Jim's response

Yay...Jim wrote back.  Boo...He refused to reveal who had mis-lead and mis-informed him of his wrong info on Dean.    I now believe that Jim is not a former juror, but possibly an investigator of the prosecutor.   He states that he never said that Dean testified to a different story , but that there was a different story from the first trial.  A juror would never say that.  The only person who would say that is someone who was lied to by the prosecution, or someone who listened to a jailhouse tape where I, Tara, stated that I believed the evidence was tampered with, and I wanted to investigate it.  The main reason that I believed this is because: 1) I was there the night the lead detective took Deans' only tennis shoes as an afterthought before he left our home, and those shoes were sparkling white like they always were, because Dean was obsessed with having clean white shoes.  2) the sock that was supposedly Dean's and had blood on it, was way bigger than the other sock that was its' "pair". I thought a switch was made with a victims sock, because Deans DNA was not in the sock that had the victims blood.  Explain that. 3)The lead investigator kept Deans shoes and socks in his office for two days before submitting it to the crime lab. (very suspicious). 4) The lead Detective had been in the newspaper for misconduct and poor morals when representing an investigation in Canada. Their police filed a complaint against him.  5) The lead detective was not allowed by the court to look in the Blazer until there was justifiable evidence to do so. Having the victims blood on a sock or shoe of Deans would be that evidence. How hard is it to go to the murder site, and turn the shoes upside down and dirty them up in the blood, and switch one sock with the victims sock that had blood on it?
The bottom of Deans shoes had no blood.  How is that possible when you are standing and walking in dirt with fresh blood? 6) the shoes shown in court looked dirty, and even the other detective who had seen the shoes said that they did not look like the clean shoes he had seen on Dean. hmm? and finally 7) He never wore his tennis shoes when going someplace directly from work. He had on his dark work shoes. His tennis shoes were at home.   All of this made me think that there was evidence tampering because I still could not talk to Dean un-recorded.
I asked his attorney to follow up on it, but he said that it was not needed and Dean did not agree with me. That was frustrating.  So.....nothing ever came of it, but I still think that is a theory worth exploring.  After Dean's first trial though, when I could visit with him in person at prison, he did provide me with the way the blood got on him.  He apologized for ever being involved and said that he did not want to tell me, because he knew it would hurt me to know that he wasn't completely innocent.
 Jim argues with me that the female jurors were not passive because he was there and saw it.  This makes me know he was not there.  We got letters from two female jurors and the jury foreman who all stated that the women were sheep in the deliberations and acted like they were in a daze.  The young male wanna be cop juror (or Monster Drink guy as the jurors told us they referred to him)  was the most aggressively outspoken and critical of Dean, coming up with body language interpretations of him and talking about knives like he was an expert. We got letters of apology from jurors for their not doing their duty in the deliberations and rushing through the process.  So Jim, you were not there and I do not believe for one moment you are a former juror.  I think your conscience is bothering you, and that is a good thing. Maybe your guardian angel is trying to reach you to come forward and help Dean get his freedom.  I think he has been punished enough for being an idiot gang member in his youth.

