Short summary for now. This is Robert J. Gillespie, Jr. He prosecuted Case 506 of 1981, Luzerne County, Pa. The picture above appeared in the Hazleton, Standard Speaker Newspaper, 02-21-84.
Before I begin, Mr. Gillespie is a noted and competent attorney in the local area for many years; well respected. I agree. In fact, if he represented my defense I would of been acquitted. If that is true, then what does that say about his posture as prosecutor?
This section is interwoven with the overall review of the case. So, we begin. In any criminal case, esp. one deemed serious, every aspect of proceedings, from preliminary hearing and beyond, a transcript must be preserved, in case of any error, so the matter can be properly appealed.
Starting with the preliminary hearing, other various stages of proceedings, even during the trial, a stenographer was busy typing away. But something happened when closing arguments began at the end of the trial.
As Mr. Gillespie got up to begin his speech, the stenographer was literally picking her nose and was not recording statements. I had two public defenders (which are known as "public pretenders".) While this was going on, one was looking at the ceiling and the other having eyes fixed on his notepad doodling. What was Judge Podcasy doing? Twiddling his pencil while looking in my direction. (After all these years the image of that event is forever fixed.)
Mr. Gillespie's speech lasted for at least 15 minutes as he reviewed what was presented to the jury during the trial. While this was going on, several times I tapped my one attorney on the shoulder, at the same time, pointing to the stenographer. I was ignored.
There are certain "rules" that pertain to closing arguments. A given amount of latitude is customary. Like shooting darts. One can walk up to the line, lean over as much as you want, stretch as far as you can, but the line cannot be crossed.
Mr. Gillespie at one point, toward the end, made a statement that was such a blatant act of persecutory misconduct, that according to case law at that time, the judge, upon his own motion, should of declared a mistrial without waiting for the defense to object. That was not done. No one objected.
In short, they needed a first degree conviction and bury me permanently. Why? So a web page like this would never of been seen.
That was a slick move, trying desperately to incite the emotions of the jury while leaving no paper trail for appellate review. Yes, slick move. Something to be proud of?
However, two local reporters, from different papers, were present and published large articles, respectively, giving accounts of what was said during closing arguments. The two articles both mentioned the questionable remark. Both articles did not contradict one another. Furthermore, no one sent a letter or notice of objection to the paper demanding a correction. Therefore, the newspaper accounts stand as gospel recording the act and statement of persecutory misconduct.
Opinion: Prior to the shooting on 03-06-1981, I doubt Mr. Gillespie had any first hand knowledge of the previous seven years I operated a business. (I remember, the day of the shooting, Mr. Gillespie came to Hazleton City Hall shortly thereafter, walking about in what seemed to be a furious state of action during the time I was being processed. With all due respect, he was the dumb and stupid sucker that was summoned to clean up a mess created by the fine bureaucrats of Mob City. (I doubt he knew other plans were underway hoping to spare him the task.)
Conclusion: Why wasn't the record preserved of closing arguments? The update will attempt to explain.
SUPPLEMENT
Aspects of this supplement will be examined in detail in other sections of review. But for now, after being processed at City Hall, two detectives transported me to the county prison, about 25 miles away. Upon reaching Wilkes-Barre city limits, the detectives deviated from a direct route, parked the vehicle on a side street and asked me to get out an "stretch my legs" What do you think was going on? (Their mistake was not dragging me out of the cruiser and shooting me.) Then, a few days later, on 03-09-1981, a man came to the prison, claiming to be from the public defender's office, and I was escorted to a second floor conference room. (Pictures exist of the window taken at that time.) As we entered, he told me to have a seat and wait. I was alone in the room for at least ten minutes. Being inside the prison, I had no handcuffs or leg restraints on me. But what was interesting, directly behind me was an open window with no bars as covering.
I was arrested on a Friday. After spending the weekend in prison, it was that Monday morning I was brought before an open window. What was the game plan? (Their mistake was not pushing me out of the window.)
The so-called "professional", the police for example, not only learn about protocol but take psychology courses, dealing with such things as the aspects of flight or flee. As for protocol, every step is calculated, rehearsed and planned. Transporting a prisoner is developed into a fine art. Routes are selected. Distance is calculated. Calls are made at the beginning and end of the journey.
What did they want? It should be obvious they didn't want a trial. It is too messy and unprofessional to drag someone out of a cruiser or push him out of a window. Instead, lure someone out into the open. As for the window incident on that Monday morning, no doubt the felt that after I spent several days in prison for the first time, as the effects were setting in, that if brought before an open window I would not be able to resist the temptation and all their problems would be over.
If that happened no trial. The man who left me alone no doubt would of been "reprimanded" but his matter would of been diverted by all the press, commendations that would of been handed out to those who killed a fugitive. All better now.
The judicial system of Luzerne County is wonderful.
Updated: 11-24-2001