The WI Supreme Court’s Hand-Picked Official Utilizing Retracted Pseudo-Fact to Cover for Dane County DA’s Office

As mentioned prior, the most serious allegations against Humphrey were taken off the table by OLR.  Also taken off the table from any inquiry was the questionable conduct of the Dane County courts in protecting ADA Humphrey and the Dane County DA’s Office.  In the Supreme Court’s hand-picked judicial official Russell Hanson’s ruling related to Humphrey, the following assertion was made regarding Humphrey’s conduct on McCoy and the Dane County court’s response:

“the state lost the use of a witness who would have testified that the defendant did remember the accident (contrary to his prior assertions) and had admitted his negligence.  The defendant was eventually acquitted at trial, possibly in part, because the state was prohibited, as a sanction for Humphrey’s conduct, from using that evidence.” (See Attachment #52, pg. 4 of Hanson’s decision)

Hanson’s decision was widely reported.  The above quote clearly infers:  1) There is a good chance Raisbeck was guilty and would have been convicted if McCoy was permitted to testify; and 2) The Dane County court was vigilant in protecting Raisbeck’s rights against Humphrey’s misconduct.  In that, as put forth in the Wisconsin State Journal retraction, the Dane County court prohibited McCoy’s testimony at the request of the Dane County DA’s Office, Hanson’s pseudo-fact could not have been pulled from any evidence or court documents.  Commonsense dictates the distinct possibility that it was pulled from the retracted fact of Wisconsin State Journal’s piece of July 8, 2007 (Attachment #49 and Attachment #51).

Remarkably, it appears that Hanson’s pseudo-fact was apparently agreeable to OLR, Humphrey and his attorney Lester Pines, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Likewise remarkable, Justice Prosser’s concern over the irregularities of what occurred in Humphrey’s OLR/Raisbeck case not appear to extend to the irregularity of the Supreme Court’s hand-picked official utilizing a pseudo-fact that was subsequently retracted by its source.

« PreviousNext »