1998 AFFIDAVIT For Judge Dalzall Re Lambert Case

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts
Page 1 of 76
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL of PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA SECURITIES COMMISSION
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY of LANCASTER COUNTY
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON
MANHIEM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT,
STEINMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., OF
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF CAPE MAY , NEW JERSEY
AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF CAPE MAY, NEW JERSEY
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK
(i.e. MELLON BANK)
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN, PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
AFFIDAVIT OF STANLEY J. CATERBONE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF LANCASTER
: ss
I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit concerning the
years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally abused, subjected to a massive array of
prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an exhaustive fight for the sovereignty of my constitutional rights,
shareholder rights, civil liberties, and right of due access to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my
life, in 1991, exhibiting the dire consequences of this complaint.. These allegations are substantiated
Page 2 of 76
through a preponderance of evidence including but not limited to over 10,000 documents, over 50 hours of
recorded conversations, transcripts, and archived on several digital mediums. A Findings of Facts is
attached herewith providing merits and the facts pertaining to this affidavit. These issues and incidents
identified herein have attempted to conceal my disclosures of International Signal & Control, Pls.,.
However, the merits of the violations contained in this affidavit will be proven incidental to the existence of
any conspiracy.
The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law. Financial considerations would
exceed $1 million.
These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident and business owner in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania., and have continued to the present. These issues are a direct consequence of my public
disclosure of fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc., of County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which
were in compliance with federal and state statutes governing my shareholder rights granted in 1983, when
I purchased my interests in International Signal & Control., Plc.. I will also prove intentional undoinfluence
against family and friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with malicious and self serving
accusations of insanity. I conclude that the courts must provide me with fair access to the law, and most
certainly, the process must void any technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to the
conclusions. Such arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our Constitution.
1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the scope of law
pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of the United States. The Plaintiff
will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of International Signal & Control, including the
illegal transfer of arms and technologies to an end user Iraq, the laws of disclosure must be forfeited by
virtue that said activities posed a direct compromise to the National Security of the United States.; the
plaintiff will argue that his public allegations of misconduct within the operations of International Signal &
Control, Plc., as early as June of 1987 ; demonstrated actions were proven to protect the National
Security of the United States..
The activities of International Signal & Control, Pls., placed
American troops in harms way. The plaintiffs actions should have taken the American troops out of
harms way causing the activities of the International Signal & Control, Plc., to cease and desist. .
All activities contained herein have greatly compromised the National Security of the United States, and
the laws of jurist prudence must apply towards the Plaintiffs intent and motive of protecting the rights of
his fellow citizens. Had the plaintiff been protected under the law, and subsequently had the law
enforcement community of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer
justice, United States troops may have been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the
operations of International Signal & Control, Plc., in as early as 1987.
2. The plaintiff will successfully prove that the following activities and the prosecutorial misconduct were
directed at intimidating the plaintiff from continuing his public disclosures regarding illegal activities within
International Signal & Control, Plc,. On June 23, 1998, International Signal & Control, Plc was
negotiating for the $ billion merger with Ferranti International, of England. Such disclosures threatened
the integrity of International Signal & Controls organization, and Mr. James Guerin himself, ,
consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if such disclosures provided any
Page 3 of 76
reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later became the central criminal activity in the in
The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania
3. The plaintiff will prove that undoinfluence was also responsible for the adverse consequences and
fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings. The dire consequences of the
plaintiffs failed business dealings, will demonstrate and substantiate financial incentive and motive.
Defendants responsible for administering undoinfluence and interference in the plaintiffs business and
commercial enterprises had financial interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a taxing
authority, Lancaster County had a great investment whos demise would facilitate grave consequences
to its economic development. . Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would have less competition in
the mortgage banking business and other financial services, violating the lender liability laws. The
Steinman Enterprises, Inc., would loose a pioneer in the information technologies industries, and would
protect the public domain from truthful disclosure. The plaintiff will also provide significant evidence of
said perpetrators violating common laws governing intellectual property rights.
4. Given the plaintiffs continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in June of 1987
and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the law with the opportunity for
any and all remedial actions required under the federal and state statutes. The plaintiff will successfully
argue his rights to the courts to rightfully claim civil actions with regards to the totality of these activities,
so described in the following Findings of Facts, regardless of any statute of limitations. Given the
plaintiffs genuine efforts for due process have been inherently and maliciously obstructed, the courts
must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial actions deserving to the plaintiff.
5. Under current laws, The plaintiffs intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of discrediting the
plaintiffs disclosures and obstructing the plaintiffs right to due process of the law. The plaintiff has
always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to enter into contract. The logic and reason
towards the plaintiffs activities and actions are a matter of record, demonstrated in the Findings of
Facts, contained herein..
The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that the inherent emotional consequences to all of the
activities contained herein, have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The evidence of the stress
subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be the direct result of the activities contained herein, rather than
the exhibited behavior of any mental deficiency the plaintiff may or may not have. The courts must
provide for the proper interpretations of all laws, irrespective of the plaintiffs alleged intellectual
capacity. The plaintiff successfully argue that his mental capacity is of very little legal consequence, if
any; other than in its malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of illegal prosecutions were purposefully
directed at intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the activities of International
Signal & Control, Plc., consequently obstructing the plaintiffs access to due process of the law. Due
to the fact that these activities to which the plaintiffs perpetrators were protecting were illegal activities,
the RICO statutes would apply.
To this day, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime with the exception of 2 speeding
Page 4 of 76
tickets. The following report identifies 34 instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the prosecutions
and activities beginning on June 23, 1987 and continuing to today.
7) Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must conclude that In The
United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzalls
findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case identifying acts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, now,
by virtue of this affidavit, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster. Criminal law must now determine if
these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible criminal enterprise. This affidavit is of
material interest to the Lambert case, for the very fact that this affidavit compromises the very same
integrity of the court, which would tip the scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights..
In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle Lambert to balance
the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish. The Commonwealth must yield the criminal
culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by its
own admission of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of its commitment to administer equalities of justice,
not inequalities of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of
jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitution
of the United States.. The plaintiff must be restored to whole to so that justice may be restored to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the County of Lancaster.
A. August 11, 1987 Stone Harbor (New Jersey) Police Department (2) - The plaintiff had been literally chased
by family members when the plaintiff wanted to obtain a restraining order to keep his family members from
obstructing his access to the law, and invading his home. The Stone Harbor Police Department detained the
plaintiff against his will, and later transported the plaintiff to Burdette Tomlin Hospital, giving no explanation
to the plaintiff. The Burdette Tomlin later disclosed that someone from Lancaster called the Stone Harbor
Police Department and stated that the plaintiff had a gun and was going to the beach to kill himself. This
whole incident was fabricated in efforts to illegally detain the plaintiff, and further facilitate the alibi of
insanity. The plaintiff was detained for 4 hours in the Hospital, and was not released until he signed a
suicide agreement. The hospital report casts any doubt into the plaintiffs truths, and goes to insinuate
that plaintiff activities of the digital movie, are illusions. The plaintiff later found the phone numbers of
the Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey State Police Departments in his home in Conestoga,
PA. The handwriting of the individual, matches an official of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Department,
who at the time was negotiated a bond issue for the Lancaster County Incinerator with an attorney named
Stephen Spinello, of Lancaster, the same attorney responsible for negotiating the ISC and Ferranti merger at
the very same time.
B. August 14, 1987 Avalon (New Jersey) Police Department (5) - Family member again invade the privacy of
the plaintiff at his residence in Stone Harbor. The plaintiff flees the house, and this time drives to the
Avalon Police Department, one mile north of the Stone Harbor Police Department. An Avalon Patrol car pull
Page 5 of 76
the plaintiff over while en route. The plaintiff tries to explain the circumstances, and his desire for a
restraining order. The Avalon Policeman commands the plaintiff from his car, proceeds to frisk the plaintiff,
and searches his entire vehicle, again not providing any explanation. The policeman confiscates an old dry
empty bear can and a vile of muscle relaxes (plaintiff had a stiff back) from the car, and handcuff the plaintiff
and take him to the Avalon Police Department. The plaintiff, without the opportunity for any explanation is
charged with the following offenses :
A) SPEEDING (F-1) B) OPEN ALCOHOLIC CONTAINER IN
VEHICLE C) UNREGISTERED VEHICLE (NEW JERSEY DEALER MAILED REGISTRATION MATERIALS

TO CONESTOGA, PA ADDRESS BY MISTAKE D) FAILURE TO EXHIBIT DRIVERS LICENSE. The
Avalon Police Department impounded the plaintiffs vehicle.
All of the Police Officers were verbally
abusive, laughing at the plaintiff trying to defend himself, and trying to get a restraining order.
C. July 14th, 1987 Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office (1) The plaintiff phone the Pennsylvania Attorney
Generals Office and talked to Attorney General Bodan, and reported the crimes and requested intervention,
of which the plaintiff was told that nothing he said fall within the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Attorney
Generals Office, obstructing justice, and potentially facilitating and protecting the criminal enterprises of
Mr. James Guerin.
D. September 3, 1987 Manhiem Township (Pennsylvania) Police Department (3) - The plaintiff arranged for
a charter flight with Romar Aviation, to a destination of the Lancaster County Airport, for a scheduled
meeting with 2 Board of Directors from Financial Management Group, Ltd., the following morning, September
4, 1987. As the plaintiff was in flight, the Manhiem Township Detective, Detective Sigler, filed a charge of
TERRORISTIC THREATS (M1) against the plaintiff. The warrant for arrest will disclose that the
Terroristic Threats actually were reported two days later, with no recollection of time except with the time of
9:00 am and 12:pm. There was also no disturbance reported, and no one from FMG, Ltd., had admitted calling
the Manhiem Township Police Department. This arrest warrant was totally fabricated. obstructing justice,
and potentially facilitating and protecting the criminal enterprises of Mr. James Guerin
E. September 3, 1987 Manhiem Township (Pennsylvania Police Department (6) - The plaintiff was arrested for
A)
BURGLARY (F-1)
B) CRIMINAL MISCHIEF (F-3) C) UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT (H-1) D)
UNLAWFUL USE OF COMPUTER (F-3) E) THEFT BY UNLAWFUL TAKING (F-3) F) ROBBERY (F-1).
The plaintiff, unknowing of the arrest warrant for Terroristic Threats filed early that day, visited his office at
Financial Management Group, Ltd., (FMG) later that same day to try to find any remaining business files that
were missing since his plane was repossessed. . Upon being let into the building by a cleaning girl, the
Plaintiff quickly asserted his rights to the property, which he was a rightful leaseholder and Officer of FMG,
and proceeded to gather documents. The plaintiff kissed the girl goodbye and ensured her safe return into
the building. obstructing justice, and potentially facilitating and protecting the criminal enterprises of Mr.
Page 6 of 76
James Guerin The plaintiff was illegally arrested for stealing his own files from his own building.
F. September 3, 1987, Manhiem Township Police Department (3): At the precise time that the plaintiff was
released into custody from the Conestoga Township Police, The Manhiem Township Police immediately used
unnecessary physical abuse upon the plaintiff by first placing shackles around the plaintiffs hands and legs
together, then smashing his head into the car door, and further forcing and wrestling the plaintiff, made every
attempt to cooperate, especially consider that the Conestoga Policeman allowed the plaintiff to sit in the front
seat, without handcuffs. The Manhiem Township Police refused the plaintiff request to know what he was
being arrested for. The Manhiem Township Policeman refused, and intentionally threw papers on the floor
of the cruiser in front of the plaintiff, laughing that he would be unable to pick it up or read it because of the
plaintiffs shackles. After arriving at the Police Station, Detective Larry Mathias refused to take a statement
from the plaintiff or tell the plaintiff why he was arrested.
After several hours, the plaintiff was again
thrown into the police cruiser, where the driver intentionally drove at high rates of speed, and curving to
cause the plaintiff to be thrown around the back of the cruiser, again unable to protect himself because of
the shackles. The victim was given no rights to provide testimony that would have immediately resulted in
his release. The plaintiff was never afforded the opportunity to contribute to the record of his any of his
prosecutions. The prosecutorial misconduct was again obstructing justice, and potentially facilitating and
protecting the criminal enterprises of Mr. James Guerin
A.
F) September 4, 1987, Lancaster County Prison (1): The plaintiff was refused to make a phone
call, and when he was given a phone privilege, the phone would not connect to an outside
line. The plaintiff was verbally abused and generally mistreated.
G) September 5, 1987, The Lancaster County District Attorneys Office (2): Attorney Robert Byers appeared
at the Lancaster County Prison to offer his services to the plaintiff, however the plaintiff never called or
mention to anyone Mr. Robert Byers. The plaintiff questioned his sudden interest in his affairs, and who had
called Mr. Byers.
H) September 9, 1987, The Lancaster County District Attorneys Office (2): The plaintiffs bail was granted on
the illegal condition that the plaintiff admit himself into the St. Joseph Psychiatric unit until released by the
Hospital. After 7 days, the plaintiff learned that this condition was not legal, and immediately discharged
himself. St. Joseph Hospital would not release the plaintiff until he accepted full liability for the $3,029.00
charge. St. Joseph Hospital refused to accept the plaintiffs insurance information, stating that it was no
longer in force, which the plaintiff disputed. Another demonstrated act of inflicting financial hardship and
mental duress by providing false claims to the plaintiff that his bail was falsely protected on his entering St.
Joseph Hospital.
Page 7 of 76
I) September and October 1987, The Lancaster County District Attorneys Office (1): The Lancaster
District Attorney refused any and all attempts by the Plaintiff to discuss the dire issues of his pending
charges.
The plaintiff was extensively shut out of the Lancaster Attorneys Office despite the
overwhelming abundance of evidence that the plaintiff could provide proving his innocence, and the
illegalities of the arrests. obstructing justice, and potentially facilitating and protecting
the criminal
enterprises of Mr. James Guerin
J) September 29, 1987, The Pennsylvania Securities Commission (3): See the following Findings of Facts,
page 43.
A.
J) November , 1987, The Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office (1): See the following Findings of
Facts, 46.
B.
K) November , 1987, The Pennsylvania Securities Commission (1): See the following Findings of
Facts,. Tape.
L) March 24, 1988, The Lancaster County District Attorneys Office (1): See the following Findings of
Facts, page 48.
A.
M) May 27, 1991, Stone Harbor (New Jersey) Police Department See the following Findings of Facts,
page 63).
Stanley J. Caterbone, Plaintiff

Sworn to and subscribed
Before me this
of
day
, 1998
Notary Public
Notary Public of :
My commission expires:
Page 8 of 76
This page intentionally left blank.
Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Page
THE YEAR
1983
September
1983 -
Pa. State Senator Gib Armstrong, former stock broker of Individual Securities of Lancaster, solicits Stan
Caterbone. to purchase the offering of (ISC) International Signal & Control, Plc, stock.. Stan Caterbone
purchases 1,000 shares of ISC stock.
Page
THE YEAR
1984
APRIL 1984
Stan Caterbone is elected Executive vice President of the newly formed Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the
International Association of Financial Planners (IAFP), the largest and mast prestigious professional organization of the
financial planning industry.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone assists John Herr in increasing the regional membership by more than 300% in the first year, while also
attracting members from the other complimentary professions including: attorneys; stock brokers; accountants; estate
planners; insurance professionals; trust officers; and tax specialists.
OCTOBER 1984
Stan Caterbone invites nationally accredited, and Washington, D.C. based Financial Planner, Alexandria Armstrong for
a speaking engagement and meeting of the IAFP held at the Treadway Resort Inn, of Lancaster. Ms. Armstrong was
one of the most prominent advocates of Financial Planning, featured on the cover of "Money" magazine, and often
quoted in the "USA Today" financial section.
NOTES:
The meeting was a huge success, attracting over 90 professionals for the Central Pa region, and making it the largest
meeting ever held, even today (1991).
Page
THE YEAR
1985
Jan 9, 1985 -
Stan Caterbone terminates his affiliation with Investors Diversified Services (IDS), of Minneapolis, MN and forms his
own independent financial advisory firm, S.J. Caterbone Associates, of Lancaster, PA.
NOTES:
At the advice and recommendation of Alexandria Armstrong, Stan Caterbone visited Financial Services Corporation
(FSC), of Atlanta, Ga, and affiliates with the broker dealer the previous November.
Stan Caterbone transfers his registered representative's license several days after his brother's death. IDS executive Jack
Campana telephoned Stan Caterbone after learning of his plans, and tried to intimidate him by threatening legal action,
in the event he continued to service his existing clients.
Stan Caterbone also introduced Robert Kauffman to the Atlanta-based firm, while leading a large IDS division in
Atlanta, and making in excess of $250,000 annually. FSC will eventually recruit Robert Kauffman as an executive,
promoting him to national sales manager at large, charged with recruiting representatives and offices throughout the
country.
After his leaving (IDS), and upon educating many other financial planners of the merits of an Independent Broker
Dealer, the following former associates of IDS will leave and eventually become affiliated with his firm of FMG, Ltd.,
over the next 2 years: Robert Kauffman; P. Alan Loss; Daniel Moyer; Harry Radcliffe; Jim Werst; Michael Hartlett;
Daniel Moyer; Rich Podlasceck; Tom Turner; Rick Volpe; Gail Turner; as well as others.
March 30, 1985 -
Stan Caterbone conducts the Eastern Regional Free Agent Camp (ERFAC), in Lancaster Pa. The first ever-video-taped
professional football free agent camp attracted players (45) from as far away as Hawaii and California. The camp was
organized to give players access to the scouts of all three professional football leagues, National Football League (NFL),
United States Football League (USFL), and the Canadian Football League (CFL). The ERFAC was a pioneer because of
its strategy of having players attend one camp, and submitting a video tape of the camp to all of the teams in the leagues
, with no charge to the individual teams.
The Washington Post wrote a full page story in it's Sunday edition, and tried to accuse Stan Caterbone of profiting off of
the dreams of young athletes. Actually, that was precisely why Stan Caterbone organized the camp, after being wasting
time and money on conventional camps in trying to secure a professional football contract for his brother, Mike
Caterbone. Free agent camps are considered successful if only one player lands a contract, and even extraordinary if the
player lands a career.
In the following months, Stan Caterbone will negotiate a contract for Mike Caterbone; who will go on to load the
Canadian Football League in scoring, and be named Player of the week by Lite Beer, and featured during the traditional
Sunday afternoon broadcast. Mike Caterbone played for three seasons before joining the Miami Dolphins of the NFL.
The Eastern Regional Free Agent Camp full filled its primary mission, despite loosing some $3,000.
Stan Caterbone's career in the film industry has officially began as writer, producer, director, and technician.
April 20, 1985 -
June
1985
Stan Caterbone incorporates Pro Financial Group, Ltd., a company composed of accountant Robert Long, attorney
Timothy Lanza, accountant Michael Smoker, broker dealer FSC, and others to provide financial services to professional
athletes in an organized and coordinated effort. This was Stan Caterbone's attempt at a concept which will later form the
foundation for Financial Management Group, Ltd., or FMG, Ltd.
-
Stan Caterbone conducts a marketing and feasibility survey with Marketing consultant Jeffrey Johnston, for the concept
of the business which later will evolve into Financial Management Group, Ltd., The study
was conducted by
interviewing several area local physicians of substantial income and wealth for their input and feedback of having one
firm manage and administer all of their respective financial, legal, accounting and related affairs.
Page
THE YEAR
1986
March
1986
Stan Caterbone requests a meeting with John Depatto, President of Parent Federal Savings and Loan (owned and
operated by James Guerin's Parent Industries holding company), for a residential real estate loan for the property at 2323
New Danville Pike, Conestoga, Pa.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone also discusses the formation of Financial Management Group, Ltd., and any possible joint venture
activities that may exist between the two financial services organizations, with specifics to mortgage banking
opportunities.
June 12, 1986
Stan Caterbone & Mike Caterbone (Joint Title) settle on the real estate deal, with a $100,000 loan from Parent Federal.
June 19, 1986
Stan Caterbone incorporates Financial Management Group, Ltd., (FMG, Ltd.,) and 12 other subsidiary corporations to
form a multi-faceted financial services [inn. The firm would offer: securities brokerage; portfolio in management;
financial planning; insurance & risk management; tax planning; accounting S tax preparation; estate planning; financial
advisory; legal services; real estate services; mortgage brokerage; venture capital.
June 22, 1986
Stan Caterbone submits the first draft of the Offering Memorandum to securities attorney Jeff Jamoneau of the law firm
McNeese, Wallace & Nurick, or Harrisburg in preparation for riling the necessary regulatory requirements to secure
financing for FMG, Ltd., under a Regulation D, Rule 144 Offering Memorandum. The offering allowed approximately
$500,000 to capitalize FMG, Ltd.,
NOTES:
The three principals decide on the following offices: Robert Kauffman is elected President of FMG, Ltd.,; Michael
Hartlett the Executive Vice President and Treasurer; Stan Caterbone the Executive Vice President, Secretary, and also
form the Board of Directors Stan Caterbone is also President and Treasurer of FMG Advisory, Inc., the firm to be incorporated as the Registered
Investment Advisor with the Pennsylvania Securities Commission, which Stan Caterbone will also administer and
manage.
Augusts 1, 1986 -
Financial Management Group, Ltd., (FMG) occupies and formally opens its headquarters containing 20,000 sq. ft. of
office space in the Eden Park complex owned by the Fisher/Sponougle Group of Lancaster.
August 14, 1986 -
Stan Caterbone; and Michael Hartlett; and Robert Kauffman; as individuals; and Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
sign a five (5) year individual lease with personal guarantees for the office space with Fisher/Sponougle Group, Ltd.,
August 21, 1986 -
FMG, Ltd., holds its first official and formal shareholders meeting.
October 6, 1986 Robert Kauffman signs a demand note and borrows $10,000 from FMG, Ltd., Scott Robertson signs a demand note and
borrows $20,000 from FMG, Ltd.,.
November 1986 -
In late 1986, Stan Caterbone sustained a take-over attempt by partners Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett, in order
to take full control of FMG, Ltd.,. Several employees were innocently fired in order to weaken Stan Caterbones control
and respect within the corporation.
NOTES:
While in Baltimore, visiting a satellite office, Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett terminated Mary Lynn Dipaolo, a
close personal friend and assistant, which caused a serious problem in the trust of the principals, not to mention
emotional duress.
Stan Caterbone would later visit his client, Dr. Al Schulz, because of his emotional duress and stress caused by the illicit
takeover attempts of Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett. Stan Caterbone will discuss the behavior of his partners as
causing severe stress.
Mike and Marylynn Dipaolo will personally hold Stan Caterbone responsible for the firing, and continue to subject him
to persecution for allegedly not standing up to Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett, despite his efforts for
reinstatement, and Stan Caterbone's advise to seek legal counsel concerning the wrongful termination. The Dipaolo's
refused to seek legal counsel.
Page
Several FMG, Ltd., executives, including Alan Loss, Scott Robertson, and Bob Long, engaged in private meetings
concerning the mistrust of both Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett. Stan Caterbone, was the most trusted and
respected principal of the firm, and was constantly caught in the middle of the principal/associate confrontations.
November 1986
Abe Diffenbach, the acting manager of Lancaster's Shearson/American Express stock brokerage office, contacts Stan
Caterbone and asks him to consider hiring Peter Peneros, a very large producer, who was apparently having difficulties
with the NASD.
Peter Peneros met with Stan Caterbone and discussed his problems, and it was revealed that other firms did not want to
get involved. Robert Kauffman consented and hired Peter Peneros, who later joined and became FMG, Ltd's., largest
personal producer.
Page
THE YEAR
1987
January 20, 1987 -
Al Dannatt & Institutional Investors, of Houston, requests Stan Caterbone to market and develop a portfolio of real
estate projects in the East for mortgages, with an extraordinary lending criteria of $3 to $100 million authority, with
attractive and competitive terms and rates from Institutional Investors' lending authority.
Al Dannatt also discloses to Stan Caterbone that he is in the process of acquiring a bank, which will also be available for
business with him.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone decides to fight and not accept any offers from Kauffman to give up his equity in FMG, Ltd., and
aggressively pursues the other peripheral businesses he established in the original business plan, with emphasis on the
mortgage banking activities. Stan Caterbone also agrees to include Scott Robertson and Robert Long in the mortgage
banking activities.
Stan Caterbone agrees to provide FMG, Ltd., with the normal profit splits of peripheral business, but limits the
involvement in order to minimize risk against undoinfluence of Kauffman and Hartlett.
January 26, 1987 -
The FMG, Ltd., shareholders elect Alan Loss and Robert Long to the Board of Directors, increasing the original Board
of Caterbone, Hartlett, and Kauffman to five directors. Stan Caterbone had campaigned for both Alan Loss and Robert
Long, while Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett cast votes to others.
February 5, 1987 -
Carolyn Royer writes a formal notice and complaint to FMG, Ltd., president Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett
regarding her recent fulfillment of passing her NASD examine for a Registered Principal, which was agreed by both
Kauffman and Hartlett, to give her a salaried position of managing and administering the stock broker's activities for
FMG, Ltd., whom both would later deny.
NOTES:
This would later load to the resignation of Carolyn Royer, despite the efforts of Stan Caterbone to keep both Kauffman
and Hartlett to their word and previous agreements.
February 3, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone offers his mortgage banking loan portfolio to High Industries Inc, and High Associates at the request of
Robert Long, FMG, Ltd., in-house accountant, who also a former employee and accountant of High Industries Inc.,
February 4, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from Owen Kugel, principal of OK Properties, to secure financing for several historical
rehabilitation properties, and offering and finders fee of $433, 592 upon financing.
February 11, 1987 -
The FMG, Ltd., Board of Directors agree at the request and advise of Robert Kauffman to loan $10,000 to Gail Turner
(daughter of Tom Turner) of Minneapolis, Mn, to capitalize an FMG, Ltd., satellite office in Minneapolis.
February 19, 1987 -
Scott Robertson solicits Stan Caterbone to visit Power Station Studios and Tony Bongiovi, of New York, for assistance
in securing financing for a movie. Stan Caterbone cites concern for the risk associated with motion picture investments,
however later decides to at least visit the studio. Discussions were also held in securing financing for New York real
estate deals for the mortgage banking activities which had recently begun.
Robert Kauffman finalizes joint venture deal and agreement with Hilibbard Brown & Company, the Broker Dealer from
Washington, D.C., All FMG, Ltd., Registered Representative's licenses are terminated from Financial Services
Corporation (FSC) of Atlanta, GA, Kauffman's former employer.
March 10, 1987 -
Investors Diversified Services (IDS), formally terminates Tom Turner, the largest Divisional Manager in the country,
earning in excess of $700,000 per year, for his religious overtones in his office.
NOTES:
Tom Turner is a close personal friend of Robert Kauffman's, and he and his daughter become affiliated with FMG, Ltd.,.
FMG, Ltd., will later loan $10,000 to Gail Turner facilitated by Robert Kauffman.
Stan Caterbone becomes concerned because of the religious ties between Robert Kauffman, Tom Turner, and Barry
Schuttler, all FMG, Ltd., affiliates.
March 24, 1987 -
In the FMG, Ltd., Newsletter, Robert Kauffman officially announces that Tom Turner, of Minneapolis, Mn, has
officially joined FMG, Ltd., and will begin building offices in the same.
March 26, 1987 -
The FMG, Ltd., Board of Directors, at the request and advise of Robert Kauffman, vote to approve a loan of $25,000 to
Page
Hibbard Brown & Company, of Washington, D.C.,

In addition the Board votes to have Stan Caterbone pursue the legal issues of restructuring FMG, Ltd., in order to pursue
the national franchising of the organization, and to provide a means to transfer the equity of FMG, Ltd., to the same.
March 26, 1987 -
John Keeble, President of Financial Services Corporation (FSC), officially cite Robert Kauffman for breaching their
current employment contract by transferring the licenses to Hibbard Brown & company. FSC sends all licensed
representatives of FMG, Ltd., a letter stating their position and these allegations against Robert Kauffman.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone becomes infuriated at the recent events due to the fact that he has insisted as far back as the Spring of
1986 that Robert Kauffman disclose to all of the principals of FSC that Stan Caterbone and FMG, Ltd., are planning to
eventually apply for their own Broker Dealer License, or acquire an interest in another through a joint venture, both of
which would mean the termination in the relationship and agreement with FSC.
It has become apparent that Kauffman was not only receiving compensation from FSC, and FMG, Ltd., but was actually
conducting business that was in a conflict of interest to either FSC, or FMG, Ltd., either of which would ultimately add
risk to the value of FMG, Ltd., stock, and increase the potential liability for litigation to FMG, Ltd.,
April 1987 - Stan Caterbone directs and coordinates a joint venture deal with the Life Underwriters Group, of Harrisburg and FMG, Ltd., for the
insurance business of FMG Insurance, Inc., which Stan Caterbone presides. The joint venture was also to evaluate and
analyze of FMG, Ltd., to enter into the reinsurance business, another strategy to acquire equity.
April 9, 1987 -
Robert Kauffman receives a formal complaint from the president of Conestoga Fuels, Bradley S. Singer, with regards to
the services of accountant Robert Long in the preparation of his 1986 taxes. Mr. Singer cites the negligence of Mr.
Robert Long in not delivering the services as promised, and not responding to his calls. Mr. Singer also alleges that
FMG, Ltd., is not delivering the services that it promotes, and states that FMG, Ltd., is not able to provide financial
advise on both a personal and corporate level.
April 14, 1987 -
The FMG, Ltd., Newsletter announces that Stan Caterbone is offering his mortgage banking services to all FMG, Ltd.,
affiliates, and that loans in excess of $2 million are available for real estate ventures. Stan Caterbone also announces the
plans to develop an FMG, Ltd., satellite office in the York, Pa, area, through a joint venture with the Bennet Williams
real estate firm. It is also announced that the new Rennet Williams office complex will be the first private real estate
syndication for FMG, Ltd.,
April 16, 1987 -
The FMG, Ltd., Board of Directors meeting is held at the law offices of McNesse, Wallace and Nurick, of Harrisburg,
with corporate attorney Jeffrey Jaouneau present. The Board discussed the relationships of Tom Turner and Barry
Schuttler with specific regards of how to transfer equity of FMG, Ltd., to their interests through a restructure.
The reorganization and restructure of FMG, Ltd., was also discussed with the considerations to vote on the preceding
matters and a 5:1 stock split within the next 30 days.
April 18, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone personally visits the headquarters of Hibbard Brown & company, outside Washington, D.C., en route to
a tour day vacation in Captiva Island, 71. Mike Dipaolo was also present.
Stan Caterbone wanted to discuss the present problems encountered with the securities trading of his brokers,
specifically Peter Poneros, was an exceptionally large volume producer. Stan Caterbone also wanted to perform some
sort of due diligence on the firm, which he had previously scorned both Robert Kauffman and Michael Bartlett for not
personally visiting the offices prior to reaching the decision to sign and consummate the joint venture agreement.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone became infuriated at the response by Pete Hibbard and his subordinates after learning that they did not
know a problem existed, while persons at FMG, Ltd., were under the impression that the staff at Hibbard Brown & Co.
were acting to rectify and resolve the problems.
Stan Caterbone also become disappointed to find that the firm was nothing more than empty offices, with little if any
staff.
Stan Caterbone transcribes an extensive diary of events of the formation, development and progress of Financial
Management Group, Ltd., in response to the recent problems caused by President Robert Kauffman, and in preparation
for any potential legal litigation that may arise in the future.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone wanted to insure against Robert Kauffman misrepresenting the facts, as he has demonstrated in the past.
Page
In addition, Stan Caterbone wanted to protect and preserve all of his interests, which were instrumental in the success of
FMG, Ltd.,
It was known that Kauffman and Hartlett very much resented the accomplishments and respect of Stan Caterbone within
FMG, Ltd.,, despite their lack of commitment in the early development of FMG, Ltd.,. Stan Caterbone assumed more
risk, and contributed more efforts than either of the other two principals in the beginning days of the company.
May 5, 1987 -
"Expanded" FMG, Ltd., Board of Directors Meeting is held that includes additional FMG, Ltd., satellite office
principals: Richard Volpe (Phil.); Barry Schuttler (Siver Springs, Md.); Jerry Bavero (Camp Hill); and Ken flay (ISIS).
Stan Caterbone presents cover story of "Business Week", regarding growth of convenience industry, which is why he
conceived the full service strategy for FMG, Ltd., Stan Caterbone also explains the procedures for his mortgage
banking services and its related issues. Stan Caterbone discusses the "Digital" Movie venture and its progress and
financial considerations - Stan Caterbone also describes in detail the Bennett Williams real estate syndication, and the
current plans for a satellite office in a joint venture with Bennett Williams. In addition, Stan Caterbone discloses his
design for and plans for development of a fully integrated computer system, which would include automatic tax
preparation, financial planning, and other related technologies, which are now 3 different bastardized systems.
Negotiations for an additional satellite office in the Harrisburg area are also disclosed, as well as the status and progress
of already existing offices in Lewisburg, Baltimore, Reading, Minneapolis, and Florida.
May II, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone loans $2, 000 to Scott Robertson, until settlement of pending deals, and also pays $750 to Marcia Silen
of Flatbush Films, in advance for work done for the "Digital" Movie.
May 11, 1987 -
Al Dannatt of Institutional Investors, of Houston, visits with Stan Caterbone to inspect the Olde Hickory properties in
order to secure a refinancing package of $6 million for Noris Boyd (FMG Ltd., shareholder). A proposed financing
package is later proposed and offered, and Noris Boyd discloses to Stan Caterbone that the terms and conditions are
more favorable than the existing and proposed terms of the Commonwealth National Bank, which is in jeopardy of
loosing the loan to Stan Caterbone and Institutional Investors.
The deal would have resulted in at least a $25,000 fee to Stan Caterbone.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone also holds additional meetings with local and regional real estate developers concerning his loan
portfolio and financing abilities, including Drew Anton, owner of the Treadway Resort Inn, and Fisher/Sponougle
Group, Ltd.,. Al Dannatt will later travel to Florida in order to inspect a commercial shopping center owned by the
Fisher Sponougle Group, Ltd., that was looking to secure some $so million in financing.
Art Kerst, a computer consultant, will also solicit Stan Caterbone to become involved in the mortgage banking activities,
and despite Stan Caterbone's already existing dealings with the Fisher Sponougle Group, Ltd., Art Kerst will begin to
conduct meetings with Herb Fisher.
May 13, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone attends an all expense paid conference to Palm Springs, CA, by Philadelphia Life Insurance Co., for his
personal life insurance business of the previous year.
FMG, Ltd, Board of Directors meet to vote on Stan Caterbone's request and demand to ratify the recent joint venture
agreement/contract with Hibbard Brown & Company, after Stan Caterbone learned of dire inefficiencies within Hibbard
Brown & company, and the "Born Again" relationships of Kauffman, that placed an unprecedented amount of risk to
FMG, Ltd.,. Stan Caterbone voted by telephone from the Chicago Airport, in the midst of his travel to Palm Springs and
Hollywood California. The Board also voted to negotiate and approve a deal with the Planners Securities Group, of
Atlanta, GA.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone had won the votes of Alan Loss and Robert Long, overturning the decision of Robert Kauffman and
Michael Bartlett and officially terminating the agreement.
This vote, in and above itself, took control of the Board of Directors from Kauffman and Bartlett, and put the power of
the Board in the direction of Stan Caterbone. This will eventually lead to the Coup conspired by Kauffman and Hartlett
to find a way to get Stan Caterbone out of the corporation.
May 14, 1987 -
Robert Kauffman sends a formal letter of apology to Pete Hibbard, president of Hibbard Brown & Company, of
Washington, D.C. for the recent action of the FMG, Ltd., Board of Directors to ratify the previously accepted joint
venture agreement.
Page
Robert Kauffman acknowledges his efforts in trying to convince the FMG, Ltd., board to continue with the agreement,
and also states his position that this action will be regretted by all in the future.
May 15, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone travels to Hollywood, CA, directly from Palm springs, to meet with Marcia Silen, of Flatbush Films, the
film producer of "Mutant Mania", the "Digital Movie". Stan Caterbone discloses his outline and strategies for the SONY
proposal which Marcia Silen calls "genius and brilliant". Additional strategies are discussed for the project.
An additional meeting with Becky Austin, a known real estate professional in the Hollywood area, is held. Stan
Caterbone discusses a possible joint venture to develop a Hollywood office for the mortgage banking activities, and
Becky Austin indicates her interest to pursue the venture. Additional plans are made to meet with Al Dannatt of
Institutional Investors in Houston, Texas at a later date.
Stan Caterbone also contacts Ted Gamillion, owner and operator of Gamillion Studios (a successful "mini-major" film
studio), of Hollywood Studios, who has solicited his services through Becky Austin and Marcia Silen, for the
refinancing and a restructuring of his studios. Plans are made for a future visits to the Studios at a later time, due to
scheduling problems at that time.
May 16, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone directs his administrative assistant, Lynn Kreider, to confidentially transcribe his diary of May 2, 1987
into the word processor for future reference, without the knowledge of any persons.
May 18, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone completes the first draft of the SONY proposal and the "Digital Movie" in order to secure the financing
of the project.
FMG, Ltd., sponsors and conducts a seminar titled "Medical Malpractice Risks" at the St. Joseph Hospital for all
attending Physicians and hospital staff. Scott Robertson bad requested Stan Caterbone to coordinate the efforts because
of his relationship with Hospital Administrators, and his many clients that included many Hospital physicians. Stan
Caterbone bad also worked with the Hospital's Human Resource Department on other similar projects.
The seminar included an attorney from the local law firm of Barley, Snyder, & Cooper, that presented information
regarding legal and financial exposure in the event of medical malpractice suits, and an executive from Crown Life
Insurance describing new products that help alleviate some financial exposure. Robert Kauffman, presented information
about FMG, Ltd., its progress, and services, and Alan Loss acted as moderator.
NOTES:
In addition, Stan Caterbone directed the professional filming of the seminar, and also a marketing video, which
included demonstrations and talks by the head of various departments within FMG, Ltd., as well as demonstrations of
various computer technologies utilized and designed by FMG, Ltd. Stan Caterbone had intended to edit the video, and
use it for marketing and recruiting in the franchising of the company.
The seminar attracted approximately 50 persons, including Dr. William Umiker (FMG, Ltd., shareholder) and Dr. Albert
Schulz Psychiatrist), both Stan Caterbone's clients. The seminar was considered a success.
May 18, 1987 -
Robert Kauffman signs and notarizes the agreement for the stock option agreement and joint venture with the Planners
Securities Group, of Atlanta, Ga; as Robert Long again signed as the FMC, Ltd., Board of Directors, rather than Stan
Caterbone, Secretary of FMG, Ltd., as common practice, policy, and law.
NOTES:
Again, Stan Caterbone would not approve this contract, on the basis of a clause, conveniently included, that would have
provided that the 10 % stock option was only vested under the conditions that Robert Kauffman remain as president of
FMG, Ltd., Upon the termination, resignation, or any other departure, FMG, Ltd., would loose all interests in the
accumulated stock options earned over the next seven (7) years. Stan Caterbone would not approve such a contract
because of the conflict of interests with respect to the above clause, which yielded Robert Kauffman the power to hold
his position of Presidency, as a financial hostage, if his performance was not within the expectations of all shareholders,
or if he engaged in activities of misconduct or wrongdoing. The only way the stock option agreement was fully vested
upon the departure of Robert Kauffman before the seven year schedule, was if convicted of a felony, which yields the
potential for many abuses and conflicts of interests on his part that would still subject the FMG, Ltd., shareholders to the
loss of the stock options upon his departure.
May 20, 1987 - Attorney Ric Fox submits the legal "Letter of Intent for Joint Venture Participation and Contribution" for Power Productions I to Stan
Caterbone for securing investments and financing of "Mutant Mania", the "Digital" Movie. Stan Caterbone was the
General and Managing Partner responsible for managing the investment fund. The invoice was paid by FMG Advisory,
Page
10
Inc., in which Stan Caterbone was President and managed the daily operations.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone had previously held a meeting with Noris Boyd and Robert Long, at FMG, Ltd., whereby Noris Boyd
had verbally committed to investing approximately $250,000 into the venture.
May 21, 1987 -
Again Robert Kauffman has Robert Long sign for his Employment Agreement with FMG,
Ltd. ,as representing
the Board of Directors, which should have been signed by the
Secretary of FMG, Ltd., Stan Caterbone.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone also disputed this contract as proposed by Robert Kauffman, mainly due to the increased financial
incentives and salary increases to Robert Kauffman.
Stan Caterbone especially disputed a 3% profit incentive on all FMG, Ltd., businesses paid as a bonus to Robert
Kauffman. Stan Caterbone objected to Robert Kauffman being paid bonuses on businesses that Stan Caterbone had
personally developed, managed, and was responsible for managing the daily operations, including: the mortgage banking
activities; FMG Accounting; the insurance business; and FMG Advisory, which Stan Caterbone was elected and
remained President.
Stan Caterbone also disputed the increase in monthly salary of $5,000 to $7,000, as instituted by Robert Kauffman,
himself.
May 26, 1987 -
In the FMG, Ltd., Newsletter, Michael Hartlett officially announces the appointment of Jon Gruber and Craig Russell,
principals in the law firm of Russell, Kraft, Gruber and Huber to join FMG, Ltd., and occupy an office in the FMG, Ltd.,
headquarters.
NOTES:
The above announcement was done without prior notice or consent of Stan Caterbone, which was against present
company policy regarding important and sensitive matters of that nature. The same said law firm would later represent
FMG, Ltd., and take all legal action against Stan Caterbone in the following months.
May 27, 1987 -
Arlene Davidson, of Flatbush Films, finalizes and completes the first draft of the working budget 0 the "Digital" Movie
and mails it to Stan Caterbone in preparation for the meeting in Stone Harbor in the upcoming weeks.
May 29, 1987 -
Associate Producer Arlene Davidson encloses the first draft of the screenplay to Stan Caterbone in Stone Harbor, NJ.
Barry Schuttler's office manager, Audrey, discloses during a meeting with Stan Caterbone to educate her on how to
recruit and build the satellite office, that Fete Hibbard, president of Hibbard Brown & Company, is also (Kauffman,
Turner, Schuttler) ,a "Born Again" Christian, and that he is trying to convert her.
Mike Dipaolo submits a proposal to Stan Caterbone to join the FMG Accounting group with Robert Long.
June 6, 1987 -
Flatbush Film producers: Marcia Silen; Arlene Davidson; and Director Barbara Peters travel from Hollywood, CA, to
visit with Tony Bongiovi and other producers at Stan Caterbone's residence in Stone Harbor, NJ, for their first
production meeting. Flatbush Film personnel spent several days in New York at Power Station Studios, before traveling
to the New Jersey Shore, the location for the filming of the movie.
June 8, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone sells 1,000 shares of ISC stock.
June 9, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone submits an application for a loan in the financing of the aircraft to John Wolfe, Executive Vice President
of Commonwealth National Bank, and delivers it to him at Lancaster Aviation.
Stan Caterbone also submits a request for a $100,000 line of credit with the Farmers First Rank, where all FMG, Ltd.,
accounts are held. Stan Caterbone offers his FMG, Ltd., holding as collateral.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone requested the financial records and statements from Michael Bartlett, the FMG, Ltd., Treasurer, who was
responsible for the accounting. However despite the legal entitlement, Michael Bartlett and Robert Kauffman refused to
allow access of all financial records to Stan Caterbone.
Ironically, even though Stan Caterbone's past efforts were known to be responsible for the success and the formation of
the organization, Stan Caterbone will never have or had, the privilege to review any financial records of the firm, even
as of the date of this report (1991).
June 10, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone prepares a financial capsule of Financial Management Group, Ltd., bases on his original projects
contained in his business plan of one year earlier.
Page
11
After gathering the analytical in formation based on capital raised, and production figures, Stan Caterbone reported that
FMG, Ltd., was at least two (2) years ahead of its original projections in almost every category, even though FMG, Ltd.,
was a month away from its 1st Birthday.
The following is a synopsis of that report which illustrates the highlights:
Capital Raised:
Professionals:
Staff:
Satellite Offices:
Stock Value:
$80 million
60
13
12
$13-$17 per share
(before the 5:1 stock split and not including the 10% interest in the Planners Securities Group, stock, recently acquired)
June 12, 1987 -
Lancaster Aviation arrange for the selected aircraft to be flown in from the Midwest to be inspected by Stan Caterbone.
Pete Wolfson of Lancaster Aviation conducts the meeting, as an official agent of Lancaster Aviation.
Commonwealth Bank has approved the financing of $97,000 for the purchase. The additional $25,000 required is not
yet available. Pete Wolfson insists that the plane must be purchased before being flown back to the Midwest. Pete
Wolfson requests a post-dated check from Stan Caterbone for the remaining balance. Stan Caterbone refuses, citing that
the remaining funds must be liquidated from the Keystone Mutual Fund, and the exact receipt of the moneys is not
guaranteed, and could take up to 10 days.
Pete Wclfson agrees not to deposit the check until Stan Caterbone confirms that the funds have been received and
deposited in order to cover the check for the remaining $25,000. Stan Caterbone makes sure that Pete Wolfson has the
authority to make the arrangement, and Pete Wolfson agrees. The purchase of the airplane was also subject to a prepurchase inspection by Lancaster Aviation. Lancaster Aviation also advises Stan Caterbone to have his airplane
included in their Fleet Insurance plan. Stan Caterbone also advises Lancaster Aviation that he would like to offer the
airplane to his business associates for use in order to subsidize the costs and maintenance.
The papers are signed and the settlement is made during the initial inspection.
June 15, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives the production schedule and itinerary for the "Digital" (Mutant Mania) Movie from Arlene
Davidson, Associate Producer (Flatbush Films), of Hollywood, CA.
NOTES:
Flatbush Films has begun to direct all communications and efforts to Stan Caterbone directly, and have begun to look to
him for direction, after lack of communication and several misunderstandings in dealing directly with Tony Bongiovi
and others at Power Station Studios.
Stan Caterbone suddenly finds himself in the middle of resentment by Scott Robertson and others because of the respect
from the Hollywood people concerning the directing of the movie.
June 17, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives materials from New York bases Real Estate developer, Susan Weinstein, for considerations in
securing financing for development of the fastest growing section of New Jersey, the "1-78 Corridor". This section of
New Jersey was attracting many professionals who worked in New York city, mainly due to it's 35 minute commute, and
it's rural setting.
June 18, 1987-
Stan Caterbone and Randy Grespin, corporate attorney for The Life Underwriters Group (TUG), fly to Atlanta, Ga, to
visit with executives of Planners Securities Group (PSG), a nationally known Broker Dealer. Stan Caterbone had
initially consulted with both Kauffman and Bartlett concerning the trip, however when both disagreed, Stan Caterbone
questioned why he was the only principal to personally visit the operations of Hibbard Brown & Company, which lead
to his decision to terminate the ill fated merger.
NOTES:
The company in Atlanta, was the regarded as the most successful Broker Dealers in the financial planning community,
and included several former presidents of the national board of the International Association of Financial Planners. The
company had previously been recruiting FMG, Ltd., and offering an attractive equity interest. Randy Grespin agreed to
reimburse $600 to Stan Caterbone for the expense and use of his aircraft.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone had the following agenda for the trip and meeting:
1.
Page
12
Visit and discuss a possible joint venture and merger with FMG, Ltd., and evaluate the various departments
necessary to administer FMG, Ltd's., stock transactions and
private real estate offerings.
2. Discuss and evaluate the opportunities of utilizing insurance products from Randy Grespin's firm, and all matters
related to the structuring of business.
3.
Familiarize Greg Dune, a personal friend and recruitment of Stan Caterbones who was also visiting from Florida to
consider opening a Florida office for FMG, Ltd.,
4. Conduct an extensive and thorough due diligence investigation of the stability, efficiency, and security of the
operations, in order to prevent a similar situation that facilitated the previous termination of the recent Hibbard
Brown & Company deal. Stan Caterbone left the meetings with very optimistic and impressive findings, that only
left more questions as to the decision of Kauffman and Bartlett to affiliate with Hibbard Brown & Company,
knowing that the Atlanta group had been aggressively pursuing talks of a merger since the inception of FMG, Ltd.,
On the return flight home, Stan Caterbone confided to Randy Grespin, requesting legal advise, regarding the recent
problems and his allegations of misconduct by FMG, Ltd., President Robert Kauffman. Randy Grespin advised
Stan Caterbone to take some time and seek legal counsel.
Upon entering the offices of FMG, Ltd., after arriving in Lancaster, Robert Kauffman pulls Stan Caterbone into his
office and abruptly shouts "Who is running this corporation, me or you?". Stan Caterbone quickly answers "I don't give
a damn who runs this company. as long as it's run right, and for the right reasons!" Stan Caterbone immediately left the
office.
Later that evening, Robert Kauffman appears at the residence of Stan Caterbone, for the first time, unannounced and
completely out of character of Robert Kauffman.
Robert Kauffman and Stan Caterbone have a dispute over the renewal of their respective new contracts. Stan Caterbone
refuses to approve Robert auffman's new contract due to clauses that provide him with profits on businesses that tan
Caterbone has developed and will manage. Robert Kauffman also refuses to give Stan Caterbone an additional increase
of his salary of $3,000 per month, while wanting to increase his salary from $5,000 to $7,000 per month. Both salaries
did not include commissions from their respective clients.
June 22, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone hires Todd Deliinqer, a planner in FMG, Ltd., to help administrate the daily activities of his personal
clientele and to perform administrative duties
necessary due to the amount of time Stan Caterbone is conducting
business out at the office, allowing Stan Caterbone to focus attention on the Strategic Planning, and allowing him to
better manage his time.
Stan Caterbone sends a memo to client and shareholder Dr. William Umiker that introduces his new assistant, in
addition to information regarding his pension accounts.
June
1987 -
June 23, 1987 -
June 23, 1987

10:00 am
Guerins brother-in-law, Carl I. Jacobson, is targeted by a federal task force and grand jury investigating massive
Department of Defense contract fraud and corruption within United Chem Con and the York-based Wedteck
Corporation.
Carl Jacobean flees the U.S. in the early morning for Santiago, Chile, in what will ultimately be a failed attempt
to avoid a federal subpoena similar to those served to other United Chem Con associates. Romar Aviation
provided the flight.
Larry Resch visits Stan Caterbone at FMG, Ltd., headquarters in Lancaster, as scheduled. Larry Resch explains that "we
had to fly Carl Jacobson out of the country early this morning" as the reason for his not being able to attend the meeting
as planned.
Larry Resch discusses possible strategies to rescue Chem Cons Minority 8A Setaside contracts, and solicits financing
for new facility.
Stan Caterbone becomes annoyed the context of the conversation, especially the lack Of disclosure, and discusses
allegations of wrongdoing by Guerin and ISC, and the relationship to Chem Con. After evaluating the financial
statements, Stan Caterbone also suggests there is approximately $15 to $18 million in missing funds.
Page
13
2:00 pm
Stan Caterbone has his locks changed to his office by Russel Locksmith of Lititz, in order to secure confidential personal
and business tiles in light of the current internal power struggle between himself, Michael Hartlett and Robert Kauffman,
and given the conversation with Mr. Larry Resch a few hours earlier.
June 25, 1987 -
Robert Kaufman, President of FMG, Ltd., and other FMG, Ltd., executives burglarize Stan Caterbone's office removing
confidential personal and business tiles. Some of the mortgage banking and other business files have yet to be found.
Kauffman and Robert Long illegally issue FMG, Ltd., stock certificates to Peter Peneros and Scott Robertson. Robert
Long signs the stock certificates as Secretary of FMG, Ltd., when Stan Caterbone was acting Secretary, and was the only
person duly authorized to issue FMG, Ltd., stock certificates.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone learned of the burglary by Robert Kauffman in a telephone conversation while at Stone Harbor, NJ;
Kauffman inadvertently mentioned that the stock certificates were issued, however, with all documents at risk of being
stolen, Stan Caterbone did not mention the incident, in hopes to first recover any potentially stolen business and
personal files.
June 27, 1987 -
Jim Bly of Virginia based Source Capital, is scheduled to use the aircraft of Stan Caterbone, for approximately 6 hours
of flight time at $300.00 per hour. However, Jim Bly is denied the flight by Lancaster Aviation, who repossess the
aircraft and refuses to allow the plane to leave the ground, without any knowledge by Stan Caterbone.
NOTES:
Chuck Smith, president of Lancaster Aviation, later discloses to Stan Caterbone that he had deposited Stan Caterbones
pre dated check for $25.000, without the confirmation by Stan Caterbone that the funds had been transferred from
accounts. Stan Caterbone had argued with Pete Wolfson, salesman, that he did not want to give them a post dated
check, however Chuck Wolfson insisted. Now, Chuck Smith had told Stan Caterbone that Pete Wolfson did not have
the authority to complete the transaction. However Stan Caterbone reminded Chuch Smith that he was acting as an
agent for Lancaster Aviation, and that was not material to this dispute.
June 29, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives patent research materials from patent attorney Joel S. Goldhammer, of the prominent
Philadelphia law firm Siedel, Gonda, Goldhammer & Abbot regarding the "Digital" Movie, and the national franchising
of Financial Management Group, Ltd.,. Stan Caterbone had retained the services of Siedel, Gonda, Goldhammer Abbot
in order to investigate all relevant matters concerning the technology, merchandising, and marketing of the "Mutant
Mania" project, and the use of the "Power Station" label. Research was required for the merchandising of consumer
electronics, professional audio/visual digital mixing consoles, and the "Power Station Digital Movie System
(PSDMS), as created by Stan Caterbone in the proposal for SONY Corporation of Japan.
In addition, Stan Caterbone had retained the law firm to research the private label of "Financial Management Group,
Ltd., in preparation of reorganizing and marketing the organization in the national marketplace. Stan Caterbone had
requested the patent research while President of FMG Advisory, Inc., and authorized payment from the companies
account, which Stan Caterbone had exclusive authority.
June 30, 1987 - Stan Caterbone visits with Dave Schaad, President of the York based real estate firm of Bennett Williams, Inc., Stan Caterbone was
finalizing plans to secure financing of a $2.5 million office complex for the new headquarters of Bennett Williams, as
well as 3 or 4 additional anchor tenants. Stan Caterbone had been working with Dave Schaad for the past 3 months,
along with Scott Robertson.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone had previously discussed the deal with Dave Cook, and executive and former owner of the Turkey Hill
Convenience Stores. Dave Cook indicated a serious interest in providing the entire $2.5 million investment. The above
deal would have provided over $150,000 of fees upon settlement to Stan Caterbone upon settlement.
Prior to the meeting, Dave Schaad had indicated by telephone, that Robert Kauffman had invited himself to the meeting,
without prior consent or notice to Stan Caterbone, During the meeting, Stan Caterbone disclosed the current political
problems within the principals of FMG, Ltd., being facilitated by Robert Kauffman himself.
July 1, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone, assisted by James Warner, remove all personal and business files from the premises of FMG, Ltd., after
Stan Caterbone had learned of the burglary.
NOTES:
In an effort to conceal the incident to FMG, Ltd., personnel and shareholders to avoid a devastating and potential crisis,
the above attempt to restore the files was done at approximately 1:00 am. while the office was vacated. Stan Caterbone
had found several confidential business files (mortgage banking) in the offices of Robert Kauffman and Robert Long,
that were the exclusive property of Stan Caterbone. In an effort to document the theft, Stan Caterbone took photographs
of the files in the offices of the two executives, before he removed them.
Page
14
Stan Caterbone had prepared to take the files to the attorney office of Joe Roda on the following morning.
July 1, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone phones Joe Roda from the home of Mary Lynn Dipaolo to arrange for a meeting to discuss the recent
events and Coup attempt by Kauffman and Hartlett that
included several criminal and security violations.
Stan Caterbone visits with Joe Roda and describes the incidents in detail, including the "Digital Movie", ISC, and all
related activities. Joe Roda instructs Stan Caterbone to have all of the files copied and arranges for the return of all
FMG, Ltd., corporate files.
Stan Caterbone had questioned Joe Roda for a legal opinion as to his right of any moneys in FMG, Ltd., checking
accounts that he was authorized to sign for. Joe Roda advised that Stan Caterbone had no right to any funds. All checks
were returned to FMG, Ltd., along with all other documents.
Stan Caterbone advises Joe Roda that he is in fear that someone is deliberately orchestrating all of the recent incidents,
which were quite extraordinary and extremely criminal and have been coming from all directions. Stan Caterbone
advised Joe Roda that he would like to take all of his files to Stone Harbor, NJ for safekeeping while he pursued his
legal recourse. Stan Caterbone also explained that he would feel safer leaving Lancaster until these circumstances were
brought under control.
July 2, 1987
In an effort to continue all efforts and business activities, Stan Caterbone visits the Office Works, owned and operated
by High Industries, to purchase a printer while staying in Stone Harbor. FMG, Ltd., had an open account, which Stan
Caterbone authorized, as an officer of FMG, Ltd.,. The Office Works demands cash payment and refuses to put the
purchase on credit.
Stan Caterbone negotiates with Romar Aviation to provide pilot; storage; and insurance with his aircraft after many very
questionable occurrences at Lancaster Aviation, just a few hundred feet away. Stan Caterbone secures insurance and
pays $1,000 to Romar Aviation for the flight to Stone Harbor, which was conducted by Victor M. of Romar Aviation. In
addition, at the referral of Victor, Stan Caterbone calls Sam Goode, of Sam Goode Assoc., to bind insurance for the
aircraft. Sam Goode Binds the insurance and instruct Stan Caterbone to mail a payment of $750. The conversation took
place in Romar Aviation, at the time the $1,000 was paid to Victor. Stan Caterbone loads his aircraft with all of his
personal and business files to be transported to the Cape May County Airport, just a few miles outside of Stone Harbor,
in the morning of July 4.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone was not aware of the relationship of Romar Aviation with Guerin and ISC, especially the previous flight
or Carl Jacobson to Chile by Romar Aviation just a few days before, the same day of his meeting with Larry Resch of
ISC.
July 4, 1987 - At approximately 12:00 am, Victor calls Stan Caterbone to notify him that his aircraft was reposed some hour earlier, and locked in
the hanger of Lancaster Aviation, with all of his personal and business files on board.
Victor only would say that Commonwealth Bank had taken part in the repossession, with no reasons given. The first
payment of the loan agreement with Commonwealth National Bank was not due until July 25, 1987. There was no
money due to Commonwealth National Bank.
Stan Caterbone also becomes quite suspicious, after learning a few weeks earlier that his efforts to provide a refinance of
some $6 million to Boyd Wilson Properties, was more favorable than the existing or proposed financing arrangements
now place with Commonwealth National Bank, which not only has a lender relationship with Stan Caterbone, but is also
a competitor for his mortgage banking activities.
It was also known that Stan Caterbone's lending authority was larger and more competitive than most of the local
banking community.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone now becomes in fear for his life due to this incident, and all other unexplained incidents in the
preceding days and weeks.
July 4, 1987 -
At approximately 9:00 am in the morning, Stan Caterbone calls his attorney Joe Roda, under emotional duress from the
previous conversation with Victor and the repossession of his aircraft with all documents on board; Joe Roda responds
"Stan, you have to quit fabricating these allegations, it is July 4th, what do you want me to do. This conversation
reaffirms a conspiracy theory within Lancaster to ruin him, and supports his efforts to leave Lancaster with his files to
solicit aid and support from legal and law enforcement authorities to suppress the conspiracy.
NOTES:
Page
15
Stan Caterbone realizes that the documents were authentic proof and evidence of all of his allegations, and most
importantly all of his business activities for the past 5 or more years. The loss of the files would have devastating
consequences for his life.
At approximately 9:30 am, after the disturbing phone, Stan Caterbone drives to the Cape May County Airport to solicit
the services of a pilot to fly to Lancaster to retrieve his files. Brad Donahue accepts the job, and agrees to a $200 tee,
and an additional $200 it there are any difficulties in obtaining the files.
Stan Caterbone provides Brad Donahue with all documentation showing legal title to the aircraft in the event authorities
are notified. Stan Caterbone gives explicit instructions to notify the police in the event personnel will not return all of
the files.
Brad Donahue arrives a few hours later, with boxes of files. Brad Donahue briefly describes an encounter at Lancaster
Aviation, and demands payment of $400 as agreed. An invoice is signed by all parties as proof of payment and the
activity, and $400 in cash is paid to Brad Donahue. Pilot Dave Austin, of the Cape May County Airport witnesses the
transactions and the event.
NOTES:
In the following weeks, Dave Austin, would later disclose to Stan Caterbone that Brad Donahue was killed in a
mysterious "Air-Accident", while over water, with an unexplained and questionable flight chart.
July 5, 1987 - Stan Caterbone solicits the legal services of Ric Fox, a Harrisburg attorney that has prepared legal documents for the "Digital" Movie.
Rio Fox flies his aircraft to the Cape May County Airport, and arrives at Stan Caterbone's house accompanied with
another attorney Robert Chercicoff.
NOTES:
All of the recent activities were detailed and described concerning FMG, Ltd.,; the "Digital Movie"; and the illegal
repossession of the aircraft. Stan Caterbone questioned Mr. Fox and his associate of any relationship with
Commonwealth Bank, which headquarters were also in Harrisburg, and both gave a very ambiguous answer.
The meeting ended with both attorneys failing to recognize or admit to any wrongdoing by any and all related parties,
and further demanding a $2,000 retainer fee to look further into the matters.
Stan Caterbone suspects the conspiracy theory again, especially in light of the acknowledged relationship with
Commonwealth Bank, and an indirect relationship with Robert Kauffman, through Life Underwriters of Harrisburg, a
joint venture arranged by Stan Caterbone some months earlier.
By July 5, Stan Caterbone had already made two legitimate attempts to solicit legal aid for the unexplained events and
circumstances, both of which were maliciously sabotaged.
July 6, 1987 -
In an effort to document the conspiracy theory, Stan Caterbone requests Tom Caterbone to call Robert Kauffman to
inquire about the status of his affairs, and to tape the conversation. Tom Caterbone identifies himself as John Green, a
client of Stan Caterbone's and Robert Kauffman states the following:
"Stan Caterbone has moved his office to Stone Harbor, NJ.. he is not taking care of business, and I need to see to it that
his clients are taken care of for the time being.. he has been spending a lot of money, an airplane, a place at the shore,
and he seems to think that he is too important for his traditional clientele.. There is some history of mental disorders in
his family history.. I can't come right out and say that that is what's going on, .. I wish Stan would get some professional
help.. However for the time being, Stan is not taking care of business, and I need to be concerned for his clients.
July 6, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone telephones Dr. Al Schulz, psychiatrist at St. Joseph Hospital, and client of Stan Caterbone's in order to
thwart the allegations of insanity. Dr. Al Shulz had disclosed that several persons, including Mary Lynn Dipaolo and
Jere Sullivan had called him concerning Stan Caterbone's behavior and activities.
From the allegations, Dr. Shulz advised that Stan Caterbone was suffering from illusions of grandeur, and prescribed
Lithium treatment, and to return to Lancaster for consultation.
Stan Caterbone insisted that the allegations were purely fabricated, and that no one had any legal right to interfere with
his business and or legal affairs, let alone his confidential medical records.
July 6, 1987
Stan Caterbone contacts David Drubner, of Boston, Ma, a friend of Stan Caterbone's brothers Mike, and an attorney.
During the conversation, David Drutner questions Stan Caterbone about "taking some medication", and supports the
Page
16
allegations of insanity.
July 6, 1987
In the following days, Stan Caterbone had made numerous telephone calls to local, state, and federal authorities, for
intervention and help regarding all of the preceding events and circumstances. The following is a brief description of
each:
Manhiem Township Police Department, responded "what bank branch repossessed your aircraft"; Pennsylvania State
Senator Gib Armstrong, responded, "I will call the Pa Attorney General's Office and have them call you; the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Philadelphia-based field office; U.S. Representative Robert Walker (R-Pa), a
detailed and explicit conversation with Mrs. Robert Walker, who would only advise Stan Caterbone to put his situation
in writing and submit it to the Congressman in his Washington, D. C. office. In addition: David Wouls (Executive Vice
President of the Lancaster chamber of Commerce & Industry), Stan Caterbone talked at length, and in detail,
making allegations of misconduct with members of the same; National Association of securities Dealers (NASD), in
Washington, D.C., Stan Caterbone discussed the securities related violations. And also: the Securities & Exchange
Commission (SEC), also in Washington, D.C., and discussed securities laws violations; the Pennsylvania Securities
Commission, of Harrisburg, Pa, discussed the implications of Stan Caterbone's illegal lock-out, and his legal and formal
positions, including incorporating officer of FMG, Ltd., Stan Caterbone received no support or follow-up
communications concerning all of the above requests, despite his apparent emotional duress, and extreme situation.
July 7, 1987
Stan Caterbone contacts the law firm of Capello & Foley, of Santa Barbara, California. Stan Caterbone had conducted
research (American Bar Association Journal) in "Lender Liability", which was becoming very popular legal issue,
where banks participate in illegal activities resulting in the financial ruin of it's borrowers.
Stan
Caterbone
intended to file suit against Commonwealth National Bank for the illegal and unjustified repossession of his aircraft.
Stan Caterbone discussed the case briefly with Diane Campell that day, and Stan Caterbone made arrangements to
deliver supporting documents to the office in Santa Barbara the following week, while visiting with Gamillion Studios,
in Hollywood.
July 8, 1987
A formal notification of the termination of Stan Caterbone's Registered Representative Securities license with
the Planners Securities Group Inc., of Atlanta, GA is received, with a "cc: Robert Kauffman".
No explanation was provided, or any reasons for the termination. Stan Caterbones reprisal for disclosing
criminal activities to the proper authorities is that he will illegally loose his privilege to sell securities without any
merit.
July 8, 1987
July 9, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone's brothers, Steve, Phil, Mike, and Tom, arrive unexpectedly and uninvited at the residence of Stan
Caterbone's in Stone Harbor, NJ, and refuse to leave until Stan Caterbone agrees to take Lithium and return to
Lancaster to undergo treatment by Dr. Al Schulz, for mental illness.
Stan Caterbone receives a notice by regular 1st class mail from Commonwealth National Bank regarding the
repossession of 9 days prior. The following reasons are given for the repossession:
1. Failure to provide adequate insurance.
2. Removal of aircraft from Lancaster Aviation.
3. Intended plan to fly aircraft to Florida without prior written notice.
Jul 10, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives a formal notarized notification from Dr. and Mrs. William Umiker of FMG, Ltd.,; removing
Stan Caterbone as the former Trusee for their Estates.
Mr. Robert Kauffman also sends a personal letter to all of Stan Caterbones clients informing each and every one that
he has moved to Stone Harbor, NJ; that he may not handle investments at all; and that people close to Stan
Caterbone had requested that he, Robert Kauffman, personally service his clientele.
July 16, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone travels to New York, from Boston, MA, to visit with Bob Walters of Power Station Studios, to discuss
the allegations of Blackmail, and to find out who is involved, including Scott Robertson and Power Station Studios.
Stan Caterbone discusses the illegal repossession and other related matters, however during the conversation, becomes
suspicious when Bob Walters and Tony Bongiovi disclose that the "Digital" Movie project is suddenly suspended until a
later time.

July 17, 1987 -
Page
17
Stan Caterbone travels to Hollywood, California to meet and visit with Ted
Gamillion and Gamillion Studios (Film Studio), and Marcia Silen of Flatbush Films.
Ted Gamillion had previously solicited the consulting of Stan Caterbone in order to help reorganize the financing of the
film studio, after earlier arrangements in North Carolina had gone sour. Stan Caterbone had spent several days visiting
and touring the studio. Ted Gamillion agreed to allow Stan Caterbone to represent the studio in order to secure the
required financing. Ted Gamillion provided Stan Caterbone with substantial amounts of confidential financial, legal,
and tax documents for the project.
During the visit, Marcia Silen had disclosed to Stan Caterbone that Scott Robertson had made allegations of insanity
about him (Stan Caterbone) to persons at Power Station Studios and at Flatbush Films.
July 21, 1987 -
At 2:30 pm Stan Caterbone visits the law firm of Capello & Foley, in Santa Barbara, California, and delivers 3 large blue
binders for Diane Cambell and attorney Barry Capello to review, concerning his allegations of dire violations of lender
liability with specific
regards to the illegal repossession of his aircraft by commonwealth National Bank.
July 22, 1987 -
Attorney Joseph Roda invoices Stan Caterbone $527.00 for the time and services of July 1 & 2, 1987.
July 24, 1987 -
Michael M. Hartlett sends a letter to all creditors of FMG, Ltd., informing them that stated the following:
Stan Caterbone is no longer an officer of the corporation; he was removed from office on July 1, 1987; he had
been purchasing items under FMG, Ltd., and obtaining corporate discount and rates; and formally notifying
them that Stan Caterbone had never had the right to purchase items through FMG, Ltd., or make corporate
commitments on behalf of FMG, Ltd., or contract or in any way obligate FMG, Ltd.,.
July 24, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone conducts a three (3) hour meeting at his residence in Stone Harbor, NJ, with attorney Lew Schweller
regarding legal action concerning all events and activities of the prior days and months. Stan Caterbone also gives Lew
Schweller a $500.00 retainers fee, for his representation.
July 27, 1987 -
A Philadelphia-based grand jury begins a our year probe into illegal activities surrounding Chem-Con and its
executives, including Guerin.
July 30, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone had paid $600 to Dr. Levine, a Psychiatrist from North field, New Jersey, for an objective evaluation of
his mental state of mind, in order to prove the fabricated allegations of 'insanity".
Dr. Levine had conducted a 2 hour meeting in his residence in Stone Harbor, NJ, and required Stan Caterbone to
complete the Minneapolis Multiphase Personality Inventory (MMPI). Stan Caterbone completed the test, and
immediately returned it to Dr. Levine.
After several weeks without any communications from Dr. Levine, Stan Caterbone had called for the results.
Dr. Levine had explained that he had conducted telephone interviews with members of Stan Caterbone's family, without
notice or consent, in addition to the original request of Stan Caterbone to conduct an objective and confidential
examination.
In addition, Dr. Levine prescribed Lithium drug therapy, and disclosed a diagnosis of Bi-Polar Mood Disorder.
August 1987 -
Stan Caterbone will meet with a friend, and employee of Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., and request the employee to warn
Ms. Peggy Steinman, the direct supervisor of the employee, not to print my name in the newspapers. Stan Caterbone
sensed his perpetrators would resort to extremes and warned against libel and slander.
The Lancaster Newspapers did exactly that on September 4, 1987.
August 1, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone transcribes a memo to Diane Cambell, assistant to attorney Barry Capello, of Capello & Foley, of Santa
Barbara, Ca.
August 6, 1987 -
The legal firm of Appel, Yost & Sorentino, of Lancaster, Pa., send a formal notice to Stan Caterbone, demanding the
return of a facsimile machine leased from the ACM company of Lancaster, Pa. Attorney Appel advises Stan Caterbone
that it is the property of FMG, Ltd., and should be returned at once or legal action will follow.
Page
18
August 8, 1987 -
John M. Wolf, Executive Vice President of Commonwealth National Bank sends Stan Caterbone a formal letter advising
that the repossession of July 2, 1987 was both lawful and appropriate, and declines to accept a settlement of $5 million
for lender liability violations.
August 7, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives a Credit Report from the Credit Bureau of Lancaster County as requested. The credit report up
to the date of August 1, 1987 verifies and confirms that his credit report was excellent, without any blemishes. The
history of all accounts were "paid within 30 days, or as agreed".
August 10, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives a facsimile from the Board of Directors of FMG, Ltd., signed by Robert Long threatening to file
criminal charges for "embezzlement (we have checks to prove it), burglary, employee theft, corporate opportunity and
slander against our firm".
August 12, 19S7 -
Yolanda Caterbone, mother of Stan Caterbone, Steve, Phil, Mike, and Tom Caterbone, all brothers, arrive unexpectedly
and uninvited to the residence of Stan Caterbone in Stone Harbor. After several requests for the visitors to leave the
premises are denied, several brothers refuse to let Stan Caterbone leave the premises. Stan Caterbone flees, and the
brothers chase after him.
Stan Caterbone runs into a neighbors house to ask to use the telephone to phone the police. However, after realizing that
he is scaring the occupants, he flees to the Stone Harbor Police Department, a few blocks away, in an effort to obtain a
restraining order and to lawfully have the unwanted persons vacate his residence and personal property.
Officer Steve Conners and Officer Henry Stanford refuse the request, and hold Stan Caterbone in custody. After some
30 minutes, the officers, accompanied by Steve and Tom Caterbone, place Stan Caterbone into a Police Cruiser and
proceed to the Burdette Tomlin Hospital, in Stone Harbor.
Upon arriving, Stan Caterbone is interrogated and questioned extensively about a "gun". A hospital staffer then accuses
Stan Caterbone of an attempted suicide and keep him in custody for 4 or more hours. An extensive mental health
evaluation is performed by another hospital staffer.
Stan Caterbone is given an ultimatum of signing a contract in order to be released form the hospital, the contract stated:
"I Stanley J. Caterbone will not take my life tonight or at anytime".
August 13, 1987 -
At approximately 9:30 am, Stan Caterbone returns to the Burdette Tomlin Hospital to obtain a formal copy of the
incident the preceding night. After some arguments1 hospital officials provide explicit records of the event, including
the following summary:
"Stan was brought to the ER (emergency room) by two brothers and police. Police received a phone call from Jim
Warner, (8 72-9081, friend), who told them he believed Stan planned to take a gun, go to the beach & ki7J. himself.
Client denied any such statement, thoughts or plans. lie has legal difficult times, financial deals which have fallen
through; license to do financial planning (his business) revoked; repossessed material goods (airplane); being
blackmailed; and several major financial deals (in which he had invested personal funds) fall through --but NO
PROBLEMS! Denied any Depression.
August 14, 1987 -
The same family members again arrive unwanted at the residence of Stan Caterbone in Stone Harbor, NJ. After another
confrontation, similar to the incident of two evenings before, Stan Caterbone fleas to the Avalon Police Department for
another attempt to get a restraining order. However, en route, just a few blocks from the Avalon Police Station, an
Avalon Police cruiser pulls Stan Caterbone over and arrests him for the following violations:
1.
Driving Beyond the speed limit.
2.
Driving an unregistered vehicle (all required registration materials were in Lancaster, PA)
3. Containing an empty beer can in his vehicle (which was at .1 east three days old)
In addition, the Avalon Police Department repossessed his car and locked it in the Avalon Police Department compound,
which was his only means of transportation and communication by car phone.
August 24, 1987 -
Robert Kauffman sends a letter to Millard Johnson, Stan Caterbone's client, regarding his previous intentions of paying
the $25,000 demand note of Stan Caterbone to Millard Johnson. Robert Kauffman had previously promised to pay the
Page
19
debt to Millard Johnson during a meeting.

Robert Kauffman, told Millard Johnson to contact the FMG, LTD., attorney, Craig Russell in order to file legal claim,
and formally disclosed that he would:
no longer handle any discussions concerning Stanley J. Caterbone.
In the last paragraph, Robert Kauffman discloses that
"attorney Mr. Patterson, no longer represents the Caterbone family regarding his pending bankruptcy or
guardianship".
Notes: Stan Caterbone never gave any legal jurisdiction or rights to any family member, has never filed for
bankruptcy, was not bankrupt, or even knew of an attorney named Mr. Patterson.
August 28, 1987 -
In a desperate plead for help, and in total tear for his life, and completely confused as to who is facilitating and
orchestrating this atrocious conspiracy, Stan Caterbone Federal Expresses a letter to Diane Sawyer of CBS News/60
Minutes.
August 29, 1987 -
Diane Parker of CBS News signs for the Federal Express letter at 11:22 am.
September 1, 1987 -
In an attempt to resolve issues, Stan Caterbone calls FMG, Ltd. board member P. Alan Loss and requests a meeting with
Robert. long and Scott Robertson to explain allegations of misconduct of Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett and the
illegal lockout of Stan Caterbone.
P. Alan Loss agrees and a meeting is set for September 4, 1987 at 10:00 am in the aide Hickory Inn, a mile away from
FMG, Ltd., Stan Caterbone requests that the meeting be in the strictest of confidence.
September 2, 1987 -
Attorney Joseph Roda sends Stan Caterbone a letter requesting payment of $525.48 in outstanding legal tees for the
meetings of July 1 & 2 and copying charges.
Stan Caterbone calls Victor of Romar Aviation (no charge) to schedule a charter flight from Cape May County Airport
to the Lancaster Airport for September 3rd at approximately2:00 pm, the day before the meeting with FMG ,Ltd.,
executives.
September 3, 1987 -
Robert Kauffman calls detective Larry Sigler or the Manhiem Township Police Department to report an alleged
Terroristic threat made two days prior, on September 1, 1987, by Stan Caterbone between the hours of 9:00 and 1 pm
noontime.
Detective Larry Sigler issues a warrant for the arrest of Stan Caterbone with District Justice Murray Horton that was
issued at about the same time as the arrival of Stan Caterbone at Romar Aviation.
At approximately 3:00 pm Mary Lynn Dipaolo picks Stan Caterbone up at Romar Aviation for a scheduled visit and
dinner. After Stan Caterbone becomes annoyed at Mary Lynn Dipaolo's unjustified allegations, Stan Caterbone borrows
her car to go home to his residence in Conestoga and to go play basketball.
At approximately 7:00 pm, upon leaving the playground, he is approached by Nancy Arment, FMG, Ltd., secretary, who
is elaborated and crying, asking "why are you doing this?".
At approximately 9:00 pm, in an attempt to recover additional stolen personal and business tiles, Stan Caterbone
proceeds to the offices of FMG, Ltd., where he is greeted by employee Stacy Waters and allowed to enter the building.
Stan Caterbone insists that Stacy Walters accompany him throughout the building as he recovers files in the offices of
Robert Kauffman, Michael Bartlett, and Robert Long.
In addition retrieving a Back-Up (FMG, Ltd, records and communications) copy of the computer system which he
integrated.
Upon leaving, Stan Caterbone temporarily disconnect the systems which he had integrated and developed for FMG, Ltd.,
which fall under intellectual property rights.
Page
20
Stacy Walters assists Stan Caterbone in loading the tiles in his automobile, and Stan Caterbone kisses Stacy Walters
goodbye, and awaits for her safe return to the building until leaving.
Upon entering his residence later that night, Stan Caterbone is taken into custody by the Conestoga Police, and requests
that the files that he had taken out of the offices of FMG, Ltd., be taken along to prove his rights to the property, and his
position within the company. Stan Caterbone was then taken to the jurisdiction of Manhiem Township Police, where he
is arrested and taken into custody.
September 4, 1987 -
At approximately 2:00 am, Stan Caterbone is arraigned before District Justice Richard R. Reeser for the following
charges: Terroristic threats; burglary; unlawful restraint; unlawful use of computers; theft by unlawful taking; robbery;
and criminal mischief.
Bail is set at $20,000 and Stan Caterbone is placed. the Lancaster county prison. He was not permitted to post real
estate for bail.
September 5, 1987 -
The Lancaster New Era and the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal report the alleged crimes, reporting that Stan Caterbone
is an ax-employee; that FMG, Ltd., sustained $60,000 because of his actions; and that he threatened 2 female employees.
The entire arrests and reports fail to acknowledge that Stan Caterbone is an individual lessee of the property, and in
accordance with law, still holds all of his offices of PING, Ltd., and is the founder of the company.
The above incident further facilitates the ongoing conspiracy, and publicly discredits Stan Caterbone in every way,
financially, professionally, and most importantly conveniently supports the continued allegations of insanity.
September 6, 1987
All attempts to post bail are denied. Robert Beyer appears for visitation at the Lancaster county prison, completely
unexpectedly and unsolicited. Robert Beyer offers his services and representation with regards to only defending the
criminal charges.
September 9, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone is given an ultimatum by the Lancaster county prison authorities, Robert Bayer, Yolanda Caterbone, and
Mary Lynn Dipaolo of posting the required bail only if Stan Caterbone voluntarily admits himself into the Psychiatric
Unit of St. Joseph Hospital, or remain in the Lancaster County prison.
Stan Caterbone is released from Lancaster County prison, and immediately escorted to St. Joseph Hospital and admitted
into the Psychiatric Unit.
September 15, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone questions the legality of the ultimatum for posting tail, and upon learning that it is unlawful, arranges for
his discharge Upon his discharge, the St. Joseph Hospital administrators learn that FMG, Ltd., had terminated his health insurance,
and demand payment of $3, 064.60 for the six days of hospitalization.
Stan Caterbone is not able to pay, and leaves the hospital and returns to his residence of Conestoga, PA.
Stan Caterbone receives an invoice from St. Joseph Hospital for $3,064.00.
Stan Caterbone receives a call from Howard Eisler, an Investigator for the Pennsylvania Securities Commission who
requests a meeting with Stan Caterbone. A meeting is scheduled for September 29, and Stan Caterbone arranges for
Robert Beyer and Millard Johnson to attend.
September 21, 1987 -ISC and the British Ferranti firm agree in principal to merge, creating what appeared to be a $1.5 billion defense/electronics
conglomerate, after six months of negotiations.
September 22, 1987-Stan Caterbone and James Warner settle on the real estate deal, of 433 w. Marion Street, which Stan Caterbone had sold to James
Warner, at a distressed price, which still yielded a profit. The profits of the transaction were paid directly to Millard
Johnson, with Stan Caterbone getting none of the proceeds.
September 25, 1987-Art .Kerst visits Stan Caterbone at his residence and accuses hi-rn and his cousin of being connected with the Mafia, and
conspiring together, in order to provide the financing of the $50 million shopping center in Florida, that was originally
owned by the Fisher/Sponougle Group, and diverting the profits of the deal away from him (Art Kerst) and the Fisher
Sponougle Group.
Page
21
Stan Caterbone becomes infuriated, not only at the absurd allegation, but the timing, when in fact Stan Caterbone had
bean fighting for his life for the past 4 months, and to even consider such activities would be insane.
Howard Eisler conducts a meeting at the Residence of Stan Caterbone, with all parties consenting to have the meeting
recorded by Stan Caterbone.
Howard Eisler was not able to provide a believable explanation of what he was investigating or why he had contacted
Stan Caterbone.
Stan Caterbone explains all of the circumstances regarding his prior meeting with ISC/Chem Con executive Larry
Resch, and details his allegations of wrongdoing of James Guerin/ISC/Chem Con6 and the discussions of that meeting
on June 23, 1987, with ISC executive Larry Resch. Stan Caterbone also discloses his ISC stock holdings, and his
relationships with ISC and Chem Con associates.
Millard Johnson testifies to Howard Eisleer during the meeting regarding a previous meeting in August with Robert
Kauffman, where Robert Kauffman tried to persuade Millard
Johnson to fabricate a story that a legitimate
personal loan of $25,000 to Stan Caterbone in June of 1987, was instead intended for investment and embezzled by Stan
Caterbone. Robert Kauffman wanted Millard Johnson to support this story to authorities. Stan Caterbone spent more
than 4 hours explaining and detailing all of his allegations and business activities including how he founded and built
Financial Management Group, Ltd.,; his mortgage banking activities; the illegal repossession of his aircraft; all of the
fabricated arrests; and the chronology of events after the June 23 meeting with ISC executive Larry Resch.
Howard Eisler ended the meeting and requested copies of documents from Stan Caterbone.
September 1987 -
Scott Robertson, begins work with American Helix founder, David Dering, to secure financing for the venture and
manufacturing
facility to manufacture CD Audio & CD-ROM Compact Discs, an extension
of the "Digital" technologies activities of Stan Caterbone.
David Dering solicited FMG, Ltd., to provide help in securing the necessary $5 million of capital required .for the
venture. David Dering was referred to FMG, Ltd., by Norris Boyd (FMG, Ltd., shareholder) and Bob Fogarty, who had
previously been working with Stan Caterbone on various financing arrangements. It was Stan Caterbone that elected to
allow both Scott Robertson and Rob Long to participate in the venture capital markets. Scott Robertson would later
conduct negotiations with High Industries, Inc., to provide the entire $5 million financial package. Scott Robertson also
was named executive Vice President of American Helix Technology Corporation, and would resign from FMG, Ltd., in
order pursue the venture on a full time basis.
James Boyer, formerly the lead recording engineer for Billy Joel, was also recruited to form the principals of American
Helix, consisting of Dave Dering, Scott Robertson, and James Boyer In mid-December of 1990, David Dering will
confirm the above formation of American Helix to Stan Caterbone, after Stan Caterbone alleges violations at the 1934
Sherman Anti-Trust Act, concerning his activities in the digital technologies industries, and the undoinfluence by Scott
Robertson, Robert Long, and High Industries, as well as criminal conspiracy, of all parties concerned in the destruction
of his business affairs that began in June at 1987.
October 2, 1987 -
District Justice Murray Horton conducts a preliminary hearing for all criminal charges against Stan Caterbone. Attorney
Robert Beyer refuses to discuss any issues regarding his individual lease of the FMG, Ltd., offices, or any issues
resulting in the illegal activities of anyone other than Stan Caterbone District Justice Murray Horton orders Stan
Caterbone to defend all of the criminal charges in the next term of criminal court in Lancaster County. Stan Caterbone
ordered to be bound over for the next term of criminal court of Lancaster County.
October 4, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone meets with high school classmate and attorney Mike McDonald at Stan Caterbone's residence, to discuss
legal action and recourse against all involved.
Mike McDonald accepts the case, and Stan Caterbone provides all of the relevant information and documentation.
October 12, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone travels to New York city to the offices of Intercon Special Services (white collar crime detective
agency) in order to attempt to obtain assistance in all of the circumstances.
Intercon Special Services, which is staffed with ax FBI agents, estimates that the services would cost at least $25,000.
October t 16, 1987
Stan Caterbone survives a near death collision on the New Danville Pike, when a driver ran through a stop sign at the
Page
22
intersection of Long Lane, while traveling at a speed of 45 mph. The driver hit Stan Caterbone's Jeep Cherokee directly
in the passengers door, sending Stan Caterbone in a free tall, spinning a full 180 degrees and landing upside down in a
field, facing the opposite direction. Stan Caterbone was trapped in the car, while a passerby attempted to brake the
windshield to get him out. Stan Caterbone's car was completely demolished, and he sustained a whip lash. Stan
Caterbone was now without any means of transportation, in addition to all of his other mitigating circumstances.
October 18, 1987 -
The Unemployment Compensation Review Board formally and officially decides against a claim for benefits by Stan
Caterbone and cites misconduct and wrongdoing as the reasons.
October 27, 1987 -
Lancaster Aviation files a civil suit with District Justice Murray Horton for alleged unpaid bills of some $5,000.
NOTE:
In late October or early November, Stan Caterbone was driving in the Southern end of the County, in Conestoga, when
he noticed a vehicle following closely. It was about 9:00 pm in the evening, and the roads were deserted in this rural
area.
Stan Caterbone began turning, not going in any particular direction. The ensuing vehicle kept following, and Stan
Caterbone quickly found himself in a high-speed car chase, that lasted at least 30 minutes. Finally, Stan Caterbone
arrived near Millersville, and was able to loose the vehicle.
November 9, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone visits with Parent Federal Savings and Loan's president, John Depatto, to discuss him problems in
meeting his current mortgage payments.
John Depatto immediately disclosed to Stan Caterbone that foreclosure proceedings have officially begun, and that the
full loan of approximately $110,000 is immediately due.
Stan Caterbone stands up from the conference table and declares "You tell Mr. James Guerin he is in trouble", and
abruptly walks out of the offices.
November 11, 1987-
Stan Caterbone meets with representatives of Tabor Community Services, of Lancaster, Pa, in order to formally apply
for assistance to the Pennsylvania Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Fund, in order to subsidize his monthly mortgage
payments, in an effort to avoid becoming homeless.
Stan Caterbone supplies Tabor community services with financial data and supportive documents relating to his
circumstances, which must be found to be out of the applicants control in order for financial assistance.
November 18, 1987 -
ISC~Ferranti settlement takes place with Guerin becoming the deputy chairman of Ferranti and exchanges his is million
shares of ISC stock for over 32.2 million shares of Ferranti stock.
November 19, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone contacts attorney Jeff Jamounou of McNeese, Wallice, and Nurick, who Stan Caterbone retained as legal
counsel for the security law, and demanded a legal opinion as to the offices that Stan Caterbone formerly held, including
his FMG, Ltd., Board of Directors seat.
Jeff Jamounou disclosed that he no longer represented FMG, Ltd., in that capacity, and that Craig Russell was the
attorney now handling issues such as that.
November 23, 1987-A Referees Decision by the unemployment Compensation Review Board upholds a recent decision to deny Stan Caterbone from
collecting any benefits, again citing misconduct and wrongdoing. Stan Caterbone calls Howard Fisler, of the
Pennsylvania Securities Commission and demands an explanation for not returning to obtain any documents as promised
in the meeting of September 29th. The phone call was recorded.
November 25, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from the Pennsylvania Securities Commission, Howard Zisler, citing a
misunderstanding and lack of communication, and now requests that Stan Caterbone submit a written complaint of all
allegations discussed in the meeting of September 29, 1987.
November 30, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone fears that the conspiracy now involves local and state authorities, and delivers 9,079 documents to the
Good Sheppard Industrial Services, of Allentown, PA to be transferred to microfiche in order to preserve the authenticity
of the documents.
Stan Caterbone feared that an attempt would be made to destroy all incriminating evidence, and given the number of
documents, and the lack of money, their safekeeping was becoming at great risk.
Page
23
For security reasons, and to remain anonymous, Stan Caterbone uses the Global Entertainment Group, Ltd., company
for the transaction with the Good Sheppard Industrial Services company.
November 26, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone visits the Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Lancaster, to file a formal complaint to the White Collar
Crime Division.
Stan Caterbone was treated as if he was making the entire story up, and received no help.
December 1, 1987 -
In continuing the efforts of the intervention of authorities, Stan Caterbone visits the PA State Capitol building and
personally delivers documents to the offices of: Pennsylvania Governor Casey; the Pennsylvania Securities Commission;
and FMG, Ltd., attorney Jeffrey Jamounou of McNeese, Wallice, & Nurick, all of Harrisburg, PA. During the same day,
at a press conference being held by Mark Singleton, Stan Caterbone approaches State Senator Sib Armstrong and Sen.
Armstrong refused to talk and literally ran away in the middle of the State Capitol.
December 4, 1987 -
Financial Management Group, Ltd., holds its first annual shareholders meeting, for the year ended June 30, 1987, at the
Treadway Resort Inn.
In an effort to promote propaganda against Stan Caterbone, and to support the fabricated allegations of insanity, FMG,
Ltd., president hired armed security personnel to guard the doorways of the meeting, insinuating that the meeting was
under a threat of violence, and to collaborate his recent allegations of Terroristic threats, which Stan Caterbone was
previously arrested and awaiting trial.
December 12, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone received a resume from James Cross, who was allegedly seeking employment in the areas of microwave
technologies, and was specifically interested in Stan Caterbone's activities with the "Digital" movie. Stan Caterbone had
previously met Lynn Cross, while she was working in a video repair store, where Stan Caterbone had gone to inquire
about purchasing an R-DAT (digital audio device only sold in Japan) recording device.
December 17, 1987 -
The United States Postal Inspector acknowledges receipt of formal complaint from Stan Caterbone regarding executives
from FMG, Ltd., illegally changing or address; opening of confidential personal and business mail; and withholding and
possibly destroying confidential personal and business mail at Stan Caterbone's leased property of 1755 Oregon Pike,
Lancaster, PA, also the headquarters of FMG, Ltd.,.
Page
24
THE YEAR
1988
January 11, 1988 -
Stan Caterbone delivers 10 audio tapes to be transcribed, to Secritar-AIl, of Lancaster, Pa.
January 13, 1988 -
Stan Caterbone receives the transcripts and the original tapes from Secritar-AlI.
January 15, 1988 -
Stan Caterbone drives to San Diego, California, and meets with attorney Sandra Gray, and discusses his dire illegalities
and to find access to due process of the law.
Notes:
In an effort to avoid the political consequences of obtaining legal counsel, Stan Caterbone thought that it would be
easier to find adequate and effective counsel from out of state. In addition, Stan Caterbone needed
some time away from his persecutors.
January 26, 1988 -
The Pennsylvania Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program formally and officially denies Stan Caterbone
of benefits citing the following:
" Applicant was terminated from job FMG, Ltd.,), therefore was not suffering from circumstances beyond his
control".
March 14, 1988 -
Stan Caterbone is served notice by Lancaster Constables regarding Parent Federal .Guerin' Bank) v. Stan Caterbone
Mortgage Foreclosure of his residence at 2323 New Danville Pike, Conestoga, PA.
May 1988 -
Stan Caterbone is forced to sell his residence, and subdues to the undoinfluence that he was responsible for all
circumstances, and moves to Florida with his brother.
Sep 15, 1988 - Seven Chem-Con executives, including Christian, are criminally indicted for the firms $15 million defense contracting fraud.
October 23, 1988
-Stan Caterbone, destitute, without a personal residence, automobile, or any income, and with accumulated debts of
more than $65,000 from all related incidents in the 1987 "Blackmail", sells his FMG, Ltd., holdings to Robert Kauffman
and is given $72,000 in proceeds at settlement. This by and of itself will be proven to be extortion.
Robert Kauffman was in fear of Stan Caterbone exercising his large voting
rights in the upcoming FMG, Ltd., annual shareholders meeting, which included the election off FMG, Ltd., Board of
Directors. Stan Caterbone had approximately 19% of the outstanding shares of FMG, Ltd., and had the potential to vote
someone of his selection to a Board seat.
Scott Robertson had solicited the deal for both parties, and acted as negotiator for both.
November 2, 1988 -
Christian pleads guilty.
December 2, 1988 -
The Wall Street Journal reports the FBI has opened an investigation into U.S. Representative Joseph McDades ties to
Chem-Con and Guerin.
December 1988 -
Guerin begins negotiating a leveraged buyout of the numerous ISC subsidiaries, subsidiaries Guerin knew were involved
in the numerous export law violations and the fictitious contracts used to facilitate the fraud, stemming from the Ferranti
scandal.
Guerin diverts approximately $2 million to other Swiss bank accounts.
December 24, 1988 -
Jacobson is linked to passing more than $200,000 in bribes to a civilian Navy official to secure no-bid contracts for
Chem-Con and Wedteck.
Page
25
THE YEAR
1989
January 4, 1989 -
Guerin transfers $1.8 million to Citicorp Investment Hank Account from a Parent Universal Agency Ltd. account in
Luxemburg.
January 21, 1989 -
McDade refuses the governments request to release records in the Chem Con investigation.
February 17, 1989 -
Christian confirms his cooperation into the federal investigations into Chem Con, Guerin, and Wedteck, since his
company's files were subpoenaed in 1987.
March 13, 1989 -
Scott Robertson, co-founder and executive vice president of American Helix Technology corporation, a wholly owned
subsidiary of High Industries, Inc., of Lancaster, Pa, recruits Stan Caterbone for marketing help.
Stan Caterbone accepts a weekly consulting contract, with no long-term commitment, in light of his efforts with Radio
Science Laboratories, Inc.,
Scott Robertson wanted Stan Caterbone to help develop the new and emerging CD-ROM business, which was
essentially "Digital" technologies. American Helix was one of 10 domestic manufacturing facilities located in the
continental U.S., for the production of CD-Audio discs (CD's or Compact Discs), and one of only a few CD-ROM
manufacturers.
April 13, 1989 -
Guerin transfers approximately $1 million from the Luxemburg account to Parent Industries Account at the Meridian
Bank, in Lancaster, Pa.
Guerin transfers $970,000 from the Parent Industries Meridian Account to the Bank of Delaware.
Guerin pays off a portion of the $2.75 million in alleged Blackmail money to William A. Clark, Guerin's top corporate
attorney for ISC, and also represented by attorney Joseph Roda (Stan Caterbone's attorney who questioned his
allegations on July 2, 1987)
April 17, 1989 -
Stan Caterbone incorporates Radio Science Laboratories, Inc., to further his interest in microwave technologies, and the
telecommunications industry. The company is a venture with James & Lynn Cross, both capable design engineers with
over 30 years experience.
NOTES:
The company was trying to secure financing for the development of a manufacturing enterprise for Low Noise
Amplifiers, or LNA's as they are commonly referred.
May 11, 1989 -
Carl Jacobson is indicted for passing bribes to Richard Ramirez, on behalf of defense contractor, Chem Con.
June 1, 1989
Jacobson is indicted, again this time for passing bribes to Ramirez on behalf
June 8, 1989
Christian names Guerin as the mastermind behind the Chem Con fraud, saying millions on dollars from Chem Con were
used to inflate the value of ISC prior to the Ferranti/ISC merger.
June
1989
Christian is sentenced to six years in prison for his role in Chem Con.
June 9, 1989
Guerin denies Christians claim that he is the target of any federal investigation.
June 25, 1989 -
Qf Wedtech.
Guerin is reported to be guilty resigning from numerous board positions in Lancaster, including his seat as Trustee at
Penn state Harrisburg, and Millersville Universities.
July 3, 1989
Guerin is linked to a second minority-owned company he started, then drained all of its assets. Once insolvent, former
Leola-based Application Technology Associates' uncompleted minority contracts were used by Guerin to set up Chem
Con as a minority- owned defense contractor with the U.S. Small Business Administration.
July 8, 1989
William A. Clark, Guerin's former top ISC attorney, sues Guerin for $2 million, the balance Clark claims is owed him in
a $2.75 million settlement (over an employment dispute) accepted by Guerin in March. Joe Roda is legal counsel for
William Clark.

NOTE:
July 1989
Page
26
Joe Roda was the first attorney that Stan Caterbone had gone to for help, who told Stan Caterbone to quit fabricating
things.
-
July 19, 1989
Clarks action freezes Guerins assets and temporarily blocks the transfer of Guerin's 1988 Christmas gift of Four
Seasons sports Complex to East Hempfield Township.
-
Stan Caterbone, Scott Robertson, and American Helix agree on a one year
employment contract, which American Helix will never fulfill in its entirety, and will be terminated in the following
April.
July 20, 1989 -
Guerin secretly plots to move his personal holding company, Parent Industries Inc., to Fort Myers, Fla., near his second
home in
Naples.
July 26, 1989 -
Citicorp forces Guerin to sell $38 million of his Ferranti stock to pay off a loan he took to fund what would be a failed
repurchase of attempt of several ISC divisions from Ferranti. These divisions held numerous inflated or non-existent
contracts used to overvalue ISCs prior to the Ferranti/ISC merger in 1987.
August 8, 1989
Guerin moves to Florida, but not before depositing $2 million with the Lancaster County Courts to free his assets,
regarding
the William Clark pay dispute.
Guerin blames inaccurate and malicious press coverage for forcing him out of Lancaster and is lauded and supported in
this claim by many of the county's most prominent citizen's apparently blinded by the seemingly genuine community
contributions.
August 14, 1989
McDade returns $20,000 in illegal Chem Con campaign contributions.

Despite documented, non-declared trips aboard Chem Con jets, trips to the Caribbean and a Delaware beach house and
clothing bought for him by Christian, McDade denies any wrongdoing, or that he is the target of any federal probe.
Jere Sullivan is implicated in the above investigation through his involvement of some of the above transactions.
August 23, 1989
Reports confirm McDade has already spent more than $22,000 in campaign funds to pay for legal fees associated with
the investigation into his ties to Chem Con.
September 12, 1989 -Ferranti halts trading of its stock, claiming it is the victim of a massive fraud.
September 15, 1989-Federal agents confirm Guerin is being targeted for illegal arms sales to Iraq, Iran, South Africa and other embargoed Third
World countries.
September 15, 1989-Ferranti halts trading of its stock and calls for a full investigation into a fraud federal prosecutors said exceeds $1
Billion.
September 20, 1989-Guerin issues a statement denying any wrongdoing with respect to Ferranti's claims, or any grand jury involvement.
September 21, 1989
-In a second prepared statement in as many days, Guerin reverses his position, now
confirming he is the target of
the grand jury probe into ISC and Chem Con and is cooperating with federal investigators.
October 3, 1989 -
Federal prosecutors confirm previous reports that the ISC probe includes illegal arms sales to South Africa.
Ferranti Stock plunges 24 percent as trading resumes in London.
October 6, 1989 -
Jacobson pleads guilty to passing bribes to Chem Con and Wedtech.
October 10, 1989 -
British Labor unions urge Ferranti to drop all ISC-related companies, claiming job loss in Scotland alone could exceed
8,000 workers.
October 16, 1989 -
A 1987 report commissioned by Sebastian de Ferranti surfaces showing that the company bearing his family's name was
cautioned not
to merge with ISC by Lazard Brothers.
Page
27
Ferranti chairman, Sir Derek-Alun Jones comes under tire by stockholders who demand his resignation during the
company's annual meeting in London.
October 24, 1989 -
Scotland Yard joins the U.S. in the Guerin probe. Federal agents will travel to London in January to coordinate the
investigation.
November 1989
Ferranti begins firing ISC executives still within the company.
December 1, 1989
Ferranti sues Guerin and three former ISC executives, including Larry Resch, for $198 million each, claiming all of ISC's
worth was a sham built on bogus contracts.
December 2, 1989
Federal agents confirm seizing shipments of military-grade electronics belonging to Guerin's son, James, at the Port of
Philadelphia destined for embargoed Third World countries in violation of U.S. export
laws.
Federal agents confirm using the threat of pending criminal charges against Guerin's son to force the elder Guerin's
ongoing cooperation with federal prosecutors.
Page
28
THE YEAR
1990
January 23, 1990
Christian sues Guerin for $93 million, claiming he, too, was a victim his former
Ferranti.
mentor's
plan
to
defraud
Guerin again captures the lead story in the Wall Street Journal, one that portrays him as a cold-blooded international
arms dealer and the mastermind behind the Ferranti Fraud.
The transcript of Guerin's Jan. 9th deposition in his dispute with Clark is released revealing that former Republican
presidential candidate and secretary of state Alexander Haig received $26,000 in illegal campaign contributions from
ISC.
Ferranti begins selling off ISC units abroad as it struggles to reorganize.
Keith Martin, WGAL-TV managing news editor and lead anchor, is named by Guerin as having worked for ISC while
also reporting on the company for Channel S TV.
Ferranti files a $664 million suit in British Courts against former ISC/Guerin auditors Peat Marwick for allegedly failing
to disclose the fraud within ISC prior to the ISC/Ferranti merger of 1987.
January 26, 1990 -
WGAL's Martin resigns under threat of termination for compromising his credibility
and violating his personal services contract.
February 2, 1990 -
Reports show former Guerin confidant and IBC executive R. Clyde Ivy, was ISC's lead missile developer in South
Africa during the Angolean War and the head and founder of Kentron, south Africas missile development arm of the
governments munitions firm, Armscor, while an employee of ISC.
February 23, 1990 -
Eugene Anderson, a Texas-born turnaround specialist, replaces Alun-Jones as

Guerins chairman.
Ferranti continues to sell off many of its subsidiaries and announces plans for massive debt write-offs.
March 19, 1990 -
Guerin and Clark appear to settle their dispute, with the escrowed cash to be dispersed on March 30.
March 30, 1990 -
Federal agents block the Guerin/Clark settlement by seizing the escrowed cash using pre-indictment provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act or RICO statutes.
April 13, 1990 -
Federal prosecutors claim Parent Industries Inc., and its resources were still controlled by Guerin, despite his giving the
company to his wife and her selling it to then Parent President Michael Peck for $1 and therefore is subject to seizure
under RICO statutes.
April 1990 -
The American Helix Board of Directors, lead by S. Dale High/High Industries, vote to terminate Scott Robertson of
American Helix, and to discontinue the financing of the CD-ROM business which Stan Caterbone was directly involved.
The joint venture agreement with Network Technologies, or Washington, D.C., had lost an estimated $450,000 in the
past 9 months, and the technologies which were to be deliver red, had proven to be worthless. Scott Robertson had
solicited, negotiated, and administer the deal, Stan Caterbone had raised serious concerns at to the capabilities of both
the technologies, the business, and Network Technologies, early in the project.
High Industries then conducted several meetings with Stan Caterbone to purchase the business, however, Stan Caterbone
had told the executive in a meeting on Good Friday, that he was solely responsible for any business that was left, and
any there was no real value.
High Industries agreed to pay Stan Caterbone his weekly consulting tee only until June 30, in hopes of negotiating an
agreement to keep American Helix in the CD-RON business, which was only feasible with Stan Caterbone, because of
his knowledge and expertise in "Digital" technologies.
May 5, 1990 -
Stan Caterbone is awarded his first government contract for CD-ROM technologies with the National Institute of
Standards and Technologies (NIST), of Gaithersburg, Maryland. NIST is the technology arm of the federal government,
similar to the National Institute of Health (NlH), of Bathesda, Maryland.
Page
29
Because of the technological complexities of the project surrounding the UNIX system environment, Phillips DuPont
(PSO) was the only other competitor in the U.S..
Computer Scientist, John Garofolo, will coordinate the project, which is responsible for the research and development of
speech recognition systems for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Information Science and Technology
Office (DARPA-ISTO) The Automated Speech Recognition Group, will supervise the project for MIST. The group will
develop CD-ROM'S containing speech corpora for the scientific I community, including: Massachusetts institute of
Technology (MIT); Texas instruments (TI); SRI International; and other academic institutions.
May 10, 1990 - Raymond 8. "Tim" Wittig, the former counsel to McDade on the House Small Business Committee, is indicted on eight counts of
racketeering, bribery, conspiracy and filing false income tax returns for his role in Chew Con fraud.
The 12th person indicted in the Chem Con fraud, Wittig is alleged to have passed bribes to McDade to secure an
undisclosed portion of $72 million in no-bids, nail Business Administration contracts awarded to Chew Con.
An IRS agent testifies Guerin van deeply involved in illegal arms sales to South Africa, and an IRS agent names Guerin
as the mastermind behind the rerranti fraud estimated to exceed $1 billion.
Federal prosecutors announce in open court that Guerin's Parent Industries Inc., has pleaded guilty to a one-count
criminal bill of information for violation of the RICO statutes. Prosecutor. told U.S. District Judge Thomas N. Oneill
the company agreed to pay $4.4 million for the violation, including $2 million escrowed in the Clark
V. Guerin
dispute.
Jacobson is sentenced to two months in prison for his role in Wedteck and receives a three rear suspended sentence and
three year probation for the Ohm Con case.
May 31, 1990 -
Judge O'Neill grant. a 90-day freeze on Guerin's escrowed $2 million saying there is "substantial probability" the
government will prevail against him in its pending criminal RICO prosecution due to be filed by Aug 31. within a year.
ISC once boasted more than 3,000 local employees during its heyday; it will have less than 500 worker.. within a year.
Ferranti announces the layoff 022 ISCs workers in England; 200 in B. Wales; 150 in Manchester: and 115 each in the
Portsmouth and Bracknell plants. Ferranti files suit in Switzerland to recover the records of 20 front companies
allegedly used by Guerin in the fraud.
July 25, 1990 - Jacobsonsa flight to Chile is revealed to have been orchestrated by Chilean Arms dealer Carlos Cardoen, a Guerin associate and
cluster borib supplier to Iran and rraq.
It was disclosed Cardoen's operation also was used to fabricate more than $200 million by supporting phony inventory
for a bogus missile contract nc claimed it had with the United Emirates.
August 2, 1990 -
Stan Caterbone discovers that in July, Fulton Bank embezzled $5,000 from the checking account of Stan Caterbone due
to an error by Fulton Bank's accounting
Fulton Bank refused to credit the account for more than 60 days, without crediting the lost interest income.
August 11, 1990 -
Stuart N~ Pindall, a former ISC executive and Guerin confidant is sued for $189 million by Ferranti for his role in the
alleged fraud masterminded by Guerin.
In addition, six Panamanian and five U.S. front companies are sued for like amounts by Ferranti, which claimed the
firms were used to establish bogus business transactions needed to support the fraud. The pending civil suits, now
totaling 3.97 billion, include Guerin, former ISC executives, including Larry Resch and the international accounting
firm of Peat Warwick1 all who Perranti alleges were instrumental in the success of the fraud.
Guerins now-defunct personal holding company, Parent Industries Inc., through a corporate memorandum signed by
Guerin, pleads guilty to one count of violation of the RICO statutes and agrees to pay $4.4 million in fine. Characterized
by prosecutors as Quinn's "alter ego". Parent was one of the key companies Guerin used to mastermind the fraud against
Ferranti.
Page
30
October 11, 1990 - Florida land records show Guerin accepted a guilty plea agreement with federal prosecutors in July and will forfeit $600,000
from the proceeds of the sale of his $1.65 million bay front home in Naples, Florida.
October 11, 1990 -
Court records show Wittig, the former House aid to Mcdade and consultant to Ohm Con, is in the final stages of
reaching a negotiated guilty plea with federal prosecutors.
Department of Justice claims proceeds from the sale of his Naples home after paying the $600,000 outlined in his guilty
plea agreement to the Justice Department. Ferranti has asked the court to assist in collecting over $189 million from
Guerin, an amount awarded the firm by a British court when it said Guerin failed to convince the court he had nothing to
do with the 31 billion fraud.
Stan Caterbone begins to organize. all relevant documents, stored in some 30 boxes, regarding all circumstances
involving the "1987" blackmail and criminal conspiracy, in hopes of finally resolving all outstanding issues, by taking
action tar legal recourse.
In response from the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, Stan Caterbone had rescinded efforts for due process
immediately after loosing his home and businesses.
In similar matter of being brainwashed, Stan Caterbone was fearful of pursuing due process of the law in fear of
continuing reprisal. However, upon the public disclosure of the Federal courts indictments into illegal ISC activities,
Stan Caterbone began to review his case, and find distinct and substantiated activities associated directly to his
disclosure of fraud within ISC.
November 19, 1990 -
Stan Caterbone's article, "Escaping the UNIX Tar Pit: Producing CD-ROM'S in the UNIX Environment" is submitted
and accepted for publication to the National Institute of Standards & Technology (MIST), by Co author John Garofolo,
computer scientist.
Linda Helgerson, editor of DISC magazine, as well as numerous other industry publications, requested Stan Caterbone
to write an article for the new magazine.
The article described in detail some of the problems encountered when producing CDROM's in the UNIX environment,
which was rarely done before. In addition, the "TIMIT" project, which Stan Caterbone and NIST had recently
completed, was one of the most aggressive CD-ROM projects in terms of pushing the envelope for the number of "Tar"
files and the sire of the data on one CD-ROM disc.
Phillips DuPont was the only other firm to accept any work involving the troublesome "Tar" tiles.
Dec 12, 1990 - Ferranti reports a near $40 million loss for the first half year, but says it hopes to begin showing a profit before year-end in March
1991a
Stan Caterbone receives a call from James Christian while in custody in the Loretto State prison. Stan Caterbone asked
Jim Christian if he had authorized or had knowledge about the June 23, 1987 meeting between himself and ISC
executive Larry Reach. James Christian answered the question as follows:
"I never knew of such a meeting, authorized a meeting with Larry and yourself. Larry (Reseb) was the courier for Jim
Guerin, that is how I and Chem Con got set up and used as the scapegoat to divert attention away from
~ You should
talk to Earnest Schriber of Lancaster Newspapers, you can trust him.. Guerin's attorney (Tate) called to offer me $1.00
to settle my $93 million law suit against Guerin".
Dec 14, 1990 -
At a Christmas party of Bradley DeForge's, Mike Dipaolo, during a conversation with Stan Caterbone, had stated that
"You (Stan Caterbone) had Guns and Knives in 1987" as the reason for the mental illness fabrications.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone quickly left the party. In addition, during the same time, other such statements from friends, regarding
his present "mental condition", began to mysteriously resurface only after knowledge of his activities to take legal
recourse for the 1987 incidents, and to pursue his due access to the law.
Stan Caterbone, in order to get work accomplished on the project, traveled to Captitva Island, and continued his project,
the "AMG Legal Systems Prototype" disc.
The "AMO Legal Systems Prototype" project was a CD-ROM system, designed by Stan Caterbone, that would include
Page
31
all of his rlevent information concerning his alleged ISC Cover-Up, including audio conversations, and authentic
documents, all stored on one optical disc, or a CD-ROM.
The disc and system was finally completed on May 16, 1991.
December 20, 1990 -Stan Caterbone telephones his cousin Ron Roda, from Captiva Island, Florida, to inform him that he will arrive home in a few
days.
During the conversation, Ron Roda, disclosed to Stan Caterbone that both Jim Warner and Jere Sullivan had made
telephone call to his brothers, Phil and Tom, and made allegations of insanity about Stan Caterbone, and advised the
need for medication.
December 23, 1990 -Stan Caterbone forwards a letter to the Department of Defense Mapping Agency regarding his bid for the $2.5 million CD- ROM
contract (DMA 700-90-0011), then in negotiations.
Stan Caterbone alleges misconduct in the procurement and for the first time publicly discloses his allegations of
Blackmail immediately following his meeting with ISC executive Larry Resch on June 23, 1987..
December 28, 1990 -
A federal judge cuts Christians sentence by nearly four years, making him eligible for release in July 1991.
Page
32
THE YEAR
1991
January 9, 1991 -
Lt. Madenspacher of the Manhiem Township Police Department call Stan Caterbone at his lab/office in him home at
approximately 2:00 pm. Lt. Madenspacher explains that he had received a copy of the letter to the Department of
Defense, that Detective Larry Mathias had forwarded to him.
Lt. Madenspacher questioned his motives of the letter and stated:
"What are you going to do.. We (Manhiem Township Police Department) just don't want to see a multi-million dollar
law suit come down our way.."
Stan Caterbone responded, "You know that I was an individual leassee of that property, and in addition I had never
resigned any offices or my Board of Director's seat of FMG, Ltd., .. You also know that I had met with Larry Resch of
ISC on June 2S, 1987, and that I made allegations of misconduct.."
Lt. Madenspacher responded, "We were forced into that (the arrests of Stan Caterbone on Sept. 3, 1987), we were caught
between a rock and a hard place, we were forced into that".
Lt. Madenspacher then changed the subject to "Digital" technologies, and described the activities of the police
department of using the same in the telephone surveillance of criminal suspects.
Lt. Madenspacher then requested to meet with Stan Caterbone. Stan Caterbone agreed, however due to his current busy
schedule, confirmed he would contact him later to schedule a meeting.
January 10, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone sends a letter to Lt. Madenspacher of the Manhiem Township Police Department, to schedule a meeting
for Thursday, Jan. 17th at 3:00 pm, at his office at American Helix Technology Corporation, at the Green field
Corporate Park. Stan Caterbone requested a response only if the time was in conflict of his schedule.
January 17, 1991 -
Lt. Madenspacher fails to show up for the scheduled meeting with Stan Caterbone at Amen can Helix, and never
contacted him before that date to change the meeting, or
called to apologize for not being able to keep the prior commitment.
January 18, 1991
Stan Caterbone sends documents concerning the Blackmail" of 1987 to several reporters of the Lancaster Newspapers,:
Tim MeKeele; Earnest Schriber; and Thomas
Planner. Tim MeKeele also received a tape with some excerpts of the September 29, 1987 meeting with the PA
Securities Commission, where Stan Caterbone discusses allegations of misconduct against J. Guerin and ISC.
January 19, 1991
High Industries American Helix illegally and without notice locks Stan Caterbone out of his office and the facility of
American Helix, who was
currently under a joint venture agreement with Stan Caterbone and his Advanced Media
Group, Ltd., for his digital technologies business.
NOTES::
January 21, 1991
This "Lock-Out" was similar to that of FMG, Ltd., on July 1, 1987. Again conveniently when Stan Caterbone had raised
issues and allegations involving Guerin and ISC.
-
NOTES:
Jan 22, 1991
In fear and confused about his involvement, and in respect to the massive fraud of the ISC/Ferranti merger, Stan
Caterbone sends a package to Ferantt's legal counsel
in England by way of United Postal Service' Overnight
International Delivery Service (Tracking Number 1773 0619 670).
Stan Caterbone was in fear that a potential "Cover-Up" by U.S. authorities, and specifically the Lancaster community,
would place his life in danger, and wanted to insure that the information concerning his knowledge of ISC misconduct
before the lSC/Ferranti merger, and his disclosure to local, state, and federal authorities in the summer of 1987, at least
would be received by Ferranti, reducing the possibility of someone terminating his life in order so that these
circumstances would not be used as an asset in the present Ferranti Legal efforts.
In an effort to support his allegations of misconduct and the allegedly threatening

activities of Stan Caterbone, American Helix president Dave Dering has all of the
locks in the building changed by a professional locksmith, which is nothing
more than an act of propaganda.
Later that day, Stan Caterbone and David Dering meet. David Dering resolves to only allow Stan Caterbone in the
Page
33
building during normal business hours, and does not allow him to occupy his own office.
Stan Caterbone has never been given any reason why he was locked out in the first place.
February 1, 1991
Feb 17, 1991
ABC News 20/20 features the story "Weapons Sales to Iraq" about the ISC/Cardoen
how it got to Saddam Hussain.
-
cluster bomb technology and
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from Sandra K. Paul, of the Citizens Ambassador Program, a division of People to
People International, notifying him that he has been selected to participate in the upcoming Printing and Publishing
Delegation to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the coming August.
People to People International is a nonprofit organization started by the late Dwitht D. Eisenhower to facilitate the
communications of experts from various professions throughout the world.
The objective of the delegation was to exchange ideas, information, and technologies of the printing and publishing
industries with American counterparts in the Soviet Union, and various Eastern European countries.
February 22, 1991
February 1991
Federal prosecutors seize $800,000 from Clark, claiming he was privy to information about ongoing criminal acts within
ISC that generated the tainted cash.
-In an American Helix staff meeting, with all employees present, but Stan Caterbone,
president David Dering had spent approximately 20 minutes alleging that Stan
Caterbone almost ruined his company, and that he "is a runaway ex-convict, that will
end up in jail very soon".
The above discussion was disclosed by engineer Al Thornburg, immediately following the meeting.
May 23, 1991 -
At approximately 2:00 pm, Jay Curtis, (appearing as a Department of Defense contractor, who had recently solicited the
services of Stan Caterbone and his Advanced Media Group, Ltd., to provide engineering in the development of "Digital"
simulation and training applications for various U.S. Military Logistics bases) had called Stan Caterbone. The following
is synopsis of the conversation:
"Because of your recent discussions concerning your knowledge and information about the ISC Scandal, and an alleged
"Cover-Up", I had to do a background check on you, to insure against any problems when including you in by proposal
to the U.S. Department of Defense... Everyone backs up your story, and is looking over your documents now, including
the CIA, IRS, SEC, FBI, Scotland Yard, Attorney General, the British M-4, and others.
They are all verifying and confirming your "cover-up" allegations.. They don't know what to tell the Press and Media "I
also know that you submitted documents to Mr. Thomas Flannery of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal".
"How did you know about the CIA and its involvement with ISC, how did you know that, and what do you know?"
NOTES:
Jay Curtis kept pushing Stan Caterbone on the CIA issue, and what he had known and how he knew, Stan Caterbone
kept telling him that the whole situation was to emotional, and that he was afraid for his life. Stan Caterbone had to
eventually tell Mr. Curtis that he could not discuss this anymore. He abruptly changed the subject and hung up on Mr.
Curtis.
Stan Caterbone immediately went to a friends house, and disclosed that fact that he was in fear for his life. He quitly sat
on the steps with his friend, Abby. Later that night, his friend Dave Pflumm would take him to the corner bar for a few
drinks, while unknowing to Stan Caterbone, Ted Koppel was disclosing the story of the CIAs involvement with ISC.
Several hours later, Ted Koppel broke the story about the CIA and ISC's covert operations to sell arms to Iraq.
Immediately following the conversation with Mr. Jay Curtis regarding the CIA and ISC, Stan Caterbone packed a
suitcase and confidential information assets, in preparation to leave Lancaster, in total and legitimate fear for his life.
May 23, 1991 -
ABC News/Nightline and Ted Koppel feature the first in a series of stories, relating to CIA knowledge of a covert
operation to supply munitions to south Africa implemented by ISC and Carlos Cardoen.
Page
34
The story featured Lancaster and ISC. The report ties Guerin to the National Security Agency project in the 1970s.
The report was investigated by ABC News, the Financial Times of London, and the Lancaster Intelligencer News. Tom
Flannery of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, appeared on the program and was given credits on the show.
May 24, 1991 -
The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal reports on the above story.

