GEORGE D. LOEB Jr SPEAKS…
This summary is published in the national interest. No action should be inferred or implied. The opinions are entirely those of the author.
by GDL Jr @ 28th Mars 2013
‘Why Lie? How lies only lead to more lies’
FOUNDATIONAL EVIDENCE: The accompanying enclosures are foundational to my case. The trial jury never saw these witness statements. This was a result of the horrible ineptitude of my legal counsel. I now believe it was intentional. ‘Appointed counsel’ provides the clue – but that I’ll save for another time… The point is the jurors never saw these statements. If only they had it is ‘more likely than not – indeed, very likely – that I would not have been found guilty.
THE WHOLE STORY: The entire story is important. The tenor of each of the witness statements should be noted. Also the consistent tenor from one to next, in sequence. Each and all tell a story of lawful self-defense. Neither even suggests an unlawful act.
COPS ‘N’ LAWYERS: It is important to recall these statements were made before Rutledge, Mansfield’s accomplice, had extensive contact with the police, especially Sgt. James P. Kelly and prior to Harry Shorstein being elected [Neptune Beach FL] prosecutor. He had said he would “take the George Loeb Case personally”. He meant it, literally and figuratively.
WITNESS STATEMENTS: Getting back to the witness statements, it is important to remember what is consistent – a story of lawful self defense but at his juncture, it is also important to note what is not consistent – particularly a series of stories regarding origin of the brick those inconsistent stories are essential to understanding how police and prosecutors were able to convince Rutledge to change his story from one consistent with self defense to one suggesting murder.
INCONSISTENCIES: The initial handwritten statement featured two suspicious ‘qualifiers’ regarding origin of the brick. Rutledge said: 'I’m not sure.. But I believe he got the brick off the ground.’
He went on to say: 'I didn’t see it in his (Mansfield’s) car prior to the shooting'.
In the later transcribed statement provided to the Naval Investigation Service Rutledge said: ‘Mansfield … opened his car door and picked up a brick that was laying next to the car.’
The story told to reporter Him Schoettler was very different:
‘Mansfield, holding a brick began to get out of his car, the shipmate Rutledge said’
(article: The Florida Times Union 19th May 1991).
I knew of course that the brick had been in Mansfield’s car (and not just the lying there). Rutledge of course knew as well, everyone knew. Rutledge had lied from the outset regarding the origin of the brick. Lies of that sort are what police call evidence. It’s what they call ‘a consciousness of guilt.’ Clearly by lying Rutledge was denying lying about his willing participation in the armed attack upon my wife and I.
FELONY MURDER: We have a law in Florida called ‘felony murder.’ When one accomplice is killed in the commission of a felony by police or the intended victim then the surviving accomplice can be convicted of murder for the death of his partner. Even though the surviving partner has actually killed no one.
In context in this case, someone clearly told Stephen Rutledge about felony murder: Rutledge knew then that if he did not change his story George Loeb would go free and he, Rutledge, would be put on trial for felony murder. Felony murder carries life as a possible sentence. With a consciousness of guilt already in the record, there was a powerful motive for perjury. Using this certain threat of imprisonment Rutledge was told to lie.
With the ‘how’ portion solved, the question now is who hold Stephen Rutledge about felony murder? Who told Stephen Rutledge to lie? He was never asked, and he isn’t saying now. Likewise the prosecutors in this case were never asked – and if they know they’re not saying, either. But there is evidence there are apparent lies. Lies that cover for a crime called 'subornation of perjury'. Who told Rutledge to lie?
THE ROLE OF J. P. KELLY: All the facts (and the lies) point to one man. Sgt. James P. Kelly was a patrol officer. He wrote tickets and handled routine calls, but when called upon, Kelly served the tiny town of Neptune Beach in the role of detective. He was all they had. This was the biggest case of his career. He found a body, and his mind said ‘victim’, and that would be the end of it…except that the other man would become ‘the suspect’, ‘a criminal’. No set of facts would change Kelly’s mind and if the facts didn’t fit, well the facts would have to change.
Of course on the night of the homicide, Kelly found more than a body. He found a body and a brick.
While on patrol in his tiny town, Kelly had driven through the grocery store parking lot many times – perhaps more than once every day. On his off-days it’s where he did his shopping. He said he had never seen a brick there before, he had not seen one since. And he said he had never questioned Rutledge further - never confronted him regarding origin of the brick.
But Kelly said he had doubts. He said he had gone to the home that had been shared by Mansfield and Rutledge. But Kelly also said that he had merely driven by; said he had never stopped to look around or to ask any questions – in a homicide case – the most important case of his career.
GDL J'r's VERSION CONFIRMED: George Loeb told his court appointed attorney the brick had come from within Mansfield’s car. At the insistence of Barb Loeb, she, the attorney, a secretary and a private investigator went to the scene to retrace the course Mansfield had followed (retracing the course as police arguably had). They went to the home Mansfield had shared with Rutledge and they got out of their cars (as police arguably had). They walked up and down. In seconds they found in plain sight an entire pallet of bricks (just as police arguably had). To top it all off they found that the bricks were nearly all of the distinctive 6-hole variety wielded by Mansfield at time of the homicide.
KELLY, A TOOL OF OTHERS? Civilians easily found what police said they never found and never really looked for. Thus Sgt. Kelly is either incompetent, a liar or both. As much as Kelly is implicated, in doing what was done, the decision was not his to make. Someone at much higher level decided that it was politically preferable to prosecute and convict an innocent white man – one with a Government-concocted, racialist background – rather than prosecute and convict a clearly guilty black man serving in the US Navy.
Only one man involved was running for public office. Newly appointed prosecutor Harry Shorstein would be asking ‘a Navy town’ with a substantial black population to keep him in office. George Loeb’s life would be sacrificed in the process. James P. Kelly set the stage and followed through as Shorstein took over. It’s even more outrageous that it seems.
More on Kelly and Shorstein in future letter...
[For copies of Witness Statements referred to e-mail us at: australiannationalaction@yahoo.com.au]
