Knights In Dirty
Armour
EPILOGUE
You may have asked why this author did not testify at either
of the two trials and offer a testimony that would vindicate my wife
then and there.
I could not testify.
You then ask “why not?”
as it is
everyone’s right to
testify at their trial.
This is not entirely true as you believe.
“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth so help you God?”
is an old
cliché no longer in
use. First,
“God”
has been removed from the
courtrooms and second, “The whole truth”
is not wanted.
Many convictions would not be obtained if the whole truth was told at
trials. This is not the excuse used for excluding the whole truth; the excuse is
that some witnesses would ramble inadmissible and irrelevant
monologues. Though the truth.
Let me give you this example as truth: The authorities do not like
“Bob Brown;”
they have a grudge. Bob is charged with aiding a
hold-up at the Get & Go and is on the stand testifying in his
defense and the questions are asked:
“I have one question, Mr. Bob, and it requires only a yes or
no answer.
It is true that you went to the Get & Go and while there
did take money out of the cash register in the course of the robbery
and put it in a paper bag and hand it to John Doe. Is that not true? A “yes”
or “no” answer,
Mr. Brown.”
121
Of course, either answer would hang Bob as Bob was there and
did take the money out of the cash register and did put it in a
paper bag and did hand it to John Doe. That makes Bob an accomplice
aiding a holdup. Paul
Harvey does not get to testify that John Doe had a gun and would
blow Bob’s head off if he didn’t do what he was told to do which
included putting his wallet and money in the bag too as Bob was just
a customer, then add, “Now you know the rest of the story.
Occasionally the whole truth
would prevent a conviction.
Judge Post commented on my “Sentencing Statement”
with “Whatever you say is not sworn to under oath
and not admissible in this court. This is but a half truth. It was sworn to and was under oath. It was admissible; she simply
did not want to accept it.
She can’t accept the truth!
So why not
testify? I am not a
math professor and cannot give “expert testimony”
that 2 plus 2 equals 4. I am not a physics professor
and cannot give “expert testimony”
that
if an egg rolls off a table onto cement it will likely
break.
“You were not there.
You cannot know exactly what happened to Ben, can
you?”
“I did not see
what happened but
Your honor the question I asked requires a yes or no
answer. Please instruct
the witness.
122
I do not
know whether my Benjamin climbed up on the table or only on the
piano bench or was using the arm of the dining chair as a ladder
rung to get to the table and whether he slipped or simply lost his
balance nor whether he
started up with his right foot or left or that he had another
seizure that precipitated the fall, but I do know
Marie could not have inflicted any injury to Benjamin for one
simple reason: Marie
was not there either and because she was not there to see exactly
what happened to Benjamin she, like myself, can reach but one
conclusion: That
Benjamin climbed up on something and fell from it onto the ceramic
floor where she found him after she heard the fall. That is all that
could have happened.
That is certainly consistent with the single 12mm (one half
inch) occipital fracture found during the extensive examination at
St. Francis Hospital.
I did not see
George Klatt bash Benjamin’s head open with an Asp behind the drawn
curtains to product the two inch fracture (48mm) that the late
Patrick Crawley used to describe “the toddler’s head was busted
open”
and for Charles Ramsey to describe “Ben’s brains were
gushing out the top of his head
while pantomiming volcanic activity to his
jury with his hands above his head. But how else could it have
gotten there?
The whole truth is
not wanted. Especially
by this prosecutor. His reasons? His reputation. His smiling photo on the
front page of his newspaper captioned “I won.”
Judge Posts reasons?
Perhaps she broke a nail and had a greater concern for that
than for an innocent human life. I don’t know.
I still have not answered the question, “Why did you not
testify?”
123
I was threatened with a consequential penalty that would have
guaranteed my confinement for
the rest of my life and there would be no one to dare to
tell the truth and expose the dirty Knights of Mayes County Oklahoma
and Marie, too, would be guaranteed to spend the rest of her
innocent life behind prison walls.
The witness list of the State included Joan Farbro who would
testify I was crazy because of some of the pranks I have pulled on
various individuals, particularly kids, who always have enjoyed
them. Including my Ben.
