BROCK Turner

SEVEN BIG Lies In The Brock Turner Case, Plagiarism at Stanford

, , , /

SEVEN BIG Lies In The Brock Turner Case, Plagiarism at Stanford

A review of Stanford police reports, as attached to the criminal complaint filed with Santa Clara County Superior Court, and other public records reveals a number of major lies, including significant discrepancies and wrongdoing that Stanford itself has failed to address.

Seven Big Lies in the Brock Turner Case:

1. Turner committed rape. Totally false.

2. The hookup between Turner and Ms. Miller was in secret, behind a dumpster. Again, totally false.

3. Ms. Miller wrote the sensationalized statement she read at Turner’s sentencing. Also false.

4. Ms. Miller’s mother drove them to the KA party. There are serious questions whether this is true.

5. Stanford’s police did not record the license plates in the KA parking lot. Again, totally false yet this is what Turner’s lawyer was told three weeks later.

6. Turner ran from the scene and that proves his guilt. False.

7. Turner took and circulated a photo of Ms. Miller. Again, totally false but carefully used in the media campaign against Turner that was already being orchestrated by Prof. Michele Dauber, a member of Stanford’s law school faculty.

Seven Big Lies in the Brock Turner Case

Plagiarism at Stanford:

Stanford defines plagiarism as follows: “For purposes of the Stanford University Honor Code, plagiarism is defined as the use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person’s original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form(s). Moreover, verbatim text from another source must always be put in (or within) quotation marks.”

How can Stanford post at the memorial (contemplative garden) words Ms. Miller falsely said she wrote if a student would be punished for plagiarism for making the same false claims and engaging in the same false activities? Faculty likewise are subject to severe punishment and academic scorn if involved in plagiarism in any way. That being the case, does no one at Stanford think it is a serious problem that Stanford is celebrating this blatant and ongoing lie about authorship? And is no one at Stanford going to address these serious violations of academic integrity by a member of their law school’s faculty? Plagarism at Stanford 

Stanford Alumni should care. Stanford Alumni are standing silent and allowing a complex injustice of malfeasance to continue. Stanford Alumni should be ashamed with their own silence. Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
ALALEH KIANERCI & Brock Turner. Did The Deputy DA Tell Police to Lie About Brock?

, , , /

ALALEH KIANERCI & Brock Turner. Did The Deputy DA Tell Police to Lie About Brock?

I have two things to say.

First, there is credible evidence to suggest that the Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney/Prosecutor Alaleh Kianerci suborned perjury. This evidence is found in a Sept. 2019 email from ‘F’ to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office. 

Second, the Brock Turner Situation is wrought with violations and it will take years to unravel the offenses. It is important to highlight the injustices perpetrated upon Brock, but there is more a stake. Last decade, it was Brock who became a pawn in a powerful greedy Silicon Valley Santa Clara County Stanford University high stakes game. But who will be the pawn in this decade?

Thankfully some citizens are alarmed at the unchecked powers in Silicon Valley. These citizens are guided by their ethics and moral obligation to uncover injustices occurring in their neighborhood. And according to an email from ‘F’ to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office, it appears that Deputy District Attorney and prosecutor, Alaleh Kianerci, is a woman to be aware of for credibly requesting a ‘perjured statement by Sheriff’s Detective Mike Kim.’ 

“Kianerci filed rape charges against Turner, even though the original arresting officers had only filed attempted rape, and she had no new information in the intervening time. The rape charges were of course eventually dropped, there was no basis for them in the evidence… I am considering carrying a big sign which says Kianerci approved, in fact probably requested, a perjured statement by [Stanford] Sheriff’s Detective Mike Kim which was used to support the false charges. Specifically, Kim stated “I am informed and believed” Turner had intercourse with Milller – but of course he was not informed of any such thing, there was no one to tell him that at all.” 

