Losing Hope

As time passes, we are losing hope that jurors will tell us something that will help Deans case sooner rather than later. It seems that the jurors mainly remember the prosecutions case, not the defendants'. Key facts (for Dean) slipped their mind. Did they really not hear Dean's attorney, Did they already have their minds made up after hearing the prosecution's story, or have they just conveniently forgotten important points (for Dean) to avoid feelings of guilt? I ask myself these questions trying to understand . It is extremely mind boggling to experience first hand the eager jump to punishment that these jurors inflicted on Dean. It tears at my hope for humanity. I take it to the bigger picture of our country. If this is what our country is made up of currently, how are we going to succeed again? Look at what is happening right now... our biggest financial companies are crumbling due to greed, self interest, and total dis-regard for our fellow human being. Where was caution, deliberation, empathy and common sense with these people of AIG, Merrill Lynch etc.?? How can these jurors now judge the corporate giants, when they are guilty of the same type of attitude? I find myself looking at real estate in Victoria, B.C., and then I remember that I cannot leave Dean alone in prison.
Our family has to stay here for him. We have had barriers put in place on us. At times, when I have caught myself having fun or even laughing, I feel guilt that I could have a good time, when Dean does not. I tell myself again that life is to be enjoyed when possible. There are many difficult and sad things that happen in life, so we must grab some happiness when we can.
I enjoyed so much being a mother to my children and staying at home with them. I got involved with all things that they were involved in. I coached, did PTA, volunteered for the Boys and Girls Club with them, and spent my time with them. I was the mom that took all the neighbor kids to the beach during summer break. What happened to Dean when he was 16, should not have happened in our family. My job changed from enjoying my child to now having to out smart him, spy on him and protect him from himself. If that had worked out, it would all have been worth it. The criminal justice system and the jury took that away from me. I failed to save him . Dean failed at convincing a jury of his innocence even though he was not supposed to have to do that.(according to the law). There have been so many lies told by the state, and by the snitches. Lies are all around us, especially in this presidential race. It just makes me feel hopeless sometimes about people. I still pray daily, but not as fervently. We have good grounds for an appeal, but the process will take two to three years. But then, what kind of jury will we get? Will it be more of the same? We know we want an actor for a lawyer next time. We want sarcasm and repeating the same things over and over so it stays in the juries mind, but will we be able to afford such a person. Andrea does federal law and mostly not in the court room, so she cant be the attorney. Is there hope still for Dean's freedom? He is innocent and there are many stories that are true about inmates getting released 10 to 20 years later on new evidence and snitches recanting their lies. Our hope rests on these stories.
If any one wants to read the whole blog, just click on the month on the side column and everything that happened that month in trial will come up. Each side heading has something to offer on Deans story and Deans case. I hope others who have gone through similar experiences find it, and it will help them realize that they are not alone in this bizarre legal system.
I will not write anymore until there is news on an appeal. That could be a year from now. We just do not know. Luckily, Dean adapts to any situation and tries to keep his spirits up and to help those around him. He really should be in the peace corps somewhere.

To Another Anonymous

We got another person trying to comment on the blog. Of course there was no name attached to the writings. It was mostly derogatory with plenty of profanity. We think it might have been from Johnny Roy. If it was, this is for him. Johnny, I doubt that I will ever be able to talk to you but your deal with the prosecution back in 1998 has hurt our entire family beyond repair. It wouldn't have been so bad if you really had told the truth. We understand that the detectives would not get you a deal unless you said what they wanted you to say for their case, but has it really been worth it for your soul? You can get high for the rest of your life trying to escape your conscience, but it won't change a thing. When it finally is your time to enter eternity, deals cannot be made to protect you. You can e-mail us at the address on the blog if you want; no one will see it, because we only put stuff on that people want on. I only pray that one day, you will stop caring about yourself and do the right thing. May be the truth will come out from you at the next trial when Dean gets another chance. If you do not have the guts, then at least write the real truth down and keep it safe somewhere, so that one day it could set Dean free.

