Dear Marsha Garst

 

 

Dear Marsha Garst,

In 2011 you successfully had me removed from the honor wing where I lived and taken out of the dog program that I loved. Both of these I earned with good behavior.
You called Warden Hobbs after you found out that my family posted the letter I wrote you (click here) and some proof showing you obtained my conviction by nefarious means on the Commonwealth Coverup website.
Commonwealth Coverup is back and you can’t stop the public, those who voted you in office from knowing the truth about how you used altered, never tested, destroyed and fabricated evidence along with coerced and perjured testimony to win high profile convictions.
After my removal from the honor wing and dog program, you told the media to write about how convicted murders shouldn’t be allowed to be around dogs and have privileges such as living in an honor wing afforded to them. You told the media I was removed because I lied about being a dog handler. For those who believe what is published with no facts to prove otherwise you gain a loyal follower. It’s now my time to set the record straight! A copy of the dog agreement proving I was a part of the dog program is right here (click here). The fact that you can abuse your power to contact the warden of this prison and dictate what program I can be a part of, or where I can live is beyond comprehension and above your pay grade. It shows the lengths you’re willing to go preventing me from exposing the corrupt prosecutor that you are. You did these things to send a clear message that you can make the life for me in prison more unbearable than it already is.
Since 2011 I contemplated giving up on the idea that the truth would ever be told. Over the years I have read all about the cases you have won plastered all over the front page of the local newspaper and I recall feeling sick to my stomach as I read about the repeat offenders who lined up to testify for you and the statements made by those convicted whose words sounded eerily familiar to mine. The more I thought about moving forward I realized this isn’t just about my case anymore. It’s all about all those people convicted before and after me who also didn’t receive a fair trial. You sentenced some to death, a few still waiting to be executed and others like me waiting to die for offenses that by law were excusable, justified or never committed. You refuse to lose to the truth. You label those you convict as “cold blooded murderers” who don’t deserve a second chance to walk among society. How do you sleep at night or look in the mirror knowing people have been executed or are on death row or waiting to die because you can’t accept defeat?
I refuse to allow you to silence the truth any longer. The public has a right to know the indisputable facts. As a prosecutor, you get to tell your version of a story to the media and a jury. You slander the character of those you seek a conviction for, not letting the public make their own assessment. No more! I will be the voice and stand up for all of us, starting with my story, my truth in hopes of stopping you from destroying more lives and those who love us.
At the close of trial before the jury deliberated you stated to them “you must make a finding on facts, not emotion” yet you withheld the facts needed for them to make a true verdict. You had no right to deceive them and I can only hope they view this website and reach out to the powers above you and express themselves. We will both meet our maker one day. I have confessed my sins and asked for forgiveness. Have you?

Please take a few minutes to browse the documents below.

Exhibit 178

US Dept Justice Letter

Affidavit of Rebecca Byrd Neal

State Bar Inquiry by Rebecca Byrd Neal

State Bar Inquiry by Donna Hockman

State Bar Letter by Donna Hockman

State Bar Response to Donna Hockman

Freedom of Information Act Denial Letter July 2011

Exhibit 164 – Freedom of Information Act Request LetterFreedom of Information Act Denial Letter June 2014

Letter to Pete Delea

Freedom of Information Act Request Letter by Jean Litten

Affidavit of Jean Litten

Exhibit 191 – Freedom of Information Act Request Letter Jean Litten

Letter to Kenneth Cuccinelli August 2011

Letter to Mayor Ted Byrd November 2013

Formal Complaint to Kenneth Cuccinelli November 2011

4 Comments

  1. admin (Post author)

    the truth is slowly coming to light, much much more to come. stay tuned

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Here is also another case that was screwed up by her: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/119.P.pdf

    See Page 13, & 14.

    Gilkes claimed that he had been coerced into testifying against Teleguz by the prosecutor, who “made clear that if [he]
    14
    did not, [he] would have been the one on death row today, not Teleguz.” J.A. 3546. Per, Gilkes “[m]ost of [his] testimony was fabricated,” id., and he “said those things because Marsha Garst told [him] that she was only interested in information that put this murder on Ivan Teleguz.” J.A. 3484.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      and here is more:

      I said those things because Marsha Garst told me that she was only interested in information that put this murder on Ivan Teleguz. During at least one interrogation of me by Marsha Garst, she directed the investigator to turn off the tape recorder. While the tape was off, she told me that it was Ivan Teleguz that she was interested in. She already knew that Michael Hetrick had done the killing because she had his DNA at the scene. She said that any deal I got would depend on me giving her Ivan Teleguz, and she told me to give her as much about Ivan Teleguz as I could.
      J.A. 3484.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        In other words, the district court had before it affidavits asserting that Gilkes and Safanov had falsely testified about Teleguz’s guilt at the behest of the prosecution. But the recanting affiants chose not to testify and were not subject to cross-examination. Meanwhile, the government witnesses implicated in Gilkes’s and Safanov’s affidavits took the stand and gave reasonable accounts that the district court believed. The district court therefore credited the prosecution’s version of events and discredited Gilkes’s and Safanov’s versions, specifically finding the recanting affidavits “unreliable.” Teleguz, 2014 WL 3548982, at *10.
        When we remanded this matter for

        Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading Facebook Comments ...