September 30th, 2015 11:00 AM.
Chief Justice Mary Briscoe of the Tenth Circuit
I want to thank the clerk for reading and responding to my last letter in regards to my investigation of Richard Glossip’s case. I did take your advice and try to get needed documents at a local level but was told essential by the time I got them, it would be too late.
I previously told you I had discovered a string of arrest’s for States witness Cliff Everhart – and I am somewhat dismayed and embarrassed this evidence has not been presented in a court. And wonder if it is because it does not fit the eighth amendment issues as part of a cause.
I am writing because there is no one else to give these exculpatory findings to, as I have forwarded them to Glossip’s attorneys without response. Though I am not sure who is Glossip’s official attorney. I sent to Mark Henrickson.
I know their may be issue with Glossip’s first attorney Mr Fournerat, but the fallout of these transgressions I believe cloud an issue he was perhaps inappropriately adamant about. However the discovered arrest records of Everhart, as well as the Proof and photographs of the undisclosed money found in the murdered mans trunk, while not in anyway proving Fournerat’s outlandish theories, they do independently, in themselves, give pause to whether due process and disclosure issues have been fully met.
One essential due process issue I believe has been lost here.
If Richard Glossip is innocent of masterminding the murder of Van Treese, then, when he talks to the detectives he would have been “coming clean” — and then he says:
“There’s something that tells me that Cliff has something to do with this thing. I don’t know why, but Cliff has been trying to point the finger at me the whole time”
This statement obviously has different meanings – depending on the credibility of Cliff Everhart.
Are we talking about the Cliff Everhart, the part owner and security of Best Budget Inn and State OIDS investigator? Or the Cliff Everhart, who by his arrest records of 2003. has led a double life that we are really not sure of at all — yet he surely has no right at this point being a state sanctioned investigator though he is testifying as if he were one.
After Everhart’s felony charges in 2003, his docket was stretched through and past Glossip’s 2004 trial – could this be to postpone his judgment and sentencing until Everhart was finished testifying against Glossip? It sure can look that way.
I can’t get the first page of Everhart’s testimony – but I do have the witness list where he is presented as an OIDS investigator. So I assume he was endorsed as such. And I have the cross where there is no impeachment or challenge to his character or mention of the arrests.
I am not a legal expert so I ask you this: if a detective where being charged with planting evidence, but those charges were not heard by a jury for what ever reason, and then those charges stuck – would this be due process for the person the detective was now testifying against?
Everhart’s charges of falsifying documents and willful neglect of duty and felony Gambling are arguably very pertinent to credibility and alternate theories involving money needs.
Did Everhart’s status in OIDS keep him shielded from suspicion, did the setup of the public defenders office itself cause an issue that in this case affects Glossip’s due process?
Attorney David Autrey is listed as Everharts attorney on several of his charges throughout the continuances surrounding the time period of Glossip’s trial. Autrey was co-counsel for Clayton Locket, who’s case can be seen as the catalyst for the anti death penalty activist’s who took on the fight we are no seeing.
Attorney Mark Henrickson, who does most of the filing for Glossip, represented Autrey in a suit against Oklahoma pertaining to a contempt of court charge on Autrey.
When the next death penalty case happened to be Glossip, the lawyers fought on cruelty issues, eighth amendment issues and have essentially lost on that front, but was it a surprise to find that an OIDS investigator was a chief States witness? And is this an issue?
Mark Henrickson worked for OIDS and given the quagmire of the above, how can anyone be at all confident that Glossip had “his own” due process at anytime during these seventeen years.
Can the court intervene if it sees that due process is being denied for any reason.
Surely the issue of whether Everhart was lying about events that framed Glossip as “mastermind” should be made by a jury, but a jury that had a basis to judge the character of the witness – based on all the facts including Everhart’s charges.
I can’t see how it can be trusted that an OIDS attorney has properly impeached or questioned a brother OIDS investigator/star prosecution witness, and with the non disclosure of the investigators arrest on pertinent charges, I would hope for a way the court could intervene to save America another embarrassment that we will have to hear Putin talk about next year as when he brought up Ferguson. And most of all, a mans life.
At Risk Productions/films
310 903 3978
*The letter was also published publicly and sent through channels to the Oklahoma governors office.