Questions

I received a comment on the blog today from someone who seemed confused as to how Dean went so astray. He accuses me of not being a good mother as a possible reason. How does he explain Andrea then? So much does not make sense in this case except to those who have lived it with us. All I can say to this anonymous writer is that if he really wants to know the answers to his questions, he should write Dean and ask him. Ask him what kind of family he had, and what kind of mother and father, and how he got in to gang behavior? He will gladly answer you, because part of his finding himself again, was by asking himself these questions. I know the answers but it would be better coming from him. I am sure it will all be in a book some day. Deans address is on this blog.

OC Register comments

This morning I read a comment from the OC Register on-line. Someone who called himself "observer" wrote some of his feelings about Dean's guilt. From his comments, I am guessing that it is one of the investigators from the D.A.'s office. He was too cowardly to sign his name. At least my comments have my name on them. His comments all had the bent that Dean was supposed to prove his innocence not that the prosecution was supposed to prove guilt.
He stated things {like fact} that were not in evidence which reminded me of Gundy's closing comments. He wondered about things that made no sense. One of the things he said was "How could Dean get blood transfered to his sock and shoes underneath long pants?" I guess he wasn't in the courtroom when Dean said that he was wearing long SHORTS when the transfer happened. His question was a good one though in questioning the prosecution's case, because the prosecutor wanted the jury to believe that Dean somehow got blood on his socks under his LONG pants during the murder. Hmmmm??
Another question that he asked was "How could a sneeze splatter upward?" I guess he wasn't in the courtroom for that answer either. Dean sneezed, which caused a bloody nose which he tried to stop off with his fingers while driving. As his fingers get full of blood, it makes sense that he would shake them off and then go back to trying to stop the flow. This is exactly how the prosecutor thinks the blood got on the windshield except that he says that Dean is shaking his finger from a knife cut. Dean never said the splatters were from the sneeze. He thought the ones on the dash might have been though. People just do not seem to listen to a defendant do they???
[especially an investigator for the D.A./, right Sullivan?]
This "Observer" also thought Andrea was arrogant on the stand. If any person was arrogant in that court room it was the prosecutor and then Johnny Roy. Andrea was asked a speculative question by the D.A., and then when she speculated, he accused her of "speculation". That was strange. I just think he was intimidated by goodness, because Andrea is the most honest and nice person I have ever known.
Anyway, that the [investigator] "observer" wrote in to the newspaper means that maybe he is battling his conscience. He is trying a last ditch effort to convince himself that he was right in his feelings and investigations. Too bad though that he lied about seeing the blazer in the defense video. He still hasn't reached that honest spot yet in his soul. Our investigator from the last trial who was an ex-cop saw no blazer there just like the rest of us. I pray for "observer" that in his future cases, he is not so judgemental. All of us on the defense side feel good about ourselves and know that we have remained honest citizens. Our souls are clear.

A Friend and Experienced Juror

Letter to the Jurors:

I am a family friend who really got to know Dean over the four years he was out awaiting his appeal. I had no idea he was accused of a crime until the D.A. had him rearrested, accusing him of a capital crime that landed him in jail again until his trial. I was able to spend time with Dean and get to know him and found him to be a very respectful and interesting person.

I know that Dean is not guilty of this crime, not because I know Dean and know who he is, but because I have seen the same evidence that you, the jurors have seen, and cannot see how, after a thorough evaluation of each piece of evidence, a reasonable person could conclude guilt in this case. I am extremely disappointed in you, the jurors in this case, for not performing your duty, for not fully evaluating the evidence, for not fully understanding what evidence is, for not weighing the facts as presented, for presuming guilt, for being taken in by the Oscar Winning Performance by the D.A.