They are too numerous to mention. Most of them I learned from
my father and late sister, Florence Howard. Perhaps they were crazy
too. The last one was
“Kitty Litter Cake.
Took hours to prepare.
It was a genuine edible birthday cake. But only the pastry aroma
(and taste) told it was not as it appeared.
Not so harmless (as Joan is herself, in my opinion, a brick
short of a full load, more concerned with dividing up Marie’s
jewelry and property than helping free her sister) is the
corroborating witnesses to substantiate Joan’s claim on my being
“crazy” is my ex wife Patty, whom was the defendant in the
divorce. Another long
story I will sum up as only A woman scorned. She would be the
corroborating witness to Star Priddy; the States primary witness
against me whom I had not seen in over four decades. My first wife; she divorced me September
16, 1960. I hold no
grudge. I can actually
thank her for her scheme.
Too bad (for her) that it backfired. Had it not, I would have
probably died in an institution decades ago.
I had (have; as it is irreparable) a small brain injury to
the left frontal lobe one half century ago. Not nearly as bad as
Kennedy’s, I survived and the scar is barely visible. The injury was
sufficient to warrant the Honorable Discharge from the U. S.
Navy. Had I lost
consciousness and died without stipulating it was an accident, there
could have been a murder
charge. Dr. Barton
guaranteed that our Ben would have no opportunity to verify that his injury was an
accident.
124
As disoriented as I was at the time and as bizarre as it
sounds, I remember like it happened yesterday. Laying on the gurney devoid
of any energy, blood all over my face and uniform and unable to keep
my eyes open but could hear the only audible words spoken by a
physician standing over me who said, Is this one dead
yet?
What I did not know about, at that time, was the total
disability compensation from the Veteran’s Administration and Social
Security benefits I was instantly eligible for. Benefits that, had Star
Priddy succeeded in keeping me institutionalized,
she would have been drawing for so long as I
remained a patient in the Veterans Hospital or any other, and
substantial death benefits when I died. The diagnosis was
permanent
as the
records of the Veteran’s Administration and Social Security show to
this day.
Marie knew of my permanent injury because Patty Schoonover
told her. When she
asked me about it I took her to the V.A archives and showed them to
her. We had no secrets
from each other. The
contemporary records reflect the only reason for scheduled visits to
the Veteran’s Hospital are, in fact, due to multiple cardiac
infarctions, related complications from same, annual physicals and
optometry.
Ramsey wanted me. He knew Marie was
(is) innocent of any crime.
And he had that Perjured Probable Cause Affidavit sworn to as
true by his friend George Klatt whom he had to keep concealed at all
costs. Birds of a
Feather. Judge Post had
decided before the trial that WE
killed our Benjamin. Here is Ramsey’s planned
scenario according to many people including three criminal
lawyers:
I testify. I am
asked if I have ever been in the mental ward of a hospital. It does
not matter that it has been over forty years ago. The answer would have to be
yes.
Mr. Schoonover, isn’t it true that the disability
compensation you presently draw was based on damage to your
brain?
125
How many will know that the word presently
and was is not compatible in the same
sentence?
Mr. Charles Ramsey is not a stupid man. He is cleaver enough to
misquote every witness and fool a Judge with a broken nail who can’t
tell time and twelve people of average ignorance.
His plan was to label me as a lunatic
and convince his jury that Marie helped me cover up my crime because she is
afraid of me!
Would it have worked? Mr. Ramsey also knows
I have suffered mild strokes which have, in plain language, affected
my mental capacity and physical stability. Mr. Ramsey is not
stupid. Nor am I. The following scenario will
explain:
“Mr. Albert Einstein, you have a chauffer because you get
lost; don’t know where you are, forget your way home because you
can’t remember the way back when you are driven as little as
three blocks from your
apartment. Is that not
true Mr. Einstein?”
“Well, yess, das true.”
“What else is wrong with your brain, Mr.
Einstein?”
That is a true fact about the late math genius Mr. Einstein
according to what I have read in the text books. And although I don’t get
lost on the byways three blocks or three hundred leagues from home,
I do get lost in a mall!
The part of my brain that is not damaged functions quite
well. You are reading
one of its limited abilities.
The part that is damaged does not function wrong; it simply
does not function.
