AN ATROCITY OF INJUSTICE IN RHODE ISLAND -- THE FRAMING OF RAYMOND 'BEAVER' TEMPEST -- Part Two

Note: Caught received an anonymous letter regarding this complaint that raised several questions.  After reading this SECOND part of the complaint, please read the answers to those questions. Also read Part One.

Prelude:  On April 22, 1992, Raymond D. "Beaver" Tempest was found guilty of second degree murder after a three-week trial in Providence County Superior Court. On June 15, 1992, he was sentenced to eighty-five years in prison by Judge John Bourcier. The crime for which Beaver Tempest was convicted occurred on February 19, 1982 at 409 Providence Street in the city of Woonsocket, Rhode Island. A young woman named Doreen Picard, a third floor resident of this address, was found brutally murdered in the basement. A second woman, Susan Laferte, who lived on the first floor was also discovered in the cellar nearby. Susan had also been severely beaten, but survived.

Beaver Tempest has staunchly maintained his innocence from day one and asserts this entire document and part one is the true, factual account of the case.

Pre-trial Information and Law

Partial Update: After some investigation, reading over 2100 pages of transcripts, and going through other records, thus far our assessment of this case seems consistent. What must be said at the beginning is, the State did an excellent job in trying the case and putting forward what they wanted the public to know in the court and in the media. Now, as they say, you will hear the rest of the story. Had we not taken the countless hours to investigate this case, these questions and facts would have never come to light. It appears the State made this a very complex case, so the jury would be confused and rely on the Attorney General’s credibility, to find the needles in the haystack.

The most distressing part of this whole case is the fact that so many so called "Public Servants", be they Woonsocket Police or the various members of the Attorney General’s Office, grossly abused their power and position to turn this horrendous tragedy into a travesty of justice, like we have not seen, save in one or two cases on this site.

Due to the length of this section we would first like to quote what the law is and point out that when it is followed the system works. When it is not followed, almost anybody can be convicted of a crime, especially sexual assaults, as only a fabricating witness is needed. Judge Bourcier’s words, quoting the US Supreme Court in Burger v. US, laid down the law for the duty and responsibility of a government prosecutor:

"The prosecutor is a representative, not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligations to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor- indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Quoted from State v. Diprete, 710 A 2d 1266, 1282-63 (RI 1998). They got caught in DiPrete’s case.

Other very important laws you need to know are, the A.G. must turn over all requested discovery when it is requested, or as soon as it becomes known to them ( or Pennington in this case). ) See State v. Powers 526 A2d 489 (RI 1987). And a prosecutor has a legal duty to correct what he knows is false, elicit the truth, even if it hurts his case, State v. Towns, 422 A2d 688 (RI 1981)

What we discovered from the record was a similar DiPrete ploy of giving too much unneeded information and not enough of what was necessary to properly prepare. Mr. Dimitri is still fighting for information before and during trial. Dimitri is given a list of well over 200 witnesses,and left to figure out which ones are going to be called. Dimitri had to file a Motion to force the State to comply with the law. After the hearing for requested discovery, Dimitri says, " It appears the State is in compliance." (20) ( quotes followed by numbers refer to transcript pages.) The State also made a request of Dimitri to compel information.

At the start, the State argues a Motion to Suppress (2-4) the polygraph tests given by the police at their request. Only incriminating hearsay will be allowed in at this trial for the most part and only Beaver Tempest agreed, or was ever asked to take and pass two polygraphs. The State, to our knowledge, never gave any of their witnesses polygraphs, and for good reason, as you will be see later.

The State, contrary to their usual position, filed another motion to suppress the identification of Sue Laferte’s attacker in the hospital, and under Hypnosis. Again like the polygraph, they did not like the results. Ryan claims, " and any statements made by her would be given—it would be very misleading to the jury if they were to be admitted." (9:14)

Under the rules of evidence, a defendant’s statements, and others, although clearly hearsay, are admissible under Rule 804, for a few reasons. He claims a privilege (not to incriminate himself) so others in this case will do it for him and get caught in perjury according to the now Justice Dimitri.

The next event at pre-trial is the attempt to move the trial out of Providence, called a change of venue. The main reason for Rule 21 is "Media prejudice against the defendant that he or she cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county". The motion was denied though after the voir dire (Questioning prospective jurors- ) and selecting the jury it seems as no juror heard about the alleged facts of the case, the court makes some statements that just don’t seem to congeal. First Bourcier says: " and it’s perfectly permissible and proper for a perspective juror to have read about a case, to know parties…and to know what the facts are in the case from what that person has read or seen." (43)

Then later on, when Donald Dagesse was put under a subpoena by Mr. Dimitri, he allegedly has a heart attack, and is placed in the hospital. Dagesse has an expensive organized crime lawyer, John Cicilline and an expensive organized crime doctor assisting him. Cicilline stated, "Mr. Dagesse is in the hospital…[and] would be claiming his Fifth Amendment if called to testify." (1864) Note Judge Bourcier’s very next statement to the media.