I have sat on at least a dozen juries over the years, I have been the foreman, the lone hold out with eleven others voting against me, I have infuriated other jurors because I did not agree with them, I have not agreed to a quick deliberation because the weekend was coming up or I had something more important to do. Nothing was more important to me than to do my duty and give the defendant in each case that I have heard my complete and full attention in determining the truth through a thorough examination of the evidence.

I have read that some of you did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt. Here is the definition of reasonable doubt that is read to juries prior to deliberation, with copies also provided for the jurors in the jury deliberation room.

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt,
because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or
imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire
comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the
jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding
conviction of the truth of the charge.

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the defendant was the perpetrator of any such charged crimes. The defendant is not required to prove himself innocent or to prove that any other person
committed the crimes charged.

Reasonable doubt is sometimes referred to as: to a moral certainty. Put another way, you better be damned sure.

Were you all damned sure that the evidence supported your verdict? Were you damned sure that was a white blazer in the video? Some of your comments seem to suggest that may be it was a blazer, or there was a likeness of a blazer. A likeness of anything could be anything. I guess you were damned sure that there was a likeness of a blazer? I saw the same video that you all saw, the washed out version that the D.A. wanted you to see. Where is the likeness of anything in that video? Ok, so you say there is a likeness of a blazer in the video, how is it tied to the crime, did the D.A. tell you? Did the Sheriff find evidence in the blazer that definitively tied it to the crime scene? NO!!! Why, because it was not at the crime scene, and therefore, Dean was not at the crime scene. The Sheriff had that vehicle for six weeks, testing every inch of that vehicle for some evidence that tied it to the crime scene. They tore the vehicle apart looking for something that was not there. They found evidence that Dean was in the blazer, visible and microscopic blood from Dean.

You heard testimony that there was soaking wet blood from the victim on clothes. How is it possible for clothes seemingly dripping in blood to somehow not transfer any of that blood to the interior of the blazer? Did the perpetrators, after committing this crime, hang around the crime scene long enough to strip off all of the bloody clothes, seal them in a plastic bag, change into other clothes and get into the blazer and drive away? This sounds more believable than the D.A.’s version of 16 and 17 year old boys, with the forensic technology that we have today, completely sanitizing a vehicle so well that there was no trace of them or the victim in the vehicle. Most 16 and 17 year old boys don’t even know how to lift up the toilet seat when they pee, let alone thoroughly sanitize a vehicle. Also, they were such experts at sanitizing this vehicle that they knew to leave microscopic and visible blood of Dean’s in the vehicle as well as fingerprints from two other individuals that were in the vehicle days before this crime was committed that were also not visible. Oh, and since this was Dean’s vehicle, he helped clean the vehicle and he chose to leave visible traces of himself in the vehicle along with leaves, dirt, other trash, and also decides to leave tennis shoes with a blood drop on them in his closet, for what, a memory of this event. An unbelievable story and all of this is not reasonable doubt?

I also want to point out to you that guilty people do not usually take the stand in defense of themselves. Dean took the stand and told you his story truthfully. For the four years that Dean was out of jail, he had the opportunity to visit relatives outside the country. Would a guilty person come back to this country for a trial just so that he could spend the rest of his life in jail?

The facts as presented by the D.A. are not reasonable. Another portion of jury instructions indicates: Statements made by attorneys during the trial are not evidence. You had this with you in the deliberation room and it was read to you by the judge, before the trial began and just before deliberations. Why do you all give so much weight and credibility to what the D.A. said at trial? It is as if you hung on his every word, his statements cemented in your heads, guilty until proven innocent. Statements made by attorneys are not evidence, why did you not remember this? Why did you not decide for yourselves? This was not some theatrical play that the D.A. played a starring role in and you were his supporting cast. This life and your poor decisions have affected a life. Where was your morality? You all have to live with your decision for the rest of your lives, you have to live with the guilt that you made the wrong decision, the guilt that you did not give your full and undivided attention to the process, that you did not thoroughly evaluate and weigh each piece of evidence, that you failed to understand the concept of reasonable doubt. You still have time to correct this injustice. It is not unlawful or immoral to admit your mistake. You can still save a life.

