TOOK YOUR ADVICE; SENT IT TO RACHEL MADDOW

A number of weeks ago I posted on the corruption of the Virginia Supreme Court and the response was excellent and very gratifying. One respondent suggested I contact Rachel Maddow and perhaps she would bring the issue to light. A week ago I mailed a letter and three attachments to Ms. Maddow. You can read that letter after the next two paragraphs.

With all the controversy swirling around the Trump administration, I doubt if the issue I am raising will meet the threshold for her show, despite the fact that it shows how packing the courts with ultra conservatives can undermine the rights of individual citizens.

Before I first published my case against Justice Cleo Powell and the Virginia Supreme Court, I asked for the opinion of several Virginia lawyers. All said the court had broken the law, but none would allow me to quote them or identify them by name. 

To be associated with the argument below would undoubtedly end their legal careers in Virginia and there is no way anyone of them would be successful in arguing a case before the Virginia Supreme Court. The most interesting response I got was from an ultra-conservative lawyer who agrees with the court decision, but said the Pryde and Peterson families would have gotten a fairer hearing from the Mississippi Supreme Court, because he added, the Mississippi Supreme Court does a better job of protecting the rights of individual citizens against government and private business excesses than the Virginia Supreme Court. I have no way of knowing if he is correct, but if he is, it a very, very telling statement. I am only publishing the letter, not the attachments.

Dear Ms. Maddow:

Re: Virginia Supreme Court Tampering with Evidence

I am a retired CIA intelligence officer and have over 50 years of working with the CIA and FBI in political and crime analysis. I am writing to bring to your attention a case of public corruption and miscarriage of justice involving the Virginia Supreme Court introducing false evidence in the Court’s written decision to overturn a jury verdict in the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech University. The two families' daughters, Erin Nicole Peterson and Julia Kathleen Pryde, were gunned down in Norris Hall during Seung-Hui Cho’s rampage on April 16, 2007.

It is against the law to introduce false evidence in a court proceeding, but that is exactly what Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo E. Powell did in writing the court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict holding the school accountable. The false evidence involves who was in charge of the investigation on the morning of April 16, 2007 following the double homicide around 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum was in charge and remained in charge of the investigation throughout the day. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo E. Powell wrote, in her decision, Blacksburg Police Chief Kim Crannis was in charge. Crannis was not in charge, that is not true.

It is highly unusual for a state Supreme Court, or the United States Supreme Court, for that matter, to overturn any jury verdict. But on October 31, 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court did just that: It overturned a jury verdict in the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech holding the school liable for not warning the campus on April 16, 2007, after a double homicide had taken place at West Ambler Johnston Hall.  About two hours after the shooting at Ambler West Johnston Hall, Seung-Hui Cho killed another 30 people and wounded 17 before killing himself.

The Pryde and Peterson families’ lawsuit began on March 5, 2012 and concluded on March 14, 2012. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs and found the university negligent and awarded $4 million to each family.  The judge had to reduce that figure to $100,000, the maximum allowed by Virginia’s sovereign immunity law.

The state appealed and on October 31, 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court (in a unanimous decision) threw the jury verdict out. On January 21, 2014, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to reconsider its decision to dismiss the wrongful death verdict against Virginia Tech.

Justice Cleo E. Powell who wrote the unanimous decision, stated that “under the facts of this case, there was no duty for the Commonwealth to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.” She then got one of the most critical facts wrong—who was in charge of the investigation that day following the initial shooting at West Ambler Johnston Hall.

Justice Powell wrote that the Blacksburg Police Department was in charge:  “Although officers from the Virginia Tech Police Department were the first on the scene, the Blacksburg Police Department led the investigation.” In fact, Chief Wendell Flinchum of the Virginia Tech Police Department was in charge and led the investigation. If Blacksburg Chief Kimberly Crannis had been in charge, there would have been no duty to warn because she did not have that authority. Chief Flinchum did have the authority to warn and lockdown. Both Chief Flinchum and Chief Crannis testified under oath that Chief Flinchum was in charge of the investigation.

There is a legal agreement between the town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech stating in any investigation, the police department requesting assistance (Virginia Tech) will remain in charge of the investigation. Nowhere in the almost five volumes of the trial transcript is there any reference to Chief Crannis being in charge of anything. By law, the Virginia Supreme Court may only review the trial transcript in making its decision. Therefore, the reference to Chief Crannis being in charge had to be introduced in violation of the law.

Why is this important? To cite Crannis as the person in charge is not only a falsification of the historical record, but sets a precedent that the introduction of false, incorrect facts central to a court decision is acceptable.  Five times, Chief Crannis and Chief Flinchum testified under oath that it was Chief Flinchum and not Blacksburg’s Chief Crannis who was in charge. I read the nearly five volumes of trial testimony and I cannot find any reference to Chief Crannis being in charge of the investigation. The identity of who was in charge is important because Virginia Tech had in place all the means necessary to warn and lockdown the campus on April 16, 2007. Over two and one half hours elapsed between the double homicide and the mass murder in Norris Hall. So, after almost four years after the Supreme Court ruling, the question persists, why didn’t the university issue a warning?

There are numerous examples of the school warning the campus for a variety of reasons. For example, eight months before the mass murder, the Virginia Tech administration had set a standard for warning the university community.  In the fall of 2006, a prisoner in the Blacksburg jail, William Morva, escaped and killed two people. There was no indication that Morva was on or near the campus, yet Virginia Tech warned and locked the campus down.

But on April 16, 2007, there was a double murder in the middle of the campus. Thirteen bloody foot prints led from the crime scene to an exit stairwell; there were spent bullet shells on the floor but no weapon. The school issued no warning even though it was obvious the killer was on the loose.  Had a lockdown of the campus been implemented, lives would have been saved.  The administrative failure allowed two students in West Ambler Johnston Hall to go to their French class where they were among the first of the 30 students and teachers killed in Norris Hall.

The Virginia Supreme Court is one of the most conservative state supreme courts in the United States and holds to the principle that there are next to no circumstances under which someone can be held liable for another person’s actions. It appears the Virginia Supreme Court will go to any extent, even lying, to uphold that principle.

No matter what the reason for Justice Powell’s introduction of false evidence, the law has been broken and the Pryde and Peterson families have been denied a fair and impartial hearing by the Virginia Supreme Court. The Court is entitled to its opinions, but not its own facts; the Court is not above the law and does not have the right to fabricate evidence to fit a conservative political agenda or philosophy.

My repeated efforts, including contacting Justice Powell and other members of the Supreme Court, have fallen on deaf ears. I am hoping you will expose this miscarriage of justice.

Sincerely,

David Cariens

Attachments:

1. David Cariens resumé

2, Chief Flinchum and Chief Cannis’s testimony under oath that Chief Flinchum was in charge of the investigation

3. Virginia Supreme Court Decision reversing the jury verdict, pages 1 and 2

4. The legal agreement between Blacksburg and Virginia Tech on who controls investigations