"Now, I think one need not be a rocket scientist to understand from those facts that if any on the jury were to unfortunately read that in the press they would necessarily imply from what they read that Mr. Dagesse, if called to testify, will claim the Fifth Amendment. And we all know from common conception what people think about one’s claiming of the Fifth Amendment. I think if the Pope claimed the Fifth Amendment one would presume that he had something to hide." (1866-67) Which one is it? It seems the only distinction the court actually makes is prospective juror versus juror? Was this trial a search for the truth?

The Press and Prosecutor

Getting back to the progression of the trial, Judge Bourcier, in apparent ignorance of what the Attorney General and Woonsocket Police were up to, is probably shocked to find out the A.G. was apparently violating the law to prejudice this case. Judge Bourcier, speaking to the press says, " There is a special responsibility of a prosecutor, and I don’t say this because I’m directing this at the prosecution in this case because I have no reason to question anything regarding the prosecutor’s conduct in the case…. I’m reading E., reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisted or associated with the prosecutor in a Criminal case from making an extra judicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited form making under Rule 3.6" (30,31) (Court quoted Supreme Court Article 11 Rule 3.8 (e). )

The first witnesses called for the Motion for Change of Venue was the Woonsocket Call’s Larry Berman [who left the Call to become a press agent for Patrick Kennedy] who boasts under oath of continually beating the Providence Journal to the story. The reason became clear. The Call had a direct connection to the Woonsocket Police. This is seen in not only the stories that were self-serving, but Sergeant Lucien Ouellette describes the cozy relationship. He corrects his prior inaccurate testimony regarding developing all the photos he took. Ouellette states the "autopsy pictures were done at the Woonsocket Call. I’ve gone to the Woonsocket Call on numerous occasions when my machine was not operating." (1820-21) No doubt, free of charge.

This leads to numerous questions, and questionable articles. Was there a third prosecutor in this case, Terrance Donnelly, James Ryan, and the Media? You decide.

Berman under oath claims he spoke to Raymond Tempest Sr. which to some extent was confirmed. Berman as you will see never printed, or corrected the plethora of false and inaccurate articles we cannot completely cover. He did print the fact the Tempests believed Beaver was framed. The now Justice William Dimitri Jr., however took strong exception to Berman’s claim of talking "for about an hour about the case," and " Mr. Olivo has spoken with you on many occasions," (38)

The Attorney General’s office and or Woonsocket Police feed the media "stories" as seen with their original star witness Shaw, whom they literally tormented to testify falsely. Berman, nor the other media, never corrected the falsehoods reported. The Call never printed to our knowledge that a State trooper, retired, was not guarding Shaw in Maine. (See Section I p17) but the North Smithfield dogcatcher was. There’s no mention Hocksteder has Danny Shaw stealing, for which Hocksteder was convicted. (See Section I p 16-17) No mention that Hocksteder admitted being instructed by A.G. James Ryan, and Rodney Remblad to keep Shaw drunk. To our knowledge, the press also never bothered while they were in the files to mention Danny Shaw told the prior grand jury that, " the next time I come here I am going to tell you all the lies they want me to tell, so they will leave me alone." Instead, they assist the A.G. in destroying Shaw ‘s credibility, after he recants his coerced Grand Jury testimony!

The facts reveal Ronald Pennington, (Section I p.8) Roger Remillard, Rodney Remblad, John Dionne (Section I p. 14) and even A.G. James Ryan (Sect. I. p 18) all contributed stories to the media that they knew were false. And some even more egregious than Ryan’s claim on page 18 of Section I, of his shock to find Danny Shaw at home. He claims to a summoned media, he was shocked to find Danny Shaw at home, pretending Shaw should be in Maine with Hocksteder. The State’s highest law-enforcement agents claimed total surprise at Shaw’s being at his residence on January 9, 1992.

Shaw fled to Massachusetts, seeking refuge from Rhode Island authorities. Massachusetts State Police Trooper Thomas G. Green in his report states, "On January 9, 1992, this office spoke with agent Ryall who informed this office that he was contacted by Rhode Island Attorney General O’Neil and assistant A.G.Ryan and after their conversation concerning Shaw, the Attorney General requested that Shaw be returned to his residence. Daniel Shaw was returned to his residence in Woonsocket RI by agent Ryall, Chief Creighton and Detective Mulrenin." See Section .I P.17)

This confirms the last statement above in section I regarding " the adverse and erroneous publicity fed to the media apparently by the police. There is much more conduct that violates Rule 3.6.

This is seen in an article in the Woonsocket Call. "Picard case witness ducks bullets" of 12/20/91, and states: "Although police found no direct evidence linking the shooting to Vaz’s role in the case against Tempest, members of the Attorney General’s division strongly suspect that it is connected," said Thomas Connell spokesman for the Attorney General, James O’Neil . All we can say is two and two generally add up to four, said Connell alluding to a previous assault on Vaz in which his attackers made verbal threats that were connected to the Picard case. It’s about the Beaver situation. There’s no doubt in my mind, said Vaz, because we’re a very direct witness to the situation.

