Trial Evidence

Exhibit 151 DSHF October 21, 2008 and December 9, 2008

 

These two pages are part of the case file compiled by Marsha Garst that should always remain open to copy or view by the defense to ensure transparency.  As noted on items #96 and #103 (highlighted) instructions per Marsha Garst is to “not provide the call log of telephone calls Hockman made from jail to her defense team” 

Theory/Fact of Document: One can’t help but wonder if you have nothing to hide, why keep the call logs from the defense? We believe she doesn’t want the call logs to reveal that the actual calls made from jail may have been tampered with by deleting crucial evidence in Hockman’s favor.

Exhibit 151 DSHF


Exhibit 146, 147 and 168 Letter to Dr. Benson

Exhibit 146, 147 and 168 Letter to Dr. Benson

  1. The document dated June 17, 2011 was written by Hockman to medical examiner Dr. Benson.  Hockman is asking Dr. Benson to answer and elaborate on information that was in his report on the autopsy of Dustin Stanley.
  2. The document dated June 20, 2011 was a response to Hockman’s request to provide the requested information.
  3. The document dated August 12, 2011 was written by Hockman to the Attorney General’s office asking that they intervene and order Dr. Benson to respond to Hockman’s request.
  4. The document dated August 19, 2011 from the Attorney General’s office to Hockman states that they have intervened and that Dr. Benson is in the process of responding to Hockman’s request.
  5. The document dated September 6, 2011 is the response from Dr. Benson answering Hockman’s questions.

Theory/Fact of Document: The most important documents are dated June 17, 2011 (FOIA request to Dr. Benson from Hockman) and the response from Dr. Benson dated September 6, 2011.  To take into full context follow Dr. Benson’s testimony in the attached trial transcripts.

You can clearly see serious inconsistencies between Dr. Benson’s testimony at trial in January, 2009 and his response to Hockman’s questions.  Let’s delve deeper into the comparison.

TT pg. 358 line 10:  1) Dr. Benson tells the jury that on gunshot wound ‘E’ (last shot that entered Stanley’s body) that Stanley was in anatomic position that as on the diagrams. (Body diagrams were shown to the jury but nothing explained by Marsha Garst that in order for the body of Stanley to be in this position it would mean he was standing on his own two feet.)  Keep this information in mind as you go through the rest of the answers by Dr. Benson.

TT pg. 337 line 18:  2) Dr. Benson tells the jury that injuries to Stanley known as “blunt force” injuries are caused by “impact or a scraping motion”, and in his opinion they occurred before death. (Note: that during opening and closing arguments Marsha Garst told Hockman’s jury that Stanley was struck in the head by Hockman with “something” before she shot him.  No viable proof was offered in Dr. Benson’s report to support this outrageous allegation.)

TT pg. 33 line 19:  3) Investigator Brown responds to Marsha Garst’s line of questioning about the medical examiner cannot state the distance a shooter may be standing from an autopsy. (Note: It’s clear Marsha Garst asked the question about the distance Hockman was standing when the gun was fired in hopes the investigator would say it was 2 feet or less.)

TT  pg. 301 line 3 &TT pg. 354 line 3:   4) Dr. Benson is answering questions by Marsha Garst pertaining to each shot and whether or not Stanley had blood pressure.  On each shot A, B, C and D (circled), Dr. Benson opines that Stanley had blood pressure when each shot entered the body, excluding shot E which he states at TT pg. 358 line 14 that Stanley had “very little to no blood pressure” and that means the heart is no longer beating. (Note: If you recall from number 1 above, Dr. Benson testified under oath that Stanley was in anatomic position (on his own two feet) on ALL shots including shot E.)

TT pg. 360 line 10:  5) Hockman’s counsel Bruce Albertson followed up on the opinion of Dr. Benson that Stanley was already deceased having taken his last breath before the final shot E entered his body.

TT 359 line 3:  6) Dr. Benson tells the jury that Stanley lived no longer than ten or fifteen minutes at most.  Further stating that with treatment “it’s possible” Stanley may have survived.