At approximately 1:30 pm, Stan Caterbone drives out of Lancaster, en route to a safe haven, and stops at a convenience
store and reads the early edition of the Lancaster New Era, learning for the first time of ABC News/Nightline story about
ISC and the CIA the evening before, just hours after his conversation regarding the same to Jay Curtis.
June 7, 1991 - Stan Caterbone is again arrested by the Stone Harbor Police. After passing several sobriety tests, and two breathalyzer tests, Stan
Caterbone is placed in a jail cell, and refused to be released.
Several hours later, Stan Caterbone is cited for outstanding arrests warrants of Avalon, NJ, dated back to August 14,
1987, by an officer of the Avalon Police department who suddenly appeared.
Both arresting officers demanded $340.00 for the posting of bail. Stan Caterbone requested that the required cash be
retrieved from his car, located just a few blocks away.
The Avalon police officer responded by saying, "we can't let you go to your car, you may have a gun in there".
Stan Caterbone was immediately escorted to the cape May county Prison, fingerprinted and processed.
June 8, 1987 -
Stan Caterbone calls Mike Orstein, Lt. of the Stone Harbor police patrol, and
requests that he retrieve the required cash from his car, and post the required bail.
At approximately 2:30 pm, Stan Caterbone is released on bail.
June 11, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone left the Stone Harbor Marina at approximately 12:30 am en route to Lancaster, Pa, to retrieve some files
concerning the ISC cover-up.
Upon driving north on Route 47 (the normal route to Lancaster), approximately 10 miles outside the Cape May county
Courthouse, Stan Caterbone noticed a car following him closely. Suspicious, Stan Caterbone decreased his speed from
55 mph to 35 mph, in order for the car to pass him. However, the car remained directly behind, adjusting the speed
accordingly.
In an effort to elude the car, without raising suspicion, Stan Caterbone gradually increased his speed, while also
increasing the distance between the cars, resulting in the loss of his taillights to the ensuing vehicle - Because of the
winding road, Stan Caterbone looked for an abrupt turn-off, in hopes of dashing the eluding vehicle, by loosing sight of
his taillights.
There was little or no traffic on the route during the early morning hours, and Stan Caterbone stopped at an intersection,
and noticed that the headlights of the ensuing vehicle were not visible in his rear view mirror, meaning that his taillights
were also not visible to the ensuing vehicle.
Immediately upon pulling from the intersection, Stan Caterbone noticed a narrow dirt road that lead into a field of small
trees, the perfect place to sit for the ensuing auto to pass him, unnoticed.
The ensuing vehicle pulled to the intersection, and continued north on route 47, in the direction of Lancaster. Stan
Caterbone sat in his vehicle a few minutes, until continuing on his travel, north on Route 47.
Approximately five (5) minutes later, a car traveling in excess of SS mph, approached Stan Caterbone, traveling south
on the same road (2 lanes)
As the two cars approached each other, and approximately 30 yards from reaching each other, the approaching vehicle
drove directly into the lane of Stan Caterbone, with its high beams on, and continued straight for his vehicle, or what
appeared to be a head-on-collision. Stan Caterbone drove off of the berm of the road, missing a line of trees by less than
12 inches (eluding a life threatening disaster), and passed the vehicle that was still in the north bound lane, heading
south.
Page
35
Stan Caterbone, shaking and sweating furiously, noticed the cars brake lights go on, and the car apparently turned
around, and began pursuing Stan Caterbone again.
Stan Caterbone drove as fast as he could to Route 55, hoping to find traffic in order to hide and loose the pursuing car.
Stan Caterbone arrived in Lancaster, at approximately 3:00 am, and again noticed a car sitting in the parking lot of the
vacant "Sportsman's Den", at the intersection of the New Danville Pike and Prince Streets.
Upon driving west on Hershey Avenue, Stan Caterbone noticed the car following him. In an effort to identify the license
plate, Stan Caterbone made a few turns in the area of Hamilton Watch, and followed the car heading north on S. West
End Avenue. The car was a late model, gold or tan, Cougar or possibly a Buick Park Avenue.
Stan Caterbone watched the car increase his speed, and finally changed directions and proceeded to his residence, and
parked a few blocks away, and walked through the woods, to his apartment in the Hershey Heritage complex. Stan
Caterbone then used a flashlight, in order not to reveal his presence, and returned to his vehicle, sometime in the early
morning, during daylight.
June 10, 1991 -
Two independent U.S. courts uphold a $189 million award by Britian's High Court against ISC executives Shireman and
Reach for their role in the fraud.
Ferranti makes its first open statement against Guerin saying a similar decision is expected to uphold the High Court's
decision against him.
June 19, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone leaves Stone Harbor, in constant fear for his life, and remains in seclusion, in various parts of the Eastern
Seacoast, spanning from Captiva Island, Florida, to Boston, MA, in order to prepare an official request for a
Congressional Investigation of all related matters.
Jul 11, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone files an official request C300 pages) for a Congressional Investigation into all of the ISC and preceding
issues with U. S. Representative Robert Walker CR-Pennsylvania), and Speaker of the House, U. S. Representative
Thomas Foley.
Both requests were sent by Overnight Mail Service of the United States Post Office, outside of Baltimore, Maryland.
July 12, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone returns to his home, in Lancaster, PA, at approximately 1200 pm, after remaining in seclusion
immediately following the phone conversation of May 23, 1991 with Jay Curtis, regarding the CIA and ISC.
ABC News/NightLine features it's second story about Lancaster's ISC and Arms to South Africa and Iraq.
July 18, 1991 -
U.S. Representative Robert Walker sends a letter to Stan Caterbone relating to his request for a Congressional
Investigation into all of his allegations of misconduct and criminal wrongdoing regarding his alleged ISC/Fraud "coverup".
The letter said :
"Thank you for your recent letter and information on International Signal & Control corporation. I appreciate
your thinking of me; however, since this case is before the courts, it is unethical for me to interfere with the
judicial process. If you think I may be of assistance with other matters, please feel free to contact me".
July 25, 1991 -
Christian is released from prison after serving two years and a day for his role in the Chem Con fraud and toxic waste
dumping.
August 1, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone receives a notice of a warrant for his arrest by the Stone Harbor (NJ) Municipal Court, regarding
summons #081370.
Stan Caterbone called the Court Clerk, Pam Davidson, to explain the circumstances.
The Court Clerk refused to identify herself, and did not have time to listen to his explanation. She then questioned why
he (Stan Caterbone) wanted to write to the Judge to explain.
Stan Caterbone writes a formal letter to Judge Peter M. Tourson, of the Stone Harbor Municipal Court explaining his
allegations of misconduct, and the issues surrounding his recent arrest of June 7th, and all of the arrests dating back to
Page
36
August of 1987.
Stan Caterbone had described in detail his assertions and evidence that the arrests were conveniently orchestrated while
he was seeking legal recourse for the alleged ISC "Cover-Up'.
Stan Caterbone also explained his fear for not returning to the Stone Harbor Municipality, in light of the fabricated
arrests, and other questionable incidents.
Stan Caterbone requested another means of settling all outstanding frivolous traffic violations, other than appearing in
Stone Harbor Municipal Court.
August 8, 1991 -
Stone Harbor Municipal Court Judge, Peter M. Tourison, sends Stan Caterbone an official letter acknowledging receipt
of his previous letter and explanations.
Judge Tourison concluded his notice by demanding that Stan Caterbone appear in Court, as scheduled, "to have this
matter taken care of in the proper manner
August 13, 1991 -
Ferranti announces it has recovered $650,000 hidden by Guerin in a number of Swiss Hank accounts.
Ferranti also announces a fiscal 1991 loss of $282 million.
Stan Caterbone responds to Judge Tourison letter of August 8, and discloses the recent attempt on his life, the past June,
just outside or Stone Harbor, and states that because of the apparent criminal conspiracy within the same municipality,
Stan Caterbone formally notifies the Judge that he refuses to return to Court, as requested.
August 15, 1991 -
Guerin and Cardoen are shown to have been deeply involved in a failed $100 million arms procurement plot linked to
the infamous Iran-Contra scandal.
August 16, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone receives a formal notice and demand from American Helix President David D. Dering, for the return or
equipment, currently in the possession of Stan Caterbone, and notice of the termination of the business agreement, dated
October 1, 1990 between Stan J. Caterbone and American Helix Technology Corporation.
Stan Caterbone receives a facsimile from Mike Hess (former ISC engineer who frequented S. Africa and who solicited
Stan Caterbone in late 1989 for work), and refuses to sign a non-disclosure agreement with Stan Caterbone and the
Advanced Media Group, Ltd., as requested to continue a further relationship considering the recent activities from the
May 23rd phone call and the national media publicity regarding the ISC Scandal.
August 19, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone sends a letter to attorney Timothy Lanza via the Lancaster Bar Association, and asks for an explanation
as to his misrepresenting to Stan Caterbone for the past month that his order for Advanced Media Group, Ltd., stock
certificates were ordered, when in fact Stan Caterbone verified with authorized personnel of the H. Burr Kein company
that the order was never placed.
Timothy Lanza had personally disclosed to Stan Caterbone on several occasions that he was awaiting the delivery of the
certificate kit via UPS.
Stan Caterbone responds to the previous letter of David D. Dering, and his request for the return of American Helix
equipment, currently in the possession of Stan Caterbone.
Stan Caterbone formally notifies David Dering that the equipment will be held as collateral, according to statutes of the
Pa. Uniform Commercial Credit code, that the equipment will not he returned until the past due invoice {# 1018), of the
Advanced Media Group, Ltd., of July 12, 1991 for $4,914.00, which was due upon receipt according to their business
agreement, was paid in full.
August29, 1991 -
A federal judge dismisses Christian's $93 million suit against Guerin, but Christian vows to re file the suit.
ABC News/Nightline features another story about ISC, the CIA, and Arms Deals, in preparation for the beginning of
the-Confirmation Hearings of George Bush's nomination or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Robert
Gates, which begins just three days away, by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Ferranti and Clark reach an agreement to settle their legal battle, although details are not disclosed by either party.

Page
37
The first day of the Robert Gates' Confirmation Hearings brings questioning by
Senator Morkowski, of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about knowledge of the ISC operations by Robert Gates.
Gates, whose candor about Iran-Contra resulted in his 1987 withdraw when nominated for the same slot by then
President Reagen. In a less-than sincere line of questioning, Robert Gates denies any knowledge of ISC, Guerin, or
Carlos Cardoen, including any operations to sell munitions to Iraq or south Africa. In addition, he denies any knowledge
of any CIA involvement in the same.
September 19, 1991-
Stan Caterbone visits the office of Senator Bill Bradley (D-New Jersey), in the Hart Office Building, Washington, D.C., and
delivers documents, tapes, and a video, all relating to his allegations of an alleged "Cover-Up" regarding the ISC
Scandal.
The materials were taken by assistant Jackie Widrow, who signed a receipt.
September 21, 1991-
Stan Caterbone delivers a contract for the consulting services he has agreed to provide to J. Oman Landis, in order to insure
against any wrongdoing, and especially in light of Mr. Landis' assertion the previous Friday that "you (Stan Caterbone)
are taking a break (from business) to rest your mind".
This assertion conveniently supports the alibi of mental insanity, that has been made by numerous persons, including Mr.
Landis' friends, the High's, who wholly own American Helix Technology corporation.
Several hours after delivering the contract to Mr. Landis, and after beginning to work, as outlined in the contract, Mr.
Landis called Stan Caterbone into his office and said "there were some developments over the weekend, why don't you
continue on your normal duties of driving (limousines), this has nothing to do with the contract that you asked me to
sign".
September 25, 1991-
October 1, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone mails a cover letter and accompanying materials to attorney Howard Corny, of New York city, as previously
discussed, via UPS regular way service.
Stan Caterbone receives a facsimile from David Dering, President of American Helix, formally charging Stan Caterbone
with charges of 16,730.00.
David Dering also demands that the equipment be returned, and upon receipt, American Helix would forgive $11,816.00
($16,730 - $4914)(Caterbone's invoice) of unpaid charges to Stan Caterbone and or the Advanced Media Group, Ltd.,
Stan Caterbone sends by certified mail, a copy of a recent complaint (filed Sep. 6, 1991) to the New Jersey Department
of Motor Vehicles, and a demand for the title to his boat, and again allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the Stone
Harbor Marina, for not delivering title, given the bill of sale was satisfied on June 10, 1991, and a fee for the title was
paid as well.
Stan Caterbone personally meets with Ted Koppel, of ABC News/Nightline, at the Washington National Airport, at
approximately 5:30 pm.
Stan Caterbone questioned Ted Koppel if he knew a Mr. Jay Curtis, and why he was questioned about the CIA's
involvement with the ISC affairs, just hours before the broadcast.
Ted Koppel denied any knowledge of Mr. Jay Curtis, and stated that Thomas Flannery was involved in the broadcast by
the Financial Times of London. The letter of August 28, 1987 to Diane sawyer was also mentioned. Ted Koppel
requested the phone number of Stan Caterbone, and said that he would contact him later, due to his present time
constraints, and asked "what do you want, and what is the story line?"
Stan Caterbone responded, "Justice and protection, someone is trying to cover me up, and someone already made
attempts on my life... someone keeps getting information from me, while I'm left sitting in Lancaster like a sitting duck".
October 2, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone responds by facsimile, to the Oct. 1, correspondence, to David D. Dering.
NOTES:
Stan Caterbone requested supportive documentation regarding the suspicious charges of $16,730.00 as declared, in order
to consider the request for the return of the equipment.
David C. Dering responds by facsimile, demanding for Stan Caterbone to meet him at the Holiday Inn, in Lancaster on
Friday, Oct 4th, with the equipment in his possession, and states that he will deliver the required supportive
Page
38
documentation of the charges as requested.

October 2, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone responds by facsimile to Ted Koppel, as to his question concerning the "story line"
October 27, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone writes a letter to Sandra Woods, Associate Managing Editor, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, regarding the
recent feature story, "What went wrong in America" Stan Caterbone describes his experience and present situation regarding the ISC scandal, and cites corruption as the
cause of the present dire and destitute circumstances controlling his life.
October 31, 1991 -
Guerin and 19 others, including Larry Reach, are indicted on 75 criminal counts by the Philadelphia based grand jury.
Laura McQueen, administrator for the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles, called Stan Caterbone at
approximately 3:30 pm, to notify him that she was trying to sort out the problem with his complaint regarding title to his
boat.
Ms. McQueen acknowledged that the Stone Harbor Marina had submitted an application for a title, apparently dated on
or about June 10, however the identity of the boat did not match that of for Stan Caterbones. Ms. McQueen also
admitted that there seemed to be evidence of wrongdoing, but denied to state whether the matter was presently being
investigated.
Ms. McQueen also stated that the title in question was being microfiche, and that within a few days, they should be able
to trace the title, and resolve the problem.
Robert Clyde Ivy, Terrance Faulds, Wayne Radcliffe, Gerald schuler, and Thomas Jaslin enter a not guilty pleas to all
charges handed down by the Philadelphia grand jury.
November 24, 1987 -
Robert Shireman, ISC financial executive pleads his guilt in the ISC $billion fraud and scandal.
November 25, 1987 -
Anthony Stagq, ISC executive in charge of Singapore operations, pleads guilty in the Arms Export violations.
November 27, 1987-
ISC Executive Larry Resch pleads guilty to his role in the massive contract fraud in the Ferranti/ISC merger of
November, 1987.
December 3, 1991 -
Philadelphia grand jury hands down a "superseding indictment", clarifying the money laundering portion of the
charges. The indictment states that between November of 1986 and June of 1989, Guerin looped $450 million through
phony bank, vendor, -and customer accounts to give the appearance several of the bogus ISC contracts were real. The
preceding information also allows for the possibility of an indictment of William Clark, and possibly his attorney Joseph
Roda.
The largest of the fake contracts was the Pakistan Missile deal, in which Larry Resch was charged and indicted by the
grand jury for managing.
Stan Caterbone's best friend in the whole world, little "Abbey Pflumm", shouts his name, "Taan", for the first time.
December 3, 1991
-Mike Hess, a former ISC engineer that also has done work for Stan Caterbone, visits
Stan Caterbone to deliver all materials in his possession which is the property of the
Advanced Media Group, Ltd.,
Stan Caterbone and Mike Hess engage in an argument when Mike Hess becomes annoyed at Stan Caterbones continued
caution and suspicion of Mike Hess's real motives and agenda for the relationship.
Stan Caterbone had witnessed several incidents of inconsistencies with the attitude of Mike Hess, with specific respect
regarding Stan Caterbone's efforts for justice and legal recourse concerning the affairs of 1987.
Stan Caterbone admitted in several occasions that he will never trust anyone, especially given his former association
with ISC, and most importantly his activities and travel to South Africa-
December 4, 1991 -
Stan Caterbone calls the Citizens Commission of Human Rights, after seeing the organization featured on the Murray
Povich Show, and talks to Roy Griffen.
Page
39
The organization's mission is to investigate abuses within the mental illness profession. Roy Griffen requests
information, and agrees to investigate his allegations. Stan Caterbone states that he will Federal Express a copy of this
chronology.
December 5, 1991 -
At approximately 10:00 am, Stan Caterbone sent a package of information via Federal Express (tracking number
9734766S93) to:
Roy Griffen
Citizens Commission for Human Rights
6362 Hollywood Blvd.
Los An~elos, CA
90028
(800) 869-2247
The package was received at 9:56 am (PST) by L. Mezkerlsl, at the front desk.
December 5, 1991 -
At approximately 4:52 pm, James Guerin pleads guilty to eitht (B) grand jury indictments of October 31. The
indictments are as follows:
* Criminal Conspiracy
* Violation, Arms Export Control Act
* Violation, Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid act.
* Money Laundering
* Securities Fraud
* riling False Income Tax Return
* Aiding and Abetting the Commission of crime.
Sentencing is scheduled for February 25, 1992, with a minimum of 14 years, and a
maximum of Life in prison.
December 4, 1991
Stan Caterbone receives uninvited visitors at his residence, cousin Sam Miller
family, who in September left him stranded in Florida. They conveniently need a place to stay, while visiting in
Lancaster, and purposely cause distractions to his efforts for legal recourse.
December 11, 1991-
Stan Caterbone finally requests that his residence be vacated by Michelle and Jason Miller.
December 20, 1991-
Stan Caterbone receivers a notice from the Internal Revenue Service regarding a discrepancy in income reported on his 1989
Federal Income Tax Return. The items in question were his "disability income" from Monarch life insurance and
American Helix "non-employee income".
December 23, 1991-
Stan Caterbone responds to the IRS letter and submits a copy of the chronology of this conspiracy, along with the entire
audio transcript (2 - 90 minute cassettes) of his meeting of September 29, 198? with the Pennsylvania Securities
Commission and requests assistance in his ordeal. The correspondence was sent via 'Return Receipt Requested" in order
to insure proof of delivery.
Stan Caterbone sends an updated chronology to Roy Griffen of the Citizen's Commission for Human Rights.
December 28, 1991-
Stan Caterbone sends a formal notice to attorney Howard Cerny, 245 Park Avenue, New York, informing him to return the
previously submitted information and tapes
regarding this case, and also informing him that he no longer wishes to
discuss these issues with him or any member of his firm.
December 30, 1991-
Stan Caterbone travels to the U.S. 9:50 am courthouse in Philadelphia, PA, and personally delivers the chronology and a
copy of the "1987" Pennsylvania Securities Commission meeting to Chief Judge Bechtle, who is presiding over the ISC
court preceding.
10:00 am
Stan Caterbone visits the U.S. Attorney Generals office in the same building and files a formal complaint, "Criminal
Conspiracy to "cover-up" the International Signal a Control scandal. The proper form is filed with the clerk.
Assistant U. S. Attorney General Gray asks Stan Caterbone to briefly describe his complaint. Stan Caterbone gives Gray
the chronology along with the tapes.
Stan Caterbone briefly describes the meeting of June 23, 1987 with Larry Resch, the nay 23, 1991 phone call from Jay
Page
40
Curtis, the arrests by Manheim Township, and the attempts on his life. Agent Gray took notes, and said he is not
familiar with the case, but would personally see that the information is passed to the proper authorities involved in the
case.
During the conversation, Mr. Gray asked the exact same question that was asked by both Joe Roda and Investigator
Eisler of the Pennsylvania Securities Commission)
"But you did not work for them (ISC), you were not involved with them?"
Stan Caterbone gave this response to all questions by Mr. Gray:
It's all in there (the chronology), all of the information and events".
Page
41
THE YEAR
1992
January 6, 1992 -
Stan Caterbone sends a copy of the criminal conspiracy chronology and a complete audio transcript of the PA SEC
meeting of 1987 to the legal counsel of the Pennsylvania Securities Commission via Certified Mail Return Receipt
Requested: P825 695 935.
January 8, 1992 -
At a "Town Meeting" in Columbia, Pennsylvania held by U. S. Senator Arlen Spector, Stan Caterbone personally
delivers a copy of the criminal conspiracy chronology to Anon Spector after the meeting and asks Arlen Spector to read
the letter, Mr. Spector replied, " I will do that".
January 9, 1992 -
Stan Caterbone receives the Return Receipt from the Pennsylvania SEC, signed by Sharon F. Heinspach on January 8,
1992.
Page
42
THE YEAR
1997
November 8, 1997
Stan Caterbone solicits Attorney Matt Samley, of the law firm of Xelkallis, Reese and Pugh, to provide a legal opinion
as to the circumstances involved in the cover up. Mr. Samley quickly asks if anyone had called Stan Caterbone about
the issues. Mr. Samley agrees to review the documents and will provide a legal opinion of any criminal and
prosecutorial misconduct.
November 23, 1997 -
Stan Caterbone delivers materials to Mr. Samley and also sends via Federal Express the same materials to Christina
Rainville, of Shnader, Harris, Lewis, and . With a letter requesting a legal opinion from Ms. Rainville.
December, 8, 1997 -
Ms. Pam Pflumm call Dr. Albert Shultz regarding the behavior of Stan Caterbone.
December 15, 1997 -
Stan Caterbone telephones Jim Christian to again confirm that he did not have knowledge of his meeting with Mr. Larry
Resch. Jim Christian began threatening Stan Caterbone from public disclosure of these issues, he said
you have to forget about it. Your life will be worse off than it is now, you better just forget it
Page
43
THE YEAR
1998
January 14, 1998 -
Stan Caterbone visits with Fr. Edward Lavelle for advice and guidance concerning his situation. Stan Caterbone only
asked that Fr. Lavelle call Mr. David Pflumm, and ask he and is key employees refrain from inflicting any additional
mental duress upon his person
Fr. Lavelle refuses unless he is told to do so by Dr. Al Shulz. He offers no further assistance.
1:00 pm
A few hour later, Stan Caterbone visits Dr. Al Shulz for his quarterly appointment. Immediately upon entering the
appointment, and before the plaintiff will speak any words, Dr. Al Shuclz will contemporaneously accuse the plaintiff
and declare:
Stan, you are very sick. You are not well! You need to take additional medications.
The recorded transcript will prove the horrid implications of these conversations.
February 20, 1998
The plaintiff is forced to vacate his position of Controller of Pflumm

Contractors, Inc., due to the purposeful and intentional infliction of mental duress, perpetrated as a direct reprisal against
the Plaintiffs rightful pursuit of due process of the law concerning all issues contained herein.
April 21, 1998
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry will again illegally deny the Plaintiff of his legitimate claim for
Unemployment Compensation Benefits, which again is an act of reprisal against his rightful pursuit of fair access to the
law, and his disclosures of the incidents contained herein.
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industrys 1987 rulings against the Plaintiff have been also proven to be in
err, which conveniently and intentionally subjects the Plaintiff to financial hardship and mental duress, all purposefully
hindering the Plaintiffs right to access the law. The record of the plaintiffs claim for Unemployment Compensation
Benefits is corrupted.
Page
44
THE YEAR 2004

Dec 16, 2004
Plaintiff sends a complaint to Agent Sarsfield of the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office in Pittsburg regarding
illicit telephone activities:
December 15, 2004
Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney of General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Pittsburgh Regional Office
6th Floor, Manor Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15129
Attn: Ms. Shannon J. Sarsfield
Ref: Verizon Customer Relations, C-006142-2004
Dear Ms. Sarsfield:
I appreciate your review of the aforementioned file. I was also in receipt of the November 19, 2004 response of the
complaint from Verizon. For the record, I have made several previous attempts prior to the July 28th request to be place
on their Do Not Call list. I had made several calls in the previous months, and the calls did not stop.
My telephone has been used as a means of harassment and intimidation, with my calls often being intercepted,
misdirected, or impersonated. And often calls from Out of Area made several times a day, with no answer. If you
were to do an audit of my calls (in/out) over the last several years, you would reveal the nature of these activities.
Thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Stan Caterbone

THE YEAR 2005
Feb 17, 2005
Plaintiff sends the following letter to the Chief of Police of the Southern Regional Police Department:
February 17, 2005 3:30 am
Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Chief John A. Fiorill
Southern Regional Police Department
3284 Main Street
P.O. Box 254
Conestoga, PA 17516
Dear Chief Fiorill:
It is quite unfortunate that you would engage your department in these matters, but that
was your choice, so you will have to see these matters through to their resolve.
As I have explained to the officer that so rudely awakened me at 2:20 am this morning, I
was driving by the Pflumm residence when I noticed a 4-wheeler making donuts in their
pasture. I slowly drove up the driveway to make sure that it was not someone that did not
belong there. I asked if Abby was home, and they said yes, and I immediately went on
my way. You should read my complaint filed this past Sunday to better understand who
is telling the truth regarding these incidents. And after your officer boldly threatens me
with filing charges for harassment for contacting any member of the Pflumm family, Pam
calls me during my conversation with your officer. How ironic.
One issue that I do take seriously is the issue of my mental state of mind. And your
officer questioned that, so I will have to defend my opinions, actions, and the truth.
Accompanied you will find 2 documents that clearly explain my position and the issues at
hand. The document concerning Pflumm Contractors will clearly raise questions as to
why these allegations of my state of mind are again being challenged by the very same
people that did the same thing in 1998. The other document I provided to give you a
clear understanding of the issues that your officer questioned.
As to the involvement of Federal Law Enforcement agencies, you will have to draw your
own conclusions or make your own inquires. I will not say anymore regarding the same.
I am hereby demanding a full account of all complaints that I have filed while living at
this address. I dont care how you do it, or how long it takes. Do you understand?
I find it quite disturbing that after my home is constantly illegally entered on a consistent
basis, that you would send an officer to my door at 2:00 in the morning to threaten me
after I was just making sure that no one was on the Pflumm property that did not belong
there. This is just so unfortunate for your department.
I do appreciate you and your officers help regarding these matters.
Respectfully,
Stan Caterbone
Page
45

Approx 1:00 pm
Page
46
Plaintiff meets with Michael Landis, County Detective for Lancaster County, in his office at the Lancaster Courthouse to
discuss J. Karpathious and death threats and the Southern Regional Police Department. Plaintiff sends email to Michael
Landis and a copy of the 1998 Affidavit in the email. Supreme Court announces plans to review Lambert Appeal the
next day.
Dear Mr. Landis,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday. I appreciate your time. I understand your frustration in trying
to understand the circumstances regarding my situation. I have enclosed a document which I authored in 1998 to help
you.
Also, if you could, maybe you could help to facilitate my application for food stamps with the County Assistance Office.
I would appreciate it.
Have a nice day.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone

Feb 18, 2005
Page
47
Plaintiff sends the following letter to the Chief of Police of the Southern Regional Police Department:
February 18, 2005
Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Chief John A. Fiorill
3284 Main Street
P.O. Box 254
Conestoga, PA 17516
Dear Chief Fiorill:
I am very disappointed in the way that our meeting had ended. I will be filing complaints
With the appropriate authorities concerning the threats and abuse by Officer Busser.
Remember you had requested that meeting. And as you stated, I do not believe anything
that you say, well Sir, that is certainly your choice, however I have never provided
anything but the truth to you or any member of your department.
The burden of proof to my allegations falls within your jurisdiction. If you are telling me
that I have to prove every allegation when I report a crime, I just dont know how that is
possible. But you are the Chief of the department, so I guess I will have to protect my
person and property in any manner that deems appropriate.
I apologize for becoming loud and frustrated, however when you tell me that I am lying
and I am most certainly telling the truth; and then you and Mr. Busser yell that I am nuts
and to get out of here; and that no one will respond to any of my calls to your office,
well we have a very serious problem.
You both have challenged my integrity, my truthfulness, credibility, and my sanity.
And Mr Busser pulling out his night stick and holding it up to hit me, that is more than
enough for me.
I get the picture loud and clear. I hope that you do as well.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc: Donald Totaro, Lancaster County District Attorney
Feb 19, 2005
Plaintiff files the following complaint with the The Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC) after the incident of Kerry
Egan calling 911 to file a false report of plaintiff sending an email stating to kill himself.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, 17516
The Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC) is a partnership between the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C).
February 19, 2005 7:26 am
At approximately 5:00 am this morning the Conestoga Police entered my home and
accused me of sending an email to Kerry Egan threatening to kill myself. The officer
verbally and physically abused me because I did not know what he was talking about
and he kept interrogating me and handcuffed me because I said that I was not on
the internet after 10:00 pm on February 18, the evening before.
The officer told me that I sent an email to Kerry Egan and she called 911 at
approximately 5:00 am this morning. I told the officer that I did I fell asleep at
Page
48
approximately 1:00 am and did not awake until the officer arrived at my house.
The officer was quite abusive and tried to accuse me of lunging at him, when in fact
he was throwing me around. Pam Pflumm, who previously filed trespass charges against me, and whom I was to have
no contact with, illegally entered my home with the officer, via a key which I
had kept on the deck. Before they entered my home, I called 911 and requested that the Pennsylvania
State Police come to my aid because of the verbal and physical threats that I
received earlier in the day from Officer Busser and Chief of Police Fiorill of the
Southern Regional Police Department. After they had left, I took a shower and almost collapsed from exhaustion and
trauma. I got dressed and went to the emergency room of Regional Hospital, former
Saint Joseph Hospital. Dr. Laird attended to my concerns.
Feb 20, 2005
Plaintiff calls Southern Regional Police Department and Humane League to file formal complaint of Cruelty to Animals.
Both refused to investigate or file any reports. Complaint phoned in to the Humane League on Feb 20, 2005 As
described to a Letter To The Editor, Gil Smart
While I was away for a family emergency, I had someone let my two cats out after being inside for a few days, which I
have always done in the past. I returned after being in South Florida for one week. Upon driving toward my driveway,
my one cat was anxiously awaiting my arriveal. However, my second cat was not there. This was immediate cause for
concern, since being mother and son, they had always stuck together. After a few days I knew that my cat was either
abducted or was harmed. No way would he be around and not come home.
The other evening I went over to my suspect neighbors home, whom I know often has been mischevious toward my
property in the past, and asked him if he saw my cat. He went on to tell me how big my cat is and how he is the "king of
the neighborhood". I found this conversation to be typical bull.... He said "don't worry it will show up soon!"
Last evening I found my dead cat lying by my pond with a possom chewing on its ear. I examined the body and found
that it's neck had been broken with no other signs of any other wounds.
I called the Humane Shelter and talked to a Cruelty Officer who said" There is nothhing we can do if you did not see
anyone physically harm the animal"
Is this the way it is? You have to prove a crime before they will investigate? Sounds alittle backwards to me, but then
again I often forget where I am at.
Feb 21, 2005
Plaintiff sends letter to Fulton Bank regarding the death of Thomas Caterbone and the alleged indiscretions and
illegalities of the activities of Fulton Bank.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Project Hope
Mr. Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Mr. Scott Smith
Fulton Financial Corporation
One Penn Square
P.O. Box 4887
Lancaster, PA 17604
Dear Mr. Smith:
The reason I had called you on Friday morning was to discuss an outstanding issue with you. I am not threatening you
or coming to you as an adversary, but rather just trying to understand how your institution can be so cold and rude to
my family. On Thursday I visited the Manor Branch to discuss the account for Tom's Project Hope, our non-profit
foundation which advocates awareness for suicide prevention, with a focus for teenagers. Of course this foundation was
founded after the suicide of my youngest brother, Tom, in 1996.
Page
49
Well, I never had so much trouble trying to gain access to our account's statements than I did on that day. All that I
heard was how much I would have to pay to get copies of the statements. Which in itself is a little disheartening,
considering we are a non-profit giving something back to the community. We are a major donor for CONTACT
Lancaster. And it is this attitude that inspired me to address the very reason Tom's Project Hope was unfortunately
founded.
I had asked the Customer Service person what would happen if I made an attempt to deposit a check in an account that
did not have funds available at that time. She said "we have to give you the choice to deposit the check or wait until
there are funds". I said are you sure, she said "oh yes, you have the choice to make the deposit or not". I said that is
what I thought was the policy or rule.
In 1996 my brother, Tom, had his accounts with your bank. He was given a check in the amount of approximately
$60,000 by an account from Ms. John Depatto. Forgive me but I do not have the energy to retrieve all of the details at
this time. My brother went to the Manor Branch to deposit that check, and was refused on at least 3 occasions from
making that deposit. I know this because he was calling me asking for advise and help. I remember telling him to seek
legal counsel because this was not right. Your tellers refused to take the check for deposit because there were no funds
available. I kept telling him that this was wrong and that he should make the deposit incase funds became available the
check would be honored. But your tellers kept refusing to make that deposit.
I then went on to learn that funds did become available and were paid to other entities that had NSF checks waiting for
funds, which would have been behind my brothers check had your tellers accepted that deposit.
If you carefully review the financial problems my brother encountered prior to his death, you would see that this was the
one transaction that started a spiral of events that caused him a great amount of stress and duress. And I know this
because I was trying to help him. I eventually took him to the emergency room of St. Joseph Hospital just 4 days prior to
his death.
Now, Sir, you tell me how you would feel if you were in my position, and what would you want to happen. I have kept
this to myself for far too long, and since I have had my own problems with your institution in a similar way back in 1987.
I would like to understand why we are treated like this, and ask that these matters be addressed.
Put yourself in my position, would you want anything less?
This is for my brother, Tom, God rest his soul.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Project Hope

Feb 22, 2005
Page
50
Plaintiff sends email to Lancaster District Attorney Donald Totaro after Supreme Court announces Lambert Case is
being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, one day after Plaintiff reviews affidavit for the first time in 7
years.
Dear Don:
Just so there are no misunderstandings, I have never had, nor do I have now, any information regarding the Lambert
proceedings. I have never spoken to anyone concerning the same. I am very suspect as to the timing of this
announcement and find it very disturbing given the document that I had innocently resurrected after 8 years. My only
intent in writing that document was to find resolve for my own tragic situation.
I believe a jury trial would have been the only fair way for an equitable resolution to this case. Had that occurred in the
beginning, I don't believe we would be confronting this issue today. I meant no disrespect toward your office or that of
the state. As far as the police, it is the same, except that I was very angered at the few that have treated me with such
malice, which is in no way a condemnation for the men in blue. I was literally fighting for my life, and still continue to
this day.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Feb 26, 2005
Plaintiff sends letter to President Bush and White House staff addressing concerns regarding National Security Issues
and this case and receives positive signal to proceed to court.
Iraq
National Security
To: President George W. Bush
From: Mr. Stan Caterbone <amgroup01@msn.com>
Subject: Write a Supporting Comment on National Security (Iraq)
Dear President Bush:
Dear President Bush:
I need to know if any information contained herein compromises the
security of the United States of America. I have been getting mixed
signals as to this question, and my life has been constantly
threatened because of this document. I would submit to a polygraph
to verify the credibility of any of the facts contained in this
document. I was the sole author of this writing back in 1998.
If you believe that this document does threaten our Nationa Security,
I would like to personally deliver the accompanying information
assets to yourself or the National Security Agency upon request.
If you believe that this document does not compromise the National
Security in any manner, then I would ask that you uphold my civil
liberties in continuing my efforts to adjucate these matters and find
an opportunity for remedy in the appropriate court of law.
I remain,
Stan J. Caterbone

Mar 14, 2005
Page
51
Plaintiff files complaint to the American Civil Liberties Union of Philadelphia, PA after the Intake Director directed
plaintiff in filing protocols.
March 14, 2005
Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
American Civil Liberties Union Of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
intake@aclupa.org
Re: Complaint
I have had many persons levy attacks and harassment upon me with explicit statements defaming my character and
slandering me with such statements as calling me "insane, crazy and nuts". I have been abused, both emotionally and
physically, which are a matter of record, by the Southern Regional Police Department, formally the Conestoga Police
Department. I have had several fabrications and false reports concerning alleged suicide attempts, all of which have
been proved to be total lies. There has been total disregard for my civil liberties and numerous violations of my civil
rights. All of these incidents are intended to provoke and illicit the very same behavior they accuse me of; that of being
mentally unstable.
The reason for this is simple, to discredit my allegations and to prevent me from taking legal action and to block access
of due process against the private and public entities of the County of Lancaster, and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. These attacks, harassment, and intimidation began in June of 1987 and continue today. In the last several
weeks, in the matter of 4 days, I was detained and abused by Police in the middle of the night on 2 different occasions.
At 4:00 am one morning a person called 911 and reported that I had emailed a message threatening to commit suicide,
proven to be a lie. I had a Police Officer raised his nightstick and threaten to hit me while he was in a violent rage, only
to have another officer take step in and disarm him. I have had the Police literally break into my home, because I would
not open the door, for fear of my safety after being abused the previous day. The officer handcuffed me and shoved me
around because I would not admit to wanting to kill myself. In the last several weeks I have had no less than 6 persons
attack my mental stability and in an effort to break me emotionally.
In 1987 I had made public allegations of fraud against a Defense Contractor, International Signal& Control (I was a
shareholder), after a meeting in which they wanted me to finance some questionable activities. From that meeting
forward, these illicit and malicious acts have been occurring quite frequently. It cost me money, financial opportunity,
friends, time; and everything imaginable except my life. And there was at least one attempt on that. In 1987 ISC was in
the midst of a multi-million dollar merger with the British Defense Contractor, Ferranti International. My allegations
caused grave consequences to that deal. Four years later executives of ISC were indicted for the "largest fraud in U.S.
history" $1 Billion dollars, and for exporting arms to Iraq by way of South Africa.
In 1987, when I made these allegations, I was making the first digital movie, ironically, I received the original patent
research materials days after that meeting with ISC, from a prominent patent law firm in Philadelphia. I have been
arrested at least on 6 occasions, and the most outlandish, for stealing my own files from my own office. I have spent 6
days in prison. I have been taken to the Hospital on 2 occasions, and have been detained by police on several other
occasions for persons making false claims that I threatened to commit suicide. I have never been convicted of any crime,
and all charges are conveniently discharged before any court proceedings. All charges of suicide have been proven to
be false allegations and fraudulent false reports. In the last week, I had obtained my medical records from the Regional
Medical Center, while I was maliciously and fraudulently admitted there after my arrest in 1987, and there are 3 reports
from 3 different psychiatrists which all reveal that there was never any attempt by anyone in the Hospital administration
or medical staff to validate any of my statements; which in and of themselves were used to indict me and support the
diagnosis of manic depression. Of, course, all of my statements were true, which all are methodically proven in the
following supporting documents.
I have had my airplane, loaded with all of my files, repossessed in the middle of the night by the Common National Bank
of Lancaster (Mellon), before any payments were due. This happened immediately after my meeting with International
Signal & Control, in 1987. I was trying to find safe haven in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, where we were making a movie.
Tony Bongiovi, of Power Station Studio in New York, had solicitedme to help him produce the 1st Digital Movie, again
in 1987.
I have been precluded from any seeking any kind of remedy in the courts due to the sensitive nature and involvement of
National Security issues. It has been reported that the CIA and National Security Agency were all involved in covert and
possibly rogue activities with ISC and the export of arms to Iraq (Cluster Bombs). This was one of the questions that
Robert Gates had to answer in his Confirmation Hearings for Director of the CIA in 1990 by the Chairman of the
Page
52
Committee (I have the CNN video). There was also a "Presidential Finding" that was said to be filed by then President
George H. Bush regarding the same.
The following are supporting documents and complaints that I filed and are forwarding to you:
Police letter of Feb. 17, 2005
Police Complaint of Feb. 18, 2005
IFCC FBI Complaint of Feb 19, 2005
1998 Affidavit of 1987 Complaints
I also have over 10,000 documents, several hours of taped conversations and videos to support the above matter.
Thank You For Your Assistance In Advance.
Stan J. Caterbone
Page
53
March 23, 2005

Email to Phillip Wenger
President of Fulton Bank
Lancaster, PA
Phil:
For the Record1. The Project Hope Account; Project Hope was founded in 1996 with it's mission stated in its non-profit organization charter to raise funds for the
intention of contributing to the education and awareness of mental illness and suicide prevention. Since it's inception, I was the sole administrator of
all monies that were dispersed and donated to various local organizations to further that cause. These relationships included; The Lancaster County
Mental Health Alliance, The Schreiber Pediatric Center, Contact Lancaster. I also was responsible for the local production of the video "Numbers
Don't Lie" (educational video for teenage suicide prevention) and distributing that video to a host of local schools, churches, and faith based
organizations. Since about 2001, Project Hope has not made any contributions from it's account, while at the same time continuing to raise funds from
the annual golf tournament. In excess of $9,000 was accumulated. Every year I questioned Phil and Mike about the contributions and what
organization they were going to give the money to. In December of 2004, Lois Gascho, Executive Director of Contact Lancaster, personally called me
asking if we could help her with some money. At that time, her affiliation with the League of Churches had been terminated and Contact Lancaster
was without funding, and the 24/7 Suicide Hotline for Lancaster was at risk of being shut down. I told her I would contact my brothers and get her
some help. There was an article in the Lancaster Newspapers about the funding problems and I emailed Mike, Phil, and Jimmy Karpathious the article
and message that Lois called me asking for help. Nothing was done.
I kept trying to tell them that they were not operating the Project within IRS guidlines, and their non-profit tax-exempt status was in jeopardy for not
distributing the monies accumulated, as required in the IRS regulations concerning the same.
When I was down at Mike's last month, I found the account statements for Project Hope and being that I am a Signatory on the account, took the entire
file with me and started to disperse the monies. I made one check out to Lancaster Contact for $2500. When I met with Lois Gascho of Contact
Lancaster to give her the check, she wanted to give me a tour of the facility where the suicide hotline operates. While visiting, she was saying how
difficult it is to find volunteers to staff the hotline. I suggested that I could design systems, with technology, that could allow volunteers to staff the
hotline while working from home. This would help Contact Lancaster a great deal in attracting more volunteers to help staff the hotline. Remember,
the hotline is located downtown, and volunteers must come and go during all hours of the night to staff the hotline. I designed a conceptual system
and called D&E Communications to provide a proposal to provide the required software and telecommunications technology to build the system. I
expect to receive that proposal on Friday.
I will be making a legal challenge to gain control of that account with the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax-Exempt status of the Project.
2.
Fulton Account When my Mom got sick while in Florida, it was determined, by her, that she could not live alone anymore. Our house at
1250 Fremont Street was in dire need of painting and other maintenance for sometime. I told my mother that I was going to do these tasks
now, incase we have to sell the house. They house is 2 stories, which is more difficult for my mother to live in. In January I decided that I
would make sure the house is ready to put on the market by springtime, and if we decide not to have to sell the house, it would be already
done and could be sold at anytime without any repairs needed. At the same time, I setup the Fulton Account with online banking so that I
could manage my mothers bills, and pay them from Lancaster without having her try to take care of this herself. My mother memory has
been a deteriorating problem since the fall of last year. To give you an example, while in Florida last month, I was taking my mother out for
breakfast, we were driving around looking for a restaurant, and she looked at me in the car and asked if we had eaten yet! She agreed that it
would be best that I manage her bills, hence the Power of Attorney for the Fulton Account and online banking.
The $2,000 transfer was for the renovations at 1250 Fremont that I am currently doing. I will now fund that project myself, because I do not want to
be bothered with this at a later time.
So, there you have the truth about the accounts. So be it.

Apr 26, 2005
Page
54
Plaintiff files complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster, Pennsylvania against Drew Anthon and the
Eden Resort Inn.
IN THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LANCASTER
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PROJECT HOPE/ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
220 Stone Hill Road,
Conestoga, PA 17516
County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania :
:
V. :
:
Drew Anthon, Eden Resort Inn and Conference
222 Eden Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
: CIVIL ACTION
: NO. CI-05-03644 Apr 26 pm 4:55
:
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA :
:
COUNTY OF LANCASTER : ss
I, Stan J. Caterbone, representing Project Hope and the Advanced Media make the following civil
complaint against the defendant, Drew Anthon and Eden Resort Inn and Conference Center:
Plaintiff alleges Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn and Conference Center has colluded to
sabotage the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center project by organizing a formal request and
and soliciting support to certain Lancaster County Hoteliers to voluntarily withhold the payment of
the Lancaster County Hotel Room Tax, thereby placing the financial interests of the Business Plan
for the Excelsior Property of East King Street and the Rights to develop a UPS Store in or around
the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center at extreme risk.
Plaintiff will argue that such financial risk is causing mental stress and duress, that otherwise wouldnot be present, had
the defendant not engaged the above-mentioned activities.
Plaintiff seeks the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to place a cease and desist order against the
defendants actions to withhold the Hotel tax until the defendants can prove to the Commonwealth thesaid actions are in
the best interests of the Plaintiffs interests and those of all major stakeholders of the proposed Downtown Lancaster
Convention Center, including the School District of Lancaster, the City of Lancaster, the County of Lancaster, Penn
Square Partners, as well as others. Thus the defendants must prove that the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center
will fail.
Plaintiff submits the following exhibits for considerations of the Courts:
The major pages of the website of Advanced Media Group
The Excelsior Place Business Plan
The Agreement Between Art Ward, Owner of the UPS Store and Stan Caterbone
Plaintiff seeks a jury trial with damages in excess of $10,000.
Stan J. Caterbone/Project Hope/Advanced Media Group
May 2, 2005
Plaintiff files a complaint with Capital Blue Cross

May 2, 2005
Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Capitol Blue Cross
Adult Basic Program
P.O. Box 777014
Harrisburg, PA 17177-7014
Page
55
Re: Policy H200460959 & Policy Laps

As per my meeting in with your customer service representative on Friday, April 29th, at your home office in
Harrisburg, this is a letter of appeal for the lapsed policy and also a letter containing the complaints concerning the
charges from the Lancaster Regional Medical Center and Dr. Laird, the attending emergency room physician, on
February 19th, 2005, as per the request of the customer service representative.
1)
As per the lapse in policy, I was told by Kay Richmond, of Cash Processing Services (717-541-7262) on
several phone calls that there was a 30 day grace period. She had told me that although it is not stated, there
is a 30 day grace period for your policy. I had called because my mail has been tampered with, and I
questioned the rule of no grace period, and the policy being dependant on Blue Cross receiving my payments
via the mail. If this person who misrepresented herself to me as a representative of your company was not who
she said she was, this would certainly not be the first time. Enclosed you will find a complaint that I filed with
the Agent Shannon J. Sarsfield, of the Pittsburg Regional Office of the PA Attorney General. In that complaint
I stated, My telephone has been used as a means of harassment and intimidation, with my calls often being
intercepted, misdirected, or impersonated. See the enclosed copy of the complaint.
2)
As per my reason to visit your home office on April 29th, to discuss the charges from the emergency room visit
on February 19th, I have enclosed all relevant documents for your use in determining the validity of the
charges from both Regional Medical Hospital and the emergency room physician, Dr. Laird.
Please direct any and all communications to me at the above address or amgroup01@msn.com, or phone 717-380-5903.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone

May 6, 2005
Page
56
Lancaster New Era and Intelligencer Journal Report on Project Hope/Advanced Media Group v. Drew Anton.
Businessman, irked by hotelier action, files suit
By Justin Quinn
Intelligencer Journal
Published: May 06, 2005 9:47 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - A local businessman filed a $100,000 lawsuit last month against Drew Anthon, owner of
Eden Resort Inn and Conference Center, claiming Anthon "colluded to sabotage" the proposed Lancaster County
Convention Center by announcing his intention to withhold the county hotel room tax.
Conestoga resident Stan J. Caterbone is asking that a local judge place a "sees (sic) and desist order" on Anthon and
the hotel to prevent them from withholding the room tax.
The suit was filed April 26, the day the Intelligencer Journal reported Anthon and several other hoteliers were
threatening to withhold payment of the room tax, most of which goes toward a hotel and convention center proposed for
Penn Square. The next room tax payment is due May 26.
Caterbone is founder of Advanced Media Group, 1857 Colonial Village Lane, an information technologies company
specializing in optical publishing. He claims in the lawsuit that Anthon's actions place "at extreme risk" Caterbone's
plans to develop a UPS store and an office complex called "Excelsior Place" across from the proposed convention
center.
"Plaintiff will argue that such financial risk is causing mental stress and duress that otherwise would not be present, had
the defendant not engaged (in) the above-mentioned activities," Caterbone says in the suit.
The suit asks for a court order to force the hoteliers to pay the tax "until the defendants can prove to the commonwealth
the said actions are in the best interests of the (plaintiff) and those of all major stakeholders of the proposed downtown
Lancaster convention center, including School District of Lancaster, the City of Lancaster, the County of Lancaster,
Penn Square Partners, as well as others. Thus, the defendants must prove that the downtown Lancaster convention
center will fail."
A person who answered the phone at the number listed in the lawsuit as Caterbone's did not identify himself.
"All the information is public," the man said when asked about the suit. "You can go there."
As exhibits, the lawsuit includes Web pages from Caterbone's company and a bound volume titled "The Excelsior Place
Business Plan." The suit also includes a handwritten agreement between Caterbone and Art Ward, owner of the UPS
Store.
Anthon did not return a reporter's phone calls.
A judge has not been assigned to the case.
In another legal front, the owner of Mulberry Art Studios filed a petition with the state demanding it not release funds to
project developers.
Planners have applied for tens of millions of state dollars. They project the state's contribution to be $46 million if all of
their applications are approved.
Earlier this week, studio owner April Koppenhaver asked state officials to consider that two lawsuits related to the
project are undecided and could upend project construction.
Page
57
Koppenhaver brought one of the suits against the redevelopment authority. Another pits Mayor Charlie Smithgall
against City Controller R.B. Campbell.
"It is imprudent in my judgment for the state to release money to this project," Koppenhaver said. "I want (the state) to
be very, very aware and responsive to residents' concerns."
Penn Square Partners is composed of general partner Penn Square General Corp., a High Associates affiliate, and
limited partners Fulton Bank and Lancaster Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Intelligencer Journal, Lancaster New Era
and Sunday News.
Staff writer Dave Pidgeon contributed to this story.
Justin Quinn's e-mail address is jquinnlnpnews.com.
Page
58
June 2, 2005
Stanley J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Judicial Conduct Board
RE: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Stanley J. Caterbone
District Court 02-2-06
Docket Number NT: 0000132-05
Commonwealth Court of Common Please
Appeal Docket No. CP-36-SA-00000141-2005
Explanation of Complaint
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Previous to hearing, I entered the offices of the District Magistrate and requested a meeting with him to review the rules for procedure for
his courtroom. He belligerently yelled at me and told me that I will determine who is guilty in this case and threw me out of his office.
I immediately contracted the Lancaster County Court Reporters (LCCR)service to record the hearing.
I requested and paid a service fee to have 4 witnesses subpoenaed for my defense. Prior to the start of the hearing, the District Magistrate
never gave me an opportunity to explain the reason for calling my witnesses, and collectively dismissed all of my witness without an
opportunity for me to explain how they were involved with this case. During the brief discussion that was on the record, the District
Magistrate intimidated and threatened me with court sanctions when I tried to explain how the witnesses did have personal knowledge
regarding the case. Two of the witnesses were officers of Lancaster County and were called by me to investigate a crime, in which both
refused.
At the conclusion of the hearing the District Magistrate threatened me with offensive language again with court sanctions for merely trying
to understand why he was violating the rules of conduct and the rules of procedure for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
A few days after the conclusion of the hearing, I entered the offices of the District Magistrate to pay for the fines and penalties sanctioned by
the court. I first, asked whether I would have to pay before I entered my appeal to the verdict. They refused to provide any explanation,
other than you will have to get an attorney, we cannot answer that question. I immediately paid the fines knowing that I would appeal the
case.
After receiving the transcript for the LCCR, I found a blatant lie in the transcript. When asked whether a witness had personal knowledge
about the case, the transcript reads NO. Now before I subpoenaed my witnesses, I reviewed the rules of procedure and was
knowledgeable of the rules for personal knowledge of a witness, and would not have answered no to that question because they did have
personal knowledge.
The District Magistrate was intimidating me and obstructing justice by trying to deter me from filing CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2288 IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, which I filed on May 16, 2005.
The case
was filed with a Motion to Seal on the same day.
Page
59
PRIVATE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF:
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Magisterial District Number:
02-2-06
. Leo Eckert, Jr.
MDJ Name: Hon
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
831 Stehman Road
DEFENDANT:
Address:
NAME and ADDRESS
Millersville, PA 17551
()
Telephone:
Thomas D. Grassel
Docket No.:
91 Hilltop Drive
06/13/05
Conestoga, PA 17516
Date Filed:
OTN:
(Above to be completed by court personnel)
(Fill in defendant's name and address)
Notice: Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, your complaint may require approval by the attorney for the Commonwealth before it can
beaccepted by the magisterial district court. If the attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves your complaint, you may
petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision of the attorney for the Commonwealth.Fill in as much information as
you have.
Defendant's Race/Ethnicity
Defendant's Sex
Defendant's Social Security Number
Defendant's SID (State Identification Number)

Defendant's D.O.B.
White
Black
Female
Male
Native American
Asian
Unknown
Hispanic
Defendant's Driver's License Number
Defendant's A.K.A. (also known as)
Defendant's Vehicle Information
State
Registration Sticker (MM/YY)
State
Plate Number
I,
(Name of Complainant-Please Print or Type)
do hereby state: (check appropriate box)
I accuse the above named defendant who lives at the address set forth above
1.
I accuse the defendant whose name is unknown to me but who is described as
I accuse the defendant whose name and popular designation or nickname is unknown to me and whom I have
therefore designated as John Doe
Wagon Wheel Restuarant, Main St., Conestoga, PA
with violating the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at
(Place-Political Subdivision) Millersville
in
County on or about
Page
60
Lancaster
June 10, 2005 0800 GMT
Participants were: (if there were participants, place their names here, repeating the name of the above defendant)
Thomas D. Grassel
AOPC 411A-05
1-2
Page
61
Findings Of Facts Resulting In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Page 62 of 67
of
(Continuation
No. 2)
Defendant's Name: Thomas D. Grassel
PRIVATE
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Docket Number:
The acts committed by the accused were: (Set forth a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense
charged. Acitation to the statute allegedly violated, without more, is not sufficient. In a summary case, you must cite the specific section
and subsection of the statute orordinance allegedly violated.)
2.
Defendant did knowingly and willingly block plaintiffs access to the door to exit storein an attempt to intimidate and harrass, and after
plaitiff tried to avoid the defendant andexit the doorway, defendant did engage in an illegal sexual act by grabbing and squeezingthe
defendants buttocks with an inappropriate gesture with the defendants finger whilesqueezing. This lude act was in the strictest violation of
Pennsylvania statutesconcerning sexual harrasment. Witnesses were present both behind the checkoutcounter and waiting in line at the
checkout counter.Plaintiff requests the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to prosecute the defendant to thefullest extent of the law.
All of which were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the Act ofAssembly, or in violation
of
and
(Subsection)
(Section)
of the
(PA Statute)
I ask that process be issued and that the defendant be required to answer the charges I have made.
3.
I verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information andbelief. This verification
is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa.C.S. 4904)relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
4.
June 11, 2005
Date
Signature of Complainant
Office of the Attorney for the Commonwealth
Disapproved because:
Approved
(Name of Attorney for Commonwealth-Please Print or Type)
(Signature of Attorney for Commonwealth)

(Date)
AND NOW, on this date
, I certify that the complaint has been properly completed and verified.
SEAL
(Magisterial District)
(Issuing Authority)
AOPC 411B-05
2-2
Page 63 of 67
Page 64 of 67
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIACOUNTY OF:

CIVIL COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF:
Magisterial District Number:
02-2-06
NAME and ADDRESS
. Leo Eckert, Jr.
MDJ Name: Hon
220 Stone Hill Road
831 Stehman Road
Address:
Conestoga, PA 17516
Millersville, PA 17551
VS
DEFENDANT:
NAME and ADDRESS
Thomas D. Grassel
91 Hilltop Drive
Conestoga, PA 17516
Docket No.:
June 13, 2005
Date Filed:
DATE PAID
AMOUNT
Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 206 sets forth those costs recoverable by the prevailing party.TO THE DEFENDANT: The above named plaintiff(s)
asks judgment against you for $
together with costs
upon the following claim (Civil fines must include citation of the statute or ordinance violated):
Defendant did knowingly and willingly block plaintiffs access to the door to exit store in an attempt to intimidate and harrass, and after
plaintiff tried to avoid the defendant andexit the doorway, defendant did engage in an illegal sexual act by grabbing and squeezing the
Page 65 of 67
defendants buttocks with an inappropriate gesture with the defendants finger while squeezing. This lude act was in the strictest violation of
Pennsylvania statutes concerning sexual harassment. Witnesses were present both behind the check*out counter and waiting in line at
the checkout counter. Plaintiff requests the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to prosecute the defendant to the fullest extent of the law.
Verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the
I,
Best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the
CrimesCode (18 PA. C.S. 4904) related to unsworn falsification to authorities.
(Signature of Plaintiff or Authorized Agent)
Plaintiff's
Address:
Attorney:
Telephone: ( )
IF YOU INTEND TO ENTER A DEFENSE TO THIS COMPLAINT, YOU SHOULD SO NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AT
THEABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER. YOU MUST APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT YOUR DEFENSE. UNLESS YOU DO,
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY DEFAULT.
If you have a claim against the plaintiff which is within magisterial district judge jurisdiction and which you intend to assert at the hearing,
you must file it on a complaint form at this office at least five (5) days before the date set for the hearing.
If you are disabled and require a reasonable accommodation to gain access to the Magisterial District Court and its services,
please contact the Magisterial District Court at the above addressor telephone number. We are unable to provide transportation.
AOPC 308A-05
Page 66 of 67
June 13, 2005

Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
FiorillJ@police.co.lancaster.pa.us
Chief J. Fiorill
Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
Re: Recent Police Reports & Status of Ongoing Investigations
1.
2.
3.
Break-In reported on June 12, 2005: As reported to the officer, Adams? who came to take my report, I left my home at approximately
2:30pm, with all doors locked. At approximately 9:15pm, I entered through my garage door and found my back door wide open. I also
reported a Honda file missing, which I have since located.
I am requesting the status of the complaint that I reported to Officer Berger on June 10 concerning the sexual harassment by Mr. Thomas
Grasssel on the same date.
During my visit by the officer on June 12, I again asked if anyone in the department had questioned Mr. David Pflumm regarding access to
my home. As I have stated in just about every complaint about a break-in over the past six months, On Thanksgiving day, 2004, Mr. David
Pflumm, his son Keagen, and daughter Lizzy, approached my home. I wanted NO personal contact with them, and made sure my doors were
closed and locked. After several minutes of knocking on my back door, I went down to the basement hoping they would leave. They instead
went to my front door and basement door and kept knocking. I was located in the rear of my basement, waiting for them to leave. Suddenly,
Lizzy and Keagan appeared in my basement asking why I did not answer the door. I quickly asked them how they got into my house. First
they said the door was opened, then they said Keagan used a credit card to open my back door. They said Dave was upstairs in my kitchen.
We walked upstairs and I quickly asked Dave how they got into my house, he responded We have lots of keys.
Now with all of the reports of people breaking into my house, and the fact that I first reported the above event to Officer Berger in December
with the report of my missing remote control, I will again ask you why your department refused to question the Pflumms regarding keys to
my house?
4.
During my interview last evening I showed the officer the letter from Mr. David Pflumm dated June 2, 2005, which was served to me by a
Pennsylvania Constable from District Justice Leo Eckerts office at approximately 9:30 am on June 10th on Stone Hill road infront of my
mailbox. The officer said we have a copy of that letter, and are aware of that. I requested the officer to take the letter and my response,
sent via facsimile to Pflumm Contractors on June 10th, to you. The officer refused to take the letter. I asked him to take my statement
regarding the same, and he refused. I asked him why he would not take my statement, if you have a copy of the complaint from Mr. David
Pflumm? He said I am going home. I called him corrupt and said that the whole department was corrupt.
I attest to the above statements as the truth and request a copy of all of my complaints, reports, and calls to your department, as defined and authorized
under the Freedom Of Information Act, and according to the laws governing the same by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the federal rules
governing the same.
Attest,
Page 67 of 67
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lisa Michelle Lambert

A Bitter Lesson for Lancaster County; Judge says Pennsylvania community 'lost
its soul' in push to convict woman of murder.
Residents claim he, not they, are mocking justice.
Right or wrong, his ruling challenges U.S. court system's balance of power.
[Home Edition]
BARRY SIEGEL.
Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 10, 1997. pg. 1
Full Text (8866 words)
By midmorning on the first day of Lisa Michelle Lambert's federal habeas corpus hearing, U.S. District
Judge Stewart Dalzell already could be seen displaying alarm over what he was hearing. From the lawyers'
briefs alone, he'd read enough to persuade him to grant Lisa's request for this uncommon federal review
of a state murder conviction. He'd read enough to suspect that just possibly, Lisa Lambert, although
sentenced to life without parole, hadn't killed Laurie Show over a teenage romantic rivalry. He'd read
enough to surmise that just maybe, Lisa's boyfriend,
Lawrence "Butch" Yunkin, along with a girl named Tabitha Buck, had killed Laurie. Now, he was listening
to evidence that served only to deepen his concerns regarding Lancaster County's prosecution of Lisa. It
was March 31. Computers, boxes of documents and piles of papers filled the small hearing room on the
fifth floor of the federal courthouse in downtown Philadelphia. Lisa's parents sat in the first row, Laurie
Show's behind them. Reporters and court personnel occupied the jury box. On the stand, an expert
witness for Lisa's side, Northwestern University speech professor Charles Larson, was testifying.
Contrary to the autopsy report, Larson believed--as did three emergency medical technicians and the
Philadelphia medical examiner--that Laurie Show's left carotid artery had been severed by whoever
slashed her throat. This, he explained, left her unable to say "Michelle did it," as Laurie's mother, Hazel,
had claimed. Her vocal tract was "destroyed," her left brain hemisphere "dying." She was "totally
incapable of speech."
How, asked Lisa's attorney, Christina Rainville, could two doctors have signed an autopsy report saying
that the carotid arteries weren't "involved"?
Those two doctors were both Lancaster County physicians, one the part-time coroner, the other an earnose-and-throat specialist. "I don't think they were telling the truth," Larson replied. Dalzell peered over
gold wire-rimmed bifocals at the witness.
"Oh," he said. "Well, OK."
So it went, hour by hour, for 15 days.
That this hearing was even being held appalled most in Lancaster County, about 75 miles west of
Philadelphia. In the 1991 killing of Laurie Show, Lisa had already been found guilty of first-degree murder,
Tabitha Buck of second-degree, Butch Yunkin of third-degree.
Advanced Media Group
Page 1 of 15
10/20/2007
Now here was Lisa, claiming her innocence, claiming all sorts of prosecutorial abuse. Now here was Lisa,
seeking a federal order freeing her because the state had illegally imprisoned her.
For Lisa to cast herself as an innocent victim was maddening enough. For a federal judge to take her
seriously was unimaginable. Yet that was just what was happening in this Philadelphia courtroom.
The second day of the hearing found Dalzell puzzling over two quite different versions of a videotaped
police search of the Susquehanna River. The one initially provided by the Lancaster County district
attorney, eight minutes long, had no soundtrack, and no images of police finding a pink bag Lisa said
she'd thrown there. The second, obtained through discovery only after Rainville realized she'd been sent
an edited tape, was four minutes longer. It had sound. It also had an officer kicking at a pink bag while
another asked, "What do you got, a bag?"
After watching these tapes, Dalzell removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes, something he'd do more
than once during the three-week hearing. He studied Lisa, also something he'd do more than once,
especially in the hearing's early days. Lisa, sobbing off and on, was staring down at the table where she
sat, bent over, her hands between her legs. Dalzell looked as if he were trying to fathom her character.
The third day found Dalzell puzzling over Lisa's initial statement to the police. He listened to East
Lampeter Police Det. Raymond Solt try to reconcile the typewritten first page, where Lisa says she wore
her own clothes at the murder scene, and a handwritten last page where Lisa says she wore Butch's
sweatpants. He listened to Solt explain how he destroyed all his notes from the interview. By the time Solt
stepped down, the judge was referring openly to "Ms. Lambert's alleged statement."
With Det. Ronald Barley on the stand later that afternoon, Dalzell grew even more openly dissatisfied.
Barley was a well-regarded detective in Lancaster County. A "very thorough investigator" is how Ted
Darcus, chairman of Lancaster's City Council, considered him. Barley "dealt well with people in our
community accused of crimes." Yet this wasn't apparent to Dalzell.
Barley, being questioned about the taped interview he helped conduct with Butch Yunkin--a tape full of
laughter, clicks and obvious gaps--kept waffling so much that Dalzell finally snapped: "Answer her
question! Yes or no?" Rather than heed the suggestion, Barley grew even more evasive. Asked about a
critical spot where the recorder clicked off, he denied even being in the interview room at that moment.
Dalzell had heard enough.
He called a recess and ordered all the lawyers into his chambers. "I want to know what is going on here,"
he told Lancaster County Dist. Atty. Joseph Madenspacher. "I'm hearing perjured testimony. . . . As we
had with Det. Solt, {Barley} is contradicting his own statement. . . . My patience has just run out. . . . I'm
afraid the commonwealth is allowing perjured testimony in federal court. . . . I'm being lied to. . . . This
man gives me the unbelievably fantastic statement that suddenly he 'evaporated.' It's totally incredible,
and I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer this, if this keeps up, to the United States attorney. . . ."
Madenspacher shifted uneasily. This hadn't been his case to try. He'd left the prosecution to his seasoned
first assistant, John Kenneff. "I understand what the court is saying . . .," he replied. "I don't know what
I'm going to do, but I'm going to do something."
Little changed, though, when Barley resumed the stand. He didn't recall his colleague, Det. Ronald "Slick"
Savage, turning the tape recorder on and off. He destroyed his notes after taking Butch's statement.
"No, no . . . please answer her questions. Will you do that?" Dalzell interrupted at one point.
"You knew . . . because you took the statement?" the judge asked later. "Or did you disappear for that
part? . . . Oh, do you have that ability to appear and disappear at will?"
By the time Barley tried to explain how he "completely forgot" they'd found a pink bag during the river
search--a pink bag that Lisa told them contained Butch Yunkin's bloodied sneakers--Dalzell was beside
himself. It helped his mood little when, with Barley still on the stand, Rainville moments later played the
segment of unedited videotape that showed an officer kicking the pink bag, then waving the camera off.
Page 2 of 15
10/20/2007
"No, that's not me," Barley said.

Rainville inched the videotape ahead a moment. "No, no ma'am."
Again she moved the tape forward. Now the man at the river could be seen clearly.
"That is me," Barley allowed. "I don't know why I waved at that point."
Dalzell again peered over his eyeglasses. "Who were you waving to? The record should reflect that the
witness definitely waved directly at the camera. What in the world were you doing, if you weren't waving
to the camera?"
Barley looked blank. "I don't recall, sir."
Defendant Alleges Gang Rape On the seventh day, Dalzell began to hear Lisa Lambert's story of being
gang-raped by three policemen six months before Show's murder.
Lisa--her extravagant eye makeup toned down but still too thick for Rainville's taste--had started
testifying the previous day.
Now she described being stalked by an officer named Robin Weaver, of vainly calling his police chief to
complain, of receiving threatening calls after the alleged attack. She explained how fear had kept her from
telling this story before. Finally, she explained why she now was willing to talk.
In a deposition given to Lisa's attorneys before the hearing, Weaver, without being asked, had referred to
the gang- rape accusation. He thought Lisa had cited it in her habeas petition, but she had not. The
charge had never been raised publicly. To Lisa, Weaver's comment, therefore, provided independent proof
of her claim: "There is no way that he could have ever known about that unless he was there and he did
it. It was not raised in the petition."
Dalzell interrupted: "Is that true?"
"That is true, your honor," said Rainville, who had been appointed by the judge to represent Lisa on a probono basis.
Dalzell again had heard enough: "We'll take another recess. . . . I want {Weaver} here this afternoon, and
I don't want anyone to say a word about what has come up here. If he resists, please tell me. I will have
the marshal arrest him, OK?"
Moments later, Dalzell learned that prosecutor John Kenneff already had discussed the rape allegation
with Weaver.
"So he's been coached . . . ," Dalzell exclaimed.
The judge's budding animosity toward Kenneff was palpable. The prosecutor had not yet appeared before
him, but the residue of his work at the Lambert trial was everywhere.
"I'm going to direct that Mr. Kenneff have no further contact with any witness in this case. . . ," Dalzell
declared. "And he might want to consult with counsel. . . . I'm going to want to hear about this, because
in the context of this case, Mr. Kenneff, God help untruths" being aimed at our police, urged East
Lampeter Supervisor Chairman John Shertzer. Don't "rush to judgment." It's "unfortunate that so much is
being made of such insignificant points."
In his opening statement at the hearing, Madenspacher, the district attorney, had allowed that the
investigation hadn't been "perfect," that maybe they'd been a little "careless," maybe a little "sloppy."
Others, though, refused even to acknowledge that much. All sorts of citizens instead continued to offer
glowing tributes to the police and prosecutors.
Page 3 of 15
10/20/2007
No one official drew more accolades than did John Kenneff. He is a big, heavyset man with a full, broad
Irish face. Growing up in Lancaster County, Kenneff was considered a fine schoolboy, a high achiever. Not
Harvard-level material, but his college, Villanova University, was nonetheless a good school. Not as good
as the University of Pennsylvania, but the next step.
He'd come back after law school, opened a private practice, worked his way up through the D.A.'s office.
He came to all the Fourth of July picnics; he brought his family, he brought his dog. He was known as a
committed, persistent prosecutor, one of the fairest and most reasonable in the county.
Even the defense attorneys who went up against him said as much. Even they called him a decent, honest
guy. To Terry Kauffman, a dairy farmer and chairman of the board of county commissioners, that
particularly carried a lot of weight: "A lot of people I know here, from both sides of the aisle, say he's the
best. I know them, and I've known Jack Kenneff for years. I don't know Stewart Dalzell."
Darcus--the chairman of the Lancaster City Council, a black man from West Virginia who followed a Boys'
Club job to Lancaster 30 years ago and happily settled--believed he possessed an especially close take on
John Kenneff's character. They'd been involved together in a "Weed and Seed" anti-crime development
program in Lancaster's minority community. So Darcus saw Kenneff not just as a prosecutor, but a
community leader. Also as a father: Kenneff's children went to the same Catholic school as Darcus' son.
"I've seen how he cares about people," Darcus said. "I've seen him deal with people in my community.
I've seen him go beyond what was needed. Knowing Jack Kenneff, I just can't picture this man doing what
the judge says. I wonder how that judge sleeps at night."
Denials From the Prosecutor No, John Kenneff insisted. No, he didn't think Butch Yunkin's sweatpants
were a critical issue at the murder trial. No, he had no recollection of looking at the sweatpants the state
put into evidence.
It was April 15, the hearing's 11th day. Kenneff had taken the witness stand soon after court convened.
Questioning him was Peter Greenberg, Rainville's husband, a partner at their law firm and one of
Philadelphia's most-accomplished litigators.
At the trial, the state's theory of the murder had Lisa wearing Butch's extra-large men's sweatpants,
found full of blood in a dumpster after the attack. Trial judge Lawrence F. Stengel accepted this theory
and thought it significant. So Kenneff's answers now caused Dalzell to lean forward.
"Did you make a conscious judgment at trial as to who was wearing the clothing that you put into
evidence?" Greenberg asked.
"It was my understanding that Miss Lambert had admitted to wearing the clothing . . . ," Kenneff replied.
Dalzell interrupted: "I don't think that's the question he asked you. And I think you ought to listen more
carefully to Mr. Greenberg's questions because I don't think you're answering them. . . . That question can
be answered yes or no."
So it went through much of the morning. Lancaster County citizens were right: Dalzell by then couldn't
hide his dismay for their assistant district attorney. The moments when the judge removed his glasses and
rubbed his eyes were adding up.
For 10 days he'd been exposed to an ever-more disturbing portrait of how Kenneff had prosecuted Lisa
Lambert. He'd listenedto the pathologist Isidore Mihalakis--a defense witness at Lisa's murder trial-describe private conversations with Kenneff that Dalzell thought constituted witness-tampering. He'd
heard how authorities had concealed critical testimony by Hazel Show's neighbor Kathleen Bayan. He'd
been presented evidence that convinced him the state had "lost" an earring of Butch's found on the
victim's body. He'd been presented evidence that convinced him the state had edited critical video and
audiotapes.
Now the man who oversaw the state's efforts sat before Dalzell on the witness stand.
No, Kenneff was testifying. He didn't recall looking at the river-search video.
Page 4 of 15
10/20/2007
"You didn't think it worthwhile to look at the video?" Greenberg asked.

"I didn't think what happened at the river was a contested issue," Kenneff replied.
This time, Greenberg snapped before the judge could: "You've been in this business long enough to know
that when I ask a question you're supposed to answer it?"
"Right," Kenneff agreed.
Dalzell joined in now: "It would be nice if you would do that. . . . I want to warn you, sir, that, if you don't
do that, you are going to put me into a position where this will have to get unpleasant. Do you understand
that? . . . The record should reflect that you have been consistently unresponsive to the questions. . . . "
Greenberg turned back to the matter of Butch's sweatpants. Now, Kenneff has even resisted saying he
based the case on the theory that Lisa wore Butch's clothing. He no longer, in fact, was sure whether the
sweatpants were Butch's.
The pair he'd produced for the habeas hearing, after all, were much smaller than men's extra-large. "The
sweatpants would have looked ridiculous if worn by 6-foot-1-inch-tall Butch," Kenneff had argued in a
written response just before the hearing.
"You are the same person . . . " Greenberg asked, "saying that the sweatpants would have looked
ridiculous on Butch, who put Butch on to testify in Lisa's trial . . . that they were his sweatpants, these
very same sweatpants that would have looked ridiculous on him?"
"Correct."
"These are the same sweatpants that Judge Stengel found belonged to Butch?"
"Correct."
"And if you had your way, Lisa would have been executed based on that evidence, wouldn't she?"
Kenneff hesitated; Dalzell spoke: "Yes or no," the judge ordered.
"That would be correct."
Greenberg erupted: "Do you think this is some kind of game? . . . Do you realize that there is a human
being sitting here who is in jail serving a life sentence based on the evidence you put on . . . that you are
now disowning. . . . Not only are you disowning it, you are committing perjury. . . . Are you sure it is Miss
Lambert who is a dangerous person in this courtroom?"
Handling of Letter Infuriated Judge In the end, the commonwealth's handling of the controversial 29
Question Letter was what most inflamed Dalzell.
Lisa had written Butch from jail, asking a series of questions. The answers Butch had scrawled under each
question, the judge felt, left no doubt that he was the murderer of Laurie, and that his accomplice was
Tabitha Buck. That the letter was authentic seemed equally certain to Dalzell: Both the state and defense
experts had affirmed there'd been no alteration.
Yet, Kenneff--after stipulating to the experts' opinions--had let Butch testify at Lambert's trial that the
questions were altered.
That the prosecutor knew his witness was committing perjury appeared obvious to Dalzell. At Butch's
plea-bargain hearing after Lisa's conviction, Kenneff wanted to revoke their deal precisely because of this
perjury.
Page 5 of 15
10/20/2007
Experts had reviewed the 29 Questions Letter and Butch's trial testimony, Kenneff told the judge at that
Oct. 10, 1992, hearing.
"They advised us that his testimony . . . regarding that {letter} that was false . . . . It is our opinion that
he testified falsely . . . on that basis we feel we are entitled to withdraw from the original plea
agreement."
There just was no ambiguity, Dalzell felt: Kenneff knew that Butch committed perjury on a material issue,
regarding a document that established Lisa's innocence.
Under such circumstances, Dalzell believed Kenneff had an unambiguous ethical obligation to take
remedial action with the court that convicted Lambert. The Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct was
clear about this: "A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a
lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable
remedial steps."
Yet far from complying with this rule, it looked to Dalzell as if Kenneff had encouraged Judge Stengel to
accept Butch's perjured testimony. "I think he's just like any other witness," Kenneff told Stengel when
Lisa's attorney moved for a mistrial based on Butch's perjury. "You can believe some of it, all of it, or
none."
It was worse than that, in Dalzell's eyes. For, after obtaining a conviction based partly on this perjured
testimony, Kenneff had coolly proceeded to seek the death penalty for Lisa Lambert.
Now, remarkably, Kenneff at this habeas hearing--and in written responses that looked to Dalzell to be
blatantly false--was back to arguing that some of the 29 questions had been initially written in pencil, then
altered. In other words, Kenneff, before Dalzell, was defending testimony by Butch that he had told two
other judges was a lie.
"Do you want to take remedial actions with Judge Dalzell?" Peter Greenberg asked.
Here the judge interceded: "I was just going to ask that myself. . . ."
It was the morning of April 16, the hearing's 12th day. Kenneff had been on the stand for hours.
"Well, your honor," Kenneff responded. "I think I still feel the same way about the 29 questions. . . . That
there is some type of tampering with it. . . . "
"No, no, no, sir," Dalzell interrupted. "I am going to jump in here. You said in your answer to me that
there was pencil. And you have testified under oath here that your expert and the defense expert said
there was no graphite. . . . "
"Judge," Kenneff began.
Dalzell spoke over him: "I want to warn you, sir, you are under oath, and you are subject to the rules of
professional responsibility. . . . Do you retract that statement that you signed . . . as to pencil? Yes or
no?"
"I just don't think I can answer that question yes or no, judge."
Dalzell turned to Madenspacher, Kenneff's supervisor. "Does the commonwealth retract it?"
Madenspacher rose. "Yes, your honor. We retract it."
"Thank you," Dalzell said. He turned back to Kenneff. "Your boss just retracted it. Next question."
Their confrontation hadn't peaked yet.
The climax came minutes later, when Greenberg began listing all the pieces of evidence that the district
attorney's office kept from Roy Shirk, Lisa's attorney at her trial. What if Shirk had the names of the
Page 6 of 15
10/20/2007
emergency medical technicians? What if he knew the police had found a pink bag? What if he had the
unedited river-search video? What if he knew a neighbor had seen Butch at the crime scene?
"Well," Kenneff tried to answer, "the Pennsylvania Rule provides for certain . . . "
That's as far as he got. Dalzell exploded: "No. Excuse me. We're talking here--let me just make something
clear to you. We're talking here about something called the United States Constitution, and in particular
the 14th Amendment thereof, which has a clause in it that refers to due process of law.
OK? Have you heard of that?"
"Yes sir."
"That's what we're talking about. . . . So we're not talking about the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure. We're talking about due process of law here. . . . That's what we're talking about here. You got
it? Do you understand?"
"Yes," Kenneff replied.
Biggest Drama Begins to Unfold As it happened, the confrontation between Dalzell and Kenneff was
neither the most dramatic nor revealing sequence to occur on this 12th day of Lisa's habeas hearing. The
event that would eclipse it began only after Kenneff left the witness stand, and court adjourned for lunch.
Madenspacher, walking toward his hotel, bumped into Hazel Show's brother, who reported that his sister
needed to talk to him.
Back at the Holiday Inn in downtown Philadelphia, where both were staying, Madenspacher walked up to
Show's room.
Sobbing as she talked, the murder victim's mother told him her story.
During the hearing that morning, she'd suddenly recalled the morning of the murder: As she drove up
Black Oak Road to her condo, on her way to find Laurie's body, a brownish-colored car passed, heading
out of the condo complex. It was Butch's car.
She looked at Butch. There was recognition on his face. He pushed down someone with blond hair. There
was also a third person in the back seat, with black hair.
She'd told this to Det. Ron Savage back then. Savage had come to her house saying one of her neighbors
had seen Butch's car leave the complex. She'd started to say she had too. Savage had stopped her, told
her not to dwell on that. They had so many witnesses saying Butch wasn't there. Besides, this neighbor
lady was kind of disturbed anyhow. Probably wouldn't be a reliable witness. We were better to go with
Butch not being there.
Hazel was sobbing harder now. She'd forgotten about it, she told Madenspacher. She'd put it aside. Until
now.
Madenspacher was reeling. Hazel's story fit exactly with testimony given by that "neighbor lady," Kathleen
Bayan, on the hearing's fourth day. Testimony that Hazel hadn't heard because she'd left the courtroom
early that day. Testimony that had never been produced at Lisa's murder trial. Testimony that Kenneff
knew about back then but had never shared with Lambert's attorney. Testimony that Savage had tried to
water down while taking Bayan's initial statement, then dismissed as coming from a woman with "an
emotional problem."
Hazel's story also fit perfectly with something else: Lisa Lambert's testimony at her trial. There she'd told
of driving by Hazel Show, of Butch saying, "Oh . . . it's Hazel," of Butch pushing her head down.
Madenspacher pondered. If true, it seemed to him that this story knocked out the underlying theory of the
trial, which was that Butch wasn't at the condo. It didn't mean Butch was actually inside; it didn't clear
Page 7 of 15
10/20/2007
Lisa; it could be explained. But it was a new story. It changed the theory of the case. Madenspacher felt
as if he were slipping into shock.
"You sure?" he asked. "Let's hear it again."
Hazel repeated her story.
Madenspacher had no choice: He had to get this to the judge. He couldn't suppress it. The only question
was, when and how? It was going to come out anyway, Madenspacher figured. So let's get the bad news
over with.
The conference in Dalzell's chambers began at 1:40 p.m. that day. Present were the judge, the lawyers
for all sides, Hazel Show and Lisa Lambert.
Hazel Show told her story
courtroom today, I realized
condominium complex. . . .
about it until I was sitting in
again, this time before a court reporter: Well, when I was sitting in the
that I had seen Lawrence's {Butch's} car with passengers drive out of our
Det. Savage said that I wasn't to dwell on it. . . . I never thought anymore
there. . . . It all just came back.
By now, Lisa was sobbing along with Hazel.

"It's OK, Miss Lambert," Dalzell said. "It's OK."
To Dalzell, this revelation was the final straw. Throughout Lisa's trial the state had been at pains to keep
Butch as far from the Show condo as possible. No doubt that was why the state had never disclosed
anything about Hazel's report or Bayan.
To Dalzell, it wasn't just that Hazel's and Bayan's accounts were consistent with Lisa's testimony at trial
five years ago: Just about everything being revealed at this hearing was consistent with Lisa's testimony
back then.
From all he'd heard, Dalzell now believed that the commonwealth's misconduct had been so substantive, it
had undermined the state court's ability to find the truth. He believed the commonwealth had committed
at least 25 separate instances of prosecutorial misconduct--all constitutional violations, all violations of the
norms of a civilized society.
It seemed clear to him that Laurie Show did not say "Michelle did it." It seemed clear that Butch, in the 29
Questions Letter, confessed to the murder. It seemed clear Lisa didn't wear Butch's sweatpants on the
morning of the murder. It seemed clear the police had fabricated Lisa's initial statement.
Worse yet, in Dalzell's view, the commonwealth still hadn't stopped its treachery. At this habeas hearing
the state had produced not the extra-large sweatpants of Butch's from the original trial, but a smaller
girl's pair. The commonwealth, Dalzell believed, had perpetrated a fraud on the federal court; the
commonwealth had swapped evidence.
At least six state witnesses, by Dalzell's count, had perjured themselves before him. One, Ron Savage-now an elected district justice in Lancaster County--likely obstructed justice. And now this: now Hazel's
revelation, right before his eyes. Hazel had every reason to want Lisa's petition denied; Hazel sincerely
believed Lambert did it. Yet still she'd felt compelled to tell this story. Dalzell had never seen a more
courageous act.
"Well," the judge told those gathered in his chambers. "Now we come to the question of relief. Does the
commonwealth intend to defend this case?"
All eyes turned to Madenspacher.
The Lancaster County district attorney had been looking uncomfortable in recent days. Nothing he'd heard
rose to the level of conscious misconduct or obstruction, he kept insisting. But he had to admit, it hadn't
been a perfect trial or investigation. He wished certain things had been done differently.
Page 8 of 15
10/20/2007
In Lancaster County, then as now, there were many who wanted their district attorney to fight ferociously.
There were many who wanted their district attorney to defend their honor, to insist they'd done nothing
wrong, to match Lisa's lawyers blow for blow.
Yet, Madenspacher, at this moment, wasn't sure what should be done. Everything, he would say later, was
"spinning in my mind." It was "awful tough" operating away from the office. It "would have been nice" to
have known everything from the start.
"Now, obviously . . . " he finally told the judge. "There is some relief that is justified in this particular case.
. . ."
That was all Dalzell needed; he now had the commonwealth's assent. The state hadn't even put on its
case yet, but he meant to get Lisa out of prison. He also meant to get Savage off the bench forever; he
didn't see how Savage could hear cases anymore, and he planned to tell the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
just that.
"You can make a choice overnight," Dalzell advised the district attorney, "whether you want to defend this
case, put on your own witnesses. In the meantime, I'm going to release Ms. Lambert into some agreedupon custody. . . . Because it's quite clear now that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the only question is
how much."
Off to one side, a dismayed Hazel Show tried to interject: "Laurie told me she did it. . . . "
Madenspacher's voice overrode hers. "Yes, I agree relief is warranted, and I think we're talking now. . . . "
"About what relief," the judge said.
"What relief, your honor . . . "
"I can tell you, Mr. Madenspacher, that I've thought about nothing else but this case for over three weeks,
and in my experience, sir, and I invite you to disabuse me of this at oral argument, I want you and I want
the Schnader firm to look for any case in any jurisdiction in the English-speaking world where there has
been as much prosecutorial misconduct, because I haven't found it. .
. . So are we agreed that the petitioner will tonight be released into the custody of Ms. Rainville?"
Madenspacher nodded. "I don't see how I can object to that, your honor."
Stunned Response in Lancaster County In bars and cafes, street corners and living rooms, the citizens of
Lancaster County gasped at the news of Lisa's release. Their district attorney may not have seen reason to
object, but they did. Most sounded stunned; many sounded enraged. One man, at 8 a.m. on the morning
after her release, anonymously called in a phone threat to the Lancaster Sunday News, saying he would
kill Lambert if she returned to Lancaster.
Maybe there were "mistakes," the more rational by now were willing to allow. Maybe there was "sloppy"
police work. Maybe Lisa even deserves a new trial. Nothing more than that, though. Certainly not her
freedom. She was there, she was an accomplice, she was a co-conspirator. Give her a new trial, remand it
elsewhere even. But don't just let her go. You can't just let her go.
"Lambert is not innocent--how could she be?" the Lancaster New Era editorialized the day after Hazel
Show's revelation. " . . .
even with newly revealed evidence that supports her claims, Lambert is still irrevocably involved in the
events that lead to Laurie Show's murder. These facts must not be drowned out by the explosive
revelations at Lambert's federal appeals hearing. . . . "
As it happened, these thoughts exactly echoed those offered by Judge Stengel, who'd presided at Lisa's
murder trial. "Even if Lambert's story at trial was completely credible," Stengel had declared in his written
opinions, "she would still be an accomplice to the crime of murder. . . . The single most important fact on
Page 9 of 15
10/20/2007
the issue of guilt is whether Ms. Lambert was present in the Show condominium at the time of the killing.
By her own admission, she was present. . . . "
Dalzell, however, simply did not accept this notion, at least not in a federal habeas hearing.
On the proceeding's final day, when Madenspacher in his closing argument spoke of Lambert being guilty
at least as an accomplice or conspirator, Dalzell waved him off. "She wasn't charged with conspiracy was
she?" he declared. "She was charged with first-degree murder. So the only issue before me is actual
innocence of first-degree murder. That is what she was convicted of."
In fact, the law is murky on this point. Lisa was actually charged with criminal homicide, which in
Pennsylvania encompasses all degrees of murder. How her conviction for first-degree murder affects her
exposure to lesser murder charges is a matter for debate.
So, Madenspacher tried to argue: "What I am saying here is that charged with criminal homicide, she
could be found guilty of murder in the first degree . . . or she could have been found guilty of second
degree . . . or she could be found guilty of third degree."
That didn't sway Dalzell: "But if one took her testimony, she said that she did everything possible to deescalate what spun out of control. . . . By her own testimony she exited when it started spinning out of
control. So therefore, it was not 'reasonably foreseeable' from her point of view, so the argument would
go."
The judge then cut things off: "Let's not waste time debating that."
Dalzell had good reason for not wishing to bother further with this issue. By then--after 14 days of
testimony covering 3,225 pages of transcript--the judge wasn't thinking only about Lisa's conduct at the
Show condo. He was thinking about the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and the role of a federal
habeas corpus in upholding the unalienable right of due process.
Among other historic cases, Dalzell's mind was on a 1973 opinion by then-Justice William H. Rehnquist, in
United States vs. Russell. There, Rehnquist predicted that "we may some day be presented with a
situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles
would absolutely bar the government from invoking the judicial processes to obtain a conviction."
That day, Dalzell decided at the close of Lambert's hearing, had come.
While presiding at a habeas hearing, he reminded himself, he effectively sat as a court of equity--a court
operating under a system of law designed to protect rights and deliver remedial justice. He recalled the
ancient maxim that "equity delights to do justice, and not by halves." To give Lisa full relief, it seemed to
him imperative that he do nothing to benefit or empower those who had wronged her.
He would not just release Lisa, Dalzell decided. An outrageous violation of due process required even more
severe sanction. He would bar the state from ever retrying her. He would strip the state of its natural right
to adjudicate a murder committed within its boundaries.
He wrote his 90-page opinion over the weekend, after court adjourned at 4:10 p.m. on Friday, April 18.
Before a packed courtroom late the following Monday morning, he declared Lisa "by clear and convincing
evidence" to be "actually innocent of first-degree murder."
"If Lisa Lambert's is not the 'situation' to which Chief Justice Rehnquist referred, then there is no
prosecutorial malfeasance outrageous enough to bar a reprosecution. . . ." he proclaimed. "We have now
concluded that Ms. Lambert has presented an extraordinary, indeed, it appears, unprecedented case. We
therefore hold that the writ should issue, that Lisa Lambert should be immediately released, and that she
should not be retried."
In scorching language, Dalzell explained just why: "We have found that virtually all of the evidence which
the commonwealth used to convict Lisa Lambert of first-degree murder was either perjured, altered or
fabricated. Such total contempt for due process of law demands serious sanctions. The question we must
Page 10 of 15
10/20/2007
now answer is whether . . . the commonwealth is entitled to get another try at convicting Lisa Lambert
and sending her to prison for the rest of her life. . . . In short, the question is whether we may accept a
promise from anyone on behalf of the commonwealth that a trial will be fair 'next time.' "
No, Dalzell concluded, we cannot.
"We hold that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment bars the commonwealth from invoking
judicial or any other proceedings against Lisa Lambert for the murder of Laurie Show. . . . Equitable
considerations preclude our leaving the decision whether to retry Lisa Lambert in the hands of those who
created this gross injustice. . . . "
As far as legal researchers could tell, there was an accepted basis, but no exact precedent for a federal
judge in Dalzell's situation to take such action. Dalzell did not stop there.
He was, he announced in his opinion, going to refer the matter of Kenneff's "blatantly unethical and
unconstitutional" actions to the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. He also was going to refer the whole
Lambert prosecution to the U.S. attorney for investigation of "possible witness intimidation, apparent
perjury by at least five witnesses in a federal proceeding, and possible violations of the federal criminal
civil rights laws."
Still, Dalzell wasn't finished. He felt compelled, in the two final pages of his opinion, to address the
question of just why all this had happened in Lancaster County.
"Those who have read this sad history," he wrote, "may well ask themselves, 'How could a place idealized
in Peter Weir's'Witness' become like the world in David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet'?' Because it is so important to
that community and indeed tomany others to prevent a recurrence of this nightmare, we offer a few
reflections on the record."
Laurie Show's grandfather, Dalzell pointed out, was, in the 1980s, the coroner of Lancaster County. Her
mother was "a paragon of morality" who kept "a picture-perfect home." By contrast, Lisa Lambert was "as
though delivered from Central Casting for the part of villainess." By the testimony of even those who loved
her, "she was at the time literally 'trailer trash.' " The community "thus closed ranks behind the good
family Show and exacted instant revenge against this supposed villainess." Almost immediately after "the
snap judgment" was made, law enforcement officials uncovered "inconvenient facts," but soon "discovered
a balm for these evidentiary bruises, Lawrence Yunkin." Thus "Lancaster's best made a pact with
Lancaster's worst to convict the 'trailer trash' of first-degree murder."
Dalzell's parting words: "In making a pact with this devil, Lancaster County made a Faustian bargain. It
lost its soul and it almost executed an innocent, abused woman. Its legal edifice now in ashes, we can
only hope for a 'Witness'-like barn-raising of the temple of justice."
Uprising Began With Calls, Letters The uprising in Lancaster County in the wake of Dalzell's ruling began
first with the usual letters to editors and calls to radio talk shows.
The legal system is a "crock of crap." How could Dalzell destroy the reputation of "honorable and decent
people" for the purpose of freeing a "cold-blooded killer?" What kind of justice do we have?
Soon enough, such talk escalated. All sorts of theories about Dalzell's motives began circulating.
Something's been going on behind the scenes, it was suggested. Something behind what Dalzell did,
something we don't know about.
Ted Byrne, the conservative radio talk show host in Lancaster County, pored through Dalzell's decisions in
a law library. Then, seeking hidden connections, he analyzed the activities of the attorneys at Dalzell's old
law firm and Rainville's firm.
It was considered significant that Dalzell and Greenberg, 30 years before, had been classmates at the
University of Pennsylvania. Some talk had it that they were old pals. Some talk had it that Dalzell had
handed the Lambert case to his own "carefully assembled defense team."
Page 11 of 15
10/20/2007
Had Dalzell reached the end of a career path? Had he felt unfulfilled? Had he wondered how he might
become an appellate judge? Had he seen a challenge to the controversial habeas corpus situation as a
means to garner attention?
For that matter, how did the Lambert case get to Dalzell in the first place? Had not Dalzell displayed an
excessive personal interest in Lisa in his chambers? Was it possible that they had a relationship?
"We must begin to think who it was that had to gain from this travesty of justice other than Lambert,"
suggested one citizen in a letter to the editor. "My vote goes to Judge Stewart Dalzell. It would appear
that it is an appropriate time for this newspaper to dig very deep into the archives of the noteworthy
judge to determine what it was or who it was that set him on his grudge mission to 'punish' the county for
sins of the past committed against him."
Such comments reflected as much bewilderment as paranoia. They came from a citizenry who well knew
Lisa Lambert, and well knew those who had prosecuted her. Yet rarely did anyone, amid all the outpouring
of emotion and speculation, feel inclined to discuss the particulars of the Lambert case as revealed in
Dalzell's courtroom.
More common was East Lampeter Supervisor Chairman John Shertzer's response. "There were a lot of
false accusations throughout the trial. . . . We never had the opportunity to address those," Shertzer told
a reporter, before confessing that he, in fact, couldn't address them: "There are some things about this
that I don't have a lot of background in. But I just know these people. . . . They were treated very
abusively on the stand by Lambert's attorneys as well as the judge."
Lancaster's citizens were struggling to hold together a way of viewing their world. Even those willing to
acknowledge certain blemishes in that world--even those willing to acknowledge official wrongdoing in the
Lambert case--found themselves laboring to understand what Dalzell had done. No matter what was
revealed in a Philadelphia courtroom, no matter what Lancaster authorities did or failed to do, it seemed
incomprehensible that Dalzell would let Lisa Lambert walk free, without at least a retrial.
Not even Lisa's parents had hoped for that back when their daughter's appeals first started. Their dream,
Leonard Lambert told a reporter then, was that Lisa receive "a level of punishment that's not greater than
what's deserved. . . . It's a known fact that she was there. But something could argue that maybe she
doesn't deserve more than aggravated assault or third-degree murder."
Dalzell went too far, even the more reasonable in Lancaster County now declared. He was a disgrace to
the legal profession.
He had made a mockery of justice. He was a man without honor.
Hazel Show, more than anyone, sounded the clarion. "Thank you for listening to me," she'd told Dalzell on
the hearing's last day. "My parents brought me up to be truthful, and I believe in God. . . . So it is up to
me to tell the truth." Yet soon after, whether out of confusion or regret at what she'd wrought, Show
began to backtrack and revise.
Never in her "wildest dreams," she declared, had she thought her story would free Lisa. All her story
proved was that she got home just as the killers left, in time to hear her daughter's dying declaration. But
the judge "didn't want to hear that." The judge "wouldn't let me say that."
No matter that Madenspacher insisted Hazel never mentioned this notion to him in their hotel meeting. No
matter that she never mentioned this notion while on the witness stand on the hearing's last day. It now
became her constant refrain. "We have to get this judge off the bench," she began declaring publicly.
"There is not one bit of justice in him."
They began first with a petition drive. Hazel's ex-husband, John Show, drew it up, calling for Congress to
"investigate" Dalzell and take "corrective action," including impeachment. Show's girlfriend took it to her
beauty shop, where customers clamored to sign it. Local businesses started stocking piles on their front
counters. Volunteers called for extra copies, carried them door to door, offered them at yard sales. One
couple outside a Kmart parking lot on a hot Sunday collected more than 500 signatures.
Page 12 of 15
10/20/2007
On the morning after an ad for the petition appeared in the Lancaster newspapers, John Show walked to
his mailbox and found 300 envelopes. By mid-September, he had 37,000 signatures.
Then came Hazel Show's 10-page "Citizens Action Report," the keystone of her newly launched national
campaign seeking to reform the entire federal judiciary. Now the Shows wanted, among a host of items,
to bar federal judges from banning retrials, to fix stricter guidelines for appointing federal judges, to limit
federal judges' terms in office. Hazel Show's words and image soon became ubiquitous in Lancaster
County.
Television provided one forum, both local talk shows and the national tabloids. Politicians provided
another. The Washington-based Judicial Selection Monitoring Project, an arch-conservative organization
seeking to block the appointment of what it calls "activist liberal judges," featured both Shows in a 15minute videotape that lambasted Dalzell and misidentified him as a Clinton appointee.
The Shows, accompanied by 16 friends and relatives, took their campaign to Washington on Sept. 17,
where Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, along with Reps. Joseph R. Pitts and George W. Gekas, accepted
cartloads of petitions. The lawmakers, weeks before, had introduced legislation that would severely
restrict federal judges' power to bar retrials during habeas proceedings--a bill specifically designed to
reverse Dalzell's decision. Now, to the Shows, Specter agreed to call it the "Laurie Bill" and promised them
a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Wherever they went, the Shows were applauded and courted.
"How often do you get to do this?" Hazel observed.
"I think we made an impact," John offered.
Argument That Judge Brought It on Himself It can fairly be argued that Dalzell brought some of this on
himself. He may have overly embraced Lisa Lambert's account of events, and unduly diminished her role.
He may not have needed to rough up witnesses in his courtroom as much as he did. He certainly need not
have painted Lancaster County with such a broad brush at the end of his opinion.
How could he claim to know this county, his critics asked. How could he claim to know our citizens? How
could he say such things about us?
Yet, valid as such claims may be, it most likely will be Dalzell who leaves a lasting impact, not those
fueling the backlash against him.
Whether right or wrong, whether he operated entirely within his bounds, a federal judge consumed by
moral outrage has, as he intended, sent a message. The idea behind Lisa Lambert's outright release was
not, finally, to let a guilty person go free. It was to let the powers of the state know they can't violate
bedrock principles of the Constitution and get away with it.
They haven't.
In early May, the U.S. attorney's office in Philadelphia, responding to Dalzell's referral, announced it had
launched a criminal investigation into those who investigated and prosecuted Lisa Lambert. Aiding them
will be the FBI and the Justice Department's civil rights division. They will focus on John Kenneff and
seven police officers, among them Ronald Savage, Ronald Barley, Robin Weaver and Raymond Solt.
Days later, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in refusing Lancaster County's motion for a temporary
stay of Dalzell's order, said "the commonwealth has not demonstrated that it is likely to prevail on the
merits of its appeal. . . . We remind the commonwealth that Judge Dalzell's factual findings are based on
his view of the credibility of the witnesses and testimony. . . .
We can only reverse if we find them clearly erroneous."
In that written opinion, the appellate panel also chastised the commonwealth for calling Lisa Lambert a
"convicted killer" in its brief. She "no longer has that status," the 3rd Circuit reminded. "Indeed, that
description is inflammatory and inappropriate, given {Dalzell's} findings of actual innocence. . . . "
Page 13 of 15
10/20/2007
What remains to be seen is whether Dalzell will ultimately be allowed his unprecedented involvement in a
state's sovereign affairs. At the habeas hearing's end, Lancaster County hired its own high-powered
Pennsylvania law firm, Sprague & Lewis, known for its political connections, particularly to the Republican
Party. On Oct. 21, when lawyers for both sides argued the merits of the county's appeal before a 3rd
Circuit panel, the appellate judges grilled them on a critical question: Did Lisa Lambert exhaust all her
appeals in Pennsylvania's courts before turning to a federal judge for help?
This issue, rather than any question of Lisa's innocence or a prosecutor's malfeasance, is what presently
fuels a nationwide debate in the legal community and beyond. Elemental principles of law and government
in this country normally restrain federal intrusion until a state has heard all claims, and has been given
the chance to correct its own errors. Just weeks ago, a 3rd Circuit panel--saying "we are sensitive to the
independence of the Pennsylvania courts and of that state's sovereignty"denied another convict's habeas
petition because he hadn't exhausted his state appeals.
Dalzell, in his opinion, recognized these principles, then essentially dismissed them. The Pennsylvania
General Assembly, he pointed out, amended its statutes in 1995 to exclude "actual innocence" as a basis
for certain appeals. By doing so, Dalzell declared, Pennsylvania, in effect, relinquished its jurisdiction over
claims such as Lisa Lambert's, and placed them "squarely into the federal forum." And even if
Pennsylvania were willing to consider some of Lambert's claims, Dalzell added, "we find that the state
proceedings that would follow if we dismissed this action are ineffective to protect the rights of Ms.
Lambert."
By thus declaring his utter distrust in Pennsylvania's ability to deliver justice, Dalzell has challenged the
fundamental balance ofpower between state and federal courts that governs the judicial system. This is
why five state attorneys generalincluding California's--have joined Pennsylvania in an amicus brief that
talks of the Dalzell ruling's "potential to seriously weaken, if not to dismantle entirely, the system for
litigating habeas actions." This is why law-and-order-minded national politicians have their knives out for
Dalzell. This is why Lisa Lambert's federal hearing promises to be one of the most carefully reviewed cases
in criminal law for a long time to come.
This is also why Dalzell's actions will leave a legacy no matter what the outcome of the present appeals.
His ruling may or may not stand, his ruling may or may not establish a formal precedent, but--by granting
a hearing and allowing widespread discovery--Dalzell has required that attention be paid to what
happened in a Lancaster County courtroom in the summer of 1992. He's shown why the federal habeas
corpus action is essential to the integrity of the judicial system.
Dalzell has also set a moral, if not legal, example. Rulings in one case often affect other rulings. One
judge's decision shapes not just the outcome of a particular case, but also the character of justice. What
he doesn't allow, others likewise forbid.
In mid-May, in Lancaster County court, Lisa Lambert's original trial lawyer, Roy Shirk, serving as defense
attorney in a routine burglary case, rose to ask for a mistrial. As in the Lambert case, he argued,
prosecutors in this one had failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. Shirk most likely
meant only to put this commonplace claim into the record for later review, but Judge Paul K. Allison, to
the lawyers' astonishment, promptly granted his request.
Yes, the judge said in declaring a mistrial, this is exactly what Dalzell felt happened to Lisa Lambert.
PHOTO: Lisa Michelle Lambert walks ahead of lawyers, Peter Greenberg and Christina Rainville, to court
hearing.;
PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press;
PHOTO: Lancaster County Dist. Atty. Joseph Madenspacher talks to news media after judge ruled Lisa
Michelle Lambert innocent of charges.;
PHOTO: Hazel Show, left, stands in bedroom where daughter, Laurie, was murdered.;
Page 14 of 15
10/20/2007
PHOTO: Laurie's father,