A comment from Jim

Someone named Jim responded to my last post, and it was a troubling comment, and an interesting one.  Jim stated that he believes Dean is guilty and he was a juror.  He says that after trial he found out that Dean's story changed from the first trial.  Since this is not true at all, because Dean never testified in the first trial, we wonder who would have mis-informed Jim this . (the prosecutor?)
 We would love to talk with you Jim if you are willing, so we can find out what other mis-information the prosecutor has told you so that you felt right about voting guilty.  Please send us another message if you are willing.   There was so much misconduct in these two trials which made the jury believe things that just were not so.
We hope as time goes by, that you will reflect more on the evidence and non-evidence, the coaching of snitches who are now walking free, and then realize that you are in denial, not us who have known Dean forever, and have lived through this nightmare.
 You can read through the whole trial on the blog, and maybe it will refresh your memory. From reports from other jurors, we know that the men pushed for the verdict and the others were like dazed sheep.  I guess you were one of those, and you want to believe that you were right because, this will stay on your karma for eternity.
 Please contact us again to let us know who told you this lie and what else they have told you.
Deans first trial was totally different with multiple co-defendants, and all remained mum, because they were still under the brainwashed impression that there was no alternative.  No one wanted to be a snitch, and Dean certainly and naively thought the evidence would set him free. He always thought it would.  That is why he returned from Australia, Europe, and the Caribbean for his second trial.  He could have disappeared, but he had faith that intelligent people would see through the crap and follow jury rules about doubt.
   Because Dean never testified, his attorney only showed that jury in the first trial, how mistakes in DNA typing can be made, and the one doing his test was written up for her mistakes and had to go back for re-training.  He left it at that.  The blood spot was very tiny, yet the D.A. with confusing language and direct, led the jury to believe that there were oodles of it.  That was smoke, and our attorney in the second trial did not make that clear to you.
  We his family never found out the truth until we were able to visit him in prison and talk without being recorded, months after the first trial.  We never got to meet with him and talk privately before or during the first trial.  Until, I could talk to Dean, I thought there was evidence tampering, and I still do not rule that out. I wanted to explore that, but the second attorney said it was not necessary. Dean could finally tell us what he told you in trial.  Of course we didn't have his words twisted and the truth bent like you did from the prosecutor.
 Deans biggest mistake was not coming forward right away and telling the police the truth, and helping them solve the case.  But, stupid young gang members just do not do that.  Ones, who really are afraid of serving life in prison (like Roy, who was threatened with that for the crime he committed.), will cooperate with cops. Salazar was a professional snitch, probably still is. Who knows. How did you miss in the trial that both Roy and Salazar , who were in different prisons when interviewed, both said that Raffie and Willie did the crime.?  It wasn't until they were given no deal, and Deans name was thrown in there multiple times, that they switched their story to Raffie and Dean.  
 The point is, life in prison without parole is not what Dean deserves, and we have faith as more and more truth comes out, that he will get out too.
  Maybe one day, you can help make it right for Dean.  Again, please contact us and let us know what else the prosecution team told you after the trial.

Habeas Filed

Well, our family project of the federal Habeas appeal has been filed.  We all pray that it will be read and work in Deans favor.  Strange thing... when I filed it in person at the courthouse, a question came up and the Magistrates clerk was called.  She told the window filer that she remembers my name because someone called her saying they were me and asking questions about the case.  Hmmmmm?????  I told them it wasn't me and I would like to know who would do this and that maybe I should ask the FBI to investigate.  He told me not to worry, that if it happened again, they would check phone records and be on it.  Is this more shenanigans by the prosecution?  Hopefully, the clerk was confusing me with someone else, and it was someone with a similar name.  Time will tell.   Happy Easter everyone......new beginnings.

Life imprisonment

So.... the guy that shot Gabby Gifford and killed six others gets Life in prison.  He has a possibility of parole.  Yet, Dean, convicted in the death of one person and wrongly so, gets life without parole.
If he does not get pardoned or win another trial, he will die one day of old age in prison.  Did his jury even understand this?    I think all of them will one day be in a prison of their own, whether through illness or isolation, and when they are, they can remember their punishment of Dean, and will understand why.  Karma is part of the universe.  No one can escape it. 
 To the snitches who lied, why do you think your lives suck, and why you can never get ahead?  Until you make right what you did to Dean, don't expect any kind of a wonderful life.  Dean is paying karmically for his mistakes right now.  No one can get away from it.

Man set free after 23 years

I just read in the news paper that a man was set free after 23 years because it was proven that jail house snitches had lied, police had lied and intimidated witnesses, and the prosecutor had gone along with all of it on convicting this innocent man of murder.  It happened in New York. A new District Attorney re-opened the case and found all the deceit.  Another case of bad cops, and using jail house snitches.   Hmmmmm.....sound familiar? 
 If only this could happen for Dean, sooner... rather than later.  Of course, this man had never been a gang member, so the chances for Dean are probably remote.  Life can be soooo sad, and then so wonderful.

