Justice for Peter Wlasiuk 

 noting that there were no direct witnesses to the alleged murder.
Broome County Judge Martin E. Smith
Click here to edit subtitle


view:  full / summary


Posted by [email protected] on December 9, 2013 at 5:35 PM Comments comments (1)

The Exhibits from the case can be viewed  on THIS LINK

Some words from Peter

Posted by [email protected] on November 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM Comments comments (6)


Although my conscious is as clear as it has been since that fatal day when My Patty was taken from me, because of this clarity, recently I find my heart and thoughts to be conflicted and profess with the utmost honesty, I truely do not know why I hang on any longer fighting the fight against all odds and statistics.

I have been recently asked by the principle advocate to prepare and provide a daily diary of my life here behind the walls of Attica. I inquired as to what purpose this would serve and was advised that it would help onlookers to get to know me and relate with me on a personal level. I find this troublesome for different reasons.

I don't think it would be beneficial to ask anyone, especially my father and 3 daughters, to experience any of the horrors I have seen and see on a daily basis. This experience starting on April 3, 2002 to present, is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. What good could come from asking someone to partake in a nightmare that no matter how hard they try, they just can not wake up from. Everyday for the past 11 years I have fought hard not to become a product of my environment, just as hard as I have fought not to fall victim to it. So, to have to re-live each day by memorializing them on paper would seriously infiltrate what pride and honor I have left, while making each day twice as long and that much harder.

You might think that a man in my position would be more than eager to invoke and accept sympathy, but my pride and conscience won't let me. I am of the belief that curiousity, compassion, and concern are the only driving characteristics that will validate cause for an individual to veiw the circumstances and evidence of my case, enabling them to come to a reliable understanding of how an innocent man could be wrongfully convicted in Chenango County.

Why will it take these 3 traits?

Curiousity, --It is so extremely rare, almost unheard of for a defendant of murder charges to get a retrial, let alone 2 retrials. Think about it for a moment, 2 reversals, 2 retrials, 3 trials in all, One has to question if only out of curiousity, what is so wrong with the evidence and facts of this case that it has taken 3 trials in a world where this is practically unheard of.

Compassion-- When one is faced with the mountain of exculpatory evidence that is now being provided to them, one must be willing to set aside their hatred and prejudice that has been drumed into them by the media and prosecution in order to even attempt to sift through it with open mind, hence allowing the truth to finally unfold before their very own eyes.

Concern-- One should question themselves, if Peter Wlasiuk is so guilty of this crime, then how incompetent must Joe McBride, James Lloyd, Ted Ellingson, Richard Cobb and other members of law enforcement be that they botched this case so bad, allowing it to return so many times and costing so much money? Concerned that, if this isn't a case that they botched as they would have you believe, then to what extents did they go to, fabricate evidence, hide evidence, tailor testimony, intimidate witnesses and so much more, that the truth of my innocence keeps poking through. Concerned as that so many financial gains and career advancements were given as a result of this sole conviction. And finally perhaps, concerned that if they convicted an innocent man, how hard could it be for them to do the same thing to you, or one of your loved ones, just because they had the power, resources, and personal desire to do so.

Throughout this entire ordeal I have never begged anyone for anything and, hopefully I have shown my utmost gratitude, as best as I could from where I am, to the few that have stood by me, it is important to me that they know how important and special they are, but at this time, all I can ask of the people who have misjudged me, pre-judged me, or just choose not to care either way, please look at the facts and evidence being placed before you. If not out of concern, if not out of compassion, then just curiousity. If you disect it, scrutinize it, ask questions of it, and relate to it, then I believe it will eliminate all of the confusion that has been caused.

Due to the utilization of this modern technology, something that hadn't even been invented when they took my life away, you now have the capability to sit and view the evidence in a comfortable setting of your choice and see how this wrongful conviction of an innocent man of Chenango County occurred. This is the very same evidence that Joe McBride, James Lloyd, Ted Ellingson and Richard Cobb chose to hide, gloss over, and just plain ignore. They did not do this accidently, as a result of their training, experience, corruption and corroboration of each other, they knew that when they couldn't convince you, all they had to do was confuse you. With the small town newspaper at their beck and call, this has been one of their greatest tools in accomplishing this. As a result of this forum, you now have a choice. A choice to view for yourself and make an educated decision as to whether or not your hatred and prejudice towards me is justified, or have you been sadly following the residual affects of these master manipulations.

