Sep 19, 2009

3rd post, Freitas v PHPD..

This page details...

Crucial, disappearing evidence--used to justify Anthony's arrest and incarceration. PHPD Officer Doug Thompson had claimed a "presumptive positive" (for blood) test on Anthony's "work" box-cutter.

A presumptive test performed by the outside, independent Serological Research Institute.. which found a "negative for blood" result on the same box-cutter.

False, incriminating evidence reported by Det. Kelli Geis.

The PHPD's negligent decision-making. They refused to give Anthony a polygraph test--which he had agreed to--prior to transporting, then booking him into the County Jail.

Contra Costa County D.D.A. Dan Cabral's conflicting statement to the media.

Cabral's decision to not file charges against Christopher Escover following the first of two, separate vicious attacks.

Det. Matt Kristic's connection to Escover's prior stabbing with no charges filed.

Unsupported documented statements recorded by the PHPD on the "Probable Cause" affidavit.

The PHPD's addition of evidence not reported by any witnesses.


Having PHPD officers on the stand.. they would be compelled to answer questions specifically related to their decision-making; countless, crucial answers we'd tried to obtain over a 2 year-plus period. What gives them the right to not have to explain their actions, and show proof of the evidence they claimed to have against Anthony?
Here are just a few of the relative examples..

After Anthony had stepped out of his vehicle in front of our home, Captain John Moore asked him if he had a knife (the reported weapon). Anthony responded "no" but then immediately told Captain Moore he did have a box-cutter (from his employer) in his vehicle.
Anthony's vehicle was towed from our home to the Pleasant Hill Police Department where they took full possession of the vehicle and everything in it. At that time, PHPD Crime Scene Technician-Officer Doug Thompson performed a presumptive test (checking for blood) on Anthony's box-cutter. A Hemastix-brand test strip shows a presumptive positive-for-blood test result in a photograph taken at, and by the PHPD. Although we had insisted on being given lab test results, Anthony received a photo only 11 months after his arrest, and only after he'd filed suit did the PHPD turn it over--because by law--they had to. The PHPD did not, however, turn over the specific test strip shown in the photo to Anthony, or his attorney. It is our understanding ALL evidence must be preserved for future examination. It should also be noted this significant piece of evidence claimed by the PHPD then used to justify jailing Anthony was not sent with the box-cutter to the outside, independent forensic lab-The Serological Research Institute.
What became of the test strip shown in a PHPD photo? Was this test strip preserved-as it should be-for future examination following the Pleasant Hill Police Department's reported presumptive positive test result?-which they documented in the *Probable-Cause-To-Arrest affidavit. (*See additional discrepancies related to affidavit.) It appeared to have been a key piece of evidence used against Anthony, yet he nor his attorney were given the opportunity to examine it, ever.
PHPD crime scene technician Officer Doug Thompson has since retired. Unsuccessful attempts were made to locate, then subpoena him for a trial appearance.

Immediately following Anthony's arrest and the PHPD's "traces of blood" on the box-cutter statement to the news media, Anthony/we insisted--more than once--the PHPD give us evidence/lab test results proving any amount of blood on the box-cutter at any time. Anthony emphatically believed there was never "traces of blood" or blood of any amount, human or animal, on his work box cutter.
Once again, only after filing suit did he finally receive--from the PHPD-- the SRI forensic lab's report-through the "discovery" process. All evidence related to Anthony and his box-cutter tested NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD in "presumptive" tests done by this outside, independent lab. (As previously stated ..The PHPD reported their "presumptive" test result--which contributed to Anthony's $30,000.00 incarceration--was positive, yet the test strip itself (the proof) apparently disappeared. Was it thrown away? Misplaced by the Pleasant Hill Police Department/Officer Doug Thompson?).

PHPD Detective Kelli Geis..recorded in her police report that while speaking with Crime Scene Technician Officer Doug Thompson, she learned that he recovered a "hooded" black sweatshirt from Anthony's vehicle. This is more false evidence documented by the PHPD, then reported to our County's District Attorney following Anthony's arrest.
Officer Scott Senst had been told by the victim and witnesses while at the crime scene that the suspect was wearing a hooded and pocketed black sweatshirt. The only sweatshirt in Anthony's vehicle, a "work" sweatshirt, did not, does not, and never did have a hood, (or pockets). PHPD investigator(s) took physical possession of Anthony's sweatshirt.
It should be fairly simple for a trained law enforcement investigator to differentiate between a sweatshirt having a hood and pockets, and one that has neither. If they can't differentiate between the two, and as a result document false evidence-- jeopardizing a model citizen's freedom from confinement, then what? The PHPD's false determination--then official recording of a "hooded" sweatshirt being located in Anthony's vehicle, contributed to his incarceration, and aftermath.


Anthony's interrogation took place at the Pleasant Hill Police Department after his arrest in front of our home. (Investigators had the common sense option to detain him for questioning instead). He was questioned by Officer Senst and Det. Geis. At the time, Anthony was in a state of disbelief having been handcuffed, witnessing a number of officers arriving at our home, and within a short period of time arrested for Assault With a Deadly Weapon, a felony offense. He was then transported to the PHPD for booking. When asked during his interrogation if he'd take a lie-detector/polygraph test Anthony expressed concern regarding the accuracy of the test. He told Det. Geis and Officer Senst he'd learned (in his Civil Law class) the polygraph test detects changes in the heart rate. Anthony stated he was very nervous at that moment, and said his heart rate was very high. However, when further discussing taking a polygraph test Anthony agreed to do so, clearly responding to Det. Geis and Officer Senst..."Sure, if it'll help." He also assured Det. Geis and Officer Senst he wouldn't be changing his statement(s) before or during the test. The PHPD decidedly rejected Anthony's opportunity to be given a polygraph. Instead, he was transported, then booked into the Contra Costa County Jail--$30,000.00 bail.