Thus I could not testify lest I be labeled a psychopath and
“put away”
for the rest of my life though the jury
would find me “Not Guilty”
of the crime I had been charged
with.
What would happen to Marie is speculation. She would probably have been
set free. That was the
plan.
126
So why did Marie not testify?
So bizarre that, had I not read it with my own eyes from the
written records given to and held by Kevin Adams (my attorney) and
Jim Rowan (Marie’s attorney) by Charles Ramsey that I would not dare
to put it in print!
Marie also read it and was told: If you testify that John was
outside and not able to come in the house they will put him where he will never get out.
The plan was to label me as psychotic.
Charles Ramsey and Joan Farbro had agreed that If Marie
testifies John was outside, Joan Farbro would testify that John told
her (Joan Farbro) that he would wrap her in a sheet and pour
kerosene on her and watch her burn to see how long it took before
she burned to death.
“Why?”
To show the jury that Marie is deathly afraid of me and
she
would do anything to protect me out of fear.
This ever so bizarre plot would get Marie a little time,
perhaps, for “accessory”
but the most important goal
was that it would get me out of the way permanently and Charles
Ramsey would be safe from investigation into his immoral pursuit of
the charges against two innocent victims based on his known Perjured
Probable Cause Affidavit by his friend George
Klatt.
If I was “out of the way”
in a
“funny farm” or dead there would be no one to scrutinize the
transcripts and notice that the “two inch fracture”
from where Ben’s Brains were
bulging, squishing and gushing out the top of his head did not exist when our boy
entered St. Francis Hospital but was there as Ramsey told the
jury, after his friend
photographed Ben and Ben was sent to the Coroner. One more
uncontroverted fact that deserves a thorough
investigation.
Before
my wife dies a lingering
death in the custody of the state worse than that of Niccola Sacco
and Bartolomeo Vanzetti 78 years ago and for a far more egregious
miscarriage of justice.
127
This author was illegally convicted twice by a crooked
prosecutor and judge.
The Court of Criminal Appeals verified that in reversing the
convictions. I am
living proof that there are innocent victims sent to
prison for the convenience of a few would be “Knights”
in dirty armour. This author, being privy to
the scheme to put this innocent victim in a “funny farm”
for life gives this author the right
to ask another question:
How many are labeled “nuts”
for whatever reason for the “convenience” of getting
them “out of the way” for
whatever reason not necessarily legitimate?
Of course, if Charles Ramsey actually believed I was “not of
sound mind”
he would have to
answer why he prosecuted me as with a sound mind and sent me to
prison in violation of the 1996 Supreme Court Decision in Cooper v.
Oklahoma {116 S.Ct. 1373} which clearly states that it Violates Due
Process
of U.S.C.A Constitution Amendment 14 and
22 Okl.St.Ann. section
1175.4, subd. B. Are
there any laws we have
that Mr. Ramsey would care to uphold?
Janet Reno told her Oklahoma audience that we have the
opportunity to reach The ultimate goal of finding the truth. Doing just that, in this
case, would free my innocent Marie and Honorable Oklahoma Knights
would put a couple of Dirty Oklahoma Knights in the wash tub.
When
Doctor Block testified as to the fracture that “Actually wasn’t discovered
until autopsy,
little did I know at
that time that he was referring to the one unknown to me at that
time. The inflicted fracture that did
not exist before my Benjamin was in PICU at St. Francis Hospital.
How
desperate will tyrants get to cover their ass?
As
of this date no one of any authority has
volunteered
To
clean their house or do any dirty laundry.
John
Schoonover
31
May, 2005
128
Oklahoma
has the 3rd highest prison population ratio in the
country. The highest
female prison population.
The highest in the entire world. There are several bills in
the House and Senate for appropriating more and more money from
Oklahoma tax payers to build even
more and larger prisons.
Perhaps this priority to be the largest prison system drain
on taxpayers in the country as well as in the world is why no Oklahoma official
contacted has had time to show any interest in cleaning house or “seeking the truth” and
Free My Innocent Marie.
John
Schoonover
rwkida@vfwonline.net
freemymarie@aol.com
129
BACK / NEXT /
HOME
| 