No matter what your position is, I am not asking you to like me or love me, I am not even asking youto rely soley on my words, I have been branded a liar by Joe McBride because I tried to cover for and protect My Patty. As he opinionated in open forum, no man in his right mind would lie to protect a loved one in a situation such as this, unless they themselves had done something wrong. I'm putting it all out there and asking you to look at the actual evidence provided to me by them. Let the evidence be what guides you in making your own determination.

As to what a man in his right mind would do to protect a loved one? I cannot speak for anyone else. All I can say is that, I find it hard to believe that others wouldn't have done something such as this to protect the one they love. In my defense, to this day I am torn as to whether I was right or wrong for trying to protect My Patty. The only way I can explain it to help you understand, at the time I was of the belief that sometimes it was more noble to tell a small lie, rather then deliver or face a painful truth. If this was a mistake on my behalf, then I have paid for it and then some ,but I am no murderer, and I am definately not guilty of this crime they have contrived out of hatred for me and the selfish need they posses to advance their careers.

I was recently asked by an advocate as to what my hopes and desires were and what it was that I wished to accomplish by finally being able to speak out. The answer is a difficult one because, everything I could want is in the past, and the past is dead. God knows there hasn't been a day since, that I haven't wished that I had saved My Patty, or had drowned right beside her. So, I guess at this juncture the best that I could hope for is to clear my name for the sake of my father and daughters. It may be a long time before they admit the truth, they have far too much invested in their wrongful conviction. The few thus far that have taken the time to review this case, now know who is the principle architects of this wrongful conviction, but I fear that if more don't step forward to help, then the truth will go unexposed, silence is the worst enemy of hope.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and if for some reason you still feel confused, ask questions, I will make sure you receive any and all enlightment you need to make an informative decision. As to the people who have step forward and taken the time to support me, Thank you, you have made me feel as if I am a loner who isn't meant to be alone.


Peter M. Wlasiuk

Alcoholism and this case

Posted by [email protected] on November 6, 2013 at 6:05 AM Comments comments (0)


When he took the stand in his own defense, Peter Wlasiuk admitted he lied in early statements he made to police.

Wlasiuk said he did this "to downplay her drinking." Patricia had five convictions for driving while intoxicated on her record,

The trial has presented several witnesses who talked about Patricia's problems with alcohol.

Because another arrest might cause Patricia to lose her driver's license and her nursing license at The Hospital in Sidney, Wlasiuk said, "I was scared for Patty." He said he thought she was still alive when he told the story.


"I lied to him," Wlasiuk said. "I told him Patty had swerved to avoid a deer" before the truck landed in the lake

"I told Ted (deputy Ellingsen) Patty swerved to miss the deer. That was the lie," he said. "Everything else was true."

Source of information can be viewed HERE 

Anyone with any knowledge of Alcholism and the effects it has on family members would easily be able to understand a spouse or parent wanting to protect the addcit.  Covering up for the alcoholic is the number one thing that spouses, children and parents do.  They think they are protecting their loved one from perhaps losing their job, their children, their driving license, their standing in the community etc.

With Alcholism in the family there is also a great deal of shame and fear for the family.  

With alcoholism every one in the family is living a lie.  This is not because people are bad. This is because people do not understand what is happening. They do not want anyone to know what is happening.  If they just try to "fix " things so no one knows is what they try most. 

To people who have never suffered alcoholism or the effects of it, this may be hard to understand. However, given the figures for the disease of Alcoholism in USA and worldwide, there cannot be many people who have not had even a friend who is living with this problem in their home. You may wonder why they do or allow certain things to continue.  This is were it is time for people to research the full facts for themselves. Do not take my word for it. Its all there for anyone to see, if they just look.

There are some people who will never attempt to understand, and think that the person who drinks too much is weak willed or bad.  This is not the truth. People with alcoholism are human beings who are suffering. Usually they are trying to escape from painful experiences that have happened throughout their lives from childhood onwards.  Alcohol makes them forget briefly.  It is a vicious circle.

