a) According to the report, when LAPD officers George Prado and G.M. Derousseau arrived at our residence they found me "RUNNING AROUND IN THE DRIVEWAY OF THE LOCATION" [129].

In fact, cross examination of the officers indicated that they had observed me walking hurriedly towards them [270]; not running, and not moving "around" in any way.

b) The report read, "DETECTIVES ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE AND OBSERVED A LARGE AREA OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR AT THE END OF THE ENTRY HALLWAY" [132].

Beyond the fact that Monsue could not substantiate this supposed large area of blood when presented with a photo of the entry hall on the witness stand [84], or that he later admitted having seen only small areas of blood there [592], or that my dad similarly hadn't 'seen such a large area [107], the straightforward, unambiguous wording of this important passage was anything but clear in its early draft form. (Two working copies of the report were included in the LAPD "Murder Book" on my case, and allow a glimpse of Monsue's 'creative process' at work.) The passage in the draft report originally read:

"DETECTIVE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A VERY LARGE SPOT"

A portion was then x'ed out with a typewriter and the passage made to read:

"DETECTIVE OBSERVED THATxTKXRExWA3x#xV2RXxRAR6R
SROT NUMEROUS SPOTS OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR IN THE
ENTRY HALLWAY"

This version was then edited by hand and in Monsue's characteristic printing made to read:

"DETECTIVE OBSERVED TRRAffxTRER$xWA8xAxi[xRA"R BROT NUMEReHS SP6'PS AF B£6AD hid THE FLeAR IN THE ENTRY HALLWAY THAT THERE WAS A LARGE AREA OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR IN THE ENTRY HALLWAY."

This final draft version was in accord with the issued report. Its vague wording decreased the likelihood of Monsue being tripped up on the witness stand by photographs which portrayed neither a "very large spot" of blood, nor "numerous spots of blood" on the floor. It seems unlikely that this editing was done with accuracy as its goal, as the essence of the final passage still does not convey that only one blood spot larger than a quarter existed on the floor surface there.

c) Monsue wrote in the report that he could not see into the house through the rear windows "WITHOUT PLACING HIS FACE UP AGAINST THE GLASS" [23]. His implication was clear: neither could I.

But the report is at odds with his own subsequent admission that yes, if I'd gotten up close to    yet still not touched    the window/s I could ".'conceivably" have seen inside [24] as I said I had. And several others had, like me, been able to see inside through the rear windows, including Monsue's partner Landgren [28], LAPD photographer Michael Wilson [5], and attorney Robert Johnson [3, 4].

d) Monsue also wrote that the position of the sun shade awning above the living room window required "SOMEONE LOOKING INTO THE WINDOW TO BEND DOWN AND CLIMB UNDER IT TO LOOK INTO THE WINDOW" [31]. Detective Landgren agreed that the awning was broken and hanging low [33].

But Monsue later admitted he could look beneath the awning simply by bending down. on the sidewalk; he did not have to enter the five foot wide planter separating the sidewalk from the window and awning, nor climb beneath the awning itself [32]. Landgren was similarly able to squat down on the sidewalk and look into the window [33].

e) According to the report, "DETECTIVES OBSERVED SEVERAL FOOTPRINTS IN THE MUD ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE FOOTPRINTS LED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE KITCHEN WINDOW SUBJECT USED TO ENTER THE HOUSE" [135]. The would contradict my account of having run both ways over the dirt; away from the window to get the pliers, and then back again to enter.

However, two-way impressions are obvious in crime scene photos held in LAPD possession since the day my mom was murdered. These pictures corroborate my account exactly.

The three police photos, a shoe print by marker "C" clearly points north -- away from the kitchen window -- exposing Monsue's false claim. Impression "C" was made when I ran to my car in the front yard to retrieve the pliers. [view Police Photos 7, 8, and 9]

On other police photos, a print near marker "B" does face the kitchen window, just as Monsue reported. I left this print moments after I did print "C," returning from my car with pliers in hand. [view Police Photos 4, 5, and 6]

LAPD's SID personnel never examined the show prints in the dirst [39], nor recorded them in any way other than in incidental photographs, for later examination by the jury [205]. My trial attorney failed to even speak with a forensic footwear expert about the prints -- Monsue's perjured testimony, and prosecutor Rabichow's trumpeting it, were the only words the jury heard about this crucial evidence.

f) Monsue wrote, "SUBJECT STATED HE HAD USED THAT [kitchen] WINDOW MAYBE 4 OR 5 TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR OR TWO TO BREAK INTO THE HOUSE" [136]. Obviously this could mean as few as four times over a two year period (i.e., twice a year) or as many as five times in a single year.