John Show, above, hugs woman identified as his girlfriend, after judge ruled Lisa Michelle Lambert
innocent.;
PHOTO: U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell was assigned the writ of habeas corpus that
set him on a course to freeing Lisa Michelle Lambert.;
PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press
Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITER
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited
without permission.
Subjects: Judicial reviews, Acquittals & mistrials, Murders & murder attempts, Prosecutions, Series &
special reports
Locations: Lancaster County Pennsylvania
People: Lambert, Lisa, Show, Laurie
Document types: News
Dateline: LANCASTER, Pa.
Section: PART-A; National Desk
ISSN/ISBN: 04583035
Page 15 of 15
10/20/2007

220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
infor@amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
HAD LANCASTER COUNTY (Pennsylvania) LOST ITS

SOVEREIGNTY BEFORE IT LOST ITS SOUL?1
Authored in May of 1998
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to

improve the lot of others, or strikes out against
injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. And
crossing each other from a million different centers
of energy and daring, those ripples build a current
which can sweep down the mightiest walls of
oppression.. by Robert F. Kennedy
In 1987 This Plaintiff Had Unjustly Lost His Freedoms, His Rights, And His
Pursuit Of Life, Liberty And Justice.
The following report (most identities purposely omitted from this

version) is an amazingly true and factual account of an extraordinarily bizarre
tragedy that has turned one mans life into an eleven (11)2 year free fall into
Dantes Hell.
On the surface, this is a story of a victim struggling to seek the truth, but in
reality, the evidence will conclude that this is a victim, literally, held hostage by
virtue of his truth. Later, the preponderance of evidence that the victim has
1
In April of 1997, Federal Court Judge Stuart Dalzall said Lancaster County had
lost its soul in the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct ever found in the
English speaking language regarding the Lisa Michelle Lambert hebeas corpus
hearing in the notorious Laurie Show murder case.
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Page 1 of 18
04.11.2007
amassed and his obsession for meticulously documenting his ordeal might seem
eccentric, yet his demonstrated ability to react to events before they unfold
appears mystical. And this was his manner in which he tactfully defended and
protected his life. It is these actions that have painted the landscape with a dire
vengeance for his ruin. His actions will ultimately serve to protect, preserve, and
foster the truth of his story, incriminating the culpability of his many perpetrators,
while at the same time being twisted and tainted in a relentless manner to attack
his credibility.
This is a story of a human being endearing for his rights, living in fear of
his life, and the remedial actions required for the truth to set him free. A victim
forever believing in his accomplishments and his visions, yet forced to adhere to
a life of their diversions. Fatefully, ten years after being taken as a political
hostage, with the aid of numerous arrests and false imprisonments conveniently
falling short convictions , a Federal Judge, Judge Stuart Dalzall, of the Eastern
District Court of Pennsylvania, opened a Pandoras Box into the true colors of
the inner workings and politics of ultra conservative Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. A supposedly Gods country. His findings reeled a dramatic and
emotional response from the Lancaster County community that was akin to the
assassination of JFK . A community where obstructions of justice strikes a
startling and stark contrast to the image it so desperately embraces. A
community proud of its tough on crime judges, a community of plain folks and
Amish, and a community settled in a beautiful landscape abundant in an
agricultural bounty. This is not a community of compromising integrity. Or so it
has been perceived.
Judge Dalzalls extremely controversial findings were responsible for

Pennsylvanias own crafting of the Laurie Bill, the retaliation by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania intended to curb the Federal Courts interference
within the respective states own jurisdictions and proceedings. Or was it a
political maneuver to close the lid on Pandoras Box? The Pennsylvania
Attorney General and the Lancaster County District Attorney have both thrown all
Page 2 of 18
04.11.2007
their might and all their muscle at turning the tides of Judge Dalzalls findings.
This story and this victims rights have been violated and abused by some of the
very same principals that were responsible for Judge Dalzalls unsettling
revelations. Lancaster County prosecutors were found to have engaged in one of
the grossest acts of prosecutorial misconduct found in the English speaking
language, which allegedly occurred in this now famous Lisa Michelle Lambert
case, a murder trial which began in the summer of 1992. Subsequently, it is now
in the midst of a treacherous appeal process convened by Judge Dalzall. And if
so by fate, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the home of the Freedom Fighters.
It is this public disclosure, that casts a new light and sudden hope for
freedom into this victims unbelievable and horrid story, that begun just four
years prior to the murder of Laurie Show. It is the decisive similarities of how both
victims were subjected to a very calculated and politically motivated attempts to
frame and fabricate circumstances to obtain the results that justified the
means for illicit self-serving interests. This very same conduct, committed by
public servants, elected and enlisted to enforce the law, to which Judge Dalzell
found so appalling. Conduct, which violated the very same rights their respective
offices are commissioned to protect. Conduct which strikes the meaning of We
The People from our nations very own Constitution.
Fortunately, this victims story is laced with a thread of faith, a faith in

God. And because of his faith, this victim will forever regard Lisa Michelle
Lambert3 and Laurie Show as his little Angels of Justice, a Godsend. An
answer to his many prayers, that for the first time in ten years provided a small
glimmer of hope, and a few moments of solitude that have materially justified his
own tragic experience. The realization that the truth is that much more believable
because of the trials and tribulations of Lisa Michelle Lambert. Unfortunately, this
3 The author admitted in an affidavit in 1998 that he did not know the criminal
culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert, and further argues that it was because of the
prosecutorial misconduct and the erroneous handling of the crime scene that the
truth evaded both the prosecution and the defense as to who actually killed
Laurie Show.
Page 3 of 18
04.11.2007
revelation came at the unfortunate and untimely death of Laurie. However, it just
may be Gods intentions of a Higher Purpose.
This story was perpetuated through a gross miscarriage of justice: a

tenure of malicious wrongdoing by both the law enforcement community of
Lancaster County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as
community leaders. A process that continues obstruct this victims rights for
justice. Its mannerisms reach into the inner soul of political and judicial
corruption. All in the name of greed, and all in the honor of continuing the status
quo of the Good Ole Boys club of Lancaster County. A process obsessed with
keeping its disclosure from escaping beyond the confines of Pandoras Box. Its
a tenure of power that evolved from the days of this countrys earliest settlers, but
an evolution that has somewhere strayed away from the intent of our constitution;
with total disregard for the law, in total disrespect for the Constitution, and void of
many of our civil liberties. This atrocity, like the Lambert case, would have made
our founding forefathers revel in disgust and bellow in despair. In fact, their spirits
and energies probably are!
AT ISSUE
The central issue in this story, is a cover up, a cover up of mass
proportions, and of perplexing design, with national consequences. The fact of
the matter is that this cover up has had ramifications throughout this world,
specifically the Middle East The cover up would be emphatically unbelievable
without the wealth of evidence, especially the recorded conversations with
Pennsylvania officials. A cover up that permeates from what will later emerge as
the 4th largest financial fraud (Billion Dollars) in the history of the United States
coupled with the covert sales of arms to Iraq. And five years after this cover up
began, these same munitions were used against our own troops in the Persian
Gulf War. And of course, there are admitted ties to the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA).. And this cover up and
story, which began in June of 1987, in Lancaster County, preceded criminal
indictments by the United States Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of
Page 4 of 18
04.11.2007
Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of

Justice and Commerce, and more. A vast array of criminal activities conspired
from the ultra conservative Lancaster County, where God is supposedly
supreme, and its hard line approach to crime is said to be preeminent. In June of
1987, Lancaster County was immersed in a dynamic twist of fate, with a host of
players which may never be fully identified.
The irony of this story is how Lancaster County manages the disclosure of
the very same criminal activities that this story proves that it condoned, prior to
the intervention of federal authorities. It most dramatically will prove the nature of
its integrity, or lack thereof. International Signal & Control, (ISC) is the
controversial player in this web of conspiracy. In 1987, the third largest employer
in Lancaster County, a non-discrete defense contractor. In all due respect to our
beloved country, this report is in no way challenging the policies or the activities
of the Department of Defense, or the vast agencies of the Intelligence
Community, especially the CIA or the NSA (National Security Advisory). with
regards to ISCs foreign dealings. Trying to protect the world of malicious and evil
empires is a process which never ends, and whos players are constantly
changing. And our respective intelligence agencies are continually challenged
with the task of trying to make a difference, in accordance with protecting our
national security. Unfortunately, given the nature of their discrete activities, and
given the CIAs history of avoiding congressional approval in certain situations,
our current laws are void of effectively dealing with the peripheral catastrophes of
such activities that inherently transpire. The CIA remains immune, while
everyone outside suffers the consequences.
The fact that the CIA, or anyone of the other intelligence community, may
have been involved, does not grant a blanket of immunity over activities which
were not material to protecting our national security. If a company provides a
service to anyone in the intelligence community, our constitution, our laws, and
its respective commercial regulatory authorities, must still have the full sense of
their jurisdiction. The intelligence community may not have the right of
Page 5 of 18
04.11.2007
intervention into the commercial enterprise, or organization, circumventing the

rights of its employees, shareholders, creditors, and customers. No United States
law or statute suggests that there is any involuntary mandate that requires any of
the preceding to compromise their interests in the respective enterprise for the
sake of national security, or the respective intelligence agency. There must be
considerations paid to all involved for those rights and interests that compromise
such a relationship. Otherwise, the CIA could effectively gain control of any
domestic corporation it so desires, without ever owning one share of its
outstanding stock, simply by enlisting its product or services for the sake of
national security. The CIA requires a formal vehicle to enlist the aid of our
domestic commercial enterprises. ISC is a proven and unfortunate example of
that.
This victim was a shareholder of record of International Signal & Control

(ISC) for the previous four years prior to when this tragic ordeal began. The
victim was to purchase the stock from now Republican Pennsylvania Senator
Gib Armstrong, who was in the brokerage business at the time and selling ISC
stock. The stock was sold over the London Securities Exchange, supposedly for
reasons to suppress information. The victim was interested in the stock because
of his appetite for technology, and was more curious about the business of ISC,
than anything. In fact, the victim had never made any inference to any of the
illicit dealings with Iraq. However, the perpetrators of this story, attempt to hide
behind a vale of national security," in an effort to find legal immunity from all
wrongdoing. In accordance, the record will prove that this is merely a smoke
screen used to intimidate and obstruct the victims access for due process of the
law.
The trials and tribulations of this victim are unprecedented in terms
of emotional and psychological duress, fortunately his indestructible faith in God,
and his enduring belief in himself and the truth, endures his life. There was one
attempt on the his life, days within the public disclosure of the CIAs involvement
with the local Lancaster County defense contractor (ISC), which Ted Kopel
Page 6 of 18
04.11.2007
reported on ABC News Nightline, on May 23, 1991, 4 years after the initial cover
up began. This story will depict a series of systematic and strategic offensive
attacks upon this victim and his businesses that will result failed business
enterprises, and a Hollywood motion picture, deserted. An impeccable
professional reputation and a flawless credit rating purposely sabotaged.
Financial opportunities, that in 1987, were almost impossible to extrapolate, Vast
financial opportunities and aspirations forever a part of history. This horrendous
crime was perpetrated for the interest of a cover up, further protecting the corrupt
enterprises of Lancaster County's International Signal & Control (ISC). A quest
for justice that polarized every relationship the victim maintained, in Lancaster
County and beyond, including friends and family. This story demonstrates a
methodology of his perpetrators for keeping this victim quarantined from justice
and public disclosure, through a malicious means of credibility proponents, and
horrendously deceptive tactics. Financial motives prominently displayed in the
hands of all of the perpetrators, which absolves the burden for a traditional
conspiracy..
The emotional response to the truth of this story is compelling, to say

the least. Subsequently, the startling keen sense of perception that the victim
had demonstrated, is even more intriguing. It is this extraordinary quality that is
responsible for saving his life, while yet at the same time providing his
perpetrators with an alibi and a vehicle for discrediting his startling allegations
and his story. This story embellishes a dichotomy of perception that had
Hollywood producers from his film project call his work genius, while his
perpetrators from the Lancaster County Community conveniently and maliciously
labeling him as insane and emotionally disturbed."
THE LANDSCAPE
The perplexing question of the victims intelligence, or lack thereof, is
best analyzed as a question of perception. However it terms of the legal
consequences of the activities contained herein, they are of little if any relevancy.
Page 7 of 18
04.11.2007
The fact of the matter is that the mental deficiencies have very little relevancy to
this story, other than serving as a means to discredit the victim, a vehicle to
facilitate the cover up, and a blanket of immunity for all of the perpetrators.
The heart of this victims legal dogma is best described as follows: If a

person, is perceived to have a mental deficiency; yet whose actions and
decisions are always proven to be instinctually and amazingly prudent, always
abiding within the law, and in the best interest of his affairs, what rights and
protection do the laws afford him from persons abusing that perception, in order
to yield political and financial rewards, as a direct consequence of his demise?
Furthermore, how does the law protect his rights, if any and all malicious acts
against this victim, are constantly and immediately disregarded because he is
perceived to not to be credible? As this story unfolds, these questions will
become even more troubling and appalling. Although the victim could never
describe the pain of his trauma, he would often say that the closest situation that
may compare is that of a woman being continuously raped, night after night,
helplessly praying for relief, struggling to free herself from her captor, all with no
avail. He would call it as being brain f------.
The victim, coming from the lower middle class of Lancaster City, was
only 29 years old when this tragedy began. Coming from a broken home, he was
the third of six boys. While at a very young age, he would help his mother run a
dry cleaning business, in an amazing similarity like Lisa Michelle Lambert, he had
also nursed his mother during bouts of depression. While in high school, he was
nursing his mothers depression, while at same time tending to his older brothers
bouts of schizophrenia. The victim had learned to listen to the obscenities of
mental illness since he was a child. He learned to fill the shoes of his absent
father in helping his mother raise his three younger brothers.. The victim was
often called the little old man because of his extraordinary maturity as a child.
The victim was determined to break the barrier of the Good Ole Boys club or
the power elite, and had always felt a sense of compassion for those less
fortunate, and those neglected by those of material means, the oppressed and
Page 8 of 18
04.11.2007
impoverished. He had an undivided aspiration to someday make a difference to

those that could not help themselves, especially his older brother. Through his
ingenious, resourceful, and honest business approach, he was relentlessly
growing his business and their respective missions, in constant reminder of his
oppression. His in depth understanding of computer technology and his vision
were his most powerful allies. Always pushing the envelope for advanced
technologies and seeking solutions for the most efficient means of his
operations.. He knew that every break was going to be few and far between, he
dedication himself to his work, and married his business affairs, always
embracing his projects with a passion.
In 1986, after serving on the Board of Directors for the Central

Pennsylvania Chapter of International Association of Financial Planners (IAFP),
the victim had made a large contribution to increasing its membership and its
awareness among local professionals, as its vice president. In an effort to
promote the organization, the victim solicited a nationally recognized and
prominent financial planner from Washington, D.C., to be a headline speaker at a
dinner meeting. Ms. Alexandra Armstrong, one of the most nationally recognized
financial planners, often headlined in Money Magazine, attracted 100 industry
professionals to the Treadway Resort Inn. The attendance was unprecedented
for the local IAFP chapter. The IAFP is the authoring organization for certification
as a financial planner. It was through the direct conversations with Ms. Armstrong
regarding his ideas and her experience, that inspired the victim to pursue his
ambitions of growing his own financial firm, which he began in the following
months.
Disgruntled with the conflicts of interest and the lack of incentive for
various professionals to work together in managing ones wealth, a process
which lacked efficiency, this entrepreneur founded the firm Financial
Management Group, Ltd., or FMG as it was often called. The firm was to
incorporate a one-stop-shopping strategy and incorporate financial services,
legal, accounting, tax preparation, real estate, insurance, mortgage banking, and
Page 9 of 18
04.11.2007
estate services all in one firm, all residing in one location, all taking advantage of
the synergistic approach toward managing wealth. And to provide the
professionals long term security and equity participation, all participants were
encouraged to purchase stock in the company. This was a new and innovative
approach that attracted a lot of attention from investors and clients, but also
came a lot of nervous twitches from competitors, especially in conservative
Lancaster County.
The victim began recruiting professionals from all of the other firms, with
great success. He had enlisted two partners whom he had worked with at
IDS/American Express, to carry out his mission, which he began after extensive
market studies and his early version of the company, Pro Financial Group, Ltd.,
His two partners had followed the victim to an independent broker dealer in
Atlanta, named Financial Services Corporation, where Ms. Alexandra Armstrong
was associated, and encouraged the victim to visit, during their discussion after
dinner. Within one year, by June of 1987, the firm had invested over $40 million
for respective clients.
The company had developed satellite offices throughout Pennsylvania and

in several other states, through his unique design. This firm was causing the
other financial services companies and the local banks in Lancaster County a run
for their money. The firm had built a new 20,000 square foot office building just a
few miles north of the city. The firm was attracting clients, associates, and
nervous attention from, well just about everybody. Considering the capabilities,
legal, real estate, insurance, financial services, accounting, FMG was making as
many enemies as it was making friends. And the victim always believed in the
premise that its always better to have people talking about you, regardless of the
matter, than to have no one notice you. And they were talking. The victim was
only in his late twenties when he started this organization,. He held several
positions, he was Executive Vice President and Secretary of Financial
Management Group Ltd, and President of FMG, Advisory, Inc., which was one of
the many subsidiaries parent company owned. The victim acted as the architect
Page 10 of 18
04.11.2007
and legal administrator of the organization, in addition to building his own

financial planning clients. He filed all of the articles of incorporation in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and submitted all of the tedious and rigorous
filings necessary for the Pennsylvania Securities Commission, which were very
demanding considering the victim was selling stock of his company to his
associates and investors. The victim and his associates had also attracted some
very prominent Lancastrianss to invest in his venture, coming from various
professional circles, all infatuated with this extraordinary and intriguing concept of
this young victim. All had seen its potential for success and financial reward.
Many of his friends were involved, and in Lancaster, everyone knows

everybody, so it seams.. And everyone talks, gossip is as common as jogging.
This exaggerated trait of Lancaster County, will later to come back to haunt this
victim, in a way that is most sickening. In a way that will parallel the attitudes
and sentiments in the Lisa Michelle Lambert story.
In 1987, his business affairs were reaching a point of incredible success.

In fact, most of his family and friends, have always questioned the merits of their
legitimacy. He always conducted his affairs with the presumption that time could
not afford the opportunity to complete his agenda, while at the same time
disclosing his business affairs to persons that were not directly involved..
Accomplishing his mission was first and foremost. But in Lancaster County, that
was difficult. Lancastrianss have a notion to fear what they dont know, and will
always believe what they think they know, regardless of its merits. In Lancaster
County new ideas are shunned unless coming from their own, and their own
ideas are often kept close at bay, inhibiting progress and stymieing learning. By
June of 1987, a majority of his business affairs were conducted out of the grasp
of Lancaster County, his unknown activities made others curious, especially in
Lancaster County, where the blessing of the power elite was essential for
success. But, deep down inside, he knew he could never be accepted, because
he did not descend from a family of social grace. This fueled his aspirations for
Page 11 of 18
04.11.2007
success even further, committed to prove that intelligence was innate and
learned, not a direct correlation to material wealth or social grace.
One of his most cherished testimonials to his concept, his reputation, and
his mission, was provided by an elder attorney, Mr. Kenellm Shirk, a very
respected and prominent older Lancaster attorney, who was part of the status
quo. Mr. Shirk had petitioned the Pennsylvania Bar Association, after meeting
with the victim, to obtain their blessing and their knowledge of any laws which
would forbid his firm to provide a satellite office in the headquarters of Financial
Management Group, Ltd., (FMG) Mr. Shirks firm was to provide a partner, and
estate services to the clients of FMG. The Pennsylvania Bar provided a lengthy
recommendation that did not prohibit a relationship, although cautioned it to
proceed with careful review. The fact that the very young and unknown victim
could attract an elder, conservative Lancaster County attorney to associate with
his firm was an encouraging sign of respect. Ironically, Mr. Shirk is the father of
Roy Shirk Jr., Lisa Michelle Lamberts first attorney who represented her during
trial of 1992, the proceeding which was the center of Judge Dalzalls
controversial and appalling findings.
The victim prided himself on his
entrepreneurship , and after building the foundation for FMG, he set out to take
advantage of its resources and its synergism.
By June of 1987, the victim had developed a fairly substantial mortgage

banking relationship with a Houston, Texas banker. That operation was capable
of providing lending to potential developers and businesses in the range of $ 3
million to $100 million. And the lending packages were as competitive if not
more competitive than the local lending institutions of Lancaster County, capable
with even higher lending limits. In a matter of months of securing this
relationship, the victim and his partner were evaluating deals from Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, New York, Florida, and as far away as California.
There was a uniqueness to his capabilities that was very appealing to

potential borrowers. Because of the vast array of services of FMG, potential
Page 12 of 18
04.11.2007
developers had the opportunity to obtain both debt and equity financing through
his companies. In plain terms, most shopping centers raised capital by raising
funds through investors coupled with a mortgage. This gave potential developers
one place to take down the deal rather than dealing with many other
professionals at the same time. It was a much more efficient process for all. The
victim was capable of providing a mortgage, while at the same time selling
shares in a shopping center through its vast client base of investors at FMG.
This also gave the victim a formidable presence into the venture capital markets,
by way of his strong ability to raise capital through his vast portfolio of clients of
FMG. And this was a rarity that developers and investors loved. Investors were
attracted because they could invest in equity type real estate projects with real
sense of knowing the developer, or kicking the bricks of the project. This was
far different than investing in a nationally syndicated project, with properties
scattered all over the country, and with developers that they did not know. The
synergistic approach to his organization began paying dividends by developing
other peripheral markets and businesses.
Given the complex nature of the victims design of FMG, internal

struggles within the organization readily became the challenge. Orchestrating the
relationships among all of the different professionals, and trying to adhere to the
interests of the clients, the professionals and of the firm, FMG, managing the
daily activities required immense thought and prudence on the part of the
principals. Of, course, the victim assumed honesty and integrity to be a given.
And for most it was. However there were times when the senior partner engaged
in tactical rights of power.
In the later part of 1986, after the victim had developed FMG to the point
where its future was on stable grounds, his two partners conveniently attempted
to circumvent his position and regain control of his stock and the firm. In fact,
after the victim refused to collaborate on a scheme to set up his other partner,
the remaining two partners began to attempt to regain the victims control.
Through intimidating techniques, the partners began to attack his presence. The
Page 13 of 18
04.11.2007
victim became agitated, especially because he played the lead role and was
responsible for the formation of the company, methodically designing and
developing its foundation, with great success. And now after the company was
beyond its point of greatest risk, due to in large part the victims efforts, the
other two partners wanted to take advantage of his work, and take the cream of
the pie for their own financial gain. It was a difficult task to carry out because the
victim was the most respected of all three partners, consistently keeping their
respective policies in the best interest of the firm and of the other associates and
stockholders. In fact, most feared that the loss of control of the victim would
ultimately lead to adverse consequences. However the two partners trued
unsuccessfully to weaken his position, and when that didnt work, they focused
on weakening the victim, via intimidation and humiliation The coup and hostile
environment caused a state of depression for the victim, although he kept to his
daily duties and responsibilities, accordingly, he called a client and friend who
was a psychiatrist, whom he trusted and respected. It was easy access to a
professional, yet on a very informal basis. Because the victim had a family
history of mental deficiencies, he wanted to seek the proper help.
The psychiatrist had diagnosed the victim as having Bi Polar Mood

disorder. The psychiatrist had quickly discounted any correlation between the
current state of affairs, and his partners abuse. The psychiatrist rationale was
that because the startup of the company was so successful in such a short
period of time , and his demonstrated intelligence and creativity, the victim must
have been in a state of mania, and of course now, was subsiding in a state of
depression, the typical cycle for manic depressants. The victim complied with
the psychiatrist. And after refusing to sell out to his partners, vowed to regain his
business and rescind any efforts to give up his claim to his accomplishments.
The depression soon faded. The victim never disclosed the fact that he had
sought help to anyone other than family members. This coup lead to the victims
aggressive approach to grow the business, and to posture himself in projects that
would ultimately remain in his control, out of the influence of his partners.
Page 14 of 18
04.11.2007
Particularly the mortgage banking activities and the digital movie, which he did
successfully, but apparently too successfully.
THE DIGITAL MOVIE
Through an act of fate, in February of 1987, the victim found himself in a
meeting with Tony Bongiovi at Power Station studios. Through one of his
partners, he reluctantly traveled to New York to consider financing a motion
picture. The victims own lack tolerance for the risk associated with film
investments was overshadowed by the opportunity to visit a recording studio.
Although his associate was a friend of Tonys, he was not familiar with his
accomplishments, or his work, so he thought. If nothing else, it was a weekend
away from Lancaster, and a chance to visit the Big Apple. Intriguingly, he found
more than he had ever imagined on that weekend excursion. Tony Bongiovi, a
musical genius, whos credits include one of the most recognized recording
studios in the country, Power Station Studios. Tony Bongiov produced the sound
track for Star Wars, and is responsible for the format of one of the most
successful recording artist of the 80s, Jon Bon Jovi, his cousin. Power Station
has recorded the albums for some of the most influential artists of all time,
including Diana Ross, Madonna, The Rolling Stones, Steve Winwood, Bruce
Springsteen, etc., Tony, an eccentric genius, of Italian decent, had many talents,
from music to aerospace engineering. The victims associates sister met Tony
while he flew his plane into Lancasters airport for repairs. They dated for some
time and the victims associate and Tony became friends, which led the victim
to Tonys Power Station Studios.
Tony was looking to finance his new project, which was to be the first
digital movie. And, given the victims extreme appetite for technologies,
coupled with his amazing sense of perception, he dramatically recognized the
future evolution for the technical merits of delivering digital video and digital audio
entertainment to the mass markets. By June of 1987, the victim was positioned
as the Executive Producer, collaborating with Flatbush Films of Hollywood
California, the movie producers, entrusted with the mission of finding investors to
Page 15 of 18
04.11.2007
provide funding for the first digital movie, and to manage the ensuing business
elements it required.
The movie was to be shot on-location at the Jersey shore points, mostly
in Wildwood. Tony strategically envisioned making a movie in the horror genre.
There were several specific reasons that supported this strategy. First, he
determined that it was the least expensive format to produce, we all estimated a
budget of $4 million for the production and post production. Secondly, the horror
genre would compliment a very intense sound track. The sound track was
important to enhance the new digital format, and also provide the means to
introduce a new band that he had been grooming in his studio for the past
several years, French Lick, his predecessor to Bon Jovi. There had been bad
blood between Tony and his cousin Bon Jovi, which resulted in legal disputes
pertaining to Tonys financial interests in Jons success. It was an unfortunate
situation considering Tonys father and Jons father were brothers living in the
same area. It was a subject that Tony never wanted to discuss, except for his
contributions toward Jons career.
If by another act of fate, the victim had the privilege of meeting one of the
many superstars while working at Power Station studios. While growing up, at an
early age, the victim would sneak up into the bedroom of his oldest brother, and
start up his old General Electric stereo phonograph and listen to his favorite
album - Diana Ross and the Supremes. It was a passion and a ritual that
provided an early infatuation to music, and to Diana Ross. The victim was only
10 or 11 years old. And at this early age, he noticed and listened to the annoying
hiss, that conventional hiss that always seemed to overshadow the music,
whether played on an album, on the radio, 8-track tape, or cassette.
And in a mystical twist of fate, while engrossed in a project dedicated to

delivering music without that hiss (digital) - the victim opened the door to the
recording suite to pack his bags for the journey back to Lancaster; - and there
she sat, with a glowing array of beauty, more beautiful than any picture could
Page 16 of 18
04.11.2007
ever tell, Ms. Diana Ross. She was pregnant and in the middle of a recording
session, for a new album. Her assistant quickly demanded, in a stern and
protective voice, that we leave, and the victim and his associate replied this is
our makeshift bedroom, we are just gathering our belongings. The victim
walked toward Diana Ross, who was seated near his bag, and she asked and
who are you?, the victim calmly replied his name and absorbed as much of her
beauty as his eyes could behold before walking out the door. The room that was
his bedroom the nigh before, and suddenly transfixed into the recording suite of
Diana Ross, thinking back some twenty years earlier, one of the many gifts that
God would bestow upon him. A living memorial and reminder to his older brother,
who died on Christmas day of 1985, his best friend who taught him two of his
greater pleasures in life, Diana Ross, and listening to music. He prayed that his
brother was watching from above.
And so, the digital movie project that the victim had embraced in 1987
had personal significance, and he never ever doubted his instincts regarding the
technical merits of the project. The victims perception that the entertainment
industry would deliver full length motion pictures in a truly digital medium will later
become a truly remarkable vision.
The technical merits of this project and at this particular time with respect
to the victims extreme sense of perception require analysis. To truly understand
this time perception, some of the attributes of digital technologies need to be fully
understood. In 1987, Compact DISC (CD) technology was only now being
introduced to the commercial markets. The victims own crafting of his joint
venture proposals, dominated by the term digital movie, is in itself some 4 or 5
years away. In 1987, there was very little use of the term digital, with the
exception of research and development engineers. The victim will, throughout the
documentation of this story, will have preceded a terminology that has literally
become the root of most technological advancements in the computer and
telecommunications industries of our present day, 10 years after the victims
Page 17 of 18
04.11.2007
vision. Today, digital is found to be part of or referred to in just about every

product available in the commercial markets.
During May of 1987, the victim had created a joint venture proposal for
SONY Entertainment, Inc., for the digital movie. After weeks of researching the
current state-of-affairs within SONY, and after his proposal was completed,
SONY publicly announced their desire to open the markets for new and emerging
technologies on the cover of TIME magazine, another demonstrated sense of
perception. It was this proposal, when delivered to one of the Hollywood
producers in Santa Monica, California, after reading a draft of the proposal she
said you are a genius. The proposal was introduced to Tony Bongiovi at the
Wildwood Boardwalk, where many of scenes were to be shot, and he approved
of the proposal and thought that it had great merits. Tony, who wanted very to do
with the business elements of his project, gave the victim complete authority to
secure the financing of the project, with a salary as Executive Producer, and a
percentage of the profits on the back end.
After review of the victims research and proposals, his vision and his
passion, unfortunately without his efforts, has come to be known as Direct
Satellite System, or DSS, which is Sonys satellite entertainment system (TV),
delivering digital audio and digital video entertainment. That technology is fast
eroding at the cable industry. The victim had his patent research center around
the PSDMS system, the Power Station Digital Movie System. And that was in
1987, some seven years before SONY delivered his dreams. Later the victim
would also accurately predict that the 90s would become the Information Age
because of the direct contributions and advancements of digital technologies,
which is directly responsible for the development of the INTERNET.
The victims obsession with his digital movie has proven to be one of his
most remarkable demonstrations of his keen sense of perception.
Page 18 of 18
04.11.2007
LancasterOnline.com: Archives search for lisa michelle lambert A...
Local News & Sports | Classifieds | Customer Care Center
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LC&p_...
Lancaster Online Keyword
Go
348 articles matching lisa michelle lambert AND date(1997)

were found.
Displaying 10 articles
Article 1 of 348, 1997365478
Published on December 31, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
LAMBERT'S LAWYER ASSAILS RULING

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorney Tuesday denounced an appellate court's
decision to effectively reinstate his client's 1992 first-degree murder
conviction, saying he will do whatever he can "to get it undone.". Peter S.
Greenberg, a Philadelphia lawyer, spoke by telephone from Vermont, where
he's on vacation. It was Greenberg's first detailed remarks about Monday's
ruling by the U.S. Court of
Click for complete article, (797 words)
Article 2 of 348, 1997365331
Published on December 31, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
LAMBERT INVESTIGATORS WAITING, WONDERING

Lisa Michelle Lambert finds herself back in court and now her investigators
want their day there as well.. The prosecutors in her case have been under
investigation by state and federal officials since last spring. U.S. Judge
Stewart Dalzell ordered the investigation, after saying that prosecutors
tampered or hid evidence during their prosecution of Lambert. Now that a
panel of three federal judges has reinstated Lambert's conviction, some of
those prosecutors say they would like
Article 3 of 348, 1997364268
AUTHORS OF LAURIE BILL APPLAUD COURT RULING

Now that a federal appeals court has sided with its authors, it remains to be
seen whether the Laurie Bill is worth pursuing.. The pending legislation
seeks to limit the power of federal judges, keeping them from ever barring a
retrial on the state level, other than on constitutional grounds. Bill
Wichterman, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Joseph Pitts, said the fate of the bill
depends on the reasons behind Monday's ruling by the U.S. Court of
Appeals, which vacated the decision by
Article 4 of 348, 1997364262
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:31 AM
COUNTY RESIDENTS REACT TO LAMBERT RULING

A court's decision to overturn a federal judge's ruling that freed Lisa
Michelle Lambert was good news to most as word spread throughout the
county Monday afternoon.. "I think his decision to let her go was wrong,"
said Lisa Kemper of Lancaster. "She was guilty. Why would she be there
that day (at the murder scene) in the first place?" Finding people who
agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeal's action to throw
Article 5 of 348, 1997364269
APPEALS COURT SAYS DALZELL ERRED,

OVERTURNS RULING IN LAMBERT CASE //
PROSECUTORS CELEBRATE DECISION
The gloom that has hung over the Lancaster County District Attorney's
Office since the release of Lisa Michelle Lambert in April lifted Monday..
District Attorney Joseph C. Madenspacher, swamped in a sea of pink
message slips, sat at his desk and smiled for what he said felt like the first
time since Lambert was set free by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell.
Dalzell's controversial decision was overturned Monday by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 3rd Circuit..
Article 6 of 348, 1997364279
LAMBERT CASE HAS FAR TO GO

The Lisa Michelle Lambert case is far from over.. Despite Monday's ruling
by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit Court
in Philadelphia, Lambert's claims of innocence and wrongful prosecution
could be tied up in state and federal courts for years to come. The following
is the best information available Monday on where the case goes now..
Brad Baldus, a 3rd Circuit court clerk, said Lambert's attorneys have 14
days from
Article 7 of 348, 1997364278
APPEALS COURT SAYS DALZELL ERRED,

OVERTURNS RULING IN LAMBERT CASE
A federal appellate court Monday overturned a federal judge's decision to
free Lisa Michelle Lambert.. The court ordered Lambert to take her claims
of innocence and wrongful prosecution back to where she started: the state
courts, beginning with Lancaster County Court. A three-judge panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia wiped out an April
decision by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell. He freed Lambert, who was
convicted in 1992 of first-degree
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:31 AM

Article 8 of 348, 1997364277
CHRONOLOGY OF SHOW MURDER CASE

Show murder case chronology:. `Dec. 20, 1991 - Laurie Show, 16, found
dead in her East Lampeter home. `Dec. 21, 1991 - Tabitha Faith Buck, 17,
Lisa Michelle Lambert, 19, and Lawrence Yunkin, 20, are charged in the
killing.. `July 20-21, 1992 - Lambert is convicted of first-degree murder after
a two-week trial and later sentenced to life in prison.. `July 31, 1992 - Buck
agrees to be tried as adult, and the DA agrees not to seek death penalty..
`Aug. 7, 1992 - Buck granted change of
Article 9 of 348, 1997364276
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE LAMBERT

CASE
Editor's note: The following is an edited version of the decision by U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case.
Most of what was deleted were case citations and discussion by the court in
support of its decision. An ellipsis (...) appears where substantive material
was dropped. Footnotes were moved to the point in the text where they
apply and were placed in parenthesis.. Filed December 29, 1997 UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
Article 10 of 348, 1997364272
'ALL I WANT IS SOME CLOSURE TO THIS'

Though many had reason to celebrate the reversal of a federal judge's
decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert, the ruling was especially sweet for
Hazel and John Show, the parents of 16-year-old murder victim Laurie
Show.. "The whole process has been so draining from the beginning to the
end," Mrs. Show said. "Now there's a joy at knowing we're back on the right
track." Mr. Show said,
[ View the next 10 items ]

Content may not be republished without permission.
2004 Lancaster Newspapers
PO Box 1328, Lancaster PA 17608, (717) 291-8811

Terms of Service Privacy Policy
3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:31 AM
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&p_to...
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 11 of 348, 1997364275
APPEALING DECISION
In a narrow ruling to a complex case, the Third Circuit Court on Monday
found that Lisa Michelle Lambert failed to exhaust her murder conviction
appeals at the state level and that state, not federal, courts should therefore
hear her request for relief.. While the ruling does not directly address
Lambert's guilt or innocence, it documents procedural errors on the part of
Federal District Judge Stewart Dalzell, who freed Lambert in April after
ruling that she had been the victim
Article 12 of 348, 1997364209
FOR SHOWS, DA'S OFFICE, COURT'S RULING BRINGS

RELIEF
When John Show heard Monday that a federal appeals court was about to
announce a decision affecting Lisa Michelle Lambert's newfound freedom,
he paused.. "I was scared," Show said. "I didn't trust the system." That's
understandable.. Lambert had been convicted in Lancaster County Court of
stabbing Show's 16-year-old daughter Laurie to death in December 1991..
After a hearing in April,
Article 13 of 348, 1997364211
COUNTY MAY ASK PA. PROSECUTORS TO STEP IN

When Lisa Michelle Lambert's murder case eventually returns to a
courtroom, she could be prosecuted by the state Attorney General's office
and not by the Lancaster County District Attorney.. That possibility was
raised today by the county commissioners, who said that they are preparing
to ask state prosecutors to get involved in the case in the future. The
reason, the commissioners said, is because of claims raised during
Lambert's appeal before U.S.
Article 14 of 348, 1997364210
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:32 AM
DA CONFIDENT LAMBERT WILL RETURN TO JAIL

County officials said today that they expect Lisa Michelle Lambert to be
returned to prison sometime in the next several months, in the wake of
Monday's federal court decision reinstating her conviction.. "I'm confident
she will go back to jail at some point," said Lancaster County District
Attorney Joseph C. Madenspacher. "As it stands right now, it's not a
question of if, but when." A federal appeals court
Article 15 of 348, 1997363267
THE YEAR IN QUOTES

January. "He has a nice round face and he's a good eater for me." Mrs.
Lenard Zimmerman, Ephrata, whose son, Leon, was 1997's first baby.. "Let
me say to the entire House that two years ago when I became the first
Republican speaker in 40 years, to the degree to which I was too brash, too
self-confident, or too pushy, I apologize. To whatever degree and in any
way that I brought controversy or inappropriate attention to the
Article 16 of 348, 1997363214
LISA LAMBERT'S PARENTS ANSWER NEW YORK

TIMES
Editor, New Era:. The following letter was sent to the New York Times, and
we are asking the Lancaster New Era also to print it: We are responding to
but a few of the statements in the New York Times article which appeared
in the Saturday, December 27, edition of Lancaster's Intelligencer Journal
and which was reported on by the Lancaster New Era, as well as
statements made elsewhere regarding the case involving our daughter, Lisa
Michelle Lambert. There are a number of points we
Article 17 of 348, 1997363191
COUNTY WINS LAMBERT APPEAL

PHILADELPHIA _ Lancaster County won its appeal today over a federal
judge's decision to free once-convicted murderer Lisa Michelle Lambert..
However, it was not immediately known if Lambert would be returned to
prison. The ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court, announced early this afternoon,
overturns a decision by U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell in April in which he freed
Lambert, declaring her "actually innocent" of the murder of 16-year-old
Laurie Show.. In
Article 18 of 348, 1997362270
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:32 AM
Published on December 28, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)
The following is a look back at local news events during the past week.
SUNDAY. Dec. 21 - Marilyn Porter, 58, Lancaster, was arrested and
charged with taking $9,000 in jewelry from one of her nursing patients.
MONDAY Dec. 22 - With the holiday shopping season winding down,
merchants said it has been a good, but not great, season. Many stores had
also started discounting over the last weekend.. A mix of snow, sleet and
freezing rain caused some traffic problems on back roads. TUESDAY.
Article 19 of 348, 1997362286
AN UNSETTLING YEAR
It was a year when many important things just didn't go according to plan.. If
a habeas corpus hearing had ended the way Lancaster Countians expected
it to, Lisa Michelle Lambert would still be in jail, still convicted of murdering
16-year-old Laurie Show. If city politics hadn't changed, Harrisburg Area
Community College would still be planning to move into the old Watt &
Shand building.. If, if, if ..... But because those best-laid plans went
Article 20 of 348, 1997361195
RETRIAL THREAT TERRIFIES LAMBERT

The possibility of being retried for the murder of Laurie Show terrifies Lisa
Michelle Lambert, The New York Times reported today.. In her first public
comments on her controversial case, Lambert wondered why Lancaster
County prosecutors are continuing to pursue her: "Why do they want to
keep doing this to me?" she asked.. The Times, in a lengthy page-one story,
describes how Lambert was freed in April by federal judge Stewart Dalzell
and how the rare case is
[ View the previous 10 items ][ View the next 10 items ]


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:32 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 21 of 348, 1997355339
SUNDAY. Dec. 14 - Edwin Morris, 84, was found dead in the basement of
his Salisbury Township home after fire destroyed the dwelling. He died of
smoke inhalation. Kerosene lanterns, the only source of artificial light in the
house, were blamed for the fire. MONDAY. Dec. 15 - Oprah! Television talk
show queen Oprah Winfrey was at the Landis Valley Museum to film scenes
for her new movie
Article 22 of 348, 1997355353
BOTTLE BILL HELPS IN RECYCLING AND DESERVES

SUPPORT
I am handling more bottles and cans in an incredibly expensive and
inefficient manner. Markets are flat. We pay to get rid of commingled cans,
jars and bottles. I have the cost of running two trucks and two crews five
days a week, which adds more cost to the operation.. A report in Recycling
Resource magazine (a recycling industry publication) reported the recycling
methods in all 50 states. Forty-three states that collected bottles and cans
through a hauler or municipal recycling method had
Article 23 of 348, 1997352309
DISTURBED BY MOVIE PROSPECT

To the Editor:. I, for one, do not want a movie made of Lisa Michelle
Lambert's life. The families involved in this tragedy have suffered enough.
Why can't the movie producers have sympathy for the families. Lisa
Michelle Lambert is not the victim. The movie producers are only interested
in making money off of other people's heartaches. Estell Haines Strasburg
Article 24 of 348, 1997352261
LAMBERT HELPS PHILA. LAWYERS HONOR
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:33 AM
RAINVILLE
Christina Rainville was honored this week by her fellow young Philadelphia
attorneys for championing the freedom of Lancaster County's Lisa Michelle
Lambert.. And it was Lambert - once convicted of murder, now declared
free and actually innocent - who introduced Rainville at the annual banquet
for the Young Lawyers Division of the Philadelphia Bar Association on
Tuesday. Lambert was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to
life in prison for slitting the throat of
Article 25 of 348, 1997348360
A FALSE PREMISE
Too many Lancaster Countians must have been watching Oliver Stone
flicks.. Why else would folks believe that everyone is out to get us over the
Lisa Michelle Lambert case? The conspiracy theories started when federal
Judge Stewart Dalzell threw out Ms. Lambert's conviction for the 1991
murder of Laurie Show. They intensified when the Los Angeles Times ran a
series, republished in the Sunday News, on why the decision may tilt the
balance of power between federal and state
Article 26 of 348, 1997348361
LAMBERT: WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH

With the news that a film company has bought the rights to the story of Lisa
Michelle Lambert, the conversation is once again all about the case that
seems to have carved a scar right across Lancaster County.. Around my
desk I can hear: She is guilty. She is not. The prosecutors are corrupt. Or
they are not. And the sudden hush that comes with the rare mention of
another name: Laurie Show. Last week, the talk turned to macabre humour.
Who will play whom in this upcoming movie, this story in
Article 27 of 348, 1997348339
SERVICE KEEPS MEMORIES ALIVE

John Show had been planning his sixth annual Remembrance Service at
Mellinger's Mennonite Church for several months.. He'd recently brought in
a Christmas tree and trimmed it with white lights and a red bow. His
girlfriend, Doris Knier, had written a program decorated with a drawing of a
dove.. Friends had contributed the slender white candles that would be
handed out to participants.. On Saturday night, it all came together better
than Show could have
Article 28 of 348, 1997345240
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:33 AM
FIRM FORCED TO UNVEIL STUDY ON INCINERATOR

FIRE
After two men were killed in an explosion at the Lancaster County
incinerator in 1995, the company hired an independent firm to determine
what caused the blast so it would never happen again.. But now, defending
itself in a lawsuit from the family of one of the men, company officials have
balked at revealing the results of the study, saying it was done in
preparation of litigation. A Lancaster County judge isn't buying that. Last
week, he gave the Ogden Corporation 10 days to
Article 29 of 348, 1997344559
IS HIKE TOO HIGH?

If you're a homeowner caught up in the holiday shopping rush, here's a
sobering thought for you - better save a little, because in less than a month,
your county real estate tax bill may soar by nearly 30 percent.. If that
bothers you, then you might want to consider taking a little time tonight to let
the Lancaster County Commissioners know what you think about it. The
commissioners are holding a rare nighttime meeting at 7:30 at the
Lancaster Farm & Home
Article 30 of 348, 1997344423
THE COUNTY BUDGET IS SOLID, BUT IS EVERYTHING

NECESSARY?
Lancaster County officials have good reasons for boosting the 1998 budget
by 29 percent. Good reasons or not, it's still a 29 percent increase. It's still
going to cost the average homeowner an additional $70 to live in Lancaster
County next year.. County Commissioners say they are caught between
rising costs and declining revenues and have no choice but to raise taxes by
an exceptional amount. The facts seem to support that argument. But no
budget is entirely without


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:33 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 31 of 348, 1997344421
LAMBERT REMAINS GUILTY OF CRIME

Editor, New Era:. On Dec. 20, 1991, someone lured Hazel Show from her
home via a phone call, sending Mrs. Show on a "wild goose chase." When
she left the apartment, someone entered the home and attacked and fatally
wounded Mrs. Show's 16-year-old daughter, Laurie.. Who committed this
horrible crime? There are only three people with any connection to this
vicious act, and only two of these suspects have a clearcut motive for
committing such a heinous
Article 32 of 348, 1997341327
SUNDAY. Nov. 30 - Vandals worked their way through Lancaster Township
and the city, smashing about 20 car windows. Roger Lee Mattingly, 50,
Elkton, Md., was the second Maryland man arrested in the shooting death
of a Chester County woman, Anna Weaver, 77, and the wounding of her
son-in-law in an apparent burglary attempt at her East Nottingham
Township home the week before. MONDAY. Dec. 1 - Two officers who
settled
Article 33 of 348, 1997341345
PURSUIT OF JUSTICE IS COSTLY

Nearly $1 million and counting.. That's how much the Lisa Michelle Lambert
appeal has cost Lancaster County. And the price tag likely will increase..
The expensive appeal, which began when federal Judge Stewart Dalzell
agreed to hear Lambert's case last February, was a factor in the county's
recent decision to hike taxes by nearly 30 percent, according to county
officials.. It wasn't the only reason for the increase, but the unexpected
Article 34 of 348, 1997341353
REACTION TO SERIES ON LISA LAMBERT TRIAL
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:34 AM
"Shame on you," the letter read.. Shame on us? All we had done was
publish, in two parts, a massive story on the Lisa Michelle Lambert case
which was written by a Los Angeles Times reporter.. It was perhaps the
most complete and incisive story anyone has written on the case. Although
we in the local media have long been covering the story day-by-day, we
never had the chance to - or never thought to - take a step back and see the
big picture in this way.. Perhaps
Article 35 of 348, 1997341324
CANDLES ILLUMINATE FAMILY MEMORIES

It began six years ago.. One man's effort to heal his own hurting heart and
the hearts of others. Now, John Show has organized the sixth
"Remembrance Service," a candlelight vigil to memorialize loved ones who
have died.. "I want people to know that this is for anybody - anybody - who
has lost somebody," Show said recently.. The service will be held at 7 p.m.
Saturday, Dec. 13, at Mellinger's Mennonite Church, 1916
Article 36 of 348, 1997340176
JUDGE DALZELL'S DECISION MIRRORS JUSTICE

A gross miscarriage of justice. This phrase has been used to describe the
April decision by Federal Judge Stewart Dalzell to free Lisa Michelle
Lambert from prison in the Laurie Show murder case. For the past eight
months, Dalzell has been berated by thousands of Lancaster County
residents. Much of this ranting, raving, and scalp-hunting is unfounded in
the belief that Dalzell unfairly condemned the conduct of Lancaster County
investigators during the case.. During Lambert's
Article 37 of 348, 1997340251
MOVIE VERSION
It should come as no surprise that Hollywood has stumbled onto the Lisa
Michelle Lambert story.. After all, some would say it is the stuff movies are
made of: An innocent girl from the wrong side of the tracks is railroaded into
a murder conviction by a narrow-minded community bent on avenging a
horrible crime.. In prison she is subjected to inhuman horrors and
degradations.. But in the end she is saved only by her own pluck and the
skill of an aggressive female lawyer able to convince
Article 38 of 348, 1997340175
JUSTICE MARRED BY JUDGES' DECISION
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:34 AM
Justice has been compromised. Her character, once lustrous, is now

tarnished by the radical decisions made by the judges in the cases of Louise
Woodward and Lisa Michelle Lambert.. In both trials, these women were
charged with murder. Woodward's second-degree murder charge was
reduced to manslaughter and she is now free. Lambert's charge was of
first-degree murder; she is now free. The precedent set by these two judges
is not exemplary of justice.
Article 39 of 348, 1997339376
FILM STUDIO BUYS RIGHTS TO TELL LAMBERT

STORIES
Actor Will Smith and Universal Pictures in Hollywood plan to produce a
movie based on Lisa Michelle Lambert's murder conviction five years ago
and her dramatic release from jail in April.. The movie, if it's made, will be
based on a two-part series about the Lambert case that was published in
the Los Angeles Times in November. The series also appeared in the
Lancaster Sunday News. If the script follows the reporting, Lancaster
County isn't going to look as
Article 40 of 348, 1997332044
Published on November 28, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
DEFENSE LAWYERS ARE WRONG TO CHALLENGE

'LAURIE BILL'
Editor, New Era:. I am writing in response to the Pennsylvania Criminal
Defense Lawyers and their opposition to the "Laurie Bill." We need a bill like
this one and we need it now! We need to stop judges from having so much
power. Judge Dalzell had no right to set Lisa Michelle Lambert free saying
that she was innocent because she was framed by county prosecutors. As I
recall, Lambert admitted that she was in the Show apartment the day Laurie
died; that alone makes her


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:34 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 41 of 348, 1997327076
Published on November 23, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)
WGAL PROVIDES MEANINGFUL COVERAGE BEYOND

CRIME NEWS
This is in response to the Clyde conversation in the Sunday News Nov. 16..
As a local broadcaster, WGAL would never advocate anyone not
subscribing to or reading a daily newspaper. It is disturbing to us to learn
that fewer people are reading. But when you write about television's
limitations, you should not forget its advantages. When news happens,
television brings it to you almost instantly. Coverage of election returns,
life-threatening weather, earthquakes and other
Article 42 of 348, 1997326061
Published on November 22, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
STATE LAWYER GROUP DEFENDS DALZELL'S

RULING ON LAMBERT
Tough cases make bad laws.. So says the Pennsylvania Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL), which held a press conference Friday
to oppose a proposed bill which would limit the power of federal judges. The
so-called "Laurie Bill" was drafted in the wake of a federal judge's decision
to free Lisa Michelle Lambert, who was convicted in 1992 of killing
16-year-old Laurie Show. "We have found that when a piece of legislation is
proposed
Article 43 of 348, 1997325109
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS GROUP RAPS 'LAURIE BILL'

The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has come out in
opposition to a federal bill introduced in September aimed at limiting the
power of federal judges.. The bill was drafted by Pennsylvania legislators in
reaction to a federal judge's decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert, who
was convicted in 1992 of killing 16-year-old Laurie Show. The lawyers
organization, which is meeting this weekend in Lancaster County, is
scheduled to hold a press conference today at
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:35 AM
Article 44 of 348, 1997322068

RAINVILLE AGAIN CLAIMS MCCRACKEN

CONVICTION IS UNJUST
Attorneys for Darrell McCracken continue to dispute prosecutors' claims
their client had the level of malice necessary for a murder conviction when
the truck he was driving killed a family of three.. In fact, McCracken's lead
attorney, Christiana Rainville of Philadelphia, now claims her client
"probably did not even cause the accident." Rainville's assertions were filed
Monday with the state Superior Court as McCracken attempts to
Article 45 of 348, 1997320082
AU PAIR AND LAMBERT: REMEMBER VICTIMS

Reading the stories, it was hard not to think about Lisa Michelle Lambert..
Yes, there are differences in the cases of Ms. Lambert, the then-19-year-old
Lancaster County woman convicted in 1992 of murdering 16-year-old Laurie
Show, and Louise Woodward, the 19-year-old British au pair convicted this
month of murdering 8-month-old Matthew Eappen in Massachusetts. In
both, though, a judge overruled a verdict and stunned the victim's family by
letting the defendant walk out of
Article 46 of 348, 1997311113
COUNTY COULD BE LOOKING AT BUDGET DEFICIT

Lancaster County Commissioners are struggling to narrow an $11.4 million
gap between projected expenditures and revenue as they work on the 1998
budget.. "The budget looks right now like a tax increase budget," Terry
Kauffman, chairman of the County Commissioners, said during a Thursday
work session. When county departments first submitted their individual
budgets for 1998, there was an $18.8 million deficit. That number was
lowered to $11.4 million after the
Article 47 of 348, 1997311094
COUNTY ASKS STATE SUPERIOR COURT TO UPHOLD

CASSEL CONVICTION
When Nathan Cassel and two of his friends sat outside 12-year-old Kenneth
Rodriguez Jr.'s home one February day in 1996, they were armed with
deadly weapons and a "coldness of heart," intending to exact revenge on
the boy's older brother.. Those facts alone, said Lancaster County
prosecutors, prove malice, the underpinning they needed to convict Cassel
and the others of third-degree murder for killing Kenneth on Feb. 28, 1996.
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:35 AM
The facts also

Article 48 of 348, 1997310001
DA: LET CASSEL SENTENCE STAND

A Lancaster County jury's conviction and the judge's stiff sentence for a
man accused in the "horrendous violent crime" that claimed the life of a
12-year-old boy were correct, prosecutors insist.. Responding today to the
court appeal of Nathan D. Cassel, now 19, of Lititz, the county district
attorney's office asked state Superior Court to uphold the man's conviction
and sentence in the death of Kenneth Rodriguez Jr.
Article 49 of 348, 1997308083
SPECTER VOWS CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR 'LAURIE

BILL'
Under fire for a proposal to limit the power of federal judges in the wake of
the Lisa Michelle Lambert case, the three local congressmen who
introduced the bill now differ on whether it should move toward passage..
On Monday, New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis criticized the bill and
the congressmen who introduced it for launching an "assault" on the
independence of federal judges. Arlen Specter, an influential member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, responded
Article 50 of 348, 1997306070
CATCHING UP ON THE NEWS

SUNDAY. Oct. 26 - Eleni Papadopoulos, 36, Lancaster, and her 15-year-old
son George, a 10th grader at Conestoga Valley, were killed in a traffic
accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Chester County. The newly
refurbished McCaskey High School building was dedicated.. Charles H.
Turner, 65, was struck by a car as he tried to cross Route 30. The Elmer,
N.J., man died of injuries the next day. MONDAY. Oct. 27 - It


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:35 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 51 of 348, 1997305084
COUNTY CALLS MCCRACKEN APPEAL 'VICIOUS'

Lancaster County is asking the state to uphold Darrell McCracken's murder
conviction and reject his appeal as a "vicious and unjustified attack" on the
three people he was convicted of killing.. McCracken was sentenced in
February after a jury convicted him of third-degree murder and vehicular
homicide in the crash that killed Geoffrey Pywell, his wife, Susan
Davies-Pywell, and their son, Nathaniel Pywell, 11. The accident occurred in
September 1995, when
Article 52 of 348, 1997305015
DA OFFICE REFUTES APPEAL BY MCCRACKEN

Not only is Darrell McCracken guilty of murder, prosecutors say, but the
"sheer audacity" of his appeal is a "vicious and unjustified attack" on three
"innocent individuals: Geoffrey, Susan and young Nathaniel Pywell.".
McCracken, 33, of 623 Hilton Drive was convicted in a trial in January of
killing the Franklin & Marshall professor, his wife and their 11-year-old child
in a traffic accident in September
Article 53 of 348, 1997303093
Published on October 30, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
ANTI-JUDICIAL ACTIVISM EFFORT TOUTS LAMBERT

CASE
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert
has drawn the ire of a conservative special-interest group based in
Washington, D.C.. Under its Judicial Selection Monitoring Project, the Free
Congress Foundation's Center for Law and Democracy is circulating a
videotape denouncing judicial activism in the federal courts. And Judge
Dalzell and his decision to free Lambert are the group's prime targets..
"Judge
Article 54 of 348, 1997299065
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:35 AM
Published on October 26, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)

SUNDAY. Oct. 19 - A bipartisan analysis of campaign pledge costs found
that Republican mayoral candidate Charlie Smithgall's campaign promises
could cost the city up to $28 million. Smithgall scoffed at the analysis. At a
forum on Tuesday, the race heated up further when McCaskey students
asked Lyons whether he had ever used drugs, and Lyons refused to
answer. Lyons accused the Smithgall campaign of being
Article 55 of 348, 1997296103
TWISTS, TURNS STILL AHEAD IN LAMBERT CASE

Following Tuesday's court hearing in Philadelphia, Lisa Michelle Lambert's
fate now rests in the hands of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal
court just a step below the U.S. Supreme Court.. Legal experts said
Wednesday that the impact of the court's eventual decision will be felt
nationwide. "It has monumental implications for criminal proceedings
throughout all 50 states," said Joseph Roda, a Lancaster lawyer who has
Article 56 of 348, 1997296110
CONFIDENT IN SYSTEM
We hope those who want Lisa Michelle Lambert to be returned to jail - or at
least face a new murder trial - do not become overly optimistic after
Tuesday's hearing before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia.. The best way to view the proceeding is as a sort of catharsis the first time the matter has been aired in a courtroom since Lambert was
freed last spring. It's something that community - riven by this case like no
other - needed. Yes, the
Article 57 of 348, 1997295181
JUDGES HAMMER LAMBERT'S ATTORNEY AT

APPEAL HEARING
PHILADELPHIA - An attorney for Lancaster County Tuesday urged three
federal appeals court judges to allow the state court system to decide if Lisa
Michelle Lambert should remain free or be retried for the 1991 murder of
Laurie Show.. Lambert was convicted of first-degree murder in 1992, but
her conviction was reversed last April by a federal judge. Lawyer Richard A.
Sprague argued that U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell trampled state and
federal laws by freeing Lambert from life
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:35 AM
Article 58 of 348, 1997295049

Published on October 22, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
SHOWS, LOCAL LAWYERS UPBEAT AFTER HEARING

PHILADELPHIA - Cautious optimism.. That's the mood today among
Lancaster County officials and the parents of murdered teen-ager Laurie
Show, after a hearing Tuesday to determine the fate of the woman who has
become their nemesis. Lisa Michelle Lambert was convicted in county court
of Miss Show's murder in 1992. In April, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell
overturned the conviction and freed Lambert.. The county appealed
Dalzell's decision. At
Article 59 of 348, 1997295050
LAMBERT INNOCENT? JUDGES ASK TOUGH

QUESTIONS ABOUT SLAYING
PHILADELPHIA - Lisa Michelle Lambert's fate is once again in judges'
hands.. This time, three federal circuit court judges will decide whether she
goes back to jail in the murder of 16-year-old Laurie Show or remains free.
One of the judges was especially brutal in questioning Lambert's attorney
during a hearing Tuesday held at the request of Lancaster County attorneys,
who are appealing Lambert's release in April.. "I started to
Article 60 of 348, 1997294081
LAMBERT APPEAL TO BE HEARD BY JUDICIARY

PANEL TODAY
Lancaster County's court appeal of Lisa Michelle Lambert's release from life
imprisonment will be heard this afternoon by a panel of three federal judges
in Philadelphia.. The hearing before a panel of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
judges will begin at 2 p.m. in the ceremonial courtroom on the first floor of
the U.S. Courthouse at 6th and Market streets. The hearing is open to the
public, but because of the interest in Lambert's case, seating will be


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:35 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 61 of 348, 1997293047
COUNTY TRIES TO RE-JAIL LAMBERT

After six months of preparation, Lancaster County's appeal of Lisa Michelle
Lambert's release from prison will finally be heard Tuesday in federal court..
Three judges from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have allotted attorneys
on either side a maximum of 25 minutes to argue their case, with a promise
of not interrupting them only for the first 10 minutes. The hearing will be
held in the same ceremonial courtroom in Philadelphia where Lambert was
declared
Article 62 of 348, 1997285074

The following is a look back at local news events during the past week..
SUNDAY Oct. 5 - Thousands packed Long's Park to hear country music acts
at the WIOV/Turkey Hill Fall Music Fest.. `Bird-in-Hand firefighters and
neighbors helped to save the home of the Christ Beiler family on Miller Lane
after a fire started at 3 a.m.. `Warm, summer-like weather set in, with
temperatures rising well into the 80s.. MONDAY. Oct. 6 - Jurors heard from
the mother of victim Daryl
Article 63 of 348, 1997282104
LAWYERS CLAIM CASSEL TREATED UNFAIRLY AT

TRIAL RAINVILLE APPEALS CONVICTION
Attorneys for a Lancaster teen-ager convicted in the 1996 shooting death of
a 12-year-old Mary Street boy are appealing the conviction on the grounds
he was not given a fair trial.. The appeal was filed Tuesday in state Superior
Court on behalf of Nathan Cassel, 19, of Lititz, who was convicted with two
youths of killing Kenneth Rodriguez Jr. Feb. 28, 1996, as he stood at his
bedroom window. Philadelphia attorney Christina Rainville alleges
Lancaster County Judge Louis J. Farina erred in not
Article 64 of 348, 1997281071
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:36 AM
LEWIS TO QUIT AS CITY GOP CHIEF

Alvin B. Lewis Jr. is stepping down as Lancaster city Republican chairman
sometime after the Nov. 4 election.. Lewis, who has led the city GOP since
1994, said he told other party leaders of his intentions last spring, but it
wasn't until last week that he informed rank and file committee people. He
said Tuesday that the demands of his legal practice prompted his decision..
"My practice was growing, and I had to make a decision between business
and the party and
Article 65 of 348, 1997281053
RAINVILLE HITS THE DEFENSE IN MARY ST. DEATH

TRIAL
A state court should overturn a Lititz teen's conviction for the murder of a
Mary Street boy due to insufficient evidence, errors by his trial attorney and
his overly heavy sentence, according to an appeal filed Tuesday.. Christina
Rainville, a Philadelphia attorney, entered the appeal in state Superior Court
on behalf of Nathan Cassel, 19, of Lititz. It is Rainville's third appeal of a
local murder case. "The record in this case is so devoid of
Article 66 of 348, 1997278069

SUNDAY. Sept. 28 - Gloria J. Hargis, 48, Ephrata, was killed in a two-car
crash at Clay and East Newport roads. MONDAY Sept. 29 - Commonwealth
Security Systems Inc., sold less than a year ago to Republic Industries, was
sold again to Ameritech. Commonwealth was founded by Patrick Egan, who
sold the company to Republic for $36.5 million in stock. TUESDAY. Sept. 30
- About 119,000 PP&L customers signed up
Article 67 of 348, 1997278085
37,000 AGREE WITH CRUSADE TO IMPEACH JUDGE

DALZELL
This is in response to the Sunday News editorial of Sept. 28, titled "The
wrong path," regarding John and Hazel Show's crusade to impeach Judge
Stewart Dalzell and to present a national petition for further legislation
regarding federal judges and their powers. The editor cannot endorse the
crusade; however, along with many congressmen, there are at least 37,000
individuals who wholeheartedly agree with this crusade, as evidenced by
the signed petitions..
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:36 AM
Article 68 of 348, 1997275105

LAMBERT APPEAL COULD HINGE ON RECENT

RULING
Attorneys handling Lancaster County's appeal of Lisa Michelle Lambert's
release from life imprisonment believe a federal court ruling two weeks ago
in a Luzerne County murder case will be pivotal in helping their appeal.. The
three 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges assigned to hear the county's
appeal in Philadelphia on Oct. 21 on Tuesday asked lawyers for Lambert
and Lancaster County to submit written arguments comparing Lambert's
case
Article 69 of 348, 1997275060
MCCRACKEN TRIAL WAS UNFAIR, SAYS RAINVILLE

Daryl McCracken's trial just wasn't fair, his attorney maintains.. "No
reasonable juror would have convicted McCracken had the trial been fair,"
Christina Rainville wrote to the state Superior Court Wednesday. "This case
involves a tragic fatal accident which left three people dead. It is all the
more tragic because the aftermath of the accident was a prosecution of an
innocent man.". The worst of numerous offenses,
Article 70 of 348, 1997274042
3 JUDGES TO HEAR LAMBERT APPEAL

The panel of judges has been appointed. The time has been set.. About
three weeks from today, the lawyers in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case will
get exactly 15 minutes each to argue their positions before a federal
appeals court. The attorneys will appear at 2 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 21, in the
federal courthouse in Philadelphia.. Hearing them will be a panel of three
judges: Carol Los Mansmann, 55, of Pittsburgh; Morton I. Greenberg, 64, of
Philadelphia; and Arthur R. Alarcon, 72, of


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:36 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 71 of 348, 1997274044
3 JUDGES TO HEAR LAMBERT APPEAL

The lawyers arguing over Lisa Michelle Lambert's freedom may have just
been given a hint of what the three judges deciding the case want to hear..
Did Lambert exhaust all her appeals in Pennsylvania's courts before she
turned to a federal court judge for help? Last spring, U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell freed Lambert from her life prison sentence for the murder
of 16-year-old Laurie Show of East Lampeter Twp.. In their appeal of that
decision, attorneys
Article 72 of 348, 1997271078
Published on September 28, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)
THE WRONG PATH

No one, except another parent who has lost a child, can understand how
John and Hazel Show feel.. Like most other Lancaster Countians, we can
only sympathize with the Shows and their pain, these six years after the
horrible murder of their 16-year-old daughter Laurie. But we can't endorse
their crusade against the federal judge who freed Miss Show's convicted
murderer, Lisa Michelle Lambert, from jail.. The Shows want Judge Stewart
Dalzell to be impeached - removed
Article 73 of 348, 1997267138
Published on September 24, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster,
PA)
MYSTERIES WILL BE TOPIC OF 5 LECTURES

According to writer Neil Albert, mysteries are really morality plays.. "The
killer gets caught, he pays his price, society is safe and the world is okay,"
he said. Albert, an attorney with Zimmerman, Pfannebecker and Nuffort, is
the author of six detective thrillers featuring David Garrett, a disbarred
attorney, caught taking the bar exam for his wife.. The Unitarian Universalist
Center's Beacon Program of Leisure Learning will be featuring Neil Albert
Article 74 of 348, 1997267179
1 of 4
6/10/2006 8:38 AM

PA)
MU STUDENT REPUBLICANS ELECT OFFICERS

New officers have been elected to lead the Millersville University College
Republicans.. Kristin McGeary, sister of Jeff McGeary, last year's candidate
for chairman of the Pennsylvania College Republicans, was re-elected
chairman for the 1997-98 school year. Other offices are: James Senft, vice
chairman; Tara Tomlinson, secretary; and alumnus Dean Lee Evans, public
relations coordinator. James Jolly, history professor, is the academic
adviser.. The group's current
Article 75 of 348, 1997267033
Published on September 24, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
PASS 'LAURIE BILL' TO CURB POWER OF FEDERAL

JUDICIARY
Some may consider the "Laurie Bill" a congressional attempt to subvert the
power of the federal judiciary. Count us among those who look at this
legislation as a simple effort to balance judicial activism with reasoned
regulation.. The bill, formally known as the Victim Protection Act, was
introduced last month in the Senate by Sen. Arlen Specter and in the House
by Reps. George Gekas and Joseph Pitts. The bill would prohibit federal
judges in most cases from barring
Article 76 of 348, 1997264062

SUNDAY Sept. 14 - A speeding car slammed into a buggy in West
Hempfield, injuring six members of the Melvin Petersheim family. The driver
drove away and then abandoned his car. Members of the family were
treated and released. On Monday, a Lebanon man called police and
admitted he was the driver.. MONDAY. Sept. 15 - The cameras began
rolling at Landis Valley Museum for two days of shooting on the movie
Article 77 of 348, 1997261094
PA)
SHOWS TAKE THEIR CASE TO CAPITOL

WASHINGTON - The parents of murder victim Laurie Show crisscrossed
Capitol Hill Wednesday, presenting 11 Pennsylvania legislators with
petitions asking them to probe the conduct of a federal judge and reform the
federal court system.. Wednesday marked the official kickoff of John and
Hazel Shows' national campaign to have U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell
impeached and to have legislation enacted curtailing the power of federal
judges. U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter and U.S. Reps.
2 of 4
6/10/2006 8:38 AM

Article 78 of 348, 1997261047
SHOWS TAKE FIGHT TO CONGRESS

WASHINGTON - Five months after their daughter's alleged killer was freed
from federal prison after an appeal, John and Hazel Show arrived here
Wednesday to ask 11 members of Congress for help.. Armed with petitions
containing the signatures of some 37,000 Lancaster County residents, the
Shows met all day with lawmakers to try to enlist support for their cause.
The petitions ask for the impeachment of the federal judge who freed the
alleged killer of their 16-year-old daughter,
Article 79 of 348, 1997257058

SUNDAY Sept. 7 - Elizabethtown police said the shooting deaths on
Saturday, Sept. 6, of Edward Brenner Jr., 52, and Michael C. MacDonald,
45, both of Elizabethtown, may have been a murder-suicide.. MONDAY.
Sept. 8 - Citing technical concerns, the Manor Township Planning
Commission voted 4-3 to reject Wal-Mart's revised plan for a superstore on
Centerville Road. The county planning commission will have
Article 80 of 348, 1997253192
PA)
RAINVILLE MAY BE IN TROUBLE AT HER OWN LAW

FIRM
Christina Rainville's legal work to free Lisa Michelle Lambert from life
imprisonment enraged many in Lancaster County.. And she didn't win many
fans here when she agreed to represent Darrell McCracken, who was
convicted of third-degree murder for causing a traffic accident that killed a
Franklin & Marshall College professor, his wife and their 11-year-old son.
Now it appears that her continued legal representation of Lambert and her
subsequent work on

3 of 4
6/10/2006 8:38 AM
4 of 4
6/10/2006 8:38 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 81 of 348, 1997252024
MCCRACKEN EVIDENCE WAS 'RIGGED,' APPEAL

SAYS
Will Darrel McCracken walk out of prison a free man because of misconduct
by Lancaster County prosecutors?. He should, said McCracken's attorney,
Christina Rainville, because he was wrongly convicted by the prosecutors'
intentional "manipulation of the evidence." McCracken, 33, of 623 Hilton
Drive, was convicted of third-degree murder for a traffic accident that
claimed the life of Franklin & Marshall College professor Geoffrey
Article 82 of 348, 1997249070
Published on September 6, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
PYWELLS BLAMED FOR OWN DEATHS IN

MCCRACKEN CASE
Attorneys representing Darrel McCracken in his appeal to have his
third-degree murder conviction overturned are claiming his victims' car was
going 99 miles per hour when it was struck by McCracken's truck.. In her
state Superior Court filing late Thursday, attorney Christina Rainville and
two colleagues claim a police report of the Sept. 3, 1995, accident clearly
states the car driven by Geoffrey Pywell was speeding before the collision
that night with McCracken at
Article 83 of 348, 1997248085
MCCRACKEN PASSENGER PLANS TO SUE

A passenger riding in a truck driven by Darryl McCracken the night he ran a
traffic light and killed a Lancaster family has filed notice that he plans to sue
McCracken, a fellow passenger and the dead family's estate.. George
Snook, 922 High St., through his Philadelphia attorney, Robert Land, filed
the notice, called a Writ of Summons, in Lancaster County Court on
Wednesday. The filing names as defendants McCracken, 623 Hilton Drive;
the second passenger, Archer Morgan III, 846
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:39 AM
Article 84 of 348, 1997248090

ATTORNEYS BATTLE OVER MCCRACKEN EVIDENCE

A county judge Thursday ordered Darryl McCracken's trial attorney to turn
over all documents related to the case to the attorneys handling
McCracken's appeal of a third-degree murder conviction.. Judge Paul K.
Allison, acting on a motion filed by attorney Christina Rainville of
Philadelphia, gave Lancaster attorney Roy D. Shirk five days to comply with
his order. In her filing, Rainville, who gained notoriety here for winning the
freedom of Lisa Michelle Lambert, said
Article 85 of 348, 1997246029
MCCRACKEN APPEAL STALLS AS RAINVILLE VIEWS

DOCUMENTS
Darrel McCracken's appeal process has been delayed until his new
Philadelphia attorney can look at video tapes, documents and evidence
from his Lancaster County trial.. McCracken was convicted in January of
killing Franklin and Marshall College professor Geofffrey Pywell, Pywell's
wife, Susan Davies-Pywell, and their 11-year-old son, Nathaniel, in a traffic
accident in September 1995. A jury found McCracken guilty of third-degree
murder for intentionally not stopping
Article 86 of 348, 1997244100
PARENTS OF MURDERED TEEN-AGER LAUNCH

CRUSADE AGAINST JUDGE
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of articles on the Lisa
Michelle Lambert case and its implications. The occasional series will use
her overturned murder conviction as a touchstone to show how state and
federal courts work. Today's story focuses on Hazel and John Show, the
parents of murder victim Laurie Show, and their campaign to have U.S.
District Judge Stewart Dalzell impeached.. Hazel and John Show, a
divorced Lancaster County couple, have united to
Article 87 of 348, 1997237220
Published on August 25, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
MOUNTVILLE MAN LEADS YOUNG GOP

New officers have been elected to lead the Lancaster County Young
Republicans.. Serving as chairman is Bruce Gadbois of Mountville. Other
officers are Aaron Ranck, vice chairman; Karen Johnson, secretary; and
Dean Lee Evans, treasurer. The group's current activities include helping
the Lancaster mayoral campaign of Charlie Smithgall, the borough
councilcampaign of Gadbois, and the petition drive to oust the federal judge
who overturned the murder conviction of Lisa Michelle
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:39 AM

Article 88 of 348, 1997236348
Published on August 24, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)
SCOTT OBERHOLTZER ENJOYS CALLING HIS OWN

SHOTS
Even as a kid, Scott K. Oberholtzer envisioned a call-your-own-shots type of
career.. "Originally," he says, "I wanted to be a research scientist." But law
was his strong suit. Since he started practicing in Lancaster 15 years ago,
Oberholtzer, the county's first assistant public defender, has handled four
death penalty cases and half a dozen more murder trials.. He has recently
become known as a legal analyst, offering his views
Article 89 of 348, 1997235143
RAINVILLE PARTNER (AND SPOUSE) TAKES LEAD

ROLE
When Lisa Michelle Lambert's case for freedom comes before a federal
appeals court in October, she'll have Philadelphia attorney Peter S.
Greenberg in her corner arguing her case.. Although attorney Christina
Rainville became known as the leader of the eight-member legal team that
won Lambert's release from a life prison sentence in April, Greenberg has
worked beside her from the start. Greenberg, 53, is a partner in the
200-member Philadelphia law firm of
Article 90 of 348, 1997231177
PHILA. ATTORNEY TO ARGUE LAMBERT APPEAL

A Philadelphia attorney will be arguing the county's appeal in the Lisa
Michelle Lambert case in federal court in October.. Richard A. Sprague, of
Sprague & Lewis, 116 E. King St., and Sprague & Sprague, Philadelphia, is
now preparing to argue the case before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Philadelphia, said his local law partner Alvin B. Lewis Jr. The
court has tentatively marked Oct. 20 as the date it will listen to arguments
from attorneys on


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:39 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 91 of 348, 1997230276
Published on August 18, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T PAY COST OF LAWYERS

To the Editor: Why should the taxpayers in Lancaster County have the
burden to pay outrageous lawyer fees for the district attorneys and others
who created this problem with the Lisa Michelle Lambert case.. They are
the guilty ones who did unethical technicalities and are guilty in this
situation. The money should come out of their pockets and not out of the
pockets of the poor in Lancaster County. So now lawyers are getting rich at
the expense of Lancaster County citizens. Judge Dalzell did
Article 92 of 348, 1997229335

SUNDAY Aug. 10 - DeeDee Carolann Null, Lancaster, was killed when the
motorcycle on which she was a passenger crashed into a tree in Martic
Township. The 27-year-old was the mother of four children.. The highway
carnage continued Tuesday when Donald Dorwart, 42, Book Road, was
killed in an early-morning crash on Route 222 in Manheim Township that
closed the road for nearly five hours.. Eighteen hours later in West
Article 93 of 348, 1997227262
COURT TO CONSIDER STATES' ARGUMENTS IN

LAMBERT CASE
Lancaster County's bid to return Lisa Michelle Lambert to prison got a boost
Thursday when a federal appeals court agreed to allow six states to formally
support the county's challenge of her freedom.. The 3rd U.S. Court of
Appeals on Thursday permitted attorneys general from Pennsylvania,
Delaware, California, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina to make
legal arguments on behalf of the county's appeal of a judge's decision to
free Lambert
Article 94 of 348, 1997226306
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:40 AM
MCCRACKEN RAISES MISCONDUCT ISSUE

The Philadelphia lawyer who helped Lisa Michelle Lambert win her freedom
said in court papers filed Wednesday that Darrell McCracken should be
released from jail for the same reason - prosecutorial misconduct.. Christina
Rainville, who is handling McCracken's court appeal, told the state Superior
Court that her client was denied a fair trial in Lancaster County Court earlier
this year. In the court filing, Rainville accuses county prosecutors of
misconduct; says
Article 95 of 348, 1997226254
COURT ACCEPTS STATES' BRIEF IN LAMBERT CASE

The federal judges who will decide whether Lisa Michelle Lambert remains
free have decided to accept a "friend of the court" brief filed by six attorneys
general in support of Lancaster County.. The news is a shot in the arm for
the county's appeal of a federal judge's decision to free Lambert and bar
efforts to retry her for the 1991 killing of a teen-age Lancaster girl. It means
the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will factor the
Article 96 of 348, 1997223332
TIME TO ALTER THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN US

To the Editor:. Dalzell does not walk with God. Your recent article on the
power that federal courts possess (Intell, Aug. 1) supports the key
ideological philosophy that drove Timothy McVey to kill 168 people. That is
that government is too big, too intrusive to the rights of law-abiding
Americans and downright dangerous. I do not support what McVey did, but
we tend to be shortsighted and one-sided in our views. We do not see why
McVey did what he did, we only saw the dead babies. At least
Article 97 of 348, 1997222311

SUNDAY Aug. 3 - PennDOT said it will meet with the prime contractor to
develop a plan to get the Route 30 widening project back on schedule..
`Fires destroyed the Instant Amish Photo Gallery in Intercourse and
damaged a home in Strasburg.. MONDAY. Aug. 4 - While their children
played outside their Mountville home, Charles and Lisa Mock argued inside.
Manor Township police said Charles then shot his wife with a
Article 98 of 348, 1997221193
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:40 AM
DATE SET TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN LAMBERT

APPEAL
A federal appellate court that will decide Lancaster County's appeal of Lisa
Michelle Lambert's freedom has tentatively scheduled time in late October
for lawyers to present verbal arguments in front of a panel of judges.. The
3rd U.S. Court of Appeals expects to hear from attorneys for the county and
Lambert in court on Tuesday, Oct. 21, said Brad Baldus, a circuit court law
clerk assigned to the Lambert case. Alvin B. Lewis Jr., a Lancaster lawyer
who represents the
Article 99 of 348, 1997221205
COUNTY'S BILLS IN LAMBERT CASE TOP $500,000

The cost of challenging Lisa Michelle Lambert's release has topped half a
million dollars and will rise considerably, according to the chairman of the
county commissioners.. Outside lawyers hired by Lancaster County have
submitted bills totaling $540,000 for legal work on the case, chairman Terry
Kauffman said. The money will come from taxpayers. So far, the county has
been able to pay the fees through belt-tightening rather than by dipping into
cash reserves. No county employees
Article 100 of 348, 1997220250
COUNTY APPEAL IN LAMBERT CASE SLATED FOR

OCT. 20
The federal appellate court has tentatively marked Oct. 20 as the date it will
listen to legal arguments from attorneys on either side of the Lisa Michelle
Lambert case.. Officials with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said they
will reveal, 10 days before that date, the identity of the three federal judges
who will hear the arguments. Lancaster County began the appeal process
after U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell freed Lambert in April and forbade
prosecutors from trying her again for the


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:40 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 101 of 348, 1997220256
WAS TRAFFIC LIGHT BROKEN DURING CRASH?

Just days after Darrel McCracken struck and killed a family of three at a city
intersection, the traffic light there malfunctioned.. City repairmen were
called out to repair the light twice on Sept. 8, 1995, five days after
McCracken struck a station wagon and killed Franklin and Marshall College
Professor Geoffrey Pywell, his wife, Susan Davies-Pywell, and their
11-year-old son, Nathaniel. In January, a jury found McCracken guilty of
third-degree murder. He was sentenced to 10 to 20 years
Article 102 of 348, 1997219246
6 STATES DEFEND FILING FOR LAMBERT

They want what is fair and they have the right to support the county in its
appeal of the freeing of Lisa Michelle Lambert.. So said the attorneys
general of six states Wednesday in an attempt to uphold their right to file a
"friend of the court brief" in the Lambert case. "Justice must be done to both
Lambert and the Commonwealth," the attorneys general stated in their
latest filing in the case.. Pa. Attorney General Mike Fisher and the
Article 103 of 348, 1997218429
NO MATTER WHAT, BUCK HELPED KILL LAURIE, DA

SAYS
Prosecutors are not admitting they made mistakes in the investigation of
16-year-old Laurie Show's murder.. But, even if they did, convicted killer
Tabitha Buck does not deserve another chance in court, the Lancaster
County District Attorney's office wrote recently. "Even if errors occurred,"
John A. Kenneff, first assistant district attorney, wrote in a new legal filing,
Buck does not deserve "relief" in the case,
Article 104 of 348, 1997217163
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:41 AM
RENO: SENATE TOO SLOW IN OK OF JUDGES

From Staff and Wire Reports. Attorney General Janet Reno today accused
the Senate of an "unprecedented slowdown" in confirming President
Clinton's nominees for federal judgeships, saying the delay is harming the
justice system. "Surely the (Constitution's) framers did not intend Congress
to obstruct the appointment of much-needed judges, but rather simply to
ensure that well-qualified individuals were appointed to the federal
Article 105 of 348, 1997215338

SUNDAY July 27 - The death of Mark Groner, 25, a band instructor in
Hempfield schools, was reported. He was involved in a traffic accident
Friday and died Saturday.. MONDAY. July 28 - Traffic was snarled on Route
30 after a cement-mixing truck hit an overpass at rush hour, jamming
eastbound traffic for four hours.. Lancaster County planners, as expected,
turned down Wal-Mart's plan for a store on
Article 106 of 348, 1997214220
LAMBERT LAWYERS BLAST ATTEMPT TO APPEAL

STATE COURT'S DECISION
Lisa Michelle Lambert's lawyers blasted an attempt by six state attorneys
general to support Lancaster County's court appeal of Lambert's freedom,
urging a federal appeals court to disallow the states' effort.. Led by
Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, attorneys general from
Delaware, Louisiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma and California asked the
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the group to support the county's
Article 107 of 348, 1997213301
FEDERAL JUDGES DON'T ANSWER TO PUBLIC

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the third in a series of articles on the Lisa Michelle
Lambert case and its implications. The series will use her overturned murder
conviction as a touchstone to show how state and federal courts work.
Today's story focuses on the power of federal judges.. It's been said that
federal judges are the closest thing to God because they are not
accountable to anyone. Once the president appoints someone to the federal
bench,
Article 108 of 348, 1997213304
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:41 AM
LEGISLATORS AIM TO CURB FEDERAL JUDGES'

POWER
WASHINGTON - A bill aimed at limiting the power of federal judges, which
was drafted in reaction to the Lisa Michelle Lambert case, isn't expected to
be considered by Congress until next year, the three legislators who
introduced it said Thursday.. U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter and U.S. Reps.
Joseph R. Pitts and George W. Gekas collaborated on the legislation, which
would prohibit federal judges in most cases from barring the retrial of a
person convicted in a state court. It will be
Article 109 of 348, 1997213306
A RATIONAL RESPONSE
Until now, the reaction to Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision to free Lisa
Michelle Lambert has produced much heat but little light.. With the
introduction of legislation aimed at curbing the power of federal judges, we
are beginning to see some light. U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter and U.S. Reps.
Joe Pitts and George Gekas unveiled the Victim Protection Act of 1997
Thursday, which is designed to prohibit federal judges in most cases from
barring the retrial of a person convicted in a
Article 110 of 348, 1997213253
ATTORNEYS FOR LAMBERT RIP STATES' FILING

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys fired back Thursday at a brief attacking
Lambert's freedom filed by the state attorney general and supported by the
attorneys general of five other states.. Not only was the brief filed late,
Lambert's attorneys said, it is highly improper because the state has two
distinct conflicts of interest in the case. "This state, with all of its resources,
apparently will go to any length - lawful or unlawful, ethical


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:41 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 111 of 348, 1997212323
Published on July 31, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
BILL WOULD LIMIT POWER OF FEDERAL JUDGES

Sparked by a federal judge's decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert, three
federal legislators will introduce legislation today that would limit the power
of federal judges.. U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter and U.S. Reps. Joseph R. Pitts
and George W. Gekas will unveil the Victim Protection Act of 1997 at 1:30
p.m., during a press conference on the east steps of the U.S. Capitol in
Washington, D.C. If the act passes the Senate and House of
Representatives and is eventually signed into
Article 112 of 348, 1997212280
Published on July 31, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
BILL TO LIMIT POWER OF FEDERAL JUDGES

UNVEILED
Local lawmakers were introducing legislation in Washington today "on
behalf of Laurie Show" that would limit the power of federal judges.. The
legislation would forbid federal judges from barring retrials of convicted
criminals - just like a Philadelphia federal judge did when he freed Lisa
Michelle Lambert in April. U.S. Reps. Joseph R. Pitts and George W.
Gekas, along with U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, were to unveil the amendment
at a press conference..
Article 113 of 348, 1997211511
LAMBERT LAWYER FIRES OPENING ROUND IN

ANOTHER MURDER CASE
The same Philadelphia lawyer who helped Lisa Michelle Lambert win her
freedom maintains that a teen-ager convicted of killing a 12-year-old city
boy did not receive a fair trial in Lancaster County Court.. Christina Rainville
and her associate, James D. Crawford, are representing Nathan Cassel, a
19-year-old Warwick High School dropout who is serving a 15-to-40-year
prison sentence. Cassel was one of three teen-agers convicted of killing
Kenneth Rodriguez while he stood by a second-floor
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:42 AM
Article 114 of 348, 1997210239

COURT SETS TIMES TO HEAR LAMBERT APPEAL

A federal appellate court that will decide Lancaster County's appeal of Lisa
Michelle Lambert's freedom has tentatively scheduled time for attorneys to
present their arguments in front of a panel of judges.. The 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has notified lawyers representing Lambert
and the county that oral arguments regarding the county's appeal will be
heard in court on one of five days in October or November. The possible
days are
Article 115 of 348, 1997208371
Published on July 27, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)

SUNDAY July 20 - The week opened with dry, hot weather continuing, but
then rain of up to a half-inch fell Monday night in scattered areas of the
county.. By early Wednesday, as remnants of Hurricane Danny stalled over
the area, the parched region got what it needed - a soaking rain. The rains
continued off and on through Thursday. In short order, the area went from a
drought watch to a flood watch; rains in some
Article 116 of 348, 1997207218
LATEST LAMBERT DISPUTE: LIES IN BUCK'S

TESTIMONY
Attorneys on both sides of Lisa Michelle Lambert's appeal have fired a
volley of new assaults at one another.. This time, the controversy centers on
Tabitha Buck, Lambert's accused conspirator in the murder of 16-year-old
Laurie Show in December 1991. Both Buck and Lambert, who were 17 and
19 respectively at the time of the murder, were convicted of killing the
Conestoga Valley High School sophomore and sentenced to life in prison.
In April, Lambert was freed after a
Article 117 of 348, 1997206240
SUBURB POLICEMAN FACES TRIAL ON CHILD

MORALS CHARGES
For years, beginning when the girl was about 8 years old, she watched
pornographic videos with him.. Then the man, an East Lampeter Township
police officer, began fondling her, the girl told a district justice today,
touching her body and bribing her to perform oral sex on him. Finally, they
had sexual intercourse.. She never told anyone, she testified.. Not her
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:42 AM
mother. Not her closest friends.. Until she was told that the man, Robert S.
Reed, 38, of 314 Greenland Drive, had been
Article 118 of 348, 1997204477
ATTORNEYS HAGGLE ON BUCK DEPOSITION

Private attorneys handling Lancaster County's federal court appeal of Lisa
Michelle Lambert's freedom and Lambert's lawyers on Tuesday continued a
war of words over whether one sentence should be stricken from the court
record.. That sentence is: "Respondents (Lancaster County and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) could just as easily ask this court to
supplement the record with the deposition testimony of one of Lambert's
Article 119 of 348, 1997204478
6 STATES WANT A SAY IN LAMBERT CASE

Six states have asked to intervene on behalf of Lancaster County's appeal
of Lisa Michelle Lambert's freedom.. The attorneys general from
Pennsylvania, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Oklahoma and South
Carolina have asked the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to let them
support the county's effort to retry Lambert for a 1991 murder. The states
joined Monday to file "friend of the court" legal papers supporting the
Article 120 of 348, 1997203184
PENNA., 5 OTHER STATES JOIN COUNTY IN LAMBERT

APPEAL
Lancaster County has six powerful, new "friends," who support its objection
to the freeing of Lisa Michelle Lambert.. They are the attorneys general
from Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Louisiana, Oklahoma and South
Carolina. The six states joined in a "friend of the court" brief filed Monday on
behalf of Lancaster County in federal court in Philadelphia.. The states filed
the brief because they believe that the decision to free Lambert


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:42 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 121 of 348, 1997201311

SUNDAY July 13 _ Hot, humid weather settled over the area. On Monday,
the high at Millersville University's weather station was 95. Rainfall also
continued to be below normal, with July 1.75 inches under as of Monday..
By Tuesday, municipalities were asking residents to voluntarily limit their
use of water. By the end of the week, it was no longer voluntary in some
places.. Tuesday's
Article 122 of 348, 1997200275
PITTS SAYS ROUTE 23 STUDY WILL BE LAUNCHED

NEXT MONTH
A new $1.5 million study of what should be done to improve the Route 23
corridor between Lancaster and New Holland will begin next month and will
take 1 1/2 to 2 years to complete, U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts announced
Friday.. Pitts made the announcement to about 40 people gathered for a
town meeting he held at New Holland Borough Hall. He said about $1.2
million for the study is coming from the federal government. The remainder
will come from the state and the county. The congressman said
Article 123 of 348, 1997198349
LAMBERT LAWYERS GET $252,000 IN LEGAL FEES

Lawyers who helped Lisa Michelle Lambert win her freedom have been
granted $252,000 in court-appointed legal fees.. The fees will be paid from
U.S. taxpayer money set aside for such purposes. U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell, who overturned Lambert's first-degree murder conviction
and freed her in April from life in jail, recommended the fee payment for
attorney Christina Rainville and seven of her colleagues at the Philadelphia
law firm Schnader Harrison Segal &
Article 124 of 348, 1997198346
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:42 AM
COUNTY LAWYERS MAKE FINAL APPEAL TO COURT

Lawyers representing Lancaster County Wednesday again asked a federal
appeals court to allow the retrial of Lisa Michelle Lambert for the 1991
murder of Laurie Show.. The county's lawyers, Richard A. Sprague in
Philadelphia and Alvin B. Lewis Jr. in Lancaster, made the request to the
3rd U.S. Court of Appeals in their final court papers before the court issues
a decision in this case. The appellate court has the option of allowing
attorneys on both sides of the Lambert case to
Article 125 of 348, 1997198296
LAMBERT'S ATTORNEYS AWARDED $252,000

Lawyers for Lancaster County probably will not appeal a judge's awarding
of $252,000 in legal fees to the defense attorneys who helped to free Lisa
Michelle Lambert.. The fees, which were awarded Wednesday, will be paid
in the next week to Christina Rainville and her colleagues at the
Philadelphia law firm of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis. The money will
come from federal taxpayers. Rainville and her colleagues helped Lambert
win her freedom in April in a hearing
Article 126 of 348, 1997198297
COUNTY APPEAL: LAMBERT LAWYERS

DISREGARDED FACTS
Lisa Michelle Lambert was convicted of murder by "overwhelming
evidence," Lancaster County lawyers charge, yet her attorneys "disregarded
the facts and disregarded the law" in the crusade to free their client.. In the
county's latest effort, filed late Wednesday, lawyers asked a federal appeals
court to reverse Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision to free Lambert. Or at
least, the county said, the court should order that she
Article 127 of 348, 1997194353

SUNDAY July 6 - Jose Berley, 24, of Columbia, died from wounds he
received when he was shot in the leg by a Columbia policeman on June 21.
State police investigated the shooting, which is now under review by the
Lancaster County District Attorney's office.. MONDAY. July 7 - A
200-year-old Manor Township barn owned by state Rep. John Barley and
his brother, Abe Barley, was destroyed by a two-alarm fire.
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:42 AM
Article 128 of 348, 1997193220

ATTORNEYS NOW SEEKING $284,000 IN LAMBERT

FEES
Lawyers who helped Lisa Michelle Lambert win her freedom Thursday
made a formal request to a federal judge to be paid more than $280,000 in
taxpayer money for Lambert's legal fees.. Philadelphia attorney Christina
Rainville filed a fee voucher asking U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell to
approve payment of $283,988 in fees for 5,019 hours of legal work for
Lambert from Oct. 4, 1996, to April 21. It was on April 21 that Dalzell
overturned Lambert's murder conviction
Article 129 of 348, 1997191288
COUNTY LAWYERS WANT LONG CHAT WITH

JUDGES
Lawyers representing Lancaster County in its appeal of Lisa Michelle
Lambert's release from prison on Wednesday urged a federal appellate
court to schedule a longer-than-usual open court session so they can
verbally argue their points in front of a panel of judges.. The county's
lawyers, Richard A. Sprague in Philadelphia and Alvin B. Lewis Jr. in
Lancaster, asked the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them 30
minutes to present their oral arguments. The
Article 130 of 348, 1997191289
FOLLOWING LAMBERT'S FOOTSTEPS

Tabitha F. Buck wants a judge to set her free and block authorities from
retrying her for the 1991 murder of Laurie Show.. Three months ago Lisa
Michelle Lambert, the other woman convicted in 1992 of killing Show, was
released from jail by a federal judge and cleared of the killing. The judge
barred county prosecutors from trying Lambert again for Show's murder.
Now Buck, using some of the information that transpired in the Lambert
hearing, has begun the same process that Lambert


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:42 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 131 of 348, 1997190405
TABITHA BUCK IS SEEKING FREEDOM IN SHOW

MURDER
Now, it's Tabitha Buck's turn.. Five years ago, she and Lisa Michelle
Lambert were sentenced to life in prison for murdering 16-year-old Laurie
Show. In April, a federal judge freed Lambert forever, saying Lancaster
County prosecutors fabricated evidence and lied to earn the conviction..
Now Buck is asking for her freedom, too.. Her reason? Prosecutorial
misconduct.. Buck claims county prosecutors tampered with or did not
disclose physical evidence and did
Article 132 of 348, 1997187345

MONDAY. June 30 - Armstrong World Industries and Worthington Industries
announced they will build a $9 million facility in Benton Harbor, Mich., to
build ceiling grids. The jobless rate for Lancaster County in May was
reported as 2.7 percent, the lowest in the state.. The Manheim Township
commissioners voted 3-1 for an intermunicipal agreement to allow the
building of Red Rose Commons, a large shopping center on the
Article 133 of 348, 1997187374
MYSTERY BOOK MAKES GOOD LISTENING AUDIO

REVIEW
"Alias Grace," by Margaret Atwood. Bantam Doubleday Dell Audio
Publishing, 360 minutes, $24.95.. I started listening to "Alias Grace" about
midway through the Lisa Michelle Lambert federal appeal hearing. And after
a while, the book gave me an eerie feeling - as if Margaret Atwood were
clairvoyant. In 1843, in a gentleman's home near Toronto, Canada, a
16-year-old Irish immigrant named Grace Marks is arrested for the murder
of her
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:43 AM
Article 134 of 348, 1997184391

COUNTY APPEALS TO RAINVILLE

Contrary to rumors, the district attorney is not planning to hand over the
keys to Lancaster County Prison to Christina Rainville so she can release
whomever she feels is innocent - even though it might save taxpayers a
fortune in legal fees spent on appeals. If she wants to release any other
locally convicted prisoners, she'll have to work for it.. Rainville is the
Philadelphia attorney who successfully defended Lisa Michelle Lambert,
who had been convicted and imprisoned for
Article 135 of 348, 1997184335
LAMBERT TAKES AIM AT COUNTY

PHILADELPHIA _ Attorneys for Lisa Michelle Lambert continued to defend
their client's newfound innocence in a document filed in federal appeals
court Thursday.. In doing so, the lawyers hope to block Lancaster County's
ongoing attempt to have their client retried, or sent back to prison, for the
1991 murder of Laurie Show. This most recent motion was filed on
Lambert's behalf by Christina Rainville and her husband / partner, Peter
Greenberg, of the
Article 136 of 348, 1997184320
LAMBERT TO U.S. COURT: REJECT APPEAL

Lisa Michelle Lambert's freedom should not be revoked, her attorneys
maintain, because she has always been "absolutely truthful" in her account
of 16-year-old Laurie Show's murder.. That, combined with the "shocking
and unprecedented" misconduct of Lancaster County prosecutors, her
attorneys say, justified a federal judge's decision to free Lambert from a
sentence of life imprisonment. In addition,
Article 137 of 348, 1997183430
YOU HAD TO BE THERE TO CRITICIZE LAMBERT

HEARING
Editor, New Era:. There are people who have made opinions that Judge
Dalzell heard all the facts of the Laurie Show murder, then complied with
the law to warrant Lambert's release. Unless you sat in the courtroom during
Lambert's appeal hearing and noticed the judge's total disregard for our
entire case and the demeanor he had towards the prosecution and all
witnesses for the commonwealth, no one has the knowledge to make an
opinion about the way the case
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:43 AM

Article 138 of 348, 1997181247
Published on June 30, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
LAMBERT BEAT INCREDIBLE ODDS TO WIN

FREEDOM
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the second in a series of articles on the Lisa
Michelle Lambert case and its implications.. The series will use her
overturned murder conviction as a touchstone to show how state and
federal courts work. Today's article deals with the habeas corpus process
that led to Lambert's release and the uniqueness of her case. Other articles
will appear in the coming months.. Three strikes and you're out. On the
baseball field,
Article 139 of 348, 1997180361
Published on June 29, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)

SUNDAY. June 22 - It was learned that Chris Strader, 18, Annapolis, Md.,
was stricken and died Saturday, June 21, while bicycling in a race at Mount
Nebo. Cause of death was ruled a hemorrhage in the brain. Ralph M.
Barley, a retired attorney and civic leader, died at 85 on Saturday, June 21.
MONDAY. June 23 - Pressing its hostile effort to take over Domco Inc.,
Armstrong World Industries Inc. asked regulators in
Article 140 of 348, 1997178260
Published on June 27, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
SHOWS COLLECT 18,000 ANTI-JUDGE SIGNATURES

The count is at more than 18,000 and growing.. That's how many signatures
John and Hazel Show have collected on a petition seeking "corrective
action" against U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, who freed Lisa Michelle
Lambert in April. Lambert had been convicted of the 1991 stabbing murder
of the Shows' 16-year-old daughter, Laurie, in East Lampeter Township.
Dalzell declared Lambert "actually innocent" and barred her


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:43 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 141 of 348, 1997175259
LAMBERT LAWYER TO HANDLE TEEN'S MURDER

APPEAL
The Philadelphia attorney who helped Lisa Michelle Lambert win her
freedom in April is handling the criminal appeal of another Lancaster County
person who was convicted of murder.. Lawyer Christina Rainville said
Monday she will enter her appearance Thursday in Pennsylvania Superior
Court to appeal the third-degree murder conviction of 19-year-old Nathan
Cassel of Lititz. Cassel, a Warwick High School dropout, was sentenced last
month in county court by Judge Louis J. Farina to 15 to 40
Article 142 of 348, 1997174250
RAINVILLE WILL HANDLE A 3RD LOCAL APPEAL

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorney has taken on her third appeal of a
Lancaster County murder case.. Christina Rainville, who won freedom for
Lambert during a federal hearing in April, has been hired by one of the
families of three teens convicted of killing a 12-year-old Mary Street boy in
February 1996. Rainville, a Philadelphia attorney, is representing Nathan
Cassel of Lititz in his appeal of his third-degree murder conviction before
state Superior Court. She also is
Article 143 of 348, 1997173435
DETECTIVE NOVEL AUTHOR SOLVES A REAL-LIFE

MYSTERY
Not being who he once thought he was is no joke to Lancaster lawyer Neil
Albert.. After sleuthing worthy of his fictional character Dave Garrett, star of
his six detective thrillers, the novelist now knows several new things about
himself. Those things are tangled, inextricably, in the plot of his newest
Garrett novel, "Tangled in June." Raised Jewish, Albert now knows he's
probably not.. After 47 years of celebrating his birthday on May 12, he now
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:45 AM
Article 144 of 348, 1997170309

ATTORNEYS: COUNTY OUT FOR REVENGE

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys Wednesday accused Lancaster County of
seeking "revenge and retribution" when it asked a federal judge last week to
block their request for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees..
Attorneys handling the county's appeal of a judge's decision to free Lambert
urged U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell to reject Lambert's lawyers'
request for $560,000. Because Lambert was
Article 145 of 348, 1997169569
SHOWS PLAN PUSH TO LIMIT POWER OF FEDERAL

JUDGES
Hazel and John Show will soon kick off a national campaign asking
Congress to pass legislation limiting the power of federal judges.. Mrs.
Show and her ex-husband are mounting the campaign in reaction to an
April decision by a federal judge in Philadelphia to free a woman who was
convicted in 1992 of killing their daughter, 16-year-old Laurie Show. "We
have to do everything possible to see that other criminals are not set free
because of one man's
Article 146 of 348, 1997167307
DEBATE RAGES ABOUT RAMIFICATIONS OF

LAMBERT DECISION
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of a series of articles the Intelligencer
Journal will publish on the Lisa Michelle Lambert case and its implications..
The series will use the overturned murder verdict against Lambert as a
touchstone to show how the state and federal courts work.. More than just a
simple rehash of events and emotions, the series aims to use this historic
decision to educate Lancaster County citizens about the law, the courts and
the police and how they work
Article 147 of 348, 1997166386

SUNDAY. June 8 - Twenty-two students graduated from the Lancaster
County Academy at Park City Center. The school gives dropouts a second
chance to finish school. MONDAY June 9 - Armstrong World Industries
announced an unsolicited takeover bid for Domco Inc., a Quebec-based
flooring manufacturer that is in the process of being sold by its
French-based owner to a German floor manufacturer, Tarkett. Armstrong is
offering to
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:45 AM

Article 148 of 348, 1997166390
'WE WERE FRAMED, SET US FREE'

They have been convicted of heinous crimes.. Their victims, according to
the court verdicts, are a mother, shot five times in the chest and abdomen.
Two tourists, struck and killed on Route 30. An elderly brother and sister,
left to starve to death on the living room floor of their home. But since Lisa
Michelle Lambert was set free, at least three convicted killers, and likely
more, have claimed that they, too, were the victims of a corrupt Lancaster
County judicial system.. On one hand,
Article 149 of 348, 1997165166
4,800 HOURS, 58 WITNESSES, A BIG BILL

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys worked hard - that's apparent from the
4,800 hours they devoted to her case.. They were thorough - that's apparent
from the 58 witnesses they interviewed for Lambert's federal appeal hearing
in April. They were well-prepared - that's apparent from the thousands of
documents they copied, photographs they analyzed, legal points they cited
and experts they obtained.. But are those services worth
Article 150 of 348, 1997164290
COUNTY TRIES TO STOP LAMBERT'S LAWYERS

FROM COLLECTING FEES
Lawyers representing Lancaster County Thursday asked the federal judge
who freed Lisa Michelle Lambert to deny her attorneys' request for
$560,000 in legal fees. The county maintains Lambert's attorneys were
improperly appointed by the court.. The county's attorneys urged U.S.
District Judge Stewart Dalzell to allow the county to formally object in "the
interest of justice" to the bill for legal fees and expenses submitted by


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:45 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 151 of 348, 1997164232
RAINVILLE PICKED DESPITE NOT BEING ON COURT

LIST
Christina Rainville's name does not appear on a list of about 200 attorneys
approved to represent indigent clients in federal district court under the
Criminal Justice Act.. But District Judge Stewart Dalzell went outside the list
to appoint her and her Philadelphia law firm of Schnader Harrison Segal &
Lewis to represent Lisa Michelle Lambert in her recent federal hearing on
the 1991 murder of 16-year-old Laurie Show. He has that right, Lancaster
County's
Article 152 of 348, 1997160315
NEW TRIALS? UNCONSCIONABLE

To the Editor:. First Lisa Michelle Lambert and now Darrell E. McCracken!
(Attorney) Christina Rainville obviously has no conscience at all! These two
people were convicted of murder and Ms. Rainville feels the need to have
their convictions overturned, supposedly on technicalities. It seems to me
that Ms. Rainville could better serve her country by using her "name"
constructively. Maybe she could raise money for victims' rights or lead a
fight against
Article 153 of 348, 1997159342
LAPSES IN CASE AGAINST DRIVER? VEHICLES

INVOLVED IN MCCRACKEN CRASH THAT KILLED
FAMILY OF THREE WERE DESTROYED BEFORE
DEFENSE EXAMINED THEM.
It seems clear-cut.. Just after midnight on Sept. 3, 1995, Darrel McCracken
ran a red light in Lancaster, slammed into a car, and killed three people:
Franklin & Marshall College professor Geoffrey Pywell, his wife, Susan, and
their son, Nathaniel. In January, a jury found McCracken guilty of the worst
crime they could: third degree murder. They believed he ran a red light with
malice in his heart toward fellow human beings.. But the case may not be as
simple as it seems - at
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:46 AM

Article 154 of 348, 1997159346

SUNDAY. June 1 - Larry Dean Mowrer, 36, Lititz, was arrested for strangling
and killing his former girlfriend, April Smith, 23, also of Lititz, with an
electrical cord in a Lititz garage. MONDAY June 2 - Racing to beat the
deadline, attorneys for Lancaster County filed a 70-page appeal to the 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the decision of Judge Stewart
Dalzell in freeing Lisa Michelle Lambert. The appeal
Article 155 of 348, 1997158217
COUNTY MAY CONTEST LAMBERT'S LEGAL FEES

Lancaster County officials on Friday said they are considering mounting a
challenge to legal costs Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys are trying to
recoup from the county.. Lambert's Philadelphia lawyers asked U.S. District
Judge Stewart Dalzell Thursday to permit them to be reimbursed up to
$560,000 in taxpayers money for representing Lambert through April 21, the
day Dalzell freed her from life in jail. In the alternative, the lawyers
requested reimbursement of at
Article 156 of 348, 1997158175
DOES 'PRO BONO' REALLY MEAN 'CHARGE

WHATEVER YOU LIKE'?
Our Latin teacher told us that "pro bono publico" meant "for the public
good.". Our dictionary says "pro bono" means "done or donated without
charge." So why are Lisa Michelle Lambert's lawyers asking the federal
court for legal fees ranging from $300,000 to $650,000 for a case they took
on a pro bon. o basis?. Not too many weeks ago, Lancastrians would have
been called cynics
Article 157 of 348, 1997157368
LAWYERS PUT LAMBERT BILL AT $650,000

Lisa Michelle Lambert's lawyers are asking for $650,000 in taxpayers
money to help offset their legal bill of $890,000 for representing Lisa
Michelle Lambert through April 21, the day she was freed.. Philadelphia
lawyers Christina Rainville and Peter S. Greenberg were appointed by
federal Judge Stewart Dalzell to represent Lambert. Their law firm took her
as a "pro bono" client, but the firm is entitled by law to recoup some of its
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:46 AM
losses. The request was

Article 158 of 348, 1997157363
LAMBERT APPEAL GETS GREEN LIGHT FROM U.S.

