not suppose to write you, and I am supposed to think about what you took away from me, my kids. You did not take them away from me, they did, fuck them." ... ( you will notice that this version of the letters will have some "edits" in them from time to time."..." this is for two reasons, one is the phot copy that the defendant has is not always completely clear, it usually fades at the edges of the paper, and two is some of the content of the letters is sexually explicit and graphic, and has no real bearing on the message that he is trying to convey. However keep in mind the entire original copies of them are in the record, part of the public file and can be obtained if ANYONE wants to challenge what is being said in this site, they can get the copies themselves and see that nothing harmful to the defendant is being left out. The next letter used was defense #16, and was written on the same date as the previous letter."...as you know my sister Karen who has brianna is suing us for custody, betraying, back stabbing bitch! We had it set that she would just gonna have guardianship until I get sentenced to go to Muncy then we were gonna do Partial custody for the time being. Well she turned around all pulled this on me and said she was not bringing her in for visitation either!..."..."my nerves are shot and I cant eat and I cant sleep and im smoking like a chimney. My lawyer quit on me im trying to get Pyfer and Reese but cant afford them. (They would be appointed by the court anyway!) "...your not gonna die baby, I wont let you. I love you too much.....""I’ve done wrong but it’s not too late.".."..im like a totally different person and jail has taught me a lot so far! Can’t trust anyone! Fuck with People or get fucked with, plain and simple."" ....don’t forget they are trying to kill me too". The next letter is marked defense #15 and was written on 3/5/97. " i was shackled to the bed as I gave birth to our baby. Do you know how hard it was to give birth? Very fucking difficult and with guards in the room with me were no help. It really hurt me bad that you couldn’t be there with me to help me and to hold me I cried a lot because the pain was so intense"...."I don’t know if it was because I was having the baby or because the thing I wanted to share with you, I couldn’t" "I’ve really burned myself with the DA. So I’ll probably get life." "...do you realize the Das whole defense against you is me and my big mouth? They need me so bad to give you life or death."The last letter is dated 2/23/97 and is marked defense exhibit #14. "I’ve become a total basket case, so now they put me on anti-depressants and they are kicking my ass." "..I had to fight with myself, wondering why you would cheat, lie, and break my heart like they said. I’ve heard from them so many mean things about you and so many lies they had me believing them for a while but after I sat here and thought about things a lot of what they said didn’t make any sense and I told myself to follow my heart instead guess where it lead me? Right back to you. I personally think they are all compulsive liars. No doubt about it." "Just Sunday I heard some pretty bad news for me, they are now seeking the death penalty for me also. (A fact that she, the DA and the cops would deny at trial, yet in the post conviction interview she would confess was real!) " first they were gonna do a deal, but now I see their true colors. I do not like what I see. Understand?"....."I cant believe you fell for that visitation list one! Pretty bad! I thought you were the smart one between the two of us! (She was once again lying about the ex boyfriend mark Ott.) "They told me for the longest time, even my lawyer, that you were blaming me and that you only want to cover your own ass that you don’t really love me and that you never have! Oh please do you really think I would set You up like this? I have absolutely nothing to lose anymore. They want my head served on a silver platter just like yours.". Now the thing is that might be more disturbing here is the jury heard these letters in their entirety. They obviously gave them no credit, and why? A look at the trial transcripts will reveal just how much the state is allowed to get away with. They walked Kim Kistler thru the letters line by line, and the statements that were harmful to the defendant she admitted they were the truth, and anything that helped him she said was a lie! It went something like, " oh that was true.. Oh but that was not.. That was.....that was not........ECT, etc. " the thing that was even more shocking was that when it came time for the state to prosecute Ms. Kistler, they used some of those very same statements against her by using letters she wrote to the sister that they with held from the defense, to prove that she was lying! To the very same things they offered as TRUTH in the defendants trial! They will be showed in a comparison of letters in the next paragraph. The one other thing is that the newspaper reporters that were in the courtroom when these letters were read, NEVER REPORTED A SINGLE WORD OF THE LETTERS IN THE PRESS! The reason is simple, if you live in an area and part of you job is to get the information from the cops in that area about things to report, you need to be on the good terms with them! If not you will always be the last one to find shit out! How long do you think you will be employed if you are not friendly with the locals??? Also one more thing to discuss before we move on to the testimony that Kim gave at the trial with respect to the letters she wrote. In the transcripts vol #15 page 2937, the jury is told that these letters she wrote was during a short time where she was confused and did not know what she was doing. That was how they explained why she wrote them. They said the time period was only a few days, a week at the most! Yet those letters were dated over a three week period of time! Also they left that they also had the letters in their possession at that time that they hid from the defense, from Kim that backed up a few of the claims she and they were denying in the trial of the defendant! They had the balls to use those letters in the trial against Kim Kistler. The other part of their explanation to the jury on why they should ignore what Kim said in those letters? "She was trying to help him get out of jail by writing them"! That by itself is the most ridiculous thing you could imagine. So let me get this straight, a woman who had nothing to do with this, who is innocent and was used as an unwitting pawn, suddenly decides to do the right thing to do is to take all the blame off Harris and risk taking the fall herself????? That is utterly insane! But the jury BELIEVED IT!!! ask yourself this, if she was really trying to help him, why just call the police and tell them she did it? That was the quickest way to fix things? Or does it make more sense that Kim had an attack of conscience here! She felt bad about helping the state murder her childs father and for just a brief moment felt actual guilt!. That is what spurred the letters! Now she never put herself in harms way you will notice, but she did attempt to be honest about how they got her to say what she said! Now we move on to the trial testimony offered by Kim. On page 2959 on the transcripts the letters that she wrote first come up. Q; let me stop, who’s ott? A; OTT my ex boyfriend. Q; well according to the visitation list that I saw he was in to see you a number of time, is that correct? A; no. he WAS IN ONCE! (Remember her telling the defendant that it was a lie "they" were teeing him to turn against her? ). The record shows one visit on 1/31/96. The defendant has several letters that Kim wrote to Mr. Ott as well that he turned over to police. To say they are "friendly" is being nice. Shortly after that question there was this exchange, Q; it does not say that. A; well......Q; read what it does. A; I’d really rather not. Q; did you write the letter? A; Yes. Q; please read what it says,. A; Can I spell it ? At this point the DA complains to the judge and The judge rules in his favor Here is the reason for all this. In her letters she was EXTREMELY vulgar in her language. Problem is she is trying to present herself as a sweet innocent young woman who was duped into doing this. These things she wrote in the letter will not look like the image she is trying to portray, it does not go well with the performance she is giving, it would shock and offend the jury to actually hear these things come out the mouth of this innocent little girl! So her lawyer must have instructed her to refuse to read any kind of curse word! Now granted the jury is going to read the letters but the impact of hearing the words come from her mouth on the stand would have shattered the role she was playing. None the less the judge let her avoid saying them anyway! Q: the sentence that I’m---- quote, they showed me supposedly parts of your statement that you gave them that said you had sex with Gina our whole relationship, is it true. Question mark. My question is, who does the pronoun "they" refer to? A; referring to the DA’s office. Q; so you are saying here that somebody in the DA’s office showed you a part of Mr. Harris’s statement that he gave to them that said he had been having sex with Gina your whole relationship? A; they never showed me anything that said that. Q; they never did? A; No. They ...they said...they didn’t even come out and say that he definitely was. But it was tossed up in the air. Now the detective that actually told her that was Det. Brennemen, and it was told to her while she was being interviewed as a way of getting her to talk. Now if you were to look at the transcripts from Kim kilters trial you will see how it was "tossed up in the air" as she so casually put it. Pg. 219, By Det. Brennemen., A; I came in and introduced Myself to Ms. Kistler. And I said to her, I said Kim, im here because the investigators in this case, we feel that you have a right to know what kind of man your associated with her, meaning Mr. Harris. I first....I then advised ms. Kistler that during this investigation, we found out that frank was...Mr. Harris was quite the ladies’ man and he had been having sex with numerous other women. I also told her that myself and again Det. Ator, interviewed frank earlier in the day and it appeared that frank was proud of the fact that he had all these other women. I then advised ms. Kistler of a girl named Regina who was a sister of a girl named Chrissy. And Regina would have been a girl that Ms. Kistler and Frank had lived with a short time in Gap. Q; are you talking about Gina Ewing: A; yes. I then told Ms. Kistler that Frank advised myself and Ator that he was having sex with Regina during the entire time they had been staying with Chrissy in the trailer in ..I believe it was gap. Q; they meaning Kim and Frank were staying with Chrissy? A; Yes. (Now to clear up some things, one I already explained that Kim, Frank and Gina were involved in a three way relationship for awhile when they all lived in the same bedroom in Stevens, PA. No one ever denied that! Gina herself testified under oath that once she moved out the relationship ended! A fact the defendant has ALWAYS asserted! Also frank and Kim NEVER lived in a trailer with Chrissy. And ask yourself this, if the cops are questioning him about his whereabouts during a murder, what the hell would he be talking about his sex life for??? and most of all would he tell the cops he was cheating on his girlfriend knowing they also want to talk to her? It defies all sense! ) He goes on... A; I think I advised Kim about a girl named Mary Kay who was a customer at the pipeline bar where frank worked. I advised her that frank...we found out frank was having sex with her. I also advised her of two other girls that frequented the Pipeline bar, Tina and Luann, and told her that these two girls were also having sex with frank. I then told Kim that we spoke to a good friend of frank’s, Mr. Harris, that told us of numerous women that he was having sex with who lived in new jersey. (Once again things must be explained. The girl "Mary Kay" is named Sherry henry, she actually testified in the trial! All she ever said was they had a relationship in The past..she never said she was still involved with the defendant, and as for the past relationship? Kim was the girl frank left sherry for! She knew all about sherry, the one thing the cops never knew was frank NEVER lied to his girlfriends about who he was with or when. In fact this was a problem with a lot of them cause if they ever asked him about other girls, he was always honest with them! KIM knew of every single woman he was with ! They also went on to name " Tina" and "luann" off the bat the defendant has no clue who this "Tina" is. She never shows up in ANY police report, discovery, or in trial! As for Luann, once again Kim knows her, and knows of the relationship between her and Harris IN THE PAST! In fact before Kim and Harris moved from Stevens and started a life with just them being with each other, luann had long ago moved to florida! If Mr. Harris was still having sex with her he would have to have an awful long penis to reach all the way to down to florida! And as far as the "jersey girls" once again NO ONE shows up in ANY police report, discovery or trial to say any of that was true. In short they used names Kim would know, and some she would not, to give her the impression that there was something going on! They had the ability to PROVE it any time they wanted to since the called two of the women to testify, but after they questioned Gina and she did not say what they wanted her to, they made sure they would not ask sherry henry the same thing. And since luann was in florida there was no reason to call her. The mystery women "Tina" was never called, nor was any of the " jersey girls", although they did subpoena a girl from his past named Darlene Castner, but after they interviewed her she would never see the inside of a courtroom!) He goes on ...A; when I entered the room I saw no signs of her being agitated, upset at all. As I was going through these names and giving her this information, I could see tears starting to well up in her eyes. Her nose started to run. She had access to tissues that were on the table and she grabbed some tissues. She started wiping her eyes. Her eyes then eventually started tearing. They got red. She started wiping her nose. She just continued to progressively get a little more emotional. (She was pregnant at this time!) Now if you go to the trial transcripts pg. 2968 you will see the first time Kim recants the events in her letter. A; No. This is all ..... this is all the story that I was making up to give him a way out. That’s what this is, THIS WHOLE LETTER! Q; continue on. A; (reading) and in the middle of all that, they set it up for me to have the kids come in and visit with me for one hour. When the .. Q; was that true? A; Yes that parts true. ( like defendant said earlier, what she needs to be true for HER is true what she needs to be a lie for to use against HARRIS is suddenly a lie.)

