V. THE LYING JAIL HOUSE INFORMANT: ROBERT DONALD HUGHES [Photo]

    When I first met [338] 28 year old [324] Robert Donald Hughes in the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail [323] in April, 1983, I had no idea that he was already a three time jail house snitch and State's witness [327], or that he had been arrested over twenty times since 1969 [325] and convicted of crimes ranging from theft and public intoxication to burglary and attempted robbery [325A]. Claiming he was a Born Again Christian [425], Hughes struck up a conversation with me [335] about God and hope, knowing that I was a juvenile [334]. He later reported finding me very susceptible to his God talk [337], and immediately began a process of questioning me concerning the charges for which I'd been arrested [336].

    Hughes later claimed that in our very first half hour [340] conversation about my case [339], I had confessed to him the murder of my mother. He lied. After his prior informant work, wherein he testified for the State and alleged the confessions of other homicide defendants [327], Hughes said all he sought from my prosecutor, Phillip Rabichow, was for him to 'check up' on sentence reduction efforts begun by the earlier prosecutors to procure his premature release in exchange for his snitching on the other defendants. But after the California Department of Corrections (CDC) recommended against Hughes' release [342], and his bid for freedom was duly denied [343], Rabichow went to extraordinary lengths to see Hughes sprung anyway [344], even taking his case all the way to the office of the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Robert Philabosian, with whom Rabichow had worked in the Van Nuys prosecutor's office [345]. Rabichow's over enthusiastic approach was less than well received [346].

Hughes readily admitted he'd been eagerly looking for opportunities to testify against other defendants to obtain a reduction in his sentence when he encountered me [330]. My preliminary hearing judge, Judith Meisels Ashmann, also saw things that way [331]. My trial judge, Richard Kolostian, said Hughes was basically a manipulative opportunist [341], yet still allowed him to testify against me. Hughes arguably proved to be the chief architect of my false conviction. Prior to Hughes' coming forward, prosecutor Rabichow had offered to let me plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter, a charge which then carried a maximum penalty of only six years in prison. This was a clear sign the State's case was weak, or worse. Yet after Hughes appeared, the manslaughter deal was summarily taken off the table [701].

There are appalling parallels between Hughes' conduct in my case and the actions of jail house snitches who were investigated by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury [346A]. Convened in 1989 [347] to investigate rampant perjury among jail house informants in L.A.'s jails [348], the Grand Jury found that these snitches frequently gave false testimony against criminal defendants [349], often simply re wording an unsuspecting defendant's innocent observations of his case [350]. (I have always admitted that Hughes conned me into sharing my police reports with him, the facts of which he twisted into a false confession.) The Grand Jury found that snitches' claims of confessions invariably agreed with the State's theories of the crimes [351] (as they generally did in my case) and that the snitch will attempt to parlay his assistance into some benefit for himself, often an early release [352] (exactly as Hughes sought and received). The threat posed by these snitches is especially great to a juvenile defendant [353] (as I was when Hughes took advantage of my naïveté and destroyed any hope I had for a fair trial in my case). The Grand jury also heard from prosecuting attorneys who confirmed that jail house snitches' claims are inherently suspect [354].

The Grand Jury observed numerous instances of informant perjury in the testimony and evidence it examined, yet they could not verify a single perjury prosecution brought by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office against a lying jail house informant [355].

Beyond all this, the many lies contained in Hughes' claims leave little doubt that he is a perjurious coward who sold a scared 17 year old kid up the river for life in his all out bid to have the remaining nine months knocked off of his sentence.

1. Hughes claimed of my supposed confession, "HE DIDN'T SEEM LIKE HE WAS T00 BUSTED UP ABOUT IT, EITHER . . . HE WAS MORE, LET'S PUT IT LIKE THIS, HE WAS MORE BUSTED UP ABOUT . . . BEING IN JAIL THAN WAS HIS MOM DYING. IT'S COLD, MAN" [390], "IT WAS A PRETTY COLD THING" [391], and "THAT'S BAD. HE'D GIVE ME THE CHILLS" [392]. Hughes claimed that I freaked him out, implying that he, at 185 pounds, feared me, a 97 pound [277] juvenile, and was glad the two of us weren't in a same cell [393]. He painted a clear picture of antagonism and, by all appearances, thought very little of me.