COURT
Lancaster County learned Thursday that its appeal of a judge's decision to
free Lisa Michelle Lambert won't be dismissed before it is fully argued.. The
3rd U.S. Circuit of Appeals referred a motion by Lambert's attorneys to
dismiss the county's appeal to the "merits panel" of circuit judges, who won't
rule on it until after the appeal is litigated. Also, the court denied requests by
Lambert's
Article 159 of 348, 1997156396
LAMBERT'S LAWYERS RENEW ATTACK ON

COUNTY'S APPEAL
A phrase in the county's 70-page appeal of a federal judge's decision to free
Lisa Michelle Lambert has prompted her attorneys to again ask a U.S.
appeals court to dismiss the county's action.. Lambert's Philadelphia
attorneys told the 3rd U.S. Circuit of Appeals Tuesday that an admission in
the county's appeal "confirms beyond any possible argument" that it would
violate her constitutional protection against
Article 160 of 348, 1997156405
APPEALING APPEAL
At some point, we suspect, taxpayers will begin to squirm over the cost of
appealing U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision to free Lisa Michelle
Lambert for the 1991 murder of Laurie Show.. For the moment, however,
the public appears to be largely behind the county's efforts to either jail or
retry Lambert - as well they should. The appeal, filed Monday in
Philadelphia, addresses major issues that were either ignored or overlooked
by Dalzell. It raises


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:46 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 161 of 348, 1997156331
LAMBERT'S LAWYERS' BILL MAY HIT $650,000

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys are asking the federal court for legal fees
and costs ranging from $300,000 to $650,000 for their work leading to the
freeing of Lambert in April.. The court-appointed Philadelphia firm of
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis planned to file a motion for the funds
today. The firm took Lambert's federal appeal on a "pro bono" basis,
volunteering their time to the case, but the firm is entitled by law to
Article 162 of 348, 1997156342
SAVE DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTION

Editor, New Era:. First Lisa Michelle Lambert and now Darrell E.
McCracken! Defense attorney Christina Rainville obviously has no
conscience at all! These two people were convicted of murder and Ms.
Rainville feels the need to have their convictions overturned, supposedly on
technicalities. It seems to me that Ms. Rainville could better serve her
country by using her "name" constructively. Maybe she could raise money
for "victims'
Article 163 of 348, 1997155562
LAMBERT CASE COSTS MAY HIT $500,000

If the Lisa Michelle Lambert appeal goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court, and officials believe it will, Lancaster County taxpayers could face up
to a half million dollars in legal fees, the chairman of the county
commissioners said Tuesday.. County Commissioner Terry L. Kauffman,
who chairs the county's governing triumvirate, said the county has already
received legal bills totaling over $100,000 for work done in preparing an
appeal to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Article 164 of 348, 1997155533
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:47 AM
COUNTY CLAIMS JUDGE ERRED IN FREEING

LAMBERT
(Editor's note: this is the full text of the main body of Lancaster County's
appeal to Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision in the Lisa Michelle Lambert
case. This text does not include footnotes that were part of the appeal brief.)
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
On April 21, 1997, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a final order granting a writ of habeas corpus to
Petitioner. Appeal was
Article 165 of 348, 1997155561
LOCAL ATTORNEYS EVALUATE APPEAL

Lancaster County's appeal of a court decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert
zeroes in on two themes: A federal judge went too far by overturning her
murder conviction and blocking a retrial and Lambert's own testimony
makes her at least an accomplice to a killing.. Just before midnight Monday,
the county's attorneys, Alvin B. Lewis Jr. in Lancaster and Richard A.
Sprague in Philadelphia, filed the appeal with the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals
in Philadelphia.
Article 166 of 348, 1997155419
ADDITIONAL TEXT FROM LAMBERT-CASE APPEAL

(Editor's note: This block of type was omitted in some editions of Tuesday's
New Era, through computer error, from the text of Lancaster County's
appeal of the Lisa Michelle Lambert decision. This type is the final section
of that appeal. The New Era apologizes for the omission.). A. The District
Court Erred In Addressing Lambert's Claims. In Wainright v. Sykes, 433
U.S. 72 (1972), the Court established the cause-and-prejudice test for
Article 167 of 348, 1997154300
COUNTY'S LAMBERT APPEAL TARGETS JUDGE

DALZELL
PHILADELPHIA - Lawyers representing Lancaster County late Monday
night appealed a federal judge's decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert,
accusing the judge of making numerous errors during an April hearing in
which they claim he put county law enforcement officials on trial.. Barely
beating the court's midnight deadline, the county's lawyers urged the 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to overrule Judge Stewart
Dalzell's
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:47 AM
Article 168 of 348, 1997154252

HOLD ALL JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE

Editor, New Era:. I am writing in response to the outcome of the Lambert
case. In 1991 Lisa Michelle Lambert was convicted of the murder of Laurie
Show. The recent hearing of Lambert's appeal was presided over by the
"honorable" Judge Stewart Dalzell. The investigation in 1991 was shown to
be flawed by detective Ronald Savage who led a witness and tampered
with evidence in order to make the prosecution's case
Article 169 of 348, 1997154253
DECISION IN LAMBERT CASE MUST BE CLEAR AS

MCVEIGH'S
There was cause to worry about the jury's verdict in the Timothy McVeigh
trial. That so many Americans were concerned that McVeigh might
somehow avoid a guilty verdict speaks to the extent to which our justice
system has been threatened by misguided judgments, especially in the first
Simpson trial.. Clever lawyers and lenient judges have allowed some
defendants to get away with murder. Timothy McVeigh will never leave
prison following the jury's guilty verdicts on 11
Article 170 of 348, 1997154242
COUNTY STATES THE BASIS FOR AN APPEAL

(Editor's note: this is the full text of the main body of Lancaster County's
appeal to Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision in the Lisa Michelle Lambert
case. This text does not include footnotes that were part of the appeal brief.)
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
On April 21, 1997, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a final order granting a writ of habeas corpus to
Petitioner. Appeal was


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:47 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 171 of 348, 1997154249
COUNTY APPEAL CLAIMS JUDGE WAS HOSTILE AND

PREJUDICED
Citing a federal judge's offensive hostility and prejudice against Lancaster
County, attorneys have appealed to a higher court, arguing that the judge
freed a "properly convicted" murderer.. In a 70-page appeal filed minutes
before a midnight deadline Monday in Philadelphia, the county's lawyers
urged the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Stewart
Dalzell's decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert. The appeal refutes
Article 172 of 348, 1997153255
LAMBERT'S STORY IS EERIE MIRROR IMAGE OF

BUCK'S ACCOUNT
The stories were almost identical.. On the morning Laurie Show was
murdered - one young woman wildly attacked the 16-year-old girl, cutting
her hair, stabbing her repeatedly and slitting her throat. The assailant's
stunned accomplice stood by in shock, even as the victim reached out to
her, begging for help.. Lisa Michelle Lambert, now 24, said it was Tabitha
Buck who brutally attacked the Conestoga Valley High School sophomore..
Buck, now 23, said she didn't
Article 173 of 348, 1997153264
THE LAURIE SHOW MURDER: "...THAT'S NOT NOW IT

HAPPENED."
Editor's note: We've heard Lawrence Yunkin's side of the story - that he was
eating breakfast at McDonald's while Lisa Michelle Lambert and Tabitha
Buck killed Laurie Show. We've heard Lisa Lambert's side of the story - that
she tried to stop Tabitha Buck from killing Show. But the public has never
before heard a full account from the third person involved in the brutal
attack on the 16-year-old girl. In April, a select
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:47 AM
Article 174 of 348, 1997153265

LAMBERT LIED 'OVER AND OVER,' APPEAL SAYS

A federal judge's order freeing Lisa Michelle Lambert "is akin to a
get-out-of-jail-free card in the game of Monopoly," according to Lancaster
County's appeal of the decision that will be filed today.. "But this is not a
game ... Laurie Show was the victim of a cruel torture murder and a person
convicted of her murder now walks free," the appeal states. The county is
appealing a federal judge's decision to
Article 175 of 348, 1997152412

SUNDAY. May 25 - People who had to cancel Memorial Day celebrations
didn't care much for it, but farmers were ecstatic about an all-day soaking
rain. The annual Smith Barney/Rotary International Cycling Festival did go
on in the downtown, with plenty of cyclists spilling on wet roads. MONDAY
May 26 - The sun did shine on Memorial Day as local communities honored
their war dead and others took to recreation
Article 176 of 348, 1997152518
THE PRETENDERS
Stand by your man, Tammy Wynette said.. She'd obviously never been to
East Lampeter Township. Even Ms. Wynette would have second thoughts
about sticking up for the East Lampeter police.. Township officials are
desperately following the song's advice, insisting that the string of
sensational allegations about their law enforcers - sexual misbehavior, rape,
corrupting a minor, perjury, tampering with evidence - is just, well, an image
problem.. What East Lampeter
Article 177 of 348, 1997151062
Published on May 31, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
LAMBERT ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT MCCRACKEN

IN MURDER APPEAL
The Philadelphia attorney who helped Lisa Michelle Lambert win her
freedom is representing another convicted murderer from Lancaster County:
Darrell E. McCracken.. Christina Rainville said Friday she and an associate
have been retained by McCracken's family to represent him on an appeal of
a third-degree murder conviction. McCracken was convicted in January of
killing Geoffrey Pywell, 42, his wife, Susan Davies-Pywell, 43, and their
11-year-old son, Nathaniel, when his pickup
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:47 AM
Article 178 of 348, 1997150112

COUNTY FIGHTS FOR LAMBERT APPEAL

Attorneys for Lancaster County told a federal appeals court Thursday that
they have every right to appeal the release of Lisa Michelle Lambert. They
asked the court to deny a request by Lambert's attorneys to dismiss the
county's pending appeal, which is expected to be filed Monday.. Lambert's
attorneys launched a legal preemptive strike last week when they asked the
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to block the county's appeal of a federal
Article 179 of 348, 1997150100
COSTLY COUNSEL
The costs are beginning to mount.. Now the county has hired a second law
firm to handle fallout from the Lisa Michelle Lambert case. William Lamb, a
former Chester County district attorney and member of the West Chester
law firm of Lamb, Windle and McErlane, will represent Lancaster County
First Assistant District Attorney John A. Kenneff in a disciplinary
investigation being conducted by the state Supreme Court.. Documents
relating to Kenneff's prosecution of Lambert for the
Article 180 of 348, 1997149095
SUPREME COURT ARM OPENS KENNEFF PROBE

John A. Kenneff's handling of the criminal prosecution of Lisa Michelle
Lambert is now officially under investigation by an arm of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.. Kenneff, Lancaster County's first assistant district attorney,
said Wednesday that he has received an informal inquiry from the state
Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Council. The council requested
documents from Kenneff concerning the Lambert case, he said. "I intend to
fully


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:47 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 181 of 348, 1997149047
Published on May 29, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
SHOWS TO PRINT PETITION SEEKING OUSTER OF

JUDGE
The parents of murdered 16-year-old Laurie Show will seek public support
in their effort to oust a federal judge by publishing a petition in Lancaster
newspapers Friday.. Hazel and John Show want "corrective action" taken
against U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell, who released Lisa Michelle Lambert
last month. Lambert, now 24, was convicted in Lancaster County Court of
first-degree murder in the case and sentenced to life in prison. Dalzell threw
out that conviction, saying
Article 182 of 348, 1997149051
JUDGE IS NOT A 'KING,' LAWYERS ARGUE IN

LAMBERT CASE APPEAL
Lancaster County has the right to ask a higher court to review a federal
judge's decision, its attorneys charged today, because the judge otherwise
"becomes a king.". Lancaster County's attorneys, in appealing last month's
decision by U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell to release Lisa Michelle Lambert,
filed a motion before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals today citing legal
arguments as to why they deserve to be heard.
Article 183 of 348, 1997148041
COUNTY HIRES LAWYER TO AID KENNEFF ON

ETHICS CHARGES
First Assistant District Attorney John A. Kenneff now has a separate
attorney to represent him in the investigations spurred by the Lisa Michelle
Lambert case.. The county commissioners on Tuesday approved the hiring
of a West Chester law firm at $190 an hour to represent Kenneff, the lead
prosecutor in the case, before the state Disciplinary Board of the state
Supreme Court. Commissioners Chairman Terry Kauffman said today that
the county expects the firm of Lamb, Windle and McErlane will
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:48 AM
Article 184 of 348, 1997146100

FAIR TRIAL A KEYSTONE OF OUR SYSTEM

To the Editor:. Let me get this straight: a Lancaster police officer in the
Rineer-Pasker case omitted from his report statements from one of the
defendants and also a witness, because he "didn't want to confuse the
issue." And District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher thinks this omission is a
"hyper-technicality"? I'm no cop, but even I know that police officers are
supposed to collect evidence, not begin doing the jobs of
Article 185 of 348, 1997145051
Published on May 25, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)

SUNDAY. May 18 - Six people - three men and three women - were
wounded after a shootout on South Duke Street following an argument and
fight at a dance. One was in critical condition. At the end of the week, police
were seeking David Lee Pilgrim, 23, who had been wounded, as the man
who fueled the fight. MONDAY May 19 - Michael R. Baksa, 42, was hired as
principal of Conestoga Valley High School, replacing Joseph E.
Article 186 of 348, 1997144083
COUNTY'S TAPE APPEAL IS REJECTED

A federal appeals court has ended the great debate over audio tapes of the
court hearing that freed Lisa Michelle Lambert from a life sentence for
murder.. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday rejected a motion by
lawyers for Lancaster County to preserve tape recordings of the Lambert
hearing. The county claims the tapes would show a federal judge was
biased when he ruled Lambert should be freed. But in a one-page order, the
circuit court said the county "has made no
Article 187 of 348, 1997143113
LAMBERT SEEKING TO KO APPEAL BY COUNTY

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys Thursday asked a federal appeals court to
reject a appeal by Lancaster County that, if approved, would reinstate her
murder conviction and send her back to jail.. The action took the form of a
sort of legal preemptive strike since the Lancaster County District Attorney's
office hasn't yet filed its formal appeal papers in the matter. Lawyers for the
county have told the U.S. 3rd Circut Court of Appeals court that they plan
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:48 AM
Article 188 of 348, 1997143065

PETITION DRIVE, MAILING NEXT FOR THE SHOWS

Laurie Show's parents are wielding a pen to battle the freeing of the woman
they say killed their 16-year-old daughter.. Hazel and John Show are
handing out petitions and preparing a national mailing to elected officials,
including the president. Both the petitions and the mailing criticize the
recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, who last month released
Lisa Michelle Lambert, 24, from her life sentence for the 1991 killing in East
Lampeter Township.. Both
Article 189 of 348, 1997142106
ATTORNEYS WANT COURT TO RESOLVE TAPE FLAP

Lawyers representing the Lancaster County District Attorney's office asked
a federal appeals court Wednesday to help them determine if audio tapes of
the hearing that led to Lisa Michelle Lambert's freedom still exist.. The
attorneys - Alvin B. Lewis Jr. of Lancaster and Richard A. Sprague of
Philadelphia - filed an emergency request with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Philadelphia. They asked the court to order that any existing
tapes of
Article 190 of 348, 1997141194
COUNTY'S ATTORNEYS OUTLINE APPEAL OF

LAMBERT RULING
Attorneys representing the Lancaster County District Attorney's Office
outlined their appeal of a federal judge's decision to free Lisa Michelle
Lambert in court papers filed Tuesday.. The county's lawyers, Alvin B. Lewis
Jr. of Lancaster and Richard A. Sprague of Philadelphia, said the appeal
will emphasize evidence already on record that they say shows Lambert is
guilty of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of Laurie Show. The court
papers were


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:48 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 191 of 348, 1997141026
TECHNICAL POINTS FORM BASIS OF LAMBERT

APPEAL
Most of the issues raised by Lancaster attorneys in their appeal of Lisa
Michelle Lambert's release are legal technicalities.. But one key issue
stands out among the rest: Local attorneys maintain that Lambert is guilty of
first-degree murder in the stabbing death of 16-year-old Laurie Show in
December 1991.. The county's lawyers, Alvin B. Lewis Jr. of Lancaster and
Richard A. Sprague of Philadelphia, filed the statement of issues on
Tuesday with the 3rd U.S.
Article 192 of 348, 1997140098
LAMBERT JUDGE WANTS DECISION ON TAPES

REQUEST
The legal debate over audio tapes of Lisa Michelle Lambert's federal
appeals hearing in Philadelphia continued Monday.. U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell, who overturned Lambert's first-degree murder conviction for
the 1991 stabbing death of Laurie Show, ordered lawyers representing the
Lancaster County District Attorney's Office to decide by May 27 whether
they will withdraw a motion seeking preservation of the tapes. Also, Dalzell
gave the
Article 193 of 348, 1997140034
COUNTY LAWYERS LIST 5 ISSUES FOR APPEAL OF

LAMBERT RULING
Lancaster County's lawyers have outlined the key issues on which they
intend to appeal the release of Lisa Michelle Lambert, who had been
convicted of murder.. The lawyers plan to present evidence that they say
proves Lambert is guilty of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of
16-year-old Laurie Show, not "actually innocent" of the crime as a federal
judge decreed last month, attorney Alvin B. Lewis Jr. said this morning.
Lewis listed five
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:48 AM
Article 194 of 348, 1997139035

VOTE IN THE PRIMARY

Because of Lancaster County's lopsided Republican registration - there are
2 1/2 GOP registrants for every Democrat - primaries are critical for
Republicans in so-called "off-year" or "local" elections.. Most of the
Republicans who win Tuesday's primary will go on to win November's
election against outnumbered Democrats. In some cases, the Democratic
Party will not be running anyone in November, so this
Article 195 of 348, 1997139050
CLOSE RACES EXPECTED FOR MAYOR, JUDGE

To supporters of Leslie Gorbey, the race for county judge is about electing
the best-qualified of two politically similar candidates.. Backers of Melinda
Fisher Nowak say the race is a philosophical battle to elect the most
conservative of two equally qualified attorneys. To an academic analyst, it is
this year's version of a much-broader political struggle between Republican
conservatives and moderates.. "This election is this year's manifestation of
Article 196 of 348, 1997138068
EAST LAMPETER BLUES

Last week, East Lampeter Township police officer Robert Reed was
arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl under his
care.. But according to public records, this may not have been the first time
Reed has had sex with young girls or women through his job. And senior
members of the East Lampeter Police Department knew that Reed had a
history of questionable sexual conduct. According to testimony from Ronald
Savage, a former East Lampeter police sergeant, Reed was accused
Article 197 of 348, 1997138063

SUNDAY. May 11 - Troy David Ludwig, 29, Denver, died in Reading after he
was shot in the face the day before in what police said was an attempted
drug deal. Keith Allen Tyler, 30, of Reading was charged with homicide.
More than $100,000 was raised during Make-A-Wish Foundation's annual
truck convoy day. MONDAY. May 12 - Manheim Township commissioners
approved the building of an $18 million, 2,600-seat
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:48 AM
Article 198 of 348, 1997137073

LAMBERT ATTORNEYS ON ATTACK

Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys said Friday that even if the judge who
freed their client from her murder sentence was rude to Lancaster County
prosecutors, that's not enough to reverse his decision.. Lambert's lawyers
Friday filed a response to a request by the county district attorney to turn
over audio tapes of a federal hearing in April that resulted in Lambert being
freed of a first-degree murder sentence. In their response, one of
Article 199 of 348, 1997136093
ANOTHER CASE THROWN OUT IN COUNTY COURT

The case against a city man charged after a brawl with two sheriff's
deputies was thrown out of court Thursday.. Lancaster County Judge
Lawrence F. Stengel dismissed two simple assault charges against Gary
William Dimitris, 37, of the 700 block of Columbia Avenue. Stengel cited
Pennsylvania's Rule 1100, which guarantees a speedy trial for anyone
accused of a crime. City police said Dimitris entered county offices at 40 E.
King St. on May 8, 1995, and fought with two
Article 200 of 348, 1997136094
POLICE OFFICER CHARGED WITH SEX ASSAULT

Criminal agents with the state attorney general's office Thursday arrested an
East Lampeter Township policeman for sexually assaulting a juvenile over a
four-year period.. Officer Robert Stanley Reed, 37, who is also under
investigation by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia for allegedly perjuring
himself last month at the Lisa Michelle Lambert federal court hearing, was
charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a young girl under his care at his
314 Greenland Drive home in East


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:48 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 201 of 348, 1997136042
EAST LAMPETER COP CHARGED WITH YOUNG GIRL'S

SEXUAL ASSAULT
An East Lampeter Township Police officer was charged Thursday with
sexually assaulting a young girl in his care from 1992 to 1996.. The state
Attorney General's office Thursday brought the charges against Robert
Stanley Reed, 37, of 314 Greenland Drive. His victim was between the ages
of 8 and 12 at the time of the assault, which allegedly included oral sex,
sexual intercourse and fondling.. Reed specifically was charged with one
count each of statutory rape, involuntary
Article 202 of 348, 1997134188
LAMBERT CASE CITED IN MISTRIAL HERE

The same mistake cited by a federal judge in his decision to free Lisa
Michelle Lambert last month has helped clear two Lancaster men of
criminal charges in Lancaster County Court.. County Judge Paul K. Allison
Tuesday declared a mistrial in the case of Larry Rineer and Charles Pasker,
saying prosecutors failed to turn over to their defense lawyers evidence in
the men's favor. Allison threw out aggravated assault, burglary and criminal
conspiracy charges against the men, who were
Article 203 of 348, 1997134002
POLICE CHIEF FEARS 'TREND' AFTER NEW MISTRIAL

DECLARED
Will the Lambert case haunt local police officers for years to come?. That
was the concern among police today after a county judge threw out a
burglary case and declared a mistrial Tuesday, saying prosecutors and city
police failed to turn over evidence to defense attorneys that favored the
defendants. In making the decision, Lancaster County Judge Paul K. Allison
referred to a federal judge's recent decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert,
who had been convicted in the 1991
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:50 AM
Article 204 of 348, 1997131071


SUNDAY. May 4 - According to a state report, Lancaster County public
schools had 1,302 incidents of violence in 1995-96, including three involving
firearms. MONDAY May 5 - Nathan Cassel, Eric Griffith and Luis Alicea,
three teens convicted in the shooting death of a 12-year-old boy, were each
sentenced to 15-40 years in prison. Alicea fired the shot.. W. Michael
Strube, 47, of West Hempfield Township, was indicted on
Article 205 of 348, 1997130088
LAMBERT WILL REMAIN FREE DURING APPEAL

A federal appeals court Friday denied a motion by the Lancaster County
district attorney to either send Lisa Michelle Lambert back to jail or place
her on bail while a judge's decision to free her is appealed.. The three
judges that make up the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said returning
Lambert to jail was not proper since "the commonwealth has not
demonstrated that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal." Lambert,
24, had been serving a
Article 206 of 348, 1997127067
LAMBERT'S LAWYER QUESTIONS COUNTY'S HIRING

OF LAW FIRM
Lawyers for Lisa Michelle Lambert may ask an appellate court to disqualify
a Lancaster law firm hired by Lancaster County to help with the appeal of a
federal judge's decision to release Lambert from life in prison.. Christina
Rainville, one of Lambert's attorneys, said Tuesday she believes it's
improper under Pennsylvania law for the firm of Sprague and Lewis to help
the county district attorney's office with its appeal. The county should only
Article 207 of 348, 1997127028
LAMBERT LAWYERS OBJECT TO COUNTY HIRING

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS
Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorneys are objecting to the county hiring outside
attorneys to help with the appeal of a federal judge's decision to release
Lambert from prison.. Christina Rainville said that she may ask an appelate
court to disqualify the attorneys. The county should only be able to ask the
state attorney general's office for help, she said. The attorney general's
office has also been enlisted by the county to help with the Lambert
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:50 AM

Article 208 of 348, 1997126040
LAW FIRM BEGINS WORK ON APPEAL OF LAMBERT

CASE
Lisa Michelle Lambert "was and is guilty of murder," one of the new
attorneys handling the county's appeal of her release said today.. "I expect
to argue that forcefully," said Alvin B. Lewis Jr., who was hired Monday by
Lancaster County to handle the appeal of the Lambert case in federal court.
"The woman is guilty of murder and she's been convicted, and her
conviction has been sustained by all of the state
Article 209 of 348, 1997124087
WE DESERVE ACCOUNTABILITY
Now that the shock of the Lisa Michelle Lambert ruling has begun to wear
off, it's time to take a hard look at the charges leveled against Lancaster
County law enforcement by federal Judge Stewart Dalzell.. While some of
those hard looks will likely come from the U.S. attorney's office and the
state Judicial Conduct Board - Judge Dalzell has referred allegations of
prosecutorial wrongdoing to those agencies - that doesn't absolve county
and East Lampeter
Article 210 of 348, 1997124075
FOR LAMBERT INVESTIGATORS, THE HEAT IS ON

Two weeks ago, a federal judge found what he believed was evidence that
eight Lancaster County law enforcement officers are criminals.. Last week,
the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia, in a tersely worded statement, said he will
begin a "preliminary investigation." Behind the legal words issued from the
22-story black glass federal courthouse in Philadelphia are these realities:.
This is the first time since 1978 the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia has seen
fit to


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:50 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 211 of 348, 1997124086
WHAT'S NEXT FOR DALZELL - MANSON?

Well, now that U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell has decided to release
Lisa Michelle Lambert from jail, why stop at this case? Let's have him look
at the Charlie Manson trial for the murders of Sharon Tate and the other
victims. I recall it was proven that Old Charlie Boy was not even at the
murder scene but merely organized and recruited the killers.. Whatever
happened that day at Laurie Show's home resulted in her violent death. I
guess "accessory to
Article 212 of 348, 1997124062
SUNDAY. April 27 - Harry J. Shaub Jr., former president and general
manager of WGAL-TV, died unexpectedly. He held numerous community
leadership posts. MONDAY April 28 - Lancaster and city police officers
agreed on a new contract that would provide raises of 3, 2 1/2 and 3
percent for police over the next three years. Mayor Janice Stork said she
was pleased with the contract, which will allow the city to continue on its
Article 213 of 348, 1997122096
U.S. WILL PROBE LAMBERT CASE

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia has launched a criminal
investigation into the actions of the Lancaster County law enforcement
officials who prosecuted Lisa Michelle Lambert.. Lancaster County officials
said they welcome the investigation and promised to cooperate fully. The
probe comes at the request of U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, who last
week freed Lambert, 24, and overturned her conviction for the murder of
16-year-old Laurie Show. Dalzell also barred
Article 214 of 348, 1997122088
THE PROBE OPENS
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:50 AM
The decision by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia to open a formal

investigation into the conduct of Lancaster County police and prosecutors
involved in the murder trial of Lisa Michelle Lambert is both expected and
welcome.. It's expected because U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, in
freeing Lambert last month, leveled grave charges of perjury and
obstruction of justice against authorities here. It would have been difficult for
the U.S. Attorney to ignore Dalzell's
Article 215 of 348, 1997122033
MORE ATTORNEYS SOUGHT TO AID PROSECUTORS

HERE
Local prosecutors are preparing to bring in outside attorneys to help them
with their appeal of a judge's decision to free convicted murderer Lisa
Michelle Lambert.. In recent court documents, prosecutors indicated they
needed more time in meeting an upcoming filing deadline because they are
bringing in new attorneys to help with the appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher, who has been
handling the appeal, was out of town and could
Article 216 of 348, 1997122037
POLICE AND PROSECUTORS UNDERMINED LAMBERT

CASE
Editor, New Era:. I am writing in response to the many letters written
condemning the decision in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case. I do not claim
to know whether or not she is guilty, I was not there. What I do know is that
there have been some serious allogations made against the officers
involved in the investigation and the prosecutors in the original trial. I
beleive many of these charges have been proven, such as withholding
evidence and tampering with evidence submitted.. The letters
Article 217 of 348, 1997121130
JUDGES GATHER, BUT TALK AVOIDS DALZELL'S

RULING
The Lancaster Bar Association couldn't have picked a better time for a
public forum on the role of judges - the week after a federal judge jolted the
community by freeing convicted murderer Lisa Michelle Lambert.. The bar
association and Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges assembled
six state and federal court judges Wednesday to explain the independence
and accountability of judges. Although the audience, mostly lawyers, came
hoping to hear the judges'
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:50 AM
Article 218 of 348, 1997121124

WHERE IS JUSTICE?
To the Editor:. What is happening to justice in the U.S.A.? I was amazed
that Lisa Michelle Lambert was declared innocent of the murder by a
federal judge and released from prison.. Three people - Lambert, (Tabitha)
Buck and (Lawrence) Yunkin, first lured the mother away from the building,
then illegally entered the home of Laurie Show. Then they go into her home
carrying a deadly weapon. When they leave the room, Show is dead. They
they accuse each other of who did the murder.. It is
Article 219 of 348, 1997121067
PROBERS BROADEN PRELIMINARY LOOK AT

LAMBERT CASE
The U.S. Attorney's office announced today that it is broadening its
"preliminary investigation" into the actions of Lancaster County prosecutors
in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case.. "We are conducting a preliminary
investigation," U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles said this morning, based on U.S.
Judge Stewart Dalzell's recommendation when he released Lambert last
week. Previously, the U.S. Attorney's office
Article 220 of 348, 1997121068
PRICE TAG IN LAMBERT CASE: $34,500 AND STILL

GROWING
It cost the federal government at least $34,500 to hold the 15-day hearing
that led to the freedom of Lisa Michelle Lambert on April 21.. That
preliminary figure was announced today by Michael E. Kunz, clerk of court
for the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, where the hearing was held
beginning March 31 before Judge Stewart Dalzell. But the costs could go
much higher after fees for Lambert's attorneys and expert witnesses are
added in. Those bills are still pending.. The


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:50 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 221 of 348, 1991203086
Published on April 30, 1997, Lancaster New Era (PA)
DESPITE CHARGES, POLICE, PROSECUTORS STILL ON

JOB
Local police and prosecutors have resumed their normal routines, the week
after a convicted murderer was freed by a federal judge.. "We are not doing
anything differently," said East Lampeter Township Police Chief Dale
Jerchau. U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell released Lisa Michelle
Lambert, 24, from prison for the 1991 killing of 16-year-old Laurie Show in
East Lampeter Township. Dalzell said prosecutors lied about, concealed or
tampered with evidence in
Article 222 of 348, 1991181818
Published on April 28, 1997, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, PA)
OUR SICK SYSTEM

To the Editor:. How are we to fight crime when criminals are set free? When
are victims going to be given their constitutional rights?. Judge's rules are
overturned. In O. J. Simpson's trial the L.A. Police Department was put on
trial. In Lancaster, Pa., the police and district justice will suffer the same fate
as the L.A.P.D.. O. J. walks, Lisa Michelle Lambert walks and three people
are dead. What is happening to our judicial system? Ann Rimko New
Holland
Article 223 of 348, 1991181763
THE FACTS AND THE LAW LED THE JUDGE TO HIS

DECISION
Editor, New Era:. I commend your newspaper for printing the full text of
Judge Stewart Dalzell's Opinion in the case of Lisa Michelle Lambert. For all
who recognize how fragile is the grasp of the right to freedom anywhere in
the world, and even here, his opinion is not merely an explanation of why
one woman must be freed, but it is a call, particularly to the people of
Lancaster County, to examine the assumptions upon which their rights truly
rest. And more than that, it is a
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:51 AM
Article 224 of 348, 1991173058

Published on April 27, 1997, Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)
CAN LISA MICHELLE CARRY THE WEIGHT OF

BLOOD?
Editor's note: "In My Opinion" is a column of guest commentaries by Sunday
News readers on topical subjects. Send submissions to Helen Colwell
Adams, Sunday News, P.O. Box 1328, Lancaster, Pa. 17608-1328.
Commentaries will be published at the discretion of the editors.. The justice
system has failed. It has failed horribly, drowning in a sea of red-ink
technicalities and dying with the final slash of a federal judge's pen. Justice
has
Article 225 of 348, 1991173042
COURTING EXPERTS TO MAKE A CASE

The chance to help free a wrongly convicted woman came unexpectedly to
Dr. Charles Larson.. Larson had never given expert testimony in court. He'd
never heard of Lisa Michelle Lambert until he was contacted by her
attorney, Christina Rainville. But his expert testimony lent weight to Judge
Stewart Dalzell's decision last week to release Lambert from prison, where
she was serving a life sentence for the murder of Laurie Show.. Larson got
involved in the case by
Article 226 of 348, 1991173043
CORRECTIONS
The Sunday News, in a synopsis last Sunday of the Lisa Michelle Lambert
appeal, incorrectly reported that East Lampeter Township police officer
Robert Reed was one of the men identified as a rapist by Lambert.. If you
have a correction or clarification, call the responsible section editor, or
phone the news desk, 291-8788.
Article 227 of 348, 1991173046

MONDAY. April 21 - Lisa Michelle Lambert, convicted in 1992 of the murder
of 16-year-old Laurie Show and sentenced to life in prison, was freed by a
federal judge who said the trial "was corrupted from start to finish" and that
Lancaster County officials had engaged in "such gross prosecutorial
misconduct" that she cannot be retried. The judge also recommended that
members
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:51 AM
Article 228 of 348, 1991173032

ATTORNEY TO TALK ON LAMBERT CASE

On Tuesday, April 29, Scott Oberholtzer, a local attorney, will speak to the
Lancaster Kiwanis Club about "The Trial of Lisa Michelle Lambert - What
Happened" at the club's weekly luncheon meeting at noon at Andy's
Catering, 1106 Millersville Pike.
Article 229 of 348, 1991173057
BLIND JUSTICE
"In the end, Laurie Show's murder ... wasn't just a story about a jealous
lover seeking revenge.. "It was about a town making a snap judgment
against the accused, Lisa Michelle Lambert, a woman whose friends even
considered "trailer trash.' About a police department going to great lengths
to pin the crime on her. About a prosecutor who, a judge said, bent the law
to win a first-degree murder conviction rather than
Article 230 of 348, 1991173044
JUDGE'S REBUKE STINGS COUNTY

It was a week of shattered beliefs.. Before Lisa Michelle Lambert's hearing
in federal court began, everything was neat and tidy. She was guilty of
murdering Laurie Show, and was sent to jail. Police and prosecutors were
heroes. Justice had been served. U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell
changed all that.. In a decision that shook Lancaster County to its roots,
Dalzell last Monday set Lambert free, declaring her innocent. But that was
hardly all.. In his 90-page


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:51 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 231 of 348, 1991161659
READERS OPPOSE DALZELL RULING

Intelligencer Journal staff report. Most Intell readers responding to this
week's People Poll disagreed with a federal judge's decision to free Lisa
Michelle Lambert. Yet a slimmer majority of readers think an investigation of
the prosecutors and police involved in the case is warranted. U.S. District
Judge Stewart Dalzell decided Monday to free Lambert and bar a retrial.
She had been serving life in prison for the 1991 murder of teen-ager Laurie
Show in her East
Article 232 of 348, 1991161612
EAST LAMPETER TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS SHOULD

INVESTIGATE
Editor, New Era:. I find it appalling that Lisa Michelle Lambert has been
released from prison. At the very minimum, there should be a retrial. It is
also obvious to me, however, that East Lampeter Township is more
interested in protecting its own than in protecting the community from the
unprofessional conduct of the police department. One of the police officers
has been suspended for the second time, for alleged sexual misconduct.
Why was he reinstated after the first incident? Is this the
Article 233 of 348, 1991151862
IN SHOW CASE, THE TRUTH KEEPS SLIPPING AWAY

I don't know if Lisa Michelle Lambert killed Laurie Show. What I do know,
from years of court reporting, is that getting at the truth is slippery business..
If the Rodney King case proved anything, it's that even a videotape offers
only a version of the truth. When U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell Monday
freed Lambert from a life sentence, he issued a 90-page explanation, an
"official" version of the truth.. According to this
Article 234 of 348, 1991151881
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:52 AM
LAMBERT DECISION STILL ECHOES

Intelligencer Journal columnist Jeff Hawkes - who covered the murder trial
of Lisa Michelle Lambert five years ago - talks with the victim's mother,
Hazel Show, about the controversial case and a federal judge's decision to
free Lambert.. Mrs. Show tells Hawkes that Judge Stewart Dalzell
misunderstood her when she told him she now remembered seeing a car
leaving her condominium complex on the morning her daughter was killed.
And she fears the judge gave great weight
Article 235 of 348, 1991151820
PROSECUTORS HERE WON'T DISCUSS CASE

Lancaster County's top prosecutors in the Laurie Show murder case have
declined to be interviewed this week about their reaction to a federal judge's
decision to release Lisa Michelle Lambert.. District Attorney Joseph
Madenspacher has filed a notice of his intention to appeal U.S. Judge
Stewart Dalzell's decision with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and said it
would be inappropriate to comment while the case is still pending. First
Assistant District
Article 236 of 348, 1991151822
DALZELL CALLED OUTSPOKEN AND DEMANDING

It was not the sort of exchange you'd hear in every courtroom.. U.S. District
Judge Stewart Dalzell was berating one of the county's top prosecutors,
John Kenneff, with a flurry of sarcasm. "The U.S. Constitution. The
Fourteenth Amendment. Due process of law. Ever hear of it, Mr. Kenneff?
That's what we're talking about here. Got it? Understand?" roared Dalzell.. It
was just one of numerous acidic salvos fired by
Article 237 of 348, 1991151819
'HE'S VERY MUCH A LAW-AND-ORDER PERSON'

Here's something that Lancaster Countians might find hard to swallow:. U.S.
District Judge Stewart Dalzell is known as a law-and-order guy. That's the
view of two Philadelphia attorneys who have practiced law in his courtroom
on numerous occasions.. Dalzell sparked outrage here by freeing convicted
murderer Lisa Michelle Lambert on Monday, declaring her innocent and
saying prosecutors denied her a fair trial.. "For him to have that kind of
reaction
Article 238 of 348, 1991151829
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:52 AM
JUDGE DALZELL AND THE ATTORNEYS DID THEIR

JOB
Editor, New Era:. I am writing in response to the many letters written
condemning the decision in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case. I do not claim
to know whether or not she is guilty, I was not there. What I do know is that
there have been some serious allogations made against the officers
involved in the investigation and the prosecutors in the original trial. I
beleive many of these charges have been proven, such as withholding
evidence and tampering with evidence submitted.. The letters
Article 239 of 348, 1991151823
A NIGHTMARE: SIMPSON, RAMSEY, NOW LAMBERT

Editor, New Era:. I can't believe an accomplice to murder, Lisa Michelle
Lambert, was set free. She admitted being at the murder scene the day
Laurie Show was murdered! Oh, that's right, she tried to save Laurie's life,
that's how she got blood all over her. That's why she was there! She should
have stayed in prison to await a new trial, not be cut loose.. Why doesn't
Judge Dalzell let the woman-beater, Lawrence
Article 240 of 348, 1991151828
THE LESSON FOR CHILDREN IS: GET A GOOD

LAWYER
Editor, New Era:. I just received the news of Lisa Michelle Lambert's release
for the killing of Miss Show in '91. I am outraged that our justice system no
longer works for the victim but for the criminal. Since the O.J. trial, everyone
has gotton on the bandwagon and hired expensive lawyers to tear down the
evidence and make a mockery of our justice system. I am so fed up and
tired of the victim's loss of rights and the supposed rights of the criminals,


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:52 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 241 of 348, 1991142203
DO YOU AGREE WITH LAMBERT RULING?

U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell freed Lisa Michelle Lambert for the murder of
Laurie Show and barred a retrial on the grounds that the prosecution
manipulated evidence and used perjured testimony to convict her.
Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph C. Madenspacher contends there
was no criminal wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution and has filed an
appeal to have the judge's ruling overturned.!6+. Do you agree or disagree
with Judge Dalzell's decision to free Lisa
Article 242 of 348, 1991142208
SHOWS CAN'T SUE LAMBERT OVER DEATH

Time has run out for the family of murder victim Laurie Show to bring a civil
lawsuit against Lisa Michelle Lambert, who was cleared of the killing by a
federal judge.. U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell freed Lambert Monday
from a life sentence, ruling that prosecutors framed her to get a conviction
during a non-jury trial in 1992. William Atlee, a veteran civil litigator in
Lancaster, said the two-year time limit has expired for the Shows to sue
Lambert for the wrongful death of their
Article 243 of 348, 1991142138
CORRECTIONS
Air Force Airman Michael D. Rosiere, son of Janice Rosiere, Old
Philadelphia Pike, recently graduated from basic training at Lackland Air
Force Base, San Antonio, Texas.. He is a 1996 graduate of Solanco High
School. Another serviceman's name was placed under his picture in
Tuesday's editions. The New Era regrets the error.. The New Era incorrectly
reported that East Lampeter Township Police Officer Robert Reed was one
of the men identified as a rapist by Lisa
Article 244 of 348, 1991133093
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:53 AM
PROBES ARE IN ORDER

Although we disagree with U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell's
decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert and bar her retrial for murder, a
reading of the judge's 90-page opinion should leave any Lancaster Countian
with questions about the activities of the district attorney's office and some
local police.. At this point these are just questions. As Dalzell said last week
- after he accused Ronald Savage, a current district justice and former East
Article 245 of 348, 1991133100
HAZEL SHOW WANTS FEDERAL JUDGE OFF BENCH

Hazel Show said Tuesday night she is mounting a public crusade to oust a
federal judge who freed a woman convicted in 1992 of murdering her
16-year-old daughter.. "We have to get this judge (U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell) off the bench," Show said Tuesday night during a
telephone interview from her East Lampeter Township home. "There is not
one bit of justice in him." In another development, the office of the U.S.
Attorney said it will
Article 246 of 348, 1991132959
SHOWS PUSH TO OUST JUDGE FROM BENCH

Laurie Show's parents are turning their anger into action this week, trying to
remedy a judge's release of their daughter's convicted killer.. "I can't let this
die," Show's father, John, said today. "We have to keep it alive until
something happens. I don't want this to happen to anyone else down the
road." Among the actions being taken by Show and his ex-wife, Hazel, are
Article 247 of 348, 1991132951
JUDGE DALZELL'S ALLEGATIONS MUST BE

PUBLICLY ANSWERED
Federal Judge Stewart Dalzell has verbally whipped Lancaster County and
its justice system beyond the point of embarrassment. In unrestrained,
melodramatic pronouncements, he has portrayed the people of Lancaster
County as partners in a rush to judgment led by scheming, lying law
enforcers.. He points to the "solidarity and compassion" this community
showed to John and Hazel Show when their daughter Laurie was brutally
murdered. "But then what was a social
Article 248 of 348, 1991132949
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:53 AM
LISA LAMBERT IS FREE BECAUSE OF U.S.

CONSTITUTION
Editor, New Era:. I'm writing about the Lisa Michelle Lambert case. After
comparing the reactions of lawyers with those of regular "folks," I came to
the conclusion that Lancaster Countians still don't get it. Prosecutorial and
police misconduct isn't just for the Rodney Kings and O.J. Simpsons of this
country. They aren't "L.A. and New York'' issues. They happen everywhere
and they
Article 249 of 348, 1991132960
NOW MIRACK FAMILY WONDERS: WAS OUR CASE

MISHANDLED?
As Laurie Show's family watched attorneys pick apart the police
investigation of her murder over the last three weeks, another family was
watching the proceedings with growing unease.. For Vince and Gerry
Mirack, the past several weeks have been an unsettling time. Their
daughter, Christy, 25, was murdered in her East Lampeter Township
townhouse a year and a day after Show's murder in her East Lampeter
condominium. East Lampeter police have never solved the school
Article 250 of 348, 1991122072
LAMBERT 'WILL NEVER STEP FOOT AGAIN' IN

COUNTY
PHILADELPHIA - Lisa Michelle Lambert "will never step foot again in
Lancaster County," her attorney predicted Monday, two hours after a federal
district court judge freed her from life imprisonment for a murder committed
six years ago.. It was a day filled with joy for Lambert and her family
Monday. For Laurie Show's family, it was a day filled with sorrow. Two
families brought together in a federal courtroom in Philadelphia because of
a tragedy five years


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:53 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 251 of 348, 1991122087
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE 'CONFIDENCE' IN

DA'S OFFICE
In the face of accusations of gross prosecutorial conduct in the handling of
the Lisa Michelle Lambert case, two of Lancaster County's three
commissioners said Monday they stand behind District Attorney Joseph
Madenspacher and his office.. Commissioner Ron Ford said he has "every
confidence in the legal justice system here in Lancaster County." Likewise,
Paul Thibault said he "has the highest regard for the people in our district
Article 252 of 348, 1991122070
'LISA LAMBERT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY

RELEASED'
This is the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell in the case
of Lisa Michelle Lambert as released by his office on Monday.. Lisa
Lambert has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging,
among other things, that she is actually innocent of the first degree murder
for which she was convicted in July of 1992, and that she was the victim of
wholesale prosecutorial misconduct in connection with the prosecution of
her case. As a result of her being raped by a
Article 253 of 348, 1991122071
A STARTLING OUTCOME, BUT ROOTED IN THE

CONSTITUTION, LAWYER SAYS
Back in 1993, a well-known defense attorney said the decision by Lisa
Michelle Lambert's attorney to pursue a non-jury trial here in Lancaster
made it "absolutely less likely" that there would be an appeal based on court
error.. But an appeal based on misconduct by the prosecutor? It was made,
and it succeeded in federal court Monday. And Lambert, the convicted
murderer of Laurie Show, has been set free.. "It's extremely
1 of 4
6/10/2006 8:54 AM
Article 254 of 348, 1991122084

MIXED MESSAGES
Judge Stewart Dalzell clearly intended to send a message when he freed
Lisa Michelle Lambert, who was serving a life sentence for the 1991 first
degree murder of Laurie Show. He claimed that the means - a trail of
evidence he said was tainted and compromised - did not justify the ends
(her conviction.). That said, the judge did no better. His means - freeing a
woman whose own testimony implicates her in the murder, and denying the
prosecution the opportunity to retry her - hardly justifies
Article 255 of 348, 1991122069
JUDGE WANTS PROBE OF PROSECUTORS AFTER

CLEARING LAMBERT OF MURDER / / DA WON'T QUIT,
VOWS TO APPEAL
KENNEFF. PHILADELPHIA - Stung by a federal judge's decision Monday to
free Lisa Michelle Lambert, Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph C.
Madenspacher said he would appeal the case today to the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. Madenspacher told reporters part of his appeal will focus
on the judge's decision last week to release Lambert conditionally to her
attorneys before the state presented its case against her.. "We will take this
case as far
Article 256 of 348, 1991122073
SOME LOCAL LAWYERS EXPRESS OUTRAGE, OTHERS

PONDER THE FALLOUT
The shock had passed. By Monday evening, some local attorneys found
their feelings over the outright release of Lisa Michelle Lambert had turned
to plain anger.. Once a convicted killer, Lambert was now called "innocent"
by a federal judge. "It's outrageous," said Stephen R. Gibble, a lawyer who
formerly chaired the county GOP. "The whole thing is awful. To say there
won't be a new trial, that takes my breath
Article 257 of 348, 1991122074
AROUND EAST LAMPETER, ANGER AT JUDGE,

SYMPATHY FOR SHOWS
The decision to free Lisa Michelle Lambert, the convicted killer of
16-year-old Laurie Show, left many people with mixed emotions.. People
attending Monday's school board meeting at Conestoga Valley High School,
where Show, Lambert and co-defendant Tabitha Buck attended school,
agreed that justice was ill-served. But they say it's U.S. District Judge
2 of 4
6/10/2006 8:54 AM
Stewart Dazell who is at fault. While few wanted their names published,
many were quick to put their feelings on the
Article 258 of 348, 1991122075
JUDGE WANTS PROBE OF PROSECUTORS AFTER

CLEARING LAMBERT OF MURDER / / DALZELL
FORBIDS RETRIAL, CALLS FIRST TRIAL 'RIGGED'
PHILADELPHIA - Calling her a victim of corrupt prosecutors, a federal judge
Monday cleared Lisa Michelle Lambert of murder, barred a retrial and called
for an investigation of prosecutor John A. Kenneff, District Justice Ronald
W. Savage and six police officers.. "The fact is the commonwealth rigged
the proceedings in (Lambert's) trial to such an extent that it was a trial in
name only," said U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell, freeing Lambert
from
Article 259 of 348, 1991122005
LAMBERT TO 'MAKE UP LOST TIME WITH HER

FAMILY'
After 64 months in prison, Lisa Michelle Lambert walked away from a life
sentence and into the arms of the parents from whom she once rebelled..
Together, the family begins an uncertain future veiled in secrecy and laden
with fear of retribution from those angered by Lambert's freedom. The only
thing for sure, said the 24-year-old's attorney, is that Lisa Lambert "will
never set foot again in Lancaster County.". "I think
Article 260 of 348, 1991122007
LAWYERS EXPECT APPEAL WILL FAIL

"We've got to resign ourselves to the fact this girl is not going back to jail. ".
Those are the words of local defense attorney Robert Beyer, commenting
today on the Lisa Michelle Lambert case. U.S. District Court Judge Stewart
Dalzell released Lambert Monday from her lifetime prison sentence for the
1991 murder of Laurie Show and barred a retrial. Lancaster County District
Attorney Joseph C. Madenspacher is appealing the decisionl. "I

3 of 4
6/10/2006 8:54 AM

4 of 4
6/10/2006 8:54 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 261 of 348, 1991122002
DALZELL CITES 25 CASES OF MISCONDUCT

Here is a list of 25 instances of misconduct Judge Stewart Dalzell alleges
that police and prosecutors committed.. Number 1-7 have to do with
perjured testimony. 1. They hid evidence that Lawrence Yunkin was seen
driving on Black Oak Drive near the Show condominium the morning of the
murder.. They didn't tell Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorney, Roy Shirk, about a
witness, Kathleen Bayan, who said she saw Yunkin and two women driving
away from the scene of the crime
Article 262 of 348, 1991122004
DA STARTS APPEAL, LISTS REASONS

Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher said he would file
an appeal today to fight a federal judge's decision to free convicted killer
Lisa Michelle Lambert.. "This case is not over by a long shot,"
Madenspacher said. The appeal being filed today is basically just a notice of
appeal, Madenspacher said. The detailed appeal will not be filed for
perhaps several weeks.. Madenspacher said some of the bases for the
appeal would include bias
Article 263 of 348, 1991122000
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN IN THE IDYLLIC LAND OF

'WITNESS'?
In his 90-page decision, Judge Stewart Dalzell addressed the reaction of
Lancaster County to the Laurie Show murder case and the conviction of
Lisa Michelle Lambert. Here is what he said:. Why Did This Happen?
"Those who have read this sad history may well ask themselves, how could
a place idealized in Peter Weir's Witness become like the world in David
Lynch's Blue Velvet? Because it is so important to that community - and
indeed to many others - to
Article 264 of 348, 1991122013
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:55 AM
IF LISA LAMBERT IS INNOCENT, WHAT ABOUT

THESE QUESTIONS?
After three weeks of stunning, grueling testimony in Lisa Michelle Lambert's
murder appeal hearing, this is what federal Judge Stewart Dalzell did:. He
heard and accepted nearly all of the arguments presented by Lambert's
Philadelphia lawyers. He rejected or ignored nearly all of the arguments and
evidence presented by Lambert's prosecutors.. As a result, he granted
Lambert her freedom and told the Lancaster County District Attorney's office
Article 265 of 348, 1991122006
NO TWP. PROBE OF 4 POLICE OFFICERS

East Lampeter Township won't conduct an internal investigation of its police
department or suspend four police officers accused of willfully mishandling
the Laurie Show murder investigation, township officials said today.. Police
Chief Dale E. Jerchau and Supervisor Chairman John W. Shertzer
defended the officers, whom they said are victims of a biased judge and
overzealous defense attorneys. "It's been a painful experience, to say the
least, but we do not
Article 266 of 348, 1991122012
COURTS AND LAWYERS ARE GOING TO RUIN THE

COUNTRY
Editor, New Era:. I guessed it was only a matter of time until Lisa Michelle
Lambert, a convicted murderess, walks among us completely free, having
the last laugh. We should have seen this kind of "justice" coming, after that
lunacy with O.J. Simpson's acquittal. Our courts seem to be becoming our
ruination, with lawyers playing chess games instead of practicing law.
Everyone has a book out - is Judge Dalzell's ready for print?. This girl is
Article 267 of 348, 1991111938
FEDERAL JUDGE WILL DECIDE LAMBERT'S FATE

TODAY
Federal Judge Stewart Dalzell will announce today whether convicted killer
Lisa Michelle Lambert gets a new trial for the 1991 stabbing death of
16-year-old Laurie Show or walks out of a Philadelphia courtroom a free
woman.. He could also uphold Lambert's first-degree murder conviction and
send her back to prison, but that appears unlikely. Dalzell appears to be
considering the first two options, and in either case it appears unlikely
Lambert will return to prison anytime soon.
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:55 AM
Article 268 of 348, 1991111885

DA DEFENDS HANDLING OF MURDER CASE

Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher today continued
to defend the handling of the murder case against Lisa Michelle Lambert..
Moments after U.S. District Judge Steward Dalzell freed Lambert because
of prosecutorial misconduct in the investigation of the 1991 killing of Laurie
Show, Madenspacher said: "I think (Dalzell) characterized honest mistakes
and problems...into a set of misconduct that simply does not exist.".
Madenspacher also defended
Article 269 of 348, 1991111845
LAMBERT FREED
PHILADELPHIA _ Lisa Michelle Lambert walked out of a federal courtroom
a free woman today, released from a life sentence for the murder of
16-year-old Laurie Show.. "Lisa Lambert should be released and she shall
not be retried," said U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell. Dalzell's dramatic
decision was met by silence in the packed ceremonial courtroom in the
federal courthouse. Show's family got up and left the courtroom in a group
while the
Article 270 of 348, 1991111846
LEGAL SYSTEM 'BOGUS', COUNTIANS SAY

For a number of Lancastrians, the Lisa Michelle Lambert hearing has been
just another in a string of high-profile cases in which the guilty "can get
away with murder.". "O.J, the JonBenet case _ it's saying that people can
do anything they want," said Paul Kralicek, 58, of Lancaster, who works in
the Lancaster County Courthouse. Kralicek's opinion was shared by most
others who were surveyed here this morning, prior to


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:55 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 261 of 348, 1991122002
DALZELL CITES 25 CASES OF MISCONDUCT

Here is a list of 25 instances of misconduct Judge Stewart Dalzell alleges
that police and prosecutors committed.. Number 1-7 have to do with
perjured testimony. 1. They hid evidence that Lawrence Yunkin was seen
driving on Black Oak Drive near the Show condominium the morning of the
murder.. They didn't tell Lisa Michelle Lambert's attorney, Roy Shirk, about a
witness, Kathleen Bayan, who said she saw Yunkin and two women driving
away from the scene of the crime
Article 262 of 348, 1991122004
DA STARTS APPEAL, LISTS REASONS

Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher said he would file
an appeal today to fight a federal judge's decision to free convicted killer
Lisa Michelle Lambert.. "This case is not over by a long shot,"
Madenspacher said. The appeal being filed today is basically just a notice of
appeal, Madenspacher said. The detailed appeal will not be filed for
perhaps several weeks.. Madenspacher said some of the bases for the
appeal would include bias
Article 263 of 348, 1991122000
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN IN THE IDYLLIC LAND OF

'WITNESS'?
In his 90-page decision, Judge Stewart Dalzell addressed the reaction of
Lancaster County to the Laurie Show murder case and the conviction of
Lisa Michelle Lambert. Here is what he said:. Why Did This Happen?
"Those who have read this sad history may well ask themselves, how could
a place idealized in Peter Weir's Witness become like the world in David
Lynch's Blue Velvet? Because it is so important to that community - and
indeed to many others - to
Article 264 of 348, 1991122013
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:56 AM
IF LISA LAMBERT IS INNOCENT, WHAT ABOUT

THESE QUESTIONS?
After three weeks of stunning, grueling testimony in Lisa Michelle Lambert's
murder appeal hearing, this is what federal Judge Stewart Dalzell did:. He
heard and accepted nearly all of the arguments presented by Lambert's
Philadelphia lawyers. He rejected or ignored nearly all of the arguments and
evidence presented by Lambert's prosecutors.. As a result, he granted
Lambert her freedom and told the Lancaster County District Attorney's office
Article 265 of 348, 1991122006
NO TWP. PROBE OF 4 POLICE OFFICERS

East Lampeter Township won't conduct an internal investigation of its police
department or suspend four police officers accused of willfully mishandling
the Laurie Show murder investigation, township officials said today.. Police
Chief Dale E. Jerchau and Supervisor Chairman John W. Shertzer
defended the officers, whom they said are victims of a biased judge and
overzealous defense attorneys. "It's been a painful experience, to say the
least, but we do not
Article 266 of 348, 1991122012
COURTS AND LAWYERS ARE GOING TO RUIN THE

COUNTRY
Editor, New Era:. I guessed it was only a matter of time until Lisa Michelle
Lambert, a convicted murderess, walks among us completely free, having
the last laugh. We should have seen this kind of "justice" coming, after that
lunacy with O.J. Simpson's acquittal. Our courts seem to be becoming our
ruination, with lawyers playing chess games instead of practicing law.
Everyone has a book out - is Judge Dalzell's ready for print?. This girl is
Article 267 of 348, 1991111938
FEDERAL JUDGE WILL DECIDE LAMBERT'S FATE

TODAY
Federal Judge Stewart Dalzell will announce today whether convicted killer
Lisa Michelle Lambert gets a new trial for the 1991 stabbing death of
16-year-old Laurie Show or walks out of a Philadelphia courtroom a free
woman.. He could also uphold Lambert's first-degree murder conviction and
send her back to prison, but that appears unlikely. Dalzell appears to be
considering the first two options, and in either case it appears unlikely
Lambert will return to prison anytime soon.
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:56 AM
Article 268 of 348, 1991111885

DA DEFENDS HANDLING OF MURDER CASE

Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher today continued
to defend the handling of the murder case against Lisa Michelle Lambert..
Moments after U.S. District Judge Steward Dalzell freed Lambert because
of prosecutorial misconduct in the investigation of the 1991 killing of Laurie
Show, Madenspacher said: "I think (Dalzell) characterized honest mistakes
and problems...into a set of misconduct that simply does not exist.".
Madenspacher also defended
Article 269 of 348, 1991111845
LAMBERT FREED
PHILADELPHIA _ Lisa Michelle Lambert walked out of a federal courtroom
a free woman today, released from a life sentence for the murder of
16-year-old Laurie Show.. "Lisa Lambert should be released and she shall
not be retried," said U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell. Dalzell's dramatic
decision was met by silence in the packed ceremonial courtroom in the
federal courthouse. Show's family got up and left the courtroom in a group
while the
Article 270 of 348, 1991111846
LEGAL SYSTEM 'BOGUS', COUNTIANS SAY

For a number of Lancastrians, the Lisa Michelle Lambert hearing has been
just another in a string of high-profile cases in which the guilty "can get
away with murder.". "O.J, the JonBenet case _ it's saying that people can
do anything they want," said Paul Kralicek, 58, of Lancaster, who works in
the Lancaster County Courthouse. Kralicek's opinion was shared by most
others who were surveyed here this morning, prior to


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:56 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 271 of 348, 1991103147
LAURIE'S LOSS CHANGED LIFE OF BOYFRIEND

For more than five years, Brad Heisler has been the forgotten man.. He was
Laurie Show's boyfriend, a Conestoga Valley sophomore in the midst of a
typical teen-age relationship. Then, on Dec. 20, 1991, Show was beaten,
stabbed and left to die with a slit throat on her bedroom carpet. Heisler was
probably the second person to arrive at the scene of her murder, but what
he saw there is still in dispute.. His story of the murder and the toll it has
taken on his life has never
Article 272 of 348, 1991103142
RECAP OF A VERY DRAMATIC WEEK

Following is a synopsis of last week's events in the Lisa Michelle Lambert
murder appeal hearing in federal court in Philadelphia.. SUNDAY, APRIL
13: County officials announced that they had hired Lancaster attorneys Alvin
Lewis and Richard Sprague to represent county prosecutors, detectives and
others at the hearing. MONDAY, APRIL 14: Former state policeman John
Balshy testified that Laurie Show appeared to have written the initials "TB"
and
Article 273 of 348, 1991103148
TRYING TIMES
Balding on top but with long, flowing white hair in back, U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell looks a little like Henry Fonda, and acts a lot like John
Wayne.. On Thursday, for example, when Lancaster District Attorney
Joseph Madenspacher asks him to reconsider his decision to release Lisa
Michelle Lambert to the custody of her lawyers, Madenspacher has barely
finished speaking before Dalzell brushes his concern aside with: "OK, that's
denied. What's
Article 274 of 348, 1991103150
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:57 AM

MONDAY. April 14 - The federal appeal hearing for Lisa Michelle Lambert,
seeking a new trial or freedom on her conviction in the murder of Laurie
Show, restarted in Philadelphia. Lambert is serving a life sentence, along
with Tabitha Buck, while Lambert's boyfriend, Lawrence Yunkin, is serving
10-20 years as an accessory.. The case broke wide open Wednesday,
when the judge released Lambert into the custody
Article 275 of 348, 1991103143
ATTORNEYS FEEL PAIN OF THEIR COLLEAGUES

U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell's harsh words about some of Lancaster's top
lawyers have reverberated through the legal circles here.. Lancaster's legal
community, about 650 lawyers strong, is small enough that many lawyers
know each other on a first-name basis. The men Dalzell has accused of
perjury, concealing evidence and obstruction of justice in the Lisa Michelle
Lambert murder investigation aren't just district attorneys and a district
Article 276 of 348, 1991103144
TRYING TIMES
On the stand, Ronald Savage absorbs verbal body blow after verbal body
blow from attorney Christina Rainville, who is accusing him of lying, of
withholding evidence, of trying to frame Lisa Michelle Lambert in the 1991
murder of Laurie Show.. Savage seems defenseless, answering nearly
every question with "I don't know," or "I can't recall." He is only emphatic
when Rainville directly accuses him of perjury.
Article 277 of 348, 1991103145
MRS. SHOW SAYS JUDGE WAS UNFAIR

Evil seemed to turn to good last week, and good to evil.. In a Philadelphia
house, a convicted killer ate pizza and listened to piano music, while the
people who carry the trust of the justice system on their shoulders went on
trial, and seemingly lost. Hazel Show is spending the weekend praying that
U.S. Judge Stewart Dalzell will order a new trial and not set Lisa Michelle
Lambert free.. "The transcripts of the last trial ... should give him the light of
Article 278 of 348, 1991091785
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:57 AM
SHOW INSISTS LAURIE FINGERED LAMBERT

PHILADELPHIA - Hazel Show insisted Friday in federal court that her
daughter identified Lisa Michelle Lambert as her killer.. "I lifted her and saw
her throat was cut," Show said in testimony before U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell, who is presiding at a hearing in which Lambert is seeking
freedom from a life sentence for killing Show's daughter. "I tried to keep her
together. I told her I am sorry and it was a setup," Show said.
Article 279 of 348, 1991091784
DA BACKS NEW TRIAL FOR LAMBERT

PHILADELPHIA - A lawyer for convicted murderer Lisa Michelle Lambert
urged a federal judge Friday to free her client permanently, but the
Lancaster County district attorney asked to be able to retry her on 1991
murder charges.. Christina Rainville, Lambert's lawyer, proclaimed in
closing remarks at her client's federal appeals hearing, "The truth is out.
Lisa Lambert is innocent, innocent of murder and innocent of conspiracy." A
hearing on
Article 280 of 348, 1991091737
SHOWS FEAR THE 'WORST' IN JUDGE'S RULING

PHILADELPHIA - In two days, a federal judge will decide whether Lisa
Michelle Lambert goes free or gets a new trial for the Dec. 20, 1991, murder
of 16-year-old Laurie Show.. John Show said today that he and his ex-wife,
Hazel, are almost certain that their daughter's convicted killer will be set free
on Monday. "I just felt all along that the judge has his mind made up," Show
said. "It's going to be a terrible


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:57 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 281 of 348, 1991091739
LAWYER: SHE'S INNOCENT

PHILADELPHIA - "Justice requires that Miss Lambert be released," a
Philadelphia attorney argued here Friday in federal court.. Christina
Rainville, a lawyer for Lisa Michelle Lambert, said Lancaster County
prosecutors convicted Lambert of the 1991 murder of Laurie Show by lying
and fabricating evidence. "The truth is out. Lisa Lambert is innocent.
Innocent of murder. Innocent of conspiracy," Rainville said in a closing
statement Friday
Article 282 of 348, 1991082170
LAMBERT CASE COULD IMPACT ON FUTURE

CANDIDACIES
The curious and bizarre court proceedings in Philadelphia that may yet
produce the release of convicted killer Lisa Michelle Lambert could also
produce some political detours among local Republican politicians, while
putting some others on the fast track to advancement.. There have already
been some speed bumps in the GOP's road this year. The Republican
committee people, impressed by his steadfast willingness to volunteer for
just about any task, endorsed Dennis E. Reinaker for
Article 283 of 348, 1991082177
DA ASKS JUDGE BE REMOVED FROM CASE

This is a slightly edited text of District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher's
motion asking that Judge Stewart Dalzell be removed from the Lambert
case.. Motion for Recusal of District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell Appellants,
Respondents below, respectfully move for Recusal of U.S. District Court
Judge Stewart Dalzell for the Eastern District of and in support thereof state
as follows:. 1. On April 2, 1997, during the direct testimony of Ronald
Barley, The Honorable Judge Stewart
Article 284 of 348, 1991082180
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:58 AM
LAWYER ACCUSES SAVAGE OF TRYING TO FRAME

TEEN
PHILADELPHIA - An attorney seeking to free Lisa Michelle Lambert
accused District Justice Ronald W. Savage, chief investigator in Laurie
Show's murder, of trying to frame a teen-ager in the killing of a teacher a
year and a day after 16-year-old Show was stabbed to death.. Savage, who
also headed the investigation into the 1992 murder of teacher Christy
Mirack, came under fire again Thursday in a federal hearing where Lambert
is seeking freedom from her 1992 conviction in
Article 285 of 348, 1991082176
STATEMENT FROM LAMBERT LAWYERS

The following is a statement issued Wednesday by Peter Greenberg and
Christina Rainville, lawyers for Lisa Michelle Lambert.. We're shocked,
offended and indeed saddened by motions filed by the Commonwealth and
the attitudes expressed today. The evidence produced in this courtroom has
quite literally defied belief. None of us could imagine that in America in the
1990's a perversion of justice like this could have taken place and this
conduct has continued in the
Article 286 of 348, 1991082185
LAMBERT STAYS OUT OF PRISON

PHILADELPHIA - Convicted murderer Lisa Michelle Lambert beamed and
hugged her parents late Thursday afternoon after a prosecutor's bid to block
her conditional release was rejected by a federal appeals panel.. Acting
swiftly, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision Wednesday to release
Lambert to the custody of her attorneys while a hearing on alleged
misconduct by prosecutors continues. The
Article 287 of 348, 1991082119
COURTHOUSE BANS ARE PRECAUTION

Better safe than sorry, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell believes.. His
unusual order on Wednesday - directing a prosecutor, police and others
who handled the Lisa Michelle Lambert murder case to stay out of the
courthouse and stay away from him, his family and his staff - is apparently
just a precaution. Courthouse personnel knew of no threats against the
Philadelphia judge, his family or his staff.. Dalzell is hearing a bid by
Lambert, convicted of the 1991 killing of East Lampeter
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:58 AM
Article 288 of 348, 1991082117

NEXT: TABITHA BUCK'S APPEAL TO GO FEDERAL?

Lisa Michelle Lambert will not be the only defendant to seek a new trial, or
release from prison, as a result of alleged police and prosecutor
misconduct.. The attorney for co-defendant Tabitha Buck said today he will
use those same issues to seek to overturn her 1992 conviction of
participating in the stabbing death of teen-ager Laurie Show. "To the extent
that Tabitha Buck's case is similar to Lambert's case and Lambert's case is
tainted,
Article 289 of 348, 1991082118
RELAXED LAMBERT: 'CAN YOU TAKE ME TO

DISNEYLAND?'
Convicted murderer Lisa Michelle Lambert returned to court today, calm
and relaxed after a second day out of jail.. Dressed in a dark-green suit and
beige blouse, Lambert strolled casually to the defense table, talked briefly
with her attorneys and then walked unescorted through a rear door behind
the judge's bench. She returned a few minutes later to hear the first of five
witnesses whom Lancaster County District Attorney Joseph Madenspacher
intended to present in an effort to
Article 290 of 348, 1991082115
LAWYER SUGGESTS SAVAGE TRIED TO FRAME

WITNESS
District Justice Ronald W. Savage is conducting "business as usual" today
in his Leola office, after enduring days of accusations in Philadelphia's
federal court questioning his integrity and investigative skills.. In December
1991, Savage was an East Lampeter Township police sergeant leading the
investigation and police prosecution of Lisa Michelle Lambert for the murder
of 16-year-old Laurie Show. This week, as the convicted murderer seeks
her freedom in


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:58 AM
Home
Features
Weather
Classifieds
Talk Back
Apartments
Shopping
Special
Sections
Visit Lancaster
Travel
Personals
Archive
News
Local News
Top Stories
Site
Site Map
Keyword Index
RSS Feeds
Need A
WebSite?
Contact Us
Go

were found.
Article 291 of 348, 1991082070
VICTIM'S MOTHER ACCUSES LAMBERT

PHILADELPHIA _ Laurie Show's mother took the stand today in a bid to
keep her daughter's convicted murderer, Lisa Michelle Lambert, in prison..
"Nothing has changed...Laurie told me that Michelle did it, and there's no
other truth than that," Hazel Show said today before she testified. Mrs.
Show is the key witness for Lambert's prosecutors, who are arguing to
refute Lambert's bid for freedom in a federal
Article 292 of 348, 1991072085
JUDGE RELEASES LAMBERT

PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge lambasted East Lampeter Township
District Justice Ronald Savage Wednesday for allegedly lying under oath on
the witness stand and obstructing justice in the Laurie Show murder case..
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell told Lancaster County District Attorney
Joseph Madenspacher to contact the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and
insist on having Savage removed from the bench. Dalzell's remarks came
during a series of extraordinary events at a federal
Article 293 of 348, 1991072089
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision to conditionally release
Lisa Michelle Lambert came after an extraordinary hearing in the judge's
chambers Wednesday afternoon.. The session brought together the
Lancaster County district attorney and lawyers for Lambert and heard new
testimony from Hazel Show, the mother of murder victim Laurie Show. After
hearing what Mrs. Show had to say, Dalzell accused the chief police
prosecutor of the case, now a district
Article 294 of 348, 1991072088
1 of 3
6/10/2006 8:58 AM
JUDGE: 'I DON'T WANT HER TO GO BACK TO PRISON'

This is the transcript of a hearing in the chambers of U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell held Wednesday afternoon. Participating were the judge
("The Court"); Joseph Madenspacher, Lancaster County district attorney;
Peter Greenberg, attorney for Lisa Michelle Lambert; Christina Rainville,
attorney for Lambert; Alvin Lewis, attorney for Lancaster County officials;
and Hazel Show, mother of murder victim Laurie Show.. AFTERNOON
SESSION (Reconvened in Chambersat 1:40
Article 295 of 348, 1991072086
LAMBERT CASE DEVELOPMENTS SHOCK LAWYERS

Local attorneys Wednesday expressed shock over the conditional release of
convicted killer Lisa Michelle Lambert.. And one attorney said Wednesday's
action is likely a prelude to Lambert's outright freedom. Scott Oberholtzer, a
defense attorney, said he would not be surprised if U.S. District Judge
Stewart Dalzell frees Lambert today. "For the judge to go ahead and let her
go ahead tonight, he must have made up his mind to do something,"
Article 296 of 348, 1991072087
JUDGE RELEASES LAMBERT

This story was written by Intelligencer Journal reporter Paul Bomberger and
reported by Bomberger, Intelligencer Journal reporters Jennifer Kopf and
Jeff Hawkes and correspondent Lee Linder.. PHILADELPHIA - A federal
judge released Lisa Michelle Lambert to the custody of her lawyers
Wednesday afternoon, after the mother of murder victim Laurie Show
testified she had been instructed by police in 1992 to withhold crucial
evidence. Lambert celebrated her first night of freedom in six years
Article 297 of 348, 1991072035
'DAZED' LAMBERT AWAITS RULING ON FREEDOM,

TRIAL
Lisa Michelle Lambert spent her first night of freedom in 5 1/2 years sitting
in a Philadelphia townhouse, eating pizza and listening to piano music while
guarded by federal marshals.. Lambert was left "dazed" by the sudden turn
of events Wednesday, when a federal judge released her to the custody of
her attorneys after ruling that prosecutors violated her right to a fair trial.
Lambert, 24, had been in prison since her arrest the evening of Dec. 20,
1991 on charges
2 of 3
6/10/2006 8:58 AM
Article 298 of 348, 1991072040

OTHERS MAY BE GUILTY, BUT LAMBERT IS NOT

INNOCENT
Lisa Michelle Lambert is not the victim.. The victim is 16-year-old Laurie
Show, in her grave. And Lambert is not innocent - how could she be?. A
county Commonwealth Court and a state Superior Court ruled she is not.
The state Supreme Court, after reviewing these decisions, refused to hear
her appeal.. Now, even with newly revealed evidence that supports her
claims, Lambert is still irrevocably involved in the events that led to Laurie
Show's murder.. These facts must
Article 299 of 348, 1991072032
MURDER VICTIM'S MOTHER SAYS SHE'S ALWAYS

TOLD TRUTH
The mother of murder victim Laurie Show is sticking by her court testimony,
which included statements that her dying daughter told her "Michelle did it.".
Hazel Show did not respond to interview requests today, in the wake of her
dramatic revelation Wednesday that she suddenly recalled that police told
her to withhold crucial evidence after the Dec. 20, 1991, murder. But
through a spokeswoman, Mrs. Show said today that she has always told the
truth about events
Article 300 of 348, 1991072034
EXPERT: JUDGE'S MOVE UNUSUAL, CLEARLY

ALLOWED
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell's decision to release Lisa Michelle
Lambert is unusual but clearly allowed under federal law, a San Francisco
expert in such proceedings says.. Timothy J. Foley, a Harvard-educated
attorney who specializes in federal-release hearings, said Wednesday night
that a federal judge does have the right to free a defendant when he
believes the state court system has violated the individual's constitutional
rights to a fair trial.


3 of 3
6/10/2006 8:58 AM

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
amgroup01@msn.com
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:53 PM
ureyp@co.lancaster.pa.us
Lambert Appeal
Dear Don:
Just so there are no misunderstandings, I have never had, nor do I have now, any
information regarding the Lambert proceedings. I have never spoken to anyone concerning
the same. I am very suspect as to the timing of this announcement and find it very
disturbing given the doucment that I had innocently resurected after 8 years. My only
intent in writting that document was to find resove for my own tragic situation.
I believe a jury trial would have been the only fair way for an equitable resolution to
this case. Had that occured in the begining, I don't believe we would be confronting this
issue today. I meant no disrespect toward your office or that of the state.
As far as
the police, it is the same, except that I was very angered at the few that have treated me
with such malice, which is in no way a condemnation for the men in blue. I was literally
fighting for my life, and still continue to this day.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
A Teenage Murder Mystery DVD
1 of 2
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75922
Visit AETV.com
VIEW CART: 0 ITEMS | CHECKOUT | MY ACCOUNT | HELP
SEARCH:
SHOP BY SUBJECT
Exclusively at
The A&E Store
American Justice: A Teenage Murder Mystery DVD
Hollywood DVDs - NEW!

A&E Original Movies on DVD
Only available on DVD
New Releases from A&E

Availability: Product will ship on
06/11/07, why?
Discount DVDs & More

SHOP BY SHOW
Ships to U.S. and Canada

1 DVD(s) / 50 Minutes
Closed Captioning: No
Criss Angel: Mindfreak DVDs

Dog The Bounty Hunter DVDs
Driving Force DVDs
Get $1 Shipping on
your entire order!
$24.95
Intervention DVDs
Qty: 1
Gift Finder
Toys & Games
Gift Certificates
DVDs en Espaol
Closed Caption
Catalog Request
Other customers also liked...
Child's Play,
Deadly Play
DVD
American
Justice set DVD
$59.95
$24.95
Murder In A
College Town
DVD
$24.95
PRODUCT DETAIL:
-->
It is one of the more extraordinary cases ever tried in Pennsylvania, not because of the crime,
which was certainly heinous, but for what has come afterwards. One woman has been convicted
twice, by the same judge, of the same crime, and has gone to jail twice.
AMERICAN JUSTICE recounts every step of the strange journey of Lisa Michelle Lambert in this
gripping program. Hear from Hazel Snow, the victim's mother, who says her daughter whispered
"Michelle did it" as she lay dying in her arms with a slit throat and a rope around her neck.
Examine the conflicting testimony that Lisa and her two codefendants have given. And unravel the
bizarre web of legal decisions that have made this case into one of the most complicated in the
history of Pennsylvania.
Featuring interviews with the prosecutors who tried the case, the Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, friends of the victim and Lisa herself, this is a fascinating look at a case that may
yet have surprises in store.
This DVD is one of the many titles in our DVD Library and is created in the DVD+R format.
This disc does not feature menu pages or special features like standard DVDs, simply the high
quality programming you've come to expect from us. Click here for more details.
Page 1 of 4
05.28.2007
5/28/2007 3:35 PM
2 of 2
Item Number: AAE-75922
Sign up for special offers: Enter email address here
Home
Help
My Account
Advertising With Us
Feedback
Privacy Policy
View Cart
Terms of Service
Checkout
Employment Opportunities
2006 A&E Television Networks. All Rights Reserved.

A&E, Biography, The History Channel, The Biography Channel, A&E Classroom, and The History
Channel Classroom, and their respective logos are trademarks of A&E Television Networks.
Visit our other websites:
A&E
Biography
The History Channel
History International
Page 2 of 4
History Channel Classroom
05.28.2007
5/28/2007 3:35 PM
MSN Hotmail -
1 of 1
http://by104fd.bay104.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=0000...
amgroup01@msn.com
From :
A&E Home Video <ae@ordering.com>
Sent :
Monday, May 28, 2007 2:25 PM
To :
<amgroup01@msn.com>
Subject :
Re: AE Help Desk
Printed: Monday, May 28, 2007 3:31 PM
Hello,
Thank you for contacting A&E Home Video and The History Channel.
Item #AH75922 - AMERICAN JUSTICE TEENAGE MURDER MYSTERY ($24.95 + S/H) is available
on DVD only.
To place your order, simply visit our secure online store at www.ShopAETV.com. Using the search feature
located at the top of the page, enter the title or item number and click "GO" to quickly locate and
purchase the item. If you prefer you can also call our Order Department toll-free at 1-877-600-0156.
We look forward to your order!
Regards,
Crystal
A&E Home Video
Customer Care Team
Sign up for our free email newsletter to find out about new releases, sales,
and special offers at: www.ShopAETV.com/newsletter
----- Original Message ----From: amgroup01@msn.com
To: aestoregeneral@aetv.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:51 PM
Subject: AE Help Desk
The request below was made from the help desk:
First Name: Stan
Last Name: Caterbone
Request Type: question
Request: American Justice did a story on the Lisa Michelle Lambert case about the murder of Lauris Show. I am
looking to purchase the program. It took place in Lancaster County and involved a Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall.
Page 3 of 4
05.28.2007
5/28/2007 3:31 PM
American Justice set DVD
1 of 2
Visit AETV.com
VIEW CART: 0 ITEMS | CHECKOUT | MY ACCOUNT | HELP
SEARCH:
Exclusively at
The A&E Store
SHOP BY SUBJECT
American Justice: American Justice set DVD
Hollywood DVDs - NEW!

A&E Original Movies on DVD
Only available on DVD
New Releases from A&E

Availability: In Stock
Ships to U.S. and Canada
4 DVD(s) / 200 Minutes
Discount DVDs & More

SHOP BY SHOW
Get $1 Shipping on
your entire order!
$59.95
Criss Angel: Mindfreak DVDs

Dog The Bounty Hunter DVDs
Qty: 1
Driving Force DVDs

Intervention DVDs
Gift Finder
Toys & Games
Gift Certificates
DVDs en Espaol
Closed Caption
Catalog Request
PRODUCT DETAIL:
American Justice set DVD
Get an up-close look at some of the most famous crimes of the 20th century and how they have
affected the justice system in this special set featuring some of the most popular episodes from
this long-running series. Revealing interviews, rare footage and period accounts bring these
chilling stories to life.
Volume 1 Trace the story of crime kingpins Lucky Luciano and Al Capone, and revisit the
shocking case of the Linbergh Baby Kidnapping.
Volume 2 Explore the largest mass suicide of the 20th century in THE JONESTOWN
MASSACRE, and get an up-close look at two notorious killers in THE BOSTON
STRANGLER and THE SON OF SAM.
Volume 3 Some of the most famous criminals of all time are profiled here in JOHN
DILLINGER, THE HILLSIDE STRANGLERS, and THE MANSON FAMILY.
Volume 4 Follow the fight to clear the name of DR. SAMUEL SHEPPARD falsely accused
and imprisoned, and uncover the twisted criminal minds of three of the most cold-blooded
killers in history TED BUNDY, GARY GILMORE and JOHN WAYNE GACY.
-->
This DVD is one of the many titles in our DVD Library and is created in the DVD+R format.
This disc does not feature menu pages or special features like standard DVDs, simply the high
quality programming you've come to expect from us. Click here for more details.
Item Number: AAE-72700
Sign up for special offers: Enter email address here
Home
Help
Advertising With Us
My Account
Feedback
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Page 4 of 4
View Cart
Checkout
Employment Opportunities
05.28.2007
5/27/2007 4:48 PM
LancasterOnline.com: News : Lambert sex case back in court
http://local.lancasteronline.com/6/206525
LancasterOnline.com
Lambert sex case back in court
Convicted killers 1996 civil suit against Pa. prison officials advances.
By CINDY STAUFFER, Staff
Lancaster New Era
Published: Jul 06, 2007 1:13 PM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA Lisa Michelle Lambert has returned to the court
system, a place where she spent years
appealing her conviction in the 1991 murder of
16-year-old Laurie Show.
But this time Lambert will be in civil court,
pursuing again a lawsuit against
Pennsylvania prison officials, who, she says,
allowed two guards to sexually attack, fondle
and photograph her naked at a prison in
Cambridge Springs 13 years ago.
A judge recently ruled the case, originally filed in 1996, can now go
forward. It had been put on hold while Lambert pursued her criminal
appeals, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
nation's highest court declined to hear Lambert's case in 2005.
Much has happened in the 11 years since Lambert first filed her civil
suit.
Two of the six people she's suing in her civil case have since died.
Lambert has moved around to prisons in Delaware and then New
Jersey. About a year and a half ago, she was moved to a
Massachusetts prison for "security reasons."
Lambert is now 34. The daughter she had while in prison turned 15
this past spring.
If Lambert wins any money from the civil case, it first will go to pay
off court costs and restitution, her attorney said. If any money is
left, it likely would go to her parents, who are raising her daughter,
he said.
Lambert's suit alleges a prison guard, James Eicher, attacked her six
times in 1994. Another official, John Raun, fondled her, her suit
alleges.
Eicher was later fired and then convicted of aggravated indecent
assault and indecent assault in the case. He served two years in
prison, and was paroled in December 1999.
Lambert's civil suit also alleges that prison officials ignored her
complaints and later videotaped and photographed her without
clothing on.
Lambert's attorney, Angus Love of the Pennsylvania Institutional
Law Project, also said that two similar civil suits brought against
Cambridge Springs officials by other female inmates were settled
immediately.
1 of 3
7/6/2007 3:38 PM
He does not know what will happen in this case.

"I don't know if Lisa will want to settle, whether the state will want
to settle," said Love, whose office is in Philadelphia.
The state attorney general's office plans to vigorously defend the
case, a spokesman said today.
Kevin Harley said that Lambert's allegations about Raun and about
being photographed and videotaped naked are both false.
With regard to Eicher, Harley said Lambert willingly engaged in
sexual contact with him. However, the law prohibits prison officials
from engaging in sexual relations with inmates, even if consensual,
which resulted in Eicher's conviction, Harley said.
"Eicher was fired, charged, convicted and sent to state prison," he
said. "He's out. ... He broke the the law but it does not mean the
entire system was broken down."
However, U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin had a different view of
Lambert's allegations.
"Plaintiff paints a disturbing picture," McLaughlin wrote, saying
Lambert alleged Cambridge Springs was a "virtual haven of sexual
activity between Department of Corrections employees and
inmates."
The judge also found that a former prison superintendent and
official "fostered an attitude of acquiescence toward such pervasive
misconduct."
In a handwritten response to Lambert's lawsuit, Eicher denied the
allegations and said he was convicted due to a poorly conducted
investigation, false police statements and false testimony by
Lambert.
Love said he will not ask for a specific settlement amount, but leave
that up to a jury, if the case proceeds to court.
Lambert now is serving her life sentence at a state prison in
Framingham, Mass. She was moved there in January 2006 from a
New Jersey prison.
Matt Schuman, a New Jersey corrections department spokesman,
said only that Lambert was moved for "security reasons," which
officials do not elaborate on.
This is the fifth prison for Lambert, who also was held in Lancaster
County Prison, Cambridge Springs and prisons in Delaware and then
New Jersey.
Love said Lambert had "a little problem" with some inmates in New
Jersey.
He said she was held in isolation during her time in New Jersey and
now is happy to be out in the general prison population.
She is taking college courses, taught by Boston University
professors, and earning good grades, he said.
She regularly sees her daughter and parents, who have moved out
of Pennsylvania. Love declined to say where they are living.
2 of 3
7/6/2007 3:38 PM
Lambert was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1992 for

stabbing Show to death in Show's East Lampeter Township home.
Lambert allegedly killed Show in a jealous rage over the younger
girl's relationship with Lambert's then-boyfriend, Lawrence Yunkin.
Yunkin, now 36, pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the case
and was released to a halfway house in 2005.
Lambert's accomplice, Tabitha Buck, now 33, was convicted of
second-degree murder and is serving a life sentence.
CONTACT US: cstauffer@LNPnews.com or 481-6024
2004-2007 Lancaster Newspapers

3 of 3
7/6/2007 3:38 PM
[Advanced Media Group's Weblog] Comment: "City of Lancaster Aims At Cover-Up"

From:
Heather Johnston (donotreply@wordpress.com)
You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as unsafe
Sent:
Sun 7/20/08 9:44 AM
Reply-to: hjohnston12@yahoo.com (hjohnston12@yahoo.com)
To:
amgroup01@msn.com
New comment on your post #110 "City of Lancaster Aims At Cover-Up"
Author : Heather Johnston (IP: 76.173.82.205 , cpe-76-173-82-205.socal.res.rr.com)
E-mail : hjohnston12@yahoo.com
URL
: http://formerlyfreelisalambert.com
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=76.173.82.205
Comment:
I read about Lisa 10 years ago then started a website for her. I bought and posted
the Dalzell transcripts but they were stolen from me. Lancaster is the strangest
place I have ever lived. I spent 2 years there writing stories about people who
had been screwed, but it just got too hot for me there. Followed, mail stolen,
etc. etc. Thanks for your website and Good Luck!
You can see all comments on this post here:
http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/city-of-lancaster-aims-atcover-up/#comments
Delete it: http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/wpadmin/comment.php?action=cdc&c=177
Spam it: http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/wpadmin/comment.php?action=cdc&dt=spam&c=177
finally may get to meet you! I used to communicate with you back then re Lisa Michelle
Lambert.
From:
Stan Caterbone (amgroup01@msn.com)
Sent:
Sun 7/20/08 5:57 AM
To:
hjohnston12@yahoo.com
Cc:
amgauctions@comcast.net
July 20, 2008
Dear Heather,
So you are the mysterious Heather. I used to email you back then in 1997-98. I thought back
then you said you were from Los Angeles. I used to read all of your posts on the LancasterOnline
chat board. I actually filed an Affidavit for that case, which was really an Amicus Curiea.
I also tried to hire Christina Rainville for all of my federal civil complaints in 1997, but her firm,
Harrison Schneider barred her from taking on anymore Lancaster County clients after I had begun
to work with her.
Can I meet you? Would love to discuss your experience and mine sometime. You can visit my
website at:
Please email me.

Thank You for the comment on my blog at:
City of Lancaster Aims At Cover-Up

Heather Johnston Says:
July 20, 2008 at 2:44 am
edit
I read about Lisa 10 years ago then started a website for her. I bought and posted the
Dalzell transcripts but they were stolen from me. Lancaster is the strangest place I
have ever lived. I spent 2 years there writing stories about people who had been
screwed, but it just got too hot for me there. Followed, mail stolen, etc. etc. Thanks for
your website and Good Luck!
http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/city-of-lancaster-aims -at-coverup/#comments
View our latest Federal Court Filing in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Stan J. Caterbone
Against All Odds - And Always A Winner
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered,
defamed, and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations
of misconduct and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded
guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we
are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the aid of law enforcement and the
media, which would normally prosecute and expose public corruption. We utilize our
communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our property, and
our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications are
a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also
a member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. Number 7.
MSN Hotmail -
1 of 1
http://by104fd.bay104.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=0000...
amgroup01@msn.com
From :
A&E Home Video <ae@ordering.com>
Sent :
Monday, May 28, 2007 2:25 PM
To :
<amgroup01@msn.com>
Subject :
Re: AE Help Desk
Printed: Monday, May 28, 2007 3:31 PM
Hello,
Thank you for contacting A&E Home Video and The History Channel.
Item #AH75922 - AMERICAN JUSTICE TEENAGE MURDER MYSTERY ($24.95 + S/H) is available
on DVD only.
To place your order, simply visit our secure online store at www.ShopAETV.com. Using the search feature
located at the top of the page, enter the title or item number and click "GO" to quickly locate and
purchase the item. If you prefer you can also call our Order Department toll-free at 1-877-600-0156.
We look forward to your order!
Regards,
Crystal
A&E Home Video
Customer Care Team
Sign up for our free email newsletter to find out about new releases, sales,
and special offers at: www.ShopAETV.com/newsletter
----- Original Message ----From: amgroup01@msn.com
To: aestoregeneral@aetv.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:51 PM
Subject: AE Help Desk
The request below was made from the help desk:
First Name: Stan
Last Name: Caterbone
Request Type: question
Request: American Justice did a story on the Lisa Michelle Lambert case about the murder of Lauris Show. I am
looking to purchase the program. It took place in Lancaster County and involved a Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall.
5/28/2007 3:31 PM
Windows Live Hotmail
Windows Live
Inbox
http://bl108w.blu108.mail.live.com/mail/ReadMessageLight.aspx?Au...
Home
New
Hotmail
Reply
Spaces
OneCare
Reply all
Forward
Mail
Delete
Junk
Web
amgroup01@msn.c...
Sign out
Move to
Junk
Options
Drafts
Sent
Attachments, pictures, and links in this message have been blocked for your safety.
Deleted
Shipping Confirmation : Your 'A&E Home Video' order
Americom
From: A&E Home Video (HomeVideo@aetv.com)

You may not know this sender. Mark as safe | Mark as unsafe
Andale
BargainLand
Show content
Sent: Thu 10/25/07 2:00 PM

To: STAN CATERBONE (amgroup01@msn.com)
Barnstormers
Craigs List
DE Communications
ebay
Ebay Sent Mssgs
Faxes
Fulton Bank
jen
LancChamber
Listings
omnis
Thank you for ordering from A&E Home Video. Your order dated October 4, 2007
has been shipped. For customer service please refer to order# NT3Z1.
Upon shipment, the following items will be charged to your Pay Pal Account and
was shipped via US POSTAL PRIORITY (tracking# 9101943990028713221135)
to:
STAN CATERBONE
1250 FREMONT STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17603
ONE.org
Project Hope
Robert f Kennedy
Saved Sent Messages
Shipping
AH75922 - AMERICAN JUSTICE:TEEN MURDER

Qty Ordered: 1 Qty Shipped: 1
This item has been shipped
Price each: $24.95 Total price: $24.95
Site Webmasters
Unpaid Payments
Manage folders
Today
Mail
Subtotal: $24.95
Shipping & Handling: $0.00
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total: $24.95
Contacts
Calendar
http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirm.htm
Note that tracking information is updated at 6:00pm EST.
If you have any questions, please contact us via e-mail at
<HomeVideo@aetv.com> or phone: 1-877-625-5361 or fax: 1-802-864-9846.
Thank you for shopping with A&E Home Video!
----------------------------------------------------------------A&E Home Video
Sign up for our free email newsletter to find out
about new releases, sales, and special offers at:
www.ShopAETV.com/newsletter
1 of 2
10/26/2007 3:29 AM
Windows Live Hotmail
http://bl108w.blu108.mail.live.com/mail/ReadMessageLight.aspx?Au...
Reply
Reply all
Forward
Delete
Move to
Want to race through your inbox even faster? Try the full version of Windows Live Hotmail. (It's free, too.)
2007 Microsoft
2 of 2
Privacy
Legal
Help Central
Account
Feedback
10/26/2007 3:29 AM
Lisa Michelle Lambert is Back in Court For Civil Case TransWorldNews Pre... http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=22119&ret=Defa...
Web Search
Home
News
News
Finance
Search
Profiles
Business
Services
Interviews
Submit News | Submit Press Releases
RSS
Sign In | Sign Up
Blogs
TWNjobs
My
United States
Account
Back
S ubmit N ews
A lerts
F or Jour nalists
Lisa Michelle Lambert is Back in Court For Civil Case
R SS
I ntervie ws
A rticles
Atlanta, GA 9/4/2007 3:21 PM GMT (FINDITT)
P rice In fo
Lisa Michelle Lambert, the convicted murderer in a 1991 stabbing of 15-year old Laurie Show,
is back in the court room, this time for a civil case. Lambert has filed suit against Pennsylvania
prison officials who allegedly allowed two prison guards to fondle, sexually attack and
photograph her naked while in a Cambridge Springs prison.
A judge recently ruled that this case could go through after being filed in 1996. The Supreme
Court declined to hear Lambert's case in 2005.
Stock Quote
Over the 11-year span, many factors in the case have changed. Two of the six people she is
suing in this case have died.
Lambert is now 34. The daughter she had while in prison turned 15 this past spring.
The suit alleges that a prison guard, James Eicher, sexually attacked Lambert six times in 1994.
Another prison official, John Raun, fondled her, according to the suit.
Operation Smile
Eicher was later fired and convicted of aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault . He
served two years in prison and was released on parole in December 1999.
Lambert's case also alleges that her complaints were ignored by prison officials, who later
photographed and videotaped her naked.
Lambert's attorney, Angus Love of Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, states that two similar
civil cases were filed by other female inmates and they were settled immediately.
Lambert was convicted and sentenced to life for stabbing Show to death in Show's home.
Lambert allegedly killed Show in a fit of jealousy after Show's relationship with Lambert's
then-boyfriend Lawrence Yunkin.
Yunkin, now 36, pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the case and was released to a
halfway house in 2005.
Lambert's accomplice, Tabitha Buck, now 33, was convicted of second-degree murder and a life
sentence.
www.finditt.com
befound@finditt.com
NEWS ALERTS
Receive alerts to your email for Finditt
TransWorldNews Alerts
Email this Article to a friend
Finditt
Home | News [3137] | Interviews | Profile | TWNpeople | Jobs | TWNStores | Contact
Back
2005 - TransWorldNews, Inc. All rights reserved - legal disclaimer | privacy policy | about us| contact | Site Map| finditt.com
1 of 1
9/4/2007 4:38 PM
Lambert
courts Home Back Printable Version Text-Only Full-Screen eMail

Court of
Common Pleas
Adult
Probation &
Parole
Services
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL
Court
Administration
Court
Reporters
Domestic
Relations
Drug Court
Jury Services
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Post
BY: STENGEL, J., AUGUST 24, 1998

Click here to download self-extracting zipped file - Word Perfect
format
Click here to download self-extracting zipped file - MS Word format
Court Related
FAQs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
View as Text-Only
I. INTRODUCTION
Site Index
II. BACKGROUND
Site Feedback
OPINION
Law Library
Magisterial
District
Judges
No. 0423 - 1992
:
v.
Conviction Relief Act
:
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT
:
Juvenile
Probation
Local Rules of
Court
A. The Trial
Home
B. Post Verdict Motions
C. State Court Appeals

Lancaster County
Govt. Homepage
Receive notification of
changes to our site.
Sign up
D. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court

III. THE POST CONVICTION RELIEF ACT PETITION
A. Procedural History: Motions, Petitions, Conferences, Orders
B. Legal Issues Pertaining to this Petition and Hearing
1. Eligibility for PCRA relief
Brady
a. Constitutional violations: prosecutorial misconduct and
b. Ineffective assistance of counsel

c. After-discovered evidence: subsequent availability of
exculpatory evidence
2. "Finally litigated" and waiver under the PCRA
3. This court's role
4. To lead or not to lead: adverse and hostile witnesses
IV. THE 1992 VERDICT: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
V. STATE COURT AND FEDERAL COURT
A. A Comity of Errors
B. What Does "Actual Innocence" Actually Mean?
VI. PETITIONER'S STORY LINE: A CONTEXT
VII. LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S CASE: ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
A. Laurie Show's Dying Declaration
B. The "29 Questions"
C. The Abuse Issue
1. Relationship with Lawrence Yunkin
2. Allegation of gang rape
3. Cambridge Springs
D. Tabitha Buck's Involvement
1. The scratch on Tabitha Buck's face
2. Tabitha Buck's animus
3. Scent of a co-defendant
4. Tabitha Buck's story
E. Lawrence Yunkin's Involvement
F. Kathleen Bayan's Observation
1. Credibility
2. Discovery obligation
3. Truth-determining process
G. Hazel Show's Recollection of Mr. Yunkin's Car
H. The Mihalakis Issue
I. Credibility of Laura Thomas
J. The Black Sweatpants
K. The River Search Video
L. Ms. Lambert's Statement
M. Crime Scene Photographs
1. The telephone cord around the leg
2 . Footprints in the hallway and bedroom
3 . The white sweatshirt
4. "Missing" or "destroyed" photographs
N. The Pearl Earring
O. Robert Reed's Testimony
P. Proposed Admissions from the Federal Record
Q. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel of Roy D. Shirk, Esquire

R. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel of Jules Epstein, Esquire
S. Mr. Madenspacher's "Concession"
T. Brady/Giglio Violations
U. The Commonwealth v. Smith Issue
VIII. CONCLUSION: THE QUESTION OF INNOCENCE
ORDER
ADDENDUM TO OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Lisa Michelle Lambert's petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act
("PCRA"), 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9541 et seq. (1998 Supp.),(1) is now
before this court. Ms. Lambert was convicted of first degree murder for the
death of Laurie Show and sentenced to life in prison. The guilty verdict was
entered on July 20, 1992, after a non-jury trial.
Ms. Lambert's petition contends that her conviction and sentence are
wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional on the basis of after-discovered
evidence. She believes that this after-discovered evidence proves her
innocence and credibility, and establishes a fundamental miscarriage of
justice. She also argues that intentional acts of prosecutorial misconduct,
deliberate falsification of evidence, witness tampering, violations of
discovery obligations, presentation of perjured testimony and ineffective
assistance of both trial and appellate counsel formed the basis for her
conviction. Ms. Lambert contends that she cannot be retried because the
prosecution intended to deny her a fair trial.
The 257 claims stated in the amended petition present various facets of
certain major issues. In this opinion, we address these issues. This court
has had an opportunity to consider Ms. Lambert's claims in light of the
testimony at her 1992 trial, the testimony at her eight week 1998 PCRA
hearing and the legal issues and arguments presented by her counsel and
by the Commonwealth. On the basis of this fully developed record, we are
in a position to make factual findings, credibility rulings and legal decisions
in the interest of a full resolution of all claims raised by Ms. Lambert.
We find that Hazel Show's testimony regarding her daughter's dying
declaration was credible in 1992 and remains credible today. We find that
the expert analysis so ably presented by both sides of this case does not
constitute such "after-discovered evidence" as would cause this court to
make any change in the credibility determination which formed an
important basis for the 1992 verdict.
We find that the so-called "29 questions" did not and could not raise a
reasonable doubt as to petitioner's guilt and does not form the basis for
any contention that the Commonwealth presented perjured testimony.
While sympathetic to the evidence of past abuse presented by Ms.
Lambert, we do not find, under the law, that her diagnosis as a "battered
person" has any legal impact on the issues before us.
We find petitioner's evidence regarding the involvement of Tabitha Buck
and Lawrence Yunkin to be fraught with concerns over Ms. Lambert's
credibility. Should we resolve many of those credibility questions in
petitioner's favor, we still do not believe the testimony about the
involvement of others is exculpatory of Ms. Lambert and it certainly does
not establish her innocence.
We are concerned regarding the discovery issues arising out of the
information made available to the police in 1992 by Kathleen Bayan and by
Hazel Show. After careful analysis of the legal obligations of the
Commonwealth and the credibility of all the witnesses involved in these
two issues, we do not believe the issues provide a basis for relief under the
PCRA.
In 1992 we resolved the issue regarding the contact by First Assistant
District Attorney John A. Kenneff with defense expert witness Isidore
Mihalakis, M.D., in advance of trial. Nothing about the hearing in 1998
changes our view of that issue.
We find the issues regarding Laura Thomas's credibility, Lawrence Yunkin's
black sweatpants, the video of the river search, the statement taken of Ms.
Lambert, the photographs of the crime scene and the pearl earring to have
more sensational appeal than legal merit. The issues have generated more
heat than light in this case.
We have analyzed the many allegations of constitutional or discovery
violations and find that the Commonwealth's compliance with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding discovery and the
requirements of Brady v. Maryland(2) has been well established by the
facts and the law.
Finally, we find no basis in law or in fact to hold either trial counsel or
appellate counsel ineffective.
On the basis of our consideration of these issues, our study of the law and
our careful consideration of the now fully developed record, we find that
Ms. Lambert has not established a basis for relief under the Post
Conviction Relief Act. Our findings on the individual issues raised by the
petition will be set forth in the sections to follow.
II. BACKGROUND
Lisa Michelle Lambert, in addition to another woman, Tabitha Faith Buck,
was charged with criminal homicide for the death of Laurie Show. The
homicide took place on December 20, 1991, in the condominium occupied
by Ms. Show and her mother, Hazel Show. Ms. Lambert was 19 years old
at the time; Ms. Show was 15 years old. A third person, Lawrence Stewart
Yunkin, was charged with hindering apprehension. Ms. Lambert was Mr.
Yunkin's girlfriend; she was, at the time, pregnant to him.
A. The Trial
After waiving her right to a trial by jury, Ms. Lambert proceeded to trial
and was found guilty of first degree murder and criminal conspiracy to
commit murder on July 20, 1992. The Commonwealth elected to seek the
death penalty in the Lambert case. Following a hearing on the penalty
phase, the court declined to impose the death penalty and sentenced Ms.
Lambert to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
B. Post Verdict Motions
Ms. Lambert's post verdict motions were filed on July 28, 1992. In
essence, Ms. Lambert argued that her conviction was against the weight of
the evidence. She raised a dozen claims of error essentially challenging
evidentiary or procedural rulings,(3) but her primary thrust was that there
was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that she was the killer of
Laurie Show. The court denied Ms. Lambert's post verdict motions in an
opinion dated July 19,
1994.(4) No appeal was taken from that order.
Ms. Lambert's family then hired a new attorney who filed a request with
this court for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence and the
alleged ineffectiveness of her court-appointed attorney. At the joint
request of the assistant district attorney and her privately-retained
attorney, an evidentiary hearing was conducted over a two-day period in
November 1994.(5) Counsel indicated a desire to take all issues up on
appeal at that time.(6)
The post verdict evidentiary hearing addressed the issues of ineffective
assistance of counsel and after-discovered evidence. Ms. Lambert attacked
only the assistance of counsel rendered to her by Roy D. Shirk, Esquire.(7)
Specifically, she claimed he was ineffective for the following reasons: (1)
failing to call character witnesses in her defense; (2) failing to introduce
evidence of abuse by Mr. Yunkin; (3) calling a witness to contradict her
testimony; (4) failing to seek suppression of statements she made to the
police; (5) failing to present evidence of bad reputation for the veracity of
witness Laura Thomas; (6) failing to seek a new trial based upon new
evidence of Mr. Yunkin's nolo contendere plea to third degree murder; and
(7) failing to impeach Mr. Yunkin with his statements to the police that he
knew prior to the death of Laurie Show of plans to physically harm her.
The after-discovered evidence was that Mr. Yunkin "lied" about his
involvement in the crime, thereby violating the terms of his plea
agreement with
the District Attorney's Office.(8) Ms. Lambert argued that if she had known
at trial that Mr. Yunkin was going to violate his plea agreement and that he
would admit to third degree murder, her defense at trial would have been
enhanced. New counsel argued that "this Court was deprived of critical
information--evidence that Yunkin was not merely an accessory after the
fact, but that he had deliberately lied, that he was in breach of a plea
agreement, and that he pled nolo contendere to involvement in the killing
of Laurie Show." (Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Post
Verdict Motion for a New Trial at 14) The question was whether this court,
or any finder of fact, could reasonably have been swayed by an admission
that Mr. Yunkin had lied in his testimony at trial. A review of the record
and a consideration of the totality of the record showed that Mr. Yunkin's
credibility was dubious at best.
The court found that the "after-discovered" evidence was not really new
evidence at all. It was simply the same story introduced at the Lambert
trial with a slightly different "spin." The court denied Ms. Lambert's post
verdict motion for a new trial in an order and opinion dated March 14,
1995.
C. State Court Appeals
Ms. Lambert appealed this court's findings to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, raising essentially the same claims regarding ineffective
assistance of trial counsel and after-discovered evidence. Specifically, Ms.
Lambert claimed that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
introduce evidence of her good character and of the abuse inflicted upon
her by Mr. Yunkin. Ms. Lambert also argued the after-discovered evidence
of Mr. Yunkin's plea agreement and perjury. The Superior Court affirmed
the judgment of sentence without opinion on January 4, 1996.
Commonwealth v. Lambert, 450 Pa. Super. 714, 676 A.2d 283 (1996)
(table).
In her appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court filed on February 2,
1996, Ms. Lambert raised the same claims. The petition for allowance of
appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was subsequently denied
without comment on July 2, 1996. Commonwealth v. Lambert, 545 Pa.
650, 680 A.2d 1160 (1996).
D. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court

Ms. Lambert never filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction
Relief Act. Instead, she sent a handwritten pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on September 12, 1996. Counsel was appointed by the
district court to represent her on a pro bono basis and an amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on January 3, 1997. The
petition included the claims previously presented in state court, but also
introduced new claims asserting that (1) Ms. Lambert was "actually
innocent," (2) that there was massive misconduct by the prosecution and
the police, (3) that after-discovered evidence created manifest injustice,
and (4) that trial counsel had been ineffective in a multitude of ways.
In its answer to the amended petition, the Commonwealth maintained that
Ms. Lambert was not entitled to federal review because she had not
exhausted her state court remedies as to all of the claims in her pleading
and had committed procedural default. In the alternative, the
Commonwealth claimed that the habeas petition should be denied on its
merits. The Commonwealth explicitly stated in its pleading that it was not
waiving the exhaustion requirement in any way.
Simultaneously with the first amended petition, counsel filed a motion for
permission to take discovery, which the Commonwealth opposed. The
district court granted the motion on January 16, 1997, citing unspecified
unusual circumstances, and ordered broad, expedited discovery in the
federal habeas corpus proceeding.(9)
Despite the Commonwealth's objections to the petition on the grounds of
exhaustion, the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing(10) on Ms.
Lambert's claims of actual innocence and prosecutorial misconduct.(11) The
hearing commenced on March 31, 1997.(12) After 14 days of testimony, the
district court granted the writ, declared Ms. Lambert to be "actually
innocent," barred the Commonwealth from conducting a retrial for the
murder of Laurie Show, and permanently released Ms. Lambert from
prison.
In its 90-page memorandum opinion of April 21, 1997, the district court
found numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and offered its
opinion that some of this conduct might involve criminal activity on the
part of members of the Lancaster County District Attorney's staff. The
court also ruled that Ms. Lambert had exhausted all her state claims with
the exception of those based on after-discovered evidence. To the extent
that there were claims which a Pennsylvania court might view as not
having been waived, the district court found that the state proceedings
would be ineffective to protect Ms. Lambert's rights. Lambert v.
Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. 1521, 1553-55 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
The district court referred First Assistant District Attorney Kenneff to the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
investigation of allegations of criminal activity in the prosecution of the
Lambert homicide case. The district court also (1) demanded that District
Justice Ronald W. Savage, a former county detective involved in the
investigation of the Lambert case, be investigated by the Judicial Conduct
Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and (2) offered its opinion that
another assistant district attorney and two county detectives, one now
retired, were guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.
The district court's ruling was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on April 22, 1997.(13) On December 29, 1997, a three-judge
panel of the Third Circuit vacated the decision of the district court and
remanded this case to the district court with the direction to dismiss the
federal habeas petition without prejudice. Lambert v. Blackwell, 134
F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 1997). The Third Circuit found that the district court was
without jurisdiction to hear the case because Ms. Lambert had not yet
exhausted her state remedies. Ms. Lambert's application for rehearing en
banc was denied, with four judges dissenting.
While her application for rehearing was pending, Ms. Lambert moved for a
stay of the Third Circuit's order and also filed an emergency application
seeking the same relief from the United States Supreme Court. On
February 2, 1998, the Third Circuit refused to stay its order, as did Justice
David H. Souter, as Circuit Judge, the same day. Thereafter, petitioner
surrendered to prison officials on February 4, 1998.(14)
A petition for writ of certiorari, seeking review of the Third Circuit's
opinion, was filed by petitioner on April 23, 1998, and is pending in the
United States Supreme Court, where it is docketed at No. 97-8812. On
April 24, 1998, petitioner filed with the Third Circuit an application,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for
release from custody pending the Supreme Court's consideration of her
petition for writ of certiorari.(15) This petition for release from custody was
denied by the Third Circuit in an order and opinion filed on August 3, 1998.
III. THE POST CONVICTION RELIEF ACT PETITION
A. Procedural History: Motions, Petitions, Conferences, Orders
An unverified Post Conviction Relief Act petition was filed on behalf of Ms.
Lambert in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County on February 2,
1998.(16) Contemporaneously with the filing of the PCRA petition, Ms.
Lambert's counsel filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
requesting that the Supreme Court assume King's Bench jurisdiction over
this case, remove the PCRA petition from the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, render a decision based upon the record established in
the habeas corpus proceeding in district court, and stay the reincarceration
of Ms. Lambert pending her appeal.
On February 2, 1998, the district attorney requested the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General to assume prosecution of this
case. The Attorney General granted that request under the Commonwealth
Attorneys Act, pursuant to 71 P.S. Section 732-205(a)(3) and (c) (1990).
On February 9, 1998, the Attorney General entered an appearance and
filed pleadings in the Supreme Court. On February 10, 1998, Ms.
Lambert's attorneys asked the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to remove
the Attorney General as counsel for the Commonwealth.
The Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for King's Bench
jurisdiction and issued an order dated February 25, 1998, remanding the
PCRA petition to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County with a
directive that the petition be disposed of within 120 days.(17) The Court
also dismissed the motion to compel removal of the Attorney General
without prejudice to petitioner's right to refile that motion in the Court of
Common Pleas. Lastly, the emergency motion for writ of prohibition to

prevent the reincarceration of petitioner was dismissed as moot, petitioner
having returned to prison on February 4, 1998.
This court obtained a copy of the order of the Supreme Court on March 2,
1998.(18) The PCRA petition also was received in chambers on March 2,
1998. A copy of petitioner's motion to disqualify the Attorney General was
forwarded to the court on March 4, 1998. A response was sent by the
Attorney General on March 5, 1998, and a hearing was held on this matter
on March 6, 1998.(19)
Ms. Lambert's motion to compel removal of the Attorney General as
counsel was denied in an opinion and order dated March 11, 1998, the
court having held that the Attorney General had the power to prosecute
the PCRA petition pursuant to 71 P.S. Section 732-205. Upon motion of
counsel for petitioner, an additional order was entered on March 11, 1998,
directing the Commonwealth to file an answer to the PCRA petition. The
Attorney General subsequently filed a response to Ms. Lambert's PCRA
petition on behalf of the Commonwealth on March 31, 1998.
The original PCRA petition contained some 57 claims of after-discovered
evidence, 117 claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including 45 claims of
Brady/Giglio violations, and 21 claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. For this reason, the court did not impose an expedited deadline
on the filing of an answer, but chose to require an answer within the 20
days which would normally be required under the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure for an answer to a complaint or a petition. The
Commonwealth's filing of an answer in 20 days in no way delayed the
proceeding, due to the plethora of motions filed by petitioner, which are
chronicled below.
On March 6, 1998, the court issued an "Order Limiting Publicity" which
contained the text of Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.(20) This
was the subject of collateral litigation in this court which took place in
March 1998 and which resulted in a modification of the original order.(21)
For a discussion, see Commonwealth v. Lambert, 76 Lanc. L. Rev. 184
(1998), now pending in the Superior Court.
In addition to the motion to remove the attorney general, petitioner filed
an additional 17 prehearing motions or petitions for the court's
consideration over an eight-week period. Most of these matters were
briefed by the parties; all were argued orally before the court at
petitioner's request. Petitioner's additional filings will be set forth seriatim
in chronological order.
On March 11, 1998, petitioner filed a motion to file the record of the
habeas corpus hearing before the federal district court with this PCRA
court and to deny a hearing on the issues covered therein. Received with
this approximately 50-page motion were 30 volumes of the Federal Court
of Appeals' Appendix. After the issues were briefed by the parties and
argued by counsel, the court denied petitioner's motion to enter the
federal record as the record in this PCRA proceeding in an opinion and
(22)
order entered on April 6, 1998.(22) See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 76

Lanc. L. Rev. 169 (1998).
Because Ms. Lambert's petition and the Commonwealth's response thereto
raised material issues of fact, the court, on April 6, 1998, entered an order
scheduling a hearing on the petition pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 1508. A
prehearing conference was scheduled for April 9, 1998.
Ms. Lambert's counsel made oral motions at the prehearing conference on
April 9, 1998, to have themselves and their law firm appointed as counsel
for petitioner. In the alternative, counsel requested that petitioner be
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis so that they could be reimbursed
all costs incurred on petitioner's behalf. Written motions regarding the
appointment of counsel, the in forma pauperis status of petitioner, and the
reimbursement of costs were subsequently filed with the Clerk of Courts
on April 15, 1998.
Included in petitioner's prehearing memorandum of April 21, 1998, was a
written request to incorporate admissions of the Commonwealth "actors"
from prior proceedings, as well as all of the police reports, police notes,
and other documents turned over by the Commonwealth during the federal
proceeding. The Commonwealth responded on April 20, 1998, with a
motion in limine directed to Ms. Lambert's proposed introduction of prior
federal testimony as "admissions." On April 23, 1998, after hearing
argument from counsel, the court denied petitioner's request to
incorporate certain portions of the testimony from the federal habeas
proceeding as admissions against the Commonwealth in the PCRA
proceeding.(23)
Petitioner next presented to the court on March 13, 1998, a 119-page
motion for bail and release on her own recognizance pending disposition of
her PCRA petition by this court. The parties filed legal memoranda and
presented oral argument. An opinion and order were entered on April 3,
1998, denying petitioner's motion for bail.(24) See Commonwealth v.
Lambert, No. 0423-1992, slip op. (Lanc. Co. C.P. April 3, 1998).
Petitioner's first motion for discovery was received by the court on April 3,
1998, and argued before the court at the first prehearing conference on
April 9, 1998. At the conclusion of the argument, the court issued a ruling
from the bench regarding the various discovery matters raised in
petitioner's first discovery motion.(25)
Specifically, the court denied petitioner's request to (1) depose inmates at
SCI-Dallas relative to statements allegedly made by Mr. Yunkin, (2)
depose "Smokey" Roberts regarding the existence of a report or log of his
diving shoots, (3) obtain discovery of the Commonwealth's "discriminate
use of PCRA rules," (4) obtain discovery of the Commonwealth's "purpose"
in pursuing Ms. Lambert's PCRA, and (5) obtain discovery of the
Commonwealth's efforts to "intimidate" the judiciary over the Lambert
case. The court did grant petitioner's request for any logs maintained by
the police of all photographs taken by police in the murder investigation,
directing the Commonwealth to determine if they existed and, if so, to
produce them to petitioner.