She then goes on to read the description of how they were brought in and they cried and it upset her so much she could not read it so the attorney finished it. Q; I’ll read it. Correct me if I’m wrong if this is too difficult. (Reading) and slid away and held my sisters’s legs and hid her face. Karen picked her up and carried her out and she lifted her hand and said mommy I’ll never stop loving you and cried her little eyes out period. Is that correct? A; Yes. Then in the very next line she snaps bach with a lie. A; ( reading ) do you understand how that just crushed me? Broke my heart all over again. Then when they were gone, the DA just played on my emotions. Q; is that

sentence true? A; No they stressed to me how important it is to tel the truth. That’s what they told me . (what they could not tell you to tell the truth without using your children as an emotional crowbar?) And then in the next line, A; (reading) I was hurting so bad. They took the opportunity to mess me all up again by saying, do you ever want to see those faces again? Q; Did they tell you that? A; Yeah, that part is true. Then further on down the line, Q; Now let stop you there. The bad things they were saying about Frank... A; Um-hum Q; Related to his supposed other girlfriends? A; that was some of it. Q; Okay. And you were...did you feel jealous when they

were telling you this? A; No...I was hurt. Q; You felt hurt and upset? A; Yeah. Q; And betrayed? A; (no verbal response) Q; Correct? A; Yeah. Then further down, A; Basically, I was ready...like I told Mr. Steadman when he QUESTIONED ME ABOUT IT! With these letters I was ready, giving Frankie a way out of this. And I was.....I felt since I told them the truth, that I already convicted myself, basically. So I wanted somebody to be out there with our baby. ( this is the part where she decides that she will "help" Harris! If she told the "truth" like she said it was then the only person guilty of the murder was Harris, so why would she think she convicted herself??