But shortly after the supposed confession [394] and my move to a cell down the hall, Hughes wrote me several letters [395], continuing to talk about God [396], and our fellowship, hope and prayers for my impending release.

In Defense exhibit H, Hughes wrote, "I AM PRAYING FOR YOU LITTLE BRO. I FEEL YOU ARE GOING TO THE STREETS SOON. PRAISE GOD. LOVE YOU, BOBBY." [397]

In Defense I, "PRAISE JESUS (smiley face) THE LORD GIVES ME A STRONG FEELING YOU WILL BE OUT OF THIS PIT SOON. LOVE ALWAYS IN CHRIST, BOBBY YOUR BRO." [398]

And in Defense J, "PRAISE THE LORD. HEY LITTLE BRO, YOU SURE ARE FINDING A PLACE IN MY HEART. YOU ARE MAKING A TRUE START AS A CHRISTIAN. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOWN THAT THE LORD GAVE YOU A GOOD HEART." [399]

Hughes was confronted with these letters on the witness stand as evidence of his ulterior motives. After some squirming and lame denials of authorship on his part [400], followed by a two hour, twenty minute Noon recess [401] Hughes admitted, and Rabichow stipulated, that Hughes was indeed the author of each of these letters [402].

According to Hughes' story, I'd confessed in the first conversation we ever had [338], after which he wanted nothing to do with me [406] because I both freaked him out and scared him [393]. It is just inconceivable that he would then go out of his way to write, and struggle to have delivered in a locked down jail unit these letters of moral support. And why would he sound so happy ("praise God") telling me I would be "going to the streets soon" if indeed I'd told him I was a vicious killer who'd savagely butchered my own mother? Certainly not my estimation of someone with "a good heart."

2. Hughes wrote in another letter to me, "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT ABOUT YOUR CASE TOTALLY" [403].

If Hughes was truly the agent of justice he claimed in wanting to see me pay for my mom's murder [405], why would he care if I told a hundred others? They would, if nothing else, corroborate his own claim of a confession. The obvious answer is he wouldn't care, unless he selfishly feared that the same naiveté I'd shown in sharing my police reports with him would extend to the other snitches I was likely to meet in that viper's pit.

3. Hughes claimed I'd not only confessed, but confessed to an attack carried out in a very specific order [356]. First, he claimed, I'd struggled with my mom and she'd ripped my shirt. Then I'd stabbed her with the steak knives. Then hit her with the trophy. And finally, I'd hit her with the exercise bar.

This order, abbreviated (RKTB), is impossible given my mother's observed injuries and the physical evidence.

a) Deputy Medical Examiner Irwin L. Golden said a blow from the exercise bar had completely fractured my mother's right arm [357]. Yet numerous defensive slash wounds [358] to my right handed [359] mother's left hand only [360], indicate she had already sustained the fractured right arm when the knife wounds were inflicted. If her right arm were fractured and immobile, it would logically explain why her otherwise most capable right hand was not raised in defense of her very life, and why defensive knife wounds appear on her left hand, only.

Therefore, the knives were not used before the exercise bar.

b) Hughes claimed "[Bruce] GETS SOME STEAK KNIVES AND CATCHES HER IN THE HALL, AND, WHAM, HE STABS HER WITH TWO STEAK KNIVES" [356]. Since Hughes said I'd 'caught' her in the hall, and also because according to his (RKTB) sequence my mom and I had only struggled prior to when the knives came into play, we can infer that she was fully upright when this stabbing supposedly occurred.