Bad wishes from anonymous

It's interesting how the few people who believe that Dean is guilty and post a comment with mean thoughts, never put their name behind it.  It always says anonymous. 
Yesterday, someone emotionally wrote mean things on the blog.  She called Dean a liar and murderer, and hoped he rotted in prison.  She probably had trouble understanding what she was reading on the blog, and for some reason wants to hate Dean.  People who hate and are judgmental, freak out when a part of them hears the truth and it is not what they have been basing their hate on.  It is hard to get someone who has believed a friend or relative's lies about another, to now accept the truth, and what they had believed, is really wrong.  They do not want to give up that energy that comes from hate and anger.  Their ego does not want to be wrong.  This person who hates Dean, and does not know him, has believed someone else's lies about him. I do not think that this person realizes that Dean has life in prison without any parole.  That is usually the punishment for serial killers, mass murders, violent repetitive acts against others, pre-meditated murder against a wife or friend etc.  She wanted Dean to rot in prison for what?  He did not kill Miguel, and he has never killed any one.  He messed up in his teen years and was involved in criminal acts just like the rest of the gang, but he would never murder any one, nor did he ever try to.   He was railroaded by supposed friends and made the scapegoat, and then unjustly given more punitive charges than is normal.  There are many gang members in prison for things that they did not do, but because they were in a gang, and did other crimes, they end up getting convicted for something they did not do.  As soon as a juror hears that a defendant is or was a gang member, that juror (in Orange County) no longer cares if the defendant is innocent. The juror just wants to get rid of another gang member from society.  If the charge is not murder, that defendant will eventually get out of prison.  Hopefully when he does, he will be a better person and stay away from gangs and drugs.  Any one who is in a gang and does drugs will end up in prison if caught.  They only have themselves to blame.  They need to take it well, and not start lying to get out, like Dean's snitches did.  This only adds to their karma, and not in a good way. 
 Dean was really an idiot to be in a gang and to do drugs.  Luckily, he changed and is now who he should have been all along.  His book tells about this change and also is a warning for all of you in the gang culture to not believe in loyalty, or in the whole fantasy gang life.  As soon as you get jumped in, you are considered a criminal in society, and society if they get a chance, will put you in prison.  So before you decide to get "jumped in", know that this means you are getting jumped in to prison, to your family being dishonored, to your family having to visit and support you in prison, and to losing your freedom.  If that's what you want, then get jumped in, and never complain when it happens whether you get convicted for a crime that you did or did not do.  Dean does not complain.  He feels that he was playing roulette and lost.  He feels badly now for hurting his family whom he loves and for acting the fool.  He only hopes that he will not be in prison for life.
  To emotional "anonymous", why do you not have the courage to say who you are and claim your thoughts on Dean?  I put myself out here with my thoughts, and those who send positive comments for Dean, always identify themselves.   We are all on a karmic path in this life and all have struggles.  We should not be cruel to one another.   Life is hard enough.

Arizona Trial

Isn't it amazing how in Arizona as shown lately in the news, that the jury in the Arias case gets to ask the defendant questions, and she gets to answer them?    I think about how wonderful that would have been if jurors could have asked Dean questions and then heard his answers, instead of just relying on the D.A.'s interpretations of the events.  One example is; that the D.A. kept repeating that one sneeze could not have spattered all those blood drops on the dash and steering wheel.  If Dean had been asked about that, he could have explained that the blood drops were not from the sneeze.  The sneeze is what caused his nose to bleed (which happened frequently to him).  As he was driving, he pinched his nose so blood wouldn't pour out.  As the fingers got blood filled, he would then shake them off, and repeat trying to stop the blood flow.   From the email from the jury foreman to us, we saw that the jury all agreed that "one sneeze could not cause that many drops on the dash and wheel". (They just repeated what the D.A. said.)
  There were many instances of this, and how much more clear would it have been, if they could have asked questions to Dean directly?  It's just a shame that Dean's trial was in Orange County, Ca. 
All we can hope for now is that the Federal courts see how unfair Dean's trial was and how ridiculous it was to give him life in prison without parole.  That jury has terrible karma.