They have been talking about giving her a deal and her lawyer has been telling her he will "walk her out of the courtroom" . A fact the DA could not wait to use against her in her own appeals! (see her P.C.R.A. transcripts No. 50 of 1997) Q; (by DA) did you believe she had a good chance at avoiding a conviction for third degree murder? A; (by Kims attorney) Well, I discussed with her at length the various theories of the commonwealths case, the conspiracy, possible accomplice liability, etc, etcetera. I indicated how that would play and how it could be argued both way, and I suggested to her that she certainly ..if she was believed, that she may not be found guilty of third degree murder or conspiracy to commit third degree murder. I indicated that to her, yes I did. Further down the line, Q; Did you tell her, and again, this is repeatedly a quote "I’ll walk you out of that courtroom" or words to that effect? A; No. Q; You don’t think you said that? A; No sir. Q; did you urge ms. Kistler to accept the offer from the commonwealth? A; I did not urge her to accept it, I did not urge her to reject it. I indicated to her what the offer was. I indicated to her what I thought could happen at trial and I left it up to her. I don’t typically urge clients to accept or reject pleas unless, in my opinion there is no possibility of a verdict which I deem to be satisfactory. And let me say, not to interrupt you, but let me say, ms. Kistler made it very clear to me on a number of occasions that she was not inclined to enter a guilty plea to anything where she was admitting to any type of a murder, even a conspiracy to commit murder, even third degree murder. And out of Kims own mouth Q; ( from the DA) Did he give you odds? A; (by Kistler) Well, to break it down into odds, I mean he really thought that I would be leaving the courtroom within that day. That was one of the things he said. In the discovery for the Defendant there is a handwritten note that was listed as "additional" discovery items. And in that note the DA states that the deal for Kim was no more than a third degree prosecution, and REESE MADE THAT DECISION ON HIS OWN, KIM WAS NOT INFORMED OF IT!!!! (Defendant is working to have all documents included on this site for anyone to reference them but it will take time as there are close to 10,000 pages of it.) Now we have up until now only discussed the letters from Kim to the defendant in here. We will now turn to the letters from the defendant to Kim. These were entered into evidence by the state and were listed as Commonwealth #99.#28,#29,#100,#101,#102, and #103. These can be put into two categories real simple, #28 and #29 and #99 were written BEFORE Kim wrote the letter confessing to frank that she lied and was framing him, and #100, #101, #102 and #103 were written AFTER frank received the confession letter from kistler. They are of two simple tones, the ones before Kims confession are hurt, sad, and asking why did you do this to me? They express anger and pain. The ones after are forgiving and hopeful. IN NO LETTER AT ANY TIME DOES THE DEFENDANT EVER SAY HE IS GUILTY OF MURDER, or murdered anyone, or planned to murder anyone, or anything close to this. There are some examples, #99 "Kim, what happened please tell me this is a big misunderstanding, what in gods name did they say to you to scare you So bad to make you say those things? #28, "I wish I could turn off my emotions, I would love to be able to lash out at you in anger and say I hate you. But the truth is I’ve never loved anyone in my whole miserable life like the way I do you". "not one of my so called friends came here. Every Saturday I would get up at 11:30 and wait for a visit until 12 noon, to see if anyone came. Well I don’t get up anymore. And I don’t care." ""I told myself that all you needed was someone to love you, unconditionally, to prove to you that you were not a worthless alcoholic whore like everyone said. That you were better than that. Me and my stupid ego again. I thought my love for you would be enough, but it never was." " I’ve given no statements , and I plan not to , nor do I pan to take the stand. They might have told you different." #29, "the one line in the whole letter that made me write you b ack is ( and I quote it word for word)... "why is he blaming everything on me?" I cant believe they told you that, and even more you believe it???" "Even after you lied, cheated, deceived me, and basically fucked me over more times than I care to remember, I proved myself to you, by standing by you, for better or for worse. I saw more worse with you than anyone else. But I never budged a fucking inch. I stood my ground and stayed true to my love for you. I have nothing to prove to the likes of someone like you, I’ve done my time with you and even now im still doing it! Don’t worry all your secrets will be safe with me. I thinking the only thing worse then believing in you all this time would be if I stooped down to your level and started talking, Id rather die than to know I was just like you!"( this would be the first time the defendant would ‘slip ‘ and show that he was taking the fall for kistler). Then #100, after Kim confesses, " I committed myself to you, body, soul, heart, everything. To have you testify against me it crushed me Kim" " you said you burnt yourself with the DA and your probably going to get life. Your not. Don’t think that. If your really going to do this (referring to the plan She told him about to recant her statement in her letter to him). If its going to be us together fighting, believe me there is no way in hell you are going to get life. Its me they want and me they are going to get! ( once again letting her know he is planning to take the fall for her). Then #101, "I’ve never ever felt like giving "myself" to someone the way I do when I am with you, its like all I want to do is please you, and whatever you tell me to do, I really want to do it, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. I find myself wanting it for you . I’ve never felt that way with anyone." Then to the most interesting letter of all, #102. What is most interesting about this letter is it is a 8 page letter (front and back of pages) and 4 of them are MISSING! "Baby part of breaking you down is shit like this, (referring to the fact that they had her on drugs in jail). If you starve, stay doped up, let yourself dwell on this the whole time, you’ll be so, so, so easy to manipulate during the trial. " (how right the defendant turned out to be!) The reason the rest of the letter was missing, the defendant made it clear to Kim that he was going to take the blame for her, and get her free! This is something the Lawyers did not want the jury to hear. Then finally, #103, " first, right now, there are three options on how to handle this for you. We have not received discovery yet. So this can change drastically especially if we get our way with suppressions. 1) Obviously, you can finish what you started, continue to be a witness for the state and testify against me at trial. The results obviously for me, death, for you if your lawyer is any good you might be able to get the DA to let you go." (Here the defendant is telling her okay if you want to recant your statement and fight, I get it BUT you should understand this is an option you can consider, telling her to go ahead and sacrifice him to save herself! HE IS ACTUALLY GIVING HER PERMISSION TO DO SO!!!! He would then go and lay out other ways to trap the DA in his own pool of lies,. To expose he state for trying to set him up. The DA would read these statements to the jury claiming they are a confession, ignoring the fact that the very first option he laid out for her involved HIM DYING!) Now before we move onto the letters that the DA withheld from the defense and then used in kilters trial against her there is one more place to look. The trial of kistler and comments made by the DA. The reason I say that is because if you are paying attention to the content of the letters written by Kim, and the way she talked when she was on the stand you would think they were two completely different people. and I am not alone in that opinion, see the closing argument made by the DA, in Kims trial. Pg. 420, (by DA) " During her two and an hours days worth of testimony, I submit she looks as good as she ever will. This is one side of Kimberly Kistler. She wants you to take this side at face value. This side and this side along." ..." you read their correspondence. I mean this person that testified at trial and the person that comes out in the correspondence are one and the same person. But by looking at her, its hard to reconcile them."..." I think his words were trying to get out of her situation. How desperate was she? At what length would she go to hold onto him?" " .. Her testimony oat trial, as it relates to her culpability, does not agree with any of the other evidence in this case. Doesn’t even agree with her earlier statements.!" " Your honor I would suggest that a reasonable interpretation of this is, she hasn’t heard from frank all day. There are three people who know what happened there that night. One of them is dead. She is trying to find him. SHE IS AFRAID OF TALKING. That’s precisely what’s happening here." Now the letters that the commonwealth hid from the defendant and used against Kim in her trial are entered into evidence and labeled "K.K.#2, #3, #4, and #5. "These are the ones that have the most important information. They were all written to Kims sister, Kathy Gehr. Kim at this point knows well enough to tell her sister to destroy the letters that she sent to her since she does not want the DA to get a hold of them. Her sister turned them into the police anyway. The DA was smart enough to know to keep these letters away from the defense. They were never turned over. They never mentioned a word of them in the trial of the defendant. But when it came time to try Kim , they used these letters to the fullest extent. In "K.K. #2" Kim wrote the following,..". This is the man I knew and loved, he never laid a hand on me, (referring to the abusive boyfriends of the past) he treated me with kindness and respect. Anything I needed or wanted he gave without hesitation, and I mean ANYTHING! He sacrificed his own comfort to be with me when he got out of jail in July, he slept in his car at night and by day he was out looking for a job so he could get us a place to live". She also goes on to say..."(they told me), but now he’s trying to blame all this on me! (Referring to the murder) They would say none of these things in the trial of the defendant. Imagine that, portraying him as a "self sacrificing" type of person. The only man that never abused her. Telling the jury that Kim was told Harris was blaming HER for the murder! What would that have done for Kistler’ credibility? Apparently this was not lost on the DA since he kept it all from the defense. One of the most disturbing details, Kim describes the murder! If you read her testimony she was never anywhere close enough to Martin to see what he was wearing OR never anywhere to see the crime! But in her letters she describes the "slitting of his throat" and the " light blue shirt" he had on. How is this possible? She never testified to anything that would have given her access to that kind of information! It was not lost on the DA. They hid it from the defense AND listen to what they said about it in her trial. On page 104 of her transcripts, Det Savage says, "initially I thought it was a blue and white pinstripe shirt:"(he is describing how it looked that night, at the crime scene, in the dark, the same way the killer would have seen it) ... Q; Dark blue or light blue? A; "it would have been a medium blue pinstripe with a white shirt." Q; And what color did the shirt appear to be when it was put under the florescent lighting?" A; It was grey". So even the police that arrived at the crime scene said, in the lighting that night, it looked blue!

On page 460 of her trial transcripts the DA agrees with me, "your honor how did she know? This letter was written...and we only got it. This letter was written before she ever delivered that baby. Before she was ever arraigned. Before there was any discovery. Before there was testimony from Dr. Ross about how slow this injury was. Det. Savage told you that in the dark, the shirt looked blue. How did she know?" the answer is simple. Only the killer would know this information. In "K.K. #5" She says.... "I don’t care anymore if frank lives or dies" this is not the impression she gave the jury in the defendants trial. She told them it was a very hard thing for her to do because she loved him! She also tells her sister she has a "great deal of contact with the DA’s office". In "K. K. #4" This one the date is readable on 3/19/97 she is telling her sister that her lawyer quit. She also tells her " I got to see the kids the day BEFORE I testified in court. ( remember in the trial for the defendant they said they only had a visit the day of the testimony.) They let me spend about an hour with them while I was GOING OVER THE TESTIMONY THEY WANTED ME TO GIVE THE NEXT DAY!". They repeatedly got her to deny that she was told what to say in the defendants trial. She also tells her sister, ... "They are seeking the death penalty for me, along with Frankie" a fact they would deny repeatedly in the defendants trail. Then in "K.K. #3" she tells her sister at this time she has a new lawyer. She also talks about her sister moving to north carolina. This is important because that sister never showed up to testify in the defendants trial and the police said they did not know where she was. YET there was a subpoena with her name and new address on it in the case file that would be found after the trial. In short the cops stood up in that courtroom and lied to the judge. Now there is one set of letters left to discuss. They are the letters Kim wrote to defendant AFTER he was on death row. In one dated 3/31/99, she talks about the Det. Named Geesey and the way he conducted himself during the investigation. " No I did not forget about the improper conduct, it was Geesey, and he said A LOT and did a lot that I did not think was too cool."..........."..Geesey is nothing but a crackerjack dick, and a dirty old man. I told you about the time he came into L.C.P. before I had legal counsel, and questioned me about our sex life...wanting details, had me crying my eyes out he’s a pervert, told me I had to tell him everything! Like if you ever fucked me in the ass, if we had sex with Gina or anyone else, what we did, if you fucked anyone else and had me watch.. Shit like that."......." the other half is how he gave me "special treatment"... at your preliminary. He had me outside the sheriffs area, in area where normal people wait..he would put an arm around me, hug me, talk shit. He’s the one who told me about the 10 years before I ever had Bri" in a letter written on September 25^th 1998 she writes,...."... They were going to give me a plea of 3^rd conspiracy with 2-15 and my lawyer said no, he told me I’d be walking out the courthouse with im after my trial. All I could think of is how happy my kids would be so I said lets go for it!" .."you know I would not have testified if it would not have been for my lawyer, he made me, he said I had no choice." In a letter dated 10/21/98, she talks about her trial, .."...yes, 2 detectives, and my sister lied on the stand" (referring to the same two detectives that testified in defendants trial. In a letter dated January 4^th 1999. She writes.." "They did threaten me, and with every threat they backed it up with that they were not threatening me! Especially when they had me without an attorney present,. The off the record spots at the DA’s office when they questioned us for the first time have info in it that they basically did not want me to talk about on the stand, they said it was not important"....." there were also several occasions where Geesey put his hands on me.. My lawyer said we could not do anything about that because we were trying to "befriend" the DA’s office. Well that bastard (Geesey) came to see me at L.C.P. without legal counsel present, numerously. He asked me detailed questions on our sex life, like what kind of sex I liked, what kind of sex we had together, if we (you and me) ever had threesomes, if we had sex with Gina, etc. That had nothing to do with our case. I told him and he told me he wanted to know everything about me. ".." Geesey pretty much ran the show with me. He spent a lot of time with me alone. Me; a hurt destroyed young woman, "betrayed by her fiance". His sympathetic ear and shoulder to lean on, he was beside me every stop of the way, he lent a shoulder to cry on, held my hand in the back of Savage’s car when they took me to jail, gave me extra special attention in every way. Geesey picked me up personally when I had to testify at your preliminary, kept me in hie care. Took me out to eat a lot, talked about more than the case. They picked me up one day to go to the hospital to get hair and blood samples he took me into the lobby and bought me food and drinks, told me that I’d be getting 10 years, way before brianna was born. Put his arm around me on several occasions and hugged me too. My lawyer was in on it too. They all seemed to push all of it under the rug so to speak. Most of the off the record spots on the first questioning session which went on for nearly 20 hours was me refusing to say what they wanted and them telling me I have to say it. They threatened me with life imprisonment right before I broke. All I could think of was B.J. and Brit. Along with our unborn baby. I went along with everything they said in hopes of being with the kids again. They dangled the kids in front of me, telling me if I ever want to see them again I’ll do what they say. That cant be legal can it? Geesey should not have been legally able to put his hands on me. I do not think he should be able to get away with that, do you? Everything I told you is the absolute truth right hand to god and swearing all this on my Fathers grave, may he rest in peace. Geesey and Savage made me say that fucking word "quite", and a lot of other things too". " ..Craig Steadman did his share of suggestive flirting too. I never told you because I did not want to make you mad." In a letter dated 10/21/98, she writes "...they told me you were fucking your lawyer, she was nasty, did you?" these letters will be entered into evidence at the next appeal.