But my mother's injuries do not accord with this. Specifically, two tiny, non penetrating 'hesitation' knife tip wounds appeared, one on her upper back [361] and the other her left flank [362]. These are consistent with her laying face down and relatively motionless as her attacker rested the knife tips against her back before he raised and plunged the weapons into her, causing the two penetrating stab wounds observed [651]. She'd been laying face down when I discovered her, and when paramedic Jay Lovato observed her minutes later [602].

The Deputy Medical Examiner, Dr. Golden, stated the exercise bar had caused the frontal skull fracture, and that such a blow would have caused immediate unconsciousness. [698]

While I am by no means a forensic pathologist, it seems illogical to me that my mother could have been alert, upright and fighting for her life when these two tiny, pinpoint wounds were inflicted. One would expect a good deal of scratching if she were alert, moving about and struggling for her life as someone tried to place two knife tips against her back, yet no such injury was apparent.

Therefore, the knives were not used before the exercise bar.

c) Hughes' claim that my mom and I struggled, and that I then got two knives from the kitchen and stabbed her in the hallway is illogical. Had a physical altercation begun near her purse in the living room, why would she wait while I went out to the kitchen, retrieved a pair of knives, returned and stabbed her? It makes more sense that the shock and adrenaline of combat (i.e., the "Fight or Flight" response) would have forced her retreat, if not from the house itself, at least to
a phone to call my dad or the police.

Therefore, the least injurious, alleged shirt ripping likely could not have occurred first.

d) Considering that all the weapons originated in separate corners of the house (the steak knives in the kitchen at the southeast corner, the trophy in my old bedroom at the northwest corner, and the exercise bar in my parents' bedroom at the southwest corner) the possibility of my mom's having remained between each of these attacks, while Hughes claimed I'd been retrieving yet another distant weapon, becomes quite remote.

Therefore, no sequence really fits.

4.  As already discussed, Hughes claimed the attack sequence was (RKTB), yet this sequence is impossible in light of the evidence. So where did Hughes get his sequence?

The answer is from detective Monsue's Follow Up report, which I have always admitted Hughes conned me into sharing with him [365].

The ripped shirt, steak knives, trophy and exercise bar were each listed in the police report [364] in exactly the same order Hughes claimed was my confessed attack sequence [363]. Using a little math, the significance of this 'coincidence' becomes quite damning to the snitch's story.

Since the police never suggested their report's order was in any way related to the actual attack sequence [366], but is merely the order in which detectives found the evidence in our house, consider it random for purposes of this example. Likewise, since Hughes' sequence can not be the attack sequence (Cf. § V (3) (a) (b) (c) and (d)] let it be random, as well. There are 4 = 24 different ways to arrange four unique elements (e.g., "R", "K", "T" and "B") once and only once each in a four element string. (4!, termed four "factorial," is expressed as (4 x 3) + (4 x 2) + (4 x 1) = 24.) So there is a 1 in 24 chance of (RKTB) being randomly specified, either by Hughes or by the police, in their respective strings. Since there was supposedly no collaboration between Hughes and police in constructing their sequences, we'll assume each of them came up with their own sequence independent of the other. The odds of (RKTB/RKTB), that is, Hughes' and police's strings randomly matching one another, is expressed as 4! x 4! = 576, or a 1 in 576 chance that Hughes and police, acting independently, could have randomly specified the insignificant sequence (RKTB).

Pretty unlikely, it seems to me.

Hughes, believing the (RKTB) sequence from the police reports carried with it some inherent credibility which it did not, simply regurgitated the order, hoping to put on the most convincing show he could.

