Ideal of Liberty and Justice for All
by Jay B. Van Story
April 26, 2005
Excerpts from Jay Van Story's Closing Argument on August 25, 1989.
|Please don't take away my precious American freedom on
the basis of obviously false, fabricated allegations. R.B. admitted that
he committed the crime of aggravated perjury to try and falsely place blame
on me for the alleged sexual abuse of A.C. I think we all know that it
was his sexual abuse of A.C.
A.C. admitted on January 28th, 1988, in this same courtroom, that she was told what to say by Rebecca Baker [Atchley]. This was only eight months after the alleged offense... And then three days ago, on August 22nd, 1989, she got the opportunity to be a little bit more specific and detailed about the real truth that the allegation that I allegedly abused her is other people's lies that they wanted her to agree to, and repeat, to be able to go home and stay home with her mother and R.B.
The real truth is that R.B. is really the one who sexually abused her, not me. And like anyone else who is falsely accused, I naturally must fight back by every legal means to disprove the false allegations. Please don't hold it against me, like [Dr.] Lorraine Baillie did, that I have chosen my right to defend myself and confront my accusers through valid cross-examination.
The cross-examination is known in the legal profession as the best truth-seeking tool in the courtroom. The only way a Jury can hear both sides of the story is by way of cross-examination.
You know, without the opportunity to defend myself as I did here in this courtroom, then they may as well be allowed to arrest and convict somebody solely on an allegation.
The result of A.C.'s prejudiced interviewers' relentless, never-ending effort to get her to agree to and parrot their false, fabricated allegations against me, was that the lies have been forcefully impressed in A.C.'s mind as the closest thing to the truth, and her own true, original memory that I have never harmed her had been almost completely washed from her brain.
A.C. was repeatedly praised and given positive attention for agreeing to and repeating whatever false, fabricated allegations her prejudiced interviewers suggested. And that is why her allegations changed so much and so often. She was merely agreeing to her interviewers' suggestions.
Please remember that A.C. testified here in this court that she has always told her mother immediately after she has been abused or harmed in any way. The truth that R.B. was trying to hide is that A.C. immediately told her mother on March 3rd, 1987 that she had been sexually assaulted in her mother's bedroom by her brother R.B. And you heard the testimony that he received a spanking for that the same day.
It is very evident that I am not A.C.'s abuser, because of her family's original statements that I have never harmed A.C., and because of the fact that later allegations have been so dramatically and fatally contradictory, false, fabricated, perjured, renounced, and recanted.
D.C. claimed that [A.C.] allegedly told her on March 20th, and then, of course, she changed it later to March 31st. Why would it take her that long to come up with the allegation if it had really occurred? She had to be instructed and coached by Child Protective Services before she could come up with that allegation. She had to have her children taken away. They had to insinuate to her that she would not get her children back if she did not back up the allegation.
Not only have Ms. Baker's witnesses harmed me through their lies, but they are trying to harm you as well by leading you astray and fraudulently inducing you into reaching false, tragic, wrongful conclusions.
The sordid scheme to fraudulently accuse me should not be taken lightly. The scheme is very real and very evident. Mrs. Baker's and her witnesses' scheme is meant to try and deceive, mislead, induce and manipulate you into a decision that you could never honestly choose. ... I am the innocent victim of a cruel, prejudiced, heartless, fraudulent scheme.
Have you, the jury, got the right to consider my right to be free from false imprisonment? Is it within the province of you, the jury, to consider society's interest in striking down attempts to maliciously prosecute citizens through perjurous testimony?
This is Lubbock, Texas, a city that we are all proud to live in, a city that epitomizes the ideal of the American pledge of liberty and Justice for all, not for false imprisonment and injustice. If you were to wrongfully convict me, then it would violate all the progress the law has made toward the ideal of liberty and justice for all.
Here in Lubbock, to convict one citizen through the lies of others would be turning our faces backward toward the barbarism which once possessed the world. If a jury today can so wrongfully convict one human being, other juries can do the same to any other human being.
If there is any such thing as progress in the world, if there is any spirit of humanity that is working in the hearts of men and women, then truth must prevail and falsity must fail, and we must not allow misdirected emotion to guide us on the path of destruction of the progress the justice system has made toward preventing the wrongful conviction of one who is falsely accused.
Conviction of an innocent man is surely the most damaging blow that can be made against a free society. Conviction of an innocent man could be of no avail to any human being.
I think society should be offended when a public official such as Mrs. Baker plays with the emotions of a Jury to try to manipulate them into convicting an innocent man through suborning perjury from actors.
Think of the corrupt message that would send out to the community -- it is okay to convict someone through perjurous testimony in Lubbock, Texas in 1989. Think of the corrupt message it would convey to little A.C. "It must be okay for me, and my mom, and my big brother to lie to God and all these people to falsely put all the blame off on Jay." What kind of an influence would that have on developing the impressionable mind of A.C.?
Can't we remain within the practice of a popular democracy where we are all to be treated equally and fairly? Would it be popular or democratic or right or representative of our society for anyone to be convicted through false allegations?
Mrs. Baker is primed and ready to tell you in just a few minutes that the testimony she elicited is credible. ... Mrs. Baker is going to be up here in a few minutes, and I'm not going to be able to defend myself from what she ways, and I'm sure she is going to take full advantage of that. She is going to try to paper over the cracks. She is going to try to put a good face on her fraudulent case.
Please don't let her pull the wool over your eyes. Thank you very much.
April 26, 2005 Comment by Jay B. Van Story:
In response to my closing argument, Rebecca Baker [Atchley] continued to sponsor the perjured testimony of A.C., R.B. and D.C. She took advantage of the jury's faith in her as a public servant.
She deliberately deceived them into coming back with a guilty verdict based solely on false testimony. She and the prosecution team got away with their malicious misconduct because they were still seen as the good guys back then. If only the Jury had known just how thoroughly corrupt and evil Atchley, Denise Williams and their boss Travis Ware were. If only A.C. had been given the chance to tell and maintain the truth back then.
A.C. has now confirmed everything I said in my closing Jury argument
As I said to the jury, the scheme is very real and very evident. I also said to the jury that if they allowed Atchley and the other prosecutors to deceive them into wrongly convicting me, it would be open season for any other innocent man or woman to be wrongly convicted. Indeed, Ware and his staff, namely Atchley, went on to maliciously prosecute a number of other innocent people.
This was revealed in a huge, unprecedented RICO action against the prosecutors.
They were quite likely the most corrupt prosecutors in U.S. history. They
were found to have routinely solicited false testimony and evidence to
views and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily
those of the IIAO, however, wrongful conviction and
imprisonment are quite obvious.
©2005 IIAO Inc.