There are two elements of this crime that need to be reviewed in order to fully understand it. The first is a bar fight that took place with the defendant, Francis Bauer Harris and the victim, Daryl Martin. Second the murder of Martin that took place about one year later. The defendant and a woman, Sherry Henry, were entering a bar that he worked at one night. It was his night off and it was near closing time he was stopping in to see how things went that night. Once inside sherry was assaulted by another woman already in the bar named Maxine Snook. He then separated the women and went out front of the bar with Maxine to talk to her. During that verbal exchange a drunkard who was outside of the bar, Martin, started to get aggressive with the defendant because he thought that Maxine may have been in danger. The girl and the defendant both assured him that was not the case and told him to go away. He persisted and when the defendant thought things were going to get physical he tried to move away from the area going around to the side of the bar. Maxine at that time went back in the bar and continued her assault on the woman who she had hit earlier. Outside of the bar the drunkard, had made a move to assault the defendant. Defendant struck the drunkard, causing him to fall and hit his head on the pavement.( The punch was to the face). The drunkard started to get back up and try again, the defendant kicked him one time in the upper torso area, right up under the arm. And rolled the drunkard onto his back. At that point the drunkard did not attempt to come after the defendant again so the defendant turned and left the scene.

He defendant left with a friend he had arrived with named Jimmy Smith. Also present for the fight was a bouncer named Mark Dodge. Working inside the bar was a couple named Steve and Elaine Shengerger. The defendant had no way of knowing this but after he had walked away from Martin, he was told that the bouncer Mark Dodge kicked the helpless Martin in his head until he passed out. Also in the bar Maxine was at that time being restrained by Elaine to keep her from attacking sherry again. The defendant did not know this either but after he left the scene a security guard who was inside his car sitting behind a row of parked cars in a parking lot across the street saw a disturbance and came over to see what had happened. His name was Hector Modesto. The drunkard would go to the hospital and then be released the next day. HE COULD NOT REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM. He had a blood alcohol level of .236 !!! HE COULD NOT IDENTIFY ANYONE WHO HE WAS IN A FIGHT WITH NOR COULD HE EVEN REMEMBER BEING IN A FIGHT!! He would NEVER change this story, NOT EVER. At no time was he ever able to ID the defendant as the guy he was in a fight with or EVER even remember being in a fight! The police investigated and at the scene they took statements from two people, Mark Dodge and Hector Modesto. Maxine was there but did not give a statement. Dodge said..."this guy got in a fight with some ‘unidentified’ male"and gave a brief but vague description to the police. (At that time he and the defendant were friends) Hector at that time gave the same statement to the police!! (a fact he now denies, and a statement he would never again repeat!!) No other statements were taken. Months would pass by and Maxine would be at the bar again this time with a different man. The man started a fight with the defendant and was removed by the bouncers at the bar. (One was Dodge.) During the removal the man got into a fight with the bouncers and Maxine herself would join in. As a result the police were called. Maxine and the man she was with were put in handcuffs and taken away. It would be at that moment that Maxine would decide to tell the police that it was the defendant who was in the fight with martin months earlier. She was released and never charged with anything that night. She was told to come back the next day, when she was sober, to give the police a statement about the fight that had taken place earlier. She did, but the statement she gave was a far cry from what had actually happened. She claimed she and the defendant were having "words" outside the bar, leaving out the part where she assaulted the woman he was with first. And then martin came up to her and defendant and said "leave the lady alone" she then told the police that the defendant beat Martin mercilessly

2.

KICKING HIM WITH SUCH A FORCE THAT HIS BODY ROSE OFF THE GROUND, ( Mr. Martin weighted about 230 lbs at the time), then kicking him repeatedly in the face and head while he lay unconscious. She claims she was outside the bar the whole time and witnessed this herself. Up to this point no one had given any statements to the police even close to what she was saying. Based on this, the police arrested defendant and charged him with aggravated assault. The defendant had never had to go thru this process before so he went to a lawyer and hired him to defend him in court. He had told his lawyer from the very first meeting "I will plead guilty just do what you can for me". The lawyer all along assured him, "this is nothing, it is your first offense and no one was seriously hurt you were put in jail for this and more than likely you will get "time served"and a fine.". based on that advice the defendant went about his life not worrying about it. The police tracked down Hector Modesto and after a $5000.00 reward for information was posted in the local newspaper, hector changed his story, it was now not the same as mark dodge, but instead identical to Maxines. The DA, then told defendant that he was facing about 5 years in state prison. At this time his lawyer, Steve Briet, still assured him, "it is just a scare tactic, you are not in any danger! At the most you might get a few months more in the county, don’t worry they will wait until the last minute and then come to us with their real offer, you’ll see"!! Once again, defendant went about his life. During this time unknown to the defendant after he and dodge had a falling out in their relationship, dodge ad been arrested by the police and charged with helping the defendant get away with the crime. He then struck a deal with the DA. He would testify against his former friend in exchange for a plea bargain. Oddly enough the police never bothered to ask dodge what he would actually say. This would come back to bite them at a later time! As defendants guilty plea hearing grew closer his now new girlfriend Kim Kistler, was pregnant with his child. She was expressing worry to defendant that sh did not want to be raising their child alone. She was worried about what would happen to him at the guilty plea. Defendant assured her "Mr. Briet told me not to worry about it, it is just a stupid bar fight, no big deal ", yet she was still on edge about it. About one week before the guilty plea hearing the victim Mr. Martin was found dead. When it came time for the guilty plea the police were waiting for the defendant in the court house. He was told if he did not agree to give the police a statement to the DA. He would pull the deal off the table.(a 9 month deal had ben offered at the last minute just like Steve Briet had said they would do). With Mr. Briet present he reluctantly gave the police a statement. (A fact both Briet and police now deny, claiming it was defendants decision to give the statement all along and no threat was made regarding the deal). Defendant went in the court plead guilty to the AGGRAVATED ASSAULT and went right to jail. During that time his girlfriend Kistler was being questioned by police. She at first did not blame the defendant for the murder but then the police did two things that changed her mind. They first lied to her and said her boyfriend was having affairs with several women, (never once has a woman ever came forward and said that)and that HE WAS BLAMING HER FOR THE MURDER OF MARIN!! (defendant has not said a word about that until years after bing abandon by Kistler), It was then Kistler started to tell the police that defendant had arranged to kill Martin and his reason, to keep hm from testifying against him???? (keep in mind the victim had already given testimony and he could not remember the fight or ID the defendant!!!) Defendant was charged with murder and put on death row. Kistler got a deal in exchange for her testimony against him.

