Trapped in a “Web of Lies”

How two attorneys, who call themselves Prosecutors, managed to free a man charged with six murders and the ‘paper-trail’ they left behind

The e-mail from Kelly Seigler at 4:13 on the afternoon of October 27, 2010 read, “The charges against Graves were dismissed today……..we never found one single piece of credible evidence that indicated in the slightest that he had anything to do with this capital murder. Anthony Graves is an innocent man.” Then less than two hours later, District Attorney Bill Parham appeared on Evening News programs all over southeast Texas telling listeners, “Our office has freed an innocent man.” “There wasn’t ever a single, solitary item that connected Graves to the killings. We did not find one thread of anything that connected Graves to the case.”

Now those two testimonials would be impressive, if they were true; but they aren’t!

Lost in the multitude of news conferences was the fact that Anthony Graves had been convicted of Capital Murder by a jury in Angleton, Texas, and the conviction had been upheld by both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Supreme Court—the latter by a 6-3 vote. (The case was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans on a collateral issue that has since proven to be a non-issue).

So just how did Parham and his Special Prosecutor, Kelly Seigler reach the conclusion that Graves was ‘absolutely’ innocent? Well, they did two things. They accused me of numerous counts of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct,’ all of which have been proven to be false; and they said the State’s only other evidence during the trial was Carter’s statement implicating Graves. If the latter were true, the case would have never made it past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, because corroborating evidence of a co-defendants’ confession is an ‘absolute’ necessity for a conviction; and the State had more than it needed.

What Parham and Seigler have refused to acknowledge was the ‘center-piece’ of the State’s case against Anthony Graves; and that’s the five witnesses who overheard conversations between Graves and Carter in the Burleson County Jail.

When Carter and Graves were arrested, the Sheriff purposely placed the two across the hall from each other in the ‘old’ Burleson County Jail where the dispatchers and jailers could monitor conversations between the two over the intercom. In a three-day time frame, five people, including a Deputy Sheriff, a Jailer, a Dispatcher and an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) employee all overheard very ‘incriminating’ conversations between the two. There were statements like “We’ve got to protect ‘Cookie’ (Carter’s wife) at all cost” and “I did it for you, so keep your ‘damn’ mouth shut.”

The testimony of any one of those five would be sufficient to provide the corroboration needed in a re-trial, but Parham did what he’s become famous for when he doesn’t want try a case: He told the media that “None of those five witnesses was ‘credible!’That’s how he currently ‘wipes out’ dozens of cases each year that he doesn’t want to try. Just ask any law enforcement officer in Burleson and Washington Counties and they will give you an earful.

It’s inconceivable to think that a man who calls himself a prosecutor would ‘summarily’ dismiss the testimony of individuals who are sworn to uphold the law—by simply saying none of them are credible!

But it becomes absurd when that same prosecutor turns around and ‘embraces’ a defendant charged with six murders, who along the way, failed two polygraph exams. And yes, I know the results of a ‘lie detector’ tests aren’t admissible in a court, but they can sure raise a ‘red flag’ during an investigation.

Then to add insult to injury, Parham told the media that “Charles Sebesta committed ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ by introducing the statements of those five witnesses into evidence, because (according to Parham) he (Sebesta) knew they weren’t credible.”

My response to that is: No, Bill. I know or knew the Deputy Sheriff, the Jailer, the Dispatcher and the EMS employee, and I’ve never had any reason—then or now—to question the integrity or credibility of any of them.

Then there was the switch-blade knife. Graves, when testifying under oath before the Burleson County Grand Jury told Grand Jurors, “I’ve never owned a knife.” Yet his boss’ son would later tell the Texas Rangers that he had given Graves an ‘illegal’ switch-blade knife for being best man in his wedding. While the actual murder weapons were never found, the witness testified that the knife introduced into evidence was identical to the one he had given Graves, except for the color of the housing.

During Graves’ trial, both a pathologist and a Texas Ranger took the knife and placed the point into the stab wounds found in the skull caps of some of the children and it fit like “a hand in a glove.”

What did Parham say about this evidence? Well he had his Investigator (a retired Texas Ranger) tell the media that there was no way that a switch-blade knife like the one we introduced into evidence could have been used as a murder weapon because it was too ‘flimsy.’