When filling out her official incident report which was forwarded to the District Attorney's office Det. Kelli Geis says Anthony seemed nervous about (the possibility of) taking a lie detector test. She failed to inform the D.A. of Anthony's clearly expressed response of..."Sure, if it'll help." Wouldn't Det. Geis's omitting of Anthony's agreement to take a polygraph test give the D.A. a false impression he wasn't being cooperative, or had something to hide? It is likely the D.A. was not aware the PHPD refused to give Anthony a polygraph test. *Anthony was ordered to show up in court on March 5th--for possible arraignment.

Note Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney Dan Cabral's statement to the news media based on evidence presented to him by the Pleasant Hilll Police Department... "It isn't that often we see evidence against one person that's of a substantial nature but it turns out someone else actually committed the crime."
(That "someone else" is the young man who D.D.A. Dan Cabral and PHPD Detective Matt Kristic decided not to press charges against following his (Escover's) 2006 attempted car-jacking/stabbing arrest--approximately 5 months earlier).
Based on the quoted statement by D.D.A. Cabral, the PHPD had forwarded their Jan./2007 police reports to the District Attorney's office, claiming a whole host of evidence against Anthony, however, when our findings questioned their "substantial" evidence, let alone their evidence at all, it appeared the PHPD had no choice but to focus their attention, instead, on the young woman who thought the suspect "looked like" Anthony-on-the-baseball team, and who pointed to the only "Anthony" photo presented to her by Officer Scott Senst. With Anthony (Freitas) "identified" the PHPD legally established probable cause--then placed him under arrest. The supposed "substantial" (unsupported and/or fabricated) evidence claimed by the PHPD didn't matter, proven or not.


The "On-View and Probable Cause" Declaration is an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury by the arresting law enforcement officer/agency who claims to have established "probable cause." It spells out the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge at the moment of arrest. The documented information must legally justify making the arrest. This declaration, stating what the PHPD investigators knew at the moment of (Anthony's) arrest was filled out by three different law enforcement personnel, yet signed by only one of them--a volunteer, reserve PHPD officer.
This Probable Cause declaration states...**"two independent witnesses identified arrestee as well as the victim." (Again, the victim and both witnesses were within 2 to 3 feet of each other when the identity of "Anthony-on-the-baseball-team" was being discussed, and the photo sheet (with names) viewed. One of the two, "independent?" witnesses had pointed to the photo of a male who was not Anthony yet there is no evidence Officers Senst, Connelly or any other PHPD investigator questioned that initial, identified suspect. Keep in mind Officer Scott Senst's documented version.. that "both (women) immediately and emphatically identified Anthony Freitas..."-which was a false claim. Knowingly documenting false evidence is a criminal act, and should be met with severe consequences.
**The quoted statement above was recorded on the Probable Cause affidavit, and is a clear example of misleading and tainted evidence which had a significant impact, resulting in Anthony's arrest and incarceration for which the PHPD has admitted no wrongdoing, and is not being held accountable.

Another questionable "fact" on this Probable Cause declaration as stated by Det. Kelli Geis...."A box-cutter was located in his (Anthony's) vehicle and a presumptive test was positive for blood." (The blood test on the box-cutter was done after Anthony's arrest--so the results (highly questionable, with the proof discarded?) would not have been known to PHPD officers "at the moment of arrest." However, it was documented on a follow-up affidavit in a later attempt to justify the arrest.
Det. Kelli Geis's signature was not on this sworn document.

Under "Description of Weapon" on this Probable Cause Declaration.. The weapon had been reported to authorities as "a knife"-and a knife is what Christopher Escover used during the assault. However, the words "sharp object" were added along with the word "knife" -reportedly written by Det. Geis. There is no documentation or audio recording that we are aware of stating anything other than a "knife" being reported as the weapon-by anyone-at any time.
Why would a law enforcement detective be allowed to include additional evidence which was never reported by the victim and/or witnesses, and never documented by an investigator in any police report related to this case? It is our belief "sharp object" was added to the probable cause declaration by Det. Kelli Geis-to include Anthony's box-cutter as the possible weapon. This style of "law enforcement" is inexcusable , and should be considered unlawful.
No explanation has been given by PHPD Chief Peter Dunbar as to this addition of unreported evidence by Det. Geis who we believe played a major role in Anthony being incarcerated.

PHPD Chief Dunbar was subpoenaed by Anthony, though he did not take the stand during the trial.

Det. Kelli Geis and Officer Scott Senst stated that the wound on the victim was consistent with having been made by a box-cutter. We believe they made this incriminating statement also while attempting to justify their arrest of Anthony. We have asked Chief Dunbar-in writing-How much experience do Officer Senst and Det. Geis have in investigating or examining box-cutter wounds?
To date no response has been given.


end of 3rd page. check right side of this page for the 4th post listed (dated)