Ryan never mentions these alleged assaults directly, just that witnesses were threatened not to cooperate more than once, (80) in his opening statement. When Vaz was asked why it took until April of 1991 to report what he knew about his cousin Doreen Picard’s murder, since he claimed he knew since February 21, 1982, his response was, "That’s how scared I was." (1000:1)

Was this inadmissible evidence brought in the back door to prejudice the defendant, as Judge Bourcier said quoting the Law? Rule 3.6 also enunciates as follows: " Trial Publicity-(a) a lawyer shall not make an extra judicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to disseminate by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding." (b) a statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when ….. the statement relates to: (5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial:"

These statements are extremely damaging to the defendant, and create a strong inference of guilt, yet they were not seen in our reading of the transcript, though some alleged threats did come out through Donna Bousquet Carrier, and John Guarino and will be addressed later.

The only exception in Rule 3.6 to disseminate this information is to protect an individual or the public. If Vaz was really in danger, why was he not put in protective custody like Shaw? The point is, just because the Attorney General said it and the papers reported it, it does not make it true. We will see several times the Attorney General actually attempting to use perjured testimony, even after Pennington and Ryan realize it is absolutely false.

Ryan’s Opening Statement and the Trial

Ryan in his opening statements deliberately attempts to prejudice the jury by statements so improper, Mr. Dimitri moves to pass the case. Bourcier instructs the jury to disregard Ryan’s statements (How do you un-ring the bell?) and says, " I’m going to ask Mr. Ryan to start again and if there is any further objectionable comments made, if there is and objection, I will pass the case." (66)

Ryan’s opening statement outlines an incredible conspiracy and cover up and depends entirely on the exception to the hearsay rule to make this case. Even Judge Bourcier, pokes fun at some of these witnesses, as they are so fictitious. Two other witnesses are busted in stone cold perjury and the State simply changes the date so they can argue this perjured testimony. The State used Vaz to knowingly distort the truth and used obviously false testimony. It is the belief of those who researched this case and the law, that because Mr. Ryan, the A.G. said it, the jury believed that makes it true. Unfortunately jurors believe prosecutors as their word is like magic. We hope by continuing to expose them, we can educate people. Ryan in his opening statement affirms the fact he intends to use anything he can irregardless of its veracity. False testimony is almost always the cause of false convictions, like Danny Brown, or Joseph Sunseri cases seen on this site. In these and other cases, prosecutors used testimony they knew was false. This is where the system breaks down.

It is also interesting to note how hard the A. G.’s office works to suppress the truth from being put before the jury. While Louise Kearns was testifying she inadvertently bags Terrance Donnelly, the other prosecutor, who told her, "as far as I was told, I’m not supposed to refer to that. I was told not to refer to the----the time at which I mentioned that." (175) Donnelly quickly tries to explain away his conduct in telling a witness what not to say.

The tape of Danny Shaw being tormented into testifying, and lying to the grand jury is riveting, as is his statement to the Massachusetts authorities. We are considering putting them on the website. We must note almost everything Shaw told the Mass. State Police was verified as much as possible and led to two convictions in Maine. When he was not drunk, the facts about Hocksteder and his girlfriend reveal his veracity.

The reason this is so important is Sherri Richard’s also makes similar claims of being worn down by Ronald Pennington. " He kept asking me the same questions over and over and over again, going hour after hour until I could give him an answer." (809)

Pennington also tries to bribe the witness preying on the fact that Ms. Richards was using drugs at some point. This is how they maintained complete control over Danny Shaw, with drugs and alcohol. Pennington asked Sherri if coke or pot would make her memory return. If anyone has been interrogated by the police they say, " that’s not what I need to hear," or what they do from the court record: " Q: Did you—do you recall saying that he didn’t tell you what to say but he put words in my mouth? A: Sometimes yes, he did." Sources also tell us they threatened to take her child if she did not testify.

The Attorney General went to great lengths to suppress testimony of witnesses like Sue Laferte, who claimed she did not have a memory of what she said. Pennington however, while pressuring Sherri Richards to say what they needed to hear admits, " I didn’t remember saying them but,……I didn’t have a memory of what I said." (817) Pennington and the A.G. put words in some witnesses mouths, while suppressing statements made at the time of the murder, or shortly thereafter.

It is also reported in section I at 20 that because they could not get Sherri to cooperate, they had a local prostitute ready to claim that on the day of the murder, she was baby sitting Beaver’s three children at his house on Winter Street. She also claimed that Beaver came home that afternoon at around 4:00 p.m. and had on a bloody T-shirt. (page 20) He had only two children in 1982.