Then he had his Investigator do the same thing he had done earlier. He told the media that “Charles Sebesta committed ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ for introducing a switch-blade knife into evidence that he knew could not have been used as a murder weapon”—even though a Texas Ranger who would later serve as Senior Captain of the Texas Rangers testified that a knife like the one the State introduced was consistent with the murder weapon and certainly could have been used in the murders.

Knowing all this, both Parham and Seigler still had the audacity to tell the media that Graves was an innocent man, because in their words, “there wasn’t ever a single, solitary item that connected him to the killings.”

But it didn’t stop there. They needed to perpetuate their argument by destroying my credibility and convincing everyone that Charles Sebesta had committed numerous acts of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ in obtaining the conviction. With an anti-death penalty, liberal media ‘lapping up’ everything they said, that wouldn’t be too difficult. In fact, it would become a “feeding frenzy” of half-truths and lies.

Standing before the cameras, Kelly Seigler said, “Charles Sebesta has committed numerous Crimes—-but the Statute of Limitations has run on all of them.” What Crimes, Kelly? You know that is not true. Had I violated the law by committing any crime, you can rest assured that it would have made the front page of newspapers all across America—regardless of whether or not the Statute of Limitations had run.

Then the following morning at another of his news conferences, Bill Parham accused me of being guilty of having committed four very specific allegations of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct,’ including the two issues raised by the Fifth Circuit.

What Parham did not tell the media is that attorneys for Anthony Graves had included all four of those ‘specific’ allegations of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ in a 43-page Grievance filed against me with the State Bar of Texas in January, 2007. And Bill Parham knew that seven months later the State Bar of Texas, after determining that the Statute of Limitations had not run, dismissed all of them. The Grievance Committee said the allegations “Lacked Just Cause” to proceed, which in layman’s terms means that there was no evidence to justify a formal hearing.

For the Record: There was never any ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ on my part—-not then and not now, and anyone wishing to verify that, can check with the State Bar of Texas.

But that didn’t stop Parham and Seigler from telling a ‘friendly’ media what they wanted to hear; because the words, ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ seemed to resonate with those who “buy ink by the barrel.”

Bill Parham didn’t want to re-try Anthony Graves, and he never planned on doing so. In the 22 months between the time he took office and the date he dismissed the case, never ‘once’ did he take the time to discuss any aspect of it with me. If a prosecutor was serious about trying the case, common sense tells you that he would have wanted to spend some time seeking input from the attorney who tried it the first time.

Parham, however, has a strong distaste for jury trials, and dismissing this one was especially ‘sweet’ because it provided him with an opportunity to become an instant ‘hero.’

It’s all wrapped up in one statement that he repeated over and over during each of his news conferences: “Our office has freed an innocent man!”

Kelly Seigler’s reasons for dismissing the case differed significantly from those of Parham, and they too, had nothing to with the guilt or innocence of Anthony Graves.

Seigler left the Harris County District Attorney’s Office for reasons no one wants to talk about; and you get the idea from talking with those who worked with her in the past believe she may be carrying ‘baggage’ that has affected her ability to work within the system.

Now, make no mistake about it, Kelly Seigler is a brilliant trial lawyer. She is 22-0 (with 19 death penalties) in the capital murder cases she has tried. Yet, there are some who believe that she is ‘wound so tight’ that it could be affecting her in other ways.

While I can neither agree nor disagree with the latter observation, I do know that she appears to be extremely paranoid and fearful of me and what I might say.

At the conclusion of their meeting with members of the law enforcement community prior to formally dismissing the case on October 27th, Seigler made a very strange comment when she told some of the assembled officers: “Now if we could just find some way to shut Charles Sebesta up!”

Now that raises an interesting question: Why would Seigler want to shut me up?

This case was eighteen years old when Seigler signed on, and a number of the witnesses were dead, including Carter. Attorneys all recognize that there is a lot of difference between having live witnesses on the stand and reading from the transcript of what someone said at a previous trial. Add to that the fact that she would be facing one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the business in Katherine Scardino, and it’s easy to understand why she might have had second thoughts about going to trial.

But that presented some unique problems. Even a ‘clean’ dismissal would mean that there was a capital murder case out there that she walked away from, and her ego could never handle that. And to admit that that she was seeking a dismissal because it would be a difficult case to try certainly wasn’t an option.

