THOMPSON'S RESPONSE
Next on Thompson's list of endorsements is this:
September 17, 2002 the lead investigator informed the Court that to the best of his
knowledge that the 911 dispatch card did not contain any information on its back,
yet on October 18, 2002 the State produced the back of the 911 card and it contained
the name, address and telephone number of a witness who is the last known person
who spoke with Karen Tipton prior to her murder.
Everything in this paragraph is true. The 911 dispatch card does not ordinarily contain
any information on its back, and Mike Pettey was telling the truth. The investigators
obtained the original dispatch card and provided it to the Court, exactly as they were
ordered. I don't know why somebody scribbled Sarah Holden's name, address, and
phone number on the back of it--maybe because her husband called 911 upon learning
of Karen's death, and was giving the information to make it easier for police to contact
them. The implication is that Mike Pettey somehow withheld the back of the 911
dispatch card from the defense lawyers, that it was pertinent, exculpatory
evidence--when the simple truth is that it wasn't important what somebody scribbled on
the back of a form, and that the information was provided when it was asked for. And
once it was provided, it amounted to nothing, anyway.
Next:
The State had in its possession a statement of Michael Ezell taken on March 16,
1999. The state had in its possession a statement of Stephen Thomas Link taken
March 24, 1999. The State had in its possession a statement of David Eugene
Redmon dated July 20, 2001. At the discovery hearing on September 17, 2002 the
State represented to the Court "Most of these people we don't have any statements
from. We don't have any formal written statement that's not in the police's
possession. There are a few that we have that we don't think is relevant and we'll
turn them over in camera with the Court's permission." Even though the State was
under a court order from June 10, 2001 to produce all statements, the State did not
produce these statements until just a few weeks prior to trial.
At the discovery hearing September 17, 2002, the defense lawyers were demanding
copies of "written statements" from a large number of people, including all members of
the paving crew and Sarah Holden. The State's response of "most of these people" is
referring to that large group--not the three the judge lists here. The State argued the
three written statements above were not relevant or exculpatory, but turned them over to
the judge, who disagreed. So the defense lawyers had these statements 44 days before
trial. They had all three individuals subpoenaed and available in court. The court order
of June 10, 2001 went to the District Attorney's office, incidentally--not the AG's office.
The State of Alabama produced these three written statements to the judge once it had
been argued in the hearing and the judge ruled against them.
Then:
The state had in its possession AOL information from April 6, 1999, but refused to
produce said documents until September 23, 2002 and then only produced one page
of the documentation.
Maybe that's because there was only one page. The total amount of information
provided by AOL to investigators was one page, confirming that, indeed, Karen Tipton
had an account with AOL. It wasn't exactly a secret; it was released on the AP wire
when police subpoenaed AOL.
Judge Thompson finishes with the bloody footprint, and the FBI report, already
discussed at length here. He concludes by saying these items listed above are "just a
sampling of the discovery violations." And that "frankly, the case should have been
mistried on more than one occasion."
Judge Thompson has spoken. He just didn't answer the question.