The implication that I may have said I'd entered that window as many as five times in the past year is a lie. My statement, recorded on a tape in his (police) possession as Monsue wrote this report, was that I'd entered exactly three times in two years, not counting that day, when I'd seen my mom on the floor inside [138]. Monsue's more than tripling that figure is indicative of his deceitfulness throughout my case. Moreover, I said that "in the past" (that is, when I lived at home) I'd used the window to quietly return home without waking my parents when I'd stayed out too late [Id]. My father's account confirmed this [137].

g) After tearfully telling him how I'd removed the two steak knives I'd found embedded in my mother's back, Monsue wrote, "SUBJECT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL HOW HE GRABBED THE KNIVES WITH HIS FOREFINGERS AND THUMB, SO THE KNIVES WOULD NOT HAVE HIS PRINTS ON THEM", and then he reiterated the claim at my April 4 juvenile detention hearing [139].

But Monsue later admitted I told him I'd removed the knives in that way so that the killer's fingerprints would not be destroyed [140], not so mine wouldn't be present.

But there's more. During the interrogation, my actual words on the subject were, "I TRIED TO TOUCH THEM THE LEAST I COULD, BUT AT THE MOMENT I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION, I WAS THINKING ABOUT MY MOTHER" [141]. In light of my statements both before and after this that I'd avoided the blood because it disgusted me [89, 90, 91], and the obvious gruesomeness of the knives, I tried not to touch them very much. Once we were at Van Nuys station and Monsue had involved me in the investigation, the thought occurred to me that my having touched the knives probably did not best serve his investigation, but that at the time I was concerned with my mom and not his police work.

h) Monsue wrote "[Bruce] STATED HE CHECKED HIS FATHER'S SAFE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM" [145].

I never said that. I did tell Monsue that as I sat in the police car at the curb, the safe in my parents' bedroom had occurred to me as a possible motive for the attack on my mother, and I then told the police where it was and that they should check on it [146]. I wasn't in a frame of mind to be censoring what I was saying; my mouth ran as effusively as my mind raced between my fits of sobbing.

i) According to the report, I told Monsue that I "HELD HER IN [my] ARMS" [147]. Such an assertion was obviously at odds with the lack of soaked in blood on my shirts [80].

I did use the word "HUGGED" in describing how I stayed with, tended, and placed my hands on my mother, lifting and cradling her head in my hand [79] and raising her arm to take her pulse [72, 127A, 73] as she lay in the entry hall. But I also immediately clarified myself: "YEAH, I WAS HUGGING, HOLDING HER" [660]. And moments later, having in my mind equated "HUG" and "HOLD" for the detective, I again used the word "HUG," twice. But Monsue's uncompromising criticism of my wording seems hardly fair. How could perfect, unwavering speech be expected of a scared 17 year old who'd minutes earlier discovered his brutalized and dying mother? I'd already told Monsue that I'd been shocked by the blood and had avoided coming into much contact with her, and it, for that reason [89, 90, 91].

j) Monsue wrote, "I/0 RECALLED THAT WHILE AT THE HOUSE HE OBSERVED THE TELEPHONE AND NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE HANDLE OF THE PHONE BUT THERE WAS A SMALL SMEAR OF BLOOD ON THE PHONE CRADLE" [148].

Monsue implied that such a stain somehow challenged my account, though he never explained how. Logic not readily offering a rationale for this, I would simply suggest that if it challenged my account of calling for help after discovering my mom, it must be equally damning of his theory that I'd used the phone to summon help as an alibi.

Whatever the case, the supposed smear was never photographed [211], never tested to verify it was actually blood [212], and the phone was not taken into evidence [213] or evaluated in a laboratory setting.

k) According to the report, "DETECTIVES OBSERVED SEVERAL FOOTPRINTS IN THE MUD ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE FOOTPRINTS LED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE KITCHEN WINDOW SUBJECT USED TO ENTER THE HOUSE" [135]. The would contradict my account of having run both ways over the dirt; away from the window to get the pliers, and then back again to enter.

However, two-way impressions are obvious in crime scene photos held in LAPD possession since the day my mom was murdered. These pictures corroborate my account exactly.