5. Hughes and police alleged my mother and I engaged in a close in, hand to hand, brutal, five weapon battle for her life, in which she was stabbed several times in the back [650, 651], slashed deeply on the left hand to inflict a number of large, gaping wounds [576], beaten with a hand held [574] marble based trophy at least ten times in the head [571] as she bled extensively from the resulting scalp wounds [573], smashed in the arm [584] and forehead [647] with a heavy, bat like exercise bar, and choked with a length of yellow cord with enough force to inflict several visible ligature marks on her neck [609]. Numerous blood spatter stains peppered the walls of our home, mute testimony to the ferocity my mother's killer/s poured upon her with their blunt force trophy and exercise bar blows. Police, almost in understatement, characterized this as a "PARTICULARLY BRUTAL" attack [371].

But although police and their lying snitch claimed I'd done all that, I bore no injuries anywhere on my body [373] at an unclothed body search following my interrogation [372]. Neither did I have any obvious or large drops of blood on my clothing or person [54, 55, 66]. No shirt fibers were found beneath my mom's fingernails, as would be expected if she'd ripped my shirt, and no marks consistent with such a ripping were observed on her hands at autopsy [565]. Not one of her fingernails was even broken [566]. My own fingernails were collected for analysis [582], and these revealed no skin scrapings, as from a struggle [582A].

Also, one button was missing from my plaid outer shirt [384], near the blood smear on my right sleeve cuff. Though Hughes and police alleged that it was my mom who'd ripped the shirt, this button was not found at the scene. In reality, I wore the old, worn work shirt [200] that day because I came to fix my car. As Linhart reported, other items of clothing I wore had "numerous dark, textured, non blood stains" [201] on them (apparently automotive grease).

6. In his claim that I'd hit my mother with the exercise bar, Hughes said I'd "WHALED ON HER WITH THAT FOR A LITTLE WHILE" [374].

But Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Golden found that only two of my mother's injuries were caused by the bar, her fractured right arm [584] and her frontal (i.e., forehead) skull fracture [647]. The remainder of her blunt force injuries were attributed to the trophy, held in the attacker's hand and wielded in a 'stamping' fashion. And the sharp force cutting wounds, of course, were inconsistent with the bar.

Having read about the bar in the police reports, Hughes sought to tell a dramatic, marketable story. A 'whaling' rampage with a bat like weapon provided more shocking testimony than just two blows, had Hughes even known what the killer/s had done. My own description to him of the horrible injuries I observed on my mom perhaps gave Hughes the impression that the larger weapon had been used more than it had.

7. Hughes claimed I told him that after this supposed attack I realized blood had spattered onto my clothing [375]. He claimed I told him I'd "FUCKED UP" [376] by not getting rid of my clothes before police arrived.

But those eight (8) tiny droplets Linhart found on my clothes [70] were nearly invisible, and were missed even by trained police personnel [54, 55, 66] who'd gotten an intent, constant look at me, and required blood expert Ronald Linhart to examine the clothing microscopically [379] to evaluate them. Whether by the police theory or my account, I was quite hysterical that morning [224], and Hughes claimed I was "BLOWING IT".[380]. Police alleged I'd lost control and savagely beaten, stabbed and choked my own mother nearly to death, running around our house grabbing and using five separate weapons. Is it even conceivable I could have been exercising the same "CAREFUL OBSERVATION" [381] required of Linhart for him to see the tiny spots?

I can say with certainty that whenever the eight droplets did arrive on my clothing, whether from expiratory source [Cf. § III (6)] or having dropped my mom's arm [Cf. § III (2) (a) (i)] or her head [Cf. § III (2) (a) (ii)] into a blood spot, I didn't notice as it happened, either. I was shocked and in disbelief when Monsue, testifying at my April 4 juvenile detention hearing, reported that droplets (he claimed indicative of guilt) had been found on articles of my clothing. [Cf. § III (1), (2)]

8. Hughes claimed that after the supposed beating and stabbing, I panicked and wanted to make sure "SHE WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO TELL ON [me]" [386].

This is patently illogical considering what I did do. There was an eight minute gap between the time I called paramedics at 11:26 A.M. and when they arrived with police at 11:34. During that time I remained alone with my mom in the house. Had I been an attacker in fear of being 'told on', I had plenty of time to eliminate my witness/victim. It would have made no sense for me not to ensure she was dead before authorities arrived. And it is illogical to suppose I would have left her alive at the risk of her regaining consciousness and identifying me, just to create an alibi of having lent first aid in an effort to save her life.