It is an alcoholism fact that:


Alcohol is the number one drug problem in America.


There are more than 12 million alcoholics in the U.S.


Three-fourths of all adults drink alcohol, and 6% of them are alcoholics.


Americans spend $197 million each day on alcohol.


In the United States, a person is killed in an alcohol-related car accident every 30 minutes.

In addition, the drinking and behavior of the alcoholic affects the family members of alcoholics. That means the alcoholics spouse and children suffer due to the alcoholic’s condition. So while there are 12 million alcoholics, there are an estimated 40 – 50 million people affected by alcoholism.


Having an alcoholic family member is never easy. It means watching someone you care about fall deeper into an addiction, lose interest in life and become a danger to themselves or others

‘Covering up’ issues by taking on the responsibilities that your partner can’t or won’t do lets your loved one ‘get away’ with bad decisions and poor behaviour without ever having to deal with the consequences of his or her actions.

One form of family denial is protection against exposure. Protection means not talking about the problem as a method of sheltering oneself from the situation. Exposure means not only experiencing the problem, but recognizing it, discussing it, and overcoming any effects. In the alcoholic home, the non-alcoholic spouse will often attempt to protect the children from exposure


"The alcoholic comes home late and he is drunk, too drunk in fact to get the key into the front door lock. After several futile attempts, he decides that it is a lost cause. Since he does not want anyone in the house to know that he is too drunk to unlock his own door, he makes a brilliant decision that solves his problem. He goes to sleep in the front yard!"

How would you react?

The Rescuer


The "rescuer" doesn't let the incident become a "problem." Since she has been waiting up for him anyway, she goes out in the yard, gets the alcoholic up, cleans him up, and puts him into bed. That way the neighbors never see him passed out in the flower bed!

She never mentions the incident to him or anybody else. If anyone else mentions it, she denies there is a problem. She lies for him, covers up for his mistakes, and protects him from the world.


As the problems increase and his drinking gets worse, she takes on responsibilities that were once his. She may get a job or work extra hours to pay the bills. And if he gets in trouble with the law, she will move heaven and earth to come up with his bail.

Source: Games Alcoholic Families Play 

Do you ever lie to cover up the drinking?

The spouse may spend a lot of time covering up for their poorly functioning partner.

When family members become concerned about a loved one’s alcohol use, they will almost always do all the wrong things. Operating out of a sense of loyalty and love, they will unwittingly enable the disease to progress. Inevitably, the alcohol or other drug use becomes worse.

There are countless examples of how this may occur.

Two Phases of Enabling

If you are a family member of someone suffering from Alcoholism please get help.  Al Anon Family Groups Help the families of problem drinkers.

The murder trial experience By: Tyler Murphy, Sun Staff Writer

Posted by [email protected] on November 5, 2013 at 7:55 PM Comments comments (0)

These are  important excerpts taken from this article from the 2nd Trial

Many I run into outside of the court never seemed very surprised at the verdict; makes sense I guess, given the first trial was so illicit with prejudicial information it was rescinded by a higher court. Public opinion and the media, however have no such mechanisms.

I was shooed away from the main lobby of the courthouse along with a handful of others who were patiently waiting during the deliberation because the jury could be heard debating amongst themselves in aggressively raised voices just down the hall. At one point an attendant expressed concern over the sounds of disagreement and was lightheartedly told that unless blood was coming from under the bottom of the door, they can’t interfere.

A juror I spoke with after the verdict told me he didn’t think a unanimous decision was possible until 20 minutes before it was made, because three of the members were firmly under the impression that the defendant lacked intent.

I’ve had my ear bent to “off record” gossip and gained a peek at the occasional “insider information” on both sides of the courtroom’s aisle.

I’m glad Wlasiuk’s case was appealed; if he really didn’t get a fair chance, he should be allowed one, despite the criticisms.

Published: September 30th, 2008

Full article HERE 

CPR: Sternum Fractures

Posted by [email protected] on November 5, 2013 at 8:15 AM Comments comments (0)

Two forensic pathologists, Dr. James Terzian and Dr. Michael Baden, have said that based upon her injuries _ abrasions, contusions and a broken sternum _ they believe she died from being smothered.