The three police photos, a shoe print by marker "C" clearly points north -- away from the kitchen window -- exposing Monsue's false claim. Impression "C" was made when I ran to my car in the front yard to retrieve the pliers. [view Police Photos 7, 8, and 9]

On other police photos, a print near marker "B" does face the kitchen window, just as Monsue reported. I left this print moments after I did print "C," returning from my car with pliers in hand. [view Police Photos 4, 5, and 6]

LAPD's SID personnel never examined the show prints in the dirt [39], nor recorded them in any way other than in incidental photographs, for later examination by the jury [205]. My trial attorney failed to even speak with a forensic footwear expert about the prints -- Monsue's perjured testimony, and prosecutor Rabichow's trumpeting it, were the only words the jury heard about this crucial evidence.

l) Monsue wrote in his Follow Up report, "SUBJECT STATED HE HAD GONE THROUGH THE PURSE, REMOVING THE WALLET, TO CHECK IF THE MONEY IN THERE WAS GONE" [151].

But I never said that, and no statement exists anywhere in the interrogation transcript to support this inflammatory claim. The report has me saying of the purse, " . . . SETTING RIGHT HERE. HERE WAS, RIGHT HERE. HER WALLET WAS LIKE, RIGHT HERE. PICK IT UP, EVENT, I WENT, ALL I DID WAS LOOK IN THE MONEY SECTION. I JUST WOP!! WOP!! IT'S GONE, SOMEBODY ROBBED HER. AND, I'M NOT SURE, LOOKED, LIKE ALL HER CREDIT CARDS WERE STILL THERE. BUT HER PURSE WAS ALL OPEN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS JUST SETTING THERE ON THIS. MY MAIN CONCERN WAS HER AND OUR, OUR SAFETY, IF THE GUY WAS STILL IN THE HOUSE." [661]

Her purse was sitting opened so that I could see inside. Something Monsue failed to mention was that when I said "WOP!! WON !" I leaned over and craned my neck as I extended a finger to similate how I had looked into the top of the open purse and stuck my finger inside to nudge the wallet, which I immediately saw I didn't need to do because the wallet's cash section was sitting opened, obviously empty.

Where the transcript reads "PICK IT UP, EVENT," my words actually were, "I DIDN'T PICK IT UP, EVEN," which, though not emblematic of grammatical perfection, both makes sense and is germane to the topic under discussion. And Monsue's interpretation of what I said, however, is completely nonsensical. Yet without the actual tape recording to re transcribe, Monsue's suspicious hand transcription [see 5 IV (4) (f)] can't be trusted as reflecting what was actually said.

m) Monsue wrote "SUBJECT WAS CONSTANTLY MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE, 'IF I WOULD HAVE KILLED HER, DO YOU THINK I WOULD HAVE CALLED THE PARAMEDICS AND STAYED AROUND?' " [153].

If I were "constantly" making such statements, surely at least one of them would appear in the fifty two page interrogation transcript, yet it does not. This was just another of Monsue's many calculated lies to force suspicion unduly in the direction of the person he'd already rushed to judge guilty, me, in spite of the truth and an onslaught of exculpatory evidence.

But because Monsue said it, I will say this: it is conspicuously unlikely that a teen killer who'd minutes earlier lost control so completely as to commit a horrible five weapon overkill could devise such an apt alibi, an improvisation only minutes in the making yet which is so plausible, and covers all of my actions beginning the previous evening, and has such a mountain of evidence and the full weight of logic supporting it. [See 5 I. "In Support of My Account" for an analysis of evidence supporting my account.]

n) Monsue wrote, "SUBJECT APPEARED TO HAVE AN UNUSUAL KNOWLEDGE OF PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL PROCEDURES IN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION" [154].

A subjective statement by a dishonest cop about a smart, perhaps even glib kid whose father was an attorney and who grew up on "Dragnet," "Perry Mason," and "Adam 12" reruns. Not surprisingly, no statements from the interrogation are provided to corroborate this accusation.

o) Monsue wrote, "SUBJECT STATED THE VICTIMS IN THE BOOK ["Helter Skelter," a novel about the infamous 1960's Manson Family murders] WERE KILLED WITH TWO KNIVES AND A ROPE AND COMPARED THESE FACTS TO HIS MOTHER'S DEATH" [156].

No statements are found in the interrogation transcript which support this inflammatory claim.

When my former roommate of several months, and likely murderer of my mother, John "Mike" Ryan, Jr. was asked by Monsue about what the detective characterized as my supposed "FASCINATION WITH THIS HELTER SKELTER AND A THE MANSON FAMILY, AND STUFF" [663], Ryan, despite having every incentive to want me cast in a negative light to divert suspicion from himself, nevertheless could not substantiate Monsue's claim in any way. He said I did own the book, 'but had never once brought up the topic of 'Helter Skelter' with him [663]. This hardly seems a "fascination," and I feel silly even discussing it, except that Monsue made the accusation.