You can read the 9/2019 email from ‘F’ here 

Read about Stanford Detective Mike Kim, on page 13/28

I point out these injustices because I fight for due process rights. Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
TRUTH IN THE Brock Turner Case and Recall of Judge Aaron Persky

, , , , /

TRUTH IN THE Brock Turner Case and Recall of Judge Aaron Persky

This white paper,

  1. Overview, including seven big lies
  2. Before, during and after the party
  3. The arrest, investigation and trial
  4. Conflicting testimony
  5. Shortcomings at Stanford
  6. The aftermath

is a collection of views and personal opinions from alumni and other independent volunteers who have been following since mid-2016 the Brock Turner case and the recall of Judge Aaron Persky…This no doubt will come as a surprise to most readers, but the evidence is mounting that Brock Turner was wrongfully convicted. The facts did not support a finding of guilty and Turner was actually innocent as a matter of law. He should never have been prosecuted for let alone convicted of the crimes he was charged with.

No matter how you might come out on this specific case, there is a critical need for an honest dialog about sex, allegations of sexual assault and the impact of excessive drinking on our college campuses. What happened over five years ago at Stanford University involving a 19-year-old freshman (Turner) and a 22-year-old visitor who already graduated elsewhere (Chanel Miller) is a tragic story for everyone involved. A key theme throughout this white paper is that the intentional distortion by third parties of what actually happened has resulted in a serious injustice, and with little if any critical examination of the facts or about who has been distorting the story and why.

The truth inevitably will come out. It always does. Campus sexual assault is a serious and timely issue. The one-sided and even malicious presentation of this case has worked against the need for all parties to be treated fairly, that there be an environment where difficult issues like these can be openly and honestly discussed and that we find workable solutions. Read what follows and decide for yourself.

Truth in the Brock Turner Case & Recall of Judge Aaron Persky

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
ESSAY BY STANFORD Law Alum. Choices Have Consequences: Chanel Miller & Brock Turner

, , , /

ESSAY BY STANFORD Law Alum. Choices Have Consequences: Chanel Miller & Brock Turner

The Ultimate Question

What really happened between Brock Turner and Chanel Miller during and after a fraternity party at the Kappa Alpha fraternity house on the Stanford University campus the weekend of January 17-18, 2015? Anyone who has children in college or destined for college, whether sons or daughters, should be terrified of the contradictions on college campuses and in the legal system. This analysis begins with the thoughtful, fair and balanced discussion of the Miller/Turner matter contained in Malcolm Gladwell’s recently published book, Talking to Strangers.

“[Miller] has no memory of meeting Brock Turner, no memory of whether she did or didn’t dance with him, no memory of whether she did or didn’t kiss him, did or didn’t agree to go back to his dorm, and no memory of whether she was a willing or unwilling participant in their sexual activity. Did she resist when they left the party? Did she struggle? Did she flirt with him? Did she just stumble, blindly, after him? We’ll never know. After the fact, when she was sober, Doe was adamant that she would never have willingly left the party with another man. She was in a committed relationship. But it wasn’t the real [Miller] who met Brock Turner. It was drunk and blacked-out [Miller], and our drunken, blacked-out selves are not the same as our sober selves.” [Talking to Strangers, emphasis added].

The catastrophic outcome of the evening for Miller and Turner was agonizingly predictable considering the circumstances and context:

“Brock Turner was asked to do something of crucial importance that night – to make sense of a stranger’s desires and motivations. That is a hard task for all of us under the best circumstances, because the assumption of transparency we rely on in those encounters is so flawed. Asking a drunk and immature nineteen-year-old to do that, in the hypersexualized chaos of a frat party, is an invitation to disaster.” [Talking to Strangers, emphasis added]

Choices and Consequences

A responsible, proactive parent teaches her or his children that choices have consequences. A necessary corollary is that all of us are accountable for our decisions.

The subject matter of this essay is an analysis of the consequences for the choices made by Miller and Turner the evening the two of them voluntarily got together at the KA party and afterward.