Better yet, I could have called no one, and simply returned to my job hunt several miles away in Panorama City. According to Monsue, the neighbors hadn't heard anything unusual [460], presumably including my arrival at the house, so I would have gotten away clean if the State's assertions were true.

In fact, I'd spent those ten minutes trying to administer first aid, waiting the apparent eons until help arrived, and listening to my mom breath what I feared would be her last breaths, mortified both by what I'd found and the prospect of her dying in front of me. I searched the house, fearing the person/s who'd done this might still be around. I called my dad.

9. Hughes claimed that what prompted my supposed confession was the crime having "REALLY GOT HIS CONSCIENCE ABOUT WHAT HE DID, STARTED EATING HIM UP A LITTLE BIT. SO HE BROKE DOWN AND RAN HIS CASE DOWN TO ME" [388].

But this is at odds with another claim he made, apparently for dramatic effect, that I'd been so remorseless about the crime that it "DIDN'T SEEM LIKE HE WAS TOO BUSTED UP ABOUT IT EITHER . . . HE WAS MORE, LET'S PUT IT LIKE THIS, HE WAS MORE BUSTED UP ABOUT HIM BEING INCARCERATED, HIM BEING IN JAIL THAN WAS HIS MOM DYING. IT'S COLD, MAN" [390], "IT WAS A PRETTY COLD THING" [391], and "THAT'S BAD. HE'D GIVE ME THE CHILLS" [392].

Well, which it is? Hughes can either justify this faked confession as a crisis of conscience, or bolster its shock value with claims of icy coldness, but he can not have it both ways. What's clear is that the snitch had no trouble tailoring his performance to suit his intent.

10. How could Hughes have known for certain, and been willing to testify, that his fellow snitches Michael Dowtu and Sherman Wallace were lying about my confessing to them [404] if I had, as he claimed, actually confessed to him?

Of course he couldn't know, unless he'd fabricated my confession, discussed that fact with the other two liars, and then elected to cut them out of the 'payoff loop', in essence, to be the star snitch in my case, something he coincidentally did become. And if Hughes were testifying against me for moral reasons, as he claimed [405], why would he care if a thousand lying voices joined his (mythically) truthful one, as long as it resulted in my conviction?

11. Describing what he called my "story" [408], that his fellow informers Dowtu and Wallace were hounding me for information about my case, Hughes denied it, saying "NONE OF US (snitches] WAS EVEN TALKING TO HIM AND JUST WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM" [406].

But Hughes not talking to me would have put quite a damper on the single conversation he claimed he and I had about my case [338], in which he claimed I confessed. And his wanting nothing to do with me is an obvious lie, in light of the warm, supportive letters he continued writing to me [395], in which he talked about God [396], praising Him that I would be free again soon [397], telling me the Lord was giving him a strong feeling I'd be out of jail soon [398], and that the Lord had given me a good heart [399]. [Cf. § V (1)]

And Hughes told Monsue he knew Dowtu was lying by the way Dowtu approached him in the showers [407]. So which is it? Are Dowtu and Wallace liars, or aren't they? [Cf. § V (10)]

Moreover, Hughes admitted telling my dad he knew I was innocent [404, 411], and that Dowtu and Wallace were lying, and that he would testify to that effect on my behalf [Id]. In fact, Hughes was the one who told my dad and me about Dowtu's and Wallace's lies in the first place [410].

12. Another reason Hughes claimed he knew Dowtu and Wallace were lying, he said, was that "THEY DIDN'T KNOW HIM" [412], implying quite logically that even if a hypothetical killer wanted to confess, it makes no sense for him to choose an absolute stranger in the County Jail with whom to do so, or for the killer to spill the beans in the very first conversation he ever had with the snitch.