Kistler would say the following things at the murder trial: She at the defendants instruction took part in the stalking and killing of the victim. She claims that at his request she called the victim to arrange a meeting. (All phone calls entered into evidence were made from her house, not one was made from defendants) She said at his request, she would drive him to find the victims house. She was the only person ever seen near or at the victims house. No one ever said they saw defendant there. She claimed that she and defendant drove to the crime scene the night of the murder in his brothers "jacked up pickup truck." (Worth noting since it sits so high off the ground and has "flare kits’ and chrome it stands out and would be noticed!!) She claims they stopped at a mini market in the area to buy a phone card. No witness ever id’s the truck and a video surveillance tape from the mini market DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT! She claims both she and defendant wait in a parking lot for victim then drive across the street to a well lit

3.

open spaced parking lot and get Chinese food. (Not one single witness could place defendant at the crime scene, several ID Kistler as being seen there). She claims she never actually witnesses the murder, that she dropped off defendant off at a point and then pick him back up. She claims that he drove to new jersey and had her make several calls from her house to set up an elaborate alibi placing defendant in new jersey at the time of the murder. She then claims that defendant, after taking the time to craft an elaborate plan for an alibi, calls her from a phone in PA. 20 minutes after he sets up his alibi, thereby annihilating it???. She claims that she was not getting any favors from the DA. In defendants trial, but in her own appeals claims that her lawyer told her that he was going to walk her out of the courtroom at her trial. Meaning she was under the impression that she was to be found not guilty so the "time" she was facing was not real! She claimed that defendant wrote a list of addresses for her to investigate of witnesses she was to track down. Yet in her own trial the DA introduced her sister who drove with her to find the witness! (At the defendants trial the police claimed they suddenly had no idea where Kim’s sister was!) Kistler told the defendants jury that she was never threatened by the police yet afer the trial the police had been withholding letters, written by Kim, that says she was threatened with the death penalty by the police. After the trial the defense would find letters used in Kim’s trial where she describes the color of the victims shirt and the type of and location of the fatal wound! This was written BEFORE any newspaper prints it or any discovery was filed!! During the police interview, kistler tells that there was a phone call made by defendant to her the night of the murder where HE asks HER, "is he dead". There is no phone record of this call. There is a record of every other call made both BEFORE AND AFTER this call supposedly took place! She claims it was the 11 o’clock news! It was shown on the phone records at 10:03 p.m. Second, how did she know he was dead?? No news report! And if the defendant did murder him, why is HE asking HER is he dead? Should not it be the other was around???

A shirt was found at the crime scene. Oddly enough the crime scene happens to be one block away from Dodge’s house, and in an earlier statement to police him told them she had actually seen mark in the area that night!! A statement she would never again repeat. The shirt belonged to KISTLER! Yet because defendant had wore dit before some of his hair was on it. ( testimony exist that they both shared clothes commonly, also found on the shirt KISTLER’S HAIR AND SOME UNIDENTIFIED). A knife was found at the scene no one could ID it. A pair of sneaker’s allegedly belonging to the defendant was recovered about one mile from the crime scene. Some blood was found on the shirt. Yet the first round of testing came back with inconclusive results. The police then took custody of both the shirt and the blood vials and months later would re request testing and now lo and behold, there was a match on the blood. ( needless to say this is one of the items defendant wants to test. NO TESTING OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE WAS DONE BY COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE!) The DA had described a violent and very bloody attack yet there is virtually ono blood on this shirt. Not a drop on any of the sleeves which would have been right against an open neck wound, according to the DA’s own expert. Hairs found on both the shirt and in the defendants brothers truck are said to be similar to the victims hair. NO DNA testing was done and defendant wants those hairs tested!! THEY ARE NOT THE VICTIMS HAIRS! Defendant is willing to bet his life on this!!

Appeal update

Since the guilty plea two attorneys were court appointed to represent the defendant in his Capital trial as well as an appeal to the bar fight. They were William Boyd, and Thelia Jean Eaby. They were the first set of lawyers to explain for the first time to defendant, the rules governing the charges of a simple assault charge and an aggravated assault charge. Something the lawyer Steve Briet should have done but did not. Apparently an Aggravated assault charge is an Assault that for some reason a murder did not occur. In

4.

other words a vicious " ass whooping" in which the victim is almost killed. A simple assault covers anything from spitting on someone up to your average fist fight. (Fn1). After this was explained to the defendant he was informed that he never should have been charges with an aggravated assault. In fact the only thing he was guilty of was a simple assault. Therefor the lawyer, Briet was wrong in advising him to plead guilty to anything greater then what he was actually guilty of. To compound matters, the defendants attorneys came into possession of a interoffice memo from the district attorney Mark Walmer who was prosecuting that case, to the district attorney Craig Steadman, who was prosecuting the murder case that stated, they were aware of that fact as well. (Fn2) It said..." we agreed we could only prove BODILY INJURY"....Since the aggravated assault statute calls for ‘ serious bodily injury", and the simple assault statue calls for " bodily injury" it would seem that the DA’s own memo shows that he knew the week before the murder, (Fn3) that is was a simple assault case. The question the defendant had, was why did they charge him with aggravated assault ? The answer lies in a common practice known thru all law enforcement agencies across this country, and was backed up by Briet’s earlier statement to defendant, ( .. "It is a scare tactic, they will offer the REAL deal at the last minute..."). That turned out to be true in some part! When you are charged with a crime it is common to "overcharge" the defendant, because this gives them the impression they are facing a lot of time and makes them more willing to accept a plea bargain, saving the taxpayer time and money in the process. Most lawyers will tell thei

r client the same thing Briet told his, do not worry it is a scare tactic. Now of course that begs the question why then at the last minute leave it a felony aggravated assault, when in the memo they clearly indicated they were going to come down to a "bodily injury" charge, which could have only been a simple assault? You have to jump ahead to the murder trial to find the answer to that. The district attorney Steadman, was doing the murder case, in order for it to have been a " death penalty" case, he needed an "aggrivator". In this case he needs the victim to be a victim of a "felony", (Fn4). A simple assault is not a felony, and he wouldn’t not have been able to try this as a death penalty case. Up until that point, he had tried two other death penalty cases, and had failed to get the "chamber" for those two defendants’s. he was not going to fail this time! He went to Walmer and asked him to keep it as an aggravated assault! Walmer did. Briet never did anything to warn his client about it. And once the guilty plea was accepted viola’, Steadman had his first real shot at the winning of a death penalty trial.! ( Since that trial Steadman has tried at least one other death penalty case that he won, but then the death penalty was thrown out as illegal. Comm v. Leroy Stallworth).

Once the lawyers for the defense explained this to him they filed to have the guilty plea of the bar fight withdrawn as illegal. A hearing followed that request and these are the relevant facts that were brought out at that hearing. Walmer testified to several things, first of all he now insists that he could have prosecuted this case as an aggravated assault. (Fn5) his reason? He states there is a provision in the laws that allow him to prosecute any attempt to cause serious bodily injury! (Fn6). Now interestingly enough, the DA agrees with the defense that there was NO SERIOUS BODILY INJURY IN THIS CASE! (Fn7). They insist that because the defendant jumped up and down on the defenseless Martins head, that is enough to prove an attempt to cause the serious bodily injury! (Fn8). The defendant agree’s. The issue he has is HE DID NOT DO THAT! (Fn9). There are cases that support a single punch to the face, followed by a kick, only constitute simple assault. (Fn10). This is all the defendant says he did! HE SHOULD ONLY BE CHARGED WITH A SIMPLE ASSAULT! Now what evidence does he offer to prove this? One is the memo from the DA (Fn11). In it they agree it was only bodily injury. The DA, says he still thought he could go forward under the "attempts to cause" issue? Then why does it not say that in the memo? Why did he not say, ‘we believe we can only prove bodily injury, BUT WE CAN GO WITH THE ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE"? Also the defendant offers the actual testimony of the witnesses, and the police reports, as well as the hospital records of Martin. Since this is an " attempts to cause " issue, we are not looking for proof of an actual "serious " injury, but just proof that such an attempt was made. There is no damage to the victims head that back up the states claims of a 230 lb man jumping up and down on top of his head. (Fn12). There was not a single scratch on the torso area, the areas the state

5.