This is extremely important in catching Mr. Ryan and company " in their craftiness. They made the exact same mistake in Donna Bousquet Carrier and John Guarino’s perjured testimony which was impossible to clean up. Ryan or Pennington realized this fatal flaw, but still attempted to deceive the court with it. Ryan on direct examination simply adds a year on to Carrier’s time to make the irrefutable facts fit. Beaver lived at ………..Street in 1982, not Winter Street as they testified to and the prostitute was going to testify to. These hearsay statements and testimony were physically impossible. These witnesses it seems, were clearly coerced or willingly wanted a star role in this extremely publicized proceeding. Even Evelyn St. George says she wasn’t coerced, even before anyone asked if she had been. Why was that on her mind? (1782) Donna Carrier quickly attempts to claim she made a mistake, and did not see Beaver on 2/19/82, under direct examination. Carrier distinctly remembers these alleged incidents because she was home sick with the gout in 1982, and went for treatment at Mendon Medical Lab in March of 1982. (1130-31) She also claimed, "Johnny Allard was with Beaver that afternoon" and saw them leave 448 Winter Street and go to Sue Laferte’s house to pick up the puppy.( 1137-38) It’s clear Mr. Ryan did not realize this at the Bail Hearing, as Mr. Dimitri uses the transcripts to expose the perjury. Ryan’s question, " In the kitchen. They were in the kitchen in Jane’s apartment and Beaver’s apartment. And you were there?" Your response: "Yes." Mr. Ryan, "Was that the day of the murder?" Your response, " That was the day of the murder. Lunch -time, maybe."(1143)

It is impossible to reconcile this perjury for several reasons other than the bail perjury. First, she & John Guarino, the man she was living with, both distinctly remember the time because of Donna’s gout. (841,1130,101,1153) Moreover, this was the only time Beaver ever went to Sue Laferte’s house, to pick up a puppy, which is an indisputable fact.

Donna Carrier was a police informant, (1114) and no doubt a witness in other cases. She also claimed Beaver told her, " The murder weapon would never be found, it had been wiped clean of fingerprints and gotten rid of." And that his father had paid off a large sum of money to make sure that Beaver’s name was never mentioned. (1113) What is quite incredible is that Ryan states in his closing argument to explain why Donna, Vaz, and several other hearsay witnesses’ testimony was so grossly inaccurate to the known facts is , they were only repeating what they were told. " And he,[Vaz] told you the story Beaver told him. Don’t forget , he’s reporting to you what this man told him. That doesn’t follow necessarily that Beaver Tempest had it entirely right." (2102) How can this conduct of the prosecutor be reconciled with the State’s duty to correct what is false, and not argue false facts to the jury or court?

Ryan, in order to sell his story, ( had to know he was erroneous under Towns suprs at p. 2) kept saying, " Go back to the record if you have any questions about that".(2098) Ryan knew full well the full transcript would not be available or the statements and grand jury transcripts , inter alia, to review. But we will take Mr. Ryan up on his offer in the interest of truth and justice. I’m sure getting all these facts straight is difficult for you, imagine the problem the jury had with all the conflicting testimony.

Let’s start with the ludicrous lies Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Ryan tried to squeeze in again under the exception to the hearsay rule. They put Robert Montiero on the stand to claim the Fifth, and then tried to get testimony of another perjurer before the court. Louise Marquette Desrosiers was willing to come forward and testify consistent with her statement. The A.G. actually said, " We don’t need to supply the court with independent indicia of reliability , although I feel we have." (1253) And: "But we don’t concede that statement ( of Desrosiers ) is false." (1248) One of the claims therein was Raymond Tempest Sr. sent Beaver out of the country to hide him in Saudi Arabia ( 1252) Judge Bourcier summed it up nicely. " What Ms. Desrosiers has said is just a compilation of totally inaccurate and false statements." (1252) Remember Burger, quoted at the beginning?

Dimitri even moved to dismiss the case because of Donna Carrier’s false testimony before the grand jury, which led to this indictment of Mr. Tempest. The Motion was denied "at the outset because I’m satisfied here that there is no evidence before me that would indicate that it was her testimony, if pungent, led to the indictment…" (1204-5) It seems apparent Mr. Dimitri did not have the Mass. Report and tape of Danny Shaw telling how he was forced to lie to the grand jury also. Remember Towns. Or how about Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a) " A lawyer shall not knowingly : (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act…."

Since Mr. Ryan insists, let’s go back to the records and see what else they knew or should have known was false. It is an irrefutable fact that whoever committed this horrendous crime was covered with blood. One of the State’s reliable witnesses, Dr. Burns, testified to blood even being on the ceiling, and very little blood left in Doreen’s body, which is important later. Sherri Richards states Beaver had a red and black plaid CPO coat (777). Lucien Ouellette testifies to a red plaid jacket or coat found at the scene. It ‘s interesting to note that the BCI man never saw this coat until "yesterday" during trial. In any event, Ryan at his closing argument claims Beaver had to go home and change before going back to Sherri’s at 4:30. Sherri testified about Beaver’s clothing, " All his clothes were the same except his boots." (757) Nobody owns 2 or 3 of the exact same type of coat.