Yet that's precisely what Hughes claimed I'd done with him. He claimed my supposed confession happened in our very first conversation [339], before which we'd never met or known each other's names [413], and that our entire conversation lasted only about half an hour [340].

Ironically, Hughes had a good point. A more unlikely confession scenario is difficult to imagine.

13. Hughes claimed my dad called him out for a visit at County Jail, "YOU KNOW, AND PLAYS THE OLD PERRY MASON PART" [414]. Hughes claimed my dad "SAID, SHUUU, HE GOES WELL, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, HE DID (i.e., "Bruce did it"], BUT THEY CAN'T PROVE IT. SO THERE'S, AND HE WAS LOOKIN AT IT FROM AN ATTORNEY'S POINT OF VIEW" [Id]. Hughes gave his supposed take on my dad and me as, "SHIT, MAN, WHAT KIND OF FAMILY IS THIS[?]" [416]. The inarguable impression he conveyed was that he thought very little of my dad.

Yet Hughes later admitted that during that same jail visit [404, 411], he told my dad he would testify on my behalf that Dowtu and Wallace were lying when they said I'd confessed to them [Id]. My dad confirmed that Hughes told him he knew I was innocent [409].

Also consider that in 1989 Hughes talked about my dad to an investigator whom my dad hired to re interview him. The investigator then reported back to my dad in a letter:

"HE REMEMBERS SEEING YOU AT THE TRIAL. HE SAID THAT AFTER HE SAW YOU, HE SAID HE WAS HOPING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO COME OVER AND TALK TO HIM BECAUSE HE THOUGHT YOU WERE ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS. HE SAID HE KNEW RIGHT THEN AND THERE THAT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT [Bruce] SAID ABOUT HIS PARENTS WERE DEFINITELY NOT TRUE" [418]

But just a few years prior, Hughes was quite severe in his criticism of my dad, whom Hughes said had coldly played the "Perry Mason" role despite his wife of 37 years having been horribly butchered in his own home and his son charged in the crime. It seems odd that just seeing my dad in court, though never exchanging a word, would have so easily erased Hughes' supposed contempt for my dad, and that he would have even wanted him to come over and chat. Consider that my dad had directly contradicted Hughes' false claims against me [411], calling him a perjuries liar.

And why wouldn't either of the two jail visits my dad paid to Hughes in 1983 [419], wherein Hughes told my dad about Dowtu and Wallace lying, have similarly improved Hughes' opinion?

And why would Hughes have attended these visits at all if I'd really confessed to him? It's difficult to picture a more awkward scene than him sitting with the father of the 17 year old who supposedly confessed to him, and whom he was planning to testify against in an effort to see him convicted and sentenced to a life term in state prison from which he would probably never again walk free.

14. Hughes claimed I'd had a roommate at the time of the murder, and that we'd been "living it up" [420] and using the drug PCP [423] very heavily as of March 10 [421], and that the crime actually transpired as I attempted to get money to buy more of the drug.

But alternate suspect Mike Ryan, the only roommate I ever had in my apartment, had moved out before he left California [422], several months before his March 6 return and my mom's March 10 murder.

And I've never, not once in my life, used PCP, one of the cheapest, low brow street drugs available. (My drug of choice was marijuana.) And having gotten ten dollars from my dad the night before [520], why would I so desperately need money for this cheap drug the very next morning?

And if I'd needed money for this supposedly "pretty heavy" habit so desperately that it led to murder, why had I 'squandered' money on nuts and washers [198] just minutes before I arrived at our house that morning? The nuts, washers, and containers for each were found on the console of my car [199] and the brown bag from the Builder's Emporium purchase was found on the driveway.

Furthermore, as I told Monsue early on, if I ever needed money I would typically ask my dad for it [520], and very rarely my mom, as he was the bread winner of the house.