On April 6, 1998, petitioner served a change of venue motion on the court.
This was followed on April 8, 1998, with a motion for definite pleading by
the Commonwealth on the issues of waiver and other procedural
requirements under the PCRA and for a determination by the court
whether it would raise such issues sua sponte. On April 15, 1998,
petitioner filed a motion for sanctions against John Show, the victim's
father, and Justice Ronald Savage, a former officer with the East Lampeter
Police Department, for violation of the original "Order Limiting Publicity."
These three outstanding motions were argued via a speaker phone in the
courtroom at the second prehearing conference on April 21, 1998.(26)
Petitioner's counsel began the April 21, 1998, conference by requesting
the disqualification of this court pursuant to Rule 3(C)(1)(a) of the Rules of
Professional Responsibility. Counsel argued that because the court viewed
a piece of evidence at the 1992 trial in this matter, the court could be a
fact witness at the PCRA proceeding as to the physical nature of that
evidence. Specifically, Ms. Lambert argued that the sweatpants introduced
into evidence at the 1992 trial were not the same sweatpants introduced
at the federal habeas hearing in 1997. Counsel for petitioner asserted that
this court had personal knowledge of a disputed evidentiary matter which
required recusal. This court's findings regarding the size of the clothing
and its significance at trial were clearly stated in our July 19, 1994,
opinion. See Section IV, infra. Ms. Lambert's request was denied on the
record after the court considered the arguments of counsel.
The parties thereafter addressed the change of venue issue, the motion for
definite pleading by the Commonwealth, the motion for sanctions for
violation of the "gag" order, the motion for appointment of counsel, and
the motion for reimbursement of costs. At the conclusion of this first
prehearing, the court issued oral rulings from the bench denying the
motion for a more definite pleading and denying the motion for
sanctions.(27) The court reserved its ruling on the other matters.
On April 23, 1998, the court held a third prehearing conference via a
speaker phone in the courtroom. Counsel discussed Ms. Lambert's petition
to proceed in forma pauperis, the request for reimbursement of costs, the
motion for appointment of counsel, and the change of venue motion.
Immediately following this conference on April 23, 1998, the court entered
a written order confirming rulings made from the bench and disposing of
several other of petitioner's motions. Specifically, (1) the court denied the
motion for more definite pleading, (2) the court denied as moot the motion
for sanctions for violations of the gag order, (3) the court denied the
motion to sit outside Lancaster County, (4) the court denied petitioner's
request to incorporate certain admissions from the federal habeas hearing,
(5) the court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and to have
all costs necessary for the PCRA proceeding reimbursed by the County,
and (6) the court denied the motion for court appointment of defense
counsel.(28)
A second motion for discovery was filed by Ms. Lambert on April 28, 1998.
In this motion, petitioner requested (1) all evidence favorable to her which
had not previously been disclosed, (2) a summary of the anticipated
testimony of each witness the Commonwealth intended to call, (3) the
addresses and telephone numbers of all Commonwealth witnesses, (4) all
evidence of any prior statements that were inconsistent with testimony
that the Commonwealth intended to offer in the PCRA proceeding, (5) all
documents that related to or embodied agreements or proposed or
prospective agreements between Commonwealth witnesses and/or their
counsel in exchange for testimony in the PCRA proceeding, (6) a copy of
all exhibits that the Commonwealth intended to use, and (7) the
Commonwealth's impressions as to why Tabitha Buck may have been
untruthful in her federal deposition.(29) The court granted petitioner's
request for all Brady/Giglio(30) materials, the addresses and telephone
numbers of Commonwealth witnesses, and copies of all Commonwealth
exhibits. The remaining discovery requests were denied.
On April 30, 1998, the first day the court heard testimony in this PCRA
proceeding, petitioner moved for leave to amend the PCRA petition. This
motion was granted the same day. In addition, petitioner filed three
motions on April 30, 1998, all of which were argued in open court.
The first was a motion to admit the federal court testimony of Haresh G.
Mirchandani, M.D., the chief medical examiner for Philadelphia. Dr.
Mirchandani had recently declined to appear as an expert witness for
petitioner in her PCRA proceeding in Lancaster. An order was entered on
April 30, 1998, denying the motion to admit the prior federal court
testimony of Dr. Mirchandani as he was not an "unavailable witness" as
that term is defined in 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5917.
The second motion requested transcripts and corresponding ASCII disks of
all prehearing matters, as well as the PCRA proceeding. The court ordered
that transcripts be given to petitioner but declined to order the court
reporters to produce ASCII disks.
Lastly, on April 30, 1998, Ms. Lambert petitioned the court to retain an
investigator to assist in her case. An order was entered on May 13, 1998,
granting this motion and authorizing an investigator to be compensated by
the court at the rate of $40.00 per hour with a maximum allowable
expense of $1,000.00 for the investigation.(31) Petitioner subsequently filed
a second motion for appointment of an investigator to assist in her rebuttal
case, which this court approved on June 16, 1998.
During the course of the PCRA hearing, petitioner presented seven
additional motions to the court. On May 28, 1998, petitioner filed a motion
to subpoena the bank statements, canceled checks, and church wedding
records of Officer John Bowman and his wife. This motion was granted on
June 16, 1998, after an in-chambers conference with counsel for the
Bowmans.
Petitioner also filed motions in limine to preclude the expert testimony of
three Commonwealth witnesses: (1) Roger J. Levin, M.D., an
otolaryngologist; (2) Wayne K. Ross, M.D., a forensic pathologist; and (3)
(32)
Joseph L. Burton, M.D., a forensic pathologist.(32) Additionally, counsel for

petitioner filed a motion in limine to preclude all evidence not introduced at the
1992 trial and to limit the Commonwealth's witnesses. Following oral argument by
counsel, these motions in limine were denied by the court on June 16,
1998.
The last two motions were filed by petitioner on June 10, 1998, at the
close of her case. Petitioner submitted a list of admissions to be offered
into evidence. Those proposed admissions will be addressed in this opinion
in Section VII.P, infra. She also filed a second motion for leave to amend
the petition, which was granted on June 16, 1998.
The Commonwealth filed two prehearing motions. As discussed previously,
the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine objecting to the proposed use
of federal testimony as admissions in the PCRA proceeding. The court
denied petitioner's request to incorporate the testimony of Commonwealth
"actors" as admissions and, in effect, granted the Commonwealth's first
motion in limine.
On April 27, 1998, the Commonwealth filed a second motion in limine to
preclude the testimony of Ann W. Burgess, Ph.D., on the issue of "battered
person syndrome." After briefing and argument by the parties, the court
denied the Commonwealth's motion in limine on May 18, 1998, and
permitted the testimony of Dr. Burgess in this proceeding.(33)
The Commonwealth's last motion in limine was filed on May 12, 1998,
during the course of the proceeding. This motion sought to preclude the
testimony of Professor Charles W. Wolfram on legal ethics and the
propriety of lawyers' conduct. After reviewing the parties' briefs and
hearing oral argument on the issue, the court granted this motion in limine
on May 18, 1998.(34) The hearing commenced on April 30, 1998.(35)
Petitioner presented 73 witnesses and offered the admission of 478
exhibits. She rested her case on June 11, 1998.
The Commonwealth presented 39 witnesses and offered the admission of
123 exhibits. The Commonwealth rested its case June 22, 1998. Closing
arguments were held on June 24, 1998, lasting a full day.
The record includes 36 volumes of notes of testimony (more than 8,000
pages) and 601 exhibits. The court addressed 28 motions, wrote four
opinions, and issued 28 orders. It heard oral argument on outstanding
legal matters on at least three occasions prior to the hearing and
additionally held three prehearing conferences. The PCRA hearing itself
covered 38 days in court over an eight- week period.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court was asked to decide petitioner's
claims of 157 allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, including 66
allegations of Brady/Giglio violations, 72 allegations of after-discovered
evidence, and 28 allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
B. Legal Issues Pertaining to this Petition and Hearing
1. Eligibility for PCRA relief

The petitioner must establish that an error or defect in her case resulted in
a "fundamentally unfair conviction." Commonwealth v. Carbone, --- Pa.
---, 707 A.2d 1145, 1148 (1998) (quoting Commonwealth v. Weinder,
395 Pa. Super. 608, 626-27, 577 A.2d 1364, 1374 (1990)). The purpose
of the PCRA is to provide a means of obtaining collateral relief for those
persons who did not commit the crimes for which they have been
convicted, or who are serving sentences longer than the legal maximum.
42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9542. It is not a means of re-litigating issues that
have already been addressed on direct appeal, or which could have been
raised earlier. Commonwealth v. Buehl, 540 Pa. 493, 500, 658 A.2d
771, 775 (1995).
To obtain relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must prove, by a fair
preponderance of the evidence, that her conviction was the result of:
(1) a violation of the Constitution of Pennsylvania or the Constitution or
laws of the United States, which, under the circumstances, so undermined
the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or
innocence could have taken place, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(I); or
(2) the ineffective assistance of counsel, at trial or on appeal, which, under
the circumstances, so undermined the truth-determining process that no
reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place, 42 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(ii); or
(3) the unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has
subsequently become available and which would have changed the
outcome of the trial if it had been introduced, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section
9543(a)(2)(vi).
These elements under a PCRA claim provide general categories for
consideration of the many claims asserted by Ms. Lambert. To further
explain the process by which this court must evaluate Ms. Lambert's
claims for relief, we discuss the elements of a PCRA case in the
subsections to follow.
a. Constitutional violations: prosecutorial misconduct and Brady
The question of prosecutorial misconduct is by far the most troubling in
this case. This is the area where concerns about the integrity of the
system, the corruption of the criminal trial process, and alleged unethical
conduct by the prosecuting attorney and the investigating detectives come
under sharp scrutiny. This is an area rife with emotion and a distracting
level of hyperbole. The history of this case teaches that reasoned analysis
of the prosecutorial misconduct issues can easily give way to rhetorical
flourish and personal outrage. Yet, no issue is well resolved through the
barometer of personal feelings of advocates or a ground swell of
community opinion or media coverage. It is necessary to look at the law to
determine what might constitute prosecutorial misconduct and then to look
directly to the facts of this case to analyze what happened, what did not,
and what it might mean.
The issue of prosecutorial misconduct is subject to an analysis under the
PCRA statute and under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in
Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992).
There is no specific provision for prosecutorial misconduct under the PCRA.
However, the Act provides that a petitioner, to be eligible for relief, must
plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her conviction
resulted from:
A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or
laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular
case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable
adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(i). Ms. Lambert claims that police and
prosecutors' misconduct deprived her of due process. She further contends
that the Commonwealth's failure to disclose certain information to her trial
counsel was a constitutional violation.
A second focus in the prosecutorial misconduct area is Smith. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Smith held that the double jeopardy
clause of the Pennsylvania constitution prohibits the retrial of a defendant
(1) when prosecutorial misconduct is intended to provoke the defendant
into moving for a mistrial, or (2) when the conduct of the prosecutor is
intentionally undertaken to prejudice the defendant to the point of the
denial of a fair trial. 532 Pa. at 186, 615 A.2d at 325.
In Smith, there were two incidents of intentional prosecutorial
misconduct. The first concerned adhesive lifters. Certain adhesive lifters
were used at the autopsy to remove granular particles which looked like
sand from between the victim's toes. These adhesive lifters were
discovered by the Commonwealth during the Smith trial but were not
disclosed to Smith's defense counsel. The prosecutor wrote a memo
saying, "It is obvious from [defense counsel's] tactics thus far that he will
attempt to establish that Mrs. Reinert was killed at the shore in Cape May,
New Jersey by William Bradfield, Chris Pappas, and Susan Myers. The
sand, therefore, is extremely material to the defense case." 532 Pa. at
182, 615 A.2d at 323. The Commonwealth's theory in Smith was that the
victim was murdered in Pennsylvania. The defense theory was that she
was murdered in Cape May, New Jersey, and the sand in her toes would
have supported the defense position. Yet the Commonwealth did not
disclose the existence of the sand between the toes of the victim.
The second incident involved denial of an agreement with a witness. The
Court found that the Commonwealth deliberately denied the existence of
an agreement under which its witness, Mr. Martray, received lenient
treatment at sentencing in return for testimony against Smith. 532 Pa. at
181, 615 A.2d at 322-23.
For purposes of this opinion, the alleged prosecutorial misconduct will be

considered to determine whether it was intended to provoke Ms. Lambert
into moving for a mistrial or whether it was intentionally undertaken to
prejudice defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial. 532 Pa. at 186,
615 A.2d at 325.
Ms. Lambert also argues that failure to turn over exculpatory evidence
violated her constitutional rights as set forth in Brady. In Brady, the
United States Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecutor
of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process
where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor." 373 U.S. at
104. Pennsylvania promulgated Criminal Rule of Procedure 305(B)(1) in
response to Brady, requiring Commonwealth disclosure to defense
counsel, upon request, of "any evidence favorable to the accused which is
material either to guilt or to punishment, and which is within the
possession of the attorney for the Commonwealth." Pa. R. Crim. P.
305(B)(1)(a).
When the reliability of a witness may be determinative of the guilt or
innocence of an accused, nondisclosure of evidence affecting the credibility
of witnesses falls within the general rule as pronounced by Brady. Giglio,
405 U.S. at 154. Undisclosed evidence is "material" under Brady,
however, only "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence
been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have
been different." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). The
prosecution in Bagley failed to disclose impeachment material about its
two key witnesses: the witnesses had contracts with the government to
pay them money commensurate with information furnished. This violated
respondent's due process rights under Brady. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 671.
The Supreme Court shed yet more light on the materiality issue by
pronouncing that "a showing of materiality does not require demonstration
by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have
resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal," and that Brady is violated
"by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put
the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the
verdict." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435 (1995). Kyles also adds to
the materiality test that suppressed evidence must be considered
collectively, rather than just item by item. Id. at 507.
However, a defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the Brady doctrine
"[w]here the exculpatory information is not only available to the defendant
but also lies in a source where a reasonable defendant would have
looked." Barnes v. Thompson, 58 F.3d 971, 975 (4th Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted). See Commonwealth v. McElroy, 445 Pa. Super. 336,
352, 665 A.2d 813, 820 (1995) (citing Gelormo, 327 Pa. Super. at 231,
475 A.2d at 771, indicating that Rule 305(B)(1) is not intended to apply
where defense counsel has equal access to evidence it seeks to compel).
Most recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that "the Brady
rule is not an all-encompassing directive to the prosecution to disclose all
evidence in its possession to a criminal defendant." Commonwealth v.

Appel, 547 Pa. 171, 203, 689 A.2d 891, 907 (1997). The evidence that
was the subject of Appel's alleged Brady violation was statements made
by people who knew the appellant which were descriptive of his strange
behavior and unusual ideas. Appellant maintained that the Commonwealth
had a duty to disclose this information to the defense or the trial court to
be considered in determining his competency. The court held that the
statements were not relevant to Appel's guilt or innocence, but merely to
his competency, and as such did not violate the rule as pronounced in
Brady. Appel, 547 Pa. at 203, 689 A.2d at 907.
b. Ineffective assistance of counsel
The PCRA requires a petitioner to plead and prove ineffective assistance of
counsel which so undermined the truth-determining process that no
reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. 42 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(ii); Appel, 547 Pa. at 199-201, 689 A.2d at
905. Petitioner must prove: (1) there is merit to the underlying claim; (2)
counsel had no reasonable basis for his course of conduct; and (3) there is
a reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question the
outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v.
Douglas, 537 Pa. 588, 597, 645 A.2d 226, 230 (1994) (citing
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987)) (referred
to hereafter as the "Douglas/Pierce" test). "Prejudice in the context of a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is determined by an evaluation of
whether 'but for the arguably ineffective act or omission there is a
reasonable probability that the result would have been different.'"
Commonwealth v. Sneeringer, 447 Pa. Super. 241, 248, 668 A.2d
1167, 1170 (1995) (quoting Commonwealth v. Donahue, 428 Pa.
Super. 259, 282, 630 A.2d 1238, 1249-50 (1993)).
A petitioner cannot obtain post-conviction review of claims previously
litigated on appeal by alleging ineffective assistance of prior counsel and
presenting new theories of relief to support previously litigated claims.
Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 538 Pa. 455, 460-61, 649 A.2d 121, 123
(1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 137 (1995). Further, counsel cannot be
considered ineffective for failing to assert a meritless claim and is
presumed to have been effective. Id.; Commonwealth v. Marshall, 534
Pa. 488, 633 A.2d 1100 (1993). See Commonwealth v. Henry, --- Pa. --, 706 A.2d 313, 323 (1997); Commonwealth v. Baker, 531 Pa. 541,
562, 614 A.2d 663, 673 (1992).
When the three prongs of the Douglas/Pierce standard are met, the
petitioner is then required to demonstrate that the ineffectiveness
rendered the truth-determining process inherently unreliable. 42 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(ii). In Buehl, a plurality decision, the Supreme
Court was divided on the issue of whether this statutory requirement is
merely a restatement of the prejudice standard set forth in
Douglas/Pierce, which requires a "reasonable probability" that but for the
ineffectiveness the outcome of the proceeding would have been different,
or whether it constitutes a higher burden for the petitioner in a PCRA
proceeding. The lead opinion in Buehl held that the PCRA requires a more
stringent showing of prejudice than that required on direct appeal. Buehl,

540 Pa. at 505, 658 A.2d at 777. In Buehl, the plurality found that
counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary instruction
regarding the use of other crimes evidence but concluded that "while we
are able to say that due to the prejudicial nature of the evidence in
question the outcome of Appellant's trial may have been different . . . we
are unable to say that due to the omission the adjudication of guilt is
unreliable." Id. at 508, 658 A.2d at 779. This conclusion was based on the
court's finding that all the evidence in the case "created overwhelming
evidence of Appellant's guilt." Id.
In Buehl, Chief Justice Nix, concurring, and Justices Cappy and Flaherty,
in dissent, concluded that there is no distinction between the prejudice
prong of the test in Pierce and the language of the PCRA requiring proof
that counsel's ineffectiveness "so undermined the truth-determining
process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
place." Justices Cappy and Flaherty expressed the view that a
determination that counsel's ineffectiveness may have resulted in a
different outcome necessarily renders the truth-determining process
unreliable. Buehl, 540 Pa. at 515, 658 A.2d at 786 (Cappy, J., dissenting).
The Superior Court subsequently held that there is no substantive
distinction between the prejudice standard applicable on direct appeal and
the prejudice standard applicable under the PCRA. Commonwealth v.
Kimball, 453 Pa. Super. 193, 199-200, 683 A.2d 666, 669 (1996) (en
banc), allocatur granted, 548 Pa. 615, 693 A.2d 587 (1997). See
Carbone, --- Pa. at ---, 707 A.2d at 1153. This position would seem to be
supported by recent cases of the Supreme Court in which the Court has
stated that to prevail on an ineffectiveness claim raised under the PCRA,
the defendant must demonstrate the three elements of the
Douglas/Pierce test only. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Henry, --- Pa.
at ---, 706 A.2d at 323; Appel, 547 Pa. at 199-200, 689 A.2d at 905.
c. After-discovered evidence: subsequent availability of
exculpatory evidence
After-discovered evidence can provide the basis for a remedy on a
collateral appeal , under the PCRA. The petitioner must prove: (1) the
evidence must have been unavailable at the time of trial; (2) the evidence
must be exculpatory; and (3) the evidence must be of such a quality that
it would change the outcome of the trial. Commonwealth v.
Bonaccurso, 425 Pa. Super. 479, 484, 625 A.2d 1197, 1199 (1993); 42
Pa. C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(vi). To grant such relief the court must be
satisfied that the evidence "could not have been obtained at trial by
reasonable diligence, that it is not cumulative or of such a nature that it
merely impeaches credibility, and that it would be likely to compel a
different result." Commonwealth v. Reese, 444 Pa. Super. 38, 44-45,
663 A.2d 206, 209 (1995). See Commonwealth v. Schuck, 401 Pa. 222,
229, 164 A.2d 13, 17 (1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 884 (1961).
Unlike the test for ineffective assistance of counsel which focuses on the
reliability of the truth-determining process, after-discovered evidence
claims focus on whether that evidence "would have changed the outcome
of the trial if it had been introduced." 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(2)(vi)
(amended November 1995, effective January 16, 1996).(36) In granting a
new trial in Bonaccurso, the PCRA court made two crucial credibility
determinations: that the after-discovered witness's testimony was reliable
and that the defendant did not have the opportunity to tell his story to the
court at the original trial because of counsel's ineffectiveness for
presenting the wrong defense.
In a concurring opinion in Bonaccurso, Judge Beck of the Superior Court
noted that the after-discovered evidence must independently and reliably
corroborate the defense theory presented at trial. She noted her concern
that the majority opinion in Bonaccurso could lead to "hindsight justice."
425 Pa. Super. at 489, 625 A.2d at 1202. Judge Beck noted that generally
defendants will not likely succeed in obtaining collateral relief based upon
new theories inconsistent with their trial defense.
The standard for after-discovered evidence is more strict than for a
Brady/Giglio disclosure violation and the reason for this difference has
been explained by the United States Supreme Court:
[T]he fact that such evidence was available to the prosecutor and not
submitted to the defense places it in a different category than if it had
simply been discovered from a neutral source after trial. For that reason
the defendant should not have to satisfy the severe burden of
demonstrating that newly discovered evidence probably would have
resulted in acquittal. If the standard applied to the usual motion for a new
trial based on newly discovered evidence were the same when the
evidence was in the State's possession as when it was found in a neutral
source, there would be no special significance to the prosecutor's
obligation to serve the cause of justice.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 111 (1976). This explains why a
petitioner may prevail upon her Brady claims where her after-discovered
evidence claims provide no relief. Commonwealth v. Galloway, 433 Pa.
Super. 222, 227 n.5, 640 A.2d 454, 457 n.5 (1994).
2. "Finally litigated" and waiver under the PCRA
An issue is deemed finally litigated if (1) the highest appellate court in ,
which a petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on
the merits of the issue, Commonwealth v. Szuchon, 548 Pa. 37, 41, 693
A.2d 959, 961 (1997), or (2) the issue has been raised and decided in a
proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or sentence. 42 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 9544(a); Appel,, 547 Pa. at 186, 689 A.2d , a, t 898. Allegations
of ineffectiveness of counsel may not be used to obtain subsequent review
of an issue that has previously been found to be without merit.
Commonwealth v. DeHart, 539 Pa. 5, 17, 650 A.2d 38, 44 (1994). The
PCRA petitioner must plead and prove that the failure to litigate the issue
prior to trial, during trial, or on direct appeal could not have been the
result of any "rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel." 42 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 9543(a)(4).
If the allegations of error have not been fully litigated, the PCRA also
requires that a petitioner demonstrate that these allegations of error have
not been waived. An issue is deemed waived if the petitioner could have
raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on
appeal, or in a prior state post conviction proceeding. 42 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 9544(b). To obtain review of such an issue, the petitioner must
show that his failure to appeal a ruling or raise an issue was not knowing
and intentional. Commonwealth v. Craddock, 370 Pa. Super. 139, 14243, 535 A.2d 1189, 1191 (1988), aff'd, 522 Pa. 491, 564 A.2d 151 (1989).
Finally, the PCRA requires that all petitions be filed within one year of the
date the judgment becomes final, which is either at the conclusion of
direct review, or at the expiration of the deadline for seeking review. 42
Pa. C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(3).
3. This court's role
The PCRA statute and the case law provide certain elements which the
petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence in each of
the several areas she asserts. Each section requires the judge to
determine what impact the evidence in question would have had at trial.
The after-discovered evidence must have been unavailable, exculpatory
and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.
The prosecutorial misconduct charges require the court to determine
whether the constitutional violations so undermined the truth-determining
process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
place. Similarly, the PCRA requires a petitioner to establish ineffective
assistance of counsel which rendered the truth-determining process
unreliable.
For there to be a Brady violation, the petitioner must prove that the
Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence or favorable
evidence which was "material." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87-88. "Material" has
been defined as follows:
The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had
the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding
would have been
different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.
Galloway, 433 Pa. Super. at 229, 640 A.2d at 457 (quoting Bagley, 473
U.S. at 682). The Brady claims then require the court to find that the
result of the proceeding would have been different had the material
evidence been disclosed.
In each of these four major areas, there is an element for the trial court to
determine whether the alleged misconduct, Brady violations, afterdiscovered evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel would have made
a difference to the outcome of the trial. Would the after-discovered
evidence have "changed the outcome of the trial?" Did the prosecutorial
misconduct "so undermine the truth-determining process that no reliable
adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place?" Did the Brady
violations involve "material" evidence, i.e., would the evidence have
changed the outcome of the trial? Did the ineffective assistance of counsel
render the truth-determining process unreliable?
In this case, the judge sitting in review of the PCRA claims also sat without
a jury in the 1992 trial. In a typical case, a PCRA court would consider
claims of after-discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective
assistance or Brady violations and make its best judgment as to what
would have influenced the jury. In the case of a constitutional violation,
the truth-determining process would have been the jury's analysis and
deliberations on the verdict. The court could speculate about what would
have mattered to the jury and what would not have mattered. And so it
goes for the after-discovered evidence, the Brady violations and the
ineffective assistance claims.
In this case, however, there was no jury and there is no need for this court
to project what might have mattered and what might have affected the
jury's analysis of the case. Here, the court listened to the evidence in
1992, considered the arguments of counsel and determined a verdict. This
court is in a unique position to say what would have made a difference in
the truth-determining process in 1992. This court knows what affected the
outcome of the case, knows what was important in the truth-determining
process and knows what was material.
Our research has disclosed no appellate case law on the standard to be
applied to a PCRA petition to a court who heard the initial case non-jury. It
seems to make sense that the court in the unique position of hearing a
case non-jury would have insight into the basis for the verdict that would
not be available to a judge in a jury trial. To speculate about the impact of
certain evidence on a jury when in reality the court itself heard the
evidence and made the decision would seem both unproductive and
unnecessary. For example, how could this court in good conscience find
that after-discovered evidence would have changed the outcome of the
trial were a jury to hear the new evidence when, in reality, this court
knows that it would not have changed the outcome?
This is one practical consequence of petitioner's decision to waive her right
to a jury trial in 1992. In all the appeals, motions and petitions which
followed since the verdict in 1992, never once has petitioner contended
that her decision to proceed non-jury was improper. Never once has she
contended that Attorney Shirk was ineffective for advising her to proceed
non-jury, never once has she argued that her waiver was something other
than knowing and voluntary, and never once has she challenged the
colloquy which led to the court approval of her waiver of a jury trial. In
fact, it is likely that petitioner views that decision as a successful decision.
In any event, by her choice to proceed non-jury, petitioner has afforded
this court an insight into the PCRA issues which would not otherwise have
been available had the case been tried with a jury.
4. To lead or not to lead: adverse and hostile witnesses

Early in petitioner's case, she called Lieutenant Renee L. Schuler(37) as a
witness. Petitioner's counsel requested permission to cross-examine this
witness because she was "hostile" or "adverse." This request was denied.
On May 4, 1998, petitioner called retired Pennsylvania State Police Officer
Carl S. Harnish. The request to treat the witness as hostile or adverse was
renewed. We asked for case authority and each side presented legal
argument.
Petitioner cited Commonwealth v. Butler, 529 Pa. 7, 601 A.2d 268
(1991), in support of her request that she be allowed to cross-examine
police witnesses on direct. Mr. Greenberg argued on behalf of petitioner
that these proceedings went directly to the workings of the criminal justice
system, that the police witnesses in this proceeding were hostile and
adverse, as those terms are used in the law, and that justice required that
petitioner be allowed to cross-examine each witness and to proceed with
leading questions rather than standard direct examination. This court
considered Butler and found it to provide no support for petitioner's
contention.(38) We indicated at that time that the question of a police
witness being hostile or adverse could not be addressed in a blanket
ruling. The court promised to consider the situation as to each witness and
make a determination before, or during, that witness's testimony about
whether the witness would be treated as a hostile or adverse witness.
We advised counsel that "hostility" required a showing of surprise during
the witness's testimony or an obvious lack of cooperation, reluctance or
evasiveness in answering questions. As to whether a witness is "adverse,"
the court informed counsel that such a declaration required a showing that
the witness had a direct personal interest in the outcome of the litigation.
This same analysis was applied when former Detective Ronald C. Barley
testified. On May 5, 1998, at the beginning of the afternoon session and
during the time Mr. Barley was on the stand, Mr. Greenberg asked if he
might "put a position on the record." He was given permission and made
the following statement:
Your Honor, I feel obligated to put this position on the record to establish
what our position is going forward in this proceeding so there's no
subsequent question. And I want to assure the court that I'm not taking
this position lightly.
The situation that I predicted yesterday is exactly as I then suggested. By
immunizing the police and the prosecutor witnesses from cross
examination and in addition by allowing the Commonwealth to lead them,
the court has made it impossible for the petitioner to properly put on her
case.
Crucial points of witness testimony made explicitly in federal court that
could be established by a single cross examination question that never will
be asked in this proceeding now are removed from the record before this
court by witnesses' convenient losses of memory and recollection.
The result is that the record being made in our view, and our position is, is
completely corrupted. We will go forward as we must to exhaust the
alleged state remedies that are allegedly available to this petitioner, but
it's our position that this proceeding is without integrity in terms of finding
fact and seeking truth and it's our position that any findings made herein
against petitioner are entitled to absolutely no deference as a result in any
subsequent court.
(N.T., PCRA at 783-784.)(39)
A reading of the text of Mr. Greenberg's diatribe does little to capture the
disdainful tone of these remarks. When given an opportunity to present
case law in support of his request to cross-examination police witnesses,
he produced nothing. Faced with a ruling adverse to his position, he chose
to stand in open court and assault the integrity of this court.
The issue of leading questions came up with every police or prosecution
witness. In addition to Lieutenant Renee Schuler and former Detective
Barley, petitioner sought to ask leading questions of First Assistant District
Attorney Kenneff, Detective Raymond E. Solt,(40) and District Justice
Ronald W. Savage,(41) among others. Because this issue featured so
prominently throughout the hearing, we have included a discussion of the
law on this point.
The general rule is that the party calling a witness is not permitted to
examine him or her by means of leading questions. Wargo v. Pittsburgh
Railways Co., 376 Pa. 168, 101 A.2d 638 (1954); Buckman v.
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co., 227 Pa. 277, 75 A. 1069 (1910).
"A leading question is one which puts the desired answer in the mouth of
the witness." Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 579, 599 A.2d
630, 640 (1992) (citing Commonwealth v. Dreibelbis, 493 Pa. 466,
476, 426 A.2d 1111, 1116 (1981)).
One may, however, cross-examine his own witness where the witness
proves to be hostile and unwilling, or where the party calling the witness is
surprised by testimony of the witness inconsistent with prior statements.
Gantt v. Cox & Sons Co., 199 Pa. 208, 48 A. 992 (1901). A thorough
examination of the Pennsylvania case law associated with this exception
reveals an abundance of cases which define "hostility" by way of the
definition of "surprise," but an absence of any cases which offer a
definition of the discrete term "hostile witness."(42)
The term "hostile" has been considered by a number of courts. Where a
party is surprised in the testimony of a witness by his unexpectedly
turning hostile, counsel may exercise the right of cross-examination of the
witness, or impeach his testimony by other witnesses. Commonwealth v.
Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 16 A.2d 401(1940). The party requesting leave to
declare its witness hostile bears the burden of proving that statements by
the witness were unexpected, contradictory to earlier statements, harmful
to the party calling the witness, and would result in injustice should the
movant's request be denied. Tiburzio-Kelly v. Montgomery, 452 Pa.
Super. 158, 186, 681 A.2d 757, 771 (1996). When one's witness turns
hostile by telling a different version on the witness stand than he told the
calling party prior thereto, the latter may plead surprise and request leave
to cross-examine the witness and impeach him by his prior inconsistent
statement. Commonwealth v. Duffy, 238 Pa. Super. 161, 167, 353 A.2d
50, 54 (1975). Clearly, the term "hostile" has been treated by
Pennsylvania courts as involving an element of "surprise."
It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to decide whether counsel
may exercise the right to cross-examine his own witness on a plea of
surprise. Commonwealth v. Barber, 275 Pa. Super. 144, 151, 418 A.2d
653, 657 (1980); Duffy, 238 Pa. Super. at 167, 353 A.2d at 54. In
exercising its discretion, the trial court must apply a four-part test. First,
the testimony given by the witness must be unexpected; second, the
testimony must be contradictory to the witness's earlier statements; third,
the testimony must be hurtful or injurious to the party calling the witness
and beneficial to the opposing side; and fourth, the scope of the crossexamination may not be excessive. Id. at 151-52, 418 A.2d at 657;
Duffy, 238 Pa. Super. at 167-68, 353 A.2d at 54.
Since the purpose of the cross-examination and impeachment is to induce
the fact finder to disbelieve the testimony of the witness, there must be
something in the witness's testimony, which, if believed by the fact finder,
will be hurtful or injurious to the party calling him. Commonwealth v.
Thomas, 459 Pa. 371, 379, 329 A.2d 277, 281 (1974). Therefore, if there
is no testimony which needs to be neutralized, or which if accepted
unchallenged will not aid the opposite party, or which was not hurtful to
the side calling him, there is no excuse for cross-examination to impeach
or discredit. Seldon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 157 Pa. Super. 500,
509, 43 A.2d 571, 577 (1945).
Even without a plea of surprise, where the witness is identified with an
adverse party and reluctant to testify against that party, leading questions
may be used in direct examination within the discretion of the trial court.
Duffy, 238 Pa. Super. at 167-68, 353 A.2d at 54. Since the issue depends
heavily upon evaluating the witness's in-court demeanor, aspects of which
may not even be reflected in the record, it is recognized that trial courts
must be given discretion to determine whether a witness is hostile or
unwilling to testify.
It is well settled that a witness who has an interest adverse to the party
calling him may be called as on cross-examination. Whether a witness's
interest is adverse to the party calling him to testify, for purposes of
determining whether he could be called as if under cross-examination, is a
factual determination within the court's discretion. American States Ins.
Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 427 Pa. Super. 170, 192, 628 A.2d 880,
891 (1993) (citing Gaul v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 383 Pa. Super. 250,
556 A.2d 892 (1989)). This interest must be a direct interest in the
outcome of the suit in which he is called. An agent-principal relationship
alone is not sufficient. Indirect, contingent and supplementary interests
will not suffice. Brown v. Popky, 413 Pa. 236, 196 A.2d 638, 645-46
(1964). Nor are employees of an adverse party ordinarily themselves
"adverse" for purposes of permitting a party to call them as on cross.

Commonwealth, Department of Health v. Brownsville Golden Age
Nursing Home, Inc., 103 Pa. Cmwlth. 449, 470 n.7, 520 A.2d 926, 936
n.7 (1987).
In this case, we considered whether any of these police or prosecution
witnesses had any legal rights or liabilities which would be affected by this
court's decision on the PCRA issues. We approached this issue at the
outset of the hearing by contemplating three possible remedies or
outcomes in this case which could arguably affect these witnesses: (1) a
new trial for Ms. Lambert; (2) a declaration that there has been
prosecutorial misconduct and that she cannot be retried under Smith; and
(3) a finding of prosecutorial misconduct which may be used to further a
federal investigation that might be taking place.(43)
If this court would award a new trial to Ms. Lambert, there would be no
direct effect on any personal rights or liabilities of any of the police
witnesses. New trials are granted by appellate courts in regular course. A
declaration that because of intentional prosecutorial misconduct Ms.
Lambert cannot be retried under Smith does not affect the personal rights
or liabilities of any of these police or prosecution witnesses. To say that
one or all of them might be disappointed with such a result is not to say
that it would have a direct effect on the personal rights or liabilities of
these individuals. The possible impact of this court's decisions in this case
on the federal investigation demanded by the district court is contingent
and remote. There is simply no basis to find that this court's decision in
favor of Ms. Lambert would somehow prejudice the investigation against
the police or that the converse is true. Even if the federal investigative
authorities will look to this court's findings for additional information about
the conduct of the police, that does not rise to the level of a direct
personal interest in the outcome of this litigation. The fact that there may
be some instructive or persuasive value in a collateral proceeding does not
establish this kind of interest.
There simply was no basis to consider the police and prosecution witnesses
adverse under Pennsylvania law. Nor was there any basis to find any of
them hostile, with the exception of Officer Robert S. Reed, who was
declared hostile and whose testimony will be dealt with below. All, except
Officer Reed, demonstrated a willingness to answer questions.
The federal rules depart from Pennsylvania practice on this issue. Rule
611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the use of leading
questions on direct examination of a hostile witness, an adverse party, or
a witness identified with an adverse party, without any requirement of a
showing of hostility or adversity. Rule 611(c) suggests that witnesses who
are adverse parties or identified with one may be presumed predisposed
against the direct examiner without requiring a demonstration of that fact.
Prior to the adoption of F.R.E. Rule 611(c), before a party could lead a
witness on direct examination, it had to be shown that the witness was
actually hostile or was an adverse party, officer, director, or managing
agent of such adverse party. Ellis v. City of Chicago, 667 F.2d 606, 612
(7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Bryant, 461 F.2d 912, 918-19 (6th Cir.
1972). Rule 611(c), however, significantly enlarged the class of witnesses
presumed hostile, "and therefore subject to interrogation by leading
questions without further showing of actual hostility." Ellis, 667 F.2d at
613 (citing F.R.E. 611 advisory committee note); see also Perkins v.
Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir. 1979) (error
for trial court to rule that employee of defendant would be plaintiff's
witness if plaintiff called him).
The federal courts, in applying Rule 611(c), have allowed the use of
leading questions in direct examination of law enforcement officials
(regardless of whether he or she is a local, state or federal officer) because
they are "identified" with an adverse party, i.e., the prosecution, in actions
by the Government against criminal defendants. United States v.
Duncun, 712 F. Supp. 124 (S.D. Ohio 1988) (granting the defendant's
motion to invoke Rule 611(c) in direct examination of police officers and
government agents). In such cases, the burden is on the Government to
make a positive showing that the witness is not hostile, biased or so
identified with the adverse party that "the presumption of hostility which is
the cornerstone of Fed. R. Evid. 611(c) should not be indulged." Id. at
126.
Some commentators and courts have cautioned against such unwarranted
generalizations about the type of relationship sufficiently close to a party
to permit a presumption of bias and suggest that Rule 611(c) be applied
with caution. See Charles A. Wright & Victor J. Gold, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Evidence Section 6168 at 426 (1993 & 1998 Supp.). See also
Suarez Matos v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., 4 F.3d 47,
50 (1st Cir. 1993) (trial court erred in permitting plaintiff to ask leading
questions of witness as he could not be deemed a hostile witness simply
by virtue of the fact he was expected to give testimony favorable to
defendant). One federal court has recognized that Rule 611(c) is subject to
the overriding command of Rule 611(a) that the court "shall exercise
reasonable control over the mode . . . of interrogating witnesses" to elicit
truth, avoid delay and protect against harassment. F.R.E. 611(a). The
court noted that a district judge would certainly not allow leading
questions of an adverse party where this mode of interrogation was
distorting the testimony of the witness. Rodriquez v. Banco Central
Corp., 990 F.2d at 13.
None of the police and prosecution witnesses listed above were parties in
this case; their interests were adverse to petitioner's only in a collateral
sense. The simple fact is that petitioner had previously been involved in a
federal habeas corpus proceeding where allegations of misconduct were
made against these witnesses. That does not create a personal interest or
stake in the outcome of this PCRA litigation.
Petitioner's counsel demonstrated hostility toward each of these witnesses
by the tone and manner of their questioning, if nothing else. Their
demonstrated hostility to these witnesses does not make the witnesses
themselves adverse or hostile. This court had every opportunity to observe
these witnesses on the stand. Each appeared willingly, some in response
to a subpoena. There was no need for petitioner or the court to coerce

their attendance at the hearing nor did their answers to any questions
appear to be evasive. In fact, each appeared willing to answer questions.
Each was cooperative and responsive. There was nothing about the
testimony of any of these witnesses which would even suggest that any
was hostile.
Leading questions are useful to exact truthful statements from a witness
who has a clear and demonstrated tendency to give evasive, unresponsive
or argumentative answers. Leading questions should not be used to exact
admissions, in the manner of an inquisition, from a witness who is
attempting to provide responsive answers to direct questions. Nor should
leading questions be used to cut off a witness's opportunity to provide an
explanation. In short, leading questions are not meant to be loaded
questions. And when an affirmative answer is exacted from a witness to a
line of questioning loaded with assumptions favoring only the inquisitor,
the leading question becomes not a tool of truth but of advocacy and
intimidation. Our decision to require direct questioning of witnesses called
by petitioner is supported by the law and was a sound exercise in
discretion. The fact that the federal district court permitted leading
questions of police witnesses in the habeas corpus proceeding does not
dictate how this court should apply Pennsylvania law.
The record indicates that these witnesses were extensively examined and
repeatedly impeached by petitioner. Under these circumstances, there was
no abuse of the PCRA court's discretion.
IV. THE 1992 VERDICT: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
Ms. Lambert was found guilty of first degree murder on July 20, 1992. She
filed post verdict motions in which she claimed that her conviction was
against the weight of the evidence. In a July 19, 1994, opinion filed in
response to the issues raised in the post verdict motions, this court
discussed its factual findings leading to the conviction and whether the
verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We found that the verdict
was well supported by the evidence.
Because so much of the analysis of the PCRA claims has a direct bearing
on the integrity of the truth-determining process or whether any new
information would have changed the outcome of the case, we include our
findings of fact from the 1994 opinion:
The arguments raised by defendant are best considered in a factual
context. The facts, as found by the trial court, may be summarized as
follows. Lisa Michelle Lambert was romantically involved with Lawrence
Yunkin. During an interlude in their relationship, Mr. Yunkin dated Laurie
Show. They apparently dated on one or two occasions during the summer
of 1991. The evidence at trial made clear that Ms. Lambert reacted
strongly to this development and that she expressed her anger at Laurie
Show to a number of her friends. In fact, a plan was developed in the
summer of 1991 that included kidnaping, harassing and terrorizing Laurie
Show. Apparently, Ms. Lambert was the author of this plan and she
enlisted several of her friends to execute the plan. The 'kidnaping' did not
happen when several of the group warned Laurie Show.
This 'bad blood' continued. Ms. Lambert confronted Laurie Show at the
East Towne Mall and struck her. According to the victim's mother, Hazel
Show, the victim was afraid of Ms. Lambert. It appears that Ms. Lambert
was stalking Laurie Show during the summer and into the fall of 1991.
On December 20, 1991, Hazel Show received a call from a person who
claimed to be her daughter's guidance counselor. The caller requested a
conference with Hazel Show before school the next morning. The following
morning Hazel Show left the condominium to keep this 'appointment.'
While she was gone, two persons knocked on the door of the Show
condominium and entered when Laurie Show answered. A commotion
followed and these two figures then left the second floor condominium,
walked across a field, cut through a parking lot by some adjoining
condominiums in the same complex and got into an automobile. Hazel
Show waited at the Conestoga Valley High School for the guidance
counselor and when the guidance counselor did not appear at the time for
the appointment, Hazel Show returned by automobile to her condominium.
She found her daughter laying on the floor of her bedroom, bleeding
profusely from a large slash wound across her neck. Laurie whispered to
her mother the words, 'Michelle... Michelle did it.' Laurie Show then died in
her mother's arms.
All this happened on the morning of December 20, 1991. During the
evening of that same day, East Lampeter Township Police, assisted by the
Pennsylvania State Police, arrested Lisa Michelle Lambert, Lawrence
Yunkin and Tabitha Faith Buck in a bowling alley. During questioning by
police, Ms. Lambert admitted to being in the condominium that morning
but said Ms. Buck did the stabbing. Mr. Yunkin admitted to driving the two
women to the location and waiting in the car until they returned. Ms. Buck
made no statement to the police.
The evidence at trial clearly established a pattern and history of ill will
directed by Ms. Lambert to Laurie Show. Various witnesses documented an
assault by Ms. Lambert on Laurie Show at the East Towne Mall in
November, 1991. There was no evidence to controvert this. Ms. Lambert
threatened Laurie Show with harm if she went to the police regarding the
assault in November, 1991. Ms. Lambert encountered a friend of hers in
December, 1991 at the Park City Mall and indicated that she was aware
that the police were looking for her on a simple assault charge. In
addition, Hazel Show had confronted Ms. Lambert on at least one prior
occasion and had called the East Lampeter Township Police in the summer
of 1991. In December, 1991, Hazel Show went to the East Lampeter
Township Police to discuss the simple assault charge. There was credible
testimony at the trial to show that Laurie Show was afraid of Ms. Lambert.
All of this evidence was relevant as to whether Laurie Show would have
willingly admitted Ms. Lambert and Ms. Buck to her condominium on the
morning of December 20, 1991. Given this history of ill will, it is

completely credible that Laurie Show would have admitted Ms. Lambert or
anyone in the company of Ms. Lambert to her home at any time.
Numerous facts developed at trial provided both direct and circumstantial
evidence linking Ms. Lambert to the homicide. On December 19, 1991,
defendant bought a 50 foot length of rope and two ski hats at the K-Mart
in the East Towne Mall. This was established by credible testimony from
Mr. Yunkin and through a K-Mart receipt. Defendant took the rope with her
on December 20, 1991. Defendant, by her own admission, took a knife
from her kitchen at home to the Show condominium on December 20,
1991. Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Lambert picked Ms. Buck up at her home at
approximately 6:30 a.m. and Mr. Yunkin dropped the two women off near
the Show condominium at approximately 6:45 a.m. Mr. Yunkin was seen
by the manager of a McDonald's at approximately 7:00 a.m. on December
20, 1991. This McDonald's is very close to the Show home.
It is very safe to conclude from the evidence that Mr. Yunkin was aware of
Ms. Lambert's feelings about Laurie Show. Mr. Yunkin had dated Laurie
Show for a brief period and then was part of two kidnapping plots in July
of 1991 and August of 1991. Mr. Yunkin was aware that Ms. Lambert and
Ms. Buck were going to the Show condominium on December 20, 1991. He
was also aware that Ms. Lambert had a rope and a knife with her.
The Show condominium is on the second floor of a two story structure
containing a number of condominiums. Access to the Show home is gained
by ascending a flight of steps which are on the exterior of the building. The
steps are made of metal and they are partially enclosed. A sidewalk runs in
front of the building. A person going up or down the steps can easily be
heard by someone standing out on the sidewalk. A person walking
normally on the deck outside the Show condominium can be plainly heard
by someone inside the condominium or someone outside the
condominium. The construction of the condominium is such that sound
travels through the walls. These facts were clearly established by
testimony from Hazel Show, from the neighbors who lived in the
condominium under the Show condominium and by the court's own view
conducted at the premises during the trial.
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kleinhans, the neighbors who lived in the
condominium beneath Laurie and Hazel Show, testified that they could
hear Laurie Show getting ready for school in the morning.
A physical inspection of the Show condominium reveals that at least half of
Laurie Show's bedroom can be seen from the main hallway of the
condominium. From the small hallway outside her bedroom, most of her
bedroom can be seen. It should be noted that the layout and construction
of the condominium is such that any commotion in Laurie Show's bedroom
could easily have been heard from any location in the front part of the
Show condominium.
The structure of the condominium and the testimony of Mr. Kleinhans with
respect to his ability to hear what was going on in the Show condominium
are very important in this case. Ms. Lambert indicated, in one version of
the events, that she was outside Laurie Show's bedroom and that Ms. Buck
was inside the bedroom struggling with the victim. This version of the
story would suggest that Ms. Lambert was not in the bedroom at the time
of the killing. The defendant offered this version of the facts to support her
story that Ms. Buck did the killing and that she was a horror-struck
bystander. A visit to the Show condominium taken by the court in the
company of counsel and an examination of the layout of the condominium
severely undermines Ms. Lambert's position under this version of the facts.
Simply stated, any person standing in the dining room area, kitchen area
or bathroom area of the Show condominium would be well aware of any
struggle, commotion or disturbance going on in Laurie Show's bedroom.
The condominium is simply not that big. A person standing in the hallway
or in the dining area would have an easy view into the bedroom and would
certainly be able to hear almost anything taking place in the bedroom.
From the physical layout of the condominium alone, Ms. Lambert's position
that she was helpless and unaware of what Ms. Buck might have been
doing in Laurie Show's bedroom is patently unbelievable.
The secondary significance of a description of the layout of the Show
condominium is to buttress and support the testimony of Mr. Kleinhans,
who lives with his wife below the Show condominium. He testified as to his
ability to hear any commotion or unusual noise from the condominium
above his. An inspection of the premises wholly and absolutely supports
Mr. Kleinhans. The construction is such that any commotion, noise or
disturbance can be heard in the condominium below. In fact, the court
observed during a visit to the condominium that a person walking normally
up the steps and across the small balcony to the front door of the Show
condominium can easily be heard from the area below the condominium.
The physical findings at the crime scene, the testimony at trial of the
defendant, the trial testimony of Hazel Show, the history of ill will between
defendant and the victim and the circumstantial evidence developed at
trial all lead to the conclusion that defendant was guilty of the murder of
Laurie Show.
Commonwealth v. Lambert, No. 0423-1992, slip op. at 3-10 (Lanc. Co.
C.P. July 19, 1994).(44)
In 1994, we specifically considered Ms. Lambert's version of the events of
December 20, 1991, as she presented them at trial. We summarized her
story as follows:
Defendant's story, as presented at trial, was that she and Ms. Buck initially
went to the condominium. She and Ms. Buck then went inside and began
to struggle with Laurie Show. Somehow, somewhere, a knife 'appeared.'
According to Ms. Lambert, she was initially holding down Laurie Show's
legs so that Ms. Buck could cut her hair. When Ms. Buck began to stab
Laurie Show, Ms. Lambert began to pull Laurie from the apartment but
Laurie 'slipped' from her hands. According to Ms. Lambert, she ran out of
the condominium, in horror, and sat on the staircase down at the ground
area. At this point, Mr. Yunkin appeared, uttered an expletive and jumped
over Ms. Lambert and went into the apartment. In Ms. Lambert's view of
the case, whatever happened when Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Buck were in the
apartment resulted in Laurie Show's death.
Commonwealth v. Lambert, July 19, 1994, slip op. at 12.
Putting aside the issue of credibility and considering only the legal
significance of Ms. Lambert's version of the facts, we concluded:
. . . Even if Ms. Lambert's story at trial was completely credible, she would
still be an accomplice to the crime of murder. She freely admits to going to
the condominium in possession of a rope and a knife. She admits to going
into the condominium and participating in the attack. The only variation is
that she contends that Ms. Buck was the aggressor and that Mr. Yunkin
ultimately assisted. Her presence and her participation, by her own
admission, would support a finding of criminal responsibility for the death
of Laurie Show on an accomplice basis.
Commonwealth v. Lambert, July 19, 1994, slip op. at 12-13.
At trial, Ms. Lambert's testimony, her statement to Corporal Solt, Mr.
Yunkin's testimony and the questionnaire(45) created a number of factual
inconsistencies. The court found the questionnaire to be inconclusive and
not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about defendant's guilt. We were
aware that either Ms. Lambert's testimony at trial or Ms. Lambert's
statement to Corporal Solt was at least partially untruthful and we viewed
Mr. Yunkin's testimony with a large measure of skepticism. Much of this
controversy was created by the self-serving statements of the participants
in the crime. To resolve these factual inconsistencies, we carefully
considered the observations of witnesses who had no interest in the
proceeding and who observed pieces of this drama as it unfolded on the
morning of December 20, 1991. This discussion is found in the 1994
opinion:
The observations of disinterested third parties established several very
important facts. Mr. Kleinhans, who lived in the condominium below the
Shows, heard footsteps up the outdoor steps, heard Laurie Show's door
open, heard a scream followed by a thud. After several minutes passed, he
heard the door slam and heard people descending the steps. He looked out
the window and saw two figures of roughly the same height and build with
hoods pulled over their heads. Ms. Buck and Ms. Lambert are of roughly
the same height and, given winter clothing and hoods over their heads,
could have appeared to be of roughly the same build. Ms. Lambert wanted
the court to believe that one of those figures was Mr. Yunkin and the other
Ms. Buck. Mr. Yunkin is significantly taller than either of the two women.
Mr. Kleinhans gave very credible testimony that the two figures he
observed were of roughly the same stature.
Another disinterested witness observed two figures with hoods over their
heads coming across a lawn adjacent to the parking lot at the Show
condominium. They were coming from the vicinity of the Show
condominium down across another parking area toward a road. The timing
of this sighting of the two figures coincides with the time at which Hazel
Show was returning from Conestoga Valley High School and was shortly
after Mr. Kleinhans made his observation of the two figures.
A third fact established by a disinterested witness was that Mr. Yunkin was
at the nearby McDonald's restaurant at 7:00 a.m. The manager testified
that she observed Mr. Yunkin and that she later recognized his picture on
the newscast following the arrest of the three. This coincides with Mr.
Yunkin's story that he went to the McDonald's, ordered an orange juice
and home fries, waited for a period of time and then went to pick up the
women along the road.
Mr. Kleinhans's testimony completely undermines the story told by Ms.
Lambert. To hear Ms. Lambert's version, there must have been a great
deal of shouting, bumping, sweating, crying, screaming and general
commotion in the condominium. This was followed by, according to Ms.
Lambert, her 'escape' from the mayhem inflicted by Ms. Buck. As part of
this 'escape,' Ms. Lambert related that she went half way down the
staircase and sat. Then, supposedly, Mr. Yunkin ascended the steps, swore
out loud when Ms. Lambert told him that Ms. Buck was in the
condominium and went in after Ms. Buck.
Mr. Kleinhans testified that he heard no such commotion. Nor did Mr.
Kleinhans observe three individuals. Nor did Mr. Kleinhans observe anyone
the size of Mr. Yunkin. Nor did Mr. Kleinhans hear any screaming, fighting
or doors slamming, other than the initial entrance and exit.
Given the court's view of the condominium and Mr. Kleinhans's description
of the layout of his condominium in relation to the Show condominium, his
testimony is very important. By his clear factual statements, the likelihood
that such a commotion, as described by Ms. Lambert, took place is
extremely slight at best. Mr. Kleinhans testified as to what he heard and as
to what he did not hear. He offered no opinion and offered no
interpretation of the events he related. He was found to be extremely
credible by the court sitting as fact finder in this case. His testimony was in
direct conflict with Ms. Lambert's version of the story at trial. Her version
would have involved a kind of 'noiseless mayhem' and this simply is not a
credible story. Mr. Kleinhans was directly below, was paying attention to
what was going on and remembered very clearly what he heard and what
he did not hear. The lack of any commotion, crashing, shouting, stomping,
yelling or other related noises renders Ms. Lambert's already incredible
story completely incredible.
The testimony of Mr. Kleinhans, of Mr. and Mrs. Fry who saw the two
hooded figures coming from the direction of the Show condominium
toward their own condominium, and of the manager of the McDonald's
restaurant established facts which were entirely consistent with the
Commonwealth's theory of the case and which were largely
uncontradicted. The testimony of these witnesses established
circumstantial evidence which was very important in this court's reasoning

process in 1992.(46)
Ms. Lambert claimed that her conviction was against the weight of the
evidence. This court denied post verdict motions on that basis and Ms.
Lambert did not appeal. Although petitioner filed a direct appeal in the
Superior Court, she failed to include a challenge to the weight of the
evidence. This issue, therefore, was waived and cannot be renewed in a
collateral proceeding under the PCRA. 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9544. See
also, Appel, 547 Pa. at 186, 689 A.2d at 898; Commonwealth v.
Williams, 389 Pa. Super. 489, 492, 567 A.2d 709 (1989). An issue has
been waived "if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so. . .on
appeal." 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9544(b).
In the July 19, 1994, opinion, we did consider whether the verdict was
supported by or was against the weight of the evidence. In so many
words, petitioner has challenged the sufficiency of the 1992 evidence in
this PCRA proceeding. Much of Ms. Lambert's PCRA case calls into question
the evidence introduced in the 1992 trial. Rather than rule that she has
waived any possible challenge to the 1992 evidence by not raising the
issue of "sufficiency" in the Superior Court, we allowed her to present her
evidence and her arguments which called the 1992 evidence into question.
We did this in the interest of full litigation of all of petitioner's claims.
After Ms. Lambert's challenge to the weight of the evidence in her initial
post verdict motions filed by Mr. Shirk, she then was given an opportunity
to challenge the effectiveness of her trial attorney and to raise certain
claims of after-discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct in a post
verdict hearing on November 18, 1994. This court made certain findings in
response to those claims. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, No. 04231992, slip op. (Lanc. Co. C.P. March 14, 1995).
In consideration of those post verdict issues raised by the new attorney
retained by Ms. Lambert's family, we again considered the record of the
1992 trial. We noted that Ms. Lambert's counsel, Jules Epstein, Esquire,
raised a number of issues and appeared to ask this court to consider those
issues out of the context of the entire record. For example, Mr. Epstein
challenged trial counsel's failure to call character witnesses in a first
degree murder case. A superficial consideration of that issue might
suggest that the failure to call character witnesses for the defendant in an
important case would be problematic. However, considering this issue
against the backdrop of the entire record, the decision not to call character
witnesses seemed more than prudent. As to the request that we ignore the
record in favor of certain discreet issues, we noted:
Ms. Lambert's new attorney invites this court, and any reviewing court, to
view the transcript of this trial as if it were a cold specimen in a laboratory,
to be studied, dissected and analyzed in a sterile environment. The court is
invited to excise certain portions of the transcript with the cold scalpel of
cynicism and to carefully study those portions of the record which, under a
certain light or a different lens, could be viewed as error. While interesting
as pure, detached legal analysis, this method of analysis of a trial record
yields only part of the whole picture.

This case is not a law school research project or an examination question.
This case involves a consideration of the record of a murder trial. And as
with all trials, it is necessary to look at the record in totality. This trial was
conducted in a context, as is every trial. This trial was more than a
recording of words, more than the emotionless, cold series of questions
and answers reflected in a transcript. A trial involves human beings,
thinking, speaking, pausing, listening, telling the truth, shading the truth,
avoiding the truth. It involves people speaking loudly, speaking softly,
crying, reacting to others who are speaking or crying. Counsel, the parties
and the fact finder observe facial expressions, tone of voice, body position,
inflection, statements and reactions to statements.
This court will not reevaluate the evidence from the trial nor is it required
to do so. This court can, however, recall and consider the entire record of
the trial in evaluating the performance of trial counsel. The court must
consider the whole record to determine whether any alleged errors by trial
counsel were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, i.e., a
trial whose result is reliable. Commonwealth v. Carter, supra. Considering
the various alleged errors of trial counsel in the light of the entire record,
this court can find no error which, in any way, deprived defendant of a fair
trial.
Commonwealth v. Lambert, March 14, 1995, slip op. at 38-40.
V. STATE COURT AND FEDERAL COURT
A. A Comity of Errors
If nothing else, this case will give pause to anyone who considers the
relationship between the federal and the state courts. A brief consideration
of the principle of comity is necessary in this opinion for several reasons.
First, it will help to explain why this court conducted an eight-week hearing
on a PCRA petition. Second, a view of the comity question from our
vantage point may possibly help in understanding this court's decision as
the case progresses through an appellate court. Third, the context of this
case has been instrumental in framing the issues. A complete discussion of
the context of this case would be greatly lacking without a consideration of
the treatment afforded the issues and the participants by the federal
district court in 1997.
What do we mean by "comity?" The Third Circuit, in considering this case
in 1997, gave a succinct and clear answer:
The doctrine of comity '"teaches that one court should defer action on
causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another
sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the
litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter."' Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982)
(quoting Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S.200, 204, 70 S.Ct. 587, 590, 94 L.Ed.
761 (1950)). Indeed, we opined in Toulson v. Beyer, 987 F.2d 984, 986
(3d Cir. 1993), that requiring exhaustion of state remedies 'addresses
federalism and comity concerns by "afford[ing] the state courts a
meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error without
interference from the federal judiciary."'
Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d at 513 n.18 (citations omitted).
Comity appears to require deference. Comity appears to require
understanding and, perhaps, even respect for the treatment given the
issues in state court. The federal district court took significant liberties with
state court criminal practice. The federal district court did this in a number
of ways. First, it allowed for an unprecedented and unbounded level of
discovery. In a three-month period of time, some 55 depositions were
taken.(47) The document production ordered by the federal district court
was at odds with any concept of attorney work product under even the
most liberal standards. In effect, the most permissive approach to civil
discovery was applied to a criminal case.
Second, the federal district court substituted its own fact finding on critical
issues from the 1992 trial. Something other than "comity" is at work when
fundamental findings of fact in a state court homicide case are "dismissed"
by the federal district court.
Third, the federal district court substituted its legal judgment for the state
court's analysis. For example, this court made a ruling on the discussion
between First Assistant District Attorney Kenneff and Dr. Mihalakis in
response to Ms. Lambert's counsel's motion for a mistrial at the 1992
murder trial. In making that finding, this court held a conference in
chambers, on the record, in the presence of all counsel and the expert
witness. This issue will be treated in more detail in Section VII.H, infra.
Suffice it to say, for purposes of our discussion of comity, that substitution
of the federal judge's legal analysis for the state court judge's legal
analysis was an "overruling" by a court which, at the moment, possessed a
stronger and more immediate power. It was not "comity" befitting a
constitutional democracy.
Finally, by employing a creative and aggressive approach to exhaustion,
the federal district court deprived this court of the opportunity to revisit
the legitimate issues raised by petitioner in a proper context. Aggressive
may be a good adjective for investment strategy or athletic performance,
but not for legal analysis.
Is this what the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, contemplated? If so, then federal
legislation defining the role of federal habeas corpus in the criminal justice
universe has made this a very strange place. This approach to "comity"
will cause the state court murder trial simply to become a rest stop on the
way to federal justice. Will we have state court homicide convictions
ultimately decided in a forum under a lighter burden of proof and where
state court criminal convictions will come under the often misleading
microscope of civil discovery? Will we now as a matter of federal due
process and equal protection put every state court murder conviction
under the scrutiny of boundless discovery, creative advocacy and a court
willing to reach conclusions based upon a partly developed record?(48)
In federal habeas corpus litigation, factual determinations made by the
state courts are correct unless the petitioner can rebut the presumption of
correctness by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1).
With respect to legal conclusions, the federal courts are required to give
deference to legal conclusions made on the claims for relief by the state
courts. See 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(b).
In Commonwealth v. Traviglia, 541 Pa. 108, 661 A.2d 352 (1995), the
Supreme Court reiterated that it is the responsibility of the state--not
federal--courts to make factual determinations in the first instance and
that the latter must give deference to the former. Specifically, both the
Post Conviction Hearing Act court and the federal district court resolved a
factual dispute: whether a non-use agreement had been struck in Indiana
County. The PCHA court concluded that a non-use agreement was not in
existence; the district court came to the opposite conclusion. In this
regard, the Supreme Court stated:
Similar, nearly identical, records can legitimately support two different
holdings; that two different holdings may result from similar records does
not mean that one determination is somehow invalid. . . . A factual
determination by a federal district court in no way 'overturns' the factual
determination made by, and subsequently affirmed by, the courts of our
commonwealth.
541 Pa. at 108, 661 A.2d at 362-63 (footnote omitted).
In this case, the federal district judge failed to give the state court record
due consideration and the deference to which it is entitled under law. For
our purposes, the "findings" of the district court in the habeas case in no
way "overturned" the factual findings made by this court.
B. What Does "Actual Innocence" Actually Mean?
As the Court of Appeals appropriately noted, "a finding of actual
innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus
jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or
by a court at a bench trial." Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d at 509. See
Bousley v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 1607, 140
L.Ed.2d 828, 840-41 (1998) ("'actual innocence' means factual innocence,
not mere legal insufficiency") (citing Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. at
339).
Ms. Lambert maintains in this PCRA that she is actually innocent of Laurie
Show's murder. In the heading to the first section of her list of claims, she
states: "After-Discovered Evidence Proves Lambert's Innocence . . . ."
(See Exhibit A, Section A.(49)) Pennsylvania law, unlike its federal
counterpart, does not specifically recognize "actual innocence" as a basis
(50)
for relief.(50) Consequently, there is no body of state law specifically

defining the parameters of proof of such a claim. But, in federal decisional
law, it is well established that when a petitioner makes a claim of this sort,
the government is not limited to the existing record to rebut any showing
that petitioner might make. It may present "any admissible evidence of [a]
petitioner's guilt. . . ." Bousley, --- U.S.at ---, 118 S.Ct. at 1607, 140
L.Ed.2d at 841. While a finding of "actual innocence" is not within the
purview of the PCRA, Ms. Lambert's case is centered on her belief that she
is an innocent person, wrongly convicted.
A two-judge motions panel of the Third Circuit in reviewing this case
stated: "Although the district court could not of course make a
determination that Lambert was not guilty of an offense tried in a state
court proceeding, a finding of 'innocence' by the district court would
appear to be a conclusion that prosecutorial misconduct was a
determinative factor in unjustly bringing about a guilty verdict." See, 962
F. Supp. at 1528." Lambert v. Blackwell, Nos. 97-1281, 97-1283 and
97-1287, slip op. at 7 (3d Cir. May 6, 1998).
The finding of "actual innocence" could not have been a declaration that
Ms. Lambert did not commit this crime. "Actual innocence" does not
actually mean "innocent." It is, rather, a commentary on the weight of the
evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and the application of a remedy
under federal law. Ms. Lambert has not been proven innocent and she
does not stand before this court as an innocent woman forced to prove her
conviction was unfair. She has been convicted of first degree murder and
the federal finding of "actual innocence" is no more than a footnote to that
verdict.
VI. PETITIONER'S STORY LINE: A CONTEXT
This case presents a complex narrative of police corruption, heartless,
dishonest prosecutors, ineffective defense lawyers, an unwitting trial
judge, rubber stamp appellate courts and a fast breaking series of
"shocking" revelations and "explosive" disclosures. The petition raises well
over two hundred allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, new evidence,
ineffective assistance of counsel, and discovery violations. To accept
petitioner's theory of this case, it is necessary to understand her entire
story. Each allegation has a place along a story line which must be true if
Ms. Lambert's case is to have any merit. Before delving into a discussion
of the merits of this case, we offer, as context, the following synopsis of
the story, according to Ms. Lambert.
We caution that this section does not present this court's findings
of fact. Rather, these "facts" represent petitioner's version of this
story.
On Friday morning, December 20, 1991, a 15 year old girl was murdered
in her condo in East Lampeter Township. Her mother returned home from
a brief errand, found her and held her in her arms until she died. Hearing
the mother's cries for help, a neighbor called 911. A dispatch was
broadcast to East Lampeter Township Police. Officer Robin Weaver, a
Township police officer, was on patrol in that area and heard the broadcast
over his radio. He recognized the location and the name and he responded
without being dispatched.
Weaver was the first officer on the scene. He realized the victim was
Laurie Show and recalled Laurie Show had been harassed in a loc, al mall
by Michelle Lambert, a 19 year old local resident. Weaver knew that Ms.
Lambert and her boyfriend, Lawrence Yunkin, had a disagreement of some
sort with Laurie Show. Weaver also knew that three officers from his
department gang raped Ms. Lambert in her apartment on June 17, 1991.
As he stood in the Show condo that morning, while Laurie Show died in the
arms of her grieving mother, Weaver's response was not to summon help,
not to comfort Mrs. Show, not to render aid to the victim, and not to
search the condo premises for suspects. Rather, Weaver's response was to
plan, then and there, a conspiracy which would implicate Michelle Lambert
in the murder of Laurie Show, thereby relieving his cohorts of any further
worries about the gang rape of Ms. Lambert that prior June.
This is the essential truth of this case as presented by petitioner: that the
murder of Laurie Show was a fortuitous moment for the East Lampeter
Township police. Further "truths" follow as the story unravels. Detective
Savage, the crime investigator for East Lampeter Township, responded to
the scene. Savage knew about the gang rape. Savage and Weaver heard
Mrs. Show tell neighbors and family that she believed the murder was "a
set up" and that she believed Michelle did it. They took her aside that
morning and as they questioned her about the case, they suggested to her
that her daughter told her that Michelle did it. Because she was vulnerable,
because she was in shock, and because she hated Michelle Lambert, Mrs.
Show was willing to believe, then and there, what the police told her: that
her daughter made a dying declaration identifying Michelle as her killer.
Later, based solely on the subliminal suggestion of a cunning detective
made just outside her daughter's blood-soaked bedroom, Mrs. Show would
testify about this dying declaration under oath in two preliminary hearings
and two first degree murder trials.
The police suggested this dying declaration even though they had proof
that morning that Laurie Show couldn't speak. This proof was in the form
of an observation by Ken Zeyak, an EMT with no training in anatomy, no
medical education and no experience in observing wounds such as those
suffered by Laurie Show. Yet, Mr. Zeyak, the first ambulance person on
the scene, immediately noted that the victim had a severed left carotid
artery. Zeyak, Weaver and Savage knew that a severed left carotid artery
means you can't speak. Yet, knowing she couldn't speak, the police
suggested to the mother that the dying declaration pointed the finger
squarely at the woman they had gang raped six months before.
A team from the police department descended on the condo and began to
gather evidence. They took pictures all over the condo. Some of these
pictures showed blood in the front hallway, including bloody footprints all
over the tile floor. The victim's body was taken from the scene and
transported to the county morgue located in the basement of the county
nursing home. An autopsy was scheduled for 9 o'clock the following

morning.
The police conspiracy to frame Ms. Lambert, hatched that morning in the
midst of an emotional and confusing murder scene before an investigation
even began, forever changed the "true" facts of this case. Ms. Lambert has
now presented her view of what really happened.
Lisa Michelle Lambert and Lawrence Yunkin began dating in 1989. He was
abusive to her, sodomized her, and struck her whenever he disagreed with
her. She came from a strong Christian, middle class, suburban family and
she had lost her virginity to him. This meant that she was going to marry
him, despite the abuse. She left home at the age of 16 and began to live
with Lawrence at his parents' home. Later they moved into their own
apartment and in the late summer, early fall of 1991, they moved to a
trailer in Pequea, a rural township "across town" from East Lampeter.
Lawrence turned her from a brown haired, brown eyed, shy, Christian,
suburban teenager into a lynx. He told her to dye her hair blond, which
she did. He told her to make her brown eyes blue, which she did with,
tinted contact lenses. He told her to ditch the frumpy suburban teenage
wardrobe and get something tight and short, which she did. She became
Rural Barbie, with an attitude. This 19 year old lumberyard laborer, with
the Adonis looks and the Svengali mind, dominated and controlled her
every move. They had a sexual relationship, but she didn't like it much
because he was cruel and rough. In fact, she didn't like it much for over
two years.
In the early summer of 1991, Lisa Michelle, known now only as "Michelle,"
began to look for a way out of the relationship. She was tired of being a
blond haired, blue eyed wearer of tight clothes just to please this galoot.
She broke up with Lawrence, b, ut they continued, to , live together and to
sleep in the same bed. She even saw another man, but this was when
Lawrence was sleeping, exhausted from a day of boorish behavior. While
Lawrence slept, Michelle crept out of the bedroom to the outside where
she encountered Allen Rudolph, her new friend. She and Allen played
midnight basketball. Then Allen would pull her in the window of his house
where they would sit on the floor in his bedroom, listen to rock and roll,
laugh and, of course, have sex. Then she would, by the light of the early
dawn, creep back into Lawrence's bed.
Lawrence found out about this and came to the swimming pool where she
was sunning herself in a bikini, although she really didn't like wearing
small tight clothes. Lawrence threw all of her clothes out of the van, all
over the swimming pool and screamed at her for four or five hours. This
caught the attention, and the affection, of Michael Pawlikowski, a life guard
at the pool. He became romantically, but not sexually, involved with
Michelle through the rest of the summer.
On June 17, 1991, around the time when Michelle had broken up with
Lawrence but was still sleeping with him, was sleeping with Allen but not
dating him, and was inadvertently catching the eye of Mike the life guard,
she was gang raped by three police officers. As she lounged at twilight in
her living room in her bikini after a day of sunbathing, three police officers
came to her door. They were able to open the door because Lawrence had
broken the window pane one day. The three officers raped her. She heard
each of them speak but she couldn't see them. She could only see their
police badges reflecting light off the street lights coming in through the
window.
Michelle's first response to this rape was to call Mrs. Show, the mother of
Laurie Show. She called Mrs. Show because Lawrence was, at that time
and for a period of one week, dating Laurie Show. She called Mrs. Show to
find out where Lawrence was. Mrs. Show didn't quite understand the
question because it was hidden among a screaming barrage of obscenities,
profanities and threats against her daughter. Michelle then called a
number of other people looking for Lawrence. She didn't call her parents,
she didn't go to the hospital, she didn't go to a rape crisis center and she
didn't go to any police officer in any other department anywhere.
She called Mrs. Show a lot that summer. She would call her to find out
where Lawrence was and to tell Mrs. Show to keep her daughter away
from Lawrence. Sometimes, when Mrs. Show would hang up after being
called every day for several weeks, Michelle would continue to call and the
phone would ring in the Show residence all evening. Mrs. Show changed
her number to an unlisted one and the telephone calls stopped.
Michelle didn't think the phone calls were getting through to Laurie so she
got some friends to help her with a plan to "embarrass" Laurie, to keep her
away from Lawrence. They were going to go to Laurie's home, kidnap her
and take her down to "the ward."(51) They were going to cut off her hair,
take off her clothes, blindfold her, and tie her to a post. They were going
to hang a sign around her indicating that she was available for sex for any
of the locals. One evening, they got so far as to get in two cars and to
head over to the Show residence. It was at this point that two of the
teenagers decided that this sounded like a little more than a "prank" and
decided to warn Laurie not to answer the door if anyone should come.
They turned around and didn't go to the Show residence that evening.(52)
Time passed and Michelle discovered that she was pregnant to Lawrence,
she believed with twins. Even though she lived with Lawrence miles from
East Lampeter, even though Lawrence no longer saw Laurie, even though
they were living worlds apart, Michelle wanted to make sure Laurie never
took her man from her again. So, she asked her new friend, Tabby, to go
to the Show residence with her to really scare Laurie. She told Tabby that
she had arranged for Mrs. Show to be out of the home that morning.(53)
Michelle bought a 50 foot length of rope and two ski masks from K-Mart.
She took a large butcher knife from her kitchen. She told Tabby to wear
sunglasses, put her hair up and leave the makeup in the bathroom.
Michelle and Tabby went to the condo a few days before Christmas.
Michelle wanted to talk to Laurie. They knocked on the door and when
Laurie answered, they pushed their way in and began to struggle. Michelle
just wanted to talk, but Tabby wanted to cut Laurie's hair off. Tabby pulled
out a knife that came from Michelle's kitchen, even though Tabby hadn't
been in Michelle's kitchen that morning, and Tabby stabbed Laurie.
Michelle realized that this was a bad scene. She told Tabby to stop it and
she tried to pull Laurie by her wrists out of her bedroom and down the
hall. This left blood all over the floor and the walls. But Tabby pulled Laurie
back in the bedroom and Michelle went outside. Michelle sat on the steps
and cried because she was afraid of Tabby and worried about Laurie.
Lawrence arrived and asked what had happened. Michelle told Lawrence
about Tabby and Laurie. Lawrence swore at Michelle and went inside. Then
Lawrence and Tabby came out and all three ran to Lawrence's car and
drove home.
Michelle knew something bad happened to Laurie but she couldn't get
help. She couldn't call any friends, she couldn't call the police, she couldn't
tell her parents. This was because Lawrence watched her "like a hawk" and
she knew he would hit her if she made a false move. So they drove home,
took showers and drove Tabby to school. They ate lunch at home and
Michelle watched Matlock, which would come in handy later when she was
questioned by the police because she would already know about her rights.
Then they went Christmas shopping. Then they went to cut down a
Christmas tree at Lawrence's grandmother's house. This explains why they
had ski masks, a knife and a rope. On the package of the rope, there is a
picture of a man dragging a Christmas tree, which is why Michelle bought
that particular rope--to pull the Christmas tree.
Last year when they were cutting down a Christmas tree with a knife at
grandmom's, Michelle got wood chips in her eyes and in her hair. She got
"pink eye" from the wood chips. So this year she took sunglasses and a ski
mask and gloves so that she would be protected.
Then they went to Tabby's house. Tabby was watching the news and heard
that the girl was dead. So they decided not to arouse any suspicion and to
go about their normal Friday night business, which means they went to the
bowling alley. The police came to the bowling alley and asked Tabby why
she had a big scratch on her cheek. Michelle, who was afraid of Tabby and
who didn't make one false move because Lawrence was watching her "like
a hawk," stepped up and told the police that Tabby got the scratch in a
fight with some Puerto Ricans girls who had made a pass at Lawrence that
morning.
The police then took them to the station. Michelle told the police about the
Puerto Rican girls and the scratch and about cutting the Christmas tree.
When the police told her Laurie Show was dead, she started to cry, but not
because she had anything to do with it. Then Corporal Raymond Solt, a
Pennsylvania State Police polygraph examiner, gave Michelle a lie detector
test. He strapped Velcro straps all over her arms. Then he took out a
needle and told her he was going to inject her with something. Probably it
was truth serum. She thought this was part of the test so she let him do it.
Then he asked her some questions. She began to tell him about going to
the Show condo that morning. She told him that she and Tabby went
inside and that all three struggled. She said that Tabby pulled a knife and
that she, Michelle, held Laurie's feet so Laurie wouldn't kick her. She then
told Solt that she and Tabby left, pulled their hoods up and ran across a
parking lot, across a field, down a hill, across a stream, through some
woods and out onto a road, where Lawrence was waiting. She told Solt
that she didn't plan to kill Laurie, that Tabby went crazy and that she held
Laurie down while Tabby went crazy.
Solt typed up her statement and she read it. She signed her name across
each page of the statement. Then Solt gave her some blank papers to sign
her name. She didn't understand this but she signed her name across
these papers, too.
Meanwhile, the police reviewed four rolls of photographs of the crime
scene. Michelle told them she tried to help Laurie escape. Michelle also told
them that Tabby threw the phone across the room. When they looked at
the crime scene photographs, sometime after five or six in the morning
when Michelle told them this information, they realized that the
photographs were wrong. If the telephone was across the room, this would
mean that Michelle was telling the truth and Tabby was the killer. But the
police needed to prove that Michelle was the killer, because they had gang
raped her and wanted her to go to prison forever or maybe get the death
penalty. There was only one thing to do: take Laurie's body back to the
condo and take the pictures again.
Sometime after 6 o'clock in the morning, when Michelle's statement was
finished, the police went to the county morgue, in the basement of a public
building, took the body out of the morgue and put it in a police car. Then
they drove to the condo where they were met by a state police officer,
who agreed to take the pictures again because he got it wrong earlier that
day. First, they cleaned up all the blood in the hallway. They missed one or
two footprints but most of the blood was cleaned up so the new pictures
would show that Michelle was lying about helping Laurie get out of the
condo.(54)
They took new pictures of the body with the telephone cord wrapped
around the leg. This would show that Michelle was lying about Tabby
throwing the telephone across the room. The telephone cord around the
leg would show that Michelle was the killer.
Then they got the body back in the police car, back down the highway and
into the morgue. They had to do this by 9 o'clock because the autopsy was
scheduled at 9 o'clock and they had to have the body back for the
autopsy.
The autopsy was very important because Weaver and Savage knew they
had to tell the doctors that Laurie spoke and that her carotid artery
couldn't have been severed, even though they knew from Ken Zeyak, the
ambulance person who had never seen a carotid artery, that the carotid
was "definitely cut." So they called First Assistant District Attorney
Kenneff, who prosecutes these cases. They told him what the problem
was. Mr. Kenneff went to the autopsy that morning and told Dr. Penades,
the pathologist, all about the carotid. Even though Dr. Penades was board
certified in anatomical pathology, the prosecutors had to tell him how the
carotid artery worked and that it was cut. They got Dr. Annese, a throat
surgeon, to attend the autopsy. He was a good choice because he was a
friend of the Show family. Together with Dr. Penades, he would say that
the carotid artery was intact. They would all agree that Laurie Show could
have spoken to her mother.
This seems like a lot to happen inside one day. But the next day, police
officers go to the river. Lawrence and Michelle told the police that they had
put Lawrence's sneakers and a shirt in a pink trash bag and cast it into the
river. They also threw the knife in the river but it was not in a bag. The
police go to the river two days before Christmas when the water
temperature is in the thirties, and they try to figure out how they can use
the river to really frame Michelle Lambert. They are looking for a pink
trash bag with sneakers in it. They find the pink trash bag and they notice
that one of the divers has a video camera and is filming them. So they
wave at him to turn the camera off. They take Lawrence's sneakers and
other items out of the bag and throw them away. Then they take the pink
bag and they put it in ice. They think of a way to make it look like it was
stuck in frozen ice, even though when they took the sneakers out it was
not stuck in ice. Then they take a picture of the pink bag stuck in frozen
ice to make it look like they never found a bag in the first place.
The next day a diver finds a sneaker which is full of mud and has black rot
all around the canvas where it touches the sole. Even though the murder
was three days before and it looks like the sneaker has been in the river
for two years, they figure it is probably the sneaker of the murderer and
they throw it away, too.
A month later, the police record the statement of Lawrence Yunkin. They
have been rehearsing his statement with him for a month to make sure
that he says exactly what they want him to say so they can frame
Michelle. He is represented by a lawyer, who is an officer of the court and
enjoys a good reputation in his community. They take a recorded
statement of Lawrence but he can't seem to get the wrong story right so
they have to keep stopping the tape to tell him what to say.
In the meantime, Michelle decided to cover up for Lawrence even though
she knew Lawrence and Tabby killed Laurie and even though she was
sorry about this and even though she didn't know what really happened.
So she wrote some questions on paper and left them in a book in the
prison library. Lawrence got the questions and wrote in answers. A lot of
the questions looked strange because words are squeezed in, words are
inserted and some of the words are written over very heavily. The
answers, which Lawrence wrote on the paper, did not make sense but they
could be interpreted to say that Lawrence at least knew something about
the murder. Even though Michelle was covering up for Lawrence, she
thought it was necessary to send him a questionnaire to find out what he
did. So that she could cover up. She got the questionnaire some time in
February. Her baby was born in March. She wouldn't tell her attorney
about the questions until closer to trial. Her attorney told her she might
get the death penalty and that evidence linking anyone else to the crime,
especially Lawrence, might help her. Still, she stuck to her guns. It was
only when her attorney offered to give her a bottle of hair bleach that she
came up with the questions. It was important for Michelle to bleach her
hair because Lawrence wanted her to be a blond. Her need to dye her hair
blond for Lawrence, even though she had been in prison for four months,
was facing a murder charge and knew that Lawrence was going to testify
against her, was important. It was important because she was a battered
woman and Lawrence had control over her.
At her trial in July 1992, Michelle decided not to cover for Lawrence
anymore. She told the judge that she went to the condo that morning to
talk to Laurie. When they got inside, Tabby went crazy and Michelle tried
to help her. All she did was sit on Laurie's legs while Tabby attacked her.
Then she ran outside to the steps and that is when Lawrence came in.
She was interviewed before trial by Dr. Carey, a psychiatrist. She told Dr.
Carey about the gang rape but asked him not to mention it. Dr. Cary
testified about his evaluation of Michelle. He felt she was abused and
controlled by Lawrence and that she had been extremely upset about
Lawrence's attentions to Laurie. He found it significant that Michelle had
only ever been with one man and that she was true and faithful to
Lawrence. Six years later in a post conviction hearing, Michelle was asked
about Allen Rudolph and why she didn't tell Dr. Carey about sneaking out
at night with Allen. Michelle testified that she did tell this to Dr. Carey but
he had a hearing aid and didn't hear her.
Michelle was convicted of first degree murder and given a sentence of life
in prison. While in a women's prison in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania,
she was brutally raped, beaten and kept in isolation for 18 months.
Because of the mistreatment she received at this prison, she was unable to
help the lawyer whom her parents hired to file her appeal. She couldn't tell
him the true story. That is why her conviction was affirmed by the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania and that is why the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court denied the request for review.
She was eventually transferred to a prison in Delaware; then transferred
again to a prison in New Jersey. At the prison in New Jersey, she wrote in
her own hand a federal habeas corpus petition. Attorneys were appointed
for her from a large Philadelphia law firm and she went to court in April
1997 before a federal judge in Philadelphia. He understood the truth of this
case. He knew that the police were corrupt and that they changed the
evidence. He knew that the statements she gave to Solt were really made
up by the police. He knew that all they were doing that morning at the
condo, with a knife and a rope, was a "teenage prank." He knew that the
dying declaration was phony because an EMT saw the severed carotid
artery and a speech professor, who did not, said there is no way Laurie
could have spoken. He saw through to the truth that police officers, in
response to a horrifying murder scene, saw the fortuitous opportunity to
frame a teenage girl because they had gang raped her. He knew that she
was telling the truth because she was a battered woman and any
inconsistencies in her story were because she had been battered. He knew
that the "29 questions" really was nothing more than a confession by
Lawrence and that it was a reliable document. He knew that a state court
trial judge had found the dying declaration to be credible and had ruled
that the "29 questions" was unreliable and inconclusive. He didn't know
that the police carried the body back into the condo and he didn't know
that the police injected Michelle with truth serum before they took her
statement. He didn't know this because Michelle's lawyers didn't learn
about this until later, after the habeas proceeding.
So, even though Michelle was in the condo that morning and even though
Michelle had a demonstrated history of hatred and animus toward Laurie,
and even though two versions of Michelle's story not only put her in the
condo that morning but had her involved in the struggle leading to Laurie's
death, he found her to be "innocent" and declared her a victim.
This is the story line which flows logically from the individual allegations of
misconduct and "new evidence." Item by item, the allegations of
prosecutorial misconduct taken out of the context of Ms. Lambert's entire
story make this look like a corrupt and unreliable prosecution. But in order
to accept them and find them true, it is also necessary to accept their
place along this story line.
The above scenario is an understatement. It is a bare boned description of
what must have happened in 1991 and through the progress of this case,
according to petitioner. This is the context as seen by Ms. Lambert for the
claims she has presented to this court.
VII. LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S CASE: ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
A. Laurie Show's Dying Declaration
The "dying declaration" is in this case simply because a federal judge
disagreed with this court's assessment of the facts at trial. At the core of
this issue is the credibility of Hazel Show. The expert testimony is relevant
to support or question her veracity on this point.
With an attitude that does not even suggest deference to the state court's
fact finding, the federal district court dismissed the "keystone" of the 1992
verdict at the start of his analysis:
It became clear during the hearing that this keystone of the
Commonwealth's case must be removed, and by that fact alone the arch of
guilt collapses.
Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1528.
That choice, to reach back five years into a state court record which had
been reviewed and affirmed on appeal and to change this court's finding of
a crucial fact, has become another keystone. That choice, which was a
keystone of the district court's decision, now supports petitioner's case.
Mrs. Show testified in the 1992 trial that her daughter Laurie made a dying
declaration to her in which she identified Michelle Lambert as the killer.

Mrs. Show testified in 1992 that she came upon her daughter in her
bedroom, that she took her head and shoulders into her arms and she
cradled her, after cutting the rope that had been tightened around Laurie's
throat. (N.T., Trial at 792-93.) As she cradled Laurie's head in her arms,
Laurie uttered the words, "Michelle did it. . .Michelle. . .Michelle. . .I love
you. . .I love you. . .I love you. . .I love you." (N.T., Trial at 793, 795,
818.)
Whether this dying declaration ever occurred was a central issue in the
1992 trial. It was a central issue in the federal habeas proceeding in 1997
and was perhaps the central issue in the PCRA hearing. No less than six
expert witnesses testified at the PCRA hearing regarding the medical and
physiological issues presented by the dying declaration.
This court found Mrs. Show to be a credible witness on this and other
topics in the 1992 trial. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, July 19, 1994,
slip op. at 17-18. We found her to be credible by observing her testimony
in the courtroom on the witness stand as she related her recollection from
the morning of December 20, 1991. We further considered her
conversations with medical personnel and others at the scene of the
murder on the morning of December 20, 1991. We knew in 1992 that she
related almost immediately that "Michelle" committed the murder and that
it was a "set up." Her recollection from that morning and the information
in the police reports show that she, at some point, told investigating police
officers that her daughter spoke those words to her.
At the 1992 trial, we also had the benefit of the testimony of Dr. Penades,
the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Laurie Show, and Dr.
Annese, an otolaryngologist who attended the autopsy specifically to
observe the structures of the neck and to offer an opinion of the possibility
of speech. The defense called Dr. Mihalakis, who ruled out the possibility of
clear and normal speech but who acknowledged that Laurie Show was
capable of "somewhat slurred and less intelligible" communication
consistent with the dying statement. (N.T., Trial at 344-45, 357.)
With the benefit of this evidence, the court made a decision in 1992 that
the dying declaration took place, that Mrs. Show was credible on this
point, and that the dying declaration linked Ms. Lambert to the murder.
The PCRA petition raises a number of counts of after-discovered evidence
which petitioner contends cast doubt on the dying declaration. Specifically,
petitioner contends that Laurie Show's left carotid artery was severed,
(Exhibit A, Section A at para. 1), that Laurie Show could not have been
conscious at the time she made the dying declaration, (Exhibit A, Section
A at para. 2), and that speech was medically impossible, according to
Charles R. Larson, Ph.D., (Exhibit A, Section A at para. 59). Further,
petitioner cites as after-discovered evidence certain credibility questions
which impact on the 1992 testimony supporting the dying declaration: that
Dr. Mihalakis was paid more by Lancaster County after the 1992 trial,
(Exhibit A, Section A at para. 17); that Dr. Mihalakis changed his
testimony, (Exhibit A, Section A at para. 18); that Dr. Annese
compromised his testimony because of his familiarity with the Show

family, (Exhibit A, Section A at para. 60); and that Mrs. Show did not tell
anyone that Laurie said "Michelle did it" until nearly two hours after the
murder, (Exhibit A, Section A at para. 61).
The federal district court found that Ms. Lambert proved to him "at least
by clear and convincing evidence that Laurie Show could not have said
'Michelle did it'." Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1529. In so
doing, the federal district court ruled that Mrs. Show was not credible on
this point, despite the fact that he did not have an opportunity to hear and
observe her testimony in 1992. Further, the federal district court based its
finding on "evidence" that Laurie Show's carotid artery was cut, thereby
rendering speech impossible. He based this finding on the testimony of an
EMT, who admittedly had minimal, if any, training in anatomy, and on the
testimony of a speech professor from Northwestern University, Dr. Larson,
who never observed Laurie Show's body, who did not attend her autopsy,
who is not a medical doctor, whose sole surgical experience is limited to
monkeys, and who was willing to offer opinions far outside his area of
expertise.(55) The federal district court was able, somehow, to overlook the
testimony of Dr. Penades from the 1992 trial, as well as the testimony of
Dr. Annese from the 1992 trial. Each of these witnesses had, literally,
hands-on contact with the structures of the neck of Laurie Show during the
course of the autopsy.(56)
At the PCRA hearing, petitioner produced Dr. Larson to testify about the
mechanisms of speech. He made a thorough and interesting presentation
on how the various structures of the neck and mouth and respiratory
system work together to produce speech. He offered this as a prelude to
his expert opinion that it was not possible for Laurie Show to articulate
intelligible speech. Dr. Larson contends it was not possible for Laurie Show
to say "Michelle did it." (N.T., PCRA at 2414-15.) He offered this opinion
without ever having had the opportunity to observe the structures in
Laurie Show's neck and relied exclusively on crime scene and autopsy
photographs, the autopsy report and testimony at the various prior
hearings. (N.T., PCRA at 2442.)
Dr. Larson also offered an opinion that the left carotid artery on Laurie
Show was severed. (N.T., PCRA at 2381.) Dr. Larson, whose knowledge of
human anatomy, albeit well articulated and detailed, is limited to charts,
diagrams, photographs, transparencies, past experience performing
experimental surgeries on live monkeys and, apparently, the occasional
experiment with a cadaver, was called to offer an opinion as to the
integrity of the anatomy of a crime victim whom he never observed. Would
that this were not enough, he never offered an opinion as to the
significance of the cut carotid. Petitioner's counsel apparently chose to
leave these conclusions to the medical witnesses who, indeed, did address
the significance of "the cut carotid."(57)
Dr. Larson testified that the cut on Laurie Show's neck was between the
thyroid cartilage and the hyoid bone. He gave his opinion that this injury
would cause the tongue to, essentially, lose its anchor, resulting in
movement of the tongue up into the pharynx. Dr. Larson testified that the
trauma to the neck would have caused the tongue to change its position
and occlude the air passage necessary to create speech. (N.T., PCRA at
2418.) Dr. Larson appeared to this court to be knowledgeable about the
speech process. He could say what would happen if a certain portion of the
vocal tract is impaired or destroyed. He could not, however, testify with
any expertise about what actually might happen to the structures effecting
the vocal tract given certain physical injuries. His knowledge in this area is
only theoretical. He must make certain assumptions about the impact of
certain trauma on the vocal tract. With these assumptions, he can then
conclude what the possible effect on the victim's ability to form words,
syllables or sounds might be. Perhaps if Dr. Larson's analysis of the
mechanisms of speech had been supported by credible and persuasive
medical testimony, his opinion and explanation might have been more
helpful to the court. The medical witnesses offered by petitioner did not
provide the necessary medical support for Dr. Larson's theoretical
explanations of the process of human speech.
Michael M. Baden, M.D., was the first medical expert called by petitioner.
He is a forensic pathologist from New York City and has extremely
impressive credentials. He was originally contacted by the Commonwealth,
who decided not to call him as a witness after receiving his report. (See
Report of Dr. Baden, Petitioner's Exhibit 3011.) They disclosed the report
to petitioner and petitioner's counsel called Dr. Baden.
His opinion, in essence, was that Laurie Show would have died within a
few minutes of receiving her wounds. He felt she would have had to lose
consciousness within three minutes and suffer brain death within two
minutes after that. (N.T., PCRA at 3165-66.) If her left carotid was
severed, she would have lost consciousness within a minute or so. (N.T.,
PCRA at 3169.)
There were several troubling aspects to Dr. Baden's evaluation. His report
referred to the victim of this case as Lisa Michelle Lambert.(58) Dr. Baden
also opined from his review of the autopsy report and testimony relating to
the autopsy that there was no dissection of the neck. (N.T., PCRA at
3175.) He believes there was an obligation to dissect the neck. (Id.) In
fact, the testimony of the physicians who performed the autopsy, and the
physicians who took the time to review the autopsy report, was that the
larynx and trachea were dissected from the neck and the carotid
examined. (N.T., PCRA at 6845.) While it does not appear that the carotid
artery was taken apart, piece by piece, while it lay inside the neck of the
victim, it was dissected and tied off. It was Dr. Penades who noted upon
examination of the carotid artery after the neck had been dissected that
the carotid was not cut and that it was intact. (N.T., Trial at 96.) How Dr.
Baden could offer an opinion as to the autopsy procedure and the integrity
of the carotid artery in light of this clear testimony and statement in the
report defies belief. He created the impression for this court that his
analysis may well have been hurried in the midst of other pressing
matters.
Dr. Baden focused more on the cause of death and the time of death in
relation to the time of the infliction of the injuries. He gave a range of time
within which Laurie Show would have lived given certain assumptions as to
the nature and extent of the injuries to her neck. He specifically noted that
he could not tell from the autopsy photographs whether the carotid artery
was severed. He made the statement that an EMT would be in a better
position to give an opinion as to the carotid artery given the EMT's
opportunity to observe the injury at the scene.(59) (N.T., PCRA at 3197.)
He offered no support for this belief. Dr. Baden appeared to this court to
beg the issue of whether the carotid artery was, in fact, cut by deferring to
the observations of the EMT, Ken Zeyak, who testified earlier in the
hearing. With the opportunity to observe Dr. Baden on the witness stand
and to attempt to reconcile his testimony with other evidence in the case,
we found this statement to be patently unbelievable. Later in the hearing,
Dr. Levin, a throat surgeon, testified that medical students and medical
residents who observe neck surgery are often unable to pick out structures
in the neck and throat area without guidance from a more experienced
physician. (N.T., PCRA at 6244.)
We believe it is likely that Dr. Baden was attempting to be respectful of
other witnesses in this proceeding and that his choice to "defer" to the
EMT testimony was, in reality, a way of saying that he, himself, could not
tell whether the carotid artery was cut. Dr. Baden did not offer an in-depth
discussion of the impact of the neck wounds of Laurie Show on her
mechanisms of speech. This would have been the medical testimony
necessary to give support and credence to Dr. Larson's explanation of the
speech processes. Dr. Baden provided no significant medical support for
Dr. Larson's opinion regarding the mechanisms of speech involved in this
case.
Petitioner's next dying declaration expert was John E. Smialek, M.D., chief
medical examiner for the State of Maryland. Dr. Smialek offered an opinion
that was interesting but implausible given other evidence in the case.
According to Dr. Smialek, Laurie Show did not die from the horrific
lacerations to her neck. Rather, she bled to death from the stab wound to
her back. (N.T., PCRA at 3276-77.) In fact, she bled to death so quickly
from the stab wound that she was dead when her throat was cut,
according to Dr. Smialek. We know that the throat was cut before Ms.
Buck and Ms. Lambert left the condominium and we know that Laurie
Show demonstrated signs of life to a number of personnel, medical and
otherwise, that morning. Thomas Chapman felt a pulse and observed
Laurie move her leg, (N.T., PCRA at 914), Charles Robert May noted faint
ventricular fibrillation, goose bumps and lip movement, (N.T., PCRA at
1430-32, 1434), Lisa Hinkle Billiter observed ventricular fibrillation some
time after Mr. May, (N.T., PCRA at 1018), and Mrs. Show observed Laurie
communicating the identity of her killer, (N.T., PCRA at 5658). For Dr.
Smialek to be believed, all these other witnesses would have to be
completely disbelieved.
Dr. Smialek offered an interesting medical view of an alternative scenario.
He did, however, note that it was impossible to tell from the autopsy
photographs whether the carotid artery was severed. (N.T., PCRA at 328284.) Dr. Baden also found it difficult to tell from the photographs if the
carotid was severed. (N.T., PCRA at 3197.) These two experts, called by
petitioner, cast serious doubt on the witness who appeared to provide the
most convincing testimony to the federal district court: Ken Zeyak.
Mr. Zeyak was at the time a volunteer EMT and was the first of the
medical personnel to arrive in the condominium that morning. Mr. Zeyak
had EMT training for five months, eight hours per week. He believes he
learned the location of the carotid artery in basic anatomy. He admitted
that the training he received as a registered nurse, subsequent to this
incident, provided him with much more anatomy training. He recalled a
clear observation of the left carotid and noted that it was severed, it was
spasming and no blood was coming from the artery. (N.T., PCRA at 706.)
He has never in his life seen an autopsy nor seen an exposed carotid
artery. (N.T., PCRA at 718.) He has no good idea of the basic anatomy of
the neck as was evidenced by his answers on cross-examination. (N.T.,
PCRA at 719-723.) In his EMT training he never observed an autopsy,
never observed surgery, never looked at a cadaver, never viewed a model
of the neck structures, though he believes there may have been diagrams
of the carotid in one of his anatomy texts. (N.T., PCRA at 718, 746-47.) It
was interesting and instructive as to Mr. Zeyak's credibility that he was
able to identify the carotid artery on photographs, (Petitioner's Exhibit
1514A; N.T., PCRA at 743), which were of no help to two world famous
forensic pathologists, Drs. Baden and Smialek.(60)
Dr. Levin, a professor of otolaryngology at the Penn State College of
Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, testified in the Commonwealth's case.
Dr. Levin also testified at the federal habeas proceeding in 1997. Dr. Levin
performs surgery on the neck at least three times per week. Much of his
experience is in the oncology field and he has some experience in
traumatic injuries to the neck and throat.
Dr. Levin testified that it was "very unlikely" that Laurie Show's carotid
artery was cut. (N.T., PCRA at 6172.) He based this on the autopsy report
and autopsy and crime scene photographs. In direct contradiction of Mr.
Zeyak, Dr. Levin testified that he could not see the carotid artery, much
less a cut carotid artery, on any of the autopsy photographs. He opined
that the carotid artery lies deep to the sternocleidomastoid muscle and
offered his opinion from the photographs that the sternocleidomastoid
muscle was intact on Laurie Show. (N.T., PCRA at 6175.) According to Dr.
Levin, several of the "strap muscles" anterior to the sternocleidomastoid
muscle were severed and a portion of the sternocleidomastoid muscle was
cut but the muscle itself was intact. This suggested to Dr. Levin that the
carotid was intact as well. Further, Dr. Levin noted that in Dr. Penades's
autopsy report the carotid was observed and found to be uncut and intact.
Dr. Levin opined that Laurie Show could have been alive and that
medically speaking, she had the capacity to utter weak, breathy sounds
such as her mother described. (N.T., PCRA at 6185-86, 6188.) Dr. Levin
also testified that with the head cradled in the fashion described by Mrs.
Show, the internal airways could have been sufficiently closed to allow air
passage through the larynx such as to create some speech. He believes it
would not have been a complete closure and that air would have been
escaping through the holes in the neck, but that some closure sufficient for
(61)
speech could have been achieved.(61) (N.T., PCRA at 6186-87.)