However, these injuries are also consistent with a car accident and also CPR.

A sternal fracture is a cracked or broken sternum often caused by an injury; the fracture is commonly seen in vehicle accidents when the steering wheel hits the driver's chest. The sternum, or breast bone, is the long vertical bone in the center of the chest. It is attached to the ribs, forming a protective enclosure for vital organs and tissue, including the heart and lungs.  SOURCE 

These are posts taken from Nurses discussing CPR

I did have a question though, while looking into taking a CPR class today, someone mentioned that actual CPR, done correctly, will almost ALWAYS end up cracking the injured's sternum, and that "frankly," (that was the term she used) until it cracks, you won't get the best compression.

The last time I did CPR I broke multiple ribs with the first compression. By the end of the code I had broken almost her entire rib cage.

Yes you can feel when you break bones. I felt distinct pops under my hands with compressions.

CPR is brutal, for both the patient and the caregiver. The first few times I did chest compressions my arms were very sore the next day! Frankly, if you aren't breaking a few ribs (on the patient!) you probably aren't doing it right. It's very tough to get good, effective compressions on most people, especially those who have extra tissue (either muscle or fat) around the chest and abdomen.

If you are doing it right, they are dead when you start compressions, since their heart is not pumping. If they think about it, cracked or broken ribs are preferable to the alternative. If you break something, (It's not compulsory!) you kind of hear it more than feel it.

Yes, you pop em...you break em, and you will NEVER forget that feeling or sound. It is par for the course. They can be fixed, but only if the patient lives to tell the tale! So the rib pop or break is certainly not as important as saving the life...(if it helps, the feeling I get from this is like those lawn chairs that click as you move the parts..that click click click...well if you moved it fast...that is exactly what is feels and sounds like...that may help you).


My very first code was traumatic for me and the pt. We were in the field doing a resus and I did CPR and broke every single rib and the clavicles too.


Frequently ribs are broken with the pressure CPR places on the sternum. Some studies quote up to 30% of cardiac arrest victims have broken ribs as a result of CPR. This happens more frequently the older the victim since the cartilage is less compliant and the bones more easily crackable. But remember, it's better to have a cracked rib than be dead.

CPR often leads to broken ribs

A significant portion of the people who receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation may end up with broken ribs or other bones as a result, according to Korean researchers, who also found that some types of patients could be at higher risk than others.

In a study of people admitted to Korean hospitals, close to one third of those resuscitated after having CPR ended up with at least one broken rib, while about four percent had a broken breast bone, or sternum.


Dr. Michael Sayre, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association and a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, said broken ribs are to be expected when doing CPR and the worry of causing a break shouldn't deter people from helping someone in cardiac arrest.


"I've talked to survivors and I never had anyone tell me, ‘Gosh, I wish no one had done this because my chest hurts,'" said Sayre, who was not involved in the new research.


For the new study, researchers led by Dr. Min Joung Kim from the Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, gave CT scans to patients brought to eight hospital emergency departments between January and June of 2011. All had successful CPR either before getting to the hospital or in the ED.


Of the 71 patients scanned, the researchers found that 22 had at least one broken rib and 14 had multiple breaks.


Only three patients had broken breast bones - a plate of cartilage that connects the ribs - and some had other injuries besides broken bones, such as blood in the chest wall or bruised lungs.




Overall, age didn't seem to be a factor determining who was most likely to suffer fractures, but women and people whose CPR was performed by someone other than a doctor were more likely to end up with broken ribs.


Among patients whose compressions were performed outside the hospital, for instance, one in four who got CPR from a paramedic had rib fractures compared to one in three whose CPR was done by a layperson.


Of the patients who got CPR in the hospital, about one in three who got compressions by a doctor had fractures, as did nearly half of those whose CPR was done by someone other than a physician.


In total, about a quarter of the men and close to half of the women in the study had rib fractures.


Women may be more likely to have broken ribs after CPR, the researchers write in the journal Resuscitation, because they are more likely to have the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis.


Kim and colleagues said, however, they're not sure why patients seemed to do better if a doctor did the compressions.