15. Hughes claimed he was a Born Again Christian [425] who'd contacted me via a hole between our cells only to lend religious counsel and "minister" [426] to me, never with an ulterior motive of personal gain [429], because I looked frail, weak and upset [337] and, he claimed, I had a "suicidal juvenile" tag on my door [427].

But this supposed Christian could not identify a single Bible scripture [428] to the faith he said compelled him to "serve" [429] an impressionable young stranger in the snitch tank of the County Jail. If Hughes' faith were keen enough for him to select scripture with which to minister to me in a high stress jail environment, how could he possibly forget not just some Bible references when he got to court, but all of them? All he could seemingly recall on the topic was the laughably basic concept, "Jesus is the savior."

In fact it was Hughes' wife at the time who was a Christian, and had tried unsuccessfully to proselytize Hughes. This was apparently the source of his shallow God talk.

16. Though claiming to be a Christian, Hughes took the Lord's name in vain on the witness stand [430] just like a World class sinner.

17. Hughes initially said he'd heard I was a suicidal juvenile, "or something" [431]. But three months later he testified he actually saw a suicidal juvenile tag on my door [432].

Curiously, I never had a 'suicidal' designation at County Jail, though I had been on One On One status [433] at Sylmar Juvenile Hall. Meanwhile, detective Monsue was the only other link between Sylmar, where he visited me on April Fool's Day and I told him about the suspect Mike Ryan [460A], and L.A. County Jail, where he gave Hughes his first taped interview on July 6. And Monsue's conduct has proven very dishonest in my case. (Hughes' first interview with Van Nuys police was not taped or transcribed, and took place about two weeks prior.)

18. Hughes explained he had to be careful when talking with me because he didn't want to, as he put it, "BLOW MY COVER, BECAUSE WE STILL DON'T KNOW IF I'M GONNA" [435].

Hughes didn't want to blow his cover as unofficial agent for the State, alleging confessions of homicide defendants, the highest interest cases criminal prosecutors face. I am the fifth (5th) homicide or attempted homicide defendant against whom Hughes provided his informant services. The others are: 1) Richard James Crowell, homicide, orange County Case No. C 47061; 2) Ernest Owen McCoy, homicide, L.A. County Case No. A561270; 3) Bernard Dean Milberger, homicide, (same Case No. as McCoy, but separate trail and snitch testimony) and; 4) The defendant in the Beverly Hills "police shooting" whose case Hughes' information reportedly cracked; attempted homicide.

19. Hughes reported "IT'S NOT MY STYLE TO GET UP THERE ON THE STAND AND LIE, BUT [*] THIS IS SOME PRETTY HEAVY SHIT, WHEN IT COMES TO A MURDER CASE" [435].

It's not his style... BUT? How heavy must something be to motivate Hughes to lie about it?

Obviously his 1993 bankruptcy proceeding was heavy enough, since in that case he tried to hide assets from the Court and got caught [673]. Just one more instance of Hughes defiling an oath to tell the truth.

Or his heavy desire for the most precious gift of all: his freedom [436A], He readily admitted to looking for any opportunity to get out early by snitching, once his own five year sentence had been handed down [330].

[*] It should be noted that two transcripts of Hughes' July 6 interview exist in the police murder book. The other version (featuring page numbers at the top of each page) does not contain the word "BUT" in the quoted passage. However, this secondary transcript appears to be the 'police' version and, for similar reasons as Monsue's hand transcription of my interrogation, should probably be viewed with a measure of distrust [Cf. § IV (4) (f)]. Also, the topic under discussion was Dowtu and Wallace lying, so Hughes may have been asserting his difference from them as liars, as false as such a difference was.

20. Hughes said he was careful in approaching me, not wanting to appear as if he were questioning me, "WHEN THEY SAY [*] HE WAS PRETTY SMART" [437].