Dr. Burton, a forensic pathologist from the Atlanta area, testified on behalf
of the Commonwealth as well. Dr. Burton was the only medical witness
who acknowledged that medicine has its limits. He testified as to the
physiology and the anatomy involved in speech, particularly in the victim
of this crime. (N.T., PCRA at 6873-74.) He also testified that frequently
events occur which appear to be impossible from a medical standpoint.
(N.T., PCRA at 6886-88.) Dr. Burton, in addition to providing thorough and
interesting medical testimony, articulated the central issue for the analysis
of all these expert opinions: the experts are talking about that which is
possible or impossible strictly from a medical or scientific perspective. Dr.
Burton was the only medical expert who assessed the situation taking into
account the medical facts and the clinical picture. (N.T., PCRA at 6875,
6955-56.) Dr. Burton testified that the presence of Mrs. Show may have
stimulated and aroused Laurie. (N.T., PCRA at 6875.) Dr. Baden and Dr.
Smialek were impressive with their knowledge and their background, but
neither acknowledged the need to consider the clinical picture in the
context of the medical possibilities. The clinical picture in this case is what
Mrs. Show saw and heard and did.
Dr. Burton offered the following expert opinions: (1) there was no
anatomic evidence that Laurie Show could not speak, (N.T., PCRA at 6873,
6884-88); (2) there was no forensic or medical evidence that the carotid
artery was severed, (N.T., PCRA at 6840, 6844, 6865, 6981); (3) he could
not identify the carotid artery in the autopsy photographs, (N.T., PCRA at
6841, 6988-89); (4) Laurie could have been conscious when her mother
returned to the condominium, (N.T., PCRA at 6884, 6884-88); and (5) the
carotid had been dissected by Dr. Penades, (N.T., PCRA at 6927, 698182).
Dr. Ross, the forensic pathologist for Lancaster County, was the last
medical expert to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth. Dr. Ross took
exception to most, if not all, of the expert opinions offered by Drs. Baden
and Smialek. Unlike his colleagues, Dr. Ross believes that (1) Laurie was
conscious when her mother came home, (N.T., PCRA at 7329-30, 7332-33,
7354, 7400-01, 7404-07), (2) cradling Laurie's neck could reestablish her
airway and make speech possible, (N.T., PCRA at 7361-62, 7388-89), (3)
Laurie was capable of speech, (N.T., PCRA at 7363, 7401-02, 7403), (4)
Laurie was alive when the neck wound was inflicted, (N.T., PCRA at 7310),
(5) the carotid artery was not severed, (N.T., PCRA at 7302, 7378), and
(6) Dr. Penades did dissect out the neck, (N.T., PCRA at 7366). Dr. Ross,
however, did agree with the defense experts on one thing: one cannot
identify the carotid artery on the autopsy or crime scene photographs.
(N.T., PCRA at 7369.)
This collection of expert opinions all goes to whether the testimony of Mrs.
Show in July 1992 was credible. Experience teaches that expert opinion is
sometimes helpful, sometimes not. Experts once thought the world was
flat. Dr. Burton's admonition that we must look at the clinical picture in
conjunction with the medical evidence is most helpful. Drs. Levin, Ross,
Penades, Annese and Burton all testified that what Mrs. Show perceived
was possible. They did not say it happened, they did not say it did not
happen. They only said that what Mrs. Show observed was medically and
physiologically possible.
For purposes of our PCRA hearing, all this testimony comes under the
heading of "after-discovered evidence." The court must inquire as to
whether this evidence was unavailable at trial, is exculpatory and whether
it would have changed the outcome of the trial. Reese, 444 Pa. Super. at
44, 663 A.2d at 209. On the first issue, all of this evidence was available
at trial. The essential facts, the autopsy photographs, the autopsy report
and the essence of the dying declaration, were all well known in 1991 and
1992. Had petitioner chosen to do so, she could have called expert
witnesses to testify as to what Drs. Baden, Smialek and Larson said at the
PCRA hearing. Nothing about the essential facts as to the dying declaration
has changed. The only after-discovered evidence is the expert analysis of
those facts. This court does not believe that an expert's opinion is afterdiscovered evidence. Expert opinion may well be a subsequent
interpretation of the available evidence and might be "after-discovered" in
the sense that no one inquired as to these opinions at the time of the trial.
But the essential facts, the evidence on which the opinions are based, are
the same today as they were in 1991 and 1992.
Is the after-discovered evidence exculpatory? The opinions are mixed and
there is a disagreement among the experts as to whether Laurie Show
could have spoken. Certainly the opinions of experts who testified
favorably as to petitioner would be exculpatory as to her position. Yet
these are only exculpatory opinions, not exculpatory facts or evidence.
Finally, would the new "opinions" have changed the outcome of the trial?
This court has considered the expert opinions in 1992 and the expert
opinions in 1998 and finds nothing that would have changed the verdict in
this case. The testimony of Dr. Larson, a speech professor, was
informative but largely in a theoretical sense. He "picked out" the carotid
artery on the autopsy photographs and offered an opinion that it was
severed. But Drs. Baden, Smialek, Levin, Burton and Ross, all medical
doctors, said that they could not determine whether the carotid artery was
severed from a review of the same photographs. Dr. Larson's opinion as to
the impact of the neck wounds on the movement of Laurie Show's tongue
was disputed by Drs. Levin, Burton, and Ross. No medical witness called
by petitioner was able to give credible supporting medical testimony for
Dr. Larson's explanation. Dr. Larson's understanding is based largely on
charts, diagrams and photographs. In the face of the overwhelming
medical evidence presented by the Commonwealth, both at trial and at the
PCRA hearing, his expert opinion fell short.
In an analysis of whether the new "opinions" would have changed the
outcome of the trial, we begin with the testimony of Mrs. Show. We found
her to be credible in the 1992 trial. At that time, the court had the benefit
of the testimony of Dr. Penades and Dr. Annese, both of whom carefully
observed the structures in Laurie Show's neck during the autopsy. We
found them to be credible. Based on their examination of the neck wound,
the vocal tract, and the structures of Laurie Show's neck during the
autopsy, they offered opinions which have yet to be contradicted in any

credible way.
Petitioner's case, led principally by Dr. Larson, assumes that Laurie Show's
carotid artery was cut. The court is asked to conclude on this basis that
there was no possibility of speech and that death followed the infliction of
the wounds in a very short period of time. We find that there is conclusive
evidence that the carotid artery was not cut. Petitioner would have this
court ignore the autopsy report and the testimony of Drs. Penades and
Annese. In the alternative, petitioner would have us believe that the
autopsy report was falsified and that these two physicians lied under oath
about findings in the autopsy. We simply find no support anywhere in the
record of this case for that argument. We observed Drs. Penades and
Annese testify, we considered their testimony and find no basis to
conclude that they were lying.
The testimony of the EMTs carries no weight on this issue. Only Mr. Zeyak
is sure that the carotid artery was cut but he did not, and does not, have
the medical expertise to make this finding. Dr. Baden's and Dr. Smialek's
testimony that Laurie Show would have died, or would have been without
brain function, before Mrs. Show arrived is contradicted by witnesses at
the scene who observed signs of life. The medical personnel and neighbors
arrived well after Mrs. Show came back into her home and found her
daughter. The more credible and persuasive expert testimony was that of
Drs. Levin, Burton, and Ross.
This "battle of the experts" has not shaken the credibility of Mrs. Show on
this issue. Petitioner contends that Mrs. Show did not tell anyone that
Laurie said "Michelle did it" until nearly two hours after the murder.
(Exhibit A, Section A at para. 61.) Lisa Hinkle Billiter, the registered nurse
on Community Hospital's life support unit which responded to the scene,
testified that after attending to Laurie, she and the other medics left the
bedroom and approached Mrs. Show in the living room to inform her that
they were unable to do anything further for her daughter. At that time,
Mrs. Show "explained that she felt that Laurie had -- that she'd been
setup, that she had been made to go to the school for a guidance
counselor appointment that was never to occur, and that Lisa had -- or
excuse me -- that Laurie had said to her Michelle did it." (N.T., PCRA at
1025-26.) This statement(62) by Mrs. Show occurred well before her police
interviews and reveals that petitioner's contention that the dying
declaration was "suggested" to her by the police is baseless.(63)
No expert has established that it would have been impossible for Laurie
Show to speak. In fact, competent and credible expert testimony proves in
a clear and convincing way that the dying declaration was possible. No
evidence was presented in 1992 or has been presented in the PCRA
hearing which would cause this court to change its finding that Mrs. Show
was credible in 1992 when she testified as to her daughter's dying
declaration. The expert opinions in 1998, had they been presented in
1992, would not have changed the outcome of the case.
B. The "29 Questions"
The "29 questions" is a document which was passed between Ms. Lambert
and Mr. Yunkin at the Lancaster County Prison between the time of their
arrest and Ms. Lambert's trial.(64) How can a document which was of no
consequence to the fact finder in 1992 take on significance six years after
the trial? Petitioner contends that certain after-discovered evidence
regarding this document gives it added weight and points toward the
culpability of Mr. Yunkin and away from the culpability of Ms. Lambert. The
after-discovered evidence is the fact that Lawrence Yunkin was probably
not truthful and forthcoming in his testimony about the "29 questions" in
the 1992 trial.
That would have, perhaps, some significance to this court as the fact finder
in the PCRA context had the court given any weight to Mr. Yunkin's
testimony in the first instance. This court made clear in its opinion on the
post verdict motions that it did not find Mr. Yunkin credible and had many
reservations about the veracity and reliability of the "29 questions." See
All Mr. Yunkin really said about those questions and answers is that he
remembered a similar document, that he recalled the questions being
written in pencil and that he wrote answers in pen. (N.T., Trial at 274-79.)
He believed that the document marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1119 at the
PCRA hearing and Defendant's Exhibit 5 at the 1992 trial was not the
document on which he actually wrote. (N.T., Trial at 276.)
At the 1992 trial, the defense produced John C. Gencavage, a handwriting
expert who examined the document. He offered his opinion that the
document contained no erasures and no graphite, indicating that there had
been no pencil writing on the document. (N.T., Trial at 869.) Mr. Kenneff
stipulated to this testimony on the basis that he had the document
examined by a Pennsylvania State Police document examiner as well.
(N.T., Trial at 888-89.) There was never any effort by the Commonwealth
to hide what Mr. Yunkin said or to somehow bolster what Mr. Yunkin said
with expert testimony. Mr. Kenneff freely and openly acknowledged that
his expert's analysis of the document was consistent with the defense
expert and these expert opinions were both inconsistent with Mr. Yunkin's
testimony.
Mr. Kenneff made the appropriate argument that these facts went to the
veracity of Mr. Yunkin and the reliability of the document. Mr. Kenneff
further argued that the court was free to accept all, part, or none of the
document and the testimony regarding the document.(65) (N.T., Trial at
1231-32.)
In 1992 and today, this court assessed the "29 questions" as inherently
suspicious and of very little help to the fact finder. (A copy of this
document is attached to this opinion in the "Addendum to Opinion.") To
say this document is a "confession" by Mr. Yunkin(66) is simply wrong. This
is a document which contains answers which are barely responsive to the
questions. The questions contain words which are crammed in the spaces
and the questions are, if nothing else, entirely self-serving. A number of
possibilities exist. One is that Mr. Yunkin did, in fact, answer a
questionnaire which was written in pencil and that Ms. Lambert then
traced his answers onto another document all in pen. This would alleviate
the erasures and the traces of graphite. Another possibility is that there
were several such documents circulated between Ms. Lambert and Mr.
Yunkin. At the PCRA hearing, Petitioner's Exhibit 1474 was offered into
evidence. This was a copy of another questionnaire which appears to be in
the same or similar handwriting as appears on Petitioner's Exhibit 1119.
The "29 questions" does not take on the stature of after-discovered
evidence simply because a federal judge disagreed with a state judge's
analysis of the document's importance. Perhaps the "29 questions" would
have raised a reasonable doubt to the federal judge and perhaps, standing
alone, this inherently unreliable document would have served as the basis
for his conviction of Mr. Yunkin.
The reality of this case is that the "29 questions" was fully and well
considered in the 1992 trial. Mr. Shirk made every possible use of this
document, pointing out to the court that Mr. Yunkin appeared to have
made admissions as to his involvement in the murder, that Ms. Lambert's
story that she was covering for Mr. Yunkin is buttressed by the "29
questions" and that, if nothing else, the "29 questions" created a
reasonable doubt as to who was actually in the condominium and who
actually killed Laurie Show. Subsequent discussions of that document have
not changed this court's mind as to its importance in 1992 or today.
Mr. Kenneff never hid his belief that Mr. Yunkin was not being forthright
about that document. In truth, no one involved in the 1992 trial could
quite figure out who wrote what on that document and what it meant. Had
the Commonwealth been able to use that document in a way to implicate
Mr. Yunkin, this court believes the Commonwealth would have done so. At
no time in 1992 did the Commonwealth evidence any interest in removing
Mr. Yunkin from the case. In fact, in Mr. Kenneff's closing, he noted that
"his heart, his mind, and his stomach" told him that Mr. Yunkin
participated in the murder of Laurie Show. (N.T., Trial at 1272.)
To say that Mr. Yunkin's testimony that he wrote answers in pencil was
perjury is interesting. Under this world view, any testimony that differs
from any other testimony might well be "perjury" in the eye of the person
who disagrees. In this case, that would mean that at least one or more of
the experts who testified are perjurers. Certainly they did not agree and
they gave diametrically opposed testimony on certain basic facts, i.e.,
whether the carotid artery was severed.
With respect to the "29 questions," all petitioner can say is that Mr. Yunkin
testified in a way that was disputed by expert testimony. That argument
goes to the weight of Mr. Yunkin's testimony and the court gave little
weight to Mr. Yunkin's testimony.
Subsequent developments, i.e., the appearance of Petitioner's Exhibit
1474,(67) would suggest that Mr. Yunkin may well have not perjured
himself with respect to the "29 questions." It is now clear that there was
more than one document passed between Ms. Lambert and Mr. Yunkin.
Could Petitioner's Exhibit 1474, which is a copy, have been originally

written partly in pen and partly in pencil and used in some fashion by Ms.
Lambert to create a document written entirely in pen? Did she include
words and omit words so as to compose questions suited to the answers?
These are all questions that are unanswered and unanswerable.
For the purposes of analysis of the evidence in this case, the "29
questions" was and remains an unreliable, inconclusive document. At best,
it would have established a reasonable doubt. This court found that it did
not and that finding has not been assailed by anything other than sound
and fury, signifying nothing.
C. The Abuse Issue
Dr. Ann W. Burgess testified for a full day on "battered person syndrome"
and its application to this case. Dr. Burgess holds a doctorate in psychiatric
nursing and is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She was
described by petitioner's counsel as the world's leading expert on the
psychology of battered women. "Battered person syndrome" testimony is
generally admissible under Pennsylvania law for the very limited purpose
of showing a defendant's state of mind as it relates to self-defense in
murder prosecutions.
In Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 519 Pa. 291, 547 A.2d 355 (1988), the
Supreme Court ruled that an expert witness's testimony regarding a
victim's affliction with "rape trauma syndrome" took the issue of the
victim's credibility from the jury and was, therefore, improper. In
Gallagher, the expert witness was Dr. Ann Burgess, who testified that
aspects of the syndrome could affect a rape victim's ability to identify the
rapist. In commenting on Dr. Burgess's testimony, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court stated: "It is clear that the only purpose of the expert
testimony was to enhance the credibility of the victim." 519 Pa. at 297,
546 A.2d at 358 (emphasis in original). The Court went on to note:
The question of whether a particular witness is testifying in a truthful
manner is one that must be answered in reliance upon inferences drawn
from the ordinary experiences of life and common knowledge as to the
natural tendencies of human nature, as well as upon observations of the
demeanor and character of the witness. . . . [T]he question of a witness'
credibility has routinely been reserved exclusively for the jury.
Gallagher, 519 Pa. at 297, 546 A.2d at 358 (quoting Commonwealth v.
Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 443, 517 A.2d 920, 922 (1986) (citations omitted;
emphasis added)). The Court added that "[s]uch testimony would invest
the opinions of experts with an unwarranted appearance of authority on
the subject of credibility, which is within the facility of the ordinary juror to
assess." 519 Pa. at 297, 547 A.2d at 358 (footnote omitted).
In 1997, the federal district court accepted Dr. Burgess's testimony to
bolster Ms. Lambert's credibility. The testimony was used almost
exclusively for that purpose. The federal district court noted that Dr.
Burgess's testimony "explain[s] why for so long [Ms. Lambert] covered for.
(68)
. .Yunkin." Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1535.(68)

The most recent development in the use of battered person syndrome is
seen in Commonwealth v. Miller, 430 Pa. Super. 297, 634 A.2d 614
(1993), appeal denied 538 Pa. 622, 646 A.2d 1177 (1994). In Miller,
battered person syndrome expert testimony was admissible on the
question of the reasonable belief requirement of self defense in a case
which involved a history of abuse between the victim and the defendant.
The Superior Court confirmed earlier jurisprudence in this area by stating
that such evidence is not admissible "to improperly bolster the credibility
of the defendant. . . ." Id. at 313, 634 A.2d at 622. The use of expert
testimony to exp, lain the statements made by the defendant after the
killing improperly invades the providence of the jury. Id. at 311 n. 3, 634
A.2d at 622 n.3. Under Miller, battered person syndrome might be
relevant if the victim of the killing had been the abuser.
But that is not the way it was offered in this case. The battered person
syndrome was offered for the following purposes:
(1) to explain why Ms. Lambert "covered up" for Lawrence Yunkin;
(2) to explain why Ms. Lambert refused to give Mr. Shirk the "29
questions" until several months after the murder;
(3) to explain why Ms. Lambert told one story to Detective Solt, another
story to the court in 1992, and another story in her deposition, the federal
habeas hearing, and the PCRA hearing;
(4) to explain why Ms. Lambert was of little help to Mr. Shirk and Mr.
Epstein during the litigation of the post verdict motions; and
(5) to explain why Ms. Lambert finally told the "real story" in her hand
written federal habeas petition, composed on the floor of her cell in New
Jersey by the light streaming in under her cell door.
The Commonwealth moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Burgess on the
basis that it was "bolstering" testimony which went only to enhance the
credibility of Ms. Lambert. The Commonwealth cited to the Gallagher and
Miller decisions, and other Pennsylvania appellate decisions in support of
this argument.(69) This court agreed with the Commonwealth's position that
the testimony of Dr. Burgess insofar as it explains why Ms. Lambert told
one story, changed her story, covered up for another person, took the
blame for the murder or protected her paramour, is not relevant under any
reading of Pennsylvania law.
We allowed Dr. Burgess's testimony on the narrow issue of waiver. That is,
petitioner asserted a concern that the Commonwealth might ask this court
to dismiss the petition because it was not filed within the applicable statute
of limitations, i.e., one year from the date the judgment became final. See
42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9595(b)(1).
At the PCRA hearing, counsel for the Commonwealth did not take a
position on whether the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. It
was determined that this argument would be made at the conclusion of the
hearing after all the evidence was in and the parties were given an
opportunity to assert legal argument. It seemed appropriate to consider
Ms. Lambert's state of mind during the 1992 through 1997 time frame to
the extent it explained why she did not file a PCRA in a timely fashion.
At this point, the Commonwealth has made no motion to dismiss the
petition for failure to file within the required time. In fact, it appears there
was no issue regarding the limitation period. The narrow issue, therefore,
on which Dr. Burgess's testimony was permitted is not, in fact, an issue in
this case.
Yet, consistent with the history of this case, we are required to discuss an
issue which has great emotional and public appeal while having little or no
legal importance. The issue of abuse in this case has taken on a life of its
own. The issue of abuse is central to Ms. Lambert's emotional case.
Because Ms. Lambert's status as a victim is central to almost every claim
she raises, a full analysis of the truth of her case requires an analysis of
the expert testimony offered to secure her place in that sad galaxy.
Further, because it is clear to this court that petitioner will litigate the
issue of battered person syndrome in the appellate courts, this discussion
is included to explain our analysis and decision.
1. Relationship with Lawrence Yunkin
Petitioner makes much of the impact on her life of the abusive relationship
she shared with Lawrence Yunkin. Mr. Yunkin's abusive conduct toward
Ms. Lambert was a central issue in the 1992 trial, the post verdict motions
and the appeals to the Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Yunkin's conduct was described in vivid and detailed testimony by Ms.
Lambert. Mr. Yunkin, himself, acknowledged certain bizarre and arguably
abusive behaviors when he testified. It appeared likely to this court in
1992 that Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Lambert shared an abusive relationship
which, sadly, was not unlike many we see in the criminal system, domestic
violence system and family court. Asked to describe his relationship with
Ms. Lambert in 1992, Mr. Yunkin gave the ironic response, "Constantly at
each other's throats." (N.T., Trial at 250.) Certain witnesses ch,
aracterized the relationship as more one-sided and others pointed out that
each did a share of the arguing and the confronting.
Petitioner asserts that Mr. Yunkin's abusive, domineering and controlling
persona directed every aspect of her existence. According to Ms. Lambert,
her blond hair and blue eyes were a function of Mr. Yunkin's obsession that
she look like a "Barbie." In fact, we now know that she was bleaching her
own hair blond as early as age 13 or 14 and that she discussed with her
hairdresser the damage that was being done to her hair by the dye. (N.T.,
PCRA at 6373-74.) Further, during the eight-day 1992 trial, Ms. Lambert
appeared in the courtroom every day with blond hair and blue eyes. We
have learned through testimony at this hearing that the blue eyes were
created by the wearing of tinted contact lenses. We note, however, that
the trial took place eight months after her last contact with Mr. Yunkin,
eight months after her incarceration, and with no rea, son for her t, o
conti, nue a behavior pattern that was "dictated" entirely by Mr. Yunkin. In
short, the assertions about her appearance simply are not credible.
According to Ms. Lambert, Mr. Yunkin dominated her every move. Yet, the
tone of correspondence exchanged between Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Lambert
after each had been arrested would suggest otherwise. A fair reading of
the letters offered into evidence in this proceeding(70) would show that Ms.
Lambert was anything but demure and unassertive. Ms. Lambert
apparently learned that Mr. Yunkin sent a handwritten postcard to Mrs.
Show from prison on December 23, 1991. The postcard states:
I don't know what to say for what happened but I'm sorry. I know this
doesn't bring Laurie back. If I could die & take her place & let her come
back, I swear to you I would. Laurie was a nice person, and she cared
about you & her father a lot [sic]. When Michelle saw her somewhere I
would try to keep her from Laurie and that's the truth. I had nothing
against Laurie. For that week we went out she was so nice to me. I feel it
was my fault for going out with her & none of this would of happened. All I
can say is I'm sorry & I didn't know. Sincerliy [sic] Lawrence
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1018.)
In a letter postmarked January 25, 1992, from Ms. Lambert to Mr. Yunkin,
while both were in prison, Ms. Lambert wrote the following:
Dear Sweet Pea,
Lawrence, where is your head? Why on earth did you write to Laurie's
mother? WHAT in the world did you say? You should know better than
that! All her mother has ever done, is harrass [sic] us! Just leave her
alone! That post-card could end up in the paper! Are you crazy? What are
you trying to pull? Her mother is telling lies about us, trying to get us in
real bad trouble, and you go and try to be buddies with her!. . .
(Commonwealth Exhibit 10 (emphasis in original).)
It is difficult to pinpoint a moment in the PCRA hearing as the most
bizarre. One likely contender, however, was the testimony by Dr. Burgess
as to the sexually explicit poem dated January 16, 1992, written by Ms.
Lambert for Mr. Yunkin. Dr. Burgess focused on one line at the end of the
poem to suggest that the sexual relationship between Ms. Lambert and Mr.
Yunkin was violent, abusive and "not pleasurable for the female." We print
the poem in its entirety only to illustrate that the author, Lisa Michelle
Lambert, may well have been contemplating another kind of relationship:
Hick-o-ry, Dick-o-ry - Dock,
I'll lick you stiff as a rock,
When the clock strikes four,

I'll shove you onto the floor,
And ride your fat hard cock.
You'll feel me fast and tight,
And make me scream all thru the night,
I'll beg for more and more,
As you pull my hair, and call me a whore,
And you ram me harder and harder,
Until the morning light.
And when you fall asleep,
I'll still make you do me deep,
And when you tiredly moan,
I'll match you with a groan,
As you hurt me 'till I weep.
(Petitioner's Exhibit 422 (emphasis in original).)
The image that Ms. Lambert now tries to market, that she was a demure,
dominated, controlled victim, is contrary to so much evidence. From her
verbal and physical assaults on Laurie Show, to her planning the abduction
in the summer of 1991, from planning the attack on Laurie Show on the
morning of December 20, 1991, to her strongly worded letter to Mr.
Yunkin in the prison, Ms. Lambert demonstrated a character that is
anything but demure and controlled.
2. Allegation of gang rape
The first reference to the alleged gang rape of Ms. Lambert came in the
testimony of Gene L. Carey, M.D., a psychiatrist from Hershey Medical
Center, at the death penalty phase of the trial of 1992. Dr. Carey
volunteered that Ms. Lambert had shared with him a description of this
incident and had asked him not to mention it in his testimony. (N.T.,
Penalty Phase at 58.) If, in fact, this rape occurred, it is inexcusable and
wrong. On the assumption that it did happen on June 17, 1991, the impact
of that incident on petitioner's claims for relief must be addressed. The
gang rape may be relevant for three reasons: (1) it may explain why the
East Lampeter Township police officers "framed" Ms. Lambert for the
murder; (2) it may explain why Ms. Lambert did not go to the police
immediately on the morning of December 20, 1991; and (3) it serves to
buttress Dr. Burgess's characterization of Ms. Lambert as a victim.
There is no proof that the gang rape occurred other than Ms. Lambert's
own statement. She chose not to seek medical help, she chose not to
contact any authorities, she chose not to tell her parents and she chose
not to share the experience with her boyfriend or any friend. She drew a
picture of one of the "rapists" and that picture was later "identified" in
testimony by Mr. Shirk as Officer John Bowman of East Lampeter Township
Police. (N.T., PCRA at 3428-29.) On the basis of this irresponsible
"identification," serious allegations were made against Officer Bowman at
the outset of this proceeding and in the prelude to this proceeding.(71)
Officer Robin Weaver of the East Lampeter Township Police Department
was named by Ms. Lambert as one of the rapists. Yet, no proof of this very
serious allegation was established. Rather, Ms. Lambert testified to being
terrified upon seeing an East Lampeter Township police officer at the
Lancaster Catholic High Carnival within a week of the alleged rape (or
three, depending on the witness) to the extent that she rushed to avoid
any eye contact with this police officer. Her description of terror in seeing
him, buttressed by the testimony of Michael Pawlikowski, who
accompanied her to the carnival, suggested that she lived in fear of the
officers who did this to her. Yet, on August 1, 1991, in response to a
harassment and assault complaint, the very same Officer Robin Weaver
spoke with Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Lambert at the East Towne Mall for a period
of 20 minutes or more. He spoke to them about their contacts with Laurie
Show and about the charge of assault and harassment. He attempted to
talk to them about their behavior. (Commonwealth's Exhibit 51.) According
to Officer Weaver's uncontradicted and credible testimony, Ms. Lambert
and Mr. Yunkin participated in this discussion with him. (N.T., PCRA at
6359-63.) This would appear to belie Ms. Lambert's position that she lived
in fear of the police officers, especially Officer Weaver.
Ms. Rainville, co-counselor for petitioner, went so far as to suggest
throughout the hearing that Ms. Lambert's child, born in March 1992, was
the product of this gang rape. (N.T., PCRA at 32.) Yet, we know better. In
one of Ms. Lambert's letters to Mr. Yunkin while in prison, she refers
specifically to the baby and to Lawrence as the father. She wrote:
Listen to me. Yes, I told my parents they can have the baby! They are
going to take care of him until I get out. I can not give the baby to your
parents, Lawrence! Look at what your parents did to you! Your mom
"babied" you so much, you can't even think for yourself!
(Commonwealth Exhibit 10 (emphasis in original).) Ms. Lambert then
wrote in the same letter:
Another thing, you weren't even happy when I told you I was pregnant!
You hit me, and went out and slept with that tramp! And then, for 4
months after that, you didn't even believe I was pregnant! As far as I'm
concerned, this baby doesn't have a father!

Lawrence, I love you, but because of how horrible you've treated me, I
love the baby more. I love the baby more, because he is the good part of
you.
(Commonwealth Exhibit 10 (emphasis in original).)
We know as a matter of public record here in Lancaster County that the
custody of her daughter has been the subject of several court proceedings.
We know that Mr. Yunkin has acknowledged paternity and we know that
DNA testing was conducted. Judge Wayne G. Hummer of this court wrote:
"DNA testing has been completed and found that Lawrence Yunkin was not
excluded as the biological father of the said child and calculated that the
probability of paternity was 99.98 %. Defendants [Leonard M. Lambert,
Judy L. Lambert and Lisa Michelle Lambert] have not objected to these
results." Yunkin v. Lambert, No. 102 -1993, slip op. at 2 (Lanc. Co. C.P.
June 29, 1994) (court held that the Yunkins, as paternal grandparents,
had standing to request custody of Ms. Lambert's and Mr. Yunkin's
daughter). Does it appear curious to anyone beside this court that Ms.
Lambert will allow her attorney to assert that one of the rapists was the
father of her daughter while choosing not to contest DNA evidence that
Lawrence Yunkin was the father of the child by a probability of 99.98
percent?
The fact of the gang rape has little, if any, legal significance in the analysis
of the issues raised by the PCRA petition. It has enormous significance in
creating a level of emotional intensity and sympathy, which drives much of
petitioner's case.
It would be a tragic and inexcusable event if, indeed, it took place. The
level of sorrow one might feel for petitioner having undergone such terrible
treatment has no bearing, however, on the legal significance of that event
to her case. Whatever occurred on June 17, 1991, has no place in the
analysis of petitioner's claims.
The gang rape is in this case only to give the police a motive to frame Ms.
Lambert for the murder of Laurie Show. To believe this, the court must
believe that Officer Weaver, upon entering the Show condominium on
December 20, 1991, observed a dying teenage girl and thought first to use
the event to frame Ms. Lambert. To believe this, the court must accept
that Detective Savage took a grieving mother aside within an hour of her
daughter's death and planted in her mind the suggestion that her daughter
made a dying declaration. To believe this, the court would have to accept
that these police officers were acting first and foremost in an effort to use
the murder of Laurie Show to frame a woman who was gang raped six
months earlier by them or by members of their department. This is just
not believable.
Nor does the gang rape explain why Ms. Lambert failed to go to the police
on the morning of December 20, 1991. In fact, given every opportunity to
explain to the police and at trial why she did not report the murder after
she fled from the condominium complex, she never mentioned fear of the
police because of a "gang rape." She talked about Mr. Yunkin watching her
"like a hawk," she talked about being afraid of Ms. Buck, and she talked
about not having access to a telephone. Yet, she went to collect her
paycheck, she went to the local mall, she went to Mr. Yunkin's
grandmother's home, she went back to Ms. Buck's residence and then
ultimately to the bowling alley. It strikes this court as unbelievable that
Ms. Lambert failed to report this incident to anyone because of fear of the
police arising out of the "gang rape."
Except as support for Dr. Burgess's characterization of Ms. Lambert as a
victim, the gang rape has no legal significance in this case. As we
discussed earlier in this section, Dr. Burgess's evaluation of Ms. Lambert
would not be admissible under Pennsylvania law to explain her conduct,
her statements, or her choice to "cover up" for Mr. Yunkin. The expert
opinion that Ms. Lambert is a victim of abuse and that she, therefore, acts
in certain ways because of this status, has no bearing on any legal issue in
this case.
The gang rape would neither explain nor would it justify the well
documented course of physical and verbal assaults by Ms. Lambert on
Laurie Show, a history of stalking Laurie Show and the plot to kidnap and
do serious physical harm to Laurie Show. Nor would it excuse the plan to
go to her condominium on December 20, 1991, to cut off her hair, an
incident which has been irresponsibly referred to as a "prank." For these
reasons, we find that the gang rape has no legal significance in this case.
There is no factual support in the record. It certainly would not explain any
of petitioner's actions nor would it explain or call into question the conduct
of the police during the course of the investigation of this case.
3. Cambridge Springs
Petitioner contends that she was subjected to brutal, degrading and long
lasting mistreatment while at the State Correctional Institution at
Cambridge Springs. It is true that a corrections officer was convicted of
sexual offenses having to do with his conduct with Ms. Lambert. She
contends this was a repeated and prolonged course of prison rape. The
facts suggest otherwise.
The perpetrator of these incidents with Ms. Lambert was convicted of
aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault and official oppression. He
was not charged with nor was he convicted of rape or any of the other sex
offenses involving force or lack of consent.(72) It appears from the evidence
at the PCRA hearing that Ms. Lambert and this corrections officer had a
voluntary sexual relationship and that he was convicted because he was a
corrections officer and she was an inmate. In fact, in her conversations
with her counselor in prison, Ms. Lambert referred to the perpetrator as
"her buddy." (N.T., PCRA at 7564.) She also justified her relationship with
this man by telling her counselor: "[M]y hormones are up to here [the
counselor gestured by raising her hand above her head]. . . . All the other
women have everybody else out there, outside the fence, and I have
what's in here." (Id.)

To suggest that the incidents involving Ms. Lambert were not "rape" is not
to diminish them or to excuse them. They should never have happened
and the state corrections system and the authorities in Crawford County
took action in response to this conduct. Interestingly, it was not Ms.
Lambert who reported the conduct. Rather, she was contacted by
investigating authorities. In fact, she denied having any relationship with
the perpetrator in the initial interviews. (N.T., PCRA at 7578.)
The significance of the conduct at Cambridge Springs is high in emotion
and low in legal relevance. No prison inmate should be subjected to official
oppression nor should any inmate be subjected to indecent assault. Yet,
these incidents do not excuse murder, they do not excuse a period of
intense harassment or stalking of the victim which occurred in 1991, and
they do not call for a new trial. The Cambridge Springs incidents enhance
petitioner's victim status which, once established and enhanced, goes
nowhere. It appears that the narrow legal significance would be to explain
how little Ms. Lambert was able to offer in assisting Mr. Epstein in litigating
her post verdict motions.(73) That may well be true. Yet, there was no
prejudice because Mr. Epstein did a credible and thorough job representing
Ms. Lambert. She has been given every opportunity to litigate every
meritorious claim, and many other claims, in the federal proceeding and in
this PCRA.
D. Tabitha Buck's Involvement
1. The scratch on Tabitha Buck's face
Tabitha Buck received a severe scratch on her face on December 20, 1991.
There is no question that she received that scratch either in the Show
condominium or during her flight across the field and through the trees to
Mr. Yunkin's car. Ms. Buck has no explanation for when she got the
scratch, but does not deny she sustained the injury during or immediately
after the murder.
Petitioner's counsel devote substantial energy to this issue and to the
suggestion that the police somehow "overlooked" this scratch. Petitioner's
counsel suggest that because Ms. Buck had a scratch and Ms. Lambert had
no scratches or bruises, that Ms. Buck must have been the murderer.
In fact, Ms. Buck is a convicted murderer. She was found guilty by a jury
of second degree murder arising out of the events of December 20, 1991.
The prosecuting attorney and police officers in this case never wavered
from their position that Ms. Buck was fully involved in the murder. The fact
that the victim may well have injured Ms. Buck and did not injure Ms.
Lambert does not prove that Ms. Lambert is innocent. At best, it proves
that Ms. Buck was, in fact, involved and this issue has already been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.
2. Tabitha Buck's animus
The same holds true with evidence of Ms. Buck's animus toward Laurie
Show. There was testimony at the PCRA hearing from Rick Lentz that he
was in Laurie Show's company when she was verbally assaulted and
"smacked around" by Ms. Buck in the fall of 1991. (N.T., PCRA at 294546.) This testimony would only go to support Ms. Buck's involvement in
the murder. Ms. Buck has been convicted of murder. Proof of her actions
toward Laurie Show or her animus does not disprove petitioner's actions or
animus. The evidence of Ms. Buck's animus is of no relevance to this PCRA
proceeding.
3. Scent of a co-defendant
The police used a bloodhound to search for evidence along the
Susquehanna River. See Section VII.K, infra. Mr. Shirk testified that he did
not know that Ms. Buck's sweater was used to scent the bloodhound.
(N.T., PCRA at 3364.) However, he also stated that he had received and
reviewed Officer Reed's river search report which clearly states: "A white
sweater worn by def. Tabatha Buck was brought to the scene by myself for
use of the blood hound [sic]." (Petitioner's Exhibit 1295.)
Ms. Lambert admitted buying the rope, (N.T., Trial 991-92), admitted
agreeing with Ms. Buck and Mr. Yunkin to use the rope to tie up Laurie
Show, (N.T., Trial at 1000-01), and admitted watching as Ms. Buck cut off
a portion of the rope, (N.T., Trial at 1000). Of course, Ms. Buck's scent
was on the rope. However, just because Ms. Buck's scent was on the rope
does not mean that Ms. Lambert's was not. There was no testimony that
the dog attempted to trace Ms. Lambert's scent and failed. This "evidence"
that Ms. Buck's scent was on the rope does not exculpate Ms. Lambert.
4. Tabitha Buck's story
Tabitha Buck's testimony in this hearing marked the first time she has
testified under oath in a courtroom about the events of December 20,
1991. Previously she testified in a deposition as part of the federal
proceeding but was not called as a witness. We discuss Ms. Buck's
testimony in this section because it is relevant to Ms. Lambert's
involvement in the killing of Laurie Show, it is relevant to the extent it
corroborates or disputes essential facts which have been called into
question by petitioner, and it is relevant to the core issue of Ms. Lambert's
petition: that she is an innocent woman wrongly convicted.
Ms. Buck first met Ms. Lambert and Mr. Yunkin in September 1991 while
riding "the loop" in Lancaster.(74) (N.T., PCRA at 6617-18.) Ms. Buck was
17 years old at the time and was attending Penn Manor High School. She,
Michelle and Lawrence "hung out" through the fall of 1991. (N.T., PCRA at
6618.) In the fall of 1991, she became aware of difficulties between
Michelle and Laurie Show. She recalled Michelle saying that she did not like
Laurie and referring to her several times as a "bitch." (N.T., PCRA at
6619.)
On the evening of December 19, 1991, around 10:30 p.m., Michelle came
to visit her at the apartment she shared with her mother. Lawrence was
outside in the car. Michelle was "very upset" and "went on and on about
wanting to get Laurie back. . . ." (N.T., PCRA at 6620.) Ms. Buck described
her as "crying and ranting, raving, she was upset." (Id.) Ms. Buck testified,
"I asked her what she was going to do. She said, I'll kill her." (N.T., PCRA
at 6620-21.) Michelle told Ms. Buck that she wanted her (Buck) to go with
her to see Laurie the next morning. Ms. Buck was also told to "wear [her]
hair up, to not wear any make-up and not to wear any fingernail polish."
(N.T., PCRA at 6622.) Ms. Buck testified that she knew Laurie Show "by
sight" because they rode the same school bus when Ms. Buck attended
Conestoga Valley High School. (N.T., PCRA at 6623.)
Ms. Buck testified that Michelle and Lawrence picked her up on the
morning of December 20, 1991. (N.T., PCRA at 6623.) Michelle appeared
to give Lawrence directions from the intersection by the McDonald's on
Lincoln Highway. (N.T., PCRA at 6625-26.) Lawrence dropped them off on
Oak View Road by a field. (N.T., PCRA at 6626-27.) Ms. Buck understood
that Lawrence was going to go to McDonald's. (N.T., PCRA at 6628.)
Michelle told him to pick them up in 15 minutes. (Id.) They then walked
across the field toward the condominium complex. (N.T., PCRA at 662829.) Michelle was looking for the condominium and was not sure of the
correct number. She then located the condominium. (N.T., PCRA at 662930.) They went to the bottom of the steps and Michelle told Ms. Buck to go
upstairs, knock on the door and ask for Hazel Show. She did so and Laurie
answered the door. Ms. Buck asked if Hazel was home and Laurie said,
"No." (N.T., PCRA at 6630-31.) Michelle told Ms. Buck the night before that
Hazel should not be there because she had called and arranged for Mrs.
Show to be at a counselor's appointment. (N.T., PCRA at 6631-32.)
At that point, Michelle made her way inside. Ms. Buck then described:
Michelle apparently pushed Laurie back some distance. They were, like, in
front of the kitchen area or the living room area. And they were holding
each other's arms wrestling, like, arguing, yelling. At one point, Laurie, I
guess, broke away from Michelle and came toward me and I remember
Michelle saying something about don't go, stop or something and -- oh, I
did have sunglasses on. I failed to mention that. And Laurie grabbed my
face, pushed me somehow and knocked the sunglasses off and Michelle
was behind her and she had a knife and they were in the corner there
where the door meets the wall, the hinges of the door, I guess.
(N.T., PCRA at 6633-34.)
Ms. Buck then went on to describe Laurie's attempts to escape:
A. . . . Laurie coming at me, moving me. I was right there inside the
doorway.
Q. Okay. Do you know what Laurie was trying to do when she came
toward you?
A. My guess is she was probably trying to leave.
Q. Okay. And could she leave?

A. She didn't have a chance.
Q. And why not?
A. Michelle was on her.
(N.T., PCRA at 6636.)
Ms. Buck described the knife as a "large kitchen knife" and described how
Michelle ended up huddled with Laurie in the corner near the front door.
(N.T., PCRA at 6637-38.) Laurie had grabbed the blade of the knife and
Michelle pulled it out of her hand. As a result, Laurie's hands were cut.
(N.T., PCRA at 6638.) According to Ms. Buck, Laurie then got away and
went into her bedroom. Michelle then "grabbed her by the back of her hair
when she walked through the door and she cut her hair." (N.T., PCRA at
6637-39.) Ms. Buck recalls seeing Laurie with a phone in her hand and was
uncertain about what happened to the phone. (N.T., PCRA at 6640.)
Ms. Buck then went on to describe more of a struggle in the bedroom.
When Laurie was on her knees facing the bed, Michelle hit her in the back
of the head with the butt of the knife. She hit her more than twice in this
way. (N.T., PCRA at 6641-42.) Michelle then handed Ms. Buck the knife
and attempted to put a rope over Laurie's head. (N.T., PCRA at 6642.)
Apparently, Michelle told Laurie to stop struggling and to cooperate
because "it would be a lot easier this way" and then she put the rope over
her head. (Id.) Laurie then began to struggle and reached for a pair of
scissors. Ms. Buck moved the scissors out of Laurie's reach. (N.T., PCRA at
6643-44.)
Ms. Buck testified:
Q. What happened after you moved the scissors out of Laurie's reach?
A. Michelle told me to cut her throat.
Q. Michelle told you to cut Laurie's throat?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What did you say to Michelle?
A. I said, no.
Q. Okay. Did you still have the knife in your hand at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with the knife?
A. Michelle took it back.

Q. What happened after that?
A. She cut her leg and told her to stop struggling.
(N.T., PCRA at 6644.)
Ms. Buck then went on to describe Laurie kicking and fighting with
Michelle. She testified:
A. Michelle told me to grab her feet, make her stop kicking and I did.
Q. You did that?
A. Yes.
(N.T., PCRA at 6645.)
Ms. Buck described sitting on Laurie's feet and facing away from her. As
she sat on Laurie's feet, Laurie was struggling and at some point her feet
stopped moving. Then Ms. Buck got off her feet and looked at Laurie.
When asked what she saw, she said, "I saw her throat cut." (N.T., PCRA at
6647-48.) She noted that Michelle was sitting next to Laurie, on Laurie's
right side. She said that the throat was cut deeply enough that she (Ms.
Buck) could see into Laurie's throat and could hear a "hissing, whooshing
sound." (N.T., PCRA at 6648.) She then testified:
Q. After you turned around and saw that Laurie's throat was cut and you
saw that Michelle was still next to Laurie, did you see that the knife was
still in Michelle's hand?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see Michelle do then?
A. When I looked at Laurie I said, is she dead? Did you kill her? And
Michelle said, I don't know and proceeded to further cut Laurie's throat.
Q. Can you describe what she did when she further cut Laurie's throat?
A. She held her chin back with her left hand and cut her throat as though
she were cutting bread.
Q. Okay. Did you see how many times that cut went across Laurie's
throat?
A. Several times.
(N.T., PCRA at 6649.)
Ms. Buck related that Michelle had the tip of the knife and handed it to her.
Ms. Buck put it in her coat pocket, picked up her sunglasses and they left
the condominium. Michelle told her to put her hood up and they went back
across the complex area. (N.T., PCRA at 6650-51.) She testified that they
went down the staircase and headed in the direction toward the wooded
area. They walked behind or in a line of trees behind the Frys'
condominium, went across a field and toward the road. They ended up
along the road in some bushes. Ms. Buck indicated on an aerial
photograph of the condominium complex, (Commonwealth's Exhibit 5),
that she and Michelle ended up on Oak View Road north of the
condominium entrance. She testified that Lawrence was there and picked
them up. (N.T., PCRA at 6651-55.) All she recalls about the conversation
in the car was Lawrence looking over at Michelle and saying, "Blood?"
(N.T., PCRA at 6655-56.)
They then went back to Michelle's and Lawrence's trailer. Michelle and Ms.
Buck took showers. She recalls that she took the tip of the knife out of her
pocket and tossed it somewhere in a room in the trailer. She borrowed a
pair of black stretch legging pants, put on her white sweatshirt and
Michelle and Lawrence took her to school. (N.T., PCRA at 6657-58.)
Ms. Buck testified about the cut on her cheek and she believes that she
got the cut sometime during the events that occurred in the morning of
December 20.(75) (N.T., PCRA at 6658-59.) She recalls that she took her
jeans off and borrowed pants because there was blood on her jeans. She
left her Miami Dolphins jacket with Michelle and Lawrence because they
said they would wash it. (N.T., PCRA at 6659-60.)
On cross-examination, Ms. Buck acknowledged that she lied in her April
1997 federal deposition in that she was not complete in her answers. She
also indicated that she was not truthful when speaking to Detective Joseph
Geesey when he came to visit her at Muncy in 1997. (N.T., PCRA at 6726.)
Ms. Buck testified that there were certain significant issues which she "left
out" in her deposition testimony. These were:
(1) she did not talk about Michelle placing the rope around Laurie Show's
neck;
(2) she did not talk about Michelle's feelings about Laurie Show;
(3) she did not talk about her sunglasses;
(4) she did not talk about Michelle making the last cut on Laurie Show's
throat;
(5) she did not talk about Michelle telling her about the phone call to Mrs.
Show the night before. Rather, she suggested that she learned that Mrs.
Show would not be in the condominium that morning as they approached
the front door;
(6) she left out the testimony about Michelle telling her not to wear make-
up and nail polish and to put her "hair up";

(7) she left out the testimony about Michelle handing the knife to her
during the attack;
(8) she left out the testimony about Michelle telling her to "cut Laurie's
throat"; and
(9) she lied about wearing black stretch pants because she knew that her
jeans had blood on them and did not want to admit that. (N.T., PCRA at
6732; 6773; 6732; 6733; 6729-30; 6731-32;6732; 6733; 6732-33.)
When questioned as to why she did not tell the whole truth in her
deposition, Ms. Buck testified:
A. Several reasons. One, I was very scared. I had been told for a very long
time -A. I was told not to say anything to anybody for a very long time and I
was left under the impression that the more I knew of anything the worse
off it would be for me. And aside from that, I was extremely intimidated
that day. And I don't expect many people will understand this other
reason. But being a lifer and having been incarcerated a lifer for as long as
I have now, I would like to see women doing a life sentence go home, get
out of jail, and I just couldn't see saying certain things, even against
Michelle, if this were going to be a chance for her to go home.
(N.T., PCRA at 6673-74.)
At Ms. Buck's deposition during the federal proceeding, she was

represented by R. Russell Pugh, Esquire, of Lancaster. Immediately
following the deposition, she wrote a letter to Mr. Pugh explaining that she
had been less than completely truthful in her deposition testimony. We
reprint the entire letter in the text of this opinion because it sheds light on
the extent of Ms. Buck's untruthfulness in her deposition and her state of
mind at that time, and it contains an explanation as to her actions. It is
also significant to this court that she chose to acknowledge her lack of
complete candor in a letter to her attorney without any prompting and
before she was ever confronted with any inconsistencies. The deposition
was April 4, 1997. The letter bears the date of April 8, 1997:
Mr. Pugh,
I have not been completely honest about what happened. Most of what
I've told you is the truth but I've purposely left some things out. Some
very important things. I knew how Michelle felt about Laurie. She talked
about it all the time. She always said how she wanted to kill her. She
would think of different ways to do it and would ask me my opinion. would
tell her that her plans would work and she'd laugh. She never followed
through with any of them so I truly didn't take her seriously. At first I
didn't know who she was talking about when she said 'Laurie' but when
she told me her name was Laurie Show and she went to C.V., I made a
point to find out who it was. Laurie rode my bus and I avoided her. I never
spoke to her. I doubt if she even knew my name.
When Michelle came to the apartment on the 19th, she was upset and
wanted to talk. She said she was going to get Laurie because the police
were after her for an assault against Laurie. She told me she had called
Ms. Show and pretended to be a counselor from school. She said that Ms.
Show wouldn't be at home in the morning and she wanted me to go with
her. I asked her what she was going to do and she said she was going to
kill her. I didn't believe her and I told her so. Then she said she was just
going to get her back for dating Lawrence and for calling the police on her.
I had never seen Michelle fight anyone--she was all talk so I guess I just
figured she was just talking and wasn't really going to hurt Laurie. I told
her I would go with her. She said for me not to wear any nail polish or
make-up and to put my hair up. She said that way, if anything did happen
--there would be no evidence of who was there. Again, I didn't take her
seriously.
The next day, I wore an old pair of blue jeans that were a favorite of mine
and my white sweatshirt. When Michelle came she asked if I had any
sunglasses and I said yes. She told me to bring them. I did wear make-up
and my hair was down. She didn't say anything about it so I knew she
wasn't serious about what she had said.
When we got to the apartment Michelle told me to put the sunglasses on
so that Laurie wouldn't recognize me. I told her she didn't know me
anyway but she insisted I wear them. Once we were inside the apartment,
all hell broke loose. When Laurie tried to run to the door, she grabbed my
glasses and threw them in the corner. She may have scratched me then.
In the bedroom when Laurie was kneeling over the bed, Michelle handed
me the knife after hitting Laurie with it. Then she pulled out the rope from
under her shirt (jergo) and tried to put it around Laurie's neck. She told
Laurie it would look like a suicide and if Laurie didn't give in, then she
(Michelle) would get a group of pagans to sacrifice her. Laurie stopped
struggling and allowed Michelle to put the rope completely over her head.
Then she went for the scissors. When I pushed them away Michelle told
me to cut Laurie's throat. I looked at her like she was crazy and I said 'no!'
She told me to give her the knife and I did. Laurie was struggling again
and Michelle cut her leg. She told her it would be a lot worse if she didn't
cooperate. That's when Laurie started kicking again and Michelle told me
to grab her feet. In the process of getting her feet down, she kicked me in
my mouth.
When I got off of Laurie's feet, I saw the neck wound and heard the air
escaping. In my mind I knew that she must be dead but I asked anyway. I
asked Michelle, 'Is she dead? Did you kill her?' She said, 'I don't know.'
Then she cut Laurie's neck even deeper. I saw her do it. That's when she
said, 'Come on. Let's go.' On my way out I picked up my sunglasses and
we left.
At the trailer we took showers and Michelle gave me a pair of black stretch
pants to wear. My jeans had ripped open on one of the legs and there was
blood on them.
Everything else I told you was true. I didn't think she would actually do it
and once she did--I was scared half to death. I don't know why I didn't tell
you about her calling Ms. Show. I don't know why I didn't tell you about
the rope. All I know is that I'm telling you the whole truth now. This is
very hard for me to do but I figure--what do I have to lose? I'm already
doing Life. I know that I lied under oath at the deposition and I don't know
what that will mean now. When I testify in court, I want to tell the truth. I
hope that it isn't too late.
I know I've disappointed you. You believed me and I lied to you. I
apologize to you for deceiving you. If you want to wash you hands of my
case--I won't blame you. Maybe I'll end up dying in prison but at least my
conscience will be clear. I know that I had no intentions of harming Laurie
and I didn't believe Michelle would, either. But maybe I do deserve this life
sentence. If I'm meant to go home--God will let me go and it won't happen
without Him.
Again, I am so sorry for lying to you. I'm sorry for lying to everybody
including Detective Geesey. I hope that you won't hate me because of it. I
feel like the world has been lifted from my shoulders but I know it will be
hard for me to face you now. I am so sorry.
Sincerely, Tabitha F. Buck
(Commonwealth's Exhibit 65 (emphasis in original); N.T., PCRA 6678-82.)
The court is faced with an unusual and interesting credibility assessment
with this witness. She has acknowledged that she was less than
completely truthful under oath. It appears that on several points she told
the truth but not the whole truth. On other points, she made statements
contrary to the truth. Yet, almost immediately, she confessed these lies to
her lawyer.(76) Ms. Buck was never called as a witness in the federal
proceeding, so it is likely that she may never have been "caught" in her
lies. Her lack of truthfulness did not help or hurt her own situation, given
that she is serving a life sentence for murder. To this end, it is unlikely
that fear of perjury charges would have motivated her to confess her lack
of honesty to her attorney. She is serving a life sentence without the
possibility of parole, which in Pennsylvania means exactly that. Possible
perjury penalties would have little, if any, real impact on her life.
Further, her decision not to tell the whole truth did not hurt Ms. Lambert.
In fact, Ms. Buck soft-pedaled certain facts regarding Ms. Lambert's
involvement. Had these "lies" been for a malicious purpose, i.e., to
prejudice Ms. Lambert's petition in federal court, they might carry greater
weight. It appears that the "lies" were an effort, however ignoble, to help
her former co-defendant. She explained this as a feeling of sympathy not
so much for a former co-defendant but for a fellow "lifer."
Petitioner's counsel did a good and thorough job of exposing these various
lies in cross-examination of Ms. Buck. Petitioner would have us completely
disregard Ms. Buck's testimony on that basis. This is not the law, however.
We frequently include in our instructions to a jury in a criminal case the
maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" which means "false in one, false
in all." Essentially, this means that if a witness deliberately testified falsely
about a material point, the fact finder may choose to disbelieve the rest of
his or her testimony. But the fact finder is not required to do so. The fact
finder should consider all other factors bearing on the witness's credibility
in deciding whether to believe other parts of his or her testimony.
Commonwealth v. Parente, 184 Pa. Super. 125, 130-32, 133 A.2d 561,
563-64 (1957), aff'd, 392 Pa. 38, 139 A.2d 924 (1958). See
Commonwealth v. Tyler, 305 Pa. Super. 15, 23, 451 A.2d 218, 222
(1982); Commonwealth v. Joyce, 202 Pa. Super. 350, 353 n.1, 197
A.2d 226, 228 n.1 (1963).
In evaluating credibility, the court looks to how the witness testifies, what
the witness says, what interest the witness has in the outcome of the
proceeding and the relationship of the witness to the petitioner/defendant
or others involved in the case. The court considers whether, in general, the
witness's testimony makes sense. We look not only at the witness herself,
and her background and history in the case, but also to extrinsic factors
which impact on credibility. For example, it is proper for the court to
consider whether other evidence in the case supports the testimony of the
witness. If other evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses and
items of physical evidence, shows that the witness's testimony is less than
accurate, then these other items of evidence would have a negative impact
on credibility.
One very important factor is whether the witness is willing to falsify
testimony so as to further her own interests. This does not seem to be the
case with Tabitha Buck. At the PCRA hearing, we had the benefit of an
exchange of letters between petitioner's counsel and Ms. Buck regarding
petitioner's intentions in the federal habeas proceeding. Ms. Buck received
a "solicitation" of sorts from petitioner's counsel, Ms. Rainville. Ms.
Rainville was writing to Ms. Buck with a request for cooperation and a
suggestion that she may wish to follow Ms. Lambert's path through federal
court with a federal habeas petition of her own. Ms. Buck replied, also in
writing, with certain statements that provide insight to her credibility and
which confirm certain statements she made in her testimony at the PCRA
hearing. For completeness sake, we include the text of each letter as it
was read into the record at the hearing. The letter from Ms. Rainville to
Ms. Buck is dated November 15, 1996, and was admitted as
Commonwealth's Exhibit 64. The letter reads:
Dear Ms. Buck,
My law firm has been appointed by the federal court in Philadelphia to
represent Lisa Lambert in the preparation of her federal habeas petition. I
am writing to you because I believe that we have discovered new evidence
that may help you as well as Lisa. We believe that the new evidence may
prove that Butch Yunkin was present, and participated in the murder.
Since Mr. Yunkin was a key prosecution witness against both you and Lisa,
this new evidence may meet the standard set forth in a relatively new
Supreme Court case, Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995), which held
that a retrial was warranted due to the prosecution's failure to disclose
evidence favorable to the defense regarding a key informant and
prosecution witness. Simply stated, while you will need your own lawyer to
give you guidance, our new evidence might be enough to get you a new
trial.
You and Lisa are no longer friends, and I understand that there is a great
deal of bitterness between the two of you. Indeed, the two of you have
many legal interests that are in conflict. However, we have information
which may help you get a new trial, and you have information which might
help prove that Yunkin was there. 1991 was a long time ago, and you and
Lisa are now in a unique situation of being able to help each other by
telling the truth about Yunkin's real role in the killing.
If you are currently represented by a lawyer, you should forward my letter
to your lawyer, and have your lawyer call me. If you are not represented
by a lawyer, you may call me collect at 215-751-2374. I hope that I will be
hearing from you or your lawyer soon.
Sincerely, Christina Rainville
(Commonwealth's Exhibit 64; N.T., PCRA at 6668-69.)
Ms. Buck's response is undated, but was written in response to Ms.
Rainville's letter. It was admitted into the record at the PCRA hearing as
Commonwealth's Exhibit 63. It reads as follows:
Dear Ms. Rainville:
In response to your letter dated November 15, 1996, I must say that
whatever 'new evidence' you claim to have discovered is, in fact, untrue. I
realize that your law firm was appointed to Miss Lambert's case and you
will do whatever you can in defense of her. You would even place Mr.
Yunkin at the scene of the crime and try to pin the blame, so to speak, on
him in an effort to help Michelle (Lisa). The truth is, however, Mr. Yunkin
was not there and he did not participate in the crime. Michelle knows that
fact as well as I do. I will not fabricate lies and corroborate with Michelle
just to get myself off easy. You see, contrary to popular belief, I do not
take other people's lives into my own hands. I don't know if Mr. Yunkin
knew what Michelle was planning to do but I do know he was not there
and he did not kill Laurie. I will not lie and cause him to have a life
sentence for something he didn't even do. I know exactly what being in
that situation feels like. I have no information that would help Michelle nor
do I have any that would hurt Lawrence.
Ms. Rainville, if I'm to be granted a re-trial, it will not be based on
circumstantial evidence which I know to be untrue. I resent the
assumption that I would jeopardize someone else's life just to make my
own a little easier. That is a character flaw of your client, Ms. Lambert, and
I am nothing like her. There is only one truth. I know it. Michelle knows it.
God knows it.
I will be of no assistance to you and Lisa Michelle Lambert.
Cordially, Tabitha F. Buck
(Commonwealth's Exhibit 63 (emphasis in original); N.T., PCRA at 667072.)
While we believe that Ms. Buck's decision to withhold portions of the truth
in her deposition testimony and in her discussions with Detective Geesey
was unfortunate, we do not think that this choice establishes that she is a
wholly untruthful person who is not worthy of belief in any way in this
proceeding. In fact, she relates aspects of the story which are consistent
with other testimony in evidence and which are consistent in general terms
with her letter to Ms. Rainville written prior to the deposition. There cannot
be a justification for lying under oath but there certainly can be
explanations which bear on the overall credibility of the person shown to
be untruthful on certain points.
From Ms. Buck's testimony, we can conclude with certainty that Ms.
Lambert is anything but innocent of the charge of murder. Ms. Buck's
testimony is consistent with the observations made by Mr. Kleinhans, Mr.
and Mrs. Fry, and with the history of hatred and animus demonstrated by
Ms. Lambert during the summer and fall of 1991. The evidence as to Ms.
Lambert's planning of the assault, Ms. Lambert's and Ms. Buck's approach
to the condominium, their escape, and their activities the remainder of the
day of December 20, 1991, is consistent with much of the evidence both at
trial and the PCRA.
In assessing Ms. Buck's credibility in the PCRA hearing, we carefully
considered her testimony in light of its inconsistency with her deposition.
We have carefully considered the fact that she was untruthful at points in
her deposition and in her discussions with Detective Geesey. We observed
her as she testified and we noted the substance of her responses and the
manner in which she considered and responded to questions. Unlike Ms.
Lambert, Ms. Buck does not have an answer for everything. She has
acknowledged that there are certain facts which she cannot reconcile, and
she is candid about that which she does not remember. She was
forthcoming about her untruthful answers in her deposition and in her
discussion with Detective Geesey.
We firmly believe that Ms. Buck found herself in the middle of a vengeful
conspiracy. We do not doubt for a minute that she was aware that Ms.
Lambert intended to do harm to Laurie Show and that she went along for
reasons that only she knows. She is not an innocent. But to her credit, she
acknowledges that fact.
Ms. Buck has nothing to gain by lying about Ms. Lambert's involvement in
the death of Laurie Show. In her testimony at the PCRA, she had the
candor and the decency to accept responsibility for her own role in the
killing. She knows that she blocked Laurie Show's path as Laurie tried to
escape. She knows that she held Laurie's legs down while Ms. Lambert cut
her throat. In our close observation of Ms. Buck as she testified and in our
subsequent consideration of her testimony, we find her to be credible in
her description of the murder. She has acknowledged that she deserves
her sentence because of her actions on December 20, 1991. She has
acknowledged her guilt under oath in a courtroom in the same courthouse
in which her own PCRA petition is pending. What possible impact will this
admission have on her own PCRA claim that her trial resulted in a
"fundamentally unfair" conviction?
Ms. Buck knows full well that, when she took the stand to acknowledge,
under oath in a courtroom, that she actively participated in the killing of
Laurie Show, she severely compromised any chance she has that a state
or federal court will be inclined to find that she has been wrongly
convicted. Her testimony will not take a day off her life sentence and will
not change the events of December 20, 1991. We find her credible in her
description of what happened that morning.
E. Lawrence Yunkin's Involvement
In his statement to the police and in his testimony at trial, Lawrence
Yunkin denied involvement in the murder of Laurie Show. Ms. Lambert
denied Mr. Yunkin's involvement in her statement to Corporal Solt. In four
months' of letters from prison, she denied his involvement. At trial, Ms.
Lambert implicated Mr. Yunkin in the murder of Laurie Show. Much of
petitioner's case in the PCRA hearing involves evidence pointing to Mr.
Yunkin's involvement, evidence as to his credibility, evidence as to why
Ms. Lambert might have "covered" for Mr. Yunkin, and an attempt to
discredit those facts which show that Mr. Yunkin was not involved.
In separate sections of this opinion we consider some of those issues. The
"29 questions" go directly to Mr. Yunkin's involvement and this is
discussed in Section VII.B., supra. Kathleen Bayan's testimony would
implicate Mr. Yunkin and is discussed in Section VII.F, infra. Similarly,
Hazel Show's testimony concerns Mr. Yunkin's involvement and is
considered in Section VII.G, infra. The issue of the pearl earring contains
allegations of after-discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct and
is considered in a separate section of this opinion, Section VII.N, infra.
In this section, we address the remaining allegations pointing to Mr.
Yunkin's involvement. The first of these is the license plate found in the
search of Mr. Yunkin's car after his arrest. The license plate bears the
number YHM-028. Two characters of this license plate were identified by
Kathleen Bayan to Detective Savage in his interview of her in July 1992.
Petitioner points to this evidence as conclusive proof that Mr. Yunkin drove
in the condominium complex that morning with the YHM-028 license plate
and later changed the license plate to evade the authorities.
There is a problem with this line of reasoning. The police investigation at
the time the license plate was found in the Yunkin car revealed that YHM028 was a plate registered to Lawrence Yunkin. It was apparently a license
plate which was on a van previously owned by Mr. Yunkin. In any event,
the police concluded at that time that the license plate was of no
evidentiary value. This court finds it unlikely that Lawrence Yunkin would
have "disguised" his vehicle by using another license plate which was
registered to him. We do not believe that the license plate found in the
Yunkin vehicle implicates Mr. Yunkin in the murder.
A second issue concerns 158 seconds of the audiotape of Mr. Yunkin's
statement. At the beginning of one side of the tape of a cassette used to
record Mr. Yunkin's statement is 158 seconds of narrative in a female
voice. The narrative has nothing to do with this case and appears to be an
academic lecture of some kind. Did the police mask an incriminating
portion of Mr. Yunkin's statement by taking the cassette to an academic
lecture? That seems unlikely. More likely is that the cassette used to
record Mr. Yunkin's statement had been used by someone on a prior
occasion to record a speech. It seems likely that the police simply did not
rewind the tape completely. This lack of attention to detail on the part of
Detective Savage in preparing the tape recorder to record Mr. Yunkin's
statement does not prove anything.
The third issue is related to the tape recording of Mr. Yunkin's statement.
Listening to the tape, one can hear several "clicks," indicating that the
tape was stopped, or paused, and started again. District Justice Savage
recalls that the taping was interrupted so that Mr. Yunkin could confer with
his attorney, Douglas Cody, Esquire. This is confirmed by Mr. Cody. (N.T.,
PCRA at 6465.) There is a break near the end, after Mr. Yunkin had been
given an opportunity to review his typed statement. At that point, he
included several corrections. Petitioner contends that the "breaks" or
"clicks" indicate occasions when Mr. Yunkin was coached by the police to
state certain facts which would incriminate Ms. Lambert or to remove
certain statements exculpatory to Ms. Lambert.
This court found Mr. Cody's testimony on this subject to be credible and
convincing. Mr. Cody testified that the police did nothing improper in
taking the statement and that the recorder was not turned off for any
improper reason. (N.T., PCRA at 6466.) When asked whether the police
officers did anything to coach his client, Mr. Cody responded: "Absolutely
not." (Id.) When asked if the police did anything to suggest how Mr.
Yunkin should answer or should not answer, Mr. Cody replied: "Not on one
question." (Id.) Mr. Cody also confirmed that he did not observe the police
erase anything on the tape. (N.T., PCRA at 6467.) Finally, Mr. Cody
confirmed that the transcript of the statement accurately reflected the
statement given by Mr. Yunkin. (Id.)
Based on the record from the PCRA hearing, we find beyond any doubt
that there was no misconduct in the taking or recording of Mr. Yunkin's
statement.
A fourth issue regarding Mr. Yunkin's involvement concerns the alleged
date rape of Laurie Show. We should note that the only "proof" of the date
rape came from police reports of discussions with Hazel Show regarding
her daughter's brief relationship with Mr. Yunkin. Mr. Yunkin never
acknowledged a "date rape," no police report was filed and no
investigation conducted. In fact, it appears that Ms. Lambert is convinced
that there was never any "date rape." A review of her many letters to Mr.
Yunkin from prison in which she characterized Laurie Show as a "tramp,"
"slut," and "whore" would suggest that Ms. Lambert believed the brief
relationship between Mr. Yunkin and Laurie Show, if any, was consensual
and not the product of any force by Mr. Yunkin. The only possible
relevance of this "date rape" charge was Mr. Yunkin's purported fear that
the incident would be investigated by the police and that he would go to
jail for rape. There appears to be nothing more than speculation and
surmise in support of this argument.
At best, it would support some animus by Mr. Yunkin or some motivation
by Mr. Yunkin to murder Laurie Show. We already know that Mr. Yunkin
drove Ms. Lambert and Ms. Buck to the condominium that morning, that
he was aware they had certain items with them which could be used in an
assault on Laurie Show and that he picked them up after this was over. We
believe Mr. Yunkin was aware of their plans. There is no doubt that Mr.
Yunkin was involved in this conspiracy. Could his fear of a date rape
charge have motivated his participation in this murderous conspiracy?
Certainly. Does it establish that he was in the condominium that morning
committing the murder? It certainly does not.
F. Kathleen Bayan's Observation
The prosecution's failure to disclose the information supplied by Ms. Bayan
in no way violated the due process rights afforded by Brady and Pa. R.
Crim. P. 305.
Kathleen Bayan contends that she spoke to Detective Savage in early July
1992. As a result of that conversation, Ms. Bayan prepared a handwritten
statement for Detective Savage detailing the events of the morning of the
murder. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2008 at DA3037-DA3042.) According to her
statement, she was pulling out of her driveway in the Oak Condominium
complex when she saw a late model brown car speeding by. The driver
was male and appeared to have light hair. The front and back passengers
were of an indeterminate sex and had dark clothing on. Ms. Bayan stated
that she could not see their faces clearly because of the distance between
the cars, because of the dirty car windows and because of a perceptual
disability that limits her span of focus. She did, however, note that the
occupants of the car were between the ages of 16 and 22.
Ms. Bayan told this to Detective Savage when he came to her
condominium in July 1992 to inquire about the whereabouts of her son,
Elliott, on the morning of the murder. (N.T., PCRA at 4759-60, 4761.)
Apparently, witnesses had observed a number of young people at or
around the school bus stop near the condominium entrance and Elliott was
one of those students who occasionally waited for the bus. Kathleen Bayan
related this story to Detective Savage after approximately one-half hour of
a discussion regarding herself, her son and her son's educational and
medical problems.
At the PCRA hearing, Ms. Bayan related t, hat on the morning of the
murder, she left her home between 7:10 and 7:15 a.m. for an
appointment in Harrisburg. (N.T., PCRA at 4752.) As she started to pull
out of her driveway, she saw a brown car driving in an erratic manner on
Black Oak Drive. She recalls seeing a man with long curly blond hair
wearing a baseball cap driving with a front female passenger and a back
female passenger. (N.T., PCRA at 4757.) He was driving very fast and was
swerving. (N.T., PCRA at 4758.) It appeared to her there was an argument
going on inside the car and that the driver was attempting to push down
the heads of the passengers. (N.T., PCRA at 4757-58.) Ms. Bayan clearly
recalled seeing the face of the girl in the backseat and identified her as
Tabitha Buck. (N.T., PCRA at 4757, 4796-97.) She saw all this in a matter
of seconds as they drove past her going 30 to 35 m.p.h. (N.T., PCRA at
4803.) She then followed them out of the condominium complex, following
several car lengths behind. (N.T., PCRA at 4802.)
1. Credibility
Kathleen Bayan observed a great deal of detail from her vantage point in her
own car while the car in question flashed past her. She indicated that there was
an argument going on and recalls the color of the car, the color of the driver's
hair and a description of the passengers. She offered no explanation for not
coming forward with that information between December 1991 and July 1992.
This fact in and of itself would not be fatal to her credibility but it does raise a
question. She had ample opportunity to read newspapers, become acquainted
with the facts of the case and come to know the details of the description of the
participants long before July 1992.
In addition, she did not immediately tell Detective Savage of her observations.
Only after she had a lengthy discussion of other personal issues, did she offer
her observation of what she had seen.
It is appropriate for the PCRA court to consider the credibility of a witness to
determine if the after-discovered witness's testimony is reliable. Bonaccurso,
425 Pa. Super. at 490, 625 A.2d at 1202 (Beck, J., concurring). Ms. Bayan's
credibility was somewhat diminished in her testimony in the PCRA
proceeding by her responses to questions on cross-examination. She
acknowledged that she has a visual handicap. This handicap affects her ability
to perceive objects other than that specific object on which she focuses. That
is, as Ms. Bayan explained, if she looks at one object, she cannot see the
details of anything else surrounding that finite discreet item. This suggests that
perhaps if Ms. Bayan was looking at the long curly hair of the driver of the
brown car, perhaps she was unable to see the occupants. Or, if she was
observing the make and color of the car, perhaps she was unable, due to her
handicap, to see the occupants.
Ms. Bayan testified in this proceeding by way of teleconference from

Pensacola, Florida. She had represented to the court and counsel in a telephone
conference at the beginning of the proceeding that she was unable to travel to
Pennsylvania because she is the sole support and transportation for a
handicapped fianc. Because of this sympathetic concern, the court made
arrangements for Ms. Bayan to testify by way of video conference. She
testified from a public broadcasting studio in Pensacola and her testimony was
observed and questions posed to her from the WGAL television studio in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. These arrangements were made because the
credibility of Ms. Bayan is a crucial part of this hearing and because credibility
can best be assessed by a face-to-face observation of a witness as the witness
is telling her story and responding to questions.
There are two important credibility points regarding Ms. Bayan's testimony.
First, by the court's observation of her as she testified, she appeared less than
completely credible as she answered the questions. The court is not surprised
that Detective Savage, upon his interview with her in July 1992, found there to
be problems with her credibility.
The second and more important issue as to Ms. Bayan's credibility has to do
with the contention that she was unable to travel to Pennsylvania. As we
learned later in the hearing, Ms. Bayan has an active warrant for her arrest in
the offices of District Justice Savage, formerly Detective Savage.(77) This
warrant arises out of her failure to pay certain county tax obligations while she
was a resident of Lancaster County. (N.T., PCRA at 6327-28.) We also note
that she was the defendant in a lawsuit by her condominium association and
the judgment was satisfied by a sheriff's execution sale of her furniture,
presumably left behind at the condominium. (N.T., PCRA at 6329-30.) Ms.
Bayan was sued twice before, by the taxing authority, permitted the
obligations to go to judgment, and satisfied the prior two obligations upon the
issuance of warrants. (N.T., PCRA at 6325-26, 6329-30.)
It is reasonable to infer that she was aware that a warrant had issued or would
issue for her given her past history with the local taxing authority. One is left
to wonder whether Ms. Bayan's reluctance to come to the jurisdiction was
truly the result of her life situation or rather whether the existence of an active
warrant in Lancaster County played some role. Even giving Ms. Bayan the
benefit of the doubt, this fact does impugn her credibility.
2. Discovery obligation
In Pennsylvania, it is mandatory for the Commonwealth to disclose evidence
which is favorable to the accused and which is material to either guilt or
punishment. Pa. R. Crim. P., Rule 305 (B)(1), 42 Pa. C.S.A. The comment to
Rule 305 indicates that the rule is intended to apply the constitutional
guarantees which Brady commands.
Absent a specific request by the defendant for exculpatory evidence, a

prosecutor has a duty to make evidence available to the defense that is truly
exculpatory rather than merely favorable.(78)
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has defined Brady violations as: (1) the
failure to disclose , an agreement between the C, ommonwealt, h and a
witness, Commonwealth v. Moose, 529 Pa. 218, 602 A.2d 1265 (1992); (2)
the failure to disclose out-of-court statements by an accomplice claiming
responsibility for the murder, Commonwealth v. Green, 536 Pa. 599, 640
A.2d 1242 (1994); and (3) the pretrial failure of the Commonwealth to disclose
evidence proving bias of a defense witness, Commonwealth v. Ulen, 539 Pa.
51, 650 A.2d 416 (1994).
In contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that where the
prosecution did not reveal statements by its witness that he saw someone other
than the defendant in possession of the murder weapon several weeks after the
murders, such evidence was not exculpatory and, thus, lacked materiality.
Buehl, 540 Pa. at 504, 658 A.2d at 776. Likewise, a prosecution's failure to
disclose an alleged agreement with one guilt-phase witness was not a Brady
violation entitling the defendant to a new trial. Commonwealth v. Morales,
549 Pa. 400, 701 A.2d 516 (1997).
A central issue in this case is whether Kathleen Bayan's disclosure to Detective
Savage in July 1992 should have been disclosed to Attorney Shirk. Mr.
Kenneff was aware of the Bayan disclosure and was aware that Detective
Savage had obtained this information from her just prior to the start of the trial.
At that time, Ms. Lambert had related her story to Corporal Solt. Her story, as
set forth in the "Solt Statement," was that she and Ms. Buck left the Show
condominium, proceeded across the condominium complex, across a lawn,
down a gully, through some bushes and across a field to Oak View Road. (See
Section VII.L, infra.) There, on Oak View Road, they were picked up by
Lawrence Yunkin. As of early July 1992, the only "story" the Commonwealth
knew from Ms. Lambert was that she fled on foot from the Show
condominium to Oak View Road. She was not contending that Mr. Yunkin
was in the complex, that the two young women entered the car in the
condominium complex, or that they entered the condominium complex and
drove around for any purpose.
The district attorney's discovery obligation under Rule 305 and under Brady
was to disclose information to the defense which would be material and
exculpatory. As of the start of trial, the disclosure by Kathleen Bayan was
neither material nor exculpatory to defendant. In fact, all Ms. Bayan's
disclosure accomplished was to place Mr. Yunkin in the condominium
complex. This may have been inculpatory for Mr. Yunkin, but not exculpatory
for Ms. Lambert.
Mr. Kenneff evaluated his discovery obligation and chose to communicate

with Mr. Shirk regarding Ms. Lambert's position. He did so in a letter asking
simply whether Ms. Lambert still asserted that Mr. Yunkin picked her up on
Oak View Road. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1764.) Mr. Shirk responded to Mr.
Kenneff that this was her contention.
Under these facts and under Rule 305 and Brady, Mr. Kenneff had no
obligation to disclose the Bayan statement to Mr. Shirk. Examine for a
moment what possible basis there would be for the disclosure. Given Ms.
Lambert's statement to Corporal Solt, providing the Bayan disclosure to Ms.
Lambert would give her a reason to change or modify her story. Giving a
criminal defendant an opportunity to revise her story is not a basis for
requiring disclosure in discovery.
Should the Commonwealth have anticipated that Ms. Lambert would
dramatically change her story during the course of the trial? Discovery under
either Rule 305 or Brady does not require that the prosecution employ a
crystal ball. Now, in hindsight, we know that Ms. Lambert changed her story
at trial and placed Mr. Yunkin in the condominium complex. This story was
told after the Commonwealth rested its case and during the defense case-inchief.
The question then became whether Mr. Kenneff had an affirmative obligation
to provide information about the Bayan statement to the defense once Ms.
Lambert told a new version of her story during trial. The Commonwealth's
contention was that Ms. Lambert was lying at trial. Her statement of December
21, 1991, was the most credible version of the facts because she gave that
statement before she understood the legal ramifications to her of placing
herself in the condominium. She had every reason to change her story at trial
and the Commonwealth's argument that the story at trial was a fabrication had
considerable merit.
Mr. Kenneff did the responsible thing by confirming with Mr. Shirk what Ms.
Lambert's story was going to be. Mr. Shirk replied that Ms. Lambert
contended that she was picked up on Oak View Road. There is nothing
unusual about one party weighing its obligations under the rules and making
choices under those rules as to what must be disclosed. This is the essence of
the adversarial process and Mr. Kenneff did nothing more than evaluate his
own obligations under the rules of discovery. His choice, upon confirmation of
the story by Mr. Shirk, to not disclose the Bayan statement was proper.
When Ms. Lambert changed her story at trial, Mr. Kenneff's obligation was the
same: to disclose evidence that was exculpatory. Ms. Bayan's statement was
not exculpatory merely because Ms. Lambert calls it exculpatory. It is true that
Ms. Bayan's statement, if credible, would support some part of Ms. Lambert's
trial testimony. Ms. Bayan's statement would support only Ms. Lambert's
description of how she fled that morning. Yet, Ms. Lambert's own testimony
put her in flight from the condominium after participating in an assault which
led to a murder. Her trial testimony established that she was deeply involved in
the conspiracy and the murder. Ms. Bayan's statement might have been
inculpatory to Mr. Yunkin but not exculpatory to Ms. Lambert.
Exculpatory evidence is evidence which extrinsically tends to establish a
defendant's innocence. Hudgens, 400 Pa. Super. at 97-98, 582 A.2d at 1361.
Ms. Bayan's story does nothing to establish Ms. Lambert's innocence.
Evidence that Ms. Lambert was seen fleeing the scene of a murder in the
company of two people whom she identified at trial as the murderers would
not "extrinsically tend to establish" her innocence. The Kathleen Bayan story
is, simply stated, not exculpatory as to Ms. Lambert. At best, Ms. Bayan's
story would tend to support the version Ms. Lambert told at trial and would
thereby "shade" her level of culpability for the murder. Yet, by her own
admission of going with Ms. Buck to the condominium that morning, of
planning an assault on Laurie Show and of participating at some level in the
assault which led to Laurie Show's death, she would still be guilty of first
degree murder. The information would, therefore, not be "material" for
Brady/Giglio purposes or for compliance with Pa. R. Crim. P. 305 in that the
information would not have changed the outcome of the trial.
3. Truth-determining process
The ultimate question is whether the failure to disclose the Bayan statement so
undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable verdict was possible.
This court finds that even if Ms. Bayan had testified at trial, even if Ms.
Lambert had the support of Ms. Bayan for her revised story that Mr. Yunkin
was in the complex, the verdict would have been the same.
We did not find Kathleen Bayan credible at the PCRA hearing. We find that
Ms. Lambert's statement to Corporal Solt of how she fled, Ms. Buck's
testimony about how they fled together, Mr. Kleinhans's testimony about
seeing two hooded figures of about the same size heading away from the
condominium, and the observations of Mr. and Mrs. Fry, to be convincing and
credible on this point. Because it is contrary to overwhelming credible
evidence, her story would have had no impact. Even if we were to find that the
failure to disclose Ms. Bayan's statement was a constitutional violation, it did
not so undermine the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of
guilt or innocence could have taken place.
In fact, petitioner's contention that Ms. Bayan saw Ms. Lambert, Ms. Buck and
Mr. Yunkin in the complex that morning cannot be reconciled with petitioner's
contention that Mrs. Show saw them as well. Ms. Lambert would have this
court believe that Mrs. Show left the school at 7:25 a.m., per Ms. Berry.
Testimony has shown that the trip from the school to the complex takes
approximately ten minutes. If Mrs. Show saw the three that morning, it would
have been around 7:35 a.m. Yet, Ms. Bayan testified that she saw them as she
left for Harrisburg between 7:10 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. This internal inconsistency
in petitioner's case lends further support to our finding that Ms. Bayan's
testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Nor does it have
any impact on the reliability of the verdict.
G. Hazel Show's Recollection of Mr. Yunkin's Car

Mrs. Show testified at the PCRA hearing that she saw a car on the morning of
December 20, 1991, that she now believes may have been Mr. Yunkin's car.
She testified in response to questions by petitioner's counsel:
Q. Mrs. Show, on the morning of December 20th, 1991, when you drove back
into the condominium complex, what, if anything, did you see driving out of
the condominium complex?
A. Remembering in 1991, I did not remember anything. Until 1997 I had a
memory of seeing Yunkin in a car.
Q. Can you tell us what you remember today of seeing Yunkin in the car?
A. I remember coming in the entrance. I don't know approximately where. But
it had to be in a break between the trees and the shrubbery, looking over to my
left, and seeing Lawrence's face. At that time not even realizing who it was,
that it was just a man with blond hair. But he's looking at me with a startled,
surprised look on his face, seeing him push someone down in the front seat
with blond hair and seeing someone with dark hair in the back seat. But I don't
recall seeing the car.
Q. Do you recall what color the car is?
A. It's just a brownish color.
(N.T., PCRA at 5635-36.)
Mrs. Show was then asked if she had ever discussed the possibility that she
saw this car with Detective Savage:
Q. Okay. Back in 1991, 1992, did you have any discussions with anyone about
it?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with Detective Savage at all the fact that you'd seen a
brown car?
A. What I told Detective Savage, he had told me a neighbor lady mentioned
that she had seen a brown car leaving our complex.
When he said that, I saw a flash of a brownish color and I said to him, a
brownish color? And then we went over this, had I seen a car? I wasn't sure.
Where was it? I wasn't sure. What type of car? Was anyone in it? And I had
nothing in my memory except when he said this brown color, I just saw a flash
of a brown car. Not even knowing that it was a car or anything and I tried to
jog my memory to get more information but there wasn't anything there.
And I started to become upset about this because it was important because this
neighbor lady was saying there were three people in the car. But nothing was
there. I couldn't remember anything and he told me that I was getting upset
and he told me not to worry about it, if something came back, we'd go from
that point. But nothing ever came back and I was to testify in a couple of days
and I just forget [sic] all about it.
Q. When did you have this discussion with Detective Savage?
A. It was probably a couple days before the trial.
Q. Before Ms. Lambert's trial?
A. Yes.
(N.T., PCRA at 5642-43.)(79)
Her chief recollection is that the car was coming toward her and there was
nothing impeding her view of the car. She recalls that she had to drive a
distance after she saw the car. It is possible that she saw the car out on Oak
View Road. (N.T., PCRA at 5648.) She thinks it was around 7:20 a.m. when
she was coming back from the school. (N.T., PCRA at 5649.)
Mrs. Show testified at the PCRA hearing that Detective Savage told her "not to
worry about it." Petitioner's counsel referred Mrs. Show to her federal
testimony and asked the following questions:
Q. Do you remember testifying in federal court that Detective Savage told you
not to dwell on it?
Q. Do you remember testifying to that?
A. I think I've said that here. That he said, you know, not to worry about it, not
to get upset about it or dwell on it because as far as what I had to testify to, I
was saying what I remembered and something that I had no memory about
there wasn't much I could do about it. So don't get upset about it.
(N.T., PCRA at 5644-45.)
This revelation by Mrs. Show, long after the 1992 trial, presents several issues.
First, does this testimony establish that she saw the Yunkin car? Second, was
Detective Savage's instruction to her "not to worry about it" a form of
misconduct? Third, is the information about the car after-discovered evidence
entitling Ms. Lambert to relief?
First, Mrs. Show did not say at the PCRA hearing that she remembered a car in
1992. She recalled a brownish flash and was not sure it was a car. She did not
recall a car until she was sitting in a federal courtroom in 1997 listening to
District Justice Savage. At most, this testimony, had it been presented in 1992,
would buttress the testimony of Ms. Bayan that a brown car was seen leaving
the condominium complex. The problem is that Mrs. Show cannot
conclusively put the car inside the condominium complex. She cannot rule out
the possibility that she saw the car out on Oak View Road.
Second, as to the misconduct question, it appears from Mrs. Show's testimony
that she was not reasonably certain of any detail in 1992. From her own
description, she was becoming very upset because she thought she was failing
to recall important information which would help the police. It was in this
context that Detective Savage told her not to worry. At that time, the police
had the testimony of the Kleinhanses and the Frys who put Ms. Lambert and
Ms. Buck fleeing together across the fields toward Oak View Road. Ms.
Lambert and Mr. Yunkin had both told the police in their statements that the
pick up was on Oak View Road. The only information to disclose is that Mrs.
Show had an "image" of a brownish flash as she approached or entered the
complex that morning. It does not seem that there was really anything to
disclose. Detective Savage's comment "not to worry about it" in the
circumstances does not appear to be a directive to "bury" exculpatory
evidence.
Third, is this after-discovered evidence? It certainly was unavailable at the
trial, so the first prong is met. We turn then to the question of whether the
information is "exculpatory." At best, it corroborates the story told by Ms.
Lambert at trial and undermines the story told by Ms. Lambert to Corporal
Solt. It would tend to show that Ms. Lambert was being untruthful with the
police when she gave her statement. Given the paucity of detail in the story, it
is entirely likely that the recollection would have been given little weight. It
was certainly not exculpatory in the sense that it established that Ms. Lambert
was fleeing the scene of a murder. Given the fact that she planned the activities
of that morning, given the fact that she participated in the assault on Laurie
Show that morning and given the fact that, at trial, she was placing
responsibility for the murder on Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Buck, the fact that she
was seen in a car in their company fleeing the complex does not sound too
exculpatory. The only significance of this "recollection" of Mr. Yunkin's car
would be to place Mr. Yunkin at the scene. But evidence inculpatory to Mr.
Yunkin is not exculpatory to Ms. Lambert. If Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Lambert are
fleeing the scene of a murder arising out of an assault which Ms. Lambert
"started" and Mr. Yunkin "finished," the fact that she is seen in his car is
hardly exculpatory.
It is unlikely that this information would have changed the outcome of the
trial. Even if entirely believed and even if it was found to support Ms.
Lambert's story that Mr. Yunkin was inside the condominium complex and
that she was in the car with him, this does not exculpate Ms. Lambert. It might
lend more support to an argument that Mr. Yunkin was somehow involved,
which does not exclude Ms. Lambert's involvement. Under the best story put
forth by Ms. Lambert, she was in the condominium and participated in the acts
which led to the death of Laurie Show. She claims she left and Mr. Yunkin
went in. We never believed that story. The fact that Mrs. Show remembered
something that may buttress one fact of a story we found to be incredible does
not suggest that the story became any more credible. It would not have made a
difference in the outcome of the trial.
H. The Mihalakis Issue

Shortly before trial, Mr. Shirk informed Mr. Kenneff that Dr. Mihalakis, a
forensic pathologist, would be testifying for the defense. In April 1992, Dr.
Mihalakis had entered into a contract with the County of Lancaster to perform
forensic pathology services in criminal cases. Over the weekend before trial,
Mr. Kenneff placed a telephone call to Dr. Mihalakis to express his concern
about the doctor's choice to testify for the defense.
The issues regarding the involvement of Dr. Mihalakis were raised at trial and
in post verdict motions, and considered by this court in its opinion of July 19,
1994. Nevertheless, petitioner has included this issue in her case. The
Commonwealth argues that this issue has been previously litigated and,
therefore, waived. Because petitioner raised a claim of after-discovered
evidence and "witness tampering" with respect to Dr. Mihalakis, we will
address the issue in this opinion. We note further that the federal district court
featured this issue in its discussion of the federal habeas petition.(80)
The issues raised in the PCRA petition are:
(1) Dr. Mihalakis's income from Lancaster County increased 400 percent the
year after the Lambert trial (1993) and then dropped to nothing, (Exhibit A,
Section A at para. 17);
(2) Mr. Kenneff discussed with Dr. Mihalakis his proposed testimony and
cross-examination questions and that Dr. Mihalakis did not want Mr. Kenneff
to be upset with him and offered to withdraw, thus Dr. Mihalakis changed his
testimony to help the prosecution, (Exhibit A, Section A at para. 18); and
(3) Mr. Kenneff's unauthorized, pretrial ex parte contact with a defense expert,
Dr. Mihalakis, (Exhibit A, Section B(4) at para. 30).
In 1994, in response to Ms. Lambert's long delayed post verdict motions and
briefs, we considered this issue in an opinion. At that time, we stated:
During the trial, a lengthy conference was held in chambers regarding the
possible testimony of Dr. Isidore Mihalakis. Dr. Mihalakis is a forensic
pathologist who was called by the defense to testify as to the wounds inflicted
on the neck of the victim. This expert was going to explain the difficulty, or
impossibility, of a person speaking with these wounds. The point of this
testimony was to rebut the Commonwealth's evidence that the victim identified
her killer just before she died.
Prior to the testimony of Dr. Mihalakis, counsel for the defense submitted a
motion for sanctions to the court on the basis that the assistant district attorney
had contacted Dr. Mihalakis in advance of his testimony. Defendant argued
that the assistant district attorney attempted to intimidate or coerce Dr.
Mihalakis.
The court held a hearing on this motion in chambers with the assistant district
attorney, the district attorney, defense counsel, defendant's private investigator
and Dr. Mihalakis all present. . . .
Essentially, Dr. Mihalakis was under a consulting contract with the Lancaster
County District Attorney's Office. The assistant district attorney, Mr. Kenneff,
indicated his surprise and concern when it was learned that Dr. Mihalakis
would appear as a defense witness. Mr. Kenneff was concerned as to his
ability to cross-examine a witness whom he has retained for testimony in other
cases. He placed a call to Dr. Mihalakis and raised this concern and also
discussed with him, in general terms, his anticipated trial testimony.
The court specifically addressed Dr. Mihalakis at the hearing in chambers. The
court questioned Dr. Mihalakis on whether he felt intimidated, coerced or in
any way threatened by Mr. Kenneff's call. Dr. Mihalakis emphatically stated
he did not. In fact, Dr. Mihalakis had issued a report and indicated, in
chambers, that it was his intention to testify consistent with that report.
Nothing about the testimony of Dr. Mihalakis in the hearing in chambers nor
anything about Dr. Mihalakis's testimony during the trial indicates that there
were any threats, intimidation or coercion. The court found defendant's motion
for sanctions to be without any basis in law or in fact and properly denied the
motion.
At trial in 1992, Dr. Mihalakis testified as to the cause of death. He agreed
with Dr. Penades that, essentially, Laurie Show bled to death. He stated that
asphyxiation due to breathing in blood was a contributing factor. His first
opinion was as to cause of death and the length of time it would have taken the
victim to die. He testified:
A. To bleed to death, it would take multiple minutes. There are a lot of
variables; however, I think it would definitely be considerably less than a half
hour.
Q. Somewhere between multiple minutes and considerably less than a half
hour?
A. Right.
(N.T., Trial at 341.) He was asked how long it would take for Laurie Show to
lose consciousness. He stated: "Unconsciousness would have to be minutes. It
would not have to be a huge number of minutes but it wouldn't be that terribly
quickly also." (N.T., Trial at 342.)
Dr. Mihalakis was then asked by defense counsel about Laurie Show's ability
to speak. He noted damage to the tongue muscle and to the structures in the
neck. He gave the following testimony:
Q. What would be the effect of that loss of dexterity to the central portions of
the tongue?
A. The loss of the dexterity would be those words that have a tongue related
sound; may be somewhat slurred and less intelligible.
Q. And a tongue related sound as you described it would be, for the record and
for the Court, what kind of a sound might that be?
A. A sa, da, ja, ka, yul.
(N.T., Trial at 344.) Dr. Mihalakis further testified:
Q. There may be testimony presented at a later date in this trial that the
decedent might've possibly said, Michelle did it. Are the sounds in that phrase,
would they be affected by the damage to the muscles in the center of the
tongue, affecting the tongue and speech, would that have affected the ability to
speak that phrase?
A. It would have to be affected in part. Ma is predominately a lip sound, and

the tongue and lips are controlled by a different set of nerves so the ma sound
should not've been affected. If it was affected it was to a minor degree.
The chael may have been somewhat less clear and the da may have been
somewhat less clear.
(N.T., Trial at 344-45.)
On cross-examination at trial, Dr. Mihalakis affirmed this testimony:
Q. Moving on to the issue to the injuries to the neck and the effect on the
ability to speak. As I understand your testimony, you feel that the ability of
Laurie Show to speak as a result of the injuries that she suffered would be
compromised but not eliminated.
A. That is correct.
(N.T., Trial at 357.)
There was absolutely nothing about this testimony which was in any way
inconsistent with Dr. Mihalakis's report to defense counsel of June 29, 1992.
This report was prepared before Mr. Shirk informed Mr. Kenneff that Dr.
Mihalakis would be testifying and before Mr. Kenneff had any contact with
Dr. Mihalakis. In the report of June 29, 1992, Dr. Mihalakis addresses a
question put to him by defense counsel's investigator:
Question 3: Could Laurie Show say anything afterward; could she have said,
'Michelle did it'?
Answer: The wound track of the neck wounds described by Dr. Penades
involves cutting of a major portion of the base of the tongue except for
possibly the pillars on each side. Such a cut would certainly limit but not
totally eliminate phonation especially words and letters that involve the
tongue. M is a letter that is primarily phonated by the lips. If the head is down
and air can pass from the windpipe to the mouth M could certainly be
enunciated. 'Chelle' are somewhat more difficult to enunciate and 'did' it very
much tongue dependent so that would be very difficult to enunciate but not
totally impossible depending on how much tongue muscle was left. We are
told by Dr. Penades that literally one could look at her throat and see the
vertebral column. However, we are not told about the sides of the tongue.
The other factors that must be taken into consideration are the recurrent
laryngeal nerves. If one such nerve is cut, it causes a hoarse voice, and if both
are cut, the cords assume a midline neutral position, and at best, the only sound
that can be made is a 'breathy' type sound but hardly any intelligible speech.
Neither Dr. Penades nor his consulting otolaryngologist, Dr. Joseph S. Annese,
address the status of the recurrent laryngeal nerves. In spite of this
shortcoming I believe that these nerves were not cut because they are tucked in
such a location that to selectively injure them without cutting the carotids and
deep jugular vessels is essentially impossible. Thus, for all intents and
purposes, you have to consider phonation based on the injury to the tongue.
At the colloquy in chambers on July 10, 1992, Dr. Mihalakis acknowledged
that he had been contacted by Mr. Kenneff. He testified that he did not feel
intimidated or coerced by Mr. Kenneff. He stated clearly, unequivocally, and
emphatically that he would testify at trial consistent with his June 29, 1992,
report. Dr. Mihalakis is a medical professional of considerable stature in his
field and in his community. When he said that he would testify to the opinions
expressed in his letter, he was completely credible. And, in fact, his testimony
at trial bore out this representation.
During the colloquy in chambers on Friday, July 10, 1992, Mr. Kenneff asked
Mr. Shirk to "address what chilling effect the phone call has had on his ability
to present his defense." Mr. Shirk's response demonstrates that, upon talking
further with Dr. Mihalakis, he did not believe the phone call would make any
difference in Dr. Mihalakis's testimony:
I asked Doctor Mihalakis, I indicated to him I never met him. I never met him,
I don't know him, and I asked him quite frankly if this would affect his
testimony in any way, shape or form. I think the exact word I used was
whether he would pull his punches. He indicated to me he would not.
I indicated, you know, it was very important because, you know, I don't want
to find out on the stand Friday and he indicated that in no way, in any way
would it affect his testimony Friday. I can honestly say to you at this point
there is no way it has a chilling effect. He hadn't been on the stand. I think he's
an honorable enough man that it will not have a chilling effect.
TH E COURT: What's the problem?
MR. SHIRK: I think there is a problem in the call being made in the first
place. Your Honor, I'm going to say right here on the record, I think Mr.
Kenneff's phone call was probably the result of blowing off some steam. I'm
not going to accuse him of having any ulterior motive.

(N.T., Trial at 323-24.)
Mr. Shirk and Mr. Kenneff had a discussion about coming in to see the judge
on Monday, the first day of trial to address the Mihalakis issue. It was going to
be Mr. Kenneff's intention to ask the court to direct Mr. Shirk away from
questions about Dr. Mihalakis's contract with the County. Mr. Kenneff alluded
to this fact, among others, in responding to Mr. Shirk.
With regard to what would happen on Monday, I did frankly discuss with
Doctor Mihalakis the problem that I saw of the defense being able to put him
up on the stand and say to him, isn't it true you are testifying for Mr. Kenneff a
couple months down the road? I could not possibly, once that type of question
was asked in front of a jury, do anything with his testimony no matter how
damaging it was.
And about a contract. I said I was going to address the matter with the Court.
What my thinking on it was, those questions, even though they are time and
again asked of expert witnesses, are irrelevant. I was going to come in here
and tell the Court that we would not object as long as the Court rules that
questions of that nature were irrelevant.
We came in here Monday and found there was no need for that because there
wasn't a jury. A particular judge with a background such as yours knows
exactly what the story is with these guys and for that reason I didn't pursue the
matter any further, and for that reason I'm not concerned whatsoever about
Doctor Mihalakis testifying in this case.
Finally, it would be stupid for me to threaten the doctor when I have to use
him a few months down the line in a case just as important as this case.
(N.T., Trial at 326-27.)
The court then had an opportunity to question Dr. Mihalakis:
THE COURT: All right. No one made a request of you that you withdraw, did
they?
DR. MIHALAKIS: No, no, they did not. In fact we kind of -- actually it was
more joking than anything with Mr. Kenneff. What do we do with you now
that you are a consultant? And then in fact I offered, I said look, I won't
mention it when it comes to mentioning my credentials.
THE COURT: You are a forensic pathologist by training and background?
DR. MIHALAKIS: That's correct.

