|
] Knights
In Dirty Armour
" They
Gagged Our
Witness'
"
Oklahoma
has one of the four highest prison-to-population ratios in the
country. Mayes County
has had an equally disproportionate number of cases overturned by
the Court of Criminal Appeals in relation to other counties in the
State.
After the
Schoonover’s first illicit conviction was overturned, they would
still remain imprisoned over two years before their second trial
would begin.
As in all
other states, prisoners are granted earned “good time” credits for
satisfactory and better behavior. The Schoonovers’ prison
records confirm consistent “outstanding” evaluations in all
areas. This equates to
a hard earned “good time” credit of sixty days per month. Thus they had each served
the equivalent of over a six-year prison sentence before their
second trial would even begin.
As of this
writing, John and Marie Schoonover have each served, with
outstanding earned good time behavior, a nine and one-half year
prison sentence. Two
and one-half years longer than the seven year sentence imposed on
John Schoonover by the second kangaroo court
(Webster’s).
Before the
second trial began, “deals” would be offered:
1)
Both
plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter for time served. The Schoonovers would
not.
2)
Both
plead nolo contendre to
negligent homicide for time served. The Schoonovers would
not.
If any
guilt whatsoever had been involved, this would be a gross injustice
to society by Ramsey to allow any guilty party in the death of a
child to get away with a short, six-year sentence. This sends the message: The cost of taking a child’s
life is only two years in jail if one pleads guilty so Ramsey can
smile in a photo for the press and say, “I
won!”.
24
As there is no guilt
involved with either of the Schoonovers, it sends an even greater
degenerate message:
Though clear evidence exists that Marie was in fact talking
on the phone in another room and out of sight of Ben, and that John
was not even in the house when the accident occurred, that the
“probable cause” which Klatt presented to me against the couple was
perjured to create a crime when none existed. I have not the courage to
admit my mistakes, therefore, to protect my friend Klatt and conceal
my cowardice, I will lie, deceive, cajole however I can, to get any
kind of conviction I can to make me look good in the eye of the
public I pretend to serve.12
“Chuck”,
as Judge Post addressed Mr Ramsey, could not win this trial on its
merits alone, as there are none. He would need the help of a
prejudiced Judge who would take him under the safety of her
cloak. She would
overrule almost all of the defense objections and motions, and
sustain almost all of Ramsey’s and even interject some of her own to
even disallowing the defense to approach the bench to “make a
record”.
She would
allow “Chuck” to address the jury with highly improper statements,
such as one of her own, “These two were found guilty at the first
trial”, “They are, in fact, guilty”, “These two killed little
Benjamin Schoonover”, “They say it was an accident”, “A story we
know is a lie, is untrue”, “John and Gilda are guilty of first
degree murder”, “I know that he had injuries that were
non-accidental”, “How he was killed?”, and “Which one killed
Ben?”13
Any one of
these assertions trashes the constitution that declares “Innocent
until proven guilty”.
These reversible errors permeated the
trial.
A proper
address to the jury would be, in concert with the law, presuming
innocence: We are here
to try to determine, by presenting facts, the truth of what happened
to young Benjamin Michael Schoonover the evening of October
29th, 1999, that resulted in his tragic and untimely
death.
As your
District Attorney, I do “not represent an entity whose interests
include winning at all costs; (my) client is society (which demands
no victim), [and] seeks only justice, not
victory”.14
“You, John
Schoonover, are going to spend the rest of your natural life in
prison for murdering your son.”
25
Judge
Dynda Post should have, by law, recused herself from the bench in
the case, as she knows and was involved with a public fund-raising
event (dinner) to help finance a lung transplant for one of the
prosecution’s witnesses.
Those present at the meetings of the lung recipient and Judge
Post reported expressions of disdain for the Schoonover’s in their
conversations concerning the case, some of which have been published
in the Claremore newspaper.
The transplant of the non-human lung was a success. As of December, 2004
Judge Post continues her ‘association’ with this state
witness.
Judge Post
would begin assisting prosecutor Chuck Ramsey by denying Marie’s
legitimate request for funds from the State, mandated by law, to
secure a necessary expert witness (a physicist) who would prove
beyond a doubt that the injury sustained by our Benjamin could have
only been the result of an accidental fall from a table or piano
bench onto the porcelain covered concrete
floor.15
Without
the ability to acquire this witness, Marie would have, and did have,
virtually no defense.