claims that he kicked with such a force that his 230 lb frame lifted OFF THE GROUND!! (Fn 13). In fact, Walmer himself said he feared the testimony of Maxine since she had bias against the defendant. (Fn14). He also said he feared the testimony of Modesto because he could not see clearly from where he was. (Fn 15). So, if the two main witnesses for the stae were no good, and the medical records did not support it , why did the DA think he could still prosecute this case? He said simply , "I felt Dodge was my best witness". Well the defense put that to the test. (Fn16). Here is what Dodge offered under oath. " Martin grabbed defendant from behind, so defendant turned and punched him in the face". (Fn17). When asked if the defendant was the one who did he NECESSARY jumping up and down on his head and/or repeated kicking of a helpless victim? Dodge said "NO". The states best witness did not back up what the state needed to support the "attempts" to cause part of the charge! That is not all the defendant offers as proof, remember the Shenberger couple inside the bar? They had given an interview to police and the DA Steadman was aware of this at the time he was arguing the appeal, (Fn 18), that said, MAXINE WAS INSIDE THE BAR BY THE TIME THE FIGHT HAD STARTED between Martin and defendant! HOW COULD SHE WITNESS THIS FIGHT SHE TESTIFIED TO ?? Briet denied ever being told by his client the whereabouts of the Shenbergers or what they would say when called to testify, and never called them to investigate. (Fn19). Yet his own file betrayed him! During those hearings the lawyer that passed that file to Briet, Alan Goldberg, said he gave the ENTIRE file to Briet, and when asked to open that file in court that day, right on top was a note with Steve Shenbergers name and phone number. (Fn20). Briet denied he ever had that information. (Fn 21). Briet also denied the DA ever told him to tell his client that if he refused to give a statement to the police about the murder BEFORE the guilty plea hearing they were going to withdraw the deal. (Fn22). A deal they withdrew anyway and added on time to. (Fn 23). Despite the fact Briet told an obvious lie to the judge about knowledge of the Shenbergers, Judge Goergelis, says he found him to be credible!! (Fn24). And went on to say "the note only had Steve Shenbergers name on it, so Briet was not informed about Elaine Schenberger".(Fn25), apparently where Georgelis is concerned happy couples do not share the same address! ( Steve and Elaine are still happily married and living under the same roof together as they have been since the day the defendant gave his lawyer their phone number to call!) What else did the defendant offer, remember Modesto? Well, the original stement taken at the scene by police from him was identical to Dodge’s. (Fn26). now Dodge changed his statement, but never gave the ste what they needed fro the " jumping up and down on his head " part. Modesto changed his statement as well. (Fn27). But what the DA left out is his change did not come until AFTER he saw a notice about a reward for $5000.(Fn28). The DA also neglected to point out that Modesto was not even available as a witness since he was in Puerto Rico at the time the trial would have ben and had notified the DA about it!! (Fn29). In fact the DA went as far as to claim that dodge’s testimony was not helpful to the defendant because he was "not available" for trial? DODGE was under a subpoena BY THE STATE AND PRESENT INT EH COURTROOM THE DAY OF THE PLEA!! How much more available can he be?? (Fn 30).

What else can the defendant offer? Well he tried to offer the witness Jimmy smith, but the DA did something very revealing here, he threatened to charge Smith with a crime when he took the stand.(Fn31). Now keep in mind the police has already let Maxine off the hook on an assault and/or resisting arrest charge from her night at the bar, (Fn32) the DA never charged her with a crime when she admitted on the stand to assaulting Sherry Henry, (Fn33) and they had given Dodge a deal in exchange for his testimony, (Fn34) plus no one ever charged Modesto with lying to police since his stement the night of the fight was the same as Dodge’s (Fn35), yet for some reason when Smith shows up in court, the DA seems fresh out of "get out of jail free " card’s! Why?? Look at the defendants testimony, Smith was a clear witness to the whole event! Look at what the investigator tells the court Smith is planning to say. (Fn36). He is about to get up on the stand and echo both what Dodge has already said, as well as the defendant, there was no kicking in the head by the defendant, the crucial element to the "attempts to cause" issue. Now take one more thing into consideration, at this time, Smith has finally come forward and given a sworn statement (Fn37) some 8 years after his first attempt, and told his story, only because

6.

the statute of limitations has passed and the DA can no longer charge him. (Fn 38) despite all this the courts have still not tossed out the aggravated assault charge on this defendant, why?? Because if they did they would have destroyed, the SOLE aggrivator in the death penalty case, as well as the states SOLE motive for the murder!! In short the defendant will no longer be a legally convicted death row inmate!! _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Fn1); 18 PA.C.S. section 2702(a)(1), first degree felony assault, 18 Pa.C.S. section 2701(a)(b)simple assault misdemeanor(Fn2)see memo dated Dec. 9 1996 to Craig Steadman from Mark Walmer, entered into evidence in the first P.C.R.A. hearing by Thelia Jean Eaby. (Fn3) second paragraph of memo, "...in the week before the murder, perhaps Wednesday, I talked to Joe whether we could prove serious bodily injury with just a broken nose and some dental problems, we ended up agreeing we could only prove bodily injury. Accordingly, I changed the guidelines..." (Fn4) the aggravating circumstances to the murder was, 42 Pa. C.S. S9711(d)(5), "the victim was a prosecution witness to a murder or another felony committed by the defendant..."(Fn5)P.C.R.A.#1 NT. Pg.70-75. (Fn6) and further explains it is the stomping on the head of the victim Martin by the defendant that would justify his claim. See P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg.75. (Fn7) see any reply brief from the Commonwealth after the first P.C.R.A. hearing. (Fn8) P.C.R.A.#1 NT. pg.75, testimony by Mark Walmer. (Fn9)see defendant testimony P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg.11-112. See also Dodge testimony same hearing, pg. 43. (Fn10) Comm..V. Coleman 496 A.2d. 1207, (Pa. Super) (1985). (Fn 11) Memo reads as follows:

To: Craig Steadman, ESQ.

From: Mark F. Walmer

Subject: Francis Harris-Notes of negotiations

Date: December 9, 1996

My September trial list indicates that Commonwealth vs. Francis Harris was to go November 12, 1996. The guidelines indicated 42-60 months in the standard range, and I had talked to Steve about a five year sentence without actually offering that to him Briet was working on me to take a simple assault, or at least a county sentence.

In the week before the murder, perhaps Wednesday, I talked to Joe about whether we could prove serious bodily injury with just a broken nose and some dental problems, and ended up agreeing we could only prove bodily injury. Accordingly, I changed the guidelines from an 11 to a 9 which lowered the standard range from 42-60 to 8-20. At that point I knew Breit might consider taking a straight plea even if I didn’t offer a negotiated sentence.

During the week of October 28-November 1, I was calling Breits’ office to communicate the change in my position. Breit was busy that week, and I left messages with April. At one point Breit called and I told him of the changes in the guidelines, and in my position. He said he would send out a letter to Francis who was living in New Jersey,. April told me later, that she sent out the letter on Friday( I think I was pestering her to see if Francis was going to plead or not). It was over the intervening weekend that the victim was killed.

My understanding and communications to Breit was that Francis had to be ready to go to trial on Tuesday, November 5, 1996. And the only offer was a straight plea as outlined above, or maybe a five year sentence. The reduction which April said she mailed out Friday, November 1, 1996 would have been communicated to Breit between October 29 and the 31^st of 1996.

(Fn12)the documented injuries to Martin in the face and head areas are, a broken nose, a swollen eye, and a cut lip. (See medical records) it does not take a doctor to figure out that if the defendant, a six foot tall 230 lb man was to jump in the air landing on his head 4-5 times and then repeatedly kick the unconscious Martin several times in the head as well, there would at the very least be several injuries from that, foot sized bruises, cuts, and broken bones, something!! There were none. The only injuries

7.