Lance

Cuts on Deans' hands

The juror inquiries have been going on and they are trying to defend their position. One juror said that he couldn't get past the cut on Dean's hand and that no one could corroborate that he cut it at work. This shows again how the jurors expected Dean to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt instead of the opposite way around. Common sense seems to evade the juror on this issue. Lets see, Dean worked at a mechanical shop around alot of equipment and sharp edges. He crushed filters, cleaned up scrap, and kept things neat. He was always scratching and cutting up his hands. Men who work around hazards do not inform everyone anytime that they get cuts or scratches. They go clean it up and bandage it from the first aid kit. It is not an important announcement to make that people will remember 11 years later. Dean showed the jurors that he had numerous cuts on his hands on the photograph that the prosecutor gave him. He could not remember each and every incident they took place. Who could???? Jeez, it sure is his bad luck that he worked in a hazardous area and had cuts on his hands around the time that a murder took place. Little did he know that a juror would find this supicious 11 years later. What a joke.
I guess it is his bad luck that he suffers from rhinitis and has nose bleeds and that he had two around the time of the murder. How could he know that one day a zealous detective and prosecutor would link that to a murder??
Lets see, a former mechanic testified that people at work did cut their fingers on a rusting faucet and I testified to Deans nose bleeds. The jurors only wanted to believe the prosecutor though. Why is that? Are they excited about being punitive to someone like the prosecutor is?
The mechanic who testified could not even remember that Dean had uniforms. How is he supposed to notice and remember a minor cut? Dean cut his hand washing up before leaving for lunch. He hurriedly bandaged it and went to lunch...... what.... no announcement about his small wound????? He wasn't five years old.
What the jurors had little of (common sense), they did not use. If they had laid out on paper each coincidence and the explanations; they would have seen what is called REASONABLE DOUBT.
Another juror ignored that Dean's uniform was turned in late. They would rather believe it was missing. "What a coincidence that one showed up missing." they said. NO that was normal and to be expected, since the reason it showed up late, was because the sheriff arrested him right out of his car that had the uniform to be returned in it. We did not find that uniform in the trunk until weeks later when we opened the trunk. WE turned it in late and then got the credit back when we did. There is no coincidence here. If the sheriff had not arrested him until after he had returned the uniform, there never would have been a missing one. This was brought out at trial, but went over the jurors heads because all they wanted to do was be on the prosecution side.
How can any defendant give reasonable explanations for things when jurors refuse to believe them?
A prosecutor and detectives take any little coincidences and make them link to their case. The more they can do this, the more points they can get in convincing a jury of guilt. Tax payers complain about the waste of their money on appeals, but the reason that so many are granted is because of this kind of rail-roading and jurors going along with it.
Dean deserved a fair trial and a fair deliberation. HE DID NOT GET THAT! So jurors, when he does get his appeal, the taxpayers can thank you for not doing your job. Your taxes are paying for Dean to be housed in prison instead of being a productive citizen like he was for the years that he was free. Your taxes will pay for the great expense of another trial. Your soul will pay in eternity for your rush to judgement. You will be judged just like you judged Dean.

News from Dean

I got a long letter from Dean today. He is well but still a bit depressed. He thinks that he will shake it soon. I like his optimism, but I think this sadness will remain for awhile. He is safe and has a decent cell mate. Because of the economy, the supplies are low there. If any one wants to send him something, he needs envelopes with stamps embossed on them. He cannot receive more than 10 at a time. He also needs writing paper. He cannot have more than 12 sheets at a time. I always rip off pages from a large writing tablet.
His address again is: Dean Jacobs # G-30030
Wasco State Prison
P.O. Box 8800
Wasco, Ca. 93280


I wrote him a letter tonight filling him in on the jury responses and on his appeal.
He sends every one his hello's and thank you's for all the support. He sends a special greeting to Jeanne.