Who is "they"? To whom could Hughes have been speaking before he contacted me? He said absolutely that I was the first person he'd spoken to about my case [438]. Meanwhile, police complicity is the suspected cause of my removal from juvenile hall to the adult County Jail just days after the Court ordered against such removal. And detective Landgren's un taped and un transcribed visit with Hughes two weeks before July 6 [459] is suspicious, as well. And the circumstances surrounding my 7000 Module placement, in contact with the snitch, for lack of a better description, stinks [Cf. § VI. "JAIL HOUSE INFORMANTS: POLICE COMPLICITY"].

[*] It should again be noted that in the version with page numbers at the top, the transcript reads, "LIKE I SAID, HE WAS PRETTY SMART", and earlier in the interview Hughes did make reference to my intelligence. However, as above, this alternate transcript appears to be the 'police' version, and so for similar reasons as Monsue's hand transcription of my interrogation [Cf. S IV (4) (f)], is perhaps not representative of what Hughes actually said.

21. Hughes went from incorrectly calling the exercise bar a "BOWL WORKER" [*] in the July 6 interview [439], to properly calling it a "BULL WORKER" just three months later [440]. Is this evidence of police coaching? Detective Landgren's un taped and un transcribed visit with Hughes two weeks before his first taped one [459] only adds to suspicions that Hughes was heavily coached.

[*] Once again, it must be noted that the wording in the 'police' transcript differs, where it is properly called a "BULL WORKER." However, for the same reason as above, the transcription may not be an accurate one.

22. Hughes claimed the supposed stabbing occurred all at once, in his words, "WHAM" [441], and that it happened near the outset of the attack [442).

But this is at odds with the observed injuries and the evidence. My right handed [359] mom sustained numerous defensive slashes to her left hand only [360], suggesting that the exercise bar which broke her right arm [357] had already been used in the attack. Therefore, the knives were not used near the outset of the attack, but sometime after the bar [Cf. § V (3) (a)]. Furthermore, since two pinpoint 'hesitation' wounds appear near the deep stab wounds in her back, my mother was not upright and moving when the knife wounds were inflicted [Cf. § V (3) (b)].

23. Hughes' claim that I'd committed the crime and staged the scene afterwards alleges an impossible sequence of events. By his account, I'd supposedly set up the kitchen window after I committed the crime which left my hands covered in blood [187].

But there was no blood found on any surface in that area: the window panes, sill, screen, or the red handled pliers [298]. Unless I bloodied my hands, then washed and dried them, painstakingly set up the window, and then somehow re bloodied them, all in the ten minutes before police arrived, Hughes' claim is impossible. Also, the disassembled window components were found on the east walkway outside of the house, so setting all this up, bloody handed, without getting a trace of blood or hand washing water on an exit doorknob in the process becomes an increasingly remote possibility [Cf. § IV (4) (1)].

24. Hughes said he'd first seen Dowtu and Wallace approaching me in the shower looking for information about my case [446].

But he later testified that the pair had noticed him talking to me, at which time Dowtu approached him with the proposition that they combine efforts and jointly lie against me [447].

Telling the truth has one distinct benefit which Hughes was not able to enjoy in my case. Namely, it's much easier to recall an event that actually happened, than a lie you've told and then tried to remember.

25. Hughes claimed he simply ministered spiritually to me because I looked frail, upset and weak [337], and that he never asked for or wanted anything in return [448].

But that's a lie. Confronted with the letters he wrote to me, Hughes admitted he'd asked me for money, candy, razors and other items [449].

26. Before he testified at my trial, Hughes was seen in the hallway outside the courtroom reading a sheaf of papers which he claimed was just the transcript of his July 6 interview [452]. He explained he'd had about ten days to review these materials before testifying.

Again, why would someone simply recalling a true historical event need to study it for ten days, and apparently 'cram' again that very morning?

27. Hughes reported that the calls I placed from our house that morning were to my dad first, and then to paramedics, he was certain in that order [453].

But that's backwards. My call to the paramedics was placed at exactly 11:26 A.M. [454], and I called my dad three minutes later, at 11:29 [455].