Martin had were contained to a "fist sized" area of about 3-5 inches from the bottom of the eye to the top lip! All which could have been done with a punch to the face. As for the kick that was allegedly reported to have raised the 230 lb Martin "off the ground" to the torso areas?? There was not a single scratch, bruise or broken bone or cut to his torso at all!! The prosecution by entering this obvious lie into evidence would like the truth to be stretched to the breaking point. (Fn13) see preliminary hearing, NT pg. 37, by Maxine Snook. (Fn14) see P.C.R.A.#1 NT pg.91. (Fn15) same as Fn14. (Fn16)same as Fn14. (Fn17)see P.C.R.A.#1 NT. Pg. 36,42,43. (Fn18)see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg.19, DA Steadman argues that the "Shenberger"" affidavit’s are not relevant to the case. At the very moment he was telling this to the judge he would have in his possession a set of taped interviews from the Shenbergers taken by police in Florida during the murder investigation and turned over to him long before this hearing. Those tapes would ell that Maxine Snook DID NOT SEE THE FIGHT! It was also shown on those tapes that she was not a credible witness! Steadman never turned those tapes over to the defense and from the way he acted during the hearing it was like he never thought the defense would find out about them. The defense did, years later!! Steadman even in light of the tapes challenging Maxines credibility, still offered her as a "good witness", he even called her to testify in the murder trial!! (Fn19)see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg. 133-134. (Fn20) see P.C.R.A. #1 NT pg. 28-29, by Alan Goldberg. (Fn21) same as Fn20. (Fn22) see P.C.R.A.#1 NT. Pg.184. (Fn23)see P.C.R.A.#1 NT. Pg.154. (Fn24) see lower court opinion December 23, 1998 pg. 8, by Judge Georgelis. (Fn25)see same opinion as Fn24 pg. 9. (Fn26)see police offense report, Lancaster Bureau of police submitted by officer Anthony J. Hall, approved by Lt. Miller, dated August 1, 1995, lcwc assign #9533454, (2 page report). (Fn27)see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg. 65, 78. By Modesto. (Fn28) see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg 73, by Modesto, compare to report taken night of fight mentioned in Fn26, also to statement taken by police on December 1995 from Modesto. (Fn29) see P.C.R.A. #1NT. Pg.161, also see letter from Breit to defendant entered into exhibit during defendants’s pro se appeal to the third circuit. ( letter dated after October 10, 1996), (Fn30) see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg. 10,.11, 99-105. (Fn31) see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg. 14, 66-68. (Fn32)see preliminary hearing fro aggravated assault, NT. Pg. 45. (Fn33) see preliminary hearing for aggravated assault, NT. Pg. 32. (Fn34) he ended up pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct misdemeanor in exchange for the promise to be a witness for the state against the defendant. He was being questioned by the police for the homicide at this time! See homicide trial NT. Pg. 2331-2333, 2338-2340. (Fn35) see preliminary hearing for aggravated assault. NT. Pg. 50-78. Compare to the statement given by Modesto to the police at the scene on the night of the fight! (Fn36)see P.C.R.A. #1 NT. Pg 12-14 Jefferies statement to the judge. (Fn37) see p.C.R.A. #2 filed August 3, 2005 pg. 12, 13. (Fn 38) see P.C.R.A. #2 Pg. 11, also see Fn7.

Appeals update #2 (murder trial)

A P.C.R.A. has been filed in the lower court. The issues are still being investigated, so there are still witnesses to locate and talk to. There are still a number of documents the defense has to try to get a hold of. So the appeals in the murder trial will constantly be changing until the evidence is all looked at. In the meantime here is what has been filed so far.

Jury issues; the defendant really does not care about the jury issues to much because he is innocent and

8.

only cares about that. BUT he is told that this is important to look at all aspects of the case from a legal standpoint so they will be briefly discussed here. The main issue revolves around an age old practice by prosecutors that they remove al minorities from the jury. The reason being? Most people in jail are?? You guessed it, minorities. So they know the system. More importantly they know how corrupt it is. So the last thing a prosecutor wants on his jury is someone who had a friend who was mistreated by the police once. BECAUSE when a defendant makes a claim of police misconduct the DA wants a jury that will say...."oh they would never do that." Instead of a jury who will think, "yeah they did that to my friend once". So no matter where you go the DA always tries to remove all " lower income, minorities" from the jury. The problem with this is the courts say you are not allowed to do this ! All Americans have the right to serve on a jury, and using race as a reason for removal is unconstitutional! Problem is, how do you prove it? This is almost impossible to prove. So lawyers make attempts at it and that is what they are doing here as well. The only thing the defendant thinks even comes close to showing that "race" was a part of the DA’s selection process, was the argument he offered in defense of it! Here is what basically happened. A jury pool was called, in it only one Latin person and one black person was called for questioning.! This was from 132 people. Lancaster county has a big black and Latin population, ask anyone who lives in Lancaster!9one Asian was seated as an alternate, (she was never called to decide on the case!). Now the people that were struck are named Mr. Santiago and Ms. Cameron. Both answered the question, "could you apply the law in your decision making and do your duty?", they said yes!, but were removed by the DA. The reason this is important is every time the DA had a juror that was "gung ho" for killing the defendant, he would "fix " that by asking the same question and then later claim that their answer is what makes them acceptable! So the argument is they answered the questions the same way all the other jurors did, so why were they struck? Then you have to prove the obvious, because of the "race". But the part that seemed most telling was the prosecutors reason. He first says, "hey the defendant is not black!" what does he care! (Defendant is Polynesian and German) well the defense points out his adoptive family is black and they are being called as witnesses, so the impression the jury will have is that he is black. Then the DA says "well he does not LOOK black". (I wonder what he would have accepted as "black looks"?) Anyway to further prove his point, "well he is Hawaiian, and we gave him an Asian, so that’s close enough!: in his argument he says that Hawaiian cannot be included as an African American if it was to be included as any other race it was linked to the Asian race, and then he points out he let one Asian be an alternate, even though she never actually worked on the verdict! The thing that this whole argument shows is that, certainly race was on his mind in his selection since it was a large part of his argument in defense of it! ( he don’t even look black! We gave him an Asian that’s close to Hawaiian!) The end result was an all white jury! Incidentally Hawaiians are not of Asian decent! They are indigenous people, they migrated from the Marquesas islands! They are defined by U.S. federal law as Native Americans! But the point is none of that should have ever mattered! It did! (Since the time of his appeals the defendant has located his biological father, the adoption records were mistaken, he is Samoan, which is Polynesian as well! They are still not Asian). The numbers that are relevant to this issue are as follows; .07 % of the panel was African American, and .07% was Hispanic. 2.8%of the population in Lancaster county is African American, and 5.7% is Hispanic. (With another 5.8% representing all other minorities) the jury pool did not even come close to accurately representing the actual people in that county.

Letters from defendant to Kim Kistler; several letters written by the defendant to his former girlfriend Kim Kistler were entered into evidence and use against him. The point is simple here. One, at no time does he admit guilt in these letters, he tries to explain to Kim that there are other things that could happen and what he was willing to do. The DA argues this is a confession! Yet he never EVER confesses to anything! The real problem the defendant has is that one of the letters was EDITED by police or Kims lawyer. Only half the letter was shown. The defendant wants to other half to be shown because in the other half the defendant talks about KIMS GUILT and his willingness to TAKE THE RAP FOR HER!! If this was a confession it was not about defendants guilt! Defense has to ask the court to force them to

9.

produce the rest of the letter or disallow them to use the half they used!

Missing witness Kathy Gehr; Kathy is Kims sister. During the trial the DA says that defendant wrote a list of people that he gave to Kim to track down. Kathy tells a different story, she says it was Kim that wrote the list and that she took Kim to look for these people. Then she gave statements that incriminated Kim in the manner that she reacted once she tracked down the victim. However when the time came for the trial and the defense asked the DA where this witness was WHO WAS UNDER SUBPOENA BY THE STATE TO TESTIFY! they claimed they did not know where she was! They said all we know is she moved to North carolina and we do not know how to get in touch with her! The judge did nothing! The court file has on record the subpoena from the state, it reads as follows; issued on August 8, 1997, and gives her exact address in NC. It tells her to be available between September 2-19, 1997, (but likely between September 8-19, 1997) it further states, "the district attorney will contact you of the day". Yet Det. Savage lied to the court and said he did not know where she was. Why? Because she hurt the credibility of the states star witness, some thing the DA did not want the jury to hear, the truth!