The solution: Convince the public that Graves was absolutely innocent and reinforce it by destroying the reputation and credibility of Charles Sebesta, who initially tried the case, by saying he would have never obtained a conviction had he not been guilty of multiple counts of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct.’

And she may have succeeded, had it not been for a ‘paper trail’ of half-truths and lies she’s left behind.
Here’s a sampling:

1. Seigler, in the January, 2011 issue of Texas Monthly, accused me of, “fabricating evidence, manipulating witnesses and taking advantage of victims.” Sounds bad, doesn’t it; and it would be if it were true. But these three allegations are nothing more than a hollow accusation with no basis in truth or fact.

Where did the “fabricating evidence” allegation come from? Well, remember the ‘illegal’ switchblade knife like the one given to Graves as a gift, and introduced into evidence after Ranger Ray Coffman said it was consistent with the murder weapon and that one like it certainly could have been used in committing the murders. Then their Investigator countered by saying that the knife was too ‘flimsy’ and that I committed “Prosecutorial Misconduct” by introducing it. Well, Seigler has now picked up on that issue and is saying that the introduction of this knife was nothing more than a ‘fabrication’ on my part. (My question is: How desperate can she get?)

The “manipulating witnesses” issue will be addressed in next paragraph, and her claim that I “took advantage of the victims” is a joke. Seigler wants you to believe that I took advantage of the victims because I led them to believe that Graves was guilty, when I knew (now get this) that he was really innocent.

2. Seigler accused me of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ (and the media initially printed it as ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct) because of an agreement made with Robert Carter not to ask him any questions about his wife’s (Theresa/Cookie) involvement in the murders if he would testify. Realizing that she was being backed in a corner with an allegation that wasn’t true, Seigler abandoned the ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ allegation and during a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle simply said that Sebesta “used an ‘ethically questionable tactic’ to persuade Carter to testify against Graves.” It is also noteworthy to mention that this is what she was referring to, in that Texas Monthly article when she accused me of ‘manipulating’ witnesses.

Here’s what happened: The night prior to Carter testifying in the Graves case, Carter acknowledged for the first and only time, his wife’s involvement in the murders. He said that she is the one who had the hammer and agreed to testify accordingly the next morning. But when he arrived at the courthouse early the next morning, his first words were: “I can’t give her up.”

After two hours or so of haggling I finally said, “Look Robert, if I do not ask you any questions about your wife’s involvement, will you testify as to everything else that happened that night?” After consulting with his attorney, he agreed.

We went directly into the courtroom, where I advised the court of our agreement. Judge Harold R. “Bob” Towslee turned to Calvin Garvie, Graves’ lead counsel, and asked if he had any objections, to which he had none. Then the Judge told Garvie that this agreement did not apply to him or Graves and he was free to ask Carter anything he wished. Carter testified and simply referred to that third person (his wife) as “Red.” On cross-examination, Garvie, for whatever reason, never asked Carter about his wife’s involvement.

Now where do you get ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct,’ or an “ethically questionable tactic” or even “manipulating witnesses” when the Prosecutor asks the Judge if certain testimony can be presented to the jury and the Judge turns to the defense attorneys and asks if they have any objections—and they don’t? Then the Judge directs you to proceed.

3. Seigler accused me of ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ because I “scared one of Graves’ alibi witnesses and kept her from testifying.”

Here’s what actually happened: During Graves’ trial, there were still questions surrounding the possible involvement of Yolanda Mathis in the case. There were some who believed that she may have been a fourth person in the car that evening, while others believed that she was simply nothing more than a ‘lying’ alibi witness. In any event, I felt like I was bound ethically under the circumstances to ask the Court to warn her of her rights before she testified, and here’s what happened as is noted in the ‘Official Court Record.’

Outside the presence of the Jury, I stood up and said: “Judge, when they call Yolanda Mathis, we would ask, outside the presences of the Jury, that the Court warn her of her rights. She is a suspect in these murders, and it is quite possible, at some point in the future, she might be indicted. I don’t know. And I feel, outside the presences of the Jury, that it would be proper to warn her of her rights.”

Calvin Garvie made no objection to the requested warning and the Court (Judge Harold R. Towslee) said: “I think that is good advice.”