Choices Have Consequences, by Tom Lallas 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
THE ROLE OF ALCOHOL & Alcohol-Induced Blackout Amnesia In People v Brock Turner

, , , /

THE ROLE OF ALCOHOL & Alcohol-Induced Blackout Amnesia In People v Brock Turner

Alcohol Use and Abuse on College and University Campuses: A core issue associated with the Brock Turner case is the rampant use and abuse of alcohol on college and university campuses. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a college freshman’s first six weeks of college life, stand out as a time of harmful alcohol intake and its resultant undesirable effects and events. Studies show that approximately 50% of student sexual assaults involved alcohol. Of these, 46% of the victims had ingested alcohol, as did 69% of the perpetrators.

Alcohol-induced Blackout Amnesia: According to court documents, Emily Doe had a history of alcohol-induced blackout amnesia. Alcohol-induced blackout, a form of anterograde amnesia, is typically experienced during binge drinking when an individual’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) quickly rises to approximately 0.14 g/dL (0.14%) or higher through consumption of a high quantity of alcohol in a short amount of time…In blackout amnesia, the individual can have the appearance of consciousness—but will have no memory (en bloc), or only partial memory (fragmentary), of what occurred during the period of blackout… Emily Doe stated to police that after drinking four shots of whiskey at home before attending the Stanford fraternity party, “She felt kind of buzzed but was coherent and able to function.” In California, a drinker is legally intoxicated when a BAC reaches 0.08 or higher. Emily Doe’s extrapolated BAC was approximated by Alice King, Santa Clara County supervising criminologist, to be 0.242 to 0.249% –about three times the legal limit. Turner’s BAC, extrapolated was estimated at 0.171%.

“A blackout is when you don’t remember what happened. You can appear to be completely awake. An observer can’t tell when someone is in the midst of not forming a memory.” This is relevant because Turner would not have known if or when Emily Doe was in blackout, as she would have appeared functional. Doe’s state of blackout during her encounter with Turner can make the case that Turner believed Doe was coherent and provided consent.

Blacking Out the Evidence of Alcohol-induced Blackout: The prosecution argued that the defense expert witness testimony on alcohol-induced blackout should be withheld from the jurors because “it has not been established that alcoholic blackouts are generally accepted in the scientific community.” Contrary to the prosecution’s belief that alcoholic blackout is not accepted by the scientific community, formal scientific research of alcohol-induced blackout began as early as the 1940s by E.M. Jellinek… In 2011, neuroscientists at Washington University School of Medicine identified the process of alcohol-induced blackout at the cellular level. It was discovered that a large quantity of alcohol consumption interferes with certain brain receptors… ultimately interfering with synaptic plasticity in the brain’s hippocampus and inhibiting memory formation. During Turner’s trial, Prosecutor Kianerci made multiple statements against blackout expert witness Dr. Kim Fromme in an effort to discredit and prevent Dr. Fromme’s testimony.

Emily Doe herself has acknowledged experiencing alcohol-induced blackouts at previous parties. She testified in court that she had experienced “four to five” episodes of blackout while in college. In the police report Doe told police that, “She has blacked out before from drinking, but only when she has been continually drinking for a long time, and it is usually at the end of the night when it happens.” This is similar to what had occurred at the Stanford fraternity party.

Evidence shows that Emily Doe’s self-described alcohol-induced state of blackout did indeed play a major role in her sexual encounter with Brock Turner. There is a likelihood that Emily Doe could have consented to sexual activity with Brock Turner while she was in a state of en bloc alcohol-induced blackout. Of course, Emily Doe cannot remember.

Alcoholic Blackout–Brock Turner Trial 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
THE BROCK Turner Industry Begins. Book Deal For Emily Doe Who Outs Herself.

, , /

THE BROCK Turner Industry Begins. Book Deal For Emily Doe Who Outs Herself.