Interestingly enough, when Kim went to trial a few months later, guess who they suddenly found? Kathy Gehr was a witness for the state against Kim in her trial. Kims trial vs. defendants trial; a picture emerges after Kims trial that shows how much the DA actually knew that Kim was lying. Yet he still offered her to the jury as a truthful witness. Here are some examples; in defendants trial he told the jury "if you believe Kim your analysis as jurors is over". At defendants trial Kim constantly minimized her participation in finding the victim, denied any knowledge there was a murder to be committed, denied she had any motive, said she was in fear of the defendant, said she only waited so long to talk to police because she wanted to be sure defendant was in jail before she talked, NOT because she was told he was having affairs, or telling on her for committing the murder. In Kims trial the DA would suddenly argue a completely different case. Saying Kim lied in numerous aspects, minimizing her own guilt was inconsistent with evidence and her own statements. Her testimony was inconsistent with her sisters Statement. Part of Kims testimony was "unbelievable", " absolutely implausible", her actions are inconsistent with being frightened, "Kim expands her own lies". They also go on to say how kim did manage to destroy the evidence that actually implicates her in the murder!(referring to a jacket she says she got rid of ) other things to look at; At defendants trial the DA told the jury that Kim waited until she was told by police that defendant was in jail to tell them what really happened. At her trial the DA told the judge that was a lie! No cop ever told her when defendant was in jail, she did not start to implicate the defendant until the police told her he was having affairs and was blaming her for the murder. In defendants trial the DA told the jury Kim saw the murder on the 11 o’clock news the night of the murder. This was attempt to explain the "is he dead" phone call. In Kims trial the DA says that was a lie, Kim did not see it on TV until the following Tuesday! In defendants trial the DA told the jury Kim told defendant that he could still be charged after the murder. To make her seem like the "reasonable one". In Kims trial the DA told the judge Kim only knew that after the murder from Steve Breit. In defendants trial the DA introduced witnesses that said they heard "male" voices arguing in the area around time of the crime. This was to show that Kim was not there! In Kims trial the DA told the judge the crime was a surprise to there was no arguing! The male voices could have been Martins or his brother. Not the defendants as alleged in his trial. In defendants trial the DA constantly told the jury Kim was telling the truth and could be believed. In Kims trial the DA points out how it took DA Steadman 4 separate visits with Kim to correct "inconsistencies!". In defendants trial Kim gave a very detailed account of where he was dropped off and picked up. In Kims trial the DA points out that Kim had said to several people that defendant was coming from the wrong direction, away from crime scene. In defendants trial the DA told the jury that after Kim knew he was in jail she was telling the truth! In Kims trial the DA points out that as late as march 1997 Kim is still telling people she does not know if defendant did it, but by trial time she is suddenly sure. In defendants trial the DA says Kim was motivated to testify out of a sens e of duty to the Martin family. In Kims trial the DA tells the judge Kim was motivated out of revenge for being betrayed!

10.

In defendants trail Kim gave a story that never put her close enough to the victim to see the color of the stripes on his shirt. She also would have no idea of the location or type of stab would he suffered until after told by police. In Kims trial DA introduced a letter from Kim written BEFORE any discovery was filed and before Kim would have had any knowledge of those two aforementioned details, in which she describes the color of Martins shirt and the location and type of wound! The point is this, had the jury had some or all of this information presented to them, they would have disbelieved Kim and the defendant would be acquitted of the charge. The DA knew this and broke every rule in the book to make sure the jury would never hear these things.

Kims deal. The jury was told one thing from Kim, that in exchange fro her testimony she was facing a 40-80 year sentence. This was done to give the impression she was doing this because it was right NOT because it was to get away with anything. HOWEVER in letters that would turn up after trial( the DA had in his possession but refused to turn over to defense) and turn up in testimony from Kim herself during her appeals, she was told by her lawyer, "I am gonna walk you out of that courtroom", in other words they are not gonna convict you! Kim was always of the believe she was going to get off! Even after the trial they still came to her and said they had a 2-10 year deal for her. She had already served a year so she would be looking at less than a year in the county left. She refused the deal, showing she still thought she was getting off! THIS was not what the defendants jury was led to believe. They were under the impression that this woman at a MINIMUM was going to spend 40 years in jail. That weighs a lot when you put that on the credibility scale!

Kims disappearing charges; in the opening segments the prosecutor tells the judge, " oh we are not going to drop the intimidation of witness charges!", referring to a charge they apparently threatened Kim with but NEVER FILED ON THE RECORD! In other words, they use it to keep her in line but never put it on paper so the jury will never have to hear about it! The " is he dead" phone call; Kim had given an early statement to the police where she says that she received a phone call from defendant asking, is he dead? Two things that should be discussed here. One the phone call happens at 10:03 pm, almost 1 hour before the 11 o’clock news comes on. (The time Kim would say she actually heard about it on the news!) There is NO RECORD OF ANY PHONE CALL GETTING THRU TO KIMS AFTER 11 THAT NIGHT! ( the last call on record was at 10:03, the next call was at 12:08 and by Kims own testimony she was not home at that time to answer, in fact she would not talk to defendant until the next day, defendant called several times but never got thru.)

So if the phone call happened BEFORE the 11 o’clock news, how would Kim know if he was dead: secondly even if she did get a call after 11, why would HE be asking HER if he was dead? IF he just cut out this guys throat why would he ask her?? Should not it be the other way around??

Kims affidavit against Maxine Snook and Paul Janowski; during the murder trial the prosecution introduced two witnesses to ID. a shirt found at the crime scene as one the KNEW AS A FACT TO BELONG TO DEFENDANT! Maxine said she could not ID. the shirt but I.D’d a pair of "cameo" pants that the police had in their possession as a pair she had seen before. ( she says in the summer of 1995). Paul gave a positive ID of the shirt and says he too seen it in the summer of 1995. Neither one of these witnesses claimed to have any contact with the defendant past 1995! Kim herself would submit an affidavit after the trial to defendant stating the items they both ID’d were purchased in the FALL OF 1996! There by making it impossible for them to have seen these items. The defense did nothing about this on direct appeal ! Turkey Kill tapes: during the earlier interviews with police while Kim was "confessing " she told police that she and defendant stopped in a local Turkey Kill mini market BEFORE the murder and he went in to buy phone cards. The police went to the store and seized the surveillance tapes from the store for that time and date. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR ON THOSE TAPES! Kim would never again repeat that statement and the police "forgot" to mention it in trial as well as "lost " the tapes and any interviews from the store employee’s.

DNA evidence; The defense never requested to test ANY forensic evidence in the trial! A shirt was sent

11.

in to be tested for DNA In a large blood "swipe" on it. (As if a knife was wiped off on the shirt!) The test came back UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY DNA! The blood vials and the shirt was sent back to the police dept. that was in charge of prosecuting the case. The cop in charge was Pete Savage. ( his brother was involved in the Lisa Lambert case). The cop in charge of the evidence locker in this police department.... ?? ... Peter Savage! Four months later the shirt shows back up to be tested; a "new stain was to be looked at. ( pinpoint blood droplets had now been :"found"! An earlier examination by the states own expert found none!) Now all of a sudden they had a DNA match to the victim! The defense wants to test these "samples:" There were also hairs found at the scene. Some on the shirt and some in the defendants transportation for that weekend. The prosecution claims they belong to the victim. THEY NEVER TESTED THEM FOR DNA! The defense wants to test them to prove they are NOT the victims!

Altered statements; There are several items in the ‘discovery’ that have out of sequence page #’s and altered pages #’s as well. In some areas’s the pages are just missing, and in one instance there is a clear sheet of paper placed over half of a document to block out half of what is on there. WHY?? If they got the right guy, why tamper with evidence? Why hide things if everything they told the public is the truth!?? The defendant wants these missing documents turned over to him.

Good character evidence; During the trial the defendant was constantly portrayed as the bad guy. That was not enough for the DA he went so far as to portray the victim as the good guy so they jury would clearly know who they were hear to hate! In doing so he left out in his own police reports several items that painted a picture of the victim that was anything but nice. Now the defendant does not believe he should take time to attack the victim in his trial, BUT does believe that the DA is bound to offer the WHOLE truth to the jury! In other words, if he is going to tell the jury about the victim he should tell the whole truth. If he for some reason is afraid of the truth then DO NOT introduce "good" character evidence! This way the defendant cannot offer it either! BUT when you do offer it, if the defendant has information to dispute that he has the right to present it to the jury. In other words the defendant would never seek to speak ill of the dead as a defense, But once the DA introduced evidence that the victim was this "saint", the defense has no choice but to introduce the police reports that the DA filed as discovery, not to "bash" the victim, but to show the DA is lying. In regard to that the defendant offers the following; A.) An interview where a friend and co-worker of the victim describes a "date rape" that he was told about from the victim, that took place between the victim and a girl he talked about. B.)A co-worker talks about a time when victim was aggressive to her when she turned down his romantic advances. C.)An interview with a best friend of the victim , an admitted drug dealer, who spoke of a violent relationship between victim and his brother. D.) Interview with a friend of victim who spoke of an area that is known to police as a "drug traffic" area where he took victim to "pay a debt". E.)A report from police that state the victim was known to buy sex from illegal massage parlor prostitutes. F.) Report from a friend of the victim that state he was trying to meet with one of the witnesses for the state before the guilty plea and that he was planning to sue the bar the fight occurred at.

Eyewitnesses; Several people placed Kim Kistler at the scene the night of the murder. There were several descriptions of various types of vehicles that were seen in the area that night. NOT ONE WITNESS ever placed defendant or the truck he was driving in that area, ( except Kim). The only thing found at the scene connecting defendant was one of his hairs on a shirt that KIM herself said that defendant wore that shirt several times! Her hair was also found on the shirt with other unidentified hairs. The police dusted the car for prints and found none!