(As mentioned, it should be noted that I did own the paperback book in question, so it is possible I mentioned such a similarity to Monsue. However I don't recall making the statement, and even in the rare chance I did, his amplifying it into a "fascination" seems a transparent attempt to create some connection, for dramatic effect, between my case and what was perhaps the most reviled, incendiary murder case in the history of twentieth century Los Angeles.)

p) Monsue wrote that when he interviewed him, my father "STATED THAT FINALLY, HE HAD MOVED SUBJECT OUT OF THE HOME IN MAY 1982 BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM..BETWEEN HIM AND HIS MOTHER" [160].

Not exactly. I had long sought my independence, and ever since I'd gotten my car had been suggesting to my parents whenever we argued that my moving out into an apartment of my own would solve all of our problems. They resisted, but when I finally dropped out of high school in May, 1982, my dad felt that in response to my persistent requests, as well as to teach me a lesson in independence, I should get myself out into the world, get a job and begin to support myself. Until I found a job, my dad would pay my rent. I began researching apartments in the papers, and soon found the $210.00 a month bachelor apartment at 6500 Sepulveda, in which I lived at the time of my arrest. This accords with my dad's testimony [161].

While under interrogation Monsue yelled the question at me, "THEN WHY IN THE FUCK AIN'T YOU LIVING WITH HER THERE[?]", to which I answered, "BECAUSE WE DON'T . . . BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET ALONG LIVING TOGETHER . . . WE JUST DIDN'T GET ALONG" [662]. Beyond my being pissed off and flustered at his moments earlier telling me he thought I was the one who attacked and tried to kill my mom, this was the same rationale I'd used to persuade my dad to rent me the apartment. "I had to move 'cause we don't get along." They were familiar words that flowed freely when his inquiry was made.

q) Monsue wrote that my dad "HAD GIVEN SUBJECT THE EXERCISE BAR THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. MR. LISKER STATED HE KNEW THAT SUBJECT HAD EITHER PUT IT IN HIS ROOM (i.e., my old room in my parents' house] OR TAKEN IT TO HIS APARTMENT. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT RECALL THE EXERCISE BAR BEING IN THE MASTER BEDROOM WHEN HE LEFT THE HOUSE AT 0730 HOURS, THAT MORNING. BUT, IF IT HAD BEEN, HE THOUGHT HE WOULD HAVE SEEN IT" [162].

But the bar always belonged to my dad, and was never given to me, and had never been taken at any time to my apartment. My dad testified that the bar's usual location was in our family home, in the master bedroom, where police found it [273].

Mike Ryan, the alternate suspect with an interest in seeing me accused of the crime, nevertheless told Monsue he'd never seen the bar in my apartment or in my room at my parents' house [664].

r) Of my waiting on our driveway while police searched the house, Monsue wrote, "SUBJECT . . . ATTEMPTED TO RE ENTER THE LOCATION SEVERAL TIMES AFTER HAVING BEEN TOLD TO REMAIN WITH THE OFFICER" [129].

But officers Prado and Derousseau told me to stay outside on the driveway while they made their two or three minute search of our house [311], and I obeyed that order [312], never once crossing the threshold of the front door or even stepping up onto the porch [313]. Prado testified I never pushed or bothered him or his partner to get around him and make for the front door [314]. It was only after I'd been pacing back and forth on the driveway and screaming at the paramedics to take my mom to the hospital where doctors might save her life, and I said I wanted to go back in and help her myself    though I made no physical move to do so    that the officers put their hands on me, took me to the ground and handcuffed me [Id].

s) Monsue also wrote "SUBJECT LISKER BECAME COMBATIVE WITH THE OFFICERS" [129].

Yes, after either Prado or Derousseau, I don't know which, had placed me in a 'choke hold' with one arm around my throat, from behind, and the other pushing my head forward onto that arm, I instinctively began to resist what was being done to me [314]. In hindsight, and in all fairness, I can not imagine anyone, even someone trained in 'passive resistance' techniques, not reacting in a similar way when surprised with the sensation of being physically choked, particularly after having made the gruesome and shocking discovery which I had minutes earlier.

t) The report indicates that upon arrival at my parents' house, I "REALIZED [I] NEEDED A JACK" to effect the repair of my car [197].

In reality, the jack in the trunk of my mom's car was the very reason I'd gone there to perform the repair in the first place. I had all my own tools in the rear seat of my car [202] and if not for the jack I could have performed the repair in the parking lot of my apartment.

u) Monsue wrote, “SUBJECT STATED . . . SHE HAD A HOLE IN THE HEAD” [136]. I never told him that. According to the interrogation transcript, I said, "MY GOD [unintelligible two or three words). HER WHOLE HEAD WAS DARK RED, I COULD NOT SEE HER FACE. I THOUGHT THAT CUT THAT WAS OVER HER EYE WAS HER EYE, THAT, THAT HOW MUCH I COULD TELL FROM WHERE HER HEAD WAS TURNED . . . " [666].