Garvie immediately left the courtroom. Upon locating Mathis outside in the hallway and advising her of the requested warning, witnesses standing nearby said that she yelled out something at Garvie, then ‘stomped’ out of the courthouse.

Again my question is: When the defense’ makes no objection and a very highly respected District Judge says: “I think that is good advice;” where is the ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct?’ This issue was unsuccessfully raised on appeal, and it was one of the primary allegations listed in the grievance filed by Graves’ attorneys and dismissed by the State Bar of Texas.

4. The most significant issue surrounding the reversal of Graves’ conviction involved the timing of Carter’s statement that “I did it all by myself.” The question was: Who knew about it and when did they first become aware of it? Everyone involved in the case agreed on one thing: Carter’s first utterance about doing it all by himself didn’t occur until after he arrived in Angleton, Texas in mid-October, 1994 to testify in Graves’ trial.

That, however, didn’t stop Seigler from telling the media that, “Oh no, the Rangers knew about it much earlier.” She said that Carter told Ranger Ray Coffman and Assistant District Attorney Bill Torrey that he did it all by himself, when they interviewed him at the Ellis Unit in Huntsville, Texas on July 31, 1994. Now I know, had that happened, both Coffman and Torrey would have ‘busted a gut’ getting back to Caldwell to tell me.

A reporter would later question me about her claim. I said, that didn’t happen, and I further explained that the July 31, 1994 interview had been taped.

Apparently, that reporter immediately called Seigler and let her know that there was a tape out there, because she then changed her story, this time accusing me of ‘altering’ the tape by erasing that portion of it pertaining to Carter having said that he did it all by himself.

Now she’s backed away from that story, since learning that we never stored evidence in the District Attorney’s office. All evidence, including taped statements, were maintained and stored by the ‘law enforcement agency’ filing the case and in this instance the tape was in the custody of the Texas Rangers in Austin—-where it would have been a bit difficult for the DA to break in and alter.

Carter’s attorney was also present during the interview (something she apparently overlooked or never thought about), and he will tell you that the subject of Carter doing it all by himself never came up during that July 31, 1994 interview. Bottom line: Another lie!

5. Seigler told the Houston Chronicle (October 29, 2010) that “Sebesta committed ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ when he successfully sought the indictment of a woman (Theresa Carter) without any evidence.” What Seigler knew and failed to tell the Chronicle is that the Grand Jury was aware of the following: 1) Theresa Carter had a burn on her forearm that she said she received from a curling iron the morning of the murders; 2) She gave conflicting stories on how Robert Carter received his burns; 3) Credible witnesses overheard the conversation in the Burleson County Jail between Carter and Graves, where it was said: “We’ve got to protect ‘Cookie’ (Theresa) at all cost; and 4) The Rangers had already figured out that whenever Carter referred to “Red” as the third party, he was really talking about Theresa (or “Cookie”) and her involvement in the murders. (If Seigler had read everything in those 25 boxes of evidence, as she said she had, she would have known this.)

6. Seigler also told the Chronicle (October 29, 2010) that the most ‘damming’ allegation against Sebesta was that he threatened to pursue a conviction against Robert Carter’s wife (Theresa) if Robert didn’t testify against Graves.

This one is easy. There were never any threats against anybody, because I was doing everything in my power to obtain a conviction on Theresa Carter, and Robert Carter knew this. Further, Carter’s attorney was present when I interviewed him and will tell you that no threats of that nature were ever made.

What other platitudes did she have for me? Well, she said, “Graves’ trial has been a travesty,” and “Sebesta’s handling of the case was “a criminal justice system’s nightmare.” As to the latter, other than the fact that the two defense attorneys representing Graves had never tried a ‘death penalty’ case and were forced to feel their way around a bit, it was a pretty clean case. Seigler might also be surprised at what the now-retired Judge Harold R. “Bob” Towslee thinks about her observation, especially since it’s an indirect cheap-shot thrown in his direction.

So when did they decide to dismiss the Case?

I met with Kelly Seigler, for the first time, for just over an hour about three weeks before the case was formally dismissed. Otto Hanak, the DA’s Investigator, was also present. Rather than listening to what I had to offer, I was forced to sit through a lecture on how incompetent and dishonest I was. (Seigler told Texas Monthly that I was shaking, and she is right. I was so upset and mad I could have kicked both her and that ‘ex-Texas Ranger’ from here to China.)