Sherri Richards has Beaver arriving back at her house at 4:30 (773) or 5:45 (794) Donna has John and Beaver back from a painting job at 4:30 the day of the murder. (1135-36:1144) Ryan was fully aware of his duty to correct what he knew was false and elicit the truth as he did with Terrence Gelinas, who testified incorrectly regarding where the bulkhead at 409 Providence St. was located. (1100) The RI Supreme Court delineated in State v. Olivier 576 A 2d 111 (RI) that prosecutors cannot argue anything to a jury that he knows is false. The attempt to put Ms. Desrosiers on the stand, and putting Donna Carrier, John Guarino, Ronald Vaz and others on when they knew many of their statements and prior testimony was false is simply inconsistent with justice. " The dignity of the United States Government will not permit conviction of any person on tainted testimony. Mesarosh v. United States, 352, U.S. 1,9 (1956)

What does the record reveal, as Mr. Ryan says? It reveals in his opening argument the big cover-up by certain members of the Woonsocket Police. Several of his other witnesses try to put the pieces together to make this story palatable. Ronald Vaz was the key witness to do this. Vaz is the local drug connection by his own admission, and that of Donna Carrier. Vaz claimed he only sold on weekends as he was a truck driver during the week. Donna says she bought drugs during the week. (1107) Vaz, who admitted, " I never hung around with him [Beaver]…….. never went out partying or drinking or anything." (951-52)

Now Vaz in his police statement claims Beaver stops Vaz while jogging, which any serious jogger would never do in winter, and asks him "if Danny Shaw told you everything." (954) The jury was never told Shaw was put before the grand jury in 1991 and emphatically denied he was not with Beaver on 2/19/82 or went anywhere with Beaver on that date. Ryan asked Shaw repeatedly if he was absolutely sure that it was the day before the murder that he was with Beaver and Shaw’s answer was, " Without a doubt. Without a doubt." (Section I p.12, quoting grand jury transcripts.) Shaw made two more trips to the Grand Jury telling them he is being intimidated to lie, and the police continue to harass him, telling him, "You were there, you were there."

Now it seems Ryan continues to put evidence before the jury that he knows to be false. Vaz testifies Shaw, Beaver, and Robert Monteiro went back to Beaver’s house and tried to call big Ray, but did get hold of Gordy. (964) It’s an uncontroverted fact that Gordon Tempest was in the Police Station and never got a call (1632-33) because all calls are logged in and or monitored according to Sergeant Sweeney. (1032)

Vaz further testifies Beaver had blood on him and got hold of Gordy again. Gordy said he got hold of Big Ray at the Gridiron and he was with Lynch on the way to the murder scene. Again, Ryan knew there was not a second call either into the Woonsocket Police Station or out, and Ray Tempest was not at the Gridiron, nor did Lynch go directly to the crime scene with Big Ray. Terrence Gelinas, forgot or wasn’t told to add that Lynch arrived with Big Ray at 409 Providence Street at 5:00, in the blue Chrysler he always drove, and stayed at the crime scene for 1 1/2 hours.( 1065) The fact remains, Ryan knew or should have known both Vaz and Gelinas were lying.

Ryan knew Francis J. Lynch was the only one at the Gridiron because Det. Jack Dawson called Lynch there shortly after the call came in (1580). When Lynch was called again, he did not go to 409 Providence Street, but to Fogerty Hospital (1582) where he met Officer Donald R. Gosselin. (1584) Gosselin testified after Lynch, hence Ryan could have impeached Lynch if his testimony was not true. Dubuque was not at the hospital yet, so Lynch went to 409 Providence Street. Lynch, quite accurately, according to the record arrived at about 4:25 or no later than 4:45 not 5:00 as Gelinas said, or with Ray Tempest as Vaz testified (965)

The next false statement Vaz makes, and Ryan knew was physically impossible, was Lynch wanted eveyone out of the cellar so they could make sure the pipe was wiped down.(966) Donna Carrier makes the same type statement as seen above..(1113) First , it is undisputed Lynch was put in command within 2 or 3 minutes of his arrival.(65,1587) Commander Dubuque called everyone into the back yard and made an announcement, and Lynch had no prior knowledge this was going to happen, "None whatsoever" (1587:13) Further more, Lynch arrived at 4:25, and Gordon did not arrive until 4:30 (1632:16) in one car with all four detectives, LaSalle, Frappier, and Jalette. Gordon claims Lynch was not there upon arrival (1642), buth he also says he got no instructions and left in about 45 minutes and went back to the station.(1642-45) It seems Dubuque’s cellar clearing to announce Lynch is taking over could have occurred before Gordon got there. Either way , it is a fact that during that time, Dr. Arthur C. Burns and probably the other medical examiner , Joel Zurkin, were in the cellar as they arrived at 4:20, and pronounced Doreen dead at 4:30. (1403-4) Simply, even if the pipe was in the cellar, the cellar was never empty. But the pipe was up in the front hallway all the time, (1025) and prints were found on the pipe! (1338) Who’s prints are they? Ryan actually argues in his closing argument Vaz told how the pipe got moved, (2104) and Vaz’s story was Gordon couldn’t find it and had to contact Big Ray to contact Beaver. Gordon had to go back a second time. (999: 2024-26)

Vaz next claims Beaver told him there was an argument about the dog, and Sue gave away or sold the dog Beaver wanted. Ryan knew this was just more perjury, but not only does he not correct it, but allows this to pass as truth. There was no question according to Sue’s sister Carol Rivet, (127) or Ernie Laferte that Beaver got the dog he wanted, proving Vaz’s perjury.

