Jury foreman, Steve Trussler – was he given inside information from Sheriff Myers to make his verdict.

 

This one is not from our investigation, but from Braseel investigator William Bevil. Which excerpt from his report is here: My notes and conclusions are in parentheses.

 

On March 25, 2013, I called Steve Trussler (Jury Foreman for Adam Braseel Trial) and he agreed to answer some questions over the phone and stated that he would meet with me in person on March 27, 2013.

Steve stated that he was honest with the judge and the attorney’s when he was called for jury duty in Adam’s Trial. He filled out the question form honestly, hoping that he would not have to be on the trial.

He also stated, when Sheriff Myers of Grundy County was a child, he practically raised him because the Sheriff and Steve’s son were very close friends and as kids Myers would spend a lot of time at their house.

Steve stated that he casually knew the judge and both of Adam’s attorneys because he works for the Department of Human Services.

Steve believed that Adam was guilty of the crimes “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and in his mind to a “moral certainty.”

Steve said that in his mind he believed that someone else was possibly involved in the crime with Adam.

*** He recalled that the prosecution saying that even if you think someone else was involved, this would not mean that Adam was not guilty.

Steve added that after the trial completion, he walked out of the court house and heard rumors about other Braseel family members being at the crime scene, maybe an uncle or more than one family member.

Steve stated that even the Sheriff believed that other persons were involved.

I asked him how he knew that the Sheriff believed this. He said that he did not recall how he knew this. It could have been in conversations after the trial.

I asked Steve if he talked to the Sheriff after the trial. He did not want to talk about this.

He added that Grundy County is small community and many persons knew the rumors about horses being killed, drugs, and revenge being involved in Malcolm’s murder. He only heard the rumors after the trial.

(So far Mr Trussler says he knows both the judge and Sheriff, and that many persons knew the rumors about the horses, drugs, revenge and a rumor about an accomplice. I would like to ask how he could know that other people knew these rumors when he himself did not. How would that be possible.

There was no mention of an accomplice in court.

So his statement “He recalled that the prosecution saying that even if you think someone else was involved, this would not mean that Adam was not guilty.”

Who would the prosecutor be talking to, unless he knew the jury had heard the rumors of an accomplice.

How can one come to any other conclusion other than:

Not only did the jury know these rumors, the prosecutor knew the jury knew them and was speaking directly about them. WITHOUT presenting them in court. If these rumors had any merit, they would have been introduced by the prosecution, not a wink wink, to the jury, A secret collusion.)

 

Our conversation ended and we agreed that I would meet with him on Wednesday March 27.

I called Steve on March 27 to confirm where we would meet. He told me that he was thinking about it and did not feel that we should meet, that he had given me all of the information that he had.

I asked if he would answer more questions over the phone and he agreed.

I asked Steve if he believed the witnesses for the defense and he stated that he did not believe them because the defense did not show why these persons were not interviewed earlier by the defense or by law enforcement.

It was not clear why these persons did not come forward earlier or if the defense interviewed them before the trial.

He wondered why law enforcement did not know about these persons or interview them. It seemed that these persons just got together and wanted to help Adam get off.

(This is not true: Braseel’s two main alibi witnesses were given to the police the day Braseel was picked up. There was one witness who was called at the last minute by defense. )

I asked Steve If the suspected identification of Adam’s car near Malcolm’s house during the day of the crime played a part in the conviction.

 

END BEVIL INTERVIEW OF STEVE TRUSSLER

My conclusion is:

Everyone on the jury knew a rumor of an accomplice, the prosecutor knew they knew the rumor,  yet refused to investigate the rumor, or look for this mythical accomplice. Yet asked the jury to convict on unsubstantiated rumor and mythical accomplice.

I have heard a long list of these possible accomplices, one person saying one thing, and then another.

Take a hard look at the arrest record of Kirk Braden on domestic abuse in 2010 while living with his mother –who testified against Adam that he beat her — the very crime Adam is convicted of,  linking him to murder. Think about choices people make when it comes to kin. Just something I have uncovered to think about before believing a rumor.

Pretty simple.

 

Comments

comments

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestEmail this to someone