Dr. Rahul Sharma, medical director and associate chief of service of the Emergency Department at the NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, told Reuters Health that he couldn't explain those results, but they shouldn't stop people who aren't doctors from performing CPR.


"To me this paper doesn't really convince me that we should not do CPR and that it should not be done by anyone other than a physician," said Sharma, who was not involved with the study.


Current CPR recommendations in both Europe and the U.S. call for chest compressions to be at least five centimeters (about two inches) deep, at a rate of 100 per minute or faster.


"The message has to be don't be afraid, don't worry, because any injuries that are caused are almost always minor," said Sayre.


Sharma added, "In the end, you saved that person's life. If you didn't do those compressions, that person wouldn't be alive."

 Click on links highlighted.

SOURCE: Resuscitation, online July 23, 2012.   

Frequency of rib and sternum fractures associated with out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation is underestimated by conventional chest X-ray

Objective: Fractured ribs and sternum are frequent complications of thoracic compression during CPR in adults. This study was conducted to determine whether findings of plain chest radiography (CXR) correlate with post-mortem findings in patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: CXR findings and autopsy results of CPR-related chest injuries comprising rib and sternum fractures were compared prospectively in 19 patients. Results: Fractures were diagnosed in nine of 19 patients by means of radiology and in 18 of 19 patients by autopsy (rib fractures in 6/19 versus 17/19, P=0.002; sternum fractures in 5/19 versus in 9/19, P=0.227). The total number of isolated bone fractures detected by CXR was 18 (12 rib and six sternum fractures) and by autopsy 92 (83 rib and nine sternum fractures). The majority of rib fractures was located in the anterior part of the thoracic cage. Sternum fractures predominantly occurred in the lower third. Eight of 19 patients received either thrombolytic or antithrombotic treatment during CPR but no major bleeding complication associated with CPR was detected by autopsy. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that fractures associated with CPR are underreported in conventional radiographic investigations. No major bleeding complications related to CPR-associated fractures was detected.

Court orders new murder trial for Peter Wlasiuk

Posted by [email protected] on November 5, 2013 at 8:05 AM Comments comments (0)

By: Tyler Murphy, Sun Staff Writer

Published: September 1st, 2006

A midlevel state appeals court ruled Thursday that a “litany of errors effectively deprived the defendant of a fair trial.”

The court’s main priority was “the cardinal right of a defendant to a fair trial,” said the memorandum.

Lastly the memorandum states, “Finally, we find merit to the defendant’s challenge to certain conduct of the prosecutor. Briefly stated, the prosecutor (McBride) repeatedly expressed a personal opinion concerning the merits of particular evidence, disparaged defendant, characterized his testimony and that of the witnesses as ‘lies’ and maligned defense counsel and his arguments.”

Full article HERE 

The entire text of the appellate court’s decision can be viewed HERE 

Important FACTS

Posted by [email protected] on November 4, 2013 at 7:25 PM Comments comments (0)

People in Chenango County have strong opinions on this case.  

My question is this. From what facts of the case do you base your opinon that Peter Wlasiuk is a guilty man? Is it from the many hundreds of tabloid news reports? If so, they  too are taking part in what is a miscarriage of justice. 

For someone to win so many appeals and 3 new trials, proves that there is something very, very wrong with this case. Police corruption, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffectiveness of counsel on many levels.  Peter Wlasiuk or anyone else for that matter are not simply granted appeals and retrials on a whim. There have to be reasons for this that even the courts can see.

So many lies have been told in this case. So many things distorted that have no evidence to support what is being said by the prosecution, yet people believe this without question. 

Just remember this. If this can happen in even ONE case, then perhaps the next one could be you! Think it cannot happen? Think again!

Here are just some facts. There are many many more which will be posted when I have time to do so.  I have taken this information from Court Document which can be read HERE

                                                                         Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

FACT 1. 

Peter Wlasiuk had a CLEAN RECORD. He had NO previous convictions.



It was clearly not a case where there was overwhelming proof of guilt.