Vaz continues in his brazen lies elicited by Ryan. Vaz realizes his prior lies are about to get exposed regarding Beaver pulling out photographs of the autopsy and showing them to Vaz, so he claimed Beaver mentioned photos when he was picked up. Vaz testified before the Grand Jury , "That he [ Beaver] had showed me some pictures…. The Sunday after the homicide." (989:10) " You got the pictures pretty quick. It only takes minutes to develop photographs." This doesn’t help Vaz clean up the lie, because the photographs didn’t even exist yet to talk about (1820-21) Ryan gets Vaz to turn this into two separate incidents , but this time the judge leads Vaz to say the photos were small enough to hold in the palm of your hand. (1117) Lucien Ouellette, when he was recalled to take the stand testified he only made 8 x 10 photographs. So now they have to establish an inference that Gordon could have slipped into the photo lab that was locked up , found the right roll of film or negatives out of 19 rolls, and made small photos. Ryan argues to the jury regarding Vaz, " he describes the time that Beaver and Danny come and he saw photographs. Shown photographs depicting missing stitches on Sue Laferte, the missing piece of skull on Doreen Picard. I ask you, where did Ronald Vaz learn that.?" (2100:1-4) Another witness told us where. The same place he learned, from Rodney Remblad. The statement reads, " I’ve never seen a murder weapon. I’ve seen pictures of the result of the murder weapon, but…..in the skull after the autopsy that was arranged, obviously that showed it was a pipe or circular object. And I was led to establish that it was a pipe."

Morover at the Grand Jury Vaz says Beaver showed him pictures on February 21, 1982 (489-10), but never mentioned anything about Beaver calling Gordon, Big Ray at the Gridiron, and Lynch and Big Ray leaving there together (998) Nor did Vaz mention the pipe being wiped down and moved until 1992 (999) . Vaz ‘s reasons brought out through Ryan on re-direct for not telling the Grand Jury everything was, embarassement, fear, didn’t want to get involved, Beaver’s brother on the Police Force and his father a powerful man. (1114) If the State thought Vaz was in danger, they would have protected him like they did Sue Laferte. That’s common sense.

Ryan also make sure, even though Vaz is an admitted drug dealer, he was never charged or arrested for drug dealing. With him dealing to known Police informant Donna Carrier, (1107, 111f4) John Guarino, Danny Shaw, [Beaver Tempest] and others, the question in your mind should be, " why wasn’t he arrested?" Unless you have already figured that out.

Two weeks before the trial, Vaz comes up with the Bobby Monteiro story, that Bobby is the weak link. (961) He claims Shaw and Beaver got into Bobby’s car. He then describes events we know are impossible according to the evidence seen before regarding Big Ray and Lynch. Now Lisa Wells Ladue, in order to fix this all is reminded by Pennington, two weeks before trial, like Vaz, (546:6) about the maroon car in back , near the bulkhead. (540) Apparently this is very close to the entrance or the back door but Lisa sees nobody in the car. However she claims she came home at 3:20 p.m. (540), checked the mail and went around the back of the house first, then went into the house and saw three year old Nicole standing in the hall balling her eyes out .(541) She leaves Nicole there screaming and doesn’t even call to Sue after Nicole said her mother was downstairs sick. (541) She leaves the child unattended and went upstairs.(541) Now note what she says next. Whithin two minutes, her father comes home (543) . Douglas Heath incorrectly testifies he came home at 3:30 p.m. It had to be 3:22 , almost exactly the same time Lisa walked into the house. Ryan argues in his close Heath came home at 3:30 (2062) Mr. Heath called the dispatcher at or before 3: 28 as the Rescue and officer Richard Cote arrived at 3:31. (184) Mr. Heath parked his truck , and no maroon vehicle was in the yard. He then spoke to Nicole, went down into the cellar to see what the problem was, and then starts screaming to Lisa within " two to four minutes" (541) Terrence Gelinas was standing outside , and saw the police and rescue come, but nobody leave? (1063) It seems quite obvious there was never a maroon car inasmuch as Lisa could see the driveway and stated, " Within two minutes I seen him [father] pull up in the truck."

If that is not enough to convince you this is all a travesty or orchestrated lie by Remblad, Pennington and Ryan, Vaz was specifically asked about Monteiro at the Grand Jury. Dimitri brings out this fact at trial, asking, " in the grand jury you told the grand jury that Monteiro’s name was never mentioned to you by anyone including my client; isn’t that a fact? A: Yes it is.(983:10) Now Vaz claims Beaver said Bobby Monteiro is the weak link! (960)

Ryan said, " I encourage you to be the final judge of the facts and go back to the record whenever you have a question." (2063:6) Ryan also states in his closing argument, " we’ve got many people here who don’t even know each other who gave their statements at totally different times and independently each corroborates the other." Let’s look at Vaz and his corroborated claim Beaver confessed on tape to Donna Carrier. He even gets it right, she is a police informant for drugs, (974:5) and gave the tape to the Blackstone Mass.Police. The Blackstone Chief, according to Vaz, calls Lynch, who calls Gordon, who calls Moe Jalette, picks up the tape and destroys it. (974) Donna only claimed Beaver spoke to her, and her interrogation was taped. The tape was probably so erroneous regarding the facts the State destroyed the tape because of its exculpatory value like they did in the L’Heureux case on this site. The other alternmative is the State’s own witness Gerald Lesperance, a Blackstone police officer inadvertently erased the tape, or it was the Blackstone Chief. (1260) L’Esperance who actually taped Carrier’s statement never gave the tape to Moe Jalette. (1262)