If Seigler was serious about re-trying the case, I should have been one of the first individuals she talked to after ‘hiring on’ as a Special Prosecutor. But a first meeting only three weeks before the case was dismissed; there is no way! Collectively, the evidence would point the fact that the decision to dismiss had been made—not weeks—but months, earlier.

The timing of the decision to dismiss became even more evident during my interviews with Pamela Colloff, Senior Editor for Texas Monthly. Colloff initially contacted me in May (2010), requesting an interview. She said, “We want to do a story that is fair to both sides.” Of course, I wasn’t born yesterday and knew that wasn’t true; but I agreed to meet with her, as I’ve done with everyone else who has requested an interview. Over the next several months, I probably talked to her at least a dozen times.

As a side note: During one of the interviews, Colloff lost her cool and I guess forgot about all that ‘fairness’ stuff she’d promised, when she said, “Oh, we are going to get you alright!” (I’m not positive if she said, ‘we’ or ‘they,’ but it’s an academic issue, because in either case, it was clear whose side she was on.)

During that time frame there was a significant number of ‘off the wall’ questions that Colloff asked that were either ‘half-truths’ or ‘outright lies.’ My normal response each time was, “Where did you come up with that?”

In most instances, she very proudly said, “Kelly Seigler.” When I told her what Seigler had said wasn’t true, her reply would be: “Kelly Seigler doesn’t have a dog in this fight and has no reason to lie about anything.”

Then it finally hit me. Seigler was in ‘bed’ with Colloff, and was feeding her all this ‘misinformation’ in an effort to lay the groundwork for a dismissal. What had evolved was a ‘love-fest’ between Seigler and a once respected magazine that’s now owned by an out-of-state publisher, who could care less about Texas or the truth. And Colloff loved it, because that’s exactly what both she and her publishers wanted.

As for proof of the collusion: When you compare the contents of Colloff’s article on the Graves case published in the October, 2010 issue of Texas Monthly (which hit the news stand on September 19, 2010) to what Parham and Seigler said at their various news conferences on October 27th and 28th, you will find some ‘eerie’ similarities. It’s as though Colloff’s article was published after the news conferences and not before.

Then if you look at the reasons given in Colloff’s article attacking the credibility of the State’s witnesses and the introduction of the knife, it’s obvious that she had to have access to that information in early September, prior to the October issue of Texas Monthly going to press. And her only source at that time would have been the prosecutors, because each of those fabrications was covered with the ‘fingerprints’ of Bill Parham and Kelly Seigler.

What is significant about that? It is “proof” that they never had any intention of re-trying Graves, because someone serious about a re-trial, would never start feeding the media negatives and lies about a case months before they planned to try it—unless they were planning to dismiss it.

And Seigler knew exactly what she was doing. She was providing Colloff with a preview of how they planned to orchestrate the dismissal; and was using Texas Monthly as an instrument “to poison the well” by portraying me as the bad guy and Graves as an innocent victim.

It’s also easy to attribute two-thirds of what Colloff said about me in Texas Monthly, to being either ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’ the work product of Kelly Seigler.

But there’s more: Texas Monthly in their January, 2011 issue says that neither Ranger Ray Coffman, nor Bryan attorney, Robinson Neal would agree to be interviewed; yet both are quoted in the article. How did that happen?

It is simple; Seigler interviewed both of these gentlemen under the ‘guise’ of case preparation, and then passed on much of what they told her, misquoting I might add, to Colloff.

Here’s the more serious problem. Carter’s wife, Theresa Carter, is still a ‘potential’ ‘defendant in this case, since there is no “Statute of Limitations” for murder. And for a prosecutor to reveal ‘publicly’ the contents of a ‘confidential’ interview with her attorney, raises some serious ethical questions.

Why would Kelly Seigler do this? It’s simple: she is living with a lie that’s apparently consumed her. And she can’t cope with it.

What if the truth were to ultimately prevail, and her peers in the legal profession learned that she played a prominent role in releasing a defendant charged with the murders of six individuals—including four children between the ages of four and nine, all because she didn’t want to take the risk of losing a case? It could be devastating to her fragile ego.