- Mr. McBride said that there was police reports of domestic violence in 2000. There's no police reports, your Honor. I challenge Mr. McBride to produce one police report that says domestic violence,once again stating stuff that's outside the record, untrue, not part of this


A lot of evidence has been tampered with. A lot of evidence has been falsified, okay? I brought this to my lawyer's attention. My lawyer tried to bring to it many Mr. McBride's attention. Mr. McBride said, "Hey, if you bring it up, we'll just claim that you didit or the Investigator did it." I asked my lawyer tobring that to your attention. That was never brought to your attention.


Every time I keep pushing, Mr. McBride just alters the evidence, altersthe testimony of the witnesses, changes everything so it's self-serving to him. He's not seeking justice. He's seeking conviction. He's saving a career. That's what's been going on every time.


I have an issue with my witness Joyce being pulled into an interrogation room right before her getting on that stand by Detective Lloyd and Officer Cobb and then her changing her testimony completely during the third trial from the first trial. I challenge anyone to read the first testimony from the first trial and then read the testimony from the third trial. It doesn't go that far apart, your Honor, unless somebody's threatened her with something or caused her to lie against me. I got little things that I jot down,


I cannot get a fair jury, your Honor.


Mr. Scharf was the lawyer. He knew the case inside and out. Kept in touch with me while I was preparing for appeal. Unless you say he did something criminal or something wrong that he couldn't be my lawyer, I don't know why he was kept from me. I don't know why he was denied to be my lawyer.



People don't get three trials. People don't win their appeals and keep coming back unless there's something wrong. And we still haven't even scratched the surface of what's wrong. And what's wrong -- and I'm going to say straight out is Mr. McBride, Detective Lloyd, Detective Cobb, they're doing everything in their power to secure this wrongful conviction. They're tampering with evidence. My radar detectors are missing. My chains are missing. Hairs are being planted in the truck. Hairs are being planted in a bush. My wife and I were never in that bush. We were never in the back part of that property. So for anybody to say anything about hairs, hairs in the back of a truck -- you know, you see it right from the record, your Honor,


There's a grave injustice being done here. It's just he's trying to point the finger at me and say I'm the murderer, I'm the guy in Chenango County that everybody lost to hate. Nobody knows us. Nobody, you know, domestic violence, never. Never a single -- never a single incident of domestic violence.


it still wasn't fair because I had a whole set of exculpatory things that had arisen since I had been up at Attica, appeal, had other witnesses that weren't produced they had exculpatory stuff. This case has just grown out of control.



if you pulled my disciplinary record in prison, you'd see. I got no disciplinary. Ten years. I'm not a murderer. I'm not a criminal. I'm not a killer. I'm a guy that made a stupid mistake. I tried to cover for my wife.


The way the rumors took off in this county, you thought I had a torture chamber. You thought that, you know -- but never an act of domestic violence. Mr. McBride keeps saying domestic violence, and I would like to challenge you, your Honor, respectfully there's not a single report. There's not a photo. There's not a single phone call. Seventeen and a half years of history I have had with Patty, I never put a hand on her. Never. The one incident you knew of, spoke of it. No domestic violence. But he wants to keep telling you there's domestic violence, this is domestic violence awareness month. Just more prejudicial stuff to keep throwing on top because he can't win it. It's all circumstantial. He keeps saying it. And that bothers me. I take a lot of pride. Any man -- and I'll say it, any man that hits a woman is a coward. I'm not a coward. I have never hit a woman. Never


twelve jurors, that every single one of them except for one juror knew about the history of this case, saw it on Discovery Channel, saw it on Forensic Files, saw it on Montel Williams. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles that's written.



in this county there's 51,000 people. There's like 9,000 males and 18,000 female eligible jurors. And every one of them knows what's going on with this case. And every one of them is walking in here, they want to say, "Oh look, he's the murderer, he's the murderer."

Fact 16

Judge Smith didn't want to address it. As he said, "It appears Mr. Wlasiuk will be getting a new trial but it won't be today and it won't be from me. So relax, Joe, you can go on vacation."



If it was a matter of just getting out of prison, I would have took Mr. McBride's deal, we wouldn't even have had the third trial. I turned down the deal because I'm innocent. I mean, I'm not going to take a plea bargain and say anything that's not true.