Excerpts from: Know the Truth: Chanel Miller by Tom Lallas

On September 5, 2019, a feeding frenzy erupted among the mainstream media, bloggers and others when articles were published regarding the imminent release of a new book about Chanel Miller, Know My Name.  Miller, who was an intoxicated twenty-two (22) year old adult college graduate, and not a member of the Stanford community, met Brock Turner, a nineteen (19) year old Stanford freshman, in January 2015, at a Stanford Fraternity party, and the incident that occurred between them led to the prosecution and conviction of Turner for sexual assault, and a six (6) month jail sentence.  Some media reports regarding the incident, criminal charges, trial, sentencing, and jail sentence have been distorted, inaccurate, malevolent, false, and untrue. On the eve of the release of Miller’s book, which will enable Miller to monetize the incident at Turner’s expense, and receive from a publisher what may possibly be a million dollars or more, the familiar admonition of an iconic crime detective television series, Lt. Joe Friday of Dragnet, is instructive: “Just the facts, ma’am”…This report provides facts in the Trial Record not disseminated (widely, or perhaps at all) by the mainstream media demonstrating that Turner was not guilty of criminal conduct in any of his interactions with Miller.

Miller.The Undisputed Truth: Miller concealed from, and did not disclose to Turner, at the KA Party or afterward, that Miller: (i) had a history of serious problems with alcohol; (ii) had a history of blacking out after drinking at parties, and elsewhere; (iii) had blacked out after drinking at parties prior to the KA Party on four (4) or five (5) or more occasions; (iv) consumed four (4) shots of whiskey and a glass of champagne at the Miller residence between 10:00 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. before going to the KA Party while Miller also drank straight vodka at the KA Party and shotgunned beers. Miller’s blackout history was critical information that Miller wrongfully concealed from Turner.  Toxicology evidence confirms that Miller’s blood alcohol content, at the time of the incident, was between 24 and 25%.  Expert testimony established at the Trial that a drinker in a blackout does not know she is in the blackout at that moment, and that a third party, Turner, with the drinker, would have no idea that the drinker is having a blackout…Dr. Kim Fromme is a nationally recognized expert on the effects of alcohol intoxication related to alcohol induced blackouts, sexual risk taking, and driving under the influence. Dr. Fromme described a blackout as a “period of amnesia during drinking in which the person is fully conscious and aware to be able to engage in all kinds of activities – walking, talking, driving a car, dancing, having sex, etc., they’re simply not just forming memories for those events.”

Consensual Sexual Conduct In Plain View by the Basketball Court: Contrary to published reports, when Turner and Miller were making out on the ground, and the incident occurred, they were not “behind a dumpster.”  Instead, they were in plain view next to a concrete basketball court where they were eventually observed by two graduate students…Significantly, Turner’s DNA was not found on Miller’s underwear, but a laboratory examination revealed the presence of the DNA of another person on her underwear, indicating that her underwear retained traces of DNA from an unidentified third party, but not Turner.

Full Article: Know the Truth-Chanel Miller by Tom Lallas 

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, /

APPELLANT’S-Brock Turner Opening Brief- Filed In Court of Appeals

The attorney for Appellant Brock Turner filed an appeal on December 1, 2017. Below are the six arguments.

  1. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL, AND HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY THE TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EXCLUSION OF ALL TESTIMONY BY CHARACTER WITNESSES ATTESTING TO HIS HONESTY AND VERACITY.
  2. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS TO ANY OF THE  THREE COUNTS OF CONVICTION.
  3. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT SUA SPONTE ON LESSER- INCLUDED OFFENSES.
  4. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN REPEATEDLY PORTRAYING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A FALSE, MISLEADING, AND PREJUDICIAL MANNER.
  5. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT’S  FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO A  CRITICAL JURY QUESTION DURING  DELIBERATIONS.
  6. CUMULATIVE PREJUDICE

READ: Appellant’s Opening Brief as filed 12-1-17

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
STANFORD. Brock Turner. And The News Black Out.

, , /

STANFORD. Brock Turner. And The News Black Out.

It is my opinion that Brock Turner has been a pawn in a high stakes game for a #MeToo cause, and now it appears for significant monetary motivations as well. I believe it will become clear over the next many months that Brock Turner was wrongly convicted, and that he faced multiple due process injustices from the outset.