And the ‘paranoia’ appears to becoming more intense. In a mid-December article in the Houston Chronicle, she was quoted as saying, “Sebesta was on my mind as I drove home from a meeting with the victims (the Davis Family).” “It was horrible,” Seigler said. “I wish I could have gotten hold of Charles Sebesta that night. He should have to suffer for what he’s done to them, too.”

I’ve been practicing law for 44 years, and I’ve never seen one attorney go after another ‘personally’ like Kelly Seigler has with me. It’s been a one-sided vendetta that’s taken on a life of its own. The case was dismissed in late October, yet she continues to keep it “on the front burner” by flooding the media with a constant stream of twisted and embellished accusations (and lies). Conduct of this nature simply isn’t normal.

Seigler appears to be literally terrified at the thought of someone actually believing what I have to say. That’s why she wants to shut me up!

Connecting the Dots!

In mid-September, I received a call from CBS-48 Hours. I was told that they were planning to do an hour program on the Graves’ case and I was asked if I would agree to an interview; which I did. Once the interview began, it didn’t’ take long for CBS’s Richard Schlesinger to interject the names of both Kelly Seigler and Pamela Colloff into the conversation. And it became obvious very quickly that the two of them played a major role (through his assistants) in ‘prepping’ him for the encounter.

Then he pulled something right out of Seigler’s playbook, by accusing me of being aware of Carter having made the statement that “I did it all by myself” in that July 31, 1994 interview and that I refused to acknowledge it. When I said, “No, that’s not correct,” he immediately accused me of lying.

That’s when I stopped him; and to his credit, he gave me an opportunity to explain much of what’s been included in this article. It was apparent that he was totally ‘clueless’ about the many of the facts surrounding the dismissal and quite frankly, was surprised. That seemed to change the whole tenor of the conversation. But what really got his attention was a column I wrote and published in 2001 entitled: “They Don’t Execute Millionaires,” where I pointed out that the ‘death penalty’ is a poor man’s punishment.

At the conclusion of the interview, that was cut short by a prior commitment, Schlesinger walked out to my vehicle with me and said, “Mr. Sebesta, you are an ‘honorable’ man and I want to continue this conversation at a later date.”

As for “Connecting the Dots,” if you “Google” the name of Pamela Colloff, you will find that her family has significant ties to CBS. Her late father, Rodger D. Colloff was the general manager for WCBS-TV, CBS’s local affiliate in New York City from 1984-1992.

Other Obstacles I’ve Faced

In the course of a jury trial, especially one that lasts seven weeks as this one did, there are numerous opportunities to take events or statements out of context and read something into them that’s not there. Given the opportunity, there is not a single thing that’s been uttered by the media or the ‘players’ that can’t be satisfactorily explained in its proper context. My problem is I’ve never had that opportunity. The media has been literally ‘obsessed’ with everything Parham and Seigler have been telling them and collectively, doesn’t want to print anything that might ‘tarnish’ their story.

Dealing with the Houston Chronicle has also been an ‘unabated’ nightmare. They have absolutely refused to print the facts or the truth. I realize their management’s avowed goal is taking home the Pulitzer Prize for their attacks on the death penalty. But they have traded the truth for an agenda dictated by the ‘anti-death penalty coalition’ that believes the truth is “whatever they want it to be.”

One of the reporters for the Houston Chronicle, recently called me, and I spent thirty-five minutes on the phone with him, ‘debunking’ much of what Kelly Seigler had told him earlier in the day. As the conversation concluded, I simply ask him to please be honest and print my side of the story, too.

Later that day, I received the following e-mail from him. It read: “Thanks for being so helpful. I promise to do my best to convey your points.” Needless to say, He lied! And the Chronicle’s management wonders why their circulation numbers are in a ‘free fall.’
Now, I’m now being told that the media is planning to portray Graves’ attorneys as ‘incompetent’ and ‘inept’ and go after me for “taking advantage of them.”

It doesn’t look like this ‘charade’ will ever end!


The courts seek an identifiable picture by assembling all of the available pieces of the puzzle.

The ‘media’ takes one piece of the puzzle, paints a picture around it and then tells us what they want us to see.

Charles Sebesta