With Vaz’s jaded past of being a drug dealer in New York related to a murder there, and another murder in Baltimore, the burning of a 1990 Chevrolet truck, a fire speed Maxidyne truck, a 1981 Kenworth truck, an ’82 Cherokee 4x4, a house and a garage too, (984-995) it seems clear perjury is a piece of cake. What is disturbing is Ryan’s closing argument regarding Vaz: "He [Vaz] understands that for you to find him to be credible he can’t tell you the truth about some things and lie about others."(2097:2) and "he has never testified that Beaver Tempest showed him photographs sitting in Monument Square. Go back to the record if you have any questions." (2098) The record reflects Vaz’s original statement and grand jury testimony do state Beaver showed him pictures on February 21, 1982 in Monument Square. When Ryan and or Pennington realized the film had not been developed yet their story changes, like New England weather.

Ryan knew Francis J. Lynch was the only one at the Gridiron because Det. Jack Dawson called Lynch there shortly after the call came in (1580). When Lynch was called again, he did not go to 409 Providence Street, but to Fogerty Hospital (1582) where he met officer Donald R. Gosselin. (1584) Gosselin testified after Lynch, hence Ryan could have impeached Lynch if his testimony was not true. Dubuque was not at the hospital yet, so Lynch went to 409 Providence Street. Lynch, quite accurately, according to the record arrived at about 4:25 or no later than 4:45 not 5:00 as Gelinas said, or with Ray Tempest as Vaz testified (965)

The next false statement Vaz makes, and Ryan knew was physically impossible, was Lynch wanted eveyone out of the cellar so they (Gordon)? could make sure the pipe was wiped down.(966) Donna Carrier makes the same type statement as seen above..(1113) First , it is undisputed Lynch was put in command within 2or 3 minutes of his arrival.(65,, 1587) Commander Dubuque called everyone into the back yard and made an announcement, and Lynch had not prior knowledge this was going to haappen, "None whatsoever" (1587:13) Further more, Lynch arrived at 4:25, and Gordon did not arrive until 4:30 ( 1632:16) in one car with all four detectives, LaSalle, Frappier, and Jalette. Gordon claims Lynch was not there upon arrival ( 1642), buth he also says he got no instructions and left in about 45 minutes and went back to the station.(1642-45) It seems Dubuque’s cellar clearing to announce Lynch is taking over could have occurred before Gordon got there. Either way , it is a fact that during that time, Dr. Arthur C. Burns and probably the other medical examiner , Joel Zurkin, were in the cellar as they arrived at 4:20, and pronounced Doreen dead at 4:30. (1403-4) Simply, even if the pipe was in the cellar, the cellar was never empty. But the pipe was up in the front hallway all the time, (1025) and prints were found on the pipe! (1338) Who’s prints are they? Ryan actually argues in his closing argument Vaz told how the pipe got moved,(2104) and Vaz’s story was Gordon couldn’t find it and had to contact Big Ray to contact Beaver. Gordon had to go back a second time (999: 2024-26)

Vaz next claims Beaaver told him there was an argument about the dog, and Sue gave away or sold the dog Beaver wanted. Ryan knew this was just more perjury, but not only does he not correct it, but allows this to pass as truth. There was no question accorting to Sue’s sister Carol Rivet, (127) or Ernie Laferte that Beaver got the dog he wanted, proving Vaz’s perjury.

Vaz continues in his brazen lies elicited by Ryan. Vaz realizes his prior lies are about to get exposed regarding Beaver pulling out photographs of the autopsy and showing them to Vaz, so he claimed Beaver mentioned photos when he was picked up. Vaz testified before the Grand Jury , "That he ( Beaver) had showed me some pictures…. The Sunday after the homicide." (989:10) " You got the pictures pretty quick. It only takes minutes to develop photographs." Who is saying this?? This doesn’t help Vaz clean up the lie, because the photographs didn’t even exist yet to talk about (1820-21) Ryan gets Vaz to turn this into two separate incidents , but this time the judge leads Vaz to say the photos were small enough to hold in the palm of your hand. (1117) Lucien Ouellette, when he was recalled to take the stand testified he only made 8 x 10 photographs. So now they have to establish an inference that Gordon could have slipped into the photo lab that was locked up , found the right roll of film or negatives out of 19 rolls, and made small photos. Ryan argues to the jury regarding Vaz, " he describes the time that Beaver and Danny come and he saw photographs. Shown photographs depicting missing stitches on Sue Laferte, the missing piece of skull on Doreen Picard. I ask you, where did Ronald Vaz learn that.?" (2100:1-4) Another witness told us where. The same place he learned, from Rodney Remblad. The statement reads, " I’ve never seen a murder weapon. I’ve seen pictures of the result of the murder weapon, but…..in the skull after the autopsy that was arranged, obviously that showed it was a pipe or circular object. And I was led to establish that it was a pipe."