Marie was the lamb at the mercy of a pair of wolves who were
not hungry for justice, but hungry for blood.
Marie’s
mother, Nora Stanart, testified for the State. Why “for the State”, when
she is Marie’s mother?
Why not for the defense? So that the State Judge Post
would begin assisting
prosecutor Chuck Ramsey by denying can limit her testimony, as
Ramsey very well did!
Whatever
is not brought out on direct examination cannot be “cross”
examined. Nora was
examined only to a two-minute segment of Ben’s life: when she talked to him at
about 6:30 pm. Moments
before Marie said, “I’ve got to go, Mom. Ben fell again”, or words to
that effect. Two
minutes of Ben’s life.
Ben was
with the Schoonover’s for ten months! “How was life with the
Schoonover’s? Had you
even seen Ben fall?”, defense attorney Kevin Adams
asked.
26
Ramsey said, “Judge,
I’m going to object to the relevance.”
Judge Post
replied, “Sustained.”
A second
question was asked by Mr. Adams that was also objected to by Ramsey
and sustained by Judge Post.
If it isn’t brought up on direct, it can’t be inquired to on
cross.
It is a
legal maneuver by the State to gag a witness factually for the
defense.
Nora
Stanart was factually the Schoonover’s best witness --- but was not
allowed to testify but to only two minutes (or less) of Ben’s
life. Nora Stanart, if
allowed, would have testified she “Did not hang up her phone, but
stayed on it, and heard the front door
screech open, heard Marie yell for
John, heard the
door screech closed, heard the garage
door open, and hung up her phone after she heard us
close the door to the garage as the garage door was closing and had
closed. “Within minutes
Gilda called me from her cell phone telling me they were on 69 (hwy)
on the way to the hospital in Pryor with Ben and told me to call Jim
and Debbie and tell them to come.” There was nothing to
hide. Ramsey needed
this suppressed.
Two
minutes of crucial ear witness exculpatory evidence that Ramsey,
with Post’s help, did suppress.16
It is this
two minutes maximum that in his closing argument would poignantly
lament to the jury that the Schoonover’s washed him up, changed his
clothes, and did other things while Ben was laying there for 45
minutes with his brains bulging out the top of his head before John
decided to call the hospital. 17
Nora
Stanart complained to Charles Ramsey concerning how he suppressed
her complete testimony.
Her plea to him for justice was met with an “I don’t give a
damn” attitude.
Nora
Stanart wrote Governor Brad Henry about this miscarriage of justice
and suppressed testimony; how she was treated by Charles Ramsey and
the abuse she received at the hospital by George Klatt’s threatening
manner and denial of her right to touch or even talk to her great
grandson Benjamin. How
we all know the value of loved ones close to the infirmed. How this cruel denial of
compassion by George Klatt’s intervention could have made the
difference in Ben’s survival.
Ben, too, was harmed by this unwarranted punishment by George
Klatt. Nora Stanart
felt “gagged” by Judge Post and prosecutor Ramsey for the purpose of
railroading her innocent daughter.
27
Nora
Stanart knew from the beginning that Ben’s death was from an
accident. She also knew
that the Probable Cause Affadavit contained a “confession” sworn to
by George Klatt that John had killed Ben. What she could not
understand is why Charles Ramsey is so determined to get a
conviction for something that simply did not
happen!
The reason
is obvious: The lives
of two innocent people are of less importance to Charles Ramsey than
his career. Any
prosecutor who relies on a perjured Probable Cause Affadavit,
Glosses it over and tries to hide it, protects the perjurer, coaches
a coroner who has been told by his trusted State Investigator that
an accidental injury was “confessed to as inflicted” thus implanting
the “opinion” that it is homicide when it is not, is at significant
risk of losing his job as a seeker of justice as the railroading of
innocent people to prison to die is certainly not within the job
description of any prosecutor.
To protect
the illusionary honourable reputations of these Dirty Knights someone must be convicted. Gilda Marie Schoonover is
indigent. What better
patsy than one who cannot afford to defend themselves for
justice?
Nora
Stanart is 80 years of age.
The damage to her, too, by Charles Ramsey is
immeasurable. Marquis
de Sade, she believed, was a fictional character.
28
Back
/ Next /
Home
| 
