“Go Read the News”

The rules of evidence state that a witness may only testify to matters within their direct, personal knowledge—things that they perceived with their own senses. Generally, this is something that the witness saw, heard, or did. For this reason, witnesses are told not to speak with other witnesses, view news stories about the events, or consult any source of information outside of their own original memory. They may not be hypnotized, or have their memories “enhanced” by the police in any way.

• If the police provide a witness with facts or details that they did not personally observe, the witness has been “tainted,” and they are no longer competent to testify because their testimony would be unreliable and irrelevant in court. This can be overt—something like telling the witness which suspect to identify—or, more subtle... through looks, tone, or disapproving comments.

• Obviously, the police may not lie to a witness about the facts of the case, try to get them to change/add details, or attempt to influence their perceptions of the events so that they reach a different conclusion (for example, the witness perceived the scent to be “Old Spice,” but the police suggest it was “Axe Body Spray,” and cause the witness to change their opinion). 

• Any of those actions by the police not only taints  the witness, and make their memory unreliable, but also amounts to the crime of witness tampering through fraud. 

• APD Jerry Johnson not only told all of the critical case witnesses to consult with each other and to seek out media stories about the case, but he also he specifically directed them to read misinformation repeated from Fisher-Smith’s book. 

• He told the witnesses to then come back with “new” memories to incorporate into their testimony—and they did:

BELOW:  Krch Interview with APD Johnson, March 21, 2005

BELOW:  Baldwin Interview with APD Johnson, March 15, 2005

BELOW:  Cunningham Interview with APD Johnson, March 15, 2005

• These are just three examples of many where APD Johnson was intentionally directing witnesses to misinformation—specifically planted in Fisher-Smith’s book and the Sacramento Bee/Auburn Journal press coverage beginning in March of 2005, and to create new witness “memories,” statements, and testimony—according to the CalDOJ plan. 

• It wasn’t simply bad police work, or lack of experience interviewing witnesses—it was deliberate tampering. The witnesses were trying to be helpful, and had no idea that they were being fed false information about the case, but it had a huge impact on their later statements and testimony. 

• Janet’s neighbor and friend, Frances Myres, made critical changes to her “memory” and feelings about Janet’s disappearance... after she read the false information in Fisher-Smith’s book about Janet’s wallet being left in the house—Myres suddenly felt that Paul had to have been lying when he said that he believed Janet had left the house with her mother. Johnson did not correct her:

• In reality, Janet’s purse, wallet, and contents were reported as missing, and they were never found. 

• The only source for the false information about the purse was this exact (incorrect) detail in Fisher-Smith’s book. The misinformation campaign had done exactly what it was designed to do—it changed Myres’ view of the facts, and her opinion about Paul’s involvement in Janet’s disappearance. 

• One of the critical problems with the case against Paul was his lack of history of violence. Every PCSO witness said they never saw him lose his temper with staff, the public, suspects, or inmates at the jail. There were no complaints in his PCSO personnel file. Instead, there were numerous letters to the Sheriff about Paul’s good behavior, and several commendations. 

• In the years after Janet disappeared, Paul had three girlfriends. All of whom said that he never showed any signs of violence or controlling behavior towards them—and that he would just walk or drive away, rather than argue. 

• In the interviews with friends, law enforcement heard about Paul throwing a trailer chain on the garage floor (although nobody actually saw it happen), and a mud fight between Janet and Paul while out waterskiing that might have turned “mean.” Even Janet’s mother had admitted that Janet never told her of any physical abuse, or restrictions put on Janet’s daily life by Paul.

• Auburn PD, PCSO, and the FBI knew that the veterinarian’s contemporaneous statements and treatment notes excluded blunt force trauma to Fuzz, and found symptoms consistent with poisoning. Even then, in 2005, when they had the dog’s remains re-examined by three different forensic anthropologists in an attempt to find bones broken prior to death... they found none. Instead, their own expert, Dr. Symes, told them that Fuzz had a partially digested pork rib bone stuck in his body at the time he died. 

•FBI Agent Chris Hopkins improperly used his personal Hotmail email account to correspond with Symes about the pork rib bone. Hopkins never disclosed the exculpatory findings of Dr. Symes to the defense. Later, when Fuzz’s remains were given to the defense veterinarian expert for examination, the rib bone was not included, and that expert was not told that a “classic pork rib bone” was found inside the dog. 

•The state knew exactly how Fuzz died, that he could not have been “kicked, stomped, or beaten to death,” and they hid it from the defense, court, and jury. Instead, they pretended that “maybe” Paul had killed Fuzz—stating instead that there was no way to know for sure.

• Kristi and John Kovacich had seen the incident where Paul was “mad” at Fuzz for trying to get into a bag in the back of the car. They were interviewed about it in 1982 by Auburn PD, child protective services, and three years later by the child psychologist deciding the visitation case. They were both clear—Paul did not beat or kick the dog, and they were present at the vet clinic, and heard the DVM tell Janet that Fuzz had been poisoned. 

• All of that left Jean Gregoire (who died in 2004) as the only source for the story that Paul killed Fuzz. In the entire period between 1982 to 2005, nobody else ever claimed to have heard that from Janet—or anyone else. 

• Putting the false information in Fisher-Smith’s book, and then repeating and adding to it in the press coverage gave Frances Myres a completely new “memory” about a conversation with Janet:

• Prior to 2005, the only interview with Myres was conducted by Auburn PD Detective Boon on September 16, 1982. That also confirmed that, even then, nobody spoke to the next door neighbor, who was home the day that Janet disappeared, until eight days after the fact. 

• In the 1982 statement, Myres did remember seeing the children upset out by the driveway/retaining wall area, but she told a completely different story. There’s absolutely no mention of Fuzz:

• Like her newfound belief that Janet’s purse was left at home when she disappeared, Myres appeared to have absorbed the false kicking and burying details from Fisher-Smith’s book, and then incorporated them into her prior story of talking to the kids out in the shared driveway area. 

• Because the “memory” occurred only after reading the information from a source she trusted, Myres testimony on that story was not reliable, yet the jury still heard it—and believed it.