I would like to say for this record, because the family keeps blaming me for Patty falling off the wagon, that I never gave her alcohol. I never allowed her to have alcohol, okay? My wife was sexually abused and very abused when she was young, okay? She had nine years sobriety, your Honor. Certain individuals of my in-laws decided after seeing a special on Oprah Winfrey that they wanted to sue a man down in Miami that had done this to not only her but her siblings. I was in New Mexico at the time. I was on the phone. I was with one of my drivers. My wife's in tears just telling me about this. I said, "Can you wait until I get home and we'll discuss it? Don't make any decisions yet."


You can go down right there, your Honor, walk the circumference of the lake and you're going to find burdocks. I mean, Dave found them. We had in 2002, we had the expert that had done the scuba diving.    Diving Report is HERE


How do I explain to you your Honor why I'm innocent? How do we know Patty drowned because there's only four telltale signs to a drowning victim, okay? And the odds of a person -- and I would like you to call somewhere in your free time, call another forensic pathologist outside this area, just like you did that day in chambers when you had to get that information, please do that. Call a forensic pathologist. They'll tell you that a forensic pathologist is lucky if he gets one, maybe two of the telltale signs of a drowning victim. The lack of petechial hemorrhage in the eyes, the water in the lungs, the temporal bone hemorrhaging, the other hemorrhage, okay? Mr. McBride keeps saying that Patty was thrown on the ground because there was a bruise on her lungs. That's not a bruise. That's the hemorrhages in the lungs that the pathologist relies on to show -- that's the aveolie, the sacs ripping from the lungs as the water has entered the lungs, and that's what causes that hemorrhage in the lungs.  Information on the effects of DROWNING HERE 


There was one juror that was on that jury was fighting, and the only reason he was fighting is because he didn't know nothing about this. He told us. And he had a conscience because he's a religious person. And he wanted to make sure. He went through all the rigamarole, and he really aggravated a lot of jurors and alienated quite a few.


Now, once the jurors learned that the evidence that they were relying on was no good, they all want to give affidavits, "Oh, we're sorry, we're sorry, we would have found him innocent."


I'm tired of Mr. McBride making this lie up about financial gain.

The Truth is the Greatest Enemy of The State

Posted by [email protected] on November 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM Comments comments (0)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


Joseph Goebbels



Posted by [email protected] on November 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM Comments comments (0)

Burdock is a commonly found herb. It is often seen along waterways, an usually in partial or shaded areas. Burdock grows best in alkaline soil, but this is not imperative for cultivation.



Burdock a member of the thistle family. Originally, Burdock was native to Asia and Europe and has been naturalized in North America. The whole plant is a dull, pale green. This biennial plant is widespread throughout North America. It is a common pasture weed that prefers damp soils. It will grow in almost any soil, but the roots are formed best in a light, well-drained soil. It thrives by ditches and water-sides, and by the highways-- almost everywhere throughout North America except in the deep South. It is a stout, common weed with many spreading branches, has long-stalked wedge-shaped leaves reminiscent of elephants’ ears, 2 feet long and 1 foot across, heart-shaped and of a grey color on their under surfaces from the mass of fine down with which they are covered. The lower leaves are very large, on long, solid stalks, frequently more than a foot long, The upper leaves are much smaller, more egg-shaped in form and not so densely clothed beneath with the grey down. Burdock grows to a height of three to four feet in the second year. The stalks have round heads of purple to crimson flowers. They are enclosed in a globular involucre of long stiff scales with hooked tips, the scales being also often interwoven with a white, cottony substance. The stem is erect, rigid, grooved, branched and downy. The fruits or ‘burs’ are known to cling to passing animals. The deep roots are brownish-green, or nearly black on the outside. The roots are the most important part of the plant used for medicine. Look for Burdock in disturbed habitats, roadsides, vacant lots, and fields. The seeds germinate readily and may be sown directly in the field, either in autumn or early spring, in drills 18 inches to 3 feet apart , sowing 1 inch deep in Autumn, but less in the Spring. When the young plants are well sprouted, they can be thinned out to 6 inches apart in the row. Yields at the rate of 1,500 to 2,000 lb. of dry roots per acre have been obtained from plantations of Burdock. The basal rosette of leaves stays close to the ground the first year and the beginning of the second. The dried root from plants of the first year's growth forms the official drug, but the leaves and fruits (commonly, though erroneously, called seeds) are also used.


