<html>
<body>
<tt><br><br>
<font face="Times, Times" size=4>Sept 13 Court Update: Rod Coronado
Trial<br><br>
</b>Kelly Stewart, Sheriff Dep’t. undercover cop still on stand.
Prosecutor Parmley brings up that there is new evidence—this is the audio
that the defense uncovered, of the *question* in question, and subsequent
answer. (Background: it is an audio recording whose existence was
apparently heretofore unknown. Likely a small recorder in someone’s
pocket.)<br><br>
Prosecution gets Stewart to establish that the government did (and she
participated in) investigations and questioning of people, including
Grand Juries and search warrants to locate additional recordings, but
this recording had not come to light (or sound). It is poor quality, but
comprehensible. The government made a transcript. Once established that
the tape exists, it is played in court.<br><br>
The words: “Can you really explain to us, how to, at some point, how to
assemble an incendiary device?” And then Rod’s rather long answer
discussing two kinds of such devices, and the demonstration using the
apple juice jug. (Partial: incendiary devices are devices that do
not explode, but consist of a timer, 2 wires....(much more) when 2
wires connect, it completes electrical
circuit...filament...windproof matches, can of fuel, etc. He says
“More popular today, however”, and then discusses jug method using the
Martinelli’s half gallon jug from the potluck that evening and a cassette
tape as props and discusses using lamp oil, sponge, stick
incense.)<br><br>
He says “It’s dangerous. A person could do serious prison time, citing
Jeff Luers case, emphasizing that his sentence was more than a rapist
would get. Rod says (on tape) “I began as a strict liberationist...but I
saw that when we set the animals free, the labs just go to Marshals
catalog and order 1200 more...that’s why we use other
tactics...”<br><br>
Tony Serra checks for accuracy of words in re cross examination. Stewart
admits to participating in the investigations of the government, but not
until two years after the speaking engagement.<br><br>
GOVERNMENT RESTS<br><br>
Defense launches. Re-calls undercover officer Joe Lehr<br><br>
When Tony Serra asks Lehr is he has seen the transcript, Lehr replied
that it was laying on the witness stand when he took his seat, to which
Serra replies, “Don’t you mean LYING?!!” Tony then proceeds to
impeach Lehr through exposing his on-stand lie (made up quote from Rod,
different from real quote.)<br><br>
Tony quotes his previous testimony where Lehr said the woman asked, “Can
you tell us how to make a bomb for an action?”<br><br>
Tony asks Lehr if he has been exposed to the audio of the actual
question. Lehr reads transcript.<br><br>
T: Do you see lack of reference to bomb or action?<br><br>
L reads.<br><br>
T: Does that now refresh or shock your memory?<br><br>
L: No, I do not recall that being asked.<br><br>
T: Is that why it isn’t in your report?<br><br>
(They are dancing around the fact that Lehr LIED and made up a question
because the prosecution believed until today that no audio existed. So it
would have been the cops’ word against the activists’ word.)<br><br>
T: isn’t it a fact that you substituted *bomb* for incendiary device, and
that you added “for an action” Doesn’t that change the entire meaning of
the phrase?<br><br>
Lehr admits to the substitution.<br><br>
You misstated the truth in your report! (obj/sus)<br><br>
On re cross, Skerlos asks Lehr whether he is familiar with the federal
statute under which Rod is charged, Lehr says not very familiar.
<br><br>
Tony comes back to this and gets out “another mis spoke” before the
objection arising from govt’s table is sustained.<br><br>
First defense witness Cari Shaw. Questioned by Omar Figueroa<br><br>
Cari is the person who asked THE QUESTION in question. She
testified that she did not really know Rod and when he came to their
house prior to his speech, they didn’t discuss upcoming speech and
certainly did not plan a question (absolutely not, she said.) They get to
the question that she asked that night, and Omar asks whether she asked
about a bomb for an action. She says no and that she would not
have.<br><br>
When Skerlos crosses her, he is aggressive, rude, and dives into grand
jury matters, citing fact that her husband, David Agranoff was called
before the Grand Jury. Cari says it was never clear to her what the
purpose of the Grand Jury proceedings was. After Skerlos says “Let’s talk
about the GJ,” the lawyers go up for a long side bar.<br><br>
In continuing unfriendly questioning of this key witness, it is
established her question was spontaneous, and than she does not, in fact,
agree with many of Rod’s stated positions and politics.<br>
Skerlos asked what sparked (haha) her interest to ask a question—was it
something that was said that made her want to learn how to make an
incendiary device?<br><br>
She said “I didn’t necessarily want to learn.” The way she recalled his
answer she said was that it was more about what had been done than “how
to”. She also said that she feels she bears responsibility for the
situation whereby Rod ended up in court in San Diego. She is a calm and
cool witness, though obviously inexperienced in this sort of thing. It
makes her all the more credible.<br><br>
Next witness is Michelle Luneau, questioned by Jerry Singleton.<br><br>
She is a student at UCB and attended the speech, bringing her 13 year old
brother. She was also called before the S.D. Grand Jury. Jerry
asked if anyone ran out saying “Let’s Burn It Down!” No. She and
the following witness established that it was a crowd of ordinary people
who happen to care about the environment that attended Rod’s speech, and
no one felt the crowd was incited to take immediate action based on
suggestions by Rod.<br><br>
The next and final defense witness was Colleen Deisel, again questioned
by Jerry. She has a recycling business and runs the Green Store. She too
was subpoenaed by the GJ. Apparently she had told the GJ the two
“most radical” speeches she had heard were Rod’s 2003 speech and one by
Paul Watson. But despite the fact that she maintains she considers
herself radical and is passionately non-violent, on cross examination,
Government prosecutor said “I am defining radical as being violent” so
that it would follow that Rod’s speech was being characterized as one of
the most violent. She did not say this, and somehow, Parmley gets to
rewrite Miriam Webster undeterred by the judge. After she said, in
response to her friend’s shock at Rod’s strong words, “He served his
time; he has the right to talk about things he did. He was relating
information about incendiary devices with a historical perspective, the
defense case wraps up.<br>
<br>
DEFENSE RESTS. <br>
Closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday Sept. 17. Case is
expected to go to the jury by mid-day Monday.<br>
<br>
Notation:<br>
In 9/11/07 tv coverage of the start of the trial, the teaser (played
about 6x) and lead image to the story was the 3 am Aug. 1, 2003 fire
claimed by ELF. Through this was 15 hours or so before Rod’s speech and
ha nothing to do with his charges, the link continues to be made by that
media who care little about accuracy, and government prosecutors who have
never cared about accuracy. They played video footage of the fire for the
jury.<br><br>
<br>
</font></tt><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>