I realize these are bold statements to make but I come to these conclusions after:

  1. Researching court documents and reviewing facts,
  2. Following the trail of an endless harassment and mis-information campaign,
  3. Examining what Brock’s attorney did and did not do,
  4. Coming to a realization that the Santa Clara District Attorney’s office appears to be unethical and unprincipled,
  5. Reading about a pre-trial hearing in the judge’s chambers that set limits on what evidence could and couldn’t be heard, and learning how the 13th Motion in Limine took away Brock’s effective defense, to say nothing of the missing evidence, evidence that was withheld until the last minute, the undermining of Brock’s only expert witnesses and other actions and inactions before, during and after the trial.

Some surprising facts regarding Brock Turner, based on the evidence I have seen:

  • Emily Doe never said she was raped and there was no evidence whatsoever of rape. But the DA and prosecutor intentionally kept the rape charges pending for a full nine months, (DNA lab results  were finally disclosed nine months after the samples were collected) until just before the preliminary hearing, so the case could be characterized as a “rape case” and the media taglines ever since could (wrongfully) refer to it as “the Stanford rape case” and Brock as “the Stanford rapist.”
  • Brock’s DNA was not found on Emily Doe’s underwear nor on her.
  • Emily Doe says she has no memory. It increasingly appears she was in what medical authorities call a blackout state, and where a person in a blackout state appears to be functioning perfectly well to third parties (here, to Brock and the others at the party).
  • Legal authorities thought Brock should not have been charged. Having been charged, the legal standard was that he must have known, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Emily Doe was incapacitated. But in a blackout state, there would be no such appearance to Brock, or anyone else for that matter. Brock Turner’s BAC was a .17, twice the legal limit. He himself was near blackout, which raises the question:
  • Why did Turner’s attorney (Armstrong) fail to raise the Voluntary Intoxication Defense?
  • A Stanford law professor has been engaged in an ongoing false information campaign against Brock.
  • Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office distorted the case and may have engaged in other inappropriate actions.
  • There is a Santa Clara news media blackout.

There are two sides to every story. For years the public has only been privy to one side of the story: the accuser’s side. She was Emily Doe, recently revealed to be Chanel Miller as part of Ms. Miller’s pending book tour.  But there were always two people involved, Ms. Miller and Mr. Turner. Why aren’t we privy to Mr. Turner’s story? I think now is the time to take a deep dive into the untold story of a Stanford professor and the professor’s relationship with Ms. Miller and Ms. Miller’s family. And to look into the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office and the DA who wants to be the next State Attorney General.

My deep dive is only the beginning, but the evidence is starting to present a case showing that the Turner family was an unknowing pawn in a tangled political and #MeToo publicity storm, and now a plan to make a lot of money, all of which created a miscarriage of due process and injustice for a young 19-year old, Brock Turner.

In beginning my deep dive to understand,  my journey began by reading the public documents that Santa Clara County Superior Court released. And from there I unearthed a great amount of information that was purposely kept from the public. (Remember the Santa Clara news blackout.) I’ve only begun to piece together the injustices and unimaginable torment that has been following the Turner family since 2015.

But from the documents I am reading, I believe that politics, money, greed, celebrity, book deals, movie deals, victim status, egos, news black outs, and campaign career moves have been at play from the very beginning.  And a student new to Stanford on a scholarship from a middle-income family in Ohio named Brock Turner was a sacrificial lamb. And everyone at Stanford, in the Bay Area and nationwide stood back in silence, even when they knew the truth and the injustices that were taking place.

This is the first post in a series. These are my personal opinions.

-Alice True

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
2018: LETTER to Santa Clara County DA Regarding Potential Framing of Brock Turner

, /

2018: LETTER to Santa Clara County DA Regarding Potential Framing of Brock Turner

Excerpts from an open letter to Santa Clara County District Attorney

Mr. Rosen,

You are responsible for the misguided measure to recall Judge Persky. You seem more committed to ‘sending a message’ than facts and evidence of many cases…You recently, in a Guest Op-Ed, called Turner a “rapist” while his case is still on Appeal; yet, DNA evidence did not support your rape claim. There was reasonable doubt in this case… The hashtag campaign against Turner started on Feb. 2, 2015. You are largely to blame for this. And don’t be surprised if it turns out to be a civil rights violation. This case was never anything more than misdemeanor disorderly conduct, with alcohol counseling as a condition of probation.