Interestingly, there was no "hole in her head" until Encino emergency room surgeons removed several pieces of her fractured frontal skull in the course of her treatment. But I last saw her as the rescue ambulance drove her down the street away from our house, before the surgical procedure was performed. The resulting hole from the removal of the bone was, however, observed by Monsue when he attended my mother's March 11 autopsy, three days before he wrote and issued his March 14 Follow Up report containing the peculiar, "hole in the head" statement.

v) Monsue wrote, "SUBJECT STATED HE WAS SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS AT THIS TIME, YELLING AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE" [136].

Nowhere in the interrogation transcript did I ever characterize how loudly I had screamed. My only comments on the matter were that, after I took the knives from my mom's back, I "STARTED SCREAMING, OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! TO NOBODY. THE NEIGHBORS MIGHT'VE HEARD, I DON'T KNOW MAYBE THEY DID, WHO THE FUCK KNOWS" [666].

w) Monsue claimed that after I removed the knives from my mom's back, "HE WAS NOT SURE JUST WHAT HE DID NEXT . . . HOWEVER, HE FINALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT . . . HE GRABBED TWO LARGE KITCHEN BUTCHER KNIVES, THEN RAN THROUGH THE HOUSE SEARCHING FOR THE PERSON WHO HAD DONE THIS TO HIS MOTHER" [136].

But the very next words I spoke after telling Monsue I'd removed the knives was that I "CALLED THE PARAMEDICS RIGHT THEN, COME OUT HERE, I SAID GET THE PARAMEDICS QUICK. I WAS TALKING SO FAST. THAT HE HAD TO MAKE ME REPEAT IT. THE, THAT GOT ME ANGRY. BUT, I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HAD DONE IT, FUCK, SUCH AN AWFUL THING." [Id] While I did later experience some momentary confusion about the sequence of events, I did clearly tell him what I'd done, and in what order.

x) Monsue admitted in his report that during the interrogation "DETECTIVE MONSUE ASKED IF SUBJECT REMEMBERED SEEING ANY KEYS INSIDE THE DOOR TO HIS ROOM ON THE DESK. SUBJECT STATED, NO" [148].

This passage is merely Monsue's set up for another of his fabricated 'discrepancies.' He said I asked him and his partner Landgren, following the interrogation, "WHY WOULD I LEAVE MY MOTHER'S KEYS ON MY DRESSER?" [167] prompting the detective to write in his Follow Up report, "DETECTIVE MONSUE NOTED THAT SUBJECT DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS MOTHER'S KEYS BEING ON THE DRESSER WHEN ASKED ABOUT THEM DURING THE INTERVIEW" [168]. Monsue's implication was,clear: my knowledge of the keys was 'guilty knowledge', something only the killer would have known, and I had thus implicated myself.

But the wording of the passage itself concedes, and the interrogation transcript confirms, that it was Monsue who'd made me aware of the keys in my room when he asked me at my interrogation, "HOW DID YOUR MOTHER'S CAR KEYS GET INTO YOUR BEDROOM?" [668]. The specific location "on my dresser" may be something I'd recalled having seen if I'd glanced down the hall to my bedroom as I passed it en route to searching my parents' bedroom, or it may be information fed me by Monsue or Landgren; I don't remember. It may also be another of Monsue's many misquotes or fabrications, as has been his modus operandi in so many areas of my case.

y) Monsue claimed;."SUBJECT STATED THAT HIS MOTHER SHOULD HAVE HAD A [sic] $150.00 IN [her]"WALLET.'AHE7~EXPLAINED THAT SHE ALWAYS KEPT ABOUT THAT MUCH MONEY IN HER PURSE",[152].

Despite that my knowing how much money she had in her purse would seem to provide 'motive' under Monsue's theory, the fact is I never did, and there isn't a single statement in the interrogation transcript to support Monsue's irresponsible and dishonest claim.

Monsue claimed I'd been in our family home the evening before the murder when my dad gave my mom her weekly $150.00 shopping money. But my dad stated that "THE $150.00 GIVEN TO MRS. LISKER THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 9, 1983, WAS GIVEN TO HER BY ME RIGHT AFTER I CAME HOME THAT AFTERNOON. BRUCE LISKER WAS NOT AT HOME WHEN I DID THIS. HE CAME OVER IN THE EVENING OF THAT DAY" [667].