THE COURT: And probably today is not the first time you've testified in a
criminal case.
DR. MIHALAKIS: No, it is not.
THE COURT: And you've done your examination and you have your opinions
that you are going to state as part of this case, I take it.
DR. MIHALAKIS: Yes. I have a consultative letter.
THE COURT: What is the date of that letter? About when was it written to
him?
DR. MIHALAKIS: (Looking at a document ..) June 29.
THE COURT: All right. And I take it that your testimony would be consistent
with that consultative letter.
DR. MIHALAKIS: I would hope so, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything about the discussion you had with Mr.
Kenneff that causes you to not say what was in that letter?
DR. MIHALAKIS: No, I don't believe so.
THE COURT: Did you feel threatened or intimidated or coerced by that
discussion you had with Mr. Kenneff?
DR. MIHALAKIS: No, sir, I did not.
THE COURT: Okay.
Mr. Shirk, are you aware of any rule of professional conduct that prevents an
attorney in a criminal case from contacting an expert of a witness who would
testify for the other side?
MR. SHIRK: No, I'm not.
(N.T., Trial at 328-30.)
The problem was that Dr. Mihalakis did not give the testimony that Mr. Shirk
had in mind. Mr. Shirk testified in this PCRA hearing that he was aware of the
report and did not think the report was very helpful. In fact, Mr. Shirk testified
that he told Dr. Mihalakis that the report wasn't going to "help us a lot." (N.T.,
PCRA at 3440.) After a discussion with Dr. Mihalakis about the report, Mr.
Shirk seemed to think that Dr. Mihalakis could be possibly more helpful in
court than he was in his letter. However, Mr. Shirk testified that Dr. Mihalakis
"indicated to me at all times that he would not be able to say, to a degree of
medical certainty, that Laurie Show could not talk." (Id.) Mr. Shirk was aware
that Dr. Mihalakis believed she did not speak and Dr. Mihalakis gave Mr.
Shirk his reasons. (N.T., PCRA at 3440-41.) Mr. Shirk believes that Dr.
Mihalakis "modified" his opinion in a telephone conversation. (N.T., PCRA at
3441.)
In fact, Messrs. Shirk, Goldberg and Mihalakis had a meeting at a local
restaurant just prior to Dr. Mihalakis's testimony. There is no doubt that they
knew what Dr. Mihalakis was going to say on the witness stand. In fact, in this
PCRA hearing, Dr. Mihalakis testified that there was "no doubt in my mind
that Mr. Shirk knew very much what I was going to say." (N.T, PCRA at
2542.)
The only "new" evidence presented at the PCRA hearing had to do with Dr.
Mihalakis's income from the county. Dr. Mihalakis testified that his income
from Lancaster County increased because there was an increase in murder
cases in Lancaster County. He performed a number of autopsies in 1992 and
these cases came to trial in 1993. He did 16 autopsies for Lancaster County in
1993. It is clear that his compensation increased because there was an increase
in homicide cases in Lancaster County in 1992 and 1993.
To take the fact of increased compensation out of context and attach some
sinister significance to this is misleading.(81) As testimony established,
Lancaster County was in a period of transition in 1992 in terms of handling
murder cases. Dr. Penades, who had been the county pathologist for years, was
in the process of retiring. The district attorney entered into a contract with Dr.
Mihalakis dated April 8, 1992, for consulting services involving forensic
pathological examinations, assistance in criminal investigation, training, and
expert testimony at preliminary hearings and trials. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2087.)
Pursuant to this agreement, Dr. Mihalakis performed autopsies in 1992 and
1993. He also testified in several major cases in 1993. His income began to
trail off after 1993 because of the involvement of Dr. Ross, a forensic
pathologist who took over these responsibilities in Lancaster County on a fulltime basis in 1994.
According to the testimony of Mr. Kenneff and Mr. Madenspacher, both of
whom were uncontradicted on this point, there was a significant increase in
homicide cases in their office in 1992 and 1993. Unlike the major metropolitan
centers, the number of homicide cases in Lancaster County each year is
relatively low. In a year where there is a significant increase, there is a
significant strain on the system and a significant increase in the need for,
among other things, expert testimony from a forensic pathologist. When given
more than superficial consideration, the increase in compensation does not

even come close to the kind of "payola" pronounced by petitioner's counsel.(82)
The second allegation of after-discovered evidence by Ms. Lambert basically
involves Mr. Kenneff's conversation with Dr. Mihalakis and this has been fully
considered in the 1994 opinion and in the discussion above.
The third allegation of wrongdoing involving Dr. Mihalakis is a claim of
"witness tampering or retaliation." In essence, the federal district court
disagreed with this court's finding that there was no prejudice to defendant by
the conversation between Mr. Kenneff and Dr. Mihalakis. The federal district
court attached greater significance to this issue than did the state court without
the benefit of any additional relevant evidence.
In 1992 during a colloquy in chambers, and again in considering post verdict
motions in 1994, we carefully considered whether the behavior of Mr. Kenneff
was unethical under the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Clearly, Mr.
Kenneff should not have contacted Dr. Mihalakis and, in hindsight, all would
agree with this. Did it violate any stated canon of professional responsibility?
The answer to that is no. In fact, counsel for the defense was asked that
specific question during the colloquy and was unable to point to any violation
of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.(83)
This was more than simply an advocate contacting his opponent's expert
witness. In fact, Mr. Kenneff and Dr. Mihalakis were involved in a contractual
relationship that was in existence for only three months at the time of the trial.
This expert was "sprung" on the Commonwealth just before trial in that Mr.
Shirk informed Mr. Kenneff that Dr. Mihalakis would be testifying in a
conversation on Thursday, July 2, 1992. Trial was set to begin the following
Monday. These extenuating circumstances explain Mr. Kenneff's displeasure
at Mr. Shirk's retaining of Dr. Mihalakis and at Dr. Mihalakis's willingness to
assist the defense. His call to Dr. Mihalakis was the result of this displeasure.
Mr. Kenneff testified at the PCRA hearing that he was going to ask the court
for cautionary instructions about the relationship between Dr. Mihalakis and
the County. When the case turned into a non-jury trial, this concern was
alleviated.
The court does not make evidentiary rulings based upon allegations of
unethical conduct. The court can sanction counsel, can warn counsel and can
suggest appropriate disciplinary action.(84) The remedy for a violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct is disciplinary action. While the contact
between Mr. Kenneff and Dr. Mihalakis created an issue in the 1992 trial, this
court saw no reason for a mistrial based on a demonstrated lack of prejudice to
petitioner. This court saw no basis on which to refer Mr. Kenneff to the
Disciplinary Board. This court also notes that in the ensuing years, neither Mr.
Shirk, nor Mr. Goldberg, nor Mr. Epstein, nor Ms. Lambert, nor Ms. Lambert's
family saw fit to refer this issue to the disciplinary authorities. It was arguably
improper conduct with some justification under the circumstances. The bottom
line is that it did not affect the witness's testimony at trial. He testified
consistent with his report and his testimony was no surprise to petitioner's
counsel.
The question remains why did Mr. Shirk and Mr. Goldberg call Dr. Mihalakis
under these circumstances? Possibly, it was to cast doubt about Laurie Show's
ability to speak. Dr. Mihalakis certainly established that any speech would
have been faint. Keep in mind that the Commonwealth witnesses said that
speech was possible and Dr. Mihalakis qualified this and said it would have
been very difficult for her to enunciate.
A second reason to call Dr. Mihalakis would have been to cast doubt on the
fact that Laurie Show was alive for a full half hour. He helped the defense in
this area by providing a strong basis on which a fact finder could doubt that
Laurie Show lived long enough to speak to her mother. The fact that this court
did not find a reasonable doubt about guilt based upon this testimony does not
mean it was a mistake to put Dr. Mihalakis on the stand.
A third possibility, that defense counsel put Dr. Mihalakis on the stand
knowing he would not help them but with the belief that the Kenneff
conversation would create a strong appeal issue, is not considered by this
court. This court is aware of the professional integrity, skill and judgment of
the defense attorneys involved in this case and rules out any untoward use of
Dr. Mihalakis's testimony under these circumstances. It is likely that Dr.
Mihalakis was put on the stand because of his strong testimony on the time of
death, the time for loss of consciousness, and the difficulty in phonation or
enunciation. The fact that he could not rule out speech does not mean he was
useless to the defense.
I. Credibility of Laura Thomas

Petitioner contends that she now has after-discovered evidence relevant to the
credibility of Laura Thomas. Ms. Thomas was a witness at trial as to Ms.
Lambert's animus against Laurie Show. Specifically, Ms. Lambert contends
that after the murder, Ms. Thomas was caught lying to the East Lampeter
Township police about being "kidnaped." Petitioner contends that after Ms.
Thomas agreed to say Ms. Lambert planned to "slit Laurie's throat" in her trial
testimony, her charges were reduced to disorderly conduct and she was only
made to pay a small fine. (Exhibit A, Section A, para. 41.) Further, petitioner
claims that neither Laura Thomas nor her father, Floyd Thomas, said anything
about Ms. Lambert's plans to "slit [Laurie's] throat" in their initial interviews
with the police. (Exhibit A, Section A, para. 42.) Ms. Lambert lists those same
allegations under the heading of Brady/Giglio violations. (Exhibit A, Section

B(5), paras. 66 and 68.) Finally, Ms. Lambert refers to Ms. Thomas's
testimony as "false and/or perjured" to the extent that Ms. Thomas related that
Ms. Lambert wanted to "slit Laurie Show's throat." (Exhibit A, Section B(6),
paras. 109 and 110.)
To understand this issue, it is important to look first at Laura Thomas's
testimony in 1992. Ms. Thomas was a friend of Ms. Lambert's in 1991. She
was one of a group of teenagers enlisted by Ms. Lambert to abduct Laurie
Show. She testified at trial about discussions of a plan to do harm to Laurie
Show:
Q. Who participated in the discussions leading to this plan to do something
bad?
A. It was myself, Kimona Warner, Vince Orsi, Rachel Winesickle, Lawrence
and Michelle.
Q. Who told you what the plan was to be?
A. Michelle.
Q. What did Michelle tell you the plan was to be?
A. Okay. We were supposed to go over to Laurie's house and, myself and
Kimona, and we were supposed to go and knock on her door and say that we
were going to a fraternity party and there was like three college guys we were
supposed to meet there, supposedly. We were supposed to get her out of the
house and then we were supposed to go take her downtown on Green Street,
tie her to a telephone pole, or some kind of a pole, and Michelle was going to
cut her hair and slit her throat, beat her up, spray paint a sign, black pussy, on
her.
Q. All of this was told to you by Michelle?
A. Yes.
(N.T., Trial at 668-69.)
This plan never came to fruition because Laura Thomas and Kimona Warner
went to Laurie Show's house and warned her. Ms. Thomas went on to describe
another discussion regarding harm to Laurie Show:
Q. Now did Michelle ever try to obtain your assistance again in a similar plan
or another plan to hurt Laurie?
A. Yeah. She always wanted me to go and pick her up, get her out of the house
because she knew that I was friends with Laurie.
Q. Where did the conversation regarding this occur?
A. Right outside my house on my picnic table that we all sat at.
Q. At any time did Michelle say to you what she intended to do once you got
Laurie out of the house?
A. Well, this time it wasn't getting her out of the house; I don't know what it
was. But she just said I swear to God I'm going to kill her. She said I'm going
to slit her throat.
Now, six years later, Ms. Lambert claims to have after-discovered evidence
that proves Ms. Thomas was lying. Ms. Lambert centers this issue on the
absence of any reference to slitting Laurie Show's throat in Ms. Thomas's
interviews with the police at the time of the murder. Ms. Thomas spoke to
Officer Flory on December 20, 1991, to Officer Bowman on January 2, 1992,
and to Officer Renee Schuler on January 5, 1992. Only the January 14, 1992,
report of Officer Bowman's interview with Laura Thomas on January 2, 1992,
contains any reference to Ms. Thomas's recollection of a statement by Ms.
Lambert that she was going to slit Laurie Show's throat. (Commonwealth's
Exhibit 4; Commonwealth's Exhibit 41.)
Ms. Lambert suggests that Ms. Thomas included the language "slit her throat"
at trial in exchange for favorable treatment by the East Lampeter Township
Police Department on a "false reports" charge against her. This is absurd given
the fact that Ms. Thomas's January 2, 1992, statement very clearly includes the
"slit her throat" language. This statement was taken six weeks before the "false
reports" charge was made against Ms. Thomas.
Moreover, this is a misleading argument based upon a contrived and
superficial understanding of the "false reports" incident. The incident involved
a call by Linda Thomas, Laura's mother, to the East Lampeter Township police
regarding her daughter's story about a "kidnaping." Officer Robert Reed of
East Lampeter Township interviewed Laura Thomas and prepared a report
dated February 18, 1992. In short, Laura Thomas had "staged" her own
kidnaping to attract the attention of her apparently disinterested boyfriend. Her
report was intended to get back to the boyfriend and to draw his sympathies. It
was not intended to get back to Mrs. Thomas or to the police. Because the
police did become involved and because her deception led to a police
investigation, albeit prompted by her mother, Officer Reed charged Laura
Thomas with disorderly conduct.
Petitioner makes much of the fact that this was a "false reports" charge which
was "reduced" to disorderly conduct by the East Lampeter Township police.
First of all, this was not a "false reports" charge in any way, shape or form. A
"False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities" charge under 18 Pa. C.S.A.
4906(b), would have involved conduct by Laura Thomas in making a false
report to the police about an incident knowing it did not occur. Laura Thomas
did not do this. The elements of "false reports" could not have been established
under these facts.
In any event, a "false reports" charge would be a misdemeanor of the third
degree. The difference between a misdemeanor of the third degree and a
summary offense to a juvenile offender, to the police or to the Juvenile Court,
is legally and factually insignificant. Only a lack of understanding of the
elements of a crime under Pennsylvania law, a lack of understanding of the
different treatment afforded juvenile offenders and adult offenders under
Pennsylvania law, and a tendency to proclaim dramatic findings based upon a
partially informed analysis could lead anyone to attach significance to Officer
Reed's decision to charge Ms. Thomas with summary disorderly conduct. In
fact, it is likely that neither a misdemeanor false reports nor a summary
disorderly conduct would have placed Ms. Thomas in the formal juvenile
justice system. It is more likely that either charge would have been handled in
the same or in a similar way: with a fine at the district justice level or through
informal probation with the Juvenile Probation Office involving no more than
a fine.
The second issue with respect to Laura Thomas is whether the report about her
"kidnaping" should have been disclosed to Mr. Shirk.(85) At the PCRA hearing,
Mr. Shirk testified that he would have liked to have been able to crossexamine Ms. Thomas about this kidnaping report. (N.T., PCRA at 3392.)
When questioned about what use he could have made of the report at trial, he
was less emphatic. In fact, he acknowledged that it could be put to no legal use
at trial but that he certainly would have "attempted to use it and let the other
side stop me." (N.T., PCRA at 3526.) Is it a Brady/Giglio violation to
withhold information that could never be put to a legal use or purpose at trial?
Does the Commonwealth have an obligation to provide the defendant with
information which would create error if used? We suggest that Mr. Shirk
knows the answers to these questions and Mr. Shirk candidly acknowledged
that he would have tried to use the kidnaping incident, hoping the
Commonwealth would fail to object.
To argue that this report would have generated admissible impeachment
material as to Laura Thomas is just plain wrong. There is no other way to
describe it. Under the Juvenile Act, Ms. Thomas's juvenile record would have
been inadmissible for impeachment purposes in 1992. See, 42 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 6354.(86)
The "slit her throat" issue has no merit. Mr. Shirk had available to him the
report of Officer Bowman which described Laura Thomas's description of Ms.
Lambert's plan to "slit" Laurie's throat. (Commonwealth's Exhibit 4;
Commonwealth's Exhibit 41.) He also had reports of Officers Flory and
Schuler which did not mention the "slit her throat" language. (See,
Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.) He had every opportunity to cross-examine Ms.
Thomas on this inconsistency and to argue that she fabricated this aspect of her
story. The real question is whether this would have made any difference at all.
Given the violent, premeditated, degrading plot to kidnap Laurie Show,
remove her clothing, physically assault her, and leave her tied up and
vulnerable to predators, the expression "slit her throat" is mere icing on the
cake. Without that language, Ms. Thomas was still describing a series of
felonies which spoke loudly and clearly to Ms. Lambert's hatred toward Laurie
Show. When and where and why she included language about slitting Ms.
Show's throat is but one fact in an otherwise unshakeable body of evidence
demonstrating this prolonged and hostile attitude exhibited by Ms. Lambert
against Ms. Show.
Whether there was any discovery or Brady violation is addressed by Mr.
Shirk's cross-examination of Ms. Thomas at trial. In his cross-examination, he
refers to a police report of an interview of January 10, 1992. (N.T., Trial at
677.) Not only did Mr. Shirk have the police reports available to him regarding
the initial interviews of Ms. Thomas, he also met with Ms. Thomas on June
18, 1992, in his office in preparation for trial. The thrust of Mr. Shirk's crossexamination was to establish that there was no mention of slitting a throat in
the meeting of June 18, 1992. In fact, this was a major thrust of Mr. Shirk's
cross-examination of Ms. Thomas in general. Ms. Thomas would not agree
with Mr. Shirk's characterization of their meeting. Mr. Shirk, in reference to
the meeting in his office on June 18, 1992, with Ms. Thomas and friends,
asked the following of Laura Thomas:
Q. And didn't everyone pretty much agree that there was nothing said that
night about slitting Laurie's throat; it was simply to - not simply - but to take
her to town, tie her to a pole, cut her hair and put a sign, write on her, free
black pussy?
A. No, we did say we were going to slit her throat.
Q. Who said that?
A. Me and Kim and Rachel. She wouldn't Q. That night in my office?
A. Yes.
The clear testimony was that in the June 18, 1992, meeting with Mr. Shirk,
Ms. Thomas related that Michelle said she was going to slit Laurie's throat.
Whether Mr. Shirk wanted to use the December 1991 and January 1992
interviews of Ms. Thomas to impeach her on this point, he certainly could not
claim surprise at trial about this aspect of Ms. Thomas's testimony. She clearly
told Mr. Shirk from the witness stand that she had informed him prior to trial
that the "slit the throat" concept had been discussed by Ms. Lambert in the
summer of 1991.
J. The Black Sweatpants

The black sweatpants were of relatively little value to this court as the fact
finder in 1992. Today, they play a leading role in Ms. Lambert's post
conviction drama. In 1992, the issue of the black sweatpants was simple. Mr.
Yunkin testified that Ms. Lambert wore them on the morning of the murder,
but that they were his sweatpants. Ms. Lambert told Corporal Solt that she was
wearing black sweatpants at the time of the murder. The only real question
was whether she could have worn sweatpants owned by the larger Lawrence.
This was resolved by the court's observations of the sweatpants, of Mr.
Yunkin, of Ms. Lambert, and the conclusion that Ms. Lambert could certainly
have worn the garment.
Today petitioner contends that Mr. Yunkin's testimony about Ms. Lambert
wearing his clothing was false and perjured testimony. Further, petitioner
contends that some time between the 1992 trial and the 1997 federal habeas
hearing, the Commonwealth "switched" a pair of lady's (or boy's extra large)
sweatpants for the men's extra large sweatpants admitted into evidence in 1992
as Commonwealth's Exhibit 9. Specifically, petitioner contends that the bloody
sweatpants, sized men's extra large, were destroyed by the Commonwealth and
a smaller pair substituted.
The analysis can begin, and should end, with the observation that there was no
charge of misconduct regarding the black sweatpants in the 1992 trial.
Petitioner can point to no fabrication, alteration, modification or destruction of
any evidence regarding any item of clothing at or before the 1992 trial.
Petitioner's only contention with respect to the 1992 trial is that Mr. Yunkin's
testimony about Ms. Lambert wearing his clothing must have been false and,
therefore, the Commonwealth offered perjured testimony in support of the
conviction.(87)
References to clothing are easily ascertained from the 1992 record. Ms.
Lambert's first description to the police about her attire was given in her
statement dated December 21, 1991. She told the police that she "had on a
jergo. It's a strawy thing, with a hood on it. I have it in my closet. I also had on
a Bart Simpson T-Shirt, stretch pants, and these white shoes and socks."
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1016-A, Pennsylvania State Police Investigative Report of
December 22, 1991, at 10.) Toward the end of her interview with Corporal
Solt, she changed her story:
The reason I was so scared, when I walked out I had different shoes,
(sneakers), socks, a red flannel shirt & white socks on, & black sweat pants.
When Tabby came out, she had blood on her hands & she grabbed my arm &
got blood all over the arm of my flannel shirt. I don't know if Lawrence saw
that or not. I put it in a dumpster, behind K-Mart or something.
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1023 at 7.)
In fact, the clothing described by Ms. Lambert was recovered by the police
from a truck that had picked up the trash from behind the K-Mart dumpster.
(N.T., Trial at 132-34.)(88)
At trial, Ms. Lambert admitted that while she changed her statement regarding
the clothes she wore, that changed statement was a lie designed to cover up
Mr. Yunkin's participation. (N.T., Trial at 1035-36, 1172-73.) At trial she gave
yet another version of her apparel at the crime scene. She stated: "I had on
black pants. They were like black slush pants and a black Harley Davidson
shirt, my black MTV sweatshirt and gray and white jergo." (N.T., Trial at
1076.) This testimony contradicted both versions given to Corporal Solt.
Mr. Yunkin testified at trial about Ms. Lambert's apparel on the morning of the
murder. On direct questioning by Mr. Shirk, Mr. Yunkin testified:
Q. Now when you dropped Michelle and Tabby off, do you recall what they
were wearing?
A. Yes. Michelle had on a flannel shirt, sweatpants and a jergo.
(N.T., Trial at 203.) Mr. Kenneff then held up the black sweatpants marked as
Commonwealth's Exhibit 9 and questioned Mr. Yunkin about these:
A. Sweatpants that I owned.
Q. Do you recall seeing those on December 20, 1991?
A. Yes, I do; on Michelle.
Q. Were those sweatpants on Michelle when she left your car on the morning
of December 20, 1991 at approximately 6:45 a.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it unusual for Michelle to wear your clothing?
A. No it was not.
Q. Was t, here anything in particular at that time to cause Michelle to wear
your clothing?
A. She was pregnant at the time.
Q. How many months pregnant was she?
A. About seven months.
Mr. Shirk cross-examined Mr. Yunkin and Mr. Yunkin confirmed that Ms.
Lambert was wearing "black sweatpants." He also confirmed that those
sweatpants were his. (N.T., Trial at 225-26.)
Donald Bloser testified at trial that Commonwealth's Exhibit 9, the black
sweatpants, tested positive for the presence of blood. (N.T., Trial at 613-14.)
Vincent M. Orsi was called as a defense witness at trial and was shown the
black sweatpants by Mr. Shirk. Mr. Shirk first questioned him as to whether he
had ever seen Mr. Yunkin in black sweatpants:
Q. When had you seen Mr. Yunkin wearing black sweatpants?
A. I had slept over a few times and he wore them to bed, or if he was bumming
around the apartment he would wear them.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked Commonwealth's exhibit 9. Do
you recognize those sweatpants?
A. (Looking at the exhibit) Yeah. He would wear them to bed, bumming
around the house.
Q. They look familiar and similar to the ones he would wear?
A. (Nodding head affirmatively) Yeah.
(N.T., Trial at 904-05.)
None of this testimony appeared particularly pivotal at the 1992 trial. The
black sweatpants were never mentioned in Mr. Kenneff's opening statement or
in Mr. Shirk's opening statement. The sweatpants were not mentioned in Mr.
Kenneff's closing argument where certain items of evidence material to the
Commonwealth's theory of the case were discussed. Mr. Shirk argued that the
sweatpants were worn by Mr. Yunkin in his closing. (N.T., Trial at 1243-44.)
Mr. Shirk argued that the more likely wearer of the sweatpants was Mr.
Yunkin and that this suggested that Mr. Yunkin was in the condominium that
morning and participated in the murder. This court carefully considered that
argument at trial and rejected it as proof that Mr. Yunkin was present in the
condominium. This issue was addressed in this court's opinion on post verdict
motions. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, July 19, 1994, slip op.
There is absolutely no merit to the contention that Mr. Yunkin's testimony
about Ms. Lambert wearing his clothes was false or perjured. We found this to
be believable in 1992 and nothing we have learned or heard since that time
changes that opinion.
Further, there is no proof that the sweatpants admitted into evidence as
Commonwealth's Exhibit 9 in 1992 have ever been altered, changed, or
substituted. Petitioner suggests that the sweatpants in 1992 were so large that
Ms. Lambert would be "swimming in them." There is simply no testimony or
even any argument to this effect.(89)
The controversy over the black sweatpants arose at the federal habeas hearing.
In petitioner's amended habeas petition she refers to "Yunkin's grossly
oversized clothing, that would have severely impeded her movements. . . ."
See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1531. Petitioner's characterization
of the black sweatpants as "grossly oversized clothing" appeared to be at odds
with the size of the sweatpants which were produced to petitioner by the
Commonwealth. These sweatpants, according to the Commonwealth, were the
same sweatpants as were admitted into the 1992 trial as Commonwealth's
Exhibit 9. Armed with the assumption that Commonwealth's Exhibit 9 was, in
fact, a grossly oversized pair of baggy black sweatpants and faced with a pair
of black sweatpants which do not appear to be "grossly oversized," petitioner's
counsel leaped to the conclusion that the sweatpants were "switched." For
petitioner to argue that the sweatpants were "switched" is somewhat tame.(90)
But the evidence does not support this dramatic and "shocking" possibility.
In the PCRA hearing, Mr. Shirk was shown Petitioner's Exhibit 1004, the
black sweatpants in question. He testified that to the best of his recollection,
they are smaller than the sweatpants used at trial. (N.T., PCRA at 3301.) He
offered his opinion that these sweatpants would not fit Mr. Yunkin. (N.T.,
PCRA at 3302.) Julius Hyman, a textile expert, offered his opinion that the
black sweatpants, Petitioner's Exhibit 1004, were actually sized boy's extra
large, not men's extra large. (N.T., PCRA at 358.) He was shown a photograph
of the sweatpants which was taken in 1992 by Mr. Shirk, (Petitioner's Exhibit
3833), and compared that with the sweatpants introduced into evidence at the
PCRA as Petitioner's Exhibit 1004. He offered his opinion that the sweatpants
are different. (N.T., PCRA at 371-72.)
Yet, the Commonwealth's investigator, James Gallagher, testified that he
conducted an experiment where he obtained the same cardboard box lids,
(Commonwealth's Exhibits 56 and 57), on which the sweatpants rested in Mr.
Shirk's 1992 photograph. (N.T., PCRA at 6568-69.) He took the sweatpants in
question, laid them out over the same box lids, and took a photograph that was
substantially the same as Mr. Shirk's photograph. (N.T., PCRA at 6569-75.)
Lieutenant Renee Schuler testified to Petitioner's Exhibit 1158, which is an
evidence log, listing the content, s of a trash bag found at the incinerator on
Saturday morning, December 21, 1991. (N.T., PCRA at 3835.) Officer Renee
Schuler found a pair of "ladies dress 'black' sweatpants (appears small size)"
and listed these on the evidence log. (Id.) Mr. Kenneff testified that these
sweatpants eventually became Commonwealth's Exhibit 9 at the 1992 trial.
(N.T., PCRA at 1900.) Donald Bloser, who performed blood testing on the
sweatpants in 1992, identified his markings on the exhibit in question at the
PCRA hearing. (N.T., PCRA at 218.) He noted that the markings are faded.
(N.T., PCRA at 217.)
This court had the opportunity to view the sweatpants during the hearing.
Certainly they would have been baggy on Ms. Lambert. Certainly they appear
to be more consistent with a "ladies' large" or a "boy's extra large" size than
with a "men's extra large." We are left only to speculate as to whether the
pants fit Mr. Yunkin.(91)
We found no evidence to suggest that the sweatpants were "switched." There
appears to be some disagreement as to whether Mr. Yunkin could have worn
these pants, whether they were "baggy" sweatpants as recalled by Mr. Shirk,
and whether by the size alone of the sweatpants they could have been worn by
either Ms. Lambert or Mr. Yunkin. We are left with the reliable and
uncontradicted evidence log which catalogs these as ladies' dress black
sweatpants. We are left with a comparison of the photographs from Mr. Shirk's
office in 1992 and from the evidence room in the PCRA hearing in 1998.
These photographs are substantially similar. We note Mr. Hyman's conclusion
that the sweatpants in evidence contain an elastic waistband and the
sweatpants in Mr. Shirk's photograph do not appear to have an elastic
waistband. However, upon careful examination, the photograph taken by Mr.
Shirk is out of focus and it appears that, there could possibly h, ave been an e,
lastic waistband, although blurred by the photograph.
All this discussion about "switched" sweatpants is misleading. It would have
been silly to switch these sweatpants. They were considered at trial, they were
identified as having been owned by Mr. Yunkin and worn by Ms. Lambert.
The court issued an opinion in 1994 confirming that "title" to the sweatpants
had nothing to do with the verdict. The most we could conclude in 1992 was
that Ms. Lambert could possibly have worn the sweatpants and the fact they
were owned by Mr. Yunkin did not prove Mr. Yunkin's involvement in the
murder.
Even if we assume the sweatpants were "switched" during the habeas corpus
hearing, that does nothing to establish after-discovered evidence, prosecutorial
misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA. Even if the
sweatpants had been "switched" in 1997, this is is not a fact that would have
changed the outcome of the 1992 trial nor did it so undermine the truthdetermining process in 1992 that no reliable verdict was possible. Petitioner's
counsel would simply disagree with this court's conclusion that Ms. Lambert
could have worn the sweatpants offered into the record in 1992. They were not
present at the trial. This court was present and concluded on the record that it
was possible for her to have worn these sweatpants.
In the July 19, 1994, opinion, we noted: "The court listened to the testimony
regarding the clothing, observed the size of the garments and the size of the
people involved, i.e., Ms. Lambert, Ms. Buck and Mr. Yunkin, and found there
to be no question raised by the fact that the clothing appeared to be Mr.
Yunkin's." Commonwealth v. Lambert, July 19, 1994, slip op. at 14. That
factual finding was within the province of this court and was not attacked in
any way by counsel in the appellate process. If the federal district court found
that the sweatpants were "switched" during the proceeding, then it had every
right to be concerned. But the concern would have been for the
Commonwealth's conduct during the habeas hearing, not for the effect
switching the sweatpants in 1997 would have had on the 1992 verdict. We
simply do not have any conclusive evidence in this record which would
establish that the sweatpants were switched. We further find that argument is
of no legal significance to this PCRA case even if it would have factual
support. We looked at what was available to this court in 1992 and whether
after-discovered evidence regarding the integrity of the evidence in 1992 is
now available to this court. We considered whether presentation of the
sweatpants as evidence in 1992 was the result of prosecutorial misconduct. We
find neither to be the case. Therefore, we find that the issue of the black
sweatpants has no bearing on petitioner's post conviction claim.
K. The River Search Video
On December 22, 1991, two days after the murder of Laurie Show, the police
conducted a search of the Susquehanna River near the Pequea Creek inlet.
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1295.) Two critical pieces of evidence were found: a large
butcher knife and a rope. (N.T., PCRA at 800, 805.) This search was
conducted by the East Lampeter Township Police Department with the

assistance of local scuba divers. The search was filmed by William "Smokey"
Roberts, a professional scuba diver and videographer. (Petitioner's Exhibit
1040.) Mr. Roberts reviewed, edited and copied the tape made of the search
for the police and the district attorney's office.(92) (Petitioner's Exhibit 1695;
N.T., PCRA at 1107-1110.) Only this edited version was turned over to Ms.
Lambert's defense attorney. Mr. Shirk testified to seeing the river search tape
at the East Lampeter Township Police Department. (N.T., PCRA at 3360,
3363.) He also stated that he received a copy of Officer Reed's report that
stated the videotape was edited by Smokey Roberts "to cut down on time span
and to eliminate unnecessary background noise." (N.T., PCRA at 3358;
Petitioner's Exhibit 1295.) At no time, however, did Mr. Shirk request a copy
of the unedited tape.
Ms. Lambert contends that the police and/or prosecution edited the videotape
to delete allegedly exculpatory evidence of the police finding a pink bag at the
river. (Exhibit A, Section B(4) at para. 48.) The edited tape, however, showed
an empty pink bag embedded in ice. (N.T., PCRA at 1110, 3498-99;
Petitioner's Exhibit 1695.) This pink bag was determined by the police to be
immaterial to the case and so was not recovered. (N.T., PCRA at 801-03.)
The edited tape also showed another empty bag of indeterminate color which
was found by the police along the river bank. (N.T., PCRA at 3498;
Petitioner's Exhibit 1695.) However, this too was found to be irrelevant to the
investigation and was not seized as evidence.
At trial, Detective Barley was questioned by defense counsel as to whether
during the river search he found a trash bag containing sneakers. He stated he
did not. (N.T, Trial at 144.) Mr. Shirk explained in his PCRA testimony that he
did not impeach Detective Barley with the video, which clearly shows the
discovery of a pink bag, because he assumed it was one of many things found
at the river that simply was not relevant to the investigation. (N.T., PCRA at
3363.) As Mr. Shirk's testimony reveals, it is reasonable to interpret Detective
Barley's answer as a denial that a trash bag with evidence in it, i.e., Mr.
Yunkin's sneakers, the rope, the knife, two pairs of sunglasses and the hats,
was found during the search. The evidence before this court, testimonial and
video, showed that the plastic bags were empty. (93)
Detective Barley's denial that he found a pink trash bag was immaterial to the
case, especially in light of the fact that the disposal of a trash bag by Ms.
Lambert was not an issue at trial. Ms. Lambert testified at trial that she
disposed of a red bag(94) containing the rope, the knife, two pairs of sunglasses,
the hats, Yunkin's sneakers and some rocks by throwing it into the
Susquehanna River. (N.T., Trial at 1025-27, 1056.) Although Mr. Kenneff
questioned Ms. Lambert about the color and size of the bag and whether Mr.
Yunkin threw anything in the river separate from the bag, he did not question
that Ms. Lambert threw the bag in the river. (N.T., Trial at 1154-55.) At trial,
the Commonwealth never contended that Ms. Lambert did not throw a bag into
the river. To the contrary, the Commonwealth introduced Mr. Yunkin's
testimony that Ms. Lambert did throw a bag into the river. (N.T., Trial at 219.)
This testimony had no effect on the outcome of the trial.
A second river search was organized for December 23, 1991. (Petitioner's
Exhibit 1295.) At that time a diver discovered a sneaker in the Pequea Creek.
(N.T., PCRA at 823-24.) Detective Barley determined that it had no
evidentiary value because it was old, stained brown, decaying, packed with
mud, had black rot, had rotted threads, and had clearly been in the water more
than three days. (N.T., PCRA at 823-24, 828-30.) It was found not in the river,
like the rope and knife, but in the Pequea Creek inlet which empties into the
river and, therefore, could not have been the sneaker the police were looking
for. (N.T., PCRA at 824, 825.) For these reasons, the sneaker was not seized as
evidence.
Ms. Lambert contends that the undisclosed sneaker was exculpatory and, thus,
kept from the defense. At the time of the search, the police knew only that: (1)
Mr. Yunkin said that Ms. Lambert threw a trash bag containing shoes and
rocks into the river, (Commonwealth's Exhibit 4, West Lampeter Township
Police Supplemental Report by Officer Jere Schuler), and (2) Ms. Lambert
said she had tossed sneakers into the river, (Petitioner's Exhibit 2079). Thus, at
the time of the search, the police would have believed that anything found in
the river relating to the murder would incriminate Ms. Lambert because Ms.
Lambert was the person who disposed of the evidence. Clearly, so early in the
investigation, the police would not ignore evidence that might assist them in
solving the murder, whether it incriminated only Ms. Lambert (if the sneaker
was Ms. Lambert's), or both Ms. Lambert and Mr. Yunkin (if the sneaker was
Mr. Yunkin's, but discarded by Ms. Lambert). Thus, it is certainly plausible
that an empty pink bag, embedded in ice, would be insignificant to the
searching officers, as would a black, rotted sneaker that had been in the Pequea
Creek for an extended period of time. The prosecutors and police officers in
this case could not then have known that Ms. Lambert would later disavow her
pre-search statements and later implicate Mr. Yunkin. The investigation must
be viewed in the light of what they knew when they acted.
L. Ms. Lambert's Statement

Early in the morning of December 21, 1991, Ms. Lambert gave a statement to
Corporal Raymond Solt of the Pennsylvania State Police. This has been
referred to as the "Solt Statement' and has the designation of Petitioner's
Exhibit 1023. Corporal Solt was originally called in to administer a polygraph
examination, to which Ms. Lambert had consented.
Ms. Lambert actually gave to the police two statements on December 21,
1991.(95) The first, given to Corporal Solt prior to the polygraph, was a
handwritten statement containing what has become known as "the alibi
story."(96) She gave this handwritten statement in response to Corporal Solt's
request to tell him what happened. He was going to use her story to compose
questions for the polygraph examination.
During the polygraph, Corporal Solt advised Ms. Lambert of his opinion that
she was not being truthful about what happened in the Show condominium.
Ms. Lambert then departed from the "alibi story."(97)
She told Corporal Solt that she and Ms. Buck were dropped off by Mr. Yunkin
and, in fact, they went into the Show condominium. She told Corporal Solt
that it was her idea to go because "I wanted to talk to Laurie." (Petitioner's
Exhibit 1016-A, PSP Report at 7.) She described how Ms. Buck went to the
door, how Laurie answered the door and how both went into the
condominium: "I went upstairs and went in and shut the door." (Id.)
Ms. Lambert described an attack, largely conducted by Ms. Buck and largely
witnessed by Ms. Lambert. On the second page of the "Solt Statement," Ms.
Lambert related:
Laurie tried to grab a scissors, and Tabby took them away and I don't know
what she did with them. I saw she had a knife and I saw her bring it down. It
looked like it bounced off. It didn't look real. Whenver [sic] she pulled it,
Laurie jerked and fell on the floor and rolled away and I heard that sound
(indicating a 'woosh') and Laurie coughing and kept saying that she was sorry.
She was sorry, and saying: 'You're not going to leave me here?' and I saw
Tabby take the knife and hitting and I saw the knife come down, in her hair.
Seh [sic] couldn't breathe right and was making that sound ('woosh') and
coughing and laying there and saying: 'Don't leave me.'. She said she was
sorry. She coughed, her body was jerking and stuff. I couldn't look anymore
and I turned away.
From her statement, it is clear that she was aware that Laurie had been
stabbed. She described a sound consistent with the back injury which
punctured a lung and she described how Ms. Buck's action made her sick. She
went on to describe the path she took when she left the apartment. In Corporal
Solt's report, he relates what Ms. Lambert told him:
. . . .I started to run, I'm not sure which way. Tabby told me to slow down. I
ran like up through the buildings and came out in somebody's back yard. I
came out at the cream house with shutters, I think they were blue. Tabby ran a
different way. I met up with her then right by the bushes at the woods.
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1016-A, PSP Report at 8.)
Later, at page 5 of the "Solt Statement," when asked where she went when she
left the apartment, she stated:
I got confused and I had no idea where I was and I ended up in someone's back
yard. I was in two fields while I was running and a patch of woods. I steped
[sic] in a creek and tripped over a barbed wire fence and fell. The creek was
like a little run off, not like a creek. I fell and landed in the briars. I ended up
in those people's back yard. I stood still and I saw Tabby walking down,
through the woods, and she was calm about it, and I ran.

Ms. Lambert also described what she was wearing:
When we walked up, I had on a jergo. It's a strawy thing, with a hood on it. I
have it in my closet. I also had on a Bart Simpson T- shirt, stretch pants, and
these white shoes and socks. I didn't have my hood up. We just walked around.
Tabby had her hood up. That is my jacket that I had on, over there. (pointing to
a black leather jacket in the interview room.)
The typewritten statement taken by Corporal Solt, i.e., the "Solt Statement,"
covers five and one-half typed pages. Each of these pages was signed by
petitioner in red felt-tipped pen upon completion of the statement. At the
bottom of page six and extending to page seven, there is hand printed lettering
and then cursive writing which contains an addition to the statement. This
information was obtained by Corporal Solt from Ms. Lambert in response to
his question to her about whether she had anything further to add to the
statement. The pages containing the hand printed and hand written portions are
also signed by Ms. Lambert.
Ms. Lambert contends that the hand printed, handwritten portion on the last
one and one-half pages of her original statement are phony. She contends that
she signed blank papers at the time of her interview but that she did not
understand why she was doing that. She contends that Corporal Solt "filled in"
these signed papers with a "statement" which he created.
Petitioner presented expert witness testimony from William J. Ries, a forensic
document examiner. He testified that the recording of a statement from Ms.
Lambert on "plain paper" as opposed to "statement paper" is "unusual and
odd." (N.T., PCRA at 3621.) He opined that a statement should be taken on
"formal statement paper." (Id.) He also opined that the signature of Lisa
Michelle Lambert across the statement is "highly unusual." (N.T., PCRA at
3622-23.) When asked whether he could tell if Ms. Lambert's signature was
placed on the document after the statement itself, he stated that "the red ink
appears to be on top of the black ballpoint pen writing on page 7 of Miss
Lambert's statement." (N.T., PCRA at 3635.)
Mr. Ries is a retired Philadelphia police officer with experience in examining
documents. He testified as to the standard practice in Philadelphia, that is, the
taking of a statement on "official statement paper." He could not give any
reason for that practice other than compliance with department procedure and
certainly could offer no opinion as to how the lack of "official statement
paper" might affect the integrity of the contents of the statement. (N.T., PCRA
at 3644-45.) Mr. Ries gave his commentary on Corporal Solt's methods and
disapproved of the use of plain paper in favor of "official statement paper." He
disapproved of the practice of having Ms. Lambert sign the statement across
the page and noted that he has never seen this done.(98) (N.T., PCRA at 362223.) Taken to its logical conclusion, Mr. Ries's opinion would suggest that
Corporal Solt should not have taken the statement because he did not have
"official statement paper" available to him. The fact is that Mr. Ries really had
very little to offer this court by way of criticism of the "Solt Statement." His
opinion failed to take into account that Corporal Solt was taking a statement in
the middle of night in a local police station using materials available to him.
Mr. Ries's tone of disapproval and his inconsequential criticism of Corporal
Solt's methods were of no help to this court and appeared to be little more than
advocacy dressed in expert's clothing.
Detective Solt testified that he used the paper available to him in the East
Lampeter Township Police Department. The first section of the statement, that
is the five and one-half typed pages, is on bond paper, which he obtained from
a secretary's desk by the typewriter he was using to type her statement. (N.T.,
PCRA at 3099, 3122.) Ms. Lambert was then transported to another room of
the station and, at that point, she began to give him additional information. He
took the only available paper, from another desk, which was a different
grading of paper, and began to record what she was saying, first in hand
printed lettering and then in cursive writing. (N.T., PCRA at 3105-06, 311112, 3122.) He testified that he switched from hand printing to cursive because
he was writing quickly. (N.T., PCRA at 3111-12, 3130.) Detective Solt
testified at the PCRA hearing that he saw her sign each page with a red pen
after each paper was reviewed. (N.T., PCRA at 3114, 3129-30.)
The Commonwealth presented expert testimony from Lieutenant Joseph
Bonenberger, a document examiner with the Pennsylvania State Police. He
offered his opinion that the signature of Lisa Michelle Lambert is on top of the
written and printed material on the last two pages of her statement. Under
microscopic examination, he determined that wherever the red fibers crossed
the other printing, there was a slight smearing. His conclusion was that the
statement was signed by Ms. Lambert after the writing was placed on the
paper. (N.T., PCRA at 7170-71.)
The time at which Ms. Lambert signed the statement also presents an issue in
this case. In Corporal Solt's report, he notes that the statement was completed
at 7:51 a.m. and that Ms. Lambert signed the original of the "typed notes of the
interview" at 8:07 a.m. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1016, Corporal Solt's report of
December 22, 1991.) These times are confirmed in Corporal Solt's testimony.
(N.T., PCRA at 3101, 3118.)
Ms. Lambert points the court to the testimony of Detective Clarence L. Flory,
who transported Ms. Lambert to Community Hospital to have blood drawn. He
testified:
Q. What time did you transport Ms. Lambert to Community Hospital?
A. 8:00 a.m. Roughly, 8:00 a.m.
Q. And what time was her blood drawn?
A. Approximately right away, around 8:00 a.m. I just have an approximate
time.
(N.T., PCRA at 3715.)
In Detective Flory's report, he notes on the last page: "At approx. 0800 hrs., 21
December 91, this officer transported Lambert to Community Hospital of
Lancaster to obtain a sample of blood. Blood being drawn by Kimberly Felger,
R.N. at approx. 0800 hrs., 21 December 91." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2065.)
Ms. Lambert's argument is that Corporal Solt presented false testimony about
the time she signed the statement, noting that she was at Community Hospital
at the time Corporal Solt contends the statement was signed.
It appears that the sequence of events here might be more reliable than the
precise times. Corporal Solt testified that the statement was completed at 7:51
a.m. and signed at 8:07 a.m. From his overall testimony and from his practice
of recording specific times, we believe his recollection of the times to be
reliable. It appears that Detective Flory was giving an approximate time, not
an exact time. In fact, every time Detective Flory referred to the time of
transport to Community Hospital, he used the word "approximate." This
appears in his testimony and in his report. He testified that he transported Ms.
Lambert at "roughly 8:00 a.m." and that her blood was drawn "around 8:00
a.m." (N.T., PCRA at 3715.) We know that one or the other of those events did
not take place at exactly 8:00 a.m. The East Lampeter Township Police
Department office is located east of the City of Lancaster; Community
Hospital is located just east of the city line. The time of transport would be
approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Allowing for time to place Ms. Lambert in a
police car, to drive to Community Hospital, to remove her from the police car
and to escort her to the blood lab, it is reasonable to expect that the process
took anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes.
When asked about the sequence of events that morning, without respect to
exact times, Detective Flory testified that he transported Ms. Lambert to
Community Hospital when Ms. Lambert's questioning was finished. (N.T.,
PCRA at 3715.)
From this testimony, we can conclude that Detective Flory took custody of
Ms. Lambert after her questioning was finished. Could Detective Flory's
testimony that he took her to the hospital at "approximately 8:00 a.m.,"
"roughly 8:00 a.m.," or "around 8:00" have meant that he took her after she
signed her statement at 8:07 a.m.? That certainly seems reasonable and we
believe it is fair to conclude that that is how this took place. To point to
Detective Flory's testimony as precise on the question of time and to,
therefore, leap to the conclusion that Corporal Solt was falsifying his report is
a leap unsupported by the facts or by common sense. It is clear that the
sequence of events that morning had Ms. Lambert finish her statement, review
the statement, sign the statement and then to go to Community Hospital in the
company of Detective Flory.
Petitioner's final claim regarding her "fake statement" is that Corporal Solt
"injected" her in the arm before administering the polygraph examination. This
bizarre and wholly unsupported allegation surfaced at the PCRA hearing. The
"factual basis" for this charge is that Ms. Lambert had a slight bruise on the
inside of her arm upon inspection at the time of her arrest. (N.T., PCRA at
3784-85; Petitioner's Exhibit 1609.) This slight, unexplained bruise became
the marking of a truth serum injection. Ms. Lambert was quick to adjust her
story to accommodate the "injection." She described how she was hooked up
to the polygraph machine with a number of Velcro straps and that Corporal
Solt then injected her with a needle. (N.T., PCRA at 5297, 5372.)
There is absolutely no support in the record for the allegation that Ms. Lambert
was injected with truth serum. In fact, if she was really injected with "truth
serum," why should she complain about what she said under its influence? We
dismiss that charge as incredible.
With respect to the substance of the statement, we note that Ms. Lambert
expressed familiarity with its contents at the 1992 trial. At the PCRA hearing,
Ms. Lambert was reluctant to say that she had even read the statement in 1992.
However, Mr. Shirk noted that he went over the statement with her in detail.
(N.T., PCRA at 3447-49, 3527-28.) This would be consistent with basic, good
practice for a criminal defense lawyer and Mr. Shirk has demonstrated a high
level of skill, dedication and expertise at a very high level. It would be
unbelievable to this court that Mr. Shirk would not have gone over Ms.
Lambert's statement with her in great detail in preparation for trial. Mr. Shirk
is uncertain whether he actually showed her the statement or whether he had it
in front of him and read portions of the statement to her in preparing her for
trial. (Id.) There really would be no significant difference between these two
approaches. The fact is that she was familiar with the contents of her entire
statement before trial. Her own trial counsel established this fact.
In fact, in 1992, Ms. Lambert was asked about what she told Corporal Solt.
This question was in specific reference to her statement. She was asked,
"Everything Trooper Solt said you said was the truth[?]." And she responded,
"Yes." (N.T., Trial at 1035.)
Further, in a letter written from Ms. Lambert to Mr. Yunkin in the prison on
December 23, 1991, she adopted the information she gave to Corporal Solt in
the statement. (Commonwealth's Exhibit 16.) That is, her letter to Mr. Yunkin
sets forth the same information with respect to her apparel on the day of the
murder.
In the handwritten portion of the "Solt Statement," Ms. Lambert states she was
wearing ". . . a red flannel shirt & white socks [ ] & black sweat pants."
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1023 at 7.) She makes further reference to Ms. Buck
getting "blood all over the arm of my flannel shirt." (Id.)
In the December 23, 1991, letter, she uses the same reference to how Ms. Buck
grabbed her arm and "got blood all over my red flannel." (Commonwealth's
Exhibit 16 at 2.) Also in the letter, she refers to fleeing with Ms. Buck and
meeting up with her "down at the woods." (Commonwealth's Exhibit 16 at 3.)
Any contention that the handwritten (or printed) portion of the statement was
made up by Corporal Solt after Ms. Lambert signed the statement is clearly
contradicted by her own testimony at trial and her own handwritten letter to
Mr. Yunkin of December 23, 1991.
For PCRA analysis purposes, this issue of the "altered statement" involves
neither prosecutorial misconduct nor after-discovered evidence. There simply
is no proof of either under the elements required by the Act.
To establish prosecutorial misconduct, Ms. Lambert must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Detective Solt had her sign blank pages
and then completed, in his own handwriting, a false statement which he then
attributed to Ms. Lambert. On this issue we have Detective Solt's sworn
testimony against Ms. Lambert's sworn testimony. Having listened carefully to
the testimony of each witness, this court finds that Detective Solt is far more
credible than Ms. Lambert on this issue. We consider their statements at the
PCRA hearing together with all other evidence in this case both from the 1992
trial and from the balance of the testimony at the PCRA hearing. For one
thing, Ms. Lambert was well aware in 1992 of the contents of her statement
and never in her own testimony or through her lawyers' arguments made an
issue of or raised a question about her statement. Her bald assertion that the
statement was phony against Detective Solt's testimony as to the steps he took
to obtain the statement carries no weight whatsoever. Petitioner's expert, Mr.
Ries, does nothing to establish that the statement was the result of any
prosecutorial misconduct. The Commonwealth's expert, Lieutenant
Bonenberger, offers a reasonable opinion that the signature of Ms. Lambert
was placed on the document after the typed, printed or written portions. This
court really does not require the assistance of the experts on this issue. Given
Ms. Lambert's testimony, Detective Solt's testimony, Ms. Lambert's letter of
December 23, 1991, to Mr. Yunkin, and Ms. Lambert's testimony at trial, we
find there to be no basis for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct on this issue.
With respect to after-discovered evidence, the simple truth is that if the
statement had been altered, the alteration was plainly available to Ms. Lambert
at the 1992 trial. She is unable to meet the first prong of the after-discovered
test, i.e., that the evidence was unavailable at trial. The contention that this was
an "altered statement" is without merit under any analysis.
Petitioner contends that Detective Solt is guilty of perjury in his testimony
about the statement. There is certainly no basis for a finding that Detective
Solt perjured himself in testifying about the statement. At best, his testimony is
at
odds with Ms. Lambert's testimony. (99) We have already acknowledged that
Detective Solt's testimony is at odds with Ms. Lambert's testimony regarding
the statement. We resolved in 1992, and we resolve again, this credibility issue
in favor of Detective Solt and against Ms. Lambert. This inconsistency
between these witnesses is not perjury as to either Detective Solt or Ms.
Lambert.
M. Crime Scene Photographs

Ms. Lambert contends that the police altered or fabricated photographs of the
crime scene to (1) show a telephone cord wrapped around the victim's leg,
thereby proving that Ms. Lambert's version of the story of what happened in
the condominium that morning is false, (2) hide bloody footprints in the front
hallway and in Laurie Show's bedroom, and (3) include Tabitha Buck's white
sweatshirt in the crime scene.
A second level of alleged police misconduct regarding the crime scene

photographs concerns the nature of the photographs and the number of
photographs taken. Ms. Lambert contends that photographs of important parts
of the crime scene, such as, fingerprints, blood spatters and the like, were not
taken. In the alternative, she argues that such photographs were taken but were
destroyed.
1. The telephone cord around the leg
A series of crime scene photographs show a telephone cord wrapped around
the leg of Laurie Show. Laurie's body was positioned in her bedroom and a
number of photographs show the cord connecting a handset to the base of the
telephone wrapped once around her leg down near the ankle. Why is this of
significance? First, because the diagrams prepared by Officer Weaver do not
show the telephone cord wrapped around the leg of the victim. In fact, they
show the telephone close to her leg but not touching it. Second, Ms. Lambert
testified at trial that Ms. Buck grabbed the telephone from Laurie Show's hand
and threw it across the room. If Ms. Lambert was telling the truth, then the
telephone would be somewhere away from Laurie Show's body. If Ms.
Lambert was not telling the truth, then the telephone might, presumably, be
near Laurie Show's body. In essence, petitioner believes that the police
wrapped the telephone cord around the leg of the victim in an intentional act to
discredit her story. Ms. Lambert attempts to discredit the crime scene
photographs by pointing to the crime scene diagram prepared by Officer
Weaver.
Officer Weaver testified that he did not prepare the diagram to scale, that there
were literally hundreds of items in the bedroom and that he did not record the
location or the description of each and every item. (N.T., PCRA at 1710.) The
telephone was placed in the diagram after the body was removed from the
bedroom. (N.T., PCRA at 1783.) In fact, he was preparing these diagrams
essentially to show the position of the body and the major articles of furniture
in the bedroom. (N.T., PCRA at 1710.) This was the first homicide
investigation in which he had been involved and the first crime scene he had
drawn. (N.T., PCRA at 1777.) In his testimony he did not seem to attach
much, if any, significance to the precise location of these various objects.
(N.T., Trial at 34; N.T., PCRA at 1784-86.)
Petitioner questioned almost every witness who was present in the crime scene
that morning as to the location of the telephone cord. No one was able to
specifically recall whether the telephone cord was, in fact, wrapped around the
leg of Laurie Show. Petitioner takes this wholesale lack of recollection about a
detail of questionable relevance and parlays it into an affirmative statement
that the telephone cord was not wrapped around the leg of the victim.
This analysis requires two substantial leaps: (1) a leap from the failure of any
witness to recall the telephone cord around the leg to the conclusion that the
cord was not around the leg; and (2) a leap from that conclusion to the
conclusion that the police found it necessary to go back into the condominium,
lay the body out on the floor, wrap the telephone cord around the leg and then
take a series of photographs. These photographs would show that Ms. Lambert
was lying when she gave her statement about Ms. Buck throwing the telephone
across the room.
Followed to its logical end, what possible reason would the police have to
discredit Ms. Lambert's statement that Ms. Buck threw the telephone across
the room? Certainly, they were not interested in ruling out evidence of Ms.
Buck's involvement. Certainly, Ms. Buck's throwing the telephone across the
room and the location of the cord around Laurie Show's leg are not mutually
exclusive. It appears that the telephone was close to the entrance of the
bedroom, by the bed, when Laurie picked it up. If Ms. Buck threw it across the
relatively small bedroom, it could easily have landed near the closet where
Laurie's body came to rest. With the base separated from the handset, the
apparatus could have extended across the floor on the opposite, i.e., window,
side of the room. With respect to wrapping the cord around the leg, Laurie's
body could have come to rest on top of the cord and the telephone could have
been moved as the several medical and police personnel tended to Laurie or
processed the crime scene.
This allegation of misconduct assumes that the police took every detail of Ms.
Lambert's statement in the early hours of December 21, 1991, and sought to
orchestrate the items of physical evidence available to them, in this case, the
photographs, to discredit that statement. This just does not make any sense. In
so "discrediting" Ms. Lambert's statement, the police would have been
compromising evidence of Ms. Buck's involvement. The police have never,
under any circumstances or under any interpretation of the evidence, sought to
diminish Ms. Buck's involvement. In fact, the Commonwealth pursued a first
degree murder prosecution against Ms. Buck resulting in a jury verdict of
second degree murder in September 1992.
As to the issue of after-discovered evidence, the crime scene photographs were
certainly available to Mr. Shirk in 1992. The crime scene drawings prepared
by Officer Weaver were available as well. In fact, Officer Weaver took the
stand in 1992 and was cross-examined by Mr. Shirk. If any discrepancy
between the photographs and the drawing were of any importance to the
Lambert defense effort in 1992, they would have been raised at that time. This
is certainly not evidence which was unavailable at the time of trial. The only
thing "unavailable" at the time of trial was the unfounded suspicion that there
is something untoward about these photographs due to the fact that they are
not entirely consistent with the crime scene drawings.
With respect to "prosecutorial misconduct," petitioner has established nothing
by way of facts or evidence to show that these photographs were somehow

fabricated or changed. Under the analysis required in a PCRA proceeding,
nothing about these photographs undermined the truth-determining process or
would have changed the outcome of the trial.
2. Footprints in the hallway and bedroom
Petitioner presented the testimony of a representative of Compleat
Restorations. Compleat Restorations was called to the scene on December 23,
1991, to clean the condominium at the request of Mrs. Show's insurance
company. Compleat Restorations took some photographs, one of which shows
a reddish smudge or mark on the floor in the tile entranceway. This mark could
be interpreted to be a footprint. This is now presented by petitioner as proof
that the testimony in 1992 that there was no blood in the hallway or any
footprints in the hallway was false, fabricated and perjured.
The fact that a Compleat Restorations photograph shows a smudge in the
entranceway which could be viewed as a footprint establishes nothing.
Compleat Restorations came into the condominium three days after the
murder. In that time, literally dozens of persons were in and out of the home.
Testimony was that the blood on the carpet on Laurie's bedroom had soaked
through to the point where it had stained the concrete underneath. There were
copious amounts of blood all over the bedroom. Anyone going in and out of
that room could well have tracked blood out through the hallway. To say that a
smudge on the floor which looks like a footprint had to be the footprint of the
murderer (and no one else) and was, therefore, hidden by the police is just not
true. The Compleat Restorations' photographs do show markings on the floor
which could be interpreted to be bloody shoe prints. This does not establish
that the shoe prints were placed there by the killer.
Officer Weaver testified at trial that there was a bloody footprint in the
hallway and that he believed that it was made by medical personnel. (N.T.,
Trial at 38, 49-50, 54-55.) He also testified that he saw no distinct footprints in
the bedroom. (N.T., Trial at 53-54.) Pennsylvania State Police Trooper
Anthony Suber testified credibly about this at the PCRA hearing, as well.
(N.T., P.C.R.A. at 6539-40, 6545.)
Perhaps petitioner and her counsel disagree with the police assessment on the
morning of December 20, 1991, about the relevance or the importance of the
footprints in the bedroom. That issue was available to petitioner and her
defense counsel at trial and, in fact, there was a significant amount of
discussion and argument over footprints at the scene. Nothing about the case
has changed since that time.
Finally, Trooper Suber, who took the photographs at the crime scene, took a
videotape of the interior and the exterior of the condominium at the conclusion
of his work. By that time most of the investigative personnel had cleared out of
the condominium, Laurie Show's body had been taken to the morgue, and the
investigation was largely completed. He photographed, by way of a video
camera, the entire interior of the Show condominium before he left that
morning. The video shows some markings on the tile floor which could well
have been consistent with a significant amount of traffic in and out of the
condominium that morning. This video was taken prior to the photographs
taken by Compleat Restorations. There are blood spatters and markings on the
wall just inside the doorway with corresponding spots, presumably blood, on
the floor just underneath. Trooper Suber carefully recorded these on the
videotape. That tape was available to trial counsel and was shown at the trial.
The photographs of the front hallway are very important to petitioner's theory
of this case. In the story she told at trial, she attempted to rescue Laurie Show
by grabbing her by the wrists and dragging her from the bedroom to the
hallway. At that point, Laurie Show had been stabbed in the back and,
presumably, would have been bleeding profusely. (100) Yet, the crime scene
photographs show very little blood in the front hallway. This led Mr. Kenneff
to pose the question in his closing argument: "Where is the blood?" (N.T.,
Trial at 1283.) Mr. Kenneff was referring to the crime scene photographs and
pointing out that the physical evidence did not support Ms. Lambert's story
that she became Laurie Show's "rescuer" that morning.
Ms. Lambert's response to this is that the police altered or fabricated
photographs to dispute her story. (101) She contends: (1) that the hallway was
cleaned up before the photographs were taken; or (2) a rug was moved so as to
hide bloody footprints while the photographs were taken; or (3) the
photographs were "cropped" so as to cut out bloody footprints.
In reality, several of the photographs of the hallway show an Oriental type
throw rug which is positioned in somewhat of an angle. A careful inspection of
several of these photographs shows a reddish smudge near the doorway, which
could certainly be a mark made by a shoe which had tracked across blood. One
of these photographs shows a figure standing outside the condominium door,
who was later identified as Reverend Samuel Knupp. Reverend Knupp
testified that he was present at the condominium that morning and had been
summoned there to assist Mrs. Show. (N.T., PCRA at 5939, 5941-43.) This
would establish that the photograph of the hallway was taken that morning and
not later that night or the next day as petitioner suggests. In any event, on
certain of the photographs, a reddish smudge is visible. The fact that the carpet
may have been moved to cover a portion of the smudge does not suggest a
sinister cover up. Rather, it suggests that the throw rug was easily moved and
shifted to different positions as people moved in and out of the condominium
that day.
With respect to the "cropping" of photographs, Trooper Suber testified that
certain machines which print photographs from negatives will sometimes cut
the print at an inappropriate point. (N.T., PCRA at 6525-26.) This could easily
have been done in the many copies made of the many photographs which are
now in the record of this case. It is important to note that there are "noncropped" photographs of the same door, hallway and portion of the wall
showing a full view.
Petitioner argues that the photographs show a blood spatter on the wall and at
least one bloody footprint in the hallway. She contends that this establishes
that Mr. Kenneff's "where's the blood?" argument was false and misleading.
The photograph of the wall showing the blood spatter just inside the front door
of the condominium was carefully reviewed at trial. The photographs of the
entranceway to the condominium were available for all to see at trial. Mr.
Kenneff's argument that there is no physical evidence to support Ms. Lambert'
s story was absolutely correct. The fact that there is a bloody footprint and a
blood spatter on the wall does not support her contention that she dragged the
mortally wounded and bleeding Laurie Show by the wrists into the hallway.
Judging from the amount of blood on the carpet in the bedroom, it is logical to
conclude that were Ms. Lambert's story to be true, there would be copious
amounts of blood in the hallway. The court understood Mr. Kenneff's
argument to be a reference to a lack of significant blood in the hallway. The
fact that there was a blood spatter and a footprint or two does not render the
"where's the blood?" argument false or misleading.
3. The white sweatshirt
Petitioner presented evidence that Ms. Buck wore a white sweatshirt on the
morning of the murder. She also presented testimony that Ms. Buck appeared
at Penn Manor High School after the murder wearing a white or off-white
sweatshirt turned inside out. Petitioner points to the white sweatshirt in the
crime scene photographs and argues that this is Ms. Buck's sweatshirt, placed
there by the police.
The problem is that there is no testimony which would establish that the police
had Ms. Buck's sweatshirt or that the police had access to Ms. Buck's
sweatshirt while the crime scene photographs were taken or when they were
allegedly fabricated in the early morning hours of December 21, 1991. The
bald assertion that the white sweatshirt lying near or next to Laurie Show's
body in certain crime scene photographs is Ms. Buck's sweatshirt is without
any foundation in the evidence.
4. "Missing" or "destroyed" photographs
Ms. Lambert contends that photographs of the crime scene are missing or they
were destroyed. She bases this argument on essentially two grounds: (1) the
testimony of Stephen Hale; and (2) by inference from the fact that the
photographs produced to her counsel during the federal proceeding were not
produced all at one time, in logical sequence, accompanied by a printed log.
Mr. Hale is a retired police officer from rural Ohio who has experience in
investigating crime scenes. He has taken photographs of crime scenes. He
offered his opinion that had he photographed the crime scene at the Show
condominium on December 20, 1991, he would have taken more pictures. Ms.
Rainville, as counsel for Ms. Lambert, argues from this "opinion" that some
pictures must, therefore, be missing. That is, because the Commonwealth did
not produce in federal discovery the number and type of photographs Mr. Hale
would have taken, the Commonwealth must, therefore, be hiding something.
All Mr. Hale was able to establish at the PCRA hearing was that the police
officers taking the crime scene photographs were "incompetent" in his view.
But this is not a case about incompetent photographers or negligence on the
part of an investigating police department. This is a case where the court is
evaluating claims of after-discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and
ineffective assistance of counsel. The fact that Mr. Hale, or his "ordinary
competent crime scene photographer," might have done more than Trooper
Suber and Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Joseph C. Reeves did is of little
or no consequence to this case. Perhaps rather than four rolls of film, they
should have taken ten rolls of film. That argument invites nothing more than
speculation and leads nowhere. The fact is there were ample photographs
taken for the Commonwealth, the defense and the court to understand the
nature of the crime scene at the 1992 trial. No issue was raised as to the
photographs at that time.
With respect to the "destruction" of photographs, Detective Geesey testified
that he took steps to verify that the District Attorney's Office had all the
Pennsylvania State Police photographs prior to turning them over to
petitioner's counsel in 1997. (N.T., PCRA at 3900.) Lieutenant Renee Schuler
was asked to obtain photographs from East Lampeter. Photographs from the
District Attorney's files were also obtained. It appears that the photographs
were produced in stages to petitioner's counsel in Philadelphia pursuant to the
district court's order. The photographs were not produced all at one time, in an
orderly fashion. This appears entirely reasonable given the fact that the various
crime scene photographs had been used in two preliminary hearings and two
homicide trials more than five years before the federal discovery order. It was
established at the PCRA hearing that there was no set procedure or protocol
for the storage of photographs. It appears likely that some were in the District
Attorney's files, certain photographs were with the Pennsylvania State Police
and others may have been at East Lampeter Township. The record makes clear
that reasonable and good faith efforts were made to locate all available
photographs.
The "destruction of photographs" claim basically arose in the discovery phase
to the federal habeas proceeding. A number of witnesses testified in the PCRA
hearing as to the manner in which the Lancaster County District Attorney's

Office produced photographs to petitioner's counsel in Philadelphia. Several
witnesses testified to the so-called "Christmas Eve production" where a series
of photographs arrived in the offices of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis,
counsel for petitioner, on December 24, 1996. It appears from all accounts that
photographs were received from the Lancaster County District Attorney's
Office in several stages. This manner of complying with the discovery
directives of the district court, combined with the fact that the State Police did
not take the hundreds of photographs Mr. Hale would have taken, has led to
petitioner's conclusion that photographs were hidden or destroyed rather than
disclosed to her counsel in Philadelphia prior to the habeas hearing. As we
discussed above, it appears more likely that the production of photographs was
accomplished in stages because the photographs were located in several
different places.
As an ironic commentary on this issue, petitioner's counsel found themselves
poorly organized and frustrated when it came time to organize their
photographs to move their admission into evidence during the PCRA hearing.
On June 9, 1998, during the questioning of District Attorney Madenspacher,
counsel for petitioner attempted to have certain photographs shown to the
witness. There was confusion as to the numbering and location of the exhibits
despite the fact that the court had dedicated a secure area adjacent to the
courtroom for the storage of evidence. In addition, counsel for petitioner had at
least two paralegals at all times assisting the two attorneys trying this case.
Nevertheless, when attempting to organize and present certain photographs,
counsel for petitioner were unable to locate the exhibits. There were several
breaks taken during the afternoon session for the purpose of locating these
photographs. Christy Fawcett, Esquire, counsel for the Commonwealth, made
the following statement for the record:
I would like to place on the record that we have now spent approximately 15 to
20 minutes attempting to straighten out exhibits that were previously marked
by the petitioner.
And in addition we also spent some time during Mr. Madenspacher's
testimony attempting to clarify some of those issues. In addition to what has
been today, there was a period at the beginning of the case, and this frankly
may or may not be on the record, I don't recall, but where there was several
hours spent trying to clear up mismarking of exhibits.
And my purpose for requesting that this be placed on the record is not to
indicate in anyway that I think anybody was deliberately trying to rearrange or
cause problems with the exhibits, but I think it is instructive and illustrative of
the problems that occur when there are large numbers of photographs and
other exhibits that - and other items of evidence that are being given into
discovery, for instance, being attempted to locate, subsequent to a trial, to give
to counsel and so forth.

And I think it's an illustration of how mistakes sometimes happen that are
nobody's fault. They're simply honest mistakes and I think that's occurred here
and, as I argue to the court later on, that could've been easily what occurred at
later points in this case.
(N.T., PCRA at 5806-07.)
In essence, petitioner's counsel could not locate photographs that had
previously been marked, were somewhere in the courtroom or in the evidence
room, and which they wished to show to a witness. The court quite agrees with
counsel's statement that the organization, management and retrieval of large
numbers of exhibits, photographs or otherwise, can be very difficult.(102) The
PCRA hearing was a clinic on this subject. It is not at all hard for this court to
believe that the District Attorney's Office, East Lampeter Township and the
Pennsylvania State Police might have had difficulty locating and producing all
photographs of the crime scene in one complete and well-orchestrated
production. Human nature and the litigation process being what they are, it is
completely understandable how these photographs could have been produced
in 1996 and 1997 in several stages without any sinister significance. There
simply is no proof of any prosecutorial misconduct, destruction of evidence or
fabrication of evidence arising out of these facts with the crime scene
photographs.
N. The Pearl Earring
In early to mid-January 1992, Dean Haas, Hazel Show's nephew, was helping
clean the Show condominium. He found a pearl earring on the tile floor just
inside the front door up against a baseboard. Mrs. Show turned this earring
over to Corporal Renee Schuler and told her she did not recognize the earring
as her daughter's. Corporal Renee Schuler turned the earring over to Detective
Savage who prepared a report dated February 7, 1992. The report notes that
the earring was shown to Mr. Yunkin:
On 02-07-92, this officer showed the pearl stud earring to Lawrence Yunkin.
At that time, Yunkin stated that he is sure that Michelle Lambert did, in fact,
own a set of earrings exactly like the earring that this officer presented to him.
Yunkin stated he does not recall when Michelle may have worn said earrings,
did not recall if she had this type of earring on the morning of 12-20-91 and
did not recall Tabatha Buck having earrings on on 12-20-91. Yunkin stated
that other than remembering that Lambert had earrings exactly like these, he
could provide no other information as to where they were at this time when
she wore them or any other information.
Petitioner's contends that there is misconduct associated with this pearl

earring. Specifically, she claims that the report of Detective Savage,
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1190), was a "deliberate falsification of evidence" because
Mr. Yunkin had told the police on February 5, 1992, that he sometimes wore
the earring. Petitioner is actually referring to the testimony of Detective Barley
from the PCRA hearing. Detective Barley testified that Mr. Yunkin told him
he wore "an earring." (N.T., PCRA at 677.) Mr. Yunkin never acknowledged
to Detective Barley that he wore that specific pearl earring. The most Mr.
Yunkin said was that on occasion he wore an earring similar to that one but did
not state or admit that he wore that earring at any time.
Whether or not Mr. Yunkin acknowledged that he wore the pearl earring found
in the Show condominium, there is no proof whatsoever of destruction of
evidence, after-discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct or any other
untoward behavior regarding the pearl earring. In fact, Ms. Lambert' s defense
counsel at trial emphasized the earring and suggested very strongly that Mr.
Yunkin wore that earring that morning. Roy Shirk had available to him Mr.
Yunkin's printed statement, a 19-page document, which was marked in the
PCRA hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 1661. Mr. Shirk was aware that the
earring had been found in the condominium, was aware that Mr. Yunkin wore
earrings, and worked very hard to find someone who could say that Mr.
Yunkin wore that pearl earring. In the PCRA hearing, Mr. Shirk testified that
Richard Jeffries "went to great lengths . . . to find people who had seen Mr.
Yunkin wearing that earring." (N.T., PCRA at 3388.) Ms. Lambert had told
Mr. Shirk that Mr. Yunkin wore that specific earring.
Assuming the complete truth of all of petitioner's allegations regarding
misconduct as to the earring, they come to nothing. Mr. Shirk believed that
Mr. Yunkin wore the earring, searched for witnesses to support this, and crossexamined Mr. Yunkin on whether he wore the earring. He could have done
nothing more with the earring at trial.
Mr. Shirk cross-examined Mr. Yunkin about the pearl earring in a thorough
and forceful way. It was obvious to the court that Mr. Shirk was prepared on
this issue and he, in fact, established that the earring was one that Mr. Yunkin
had worn on occasion or similar to one that Mr. Yunkin had worn on occasion.
Mr. Shirk showed Mr. Yunkin a photograph of the pearl earring at trial and
asked him if he been shown that by the police. Mr. Yunkin testified that he did
talk about the earring with the police and said, "I said it looks like an earring
that Michelle owns." (N.T., Trial at 258.) Mr. Shirk then asked him:
Q. But who wore them?
A. I wore -- About three times I wore one.
Q. You wore the pearl earrings?
A. One,, yes.
(N.T., Trial at 258-59.)
Mr. Yunkin went on to tell Mr. Shirk at trial that he had told the police he
wore the earring. Mr. Shirk then argued to the court that the police
intentionally left out a reference to Mr. Yunkin's wearing the earring in the
report they filed. He also accused the police of leaving that information out of
Mr. Yunkin's statement. In fact, Mr. Yunkin was not certain that he told the
police about the earring in giving his statement. He was sure that he told
Corporal Solt about the earring in his meeting with Corporal Solt just prior to
trial. (N.T., Trial at 259.)
Mr. Shirk moved for a mistrial on the basis of the Commonwealth's failing to
disclose to him that Mr. Yunkin wore the pearl earring. Mr. Shirk argued that
the defense was not notified that Mr. Yunkin wore a pearl earring like that and
contended "it was kept out of his statement." (N.T., Trial at 1181.) Mr.
Kenneff noted to the court that he found out that Mr. Yunkin wore the pearl
earring from Mr. Shirk. (N.T., Trial at 1197.) The court found there to be no
prejudice and no evidence that the information was "kept out of the statement"
or withheld from the defense. Mr. Shirk made every good use of the
information about the pearl earring in cross-examining Mr. Yunkin. Under
cross-examination by Mr. Shirk, Mr. Yunkin admitted that he wore a pearl
earring. That appears to the court to be the most use Mr. Shirk could have
made of the earring at trial.
The earring itself was apparently a generic pearl-like earring, as described by a
number of witnesses. There was nothing distinctive about the earring. In fact,
the earring could have come from Mr. Yunkin, from Ms. Lambert or from Ms.
Buck. We ruled out the fact that it may have come from Laurie Show because
her mother stated early on in the investigation that her daughter did not own an
earring like that. The fact that Mr. Yunkin wore earrings and the fact that the
earring was of a generic type does not establish what petitioner wants to
establish: that Mr. Yunkin wore that earring in the condominium that morning
and that it fell out while he was murdering Laurie Show. There simply is no
factual basis for this finding nor is there enough of a basis to draw any
inference in petitioner's favor on this point.
O. Robert Reed's Testimony
Robert S. Reed was called as a witness by petitioner. Mr. Reed is a former
East Lampeter Township police officer who participated to some extent in the
investigation of this case. Mr. Reed was called as a witness in the PCRA
hearing on May 11, 1998. Two days before that, he had been convicted of
several felonies involving sexual assaults on a minor. At least two of these
charges carried with them mandatory minimum sentences of five years each.
When Mr. Reed came into the courtroom, he stated his name and then
indicated that he did not wish to answer questions. He was given an
opportunity during a recess to consult with his attorney and then returned to
the witness stand. At that time, the following colloquy occurred:
THE COURT: Mr. Reed, you indicated a few moments ago that you did not
wish to answer any questions until you had a chance to speak with your
attorney. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Have you had a chance now to speak with your
attorney?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And is that Attorney Robert Reese?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
THE COURT: Having spoken with Mr. Reese, do you wish to answer
questions at this time?
THE WITNESS: No, I do not.
THE COURT: And why is that, Mr. Reed?
THE WITNESS: At this time I'd just like to reserve that for a later time, your
Honor. I have no explanation at this time. I just don't want to answer any
questions.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Reed, is your refusal to answer any questions today
motivated in any way by a concern against self incrimination?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
(N.T., PCRA at 1539-40.)
At that point, a conference was held at sidebar with counsel. Counsel

discussed with the court whether there was a legitimate Fifth Amendment
privilege which could be invoked by Mr. Reed. The court then explained to
Mr. Reed that if he refused to answer a question, the court could direct him to
answer and his failure to comply could result in a contempt citation. The court
further advised him that if it was a matter of self incrimination, he could
invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United State Constitution
and, if satisfied that there was a basis on which to invoke the privilege, we
would not direct him to answer the question.
Our research on this issue during the trial disclosed that a witness's right to
invoke the Fifth Amendment extends to potential criminal liability that is
collateral or remote. This court was aware that Officer Reed was one of the
police officers whose conduct was condemned by the federal district court in
1997 and who was referred to the United States Attorney's Office for
investigation. This court has no idea as to the status or progress of any such
investigation. However, the fact remained on May 11, 1998, that there was a
potential open investigation in the United States Attorney's Office in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and that answers to any questions put to Mr.
Reed during the PCRA hearing could have bearing on his culpability on any
charges or allegations being investigated by the United States Attorney. This
court honestly believed that the privilege would apply even if the possibility of
investigation, charges or conviction in federal court was remote.(103)
<, P>The court then gave permission to petitioner's counsel to question Mr. Reed. In
response to a series of questions, he asserted his privilege under the Fifth Amendment
and refused to answer. It became clear that he was asserting this privilege as to every
question. For example, he responded to a question as to his employment status by
invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege:
Q. Mr. Reed, where were you employed in 1991?

A. I'm refusing to answer that under the Fifth Amendment.
(N.T., PCRA at 1544-45.)
We ruled that it was proper for Mr. Reed to invoke the Fifth Amendment
privilege in light of the allegations made in the federal proceeding. The
question remains for our purposes, what is the remedy? Petitioner's counsel
argue that we should draw an adverse inference to his assertion of the Fifth
Amendment privilege on each question. The Commonwealth contends that Mr.
Reed should be considered "unavailable" and that his testimony in the federal
proceeding should be used as his testimony in this proceeding.
Generally, the fact finder may not draw an inference from a witness's exercise
of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself regardless of whether the
inference is favorable to the prosecution or the defense. Commonwealth v.
Greene, 445 Pa. 228, 231, 285 A.2d 865, 867 (1971). In this case, the initial
colloquy with Mr. Reed disclosed that he was not so much concerned about
self incrimination as he was simply unwilling to participate in the hearing.
Given his apparent state of mind following the conviction on the sex offenses,
this was understandable. With the explanation given to him as to his options in
answering questions, it appears that Mr. Reed used the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self incrimination as a "ticket" to not answer any questions.

He appeared hostile to the proceedings and, at one point, refused to look at the
river search videotape which was played directly in front of him and about
which he was asked some questions. The court noted for the record that Mr.
Reed did not look at the television screen for the entire eight minutes it took to
play the video. (N.T., PCRA at 1554.) It appears that Mr. Reed may well have
been angry with himself or at the world. In any, case, this led to a, wholesale
lack , of cooperation with counsel's questions.
Given the circumstances and in light of Greene, it seems appropriate to
consider Mr. Reed "unavailable." We have, therefore, considered his testimony
from the federal proceeding, which was presented on Monday, April 14, 1997,
the tenth day of the habeas corpus hearing. (N.T., Habeas Hearing at 21842228.)
P. Proposed Admissions from the Federal Record
On June 10, 1998, counsel for petitioner submitted a document entitled
"Petitioner Lisa Lambert's List of Admissions to be Offered into Evidence."
The document contains a long listing of page references from the transcript of
the federal habeas proceeding involving the testimony of Detective Solt,
former Detective Barley, Officer Bowman, Mr. Kenneff, former Chief Jacob
A. Glick, District Justice Savage, Lieutenant Renee Schuler and Officer
Weaver. Each of these witnesses was called by petitioner at the PCRA hearing.
The proposed admissions refer to substantial portions of the deposition and
federal court testimony of these witnesses. They are offered in this proceeding
as "admissions" by these witnesses. We addressed the proposed use of
petitioner's federal habeas corpus record in this proceeding in an opinion filed
April 6, 1998. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 76 Lanc. L. Rev. 169 (1998).
In that opinion, we considered the various arguments in favor of the request
that we accept the federal habeas record as the evidentiary record for the
PCRA. We ruled at that time that there is no basis in law or in common sense
for so doing. With respect to the federal habeas record, we noted:
This is not to say that the record produced in April 1997 in federal court
cannot be put to any use in this proceeding. As all parties have agreed, the
record contains testimony under oath and may be used in the same way prior
testimony under oath can be used in any proceeding. The court would prefer
not to decide this case on a series of admissions extracted from depositions and
from the federal record. The court is aware that Rule 1507, 'Disposition
Without Hearing,' provides for the disposition of a petition without a hearing
when the petition and answer show that there is no genuine issue concerning
any material fact. Pa. R. Crim. P. 1506(b). The court does not view this Rule
as an invitation to the parties to submit this case in a posture similar to a
motion for summary judgment under Rules 1035.1 through 1035.5 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure.
76 Lanc. L. Rev. at 182.

Our position has not changed since that time. In fact, counsel for petitioner put
the federal habeas record to good use during the PCRA proceeding. The record
was used to impeach witnesses, to refresh the recollection of witnesses and, in
the case of Officer Reed, to provide testimony where a witness has become
"unavailable" for the PCRA hearing. The wholesale use of testimony from the
federal proceeding and the ensuing necessary argument as to whether certain
statements constitute admissions under the law was precisely what we hoped
to avoid in holding a PCRA hearing. Now, after a lengthy hearing, we believe
the request that we consider statements from the federal proceeding as
"admissions" is superfluous. We, therefore, deny the request that the proposed
admissions contained in petitioner's pleading be used as evidence in this case.
Q. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel of Roy D. Shirk, Esquire
The elements of a PCRA ineffective assistance of counsel claim are discussed
in Section III.B.1.b, supra, of this opinion. As to each allegation of ineffective
assistance, Ms. Lambert must show: (1) there is merit to the underlying claim;
(2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his course of conduct; and (3) that
there is a reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question, the
outcome of the proceeding would have been different. There are 22 allegations
of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding Mr. Shirk in petitioner's second
amended petition. (Exhibit A, Section C.) We will address those allegations in
this section.
1. Failing to push for discovery

Mr. Shirk, Ms. Lambert's trial counsel, did, in fact, request discovery. He
requested and "pushed for" all information to which he was entitled under Pa.
R. Crim. P. 305. In fact, Mr. Shirk requested a conference with the court on
discovery and presented his concerns before trial.
Petitioner criticizes Mr. Shirk for failing to obtain the level of discovery she
achieved in the federal habeas proceeding. The simple answer to that is the
Rules of Criminal Procedure in Pennsylvania do not provide for that kind of
discovery. In the federal proceeding, petitioner's counsel took in excess of 50
depositions and caused the production of attorney work product from the
prosecuting attorney. The level of discovery permitted by the district court far
exceeded the scope of discovery under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure. This court is satisfied that Mr. Shirk made a request for all
materials discoverable under Pa. R. Crim. P. 305 and Brady.
2. Failing to call character witnesses
This issue has been previously litigated. This court considered the claim raised
by Mr. Epstein on behalf of Ms. Lambert. See Commonwealth v. Lambert,
March 14, 1995, slip op. at 6-24. No additional evidence was offered on this
issue at the PCRA hearing.
3. Failing to use an expert in speech
Mr. Shirk retained a well known forensic pathologist, Dr. Mihalakis, to testify
on the issue of speech in this case. Dr. Mihalakis prepared a report for Mr.
Shirk in which he discussed the possibilities of speech for Laurie Show.
The "underlying claim" here is that a speech expert would have established
that Laurie Show could not have spoken to her mother. This is a claim of
questionable merit. As we have seen from the lengthy testimony at the PCRA
hearing, this is an area on which experts sharply disagree. We have had the
opportunity to consider the testimony of Dr. Larson in this case. We find that
there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would
have been different had Mr. Shirk called Dr. Larson or an expert in Dr.
Larson's
field to testify at the trial. For a more complete discussion of the impact of
expert testimony on the issue of Laurie Show's dying declaration, see Section
VII.A, supra.
4. Failing to use an expert on abuse and rape trauma
Mr. Shirk cannot be ineffective for failing to call an expert on a subject that is
not relevant under Pennsylvania law. Had Mr. Shirk presented Dr. Burgess or
a similar expert at trial, she/he would not have been permitted to testify. See
discussion of this issue in Section VII.C, supra.
5. Failing to use an expert in pathology
In fact, Mr. Shirk did use an expert in pathology. Dr. Mihalakis was unable to
determine whether the major vessels in Laurie Show's neck were cut. As we
have seen, Dr. Penades, who performed the autopsy, and Dr. Annese, a throat
surgeon who attended the autopsy, testified that the major vessels were not cut.
Specifically, petitioner is referring to the carotid artery. Drs. Baden and
Smialek, world renowned forensic pathologists called by petitioner at the
PCRA hearing, could not offer an opinion as to whether the carotid artery was
cut. All the information made available to them would have been available to a
pathologist retained by Mr. Shirk at the time of trial. Drs. Burton and Ross
offered opinions based upon the autopsy photographs and the autopsy report
that the carotid was not cut.
We find that no expert, EMT or board certified forensic pathologist, could
have countered the clear and unequivocal testimony of Drs. Penades and
Annese that the carotid artery was intact.
6. Failing to use an expert in crime scene photography
Petitioner contends that her expert in crime scene photography, Stephen Hale,
has demonstrated that the prosecution has destroyed evidence. We have not
been able to make that finding based upon the testimony of Stephen Hale. Mr.
Hale basically testified that he would have done a better job than Troopers
Suber and Reeves. That does not establish that the state police or the East
Lampeter Township police destroyed evidence. There is no merit to this claim.
7. Failing to use an expert in document authenticity
This is an interesting claim in light of William Ries's testimony that he could
not determine whether Ms. Lambert's statement was altered or fabricated. Mr.
Ries was the document expert called by petitioner in this PCRA hearing. Upon
examination of the five and one-half typewritten pages and the one and onehalf handwritten pages, Mr. Ries could not say whether Ms. Lambert's
signature was placed on the statement before or after the statement was
prepared.
The wild assertion that Ms. Lambert's statement was fabricated is simply
contrary to the evidence. We discussed this issue in Section VII.L, supra. In
light of Ms. Lambert's testimony at trial that her statement contains that which
she told Corporal Solt, in light of Mr. Shirk's testimony at the PCRA hearing
that he went over the statement with her very carefully and in light of her letter
of December 23, 1991, where she adopts the portion of the statement which is
handwritten, an attack on the authenticity of her statement at trial would have
been a peculiar move indeed for Mr. Shirk.
8. Failing to give Ms. Lambert her statement to review
There is no merit to this claim. See Section VII.L, supra.
9. Failing to attack Detective Barley about the pink bag
Mr. Shirk viewed the edited river search video, which shows a pink bag
embedded in ice. He was present for Detective Barley's testimony at trial that
the police did not find the trash bag. Mr. Shirk did not confront Detective
Barley about this inconsistency. There are three possible explanations for this:
(1) Mr. Shirk did not make the connection and missed an opportunity to
impeach Detective Barley; (2) Mr. Shirk did not find there to be anything of
evidentiary value about the pink trash bag; or (3) Mr. Shirk was aware that a
bag was found but chose not to highlight this issue as it was strongly
suggestive of Ms. Lambert's involvement in the murder.
Given the level of Mr. Shirk's preparation for trial and his understanding of the
factual and legal issues, it is unlikely that he simply "missed" an opportunity to
impeach Detective Barley. It is more likely that he chose to keep his client as
far away from the trash bag as possible because of the implications arising
from her knowledge of or disposal of the bag. It is equally likely that he, in
essence, agreed with Detective Barley that there was nothing of evidentiary
value found in the bag. In the event that Mr. Shirk considered the pink trash
bag a collateral issue, he showed good sense and effective trial strategy by not
impeaching Detective Barley on a collateral issue.
10. Failing to have Ms. Lambert and her family testify about the "29
questions"
Mr. Shirk made a strategic decision as to the use of the "29 questions" at trial.
It was his purpose to use the document to demonstrate Mr. Yunkin's
involvement in the murder. The "29 questions" did nothing to exculpate Ms.
Lambert. In fact, in that suspect document, she refers to "our prank," she refers
to "Laurie's scary dead eyestare," and she acknowledges participating in the
conspiracy and the cover up. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1119; Addendum to this
Opinion.) To open the door through Ms. Lambert's testimony to these issues
would have served no purpose. There has been no showing here by petitioner
that anyone in the Lambert family had any light to shed on the "29 questions."
11. Failing to get an expert to replace Dr. Mihalakis
Petitioner contends that Mr. Shirk should have sought a continuance or
obtained an expert to replace Dr. Mihalakis. This issue is the subject of the
discussion in Section VII.H, supra.
With the considerable testimony on Laurie Show's ability to speak, the damage
done to Laurie Show's neck and her physical condition following the assault
that morning, we know that the subject matter of Dr. Mihalakis's testimony is a
subject matter upon which experts disagree. We have had the benefit of three
well qualified experts who offered their opinions that Laurie Show could not
have spoken. We have the benefit of three experts who say that Laurie Show
could have spoken. As we noted in Section VII.A, supra, "Laurie Show's
Dying Declaration," this is an area where the expert testimony is one factor to
be considered on the question of Mrs. Show's credibility as to the "dying
declaration."
With the benefit of all the expert discussion at the PCRA hearing, we can say
with confidence that Mr. Shirk's finding an expert to replace Dr. Mihalakis
would not have changed the outcome of this proceeding. Our conclusion now
is the same as our conclusion then. The additional mountain of expert
opinions, pro and con, has not changed that finding.
12. Failing to present evidence available that showed Mr. Yunkin's

involvement
Here petitioner is referring specifically to the statement made by Mr. Yunkin
to Hector Feliciano as he (Yunkin) was leaving work the week before the
murder. The out-of-court statement by Mr. Yunkin to Mr. Feliciano is hearsay.
Mr. Shirk is not ineffective for failing to elicit hearsay from a witness. In fact,
Mr. Shirk articulated a legitimate tactical reason for keeping the Feliciano
statement out of evidence. See discussion of Brady/Giglio claim 12, infra.
13. Failed to have John Balshy look at other writings in blood at the scene
John C. Balshy testified at trial that the letters "T" and "B" were written in
blood on the closet door. (N.T., Trial at 956.) This court viewed the
photographs at trial and did not agree with Mr. Balshy's "findings."
It is interesting to note that at the PCRA hearing, Mr. Shirk's own investigator,
Richard Jeffries, felt the same way. In fact, it was Mr. Jeffries who contacted
Mr. Balshy in 1992. When Mr. Balshy contacted Mr. Jeffries about his
"finding" the letters written in blood, Mr. Jeffries disagreed with him. Mr.
Jeffries testified at the PCRA hearing that he continues to believe that those
letters are not written in blood on the closet door. (N.T., PCRA at 7694.) This
court found Mr. Balshy less than credible on that point. See Section VII.M,
supra.
Mr. Shirk is not ineffective for failing to ask Mr. Balshy to look at other
writings in blood at the scene given the fact that his testimony as to the
writings he "found" was incredible. It certainly did not undermine the truthdetermining process.
14. Failed to recognize that the last part of Ms. Lambert's statement was
altered
This issue has been considered in Section VII.L, supra, and in our discussion
of allegation of ineffective assistance 7, supra, in this section.
Two brief points bear repeating. One, Ms. Lambert acknowledged in her
testimony at trial that her statement was accurate. Two, Ms. Lambert wrote a
letter on December 23, 1991, to Mr. Yunkin where she adopted the
information contained in the last page of her statement. There is no evidence
whatsoever in this or any other record that the last page of her statement was
"obviously altered."
15. Failed to present available evidence that Mr. Yunkin was lying about
what Ms. Lambert wore during the murder
Petitioner contends that Mr. Shirk was ineffective because he failed to present
available evidence that Mr. Yunkin was lying about what Ms. Lambert wore
during the murder.
Mr. Shirk cross-examined Mr. Yunkin on his recollection of what Ms.
Lambert was wearing. Mr. Shirk made a point of arguing to this court that Mr.
Yunkin must have been lying in that testimony. All of the "inconsistent"
statements made by Mr. Yunkin regarding Ms. Lambert's attire that morning
were available to Mr. Shirk. Mr. Shirk fully and completely litigated this issue
in the trial. There is no merit to the claim set forth in the petition on this point.
16. Failed to present available corroborating evidence about the date rape
Petitioner claims that Mr. Shirk was ineffective in that he failed to present
evidence corroborating the Yunkin date rape of the victim. In the first place,
the police reports are hearsay and would not have been admissible at trial.
There does not appear to be any credible evidence that there was, in fact, such
a date rape. There were suggestions and references made as to this possibility
in police reports. That is not competent evidence. Mr. Shirk was not
ineffective for the failure to offer hearsay at trial.
17. Failed to point out the time of death as listed on the autopsy report
The autopsy report notes the time of death as 7:15 a.m. This is simply contrary
to a significant amount of evidence. Perhaps Mr. Shirk understood that the
time on the autopsy report was an approximation. Perhaps Mr. Shirk was
aware that the 911 call had been made at 7:35 a.m. and that persons on the
scene saw signs of life after the call. Whether Mr. Shirk was aware of that or
not in 1992, we are certainly aware of those facts today. There is no merit to
the claim.
18. Failed to present evidence that Ms. Lambert was not jealous
To suggest that Ms. Lambert was not jealous of Mr. Yunkin's involvement
with Laurie Show in the summer of 1991 would be a significant departure
from reality. At trial, there was, as Mr. Shirk described, a "parade" of teenage
witnesses who described the animosity from Ms. Lambert to Laurie Show at
that time. Mrs. Show testified as to specific incidents in which Ms. Lambert
acted in an irrational, hysterical and jealous rage.
The fact that Michelle Lambert might have been sexually active with another
man during the summer of 1991 does not establish a lack of jealousy. It would
probably not have been effective trial strategy for Mr. Shirk to enhance his
client's outrageous behavior in the summer of 1991 with proof of some sexual
promiscuity. In any event, this contention has no merit.
19. Failed to present evidence in news video footage that Ms. Lambert did
not appear pregnant
There was no evidence offered at the PCRA hearing on this claim.
20. Failed to present evidence of Mr. Yunkin's scratches and bruises

As with so many of these issues, petitioner never really presented any evidence
in support of this contention. After nearly nine weeks of hearing testimony, we
do not know whether there exists any "news footage" showing that Mr. Yunkin
had scratches and/or bruises on his face. What we do know is that the prison
records show that he had no bruises or scratches upon his commitment to
Lancaster County Prison on December 21, 1991. (Commonwealth's Exhibit
49.) The nurse who did his intake physical examination at the prison on
December 21 testified that he had no scratches or bruises. (N.T., PCRA at
6354.) There is no merit to this contention.
21. Failed to present evidence of "another Michelle"
The contention that there was "another Michelle" who had been "involved with
the victim" is very misleading. There certainly was no person at any time
material to this case who was "involved with the victim" to the extent that Lisa
Michelle Lambert was "involved with the victim." To suggest that Laurie
Show might have known another girl named Michelle is of no consequence.
The inference here is that Laurie Show was referring to this other Michelle in
her dying declaration. Given the history between Ms. Lambert and Laurie
Show, given what we know of Ms. Lambert's participation that morning by her
own admission, and given the demonstrated fear Ms. Show had of Michelle
Lambert during the summer and fall of 1991, to suggest that the dying
declaration may have referred to another Michelle has no basis in fact.
22. Failed to get Ms. Lambert's statement suppressed due to a violation of

Pennsylvania's six hour rule
The "six hour rule" issue did not surface until Detective Solt was testifying in
the PCRA hearing on May 20, 1998. Detective Solt testified that he took a
statement from Ms. Lambert and that at around 4 o'clock in the morning on
December 21, 1991, he telephoned Assistant District Attorney Kenneff to
consult with him. (N.T., PCRA at 3076-77.) The subject matter of this
consultation was whether the questioning could proceed in light of the "six
hour rule." Displaying some confusion over this issue, petitioner's counsel
asked Detective Solt to explain. He went on to explain to them that a person in
custody must be arraigned within six hours and that a statement taken beyond
this six hour period from the time of arrest might well be illegal. (N.T., PCRA
at 3079-80.)
The second amended petition was submitted to the court by petitioner on June
10, 1998, during the hearing and after Detective Solt's testimony. This
amended petition contains this allegation of ineffective assistance based on the
"six hour rule." This "learn as you go" approach has led to yet another
frivolous issue introduced into this hearing. We will address the issue because
it has been raised.
In Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a statement taken from a defendant
more than six hours after arrest may be suppressed. This rule was qualified in
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. Super. 395, 525 A.2d 1177 (1987). Our
courts have since held that the Duncan/Davenport rule is not to be applied in
a mechanistic fashion. Voluntary statements given by a defendant and initiated
within six hours after arrest may not be suppressed just because the process of
obtaining the statement runs over six hours. Commonwealth v. Odrick, 410
Pa. Super. 245, 599 A.2d 974 (1991). See also Commonwealth v. Bond, 539
Pa. 299, 652 A.2d 308 (1995).
Detective Solt's candid testimony about his concerns for the
Duncan/Davenport rule were intended to explain why he broke off the
interview. Mr. Kenneff advised him that he could take no new information but
that he could obtain clarifications and confirmations of information he had
already taken from Ms. Lambert.
Mr. Shirk was asked by petitioner's counsel why he did not have the statement
suppressed. He testified that he was familiar with the Duncan/Davenport rule
and that he felt it would be a fruitless exercise to seek to have the statement
suppressed. He noted that Ms. Lambert all but confirmed the contents of her
statement in the letter of December 23,1991, to Mr. Yunkin. Second, he was
aware that recent developments in the law would probably have supported the
use of the statement because Ms. Lambert had begun the statement within the
six hour period of time. Further, the last part of the statement, where she
changed her story as to her attire at the time of the murder, was apparently
given voluntarily and not in response to questions.
Mr. Epstein, a specialist in criminal law from Philadelphia and Ms. Lambert's
appellate counsel, testified that he did not think there was any merit to a
suppression issue based on the Duncan/Davenport rule.
Mr. Shirk stated a clear tactical reason for not seeking to suppress the
statement. He certainly had a reasonable basis for his course of conduct. The
content of Ms. Lambert's statement, even if the statement itself had been
suppressed, would have been admitted through her subsequent letters and
statements to others.
R. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel of Jules Epstein, Esquire

Ms. Lambert contends that Mr. Epstein was ineffective. Mr. Epstein was hired
as appellate counsel to pursue the issues raised on appeal by Mr. Shirk. Mr.
Epstein was given permission to expand on these issues in his amended post
verdict motions. Petitioner contends that he was ineffective for failing to
address "the many irregularities in the record." This allegation is too vague to
merit any response. The court is uncertain as to these "irregularities" and
dismisses this contention as having no merit.
Petitioner contends that Mr. Epstein was ineffective for failing to call the
experts that petitioner's counsel called at the federal habeas hearing. In fact,
Mr. Epstein was pursuing an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Typically, expert witnesses do not testify in the appellate courts. Mr. Epstein
may also have recognized that expert testimony is not after-discovered
evidence and chose not to call these experts in the post verdict hearing. There
simply is no merit to the claim that he should have called experts during the
appeal process.
Petitioner's contention that he failed to raise all the claims contained in the
petition for writ of habeas corpus and that he failed to move for discovery is
misguided. Mr. Epstein was pursuing a remedy in a different forum. He was
pursuing a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Perhaps had the
Lambert family retained him to file a Post Conviction Relief Act petition after
the direct appeals had been exhausted, this might have been a different story.
His appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court would not have been the
appropriate place to move for discovery or to raise the various issues raised in
the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Mr. Epstein was certainly not ineffective for failing to raise the "six hour rule."
He made a reasonable judgment there was no Duncan/Davenport issue. We
discussed this issue in the section above regarding Mr. Shirk. The same
analysis applies.
Finally, the contention that Mr. Epstein was ineffective for failing to preserve
issues raised by Mr. Shirk has no merit. He chose to proceed with those issues
he found to be meritorious. This was within his professional judgment.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he was without a reasonable basis for his
course of conduct.
S. Mr. Madenspacher's "Concession"
Petitioner contends that the District Attorney of Lancaster County has gone on
record as agreeing that she is entitled to relief. This argument appears
throughout her pleadings and briefs in this and other courts.
This issue arises from a discussion which took place during the habeas corpus
proceeding following Mrs. Show's testimony in the district court's chambers.
At that time, Mrs. Show informed the court and counsel of her new
recollection about seeing Mr. Yunkin's car in the condominium complex on
the morning of December 20, 1991. After Mrs. Show's in-chambers testimony,
District Attorney Madenspacher conceded that "some relief. . . is justified in
this particular case." (N.T., Habeas Hearing at 2701.) The district court then
asked: "So, are we agreed that the Petitioner will tonight be released into the
custody of Ms. Rainville?" To which Mr. Madenspacher replied, "I don't see
how I can object to that, your Honor." (N.T., Habeas Hearing at 2704.)
This "concession" has been offered as justification, in and of itself, of Ms.
Lambert's entitlement to the habeas, and now PCRA, relief. To contend that
the Commonwealth has somehow agreed that Ms. Lambert should be released,
should be given a new trial or should be declared innocent, ignores Mr.
Madenspacher's actions on the record of the federal habeas proceeding the
very next day. When court convened, Mr. Madenspacher made an oral motion
for reconsideration and a stay of the district court's order of the previous day
granting relief to Ms. Lambert:
MR. MADENSPACHER: . . . .
Yesterday, you Ordered the interim relief of petitioner.
THE COURT: With the consent of the Commonwealth.
MR. MADENSPACHER: Your Honor, I agree I agreed to that. In retrospect, I
was wrong.
I reviewed carefully last night the testimony of what went on inside Chambers,
and I said I still feel that certain significant things have happened regarding
Mrs. Show, and I had an obligation to make that clear to the Court.
But in reading it carefully, you said that: This testimony is totally consistent
with what Miss Lambert has said since 1992.
In retrospect, when I consider that, that is wrong, your Honor.
Miss Lambert consistently since her trial, and even in this proceeding, has
maintained that she was never in that apartment complex.
(N.T., Habeas Hearing at 2791.)
The significance of Mr. Madenspacher's statement on the day after the

"concession" is that he retracted his statement of the previous day. The Third
Circuit took pains to point this out. In the Third Circuit's opinion on the
subject of the District Attorney's "concession," the court pointed out that the
district court "did not recognize that the Commonwealth withdrew this
concession the very next day." 134 F.3d 511 n.11. The Court of Appeals
clarified, and this court believes, that the "concession," to the extent there ever
was a concession, to relief, was withdrawn on the record at the next available
opportunity. We find no basis in this record to grant relief on the basis of any
agreement or concession by the Commonwealth.
T. Brady/Giglio Violations
In the most recently amended PCRA petition, petitioner sets forth a catalog of
Brady/Giglio violations under the general heading of "A Miscarriage of
Justice was Caused by Many Acts of Intentional Prosecutorial Misconduct."
(Exhibit A, Section B.) These begin at page 14 of Exhibit A and the
numbering begins with the number 32 in a series of allegations of intentional
prosecutorial misconduct. To address these Brady/Giglio claims, we will
follow the numbering system in the petition. A discussion of the legal issues
raised by these Brady/Giglio claims can be found in Section III.B.1.a and
Section VII.F.2, supra.
We will refer to these as Brady claims, unless otherwise noted. Brady
requires the disclosure of exculpatory material to the defense. Giglio extends
Brady to include material pertinent to the credibility of witnesses.
32. Failed to disclose the identify of the medical people at the crime scene
Corporal Renee Schuler's report of December 31, 1991, contains two
references to ambulance vehicles present on the scene that morning.
(Petitioner's Exhibit 1607, Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.)(104) This report was
turned over to Mr. Shirk in discovery prior to the trial. Mr. Shirk had every
opportunity to obtain the identity of each person from the investigating police
officers or from the Community Hospital or East Lampeter Township
Ambulance Departments, interview them and determine whether to call them
as witnesses at trial. They were not kept secret. Brady does not require that the
Commonwealth do the investigative work for defense counsel. There was no
question and no secret about the fact that emergency personnel were all over
the crime scene that morning. As to the allegation that three "medical people"
determined that the victim's carotid artery was severed, that is, in fact, a
miscasting of the evidence. Mr. Zeyak is certain it was severed, Ms. Harrison
testified that she was influenced by Mr. Zeyak's recollection and Mr. May
believes it was severed. This issue is addressed more completely in Section
VII.A., supra.
33. Failed to disclose that the Chapmans were at the scene prior to the
medical people
Mr. Chapman was referred to in Corporal Renee Schuler's report of December
31, 1991. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1607; Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.) Mr. Shirk
was aware that he had been in the condominium and had every right and
opportunity to interview him and call him as a witness.
34. Failed to disclose that victim's carotid artery was severed
See Section VII.A, supra.
35. Failed to disclose that Tom Chapman made a call to 911

Mr. Chapman was referred to in Corporal Renee Schuler's report of December
31, 1991. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1607; Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.)
Mr. Chapman's identity and his presence at the scene that morning were
known to the police and, through the discovery process, known to Mr. Shirk.
In fact, the report identifies Mr. Chapman as the person making the 911 call.
36. Failed to disclose that Ms. Berry saw Hazel Show leave the school at
7:25
Corporal Renee Schuler's report of January 2, 1992, (Petitioner's Exhibit
2081), indicates that Mrs. Show spoke to a secretary at Conestoga Valley
Junior High School on the morning of December 20, 1991. There has been no
showing that the investigating police officer knew the identity of the secretary
or attached any importance to the identity of the secretary with whom Mrs.
Show spoke. There is no evidence in this hearing of an intentional failure to
disclose that name. In fact, the report reflects that there was a conversation
between Mrs. Show and a secretary and certainly the identity of the secretary
could have been easily determined had defense counsel chosen to contact
Conestoga Valley.
This was not a Brady violation. Mr. Shirk was aware from the January 2,
1992, report that Mrs. Show spoke to a secretary immediately before leaving
the school. The report was among the documents produced to him in
discovery. (See Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.) In her testimony in this court,
Ms. Berry testified that Mrs. Show left the school at "approximately 7:25 a.m."
(N.T., PCRA at 52.) It was necessary for Ms. Berry to review a police report to
refresh her recollection. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2035) She did not recall
looking at the clock. She admitted: "I don't remember anything definite about
what time she left." (N.T., PCRA at 53.) She recalls that Mrs. Show left prior
to the arrival of the secretary who gets in at 7:30 a.m. (Id.) This is far from
precise. It is the best recollection available to Ms. Berry and her testimony was
credible to this court. Did the secretary who gets in at 7:30 get in five minutes
early or five minutes late? Did Mrs. Show leave ten minutes before that
secretary arrived? Fifteen minutes? Five minutes?
From the various times described by various witnesses in 1992 and at the 1998
PCRA hearing, it is likely that many of these times were approximations and
estimates. There is no evidence that all relevant parties had coordinated their
watches or any testimony that each was going by a certain clock. The only
time that appears to be in any way certain was the time the 911 call was
received by Lancaster County Wide Communications, that is, 7:35 a.m. Given
the fact that Ms. Berry's testimony about time was an approximation and given
the fact that there are variables affecting the time line that morning, Ms.
Berry's testimony as presented to this court in the PCRA hearing was not
material in the sense that there is no showing that it would have changed the
outcome of the case in 1992.
37. Failed to disclose interview of a neighbor, Lena Fisher, wherein she

stated she heard screams and saw a man leave at 7:15
In fact, this "man" appears to have been Brad Heisler. What were not
"disclosed" were Corporal Renee Schuler's own personal notes from her
interviews and discussions during the early stage of the investigation. There is
absolutely no duty under Brady or under Rule 305 for a prosecuting officer or
investigating officer to disclose his or her personal notes. In fact, the subject
matter of these "notes" could reasonably been have viewed as included in the
various police reports regarding the events of that morning. There are reports
noting that Brad Heisler was on the scene, but the reports vary in terms of the
timing and location of his presence. From the various reports, we can conclude
that Mr. Heisler came to pick Laurie Show up for school and that he went into
the condominium very briefly after the Kleinhans went in but before the police
arrived. This would be entirely consistent with Lena Fisher's observations as
noted by Corporal Schuler.
Lieutenant Renee Schuler testified at the PCRA hearing that her notes, taken in
shorthand, confirmed an observation by Ms. Fisher, that she saw Brad and
another man "stop and leave." (N.T., PCRA at 3827-28.) She never wavered
from this testimony. If this was Ms. Fisher's recollection, then that would be
consistent with Mr. Heisler's brief visit to the condominium that morning.
Petitioner's argument that this is a failure to disclose material information is
premised on an assumption that the "man" was Lawrence Yunkin and that
Corporal Renee Schuler recorded in shorthand that Ms. Fisher saw the man
"stand up and leave." To accept this version, we must accept the expert
testimony on shorthand from Leola Bennett and of two secretaries from
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis that Corporal Schuler actually wrote "stand
up and leave" and not "stop and leave." Lieutenant Schuler testified
unequivocally at the PCRA hearing that she used her own system of shorthand
based on what she learned in school and that the symbol she used was her
symbol for "stop" not "stand up." (N.T., PCRA at 3828.)
38. Failed to disclose that Jim and Craig Ellis denied seeing Mr. Yunkin
at McDonald's
39. Failed to disclose that Ms. Bayan saw Mr. Yunkin driving his car on a
street he said he was not on
See Section VII.F, supra.
40. Failed to disclose that Mr. Yunkin said he drove by "twice"

41. Failed to disclose that Ms. Bayan saw the three suspects in the car at
the condominium
42. Failed to disclose that Ms. Bayan saw Mr. Yunkin drive the getaway
car "fast"
43. Failed to disclose that Mr. Yunkin claimed he was not working on
December 20th
44. Failed to disclose that Mr. Yunkin saw a male student waiting for the
bus and that no one was waiting for the bus that morning
Jay M. Garber testified at the PCRA hearing that he dropped his grandson off
at the bus stop at the entrance to the Oaks Condominium complex that
morning. (N.T., PCRA at 6082.) This establishes that there was someone
waiting for the bus that morning. There is no proof that the police failed to
disclose that Mr. Yunkin told them he saw a male standing waiting for the bus.
45. Failed to disclose that there were multiple blood stains in the hallway
by the front door
Photographs taken by the Pennsylvania State Police at the Show condominium
the morning of the murder were available for inspection by defense counsel.
At the 1992 trial, there was testimony about blood spatter on the wall in the
hallway by the front door.
The only photographs introduced at the PCRA hearing showing blood on the
floor in the hallway were from Compleat Restorations, a company retained to
perform clean-up at the Show condominium. Compleat Restorations came into
the condominium on December 23, 1991, the third day after the murder. In the
interim, police, family, medical personnel, neighbors and friends who assisted
in cleaning up the condominium were in and out of the premises.
To say that the "stains" or "spots" on the floor in the hallway are indicative of
bloody footprints left by the murderer is patently unreliable. Those footprints
could have been placed there by anyone who entered the condominium and
walked in the vicinity of the bedroom.
See Section VII.M., supra.
46. Failed to disclose that the front hallway showed signs of an obvious
struggle
Photographs introduced at the 1992 trial and at the 1998 PCRA hearing clearly
show evidence of some blood spatter on the wall in the hallway. The amount
of blood was relatively insignificant in relation to the amount of the blood in
the bedroom. There was testimony at the trial and argument by counsel as to
the amount of blood in the hallway and as to the significance. There was also
testimony regarding markings on the wall. Finally, Trooper Suber's videotape
clearly shows markings on the wall on the inside of the front door consistent
with a struggle. This court finds no evidence of a Brady violation on this
point.
47. Failed to disclose that Mr. Kleinhans went upstairs and saw the blood
in the hallway
Petitioner has produced no evidence that Mr. Kleinhans told the police that he
saw blood in the hallway that morning. He testified in his deposition and he
testified in the PCRA hearing that he saw blood in the front hallway. Mr.
Kleinhans testified at trial but was not asked, by either side, about what he saw
in the Show residence. Mr. Kleinhans is not the only person who observed the
front hallway. There has never been any question that there was some blood in
the hallway. Mr. Kleinhans had nothing to add on this subject.
48. Failed to disclose the unedited video of the river search

It is clear that there were two videos made of the river search, one recorded by
"Smokey" Roberts containing sound and lasting approximately 13 minutes and
another, also recorded by Mr. Roberts from his original tape, lasting
approximately 8 minutes and containing no sound.
It is equally clear that the editing to the tape was done by Mr. Roberts before
he gave the tape to the police. See Section VII.K, supra. There is no proof that
the police cut, edited, changed or altered the videotape of the river search. It
appears that Mr. Roberts made the decision to remove the sound.
This court had the opportunity to view the edited and the unedited videotapes
on several occasions during the hearing. We viewed the footage of Detective
Barley bending over and looking at what appears to be a pink trash bag. We
heard the statement, "What do you got, a bag?" and we saw Detective Barley
wave at the camera at that time. To this court, sitting as fact finder, there is
nothing about the unedited, longer tape which appears to be in any way sinister
or problematic. Detective Barley's "wave" seemed to be little more than an
indication that there was nothing of significance. It was not the hurried "let's
keep the cameras away from this important evidence" gesture as argued by
petitioner. All that the unedited tape shows is that Detective Barley found a
bag and that it appeared to be a pink trash bag. The edited version, viewed by
Mr. Shirk prior to trial shows a pink bag as well. The edited tape was provided
to Mr. Shirk and he testified that he viewed that tape. (N.T., PCRA at 3363.)
He was, therefore, aware that there was a tape made of the river search and
that a pink bag was found during the course of that search. A police report
produced to him referred to the tape as "edited." (Petitioner's Exhibit 1295;
Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.)
Mr. Shirk could have asked to see the unedited tape. His failure to do so was
not ineffective or negligent. The bottom line is he knew that a pink trash bag
was located by the police and if he thought there was some significance to that,
he could have pursued the issue in further discovery or in questioning
witnesses at trial.
Petitioner's counsel would have the court believe that a pink bag was
discovered containing incriminating evidence (presumably to Mr. Yunkin)
which was then emptied of its contents (inculpatory to Mr. Yunkin;
exculpatory to Ms. Lambert) and then repacked in ice so that someone
(presumably Detective Barley) could be filmed digging around the bag with
the tip of his shoe and a stick to demonstrate that the bag was embedded in ice.
There is simply no proof that this took place. There are only the bald assertions
of petitioner's counsel.
The important facts are that Mr. Shirk knew there was a search of the river,
knew who was involved, knew that a tape was made, knew that the tape had
been edited, viewed that tape, knew that a pink bag was found and had every
opportunity to question police witnesses, Mr. Yunkin, and his client, and to
develop the significance of those points at trial.
49. Failed to disclose that the phone cord was broken in half
In fact, photographs taken by the state police at the crime scene show the
phone cord broken in half. This is neither consistent nor inconsistent with Ms.
Lambert's testimony. The fact that Ms. Buck threw the phone across the room
does not necessarily mean the phone cord snapped. The fact that the cord was
snapped does not necessarily mean that the phone was thrown. It appears clear
that the phone cord snapped or was broken during the course of the struggle
that morning. The struggle was described by both Ms. Lambert and Ms. Buck,
each with a different perspective. Photographs of the victim's bedroom
showing her legs and feet clearly depict a torn telephone cord. (See Petitioner's
Exhibits 1742, 1747, 1749, 1749-A.)
See Section VII.M, supra.
50. Failed to disclose that a sneaker was found by the river

A sneaker was found in the Pequea Creek, which empties into the
Susquehanna River. This was well described at the PCRA hearing. (N.T.,
PCRA at 823-24.) The sneaker found was a canvas sneaker packed with mud
and showing signs of what was described as "black rot." This black rot
suggested to Detective Barley that the sneaker had been a denizen of the deep
for longer than two or three days. Detective Barley made the decision that the
sneaker was of no evidentiary value and, as would be common practice with
anything, fish or otherwise, caught in a river and determined to have no value,
he threw it back. The police are not required under Brady or any other
authority to disclose to the defense every insignificant item disclosed during a
search. Does Brady require that the police, in making a search of a creek and
river bed and banks, catalog and save every item located? There is nothing to
indicate that the sneaker found in the creek had any evidentiary value at all.
Nothing learned in the PCRA hearing would suggest that Detective Barley
found a sneaker that had any significance to this case. That is the bottom line
for a Brady analysis.
51. Failed to disclose that a clump of hair was found precisely where Ms.
Lambert testified Ms. Buck threw it
The "finding" of a clump of hair "precisely where Ms. Lambert testified
Tabitha Buck threw it" resulted from petitioner's counsel's enlargement of a
photograph and their opinion that an item in that enlarged photograph
constitutes a clump of hair. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1785.) The clump of hair was
not visible on the small photograph. The photograph was produced to Mr.
Shirk in 1992. This is really a claim that Mr. Shirk was not as diligent as Ms.
Rainville in having the photograph enlarged so as to identify a clump of hair.
There is no merit to this as a Brady violation or as an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim.
More importantly, there was hair, or clumps of hair, found on the floor of
Laurie Show's bedroom in the course of the investigation. In fact, Mr. Shirk
went to the trouble, and the County went to the expense, of hiring a hair and
fiber expert to testify at the 1992 trial. The expert testified that the hair was
cut, not pulled or torn. (N.T., Trial at 980.)
It is difficult to imagine that a clump of hair, conclusively established by the
defense at the 1992 trial to have been cut by a knife, would fall anywhere
"precisely" where someone threw it during the kind of struggle described by
all participants. Mr. Shirk knew there was hair on the floor of the bedroom and
he made every effort to make use of that testimony in his defense of Ms.
Lambert at trial. His use of expert testimony and his arguments were in an
effort to confirm Ms. Lambert's story that Ms. Buck went after Laurie Show
with a knife and cut off pieces of her hair.(105) The expert confirmed that the
hair was cut with a sharp object. (N.T., Trial at 980.) There certainly was no
Brady violation here.
52. Failed to disclose that a bloodhound found the rope based on Ms.
Buck's scent
See Section VII.D.3, supra.
53. Failed to disclose that Scott Hershey told the prosecution that Laurie
wanted to get even with Michelle and Brad had heard rumors Lawrence
was going to beat him up
54. Failed to disclose Officer Fassnacht's report of Mr. Yunkin's rape of

Ms. Show
Two East Lampeter Township police reports refer to the allegation that
Lawrence Yunkin raped Laurie Show. These reports were each produced to
Mr. Shirk. (See Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.)
The first report was Corporal Renee Schuler's report dated January 2, 1992. At
page 7 of that report, Officer Schuler related the facts of a previous harassment
incident which occurred at Root's Market in September 1991. The report
contains the following sentence: "This was the first time Hazel mentioned to
Lambert that Laurie was raped by Yunkin." On page 8 of the same report,
Officer Schuler related a conversation John and Hazel Show had with their
daughter regarding her involvement with Mr. Yunkin. Page 8 of Officer
Schuler's January 2, 1992, contains the following sentence: "Hazel then spoke
to Laurie about this and Laurie indicated she had been raped by Yunkin."
Commonwealth's Exhibit 4 contains a copy of another East Lampeter
Township police report dated August 10, 1991. It concerns Incident No. 36481991 which apparently was an investigation of an ongoing harassment by Ms.
Lambert of Laurie Show. The report is prepared by an officer who is not
identified on the report. The officer refers to working with Officer Abram but
does not identify himself or herself on the report. This report was produced to
Mr. Shirk and contains the following sentence: "Show only last night told her
mother that Yunkin raped her in the end of June, while they were in Yunkin's
van. After that, she left him." (See Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.) The record of
this case proves that there was no Brady violation.
55. Failed to disclose that Larry Ware heard Mr. Yunkin say he would be
in jail for murder
In Corporal Renee Schuler's report dated January 10, 1992, at page 3, there is a
reference to a discussion involving Larry Ware and Hector Feliciano. This
refers to Mr. Yunkin's speaking of not being at work on December 23, 1991,
because he would "be in jail." This report was provided to Mr. Shirk during
discovery. Whether there was a specific disclosure about Mr. Ware actually
hearing Mr. Yunkin say he would be in jail for the murder is unclear. Certainly
the report identifies Mr. Ware, identifies Mr. Feliciano and refers to the
conversation in question. Had Mr. Shirk wished to pursue this, this
information was available during discovery.
As to whether this was a Brady violation, the question of "materiality"
warrants discussion. Mr. Shirk testified at the PCRA hearing that he
specifically stayed away from this area of testimony at trial. He did not put Mr.
Feliciano on the stand to testify as to Mr. Yunkin's statement. Mr. Shirk
described in clear terms that he wanted to avoid associating any of the three
participants with any evidence of premeditation or specific intent. (N.T.,
PCRA at 3474-75.) Mr. Shirk explained that had he established that Mr.
Yunkin was expressing an intention to kill someone, then that "specific intent"
could have been ascribed to his own client. Ms. Lambert was constantly in Mr.
Yunkin's company and undoubtedly was in Mr. Yunkin's company on the
morning of December 20, 1991.
It appears that the information which is the subject of this alleged Brady
violation was made known to Mr. Shirk. It does not appear that it was in any
way "material" to the defense. In fact, Mr. Shirk was aware of the information,
was aware of the conversation in which Mr. Yunkin is reported to have stated
that he was going to kill someone, and specifically chose not to use that
information. There certainly was no Brady violation here.
56. Failed to disclose that Mr. Kenneff told the Yunkins to stop sending
money to Ms. Lambert
In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. Kenneff told Lawrence Yunkin's parents
to stop sending money to Ms. Lambert. It has been established through the
testimony of Mr. Cody, counsel for Mr. Yunkin in 1992, that it was Mr. Cody
who told the Yunkins to cease any further contact with Ms. Lambert when she
was in prison. This was confirmed by Lawrence Yunkin's mother, Johnnie
May Yunkin. (N.T., PCRA at 6462, 7592.)
57. Failed to disclose that the prosecution found a license plate in the back
of Yunkin's car
During an inventory search of the Yunkin car, a license p, late was discovered.
The license plate corresponded with a license number contained in Officer
Bowman's notes.
Petitioner's theory of the case is that Mr. Yunkin drove in the condominium
complex in a vehicle with a license number YHM-028 and that later in the day
to hide this fact, he changed the license plate and left the YHM-028 license
plate in his car. The specific Brady claim is that the police knew he was seen
in the condominium complex with the YHM-028 license plate and that they
later found the incriminating, material license plate in his car and failed to
disclose this to Mr. Shirk.
In fact, Ms. Lambert testified in the PCRA hearing that she was with Mr.
Yunkin the entire day. (106) Ms. Lambert at no time observed Mr. Yunkin
changing a license plate on his car. Further, the license plate on the brown
Mercury which was driven by Mr. Yunkin that morning and the YHM-028
license plate found inside the car were both registered to Mr. Yunkin.
Detective Savage testified that he or Officer Bowman ran the license plate
found in the car and found that it was registered to Mr. Yunkin. (N.T., PCRA
at 4428-31.) Its use as perhaps hiding Mr. Yunkin's presence in the
condominium was eliminated. Why would Mr. Yunkin place a license plate on
his car, registered to another vehicle in his name, to mislead the authorities as
to his presence that morning?(107)
58. Failed to disclose that at least one eyewitness reported seeing this
license plate at the crime scene on the morning of the murder
See discussion of Brady/Giglio claim 57, supra.
59. Failed to disclose Mr. Yunkin's letters to Shawn Lapp
Petitioner claims that these letters demonstrate that Mr. Yunkin was lying to
Ms. Lambert in his letters to her in prison, demonstrate that Ms. Lambert
believed Mr. Yunkin was a rapist, and demonstrate that Laurie Show had filed
charges for rape against Mr. Yunkin. Petitioner has not established any
relevance or materiality of this information. This evidence links to Ms.
Lambert's "Burgess theory" that she was manipulated by Mr. Yunkin, abused
by Mr. Yunkin and afraid of criminal charges from Laurie Show.
Further, the "Burgess" evidence is relevant only to a very limited issue which,
as the case has developed, is not being pursued by the Commonwealth. The
Shawn Lapp letters are only material to the extent that they relate to the expert
opinion of Dr. Burgess, i.e., that Mr. Yunkin manipulated Ms. Lambert. This
opinion is not relevant under Pennsylvania law. Therefore, the letters are not
material. There has been no showing of materiality necessary to establish a
Brady violation.
60. Failed to disclose that the victim had identified the killers by writing in
her own blood
Petitioner makes the claim that the Commonwealth should have disclosed
something that was never there. At the 1992 trial, Mr. Shirk argued that Laurie
Show had written the initials "TB" for Tabitha Buck and "B" for Buck. At the
federal hearing, petitioner's counsel added the initials "BY" for "Butch"
Yunkin. Mr. Shirk argued that Laurie Show's dying act was not to identify
"Michelle" but rather to write "TB" on the closet door. This was the subject of
expert testimony by John C. Balshy, a crime scene investigator who first

"discovered" the "TB" initials in blood. This court had every opportunity to
view at trial the photographs referred to by Messrs. Shirk and Balshy and
found that the initials were not there. The court did not accept Mr. Shirk's
argument on this point and did not accept Mr. Balshy's expert testimony that
the initials were written in blood on the closet door.
Ms. Lambert contends it is a constitutional violation for the Commonwealth
not to anticipate a creative and ultimately unsuccessful argument based upon
an interpretation of evidence to create an issue that might possibly distract,
confuse or miscast the truth in the interest of raising a reasonable doubt at trial.
In fact, Mr. Shirk made a valiant effort to argue the existence of something
that really was not there. He did that in good faith to make every possible use
of every possible item of evidence in Ms. Lambert's defense. He based his
argument on the "findings" of Mr. Balshy, which this court, or fact finder,
considered and did not accept. There is no indication anywhere that the initials
"BY" appear anywhere in Laurie Show's bedroom, let alone on the carpet or
the closet door.
To demonstrate the problems with this claim, we look to the testimony of
Richard W. Jeffries at the PCRA hearing. Mr. Jeffries is a licensed private
investigator who was court appointed to assist Mr. Shirk in the defense of Lisa
Michelle Lambert in 1992.(108)
In the PCRA hearing, Mr. Jeffries testified in the Commonwealth's case about
the "TB" initials. He stated that Mr. Balshy contacted him in 1992 with the
"revelation" that he had found Tabitha Buck's initials in blood on the closet
door. Mr. Jeffries demonstrated that his ability to analyze evidence was not
colored by the side he represented when he candidly acknowledged that he did
not agree with Mr. Balshy. He did not agree with Mr. Shirk's use of Mr.
Balshy as a witness in 1992. In fact, Mr. Jeffries testified before us in 1998
that he looked at the photographs which had been enlarged by Mr. Balshy and
determined that the initials "seen" by Mr. Balshy on enlargement would have,
in fact, been one- half to three-quarters of an inch high. Mr. Jeffries found it
unlikely, and this court completely agrees, that a person in the condition of
Laurie Show after her killers left the condominium could have been capable of
crawling across the floor and inscribing in rather minu, te characters several
initials of her killers on the closet door.(109) (N.T., PCRA at 7693.)
61. Failed to disclose Mr. Yunkin's admission that he sometimes wore the
earring found at the crime scene
There is no evidence that Mr. Yunkin wore the earring found at the crime
scene. There was evidence that Mr. Yunkin wore an earring similar to that
earring. In fact, it appears that there are many, many earrings similar to that
which was found on the floor of the condominium.