…Our case review team consists of an Army Criminal Investigator (Corporal) and Criminology Major; a retired Santa Clara County Probation Officer (retired)with over 30 years of experience; an Emergency Room nurse; and Paralegal Admin. We have extensively studied and evaluated the Turner case in its entirety based on case documents released June 10, 2016. By all appearances, you brought this case for political reasons with insufficient evidence…

…Had YOU INSISTED DNA processing be made a priority in this case and public, negative DNA results would have been available before the case was filed, silencing any false claims of rape. Sexual assault may still have been on the table, perhaps not. It would have been he said/she said. Your failure to wait for DNA evidence before filing resulted in the Persky Recall. Your Deputy took eight months to drop the first two unfounded rape charges, providing the Dauber Machine ample time to publicly disseminate their false claims of “rape.” In the process, you destroyed a 19-year-old kid with no priors, no malice. This is cruelty. YOU TOTALLY MISHANDLED THIS case for your own political ends. You should be disbarred. Does the name Mike Nifong ring a bell?

All decent people strongly disapprove of and are rightly outraged by rape. Actual rape. This case was not actual evidenced rape, and you know it. This case could very well have been a drunken campus hookup gone wrong. You could have obtained DNA results almost immediately. It would not be until eight months later that your deputy dropped the first two charges. This is fundamental malpractice and again a potential civil rights violation. During those eight months the false and racist idea that Brock Turner was a “privileged white male” became a racist meme promoted by Dauber. Emily Doe told sheriffs that she had a history of blackout drunkenness, making Turner’s claim that she consented possible, a 50/50 chance. Probable Cause, yet sufficient Reasonable doubt…

Read the full letter: Open Letter to Jeff Rosen

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
A CAMPAIGN of Disinformation. Putting it in Perspective. Brock Turner

, , , /

A CAMPAIGN of Disinformation. Putting it in Perspective. Brock Turner

There is a critical need for a dialog about campus sex and allegations of sexual assault, including when exacerbated by alcohol. But that dialog needs to include a more careful examination of the issues for everyone involved. For third parties to so viciously wage the type of disinformation campaign that has happened in the Brock Turner case works against such a dialog, and we would urge everyone who is part of the Stanford and Bay Area communities and elsewhere to examine what actually happened, who has been waging this campaign of disinformation and what that should teach all of us going forward.

This summary is a composite of efforts by a number of alumni and other volunteers who had no preconceived notions about the case when we first heard about it. We do not represent Turner or his family or speak on their behalf. We were, however, startled by what seemed to be a concerted and even malicious campaign against Turner as well as the judge in the case, Judge Aaron Persky. That led to our obtaining all fifteen volumes of the trial transcript, many of the trial exhibits and other related materials. The records we obtained are available in the public record and could have been reviewed by media outlets in advance of their publishing the articles that raised our initial concerns. We also made inquiries of people on various sides of the issues concerning campus drinking, Title IX, allegations of sexual assault and proper media practices

Based on our review and as discussed more fully below, we have concluded that the facts do not support a finding of guilty, and Turner is actually innocent as a matter of law. He should never have been prosecuted for let alone convicted of the crimes he was charged with.

The Turner case also is showing a process that is similar to what occurred in the Duke/Lacrosse, University of Virginia/Rolling Stone and Stanford/Joe Lonsdale matters. In the Turner case, the false narrative is being orchestrated by third parties who have done this before, and where their prior campaigns likewise have often proved to be false. Here, the campaign apparently was started before and during the trial and has continued ever since, including against Judge Persky as well as against Turner.

Read the full summary- Putting It in Perspective 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
1 2