August 10, 2004
Hi Everyone,
In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor, David Capeless, said “And then he (Michael O’Laughlin) does one other thing. As you heard from that evidence, lying there curled, with her hands like this he took that pillow and with his right hand pushed it down on top of her (Annemarie Kowtoski) the final thing that was done. And when all those sounds were over, when she lay muffled underneath that pillow. . .” There’s only one thing wrong with that statement—it wasn’t true! There was absolutely NO evidence introduced during trial that showed Michael O’Laughlin took that pillow and with his right hand pushed it down on top of her. There was plenty of inference made by the prosecutor during trial that the handprint on the pillow case was Michael O’Laughlin’s but the prosecutor never came out in trial and said it was Michael’s handprint. Did the prosecutor know that handprint on the pillow was not Michael’s? If he did know the handprint was Michael’s why didn’t he state it as evidence during the trial? He certainly inferred it was Michael’s handprint. Did he want the jury to believe it was Michael’s handprint? Why did he wait until closing argument to say “he took that pillow and with his right hand pushed it down on top of her?” Why didn’t Michael’s defense lawyers ask in trial if the bloody handprint was Michael’s? Technically they didn’t have to because it was never said in trial during the time evidence was being introduced that it was Michael’s handprint. Why during the closing argument, when the prosecutor made this wrongful statement, didn’t Michael’s defense lawyer object to this statement? He didn’t object because he didn’t hear the statement. Michael’s Mother didn’t hear that statement. They didn’t hear that statement because the prosecutor was practically whispering to the jury. Only Michael heard that statement and fortunately Michael heard correctly because that statement appeared in the trial transcripts. The legal community would refer to the prosecutor’s actions as prosecutorial misconduct. In layman terms that is considered a lie.
If that statement by the prosecutor was meant to be true then the person that took that pillow and with his right hand pushed it down on top of her was the person that committed this crime. If that handprint was not Michael’s, then whose was it? Is the right handprint on that pillow the real person that committed this crime? Who is this person? Is he still walking around the streets of the Berkshires a free man, while Michael O’Laughlin is spending time in prison for a crime he didn’t commit?
Why could this one statement by the prosecutor have such an impact on the jury’s decision to convict Michael O’Laughlin? Because the prosecutor knew his case was totally circumstantial (no physical evidence tying Michael O’Laughlin to this crime) he had to make inferences based on speculation. Since there was no evidence supporting the statement that Michael O’Laughlin took that pillow and with his right hand pushed it down on top of her, the prosecutor had to make inferences to the jury that it could have been Michael O’Laughlin that took that pillow and pushed it down on top of her. Let’s review how the prosecutor put these inferences together to mislead the jury into thinking that bloody handprint was Michael O’Laughlin’s.
In conclusion Michael O’Laughlin would very much like his handprint compared to the handprint in the photos the prosecution exhibited at his trial (something that should have been done by defense consul before trial). Michael is extremely confident in what the results will show. He’s confident because he knows the bloody handprint on that pillow case is not his.
God bless all of you.
Dick Blanchard
dickleb@aol.com
P.S. If these email messages and updates are not in harmony with your thinking at this time please let me know, and I'll remove your name from this list.