At trial, Mr. Shirk was aware and questioned Mr. Yunkin about the fact that
Mr. Yunkin wore a similar earring on occasion. This was an important point of
Mr. Shirk's defense and was fully litigated and fully argued to this court. This
issue is more fully developed in Section VII.N, supra. The possibility that the
earring found in the Show condominium was worn by Mr. Yunkin at the time
of the murder was well presented to this court. It did not affect the outcome of
the trial. That, in itself, is proof that the information was not material for
Brady purposes.
62. Failed to disclose that Pat Fry described the two suspects as having
"broad shoulders or bulky clothes"
Officer Jere Schuler of the West Lampeter Township Police Department

interviewed Fred Fry at his residence on the day of the murder. Officer
Schuler's report is dated January 2, 1992, and was one of the police reports
provided to Mr. Shirk in discovery. (See Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.)
In the report, Officer Schuler related a description given of the two suspects
who Mr. Fry saw at approximately 7:12 a.m.: "Both appeared to be between
5'5" and 5'8"." He described both as being "none too slim." He felt they both
had "bulky clothing on."
A report of Officer Bowman's meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Fry on December
22, 1991, was also contained in the materials provided to Mr. Shirk in
discovery. This report describes a meeting where Officer Bowman showed
various items of clothing which had been recovered during the investigation.
The Frys felt that the Miami Dolphins jacket looked familiar but were unable
to identify any of the other items of clothing with any degree of certainty.
Officer Jere Schuler also interviewed Pat Fry on the morning of December 20,
1991. Mrs. Fry described two individuals who she believed were female
wearing hooded sweatshirts or jackets. This report was dated January 2, 1992,
and was provided to Mr. Shirk in discovery. (See Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.)
63. Failed to disclose that the Frys thought the two people they saw wer, e
Hispanic
The e, thnic origin of the two people seen by the Frys was never an issue
and would certainly not have effected the outcome of the trial. Officer
Jere Schuler interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Fry. His report of January 2,
1992, contained a summary of the interview and was produced to Mr.
Shirk. (See Commonwealth's Exhibit 4.) Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Fry could
provide a description of the faces of the two people they observed. The
reference to "appearing Hispanic" comes from Sergeant Carl Harnish's
narrative account of what he heard from various police officers that
morning. There is no report of the Frys making this statement to anyone.
64. Failed to disclose that the Gladfelters were two of only eight people on
Yunkin's visitor list in prison
There is no obligation on the part of the Commonwealth to disclose a
material witness's prison visitor list. Failure to disclose that which defense
counsel can access on his own is not a Brady violation.
65. Failed to disclose that Mr. Fry said it was "too dark" to see
66. Failed to disclose that Laura Thomas had made a false kidnaping
report
Ms. Thomas never made a false report to law enforcement regarding a
kidnaping. See Section VII.I, supra.
67. Failed to disclose that Pat Fry said the person wearing the Miami
Dolphins jacket was wearing black sweatpants
68. Failed to disclose that neither Laura Thomas nor her father, Floyd
Thomas, said anything about "slit her throat" in their initial interviews
All the police reports involving discussions with Laura Thomas and Floyd
Thomas were disclosed. If there were inconsistencies between early
reports and subsequent reports, these inconsistencies were available to
defense counsel for cross-examination purposes. In fact, Mr. Shirk made
good use of these inconsistencies.
Commonwealth Exhibit 4 contains a report of Officer Bowman's
interview of Laura Thomas on January 2, 1992. Interestingly, this report
describes one of the plots to kidnap Laurie Show: "Lambert would then
take Show, tie her to a phone pole and shave her head and 'slit' Laurie's
throat." Certainly, Mr. Shirk was aware of this interview by virtue of the
Commonwealth's response to his discovery request.
This report is somewhat inconsistent with Corporal Renee Schuler's

report of January 10, 1992, regarding an interview with Laura Thomas
on January 5, 1992. Ms. Thomas at that time related Ms. Lambert's plans
to do harm to Laurie Show but did not mention anything about "slitting
her throat." Again, this document was available to Mr. Shirk. To the
extent that there was an inconsistency between the two reports, he was in
a position to question Ms. Thomas about her interviews with the police.
There was no failure to disclose. For further discussion of this issue, see
Section VII.I, supra.
69. Failed to disclose that Tabby had admitted her prior involvement in a
murder in Alaska
There was no evidence offered at the PCRA hearing on this claim. This
evidence would not be admissible at trial.
70. Failed to disclose that Woody Woodward knew that Tabby had fought
Laurie
71. Failed to disclose that Rick Lentz saw Tabby fight Laurie and heard
Tabby tell Laurie that she was "going to get her"
This claim involves evidence of Tabitha Buck's animus or bad acts prior
to the murder. The Commonwealth has no duty to discover, uncover or
relate to the defense negative information about a co-defendant. In fact,
the Commonwealth at all times asserted that Tabitha Buck was involved
in the killing. Evidence which would establish Ms. Buck's motive or
conduct would in no way exculpate Ms. Lambert. Such evidence simply
would not be material to this case. See Section VII.D.2, supra.
72. Failed to disclose that the rope found around the body was 12 feet
long, not 23- feet or 24-1/2 feet as testified to, and not 22' 5" as the rope
in evidence appears to be
The rope was at all times available to defense counsel to be measured. The
significance of mistakes in measurement or discrepancies between reports
about the lengths of the various ropes seems questionable at best. After
extensive testimony and argument, this court does not find the
inconsistencies to be material. We do not believe Brady places an
affirmative duty to disclose the respective lengths of the various ropes.
The Commonwealth produced these ropes to defense counsel for

inspection. They could have been tested, compared and measured in the
discretion of defense counsel. The Commonwealth certainly met its duty
of disclosure as to the ropes.
73. Failed to disclose that someone fabricated a story that Hazel Show had
called home and spoken to Laurie from the school, and that Laurie had
told her mother that Michelle was there or on her way over
This is one version of the events of that morning which is reflected in
Sergeant Harnish's report. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1351.) It is likely that this
version reflects a misunderstanding that was communicated during the
course of the confusion that morning. This information is not in any way
exculpatory or favorable to petitioner.
74. Failed to disclose that Officer Weaver was not dispatched to crime
scene
The dispatch reports were available to defense counsel, as they were
available to counsel for the Commonwealth. In fact, Officer Weaver was
not specifically directed to report to the condominium. However, he heard
the call over his radio, was in the vicinity and followed proper procedure
and responsible conduct in responding to the call.
This "fact " is material only to the conspiracy theory which first surfaced
at the federal habeas hearing and was a significant part of the PCRA
hearing. Under the conspiracy theory, Robin Weaver went to the
condominium without being officially dispatched so as to begin his "frame
up" of Ms. Lambert. The conspiracy theory was never even suggested by
the defense at trial. Simply stated, there was absolutely no significance at
trial as to whether Officer Weaver was dispatched to the scene. The
information was not "material" under Brady and Giglio.
75. Failed to disclose that Ms. Lambert's telephone records showed no

telephone calls to the Show residence
During the period of time when Ms. Lambert was making the many
harassing and threatening phone calls to the Show residence, she was
making them from her apartment on Route 340 in Bridgeport. This is
within the same township as the Show home and then would have been
local calls. Detective Savage testified that he looked into telephone records
and determined that the telephone company did not keep records of local
calls. (N.T., PCRA at 4343-4350.) When Ms. Lambert and Mr. Yunkin
moved to Pequea, a rural township on the southwest of Lancaster City,

they had no telephone. It appears that there were no records to disclose.
76. Failed to disclose that the dispatch records show that Detective Savage
arrived on the scene at 9:17
There was testimony that the recorded time of Detective Savage's and two
other police officers' arrival at the scene was made arbitrarily. It is clear
that this record does not accurately reflect the time when any of them
arrived or left. (N.T., PCRA at 4690-4725) Lancaster County Wide
Communications relies upon the officers to report their time of arrival.
Detective Savage, Officer Bowman and Corporal Schuler were all
recorded by Lancaster County Wide Communications as arriving at 9:17
a.m. In fact, they each arrived earlier than 9:17 a.m. It seems likely that
one of the group, or someone else, reported them as present at 9:17 a.m.
The time coincides with the report by Officer Jan Fassnacht that he left
the scene at 9:17 a.m.
77. Failed to disclose that Hazel Show failed to tell many people at the
murder scene that Laurie spoke until two hours after the murder
All police reports regarding what Mrs. Show said and what Mrs. Show
did not say on the morning of the murder were available to defense
counsel. Defense counsel had every available opportunity to raise these
discrepancies. In fact, petitioner's contention is not true. Mrs. Show told
Lisa Hinkle Billiter almost immediately after Laurie's death that Laurie
had spoken to her. See discussion of Laurie Show's Dying Declaration,
Section VII.A, supra.
78. Failed to disclose the postcard that Mr. Yunkin wrote Hazel Show
immediately after the murder, setting up Ms. Lambert
The phrase "setting up Lambert" is purely a product of petitioner's
counsel's argument. The postcard from a material witness to the mother
of the victim, having been reviewed by the court, does not appear to be
material. In fact, Mr. Shirk testified that the postcard was not
exculpatory. The contents of the postcard are reprinted in Section VII.G,
supra. Further, Mr. Shirk testified at the PCRA hearing that the postcard
was not exculpatory as to Ms. Lambert. (N.T., PCRA at 3520-21.)
79. Failed to disclose that the tip of the knife was in Buck's jacket
There is no clear evidence as to the location of the tip of the knife. Ms.
Buck testified that she put the tip of the knife in the pocket of her
Dolphins jacket and that she later discarded the tip at the
Lambert/Yunkin residence. Judge Cullen, then court-appointed counsel
to Ms. Buck in 1992, testified that he felt something sharp and metallic
when he reached into the jacket pocket during his closing argument in the
Buck trial. He never looked into the pocket and only assumed it was the
tip of the knife. (N.T., PCRA at 7713.) Even if the tip of the knife was in
Ms. Buck's jacket, that does not exculpate Ms. Lambert in any way. It is,
in fact, consistent with Ms. Buck's story that Ms. Lambert at some point
handed her the tip of the knife and she put it in her jacket pocket. The
Dolphins jacket was available for inspection by Mr. Shirk at all times.
There is no testimony to establish that the Commonwealth ever knew that
the knife tip was in the jacket pocket. It stands to reason that the
Commonwealth would have used the knife tip as evidence at both the
Lambert and Buck trials.
80. Failed to disclose that witnesses saw Ms. Buck wearing her sweatshirt
inside-out at school
Carol Blackburn testified that Ms. Buck was wearing a white or gray or
off-white sweatshirt turned inside out when she reported to school after
the murder. (N.T., PCRA at 1119.) She was as available to defense counsel
as she was to the Commonwealth for an interview before trial. It is not a
Brady violation to fail to disclose information that is readily available to
the defense.
81. Failed to disclose that Ms. Buck's hands were swollen

Donna Mallik testified at the PCRA hearing that Ms. Buck's hands
seemed swollen. (N.T., PCRA at 3677.) She also testified at the 1992 trial,
(N.T., Trial at 601-06), and could certainly have been cross-examined as
to her observations of Ms. Buck's hands. Again, Ms. Buck's involvement
in the murder, the conditions of her hands, the identity of her clothing, the
condition of her face and anything else which might implicate her does
nothing to exculpate Ms. Lambert. At all times, the Commonwealth
offered its theory of the case that both girls were present in the
condominium and both girls participated in the murder.
See Section VII.D, supra.
82. Failed to disclose that Ms. Buck admitted that her hands hurt on the
morning after the murder
83. Failed to disclose Officer Flory's interview with Laura Thomas

The interview was conducted at Conestoga Valley High School on the day
of the murder. There is a brief account of the discussion in Officer Flory's
report of January 17, 1992. The report does not contain Brady material.
Further, Mr. Shirk's cross-examination of Laura Thomas at trial
demonstrated that he was well aware of the facts related by Ms. Thomas
to Officer Flory.
84. Failed to disclose Officer Flory's interview with Brad Heisler

The interview was conducted at Conestoga Valley High School on the day
of the murder and was described by Officer Flory in his report of January
17, 1992. The report of the discussion does not contain Brady material.
85. Failed to disclose that Hazel Show saw Mr. Yunkin drive away from
the scene in the complex
It is unclear that Mrs. Show saw Mr. Yunkin drive away from the
complex that morning. Her recollection, to the extent that she had one in
1991 and 1992, was communicated to Detective Savage. She was not able
to give him any specific information. From these facts, it is difficult to
determine exactly what Detective Savage should have disclosed. Mrs.
Show did testify that Detective Savage told her to let him know if her
memory about seeing a car that morning became clearer. See discussion
of Hazel Show's Recollection, in Section VII.G, supra.
86. Failed to disclose that Ms. Buck's sweatshirt had Laurie's blood on it
Petitioner has failed to establish that the white sweatshirt in evidence was
Ms. Buck's sweatshirt. The white sweatshirt which was marked
Petitioner's Exhibit 1002 was also introduced at the trial of this case in
1992. It is identified on the evidence envelope as "white sweatshirt with
blood stain located on floor to victim's right side." It was examined by
Donald Bloser on March 13, 1992.
Ms. Buck has acknowledged that she was wearing a white sweatshirt at
the time of the murder. She also testified that she wore her Miami
Dolphins jacket in the Show condominium that morning. (N.T., PCRA at
6665-66.) This fact alone would make it highly unlikely that the white
sweatshirt worn by Ms. Buck would have any blood on it since it was
covered by a heavy jacket. Petitioner has asked the court to make a leap
from Ms. Buck's testimony about wearing a white sweatshirt to the
conclusion that the white sweatshirt in evidence was Ms. Buck's.
Petitioner's counsel showed the white sweatshirt, turned inside out, to
Carol Blackburn, the attendance officer at Penn Manor High School,
during the PCRA hearing. Ms. Blackburn acknowledged that the white
sweatshirt, worn inside out on Ms. Buck when she reported to school on
December 20, 1991, was similar. She also acknowledged that there was
nothing unique about the sweatshirt and it was not unlike any other
"whitish" sweatshirt. (N.T., PCRA at 1123.)
In order to establish a Brady/Giglio violation on this issue, petitioner
should first establish that the white sweatshirt that "had Laurie's blood
on it" was, in fact, Ms. Buck's. She has not done this. She, therefore, has
not established a Brady violation.
See Section VII.M.3, supra.
87. Failed to disclose that Ms. Buck's sweatshirt had cuts in it made by a
sharp object
Ms. Buck testified at the PCRA hearing as to the appearance of the
sweatshirt she was wearing on the morning of the murder: A. It's white,
long sleeved with blue decorating glue that I had used, made it myself,
had my name in the upper left hand corner and on the back it had 1992.
Q. So it had your name, Tabby, on it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it had 1992 on the back.
A. Yes.
Q. That was printing you placed on the sweatshirt yourself?
A. Yes.
(N.T., PCRA at 6625.)
Ms. Buck did not leave her sweatshirt in the Show condominium when she
and Ms. Lambert left that morning. When questioned as to what she was
wearing when she went to school later that morning, she testified:
Q. When you arrived at school that day, what were you wearing on the
upper part of your body?
A. The same sweatshirt I was wearing that morning.
Q. That's the same sweatshirt you described to us?
A. Yes.
(N.T., PCRA at 6659-60.)
By Ms. Buck's description, her sweatshirt was different from the one that
was entered into evidence in 1992. There has never been any proof that
the sweatshirt found at the crime scene was, in fact, Ms. Buck's
sweatshirt. Ms. Lambert contends that the police obtained Ms. Buck's
white sweatshirt during the investigation and then brought it back to the
condominium to put in the "staged" crime scene photographs. There
really is no proof of this, however. In fact, Ms. Buck describes a
sweatshirt that is different from the sweatshirt which was found in the
condominium and which appeared in the photographs. There can be no
Brady/Giglio violation on this point because there is no proof that the
sweatshirt was, in fact, Ms. Buck's.
88. Failed to disclose that Ms. Buck's sweatshirt appeared in the "faked"
crime scene photos
Whether the crime scene photographs were "faked" is discussed in
Section VII.M, supra. Regardless of whether the photographs were real or
"faked," a white garment appears next to the body of Laurie Show. These
photographs were available to the Commonwealth and to the defense
before and during trial. It is difficult to imagine how there could be a
Brady violation for failing to disclose what appears on a photograph
produced to defense counsel.
89. Failed to disclose that the rope obtained by police at K-Mart came in a
bag with a picture of a man pulling a Christmas tree
The package of the new rope which was introduced at trial to show the
similarity between the rope at the crime scene and the rope purchased by
Ms. Lambert at K-Mart showed a man pulling an evergreen tree, for
whatever relevance that might have. The rope was obtained in the course
of the Commonwealth's trial preparation. It does not constitute Brady
material.
90. Failed to disclose that the rope found at the river was 24" long, not
24.5 feet, as testified to by Detective Savage to Lambert's trial
91. Failed to disclose that the rope purported to be found at the crime
scene was 22 feet 5 inches
92. Failed to disclose that Ms. Buck's jacket had blood on it
In fact, in the testing done on the jacket prior to the Lambert trial, no
blood was found on the Buck jacket. Donald Bloser, of the Pennsylvania
State Police crime lab, testified that he took samples from discreet sections
of Ms. Buck's Miami Dolphins jacket and found no blood. (N.T., Trial at
609; N.T., PCRA at 194.) After the Lambert trial and in preparation for
the Buck trial, Mr. Bloser examined the jacket more thoroughly for blood
and found some blood in the area of the hood. The Commonwealth was
not aware that there was blood on the Buck jacket prior to the Lambert
trial. There was, therefore, nothing to disclose. In any event, this
information is not material for purposes of a Brady analysis.
93. Failed to disclose that Dr. Annese (a) worked with Hazel Show, (b) had
Mrs. Show over to his home for a party, (c) treated Laurie, (d) had treated
patients referred to him by Dr. Show, and (e) had received financial
benefits from Dr. Show's referrals
No testimony or any other evidence at the PCRA hearing established that
the Commonwealth had any knowledge of any relationship between Dr.
Annese and the Show family prior to the 1992 trial. Dr. Annese testified in
1992 and was available for cross-examination by the defendant as to the
basis for his opinions and as to any bias, interest or motive. At the PCRA
hearing, petitioner failed to establish that Dr. Annese's minimal
involvement with the Show family in any way colored his trial testimony.
This is not a Brady violation for two reasons: (1) the information is not
"material" as that term is defined for Brady purposes; and (2) there is no
proof that the Commonwealth was aware of any relationship prior to
trial.
94. Failed to disclose that Mr. Kleinhans saw Brad Heisler enter the
apartment prior to the police or medical personnel
95. Failed to disclose that the front door of the Show condominium was
"wide open" for Mr. Heisler and Mr. Kleinhans to enter and thus the
door neither closed nor locked automatically
96. Failed to disclose that Mr. Yunkin described the woman who waited
on him at McDonald's as white, older and with grayish hair, when he was
interviewed by the police in early 1992
Mr. Yunkin testified at the PCRA that he told the police that the person
who waited on him at the McDonald's was "an older woman and that she
was white." (N.T., PCRA at 4515.) This was not in a report provided to
defense counsel. Petitioner appears to contend that this information would
have been impeachment material for Yvette Rodriquez at trial. Ms.
Rodriquez testified that she was the manager at the McDonald's that
morning and that she observed Mr. Yunkin. She was not sure that she
served him. (N.T., Trial at 592.) An inconsistency between Mr. Yunkin's
description of the person who served him and the actual appearance of
Ms. Rodriquez is not Brady material. There is nothing about this
information which is exculpatory or favorable to Ms. Lambert, nothing
which would affect the outcome of the case and nothing of any
consequence which would impugn the credibility of either Mr. Yunkin or
Ms. Rodriquez.
97. Failed to disclose that the person who took the 7:35 a.m. call to 911
determined that Laurie Show was unconscious from the information
provided in the telephone call, and had training to make that
determination
According to the testimony of Richard Harrison of Lancaster County
Wide Communications, the 911 operators did not have formal training in
classifying calls as "unconscious person" or some other classification.
(N.T., PCRA at 4703-04.) He testified that "back in 1991 it was more or
less our in-house training and on-the-job experience at that time." (N.T.,
PCRA at 4704.)
The inference here is that a 911 operator/dispatcher made a diagnosis that
Laurie Show was "unconscious" based upon information give to him/her
with the benefit of sufficient training to make that determination. It
appears from Mr. Harrison's testimony that there was not this kind of
training. It also appears from his testimony that "unconscious person" is
their highest level of priority and is a code used when someone is in a life
threatening condition. Whether Laurie Show was conscious or
unconscious when the 911 call was made, there is no question that she was
in a very serious and life threatening condition.
In any event, the 911 dispatch records were available to defense counsel in
1992 if he believed these were material. There can be no Brady violation
for the failure to disclose information that could have been obtained by
defense counsel.
U. The Commonwealth v. Smith Issue

Petitioner contends that she must be released and cannot be retried under
Smith. In Section III.B.1.a, supra, we discussed the legal impact of Smith
in this case. Essentially, if the conduct of the prosecution in this case was
intentionally undertaken to prejudice Lisa Michelle Lambert to the point
that she was denied a fair trial, then Smith would apply and double
jeopardy would bar any subsequent retrial on these charges.
At various points in Section VII, supra, we discussed the allegations of
prosecutorial misconduct. We reviewed the claims regarding the "29
questions," Lawrence Yunkin's statement, Kathleen Bayan's story, the
involvement of Dr. Mihalakis, the river search, Ms. Lambert's statement,
and the crime scene photographs. In addition, we reviewed 66 allegations
of discovery or Brady/Giglio violations. We have considered all of these
points in our analysis of whether there was prosecutorial misconduct
under the PCRA, new evidence exculpatory to petitioner, or constitutional
violations of the Commonwealth's duty of disclosure. We have also
considered each of these allegations insofar as they might establish
intentional prosecutorial misconduct undertaken to prejudice defendant
to the point of the denial of a fair trial.
This is not a Smith case. There is not one item raised by petitioner and
proven by competent evidence which compares to the intentional acts of
misconduct in the Smith case. We find no evidence of any intentional
conduct by the District Attorney's Office or by the investigating police
officers which would establish conduct intentionally undertaken to
prejudice Lisa Michelle Lambert to the point of a denial of a fair trial.
VIII. CONCLUSION: THE QUESTION OF INNOCENCE
We are left with the question posed by our first reference in this opinion
to the elements of a PCRA claim: Was this a "fundamentally unfair"
conviction? Is Lisa Michelle Lambert an innocent woman wrongly
convicted? We have referred throughout this opinion to facts which
established guilt and which have been resolved in the post verdict stage
and in the PCRA proceeding. Many important facts were established in
the 1992 trial and have been unshaken throughout the many petitions,
motions, hearings and court orders entered across the history of this case.
We know that in the spring, summer and fall of 1991, Lisa Michelle
Lambert demonstrated, time and again, hostility and aggression toward
Laurie Show. We know of the many hysterical phone calls, the menacing
language and the relentless, threatening conduct. There is no question
that Ms. Lambert contemplated, over an extended time period, the
possibility of doing physical harm to Laurie Show. We find that Ms.
Lambert discussed killing Laurie Show on at least two occasions.
The witnesses in this case have established that Ms. Lambert enlisted
others to kidnap and assault Laurie Show, and that Ms. Lambert
assaulted Laurie Show at the East Towne Mall. We know that credible
witnesses, among them Hazel Show, Laura Thomas, Floyd Thomas, Rose
Metzger, and George Haas, established beyond any doubt that Ms.
Lambert hated Laurie Show and that Laurie Show was terrified of Ms.
Lambert.
We find credible Tabitha Buck's testimony that Ms. Lambert came to her
home the night before the murder and arranged for Ms. Buck to
accompany her to Laurie Show's home. We find Ms. Buck's testimony
that Ms. Lambert arranged for Mrs. Show to be out of the condominium
that morning to be credible and we find there to be no question at all that
Ms. Lambert's purpose in going to the condominium that morning was to
inflict serious harm to Laurie Show.
In 1992, we found that Ms. Lambert bought a rope, ski masks, and gloves
and took these items, along with a knife from her kitchen, to the Show
condominium that morning. We reject the preposterous suggestion that
these items were for the purpose of cutting a Christmas tree.
We know that Ms. Lambert planned the events of December 20, 1991, and
we know that she participated in the assault leading to Laurie Show's
death. There are several versions of exactly what happened at or about
7:00 a.m. in the Show condominium that morning, but we have never
wavered from our belief as to the truth of that morning. It was our belief
in 1992, and remains our belief today, that Ms. Lambert went to that
condominium that morning to assault Laurie Show or to kill Laurie Show.
Even if her purpose had been "only" to assault Laurie, at some point
during the assault, Ms. Lambert formed the specific intent to kill. Injuries
such as those inflicted on Laurie Show were not inflicted accidentally. The
injuries to Laurie Show demonstrate that the person who inflicted them
had a specific intent to kill. We saw no reason in 1992 to believe that after
all the harassment, stalking, and threatening behavior that preceded
December 20, 1991, after enlisting Ms. Buck, planning the trip to the
Show condominium and obtaining the materials used for the crime, that
Lisa Michelle Lambert suddenly turned into a passive, terrified observer
in the condominium. Consistent with her actions toward Laurie Show in
the months before the murder and her activities on the day before the
killing, Ms. Lambert went to that condominium with a plan. Once inside,
she carried out that plan.
These are the facts as this court viewed them in 1992. Yet, there is a fall
back position. What if Ms. Lambert had been telling the truth at trial and
the killer was really Tabitha Buck? Under the facts as testified to by Ms.
Lambert at trial, she was guilty of first degree murder on an accomplice
basis. Under Ms. Lambert's version of that morning, as presented at trial,
she planned to go to the Show condominium and she enlisted Ms. Buck to
go with her. She took certain items with her consistent with an intent to
inflict bodily harm to Laurie Show. She participated in the assault and, at
one point, held Laurie Show's legs down while Ms. Buck cut her throat.
She then fled the scene and took no steps to report this incident to the
authorities. When arrested, she presented an alibi story which she had
discussed with Mr. Yunkin and Ms. Buck. Ms. Lambert would be an
"accomplice" if she had the intent of promoting or facilitating the murder
and if she aided or agreed or attempted to aid Ms. Buck in planning or
committing the murder. 18 Pa. C.S. Section 306. From Ms. Lambert's
description of holding down Laurie's legs while Ms. Buck slit Laurie's
throat, we could reasonably conclude that she had the intent of
"promoting or facilitating" the killing and that she planned, or aided, or
attempted to aid Ms. Buck. In fact, we do not believe that is what
happened. Yet, based upon the story Ms. Lambert presented at trial, a
verdict of first degree murder on an accomplice basis would have been
supported by the evidence.
We know that Ms. Lambert then fled the scene. Regardless of whether she
was picked up in the condominium complex by Mr. Yunkin or whether
she was picked up by Mr. Yunkin on Oak View Road, Lisa Michelle
Lambert fled the murder in haste and did not look back.
In his closing argument, Mr. Kenneff suggested that whoever committed
this murder was guilty of first degree murder. This court believed that to
be true at the time and believes it to be true today. The crime scene
photographs, the autopsy photographs, the condition of the condominium,
and the condition of the body of Laurie Show led this court to one
inescapable conclusion: whoever performed these acts did so with a level
of rage completely inconsistent with any accidental killing or a death
incidental to a "prank." We firmly believed in 1992 that Lisa Michelle
Lambert drew the knife across the throat of Laurie Show, causing her
death. She was the only person with the level of emotion, the focus of
purpose and the clear opportunity to have performed that dreadful act.
There is no question that Ms. Lambert is not, and never will be,
"innocent" of this crime.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL
COMMONWEALTH OF : No. 0423 - 1992
PENNSYLVANIA:
v.: Post Conviction Relief Act
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 1998, upon consideration of the
petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section
9541, et seq. (1998 Supp.), the evidence admitted at the hearing and the
arguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth in the attached
opinion, this court finds that petitioner has failed to prove that she is
entitled to relief under the Act. Therefore, her petition shall be denied.
BY THE COURT:
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL
JUDGE
ATTEST:
Copies to: Christina Rainville, Esquire
Peter S. Greenberg, Esquire
Christy H. Fawcett, Esquire
ADDENDUM TO OPINION
1. List of Documents Filed with the Court in this Case

2. The "29 Questions" - Petitioner's Exhibit 1119
Footnotes :
(Return to Table of Contents)
1. Ms. Lambert's petition is governed by the PCRA, as amended on
November 17, 1995. The amended Act is applicable to all petitions filed
after January 16, 1996.
2. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3. The issues for consideration in Ms. Lambert's post verdict motions
included: error to deny defendant's motion for change of venue and/or
venire; error to deny the motion for sanctions relative to the alleged
prosecutorial misconduct in contacting defense expert, Dr. Isidore
Mihalakis; error to admit the statement of co-defendant Tabitha Buck;
error to allow the trier of fact to take notes during trial and potentially
use them during deliberation; error to affirm and read the
Commonwealth's points for charge Nos. 3 and 4; error not to grant a
mistrial when the request for supplemental discovery of Laura Thomas
was not granted; error not to grant a mistrial when the request for
supplemental discovery of Mrs. Show was not granted; error not to grant
a mistrial when the supplemental discovery of Richard Kleinhans was not
granted; error not to grant a mistrial when the prosecution withheld
evidence that a jergo was discarded and that they were aware of its
location; error to qualify Dr. Enrique Penades as an expert in forensic
pathology since he was not board certified; error not to grant a mistrial
when the prosecution withheld from discovery a portion of Yunkin's
statement of February 4, 1992; error not to grant a mistrial when the
assistant district attorney asked defendant's expert witness, Dr. Samuel J.
Golub, two questions beyond his area of expertise; and insufficient
evidence existed to sustain the verdict.
4. The post verdict motions were filed on July 28, 1992. The last trial
transcript was filed on September 23, 1992, and a briefing schedule was
issued by the trial court on October 23, 1992. Counsel for defendant, at
the request of Ms. Lambert's family, requested additional time to file an
amended or supplemental brief in support of post verdict motions. Given
the gravity of charges and the many issues raised on appeal, the court
granted all of these requests for extensions of time. Defendant's last
motion was submitted to the court on June 3, 1994, and the matter was
ripe for disposition at that time.
5. There will be reference throughout this opinion to "the trial," "the post
verdict hearing," "the federal habeas hearing," and "the PCRA hearing."
The trial took place in July 1992 and resulted in a verdict of guilty of first
degree murder. The post verdict hearing was held on November 18 and
21, 1994, on defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
after-discovered evidence. The federal habeas hearing took place in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
April 1997. The PCRA hearing began on April 30, 1998, and continued
through June 24, 1998.
6. The procedural posture of the case permitted the taking of testimony to
supplement the record on these two new issues. Ms. Lambert was
convicted of first degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit
murder. At the time of sentencing, it was agreed between the assistant
district attorney and the defense attorney that the Commonwealth would
seek a sentence on the first degree murder conviction only. Because the
first degree murder conviction carried a mandatory life sentence, the
court was not requested to impose a sentence on the criminal conspiracy
charge. Technically, defendant had never been sentenced on the criminal
conspiracy and, therefore, her appeal period from a judgment of sentence
from that charge had not yet expired. This accommodation to defendant
at the time of formal sentencing on the first degree murder charge
resulted in a "loophole" through which the defense sought to introduce
new evidence in the hope of obtaining a new trial. It appeared to the court
at that time that all parties recognized that the loophole existed, that the
loophole was not the result of inadvertence either by any of the parties or
by the court, and that it existed because of an accommodation to Ms.
Lambert. It was on this basis, then, that the court had the capacity to
receive new evidence and consider defendant's request for a new trial at
the time of the post verdict hearing in November 1994.
7. Ms. Lambert enjoyed the benefit of two court-appointed attorneys and
one court-appointed criminal investigator. Mr. Shirk was appointed
within a day or two of Ms. Lambert's arrest for the murder of Laurie
Show. He requested the appointment of Alan G. Goldberg, Esquire, to
assist him in the case with the death penalty phase, if necessary. Both are
experienced, respected members of the Lancaster County bar who
specialize in criminal defense cases. Mr. Goldberg participated in the

defense effort throughout the investigation and trial. Mr. Shirk conducted
the bulk of the defense on guilt at trial. Mr. Goldberg assisted in arguing
points of law to the court and in the examination of some witnesses. Mr.
Goldberg handled the death penalty phase of the trial exclusively. Mr.
Shirk appeared as a witness on Ms. Lambert's behalf at the death penalty
phase.
8. Prior to the Lambert trial, Mr. Yunkin entered into a plea agreement
with the Commonwealth. Essentially, the Commonwealth offered a plea of
guilty to obstruction of justice in exchange for testimony at the Lambert
trial and at the trial of Ms. Lambert's co-conspirator, Tabitha Buck. The
condition of the plea agreement was that Mr. Yunkin testify truthfully.
After the Lambert trial and after the Buck trial, Mr. Yunkin entered a
plea, not to obstruction of justice, but to third degree murder. The
Commonwealth indicated that it was justified in seeking the more serious
charge because Mr. Yunkin was not truthful in his testimony at the
Lambert trial.
9. The evidence presented in the district court in very large part was
obtained through federal discovery and had previously been unavailable
in state court. For example, the Commonwealth was compelled to produce
the working notes of the prosecutor from the 1992 trial. Habeas
petitioners, unlike usual civil litigants in federal court, are not entitled to
discovery as a matter of ordinary course. Rule 6 of the Federal District
Court Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases provides that any party
may utilize the processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (Rules 26-37) if, and to the extent that, the judge allows
such discovery upon a showing of good cause. In the Advisory Committee
Notes to Rule 6, mention is made of the fact that Rule 6 is consistent with
the Supreme Court pronouncement in Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286
(1969), regarding discovery in federal habeas proceedings: "[I]t is clear
that there was no intention to extend to habeas corpus, as a matter of
right, the broad discovery provisions
. . .of the new [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]."
10. Petitioner's pleadings and briefs frequently characterize the
proceedings which occurred in the federal district court as a "trial" and
also refer to "pretrial" conferences. (See, e.g., Petitioner's Motion to File
the Federal Record at paras. 24-25, 28-29, 31-32.) There was no "trial" in
the district court; rather, the court held a habeas corpus hearing pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. The only trial ever held in Ms. Lambert's case
took place in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. That trial
resulted in a guilty verdict and sentence of life imprisonment for Ms.
Lambert's murder of Laurie Show.
11. The district court did not address other grounds raised in Ms.
Lambert's petition regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and afterdiscovered evidence.
12. In the habeas corpus proceeding, the Commonwealth was represented
by the Lancaster County Office of the District Attorney.
13. For the purpose of appealing from the grant of habeas corpus relief,
the District Attorney's Office retained private counsel.
14. Petitioner was free from April 21, 1997, until February 4, 1998,
approximately ten months.
15. On May 6, 1998, the PCRA proceeding was interrupted when the
court received an opinion from a two-judge motions panel of the Third
Circuit remanding the Fed. R. App. P. 23 application to the district court
"with instruction to grant the motion for release with such conditions as
the court considers appropriate" pending the disposition of Ms.
Lambert's petition for writ of certiorari. This order was immediately
followed by an order on May 6, 1998, from the Eastern District Court
scheduling a hearing in Philadelphia for May 8, 1998, directing the
Commonwealth to "immediately deliver Ms. Lambert to the custody of
the Court." Ms. Lambert was transported from the Lancaster County
Prison to federal court on May 7, 1998, pursuant to a further order from
the district court specifically setting forth the procedure for transfer of
custody. Also on May 7, 1998, the Commonwealth made an emergency
application to stay the Third Circuit order which was granted the same
day by the same motions panel, pending the Commonwealth's application
for rehearing if filed in a timely fashion. On May 8, 1998, the
Commonwealth filed an application for rehearing with a suggestion for
rehearing en banc which was granted by the Court. Despite the Third
Circuit's stay of its May 6, 1998, order on May 7, 1998, the district court
nonetheless required the parties to be present at the "release" hearing on
May 8, 1998, as previously scheduled. Following the hearing, upon
stipulation of counsel, Ms. Lambert was returned to the Lancaster County
Prison and the PCRA hearing resumed on May 11, 1998. The
Commonwealth's petition for rehearing en banc was subsequently
granted followed by an order by the Chief Judge on May 15, 1998,
vacating the Motions Panel's order and opinion of May 6, 1998.
16. Ms. Lambert's counsel filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court for the exercise of plenary jurisdiction and emergency motion for
writ of prohibition to prevent reincarceration on January 28, 1998. On
January 30, 1998, the Supreme Court denied Ms. Lambert's petition and
emergency motion, without prejudice to her right to refile, as there was no
matter pending before any tribunal within the Commonwealth.
Thereafter, the PCRA petition was filed.

17. Given the number of complex factual and legal issues and the lengthy
nature of the proceeding, this court requested, on June 9, 1998, an
additional 60 days to dispose of this matter. Petitioner filed a four-page
objection to this court's request for extension. We were notified on June
18, 1998, by letter from the Prothonotary of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, that the Supreme Court had granted the request for a 60-day
extension to conclude this PCRA matter, the time being calculated from
June 25, 1998.
18. The court actually received a copy of the original order dated
February 25, 1998, and a revised order dated February 25, 1998.
19. The motion to compel was ultimately filed with the Office of the Clerk
of Courts on March 9, 1998. During this PCRA proceeding, the court
permitted the parties to submit motions, petitions and briefs via facsimile.
This was done to accommodate the expedited schedule imposed by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and to allow the court to consider the
parties' filings as soon as possible. It was our procedure then that the
originals be filed by regular mail with the Clerk of Courts. Attached to
this opinion is an addendum which lists the documents filed in this case
with a listing of the date each document was received in chambers as well
as the official filing date with the Clerk of Courts. This addendum is
attached to facilitate review of the record by the appellate courts.
20. These Rules have been adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
and govern the conduct of any attorney practicing in Pennsylvania.
21. On March 17, 1998, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., t/a The
Philadelphia Inquirer, filed an action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking an injunction lifting the
"gag" order. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., publisher of The
Philadelphia Inquirer v. Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and
The Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel, Civil Action No. 98-CV-1393 (1998).
After a hearing on the matter, Philadelphia Newspapers' request for a
temporary restraining order was denied. The court referred to the
litigation in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and noted that
principles of "common sense and comity" mandated that the objections to
the order be raised first before the judge who entered the order.
22. When the Third Circuit vacated the district court's order of April 21,
1997, the proceedings before the district court were rendered void ab
initio. See Stern v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043, 1054-55 (2d Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 508 U.S. 906 (1993) ("judgment [which has been vacated] or set
aside has no preclusive effect"); United States v. Williams, 904 F.2d 7, 8
(7th Cir. 1990) (vacated judgment "place[s] the parties in the position of
no trial having taken place at all"); Rushton Mining Co. v. Morton, 520
F.2d 716, 719 (3d Cir. 1975) (by definition, vacatur renders lower court's
order "void ab initio"). The Third Circuit's decision vacating the district
court's judgment not only found the district court's hearing was invalid
because it was without any authority to conduct that proceeding but it
expressly refused to give any weight to the district court's determinations:
"[W]e do not give weight to the district court's factual findings in this
appeal." 134 F.3d at 509 n.1. The merits panel said that "[r]esolution of
these difficult questions must. . .await the appropriate forum." Id. at 52425. Among the "difficult questions" identified were "serious factual issues
concerning the district court's finding that Lambert was actually innocent
of first degree murder." Id. at 524. The "appropriate forum" referred to
is "the state courts." Id.
23. See Section VII.P on admissions, infra.
24. The court held that as Ms. Lambert had been found guilty of an
offense punishable by life in prison, Rule 4009 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure clearly prohibits any entitlement to bail. There was simply no
basis in law or fact for this court to grant the request for bail.
25. Rule 1502 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure entitled,
"CONTENT OF PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION
COLLATERAL RELIEF; REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY," was
amended in 1997 to address requests for discovery in PCRA petitions.
Specifically, Paragraph (a)(16) requires that a request for discovery be
included in the petition: "(a) A petition for post-conviction collateral
relief. . .shall contain substantially the following information:. . .(16) if,
applicable, any request for discovery." Paragraph (e) sets forth the
standards for permitting discovery. Except as provided in Rule 1502(e)(2)
for death penalty cases, no discovery is permitted at any stage of the
proceedings, except upon leave of court with a showing of exceptional
circumstances. Pa. R. Crim. P. 1502(e)(1). This language implements 42
Pa. C.S.A. Section 9545(d)(2): "No discovery, at any stage of proceedings
under this subchapter, shall be permitted except upon leave of court with
a showing of exceptional circumstances." Ms. Lambert submitted nothing
which demonstrated, in any substantive manner, that any truly
exceptional circumstances warranted granting her request for discovery.
The "proof" of "exceptional circumstances" was the same phrase which
pervades her filings in this court and elsewhere, that she is "the victim of
the worst prosecutorial misconduct in the history of the English-speaking
world." Such a conclusory characterization, by itself, was insufficient to
meet the requirements of Rule 1502(e). Ms. Lambert's situation is neither
different from, nor more substantive than, that which any PCRA
petitioner might be expected to claim, namely, that he or she "didn't do
it." Moreover, much of what Ms. Lambert sought to obtain in discovery

was otherwise available to her.
26. These arguments were heard via a speaker phone in the courtroom to
accommodate the interest of the public and because of security concerns
voiced by petitioner's counsel.
27. The motion for sanctions was filed with the Clerk of Courts one day
after the April 14, 1998, amended order limiting publicity was entered.
The persons who were the subject of petitioner's motion for sanctions
were subject to restrictions which were removed by the amended gag
order.
28. This court is cognizant of Rule of Criminal Procedure 1504 which
requires the appointment of counsel for a defendant on her first post
conviction relief petition if the court is satisfied that "the defendant is
unable to afford or otherwise procure counsel." Pa. R. Crim. P. 1504(a)
(emphasis added). Under the circumstances of this case, we found that
petitioner was able to "otherwise procure counsel."
In Commonwealth v. Duffey, No. 156 Capital Appeal Docket (May 21,

1998) (to be reported at: 713 A.2d 63), the Supreme Court considered the
question of whether the appellant's pro se status was a "fiction" given the
fact that attorneys filed and signed notices of appeal from two trial court
orders. The Court cited Rule 9020 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure which states that all motions for relief shall be made by written
motion and shall be signed by the person or attorney making the motion.
The signature of an attorney "shall constitute a certification that the
attorney has read the motion, that to the best of the attorney's knowledge,
information, and belief there is good ground to support the motion, and
that it is not interposed for delay." Pa. R. Crim. P. 9020(b)(1). The
Supreme Court held that nothing in Rule 9020 permits an attorney to sign
pleadings for pro se defendants. "To the contrary, an attorney's signature
is a legal certification that gives good cause to support the pleading, and
an attorney cannot avoid that certification through the addition of
creative language describing the attorney as a mere 'preparer' on behalf
of a pro se defendant. Thus, when an attorney signs and files a pleading
for an unrepresented defendant, that attorney will be deemed to represent
that defendant. We do not condone counsel's attempts to file a notice of
appeal without entering an appearance in this case." The Supreme Court
concluded that the attorneys who signed the notices of appeal became the
defendant's attorneys of record for the appeal when they filed the notices
with the court. (Slip op. at 11-12.) Likewise, the attorneys in this case,
Christina Rainville and Peter Greenberg, signed the PCRA petition, and
every other document filed with the court, as counsel for Ms. Lambert.
These attorneys became Ms. Lambert's attorneys of record for this PCRA
proceeding when they filed the petition with this court on February 2,
1998. Clearly, petitioner was able to "otherwise procure counsel" and did
not require court appointment of counsel in this case.
29. Acknowledging the need for a showing of exceptional circumstances to
justify discovery in this PCRA, petitioner claimed that discovery was
warranted because "the Commonwealth is presenting new witnesses
against Petitioner and neither Petitioner nor her counsel have the slightest
idea who these individuals are, what there [sic] testimony is going to be,
whether deals or other promises have been made in exchange for the
testimony, or whether they are withholding other evidence favorable to
Petitioner." The court did not find these ci, rcumstances to be exceptional.
30. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
31. The case law indicates that there is no requirement that the
Commonwealth furnish investigative services to PCRA petitioners. See
Commonwealth v. Strong, 522 Pa. 445, 563 A.2d 479 (1989);
Commonwealth v. Woods, 394 Pa. Super. 223, 575 A.2d 601 (1990). See
also Commonwealth v. Gelormo, 327 Pa. Super. 219, 475 A.2d 765 (1984)
("There is no constitutional mandate, either federal or state, that experts
be appointed at public expense to assist in preparation of a defense
whenever requested by one accused of a crime").
32. Petitioner's counsel indicated on the record at the time of argument on
this motion that the motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Burton was withdrawn.
33. See Section VII.C, infra.
34. The testimony in the federal district court of Professor Wolfram
involved the ex parte communication of Assistant District Attorney John

A. Kenneff with Dr. Isidore Mihalakis in connection with Ms. Lambert's
civil trial in 1992. Specifically, this expert testified that such conduct, that
is, contacting an expert witness for the defense without the consent of
defense counsel, was a "no-brainer." (Notes of Testimony ("N.T."),
Habeas Hearing at 1007.) The interpretation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct and the Rules of Criminal Procedure is a legal issue to be
decided by a court, for which use of an expert would be wholly
inappropriate. A court may not abdicate its role to determine the ultimate
issue by allowing expert testimony. See Commonwealth v. Neal, 421 Pa.
Super. 478, 481, 618 A.2d 438, 439 (1992) (improper for court to admit
testimony of an attorney addressing the legal issue to be decided by the
court). For these reasons, this court granted the Commonwealth's motion
in limine.
35. The court issued an order on April 13, 1998, scheduling the PCRA
hearing to begin on Monday, April 27, 1998. In furtherance of that order,
on April 14, 1998, a writ of habeas corpus was issued directing the
superintendent at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in
New Jersey to produce Ms. Lambert at the PCRA hearing in Lancaster on
April 27, 1998. Petitioner resisted any effort to effectuate her transfer to
Lancaster County Prison. Ms. Lambert's counsel went so far as to send a
letter to New Jersey Assistant Attorney General Ronald Bollheimer
essentially advising him that Ms. Lambert was protesting being moved,
pursuant to the writ issued by this court, from the New Jersey prison,
where she was ordinarily confined, to the Lancaster County Prison, and
threatening to hold New Jersey officials responsible for what she claimed
would be compliance with an illegal order. The strong inference in
counsel's correspondence, if not an outright demand, was that New Jersey
should refuse to obey the court's order. On April 22, 1998, the court
received a letter from petitioner's counsel informing it of Ms. Lambert's
filing of her petition for writ of certiorari and motion for release from
custody pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 23. In this letter, counsel referred to
Supreme Court Rule 36(1), which they claimed applied to Ms. Lambert so
long as she remained in custody. Rule 36 governs the custody and release
of federal and state prisoners pending appellate review of a decision in a
federal habeas corpus proceeding. Specifically, Rule 36(1) provides that
pending review of a decision in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, "the
person having custody of the prisoner shall not transfer custody to
another person" without the permission of the court, justice, or judge
rendering the decision that is under review. Petitioner's counsel claimed
that no such authorization existed for the transfer of Ms. Lambert from
the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility to the Lancaster County Prison for
purposes of the PCRA proceeding which was to commence on April 27,
1998. Through a series of telephone calls and letters, the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections confirmed for the court that Ms. Lambert is
and always has been in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections and that, although convicted in Pennsylvania, is incarcerated
in the New Jersey facility pursuant to the provisions of the Interstate
Corrections Compact, 61 P.S. Section 1061 et seq. (1998 Supp.). Ms.
Lambert's official status is as a prisoner of the Pennsylvania state system.
Therefore, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is the
"custodian" of Ms. Lambert. Based upon this information, the hearing
was rescheduled for April 29, 1998, and again a writ of habeas corpus
issued directing the superintendent at the Edna Mahan Correctional
Facility to produce Ms. Lambert at the hearing on April 29, 1998. Once
the status of custodian was confirmed, an application, pursuant to Rule
36.2, was filed by the Commonwealth with the Third Circuit seeking
authorization for Ms. Lambert's transfer to the Pennsylvania prison

authorities. That authorization was obtained on April 29, 1998. An order
was entered on April 29, 1998, again directing the superintendent to
produce Ms. Lambert. She was transferred to Lancaster on the evening of
April 29, 1998. As the hearing was scheduled to begin on April 29, 1998,
the court heard oral argument on several outstanding motions on April
29, 1998, but heard no testimony in the case until petitioner was present in
the courtroom on April 30, 1998.
36. The 1995 amendments substituted the word "changed" for the word
"affected." This amendment appears to have substituted a more strict test
from what had been in place before.
37. Renee L. Schuler is currently a lieutenant with the East Lampeter
Township Police Department. In 1991-1992, she had the rank of corporal
with the same department.
38. Counsel for petitioner miscited and misr, epresented the law when
presenting legal argument to the court on many occasions. See, e.g.,
petitioner's reliance on Commonwealth v. Wells, 322 Pa. Super. 380, 469
A.2d 672 (1983), appeal after remand, 345 Pa. Super. 623, 496 A.2d 855,
rev'd, 513 Pa. 463, 521 A.2d 1388 (1987), in support of her motion to file
the federal habeas record as the record of this PCRA proceeding,
Commonwealth v. Bonaparte, 366 Pa. Super. 182, 530 A.2d 1351 (1987)
(plurality), in support of her motion for bail, and Commonwealth v.
Reese, 444 Pa. Super. 38, 663 A.2d 206 (1995), in support of her motion to
exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Levin and all evidence not introduced
at the 1992 trial and to limit the Commonwealth's witnesses.
39. The notes of testimony for this PCRA proceeding were lodged with the
Clerk of Courts on August 3, 1998. There are more than 8,000 pages of
testimony contained in 36 bound volumes. Counsel requested 30 days to
review the notes of testimony and file objections to the transcript with the
court. Given the enormity of the record, this request was granted on
August 11, 1998. Therefore, citations in this opinion will be to the
"unofficial" notes of testimony which are subject to change at a later date.
40. Detective Solt is presently employed by the Lancaster County District
Attorney's Office. In 1991 and 1992 he was a corporal with the
Pennsylvania State Police and assisted in the investigation of the Show
murder.
41. Ronald W. Savage was a detective with the East Lampeter Township
Police Department in 1991-1992. At the time of the PCRA hearing, he was
a district justice.
42. A federal court has offered the following definition: "A 'hostile'
witness, in the jargon of evidence law, is not an adverse party but a
witness who shows himself or herself so adverse to answering questions,
whatever the source of the antagonism, that leading questions may be
used to press the questions home." Rodriquez v. Banco Central Corp., 990
F.2d 7, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1993).
43. The assumption, of course, is that the federal investigating authorities
will be moved by what is decided here. It is already clear that the federal
courts disregarded findings of fact made by this court in the 1992 trial,
e.g., the dying declaration and the import of the "29 questions." It is
already clear that Mr. Greenberg has taken a position that no court
should give any deference to this court's findings and it is clear that
whatever investigation is being done is at the request of the federal district
court and by federal authorities, and not at the behest of any state court
or by state authorities.
44. In the July 19, 1994, opinion, this court erroneously stated that the
murder took place on the morning of December 21, 1991. In , fact, the ,
murder took place on D, ecember 20, 1991. The questioning of the
suspects took place in the early morning hours of December 21, 1991. For
the sake of clarity, we corrected the date in the material quoted above.
The mistake remains in the original.
45. Now referred to as the "29 questions."
46. It appears that the district court had reservations about the credibility
of Mr. Kleinhans's testimony. In the habeas corpus opinion, the district
court discussed this court's findings of fact as set forth in the slip opinion
cited above. Where this court's discussion of Mr. Kleinhans is quoted in
the federal court opinion, the district court included a footnote which
reads as follows:
We note, although this does not play a part in our decision, the following
excerpts from Mr. Kleinhans's testimony at the habeas hearing:
Q. I noticed in here that you have a little hard time hearing what is being
said.
A. Yes.
Q. Back in '91, did you also have a hard time hearing as well?
A. Not as much as now, no.
Q. Was it okay then?
A. It wasn't okay. But -Q. It was not okay?
A. No.
Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1524 n.7.
The only possible purpose to include a reference to Mr. Kleinhans's

testimony in federal district court about his ability to hear would be to
cast doubt on this court's reliance on Mr. Kleinhans in 1992. In fact, this
court had every opportunity to observe Mr. Kleinhans as he testified and
counsel for defense had every opportunity to cross-examine Mr.
Kleinhans on his ability to see, to hear or to know the things about which
he testified. His ability to hear what was going on on December 20, 1991,
was a part of our assessment of his credibility. The federal district court's
reference to this could have only been intended to cast doubt on our
finding that Mr. Kleinhans was credible. The proper place to assess Mr.
Kleinhans's credibility in this case was in 1992, not retrospectively in
1997.
47. Subsequent attempts at the state court PCRA hearing in 1998 to use
these depositions for impeachment purposes evidenced poorly focused
questioning which provided more obfuscation than explication of the
issues.
48. For the reader who suspects that this court is attempting to match the
hyperbole of the federal habeas proceeding, one might question why the
federal district court was referring to the 1992 trial as the "alleged trial"
on the fourth day of a three-week hearing. (See N.T., Habeas Hearing at
949.)
49. Exhibit A to the PCRA petition, which will be referred to throughout
this opinion, was attached to Petitioner's Second Motion for Leave to
Amend, which was filed with the court on June 10, 1998, and granted on
June 16, 1998. Exhibit A contains the listing of petitioner's claims.
50. Actual innocence is actually a creation of federal case law, not the
habeas statute. A commentator has noted: "The habeas statute, of course,
makes no mention of 'actual innocence' as a criterion for gaining access to
a habeas forum. Thus, the pervasive role that innocence currently
occupies in the jurisprudence illustrates the Court's common-law
approach to defining the scope of the writ." Jordan Steiker, Innocence
and Federal Habeas, 41 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 303, 388 (1993).
51. The "ward" is an unofficial, pejorative designation for a large area of
downtown Lancaster.
52. Later, under oath in a courtroom, Ms. Lambert testified that this was,
in fact, her plan. Her only quarrel was that she never told the kids that
she was going to "slit Laurie's throat." Much later, in a federal
courtroom, where Michelle, now called Lisa and represented by two
lawyers from Philadelphia, said that the "slit her throat" language in a
police report was a fabrication and a violation of her constitutional rights.
53. Recently, at the PCRA hearing, Ms. Buck testified that she knew the
night before the murder that Mrs. Show was going to be gone. She had
said under oath last year that she did not know it until the morning of the
murder.
54. If Michelle had really helped Laurie get out of the condo, there must
have been blood all over the floor. The police had to clean the blood up to
prove Michelle was lying.
55. Dr. Larson's opinions as to the possibility of speech were, in effect,
medical conclusions.
56. It is interesting to note that the federal district court sought to
discredit the trial testimony of Dr. Penades by reference to an interview
he gave to a reporter from the Lancaster New Era and reported in that
newspaper on April 1, 1997. It appears that the reporter, Andrea S.
Brown, testified in the habeas proceeding as to her conversation with Dr.
Penades. The district court noted that Dr. Penades "may well have
retracted most or all of his trial testimony" in that interview. See Lambert
v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1528-29 n.13. The testimony of Ms. Brown
was offered by petitioner in this case. We ruled that Ms. Brown's
testimony as to an out-of-court statement made to her by Dr. Penades,
and, offered for its truth, was hearsay.
57. There is little question that Dr. Larson appeared as much as an
advocate as he was an expert witness. In the federal proceeding, he took a

somewhat more aggressive posture. There, Dr. Larson offered an opinion
that the carotid artery was cut and went on to say that this meant, in
short, that Laurie Show could not possibly have spoken. (N.T., Habeas
Hearing at 54, 61, 73.) It was enough of a stretch for him to say that the
carotid was cut. He went completely beyond his realm of expertise into the
realm of medical opinion by testifying on the significance of the cut
carotid. (N.T., Habeas Hearing at 73-74.) Perhaps because the evidentiary
standards are different from federal to state court, Dr. Larson was not
asked about the significance of the cut carotid artery at the PCRA
hearing. In addition, when asked by Mr. Madenspacher in federal district
court how he reconciled his testimony with the testimony of the two
physicians who actually looked into the neck of Laurie Show and
observed that the carotid was intact, Dr. Larson simply stated that he
believed they were not telling the truth. (N.T., Habeas Hearing at 112-13.)
58. In fact, he testified that he did not review the report and noted that he
really meant to say that the victim was Laurie Show. (N.T., PCRA at
3158.)
59. Dr. Burton expressed serious reservations about Dr. Baden's
judgment in making that statement. He stated, when asked about Dr.
Baden's willingness to rely on the diagnosis made by an EMT: "My belief
is that testimony will haunt Dr. Baden." (N.T., PCRA at 6980.)
60. In fact, what Mr. Zeyak identified as the severed carotid artery was
later identified by Roger J. Levin, M.D., as musculature, which was partly
torn by the knife.
61. Dr. Levin testified at the PCRA hearing and in federal court that, at
least theoretically, the injury to Laurie Show's neck could have been
repaired. He acknowledged the difficulty transferring her to a competent
trauma center and does not believe the failure of medical personnel to
resuscitate her was in any way remiss. Simply by way of comparing this
wound to other damage to the throat and neck which he has observed in
surgery, he offered the opinion that under ideal circumstances, a
correction could have been made. The medical school professor and
throat surgeon was then questioned:
THE COURT: So it is your testimony you could have fixed this?

THE WITNESS: Sure.
THE COURT: That it would all be -- just like that (snapping fingers)?
THE WITNESS: Oh, not like that, but a tracheostomy, but it is certainly
repairable. BY MR. GREENBERG:
Q. Well, is it your testimony that we don't need you to fix it, that it
would just fix by itself?
THE COURT: Heal by itself, like a wound on the fingers?
THE WITNESS: No. I think it needed to be closed, but I think had it not
been closed, over time it would have closed, assuming she could have
breathed.
THE COURT: And it would all grow back together and she'd be normal.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Essentially.
THE COURT: Do you also think that severed limbs regenerate
themselves?
THE WITNESS: No, they don't.
(N.T., Habeas Hearing at 2777-2778.)

62. This statement was admitted under the "excited utterance" exception
to the hearsay rule.
63. The federal district court, in support of its conclusion that the vagus
and laryngeal nerves were severed thereby making speech impossible,
dismissed Mrs. Show's testimony of the dying declaration as the rantings
of a hysterical woman in such emotional upheaval that she could not
accurately recall whether, in fact, her daughter spoke to her before her
death or whether some unscrupulous policemen exploited the situation for
their good by suggesting that her daughter spoke. The court stated:
At the end of her dramatic testimony. . .Mrs. Show reiterated her belief
that her daughter said, "Michelle did it.". . . We have not the slightest
doubt that this constitutes Mrs. Show's sincere belief. But amid the
maelstrom of emotions that day, it is not hard to see how she could be
mistaken--or, worse, suggested--into this belief. The earliest accounts
by East Lampeter Police, as confirmed by their testimony before us,
was that Hazel Show, understandably hysterical, repeated over and
over, 'It was a setup! Michelle did it!' . . . It was at this world-ending
time a small step to make her deduction into a recollection that her
daughter said those words. And it is a measure of the depressing
record before us that we cannot exclude the possibility that some law
enforcement official suggested this small step to her.
962 F. Supp. at 1529 n.13 (citations omitted).

64. The document actually contained 31 questions and answers, but only
29 of these are numbered. During the 1992 trial and the post verdict
hearing and arguments, the document was referred to as the
"questionnaire." During the PCRA hearing, counsel and the witnesses
referred to this document as the "29 questions" and that designation will
continue in this discussion.
65. In the federal habeas proceeding, the district court appeared to find
something wrong with this argument. In fact, it is an elementary tenet of
the law that a fact finder is always free to accept all or part or none of the
evidence offered. See Pa. SSJI (Crim) No. 4.17(1) ("[Y]ou must judge the
truthfulness and accuracy of each witness's testimony and decide whether
to believe all or part or none of that testimony"), citing Commonwealth v.
Williams, 323 Pa. Super. 512, 521-22, 470 A.2d 1376, 1381 (1984);
Commonwealth v. Dolny, 235 Pa. Super. 241, 250-51, 342 A.2d 399, 404
(1975). To somehow suggest that the prosecutor was dishonest for making
this argument or that the court was less than alert for accepting the
argument is simply to misunderstand basic criminal trial practice.
66. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1529-1532.

67. Petitioner's Exhibit 1474 appears to have surfaced with Ms. Lambert's
federal habeas petition and was not involved in any prior proceeding.
68. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not seem to provide for expert
testimony on the subject of witness credibility. The federal district court's
opinion contains no citation to any authority, statute, case or otherwise,
which would support admission of such testimony. The best we have is the
court's description of the testimony as "dramatic." In state court criminal
cases, the term "dramatic" is not a synonym for "relevant" or
"admissible."
69. See Commonwealth v. O'Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 352 A.2d 30 (1976)
(expert testimony of clinical psychologist to substantiate and corroborate
the defendant's version of the critical events and the case was prohibited);
Commonwealth v. Evans, 412 Pa. Super. 332, 603 A.2d 608 (1992)
(reversible error to admit detective's testimony as to child sexual abuse
accommodation syndrome as such testimony was proffered solely to
enhance the witness's credibility after defense counsel pointed out that the
children did not immediately report abuse); Commonwealth v. Purcell,
403 Pa. Super. 342, 589 A.2d 217 (1991) (expert testimony on dynamics of
child sexual abuse may not be used by Commonwealth to bolster
credibility of alleged victim of child abuse; child had not reported alleged
sexual abuse until six and one-half years after the first incident);
Commonwealth v. Smith, 389 Pa. Super. 626, 567 A.2d 1080 (1989)
(counsel ineffective for not objecting to expert's opinion as to the truth
telling capabilities of a seven year old child); Commonwealth v. Newman,
382 Pa. Super. 220, 555 A.2d 151 (1989) (defendant not permitted to offer
expert witness opinion that defendant was hexed where defendant
believed himself to be a victim of Voodoo).
70. They were not offered for the truth of the matters set forth in the
letters but as an expression of the state of mind of the reader and the
writer. For a classic definition of the term "hearsay," see generally Baird
v. Unemployment Compensation Board, 30 Pa. Cmwlth. 118, 121, 372
A.2d 1254, 1257 (1977) (hearsay constitutes statements made outside of
court offered for the truth of the matter(s) contained therein).
71. The charge against Sergeant Bowman characterized the tone of much
of petitioner's case. There was no question at the outset of this hearing
that Sergeant Bowman was considered by petitioner's counsel to be one of
the gang rapists. So much so, that they subpoenaed his bank records for a
three month period in 1991, when Sergeant Bowman asserted that he was
in Virginia Beach, Virginia, with his wife on their honeymoon at the time
of the alleged rape, i.e., June 17, 1991. At oral argument in the courtroom
on the motion to compel the production of these bank records, petitioner's

counsel, Christina Rainville, Esquire, informed the court that Ms.
Lambert was no longer accusing Sergeant Bowman of being a rapist.
However, Ms. Rainville allowed, Sergeant Bowman was welcome to come
into court and clear his name of this allegation. (N.T., PCRA at 3460.) The
court informed Ms. Rainville at that time that this is not how the system
works. One does not cast serious and harmful accusations out into the
public place and then invite the "accused" to come in and clear his name.
This approach to investigation, discovery and litigation shows the kind of
paranoia that appears to motivate the petitioner and certainly follows in
the wake of her counsel's efforts. Despite the fact that Mr. Bowman was
never identified as a rapist, never placed at the scene, never connected in
any way with the alleged rape, it was necessary for him to come into
court, with his wife, and testify as to their whereabouts, their activities
and their expenditures on their honeymoon seven years ago.
72. The corrections officer at the state correctional institution at
Cambridge Springs was charged with and convicted of each of the
following crimes: aggravated indecent assault, formerly codified at 18 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 3125(5); indecent assault, formerly codified at 18 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 3126(a)(5); and official oppression, see 18 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 5301. As to none of these offenses was forcible sexual conduct an
element. (N.T., PCRA at 7578-79.)
73. In testimony at the PCRA hearing, Ms. Lambert contrasted her
involvement with Mr. Epstein as her attorney with how helpful she has
been to Ms. Rainville and Mr. Greenberg. She testified that in the first
telephone call she had with Ms. Rainville, she told Ms. Rainville that she
needed to hire a "clothing expert about the jergo, speech expert, a
pathologist, an expert on handwriting, every -- everything that you asked
me I said that we could get an expert for it." (N.T., PCRA at 5162.) It
appears that Ms. Lambert even assisted in writing the reports of her own
expert witnesses. To this end, she gave the following testimony:
Q. In the federal proceeding, what, if anything, did you ask to see of drafts
of expert reports?
A. As soon as an expert gave a draft, I asked you to send it to me and I
would read it right away.
Q. And what, if anything, did you do after you read it?
A. I would look at it and then I would write down questions for you to ask
the expert.
Q. And did we make changes to the expert reports based on your
comments?
A. Yes. I would ask you to ask them a question and give their best opinion
to a degree of scientific certainty and then you would ask them and
whatever they said would be included in the reports.
(N.T., PCRA at 5168-69.)
Ms. Lambert would have this court believe that once safe in the confines
of the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility in New Jersey, she was able not
only to assist her attorneys but to participate in the writing of expert
reports. Normally, experts write their own reports. The blithe
acknowledgment by petitioner and petitioner's counsel to the act of
participation in the writing of expert reports provides considerable
insight into a number of issues in this case.
74. The "loop" is an unofficial designation of a large block composed of
several streets and extending over eight or nine city blocks in downtown
Lancaster. It has long been a hang out for teenagers in cars or on foot.
75. There was considerable testimony at the PCRA hearing regarding
certain scratches on Ms. Buck's shoulder and back. Photographs were
taken of her at the time of her arrest and Lieutenant Renee Schuler
testified as to observing those scratches. The scratches were discernible on
the photographs admitted into evidence. Ms. Buck was asked about these
scratches and was unable to provide any explanation for them. She does
not believe she sustained those scratches on the morning of December 20
because she was wearing a sweatshirt and her Miami Dolphins jacket over
top of the sweatshirt at all times. She believes she did them herself by
scratching her back. (N.T., PCRA at 6665.)
76. The letter to Mr. Pugh was written four days after her deposition. Ms.
Buck testified that she sent the letter from the Lancaster County Prison
before being returned to the State Correctional Institution at Muncy.
(N.T., PCRA at 6692.)
77. The fact that the warrant was issued in the office of District Justice
Savage is more coincidence than anything else. District Justice Savage's

office happens to have jurisdiction over the area where Ms. Bayan
resided.
78. The distinction between exculpatory evidence and favorable evidence
is that exculpatory evidence extrinsically tends to establish a defendant's
innocence of the crimes charged, contrasted to that which, albeit
favorable, is merely collateral or impeaching. Commonwealth v. Hudgens,
400 Pa. Super. 79, 97-98, 582 A.2d 1352, 1361 (1990); Commonwealth v.
Redmond, 395 Pa. Super. 286, 577 A.2d 547, 552 (1990); Commonwealth
v. Hicks, 270 Pa. Super. 546, 550, 411 A.2d 1220, 1222 (1979). The
evidence suppressed in Redmond was the identity of a confidential
informant who gave information concerning an alternative suspect in a
murder case, where the prosecution's case rested on the testimony of only
one police officer. Redmond, 395 Pa. Super. at 298, 577 A.2d at 552. The
court opined that the evidence was both exculpatory and material, as
there was reasonable probability that the evidence might have made a
difference in the outcome of the case. Id. at 299, 577 A.2d at 553.
79. During the federal habeas corpus hearing, Mrs. Show informed
District Attorney Madenspacher that she recalled seeing a car of
brownish color the morning of the murder as she reentered the
condominium complex. Her memory was refreshed as she sat in the
courtroom listening to the testimony of former Detective Savage. This was
immediately brought to the attention of the federal judge, who conducted
a hearing in chambers on April 16, 1997. Mrs. Show's recollection was
then made a part of the federal record.
80. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1545-47.
81. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1546.
82. This argument was accepted by the district court. Lambert v.
Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1546.
83. The district court found that Mr. Kenneff's "violation" of an ethical
duty in contacting Dr. Mihalakis was a "no-brainer," which is an
interesting characterization of an issue which required expert testimony.
This finding is just not true. At least three bar association ethical
committees have concluded that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not
expressly prohibit a lawyer from contacting an expert retained by
opposing counsel and that the resolution of the issue is "fact sensitive."
See Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Comm.,
Guidance Op. 94-22 (1995). See also ABA Comm. on Ethics and
Responsibility, Formal Op.93-378 (1993); New York State Bar Ass'n,
Comm. on Professional Ethics, Ethical Op. 577 (1986).
84. This is a concept which does not appear to have been lost on the
district court. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1547 n.39.
85. The Reed report, Petitioner's Exhibit 1299, is not contained in
Commonwealth's Exhibit 4, a compilation of all reports given to Mr.
Shirk in discovery.
86. Only recently, in the 1995 amendments to the Juvenile Act, can an
offender's juvenile record be used for impeachment purposes, much like
an adult record. 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6354(b)(4) (1998 Supp.) This was
not the state of the law in 1992.
87. Petitioner tends to define "perjury" as "information which does not
help her." Or, petitioner points to evidence which she finds incredible or
with which she disagrees and labels it "perjury." See, e.g., Lambert v.
Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1531 (Mr. Yunkin's testimony about the "29
questions"), 1535 (Mr. Yunkin's statement about picking up Ms. Lambert
and Ms. Buck on Oak View Road), 1545 n.35 (Mr. Savage's testimony
about Mr. Yunkin's recorded statement), and 1542 (Detective Solt's
testimony about taking the statement from Ms. Lambert).
88. Testimony at the PCRA hearing established that Ms. Lambert gave
the first part of her statement to Corporal Solt sitting at a desk in the East
Lampeter Township police station. Thereafter, she was moved to another
portion of the station, where she sat in the open squad room. Lieutenant
Renee Schuler testified that from that vantage point, Ms. Lambert was
able to hear the ongoing broadcast over the police radio about the
progress of the efforts to locate the bag Ms. Lambert and Mr. Yunkin
threw into the dumpster behind the K-Mart after the murder. (N.T.,
PCRA at 3838-39, 3840-41.) It is entirely likely and believable that Ms.
Lambert heard the transmission that the bag had been found and, at that
point, chose to come clean with Corporal Solt about what she was wearing
that morning.
89. The closest petitioner can come would be the closing argument of
James P. Cullen, Esquire, (now Judge Cullen) defense counsel in the Buck
trial. Mr. Cullen referred to the clothing worn by Ms. Lambert on the
morning of the murder and argued that it was ridiculous to think that she
would be wearing that clothing. He was clearly attempting to implicate
Mr. Yunkin in the murder. His reference was to an oversized flannel shirt
and he did not specifically refer to the sweatpants.
90. We should bear in mind that this theory is generated by the creative
machinery which would have us believe that Ms. Lambert's incriminating
statement was actually the result of a truth serum injection, that Ms.
Lambert's admission to wearing clothing found in the dumpster was
actually the result of a fabricated statement, that the crime scene

photographs were actually taken after the body was carried back into the
condominium by crooked police officers under the cover of night, and that
the dying declaration was really the result of a cunning detective's
suggestion to a distraught mother that she lie through two preliminary
hearings and two homicide trials to support a "frame up" that would
presumably convict defendant, who said she was once gang raped by three
police officers.
91. Of course, the best way to address this issue would have been to ask
Mr. Yunkin to try the pants on during his testimony. Neither side
suggested this step.
92. The federal testimony by Mr. Roberts, after viewing both videotapes,
was that he had, in fact, edited the video before giving it to the police:
Q. Is it possible that you edited those items out when you made this?
A. Sure. I probably did. I don't think anybody had anything to do with
that but me.
...
THE COURT: I'm a little confused based on that last answer you gave,
couple answers ago to Mr. Madenspacher.
THE WITNESS: Sure.
...
THE COURT: You have no reason to believe that when you made the
copy originally, that you gave it to them in an edited form?
THE WITNESS: I think it was in an edited form when I gave it to them,
yes. I think now -THE COURT: And it was edited?
THE WITNESS: -- after seeing it, I --
THE COURT: Why would it have been edited?

THE WITNESS: By me.
THE COURT: Why would you have edited it? It might have been an
important thing.
THE WITNESS: To cut out the walking and to cut out something else.
But nothing -- it wasn't an important situation at all to me.
THE COURT: It is now.
THE WITNESS: I know.
THE COURT: So I want you to be very careful. You're being 'very
sloppy' in your answers, so let's try this again. Go ahead. I'm not going to
let you leave here until we find the truth. That's the purpose of this. You
understand that?
THE WITNESS: Well, I would not lie on the stand.
THE COURT: And you understand that you're under oath, don't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, and I would -THE COURT: Good. And I want you to be -THE WITNESS: And I would not lie on this stand.
THE COURT: I want you to be 'very careful.'
(N.T., Habeas Hearing at 374-378.)
93. The federal district court concluded that a sneaker was found inside a
plastic bag. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1543. However, a
review by this court of both videotapes of the river search confirms that
the pink bag and the other bag were both empty. A conclusion that one of
these bags contained a sneaker requires a leap from the premise that Mr.
Yunkin's sneakers were put in a plastic bag to the conclusion that because
plastic bags were found, they must have contained sneakers and those
sneakers were then destroyed by the police. This "leap" requires reliance
on another unfounded assumption: that the police within a day or two
after the murder, were doing everything possible to destroy proof of Mr.
Yunkin's involvement. This is contrary to the credible testimony of both
Mr. Madenspacher and Mr. Kenneff that the Commonwealth was very
interested in any evidence which would tie Mr. Yunkin into the murder.
Further, this "leap" assumes that the police ignored another reality: that
a bag containing Mr. Yunkin's sneakers but discarded by Ms. Lambert
would have been further evidence of her involvement in the murder or in
the conspiracy. Moreover, a sneaker was found but not until the second
search conducted on December 23, 1991. Mr. Roberts was not present on
December 23, 1991, and no videotape was done of that search.
94. On cross-examination Ms. Lambert explained that the items were first
placed in a white bag and it was when they arrived at the river that Mr.
Yunkin took the white bag and placed it inside a red trash bag weighted
down with rocks. Ms. Lambert then threw the red bag into the river.
(N.T., Trial at 1154-55.) Mr. Yunkin testified that the bag thrown into the
river was white. (N.T., Trial at 262-63.)
95. Petitioner's Exhibit 1016-A is a 16-page Pennsylvania State Police
Investigative Report by Corporal Solt concerning his interviews with Ms.
Lambert on December 21, 1991. Attached to the report is a photocopy of
the seven page "Solt Statement" signed by Ms. Lambert, five and one-half
typed pages and one and one-half handwritten pages. The body of the 16
page report contains a summary and quotes from the 7 page statement.
96. This is a story created by Ms. Lambert, Ms. Buck and Mr. Yunkin in
preparation for possible questioning by the police.
97. At this point, Corporal Solt began to take a second statement from
her, i.e., the "Solt Statement." He asked Corporal Renee Schuler of East
Lampeter to assist him by taking notes as Ms. Lambert talked. Corporal
Solt then typed out the statement and gave it to Ms. Lambert for her
review and approval. This is Petitioner's Exhibit 1023.
98. Mr. Yunkin had, in fact, signed his statement the very same way.
99. We note that the federal district court found that the statement was a
"fabrication." See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F. Supp. at 1541-1542.
There is no mention in the district court's analysis of the December 23,
1991, letter from Ms. Lambert to Mr. Yunkin nor is there any reference
to Mr. Shirk's testimony about his reviewing the statement very carefully
with Ms. Lambert prior to trial. Nor is there any reference to Ms.
Lambert's clear testimony at trial about the accuracy of the "Solt
Statement." Perhaps had these important facts been made available to the
district court, the leap from "unique" to "fabricated" would have been
approached with somewhat more caution. We do not accept the
conclusion that Detective Solt's testimony about the statement was
"perjury" based upon Mr. Ries's weak testimony that the statement was
"unique."
100. Indeed, according to Dr. Smialek, the stab wound to the back would
have caused death within a matter of minutes.
101. It is worth considering that the charge of "fabricating" crime scene
photographs of the hallway concerns police conduct at the time of the
investigation or within the next day. At that point, Ms. Lambert had told
the police that Ms. Buck went crazy in the condominium and that she
(Lambert) turned away in horror. The story about grabbing Laurie
Show's wrists and attempting to pull her from the bedroom into the
hallway did not materialize until the trial. Yet, Ms. Lambert contends that
the police altered or staged photographs on December 20 or 21, 1991, to
discredit a story they would not hear until July 1992 in a courtroom.
102. At the start of the hearing, on April 30, 1998, petitioner's counsel
called Lieutenant Renee Schuler to the stand. Lieutenant Renee Schuler
was shown some 35 items of evidence which had been marked for
identification by petitioner's counsel. Normally, the court reporter would
mark exhibits but because of the large number of exhibits and because
many of these exhibits had been used previously by petitioner's counsel,
the court believed that the best system would be for them to use their own
numbering system. After 30 some exhibits had been shown to Lieutenant
Schuler, counsel for the Commonwealth pointed out that two items had
been marked Exhibit 883, two items had been marked Exhibit 900, none
of the exhibits marked had any dates or initials as to who marked them,
and that at least one empty envelope that came with an exhibit was no
longer attached to the exhibit. (N.T., PCRA at 137.) We took a recess and
determined that the safest course would be for the court reporter to mark
the exhibits. A substantial portion of the afternoon of April 30 and nearly
all of the morning of May 1, 1998, were consumed with the remarking and
organization of these exhibits. This substantial delay was caused by the
lack of any true organization of these important exhibits despite the good
efforts of petitioner's counsel. This is testimony itself to the difficulty in
managing large numbers of exhibits in a complex case where problems
arise from these circumstances without any dishonest or otherwise bad
motive.
103. As a practical matter, we believed and expressed to counsel at that
time that possible sanctions for his conduct in the Lambert investigation
imposed by the federal courts or any possible contempt citation for failure
to answer questions at the PCRA hearing would be of little concern to Mr.

Reed. He had just been convicted of five sex offenses. At the time this
discussion was taking place on May 11, 1998, Mr. Reed faced a substantial
state prison sentence. On July 6, 1998, Mr. Reed received a sentence of 9
to 18 years.
104. Commonwealth's Exhibit 4 is a compilation of police reports
produced to Mr. Shirk in discovery in 1992.
105. Ms. Buck, in her testimony at the PCRA hearing, confirmed that
Laurie's hair was cut with the knife. She recalls that Ms. Lambert cut
Laurie's hair.
106. She was emphatic about this because to establish her reason for not
seeking help for Laurie Show or contacting the authorities regarding the
brutal murder, she stated she was watched all day by Mr. Yunkin "like a
hawk." (N.T., PCRA at 5569.)
107. This is yet another example of an issue which on superficial analysis
looks bad. Upon careful consideration of what the license plate was, what
steps were taken by the police and what it ultimately might mean, what
looked bad has really no significance. An analysis of this issue which
proceeds beyond the superficial establishes no Brady violation.
108. Mr. Jeffries was listed as a Commonwealth witness in the PCRA case.
Despite this, and without leave of court or discussion with the
Commonwealth, petitioner's counsel retained Mr. Jeffries as their own
investigator. They did this despite the fact that Mr. Jeffries worked closely
with Mr. Shirk in 1992 and Mr. Shirk is the object of some 25 counts of
ineffective assistance of counsel.
109. We need not develop, but should note, that this theory is completely
at odds with the Baden/Smialek/Larson expert triumvirate which opined
that Ms. Show was dead anywhere from one minute (with the carotid
severed) to five minutes (under the best of conditions) after her wounds
were inflicted. Petitioner's counsel would have this court believe, by virtue
of Baden/Smialek/Larson that Ms. Show was dead almost immediately.
Yet, she was able to move across the floor to the closet door and inscribe
initials on the door. It appears that this would have taken much more
effort, thought and fine motor skill than the breathy, hoarse whisper she
uttered to her mother as she died.
Copyright 1997,1998, County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved.
courts Home Back Printable Version Text-Only Full-Screen eMail
Copyright 2001 County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved.
Court Rejects Lisa Michelle Lambert's Appeal
Welcome to About.com
http://65.54.175.250/cgi-bin/getmsg/CourtRejectsLisaMichelleLam...
What is About.com?
I'm Charles Montaldo, your Guide to Crime / Punishment. If this MSN search
is not what you were looking for, you may want to see our other popular
topics, such as Current Cases, Historical Crimes, or Death Penalty.
Related Topics
Issues / Controver...
Juvenile Crime
Law Enforcement
Missing Kids/Adult...
FREE Crime / Punishment Newsletter Enter email address

Crime / Punishment

Crime/Punishment Blog
Join the Crime & Punishment Discussion | Main | Michael Jackson Taken to Hospital
June 03, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of Lisa Michelle Lambert, who was convicted in 1991 of the stabbing of
a teenage rival in a case that became a USA Network TV movie, "The Stalking of Laurie Show."
The high court refused to hear the case, thereby upholding an earlier appeals court ruling that said that "Lambert's trial
was fair, amply supported and not infected by material error or injustice."
The court ruling apparently ends a long legal battle by Lambert to reverse her conviction. She had previously been freed
from prison in 1997 when a federal district judge ruled that Lambert was "actually innocent" and called the prosecutor's
behavior during her trial "the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct in English-speaking experience."
An appeals court later overturned the judge's ruling and she was returned to prison. She is serving a life sentence in
Clinton, N.J. Also convicted in the case were Lambert's boyfriend, Lawrence Yunkin, and friend Tabitha F. Buck. Yunkin
pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and was released to a halfway house in January pending his release. Buck is
serving a life sentence.
See Also:
Court Rejects Appeal in Stabbing Case
Earlier Article:
Court Upholds Lisa Michelle Lambert's Conviction
Topic Index | Email to a Friend | Print this Page

Our Story | Be a Guide | Advertising Info | Work at About | Site Map | Icons | Help
User Agreement | Ethics Policy | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy
2006 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
1 of 1
4/26/2006 7:50 PM
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 97-1281, 97-1283 and 97-1287
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT,
Appellee
v.
MRS. CHARLOTTE BLACKWELL, SUPERINTENDENT,
EDNA MAHAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR WOMEN,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellants
BRIEF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.,

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
Appeal for the Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania Entered on April 27, 1997 Granting Writ of Habeas Corpus
at Civil Action No.96-6244
D. MICHAEL FISHER
Attorney General of Pennsylvania
JEROME T. FOERSTER
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Appeals and Legal Services Section
* ROBERT A. GRACI
Assistant Executive Deputy Attorney General
Law and Appeals

16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-6348
*Counsel of Record
[additional counsel listed on inside cover]
DANIEL E. LUNGREN
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 324-5437
M. JANE BRADY
Attorney General of Delaware

820 North French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 577-3838
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General of Louisiana
P.O. Box 94095
Baton Rouge, LO 70804-9095
(504) 342-7013
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON

Attorney General of Oklahoma
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 112
Oklahoma City, OK 731054894
(405) 521-3921
CHARLES M. CONDON
Attorney General of South Carolina
P.O. Box 11549
Rembert C. Dermis Building
Columbia, SC 29211-1549
(803) 734-3970
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CITATIONS ii
INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2
ARGUMENT 4
I. The District Court Wrongly Excused Lambert's Failure To Exhaust Her

State Remedies 4
II. A Finding Of "Actual Innocence" May Not Serve As A Basis For

Prohibiting A Retrial Of Lambert In State Court 12
III. A Dismissal For Want Of Exhaustion Is Without Prejudice 16
CONCLUSION 17
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES Page(s)
Barry v. Brower,
864 F.2d 294 (3d Cir. 1988) 15
Brown v. Duchene,
l9 How. 183 (1857) 9
Carter v. Vaughn,
62 F.3d 591 (3d Cir. 1996) 6
Christy v. Horn,
___F.3d ___, No.96-9004 (3d Cir. filed June 5, 1997) 5, 10, 12, 16
Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance

Corporation,
489 U.S. 561 (1989) 9
Commonwealth v. Smith,
532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992) 6
Darr v. Burford
339 U.S. 200 (1950) 7
Doctor v. Walters,
96 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 1996) 6
Ex parte Quirin,
317 U.S. 1 (1942) 15
Felker v. Turpin,
___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2333 (1996) 16
Granberry v. Greer,
481 U.S. 129 (1987) 7, 8, 10
Herrera v. Collins,
506 U.S. 390 (1993) 14
Homma v. Patterson,
327 U.S. 759 (1946) 15
Keller v. Petsock,
853 F.2d 1122 (3d Cir. 1988) 15
Lane v. Williams,
455 U.S. 624 (1982) 11
Lindh v. Murphy,
___ U.S. ___ (1997 W.L. 338568 (U.S.)) 7, 8, 10, 11
McFarland v. Scott,
512 U.S. 849 (1994) 9
Moore v. Dempsy,
261 U.S. 86 (1923) 14
Murray v. Carrier,
477 U.S. 478 (1986) 13, 16
Preiser V. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475 (1973) 11
Re: Yamashita,
327 U.S. 1, 66 S.Ct. 340, 90 Ed. 499 (1946) 15
Rose v. Lundy,
455 U.S. 509 (1982) 7, 9, 11, 12
Santana v. Fenton,
685 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1982) 6
Sawyer v. Whitley,
505 U.S. 333 (1992) 13, 16
Schlup v. Delo,
513 U.S. 298 (1995) 4, 5, 13, 14, 16
Stafford v. Briggs,
444 U.S. 527 (1980) 9
Taylor v. United States,

177 F.2d 194 (4th Cir. 1949) 15
Toulson v. Beyer,
987 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1993) 6
United States ex rel Glockey v. Myers,

450 F.2d 232 (1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 1063 (1972) 14
United States v. Smith,
407 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1969) 15
Wade v. Mayo,
334 U.S. 672 (1948) 5
Wagenknecht v. Crouse,
344 F.2d 920 (lOth Cir. 1965) 15
Wainwright v. Sykes,
433 U.S. 72 (1977) 13, 16
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. 2244 1
28 U.S.C. 2244(b) 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16
28 U.S.C. 2254 1, 7, 15
28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(3) 7, 8, 9
28 U.S.C. 2254(c) 9
28 U.S.C. 2254(d) 9
28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) 9
28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2) 12
42 Pa.C.S. 9541 6
INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(1) and the States of California, Delaware,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, each represented by its Attorney
General, are vitally interested in the development, interpretation, and correct
application of the law governing federal habeas corpus actions. We represent
respondents from our respective States in federal habeas corpus actions brought
by State prisoners in the federal courts.
The present case includes procedural rulings that, in the view of the amici, are
antithetical to well-established case law and contrary to the statutory
prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. 2244 and 2254. Application of these holdings to
other habeas cases has the potential to seriously weaken, if not to dismantle
entirely, the system for litigating the habeas actions of state prisoners and could
seriously weaken, if not render meaningless, the notions of comity and
federalism that inform habeas jurisprudence. The amici States have a compelling
interest in the resolution of this appeal.
It is the belief of the amici states that the Court would find their views on the
procedural issues helpful as those issues and questions may be addressed
separately from the factual questions. Resolution of the procedural questions
presented has a potentially far-reaching effect on habeas litigation of national
significance.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The district court's use of its finding of "actual innocence" to help or allow
Lambert to excuse her failure to exhaust her state remedies was error. "Actual
innocence" is to be used only as a gate-keeper in situations of procedural bar or
second or successive petitions. Congress, and the courts, have recognized only
two exceptions to the exhaustion requirement -- an absence of an available
remedy or circumstances extant which would render the process ineffective for
the petitioner. Neither exception applies here. The district court erred in
construing Pennsylvania's post conviction statute to bar petitioner's claims in the
absence of any State court ruling to that effect. These amendments have put in
place a new, highly differential standard for evaluating state court rulings. Comity
and federalism concerns demand exhaustion here. They, instead were required
by the district court to "give way to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally
unjust incarceration." That standard is incorrect as it allows district courts to step
in whenever the constitution has been violated, regardless of whether the state
courts have had an opportunity to correct the injustice.
The district court also erred in its use of the finding of "actual innocence" as a
predicate to bar petitioner's retrial in State court on the underlying murder
charges. "Actual innocence" does not relate to guilt or innocence. Its sole use is
to allow district courts to hear and decide claims where there is a claimed abuse
of the writ or a second or successive petition if the failure to do so would
constitute a miscarriage of justice, or to excuse a procedural bar. Any attempt by
a habeas court to decide guilt or innocence, or to use its finding of "actual
innocence" in such a manner is beyond its power; it is a direct interference with a
state court's conduct of state litigation which is precluded both by the historic
nature of the writ and principles of federalism.
The district court further erred in concluding that this petitioner's "one bite at the
federal apple as contemplated by the AEDPA." To the contrary, mixed petitions
may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Such a petitioner may
later file her petition in the district court as if it were the first such filing, if she fails
to obtain the desired result in state court in exhausting here remedies.
ARGUMENT
Appellants have raised a number of issues before this Honorable Court each of
which cries out for relief. It is not the purpose of this brief to reiterate those salient
arguments, many of which are fact specific. Instead, the amici States will address
three procedural errors which, if affirmed by this Court, would stand as
misinterpretations of the proper scope of federal habeas corpus review and the
requirements to obtain such review and relief which would be cited as persuasive
authority in the federal courts of our respective jurisdictions. The errors to be
addressed by amici are: 1) the district court's creation of a new exception to the
statutory exhaustion requirement; 2) the district court's misuse of the habeas
corpus procedural concept of "actual innocence" as a basis for relief; and 3) the
district court's erroneous conclusion that dismissing a petition as "mixed" would
result in a habeas petitioner's having to satisfy the second petition requirements
of section 2244(b). 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). These errors will be addressed in order.
I. The District Court Wrongly Excused Lambert's Failure to Exhaust Her
State Remedies.
The district court erred in its use of "actual innocence" to help or allow Lambert
"to excuse her failure to present all of her evidence in the state system."
Memorandum at 10. (A.6005) The district court relied on Schlup v. Delo, 513
U.S. 298 (1995). Schlup involved the death row prisoner who had filed a second
petition for writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed for procedural bar
(second petition). Different from Schlup, this is Lambert's first petition. The district
court took solace in this fact assuming that since Schlup addressed "actual
innocence" in a second petition it was even more appropriate to do so in a first.
Memorandum at 10 n.8 (A.6005).
The district court obviously misunderstood that it was only because Schlup
involved a second petition that the concept of "actual innocence" or "miscarriage
of justice" had to be addressed at all. The petitioner in Schlup had to make a
showing of "actual innocence" in order for the substantive claims he raised in his
second habeas corpus to be addressed on the merits and so that he would not
suffer a dismissal of those claims. For Schlup, a showing of "actual innocence"
was required as a gate-keeper to his new claims. Since this was Lambert's first
petition, "actual innocence" was irrelevant. The habeas corpus gate was already
open to her, provided she met all of the statutory prerequisites, including the
requirement of exhaustion of state-court remedies.
Unlike the second petition situation presented in Schlup, Lambert's petition
presents the question of exhaustion of state court remedies, a conclusion with
which the district court agrees, at least as to some of Lambert's claims.
Memorandum at 85. (A.6080) As this Court has most recently observed, the
"'exhaustion requirement' is primarily grounded in the 'respect which federal
courts have for the state judicial process and upon the administrative necessities
of the federal judiciary.'" Christy v. Horn, ___ F.3d ___, No. 96-9004, slip op. At
10 (3d Cir. filed June 5, 1997) (quoting Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (1948)).
"State courts are duty bound to give full effect to federal constitutional rights, and
it cannot be assumed that they will be derelict in their duty. Only after state
remedies have been exhausted without the federal claim having been vindicated
may federal courts properly intervene. Indeed, any other rule would visit upon the
federal courts an impossible burden, forcing them to supervise the countless
state criminal proceedings in which deprivations of federal constitutional rights
are alleged." Wade at 679-80.
The exhaustion requirement has been codified by Congress since 1948. See 28
U.S.C. 2254(b) (1997 Supp.). Only two exceptions to this statutory requirement
were recognized by Congress: "that there is either an absence of available state
corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner." Id. Neither of these exceptions is
availing here. Pennsylvania has a post-conviction procedure for litigation of
federal constitutional claims, including alleged violations of due process. See
Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S. 9541 et seq.(2) Amici is aware of no
circumstance which would render Pennsylvania's process ineffective to protect
Lambert's rights. Indeed, the district court was confident that if given the
opportunity the State courts of Pennsylvania would grant identical relief under the
State Supreme Court's interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Double
Jeopardy Clause. Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992).
Memorandum at 79 n.45 (A.6074 n.45) The district court's refusal to follow the
exhaustion rule deprived the State courts of the ability to protect Lambert's rights.
In Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), which held that "mixed petitions" must be
dismissed for failure to exhaust, the Court stated that the "exhaustion
requirement is principally designed to protect the state courts' role in the
enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings."
Id. at 518. The Court then added "[b]ecause 'it would be unseemly in our dual
system of government for a federal court to upset a state court conviction without
an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation,' federal
courts apply the doctrine of comity, which 'teaches that one court should defer
action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another
sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have
had an opportunity to pass upon the matter.'" Id. (quoting Darr v. Burford, 339
U.S. 200, 204 (1950)). The Court spoke of "[a] rigorously enforced exhaustion
rule." Id.
In 1996, Congress strengthened the exhaustion requirement when it enacted the
AEDPA Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).(3) AEDPA
provides that "[a] state shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion
requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless the State,
through counsel, expressly waives the requirement." 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(3)
(1997 Supp.). Prior to the adoption of the AEDPA, case law allowed waiver by
implication. If a state did not raise exhaustion as a bar to relief, court were
required "to determine whether the interests of justice would be better served by
addressing the merits of the habeas petition or by requiring additional state
proceedings before doing so." Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 135 (1987). In
Granberry, the Court vacated the court of appeals decision which had rejected
the petitioner's waiver argument. The State had not raised the issue of
exhaustion of remedies until petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of
his habeas petition on the merits. Now, however, waivers of exhaustion by
implication, formerly permitted under Granberry, may no longer be found. 28
U.S.C. 2254(b)(3).
Moreover, assuming Grenberry is still the law, Lambert misreads Grenberry. Brief
for Appellant 52 ("the exhaustion doctrine 'is not rigid and inflexible" and can be
deviated from by the District Court in 'special circumstances.'"). If she were
correct, a federal district court could ignore the exhaustion requirement, conduct
a full evidentiary hearing (despite the severe restrictions Congress had placed on
such hearings in section 2254) and then say, "well, I've conducted a hearing and
now I determine that the requested relief should be granted." Such a reading
turns the exhaustion requirement upside down.
In addition in 1996 Congress for the first time delineated the standard of review
to be applied by the federal courts on an application for writ of habeas corpus
filed on behalf of a state prisoner. Congress adopted a "new, highly deferential
standard for evaluating state court rulings." Lindh v. Murphy, ___ U.S. ___ (1997
W.L. 338568, *7 n.7 (U.S.)). In what may be a limitation on a federal court's
jurisdiction, id. at *12 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting), Congress has said that the
federal courts lack the authority to grant the writ with respect to "any claim that
was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication
of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by
the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). This provision is
part of the same section which requires exhaustion of available State court
remedies. 28 U.S.C. 2254(b) and (c). They must be read in pari materia. See
Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation, 489 U.S. 561, 573 (1989) (the sections of the act "do not exist in
isolation, but are embedded within a complex statutory framework"); Stafford v.
Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 535 (1980) ("[i]t is well settled that, in interpreting a statute,
the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may
be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute;" quoting Brown v.
Duchene, 19 How. 183, 194 (1857)). See also, McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849,
858 (1994) (section of two different statutes referring to the same proceeding
"must be read in pari materia . . ."). It is against this backdrop that the exhaustion
requirement of the statute must be viewed.
New Section 2254(d) assumes that the claim presented in the federal court on an
application for writ of habeas corpus by a State prisoner has been "adjudicated
on the merits in State court proceedings," i.e. "exhausted." The federal court
must then ask if the adjudication in the State court "resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or if the
adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceedings." 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). If a district court judge refuses
to dismiss a mixed petition as required by Rose v. Lundy, supra, the federal
judge denies the State court the opportunity to make a determination of the facts
in light of the evidence presented (or otherwise) and to apply the established
Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The federal court has no state
court ruling against which to apply the "new, highly deferential standard for
evaluating state court rulings." Lindh v. Murphy, supra, at *7 n.7.
In amending section 2254, Congress clearly intended such deference. In doing
so it elevated the importance of exhaustion of State court remedies. Congress
recognized the intrusion into the State's legitimate authority over criminal
prosecutions and severely limited the circumstances under which the writ would
be granted. To ignore exhaustion of State remedies and to deprive the State
courts of the first opportunity to rule on the merits of federal constitutional claims
is to ignore the will of Congress.
In a case brought before the 1996 amendments to section 2254, this Court noted
that the "Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts are to 'exercise
discretion in each [habeas] case to decide whether the administration of justice
would be better served by insisting on exhaustion or by reaching the merits of the
petition forthwith.'" Christy supra, slip op. at 11 (quoting Granberry v. Greer,
supra at 131). As examples, the Court listed "state remedies are inadequate or
fail to afford a full and fair adjudication of the federal contentions raised, or where
exhaustion in state court would be futile." Id. (internal quotation marks deleted).
In other words, as already provided for by Congress in 2254(b), this Court then
stated that the mere risk that the state court will refuse to entertain and decide
the federal constitutional claim "cannot amount to an 'unusual circumstance.'"
Christy, slip op. at 11. In that capital murder case, this Court remanded with
directions to dismiss the mixed petition. Id. slip op. at 13. Nothing less may occur
under the current codification.
Moreover, exhaustion is not to be informed by any notion of punishing a state or
compensating a prisoner. "Unlike damages actions, which are quintessentially
backward looking, the writ of habeas corpus is prospective in nature. Habeas
does not compensate for past wrongful incarceration, nor does it punish the state
for imposing it. Instead, habeas is a challenge to unlawful custody, and when the
writ issues it presents further illegal custody." Lindh v. Murphy, supra, at *11)
(Rehnquist, C.J. dissenting opinion) (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631
(1982); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973).
The district court found "that this is an extraordinary case in which the principles
of comity that inform the requirement of exhaustion, must give way to the
imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration." Memorandum at
86. (A.6081) The district court then relied upon comity for "not requiring total
exhaustion." Id. The court ruled that "[j]ust as the principles of comity that inform
the doctrine of procedural default must give way when there is a manifestly
unjust incarceration, so too must those principles that undergird the exhaustion
requirements give way." Memorandum at 88. (A.6083)
However, the "principles that undergrid the exhaustion requirement" were put
there by the Congress. They are only to be informed by the doctrine of comity.
Rose v. Lundy, supra. The district court has in the matter sub judice, turned
comity on its head, elevating it to a position of an instrument for attacking the
States rather than limiting its use to that of an analytical took in determining
whether the requirements of 2254(b)(1)(A) or (B) have been met by a petitioner.
In Lindh v. Murphy, supra, the dissent maintained that "[t]here is a good
arguement that 2254(d) is itself jurisdictional." Id. at *11 (dissenting opinion by
Rehnquist, C.J.). The same argument can be made for 2254(b)'s exhaustion
requirement. In any event, courts must not be allowed to use the doctrine of
comity to eviscerate that requirement.(4)
The order of the district court should be reversed and the case should be
remanded with directions that it be dismissed as a "mixed petition" under Rose v.
Lundy, supra; Christy v. Horn, supra, or that Lambert be permitted to proceed
only on any federal claims that have been exhausted.
II. A Finding Of "Actual Innocence" May Not Serve As A Basis For
Prohibiting A Retrial Of Lambert In State Court.
The district court found that Lambert was "actually innocent" and that there was
also prosecutorial misconduct. It concluded that "this is an extraordinary case."
Memorandum at 74. (A.6069) Though the district court recited instances of
constitutional violations, including prosecutorial and police misconduct which
amounted, in the district court's view, to a deprivation of Lambert's due process
rights barring retrial in the State courts, the essence of the district court's
conclusion was predicated on the district court's finding that Lambert was
"actually innocent" of the murder of Laurie Show. Memorandum at 78-79.
(A.6073-6084)
The district court has misused its finding of Lambert's "actual innocence." A
finding of "actual innocence" simply allows district courts to hear the merits of
"claims if the failure to hear the claims would constitute a 'miscarriage of justice'"
where there is a claimed abuse of the writ or a second or successive petition,
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 338 (1992), or to excuse a procedural bar.
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). The Court in Sawyer denominated this
rule as the "miscarriage of justice or 'actual innocence' exception." It also stated
that it has a "narrow scope." Id. at 339-340. The Court had earlier "ruled that this
concept of 'fundamental miscarriage of justice' applies to those cases in which
the defendant was 'probably . . . .actually innocent.'" Id. (quoting Murray v.
Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495, 496 (1986) (procedural default bar to federal habeas
review)).
The Carrier "actual innocence" standard was applied in Schlup v. Delo, supra, a
case involving a death sentenced petitioner who claimed actual innocence in his
second federal habeas courpus petition. The Court stated that this standard
requires the petitioner to "show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable
juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence." Id. at ___, 115 S.Ct.
at 867. The Court further ruled that in "assessing the adequacy of petitioner's
showing. . .the district court is required to consider all other relevant evidence in
its inquiry, incorporate the standard of reasonable, properly instructed jurors
would do." Id. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 868 (emphasis added). Thus, district courts do
not have the power to determine guilt or innocence. That remains a function of
the jury.
This conclusion is further strengthened by the Court's discussion in Schlup
concerning reviewing claims of insufficient evidence, which focuses on whether a
rational juror could have convicted, as compared with the "actual innocence"
standard which, by "use of the word "would' focuses the inquiry on the likely
behavior of the [jury]." Id. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 868. The difference is that an
appellate court reviewing a verdict decides whether there is sufficient evidence
while a habeas court, when faced with a second or subsequent petition or a
procedurally barred claim, only decides whether a jury probably would have
acquitted.
Consequently, any attempt by the habeas corpus court to decide guilt or
innocence is without effect; it is beyond that court's power. A habeas court may
only make a "probabilistic inquiry," id., when it decides whether a petitioner has
met his "gateway standard," id. of "actual innocence" to avoid dismissal of the
petition because of abuse of the writ or successiveness. The ultimate question of
guilt of innocence, however, remains with the jury.
This Court has ruled that in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, the "inquiry
whether the accused is guilty is a role appropriate only for the courts of the
accusing state. The federal courts should confine their inquiry to the fairness of
the state procedures that led to the conviction." United States ex rel Glockey v.
Myers, 450 F.2d 232, 240 (1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 1063 (1972). A habeas
corpus review does not deal with "the petitioner's innocence or guilt. . . . " Herrera
v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993) (quoting Moore v. Dempsy, 261 U.S. 86-8788 (1923)). "Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence
have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an
independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal
proceeding." Id. at 400. "Thus, federal habeas courts act in their historic capacity
to assure that the habeas petitioner is not being held in violation of his or her
federal constitutional rights." Id. at 402. "[A] claim of 'actual innocence' is not itself
a constitutional claim . . . ." Id. at 404.
Inquiring into guilt or innocence is a "direct interference with a state court's
conduct of state litigation," which is precluded both by "the historic nature of the
writ and principles of federalism." Barry v. Brower, 864 F.2d 294, 300 (3d Cir.
1988). In Barry, the district court granted a writ of habeas corpus and directed the
state court to reinstate Barry's appeal. The State of New Jersey appealed. This
Court stated that "[t]he writ of habeas corpus gives a court power to direct an
official to produce the body of a person in custody in the court issuing the writ.
The issuing court then has jurisdiction to free the person in custody from the
restraints imposed upon his liberty. . .[but it] does not have the power to directly
intervene in the process of the tribunal which has incorrectly subjected the
petitioner to the custody of the respondent." Id. at 299-301. This Court then held
that the district court erred in directing the state court to reinstate the appeal,
ruling that "[a]n order in the nature of a decree nisi directing Barry's release from
Brower's custody unless the state court acts to reinstate his appeal within thirty
days. . .is all that is required." Id. at 301. See also, Keller v. Petsock, 853 F.2d
1122 (3d Cir. 1988) (federal court do not have authority under 28 U.S.C. 2254
to remand a habeas corpus petition to state court for an evidentiary hearing); Ex

parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (on application for a writ of habeas corpus, court
is not concerned with any degree of guilt or innocence); Re: Yamashita, 327 U.S.
1, 66 S.Ct. 340, 90 Ed. 499 (1946) (same); Homma v. Patterson, 327 U.S. 759
(1946) (same); Wagenknecht v. Crouse, 344 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1965); United
States v. Smith, 407 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1969); Taylor v. United States, 177 F.2d
194, 195 (4th Cir. 1949) (guilt or innocence is not subject to review by federal
courts in a habeas corpus proceeding.)
The district court was without authority to grant relief to Lambert based upon her
"actual innocence." Such a finding may only be used as permitted by the
Supreme Court, to avoid dismissal because of an abuse of the writ or a
successive petition or a procedural bar. Schlup v. Delo, supra; Sawyer v. Whitley,
supra; Murray v. Carrier, supra; Wainwright v. Sykes, supra.
The grant of the writ should be reversed.
III. A Dismissal For Want Of Exhaustion Is Without Prejudice.
The district court, relying on Felker v. Turpin, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2333
(1996), which was decided under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) (1997 Supp.), ruled that
"were we to dismiss this case as a mixed petition. . .petitioner would be deemed
to have her one bite at the federal apple as contemplated in the AEDPA. This
would mean that for her to return to federal court, she would. . need the approval
of the Court of Appeal. . . a constitutionally intolerable result which fails to protect
[petitioner's] rights." Memorandum at 85-86. (A.6080-6081)(5) This was error.
This Court has recently addressed this statutory construction issue, stating:
"[w]hen a prior petition has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to
exhaust state remedies," the petitioner is not "required to seek authorization from
the court [of appeals] to file a petition for habeas corpus." Christy v. Horn, supra,
slip op. at 13. Such a "petitioner may file his petition in the district court as if it
were the first such filing." Id.
As Christy was properly decided, the district court's conclusion to the contrary
cannot stand. The order of the district court should be reversed.
CONCLUSION
The conclusions of the district court in failing to require exhaustion of State court
remedies and in granting relief based on its conclusion that a State prisoner was
"actually innocent" are, quite simply, wrong. They ignore the will of Congress and
the decisional law of this circuit and of the Supreme Court. They stand the
limited, corrective function of habeas corpus on its head. Amici urge reversal.
Respectfully submitted,
D. MICHAEL FISHER
Attorney General
JEROME T. FOERSTER
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Appeals and Legal Services Section
BY: _____________________________________
* ROBERT A. GRACI
Assistant Executive Deputy Attorney General
Attorney I.D. No. 26722
Counsel for Amici States
Law and Appeals

16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-6348
* Counsel of Record
Date: July 21, 1997

1.
2. - - ' " " " " "
3. '
4. ' " " ' " "
5. " "

1998 AFFIDAVIT For Judge Dalzall Re Lambert Case

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1998 AFFIDAVIT For Judge Dalzall Re Lambert Case

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

AFFIDAVIT OF STANLEY J. CATERBONE

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

A) SPEEDING (F-1) B) OPEN ALCOHOLIC CONTAINER IN

VEHICLE C) UNREGISTERED VEHICLE (NEW JERSEY DEALER MAILED REGISTRATION MATERIALS

All of the Police Officers were verbally

B) CRIMINAL MISCHIEF (F-3) C) UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT (H-1) D)

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

After several hours, the plaintiff was again

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

enterprises of Mr. James Guerin

Stanley J. Caterbone, Plaintiff

Plaintiffs Findings Of Facts

This page intentionally left blank.

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

March 30, 1985 -

April 20, 1985 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

June 12, 1986

June 19, 1986

June 22, 1986

August 14, 1986 -

August 21, 1986 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

January 26, 1987 -

February 11, 1987 -

February 19, 1987 -

March 10, 1987 -

March 24, 1987 -

March 26, 1987 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Hibbard Brown & Company, of Washington, D.C.,

April 14, 1987 -

April 16, 1987 -

April 18, 1987 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

May II, 1987 -

May 11, 1987 -

May 13, 1987 -

May 14, 1987 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

May 16, 1987 -

May 18, 1987 -

May 18, 1987 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

May 21, 1987 -

May 26, 1987 -

May 27, 1987 -

May 29, 1987 -

Stan Caterbone sells 1,000 shares of ISC stock.

June 10, 1987 -

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

June 17, 1987 -

June 18, 1987-

Finding of Facts Resulting in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

June 23, 1987 -