Morover at the Grand Jury Vaz says Beaver showed him pictures on February 21, 1982 (489-10), but never mentioned anything about Beaver calling Gordon, Big Ray at the Gridiron, and Lynch and Big Ray leaving together (998) Nor did Vaz mention the pipe being wiped down and moved until 1992 (999) . Vaz ‘s reasons brought out through Ryan on re-direct for not telling the Grand Jury everything was, embarassement, fear, didn’t want to get involved, Beaver’s brother on the Police Force and his father a powerful man. (1114) If the State thought Vaz was in danger, they would have protected him like they did for Sue Laferte.

Ryan also make sure, even though Vaz is an admitted drug dealer, he was never charged or arrested for drug dealing. With him dealing to known Police informant Donna Carrier, (1107, 111f4) John Guarino, Danny Shaw, ( Beaver Tempest?) and others, the question in your mind should be, " why wasn’t he arrested?" Unless you have already figured that out.

Two weeks before the trial, Vaz comes up with the Bobby Monteiro story, that Bobby is the weak link.(961) ( Is Vaz saying he is the weak link or are you?) He claims Shaw and Beaver got into Bobby’s car. He then describes events we know are impossible according to the evidence seen before regarding Big Ray and Lynch. Now Lisa Wells Ladue, in order to fix this all is reminded by Pennington, two weeks before trial, like Vaz, (546:6) about the maroon car in back , near the bulkhead. (540) Apparently this is very close to the entrance or the back door but she sees nobody in the car. However she claims she came home at 3:20 p.m. (540), checked the mail and went around the back of the house first, then went into the house and saw three year old Nicole standing in the hall balling her eyes out .(541) She leaves Nicole there screaming and doesn’t even call to Sue after Nicole said her mother was downstairs sick. (541) She leaves the child unattended and went upstairs.(541) Now note what she says next. Whithin two minutes, her father comes home (543) . Douglas Heath incorrectly testifies he came home at 3:30 p.m. It had to be 3:22 , almost exactly the same time Lisa walked into the house. Ryan argues in his close Heath came home at 3:30 (2062) Mr. Heath called the dispatcher at or before 3: 28 as the Rescue and officer Richard Cote arrived at 3:31. (184) Mr. Heath parked his truck , and no maroon vehicle was in the yard. He then spoke to Nicole, went down into the cellar to see what the problem was, and then starts screaming to Lisa within " two to four minutes" (541) Terrence Gelinas was standing outside , and saw the police and rescue come, but nobody leave? (1063) It seems quite obvious there was never a maroon car inasmuch as Lisa could see the driveway and stated, " Within two minutes I seen him [father] pull up in the truck."

If that is not enough to convince you this is all a travesty or orchestrated lie by Remblad, Pennington and Ryan, Vaz was specifically asked about Monteiro at the Grand Jury. Dimitri brings out this fact at trial, asking, " in the grand jury you told the grand jury that Monteiro’s name was never mentioned to you by anyone including my client; isn’t that a fact? A: Yes it is.(983:10) Now Vaz claims Beaver said Bobby Monteiro is the weak link! (960)

Ryan said, " I encourage you to be the final judge of the facts and go back to the record whenever you have a question." (2063:6) Ryan also states in his closing argument, " we’ve got many people here who don’t even know eaach other who gave their statements at totally different times and independently each corroborates the other." (2058-21)is this right? Let’s look at Vaz and his corroborated claim Beaver confessed on tape to Donna Carrier. He even gets it right, she is a police informant for drugs,(974:5) and gave the tape to the Blackstone Mass. Police. The Blackstone Chief, according to Vaz, calls Lynch, who calls Gordon, who calls Moe Jalette, picks up the tape and destroyed it. (974) Donna only claimed Beaver spoke to her, and her interrogation was taped. The tape was probably so erroneous regarding the facts the State destroyed the tape because of its exculpatory value like they did in the L’Heureux case on this site. The other alternmative is the State’s own witness Gerald L’Esperance, a Blackstone police officer inadvertently erased the tape, or it was the Blackstone Chief. (1260) L’Esperance who actually taped Carrier’s statement never gave the tape to Moe Jalette. (1262)

With Vaz’s jaded past of being a drug dealer in New York and related to a related murder there, and another murder in Baltimore, the burning of a 1990 Chevrolet truck, a fire speed Maxidyne truck, a1981 Kenworth truck, an ’82 Cherokee 4x4, a house and a garage too, (984-995) it seems clear perjury is a piece of cake. What is disturbing is Ryan’s closing argument regarding Vaz: "He [Vaz] understands that for you to find him to be credible he can’t tell you the truth about some things and lie about others."(2097:2) and "he has never testified that Beaver Tempest showed him photographs sitting in Monument Square. Go back to the record if you have any questions." (2098) The record reflects Vaz’s original statement and grand jury testimony do state Beaver showed him pictures on February 21, 1982 in Monument Square. When Ryan and or Pennington realized the film had not been developed yet they just changed the story like New England weather.

Ryan Conceded , No Conspiracy , But Was There Really One ?