Then, in mid-spring of year 2, a central flower stalk 2-9 feet tall arises. Herbalists usually collect burdock leaves during the first year of growth, and harvest the roots in the fall of the first year after planting (or during the following spring before the flowers bloom).


The flowers resemble purple shaving brushes. Its purple flowers bloom between June and October.


The flower-heads are found expanded during the latter part of the Summer and well into the Autumn. All the florets are tubular, the stamens dark purple and the styles whitish.


The fruits that follow are brown globular burrs. The plant owes its dissemination greatly to the little hooked prickles which adhere to all with which they come in contact, and by attaching themselves to coats of animals, or even people, they are often carried to a distance. After thus dispersing its seeds, this biennial dies.


The Burdock Root is approximately one inch wide and can grow up to three feet in height. Harvesting of Burdock Root should take place in the Autumn of the first year or during the Spring of the second year. If harvesting does not take place at that time, the Burdock plant will produce burrs.


As the Burdock grows freely in waste places and hedgerows, it can be collected in the wild state, and is seldom worth cultivating.


Though growing in its wild state, hardly any animal except the ass will browse on this plant. The stalks, cut before the flower is open and stripped of their rind, form a delicate vegetable when boiled, similar in flavor to Asparagus, and also make a pleasant salad, eaten raw with oil and vinegar. Formerly they were sometimes candied with sugar. They are slightly laxative, but perfectly wholesom

Second Trial

Posted by [email protected] on November 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM Comments comments (0)

ALBANY, N.Y., Dec 29 (Reuters) - For the second time, a state appeals court has overturned the conviction of an upstate man accused of killing his wife and staging a car accident to cover up the murder.


In a unanimous decision released Thursday, the Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that Peter Wlasiuk's trial attorney, Randel Scharf, denied his client a fair trial by opposing the removal of a biased juror and admitting hearsay evidence that likely harmed Wlasiuk.


Wlasiuk's wife, Patricia, was found at the bottom of a lake in 2002, along with her husband's pickup truck. Wlasiuk, who was at the scene, initially told police he had swerved to avoid a deer and crashed. Authorities became suspicious when Wlasiuk changed his story numerous times and police found evidence at the scene and at the Wlasiuks' home that didn't back up his story.


Wlasiuk was convicted of murder in 2003, but in 2006 the Third Department reversed, finding "a litany of errors" had deprived him of a fair trial. In 2008, he was convicted again and last year, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.


During the second trial, attorneys discovered that a juror lied during voir dire about his relationships with several witnesses and his knowledge of Wlasiuk's alleged history of domestic violence. The juror, a doctor, said he knew only one witness and had recently moved to the area, so he was not familiar with Wlasiuk's case. As the trial progressed, it was revealed that the juror not only knew a number of witnesses, but also worked with the victim and treated her children as patients. The prosecution requested the juror's removal, but Scharf opposed, and the juror remained on the case.


"Defense counsel's strategy in opposing the removal of (the juror) for cause 'fell short of an objective standard of reasonableness' and denied (Wlasiuk) a fair trial," Acting Presiding Justice Thomas Mercure wrote for the court. Justices Bernard Malone, Michael Kavanagh, William McCarthy and John Egan joined the majority.




The Third Department also ruled that Scharf erred by admitting into evidence police logs that described Patricia Wlasiuk's diary, which included entries where she claimed she feared for her life because of her husband. Scharf used the logs to bolster his argument that police had mishandled evidence, but failed to request the redaction of the content of the diary entries. In 2006, the Third Department found the diary entries to be inadmissible hearsay.


"The admission of the police logs themselves for that limited purpose may have been a matter of strategy, but the reference to the content of the diary entries remains inadmissible hearsay and the failure to redact the police logs constituted error," Mercure wrote in Thursday's ruling.


The case will be sent back to Chenango County Court for further proceedings.


Scharf could not be reached for comment. His home and office number were both disconnected. Wlasiuk's appellate attorney, Mary Davison, and the Chenango County District Attorney's office did not return calls seeking comment.


The case is People v. Peter Wlasiuk, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department No. 102275.