The signed document dated September 6, 2011, by Dr. Benson pertaining to questions Hockman submitted doubting the findings/testimony of Dr. Benson at trial, show a great deal of inconsistency about facts that a jury should have heard.  If Hockman’s jury believed the testimony of Dr. Benson that Stanley had no blood pressure on shot E, eluding to an allegation that Hockman shot Stanley while he was down and deceased, this would show malice, which by law is needed to find Hockman guilty of murder.  It doesn’t take a college educated law student or a forensic pathologist to know that if a person is on their own two feet as Stanley was on all 5 shots, that he cannot be down on the ground with no blood pressure.  Dr. Benson was firm on #5 of his statement “Dead people do not have blood pressure.”  So either Dr. Benson committed perjury at the trial or his statement years later are lies.  At any rate, Hockman deserves a new trial based on this issue alone.  Furthermore, Dr. Benson vehemently opined at trial he knew Stanley had blood pressure on shots A-D, but not on E, yet his statement years later states, “I can’t tell if the injuries (shots in this case) Stanley sustained had blood pressure.”  Dr. Benson opining that Stanley lived ten to fifteen minutes but recanting stating, “It’s not possible for me to tell how long Stanley lived after being shot” is unbelievable. (Note: 911 calls for service to Hockman’s residence shows it took on average 12-17 minutes for help to arrive.  Even if Hockman called for help after shooting Stanley the plausibility of him surviving would’ve been slim.)  A jury places a lot of weight on the testimony of a medical examiner and Marsha Garst knew this and used this to her advantage.  She has tried plenty of murder cases over the last 20 years sending many of those convicted to their impending death.  Aren’t you the least bit concerned about how many of them may have been convicted based on the testimony of Dr. Benson?


Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 171 and 172 Calls for Service at Hockman’s home

 

Exhibits 1 and 2 are written statements from 2 investigators.  K.J. Garber (female) and T.L. Spitler (male) who is the lead investigator for Marsha Garst.

Exhibit 1 dated July 25, 2008 states that Garber on the instruction of Sheriff Farley contacted ECC and was told 3 calls for service were made at Hockman’s home on Grassland Lane.

Exhibit 2 dated July 25, 2008 states that Spitler claims to have learned that 2 calls for service were made at Hockmans’ home on Grassland Lane.

Exhibit 3 is an incident report for 911 call for service on June 21, 2008. (Note: It took an Officer 12 minutes to arrive.  Can you imagine what type of violence can be inflicted on a woman by a man during those 12 minutes?

Exhibit 4 is an incident report for 911 call for service on March 23, 2008. (Note: It took an officer 15 minutes to arrive.)

Exhibit 5 Hockman requested a copy of all 3 calls for service and received a CD.

Exhibit 6 A response to Hockman’s follow-up request asking that the 3 calls for service be transcribed.

Exhibit 7 A request on behalf of Hockman by her mother for FOIA information that was denied due to an active investigation by Marsha Garst.

Exhibit 171 A letter to Hockman’s mother from Jim Junkins, Director of Rockingham County Emergency Communications.

Exhibit 172 Hockman received this document showing what the CAD records showed for calls from February 2008 – April 2008.

Theory/Fact of Document:  The point of these documents is to show that 3 calls for service occurred at Hockman’s home.  Two investigators, one female and the other male received conflicting information on calls for service.  Marsha Garst had received 3 calls for service from the ECC, but only provided 2 to Hockman’s counsel.  For Marsha Garst to withhold a 911 call proves it would not have benefited her case and would have allowed the jury to hear “best evidence” of Stanley’s extremely violent nature.  Hockman’s jury should have been given the opportunity to listen to the 911 call showing them who Stanley could become.

Note: As of recently, Hockman’s family obtained the IB report for the missing 911 call (April 23, 2008) Marsha never disclosed to Hockman’s defense which is displayed on the homepage.

Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 171 and 172 Calls for Service at Hockman’s home

 


Exhibits 26 and 30 DOFS COA December 12, 2008 Statement by Investigator Kevin Shifflett

 

On the DOFS certificate of analysis dated December 12, 2008, item 29 shows where the firearm was tested for blood and DNA.  It clearly states, “no blood was indicated on the firearm or magazine.”

Theory/Fact of Document:  At trial, Marsha Garst repeatedly told the jury that Hockman shot Dustin Stanley “at close range” from between 2 to 5 feet away.

It’s a fact that a person shot at close range would leave behind what is called “blowback” (blood, tissue, hair, etc.)  This document clearly states “no blood” on the firearm which indicates Hockman did not fire at close range, leaving the jury to believe the flat out lie told by Marsha Garst.

 

On the statement (page 10 of 17) by Investigator Kevin Shifflett, the highlighted portions indicate based on one of the bullets lodged in the interior bedroom door jamb (as you enter the home from the garage) that the shooter (Hockman) had to be standing at a minimum distance of 10 feet 8 inches to a maximum distance of 14 feet 2 inches.  It further states that Hockman’s BMW, if it had been parked in the garage would not have prevented the firing of the weapon.  And lastly it states that another investigator, Kim Garber stated she located a casing on the garage floor also indicating the shooting took place there.                                                                          

 Theory/Fact of Document:  At trial, Marsha Garst repeatedly told the jury that Hockman shot Dustin Stanley “at close range” from between 2 to 5 feet away.

Marsha Garst had knowledge of what her investigator found but chose to ignore it.

Exhibits 26 and 30 DOFS COA December 12, 2008 Statement by Investigator Kevin Shifflett

Leave a Comment

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

Loading Facebook Comments ...